RockMyAmadeus

You have made several statements in this thread that have been conclusively and decisively disproven, Comicwiz. If you can't have a reasonable, rational discussion without being insulting, please go somewhere else. If, on the other hand, you'd like to participate in a professional, courteous manner, your opinions and experiences would be most welcome (by me, I don't speak for anyone else, though I suspect others would agree.)

Ok, now I'm getting a little concerned. Ditch hasn't posted since the 9th, which was 18 days ago. Anyone have his number, and could give him a call?

As I noted, it seems a bit disingenuous to tout prices of 150 to 500% of the regular prices for $1-$5 books. "I sold this book, and made 500% of what I paid for it!!" "Wow, that's amazing! How much did you buy it for?" "$1! And I sold it for $5!!"

All this is true. And I think I see where the problem is - I think you are misreading Sulipa's statement due to his lack of punctuation. If we look again, he says "NOTE; (The Canadian Newsstand Cover Price Variants COMICS, Printed in the USA but only Sold in Canada, from the 1982-1986 Era REGULARILY Bring PREMIUMS Sell for 150% to 500% of the Prices of the Common USA Printings". It seems clear that there is a period missing after "PREMIUMS." He doesn't say they sell for "150% to 500% premiums", in which case your revised statement would be correct. He simply says "Sell for 150% to 500% of the Prices of the Common USA Printings", which your example shows once case that fits. I make no claim as to whether his statement is correct or even plausible at the extreme of 500% of the US printings, just that your original assertion that the difference in your own example was 56% did the math backwards. You have given one example that fits within the range (179% of the US price) and one that did not (111% of the US price). Yes, you are correct. I did that one backwards, dividing 42 by 75, rather than the difference (33) by 42, which is the correct way to do it. $75 would be a 78.5% premium over $42, or 178.5% OF the original price. While RMA is someone whose posts I always trust implicitly, I think ttfitz is correct on this one. If you look at Sulipa's annual market reports in the OPG (and they are always among the most valuable of the reports), he has always expressed prices as a % of guide value. He's described things this way for many years, now. And yes, his punctuation, especially on his website, is atrocious... Not a problem regarding looking at Sulipa's statement incorrectly (and thanks for the upvote!), but whether the number is 150% to 500% OF the regular value, or 150% to 500% OVER the regular price doesn't make too great a difference. Either way, those thresholds aren't being met. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these books aren't worth enough to paint a clear picture about how they're selling on eBay or elsewhere, but a lot of these books have sold recently for $1-$2...but shipping costs and not knowing if there's combining muddies the situation up to uselessness. If we look at more valuable books, we don't see the large percentage differences, even in the most valuable of books. Example: Tales of the Teen Titans #44. In Feb of this year, a 9.8 Canadian edition sold for $425 (a record.) But in Feb, there were 4 sales of regular 9.8s, and they sold for: Feb-22-2015 $350 Feb-17-2015 $340 Feb-09-2015 $360 Feb-05-2015 $360 The same day that the Canadian 9.8 sold, the $340 regular sale also happened. $425 is only 125% of $340, or a 25% premium. The others are, of course, a bit less. I'm not knocking Canadian versions, not at all. I love them, and have been actively buying them for as long as I've been aware of their existence. And absolutely there is a small subset of collectors who would buy these versions, and pay a small premium for them. And I would be perfectly happy if they sold for the premiums Sulipa is stating...but there doesn't seem to be any data that supports anything but the lowest end of his claimed premiums. But...the issue was factual accuracy, and Comicwiz brought Sulipa's name into the mix, and then tied himself to both Sulipa and Krause, as if they were in full agreement with what he was saying. And I don't see the 150% to 500% (the latter an astonishing number) anywhere we look. Sure, we can find examples in the 150% to 200% range....but 500%? A $10 regular book selling for $30, $40, $50 as a Canadian? A $100 book selling for $300, $400, $500? Sure, a $1 book selling for $5, ok. But if that's the case, it's a little disingenuous, no? At this time, the market just doesn't care as much about Canadian versions as much as Doug Sulipa is suggesting.

