RockMyAmadeus

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.

The first Direct books that were designated are Marvels dated Feb 1977 (the "fat" diamonds), and DC Whitmans starting in 1978.

If one can't have a discussion without making the discussion personal, I wouldn't consider that "doing fine." But I digress. You say here that you are going to base your comments on your own experience collecting and researching them for years...which is perfectly legitimate...except, in another post, you say this: Without being too cheeky, doesn't that end your ability to discuss? You can find a Spawn #1 newsstand on eBay, right now: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2053587.m570.l1313.TR2.TRC1.A0.H0.Xspawn+1+newsstand.TRS0&_nkw=spawn+1+newsstand&_sacat=0 12 listings, of all flavors. No one is saying that Chuck's SELF-ADMITTED numbers aren't rough estimates. They are. What is being said is that Chuck's numbers are wayyyyyyy off in certain cases, and contradict what we know about standard practice OF THE TIME, with regard to books sold. How do we know that? The SOOs tell us quite a bit. When you combine that with information like Capital City Distribution's numbers, you get a better idea of what the "real numbers" are. And, in 1990, the newsstand market wasn't just 15% of all comics sold. It was probably closer to 30-40% still. To suggest, as some have, that there are/were only 1 newsstand of books like Spawn #1 for every 100 Direct copies is to, again, not understand how those markets worked at that time. It's so woefully far off, such a claim is understandably laughable to people with even a cursory understanding of the comics industry of the period. If you take the 1.7 million figure...that means, printed or extant, only 17,000 copies of Spawn #1 newsstand was made and/or is extant. There are probably 17,000 copies of Amazing Fantasy #15 extant. There are CERTAINLY, without question, far, farrrr more copies of Spawn #1 newsstand.

You disagree with everything...? Even the long-established truth of "burden of proof"...? No matter. I look forward to the discussion.

Pic?

Well...the definition of "premium" aside, if you take out Spawn, you end up with about 40 listings. For a book to be "worth it" to list, it needs to sell for about $10 BEFORE S&H...maybe $9, but now you're working for less than minimum wage. That's not a "premium", when you're dealing with individual books. When you consider that, you're now down to, as of this moment, precisely six (6) listings for raw books, and two slabs. Working for minimum wage or less...while fun...doesn't really inspire the effort to search. The Spawn #1 sales, however, will. We should see more show up shortly. Oh please. If I buy a book for a $1 and it sells for $10 its profit. Easy and quick profit. Rinse and repeat. Its less risky and less headaches. Let's do the math: Cost of book - $1 Book sells for $10. Assuming free listing (which isn't necessarily the case), the eBay fee is a standard 10%. Paypal is 3% or 4%. Cost of materials to protect item - 50c to $2 Cost of fuel to ship item - indeterminate; depends on factors So, you're looking at a gross sale of $10, and a net sale of about $5.70 - $7.20 Now let's consider the time: Time to find the book - indeterminate Time to scan/pic + upload item - 2-5 minutes. Time to create listing, including all relevant details - 5-15 minutes. Time to entertain offers (not necessarily applicable.) - indeterminate Time to process payment - 1-2 minutes Time to pack the book - 5-20 minutes, depending on your setup Time to take item to post office and/or hand item to postman - indeterminate, but not nothing. So, for roughly...and this is if you've streamlined the process...30 minutes to an hour of time, you're making a "profit" of about $5.70-$7.20...for an hour's worth of work, less than minimum wage, and if you're super fast and do it in 30 minutes, $10-$14/hour... ...assuming the item sells for $10, which isn't guaranteed. My time is worth more than $5-$14/hour, but it would be fun for some.

It is not up to anyone to disprove Chuck's numbers. Chuck is the one making the claim; it's Chuck's responsibility to prove his case. That said...when you're talking about ASM #559 or #694, you're talking about a situation that is light years (metaphorically) and decades (literally) removed from the problems being discussed here. For better or for much worse, the "1:X" concept has taken on a very specific, defined meaning in comics, and that is "retailer incentive ordering ratios." Trying to shoehorn that term, and those meanings, into other areas is ignorance to the point of negligence. It's like saying "well, Superman #1 (1939) had three printings, and the third printing is a 1:50 version of the first." Or "The October edition of Marvel Comics #1 is a 1:100 version of the November edition." It's a misuse of the idea. The issue isn't that (as you perceive it) "too many people on these boards talk in certainties." The issue is that too many people are mortally offended that anyone would dare challenge anything they say, to the point of making it a personal mission of theirs to create trouble for those that do...which offendedness is on full display in this very thread. Can you imagine how stunted scientific research and development is becoming with those types of attitudes..? Too much ego, not enough humility.

