RockMyAmadeus

Not necessarily, but it doesn't matter. The beauty of the Cap City numbers is that they are a representative slice of numbers for just about the entire Direct Market. The ratio wouldn't be substantially different between Diamond, or the other distributors. If orders for NM #98 was 30% higher than ASM #300 at Cap City, they'd be about that same ratio at Diamond, N.I.C.E., and others, regardless of the actual numbers. Sure, one would expect that the percentage change in orders from one issue of a title to the next would be approximately the same across the different distributors. However, if total distribution of issues that are years apart is spread out differently because of distributors going out of business or being acquired by others, what then? For example, if the breakdowns were something like ASM 300 Diamond 40% Capital City 20% Distributor A 10% Distributor B 6% Distributor C 7% Distributor D 8% Distributor E 4% Distributor F 5% NM 98 Diamond 50% Capital City 30% Distributor A 7% Distributor C 7% Distributor D 6% then ASM 300 would be at 214500 and NM 98 would be at 184000 based on the Capital City orders. Of course, there were more small distributors and those numbers aren't at all accurate, just illustrative of possible changes in North American distribution. Bad math! Your math is incorrect, because you don't know most of the numbers involved. You can't extrapolate only based on a single data set, and then guesses as to the percentage of market share for the other distributors. I understand your reasoning, but we don't know what percentage of the Direct market Cap City was at the precise time of the ASM #300 orders, nor the NM #98 orders, other than "very broadly", Cap City represented between 15-30% of the Direct Market at any "one" time. But that is very, very broad, and encompasses years between 1980 and 1996, And we don't know how many smaller distributors existed. By the end of 1990, there were more distributors in the market than in early 1988, not less. Distributors came and went throughout the 80's, and 1988 was a consolidation year. After that, with the entry of card dealers into the market, independent distributors and sub-distributors started popping up again (I worked for one myself) in 1990. The final contraction of distributors wouldn't begin until around late 92/early 93. Also, at the time of ASM #300 (Feb of 1988), Diamond was not yet a "national" distributor, and wouldn't be until that summer...so Cap City percentages at about that time *possibly* would have been higher than Diamond's. (Diamond didn't gain control of 40% of the DM until they bought Bud Plant in California.) The only numbers we know for any specific issue are Cap City's (and those, of course, aren't even exactly precise; they're rounded.) That, combined with the SOO, gives us a clear(er) picture, but it's still fairly broad. However...it would be a mistake to assume that ASM #300 has higher extant numbers than NM #98, based on the numbers we do know, and the changes in the market and collecting habits in the intervening years.

First new post in this thread since last year!

You DO realize that the last three sentences do precisely what you told everyone else NOT to do in the first sentence, right...?