That's a very good question, but we don't know that the $5.95 single price was published after the dual price 4th printing. Remember: there are no single price variations for MGN #1 or 2, even though #2 was supposedly published only a month before #3. Why not? And we know that all printings from #5 on have dual pricing, so any single prices would have to have been printed before #5. We know that the MGN #4s identified as second printings have dual pricing... Were the $5.95 single prices for #3 and #4...afterthoughts...? And if that's the case, wouldn't they be...later printings? Why did MGN #1 go through 3 printings, but never had a single $6.95 price? Was the $5.95 acceptable to the Canadian market for the meantime? The Canadian market clearly had demand for these later printings...hence the dual pricing...but why is there not any "single price" Canadian versions for the first 3 printings? The 4th printing is a dual price, but with those "mixed fonts" (the original fat, frumpy font for $5.95, combined with the sleeker $6.95 price.) Perhaps Carol Kalish (or Peter David or whoever) did some research that showed Canadians were unwilling to pay, in 1982 Canadian dollars, $6.95 for a Marvel Graphic Novel. Sure, but I doubt they put that much research into it. And, as noted before, the difference in the exchange rate wasn't enough to do anything about it until after the middle of the year (cover date October.) Eventually, they didn't have a choice. It didn't require a second cover....just a change of the price. Yes, theoretically, they would be "third" printings...but misidentified "additional runs after the fact" are not without precedent in comics history.

Since when....?

It's a fairly reasonable opinion....but I take the opposite side. I won't believe it is until it is proven so. Three copies does not a conclusion make.... 13 out of 18 (including ones I've pulled from my boxes) single priced copies have the $5.95 price in Canada. 4 out of around 200 single priced copies have the $5.95 price in U.S. Compelling circumstantial evidence. That's a very good question, but we don't know that the $5.95 single price was published after the dual price 4th printing. Remember: there are no single price variations for MGN #1 or 2, even though #2 was supposedly published only a month before #3. Why not? And we know that all printings from #5 on have dual pricing, so any single prices would have to have been printed before #5. We know that the MGN #4s identified as second printings have dual pricing... Were the $5.95 single prices for #3 and #4...afterthoughts...? And if that's the case, wouldn't they be...later printings? Why did MGN #1 go through 3 printings, but never had a single $6.95 price? Was the $5.95 acceptable to the Canadian market for the meantime? The Canadian market clearly had demand for these later printings...hence the dual pricing...but why is there not any "single price" Canadian versions for the first 3 printings? The 4th printing is a dual price, but with those "mixed fonts" (the original fat, frumpy font for $5.95, combined with the sleeker $6.95 price.)

All this is true. And I think I see where the problem is - I think you are misreading Sulipa's statement due to his lack of punctuation. If we look again, he says "NOTE; (The Canadian Newsstand Cover Price Variants COMICS, Printed in the USA but only Sold in Canada, from the 1982-1986 Era REGULARILY Bring PREMIUMS Sell for 150% to 500% of the Prices of the Common USA Printings". It seems clear that there is a period missing after "PREMIUMS." He doesn't say they sell for "150% to 500% premiums", in which case your revised statement would be correct. He simply says "Sell for 150% to 500% of the Prices of the Common USA Printings", which your example shows once case that fits. I make no claim as to whether his statement is correct or even plausible at the extreme of 500% of the US printings, just that your original assertion that the difference in your own example was 56% did the math backwards. You have given one example that fits within the range (179% of the US price) and one that did not (111% of the US price). Yes, you are correct. I did that one backwards, dividing 42 by 75, rather than the difference (33) by 42, which is the correct way to do it. $75 would be a 78.5% premium over $42, or 178.5% OF the original price.

Can someone just email/tweet/facebook Doug Sulipa, Randy Sauve, or some other person who has been running a comic store in Canada since at least 1982? Maybe they can prove their initial order contained all "$5.95 single price" covers. That would be nice. Why not just stop by Silver Snail and ask?

It's a fairly reasonable opinion....but I take the opposite side. I won't believe it is until it is proven so. Three copies does not a conclusion make....

