Moderns that are heating up on ebay! 71 71

[revat]

So what is the answer RMA?

 

Let's say a book has a non-variant print run of 30000 (to fill orders for 29K?), on a 1:15 would they print 2000 plus some sort of rounding up for extras to give out to friends, to replace damaged copies, etc., maybe 2250?

 

Or do you think it might be more like 3000? 2500?

 

Or is every issue going to be wildly different?

 

It doesn't make a difference to me, I do not pay a premium for these unless some cover blows me away and maybe it's $5, I am just curious what your understanding is. I am going to assume you looked into it.

 

i thiink his point is that theere's too many variables to make anything other than a very general guess based on the facts that you know, and generally we know very few facts, and those facts could easily change from month to month.

[lightninglad]

So can we all just use the term "estimated" and be done with this discussion?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

OK, something about 1:15...blah blah

 

So what does this mean RMA? Print run of 30,000..2,000 of these?

 

Or even less...one for every 15 a shop ordered...so if a shop ordered 6 copies, none for them, so the number is definitely less than 2,000

 

Or..., "we just don't know"?

 

It means absolutely nothing like what you're saying here. Those are distribution numbers...that means, they are distributed, NOT PRINTED, based on how a particular retailer orders.

 

It does not mean, and never, ever has meant, "well, the print run was 30,000, and this was a 1:15, so it must mean they only printed 2,000 of these."

 

That conception is based on multiple faulty premises.

 

How?

 

1. Those aren't print run numbers released by Comichron, and never have been.

 

Comics Sold to North American Comics Shops as Reported by Diamond Comic Distributors

 

http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2015.html

 

The operative words are "sold to", "North American Comics Shops", "reported by Diamond."

 

There's nothing in there about "print run", for ANY book. In fact, outside of the Statements of Ownership, and various publicized variants (Venom #1 Gold, Ultimate Spiderman #1 DF, etc.) we don't have print run information for any Marvel comic.

 

No, those numbers are comics sold to North American comic shops through Diamond, reported by Diamond.

 

How many were printed for the UK, which obviously carries US comics...?

 

We don't know.

 

How many newsstand versions were printed, which carried Marvel comics until 2011, and do those numbers factor in any way into this...?

 

We don't know.

 

2. Marvel, and other publishers, does not release print run information about its books.

 

Notice the language of the incentive:

 

Retailers may order one copy of the Amazing Spider-Man #667 Dell’Otto Variant (MAY118321D, $3.99) for every 100 copies of the regular

 

Notice what it says there? "Retailers may order." It does NOT say Marvel "will print."

 

It's neat, simple, and easy to point to Comichron and say "well, if it's a 1:10 variant, and 74,000 copies were "printed" (itself a misconception), then there must have been 7,400 copies of the 1:10!"

 

It's also wrong.

 

The answer is "we just don't know."

 

The various publishers don't release this information.

 

Until and if they do, ANYONE saying "well, this is what they printed, based on this, that, and the other" doesn't know what they're talking about, and is likely trying (like Marvel) to sell you something.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So can we all just use the term "estimated" and be done with this discussion?

 

No.

 

There's nothing to estimate from.

 

When you estimate, you have to have some foundation to base the estimation on.

 

With these books, there is none. The numbers upon which such "estimations" are based are, themselves, estimates.

 

How valid are estimates of estimates?

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

And honestly, i have no idea if my assumptions are remotely reasonable, though I think they sound reasonable.

 

So I guess if you wanted to say the 1:10 print run is USUALLY somewhere between 1 and 10% of the total number ordered, I don't that's too unreasonable. But I also don't think there's too much value to that. And of course there are exceptions.

 

 

Exactly.

 

We just don't know, and don't have enough information to make even reasonable (though lots of reasonable-sounding) guesses.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Actually, what is the difference between print run and distribution? And yes, I really am asking that question.

