RockMyAmadeus

Fitch!!

I know that 10% figure is tossed around a lot, but it is such a rough number as to almost be rendered useless. I'd sure like to get much harder, more realistic numbers out there. I just a couple of minutes searching online, and a couple of quick notes re: potential comic distribution: - in the 1980s there were a over 20,000 book stores in Canada vs. an estimated 220,000 in the USA (roughly 10%) - 7-11 stores - in 2013 there were 484 in Canada vs. 8,144 in the USA (roughly 6%) - the number of gas stations and grocery stores is in the 10% range as well. How many carried comics is unknown, but it looks like 10% is not an unreasonable estimate of Canadian comic sales relative to the US market. This does not include the direct market, which could sway things a point or two either way. Yes, but those numbers have no relevance to the actual decisions of Marvel/DC/Archie et al in printing copies of Canadian newsstand copies. They sound reasonable, but they're still just guesses, and it's like saying "well, there are 10 provinces in Canada, and 50 US states, so Canada must have 20% of the population of the US"...but that's not at all accurate. It's just a guess, no better than 1% or 20% or 50% or .05%. It would be nice to have something more concrete.

Viola! You retired from comics a few years ago, huh...? Getting too old for this chit, then?

Excellent. I look forward to this information, and hope it is indeed as concrete as you claim. If these various discussions have inspired you to dig deeply for the truth, by which knowledge everyone interested benefits, it can't possibly be a bad thing.

Yes.

I just posted a very long post which explains why this isn't true. Did you read it? Also not true. Retailers frequently throw out unsold copies, sometimes by the caseload, and have for decades. Yes, it shows as "sold"...but that doesn't mean it actually met an end-user. DC, Marvel, and others did it for years in the SOOs. It was required by USPS Second Class postage regulations. Diamond has nothing to do with newsstand sales, so, no, you can't take any newsstand sales information into account by just looking at a Diamond sales list. The two have nothing to do with each other. Did you read what I posted...?

Chuck says 2% newsstand and 98% Direct. You're pointing to evidence for 26% newsstand and 74% Direct. There are currently 62 copies of New X-Men #128 for sale on Ebay. They are 3% newsstand and 97% Direct. "Copies for sale on eBay", while interesting, isn't necessarily a good indicator of what is extant. Remember...Chuck's claim is that his "ratios" represent sales at the time of publication, not survival rates. Also remember that newsstand copies, especially in many lean years, were being sold, copy by copy, to individuals, whereas stores were still in the "order 50 for immediate sale, and 20 for "back issues" at this point. So, as I have said many other times in other places, the amount of copies for sale will tend to be Direct market, rather than newsstand copies, the later in history we get. Yes, newsstand copies, because of their one-by-one nature, tended to suffer greater attrition than Direct copies, no doubt. But there's no way that newsstand copies only accounted for 2% or 5% of total sales in 2002. That's easily disproven, by the numbers given here. That would mean, for example, that only 2,000-5,000 copies of New X-Men #128 were sold throughout all of North America, when there were 3,000 or so Wal-Marts alone that carried newsstand comics. That would also mean that, since about 184k copies were distributed, per the SOO, and 105k went to the North American Direct market, and 2k-5k were sold at the newsstand...where did the other 75k go? England? Not bloody likely. And look at the average number of returns for the year: 50k. Those are returns of Newsstand copies, as you know. If they were only selling 2k-5k copies, and returning 50k, they only had a sell-through rate of 4-10% at the newsstand...which is an abominable rate, and thoroughly unsustainable. Marvel would have axed the program long before 2011/2013 if that were the case. And if all that isn't enough, consider the other side of Chuck's "claim": that in 1979, Direct sales only accounted for "6%" of Marvels sales. Nonsense. That would have been true in 1977...it was NOT true in 1979. The entire company went with the Direct market cover marking program in March of 1979 (cover date June), and Direct market books after this date are quite common. Example: X-Men #125. There are 103 listings in "Bronze X-Men" on eBay. That would mean 6-7 are Direct, and the rest are Newsstand, right? Of those 103 listings (including lots), only 47 are newsstand, while 52 are Direct market (and a couple don't have pictures.) More than half the listings, in an era Chuck claims only had "6%" Direct market, are Direct market copies. Something doesn't add up, and it's got a bear tattoo on its torso.

Marv was clearly not happy at being ripped off homaged by Liefeld, with "Wade Wilson" (Deadpool) being a blatant ripoff homage of "Slade Wilson" (Deathstroke), so he had a little fun for himself and ripped off homaged with Black Cable.

