RockMyAmadeus

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with profiting on books heating up. You didn't understand what I said. Let me say it again: ...or is this thread ABOUT deceiving others for profit, in which case, you would be correct...?

I don't see why being a variant matters if it is heating up. But the market has chosen many times, a book that has the desired artwork, with he lowest print/distribution run usually wins. Absolutely, which is why I said "so to speak" and "not that there's anything wrong with that." Oh, so tempting to lecture...must...resist... GAH! "Garbage"? You think understanding the dynamics of the market, in ALL its aspects, is "garbage", especially that which has direct bearing on supply/demand? Really...? If what I have to say bothers you, there's an ignore function so that you don't have to see what I say. I recommend it. Even though it's imperfect, it is a handy solution to not have to deal with those you don't wish to deal with. I use it, and it really clears up the clutter.

I don't see why being a variant matters if it is heating up. But the market has chosen many times, a book that has the desired artwork, with he lowest print/distribution run usually wins. (Now I don't need an education print/distribution, we already covered that garbage on the last few pages.) Show me a regular cover that is heating up, and get it posted rather than being so down on the hobby with the woe is me, the end is nigh, et tu brute . It's getting old. I don't ever find what RMA says as being down on the hobby. I find his words the words of a realist with a great deal of experience. Personally I feel more people should listen and learn rather than hyping the days away. What a lot of folks don't understand is that being honest about the hobby is about as "up" as one can get. It's contrary to human nature, but it remains true. When the hobby is built on sober, level-headed understanding, then people make wise decisions with their money, and they then tend to stay in it. Those who get burned by hype...don't. People staying in the hobby is what gives it its foundation, and drives the long term success of the "industry" part of the hobby. Me? I don't care either way. A mass exodus from comics? Great, I can buy what I want for far cheaper, like what happened in the late 90's. NM/M Starlin Warlocks for $3, when they were "$40" in the OPG not 10 years earlier...? I'll take it! A mass influx of buyers? Great, I can sell what I have for a lot more and then buy what I want. It's win/win for me, either way. My agenda is unsullied. What does damage, though, is instability, and people getting burned (that is, HURT and DAMAGED) by hype. That is what I care about, and because I am UP, not DOWN, about comics, I want to avoid that as much as possible. I love comics, and most everything about them, including (especially) variants. I've been compiling a book about them for the last 15 years or so. (when the Pedigree book is published...) And, more importantly, I want everyone ELSE to love them, too, not fall prey to hucksters and hypesters and people who deceive others for profit. /lecture

That's purdy!

Why are you yelling?

My question for everyone is...has this thread simply morphed into the "variants that are heating up on eBay thread"...? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it seems to be, itself, a bit "off-topic", so to speak...

Knock it off!! This is the 'lets argue for days and post reams of dialogue that only 3 people will actually read' thread. Et tu, cd4ever...?

I'm RICH!!

They won't tell you. Or do you think I haven't asked...?

Where was this? Yeah maybe I'll take the time to find where I read that and maybe I won't. In the meantime feel free to tell us where you have read all the things which you constantly go on about. Wait, I'm pretty sure you actually agreed with me already a while back that marvel prints up to the nearest case. Or are you now disagreeing just for the sake of doing so? -J. You've been caught in a lie. You said previously you got this information from a 'retailer' you knew. Marvel NEVER released any specific information on how they print variants. There's nothing for you to look up. If there WAS, those of us who just want the truth would be aware of it. Those trying to manipulate the market (YOU) would have posted it everywhere. You've been caught in a lie. Nice try. Grow up man. I didn't "lie" about anything. And what market am I trying to "manipulate". Your hatred for variants is well documented at this point as is your disdain for the fact that you feel "pressured" to order enough books to keep up with the big boy retailers and qualify for incentives. So if anyone is trying to "manipulate" anything it is you my man. I'm just a collector I've never sold a book in my life. Maybe you should consider a new line of work yourself. -J. If a collector is buying books for their own personal collection and does not sell books. I don't see how that person can be accused of trying to "manipulate" the market. How do you know Jay doesn't sell his books? Or trade them? You're just taking his word for it? How do you know what his motives are?

