RockMyAmadeus

Na na na na na na na na BATSOLD!! all the rest, per PM.

Does anyone have a babelfish translation handy...?

It's ok, everybody forgets that one.

Superman: The Wedding Album gold...

That guy needs some Lamisil.

Too obscure.

It's nice that the story is so accessible again. Moore's brilliance was in taking two dimensional characters and making them live and breathe. Swamp Thing, Marvelman, Supreme....all masterpieces, really. When you read #1-16, you get a real sense of the story Moore wanted to tell, and the consequences of the events of issue #2 aren't felt until many years, and many issues, later. The story that was issue #2...which appeared in, I think Warrior #4-6...was published in 1982-83. MM #15, the resolution to that story, wasn't published until 1988. But boy, was it worth the wait. In a way, I'm glad the originals aren't so costly anymore, and that more people have access to one of the best stories of the 80s and 90s...if only they would finish it. It's only been 25 years.

That's all Buscema...?

All three of those are the same artist? The top one looks like a very early Mike Zeck, but the bottom two obviously aren't.

Jim Mooney...?

Top one: no clue. Rich Buckler? Middle one: again, no clue. Gray Morrow? Bottom one...has a Milleresque vibe to it, but those aren't his lines, I don't think. Frank Springer?

Correct on all points. Any "diamond" issues and/or blank UPC issues would be Direct market versions. I don't *think* there are any blank UPCs without diamonds of one sort or another, but things were hectic, especially in 1977. There are two "fat diamond" versions of Star Wars #11, for example, one with UPC code and one blank. That 35 cent Cap #233 does not exist. Marvel, on their website, frequently fiddles with images, and they can create confusion. Some of the books printed with a May, 1979 cover date...like Cap #233, Marvel Two-In-One #51, and Daredevil #158...were printed right at the changeover of price, and had to be fixed "on the fly", so to speak. That's why they have that weird mark up like that. X-Men #121 and DD #158 *almost certainly* do NOT have any Direct market counterpart, while MTIO #51 and Cap #233 do...both of which are 40c. Can't rule anything out, but with the interest in DD #158 and X-Men #121 virtually since they were published, a Direct market copy, if it existed, would probably have surfaced by now. If you look inside DD #158, you'll see a 35 cent cover mock up on the Bullpen Bulletins page...that version, like the Cap #233 above, also does not exist. Direct editions before June of 1979 are, indeed, much harder to find than after. When Marvel went company-wide with the program, they started printing substantially more Direct market copies than they had been, and the Direct copies from before tended not to survive, especially in high grade.

My apologies, Sweet Lou; there was no need for all of that. I hope I've answered your question...if anything was not clear, please, by all means, feel free to follow up.

I'll make it easy for you. Here's his question: The answer to that question, which I've already given, is yes. Maybe you should take the time to read his post, instead of trying to pick fights with people.

And THIS IS a Direct copy of ASM #192, already posted by the OP:

Pay attention: See that? Already answered. Now, go list some more overgraded books, and quit trying to start a fight. " "

Now, now...there's no need for these personal comments. You fired an unprovoked shot across the bow; you ought not be surprised that you get a response. I'm trying to help the guy with the question, you're just trying to stir the poop. " "

Now, now, don't be mad because your Excalibur outlier and overgraded books were called out by @FlyingDonut, @Pirate and @Lazyboy I thought we left this silly stuff behind us years ago.

The "starburst" was Marvel's way of letting customers know that a price increase was imminent, and had nothing to do with Whitman or the Direct market in general. Marvel, in particular, began this in 1976: The "fat diamond" and "skinny diamond", however, were early Direct market cover markings. Where they coincided, then, is a matter of circumstance, not one having to do with the other.

First things first: That blog, by a guy named "Benjamin Nobel", is filled with errors, and the owner/author is unwilling to correct them, or even listen to corrections. He blocks people from commenting when they point out errors, and he's even called (and had his friends call) CGC and accuse members here of "cyber bullying." It has a lot of things that are true, but a lot of things that are false, which makes the whole blog completely unreliable, because how would someone tell what was fact, and what wasn't? For example: "Before 1979, comics were all distributed via the newsstand distribution model of returnable sales — unsold copies could be returned to the publisher for a refund." This is not true. The Direct distribution system existed as early as 1973, the result of efforts by Phil Seuling, Bud Plant, and others. Marvel, to combat retailers gaming the system and buying books through the Direct system for a substantial discount, and then returning them via newsstand returns, started experimenting with cover markings in late 1976...NOT 1979, as Nobel erroneously claims. This is an early Direct market example: Now, it is absolutely and completely true that Western Publishing, under its Whitman brand and imprint, was a big early adopter of the Direct system, because they didn't return comics anyway, and it allowed them a bigger discount. And, far and away, Whitman was the biggest consumer of Direct market books in the mid to late 70s, for their 3-pack program. BUT...it probably was NOT true that, as some have claimed, that these cover markings came about BECAUSE of Whitman, because by the time Whitman got around to distributing books, they were already many months old; long past the time for claiming returns. As well, as just mentioned...Whitman didn't return books. In fact, they really couldn't return books, because of the way they marketed and distributed them. So why DID they introduce those cover markings? Because the Direct system wasn't exclusive to Whitman. Before the "fat diamonds", Marvel had no way to note who was trying to game the system. So, they instituted the "fat diamonds", and now they could track who got what. If anyone tried to return those, Marvel would laugh at them, and tell them to go away. The program was sporadic, and almost certainly based on Whitman's ordering patterns, as the chart on this page shows: http://www.bipcomics.com/showcase/Direct/index.php By early 1977, Whitman informed the circulation dept. at Marvel that printing the UPC code on these books was a problem for them (UPCs having been introduced to the covers a little over a year earlier, with the June, 1976 issues at Marvel), because clerks were scanning the UPC for a single issue, rather than ringing up the price for the 3-pack. To solve this, Marvel decided to print their "blank UPC boxes", so this error would stop. Now, it's also true that DC had a specially marked "Whitman" program, starting in 1978...but that program was exclusively for Whitman, with the "Whitman" logo and name printed on the cover. That was not true for Marvel. This statement, by Nobel, is also inaccurate: "And Marvel initially solved it (the problem of shops returning Direct market copies) by putting a diagonal line through the barcodes of direct sold copies." That line through the barcode was a continuation of the "blank UPC" program previously in force. The real marker was the "skinny diamond", which debuted company wide with the June, 1979 cover dated books....which had already been in use on several books prior to this time, going back to 1977: It would be a mistake to call Marvel Direct market copies of 1977-1979 "Whitmans", as many have done, because they were clearly meant for more than just Whitman. To answer your question, then, yes, there absolutely IS a Direct market version of ASM #192...and several issues before that, going back to #165. And I would advise everyone reading this to take anything and everything that the "rarecomics" blog takes with multiple grains of salt, and not take anything said there at face value. Confirm, for your sake.

I'm a really swell guy!

I'd say Neal and Tom. But inkers are much tougher to identify.

There you go. I won't even charge you royalties.