Still waiting for the data that show there are more copies of ASM #300 than NM #98... http://www.comichron.com/titlespotlights/amazingspiderman.html That's just the SOO. That doesn't show what I'm asking for. Where's the data that show there are more copies of ASM #300 than NM #98...? Here's some data: Cap City orders: ASM #300 - 42,900 NM #98 - 55,200 That is a substantial difference. Can we extrapolate? Yes. Yes, we can. Weren't there more distributors handling ASM 300 than NM 98? Not necessarily, but it doesn't matter. The beauty of the Cap City numbers is that they are a representative slice of numbers for just about the entire Direct Market. The ratio wouldn't be substantially different between Diamond, or the other distributors. If orders for NM #98 was 30% higher than ASM #300 at Cap City, they'd be about that same ratio at Diamond, N.I.C.E., and others, regardless of the actual numbers. Not at all. They represent averages. They tell us almost nothing except for one single issue closest to the filing date, and that may not necessarily by the "December issue." And, we don't HAVE a SOO that covers New Mutants #98, so we must use some educated guesswork. In any event...Spidey #300 wasn't from the "let's hoard 50 copies of everything the second it comes out" era...it was *just* prior to that era, and the Cap City numbers reflect that. Are they higher than #299 and #301? Yes. #299 -36,300 #301 - 33,100 But, the book wasn't ordered in any extreme numbers, because McFarlane wasn't on anybody's radar at that point. The orders for #300 would have been due right around the time that Hulk #340 was out (32,200, by the way), which would have given the comics audience precisely one issue of "good" McFarlane art (Tec #578 notwithstanding) to decide if this guy was the next hot thing. Spidey had been in the doldrums for a while, and the year just prior to McFarlane was particularly undistinguished (Kraven and the fairly anti-climactic end of the Hobgoblin saga being the exceptions), and numbers weren't particularly good for the title. In fact, it was ASM #300 which was the jolt that made the comic buying public stand up and take notice, and obviously it was too late to up the print run by that point. On the other hand, NM #98 comes at the end of the run, and Liefeld has managed to drag the book up from Cap City numbers of 33-36k to numbers in the 50's and even the 60's (#97.) #98's, while a definite dip from #97, was still the 4th highest CC order of the Liefeld issues, behind #100, #97, and #96. Not crazy numbers; that would come later....but certainly substantially more than Amazing Spiderman from #298-324. In fact, only two issues of the ASM McFarlane run, #325 and #328, had Cap City order numbers higher than NM #98. The only numbers we have for NM #98 are the Cap City numbers, and those show a figure nearly 30% higher than the order number for ASM #300. So...looking at Cap City, and the SOO printed in ASM #315 and NM #99, and extrapolating, we can reasonably conclude that the extant number of copies of ASM #300 is slightly lower than NM #98.

All very nice. Now....there is a bit of a distinction, but it is a minor one. There are a few variant printed during this time period that were NOT part of the collector packs that these came from...specifically, Action #700 and Detective #675, both of which call themselves "Premium Editions" (and should have been labeled as such by CGC, rather than "gold" or "platinum.") They aren't *technically* part of this set, being unique to themselves, but I suppose it would be fine to include them. Any other variants out there that I missed? PS. Nightwing #1 also has a DCU variant. I don't know why I didn't pick one up when I had the chance, but it was $35.

I use the term "shlubs" endearingly.

Still waiting for the data that show there are more copies of ASM #300 than NM #98... http://www.comichron.com/titlespotlights/amazingspiderman.html That's just the SOO. That doesn't show what I'm asking for. Where's the data that show there are more copies of ASM #300 than NM #98...? Here's some data: Cap City orders: ASM #300 - 42,900 NM #98 - 55,200 That is a substantial difference. Can we extrapolate? Yes. Yes, we can. Of course, and that's true, but it's only true relative to surrounding issues of the same title published at around the same time. There's over 3.5 years of time in between Spidey #300 and NM #98. I hold you to a much higher standard than most of the shlubs around here, because you are quick to point out...and rightly so...errors in the information and suppositions of others.

Still waiting for the data that show there are more copies of ASM #300 than NM #98...

This pretty much mirrors my experience. I lost my TRS discount in August, when they switched to the new system. Why? Because one guy bought a book on Jan 20 (MLK day), received it on the 25th, and gave me a 1 or 2 ship time DSR. Because one guy bought a mid-grade ASM #121 from me, didn't like that it has a 1/2" tear at the top of the spine (it was, after all. midgrade), and left a "3" for item as described, which is now considered "low" to eBay, and counts as a defect. Because one person...a board member here, no less...left a neutral feedback after buying a Crow #1 from me in rough shape, without looking at the picture (there was no description), or asking anything about condition (which the picture clearly showed was beat), and without bothering to contact me first, even though I have a no questions asked return policy. Because one person bought something from me while I was traveling to the Image Expo, and wasn't at home to ship it to him....6 whole days after he bought it, and, of course, without bothering to contact me. Because one guy bought a JIM #114 from me, described as "white pages" from a collection from which other copies have gotten OW/W or White designations, and, instead of contacting me directly, filed an "item not as described case"...which counts as a defect...and eBay's system funnels buyers into doing this. He then left a negative, because I "flipped out" and dared ask him why he had to file a case against me instead of approaching me first. He said the pages were more "beige" than white, and that was worth opening a "not as described" case. Try explaining THAT to someone at eBay! And arguing with incompetent workers in the Philippines, whose accents I can barely understand at times (and I'm not ignorant of the trouble with accents), is usually a complete waste of time. It's pretty crummy, with no viable alternative.

