RockMyAmadeus

You CANNOT continue to make things up about others and state it as if it is fact, especially in the face of those people directly contradicting your claims about them. Chuck has said, on numerous times, that he is very pro-variant. I sat in his presence while he ordered multiples of them, as mentioned earlier. You CANNOT continue to do this. At some point, moderation WILL wake up to it, and you WILL have to deal with the fallout if you continue this type of subversive "argumentation" to discredit not ideas, but the people behind those ideas. It may work with much of the idjit masses, but it won't work forever. Someday, someone will wake up to it. Eventually, moderation is going to wake up to your BEYOND demeaning and disrespectful, but certainly subtle, abuse of the language, like "he claims he was able to order" (emphasis added.) I was an EYE WITNESS to that event. I watched it happen AS IT HAPPENED. No need for you to say he "claims" it happened, as if to introduce doubt about it and Chuck. So enough of your abuse of the language. Totally, completely, utterly irrelevant. The point has NEVER BEEN "publishers "overprint" incentive variants for EVENTS." The point is simply that they "overprint" (that is, they print exactly to THEIR ORDER) incentive variants. The reasons why aren't. at. all. relevant. for. this. discussion. The point simply is that they DO, which is what you have argued against from the beginning, because you don't know what you're talking about. And what does "unclaimed" overages even mean...? Once more: publishers know EXACTLY how many copies of an incentive they need to print at the time it is printed to cover qualifying ORDERS for incentive variants (not just the regular copies, here.) That's WHY there's an FOC. Therefore, there's no such thing as an "unclaimed" incentive variant. What there IS, however, is MORE incentive variants printed than are needed fulfill qualifying orders. Why? Because they print them that way. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, what a wonderful world this would be. You don't know. No one knows but Diamond and the publishers, and they aren't talking. You're guessing, but what's far worse, you're guessing to fit your conclusion, rather than letting your conclusion be open to the information. Straw man. No one said anything about "wildly and deliberately over print(ing) books that no one ordered." No one is "conspiracy theorizing" except you. It is not a "conspiracy" if there's nothing being lied about, That is YOUR (mis)characterization, not anyone else's. Publishers print what they want, for whatever reasons they want, which reasons are not made public. That anyone would argue against this is pretty mindboggling. "Extreme", "massive", "wildly", "conspiracy"....do you ever notice how laden your posts are with hyperbole...? Here, let's try a trick from your bag: That's right, Comichron does have nothing to do with incentive (ratio) variants. None of what you just said refuted anything anyone has said, so...yes, you, Jaydogrules, are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Hey! What the hell has this entire thread been...?

Comichron doesn't adjust anything, which you would know if you ever had the slightest clue what you were talking about. That sure is a huge "if," isn't it? But thanks for proving (once again) that you don't understand the Comichron numbers at all. Comichron does adjust numbers down for books that are returnable. I think they knock off about 10% off No, Comichron does not adjust anything. Diamond adjusts the numbers. Well, at least Jaydogrules can take solace in the fact that he isn't the only one who doesn't understand the Comichron numbers. Actually , you're the one who got it wrong. You would have been better off simply saying nothing further on the topic. But nice attempt to save face by trying to split hairs on a point that everyone else has already agreed is moot to this thread anyway. -J. There was no attempt to "save face", nor was there any necessary. It was obvious by the fact that the word "Comichron" was italicized what he was referring to. Details, Jay. You've gotten 5, 6, 7, 10, 20 details wrong, just in this single conversation, and you just brush them off and ignore them like it's no big deal. But is it...? When you're attempting to make estimates, details are critical to arriving at reasonable conclusions. Getting even tiny details wrong can mean your final conclusion is essentially worthless. It is important to know where these numbers come from, and what they represent. These numbers DO NOT come from Comichron. They come from Diamond. Details. They matter. Of course, you've claimed in the past that lazyboy and I are the same person, which betrays a lack of understanding about how these boards work, and we're demonstrably not, so maybe that's what you think is going on here: logging out of one account to "support" another.