 

So if a book is sold as 1:15, for every 15 books bought you get 1 variant. If Comichron lists a run at 22,000, that means they print 1,467 copies of the 1:15 variant, right?. Is there a way to actually know what a 'print run' is?

 

Thanks for your insight because I'm always confused as to what the argument is between print run and distribution (not that it takes a lot to confuse me).

 

Other than printing overages to account for possible damaged copies and printing up to the nearest full case of 200-225, there isn't much difference between the two. Comichron doesn't account for UK sales, but realistically that would only add about another 10% or so to the number you see on comichron. Are there exceptions to this rule of thumb ? Of course, especially with big event books or "#1's". But again , those are the exception and not the norm.

 

-J.

 

How do you know?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Publishers do not print books they have no intention of distributing. Anyone who suggests otherwise is out of their minds.

 

-J.

 

True...which is why no one did. You cannot invent things out of thin air, put them in the virtual mouths of others, and then argue against those statements.

[darkstar]

Actually, what is the difference between print run and distribution? And yes, I really am asking that question.

 

So if a book is sold as 1:15, for every 15 books bought you get 1 variant. If Comichron lists a run at 22,000, that means they print 1,467 copies of the 1:15 variant, right?. Is there a way to actually know what a 'print run' is?

 

Thanks for your insight because I'm always confused as to what the argument is between print run and distribution (not that it takes a lot to confuse me).

 

Other than printing overages to account for possible damaged copies and printing up to the nearest full case of 200-225, there isn't much difference between the two. Comichron doesn't account for UK sales, but realistically that would only add about another 10% or so to the number you see on comichron. Are there exceptions to this rule of thumb ? Of course, especially with big event books or "#1's". But again , those are the exception and not the norm.

 

-J.

 

all of this is nonsense

 

Wanna bet?

 

The view must be nice from that peanut gallery you live in.

 

-J.

I'd think the cover artists get some copies for themselves. Hmmm here's a thought, how many ASM 700 Ditko covers do you think Stan Lee got to sign, slab and sell? I'm sure he can get 100 copies of any variant that he wants

 

Maybe? Like I said, event books or "#1's" would be the rare exception. And certainly whatever unaccounted/un-ordered printing overages may very well get handed out to employees or creators. But we would be talking copies in the dozens not in the hundreds, and not remotely in the thousands.

-J.

 

What about all those incentive variants found in the multi-packs at Five Below? How many of those were there Jay? Where did they come from?

 

 

What about them ? Whatever minor printing overages there are on the occasional book can end up in one of those packs or in a Diamond variant sell off. As a percentage of variants that publishers print it is an absolutely infinitesimal amount. Infinitesimal. These are the rare exception and not the rule.

 

And again, if you think publishers are deliberately over printing variants on a regular basis for the sole purpose of blowing them out for a fraction of cover price months or years later, you are loco in the coco.

 

-J.

 

Except in that instance you had a significant number of those variants reach five below stores. So no it isn't dozens of copies. You have no idea if the number is infinitesimal because you have no idea how it compares to whatever nonsense estimate you pulled off of manipulation of comichron numbers.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So why DO we know that the "ratio incentives" aren't actually printed according to order numbers, when we DON'T know how many the publishers actually print?

 

Mainly because these incentive variants routinely (not "once in a blue moon", as some claim) are sold in special sales...and, indeed, in far, far higher numbers than can be accounted for by "just selling off the damages/returns overruns."

 

If those books were "just printed to order", as is claimed, they ALL would have been distributed at the time the book came out, with only a slight handful...the "case" situation...left.

 

So, we know what it's NOT...we just don't know what it IS.

[Rick moma]

I've seen the same topic 7 times in 6 months...to funny!!!

[RockMyAmadeus]

Actually, what is the difference between print run and distribution? And yes, I really am asking that question.

 

So if a book is sold as 1:15, for every 15 books bought you get 1 variant. If Comichron lists a run at 22,000, that means they print 1,467 copies of the 1:15 variant, right?. Is there a way to actually know what a 'print run' is?

