RockMyAmadeus

A veritable boatload of discriminatory CGC "upcharges" at NYCC this week, including almost the entire back wall of Artist Alley filled with the "exclusive" creators of one company. I'm telling you folks...this is going to backfire, and it's going to backfire in a very, very bad way. Will you, those of you responsible for this, have gotten your money and said "so long, suckers!!"...? It's not beneficial to CGC (fewer slabs), it's not beneficial to collectors (more expensive slabs), it's not beneficial to creators (what short term gain per sig is outweighed by those choosing not to pay their "slab surcharge", but far more damaging, MUCH ill will created). Who IS it beneficial too...? Right: the people with "exclusive" arrangements with creators, telling them that "people are profiting off of them!!", which may be true, but usually is not, by which they take a cut of the signature, for doing....what, exactly...? Collecting the additional money...? I paid obscene charges (DOUBLE what a "raw" sig would have cost) this weekend for THE EXACT SAME EFFORT. It's absurd. Enough with the BS discriminatory "slab surcharge." It's none of your damn business what I intend to do with my books, and charging more for that fact, when a creator is PERFECTLY happy signing for the "raw" price, is naked greed. I don't give a damn if Andy Kubert wants to charge $10 for signature that MIGHT end up in a CGC slab (and it's none of your, or his, business what I do with my property, and it's BEYOND OFFENSIVE that ANY of you are even ASKING. This would NEVER be tolerated in the "real world"), more power to him: but for the SAME effort, the SAME signature, the SAME everything, there SHOULD NOT be two DIFFERENT prices. It's GREED, and you're creating a VERY HOSTILE environment that is going to backfire on you in a spectacular way. Again...will you have laughed all the way to the bank, saying "so long, SUCKERS!!" to both the fans AND creators...? ENOUGH already.

The unfortunate fact is that the proliferation of "artist representation" has greatly muddied the water, and very few have tried, or even been willing to try, to explain that slabbed SS books aren't "commodities"; that there are people who like and appreciate the idea of books signed by creators personally, whose signatures were witnessed, and then the books are graded, and have no intention of selling them. It hurts the public who enjoy the Sig Series program, it hurts CGC because they get (sometimes a LOT) fewer submissions, and it hurts the creators in the form of ill will. I don't see anybody that it helps. Oh, wait, except the "artist representatives", who convince creators that people slabbing are "making fat stacks o' cash!!!!" off their sigs, and they need to be "part of that gravy train, yo!"...which, as most of you in the program know, isn't even remotely true. It's like being mad at publishers, printers, distributors, and retailers for "profiting off of your work." Until there is a serious and concerted effort to educate creators, this isn't going to change. And these "artist representatives" don't want it to change, because it would mean they wouldn't get (as much) business. So you have to decide...these "artist representatives", who, while providing some level of service in getting books from customers to creators, have on the other hand created a monster that devours itself, as more and more creators are told things that aren't true, in an effort to secure more and more "exclusive" deals from them. "Oh, you want that SLABBED? Here, I'll sign it "for eBay", since that's CLEARLY where it's headed, so you can't make money off me, dawg!! You greedy flippers aren't real fans. NEXT!!" Does that describe a lot of you...? It doesn't describe me.

I don't know if this completely applies, but eBay and Paypal charge the conversion rate surcharge for everything listed in a non-US currency. I did not know this, nor is it listed in any listings I have seen, but I won an item for $309 shipped from Canuckleland, and it ended up being $324 or thereabouts. Not that that's the end of the world, but it would have been nice to know that upfront, BEFORE bidding: "All non-Canadian winners will be charged an additional conversion surcharge of X%", and I would have altered my bidding accordingly. A little annoying.

It's been almost 9 years since I started this thread. Wow.

The GITD Shadowman #16 was advertised throughout the Acclaim titles leading up to it. There's some specific literature about how it was to be distributed. I want to say something about your total number of copies, or that it was limited to 750....something along those lines. In other words, a bit of a rehash of the Unity ordering technique, whereby every shop that ordered a complete set of Unity got a free Unity #0. But it is quite specific, so if I run across it, I'll post if I remember.