How long do you think this takes to type up...? 10 minutes or so. About the amount of time RMA has to wait while a comic is being pressed. RMA, are you now doing comics and comic related stuff full time? I've been doing comics and comic related stuff full time since 2007.

Hello. My name is RMA. Ok, that's not really my name, but it's good enough.

Yes. The difference is: nothing. Because here's another cold, hard, disillusioning FACT for you: "what other knowledgeable boardies repeatedly state" IS...NOT...PROOF. That's not "fact gathering" at all. It's "opinion gathering." PROOF. IS. PROOF. On the record, documented, by sources that KNOW, not sources that GUESS. See how that works...? Because, you know what people are trying to support when they use words like "knowledgable" and other weasel words...? That's right: their opinion. I don't need "knowledgeable boardies" to come along and agree with me that 2 + 2 = 4, because that's a fact, established by the definitions of those terms. But when you need to conjure up "knowledgeable boardies" to support what you're saying...it's because what you're saying is just opinion. "preconceived and obviously prejudiced conclusion"...Jay, is it possible...I mean, like, at ALL...for you to disagree with someone without making leading comments like this...? Other people aren't sitting here and repeating ad nauseum that you have some sort of hidden agenda in every post. Do you know what a "leading comment" is...? (not a trick question, I'm asking if you know.) In any event, it's really tiresome, and I do so much wish you'd cut it out. And while you're at it, would you PLEASE stop saying things like "this is my last post on the subject" or "this is my last post in this thread" or anything like that, followed by 27 more posts by you....? Do or don't, just stop saying you'll stop when you won't.

You're going to have to decipher that, because it doesn't say anything about the "case pack for the variant is going to be the same 225 per case." Paul also says they will "print an even case number no matter what", but Paul doesn't work for Marvel's circulation dept. does he? And Paul says these are his estimates, but what are they based on? I notice he ALSO brings up the Comichron SALES number and IN ERROR calls it the "print number." That IS NOT CORRECT. That number is NOT A PRINT NUMBER. How many times does this need to be said...? 100? 500? 10,000? How many times before people get it through their heads that Comichron DOES NOT REPORT PRINT RUNS, but SALES FIGURES for all comics distributed through Diamond....? So, if Paul ERRONEOUSLY calls Comichron's number for ASM #667 a "print number"...what else has he gotten wrong...? Paul is making the same error you and countless others who don't know what they're doing are: you think you can apply the ORDERING ratio to the SALES figures to come up with a PRINT run! That's not how it works. And look at the "WARNING"..."You may order 1 variant for every 100 regular you purchase." Why does the variant solicitation say "case pack" followed by "1" right below it...? Here's some info for you, Jay: citing other people's opinions isn't documentation. It isn't proof. It's just other people's opinions. And just because other people say the same thing as you doesn't mean it's proven. Citing other people's "estimates" is not proof. 10,000 people could agree with you, and just because 10,000 people agree with you doesn't mean it's been proven. You need PROOF for that.

Actually the majority of his first post is his opinion. Especially the second half where he says people "can't" or "shouldn't" estimate whatever the hell they want to estimate however the hell they want to do it. All that is his opinion. This thread is his forum for expressing it. He was free to start it for that purpose. No need to rehash all that though. And I am sorry to hear about your employment situation. Hope things turn around soon. Go Canucks. -J. You get really upset at the idea that anyone can "tell you what to do", don't you...? Anyone tries to say anything you *think* is telling you what to do, you get upset and start typing "opinion, opinion, OPINNNNIONNNN!!!" Regardless, that's not what I said. I said they shouldn't IF they want to make educated, reasonable guesses. If people want to estimate the incentive variants based on the wrinkles in Stan Lee's face, they're free to do so, but it's no more accurate than using the ratios and Comichron, and it won't (and shouldn't) be taken seriously.

