RockMyAmadeus

Same ol' madness. I've got probably 20 raw 9.8s that I could really use in slabs right about now. I find it interesting (ironic) that, on the one hand you evidently believe the fact that a couple of people have maximized their profits on a famous, rare variant reflects a "GIMME GIMME GIMME" mentality, You continue to repeat your error, because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I have said. Please - try to understand what it is I have actually said, so that you stop repeating things about me that aren't true. Let me be as plain as I can be: the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone "maximizing their profits." I don't mean to demean you, and I hate to belabor the point, but it HAS to get through to you: the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone "maximizing their profits." Once more, with feeling: the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone "maximizing their profits." If you can sell the book for $10 quintillion dollars, MORE POWER TO YOU. The issue isn't "maximized profits." What IS the issue? That the market keeps SPENDING like this. If there's someone willing to pay you $10 quintillion dollars, GREAT! By all means, that's wonderful, and you'll be fabulously wealthy. The issue is that there is someone willing to pay $10 quintillion dollars. THAT is the issue. That there are people lining up to pay these prices is the issue. And worse, the reasons WHY people are lining up ("I can flip this for even MORE money!" It's not sustainable. I really do hope...and honestly, there is no malice on my part...that you have gotten this "RMA thinks people are being GREEDY!" notion out of your head. "Slickly cheerleading"? You get "slickly cheerleading" from "Same ol' madness. I've got probably 20 raw 9.8s that I could really use in slabs right about now." Wow. Spare your contempt, jay, for things that actually deserve it. Do not make such judgments from a position of error.

Same ol' madness. I've got probably 20 raw 9.8s that I could really use in slabs right about now.

Out them I wish I could prove it man, oh how I wish I could..........I would love to drive the bus that I throw them under..... Then how do you "know" they do this? When you see something that doesn't add up, like an auction with only a few bids, that is 10x or 20x higher than any BIN, and the BIN are in a better grade for less, .....C'Mon man. I cannot hack the accounts to confirm, but if it looks like poop, smells like poop. Likely poop. And really easy to "set the market" mark the item as paid and shipped, pay a few fees to then sell others for "market". It is impossible to stop 100%..... That's really not how eBay works. You don't even need to "pay a few fees" and "mark the item as paid and shipped." Proof is essential.

Looks like I have to start listing. I won a Heritage auction 2-3 years ago for around $140 that had a complete run of NM with multiples. The #98 came back at 9.6, and I believe the #87 from the run was only a 9.4. The nice thing was that one of the issues with heavy multiples was #1 with 10 or so copies (there were the same number of #100s (1st and 2nd printings) and #87 2nd as well). You don't want to know how many New Mutants #1s I have. That was one of the "wall books" that I HAD to have in 1990. $7.25 in OPG. So, of course, now I have a couple dozen.

$5.95 = original frumpy, fat, heavy font. $6.95 Can = Sleeker font.

By who...? This is an assumption. Do I need to whip out my Dark Knight Returns newsstands again...? By whom? Yes, by whom, thank you for the correction.

The Marvel Graphic Novels, especially #1-5, were reprinted multiple times, without much indication that they were reprints. This is very confusing. Marvel production didn't consider, at the time, that this could create problems. Nobody thought of it at the time, because no one knew we'd be discussing it nearly 35 years later. So, let's discuss. MGN #1 - First printing should have a SINGLE $5.95 cover price, with "frumpy font" (my term), that is, thick and heavy, for the price. MGN #2 - First printing should have a SINGLE $5.95 cover price, frumpy font. MGN #3 - First printing should have a SINGLE $4.95 cover price, frumpy font. MGN #4 - First printing should have a SINGLE $4.95 cover price, frumpy font. MGN #5 - First printing should have a DOUBLE $5.95/$6.95 cover price, sleeker font. Thereafter, the MGNs all had a double price. IMPORTANT: - Look at the INDICIA page. If you see a PRINTER'S KEY: "10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1" and it's missing the 1, or the 1 and 2, or the 1 and 2 and 3, and so on, it's NOT a first printing. Also...if it says "XXXXX printing", it's obviously a later printing. I'm willing to be convinced that $5.95 single is Canadian...but it would take some compelling evidence. There's no precedent for it, obviously, and at the time these were being printed, there wasn't a need quite yet for a dual price....which is why you see later printings WITH the dual pricing. Remember...up until 1982, and for a decade plus before that, the US and Canadian dollars traded essentially at par. So, there was no need for "separate pricing" until it was instituted with the OCT 1982 cover dates. Prior to that, it was the same price for standard comics, whether distributed in the US or Canada. The first four MGNs, being early to mid 1982 books, also fit under this scheme. There's no reason to assume that there was a "special Canadian version", when there's absolutely no indication that such was necessary until the last quarter (cover dates) of 1982. Because MGN #4 is on the cusp, however, I'm willing to consider that it might be a special case...but there would have to be proof or, barring that, compelling circumstantial evidence (such as being on the cusp of the change.)

Posted in the movie thread: As usual, the production people didn't think this through, and didn't imagine we'd be discussing it nearly 35 years later. It is my long standing opinion that anything other than the single $4.95 price is a later printing, but I'm willing to consider that the single $5.95 price is a "Canadian version" 1st printing. It's the font that gives it away. The price wouldn't be in a different font if they were both first printings.