If you don't want "arguments", take a stand and speak out against those who post misinformation, for who knows what reason. Because it's not "he said, she said", but if you think it is, you're part of the problem. People should be free to make decisions based on accurate information. Misinformation, especially deliberate misinformation, hurts people.

This has been exhaustively discussed before, but the Statements of Ownership and the Diamond numbers are in conflict. Example: That's the Statement of Ownership printed in New X-Men #121, cover date 2/02. Notice section G: "Total distribution"...for the issue nearest the filing date is 169,743 copies. Now what are Diamond's numbers for that issue? Well, we don't know precisely which issue that is, BUT....we know it's one of the four issues between #116-119, probably later rather than sooner. So what are the Diamond numbers for those issues? #116 - 136,249 #117 - 136,929 #118 - 127,670 #119 - 124,281 Do you see the discrepancy? Marvel reported, by USPS regulation, that ONE of those issues...#116-#119, probably #118...had an actual distribution of 169,743 copies. That number is 30,000-45,000 copies HIGHER than Diamond's numbers. That's not a statistically insignificant number. Now, of course, the majority of that were newsstand copies, and the rest are almost certainly UK copies....and remember, there were 224,200 copies actually printed, and there have been shenanigans with newsstand returns since the beginning. But let's say the 169k figure is totally accurate. That means "the closest to written in stone" numbers aren't really all that close after all, and doesn't really tell us much of anything for how many copies were actually put into the hands of the public. So yes, we do know that "that's not how print runs are counted", factually. Yes, granted, that information is from 15 years ago...and yes, Marvel no longer publishes newsstand books....but if anything, we know LESS about actual print runs than we did back then, because there aren't any Statements of Ownership any more. But it's a safe bet that Diamond's numbers, as reported by Comichron, aren't to be taken as hard fact as to what was actually printed, and what actually exists....ESPECIALLY since Marvel doesn't release variant print run information at all. We will likely never know how many copies of Original Sin 1:50 were printed, and trying to extrapolate through Diamond's numbers is an exercise in futility.

No you don't. You promised "new research" and "new information" about the Dell'Otto #667 ASM, and when you finally produced it, it was just collation of various information that had already been posted on the board in various threads. There was not a stitch of "new research" or "new information" in your post, none whatsoever, but that didn't stop some people from eating it up and giving you praise for your "hard work and fine efforts", which is to be expected from those who are allergic to discernment and critical thinking. You just make things up, and then insult people who challenge what you say, making wholly baseless accusations of "trolling" and "multiple accounts." I mean, come on, Jay, you're only fooling the people who want to be fooled.

Ooo, wouldn't that be cool, if they could actually tell me... But why do you think they "get pulped"...?