What does that mean, "grossly overprint", as it relates to specific issues...? Yes, no one wants to "grossly overprint", but what does that mean, when we have no idea how many they print, and why? Is it "grossly overprinting" if they only need 437 copies to fulfill orders, but they print 2000 copies? If that's what they decided, by definition, they didn't "grossly overprint"...they printed exactly what they wanted to print, which is always the case. These aren't regular books we're discussing, after all.

So, that takes care of "WoWitHurts."

How long do you think this takes to type up...? 10 minutes or so.

I just read through the entire thread and never once did Chuck Gower say Marvel prints to the nearest case. what he did say was: Nothing about cases whatsoever. But evidence that Marvel has a PR stance they don't follow. Unfortunately I don't have the time to read through all the other threads. Interesting discussion. Then you didn't read closely enough: But, yeah, they're probably just lying. -J. Chuck clearly says that it is a PR stance after Marvel was exposed for doing the very thing you're claiming they don't do, in the very recent past...which is "overprint just for the heck of it." He didn't say "yes, this is documentation that proves Marvel prints to the "case pack." He said it was what they CLAIMED. Yes, they probably are just lying. You DO KNOW what "PR" means, right...?

If you go to a craft store like Michael's or Hobby Lobby they have styrofoam head molds there. You can put your V for Vendetta Guy Fawkes mask on it and it will display better. http://www.michaels.com/floracraft-male-foam-head/10477859.html#q=head&start=3 Is that how you store all your Cher wigs...?

Alright, now, there's plenty of other threads to derail....

so true Let's keep things professional, shall we...?

Document it, Jay. Just supply the documentation. Which books? Regular books? Retailer incentives? Document it. Prove it. Who are these multiple Diamond account holding "boardies"? Let them speak for themselves. Am I saying you're wrong? Nope. I'm saying you need to document it. I'm not going to take YOUR word for it, Jay. Time to show some actual proof. Who? Who are these multiple "boardies"..? What multiple occasions...? Link them. Do publishers have "tight margins"? Of course they do. Do publishers print overages for spoilage? Of course they do. That is not...in...dispute. What IS in dispute are YOUR claims. What IS in dispute is YOUR contention that since publishers "print to the nearest case", that must apply to every book they print, including incentives. What IS in dispute is YOUR contention that since publishers "overprint for spoilage" that that MUST account for the incentives disposed of after the fact. What IS in dispute is your contention that, since publishers have "tight margins" that they print incentives SOLELY according to what's ordered, when we know that isn't the case. So...document what you've said. Prove it. Not links of YOU saying this. I want links of OTHER PEOPLE saying this. Because what you're saying is wrong? Not necessarily. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But you have a terrible habit of making things up and attributing them to others to "support" your arguments, so I need documentation. And you keep saying things that are contrary to fact and history. 1. Publishers that sell through the newsstand have, since the beginning of comics, routinely overprinted books. That's called "publishing." They print far more than they think they'll need, and hope for a sell-through of 30-50%. Publishers that sell through the newsstand today (DC, etc) STILL DO THIS. 2. No one said publishers print "just for the heck of it." That is YOUR (mis)characterization, not anyone else's. Publishers print what THEY THINK they need. We don't know what THEY THINK they need. That is up TO THEM. Stop repeating things that you invent as if others said them. It's dishonest and fraudulent. Just document it, Jay. Not opinions from others, actual documentation. And no, I don't have to prove what "we don't know", because WE DON'T KNOW. That is a logical fallacy. If we don't know it, how do I PROVE that...? Wrong again. You can't make up hyperbole and then attribute that to other people. It's a logical fallacy. No one said anything about "needlessly over printed." And...one more time: publishers sell (almost) ALL their books for "under cover price." Yes, you keep repeating that..."reasonable" estimates...because, as everyone knows, the key to successful propaganda is to keep repeating something that isn't true as if it IS true, and it will eventually be believed by most of the people. There's nothing "reasonable" about using the ORDERING ratios applied to a SALES estimate to extrapolate a PRINT run. It's manifestly ridiculous. "Typical publishing standards" means nothing. It's a buzz phrase you use to shore up support. The publicly available data is sales estimates in North America and the ordering ratios. If they are not incentive variants, they are Not. Relevant. To. The. Discussion. We are only talking about incentive variants, here. If they aren't incentive variants, they're not relevant to this discussion. Not ignored. Not forgotten. Just not relevant. Do you know what "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" means....? Condescending, much? I only point it out because you complained about it. I don't particularly care, but if you're going to do that which you complain about, what does that make you again....? Hey, look, more fraudulent assertions! How surprising! What does "how many people you are corrected" mean? Details. Yes, Jay, and I will hopefully be there each time you continue to misrepresent the discussion for your own agenda to counter it.

