30/35 cent books with diamond and blank box

[RockMyAmadeus]

...having no idea it was one of the top 5 rarest 30 centers in existence.

 

 

not sure it is top 5, but probably top 10

 

that is another thread tho

 

Top 5, top 10...or as my friend Comix4Fun says, pot-A-to, potat-O.

 

[cheetah]

I've found this pretty interesting. I still don't know if I can get one graded as a variant for my Avengers set.

[joe_collector]

You haven't answered my question: why did Marvel print BOTH UPC and blanks, even for the same issue, if they were ALL going to the same place....?

 

So, you're saying there are "Fat Diamond" copies of the SAME book, one with a UPC and one Blank? If so, I'd love to see a few, to check over the differences.

[joe_collector]

There is a MAJOR fault in your logic:

 

The Direct Market is the one that doesn't use UPCs and would never use this as a default format. To call them 'definitely Direct Market copies sent to LCSs" is 100% illogical, as they should have received blank UPC copies.

 

Check out the Direct Market Editions from the *real* start in mid-1979 - either blank or a crossed-out UPC, just like they should be.

 

That's simply not true. When UPCs were new, no one was sure exactly HOW they would be used....remember, this was an EXPERIMENT. They didn't work out all the bugs for 2+ years. By early 1979, Marvel HAD figured out that the DM didn't need UPC codes either, along with Western

 

Sorry, but that's simply not true. When I was talking to old distributors and LCS owners about this back in 2000-2002, they stated that they did not want UPCs on their comics, Marvel didn't want UPCs on their proposed Direct Market comics (in case they ever found their way into a retail outlet) and that was a major reason why when the true Direct Market copies started to appear in mid-1979, NONE of them had a UPC.

 

You can foist all sorts of "it was an experiment", etc. bizarre theories, but it doesn't make them right.

[joe_collector]

I can't be JC. I'm MUCH more handsome...and I have a sense of humor.

 

Now that is funny.

[kdoginohio]

You haven't answered my question: why did Marvel print BOTH UPC and blanks, even for the same issue, if they were ALL going to the same place....?

 

So, you're saying there are "Fat Diamond" copies of the SAME book, one with a UPC and one Blank? If so, I'd love to see a few, to check over the differences.

i've got this one. Does it count?

[joe_collector]

Now where's the Blank UPC copy?

[ShieldAgent]

Has anyone ever proposed that joe_collector and RockMyAmadeus are one and the same? If not, let me propose it now. This thread is a perfect example of a great double identity secretly shaping, honing, and perfecting arguments until the best possible outcome is achieved. May the best man win. :shrug:

 

 

I can't be JC. I'm MUCH more handsome...and I have a sense of humor.

 

 

don't forget your pencil-neck and breadstick arms

[shadroch]

Now where's the Blank UPC copy?

 

 

You got me curious. I'd like to see examples of both, as well.

[kdoginohio]

sorry, i only have the one posted. We need some of the variant gurus to post.

[shadroch]

'xactly.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Now where's the Blank UPC copy?

 

 

You got me curious. I'd like to see examples of both, as well.

 

Amateurs!

 

 

 

Star Wars #11.

[bronze_rules]

Now that is an impressive example.

[RockMyAmadeus]

There is a MAJOR fault in your logic:

 

The Direct Market is the one that doesn't use UPCs and would never use this as a default format. To call them 'definitely Direct Market copies sent to LCSs" is 100% illogical, as they should have received blank UPC copies.

 

Check out the Direct Market Editions from the *real* start in mid-1979 - either blank or a crossed-out UPC, just like they should be.

 

That's simply not true. When UPCs were new, no one was sure exactly HOW they would be used....remember, this was an EXPERIMENT. They didn't work out all the bugs for 2+ years. By early 1979, Marvel HAD figured out that the DM didn't need UPC codes either, along with Western

 

Sorry, but that's simply not true. When I was talking to old distributors and LCS owners about this back in 2000-2002, they stated that they did not want UPCs on their comics, Marvel didn't want UPCs on their proposed Direct Market comics (in case they ever found their way into a retail outlet) and that was a major reason why when the true Direct Market copies started to appear in mid-1979, NONE of them had a UPC.

 

You can foist all sorts of "it was an experiment", etc. bizarre theories, but it doesn't make them right.

 

Sorry, but I'm not going to take the "reminiscings" of events that were 25 years old at the time over what I can see with my own eyes. Why would comics specialty stores CARE that there were UPCs or not on their comics? They were on ALL Marvel & DC (and Gold Key, Charlton, etc) comics they sold by the middle of 1976 anyways, so why would it affect them in any way?

