RockMyAmadeus

Maybe Lobo mini series?? Very close, but he'd been replaced by this time. Lobo #1 was the hit of early Fall.

I have no idea what the answer to this is, but in the spirit of this discussion, I might as well answer anyway. Was it... let's see, not a Marvel... 1990... hmm... was it The Killing Joke? No, Killing Joke was two years old by this time. But you're kinda warm.

The only "hard" thing about you is your skull and yes, she said that with a smile. Seriously, you repute to have "hard data" guaranteeing 100% on your life, that the total print run of NM 98 was exactly 250K, I have never said that. Please do not make things up and then claim that I said them. I have said, over and over again, that BOTH the print run information (between 250-350k copies printed) and SALES information (between 175,000-250,000) are *estimates*, based on numbers from multiple sources. It is a reliable estimate, based on those numbers. The print run information contained in the Krause Standard Catalog of Comic Books, particularly from this era, is from two sources: the yearly Statements of Ownership (aka "circulation statements") where available, and the Capital City order numbers, again where available. The print run information from Marvel has not been released, if it still exists. The order information from Diamond has not been released, if it still exists. Are you suggesting that the editors of the SCOCB are lying? Are you suggesting that they made those numbers up? That they have defrauded their customers with false information? Are you suggesting that Capital City Distribution, the second largest comic book distributor in the world prior to them being acquired by Diamond in 1996 is also lying about their order numbers? That they're just making them up? Are you?

That Krause stuff is worse than useless, and I thought you said there was no verified circulation statements from the later NM issues? You are now disputing the Capital City order numbers? The Capital City order numbers are not the same thing as the circulation statements. You're confusing many, many, many issues. You have many, many, many details confused. Source, please. Not "Todd McFarlane", because I can't call him up on the phone for a statement. I would like your PUBLISHED source for this information.

So you are saying that with NM 96, which is stated to have a print run of 316K, a *later* issue with 3 major first appearances, sold LESS? 1. New Mutants #96 may have sold a little more, a little less than #98. The Cap City numbers for #96 are 55,500, while #98 is 55,200 (statistically insignificant), so it's probably safe to extrapolate those numbers out to newsstand and Diamond and the other Direct market distributors. #96 was part of the immensely popular X-Tinction Agenda, while #98 was not, so it's safe to say that, yes, #96 sold more than #98 overall. 2. The issue that is "stated to have a print run of 316K" was published prior to Oct 1, 1990, which means, at the latest, it was issue #95 (and actually probably #93.) #98 came out in December of 1990, two and a half months after the issues covered in the SOO of issue #99. 3. "Major first appearances"...according to whom? It's easy to rewrite history from hindsight, but to claim that New Mutants #98 contained three "major" first appearances...? Nobody cared about Deadpool, Gideon, or Domino. Nobody cared, except in a few blips, for 16-17 YEARS about this book. I'm not going to insult your experience, or your background, or anything else about you, as you do to everyone else. I'm just going to counter what you say with the facts. As far as "frequenting the LCS during this time"... Ask the owners of the Land of Nevawuz (both Danville AND Castro Valley), Halley's Comics (both Pleasanton AND San Lorenzo), Clay's Comics (Hayward), Comix & Comics (Berkeley), Fact, Fiction, and Fantasy (Livermore), The Comic Shop (San Leandro), and a hole in the wall shop in Pleasanton whose name I forget, another in Castro Valley whose name I forget, one in Fremont whose name I forget (but who I think is still there...hole in the wall shop by railroad tracks?)....those being the shops I nearly lived at during this time...how "frequently I was at the LCS during this time." They couldn't get rid of me.

Trivia: Does anyone know exactly WHAT was "the hot book" when New Mutants #98 came out in December of 1990....? Hint: it wasn't New Mutants #87. It wasn't even a Marvel.

If by "quarrel", you mean opinion liberally sprinkled with insults vs. hard data, sure. At some point, people, you need to stop tolerating this kind of behavior, and stop giving equal weight to both sides.

