RockMyAmadeus

The arrogance of some of these people is just astonishing. Just astonishing. Excellent work, DCI, as usual.

Come on, that's just crazy, and Byrne stuff was hot by 1983-84, when his Alpha Flight flew off the shelves. The guy was the hottest artist on the planet and all of his issues were broken out in OS. I remember filling some X-Men holes in 1984 and spending $8-$12 per NM issue mail-order on the 110's and 120's commons, $20+ or semi-keys. I still have the catalogs and order forms. In the college town I was in, the very first comic book store they ever had was still in the first year of its existence. He got in a lot of back issues he bought in that first year (I know because I worked for him), but it wasn't until 1987 he got that first run of Bryne X-Men and said, "These are hot books". I wasn't an X-Men reader, but had enjoyed Bryne's run on the FF, so hearing it stuck out in my mind. He priced them at guide and featured them promently on display. They sat. Eventually he marked them down and let me trade for them. . Yes, as has been noted in many market reports of the late 80's, X-Men had overreached (with ONE TITLE), Claremont got confused and slightly dazed, and X-Men took a serious dive in popularity...it would take Jim Lee in 1990 to restore the title to its former glory.

No one said he wasn't a big deal in 1983. He was popular in 1983. Amongst X-Men collectors he was very popular. But white hot super nova Mainstream big deal? No. Not yet. Is anyone arguing that? Looks like it to me.

As Chuck already said, no. As I've already said, many times, no. It is the "how big a deal" that is the question. Was he a superstar? Not even close. At this point, the superstars were Bats, Wonder Woman, Hulk, Spidey, and Supes. These were the superstars, the household name (yes, WW had, in very recent memory, her own TV series, as did Hulk. That's "household name" status.) Wolverine was definitely on the rise...but superstar status? No, that would come later. PS. I really wish everyone would just let everyone speak for themselves. Everytime I read the word "we" on a message board, I cringe. No one speaks for anyone else, even those that agree with them. Fair enough...?

Yeah, the NY area was always well above the rest of the country in terms of prices. I absolutely agree, which is why we have to look at all the information available. It's never enough to look at one piece of the puzzle, even if it is a part of the picture. No one piece tells the picture, but the more pieces you have, the clearer the picture becomes.

You are anything but willing to change your mind, that much is clear. Wow, Wolverine lost to Daredevil #181, my favorite comic of ALL-TIME, in 1982. What does that prove? He won Favorite Character in 1982 and 1984 and UXM won Favorite Title in those years as well! And those were voted on by the fans, as opposed to what Amazing Heroes thought. Next you'll be telling us that the Avengers movie didn't win the Oscar for Best Picture! Wow, Miller wins best GN of 1986 and Dazzler got a GN and Wolvie didn't! I'm sorry that you feel that I'm being confrontational, but it just exasperates me that this kind of illogical, irrelevant, non-sequitur is being presented as some kind of amazing revelation. I mean, by your (il)logic, Wolverine NEVER becomes a major superstar at all, because he never wins any awards after 1984!! We know this to be untrue, so pointing to evidence that shows he's not winning awards in the mid-to-late '80s just means that data is OBVIOUSLY NOT RELEVANT. As Einstein said: "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." Wolvie and the X-Men won the relevant categories that mattered. The Wolvie mini-series sold like hotcakes. Wolvie got a second mini-series with KP in 1984 and was one of the stars of Secret Wars. He has an unprecedented 4 solo covers in 1986 and makes numerous solo and team guest appearances during this time, while dominating the cover count during this period. UXM sales march steadily higher from 1980 onwards. The back issue market for X-Men is on fire and Hulk #181 is a $17.50 book in "VG or better" in the same Mile High ad I referenced above, which made it one of the more/most valuable books listed. That he didn't get a GN or solo series until 1988 sure as hell wasn't because he didn't have the popularity to merit one. But, please, keep telling us how there's no evidence that Wolverine was a superstar in the early-to-mid 1980s. I have asked you, several times, to stop replying to me. I told you I was not going to discuss the issue with you anymore, because you made it personal. You continue to take personal shots in every post you make. I have tried to ignore you, but you keep replying to me. I have asked you to stop, multiple times, and you keep replying to me. I have not replied to you on this topic, but you keep replying to me. Who is it....really...who is dragging the argument into oblivion? Hmm? Me? Or you? Last time: PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME. Whatever else you post is none of my business. But I'm asking you one last time to STOP replying to me, or bringing me up in the conversation, however obliquely. Thank you.