Data, please.

I think your memory may be a little rusty on a few of these details.

(this is my favorite journal. Don't tell the other journals. They're a little sensitive.)

Meta.

If it's a mainstream DC printed between 1994 and Oct of 1996. the odds are good that it has a DC Universe variant, with few exceptions. The Batman Annual #13 is a surprise for me; clearly it was a reprint (a la Green Lantern #36.) Still working on a complete list. Based on what you just said, and the pictures above, is it safe to assume that most mainstream DC books from that timeframe, that were Subscription mailed, will all have the DCU logo? Is that what we have here? Subscription variants? With some misc set and specialty books and reprints that have the logo as well? I'm not entirely sure what the question is, but these books were I think sold ONLY in multi-book packs in retail outlets, like a target or Costco, maybe walmart, and some bookstores. Of course, some comic book shops might have had some of these packs too. So you wouldn't likely have had any mailed to subscribers in my opinion. There were SOME small set and single issues, as listed above, like the Superman Wedding Special, Superman: Man of Tomorrow, and the Aquaman, etc. You know what's weird? never heard of or seen any Teen Titans DCU, would have been New Teen Titans at the time I think. New Titans, and I don't see any examples of these. You are correct, these books were printed as part of boxed sets, 20 and 10 packs, 2 and 3 packs, etc. All made for Walmart, Costco, KMart, etc.

I can say "I was there for the first appearance of the CGC pancake..."

If it's a mainstream DC printed between 1994 and Oct of 1996. the odds are good that it has a DC Universe variant, with few exceptions. The Batman Annual #13 is a surprise for me; clearly it was a reprint (a la Green Lantern #36.) Still working on a complete list. Surprised RMA!!! what up! I updated this list, any help you could provide adding to it would be appreciated. Is Green Lantern 36 also a DCU UPC Logo? If so, let me know and I'll add it. Yes, it came in the Green Lantern boxed set which also contained GL #50-55, I think. I'd have to check, but yes, there were "prior to 1994 issues" that were reprinted (and say so) especially for the box sets.

They are, essentially, the same exact thing, only with the Zero hour symbol rather than the DCU logo.

Do any of the foreign editions have embossed lettering?

If it's a mainstream DC printed between 1994 and Oct of 1996. the odds are good that it has a DC Universe variant, with few exceptions. The Batman Annual #13 is a surprise for me; clearly it was a reprint (a la Green Lantern #36.) Still working on a complete list.

PERNTS!!

It's supposed to be "Coppers (that are) heating/selling well on eBay" The apostrophe is superfluous. "Copper's (that is, Copper is) heating/selling well on eBay" would just be a declarative statement about the general state of the Copper Age market, without discussing individual books. Minutiae. I thought 'Copper's = Copper is' always sounded like the element copper is heating up on ebay. That too!

It's supposed to be "Coppers (that are) heating/selling well on eBay" The apostrophe is superfluous. "Copper's (that is, Copper is) heating/selling well on eBay" would just be a declarative statement about the general state of the Copper Age market, without discussing individual books. Minutiae.

All of them. I win!

ZECK!! Wait til my Baltimores come back.

It's amazing how cheap books can be had today. Even "hot" books like Ten Nights of the Beast. Back in 1989, at the height of Batmania, these books were in the Update for $12 each... $48 in 1989 dollars. Now...$20 + shipping will buy you all four...in 2014 dollars.