Q&W #21 and 32 are both exceptionally rare, along the lines of Armorines #4. I wonder if they're finally going to get their due...?

Yes, he's done that before, which is a very bad way to measure extant copies. We should revisit the ASM #301 discussion; it's been two years already. Wonder of wonders, the census never "exploded", as predicted.

Yes, because as everyone knows, when you don't have the goods, you attempt to shift the burden of proof elsewhere. However, since you asked, I'll repeat them: 1. The ratios attached to these incentives are for ordering purposes only. They are not, and have never been represented as, anything beyond that. A retailer orders X amount of copies of the regular book, and they will receive/can purchase one copy of the incentive. The retailer orders 2X amount of copies, they will receive/can purchase two (2) copies of the incentive, and so on. Those numbers mean absolutely nothing beyond that. Neither the publishers nor Diamond have ever represented those numbers as anything other than what they are: an ordering program. That is a fact, jay, it is PROOF of my claim...you know, what you keep trying to pretend doesn't exist? 2. The publishers routinely (not occasionally) print more of the incentives than is necessary to fulfill orders. We know this because they sell them/distribute them later. They know exactly how many they need to fulfill the incentive orders. And yet, they print more than they need on a routine basis. Again...That is a fact, jay, it is PROOF of my claim...you know, what you keep trying to pretend doesn't exist? 3. Comichron, as it clearly states, is an estimate, based on Diamond's reports, of sales in North America of EVERY version of that book. It is NOT "print run data", and doesn't claim to be. Again....That is a fact, jay, it is PROOF of my claim...you know, what you keep trying to pretend doesn't exist? Conclusion: since we know that the ratios are ORDERING numbers, and since we know the publishers have stated that, and nothing more than that, and since the ABSENCE of evidence is NOT evidence of ABSENCE, we know that it's not possible to use the ratios, apply them to Comichron numbers, and get anything approaching reality. Facts, Jay. Proof. So you have said over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, without bothering to actually prove how. Well, mainly because a ratio is not, by mathematical observation, capable of being a print run number. That's fairly self-evident. I see where your confusion is, though. You're repeating something I never said. Some cute soul CHANGED the title to what is NOT, because they thought they were being clever. That's the problem you have, Jay: you're far too sloppy and loose with information. You don't see the contradiction in your question, you don't see that the statement was changed from the original, and you don't recognize something as simple as a mathematical impossibility staring you in the face. Nitpicky? Maybe. But it highlights your complete disregard for solid, factual information. The details just don't matter to you. Nowhere. That's the point. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No. That's the point. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No. That's the point. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Are you getting it yet....? That's the point. We know what the ratios ARE: ordering numbers. We know that because that's what the publishers have stated, to all: "order this many of the regular, and we'll give you/you can purchase a copy of the incentive." That's what they've said. Beyond that...? We know nothing. You don't know anything. I don't know anything. That's. The. Point. The problem comes when you and others try to then use those numbers and apply them to other numbers, to come up with a number that has no bearing on any of the other numbers. COULD the publishers be "closely mirroring" the ratios? For some, they could be. Which ones...? You don't know. No one knows except the publisher. But we DO know that, for SOME, they certainly ARE NOT "closely mirroring" the ratios, because they have been available in numbers that EXCEED the "incentive maximum", that EXCEED the "rounding off to the nearest case pack" (redundancy there), that EXCEED "overage in case of spoilage." Of course, all of this is rendered moot by the very, very simple fact that "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That's correct, as any rational, sane human being must do, because...watch me now...The. Absence. Of. Evidence. Is. Not. Evidence. Of. Absence. Publishers "constantly print product that retailers haven't ordered." It happens every day, all the time. Because your assumption is demonstrably, provably, evidentially flawed from the outset. You are trying to use numbers to go with other numbers to come up with even more numbers that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. That's why. Scroll up. You'll see plenty of proof for what I've said, right here. This entire thread is filled with proof. You, on the other hand, are very good at making accusations, but are completely unwilling to provide anything at all to support those accusations. Well, there's your problem right there! If you fail to recognize proof, and call it merely "disguised opinion", then you've just fulfilled your own prophecy! You will NEVER see proof, because you CANNOT see it. If it contradicts what you believe, you simply wave your hand and dismiss it as "opinion." I only condescend, Jay, to those who are condescending. If you don't want to be condescended to, stop condescending. It's very, very simple. Yes, another Jaydogrules Invention™ (patent pending)

