The Death of "Marvel Whitmans"...

[RockMyAmadeus]

All I can say is....

 

....you have no idea what it's like to feel like the lone voice in the wilderness for over a decade, until someone FINALLY come along and verifies what you've been saying all along.

 

If you're not yet aware, please read McClure's variant article in the new OPG.

 

So, with that I say simply:

 

Suck it, biznootches.

 

 

[ShieldAgent]

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

You gots to read da book, big H.

[ShieldAgent]

I will get one eventually, but only because I am in the habit of getting one every year, and not because of any one article.

 

I wish you would just tell me the cliff notes version

[RockMyAmadeus]

I will get one eventually, but only because I am in the habit of getting one every year, and not because of any one article.

 

I wish you would just tell me the cliff notes version

 

Oh...didn't know that's what the :shrug: meant.

 

Here:

 

"What do the Tooth Fairy and Marvel Whitmans have in common? They don't exist....So-called "Marvel Whitmans" are actually the Direct Market editions beginning with issues cover dated 2/77 and ending with 5/79...."

 

There's more, but that's the gist.

 

I've only been saying this since, oh, about 1999, but no one listens to me, cause I'm a loudmouth nobody...and I've even been pretty maligned during the course of discussions (this board and others.) Since it's now oh-fishy-al in the OPG, I feel a certain amount of vindication.

 

Oh, and Flying Donut is mentioned in the article. (thumbs u

[ShieldAgent]

and the proof is...what? Because Jon says so, or does he have something from marvel or western saying so? (please forgive the fact I do not have the new OS)

 

I have read all of the discussions, and really do not care if they are "whitmans" or not, but they do seem to follow the easier to identify DC versions in relation to the select issues, and choppy months etc.

 

Like, why is there only one direct market X-men, and two direct market Spidey Super Stories?

 

If I drop Dan's name in this post, does it make me somehow more credible?

[FlyingDonut]

and the proof is...what? Because Jon says so, or does he have something from marvel or western saying so? (please forgive the fact I do not have the new OS)

 

I have read all of the discussions, and really do not care if they are "whitmans" or not, but they do seem to follow the easier to identify DC versions in relation to the select issues, and choppy months etc.

 

Like, why is there only one direct market X-men, and two direct market Spidey Super Stories?

 

If I drop Dan's name in this post, does it make me somehow more credible?

 

Yes. Yes it does. No variants today in Tysons, BTW.

[RockMyAmadeus]

and the proof is...what? Because Jon says so, or does he have something from marvel or western saying so? (please forgive the fact I do not have the new OS)

 

He explains it pretty well. When I feel up to it, I'll post more.

 

I have read all of the discussions, and really do not care if they are "whitmans" or not, but they do seem to follow the easier to identify DC versions in relation to the select issues, and choppy months etc.

 

Like, why is there only one direct market X-men, and two direct market Spidey Super Stories?

 

Well that's easy enough to explain: the DM was still in its experimental phase. Those books weren't top sellers (and X-Men really wasn't from 1977 until about issue #121) so someone must have felt no need to include them, unlike top sellers Spidey and FF.

 

If I drop Dan's name in this post, does it make me somehow more credible?

 

I was just mentioning that he was mentioned. (thumbs u

 

He should be along shortly.

 

Amethyst 35, Amethyst 35, Amethyst 35...

 

There. That should signal his variant sense....

[RockMyAmadeus]

and the proof is...what? Because Jon says so, or does he have something from marvel or western saying so? (please forgive the fact I do not have the new OS)

 

I have read all of the discussions, and really do not care if they are "whitmans" or not, but they do seem to follow the easier to identify DC versions in relation to the select issues, and choppy months etc.

 

Like, why is there only one direct market X-men, and two direct market Spidey Super Stories?

 

If I drop Dan's name in this post, does it make me somehow more credible?

 

Yes. Yes it does. No variants today in Tysons, BTW.

 

 

See??

 

I just had to THINK it, and he showed up!

[ShieldAgent]

and the proof is...what? Because Jon says so, or does he have something from marvel or western saying so? (please forgive the fact I do not have the new OS)

 

I have read all of the discussions, and really do not care if they are "whitmans" or not, but they do seem to follow the easier to identify DC versions in relation to the select issues, and choppy months etc.

 

Like, why is there only one direct market X-men, and two direct market Spidey Super Stories?

 

If I drop Dan's name in this post, does it make me somehow more credible?

 

Yes. Yes it does. No variants today in Tysons, BTW.

 

 

See??

 

I just had to THINK it, and he showed up!

 

I feel better about not going to Tysons. (thumbs u

[ShieldAgent]

and the proof is...what? Because Jon says so, or does he have something from marvel or western saying so? (please forgive the fact I do not have the new OS)

 

He explains it pretty well. When I feel up to it, I'll post more.

 

I have read all of the discussions, and really do not care if they are "whitmans" or not, but they do seem to follow the easier to identify DC versions in relation to the select issues, and choppy months etc.

 

Like, why is there only one direct market X-men, and two direct market Spidey Super Stories?

 

Well that's easy enough to explain: the DM was still in its experimental phase. Those books weren't top sellers (and X-Men really wasn't from 1977 until about issue #121) so someone must have felt no need to include them, unlike top sellers Spidey and FF.

 

If I drop Dan's name in this post, does it make me somehow more credible?

 

I was just mentioning that he was mentioned. (thumbs u

 

He should be along shortly.