Not to debate whether Sulipa's assertion is correct or not, but in your example, you have done the math backwards and/or misinterpreted Sulipa's statement. Sulipa says "Canadian Newsstands bring 150% to 500% of the common US printings", and your Canadian ASM #251 sold for $75 vs. the US $42 - $75 is 179% of $42. Your 7.0 example is much closer, only 111% of the US sales price. That's not how the word "Premium" is generally used. "Premium" means "above and beyond the price being compared." A 150% to 500% premium would mean that if a regular copy, all other things being equal, sells for $100, then the 150% premium would put the item at $250. A 500% premium would put that $100 item at $600. The "premium" is above and beyond the regular price. 150% more than $100 is $250. 100% more than $100 is $200. Therefore, $75, while it may be 179% of $42, is not a "179% premium" over the $42 selling price. That's not how it's calculated. 100% more than $42 is $84. 150% more than $42 is $105. A 179% premium over $42 would be $117. Now...it *could* be reasonably interpreted (and probably is) that Sulipa is saying 150% OF the price of the regulars, which would be better...but not by much, and it doesn't change the math function. That would mean a $42 book would sell for $63 at 150%, which is more in line with reality....but, again, he said 150% TO 500%, which would put that $42 book at $63 to $210, which is clearly not the case. In that case, yes, your $42 example would be 179% OF the $42 selling price....that's not usually how the word "PREMIUM" is used (and not the way I laid out my example, though, granted, either meaning could be seen.) That is....the $10 book variant vs. the $9 regular doesn't mean it sold for a 111% PREMIUM...it sold for an 11% premium, or whatever the amount above and beyond the value of the item being compared. The same works going the other way: if I'm getting a 25% discount, you start with the "start price" and take the amount off of that. In other words, 25% off of $100 isn't $81.25 (which is 25% OF $75)....it's $75.

You speak from anger. You ignore distinction that isn't even subtle because you speak from anger. Creation was rushed. Production was not. Production is a separate process from creation in comic book publishing. No wall. Simple. And what Doug Sulipa posted on his site re: Canadian newsstand versions isn't entirely accurate.

That's the opposite of what is going on. You are using incomplete data to arrive at a conclusion, as has been shown here. You issued a challenge. Your challenge was met. You refused to honor the terms of your challenge. All the rest of this PGX, CBCS, is all superfluous, and unrelated to this discussion. No one has "lost their mind" over anything. So, when you say "The Marvel Graphic Novel first print runs averaged roughly a 5-6K output," you mean something entirely different...? Interesting. What you actually say is this: "These figures are an approximation based on the circulation statements for the Marvel Graphic Novel series, and New Mutant comic series." ...you don't say anything about the fact that the "circulation statements" you're using are from a SINGLE DISTRIBUTOR, that in NO WAY represented the entire market. It is an approximation in the same way that five beans of coffee is "approximately" one pound of coffee beans. If I say "the Box Office at the Burbank AMC16 was $273,000 over the weekend for Furious 7"....which is "a" metric....would it be fair to say "....and therefore, the whole box office nationwide was $273,000"? No, of course not. You're not taking into account anything but the box office from a single theatre. Yet that is exactly what you have done. You have taken the numbers...and not even the numbers for the issue in question, which are currently unknown, but another issue altogether...from a SINGLE DISTRIBUTOR and claimed those are the ENTIRE numbers of the print runs. Being a "well-known formula" doesn't make it accurate. It is too broad to have any functional meaning to the comics market, regardless of its widespread usage "across the board." Any "viciousness" exists solely in your mind. There is no viciousness here; simply a reporting of the facts. If you didn't want this stated, you might have shown just a smidgen of humility, rather than issuing a challenge, and then, when that challenge was met, refusing to honor your own word. Why would I? It was neither stupid nor uncalled for. I have demonstrably proven you wrong, but "your" mistake was thinking *I* would admit that *I* was wrong...? Is this Superboy #68 territory...? Yes, because well reasoned, rational dialogue that you don't agree with, and which comes from a source you don't like, you have always regarded as "drivel", no matter how rational or reasonable. Right. Because, you know, I'm the one who says the print run for New Mutants #1 is only 30-50k. And where is that proof...? About WHAT? Except you have done NONE of this. No one has taken ANY swipes at you. You have included information that is factually inaccurate in a listing. You stated...your own words...that if you were proven incorrect, you would revise it. You were proven incorrect. You will not revise it. Instead, you double down and rant and rave about how "I can't admit I'm wrong", when you don't even identify what I've said that is wrong. So.

The numbers reported in Krause are CAP CITY ORDERS ONLY. They do NOT represent the entire print run, as you stated in your listing. Proof: Your listing says "The Marvel Graphic Novel first print runs averaged roughly a 5-6K output, meaning 500-600 were produced with the $5.95 cover price. And somewhere between 30-50K copies produced for New Mutants #1, putting the 75¢ price variant somewhere around 3-5K copies. These figures are an approximation based on the circulation statements for the Marvel Graphic Novel series, and New Mutant comic series." That is not accurate. You stated that if the listing was proven inaccurate, you would revise it. Your listing was proven inaccurate. You have refused to revise it. Everyone else can decide for themselves what that means.