Those distribution numbers are based on an annual count of the circulation divided by 12 issues, and I don't believe some Diamond inventory was included, but I may be wrong - for that time period. The circulation statements include the total amount of copies printed...Direct and newsstand. That is the print run for the single issue nearest to filing date, which would be #93 or #95, depending on how Marvel counted it. #93 features a Wolverine appearance, from a time when Wolverine appearances still commanded large orders, and #95 was the first month of the X-Tinction Agenda, an immensely popular crossover. Was "certainly" higher...? According to whom? Here are the Cap City numbers for the following issues: #95 - 55,200 (which proved to be too low, as it was a sellout and second printed immediately.) #96 - 55,500 #97 - 64,400 #98 - 55,200 (back down to #95 levels, and was NOT a sellout.) #99- 52,800 #100 - 102,000 (and not only was a sellout, but was second AND third printed immediately.) These are PUBLISHED NUMBERS from the #2 Direct market distributor in North America at the time (Diamond being #1. Diamond was and is a DIRECT MARKET distributor.) The Cap City orders for #98 were the SAME as #95, and LOWER than both #96 and #97. What makes you think, then, that the newsstand and Diamond ordered MORE? It is an estimate, based on published, reliable numbers. Where do YOUR numbers come from....? And those sources would be....? If there are many different, how about just 3? 2? 1? As noted above, there is no circulation statement that covers issues #96-100. Those numbers are only recorded by Marvel, which did not release the information, Diamond, which did not release the information, and Cap City, which DID. So, no, the numbers for #96-100 were NOT averaged in to anything. We know for a fact that the single issue closest to the filing date (whether #93 or #95) sold 194,300 copies...and the AVERAGE for the issues #82-93 OR #84-95 was 182,499...meaning the nearest issue (#93 or #95) only sold 6% (here's where those math skills come in handy) more than the AVERAGE for the entire year, *including* non-Liefeld issues. That means that #84 would have to have sold about 170,000 copies to make the average. And guess what? The Cap City numbers for #84 were 32,900, while the Cap City numbers for #93 are 39,300! In other words, the title was improving, but certainly not setting anything on fire. So, where do you get this "500k+" number from, and even worse, SOLD, when the issue nearest to the filing date (#93 or #95) only SOLD 194,300 copies...? How did sales nearly TRIPLE in four months....? Do you imagine ANY comic book published in that era TRIPLED in sales for ANY reason....? Oh, sure, it *sounds* reasonable that a title, especially a hot title, could TRIPLE sales in a month,...and in this era of 10,000 print runs, it's certainly possible...but in 1990? If you think ANY title "tripled" in sales, or even DOUBLED in sales, from that era, in the span of 2-4 months, you're simply not educated about the industry. And why do the Cap City numbers (noted above) not bear out the idea that sales TRIPLED...? For 500k+ to be SOLD, that would have meant 700-800K were PRINTED! This was in 1990, not 1991, or 1992, or 1993. Even X-Men during this time period (the #2 seller after Spiderman) was only being printed in the range of 600,000! But New Mutants were printed to the tune of 700-800k copies...? If by "insane" you mean "relies on published data from multiple sources, and doesn't rely on 'memories' from 24+ years ago", then yes, those people are "insane." Do you know when they second printed New Mutants #87....? I imagine you don't. That's correct: the issue, unlike #95 and #100, was not a sellout. No need for a second print. And if you know WHEN #87 was second printed, you'll understand why #98 was not. Do you have ANY evidence of this at all...? Any? Yes, there was *some* talk about the first appearance of Gideon, Deadpool, and Domino, but when New Mutants #98 appeared, there was not that much talk about Cable, much less "the next" Cable. Cable was a $5-$10 book when NM #98 came out (which has already been adequately proven in other threads.) And, after New Mutants #100 came out, there was no more talk about ANY of those characters (Gideon, Domino, and Deadpool) because those characters essentially disappeared from the public consciousness. So much of this is demonstrably false, it's hard to know what to do with the things you say. I'll just say this: if it's not possible for you to disagree with people without insulting them, you really need to stop. And you may try to rewrite history all you wish, but there will always be people with hard data to correct it. So just stop, really.

