RockMyAmadeus

I would be like That'd require such a confluence of totally unrelated events that the universe might pop out of existence.

#200 wouldn't be in a 3 pack, because it was a 60 cent double sized issue. Whitman was already annoyed that they had to price $1.05 in cover price in a 99 cent bag...and then $1.20 in a $1.09 bag (!)...they weren't about to put $1.30 worth of books in a 99 cent bag.

And that is the Goleta Branch post office's opinion. Their opinion may, or may not, be accurate. Until it's resolved, one way or the other, in the DMM, there will still be sporadic, uneven enforcement all over the nation. And it all hangs on that one word: "advertising." If it's not in the DMM...even if it comes from the Postmaster General...it carries zero regulatory weight.

....as opposed to slabbed then raw...? (I know, I know.)

Um... desirability = demand, at least in this context. Again, price cannot be used in that way due to supply differences (not to mention other demand factors). It's why people are always questioning why Character X's first brief appearance is considered his "real" first appearance (just because it's worth more) but Character Y's first full appearance is considered his "real" first appearance (just because it's worth more). Now, now, my alter egos, it wouldn't look good to be openly disagreeing with myself...

It didn't go through four printings in the same month. The month on the label is the date of publication, not the date of printing. Much like a regular book, the date of publication doesn't change with subsequent printings.

Yes, it refers to the original date of publication.

So...does ANYONE have any idea when this was made, and why? "Made in China" is a clue. The book being saddle-stitched is another clue. This was not made in 1986. Clearly. There were three printings made in 1986 of #1, three of #2, two of #3, and one #4. All of them are squarebound. Was this included with a toy, is it a reprint for a special event, what...? Anyone? It's very rare that you run across a book from the 80's that neither I, nor Donut, have seen or know about.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/comic-sutra/m.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1 Hullo. Lot of nifty stuff up, everything BIN with offer! If you see something you'd like, feel free to make an offer! Thanks!

What is the story behind this particular printing?

And the CBCS message board is a cesspool, about which they don't wish to do anything, unfortunately.

Does anyone have any information as to when and how this was produced...? Much appreciated. Thanks!

We have essentially no way of knowing that there are "about 20 of X for every 1 Y", for just about any book, so applying the ratios is just a wild guess that leads to more confusion. The problem is that these ratios have been misused and misunderstood, so it would be better to just say "there seems to be about 5% newsstand, 95% Direct on the marketplace" or whatever number is appropriate.

Yes, Micronauts went Direct only with issue #38.

The "100-to-1" "ratio" is entirely meaningless. ANY ratio is meaningless, because that's not how these were produced or distributed, and these "ratios" have an entirely separate meaning in the comics industry at this point.

No, it doesn't. Here's what Chuck is claiming: in 1990, the newsstand accounted for a mere 15% of the total comics market. In 1995, it accounted for 10%...according to Chuck, who said these were "rough" estimates. If that's the case (and it's not, but let's accept it for the sake of the argument), then can we say, roughly, that by 1992, that figure was 12-13%? By that reasoning, yes. So, 1% of the current listings being newsstands doesn't mirror Chuck's claim at all....and Spawn #1 is a special case. Even if the OVERALL market was what Chuck said, Spawn #1 is one of those exceptions, like ASM #361, that makes the rule.

Let me reiterate, because it is apparent, at least to me, that the thrust of the statement has been "lost" amid misinterpretation, willful or not: it is not necessary to make negative personal comments about others when having a disagreement. It detracts, and ultimately defeats, the argument. There is, naturally, a difference between legitimate criticism and negative personal commentary. That said, however, pointing this fact out is not proof of sensitivity on my part; it's merely pointing that fact out. Telling someone they are "blathering on and on" is not an example of legitimate criticism, and pointing THAT out is not an example of sensitivity. If you have legitimate criticism, by all means, please share. All of us can be educated and enlightened if one of us is corrected. Explain how someone is wrong, and we can all learn, rather than denying all of us the chance to learn by saying "you're wrong", without explaining why. Forget the personal commentary; that, more than anything, is the real determiner of just who is being sensitive and touchy, n'est-ce pas...? PS. Who is my "pal" that you refer to here...?

atm4720 Another entitled whiner who is offended that someone won't sell him his comic for what he wants to pay. From his offers, final offer was "$1" on a $45 listing: "It was a free comic book. Why do you want so much money?" "They were complimentary at the Image Expo. If anything, you paid $5. And it's only a 9.8 after grading. Not just because you say so. Good luck ripping someone else off." (not free, only "complimentary" if you bought the ticket, not relevant either way.)

Speaking of which...there's an interesting bit of info in Kazar #26, which is the SOO...anyone have a copy handy to print all the relevant details? It would be a nifty gauge on about how many sales were Direct and newsstand, as the book had gone Direct only during that time period. Gocollect says 259k printed avg, 80k printed nearest to filing date, but I'd like to get the precise details, see if we can't wrangle any reasonable conclusions from it.

Yeah, when you posted that, I thought he could have meant Direct-only. Can you believe Marvel "Direct-only'd" Moon Knight and KAZAR...?

Yes, a long-term, scientifically accurate accounting for an extended period of time would certainly be persuasive, if not necessarily conclusive. That said, I will say, with absolutely 100% certainty, that Image/Malibu DID NOT only print 17,000 or so copies of Spawn #1 in the newsstand format, nor, because of the nature of Spawn #1 and McFarlane, did only 17,000 or so survive. 100% certain.

As we've all discussed before, that's just what's available for sale right now, and, much like the "ratio = print run" "argument", it's neat to consider...but ultimately useless in any discussion of actual numbers, because those numbers don't tell us anything except how many of each are available for sale right now. There could be double that next week, of half. Then what?

By the by....one of the dealers at Frank & Sons had, about 2 years ago, a long box filled with various newsstands of Marvels from the last 10 years or so, at $1/each. I couldn't bring myself to buy them, even knowing what I know.

Of course...he has a built-in conflict of interest in claiming how rare newsstands are: he's also selling them. Chuck knows a lot, but there are a lot of things he gets wrong, too. No one...not Chuck, not me, not the most interesting man in the world...is above getting facts wrong, and being corrected. It's how one deals with that that really determines how seriously they should be taken.