RockMyAmadeus

Marwood, I think you have to be careful calling whitman copies 'direct' as they were for a different market altogether than the direct to comic store approach, which from what I can tell began in June of '79 for Marvel, so ASM 193. While they do share the diamond shape price-box, can't be classified as directs, IMO... On the contrary: I think you have to be careful calling DIRECT copies "Whitmans." Those Whitmans were absolutely, positively, without a doubt "Direct market" participants. ALL Whitmans were Direct copies, but NOT all Direct copies were Whitmans. In 1977, there were, what, 100 comic book stores throughout the country? Maybe? The Direct market, begun when Phil Seuling convinced Marvel, DC, and others to initiate in '73-'74...and which Beerbohm claims happened as early as 1967 with Zap #1, but which is entirely DIFFERENT discussion, even though sharing the same track...was a young, unusual system. Clearly, though, some customers had attempted to game the system, or someone had unusual foresight, which is why Marvel developed the different cover dress program in late 1976: these books had to be distinguished in some way. It is perfectly acceptable to call Whitmans "Direct market" copies, because that is what they were: designed to prevent these DISCOUNTED books from being returned for credit via the normal newsstand distribution system that had been in place for 40 or so years. So, while yes, Western/Whitman dominated (and dictated) the early Direct market program, by late 1978 the writing was on the wall, and Marvel implemented the company-wide Direct market cover marking program with the Feb-Mar 1979 published comics ("June-July" cover dates.) Whitman was not the only participant in the program; Bud Plant, Seagate (Seuling), etc were all early participants as well.

So these books can potential have three different variations (lined out bar code, bar code, and blank UPC)? Whenever I've seen the blank UPC I assumed they were Whitman reprints. Some of the reprints have "reprint" printed on the cover while others don't. Cool multi-packs you have there. The only reprints you're going to see are the Star Wars #1-6. Those were the only ones identified as reprints. Interestingly, Star Wars #1-6 has the most variations of any of these books in this time period. For example: There are Star Wars #1s with the word "reprint" on the cover, in the logo box. There are Star Wars #1s with the word "reprint" in the indicia. There are Star Wars #1s that are reprints WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES AS REPRINTS (I have one of these; it's a fat diamond 35 cent copy. Still a reprint, probably bound with the guts of a non-reprint.) And, of course, the usual Star Wars #1 first printings, 35 cent test, etc. This is critical: none of the other "fat diamond/slim diamond" books of this era are reprints. None of them. Overstreet confused the issue with Star Wars #1-6, and for a very, very, VERY long time, people thought of ALL of these books as reprints...because, of course, they remembered buying them months after the fact. But they weren't. They never were. They were all first (and only) printings, that Western/Whitman had just been gathering at their warehouse/distribution/pack-making facility, and then packaged and sent out when they were ready.