You realize those circulation numbers are AVERAGES for the entire year, right? You do understand basic math? 1. There are other, and much superior, sources for print run information than the Statement of Ownership circulation numbers. 2. There is no published circulation statement that accounts for issue #98 (or, in fact, #96-100.) The title was cancelled with issue #100, so no further circulation statements were published. This is not true, unless by "approached" you mean "was selling a little more than half of." This is also not true, evidenced by the fact that that was precisely what happened. Giving hot artists their own books was the status quo. The only New Mutants issue that came anywhere near the X-Men in sales was #100, by which time, of course, the decision had already been made. Speaking of "never, ever have been given his own book", guess how many copies of Amazing Spiderman were being sold during the last 7 issues of McFarlane's tenure (#320-325, 328)....? (Here's a clue: it was about the same, and maybe even a little less, than Liefeld's last 6 issues of New Mutants. I know, shocking!) Please reference these sources. Issue, advisor, names of "Marvel guys", etc. Because along with the circulation statements, I also have the Capital City order numbers for every issue (as does anyone who owns a Krause Standard Catalog of Comic Books.) And here I thought you hated "modern" comic books (which every issue of New Mutants after #93 is, by your definition of Spiderman #1.)

This is not true. http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7171955&fpart=2 Not multiples, and I'm not going to read the whole thread but I suspect that 98's print run was 50-75% higher than 87s. Based on just my memories from the time. Sound about right to you? Yup!

Those numbers are for HIGH GRADE (9.6+) copies.

Bonnie, you have an AMAZING collection of the 3-packs! (I sold the Donald Duck #223 9.8 to you.) It's one of the best collections that exists! I would LOVE to see you post pictures when you can. It's truly a breathtaking accomplishment when you consider how rare most of these are!

This is not true. http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7171955&fpart=2

That would make you a rather virtuous and unique human being! Assuming, of course, that there's a difference between the truth and what the market has decided (market trends.) More on this in a bit. I'm not quite sure where to even go with this. Are you seriously suggesting that ads and previews are considered actual first appearances by the market, and that story appearances are (in general) disregarded if the character appeared in an ad or preview first...? (That is, my "belief" vs. what you have stated is "true.") Before we go on, let's correct a misunderstanding: *Cameos* are first appearances if (and this is the crucial point) they appear within the context of a story. That's what a cameo is: a short appearance in a story. If it's a head shot, like the ad in Action #12, it's not a "cameo"...it's an ad. Let's discuss your separation of "the truth" and "market trends." There is no separation. We're not talking about facts, here. We're talking about opinion. And what the market decides where opinion is concerned is true, by definition, precisely because it's opinion and not fact. Fact: Batman's face first appeared in an ad in Action #12 (assuming the book appeared before Tec #27, there's still some debate about that, but that's not relevant here.) Fact: Batman's first appearance in a story is Detective Comics #27. These are facts, and they are indisputable. Opinion: The first actual, real, genuine appearance of Batman is in Detective Comics #27. This is borne out by the values of the books in question. The market decides what the values of the books are (not any one person, or even group of people), and it has resoundingly determined that there's no question: Tec #27 wins, and has won, for 75 years. It is the opinion of the market that Tec #27 is the actual, real, genuine first appearance of Bats, and this is demonstrated by the facts that it is a $1,000,000+ book in top grades, that it gets, and has gotten, all the press as the first appearance, that DC considers it the first appearance (as demonstrated by Detective Comics #526, 627, etc.), while Action #12, if mentioned at all in the context of Bats, is merely a footnote (this may seem like an intuitively obvious "duh" to many, but it bears explaining for the illustration.) In the entire 75 year history of the Batman, no one has ever made a serious case for Action #12 even being a first appearance, not even a cameo, and the book has no additional value for it having the ad for Batman. It's just a curiosity, and the market has treated it as such. The market is an entity that is composed of all the people who participate in it. In that respect, it cannot be controlled, except at the fringes, and though it can be manipulated and influenced, it is ultimately the market which determines what is, and what is not, in terms of how things are classified within that market. And while there may be a premium for Malibu Sun #13 over Malibu Sun #12 or #14, the market does not call it "the first appearance of Spawn." I understand that it's not very sexy these days to have a character first appear in his or her own first issue, but the fact remains that Spawn #1 is the first appearance of Spawn, and not Malibu Sun #13 or Previews, or any of the other advertising that was done before Spawn #1 came out. Even less with Dime Press #4, because it's not an English language book. Because of the odd appearance circumstances surrounding Hellboy, the argument can be made, but this is not an example of "the opposite being true." It's an exception that makes the rule. The point, then, is that what the market decides is true is what is true, in the realm of opinion. This has always been true, and always will be true, by nature. While there will always be outliers and quirks that seem to shake things up, the truth is, Walking Dead #1 is considered the first appearance of Kirkman's the Walking Dead (and Rick Grimes, etc.), and not Agents #6, Capes #1, Previews, et al...because the value is concentrated on Walking Dead #1. A Walking Dead #1 in CGC 9.8 is worth $2,000 or so, with 680 9.8 copies of various flavors on the census, while Agents #6 (which likely has a lower print run than WD #1) is worth in the realm of $250-$300, with only 20 9.8s on the census. Could there be a time that ads and previews take precedence over story apperances? Of course! That's why I said "and I hope it always will" at the end of my last post...because it CAN change, and what would be true if that were the case is that the market has decided that ads and previews are more important...and Capes #1, Agents #6, and even Previews (Diamond's catalog) will be worth more than Walking Dead #1, assuming all other conditions are equal (grade, extant copies, etc.) That time has not arrived....yet....and again...I hope it never will.