I'd say there's a difference between benefitting from a growing desire to own newsstand versions of comics and artificially creating that desire through the spread of unsupported information and/or misinformation. If those in the former group are not trying to reinforce the unsupported perception created by the latter, I don't necessarily think that they are doing anything wrong. Absolutely correct. The first claim...that people are "besmirching" Chuck for his inaccurate information...is not analogous to the second claim...that said people are benefitting from selling newsstand copies at a premium. One is not related to the other, other than superficially as "having to do with newsstand books." Outside of that, those two claims have absolutely nothing to do with one another. It is an illogical analogy to attempt to draw, and an irrational conclusion to which to leap.

Making personally insulting comments about others because you disagree with them is antithetical to the purported rules of this fine establishment..plus, it's a general acknowledgement of the overall inherent unsubstantiality of the position being advanced. I would ask which statements of yours were "misinterpreted", but, as per regular practice here and throughout modern society, I imagine an answer would not be forthcoming. Chuck is not a "comic expert" though he is certainly an expert in several fields within comics, as are several people here. Good luck in your search for enlightenment.

How about being more diligent and taking care of what, when, how, where, and why, and being respectful to the board by doing so...? Carelessness is disrespect.

Absolutely.

"re-tor-icul" is not a word; therefore, it has no meaning. There's no need to make personal comments about others. That's inappropriate, and doesn't belong here. If you can't make your arguments without making personal comments, you should probably refrain from posting here.

This is what is known as a "straw man" argument: you make an argument up, pretend that the other person actually made that argument, then "rebut" your self-made argument, to make it appear as if you have made a "point." Nobody said Chuck has "no idea what he's talking about." And nobody said "everything about newsstand print runs and distribution is wrong that everyone knows." These are the "arguments" of the lazy, and ought not be made. Here's reality: newsstand print runs, aside from the SOOs printed in various comics from the 60's through the 00's, are essentially unknown by anyone except the printer, the publisher who ordered them, and possibly Curtis Circulation, the main distributor of newsstand comics for the last 40-50 or so years. In other words: hardly anyone actually knows anything at all about them, myself, Chuck, anybody, EXCEPT those just mentioned, and they're not talking. What does that mean, "expert on comics"? There have been tens of thousands of comic books published in the United States alone over the last 80+ years; that's a very broad subject for someone to be an "expect" about all of it. Chuck is an expert at aspects of comics, for sure...but that doesn't make him an expert about all comics, nor does it make everything he says about comics impervious to error and subsequent correction. The word is "minutiae", and the over- and inaccurate use of terms like "1:100" has led to substantial confusion in the comics market. It is not at all minute. There are much more accurate ways of "conveying the rarity" other than appropriating terms that have specific (and unrelated) meanings in comics. I have neither confused it, nor have I done so "for sake of argument." There is substantial and persistent misinformation posted here, misinformation that actively harms people who rely on it to make purchasing decisions. My aim is not to argue with the willfully ignorant, but correct the record for those who are genuinely interested in the facts.

Chuck Rozanski, along with most retailers of the era, abandoned the newsstand market in the late 70's. He had nothing to do with the newsstand market in 1992, when Spawn and other Image titles began publishing. Being a "legend" doesn't mean he's accurate.

Chuck has been selling comics, by his own admission, since 1969....that's 48 years. Why does that matter? Because we're talking about details, here, and details are what Chuck's gotten wrong with this particular discussion (newsstand print runs and distribution.)

That sounds like it's coming from someone who doesn't understand the difference between critical analysis and emotional commentary. Do you think Chuck Rozanski deals with comics directly these days...? Do you know how many people he employs...? Do you really think he's "seen most everything ever printed"..? You'd be wrong. The guy's an expert at the Church collection, no doubt, and he has interesting and valuable firsthand experience with and insight into the comics market...especially the distribution of DIRECT comics, having run (with his wife Nanette) a distributor in the 80's. But he's certainly not an expert about the newsstand, or newsstand distribution, especially when he makes claims that are not accurate (like the newsstand market being only 15% of the entire comics market in 1990. Yes, he couches it as "roughly"...something the quoters never seem to remember to mention...but it's still so far off it doesn't have value as a statistic.) If you are going to publish claims, you accept the risk of having those claims analysed, criticized, and rebutted.