By the way....JJM introduces a bit of a quandary, here, and potentially altering to the numbers above in incalculable ways. Remember that JJM said that sales reported only what "what the comics shops of North America ordered", while the SOOs report sales through all channels...? So where do the UK Direct market copies fall into the numbers? Only North America gets newsstand copies. And Diamond says their numbers include "sales made to thousands of comic book specialty shops located in North America and around the world." That conflict is a problem. If JJM reports, through Diamond, that the North American Direct market sold 105k copies of X-Men #132, and Marvel reports that about 184k copies were distributed...which figure does the UK Direct market fall into? We know that the "total copies distributed" is an absolute number, into which all other numbers must go. It's a bit of a mystery, but certainly the UK copies, if not included in the Diamond numbers given to JJM, do not eat up the entire remaining 80k copies sold, on average, of course, for Chuck to come up with his "2%" figure.

Nothing at all? I'm not sure how this is relevant to 2005, when Barns (sic) and noble DID carry newsstand Marvel titles, which is the argument. Oh, I don't know. I think it carries a little more weight. You know, what with the research and hard numbers and data and all. But what do I know? During your research did you happen upon any numbers such as how many books were destroyed at the end of each month because they were unsold? I feel that a lot of people overlook the fact that newsstand edition's are basically destroyed when the next issue is released for partial store credit whereas direct editions aren't. Yes, we have all of that information for many books published in the 60's-00's. The Statements of Ownership, published during this time, tells us the net extant copies of any particular title (if not necessarily a particular issue.) Here's an example: From here, you can see the total print run, as well as the actual amount of copies actually distributed (in this case, 184,826 as an average.), as well as the returns from news agents which you describe (that is, 50,045.) Now, there have always been shenanigans on the newsstand returns side, so actual copies reported returned may not be the copies that are actually destroyed, BUT...we know that number is not greater than the number reported, because then those agents wouldn't receive credit for those issues (which, while possible, isn't a mistake many vendors tended to make.) And, granted, in the era of the Direct market (functionally 1979-on), those numbers got a little muddled, because those numbers don't separate out Direct vs. newsstand copies. However, we CAN do a little extrapolating. For example, that New X-Men SOO is from 2002. We know that, in 2002, say, New X-Men #128 (intro Fantomex) has a reported Direct market number of 106,190 copies. If you look at the average amount of copies distributed (184,226) and subtract 106,190 copies from that figure, you arrive at roughly 80,000 Newsstand copies actually sold on average for the year 2002. Now, granted, we don't know precise numbers, and we can't get very precise, except for the "issue published nearest to filing date" which is probably issue #132 or #133, but it's still reasonable enough information. For fun, let's look at #132, since #14 on the SOO says the issue date (which means the publication date, not the cover date) is September, which would make it a November cover date, which would be #132. We see, for the year, the series took a dramatic drop in both printed and sold copies, from an average of 184k copies distributed, to only 132k for the most recent issue. But, returns from vendors also dropped, which means they had a higher sell-through percentage, which is good. We see that the Direct copies remained pretty consistent: 105,640, which means that the newsstand only sold about 27k copies for that particular issue. However...27k copies actually distributed (or, rather, reported as sold and not claimed for credit) is still nearly 26% of the Direct market copies! For every ONE HUNDRED copies sold of that issue, SEVENTY FOUR were Direct, and TWENTY SIX were Newsstand. And, on average for the year, the newsstand books sold about 80% of what the Direct market sold. This is why Chuck's numbers are so ridiculously wrong. 2% newsstand vs. 98% Direct? Chuck is claiming that for every ONE HUNDRED copies sold, only TWO were newsstand? Total nonsense. Those numbers, and many like it, prove him drastically, dramatically wrong. And yet...that misinformation is repeated as fact, because research is time-consuming and understanding and relaying data in a meaningful way is difficult, so....here we go. Not entirely true. Thanks to those statements of ownership, we're not completely in the dark with regards to how many newsstand copies were actually distributed. Where there are no SOOs, yes, we're out of luck entirely. But SOOs exist for the vast majority of DC, Marvel, and even other companies for the time period involved, so we have a pretty fair estimate about what was printed and what, of that, actually still exists. It is vital, as you point out, to always include that "net press run" does NOT equal "extant copies", and I think this board has been exceptionally consistent in making sure that information is repeated on a fairly regular basis. Yes and no. Remember, Diamond only reports Direct sales in North America. We have no idea how many US English editions are printed for, and distributed to, the United Kingdom, for example. And, of course, those numbers reported by Diamond are always very carefully caveated to be "estimated." That's important. Here's what Diamond says about it: "Data for Diamond’s sales charts — which includes the monthly market shares and all top product charts — are compiled by Diamond Comic Distributors from sales made to thousands of comic book specialty shops located in North America and around the world. Additional sales made to online merchants and other specialty retailers may be included as well." (Emphasis mine.) http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/237?articleID=174561 And here's what the John Jackson Miller of Comichron has to say: "The individual pages for each of these years can be found by clicking the links below. Remember that these pages only show what the comics shops of North America ordered, whereas the Statements of Ownership report sales through all channels. More years coming soon!" http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales.html So, JJM and Diamond conflict a bit, which should be cause to consider. Not entirely true, but certainly true of Chuck, clearly. We don't have to worry about Newsstand Marvels anymore, because they're no longer published.

