RockMyAmadeus

Exactly. We just don't know, and don't have enough information to make even reasonable (though lots of reasonable-sounding) guesses.

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?

It means absolutely nothing like what you're saying here. Those are distribution numbers...that means, they are distributed, NOT PRINTED, based on how a particular retailer orders. It does not mean, and never, ever has meant, "well, the print run was 30,000, and this was a 1:15, so it must mean they only printed 2,000 of these." That conception is based on multiple faulty premises. How? 1. Those aren't print run numbers released by Comichron, and never have been. http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2015.html The operative words are "sold to", "North American Comics Shops", "reported by Diamond." There's nothing in there about "print run", for ANY book. In fact, outside of the Statements of Ownership, and various publicized variants (Venom #1 Gold, Ultimate Spiderman #1 DF, etc.) we don't have print run information for any Marvel comic. No, those numbers are comics sold to North American comic shops through Diamond, reported by Diamond. How many were printed for the UK, which obviously carries US comics...? We don't know. How many newsstand versions were printed, which carried Marvel comics until 2011, and do those numbers factor in any way into this...? We don't know. 2. Marvel, and other publishers, does not release print run information about its books. Notice the language of the incentive: Notice what it says there? "Retailers may order." It does NOT say Marvel "will print." It's neat, simple, and easy to point to Comichron and say "well, if it's a 1:10 variant, and 74,000 copies were "printed" (itself a misconception), then there must have been 7,400 copies of the 1:10!" It's also wrong. The answer is "we just don't know." The various publishers don't release this information. Until and if they do, ANYONE saying "well, this is what they printed, based on this, that, and the other" doesn't know what they're talking about, and is likely trying (like Marvel) to sell you something.

Incentive variants are not printed according to their distribution ratio. Those are distribution numbers, not print run numbers. I'm just wondering what definitive source you originally received this information from that has you so convinced that it is (still) true, to the point of repeating your thoughts on the matter ad nauseum, in multiple treads and forums. I.E., why are you so convinced that publishers routinely print books that they have no intention of distributing? -J. No one said anything at all like "publishers routinely print books that they have no intention of distributing." Nothing even remotely like that has been claimed by anyone. That is a conclusion to which you have leapt, and it's not justified by the various conversations about the topic. You cannot invent ideas out of thin air, then put those ideas in the virtual mouths of others, and expect to be taken seriously. And you do this on a regular basis (the latest being the "no one pays a premium for white pages" debacle.) If you start with an invalid premise, necessarily everything that follows will also be invalid.

WTF? Provocative? Do you even..... nope. No. NO. I've seen enough garbage posts where people bait people, not falling for it, and besides, you CONFIRMED my statement was true while trying to make yourself a part of the conversation. HA, Hi pot, I'm Kettle. If you wanna verbally spar, pm me. I am always up for any debate. Your responses here indicate 1. you're somewhere between 15-22, and 2. you have a decent lack of self-awareness (though that seems to be the overused phrase-du-jour around here at the moment.) It's straightforward: if you post misinformation, it will likely be corrected. It's nothing personal, and nothing to be offended by. If that isn't something that is tolerable for you without using provocative language ("you can yell all you want", etc.), you might reconsider posting on message boards. What it is not, however, is "bait." That leads me to believe that both points I just stated are correct. No one here is excited but you. Take a deep breath. Relax. In and out. If you want to keep on topic, by all means, keep on topic.

or maybe people don't care about this book at all and are just chasing hype Sounds like someone forgot to order 15 copies for themselves. If you didn't, that is what you sound like even if you don't care. You guys are like Florida Drivers, Speeding on back roads, but do 15-20 under on the highways. OF COURSE THERE IS HYPE. That's all anyone can actually chase is hype. That is all that causes variant's to sell, is Hype. Ok, glad you don't care, moving along. You need to dial it back a bit.

Incentive variants are not printed according to their distribution ratio. Those are distribution numbers, not print run numbers. You can yell that all you want (i've seen it now probably 1500 times on these boards), but still doesn't change the fact that it really makes no difference in my statements outcome, the % variant may be shorter printed/distributed than any ratio variant. Who is yelling? Why are you using provocative language? If there is misinformation being propagated on the boards, it should be addressed. Whether it's 1 time or 1500 times isn't relevant, so long as it is still repeated. What you said is technically correct; however, that doesn't mean that those numbers have anything to do with either the print run or extant copies, and you used them in such a way as to imply they are. No need to be offended.

Incentive variants are not printed according to their distribution ratio. Those are distribution numbers, not print run numbers.

It is nice that Ryan Reynolds now has a legitimate box-office winner under his belt. That guy was just about to be pronounced box-office poison.

