RockMyAmadeus

On other fronts, it appears that Captain Marvel #17 2nd print sells for ridiculous sums of money, while great, classic comic works like Alan Moore's Swamp Thing go begging.

If you are responding to Chuck and RMA, they are not referring to ComiChron. I get that they are referring to a website, but that is where those numbers came from. Doesn't look like they were pulled from thin air. Really? You sure about that? Are you? No, that's why I asked. It looks, indeed, like many of those numbers were pulled from thin air. By all means, show me where those numbers actually come from, since that's the claim you're making. Hatred? You're thinking with your feelings. There's no hatred here. Unless, of course, you're a person who was raised to think that any challenge of any idea is tantamount to "hatred", and there needs to be "safe space" where no one is ever challenged about anything. That's a frightening world. Do you know what makes me a happy comic book enthusiast? Everybody having accurate informtion with which to make informed, intelligent decisions. I know, crazy, right...? I think you misunderstand. Why post all your questions here? If you have a problem with what the author of the article said, why not address it with them? Why come to a forum that they will probably never read and start bashing them? It's like you are trolling but only like to do it with people you already know. Others have adequately answered this, but there are issues here worth discussing. First, the reason the question is asked here is because it was brought up here, as others have said. I don't care what this comic book investing site says; as Mike said, trying to track down and address misinformation on the internet is a Sisyphian task. Second, you say this: "Why come to a forum that they will probably never read and start bashing them?" Whether they come here or not is not relevant. If they do, great, if not, I don't really care. It's the information that is posted here that I care about. And, your use of the word "bashing" to characterize criticism of the information posted there is really more of the same sort of dumbing down and oversensitizing of the culture that will, if left unchecked, lead to horrifying consequences in the future. The criticism of what they posted is, in fact, perfectly valid, and worthy of being addressed by them. They were not only not "bashed", their information was merely questioned in a manner most tepid. No one questioned their morals, their integrity, their intellect, their upbringing, their ability to reason, or any other thing that might PROPERLY be considered "bashing" (though, of course, context is everything.) Their information was challenged, and rightly so, but that was all that occurred. If we continue to raise generations of people who cannot handle the mildest of challenges, our civilization is in for some incredibly rough waters ahead. And finally, we come to that typical word, almost as common (and overused) as the word "bullying", and that is "trolling." If someone posts something with which someone else disagrees....regardless of the merit of any position...then emotional buzzwords like "bashing" and "trolling" are trotted out, to discredit the person making the criticism. No, they're not interested in the truth for truth's sake, they're just "trolling" to get some sort of emotional response. It's as old as man, just dressed up in new words: when you can't discount the argument, discredit (or attempt to discredit) the arguer. Thankfully, this board is filled with people who have shown a willingness to ignore and look beyond the emotional, irrational responses and think logically, reasonably, and rationally, and, perhaps more importantly, to not tolerate those who attempt to speak in those terms. Mike's words to you would be well served, if you take them to heart and apply them. Your very first post was asking someone with tens of thousands of posts, and a member here for 10+ years, if they were "for real?" for challenging numbers that are clearly worth being challenged. Does that mean post count and longevity make right? No, of course not. However...there is a certain amount of deference that new people...especially with zero posts...ought to show ANYONE who has been part of a community for any length of time. That doesn't mean they're correct, or what they are saying is valid...but coming in with a "are you for real?" and "have you ever heard of (something said poster has cited dozens, if not hundreds, of times)" shows a marked lack of respect, not for me, but for the entire board. Will this be received in the spirit intended? Maybe. Hopefully. We'll see.

I'll assume you don't read all the posts, so here's the pertinent information again: I think that's a pretty respectable example of getting "of" my lazy back side "a" look it up. I'm not seeing any of your research...would you mind posting it again?

I checked all the naughty and nice lists at the North Pole. Twice. They are all accurate. If you do not believe it...so what? Makes no difference really.

X-Tinction Agenda started with real promise, but, as usual with Claremont, went nowhere. Quick: someone summarize what happened. I can summarize Days of Future Past: "Senator Kelly is assassinated by the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants, which leads to a future where mutants are ruthlessly hunted, captured, and exterminated. Future Kate Pryde is sent back in time to prevent that assassination, succeeds, and the future dystopia is averted...or, at least, postponed." Still, though, the Jim Lee portion of the art is breathtaking, especially that shot of Gambit and Jubilee that opens up #271. The whole X-Men arc is just a visual sundae.