It has Rick in full view, no cameo. It would be his first appearance if not for that Trademarked cover shot in Diamond Previews. Interesting, but that still doesn't answer the question. Is it part of an original story (meaning, sequential art that doesn't appear elsewhere), or is it just pinups and preview pages of another book? Traditionally, and it still holds, for appearances to "count", they have to be within the context of an original story. Iron Fist #13 is not Sabretooth's first appearance, not even a cameo, even though there's a picture of him. New Mutants #86 is not Cable's first appearance, not even a cameo, even though there's a picture of his face. Action Comics #12 isn't the first appearance of Batman, even though there's a picture of his face. Hulk #180 IS the first appearance of Wolverine, because he appears within the context of the story. The actual first appearance of Jesse Custer is Preacher #1, despite two preview appearances elsewhere, because those previews only printed pages from the first issue. There are exceptions, of course, that make the rule (More Fun #51.) I understand the motive that people have to push non-story first appearances...they wish to sell them. But, so far, the market has resisted such attempts to legitimize ads and previews as "first appearances", and I hope it always will. I need to pull out my copy, but I'm almost positive that Agents #6 is a shortened copy of WD #1 (preview). Pat I have a copy somewhere, and also Capes #1. I'm pretty sure they're the same preview, both of the first few pages of WD #1.

Late to the party, but that's correct...they are not reprints, and never were. They were printed at the exact same time as the regular newsstand versions. The reason people thought they were reprints is twofold: First, the Star Wars issue. Because Star Wars was the first comic to be quickly reprinted because of demand, and it coincided almost perfectly with the start of the Direct market cover marking program instituted by Marvel in late 76, it was simply assumed that the rest of the "fat diamond" "3-pack" books were, in fact, reprints as well. To the mind of the buyer, "fat diamond" must mean "reprint", since that's what most of the Star Wars reprints looked like. That perception stuck. Second, Whitman stockpiled these books in their warehouses (presumably in Wisconson) and packaged them up when they felt they had enough random books to fill their three packs. So, of course, many of the issues were months old by the time they started showing up in the 3-packs. The new Direct market program was a huge boon to Whitman, which comprised the lion's share of it in those early years (77-79), because they were now getting books they were not going to return anyways, at a substantially higher discount than before. And while we know that Phil Seuling's Seagate Dist, Bud Plant, and others were taking part in Marvel's Direct market experiment, DC decided to try it solely through Whitman (which didn't make much sense, but hindsight and all)...and thus were born the Whitman DC variants. As for the white box Marvels...I share SA's belief that they were, at least in part, because of Whitman. Since the UPC was still a fairly new invention, it appears that retailers were having problems with their clerks scanning the UPC from a single book INSIDE the bag, and charging 30 or 35 cents for a 3-pack, instead of the 79c, 82c, 99c, whatever the 3-pack sold for. So...a few months after the fat diamonds appear...the white box appears. This is supported by the evolution of the Whitman bags themselves: (no UPC) (by the way...the above are FIRST PRINT Direct market editions.) (note the new "Whitman rectangle" to fit over where the UPC goes.) And, by 1979, Marvel had introduced the strikethrough UPC, which rendered the UPC inoperable:

