RockMyAmadeus

That would be a good argument...if Claremont and Cockrum were in charge of the editorial decisions at Marvel. They were not. It doesn't matter what the writer and artist(s) want, if the editor says "Public wants more Wolverine. Draw more Wolverine. Put Wolverine on the covers more", then the writer and artist(s) do that, or they get fired, ESPECIALLY in the Jim Shooter era. Remember: Neither Claremont nor Byrne wanted to kill Phoenix. Regardless of why, the fact is, Jim Shooter stepped in and said she had to go. And just how DOES a character become popular...? Exposure. It does not help a character's popularity if the artist doing the covers doesn't like him, and doesn't draw him on the cover, which everyone acknowledges is what draws a person in in the first place. It just doesn't wash with what exists. Your argument would be good but you keep going back and pointing to covers earlier in the run pre Wolverine vs. Hellfire club GS #1 to #200 is "pre Wolverine vs. Hellfire club"...? About 40 issues worth which is a huge chunk and in another post after my intial post you again went back to compare cover appearances up until issue 115 so nice try. Of course my opinion means little in this debate since I didn't live this time period and wasn't born until after the limited series. Although you didn't answer why Storm didn't have her own Limited Series. I mean clearly an editor would have stepped in and said oh no we are in it to sell as many books as possible. Storm is clearly the most popular X-Man so she gets her own series first Woverine can wait. I'm not really interested in confrontation-style discussion anymore ("nice try", "clearly an editor would have stepped in") If you'd like to have a discussion without the confrontational comments, I'd really be interested. I apologize if any of my comments appeared confrontational, that isn't my intent. For the record, while yes, I mentioned that Storm appeared on every single cover from GS #1 to #115, I immediately, in the very next breath, stated that the comparison with Wolverine was from GS #1 to #200. Here's the quote: There was no comparison to Wolverine regarding the early issues. (PS...my numbers are slightly off; Storm appeared on 71 COVERS, or 65% of the time.) And why does your opinion mean little, simply because you weren't alive? Nobody here was alive during the US Civil War, but we know quite a lot about that.

That would be a good argument...if Claremont and Cockrum were in charge of the editorial decisions at Marvel. They were not. It doesn't matter what the writer and artist(s) want, if the editor says "Public wants more Wolverine. Draw more Wolverine. Put Wolverine on the covers more", then the writer and artist(s) do that, or they get fired, ESPECIALLY in the Jim Shooter era. Remember: Neither Claremont nor Byrne wanted to kill Phoenix. Regardless of why, the fact is, Jim Shooter stepped in and said she had to go. And just how DOES a character become popular...? Exposure. It does not help a character's popularity if the artist doing the covers doesn't like him, and doesn't draw him on the cover, which everyone acknowledges is what draws a person in in the first place. It just doesn't wash with what exists. Your argument would be good but you keep going back and pointing to covers earlier in the run pre Wolverine vs. Hellfire club GS #1 to #200 is "pre Wolverine vs. Hellfire club"...?