CGC isn't known for their accuracy with regards to identifying and notating later printings. They are experts at grading, not necessarily information gathering. This, doing journeyman research work, is how these things get found out. Gathering information and experience from multiple sources. One of the better aspects of having this board. I have two slabs, both Albedo #0, one of which is a second, and the other a third, printing. Neither is marked as such.

Here is what your listing says: "The Marvel Graphic Novel first print runs averaged roughly a 5-6K output, meaning 500-600 were produced with the $5.95 cover price. And somewhere between 30-50K copies produced for New Mutants #1, putting the 75¢ price variant somewhere around 3-5K copies. These figures are an approximation based on the circulation statements for the Marvel Graphic Novel series, and New Mutant comic series." http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-New-Mutants-1-Marvel-Graphic-Novel-4-Price-Variants-Beauties-/321760537971?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aea6c2d73 Those numbers are grossly inaccurate. Here is the information from New Mutants #35 (which would report roughly around #18-#29): Statement of Ownership: Total No. Copies Printed (net press run): Average no. of copies each issue during preceding 12 months: 509,545. Single issue nearest to filing date: 434,430. Why, then, do you think that New Mutants #1....a spinoff of the X-Men when the X-Men were at the absolute height of their hysteria...would only have had a print run of 30-50k copies TOTAL? It's quite obviously incorrect.

Keep dreaming. The listing stays as is. (thumbs u That's right...because you reject the facts, and resent the source of those facts. You have no interest in being accurate and factual; just in being "right." All I can tell you is this: read your Krause again. Your numbers are wrong, and now that you've been made aware of it, border on fraud. You are giving people information that is easily, provably false, and asking them to make buying decisions based on factually inaccurate information. Here's the page in Krause:

You don't need to believe me. The information is in Krause, plain as day. The numbers reported in Krause are Capital City Distribution numbers ONLY. It says, right there in black and white: "CapCity orders." Capital City distribution was just one of SEVERAL Direct market comic book distributors in 1982/3. They are NOT numbers that represent the entire Direct market orders, or print numbers, for these books. They are ONLY the numbers that CAPITAL CITY ordered. And as I said before, trying to "approximate" numbers based on later issues is an error, as is the blanket "10%" figure you arrive out, based on nothing more than the reasoning that Canada has/had 1/10th the population of the US. It is too broad to be of any real use. Krause and Sulipa have nothing to do with each other in this discussion. You issued a challenge: provide proof that your numbers are wrong, and you'll change the listing. I have done exactly that. Are you going to change your listing, or are you going to be stubborn and resist because you resent the source of the information?

I apologize in advance if I'm misconstruing this section of your post, but, according to Louise Simonson, MGN 4 did have deadline issues: You are misconstruing my post. I'm talking about production deadlines, not creation deadlines. As you can see, these books were not produced on a monthly schedule. Any "deadlines" were artificially created by Shooter, not because they had to get the book out by a certain timeframe. See this quote from Simonson, pulled out here: "What happened was that graphic novels had just recently been introduced, and there was some sort of publishing schedule for these things that was not being met," says Simonson. " ...which, of course, we know isn't entirely true, because of the haphazard publishing schedule of the entire line form start to finish. Yes, there may have been some publishing schedule for these things that was not being met, but it was never met, throughout the entire existence of the line, if, indeed, what Simonson was told was true (and there's compelling reason to believe it was not.) There was no such thing as a "publishing slot" that Shooter talks about. Yes, there is a publication schedule, and monthly and bi-monthly books had to be religiously kept on schedule, to avoid the "Dreaded Deadline Doom", but...as is clear from the aforementioned haphazard publishing schedule, the "deadline" for the MGN was solely and completely an arbitrary decision by Shooter (or someone above him, though not likely.) Yes, there probably was a spot on the publication schedule for MGN #4, but it would not have made any difference to anyone if this spot was blown...which, as Simonson implies, probably happened. Comic shops who ordered these books wouldn't have too great a problem if they ended up being two weeks late. They didn't rely on them for their revenue. Here's the publication schedule for MGNs: #1 - April 82 #2 - July 82 #3 - August 82 #4 - November 82 #5 - Jan 83 #6 - April 83 #7 - Jul 83 #8 - "1983" #9 - "1983" #10 - June 84 (!) http://marvel.wikia.com/Marvel_Graphic_Novel_Vol_1 All of that had nothing to do with the actual production of the books, which could take a reasonable amount of time in formatting and producing the finished product....while a regularly scheduled book doesn't have that luxury.