 

You say "Marvel didn't want UPCs on their proposed DM comics" , but the fact is, that didn't happen until early 1979. Not late 1976, when the large diamonds first appeared. And DC had already distinguished between WHITMAN copies and "all others" (including DM copies) in 1978.

 

You call them "bizarre theories"...but you still haven't answered my question:

 

If ALL "fat/large diamonds" were going to Western...why do some have UPCs, and others don't? Why would Marvel pay EXTRA to World Color to make that change mid-run?

[500Club]

This is great stuff, guys. Keep it coming! (thumbs u

[joe_collector]

Amateurs!

 

But are those reprints/2nd prints or originals?

[joe_collector]

You say "Marvel didn't want UPCs on their proposed DM comics" , but the fact is, that didn't happen until early 1979. Not late 1976, when the large diamonds first appeared. And DC had already distinguished between WHITMAN copies and "all others" (including DM copies) in 1978.

 

The point is, that your logic makes no sense.

 

You are stating that many issues were printed up with BOTH UPC and Blank UPC covers, and while I haven't seen evidence of mass amounts of these, let's leave that for now.

 

The second part is that the UPC copies were, according to your logic printed *specifically* for the Direct Market. Right? The DM didn't want the same "blank" copies that Whitman sent out, so they *specifically* ran a second run* ($$$) to print these UPC copies for the DM?

 

That makes ZERO sense, since there is no way that any DM would want UPC copies and there is no way that Marvel would incur that kind of expense for something the DM and LCS owners would never use or want.

 

* Even sappers like Sulipa (trying to hawk their books) freely admit that the vast majority of these 1977-79 books are from Whitman 3-packs, so this theoretical "DM experiment" would certainly be a much smaller, second run.

[seanfingh]

 

I haven't had time to research this, but I will look into it when I can. I think a major factor to be considered here is the nature of the UPC symbol itself. I want to review the legislation that deals with UPCs and determine when/if UPCs became mandatory for items sold in the US. One thing that I have confirmed (although this is with Whitman bags of Gold Key books, not Marvels) is that a change was made relative to the multipaks themselves.

 

For example, a 1979 multipak of Black Hole books has comics with the UPC on them, and no UPC on the bag itself. This, to me, is indicating that there was no "intention" for the comics to be sold in a multipak, rather that they were intended for single sale and re-packaged into multipaks. Whereas, a 1980 Chip & Dale/Mickey Mouse/something else multipak has copies with blank boxes and the multipak itself has the UPC symbol. This, to me, proves that, at that point, those books were produced specifically to be part of a multipak sale, and never intended for individual distribution.

 

I'm not sure yet how this pieces in with the Marvel conundrum, but I am certain that it does fit somehow.

[Spider-Variant]

Amateurs!

 

But are those reprints/2nd prints or originals?

 

Yeah, I think JC is right on this example. Didn't some of the Star Wars books get reprinted, so maybe one is an original, the other a second print?

[gifflefunk]

Some additional info/thoughts.

 

Both Star Wars #11s are originals. I own multiple copies of both (bagged and loose), no reprint notice in the indicia or on the covers to either issue. Plus no other diamond issue that I know of exists in both a UPC and non-UPC version (not counting the legitimate reprint issues of Star Wars #2, 3, and 4), just Star Wars #11.

 

Also, the early diamond issues were not exclusively sold in three packs. However, the only other verifiable distribution for these non-three pack issues also comes from Western Publishing which sold a retail box of ten diamond issues. Western was most definitely the driving force for the printing of these early diamond issues.

 

Like joe_collector, I have anecdotal evidence from dealers. Unlike joe_collector, these dealers claim to have gotten some diamond issues prior to the full blown conversion of Direct Market issues to being marked differently than newsstand issues in 1979. How they got these issues I do not know (loose issues from Western maybe?).

 

The size of the diamond appears to be related to how the cover was initially laid out for publication. Slim diamonds did exist on some Marvel titles as early as 1977 (see Tarzan #2).

 

Some diamond issues have a month on the cover and others do not. This also extended to the regular newsstand editions (see Star Wars newsstand issues #10 through #13). The month not appearing on the cover appears to be a "random" Marvel behavior with no other significance.

 

My personal theory with the vanishing of the UPC barcodes has to do with cashiers scanning the visible barcoded issue and selling a three pack for the price of a single issue. I think the vendors selling three packs asked for the removal of the barcodes to avoid having less observant cashiers selling the three packs for less than the sticker price.