Oh, and... So it's not taken too seriously....

Now that you're here, it's white hot, and the superstar of CG.

1986.

And THAT...has been my point all along.

A lot of people are saying, and have said that. But there were a lot of magazines about comics being published at the time, and no one's come up with anything, outside of the CBG fan award winners (which doesn't include any runners up), that shows that Wolverine was "white hot" or a "superstar" at the comic fandom level. And the CBG fan awards only shows Wolverine as most popular in two years...1982, and 1984...and then never appears again. What about the other years? Why was Batman the winner in 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989? 1989 is easy to account for...but 5 wins in 6 years? Where was Punisher? How about Wolvie? Spidey? And what about the OTHER CBG fan award categories? How about favorite story: 1982: Last Hand in Daredevil #181 by Frank Miller (Marvel) 1983: (Tie) Doom! by Walter Simonson in Thor #337 (Marvel); Hard Times in American Flagg! #1-3 by Howard Chaykin (First) 1984: The Judas Contract in Tales of the Teen Titans #42-44 and Tales of the Teen Titans Annual #3 by Marv Wolfman and George Pérez (DC) 1985: Beyond the Silent Night in Crisis on Infinite Earths #7 by Marv Wolfman and George Pérez (DC) 1986: Batman: The Dark Knight Returns #1-4 by Frank Miller, Klaus Janson, and Lynn Varley (DC) No Wolvie in sight, but Miller appears twice. How about favorite title: 1982: The Uncanny X-Men (Marvel) 1983: American Flagg! (First) 1984: The Uncanny X-Men (Marvel) 1985: Swamp Thing (DC) - So X-Men wins twice, but not for 1983. (By the way...American Flagg was tearing up the joint in these years.) Favorite GN: 1984 (actually, Book): Dazzler: The Movie (Marvel Graphic Novel #12) by Jim Shooter, Frank Springer, and Vince Colletta (Marvel) 1985 (actually, Book): Comic Book Price Guide #15 by Robert M. Overstreet (Overstreet) 1986: Daredevil: Love and War (Marvel Graphic Novel #24) by Frank Miller and Bill Sienkiewicz (Marvel) - Miller again! No Wolvie. Dazzler gets a graphic novel, even! The OPG certainly doesn't show it. Here's an example that contradicts it: Amazing Heroes, in their issue #63, published their "Best 10 Books (titles) of 1984." They are, in order: #1. Swamp Thing (in fact, by 1985, Swamp Thing had rapidly become one of the best titles on the racks.) #2. Jon Sable #3. American Flagg #4. New Teen Titans #5. Fantastic Four #6. X-Men #7. Blue Devil #8. Atari Force #9. Doctor Strange #10. Power Pack. I don't have the actual issue in hand, but it's from a DC house ad that says "per R.A. Jones, Amazing Heroes" issue #63. Here's why this is important: it was published AT THE TIME, documenting the situation, at least as Amazing Heroes saw it, AT THE TIME. And X-Men...? A dismal 6th, behind reasonably argued MUCH better titles. Wolverine may, in fact, have been the single hottest thing since sliced bread...to 11 and 12 year old boys. But 11 and 12 year old boys did not make up the entire market, and, in 1983, didn't even make up the majority of the market anymore. If it was a discussion about which character was the most popular X-Man, or most popular Marvel character, among 11-12 year old boys in 1982, 1983, 1984...hand down, no contest! Wolvie wins! But it's not. Show me anything documented at the time that makes the claim that many are making, that Wolvie was a superstar in 1983, and white hot. I am perfectly willing to change my mind, based on new evidence.

