RockMyAmadeus

Let me help. The day you are looking for is every day that ends in Y. You're welcome for such a fantastic setup.

BRAVO for using actual board names. Moving forward, I wish we would all agree to that practice. Symbiote and solarcadet aren't around to complain to moderation.

No wrong answers, here, just looking for experiences from people who were there: How did speculators, generally acknowledged to have started around 1965, obtain multiple copies of books? Since there wasn't a "Direct market", and you had to buy what was available at whatever vendors you had in your area, how did they obtain those multiples? Did they haunt newsstands? If so, would that have disrupted business that would have angered vendors, who didn't have copies to sell to other customers? Was it mainly an aftermarket thing? Say, for example, Iron Man #1, which was published in February of 1968. Speculators would have known of this issue if they read Marvel comics from the previous month. Were they able to "order" copies from the newsstand vendor? How did that work? There's language about "reserving your copy with your local vendor today!", but was that available, or did you have to have a relationship with your particular vendor? Could vendors also "order" specific copies from their distributor, or was it a "you get what you get" situation? Thanks!

Yes...if I didn't mention it directly before, I'll do so here: it's important that the books in question have value enough to be listed on eBay, otherwise it's going to skew results. That means they should have value RAW, greater than $5-$10 or so. Tec #880 is a good choice.

Symbiote as well True, but I don't think those two guys were as egregious or persistent as the impetus for this poll. Maybe my impression.

I'll add that as this: Direct: Due to their initial distribution, can often be found on the aftermarket in "groups" or "pockets" of copies. Newsstand: Due to their initial distribution, very rarely found on the aftermarket in numbers greater than single copies. It leads to some interesting questions about distribution prior to the advent of the Direct market. For example: how did speculators manage to obtain multiple copies of a book? Did they haunt newsstands? Wouldn't that disrupt normal business, and be actively discouraged by vendors, who now didn't have copies to sell to other customers? Did they simply open their own ID account? Could vendors order specific copies in specific numbers? Or, was it the standard "you get what you get" model? All fascinating questions, for which I have no answers at all.

Also...you might want to post your graph showing the relation of Direct to newsstand over time. It's really rough, but it does illustrate what we can know: Over time, as Direct market sales took hold and increased, newsstand sales decreased, in a (generally) inverse relationship (is that redundant?) In the beginning of the Direct market, DM sales were tiny, and newsstand sales dominated. As we go through the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s, those positions steadily reversed, until the newsstand was completely abandoned by Marvel Comics in 2013, and by DC in 2017.

Yeah, that works. I'll add it in as part of the regular search. NTT #2 is handy, too, because it comes just as DC was making its transition to distinguishing Direct copies from newsstands, too. The first "Direct market" (excluding Whitmans) DCs were Oct 1980, and NTT #2 is a Dec 1980 cover date.

I was thinking about this over the course of this thread, and I thought it would be useful to list factors that would affect the CURRENT existence and distribution, as represented by available copies for sale on eBay, of both newsstand and Direct market copies over time. Direct market copies: Non-returnable. All copies printed = all copies (theoretically) sold. All copies sold = all copies distributed. Very high survival rate. Generally sold to collectors. High survival rate, and in better general condition. Could usually be obtained from original dealers long after publication. Often subject to speculation, with multiple copies available from multiple sources on a regular basis. Not distinguished in Statements of Ownership with newsstand copies. Impossible to know actual print run, unless stated by publisher. After demise of SoOs, no print run data available at all. Sales data on Comichron represents only initial sales numbers in North America, as reported by Diamond, and includes ALL VARIANTS (if any) in those numbers Increase over time of "comics specialty shops", which sold (mostly) Direct copies. More care given to preserving and maintaining both existence and condition of copies. Newsstand copies: Printed and distributed on a returnable basis. 20-50% survival rate, in general, from initial print run. Unsold copies returned and destroyed (though not always.) Generally sold to readers. Higher attrition rate over time, and in worse general condition. Rarely subject to speculation, and usually distributed as single copy sales to readers. Not obtainable from vendors after initial sales window Not distinguished in Statements of Ownership with Direct copies. Impossible to know actual print run, unless stated by publisher. After demise of SoOs, no print run data available at all. After demise of SoOs, no sales data available at all. Not sold (generally) in comics specialty shops. Only made their way to such shops as aftermarket items. Little care given to preserving and maintaining both existence and condition of copies. Potential tendency to be over-represented on eBay, due to perceived value differences with Direct copies. Any other factors that would influence the state of these books in 2018? Any that you disagree with, or that could be worded better?