Statistics and the distribution of grades. There is no standard. There is a guide, which is Overstreet, and then it's up to the individual graders. There is no standard to publish, because it doesn't exist...nor could it. Grading is subjective.

Yes, but the word "incentive" and the program has come to mean something very specific. Sure, it CAN be viewed as an incentive, but that's not what the ratio incentive program means today, which is "if you order X amount of the regular cover, you will receive/can buy 1 copy of the variant." Trying to retcon the idea of "ratios" to books that are 25 years plus muddies the meaning of what that marketing concept means today (which is not, by the way, a PRINT ratio.) Spiderman #1 Platinum was NOT a "1:100", because that gives the uninformed the impression that if a store ordered 100 copies of Spiderman #1, they would receive a platinum. That's not how it worked, for any book, until much later. I've seen people try to shoehorn the "1:X" for books like the Valiant golds, but again...retcon shoehorn that doesn't work. We know for a relatively well established fact (that is, Layton and Shooter both) that the vast majority of the golds were printed to the tune of 5,000 copies (maybe 5,500 to account for damages.) They weren't "1:100" or "1:50" or "1:200." If you have ordering information on those Acclaims, I would be very interested in seeing that.

As a MARKETING tool, I've been told that the first actual ratio incentive variants (not sure why the distinction of 1:50 or higher) was Dreamwave in 2002. The first ones I remember were the New Avengers #1-6, which started as a 1:20 for #1, then 1:19 for #2, 1:18 for #3, etc. They can't properly be called INCENTIVES if there was no formalized method by which one could obtain a copy by ordering other books. There were "1:X" books going back to the 80's; the first one may have been Adventurers #1. Certainly one example was Legends of the Dark Knight, which came 1 of each color, 4 colors, in the box, making each one 1:4. As well, Prophet #4 came 1:4...3 copies of the regular, 1 copy of the variant, repeat. Spiderman #1 had orders for about 1.75 million copies. There was no way to order X amount of copies to receive 1 copy of the platinum. In fact, the platinum was sent out to retailers after the fact, as a thank you. So, they can't properly be called 1:X at all, except possibly 1:store (or retailer account.) As well, the Valiant golds weren't distributed, as you know, 1 per anything, either.

Windows. Gotta be windows.

Nerd. So, if I had a stack of DC Comics, would it be a stack of Detective Comics Comics comics....?

No, not a distinct quota system, per se...just an unstated...or, stated early on...that the market might not take them seriously if they had "too many" 9.9s and 10s. As a result, because of cognitive bias, there exists now a situation whereby the highest population of graded books...by far...is the 9.8 grade, while the 9.9 grade has a mere 1.1% of the total of 9.8s, lower in population than every grade except 2.5 and lower, and the lowest population of all grades is 10, a staggering 0.1% of all books graded. That doesn't make any statistical sense. 9.8s, on the other hand, account for more than 1/3rd of ALL BOOKS graded, at 34%, over 1,000,000 (500k was the last number I remember)..there are 90 9.8s for every 9.9. There are a staggering 382 9.8s for every 10. However, when you look at 9.8s to 9.6s...there's only a little over 2 9.8s for every 9.6. But, at least in theory, the difference between a 9.8 and 9.9 or 10 is so minimal, almost no one, even those with long years experience grading books, would be able to consistently grade these books precisely the same, over an extended period of time (say, a month or so between grading events.) That, and the well known mantra that you DO NOT crack 9.9s and 10s, because you are almost certain to get 9.8s back, no matter what happens, and you have a scenario where nothing but a persistent...if subconscious...holding back of awarding 9.9s and 10s explains this statistical difference. It's one of the things that has been most frustrating to buyers of the absolute highest quality of books: their is no reward for the effort they put in, no payoff. If their "9.8" looks just like a typical 9.8, with a couple of 1/16" NCB spine tics, a very slight 1/32" crunch in one of the corners, a tiny 1/32" color scuff at the top or bottom of the spine...then what's the point? There are 9.8s that look demonstrably worse than others...and not just a handful, we're talking thousands...and there are 9.8s that have just whispers of defects at the very top and bottom of the spine...still get 9.8s. And to the market, those 9.8s are exactly the same thing.