How cute. Some clever soul has changed the title of the thread to something that isn't the point. Brava! Fixed.

Wrong. The publisher and printer know. That information is not released publicly. You can't make things up that I never said, and then claim I said them, much less "endlessly." That is dishonest and fraudulent. No. Comichron gives this: "Estimated Comics Sold to North American Comics Shops as Reported by Diamond Comic Distributors." "Ordered by" and "Sold to" aren't necessarily the same thing, though they usually are. What does "industry accepted" mean...? They're just the numbers that Diamond gives to Comichron. Since Diamond is the only distributor for Direct market comic books, the "industry" doesn't really have a choice, does it...? And who is this "industry" that is going around "accepting" things...? Those are just weasel words you use to trick people into thinking your point has more merit than it does, like "many people agree..." and so on. Yes, and not only that, but a nearly precise idea of how many they will need to print. Note: that word is "need" not "want." True, and no one, in the entire course of this entire, multi-year conversation, has ever claimed otherwise, so it would be realllllllllllllllly nice if you would stop saying that is if someone was. But they ARE relevant to your debunked claim that publishers "aren't in the habit of printing books that nobody ordered." They've done it for decades, and probably will continue doing so. That's bad, no, terrible logic. The FOC is in place to tell publishers how much they need to fulfill orders. If a publisher wants to print more than they need, that doesn't "utterly defeat the entire purpose and function of the FOC." That's absurd. Stop. Using. Qualified. Terms. Like. "Very." If you refuse to QUANTIFY (that is, use actual numbers and other data) your arguments so you won't get "pinned down" later when those arguments are disproven, then your arguments don't have much merit to start with. What does "very limited" mean to you? 10 copies available? 25? 50? 100? 200? What if Diamond had 668 copies available...? Is that "very limited" to you...? If they're NOT ratio variants, they have no bearing on this discussion. Again with the BS "conspiracy" claims. WHAT conspiracy? One more time: if the publishers make NO CLAIMS as to how many incentives they print....AND THEY DO NOT...then they cannot be LYING about those non-existent claims, can they? There is no "conspiracy", vast, tiny, or other. See how that works...? Wrong. Those ratios are only for purposes of ordering. They have no relevance to the sales numbers reported at Comichron. None. They only tell retailers how many of the regular edition they must order to receive/purchase a single copy of the incentive. Period. Therefore, trying to use them to "estimate from estimates" is fatally flawed from the outset. They have no bearing on the numbers at Comichron, and never have. And your "rounded up to the nearest case pack" meme is just more speculation on your part. Diamond ships out partial cases all the time. There's no reason a printer can't, either. Maybe they do...maybe they don't. But until and if you get documented evidence (NOT "my friend has a cousin whose mother's uncle's half-sister from Hoboken once worked at a printer in the 40's, so that info's solid as far as I'm concerned" claims), then your "rounded to the nearest case pack...which ITSELF is NOT a consistent number...is it 150? 200? 250? 225? 300?...then I'll keep pointing out that fiction. Wrong. You're trying to estimate using numbers that have no meaning for what you're trying to do. "1:25" has nothing whatsoever to do with the print runs of anything, much less the SALES of anything. "1:25" (and all the other ratios) is ORDERING information, and has no meaning beyond that. None. It's like trying to estimate the height of a mountain using the size of a pebble you found on the ground and a ruler. After all, it's all rocks, right...? And I've explained why your "opinion" is void of facts, relying on faulty premises and misunderstandings, trying to apply those misunderstandings to estimates of estimates of estimates, to get....mud. You may be entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