You guys and your memories.... Why on earth would Spidey #129 be $10-$15 each in 1982-1983, when you could buy them from Mile High for $2, and nobody cared about Punisher until the mini-series came out in 1985 (and even then it was a slow, steady burn)...? There are multiple ads from the era which show Spidey #129 unbroken, the same price essentially as #125-140, all the way up to 1986. One ad I can understand, but MULTIPLE ads, over years, at the same general price point...? There's a double page Mile High ad in Hulk #271, centerfold, price: $2. Mile High had them, Crestohl/Ross had them, Moondance (I think it was Moondance) had them, I even think J&S had them at one point...all around $1.50-$3, and not broken out at all. Come on! Dude, there's something incredibly funny about quoting the prices in the Mile High ads from that time period. Unless you were a total chump, everybody that collected comics knew that those prices were for "VG or better copies". And that Mile High Comics was a rip off (actually, still is). But you wouldn't know that if you weren't collecting comics then. You preach about using data but you seem to fail to understand that data is only as good as the interpretation. In this case, you insist that your interpretation is superior to the actual recollections of everyone that was there at the time. Fine. Stick to that. It doesn't make you right. But, stick to that. The rest of us were there and remember how things went down. Couple of things... 1. Do you have any printed data that contradicts anything I've posted? Anything at all, besides "what you remember"? I remember a lot of things, but have discovered that relying on memories is a very bad move, because memories are often quite wrong. Who should I believe? You, because you say so? Or the OPG, ads covering several years, published market reports written at the time, etc etc etc? 2. I did not only quote Mile High ads. And I did not only quote Mile High from one ad, but over a period of years. And while Mile High may have been a "ripoff", the fact is, the books were priced at OPG (Spidey #125-140, for example), from a time when OPG was pretty much dead on accurate. Was OPG a "ripoff"...? 3. As those who have done the research know, grade sensitivity was absolutely nothing like it is now. For 10 years, the price splits in the OPG were 33% for Good, 66% for Fine, and 100% for Mint. After that, the split widened, but Fine throughout the period was still 50% of Mint. 4. "You wouldn't know that if you weren't collecting then." That, of course, isn't true at all. I am well aware of that fact, for several reasons: because of my own experience with Mile High later; understanding the reality that grade sensitivity was much lower, and that it didn't matter all that much; an ability to read (Mile High, Moondance, and others explicitly stated that books were "VG" (Mile High) or "Fine to Mint" (Moondance), and others; and...the memories of those who WERE there, when it squares with the rest of the data. Considering just the specific example of Spidey #129...so you got a VG copy for $2. So? The collecting public as a whole did not care (at least all that much.) If you didn't like the condition of the copy you bought, you could simply buy another one. The collecting public, with the *possible* exception of those buying the Mile Highs, simply did not care about grading differences, especially for common, ordinary, non-key books like Spidey #129. Imagine being at San Diego in 1983, grabbing a $2 book, and rejecting it because it had a spine tic. If you dared to explain that to a dealer, he would probably have fallen on the floor, he laughed so hard...then he'd take a magic marker and fix it....and sell it to someone else who didn't care a bit. And do you know how I know all of that, without having been there myself....? I read. I read many different sources, and I read as much as I can possibly get my hands on. I don't just stick to one source, and imagine that's 100% accurate, because nothing ever is. But multiple sources...? Now you start to get a real picture of what really was. It's truly amazing how much we know about history, when none of us were there. PS..."everyone that was there at the time"...? Really? The 8-10 people who have posted is "everyone that was there at the time"...? Hyperbole doesn't suit the discussion.

Don't forget this masterpiece of motion picture music: (PS. It WON the Academy Award for Best Original Song.)

For what it's worth: The books I see the most are high grade 1970-2005. I have seen many, many "small letter" labels with books that were, in my opinion, quite overgraded (that's 2000-2003.) A 9.6 book shouldn't have a 1" bend in the spine, even if it is NCB. That's a VF/NM book. I wonder how many books I essentially gave away in the time period because that's how I graded books. However, I do not see any sort of "loose" or "tight" grading *periods* for any of these books, in the niches that I deal in. I am aware that people say "avoid 2011!" and "2002 was TIGHT!" I don't deal (much) in slabbed 9.0 or less Silver, and I deal in almost NO Gold. So I have little experience in mid-grades of much, and mid-grades have always been harder for everyone to grade. But in the 9.0+ grades, I see looseness and tightness, even within books of the same submission. It all comes down to what bothers the grader. To this day, I cannot point to you why a grader onsight at WWLA in 2008 thought a Wolverine #1 was a 9.4, when it was an all day long 9.8 (and, indeed, ended up IN that 9.8 slab, having nothing done to it in between...and me having to pay the grading fee twice.) I do have a problem with that. I have called on pre-screen subs, and asked for the subs to be looked over again. Another "pass" was "found", which irritated me to no end. It says either they didn't do their job correctly in the first place, or they "passed" a book that shouldn't have been passed, just to mollify a customer. Both are wrong.

The MS grades were fairly well established before slabbing came along. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. Clarify?

Information from the Statement of Ownership of X-Men #156 (which covers most of 1981) The average number of copies of each issue sold per month in the previous year is reported as being 259,607, with the single issue nearest to the filing date selling 289,525. Dazzler #1, on the other hand, sold over 400,000 copies...making it the best selling book of 1981. Research isn't that hard. That info was two Google clicks away. I'm gonna kvetch for a bit: those who are disagreeing have failed to produce virtually any hard data of any kind, magazine articles, fanzine articles, polls, anything, and have instead relied on nothing but their memories and a single in-house ad from 1983. I have provided the CBG fan award data (which HELPED the other side of the argument), crunched the numbers on cover appearances, while Jae provided the OPG numbers, and Chuck provided the SOO numbers (copies printed.) Research isn't based on memories, regardless of how many people "remember things the same way." Memory is valuable....but should never be the final word on any subject. Show me the charts, show me the awards, show me the polls, show me the interviews with Editors, Writers, Artists, show me anything concrete that demonstrates anywhere that Wolverine not only was *the* fan favorite X-Man at the time, but was the "biggest character in comics"....?? Again...layered memories from different time periods, with childhood memories exaggerated. Hey, when I was 8 or 9, I saw the Poseidon Adventure (1972.) I thought it was the greatest movie ever made. It was awesome. Fast forward to the mid-90s, and I see it for sale on VHS at Costco. I watched it, as a college adult...and it was hideous. Don't tell my childhood that. It doesn't want to remember it that way.