Here's your basic problem in this discussion: you're confusing LACK OF information with MISinformation. There's a very important distinction between those two, and as a result, you're accusing me of being a hypocrite simply for not being precise, even though such precision is impossible in this case, and not even necessary. Or, as you put it: That's really silly. Estimating is not misinforming. Misinforming is when the information is simply inaccurate, like saying "there are five moons orbiting the planet earth." Meanwhile, there are about 100 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. That's an approximation, because we do not yet have the ability to count them all one by one. We may never have that ability. so we estimate. An estimate isn't necessarily wrong just by virtue of being an estimate. However...there are reasonable, educated estimates, based on reliable information, and pure guesses based on faulty premises. Estimates can, in fact, be based on "solid, factual information", and be very good, while still remaining estimates. Estimating the print runs AND extant copies of 1980's and 1990's standard comic books can be done reasonably, and educated guesses can be made, based on the factors I already stated, and others. Estimating the print runs and extant copies of retailer incentive variants from the last 15 years on the other hand, and basing those estimations on the faulty premise that the numbers contained at Comichron are print runs is not acceptable, because it starts with that flawed premise. We can't know for sure, but...we have a fair IDEA of what exists, because of the nature of the comics hobby by 1988, and how it proceeded from there. By 1988, most comics sales were being sold to people who generally kept them. They weren't being thrown away en masse, like they were up until the mid-60's or so. Most people...say (and this is an estimate, now, based on availability on the market, CGC, market reports, and yes, even experience) 75-90% of all comics printed in 1988 still exist. That is NOT TRUE of certain later books like, for example, the Maxx Aschans, which were almost certainly tossed, along with boxes and boxes of other unsold variants of the period, by Image and retailers in the late 90's. Certain books like that were decimated, because they were...follow me, here...niche variant books that often did not reach any end user customers, but were stored for handing out to fans who wrote letters, or at cons, or as some other special this or that...until they ended up stuck with unsellable stock that no one wanted by 1999 or so. I bought 600 copies...yes, 600...of Brigade #1 Gold from Steve Schanes (of Pacific Comics publishing fame) in 2000 for 55 cents each. Also 550 Supreme #1 Golds, 500 Youngblood #0 Golds, and 500 Youngblood Strikefile #1 Golds. I still have them. All of them.. In the ensuing 16 years, I've managed to unload not a single copy on anyone, for any price. If I were to suddenly croak, what do you think would happen to those copies? Yet, that's 10% or more of the "supposed" print runs of these niche "incentive" books. Another example: Spiderman #1 Platinum. Marvel had at least 3,000 copies of the purported 10,000 copy run still in their possession by 2005-ish, when Todd McDevitt of New Dimension bought them out. I'm pretty sure it was ND, maybe it was Neatstuff? In any event, one of those guys bought out THOUSANDS of remaining copies, FIFTEEN YEARS after they were printed. That's because variants and incentives operate differently in the market from regular books that are distributed through regular channels, and generally always have. Context, context, context. If you're going to take things out of their context, you're going to get these types of explanations, to put them back IN context So, if you want to compare the estimation of print runs for standard comics from the 80's and 90's, for which we have much more substantial numbers for the actual books with which to work, vs. the estimation of print runs for retailer incentives that have essentially NO numbers with which to work, feel free. Just know that that comparison is a very bad one. Like I said...there's a substantial difference between estimation and misinformation, which difference you don't seem to understand.

As said...if you have anything that anyone is inaccurate about, by all means, please share it. We all benefit when we all have and use accurate information.

Are you trying to compare estimating print runs of standard comics books from the early 1990's with estimating print runs of retailer incentive variants of the 21st century...? Really...? 1. I'm pretty sure you don't mean extant. "Extant" means "still existing." "Print run" and "extant" are two (usually) completely different numbers. We can't know, with very, very few exceptions, the extant number of copies of any comics printed in the last 100 years, because once they're in the wild, all estimates are, at best, educated guesses. 2. We CAN estimate print numbers of standard comics of that era because we HAVE reasonable estimates: the Statements of Ownership plus the Capital City orders (think of those as a pre-cursor to Comichron's numbers... much rougher, granted, but combined with the SOO's, we get a good picture about what was made, and what was sold.) Do you understand that the Statements of Ownership are the ONLY complete record of individual print runs of individual comics that exist for most comics printed? And that even those aren't really complete? In other words, with those 1990's books, we often HAVE a place to start from: the total amount of copies printed. You cannot compare estimates about the print runs of standard comics from a time where we had more, and more accurate, information with 21st century incentive variants, whereby the publishers deliberately conceal those numbers to...VOILA!...sell them. Thanks for the advice, but I think I've got a fairly good handle on it, and I think my record in that regard speaks for itself. Of course, if I asked for examples of where you believe I have fallen short of "using solid factual information" myself, I suspect you, as most who make the claim, would be incapable of doing so. And that's really the difference, isn't it? If you have examples of my inaccuracy, don't be selfish...share them, so we ALL, you, me, everyone, can benefit from accurate information. Or, is your claim actually justified after all....? If I may offer some advice in return: learn to discern, and don't take everything you read at face value. It looks like you've been influenced by the endless barrage of misstatements and straw man theorizing from a few, rather than evaluating what everyone says based on what they actually say, and not what someone else says they are saying.