Well Spider-man obviously.... had three new story monthly titles... wait, four if you count MTU... plus Marvel Tales reprints... Then... they had a SECOND Avengers monthly book (West Coast) before they ever took a chance on a Wolvie monthly series. They had a Punisher monthly book a year BEFORE Wolvie had a monthly book (and even started a SECOND Punisher book that coincided with Wolvie's monthly #1) Marvel had begun the process of milking it's characters. Wolverine just wasn't one of it's first choices. Cool, that's how I remember it too. I always thought it was crazy that Spidey had 5 titles at one point...but there were no other 'break out' characters up until that point. Gotcha. And yes, once the late 1980's hit it was mania all over the place. There was some... from back in the day... Marvel Two-in-One featured the Thing outside of the FF from 1974 up through 1983. Both Avengers and Defenders were places for characters outside their own books or in-between their own books... The reprint books... In other words they still had no problem finding a way to use a character in other places, they just weren't as sure footed on how to do it as effectively, until the Direct Market was there to make it easier to take a chance (decrease the amount of returns in the event that they were wrong). Once they started up the process, they got around to including Wolverine as one of those characters and it turned out to be a good choice. And that's really the thing, isn't it...no pun intended. What is a "hot" character? If we go by just what we remember, I can tell you, without a doubt, that Rom was the hottest thing since sliced bread, and that Rom #47 is the greatest comic book ever written. It's the only comic book I ever remember reading as a kid. Obviously, that doesn't square with reality. Marvel was there to make money. Marvel knew HOW to make money. Marvel wasn't about to sit around and let Claremont baby characters that belonged to Marvel. If Marvel thought they could milk a character....they did. Dazzler #1 was the single highest selling comic book of 1981. It does not matter why (and the reason is because dealers thought they could make money), it was. There had to be enormous demand for Marvel to print that many copies of a new title. Yet, they did, and every single one was sold and out the door...no returns at all. Marvel knew how to make money, but nobody guarantees anything. It's easy to say in hindsight that this mini, or that series, or this character was the hottest thing, and a "surefire success"....but nothing is guaranteed. You can mitigate circumstance in your favor as much as possible, but you can't guarantee it.

I know you didn't make that statement, Blob.

You're on to something. But see, that's the thing...these characters didn't improve sales so much that Marvel clearly got the message until the late 80's. You had, essentially, Spiderman. Spiderman appears in Strange Tales Annual #2, FF Annual #1, Strange Tales #115, #119, X-Men #35, DD #16, 17, TTA #57, FF #73, on and on. Marvel had also realized that crossovers in general sold more copies, so all the other folks crossed over, too...but none as much as Spidey. Marvel didn't exploit...and maybe it's because buyers didn't make it worthwhile...Wolverine crossovers until the late 80's (1986 and up.) Did Wolvie's appearance in DD #196 improve sales over #195 and #197? If so, how much?

I would really honestly appreciate it if you would stop trying to engage me. You've been condescending, aggressive, confrontational, and dismissive. You've misstated things I've said, and you've never provided any hard data, outside of a single house ad, to support your position, yet you've consistently used very aggressive language to show not only that you think I'm wrong, but that it's obvious to everyone how wrong I am but me. I'm not going to discuss this topic with you, and I'm not going to insult you by telling you how wrong you are (which you refuse to acknowledge is only a matter of opinion.) Please...I'm just not interested in discussing this with you. Please just stop. Give me a break. No hard data? Thanks for conveniently ignoring the data I provided that completely discredited your cover appearance argument (Wolverine, in actuality, blew away Storm in total cover appearances from X-Men #133 through the mid-'80s, i.e., the relevant period under consideration), for highlighting the CBG poll data that you yourself unearthed, for providing numerous pieces of circumstantial evidence like the crossover appearances, Fastner & Larson plate, house ad, etc. Not to mention the fact that you keep dismissing everyone's recollections as unreliable while your "analysis" never seems to actually prove what you're trying, in your tortured logic, to make it do. You also have a penchant for making totally unsubstantiated claims like "Rogue was the most popular X-Man in 1983" which certainly aren't backed up by either first-hand memories or any facts. If I've appeared to be aggressive and confrontational, it's only because you have been dismissive and arrogant in your own right, as if somehow your totally ludicrous, made-up ideas are superior to all the evidence, recollections and opinions to the contrary that have been presented. And, when you're called out on it, you either try to ignore, deflect or try to take the fake moral high ground by claiming to be above it all. Surely it must be readily apparent to all that you're just not willing to ever admit that you're wrong, no matter how indefensible a position you're trying to defend. Please stop. Thank you.

Let's keep the discussion non-personal, eh?