It has Rick in full view, no cameo. It would be his first appearance if not for that Trademarked cover shot in Diamond Previews. Interesting, but that still doesn't answer the question. Is it part of an original story (meaning, sequential art that doesn't appear elsewhere), or is it just pinups and preview pages of another book? Traditionally, and it still holds, for appearances to "count", they have to be within the context of an original story. Iron Fist #13 is not Sabretooth's first appearance, not even a cameo, even though there's a picture of him. New Mutants #86 is not Cable's first appearance, not even a cameo, even though there's a picture of his face. Action Comics #12 isn't the first appearance of Batman, even though there's a picture of his face. Hulk #180 IS the first appearance of Wolverine, because he appears within the context of the story. The actual first appearance of Jesse Custer is Preacher #1, despite two preview appearances elsewhere, because those previews only printed pages from the first issue. There are exceptions, of course, that make the rule (More Fun #51.) I understand the motive that people have to push non-story first appearances...they wish to sell them. But, so far, the market has resisted such attempts to legitimize ads and previews as "first appearances", and I hope it always will.

Some things are not as easy to breakdown as you would think. As soon as you start leaving things out, people start making false assumptions attempting to fill in the gaps. How very, very true. Only to those unwilling to put in the time to learn.

Technically, you're correct. All later printings are, technically, reprints. But historically, that doesn't really bear out. Reprints have been done for 50+ years in comics (DC Annuals, Marvel Tales, etc.) In Marvel Tales #1, the Spiderman story in Amazing Fantasy #15 is reprinted. So is Hulk #1, JIM #83, TOS #39, among others. It is a classic reprint. But it is not a second printing of each of those books. It is a reprint of multiple stories from multiple books. And though the tradition of reprints occurred at Marvel and DC throughout the 70's and 80's, either in Treasury format, or Digest format, or Fireside format, or Baxter format, those are all properly classified as reprints, rather than "XXX printings" of individual books. Books that were reprinted due to immediate initial demand did not occur until the late 70's (Star Wars), and they didn't really label them "XXX printings" until the 1980's (and even then, it wasn't based on initial demand.) And if they were reprinted in a slightly different format, 10-20 years after their initial release (a la Spideman #101), or like the Marvel Milestone books, can they really be called "XXX printings"...? Or are they just generic reprints? Overwhelming demand sending books back to the presses was a very scarce event in comics until the early 90's. In fact, the very first "XXX printings" based on demand were the early Marvel Graphic Novels of 1982-1983, which weren't regular comic books, then Indie Black & Whites from 1984-1986 (Turtles, Fish Police #1, Boris the Bear #1, Dark Horse Presents #1, and even some early Indie Color books like Grendel #1 (2nd series) There were earlier oddballs, like Elfquest magazine. And sure, there were the prestige format books like Dark Knight #1-3, Killing Joke, and Longbow Hunters #1, but these were...well...prestige projects, not regular monthly books. The first regular Marvel to go back to the presses to meet initial demand...ever...was Ghost Rider #1, May of 1990! The first DC? Lobo #1 from Nov of 1990. (Undergrounds are the exception. They called themselves 2nd, 3rd, 4th printings going back to 1968 or earlier.) The fact is, other than Star Wars (which was a phenom unto itself), Marvel and DC's conventional wisdom regarding reprinting sellouts was to package them in a trade (as they did with Dark Phoenix, nearly 4 years after release, as the relatively new trade paperback format, a continuation of the Fireside series of the 70's.) They simply did not reprint single issues. The big initial sellouts of the 80's....Thor #337, Spidey #252, Man of Steel #1, Batman #428...books that were instant hits...,did not go back to press as single issues. In fact, of those four, the only one that went back relatively fast was Batman #428, and that was the trade "A Death In The Family" that was printed and released by December of 1988, less than two months after #429 hit the stands (when DC realized what a monster hit they had.) That's a large part of the reason that these books RETAINED their value...books like Spiderman #121 and 122 (which were, essentially, the first "megahit sellouts" in comics), Howard the Duck #1 (which had shenanigans going on with it), later Byrne X-Men, New Teen Titans, Simonson Thor, etc etc etc....these books were not reprinted for a long time, and when they were, it was in a completely different format. Yes, there was the Thundercats #1 (which was second printed for multi-packs) and yes, there was the GI Joe books (again, for multi-packs), but these were based on subsequent demand for the books, several years down the road. Marvel didn't begin reprinting GI Joe until 1984-1985, two to three years after the originals. And yes, they later printed the hell out of Batman #397-432 and Byrne Superman, going up to six (and maybe 7) printings for some issues, all the way from 1988-1990. But those weren't because the originals were sellouts (there are no later printings, for example, of Batman #400, 404-407, 417-420, or 426-429.) No, second printing, third printing, fourth printing, et al for single "hot" issues...entirely a 90's invention as far as DC and Marvel are concerned. And the variations (Roman numerals, logo color variations)...same thing. (Anyone feel free to correct me if I've gotten any details wrong.)