You're confusing multiple issues. There are "fat diamonds" and "slim diamonds." The "slim diamonds" became standard cover dress with the June/July 1979 cover dates going forward, all the way to the "M" change of Oct, 1982 cover dates. However...there are "slim diamonds" that exist all the way back to 1977: As to the slash marks, you are correct: they were to prevent cashiers from scanning books in "packs" and just charging for the one book. Later, Marvel replaced the slash with artwork. However, this showed a lack of foresight on their parts, because it was just assumed that Direct market customers...aka comic book shops...wouldn't have any use for the barcodes, and thus set the comic book industry back quite a bit in terms of tracking sales and inventory control. This was finally rectified in 1993, when Marvel, DC, and others finally put barcodes on their Direct counterparts. That said, the June/July 1979 books ARE NOT "Whitmans", definitively, even though the Whitman 3-pack program would continue until 1980 at the very least with Marvel. They are Direct market copies. So, any book you see with a June/July 1979 cover date, small diamond, and slash is just a Direct market copy. Back to the diamonds: while the early Direct market was, indeed, dominated by Western ("Whitman") and their needs, they weren't the only ones. Comic book shops had figured out that they, too, could order comics at a much cheaper price through the Direct market, but also have a newsstand account (Curtis or ID) which they could then funnel unsold books back into for a return, thus milking the system. Marvel recognized that either it was already happening, or it COULD happen, which is why they instituted the designation in the first place. After all...Western already had its own DM designation label, which was "Whitman"...the newsstand books were still Gold Key, as they had been since 1962. The prevailing wisdom...that these are all just 3-pack "Whitmans"...has certainly needed to be revisited over the years. One thing that few consider is the fact that Whitman often (nearly always...?) packaged books in sets of consecutive issues...meaning the FIRST issue in the pack was already a couple of months old by the time the last issue showed up. That time delay is why 1. many people thought these were reprints: they wouldn't show up at K-Mart or Payless or Thrifty for months after the book was published; 2. they weren't necessarily part of the "newsstand returns" program, because the publishers didn't wait forever for the books to be stripped/returned/affidavits filed. If my first issue has passed the deadline for filing for credit, I am less likely to try and game the system, especially if I'm Western/Whitman, which I doubt would even have tried. The fact that you heard of people buying fat diamond books off the newsstand seems to confirm that. After all...a newsstand vendor would have to go to the effort of acquiring these packs from other retailer establishments (K-Mart, etc.) and by then, the books would be many months old...and for not much profit. If you're a newsstand vendor, why would you want an ASM #188 alongside an ASM #195? I suspect these are vendors, in the fuzzy heyday transition between traditional newsstands and comic book specialty stores (remember when they were called "specialty"...?), who played both sides of the fence. No, I have long suspected that the reason for the cover dress change was either 1. to prevent regular Direct market comic stores from gaming the system and/or 2. to forestall such attempts. Clearly, it had been an issue, which is why Marvel addressed it in the first place, and it's doubtful that Whitman/Western was the responsible party in the fraud. Maybe their sub-distributors, maybe, but I suspect it was just regular ol' DM customers, buying from Seagate (Phil Seuling) or Bud Plant or whomever. All that aside, I also find it interesting that Western was interested in selling its own competition in its 3-packs.

Whether you have OCD or not, the fact is, that book as it sits right now is an 8.0, 8.5, 9.0 at best. If there's a tear there...and it looks like there is...then it would be, at best, a 9.6, as Bob said...but a 9.6 with weakness in that area that could easily come back with a hard bang on a new case. You have to think about it in terms of what it actually IS, not what the label says it is. $14,500 IS a great price...for a 9.8. This is not a 9.8. $14,500 for an 8.0-9.0 is about $11,000-$12,000 too much. I really hate that you can't stealth edit anymore.

But, in an absolute sense, as I said above NO newsstands from Marvel, DC, Image, etc, from ANY part of the 90's are remotely rare. That is true, even when you compare them to newsstands of the 80's. A lot of misinformation was absorbed into the hobby with Chuck Rozanski's ridiculous "relative newsstand rarity" chart. Newsstands WERE NOT a mere 15% of the entire comic book market in 1990, or 10% in 1995, or 5% in 2000. Those numbers are pulled out of thin air; they're just guesses, AND...I will point out that during those years, Chuck had essentially nothing whatsoever to do with newsstand sales or distribution. There's no way that the newsstand market was only 15% of the entire market in 1990. I was there; these books are common, and every news vendor in town carried them. And only 10% by 1995? 5% by 2000, and now we're starting to see reality line up with Chucks numbers. Still, they're just not that rare. Rare in 9.8? Sure, absolutely. Once you get to 1997 or thereabouts, EVERY newsstand book is going to be tough in 9.8, no doubt. But ALL comics suffered at this time, not just newsstand comics. 2001 remains the record low year for units sold. People just weren't buying comics. Things are substantially better today than they were around the turn of the century. But overall? Not at all rare. They just are sitting in collections, gathering collection dust, sprinkled into the market here and there. If and when the market makes a SERIOUS distinction between newsstands and Directs, they will show up, because they DO exist. ASM #694 newsstand? Ok, maybe not. ASM #437? Piece of cake.