To clear up one of the misstatements : I was born in 1972, not 1981 or 82. What has happened is that the conversation has not been followed closely at all, comments made by others have been confused and ascribed to me. I'll leave that to others to consider what that says about someone when they can't even keep the details of the conversation from the last few days straight, and how that relates to their 30+ year old memories. Regardless, when a person was born...as I have said before...has absolutely zero to do with what they can know. No one here was alive during the US Civil War, and yet, there are people who know more about it today, far, far more, than many of the people who were alive during it. It's simple scholarship and research. Whether or not someone was "alive" during the time period is functionally meaningless. Were they paying attention? Were they documenting anything as it happened? Were they consciously downplaying their bias? Were they even aware of the events unfolding around them? Did they interview others who were also there, at or near the time of the events? It is insulting, at best, to those who have taken the time and effort to do the meticulous research, to suggest that they don't know any better than people "who were actually there." It is a statement has no place in a serious discussion of any topic.

Remember, Blob, that Marvel (and all other publishers) didn't look at the market the way collectors did. Marvel made $0 on the value of back issues. Marvel made its money on new issues, and new issues only. Reprints, especially in the late 70's/early 80's, were limited to "classic" Marvel of the early to mid 60's (aside: this is something that Stan Lee and company actually got right...FF #1, Fantasy #15, Jim #83, these books were reprinted within 2-3 years after the initial books came out, assuring that people who were interested could get the backstory without having to look very hard...and this was true throughout the 60's.) So, the back issue market may have been buying multiple copies of, say, DD #158 (and they were) and X-Men #94 (and they were), but Marvel didn't care, and may not even have mostly been aware. Yes, Marvel eventually got around to reprinting X-Men...but only GS #1...in 1983. It would be 1986, a full 11 years later, before they got around to reprinting the entire series in order (same with Hulk #180-181, by the way.) What is the point of all of this? Publishers rarely looked back, and they certainly didn't look to see what the back issue market was doing to figure out what they should create next. The value of Hulk #181, and X-Men #94, and all the rest was *essentially* meaningless. They cared about last month's sales data. Is the book meeting our internal sales goals, yes/no? If not, why? If so, how can we sell more? In that respect, letters of comment actually influenced editors and creators much, much more than the back issue market, but again, LOC were limited to the most recent issues...certainly not books that were several years old.

they did the mini because he was so popular at that point it was a sure-fire hit there was a LOT of anticipation for that, i remember how my little group of comic reading cadres was so excited. although i'm not sure if at that point he was THE most popular marvel character given Spiderman. x-men eventually surpasses ASM in sales, but remember, spidey also has two other spidey titles (spectacular and team-up). with that said, it was a bit of a down time for spidey with the endless hobgoblin stories and what not and the terrible art on some of his titles..marvel took spidey sales for granted at that point. true, x-men has new mutants as a spin-off and later x-factor They didn't do the mini because it was a "surefire hit." They did the mini because DC was having success with minis, and it took a little bit for Marvel to catch on. Remember: Marvel's first mini was only three months prior, Contest of Champions. It was fairly successful. But the format was NEW, and no one knew what to expect....which is why the next two minis were Wolverine (and again...this was far more because of Miller, who was at the absolute peak of popularity, than it was about Wolvie <---please note the language. It doesn't say "Miller, and Wolvie didn't matter at all.").... ....and HERCULES. Is anyone credibly going to make the claim that Hercules was one of Marvel's "superstars"....? So, no, they were testing the format out. Those whose minis did really well got regular series (West Coast Avengers, Cloak & Dagger, Punisher) and there were several minis that featured characters that didn't merit anything else, but had stories creators wanted to tell, and couldn't in the regular series: Nightcrawler, Beast, Magik (which was actually titled "Storm & Illyana: Magik", so yes, Storm did, in fact, get her own mini-series), Falcon, Vision & Scarlet Witch (who, interestingly, had a 4 issue mini, and then 12 issue maxi.) Context is critical, and in the early 80's, the mini-series was a vehicle for all sorts of things, not just because they think they have a "surefire hit"...in several cases, it was the opposite. And while you folks won't believe this, the most popular X-Man of 1983, much like Kitty Pryde in 81, was Rogue. Rogue, Rogue, Rogue, everybody's talking about Rogue.... RMA, are you pushing the notion that Wolverine was not a big star in the Marvel universe by the time the mini came out and Marvel did not think that it would sell a ton of copies? No. Read both threads. That's the million dollar question, isn't it....?