Ignore my last post.

I suspect the real first Christmas list item for your shop that year was actually Superman #50, which caught everyone by surprise, and was an instant hit. Nevertheless, there's a substantial difference between April/May of 1990, and December of 1990. The book was definitely on the rise. I'm not so sure it was "$50" on the rise by that point, because none of the contemporary sources report any of that, but I won't quibble with you about that. Your experiences aren't reflected in any of the contemporary industry literature of the day. Again, not saying it didn't happen....but there's no contemporary reports of it, anywhere. I don't ask anyone to trust my anecdotes. I don't think anyone else should either. A lot of things happened, in a relatively short amount of time. Memories get fuzzy. You would be the first person I've ever heard get so excited by a single panel torso shot of a character, with nothing else to go on.

If you are responding to Chuck and RMA, they are not referring to ComiChron. WTTB No doubt. "Are you for real?" Always best to make sure your first post is guns blazing... Hell, my entire first THREAD was like that.

If you are responding to Chuck and RMA, they are not referring to ComiChron. I get that they are referring to a website, but that is where those numbers came from. Doesn't look like they were pulled from thin air. Really? You sure about that? Are you? No, that's why I asked. It looks, indeed, like many of those numbers were pulled from thin air. By all means, show me where those numbers actually come from, since that's the claim you're making. Hatred? You're thinking with your feelings. There's no hatred here. Unless, of course, you're a person who was raised to think that any challenge of any idea is tantamount to "hatred", and there needs to be "safe space" where no one is ever challenged about anything. That's a frightening world. Do you know what makes me a happy comic book enthusiast? Everybody having accurate informtion with which to make informed, intelligent decisions. I know, crazy, right...?

Where is THIS number (January 2009): ...represented here?: See, contrary to the overwrought complaints of some, it's not the numbers themselves that are the problem...it's the contradictory, incomplete information that is the problem. If those are the numbers, great...those are the numbers. But....Diamond's numbers ARE NOT, and never HAVE BEEN print numbers, despite the legions of people running around saying they are, and where there's missing/incomplete/contradictory information, MUCH more research is necessary before people should be saying "OMG! This is the RAREST THING since sliced butter!!" No? Notice what John Jackson Miller very prominently puts at the top of ALL of these listings: See that? "ESTIMATED"..."SOLD TO" (not PRINTED)..."NORTH AMERICAN COMIC BOOK SHOPS." Was Marvel printing their books for the UK market at that time? If so, what are those numbers? PS. Notice the discrepancy between "Comic Book Investor" and ComiChron on issue #70 1st print...? Doesn't accuracy matter...?

If you are responding to Chuck and RMA, they are not referring to ComiChron. I get that they are referring to a website, but that is where those numbers came from. Doesn't look like they were pulled from thin air. Really? You sure about that?

AITA already answered, but please point out on ComiChron where you see "copies sold via Diamond" = "print run." You've not heard of re-solicitations, then...? (Not saying that's the case, but it's certainly not without precedent.) And you've not also seen that there are listings for "Wolverine #66" for which no printing is indicated (like, say, Sept of 2008)...? Are you aware that there's a 3 month gap between #68 and #69? I'll hang up and take my answers on the air.

I've only millet heard of him.

Got an interesting PM a while ago... Didn't even list the cons he/she will be attending! What good is that?

And where do they get that information from? I can make a website, and post whatever I want, too. That doesn't make it accurate. Legitimate citations are vital.

I have been coming back to this and wanted to thank you for posting it. This is very helpful info. Ur Welcome Years ago before we had all this drama the boards used to be like this a lot more. I am sorry so many don't get to have that experience anymore. The drama has existed since before you or I were members here. The tune is the same. Only the players change.

Because there are people who have hidden agendas and say dumb things on the internet...?

If you can't handle being challenged on an open forum, you probably shouldn't be posting on the internet. I could ask you to please stop bothering everybody in trying to pimp this book, n'est-ca pas...?

The answer to your question was recently posted in the BA forum. The slashed UPCs are direct, not sure when that design was implemented but I'm pretty sure I've got an earlier issue of PPTSS with a slash through the UPC. http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9090670#Post9090670 Thanks for digging that thread up for me. I guess it's pretty much settled Indirect credit! (Yes, the UPC with the slash through it is a Direct market version.)