 

Thanks for your insight because I'm always confused as to what the argument is between print run and distribution (not that it takes a lot to confuse me).

 

Other than printing overages to account for possible damaged copies and printing up to the nearest full case of 200-225, there isn't much difference between the two. Comichron doesn't account for UK sales, but realistically that would only add about another 10% or so to the number you see on comichron. Are there exceptions to this rule of thumb ? Of course, especially with big event books or "#1's". But again , those are the exception and not the norm.

 

-J.

 

all of this is nonsense

 

Wanna bet?

 

The view must be nice from that peanut gallery you live in.

 

-J.

I'd think the cover artists get some copies for themselves. Hmmm here's a thought, how many ASM 700 Ditko covers do you think Stan Lee got to sign, slab and sell? I'm sure he can get 100 copies of any variant that he wants

 

Maybe? Like I said, event books or "#1's" would be the rare exception. And certainly whatever unaccounted/un-ordered printing overages may very well get handed out to employees or creators. But we would be talking copies in the dozens not in the hundreds, and not remotely in the thousands.

-J.

 

What about all those incentive variants found in the multi-packs at Five Below? How many of those were there Jay? Where did they come from?

 

 

What about them ? Whatever minor printing overages there are on the occasional book can end up in one of those packs or in a Diamond variant sell off. As a percentage of variants that publishers print it is an absolutely infinitesimal amount. Infinitesimal. These are the rare exception and not the rule.

 

And again, if you think publishers are deliberately over printing variants on a regular basis for the sole purpose of blowing them out for a fraction of cover price months or years later, you are loco in the coco.

 

-J.

 

Except in that instance you had a significant number of those variants reach five below stores. So no it isn't dozens of copies. You have no idea if the number is infinitesimal because you have no idea how it compares to whatever nonsense estimate you pulled off of manipulation of comichron numbers.

 

Yes.

[lightninglad]

So can we all just use the term "estimated" and be done with this discussion?

 

No.

 

There's nothing to estimate from.

 

When you estimate, you have to have some foundation to base the estimation on.

 

With these books, there is none. The numbers upon which such "estimations" are based are, themselves, estimates.

 

How valid are estimates of estimates?

 

You've become pretty ridiculous in this crusade and just as unreasonable as those you fight against. Based upon the information we know, we CAN begin to "estimate" what the print run of a comic is. Nothing is 100% absolute in life. We all know that. Constantly repeating yourself ad nauseam reminding everyone of that is tiresome.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

And again, if you think publishers are deliberately over printing variants on a regular basis for the sole purpose of blowing them out for a fraction of cover price months or years later, you are loco in the coco.

 

-J.

 

Correct, which is why no one has ever said this, or anything like this.

 

You cannot invent things out of thin air, put them in the virtual mouths of others, and then argue against those statements as if they are actual positions claimed by actual people.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So can we all just use the term "estimated" and be done with this discussion?

 

No.

 

There's nothing to estimate from.

 

When you estimate, you have to have some foundation to base the estimation on.

 

With these books, there is none. The numbers upon which such "estimations" are based are, themselves, estimates.

 

How valid are estimates of estimates?

 

You've become pretty ridiculous in this crusade and just as unreasonable as those you fight against. Based upon the information we know, we CAN begin to "estimate" what the print run of a comic is. Nothing is 100% absolute in life. We all know that. Constantly repeating yourself ad nauseam reminding everyone of that is tiresome.

 

 

You can't even get 50% "absolute" with print runs, because you don't know what they are. You have no way of knowing. The only thing you know for sure is what DIAMOND (who is, after all, in the business of SELLING COMIC BOOKS) reports to Comichron and others about what they sell to North American comic book shops.

 

You're trying to guess the picture of a 1,000 piece puzzle, and you're missing half the pieces...but you call that "good enough."

 

What was the total print run of the regular first print of, say, Wolverine #66...?

 

Do you have any idea?