You assume correctly. http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=4&Number=7599557&Searchpage=1&Main=336476&Words=dazzler+RockMyAmadeus&topic=0&Search=true#Post7599557 #1 book, not title.

That would be a good argument...if Claremont and Cockrum were in charge of the editorial decisions at Marvel. They were not. It doesn't matter what the writer and artist(s) want, if the editor says "Public wants more Wolverine. Draw more Wolverine. Put Wolverine on the covers more", then the writer and artist(s) do that, or they get fired, ESPECIALLY in the Jim Shooter era. Remember: Neither Claremont nor Byrne wanted to kill Phoenix. Regardless of why, the fact is, Jim Shooter stepped in and said she had to go. And just how DOES a character become popular...? Exposure. It does not help a character's popularity if the artist doing the covers doesn't like him, and doesn't draw him on the cover, which everyone acknowledges is what draws a person in in the first place. It just doesn't wash with what exists.

I mentioned this in the other thread... Storm appears on every single cover of the book for a period 3 and a half YEARS...from GS #1 to X-Men #115. Every. Single. Cover. The book could have arguably been called "The X-Men, Starring Storm." No one appeared more than she did from GS #1 to #200, a whopping 71% of the time. By contrast, Wolverine only appears 49% of the time. I suspect, if we examined all the team books from that time period, you will find no character who appeared on as long an unbroken run as Storm, either time-wise or issue-wise (23 issues.)

I suspect it was this. A bit before my time so I can't say I remember, but looking at pre-Miller Wolverine, he's just kind of a goofy Bronze Age character. No "cooler" than Nightcrawler or Colossus. I think Wolverine's exposure grew as the X-men's exposure grew. By the late 1970's they were all cool and then each character began to take a life on their own. Byrne probably had the most to do with that. There wasn't much hotter than X-men during that era from what I can remember. Am I remembering it wrong? Byrne had the most to do with it. Wolverine was about to be written out of the book and Byrne insisted that the only Canadian character should not be written out ( being a Canadian himself ). Hotness is a relative term. The book did not take off sales wise until Paul Smith took over on art. Byrne has regularly said that sales on the X-MEN regularly hovered only just above the cancellation line and that they didn't really pick up on his tenure until around #137. Byrne has often joked that since sales didn't explode until Smith took over the art that he ( Byrne ) must have been holding Claremont back. Doesn't he realize that's not how the fans remember it? Indeed.

Me too. #9 (for 1979) - $1.20 (these prices are the same for all issues between #125-140, until 1987) #10 - $1.20 #11 - $1.80 #12 - $2 #13 - $2 #14 - $2 #15 - $2 #16 - $2 #17 - $14 (finally broken out in the OPG, published in spring of 1987) #18 - (Don't have it handy at the moment, but I *believe* it was $35) #19 - $75 OPG Update #8 (reports from May, 1989, 5 months after reports for OPG #19) - $125 #20 - $185 OPG Update #14 (Sept 1990) - $250

You guys and your memories.... Why on earth would Spidey #129 be $10-$15 each in 1982-1983, when you could buy them from Mile High for $2, and nobody cared about Punisher until the mini-series came out in 1985 (and even then it was a slow, steady burn)...? There are multiple ads from the era which show Spidey #129 unbroken, the same price essentially as #125-140, all the way up to 1986. One ad I can understand, but MULTIPLE ads, over years, at the same general price point...? There's a double page Mile High ad in Hulk #271, centerfold, price: $2. Mile High had them, Crestohl/Ross had them, Moondance (I think it was Moondance) had them, I even think J&S had them at one point...all around $1.50-$3, and not broken out at all. Come on!

Correction: The 1982 OPG (#12) came out in spring of 1982, with reported information dating back to December of 1981, six full months before Wolverine #1. The really relevant OPG to reflect the mini would be #13, which came out in the spring of 1983, six months AFTER the mini...and Hulk #181 is priced at: $16. In other words, no change. And for comparison's sake....New Teen Titans #1: #11 - 60c #12 - $15 #13 - $15 #14 - $18 Yes, that's right....NTT #1 was $1 less than Hulk #181 in 1982 and 1983, when it was a full 6 years younger. It is simply not possible to overstate how huge NTT #1 was at this time. What would be really interesting are the market reports in the Update, which started in mid-year 1982 (I have them, I'll have to dig them out.)