Your reasoning is flawed. DC, Marvel, and the rest kept meticulous records because they HAD to: both for postal service regulations AND because they had contracts in place with various distributors, who you bet kept close track of what they sold and what they returned. Your contention doesn't make any sense. The printer knew exactly how many copies they printed; they had to. Marvel knew how many copies they ordered. DC knew how many copies were claimed for credit. They all, if they were sent out via subscription, had to keep these numbers for filing every year. When you have competing interests making sure everything was accounted for, of course they would keep meticulous records. Does that mean there wasn't human error and fraud? Of course not. But that doesn't therefore mean Marvel just told the printer to print whatever they felt like printing, and vendors to claim whatever they felt like claiming on returns, and no one kept accounts. What printing company are you referring to? UNLESS you have competing interests keeping everybody honest. No one said it was absolutely NASA precise down to the very last copy, but it's beyond silly to think that Marvel, DC, and the rest kept loose books. Not the point. The point was, and is, that record keeping was precise 230+ years ago, so to say "well, technology wasn't that advanced in 1970" doesn't fly. Wait...are you envious of Chuck? And what do you mean, "comic publishers weren't good businessmen prior to Disney buying Marvel"? Warners has owned DC since the 60's. Martin Goodman, owner and publisher of Marvel comics from 1939 to 1972, was a very capable businessman. You haven't submitted one bit of solid evidence here that the publishers have kept meticulous records and can account for the number of newsstand copies that survived other than your opinion and maybe a quick google search you've done in your spare time. There's other factors to consider than you seem to be aware of when producing a product, storing it, shipping it, selling it and dealing with returns. What do you think the Statements of Ownership are? Chopped liver? Just to be clear: nobody is talking about extant copies. I am only referring to the number of copies known at the time of return. (More on that below.) Once more: when you are dealing with competing interests (that is, vendors vs. distributors vs. publishers vs. printers), accounting is, OF NECESSITY, meticulous. That is, vendors keep distributors honest, and distributors keep publishers honest, and publishers keep printers honest, and so forth. This isn't rocket science. No one is saying "there were precisely 45,273 copies of FF #378 actually, physically destroyed, and therefore there were precisely 137,583 copies extant at the time of the issuing of credits to vendors, and payment to the printer, etc, etc." There is, of course, "overage" and "spoilage" and "shortage" and outright fraud to contend with, always. But you are not in tune with reality if you think that the printer didn't send Marvel a bill for X amount of copies, and Marvel didn't send Y amount of copies to the distributors, and the vendors all received Z amount of copies, and "returned" Z-A copies for credit (either directly, or through the later voucher program), and that all of these various entities did not practice generally accepted accounting principles. When do you mean? Then, at the time of issuing credit, or now? Because attrition is reality. Nobody, but NOBODY, knows precisely how many extant copies of standard comic books of ANY issue there are, with some very, very rare exceptions. I've already given you numerous citations. Just scroll up, and read this post, there are plenty. Well.... I purchased my first comics as a collector in August of 1989. I worked for a comic book distributor from 1991-1993, and then again in 1999. I maintain an extensive collection of research material, including (almost) every Overstreet Price Guide and Update, (almost) every copy of Wizard, Comics Values Monthly (don't laugh), the Krause Standard Catalog of Comic Books, every issue of Previews from 1991-2002 or so, comics history books like "The Steranko History of Comics", "All In Color For A Dime", many of comics historian Les Daniel's works, including "Marvel: Five Fabulous Decades of the World's Greatest Comics", the Gerber Photojournals, numerous issues of the Comics' Buyer's Guide, the Comics Journal, etc, and whatever other industry research I can get my grubby little hands on (and I've actually red them!) I have written on the subject of comics, and comics history, for nearly 20 years on various platforms (including this board.) I co-hosted a podcast about comics (Only The Valiant!) from 2009-2011. I am currently writing a guide to variant comics (and, much like the Pedigree book, it's never going to really be out. Hey, at least I'm honest.) I maintain a fairly extensive network of industry, retailer, and wholesaler contracts. And, I have amassed about 125,000 comics over the past nearly 27 years. What do your personal feelings about Chuck have to do with anything? Either what the man says is accurate, or it is not. Some of what he says is not accurate, and that can be dealt with. Much of it is, and is of value. Even the inaccurate information has value, if one can read between the lines. And you have yet to answer any of my direct questions. Because of basic common sense, plus the IRS, plus the USPS. Accounting has been done for centuries, if not millennia. When you're dealing with competing interests, precise accounting is going to take place. That information may not be publicly available...but it absolutely exists, or existed at the time. Otherwise, how would Diamond come up with its market analyses? http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/237 Can't the same be said of you? I am an open book here, a member for 10+ years, with many real-world contacts. Who are you...?