I would be careful about buying from Dr Chaos. He is very vocal about not accepting returns, so if there's a problem with something, you're likely to have a fight on your hands. Not sure it's worth the hassle, even with eBay's "auto-return on everything" policy.

The problem with 10s is that, statistically, CGC gives out far fewer 9.9s and 10s than the rest of the census would suggest. This is because CGC has taken the stance that, if people were to take them seriously, they'd need to be very...judicious...about giving those grades out. And, over the years, it just "stuck." "Yeah, ok RMA, everybody says they have 9.9s and 10s!" No doubt. But there are a handful of people who know how to spot these books, and they haven't been rewarded. There are well over a half a million 9.8s on the census...by far, the most represented grade...but a tiny handful of 9.9s and 10s. A LOT of those 9.8s....perhaps 2-5% of them...deserved to be in 9.9 slabs. Interestingly enough, considered within the context of an allowed defect RANGE, 9.8 is perhaps the "broadest" grade that CGC has. Not that there are 8.5s in 9.8 slabs; but there are certainly books that probably should have graded 9.6, or even 9.4, and definitely 9.9, in 9.8 slabs. As a result of the (almost certainly unconscious by now) holding back of those grades, there are a lot of books that people won't submit...books they bought off the rack brand new, carefully picking the best copy or copies from the stack, and bagged and boarded them almost instantly. I've got, out of 120,000 or so comics, about 200-500 books that are dead 9.9s, and 10s. I won't sub them, because they'll get 9.8s, for the most part, and they aren't worth anything as 9.8s.

Nice. Like all of these, this is the Direct market version. It may have gone to Whitman...probably did...but it may have gone to a store, too.

PS...I came across another one which I had forgotten...Nova #15 has a "squashed font" test price, but is a regular issue:

The second print did not come bagged. Someone took the first print and resealed the bag, as gogo pointed out.

That link is dead wrong. They're making up numbers out of thin air. They're trying to apply the "1:15" number...which is an ORDERING ratio, not a PRINT RUN ratio...and applying it to the amount of copies SOLD in North America, and thinking those numbers have anything to do with each other. They do not. Those numbers are total fabrications. How do we know...? Because, with very few exceptions, Marvel does not reveal print runs of their variants. Ever.

(sorry, I could talk about the early history of the Direct market all night. I love it. )

One more thing...I know that a lot of people think that the early Direct market books were EXCLUSIVELY Whitmans, and there is some anecdotal evidence and some direct evidence that this is true (see DC's "Whitman" logos), but I think it's important to call these books Direct market books, and NOT Whitmans, because there's also anecdotal evidence that these books were NOT strictly sold only to Western, and distributed only by Western. Granted...no argument from me...that the vast majority of these mid to late 70's books ended up in Whitman 3-packs...perhaps exclusively with DC (hence the "Whitman" logos)...but the Direct market DID exist, and HAD been doing business since 1973-1974...plus there was DC's attempts at direct distribution with their comicpacs in the 60's, that sort of morphed into the Whitman program by the late 70's....and those books were ALSO non-returnable, and the publishers would have looked for a way to not have those returned through back channels as well, which is why I think that, while Western/Whitman CLEARLY drove the bulk of the Direct market during these years (1976-1979), I think that it's fair to say that the blossoming comic shop model also played a part in this situation, and received a good chunk of those Marvel "Diamond" books, too...and maybe even DC "Whitmans" as well. Hard to say, without actually having been there, but I think it's a fair argument to make. Anyone with contrary evidence, please, by all means, share it!

Leftovers! Whitman ordered so many books that they essentially supported the early Direct market for a couple of years. So they'd order tens of thousands of copies of these books, and store them in their massive warehouses, until they had enough to make 3-packs, and they did this almost entirely with consecutive issues, because that made the most sense, OR they did it with completely random issues, which also made sense. But then they did the completely random issues of the same title...like WW #255, 257, and #260...almost certainly because they had leftovers. It was an interesting business model, and it apparently worked for quite a few years...I want to say it started in the early 70's...it's all a bit muddled in the sands of time...but Western's Whitman program for DC was huge, as Paul Levitz reported. Here's Mark Evanier's article on it: http://www.newsfromme.com/2007/05/02/more-on-comicpacs/ It is a fascinating intersection of comics history. The one thing we know about DC's program was that DC took the additional step...inspired, no doubt, by Western's own Gold Key vs. Whitman logos...to mark their Western books as "Whitmans" by 1978. It's nice, however, that after decades of mystery surrounding these books that the internet has allowed scholarship on these to advance as far as it has. For so many years, because they came out months after the fact, and because they were so closely tied to Star Wars reprints at the beginning of the program, these were thought of as reprints, but they never were. They were just Direct market versions, the vast majority of which went into Whitman 3-packs, at least during the mid to late 70's. I love the whole subject.