Ok, but we're talking about different definitions of the word "rare." What does "far scarcer overall" mean? 10 copies? 100 copies? 10000 copies? Relative to what? When I say "really rare newsstands" I mean books that are hidden in the collections of readers; books that were bought new off the newsstand and then put away, in single copies. I mean books where you might go a year or more before seeing one offered for sale. I mean books that have, perhaps, fewer than 10,000 copies extant, but which never get sold. For a modern book, that's quite "rare." So, in that sense, yes, the books are tough to find. And finding high grade examples is a killer, no doubt. You're not going to get any argument from me about the toughness of late 90's newsstands. I've argued that for a decade+ on these very boards, long, long before a lot of people really bought into the idea. But, relatively speaking, they are not *that* rare, especially when compared to, say, 2010 Marvels, which are PROHIBITIVELY rare...but, then, 2010 DIRECT Marvels ain't no walk in the park, either. Venom #1...the subject of this thread...is NOT rare in ANY sense of the word...even in newsstand format. However...in newsstand format in 9.8...ok, now we're starting to talk. But, there are probably 100,000+ newsstand copies of this book...a book that had a 1,000,000 print run overall...still in existence, if not more. This was one of the "OMG LET'S PRINT FIFTY BILLION OF THEM!!!!" 1993 books.

By the way....speaking of newsstands being compared to the 30/35 cent variants of 76-77...it's not at all true that Bob Overstreet had no idea they existed. Let me clarify: BOB himself may not have known it, or he may not have remembered it, but the OPG DID know about them. The idea that Bob had a conversation with someone in 1997, wherein Bob says "impossible! There's no company as heavily researched as Marvel!" doesn't ring true, because 30 cent variants were published in the OPG Updates for X-Men #98-100 in the mid 80's. So, while true, they weren't well known...they weren't UNknown.

No silly! That's Magneto and Captain Picard! Ohhhh. That makes more sense.

In half an hour. It's a shame so many great people left the boards over the years. I almost went with 20 minutes, but that works. So many great people HAVE left the boards.

7 years ago this would be 20 pages long ...in half the time.

Gandalf and Professor X? I'll take it!

CBCS employs multiple people that they should not have. If you're going to be the upstart, you should only hire people with spotless reputations, people completely beyond reproach. Unfortunately, that cancels out a good 50% of the people in the comics business.

What makes you imagine you can speak for others? You don't know the situation, so why are you commenting as if you do?

Especially since they've hired a handful of verrrry questionable people to work for them.

I'm pulling numbers completely out of thin air, but I suspect NGC does in a month what CGC does in six in terms of revenue...if not more.

No. CGC is owned by the Certified Collectibles Group, which contains the monster powerhouse NGC. NGC makes all the rest of this look like amateur hour.

Well. Well well well.

Yes, and it most certainly is. It looks pretty bad. This is why amateurs shouldn't be allowed to work on anyone else's books. This stuff can be removed without resulting color loss, but it is a VERY delicate, VERY time consuming, VERY delicate process. Sorry to see this happen.