Then it isn't the 'statistically impossible' you are going for. Because it is statistically possible. That's easy to prove. It is you feeling it is not actually possible sales in the $25 or greater range took place. I can confirm I saw such sales in my local stores. Ok. Confirm away. Confirmation being something besides just your word for it, of course. A sales receipt, a video recording, anything that would independently confirm such an occurrence. I don't expect such confirmation to be forthcoming, but it would be nice to have it. Otherwise, it's just your word, and I don't expect my word to be taken at face value around here, so why would anyone else? I am willing to listen to any reasonable claim. It is not a reasonable claim to say reputable (or even disreputable) comic dealers were asking for, much less getting, $25 a copy for New Mutants #87 in April or May of 1990, when, a full 6 months later, the book was about $5-$7. I wouldn't ask you to waste your time being "willing to listen" to outlandish, silly, time-wasting claims, and take them seriously, like "aliens came from Venus and took over the offices of Marvel Comics in 1961, and were responsible for creating Fantastic Four and other super-hero comics, to disguise their true intentions of world domination through long-underwear theology", and then berate you for not having an "open mind" about it. Why do you? It does say something about your attention to detail.

It means that the likelihood of such an event occurring is so low, it cannot be measured in real terms, and has no realistic chance of ever happening. A statistical impossibility.

I will. And I am. Like someone posted a moment ago, they saw a $60 price on a New Mutants #87 early on. Who? What is "early on"? May of 1990? April of 1991? Without facts, these statements...like trying to prove how "hot" something was at a specific time...have no meaning. You have to use evidence when you have it, and come to reasonable (that being the most important word in this entire discussion) conclusions about what happened, when. As has been noted, ECC had an ad that listed NM #87 for $7, in an ad that was placed with Marvel roughly around the time that NM #96 was on the stands, which would have been around November of 1990. ECC, as can be seen from their ads, was no slouch on the "hot comics = high prices" dept. So, you see, it's not reasonable to conclude that anyone was asking...much less actually selling...New Mutants #87 for $25 or $60 in April or May of 1990, despite your protestations to the contrary. In fact, in one of the Overstreet Update market reports described above (#22, which was written in January of 1992), Bill Townsend of Electric City Comics says: "Everybody wants, but nobody has, New Mutants #87. When I think of all the copies I sold for $5 a year ago, I cry" (emphasis added.) Now, of course Bill wasn't being strictly precise...but, that would have put it around Dec 90/Jan 91, which would make perfect sense. So, if Bill Townsend...a major dealer at the time...was selling these books for $5/ea around the end of 1990 and beginning of 1991...does it really seem reasonable that anybody was asking for, much less getting, $25...or $60...a copy in April or May of 1990? It would have made news if such a thing happened. Someone, somewhere, somehow, would have mentioned it. Yet....not a peep, and two different sources, 6 months later, (Nov/Dec 1990) saying the book was around $5-$7. It's not a reasonable claim. Is that the same LCS owner that didn't think ASM #129 was worth more than surrounding issues in early 1989...? By the way, Emerald Dawn #1 was an instant hit. That cover and the story that went with it were major draws. No doubt. But they weren't THAT fast.

But it very much is the point. Don't you get that? For a period of time these higher sales occurring end up hidden in the average that gets reported out. And sure, Overstreet and a few others would summarize some of the market events going on. But if they perceived these as outliers, then the folks collecting the data could see these as oddities not worth calling out. Dismiss the thinking if you like. But it happens in statistical analysis, which is why companies arm themselves with DA's and Statistical Scientists to better predict through models and detailed analysis. It's the reality of business. Not the point. The "statistical impossibility" is not IF someone sold one for $25, how does that "hide" in the averages. I don't dispute that, because it's not disputable. The statistical impossibility is THAT someone could sell one for $25 in April-May of 1990. Do you not understand the difference? I really don't think you do. And are you aware that you responded to your own quote, several posts back?

If you want to make this personal, take it elsewhere.