The prices on these books just continue to astonish me. In the late 90's on eBay, you could buy a nice mid-grade B&B #28 for $400-$600.

I got a nice 5.0 a while back that may go through the press and then Stan signed route. I do love having Stan sign books.

Exactly.

The single price $5.95 with the NEW MUTANTS logo/wordmark on the rear cover is a first, and it was produced for the Canadian market. You'll have to show me a picture of what you're talking about. Every copy of MGN #4 I have seen has the New Mutants logo on the back. Yes, but these are the exceptions that prove the rule. We can always come up with exceptions, but they are the exceptions, and clearly, with books like New Mutants Special Edition #1, which was not a typical book with a typical price, this was a last minute "fix" to address the issue for a regular run book. These font eccentricities had more to do with the difficulty in assessing what was the correct price for these books at the time of production (which is why several double size DCs have a $1.60 price...quite an oddball price), and then getting that price printed properly. They were clearly rushed, as evidenced by your own example: the "75" in the $1.75 price is from the then current 75 cent price used for regular books, like ASM #267 It is quite obviously a rush job. MGN in 1982 didn't have that issue. These were their "premiere format" books, and they weren't rushed. The comparison between Marvel's premiere new format, which had no deadline issues, and production eccentricities of regular newsprint books later on down the line, isn't apt. The question isn't, and never was, whether they WOULD use a different font...it is WHY they would use a different font....what is the justification for doing so, especially if it wasn't necessary due to time constraints.

Just because someone says something, even someone as knowledgeable as Doug, doesn't make it proof. And I would have to see sales data that proved....proof, not just statements....that the Canadian Newsstands bring 150% to 500% of the common US printings. Is there a premium? Sure. Is it 150% to 500%? Unlikely. I just pulled a completely random book...ASM #251....and in July of 2012, a Canadian 9.6 sold for $75 (a price no doubt due to census rarity, as opposed to actual rarity)...and in Oct of 2012, a regular 9.6 sold for $42. That's a mere 56% price difference, not 150% to 500%. As well, a 7.0 Canadian version sold for $10 in April of 2010, while a regular 7.0 sold in May of 2010...for $9. And I suspect I could find these types of numbers up and down GPA. Do Canadians bring premiums in ultra high grade? Of course. Is that a result of census rarity, or actual rarity? Hard to say conclusively. But do Canadians bring 150% to 500% premiums in ANY grade? No. So...does Doug Sulipa's comment that "The Canadian Newsstand Cover Price Variants COMICS REGULARILY Bring PREMIUMS" stand up to scrutiny? No. Is Doug Sulipa actively SELLING Canadians? Yes. Is it therefore in Doug's interests to aggressively promote these books? Yes.

The numbers are from circulation/order statements published by Krause - and the MGN's had an approximate range of 5-6K produced for first print runs, which are first reported for the 16th issue (that number is 5,050) and remained that way for issues under 20, with the exception of one in the 9K range (issue 20) and are reported number of 3,750 (issue 19). The highest reported metric is over 11K for issue 22. A similar explanation applies for the NM comic series, albeit the approximate range given applies to circulation/order statements for that specific title. The 1/10th estimate is again, an approximation, based on population size differences between Canada and the US. You know my sources now (if you didn't already). Prove any of this wrong, with actual evidence, and I'll revise the listing. "The Standard Catalog of Comic Books" (aka "Krause"), only lists CAPITAL CITY circulation numbers. As such, they are often vastly incomplete, and further information must be applied to arrive at reasonable approximations. In 1982-83, which covers the timeframe being discussed, there were several Direct market distributors, and Cap City was only one of many. There was Bud Plant, Westfield, the fledgling Diamond, Seagate, Pacific Comics, and others. There's the proof, with actual evidence. Let's see if the listing is revised. As well, assuming that Cap City circulation numbers for later issues of the MGN series can be applied with any degree of accuracy to the earlier issues is also not well reasoned. Those numbers aren't approximations, any more than numbers for X-Men (1991) #15 is a good approximation for issue #1. As well, the 1/10th estimation is about as approximate an approximation as it gets. Basing it on the idea that the population of Canada was/is 10% of the population of the US is so broad as to render it a meaningless number. As well, reason tells you that if there were only 500-600 Canadian versions printed, as you claim, and 33 years ago no less, there probably wouldn't be at least 7 copies of this book for sale in the last couple of weeks. Not impossible, but so improbable as to render the likelihood negligible.