No. There's nothing to estimate from. When you estimate, you have to have some foundation to base the estimation on. With these books, there is none. The numbers upon which such "estimations" are based are, themselves, estimates. How valid are estimates of estimates? You've become pretty ridiculous in this crusade and just as unreasonable as those you fight against. Based upon the information we know, we CAN begin to "estimate" what the print run of a comic is. Nothing is 100% absolute in life. We all know that. Constantly repeating yourself ad nauseam reminding everyone of that is tiresome. You can't even get 50% "absolute" with print runs, because you don't know what they are. You have no way of knowing. The only thing you know for sure is what DIAMOND (who is, after all, in the business of SELLING COMIC BOOKS) reports to Comichron and others about what they sell to North American comic book shops. You're trying to guess the picture of a 1,000 piece puzzle, and you're missing half the pieces...but you call that "good enough." What was the total print run of the regular first print of, say, Wolverine #66...? Do you have any idea? Can you "estimate" something for which you don't even begin to have any reasonable information about (that is, the UK numbers, or the newsstand numbers)...? That's the problem. So, you can call it "ridiculous", and you can call it a "crusade", and you can be dismissive if you like, and call my "repeating it ad nauseam tiresome"...you're not the first, and won't be the last. It's what people do on the internet. I find the ad nauseam repetition and ad nauseam deliberate spread of MISinformation tiresome. So, who is the more ridiculous...? Those who deliberately repeat and spread misinformation, for whatever unstated agenda may exist, or those who fight that, to make sure people make decisions based on accurate information? What side are you really on, "lightinglad"...?

Correct, which is why no one has ever said this, or anything like this. You cannot invent things out of thin air, put them in the virtual mouths of others, and then argue against those statements as if they are actual positions claimed by actual people.

Other than printing overages to account for possible damaged copies and printing up to the nearest full case of 200-225, there isn't much difference between the two. Comichron doesn't account for UK sales, but realistically that would only add about another 10% or so to the number you see on comichron. Are there exceptions to this rule of thumb ? Of course, especially with big event books or "#1's". But again , those are the exception and not the norm. -J. all of this is nonsense Wanna bet? The view must be nice from that peanut gallery you live in. -J. I'd think the cover artists get some copies for themselves. Hmmm here's a thought, how many ASM 700 Ditko covers do you think Stan Lee got to sign, slab and sell? I'm sure he can get 100 copies of any variant that he wants Maybe? Like I said, event books or "#1's" would be the rare exception. And certainly whatever unaccounted/un-ordered printing overages may very well get handed out to employees or creators. But we would be talking copies in the dozens not in the hundreds, and not remotely in the thousands. -J. What about all those incentive variants found in the multi-packs at Five Below? How many of those were there Jay? Where did they come from? What about them ? Whatever minor printing overages there are on the occasional book can end up in one of those packs or in a Diamond variant sell off. As a percentage of variants that publishers print it is an absolutely infinitesimal amount. Infinitesimal. These are the rare exception and not the rule. And again, if you think publishers are deliberately over printing variants on a regular basis for the sole purpose of blowing them out for a fraction of cover price months or years later, you are loco in the coco. -J. Except in that instance you had a significant number of those variants reach five below stores. So no it isn't dozens of copies. You have no idea if the number is infinitesimal because you have no idea how it compares to whatever nonsense estimate you pulled off of manipulation of comichron numbers. Yes.

So why DO we know that the "ratio incentives" aren't actually printed according to order numbers, when we DON'T know how many the publishers actually print? Mainly because these incentive variants routinely (not "once in a blue moon", as some claim) are sold in special sales...and, indeed, in far, far higher numbers than can be accounted for by "just selling off the damages/returns overruns." If those books were "just printed to order", as is claimed, they ALL would have been distributed at the time the book came out, with only a slight handful...the "case" situation...left. So, we know what it's NOT...we just don't know what it IS.

True...which is why no one did. You cannot invent things out of thin air, put them in the virtual mouths of others, and then argue against those statements.

Other than printing overages to account for possible damaged copies and printing up to the nearest full case of 200-225, there isn't much difference between the two. Comichron doesn't account for UK sales, but realistically that would only add about another 10% or so to the number you see on comichron. Are there exceptions to this rule of thumb ? Of course, especially with big event books or "#1's". But again , those are the exception and not the norm. -J. How do you know?