That's the heart of what I've been saying.

Exactly my point. Insert "wolverine" for batman and "1982" for 1986, and "1986" for 1989, and you have the exact point I'm making. You're a grinder. No one said Wolverine wasn't popular. So many folks on these boards take things to one extreme or the other...it's a little frustrating. Repeat: no one said Wolverine wasn't popular. The point was that in the early 80's, Wolverine wasn't NEARLY as popular as he was by the late 80's, not even close, and he had to share the spotlight with Dazzler (#1 selling book of 1981), Kitty Pryde, and the rest of the X-Men.

Didn't have time to read past the first page so please disregard if someone already mentioned this.......... By early 1992, Wolverine was on the cover of every comic book of every character, including DC's. I think I also saw him on the covers of Rolling Stone, Penthouse, Popular Mechanics, school text books, and even your weekly grocery store circulars. Hehehehe....

Ah yes but by the mid 100's he was beginning to gain prominence both in stories and on covers. I think the Miller mini was done because he was popular. I think the Miller mini was done because MILLER was popular. In fact, I'm sure of it. But why Wolvie and not DD or Cloak and Dagger or something else? By 1982 when the mini series had come out, Wolvie had already been featured on several covers in the X-men run, had mini features within the story arcs against Hellfire club and was tied into a love interest with Jean. He was moving to the forefront of the X-men series even though even individual characters were popular. Issues #140, 141 and #142 centered around Wolvie. Wolvie had already risen above the rest of the X-men in popularity by the time the mini series came about. I realize he became even more popular by the late 1980's but that is likely another surge. What makes you so sure that the mini was because of FM and not Wolvie? Speaking of cover, I did a rundown of the exact amount of times Wolvie appeared on the cover, and was featured on the cover. It's substantially less than Storm and Colossus, and even less than Cyclops, and about the same as Nightcrawler. GS #1 to #200. And #141-142 centered around KITTY, not Wolverine. She was the star of that story, the link between both worlds.

Ah yes but by the mid 100's he was beginning to gain prominence both in stories and on covers. I think the Miller mini was done because he was popular. I think the Miller mini was done because MILLER was popular. In fact, I'm sure of it. But why Wolvie and not DD or Cloak and Dagger or something else? Because it's not one, to the exclusion of any and everything else. There are obviously degrees of importance in the factors involved, and the most important factor was that it was Miller, who was at the height of his popularity. It's like the Dark Knight....there is an article (I think it was actually by Keith Contarino) in one of the OPG Updates that describes this. Paraphrased, he says "(writing in 1989, about the Bat-craze then in effect) This reminds me of how well the Dark Knight was received. But, in 1986, it was all about Miller. Now, in 1989, it's all about Batman." I think that sums it up pretty well.

Ah yes but by the mid 100's he was beginning to gain prominence both in stories and on covers. I think the Miller mini was done because he was popular. I think the Miller mini was done because MILLER was popular. In fact, I'm sure of it.

Please stop bringing up my name, and misrepresenting what I said. You're perfectly capable of making your case without denigrating me. Thanks.

There are three editions. The limited edition has a signed and numbered nude centerfold that isn't in the regular.

Remember...Lakeside would have paid Marvel a substantial amount of money to include their premium in the books. Part of that was to get the blurb on the cover, advertising the free sample. If the Tattooz were meant to be in these other books, Lakeside would have paid for something they did not get: that cover blurb. That little blurb was worth a LOT of money.

All mistakes, or deliberate screw-ups. The thing is, the Tattooz were a promo premium. That's why the blurb on the FF #252 and #238. It doesn't follow that they would put the blurb on just those two, but then purposely include them in several other random issues. It's meant to spur sales. It is quite possible that Lakeside sent the printer more tattooz samples than the print run for FF #252 and Spidey #238, and the printer (Sparta) could have simply used them up for random books. But it's definitely not "official", hence the lack of the blurb.

Just FF #252 and Spidey #238. Any others would be later additions. Unless it has the Lakeside blurb on the cover, it didn't have them. I have the Star Wars 69 with the tatooz and I see it listed on that link above too. I'm guessing that is a legitimate book with the tatooz as well, correct? No. Only FF #252 and Spidey #238. If others have the tats, they were either added after the fact (which is fairly easy to tell), or someone at the printer was fooling around or made a mistake.