 

Can you "estimate" something for which you don't even begin to have any reasonable information about (that is, the UK numbers, or the newsstand numbers)...?

 

That's the problem.

 

So, you can call it "ridiculous", and you can call it a "crusade", and you can be dismissive if you like, and call my "repeating it ad nauseam tiresome"...you're not the first, and won't be the last. It's what people do on the internet.

 

I find the ad nauseam repetition and ad nauseam deliberate spread of MISinformation tiresome.

 

So, who is the more ridiculous...? Those who deliberately repeat and spread misinformation, for whatever unstated agenda may exist, or those who fight that, to make sure people make decisions based on accurate information?

 

What side are you really on, "lightinglad"...?

 

[Mike's Rack]

So why DO we know that the "ratio incentives" aren't actually printed according to order numbers, when we DON'T know how many the publishers actually print?

 

Mainly because these incentive variants routinely (not "once in a blue moon", as some claim) are sold in special sales...and, indeed, in far, far higher numbers than can be accounted for by "just selling off the damages/returns overruns."

 

If those books were "just printed to order", as is claimed, they ALL would have been distributed at the time the book came out, with only a slight handful...the "case" situation...left.

 

So, we know what it's NOT...we just don't know what it IS.

We know because things like this happen quite often:

 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/05/15/marvel-liquidates-miracleman-1-10-in-all-its-variants/

 

[Jaydogrules]

So why DO we know that the "ratio incentives" aren't actually printed according to order numbers, when we DON'T know how many the publishers actually print?

 

Mainly because these incentive variants routinely (not "once in a blue moon", as some claim) are sold in special sales...and, indeed, in far, far higher numbers than can be accounted for by "just selling off the damages/returns overruns."

 

If those books were "just printed to order", as is claimed, they ALL would have been distributed at the time the book came out, with only a slight handful...the "case" situation...left.

 

So, we know what it's NOT...we just don't know what it IS.

We know because things like this happen quite often:

 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2015/05/15/marvel-liquidates-miracleman-1-10-in-all-its-variants/

 

...and yet that is one of exactly two or three examples from the last ten years that anyone can ever talk about to show that it happens "all the time". Silly Billies.

 

Like I said, once in a blue moon and an infinitesimal amount as a percentage of variants that a publisher will print in a single year even.

 

-J.

[lightninglad]

So can we all just use the term "estimated" and be done with this discussion?

 

No.

 

There's nothing to estimate from.

 

When you estimate, you have to have some foundation to base the estimation on.

 

With these books, there is none. The numbers upon which such "estimations" are based are, themselves, estimates.

 

How valid are estimates of estimates?

 

You've become pretty ridiculous in this crusade and just as unreasonable as those you fight against. Based upon the information we know, we CAN begin to "estimate" what the print run of a comic is. Nothing is 100% absolute in life. We all know that. Constantly repeating yourself ad nauseam reminding everyone of that is tiresome.

 

 

You can't even get 50% "absolute" with print runs, because you don't know what they are. You have no way of knowing. The only thing you know for sure is what DIAMOND (who is, after all, in the business of SELLING COMIC BOOKS) reports to Comichron and others about what they sell to North American comic book shops.

 

You're trying to guess the picture of a 1,000 piece puzzle, and you're missing half the pieces...but you call that "good enough."

 

What was the total print run of the regular first print of, say, Wolverine #66...?

 

Do you have any idea?

 

Can you "estimate" something for which you don't even begin to have any reasonable information about (that is, the UK numbers, or the newsstand numbers)...?

 

That's the problem.

 

So, you can call it "ridiculous", and you can call it a "crusade", and you can be dismissive if you like, and call my "repeating it ad nauseam tiresome"...you're not the first, and won't be the last. It's what people do on the internet.

 

I find the ad nauseam repetition and ad nauseam deliberate spread of MISinformation tiresome.

 

So, who is the more ridiculous...? Those who deliberately repeat and spread misinformation, for whatever unstated agenda may exist, or those who fight that, to make sure people make decisions based on accurate information?