I passed on a couple of copies at Phx comicon for around $20 each. If you want, I can put you in touch with the dealer selling them. There are four copies currently on eBay: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p4840.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xwolverine+66+2nd.TRS0&_nkw=wolverine+66+2nd&_sacat=0 What is a "Cgc consensus"?

Nothing at all? I'm not sure how this is relevant to 2005, when Barns (sic) and noble DID carry newsstand Marvel titles, which is the argument. Oh, I don't know. I think it carries a little more weight. You know, what with the research and hard numbers and data and all. But what do I know?

I don't think anyone is claiming Deadpool is not the hottest, most popular character in comics today. Certainly, that's clearly so. But it's a different world than it was 25 years ago, and Cable had his own day in the sun, and it happened very shortly after his first appearance, in a completely different way. The point that I, and I think others, are making, is that, at the time, and as those examples (and they are just some examples) show, New Mutants #87 really was in a class of its own. It was really ABOUT New Mutants #87. Cable and New Mutants #87 were synonymous. They were one and the same. And those who lived through that period remember that, and that book is burned in their memories. But Deadpool has gone far beyond New Mutants #98. Sure, NM #98 is "the book" to have, IF you're into collecting comics....but I would be willing to bet that a good portion of the Deadpools at a con wouldn't be able to tell you what his first appearance was. I have millennial friends who made a parkour Deadpool video. They had never heard of New Mutants #98, and it had no meaning to them. For those people, Deadpool may be what he is, but it doesn't translate into "I must have this book!" in the same way as it did for New Mutants #87. People aren't connected to New Mutants #98 the way people were connected to New Mutants #87, and THAT may (or may not) be a significant factor in how NM #87 performs against NM #98. And NM #98 exists in substantially higher numbers, in higher condition, than #87, too. Oh, definitely not. There was no character at that time (late 1990-early 1992) that was hotter than Punisher. Cable was the hottest NEW character...but Punisher was where it was at, all over the nation. Everybody, but everybody, wanted ASM #129.

Which Cable #1? The 1992 mini, or the 1993 regular? By the 1992 mini, it still had legs. But by the 1993 #1, it had lost most of its steam, and began the long, slow march into discount box status. But, like many of these books, it was never really a "dollar box" book (like you've said of New Mutants #98, though NM #98 was much, much more likely to be one.) You generally had to pay $5 or so for a copy on eBay throughout the 90's/00's. I only managed to accumulate 25 or so in the last 26 years, but I certainly would have bought them if they came through my hands. I have, for example, about 100 copies or so of #100. Yes and no, as always. That year of time, between New Mutants #100 and X-Force #9, was the year of New Mutants #87 dominance. As I'm sure you remember, Overstreet was (and still is) slow to react to the "hot new stuff." For example, in that same Update #21, the value of NM #87 only went up to $45, despite the above noted reports saying the book was $50-$70. New Mutants #87 was reprinted in the gap between New Mutants #100 and X-Force #1, but that hardly satisfied demand, as collectors universally ignored reprints at the time. Then, as now, it really didn't matter what the "price guide" said; you simply couldn't find them for sale, and had to cough up some serious money to get a copy. So, yes, IF you could find them, you probably could get one for "only" $25-$30 at the time of New Mutants #100...but, really, New Mutants #100 just set everything on fire, and the gap between that and X-Force #1 just made things crazier. Like I said (and contemporaneous reports confirm): for the period between about August of 1990 to Spring of 1992, it was the single hottest recent back issue in the country. That, and ASM #129....and to a lesser extent, Hulk #181....were what the market was coo-coo for.