I don't disagree. However, board personalities are often all we have to go on. Most of us will never meet very many other boardies and of those we may meet, we might still not get a real picture of who they are. If I am a turd on the boards then the perception is that I'm likely a turd all the time. That can be unfair but if I don't want to be perceived as a turd, then maybe I shouldn't act like one. Point taken. When this topic does come up I feel the need to try to make everyone more self-conscious (in a good sense) about why they have a list, and who is on it, or on ignore, and why. I am not suggesting that that is my business, which it most certainly is not, but only to encourage private self-reflection. Is what that given person X has done or said so heinous that they deserve to be banished from my universe and to be treated as a nonperson thereafter, not fit for business or any other civilized interaction? Really? Is it that serious? Looked at from another angle, it could be seen as a certain measure of success to keep such lists to a minimum, adding to them out of absolute necessity only. While it is certainly true that people say (and do) things on message boards that they never would in real life (recent interaction in this very thread being perfect examples), words do have consequences. If I was a businessman, you would be absolutely correct...and I would be a terrible one, because I would not be willing to do business with people who didn't know how to behave civilly.

That's the problem? Really? I get it, you don't do that and you look at those that do with disdain that they are "ruining" your hobby. I don't look at those that submit to flip with disdain. I could care less. They are not ruining the hobby for me or anyone else. I just commented on all the complaining going on here. If someone gets a 9.6 they are immediately blaming CGC, taking no responsibility themselves. I just don't believe it. CGC is grading the book in front of them, if it's not 9.8 then so be it. Some people know what is a solid 9.8, what is a "9.7", and what is a 9.6. When a 9.8 comes back a 9.6....or a 9.4...that's a problem, and it has nothing to do with "taking responsibility for myself." When a "9.7" comes back a 9.6, that's fine, that's the risk you take, and accept it. When a 9.6 comes back a 9.8, which didn't use to be all that rare, hey, yay. But to those who do this on a regular basis, it's not at all difficult to tell between them, and these aren't frivolous complaints. Typical sub for me, before last year: 39 books subbed for SS. 32 9.8s, 7 9.6s. It's not an unlearnable skill.

Definitely. However, when you read some of those early threads, it's pretty clear the culture of the board was much different than it is today. Even when I got here, you could still be a pretty big to others and not face much, if any, reprisal. Joe Collector was a to people just about every day. It's different now. And you didn't get "strikes" for it, and people didn't hump the button at the drop of a hat. Button humping leads to mod overreaction leads to button humping leads to mod overreaction. Repeat.

But they aren't mutually exclusive problems, Bob. Bad TATs and inconsistent grading are both problems. Sacrificing consistent grading for improved TATs isn't the answer. If something must be sacrificed, I'll vote for the TATs. And what about people who don't fit either of your two scenarios? CGC's longterm success depends on books being submitted to them, regardless of why they are submitted. If I can't afford to submit because the two copies I submitted, one to keep and one to sell to pay for the two of them, and one gets a 9.8, while the other gets a 9.4 because of an issue they didn't use to consider a problem....I can't submit more.

Thanks for finding that thread, Babs. That thread was the genesis for much of what later happened here.

By the way...as someone has mentioned, Marvel printed the hell out of Wolverine #1 (1988), as well as PWJ #1 and Excalibur #1....to such an extent, that they were all available for reorder...cover price minus discount, as always....for months after they were published.

Also from 1/18/09: I agree. I think Cable is the most significant character Marvel has created since the Bronze Age... No offense to Deadpool but this is the second time he's become "hot" and can't see it lasting this time either. Jim (emphasis added.)

Another couple of responses.... which has the lowest print run? Probably about the same, with a slight edge for 87, but if Cable ever hit a movie screen, watch out. I doubt it. NM was on the verge of death as a title when Cable was introduced. Luckily by issue 100, interest had built from the stories that took place and X-Force was born. Another series with great potential, but was never handled properly. Correct. New Mutants #87 had a smaller print run...and survival rate...than NM #98. New Mutants had been totally revived by Cable, along with the immensely popular X-Tinction Agenda (with second printings!), so NM #98 had a higher printrun as well as a higher survival rate. This is borne out in the Census numbers (127 9.8U #87, 796 subs, 218 9.8U #98, 771 subs.) That last post is from Jan 18, 2009. (emphasis added to contradict claims that I said "New Mutants was a dead title at issue #98.")

Here are some interesting quote threads from the thread that booey posted: which has the lowest print run? Probably about the same, with a slight edge for 87, but if Cable ever hit a movie screen, watch out. I doubt it. NM was on the verge of death as a title when Cable was introduced. Luckily by issue 100, interest had built from the stories that took place and X-Force was born. I agree...there are less, probably far less, copies of #87 out there than #98. NM was a second rate X-title when #87 was released. And there was nothing beforehand to suggest the issue was anything special. By the time #98 hit, NM was one of Marvel's top sellers... Jim

Admit it. You're combing that thread like a Gibbon looking for bugs. Probably mixing you up with JC - it's an all-star thread that I was tempted to bump. Most of the last half of it is New Mutants related from the 2009 Wolverine movie release & this statement is the closest I can find with someone alleging that NM 87 and 98 had comparable print runs. -ma ma monkey It's funny....I hope I've toned it down a bit, but it's pretty interesting how consistent what I said 7 years ago is with what I'm saying now. (And I was just giving you a hard time, Blowie. You know I luvs ya. )