Fair enough... is there an argument to be made that direct editions simply survived more often because there was no return program and because unsold copies eventually did get sold? Absolutely. But, I don't know that the Direct program was so robust at that point to make such a distinction. Look at ASM #192...there are 21 Direct copies up for sale...and this was cover date May of 1979, the month just prior to the DM cover marking program going company-wide. That's out of 177 copies, or a percentage of 12% Direct, 88% newsstand. I think that would be more in line with a 6% total sales figure...but that's as of Feb of 1979, just before the transition. But then, consider a book like X-Men #128, that was published in September (Dec cover date) of 1979. There are 121 Direct copies, out of a total of 229 copies available for sale. That's 53% Direct. I suspect that ratio will tend to hold over time. Even accounting for the facts that (Direct) X-Men at this point was being bought in multiples by speculator/dealers, and that Directs couldn't be returned...surely, that speaks to a much, much higher overall sales figure than 6%. And, it should be kept in mind, ASM still had a sell-through rate of nearly 50% at this point (all types), which made it one of Marvel's (and comicdom's) best selling titles. That would be a lot of surviving newsstand copies; enough, I think, to "cover the spread", so to speak. X-Men had average sales per issue for the year (according to the Statement of Ownership printed in X-Men #131) of 171,091 copies. That's sales (distribution), not print run. If the 6% figure is to be believed, that means a mere 10,265 copies were Direct market copies. Assuming all of those were saved...that still leaves a staggering (approx) 160,000 newsstand copies that were sold (meaning, not returned and destroyed.) If there were 160,000 newsstand copies that sold. but only 10,000 copies of the Direct...how do we arrive, 40 years later, at a 53%/47% Direct to newsstand ratio on eBay, even accounting for all the wildly unknown and unknowable factors? Even if all 10,000 copies were carefully saved, and the newsstands had terrible attrition rates...how do you dispose of 150,000 copies or so of the newsstand version? I suspect, given the delightfully random nature of eBay listings, that those ratios aren't actually very far off from ORIGINAL numbers...that is, by that point, the Direct market accounted for maybe 25-40% of sales, at least for X-Men. Maybe others, as well. Obviously, these numbers are just far, far too broad to try and come to any concrete conclusions, but I think there's enough to indicate some patterns...and the "available for sale" ratio tells a different story than Rozanski claims of Shooter.

That's not a very high bar. I'm funnier than RMA. pffftt. The day I'm less funny than Park is the day I...uh...um....er.... Shoot. I got nothing.

It puts a dent, but it isn't necessarily wrong if direct editions were 4 or 5 times more likely to be saved for 40 years. But in 1979, they (probably) weren't. Remember, in 1979, there were still only a few hundred comics specialty stores, and Marvel had only just gone to a company-wide Direct market scheme. The vast majority of buyers (even collectors) still obtained their copies at their local newsstands, rather than at Direct market outlets. And ASM #194 came out in April of 1979. No way to prove any of this, but I think Rozanski is completely wrong, here (as in many places), and either misquoted Shooter, or Shooter was mistaken. The fact that Marvel went company-wide with the Direct market cover markings in March of 1979 (June 79 cover dates) is compelling circumstantial evidence that the DM accounted for more than a mere 6% of sales in 1979. In any event, however, I don't believe, at least in 1979, that there was enough of a collector mentality to have distinguished between Direct and newsstand copies to have Direct copies be 4 or 5 times more likely to be saved. I think, by 1982, and the explosion of the comics specialty stores in those years, you'd be correct. But I don't believe that, in 1979, the infrastructure was quite in place to have Direct copies be more likely to be saved than newsstands, at all, much less 4 or 5 times more likely.