I know that 10% figure is tossed around a lot, but it is such a rough number as to almost be rendered useless. I'd sure like to get much harder, more realistic numbers out there.

Mile High is fairly to grossly inaccurate with these numbers. A simple perusal will show that to be so. For example...in 2005, Marvel sold 91,205 copies of Uncanny X-Men #461 through Diamond (the Direct market.) Using Chuck's figure, that would mean only 1800 copies of UXM #461 sold on the newsstands (let's say throughout North America.) Obviously, that's not true. There were about 100,000 retail spaces for newsstand sales in North America in 2013. https://mrmagazine.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/rethinking-newsstand-sales-magazines-money-and-mobile-blinders/ In 2005, that number would have been a bit higher. In 2006, there were 3,289 Wal-Mart stores, which carried newsstand comics, across the US alone. For Chuck's numbers to be correct, that means they would have sold only one single copy of the latest issue of X-Men for every 2 Wal-Mart stores...ignoring the entire rest of the newsstand market. Obviously, that's not the case. Chuck's numbers are wrong.

Yes. I am a "self-proclaimed" historian, as are all historians in fields such as this. Plus, I have a relatively firmer grasp on basic English grammar than you, for whatever that's worth. And yes, Moon Knight was, at one point in the mid to late 70's, the hottest character in comics. You really ought to tone down the rancor. You have no respect for actual research, and, as I said, it was a mistake to reply to you. Why are you so angry that you need to make things personal? Do you just not like people challenging what you think and believe? You can't even be bothered to say what facts you imagine I ought to be admitting are "just as subjective as any one (sic) else." Is that reasonable? Have you ever contributed actual research to this board, as I and others have done on many occasions, or have you only denigrated people for disagreeing with whatever you happen to believe, and correcting your (easily confirmed) errors?

This is news to me. Multiple contemporary sources reported that X-Force # 1 was the second-best-selling comic of all time (with about a 5 million print run) way back in the early 1990s. Multiple contemporary sources reported it was the BEST selling comic of all time, until X-Men #1 came out two months later, but you will not find any official numbers ANYWHERE. The 5 million figure is a relatively new invention; I'd love to be proven wrong, but I doubt you will find anything with that number from contemporary sources. Was it really the best, then second best, selling comic of all time? Remember: WDC&S sold 3-4 million copies a month in the 1950's. Those were actual sales to actual individuals, not speculators buying multiples and retailers getting stuck with mounds of unsellable stock. But if you have multiple sources that cite the actual sales figures of X-Force #1, by all means, please share. (My Standard Catalog is in a box at the moment, or I'd post the CapCity numbers, which would certainly not suggest a sell-through of 5 million copies.) The number thrown around is usually 8.1 to 8.5 million copies. But are any of those numbers real? Guinness, no (usual) slouch in the records dept, "certified" the 8.1 million figure in 2010...nearly 2 decades after the fact. What you won't see is any official info from Marvel, and, again, the Standard Catalog numbers represent only a small portion of this number. And were they actually sold? No, of course not. They were "sold" to retailers who got stuck with product that didn't sell, and in reality, maybe 3 million copies actually sold to consumers. http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/05/09/my-monthly-curse-by-phill-hall-9-%e2%80%93-taking-apart-a-guinness-world-record/ But, again, all unconfirmed. You won't see any official accounting records from Marvel, because: Marvel. By all means...if you have any of these sources, share them. I think you'll find a lot of circular citing going on.