DCP #26 contains an original story. Does Agents #6 have an original story, or does it just feature the first few pages of the first issue of WD #1?

I appreciate your time and thoughts but on that note I'll be exiting the discussion. Why do you think that's funny? Do you think Katrina, et al didn't destroy comic books...? Are comic books impervious to fire...? Our very own Flying-Donut, who is a Copper specialist, lost multiple long boxes in the flooding that hit Virginia about 4-5 years ago. Are you aware that Eclipse Comics lost their entire publisher's stock of back issues TWICE, in 1986 AND 1993, due to flooding? Had they been selling newsstand copies of their books, THOSE copies would still be around, because they would already have been in the hands of buyers/readers/collectors. Flooding is precisely why books like Miracleman #15 are $100-$200 raw. So, I'm not quite sure why that's funny. I guess we'll never know, now.... :shrug:

Based on your previous comments, I assumed that we agreed there were fewer newsstand copies by the mid 80's. We don't know the exact moment the pendulum swung in favor of direct market but based on your own comments newsstand copies were less than a third of the market by 1988. So maybe at the very least we can all agree that from 1988-forward newsstand comics are rarer than their direct market counterparts. Yes and no. It's important to distinguish between *sales figures* and *extant copies*. Yes, by about 1988, newsstand sales account for less than a 1/3 of the total market...but we're not talking about what was then, we're talking about what we see NOW. Remember: newsstands were ubiquitous, well into the 90's and beyond. Though their comics revenues dwindled, they didn't just sell comics. And, there are far, far more newsstands across North America than there are comic specialty stores. Keeping that in mind, understand that the distribution of the extant copies of newsstand books was extremely thorough...that is, newsstands sold individual copies to individuals, and "returned" the rest. Stores, on the other hand, stored backstock, a novel idea in the industry. Now...just as it is now easier to find Direct market copies from this era because they tended to remain in clumps (whether 1st or 5th generation), it's ALSO true that attrition was harder at work among the clumps than it was among the individual newsstand copies...things like floods and other disasters tended to wipe out those clumps a lot faster than broadly scattered individual newsstand copies. And, while it is true that HIGHER grade copies are in greater numbers, that doesn't mean the amount of newsstand copies in ALL grades that survived is substantially smaller, just because they didn't comprise the majority of the market. Even at 70/30, that's still only 2 DM copies per 1 newsstand...not a great deal of difference. And when attrition sets in, we see that the numbers generally have evened out over the decades.

Whichever is harder to find and RMA argues in favor of.

Fewer newsstand copies, no. Fewer ultra high grade newsstand copies, yes. I don't agree with that assessment, so I guess we're arguing. I am not seeing the price differences you are seeing, and I don't see the market moving in that direction for PRE-1994 books. And if the market does show inclinations towards that direction, I have little doubt that it will be answered in force, driving the seeming difference back to negligible.