And this is an additional variable we can't account for. If they print 8000 books and have a 1:10 incentive, we have no idea how many stores buy the needed 10 copies or the 100 copies. It is possible only 100 stores purchased 10 copies and nobody purchased 100 copies. Which by the ratio means only 100 of the 1:10 were put into circulation and 0 of the 1:100. This would lead to a perception of rarity since only 100 variants were released, but released is the key word. We have no idea how many were actually printed. The comic company may have anticipated that enough stores would order at least 10 copies to justify 800 copies and they printed 800, but there is no way to know. So now we have 700 books in existence that we have no way to know about or account for. What you're saying is accurate, but you're still looking at the overall issue incorrectly. You're speaking in terms of the print runs of the regular books, and that's just not how it has ever worked. Those ratios, those numbers, are for ordering purposes only. Beyond that, they mean nothing. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the print runs of the regular copies. They aren't related to those print runs in any way. Trying to apply those ratios to the print runs of the regular books ("if they print 8000 books...") is an error from the get go. So, not only is it an additional variable we can't account for, it's a variable that doesn't even exist, because those ratios have nothing to do with print runs. But it does highlight the persistence of the misunderstanding.

And this is an additional variable we can't account for. If they print 8000 books and have a 1:10 incentive, we have no idea how many stores buy the needed 10 copies or the 100 copies. It is possible only 100 stores purchased 10 copies and nobody purchased 100 copies. Which by the ratio means only 100 of the 1:10 were put into circulation and 0 of the 1:100. This would lead to a perception of rarity since only 100 variants were released, but released is the key word. We have no idea how many were actually printed. The comic company may have anticipated that enough stores would order at least 10 copies to justify 800 copies and they printed 800, but there is no way to know. So now we have 700 books in existence that we have no way to know about or account for. Exactly. You hit on the salient point in the middle of your post. It could be summed up as: Words. Words. We have no idea how many were actually printed. More words. Words. I would change it to say "We have no idea how many were actually printed and, more importantly, we cannot know, with the information we have available, so making estimates based on irrelevant data is useless at best, and foolish and misleading at worst."

No. You're muddying the waters and looking at it backwards. Understand what I'm saying. The ratios are EXACTLY how they are distributed. Again: for every X copies of the regular book you, the retailer, order, you will get/be able to order (that is, it will be distributed to you) ONE (1) copy of the incentive. There's nothing potential about it. If, say, 437 retailers make 879 qualifying orders for a 1:25 incentive and order that incentive (which information isn't available to the public), then 879 copies of that incentive WILL BE distributed to those retailers. It has nothing to do with what you're saying. Incentive books aren't distributed based on the print runs of the regular books. They have nothing to do with the print runs of the regular books. They're distributed based on what is actually ordered, according to the ratio offered. The ratios have nothing whatsoever to do with the print runs of any books, ever, which is your error here. We're not talking about the distribution of anything except the incentive copies according to their ratios. Everything else is a completely separate discussion.