As usual, the production people didn't think this through, and didn't imagine we'd be discussing it nearly 35 years later. It is my long standing opinion that anything other than the single $4.95 price is a later printing, but I'm willing to consider that the single $5.95 price is a "Canadian version" 1st printing. It's the font that gives it away. The price wouldn't be in a different font if they were both first printings.

I pulled all my MGN #4s, but, unfortunately, they're all first printings, so I can't do a side by side comparison. (I know, how awful.)

By who...? This is an assumption. Do I need to whip out my Dark Knight Returns newsstands again...?

Comicbookrealm is making an assumption. For there to have been a "Canadian version" of MGN #4, there would have been such versions for #1-3. At the time of the first graphic novels, 1982, there wasn't a distinction between the Canadian market and the US market. The dollars were trading at about par, which changed as 1982 moved along. That's why later versions have "$4.95, $5.95 Can" on them (and why MGN #5 first printings have both prices from the start.)

How do you know it's a Canadian version...? It is priced differently, $5.95 or something like that...The US version is $4 something? $4.95? Too lazy to look it up exactly. I think that is the only indicator though. Yes, the first printing of the US edition is $4.95. However...I'd like to know how you know it's a Canadian version, and not a later printing. This, and other MGNs, are notorious for later printings that have no indication that they are such, and as a result, have confused a lot of people. The only for sure, we're positive first printing is the $4.95 cover price with no notation in the indicia. Everything else...including double prices *$4.95, $5.95 Can") are later printings. Because of the font of the $5.95 in your example, I'm inclined to believe this is a later printing, sometime around 1984. HOWEVER....all that said, we should keep open the possibility that there were, in fact, Canadian versions that are first printings. Not at all likely, but certainly possible.

Maybe. That listing has a picture which doesn't show the entire indicia page. There might be a Printer's key: "10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1" ...that isn't shown. These books are notorious for not clearly labeling later printings. If the last number is a 2 or 3, then it is not a first printing, but rather a second, third, etc. That listing is almost certainly a first printing. Compare the font of the price with other printings.

How do you know it's a Canadian version...? It is priced differently, $5.95 or something like that...The US version is $4 something? $4.95? Too lazy to look it up exactly. I think that is the only indicator though. Yes, the first printing of the US edition is $4.95. However...I'd like to know how you know it's a Canadian version, and not a later printing. This, and other MGNs, are notorious for later printings that have no indication that they are such, and as a result, have confused a lot of people. The only for sure, we're positive first printing is the $4.95 cover price with no notation in the indicia. Everything else...including double prices *$4.95, $5.95 Can") are later printings. Because of the font of the $5.95 in your example, I'm inclined to believe this is a later printing, sometime around 1984. HOWEVER....all that said, we should keep open the possibility that there were, in fact, Canadian versions that are first printings. Not at all likely, but certainly possible.

How do you know it's a Canadian version...?

If what I say offends you to the point that you need to be dismissive and disrespectful, darkstar, though I have done nothing to you personally, why not just put me on ignore? Is the extra hostility needed? What I wrote doesn't need a lengthy back and forth discussion is all. I make liberal use of the ignore function but I see no reason to put you on it. So, you'd rather just be openly hostile, not to mention erroneous in your observations? I see. No hostility intended. If you feel what I wrote was incorrect that is fine. I have neither the energy nor the interest to pursue the matter any further, thus the Then, perhaps, you might refrain from making the comment in the first place. Heat, kitchen, etc.

If what I say offends you to the point that you need to be dismissive and disrespectful, darkstar, though I have done nothing to you personally, why not just put me on ignore? Is the extra hostility needed? What I wrote doesn't need a lengthy back and forth discussion is all. I make liberal use of the ignore function but I see no reason to put you on it. So, you'd rather just be openly hostile, not to mention erroneous in your observations? I see.

Yes. Everything else is just chatter to cover that fact up. And yes, your (misplaced) opinion is duly noted. Thank you. (thumbs u -J. As is yours. There, that wasn't so hard, was it...?

Sucker.

If what I say offends you to the point that you need to be dismissive and disrespectful, darkstar, though I have done nothing to you personally, why not just put me on ignore? Is the extra hostility needed? I interpret it as his way of ignoring you. He's just letting you know he's ignoring you. Funny way of ignoring someone, by not ignoring them Disregarding your opinion as is the same as the hand to the face for me. Yes, but not *actually* ignoring them, which is the point. "Talk to the hand" is dismissive and disrespectful...it's a sign of contempt. What did I do to darkstar that deserved such contempt...? Expressed an opinion he didn't like...?

Indeed.

If what I say offends you to the point that you need to be dismissive and disrespectful, darkstar, though I have done nothing to you personally, why not just put me on ignore? Is the extra hostility needed? I interpret it as his way of ignoring you. He's just letting you know he's ignoring you. Funny way of ignoring someone, by not ignoring them

Yes. Everything else is just chatter to cover that fact up.

There is no board spokesman, and there were no elections. You speak for Jay, and only Jay, and I speak for me, and only me. Other people are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. No need for the "we" comments, because "we" may not agree with you. And, as I said, it's not about this book. It's a discussion. If you don't like the discussion, don't engage in it. Easy cheesy. And you might want to correct your quotes above. It's poorly formatted.