We've discussed this before, but perspective is necessary, and we ought not be relying solely on our own memories and experiences when discussing history. As I've said elsewhere (the ASM #361 thread) Venom wasn't a monster character until the Lethal Protector mini, which was 1993. This is borne out by all of the print media, comics journals, back issue ads, price guides, etc, of the day, which barely mention Venom UNTIL Lethal Protector in 1993. Yes, Venom was on the rise...certainly...but in 1991, the hottest character in comics was the Punisher (who appeared in 65+ unique comics that year), and the hottest new character was Cable, hands down, without a doubt. It's also important to remember that, prior to about 15-20 years ago, it was very, VERY rare for a villain to become popular in their own right. The Joker and Super-Villain Team-Up in the mid-70's were experiments, fairly revolutionary, and their early cancellation showed that the comics buying public wasn't ready for villains to be the stars of their own series. It's one of the reasons why Punisher languished as a character for a dozen years before coming into his own. Even so, Marvel had to make Venom into a "sorta-hero" to really make him a successful character, and that "transformation" didn't start until ASM #361...about four years after his introduction. When Lethal Protector came out in 1993, yes, Venom became a superstar, no doubt, and rapidly eclipsed Cable in popularity soon thereafter, for sure. But it took 5 years for Venom to become a superstar....it took Cable 6 months, if that. In 1991, people weren't clamoring for ASM #300s because of Venom, but for McFarlane art....but they were clamoring for New Mutants #87, and it certainly wasn't because of the Liefeld art. It's really rather difficult to overstate the effect Cable had almost immediately. Here are some examples: (From the Overstreet Update #21, cover date May/June, 1992, coming out Feb of 1992) "Top five requested issues and their prices are: New Mutants #87 ($60), X-Men #201 ($10), Silver Surfer #34 ($12), Thor #412 ($18) and Ghost Rider #4 ($20)." (Comics Unlimited/Heroes & Fantasies, San Antonio TX) (No mention of ASM #300.) "New Mutants #87 is far and away the most requested back issue. Over one weekend, we sold all three copies we had for $70 each. Next in demand is Iron Fist #14, with NM copies bringing $100, then X-Men #201 which sells great at $18, followed by Astonishing Tales #25 ($100 in NM) and last but not least, Iron Man #55 ($125 in NM.)" (Showcase Collectibles, Alhparetta GA) (No mention of ASM #300.) "Everybody wants, but nobody has, New Mutants #87, When I think of all the copies I sold for $5, I want to cry. Everyone was asking for Uncanny X-Men #201, allegedly the first appearance of Cable, but when I put it on the wall for $10, everyone runs away screaming. So it goes." (Electric City Comics, Schenectady, NY) "Top five: 1) New Mutants #87, 2) Any Darkhawk, 3) X-Men #201, 4) X-Men #282, 5) X-Men #266." (Comic Cavalcade, Champaign IL) "RECENT BACK ISSUES - New Mutants #87 sells regularly for $50, while surrounding issues sell from $7 to $25." (Squonk, UK) (No mentions of ASM #300 in any of those reports.) Of the 10 market reports, 7 mention New Mutants #87 specifically by name, and two of the remaining three mention X-Men #201 and/or New Mutants/X-Force. Only one doesn't mention any of those. This update came out just before, or right with, ASM #361...and yet, there's only a single mention of Venom that I can see in the entire report, and that's in reference to the upcoming ASM #361-363 storyline...no word of ASM #300. Not saying that's the way it should be now, but Cable really was a pretty special case there for a while

Probably.

I'm not quite sure what you're disagreeing with. Wizard did not exist when Cable became popular. It hadn't been created yet.

Venom wasn't "VENOM!!!!" until Lethal Protector in 1993. Cable, however, was a huge hit by the middle of 1990. Cable was around for a year and a half before Wizard's first issue (Jan of 1990 vs. July of 1991.) New Mutants #87....again...was a $65 book by the time New Mutants #100 rolled around...several months before Wizard. In fact....New Mutants #87 dominated the early Wizard "top 10" charts, but was actually on its way down soon after. No, Wizard had nothing to do with Cable's popularity.

Wizard didn't exist when Cable became popular.

Folks...a little perspective. Cable was IMMENSELY popular when he first appeared on the scene. Within literally 6 months of his first appearance...and granted, New Mutants #87 didn't take the world by storm...he was the single hottest new character in comics. By the time New Mutants #100 came out, #87 was a $65 book...that would be roughly equivalent to a new issue of Fantastic Four selling for $350 now. Cable was huge, the clear leader of the new Marvel "triad" of Cable, Gambit, and Bishop. Deadpool, a cultural icon...? Shouldn't one have to be fairly popular for a generation or more to be a "cultural icon"...? Deadpool was nothing, and "nobody" cared about him until about 2008. Up to that point, he was just another failed 90's intro, and there are hundreds of them. Clearly, Deadpool has become a POP icon, and is the most popular character currently in comics...which is saying something...and I'm not saying that DP didn't pass Cable in popularity a while ago. He did. But...Cable did what Deadpool never did, and there's quite a bit of nostalgia for the character that simply isn't present for DP. Does that mean Cable could become as popular? Maybe. The Fox/Marvel thing is a great problem. But we'll see.