Oh come now...you're really going to pretend that these two paragraphs, appearing again here in their original, unedited context: "As for the publisher signings, the creators do signings for the publishers at times. At conventions, if the publishers are there and have a booth, at specific times, they will sometimes go to that booth and sign for the publishers. Ive heard that sometimes they can only sign those publishes books for fans (I don't know if thats true?). When saying that earlier, I don't know the contract details between the publisher and the creator so if there are those types of stipulations then they have to abide by them. I was just saying if there were stipulations. Obviously I don't know the details between them. Ive been in line at a con (LA Comic Con last year) to get something signed and when I got to the creator (Justin Roiland and Dan Harmon), because they were there with a sponsor (Hot Topic), they wouldn't let them sign my comic, I had to get their poster signed instead or nothing at all. The creator (Roiland) looked at me and said, sorry, I can't sign that. He pointed to the hot topic person standing behind him. " ...were completely unrelated, separate thoughts, that had absolutely nothing to do with each other in any way....? Even though they were written in such a way as to imply that the story of the second paragraph was an example of the idea expressed in the first...? Yeah, ok. I didn't try to "make your example look hypocritical." I demonstrated the inconsistency of your statements. If you're now trying to say that's not what you meant, you might want to try harder to write what you actually mean, so there's no "misunderstanding" by others, no? Again, don't be offended: be consistent. When you're discussing details, you can't have a problem with someone getting into the details. The creators don't have to abide by anything. In that scenario, it is up to whomever is managing the line to handle that. Not saying it's not possible, but I've never heard of any event where the PUBLISHER, rather than the CREATOR, dictated the terms of what they would, and would not, sign. Byrne, for example, probably had an agreement with IDW, but I suspect IDW asked Byrne...rather than dictated to him...what the conditions were. You can't make an analogy, and then several hours later, when that analogy is demonstrated to be unworkable, claim it was "partially tongue-in-cheek." That's poor form. Your point about a monopoly is wrong, as I already explained at much length earlier. The monopoly is NOT WITH THE CREATOR, but rather between the "exclusives" and CGC. I don't know how to make that any clearer. If the only way I can get a book signed and put in an SS slab is through A SINGLE COMPANY, then that SINGLE COMPANY (NOT the creator) has a DE FACTO monopoly. It has nothing to with the creator, and nothing to do with the sports cards and memorabilia industries. I can get the creator to sign any time the creator wants to sign; I CANNOT get it slabbed in an SS slab unless I go through THAT SINGLE COMPANY. "But, doesn't the creator have a monopoly over their signature??" you might protest. And the answer is, of course. That's the way it is, and there's no changing that, obviously. If I want an Art Adams signature, I have to go to ART ADAMS and have him sign, if he is willing. However, I do not NEED "Company X" to get ANY specific creator to sign, except that I am forced to...not by the creator, but by the exclusive and CGC. It is in the interests of the exclusive to keep things that way...they have a monopoly over their "stable" (I wonder if creators like to be referred to as animals...?)...it's NOT in CGC's interests to allow that, but they do it anyways, in the interest of preserving good will with creators. It doesn't matter if the creators abide by it or not; the monopoly exists for the company that is the "exclusive provider of signed books for SS slabbing with CGC." As intriguing as this side discussion about creators signing deals with "signature exclusives", this discussion doesn't have anything to do with creators signing exclusive deals with "Company X" or anyone else; it has to do with exclusives convincing creators to tell CGC not to slab the books they sign unless customers go through the exclusives. You've signed a million NDAs...? Wow. That's a lot. Also, what do you have against apostrophes...? Okey dokey. You're more than welcome to continue the discussion; as am I, as is anyone. I have no interest in "picking apart" anyone's comments: I care only about consistency and meaning. But by all means, if you'd rather not discuss it further, I certainly wouldn't want to force anyone to do anything they didn't want to do. Take care!

No. The point was purely about whether or not a sponsor/publisher would only allow certain things to be signed AT ALL. But that wasn't the case with the Hot Topic/R&M signing. The fact is, they DID allow comics to be signed, which isn't at all how you presented it at first. No one "picked it apart"; your example didn't relate to your point. It would be like saying "if Marvel was having a signing at their booth, they allowed DC/Image/Dark Horse books to get signed, until someone came up with a PILE of DC/Image/Dark Horse books, and then they said "no more DC/Image/Dark Horse books!" THAT would be analogous to your Hot Topics example, but I was never talking about decisions based on caprice. Here's what you said: In the example you gave, you're talking about a publisher (or, in this case, a sponsor) only allowing certain things getting signed, and disallowing other things getting signed, from the outset, as a PRE-condition of the signing. That's not at all what happened, though. In this case, they DID allow comics, until someone decided not to. You've completely changed the parameters of your argument from "publishers/sponsors can dictate what creators can and cannot sign at their events" to "publishers/sponsors can change their minds midway through an event." It guts the whole point you were trying to make. A sponsor "changing their mind midway through a signing" is not at all the point we were discussing, and is wholly irrelevant to the entire discussion. Had you gotten in line BEFORE said "facilitator", you WOULD have been able to get your comic signed. I'm not trying to be contentious or argumentative with you, but you can see where someone might have an issue with this, can't you...? If your arguments aren't consistent, they're going to get challenged, and rightfully so. Don't be offended: be consistent. Had they done that to me, after waiting in line for an hour, I would have gone to the convention organizer and told them what happened. You get enough complaints like that, you don't get invited back, no matter who you are.