It's an interesting transition piece. It was right on the cusp between the 35c test covers and the 35c prices going company-wide in August of 1977, when these were printed. Notice, the price for the newsstand version (the 35 cent version) is the same font as the test versions, the "squashed font", while the font for the new 35c company-wide price was slightly different. It would be interesting to see how it worked at Sparta during that press run. The Direct market ("Whitman") version is 30 cents, and was certainly among the very last batch of 30 cent comics Marvel ever printed. The 35c MGC #74 may even have been initially a continuance of the test program, and someone may have called Sparta and said "change all prices going forward to 35 cents" and away they went with the regular run, since the plate was already made. Marvel Tales #85 got the same treatment, but the Direct version wasn't a 30c cover...but a 35. However, the regular newsstand version had the same squashed font as the test versions. And, while this issue is fuzzy, it appears that the Direct version ("Whitman") is the same squashed font as the test versions, too (note squat cents symbol.) The next issue would see the "standard" 35c font that would be in use for the rest of that year, and well into 1978 (note elongated cents symbol.) I can't recall if there are any other "squat price" regular issues...there might be one more that I can't recall at the moment. The rest of the line went to the elongated 35c price immediately.

With the literally tens to even hundreds of thousands of extant copies of most Silver Age books (Batman, for example, averaged nearly 900k copies SOLD...not printed, SOLD...for 1966, and a good chunk of those books still exist), it's a guarantee that perhaps 90-99% of all copies will NOT be signed and NEVER signed. I think that leaves plenty of options for those who don't like sigs. Not only was the SA a boom in the new comics market, it also saw the dawn of a successful organized comics fandom (after a few earlier fits and starts that didn't take) with hoarding of many books beginning in earnest around 1965. Virtually none of these books is rare, scarce, or even difficult to find, except in very high grade. SA books, in general, are about as common in average grades as 80's books are in high grade. So, if you like sigs, get one...there will be a time when there won't be any more new ones. If you don't...there are plenty of options out there.

I don't think there's a pack for ASM #200, either, which came out after Conan #100. The 3-packs cover so few double sized issues, it's hard to say for sure. The only thing we can surmise is that they put 3 30 cent books (90c) in 79c packs, 3 35c books ($1.05) in 99c packs, and 3 40c books ($1.20) in $1.09 packs, which was their common practice of the time. I think, because of the absence of FF #200, ASM #200, TOD #70, and Invaders #41, the only double sized regular issues (not annuals or reprints) of the time period from Marvel, and because of their pricing structure, I think it's fair to say that Conan #100 was just an oops. If I'm not mistaken, Conan #100 was only the second double sized regular run issue Marvel ever did, after FF #200, followed a couple of months later with Invaders #41, TOD #70, and ASM #200 in rapid succession, all in 1979. Then, of course, Marvel went bonkers with the double sized issues, including Hulk #250, X-Men #137, Avengers #200, and Conan #115 (oddly enough), all in the span of three months in mid-1980, before they finally ditched the square bound format for double sized issues and went to saddle stitched with MTU #100. It's my understanding that Whitman was slowly abandoning the 3-pack market with the newly established success of the Direct market (of which it was a part) in comics stores of the time, finally closing shop altogether in 1984 (at least with comics.) I don't quite know when the last Marvel 3-packs were, but I suspect the program was ended for good in 1980 (as seen, for example, with ASM #202-204, which were initially published {though not released by Whitman} in early 1980.) Whitmans are such an interesting part of comics history, especially with their intimate ties to the early Direct market. I really should get my notes together, do some interviews, and publish an article about them.