 

Amethyst 35, Amethyst 35, Amethyst 35...

 

There. That should signal his variant sense....

 

I look forward to reading the article someday soon. I was really hoping it had something that had not been discussed to death here or at STL.

 

I guess all I want is some proof, not just some logical explanations. I have already heard a ton of legitimate arguements from both sides.

 

speaking of beatlejuice--your first post has yet to capture the attention of JC, so let me help-

 

Marvel whitman

Marvel whitman

Marvel whitman

 

I think he will be here shortly...

[cosmic-spider-man]

I think it is safe to say that from 1977 to sometime in 1979 these Fat Diamond price Marvels were sold exclusively to Whitman to sell in their 3 packs and if any of the eairly Comic Book Stores had them in their comic racks loose they probably bought 3 packs from Whitman and opened them up. I am sure Marvel did not want to put the Whitman brand on these books "like DC did" becaused they hoped other distributors would jump in and want to buy these non returnable books at a steep discount and they eventually did sometime in 1979. I really could care less if people call them Direct Market Edition Marvels or Whitman Marvels but they could be considered either one. After all it was a eairly attempt by Marvel to creat a Direct Market by specially marking Comics that were not to be returned, but it was also only through Whitman Publishing that they were sold at least for the first two years. I can't prove that only Whitman got these books but I have never seen any evidence to the contary, maybe Jon has found some?

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think it is safe to say that from 1977 to sometime in 1979 these Fat Diamond price Marvels were sold exclusively to Whitman to sell in their 3 packs and if any of the eairly Comic Book Stores had them in their comic racks loose they probably bought 3 packs from Whitman and opened them up. I am sure Marvel did not want to put the Whitman brand on these books "like DC did" becaused they hoped other distributors would jump in and want to buy these non returnable books at a steep discount and they eventually did sometime in 1979. I really could care less if people call them Direct Market Edition Marvels or Whitman Marvels but they could be considered either one. After all it was a eairly attempt by Marvel to creat a Direct Market by specially marking Comics that were not to be returned, but it was also only through Whitman Publishing that they were sold at least for the first two years. I can't prove that only Whitman got these books but I have never seen any evidence to the contary, maybe Jon has found some?

 

First of all, paragraphs!

 

Second....DC Whitmans didn't come out until 1978, so Marvel, which printed its first fat diamond book sometime in November 1976, couldn't possibly be taking their cues from DC....

 

Third...there ARE "Marvel Whitmans."

 

Here:

 

 

They just happen to all be Treasury Editions, so Marel couldn't have been TOO opposed to having the Whitman brand name on at least some books.

 

Finally....your premise is really the crux of the issue, ain't it...? I DON'T think it's safe to say these were only sold to and through Whitman. and never have. BUT....even if they were, so what? Do we call direct market editions "Diamond Distribution Editions" simply because Diamond is their only distributor...?

 

[seanfingh]

 

The new phone books are here, the new phone books are here!!!!

[NP_Gresham]

The new phone books are here, the new phone books are here!!!!

 

"And that's it and that's the only thing I need, is this. I don't need this or this. Just this ashtray. And this paddle game, the ashtray and the paddle game and that's all I need."

[KolmarAvenue]

any scans of the article would be much appreciated! this thread is useless without knowing what the article actually said. THEN we can debate some more about it. i just keep picturing the star wars multi pack reprints, which i don't dig at all. from my point of view though, i'd have to say that i prefer the non-diamond version, but like any collector i'm open to debate. being the cheapskate that i am, when i pick the ospg up (a hc at a discount of course) i'll read it cover to cover, maybe that's when i'll read it.

[shadroch]

This debate has been ongoing for over a decade. It will still be here in six months when you get around to buying the book and reading the article.

[the blob]

so is this correct?:

 

"Direct: Diamond price, UPC or UPC crossed out

 

Whitman: Diamond price, no UPC or UPC crossed out

 

According to the dealers, the ONLY reason to not include a UPC on a comic from that era was to insure no retailers took the Whitman packs apart and sold them seperately. It makes sense.

 

No UPC = Whitman, and UPC = Direct, but where it gets confusing is the comics with the UPC crossed out, as these could be either. I have Whitman packs with both in them (mostly no UPC), and these are verified to be distributed by Western, and not dealers.

 

Also, if there is a DATE on the comic right below the price/issue number, then it is a Direct edition (readers/collectos liked to see the month), but this is not 100% conclusive, as some Direct copies did not have the month."

 

well, whatever the actual history, I do like the early directs...they are a bit harder to find (relaitvely speaking) than the newstand versions, at least for the big titles, dunno about the third tier titles. i don't know when they equalize, but on some the ratio of copies on ebay can be 10-20 (newstand):1 (direct, diamond price, whatever you want to call it). then again, pence copies are probably less common and those have a stigma. go figure.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

this thread is useless without knowing what the article actually said.

 

Well fooey on you.

 

I quoted "what the article actually said", just not enough to your liking, I serpose.

 

And I'm ok with that.

 

(thumbs u

[RockMyAmadeus]

And in case anyone was wondering, I really don't think an article is the final say on any matter, simply because it was printed in the OPG. Lord knows, there've been dozens of articles with incorrect information before.

 

It really was just a nice feeling seeing someone higher up on the comics food chain than I say the same things I have been saying, and nothing more than that. It was quite a tongue in cheek post.

 

Hence the "suck it, biznootches"

 

(thumbs u

 

(But I still think the topic is worth discussion and research, natch.)