Do Kirby fourth world books sell?

[the blob]

it's amazing how lois lane, jimmy olsen, etc. outsold detective and JLA!

 

so does this mean that superman had a print-run of like a million given the ratios of newstand returns back then?

[TheWatcher]

Superman's print run in '70 was 859,811 and in '71 it was 793,000 (averages as per DC)

[Dick Pontoon]

Then is the sales info on this page wrong?

[Zonker]

Then is the sales info on this page wrong?

 

I don't know for certain, but when he says this, it makes me suspicious...

 

The spikes are because I chose just a single issue in the summer and one in the winter. I was too lazy to add up and average everything.

 

[Hawkman]

Then is the sales info on this page wrong?

 

I don't know for certain, but when he says this, it makes me suspicious...

 

The spikes are because I chose just a single issue in the summer and one in the winter. I was too lazy to add up and average everything.

 

 

 

yet he wasn't too lazy to make a website that has incorrect information.

[the blob]

well, the info is for overall, so if DC was hardly selling anything other than the books listed in mschmidt's post, while Marvels second string titles were doing much better, this could make sense

 

Sgt. Fury #40's (1966 I think) net circulation number says 268K, so there really wasn't a big difference between that title and some of the flagship titles. (I guess maybe Sgt. Fury was a flagship title back then, like Conan was one in the 70's).

 

That's the only thing I can think of to explain how Superman could supposedly be selling 2X as much as Spidey yet overall Marvel was selling more. But it seems like DC had MORE titles than Marvel during this time as well, given that Marvel was limited.

 

Could those sales figures include Europe/foreign? I can't imagine that would be enough to make a difference, but was Marvel more popular abroad?

[the blob]

Then is the sales info on this page wrong?

 

I don't know for certain, but when he says this, it makes me suspicious...

 

The spikes are because I chose just a single issue in the summer and one in the winter. I was too lazy to add up and average everything.

 

 

 

yet he wasn't too lazy to make a website that has incorrect information.

 

he links/cites to someone who did a more detailed analysis that has marvel passing DC in 1967 or thereabouts

 

so Jimmy Olsen was selling 500K a month...were Green Lantern and Flash barely cracking 100K? That's the only way I can make the #s work.

[Zonker]

Then is the sales info on this page wrong?

 

I don't know for certain, but when he says this, it makes me suspicious...

 

The spikes are because I chose just a single issue in the summer and one in the winter. I was too lazy to add up and average everything.

 

 

 

yet he wasn't too lazy to make a website that has incorrect information.

 

he links/cites to someone who did a more detailed analysis that has marvel passing DC in 1967 or thereabouts

 

so Jimmy Olsen was selling 500K a month...were Green Lantern and Flash barely cracking 100K? That's the only way I can make the #s work.

 

I'm thinking the simpler explanation is he and his buddy got their data mixed up. Here is a scan of Maggie Thompson's then-current Newfangles fanzine from 1968. Though she notes the trajectory is clearly in Marvel's favor by 1967, the DC titles listed here indicate they are still sitting on their 1960s circulation lead at this point.

 

 

[the blob]

that list clearly doesn't cover all the DC titles (blackhawk is missing, so is Aquaman, nor does it cover all the marvels (Sgt. Fury is missing, TOS or Iron Man are missing (unclear when exactly this came out)

[Zonker]

So?

 

At some point you've just got to decide which is the more convincing set of data:

 

1- the year-over-year circulation statement data I compiled from the Standard Guide of a few years ago, the chart mschmidt posted, the Newfangles fanzine scans I posted from 1967/1968; or

 

2- that page linked by D ick Pontoon, hosted off something called the "Enter the Story" blog.

 

They cannot all be correct: as you say, Marvel didn't publish enough titles in those years to make up for the difference obvious when you compare the Batman/Superman/JLA numbers to the Spidey/FF/Avengers numbers.

 

Believe whatever you want

[the blob]

I'm just trying figure out where pontoon's cited folks are getting their numbers from...they cite to a legit sounding source.

 

it does seem, from observational data only, that there was a lot more funny business with Marvel newstand returns/affidavits of destruction than with DC (given the MH II composition), which resulted in a lot of marvels finding their way to the market through junk shops, used book stores, etc., no? (aside from what got warehoused to get sold to MH Chuck) ---- meaning that the # of marvels in real world circulation might not be properly reflected in some of these official circulation #s, though coming up with an actual # for that is hard/impossible