I've done that. It's become more important with the increasing instances of guys who mess up and then change their names several times. I do it too. Eliminates the need to keep a list off boards. Of course, I have other people on ignore for other reasons. I refuse to do business with those people as well. If I don't want to interact with you, why would I want to buy from you or sell to you? And yes, that means I sometimes miss a comic or two but it's all good because I don't subscribe to Cool Books I'm not a fan of lists. I recognize that all of us have a basic right to want to avoid people we dislike, but in some sense it is a luxury feature of a message board and imo it is not a positive feature. Concretely speaking it is inconsistent to run a sales forum where in every other respect buyers and sellers are held to strict standards of public obligation and yet in that which is most basic to real time commerce, the service of the public without discrimination, we have an ignore function to filter the clientele by personal whim. I consider it no different than a boycott, and unlike most boycotts I am not trying to convince others to ignore those that I ignore. From the standpoint of the buyer the boycott analogy is fair enough, certainly the consumer is under no obligation to give their business to companies or salespeople that offend them, for whatever reason. I just don't see the analogy holding with the same force on the selling side. It would be a strange company, or business model, that included selective boycotting of the consumer base. I think the message board gives the illusion that these are all private sales, private in the intimate sense that it is not a retail transaction as real business transpires in the public realm. So the idea is that I'm no more obliged to sell to John Q Public than I am obliged to be friends with John Q Public or to invite him over for dinner. This may indeed be the case, I'm just not yet convinced. I do accept Sean's point that the law does allow businesses to discriminate among the public in common sense terms, but I would think those definitions would assume real life interactions and not the virtual world of words we inhabit. A person who disrupts business, is obnoxiously rude, confrontational or threatening to the customers is not the same as exchanging words on a message board. There are several people here I would not do business with in any context, and I'm sure they feel the same about me. I avoid them either here or in real life, and they (usually) do the same. I would not sell to them, regardless of the price. Certain people have circumvented this by having the transaction handled through a third party. Had I known who the end customer was at the time, I would have denied the sale to both parties. It's no different from "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." If you called me an a-hole in the town square, why would I want you in my store? And if you're an emotional, oversensitive, irrational person online, what makes me think you won't be a potential problem in a transaction?

Admit it. You're combing that thread like a Gibbon looking for bugs.

It was. Remember, that SOO only covers up to issue #96, and includes newsstand returns. New Mutants was not an ultra hot seller, and the first Liefeld book to crack 500,000 copies printed was #100. And, of course, those are averages. On average, the book's sales continued to steadily decline...about 13% that year....until you get to X-Tinction Agenda, but that would not have contained #97 (which had a higher print run than #98), or the rest of the run. And where do you get that metric? You are unbelievable. Still living the dream... Jim This is a great example of someone who gets some sort of false impression stuck in their head, and carries it around with them for years, which shades their entire perspective about a person. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. I don't have any idea what I did to Jim here, or why he's so angry at me, but it was obviously something, something he's carried around for a long time, and which has caused him to make claims about something that may or may not (another concession to you, Jim) have been said at one time or another, but which he cannot provide any evidence of (yes, yes, sentence ended a preposition with.) Nope. I don't carry grudges. You were wrong and called you out on it. Not a crime. Your challenge of that cause a pause though. If that's important to you then so be it. I read a couple posts here and laughed at where it evolved to. This Forum used to be serious comic collectors talking serous issues. Now after perusing the various threads, it's more a joke. Your previous erroneous posts on the availability of issues ha made thin almost a joke. Jim Show me the posts, and let's examine them. This isn't a difficult request, and I've been completely willing to give your claims the benefit of the doubt....a courtesy you are utterly unwilling to extend to me.

I'm not trying to get into it with him. :shrug:

It was. Remember, that SOO only covers up to issue #96, and includes newsstand returns. New Mutants was not an ultra hot seller, and the first Liefeld book to crack 500,000 copies printed was #100. And, of course, those are averages. On average, the book's sales continued to steadily decline...about 13% that year....until you get to X-Tinction Agenda, but that would not have contained #97 (which had a higher print run than #98), or the rest of the run. Does the SOO (Date of Filing: October 1, 1990) cover issue 96 (cover date: December 1990)? Well, see, there's the question, isn't it? It's really a bit too close to call. New Mutants #96 was published Oct 9, 1990. So, technically, they might have had the print run set by Oct 1, but I'm not super familiar with how publishers dealt with SOO filing AND...certainly that was obviously before they had numbers for distribution. But....after a while, I considered the timing of the filing, and how it coincided with the release of the "last issue" of the year. It also makes sense that the SOO would use the "Jan-Dec" issues, for tidiness. So, it could be #94, #95, and they could have fudged the numbers for #96. In the past, I've said #94 or #95. I'd sure like to know the correct answer. In any event, it's probably one of those issues.