But you didn't state your displeasure at this changing of the rules after you had already spent your time in line? It also begs the question: were these people somehow slaves to the facilitator, and forced to sign his "ton of comics"? They couldn't have said "you can get this many done right now, and then you have to go to the end of the line"...? What kind of unprofessional dolts are they, that they got "pissed off" instead of simply managing the line like professionals...? Do they lack even basic control over their emotions and their environment? They had no right to get mad at anyone. The people they should have been mad at were themselves, but they took it out on everyone else in the line...? That's simply unprofessional, if that is what happened. It also raises another question: you presented the "Hot Topic/Justin Roiland" situation as a "no comics allowed per the sponsor" example. Here, this is what you said earlier: You said the sponsor, Hot Topic, wouldn't let them sign your comic, as an example of a "sponsor" signing, and they weren't allowing it. But now, your story has changed a bit from "they weren't allowing comics" to "they WERE allowing comics, until someone brought a stack, and whoever was managing the situation couldn't handle it properly." So, it wasn't really an example of what you were talking about earlier, right...? I'm glad you did better on your Rick and Morty comic.

So, you're not done with the back and forth, then...? That's the danger of saying one is done with a conversation: if one is really not, it puts one in the awkward position of saying one thing, then doing the opposite. Better to not commit to that in the first place, am I right? If you're going to voice an opinion, you have to be prepared for that opinion to be challenged, especially when your opinion is, itself, a challenge of things others have previously said. That's the way the internet works. My comments are picked apart all the time, and I have no problem with that. It's how we learn, how we make our points understood, and how we understand others. It's not unfair; it's just the way things work. Sure, but do you know how much Stan makes of that $100-$150? Is it anyone's place to be counting someone else's money? Sure, I imagine he makes some money off of his signatures, but is that how he "makes his living", meaning that's the sole or major source of his income...? And even if it is, how is that anyone to determine but him? Some might say that Stan is wayyyyy out of line for suing Marvel like he did. When he worked for Marvel, he knew his work was work-for-hire. He knew that he didn't own his creations, yet he created them anyways. He might have convinced Goodman...with whom he was very close...he married Goodman's wife's cousin, after all....to share in the rights, but he didn't. So he created content for Marvel. And? My aunt created content for Boeing...patented and all. Does she get the money for doing so? Nope. Boeing owns the patent, not my aunt. This is all interesting, genuinely...but it doesn't relate to what this thread is about at all. I'm pretty sure no one has a problem with this practice, since a creator is free to sign whatever he/she wants at other times and locations. That raises a few questions: first, before you got in line, were you aware of this situation? If not, did these people have signs explaining this? If they did, you can't really fault them for you not knowing, can you? If they did not, I would have done everything in my power to make sure I knew the rules before getting in line and wasting the time. And there have been situations that I was in where creators were only allowing certain things to be signed: at IDW, for example, at NYCC, the limit was THREE items for Byrne, and TWO of them had to be IDW products. No problem, I knew that going in, and didn't have five Marvel/DC books for him to sign, and then get upset when the IDW folks said no. If a creator is there, sponsored by a specific company, then I ought to know that going in, and if I don't, that's on me. That said, however...Hot Topic doesn't own Roiland, and I know that he has signed comics in other venues with no problem. So, I just avoid the Hot Topic signing , and go to the others. The problem with the exclusives, however, is that THERE ARE NO OTHER VENUES at which I can get my book signed and slabbed without going through them. That's the problem. They are the wall around which I cannot go, even if I want to have nothing whatsoever to do with them...and believe me, having dealt with Stan's handler, Max, personally, I don't know many people who are thrilled at such a prospect. Haven't you seen the notices peppered all around the SS forum? "No other signings from Creator X will be accepted for SS"...even if you have a witness, even if you ARE a witness, even if you have your own facilitator, even if you get a witness from CGC. If you don't go through Company X, forget it. That's not right. Sorry your Rick & Morty comic didn't get signed. I understood them...I just didn't agree with them. No problem.