"1:100" is a 21st marketing gimmick. It means one thing, and one thing only: for every X copies of regular book Y you order, you'll get 1 copy of the variant. Other than that, those numbers literally have absolutely no meaning. They DO NOT stand for "print run", or anything related to print run, either absolutely, or relative to Direct copies, or relative to the regular versions. They mean one thing, and one thing only: how many copies of the regular book a retailer needs to order to receive one copy of the variant. That's it. I understand...oh, do I understand...how tempting it is to take those numbers and extrapolate all sorts of meaning out of them. It happens on comics sites all over the internet. However...those doing so either don't know what they're talking about, or they're purposely misleading others to sell things. You could literally say "1:π", or "1:928,192,119" or "1:A² + B² = C²", and they would...literally, now...have just as much meaning to understanding the relationship between Direct books and newsstands of the era as "1:100." In other words: none. I daresay there are quite a number of people who post here...10 or more...who know more about comics than Chuck. With specific regard to Spawn #1...as I said in the other thread, suggesting that there were only 15,000...or 17,500, or 25,000, or whatever number short of 200-300k that someone wants to invent...demonstrates a lack of understanding of the comics market in May of 1992, when this book was published. Also, Spawn #1 B&W was NOT a "1:50" variant, because there was no "regular version" for that "1:50" to be attached to, and, in 1997, that concept didn't yet exist in comics, and, despite the claims of the under-educated, wouldn't exist for perhaps another 7-8 years. And there were more than 3-4k Spawn #1 B&Ws printed. How do I know? Because I worked for Greg Buls in the spring and summer of 1999 in Mesa, AZ, and he was buying these by the handful bundle from Todd's office (which, as many will know, is in Phoenix.)

Thought this was a neat picture:

Well...the definition of "premium" aside, if you take out Spawn, you end up with about 40 listings. For a book to be "worth it" to list, it needs to sell for about $10 BEFORE S&H...maybe $9, but now you're working for less than minimum wage. That's not a "premium", when you're dealing with individual books. When you consider that, you're now down to, as of this moment, precisely six (6) listings for raw books, and two slabs. Working for minimum wage or less...while fun...doesn't really inspire the effort to search. The Spawn #1 sales, however, will. We should see more show up shortly.

Also, that's a Direct market copy, not a "Whitman" (though Whitman was the DM's biggest customer in that period.)

Sigh. Chuck (and the seller) are making things up. Chuck's number isn't meant to be precise; it's hyperbole to demonstrate the point. And this new snake-oil "selling technique" of calling newsstand Image books "1:100 rarity" is total nonsense. Nobody but Image, perhaps Malibu, and perhaps Curtis (the newsstand distributor) knows how many newsstand copies they made. But do you know what we know for certainty...? Image did not print only 1 copy of the newsstand for every 100 copies of the regular edition. That's not how the newsstand has ever worked. Newsstand copies...yes, even with Image...were returnable; it was in Image's interests at the time to print much more than they thought they could sell, because that's how the newsstand has worked since the 30's. Consider: the "official report" of Spawn #1 is that there were 1.75-2.5 million copies printed. That would mean that Image printed "only 17,500-25,000" copies of the newsstand version. Think about that. Spawn #1. 1992. The absolute height of Todd and Image mania. 17k-25k...? For distribution throughout the entire North American newsstand market...? Dream the hell on. That number isn't less than 200-300k copies. And, sure, while a good number will have been returned and destroyed, a substantial number would have been saved. YES, Image newsstands are harder to find than their Direct counterparts. YES, they weren't saved in as great numbers. YES, they tend to be in much lower condition, generally. But NO, they are NOT RARE, in any real sense of that word, even relatively. They are rarER, but "rare"? 1%? 1:100? Not hardly. The reason they're tough to find is that there isn't a premium for them that would inspire people to do a general hunt for them. They've existed under the radar for so very many years...but they certainly exist. I bought multiple copies from Chuck in 2012-2013 or so...and not for a premium. Chuck probably has 10-50 copies of all of the Image newsstands from 1992-1994, and 1-3 of each after that. As well, this article...one of several I have found by this "Benjamin Nobel" person containing errors and unsupportable "conclusions"...perpetuates the same mistake. I wish these folks would stop writing error, but hey, that's the internet for you. Don't fall for it, people. It's baloney, meant to fool you into purchasing something.

First you take the pudding, then you open the pudding, then you take the quaalude, then you take the pill and you put it in the pudding, then you give the pudding to the pretty girl, then you forget about the pudding....

The competition's message board is run by people who do not think critically, and moderate based on emotion, rather than reason. They are not professional, and have proven themselves to be woefully unequipped to handle the responsibilities of what they've taken on. That's probably the worst, most insulting thing I could ever say about anybody, anywhere, at any time.

I love that movie so much. So much. You're missed, Mr. Hughes.

(insert non-adult, gender-non-determinate human person yelling something at the camera which, for politically correct reasons, I cannot describe in further detail.) Besides, I'm not much of a fan of ceviche anyways, whether you make it or not. Indeed. Something else this thread has been useful in illuminating: if you're going to go out of your way to denigrate people online, fairly or not, you best run an airtight ship yourself, no...? Karma isn't just a place to look up your credit.