Cheese cake exhibits the very best traits of high quality pies, so I think that should be noted as an exception. Naturally.

Way better. Cake is all...cakey and dry and crumbly, while pie is gooey and creamy and nummers.

Then why give me this?  Sorry...I just needed to immortalize the moment when the trap was sprung. Despite all the bluster, he had plausible deniability...up to the point he steals a pic from dtacoll and pretends that it's a picture of the copy that DiamondCityComics sent him. I hope he IS a kid, and he learns something from this. If he is, I hope he doesn't turn out like DopeFreak. Speaking of which, how is CrapFreak these days...? Anybody heard from him?

That's a good idea; Let's do that one.

Ok, Star Wars #1 is going to be impossible. There are 2,000+ listings that come up, with the vast majority being something other than Star Wars #1. Sigh. Stupid keyword spammers. Also not doing ASM #300...again, far too much keyword spamming and reprints. I'll go with Amazing Spiderman #165 and Fantastic Four #193 to represent the early Direct market numbers. Then, at least, we won't have to contend with reprints. So, as of today, there are on eBay: Amazing Spiderman #165 - 159 copies; 149 newsstand, 10 Direct, or "Whitman" copies. 6.3% Direct, 93.7% newsstand Fantastic Four #193 - 119 copies; 108 newsstand, 11 Direct, or "Whitman" copies. 10% Direct, 90% newsstand Amazing Spiderman #194 - 106 copies; 77 newsstand, 29 Direct copies. 27% Direct, 63% newsstand (this alone puts a large dent in Rozanski's claim of Shooter saying the Direct market was "only 6% in 1979.") Wolverine Limited Series #1 - 182 copies; 136 Direct, 46 newsstand. 75% Direct, 25% newsstand (that's an eye opener.) Amazing Spiderman #252 - 181 copies; 65 Direct, 116 newsstand. 36% Direct, 64% newsstand (the newsstand was still alive and well in 1984.) Amazing Spiderman #298 - 200 copies; 156 Direct, 44 newsstand. 78% Direct, 22% newsstand New Mutants #98 - 373 copies; 293 Direct, 80 newsstand. 79% Direct, 21% newsstand And that's enough for tonight. My eyes are glazing over from the counting. Once a month is more than enough. I'll finish the rest tomorrow! Hopefully, that gives people some interesting numbers. Anyone else wants to do any, feel free!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Star-Wars-1-1977-Comic-Rare-Printing-Error-more-rare-then-35-cent-variant-vf-nm/183409604316?hash=item2ab41076dc:g:pfIAAOSwP7Nbigv6 It's sun/light faded.

That's comedist. Jokist...? Humorist! Yeah, that works. That's humorist.

That's not a very high bar.

Agreed, 100%. If you commit fraud...as it appears to me this "Venom Justice" fellow has...then you lose the privilege of privacy. While I don't believe addresses should be published, full names should be. You want the privilege of keeping your name out of the headlines? Keep your nose clean.

Thank you. No, those two pictures aren't the same, but as I was hoping that, by pressing Venom Justice to come up with some picture of the book he claimed to have received, he would stumble and either take a picture of a copy he already owned (which is difficult if you don't have access to one), which would be harder to disprove...or steal one from the internet. "Venom Justice", unbelievably, stole one from the internet, and not just any old picture, but one from eBay, and then tried to claim it was the one that DiamondCityComics had sent him. ...and thanks to the brilliant sleuthing of nepatkm, that picture was discovered. You lay out enough rope, the guilty will hang themselves.

Would you mind reposting the picture of the "franken301" that you posted earlier? I might be blind, but it appears to me that all of the posts containing those pictures have been deleted. I'd like to compare what you received back with the photo that "Venom Justice" posted.

I pick the cute girl with her laptop open to answer...