Again...not sure how you know how Stan has made his living. That's not something I would be comfortable saying about someone I didn't personally know, and wasn't them, their accountant, their lawyer, or close personal friend. I DO know that Stan has, because it was made public, a "$1,000,000/year" contract with Marvel. Aside from that, how can anyone say they know how someone makes their money? For the vast majority of his career, Stan charged $0 to sign books. Not sure how much of a living he made at that point signing anything. I've never heard of a "publisher signing", and, while such a thing might be possible, I seriously doubt the moribund comic book industry, which struggles to sell numbers that would have gotten all but the top FOUR comics published last month cancelled, is in a position to be making such contracts with people.

That was mostly sarcasm on my part. If you think that comic book creators...not superstar athletes...are going to sign "exclusive signature contracts" with ANYONE, which will determine just where, when, and how they will sign ANYTHING, bucking decades of tradition, then either you don't really understand the dynamics at play here, or I have wildly underestimated the situation. I'll leave it to others to determine who is correct. Think about the practicality of that for a moment. It's not as if employees of Company Y are going to these creators, to try and get them to sign outside of Company X's auspices. These are FANS or, at the very least, private individuals. If a creator WANTS to sign, he's going to sign, contract or no. Good luck on Company X trying to sue a creator in that situation, and if they DID, you can better believe no more creators will be signing with Company X...EVER. And why won't Company X, or ANY company, be pursuing such a situation in the first place...? Because there's absolutely no money in it. Oh, sure, it looks like there is, and there would be for the "hottest" creators...for a while. But once the prices start escalating to pay for "enforcers", and fans can't get through to creators AT ALL without going through the wall, then it will be tumbleweeds and ghost towns. And creators like Mike Golden and Mike Zeck ALREADY don't like how Renee Witterstaetter treats their fans like cash cows. How do I know? Because the minute she's out of earshot, the prices go down, and the atmosphere gets much more relaxed. They tolerate it because she does make them money, but they certainly don't like it. By the way...if a creator can't sign a Marvel comic...fine, let's say the comic industry was even REMOTELY healthy enough to be dictating terms like that...even if it was, you could still get something else signed. Jim Lee doesn't like to sign Marvel books...he's the "co-whatever-in-charge" of DC. But he WILL sign them, with a grumble. PS. Earlier, you said "creators...decide that they too should make on their hard work", it wasn't clear until after that you were talking about SIGNATURES, not the actual creations, themselves. That's why I emphasized ownership of the COPY. It wasn't clear at first that by "hard work" you meant "signing comics." I wouldn't classify signing even a few thousands books as "hard work." Maybe that's just me. We most certainly do, and I think each of us has made our cases in a way that clarifies the situation quite well. I appreciate the dialogue, but these arguments need to be internally consistent. Trying to compare the contract situation of LeBron James...who cannot play professionally for other teams while under contract with Cleveland...to "exclusive" companies providing a service to creators as it currently stands, is not consistent, logically. As far as not going to get into a back and forth, it's probably a bit late for that, but I think that's a good call on your part.

Yes, it can. It already happens and has for years. In sports. Many athletes have contracts with and get paid by sports card companies that they won't sign for other companies. Do they do it in secret/private? Im sure they do. In public signings though and for the most part, they don't. YES! YES, EXACTLY! Now you're with me! Notice the words you used: won't sign for other companies. And it need not even be "in secret/private"...if I'm just Joe Blow off the street, and not "Company Y", and I walk up to whomever and say "will you sign this?"...there's nobody in the world that is going to say "uh, sorry buddy, my signature's under contract, and I can't sign anything unless it's at an official "Company X" event." Talk about UNENFORCEABLE contract clauses. If, however, you are NOT an "other company", there's nothing preventing your things from being signed. And unless Company X is willing to pay, say, Andy Kubert a million dollars or so, Andy Kubert's PROBABLY not going to sign a "will not sign under any other conditions" contract with Company X...not that Company X won't try. Not saying Andy Kubert couldn't...just saying it's highly unlikely he would. I'm glad we're on the same page.