I would really honestly appreciate it if you would stop trying to engage me. You've been condescending, aggressive, confrontational, and dismissive. You've misstated things I've said, you've misread things I've said, and you've never provided any hard data, outside of a single house ad, to support your position, yet you've consistently used very aggressive language to show not only that you think I'm wrong, but that it's obvious to everyone how wrong I am but me. I'm not going to discuss this topic with you, and I'm not going to insult you by telling you how wrong you are (which you refuse to acknowledge is only a matter of opinion.) Please...I'm just not interested in discussing this with you. Please just stop.

You have both, right? You can really see the criss-cross pattern side by side, as a result of the generation loss. I keep forgetting that damn word for it. It's a printing term. Anyhoo, I suspect they made it by taking a picture of the original, then reproducing "OA" from that, which then was printed. I have Xerox copies of the DD #169 title spread pages; I could easily fill in missing detail, and print from those, as they are OA size (they are actually Xeroxes of the OA, not the printed book.)

they did the mini because he was so popular at that point it was a sure-fire hit there was a LOT of anticipation for that, i remember how my little group of comic reading cadres was so excited. although i'm not sure if at that point he was THE most popular marvel character given Spiderman. x-men eventually surpasses ASM in sales, but remember, spidey also has two other spidey titles (spectacular and team-up). with that said, it was a bit of a down time for spidey with the endless hobgoblin stories and what not and the terrible art on some of his titles..marvel took spidey sales for granted at that point. true, x-men has new mutants as a spin-off and later x-factor They didn't do the mini because it was a "surefire hit." They did the mini because DC was having success with minis, and it took a little bit for Marvel to catch on. Remember: Marvel's first mini was only three months prior, Contest of Champions. It was fairly successful. But the format was NEW, and no one knew what to expect....which is why the next two minis were Wolverine (and again...this was far more because of Miller, who was at the absolute peak of popularity, than it was about Wolvie <---please note the language. It doesn't say "Miller, and Wolvie didn't matter at all.").... ....and HERCULES. Is anyone credibly going to make the claim that Hercules was one of Marvel's "superstars"....? So, no, they were testing the format out. Those whose minis did really well got regular series (West Coast Avengers, Cloak & Dagger, Punisher) and there were several minis that featured characters that didn't merit anything else, but had stories creators wanted to tell, and couldn't in the regular series: Nightcrawler, Beast, Magik (which was actually titled "Storm & Illyana: Magik", so yes, Storm did, in fact, get her own mini-series), Falcon, Vision & Scarlet Witch (who, interestingly, had a 4 issue mini, and then 12 issue maxi.) Context is critical, and in the early 80's, the mini-series was a vehicle for all sorts of things, not just because they think they have a "surefire hit"...in several cases, it was the opposite. And while you folks won't believe this, the most popular X-Man of 1983, much like Kitty Pryde in 81, was Rogue. Rogue, Rogue, Rogue, everybody's talking about Rogue....

That's what it was...TCJ. Sorry, man. I'll check it out, but it may be academic at this point....

Yeah, I think we wrung enough out of that topic for while. Yup. I'm spending my energy reading things like your Undercover Archie blog. Which never ceases to be awesome, by the way Thank you! I'm always happy to hear when someone is enjoying it, because I love working on it and putting it together! I'm so scattered...did you ask me to check that out? I've been so damn busy, someone asked me to check something out for them, and I forgot.

Anyone who says CGC's grades are looser now obviously has skin in the game. How else would you know they are looser? It's plain from your comments that you have been taking advantage of CGC's services. And if they are giving you looser grades there is obviously some shenanigans going on on your part. What have you done to grease the wheels and get looser grades? (Isn't it amazing how all of that irrelevant wildly_fanciful_statement could be gleaned from one stupid post? ) Here is my counter overblown, hyperbolic, pompous windbag statement - Anyone who thinks that having "skin in the game" negates your comments obviously has either 1) more "skin in the game" than you, or 2) an inability to have a reasonable adult conversation. Yep, I just called the Telepath a bunch of mean names. But I have "skin in the game" so they shouldn't mean anything to him. My skin packed up, left the game, and went home, where it is now being gently moisturized.