 

What side are you really on, "lightinglad"...?

 

 

I'm certainly on the side of truth. That's paramount in this hobby. But I'm also on the side of reasonableness, which is why I don't post often

 

Let's be clear here. Are you saying that on these boards YOU have NEVER "estimated" the number of "extant" copies of a particular issue? Say..... NM #98 or MOS #17 or MOS #18?? Talk about self awareness.

 

I agree that this flood of comic flippers "estimating " an issue will be $12 by Thursady but $7 by the weekend SO ACT QUICKLY! screams of the 90's crash and it scares me. This hobby means the world to me and for those that lived it, this newfound fear is REAL. We see these new blood kids as punks sending our beloved hobby on an all too familiar collision course. Standing up and fighting for the hobby we love is fine, dare I say even noble, but not at the price of being hypocritical. Pick your battles is all I'm saying. And if your fight is misformation.......make sure you use solid factual information yourself, or run the risk of sinking to the same level as those you fight against.

 

I know.....

Edited March 16, 2016 by lightninglad

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

I'm certainly on the side of truth. That's paramount in this hobby. But I'm also on the side of reasonableness, which is why I don't post often

 

Let's be clear here. Are you saying that on these boards YOU have NEVER "estimated" the number of "extant" copies of a particular issue? Say..... NM #98 or MOS #17 or MOS #18?? Talk about self awareness.

 

Are you trying to compare estimating print runs of standard comics books from the early 1990's with estimating print runs of retailer incentive variants of the 21st century...?

 

Really...?

 

1. I'm pretty sure you don't mean extant. "Extant" means "still existing." "Print run" and "extant" are two (usually) completely different numbers. We can't know, with very, very few exceptions, the extant number of copies of any comics printed in the last 100 years, because once they're in the wild, all estimates are, at best, educated guesses.

 

2. We CAN estimate print numbers of standard comics of that era because we HAVE reasonable estimates: the Statements of Ownership plus the Capital City orders (think of those as a pre-cursor to Comichron's numbers... much rougher, granted, but combined with the SOO's, we get a good picture about what was made, and what was sold.)

 

Do you understand that the Statements of Ownership are the ONLY complete record of individual print runs of individual comics that exist for most comics printed? And that even those aren't really complete?

 

In other words, with those 1990's books, we often HAVE a place to start from: the total amount of copies printed.

 

You cannot compare estimates about the print runs of standard comics from a time where we had more, and more accurate, information with 21st century incentive variants, whereby the publishers deliberately conceal those numbers to...VOILA!...sell them.

 

 

I agree that this flood of comic flippers "estimating " an issue will be $12 by Thursady but $7 by the weekend SO ACT QUICKLY! screams of the 90's crash and it scares me. This hobby means the world to me and for those that lived it, this newfound fear is REAL. We see these new blood kids as punks sending our beloved hobby on an all too familiar collision course. Standing up and fighting for the hobby we love is fine, dare I say even noble, but not at the price of being hypocritical. Pick your battles is all I'm saying. And if your fight is misformation.......make sure you use solid factual information yourself, or run the risk of lowering yourself to the same level asthose you fight against.

 

I know.....

 

Thanks for the advice, but I think I've got a fairly good handle on it, and I think my record in that regard speaks for itself.

 

Of course, if I asked for examples of where you believe I have fallen short of "using solid factual information" myself, I suspect you, as most who make the claim, would be incapable of doing so. And that's really the difference, isn't it? If you have examples of my inaccuracy, don't be selfish...share them, so we ALL, you, me, everyone, can benefit from accurate information.

 

Or, is your claim actually justified after all....?

 

 

If I may offer some advice in return: learn to discern, and don't take everything you read at face value. It looks like you've been influenced by the endless barrage of misstatements and straw man theorizing from a few, rather than evaluating what everyone says based on what they actually say, and not what someone else says they are saying.

[lightninglad]

 

I'm certainly on the side of truth. That's paramount in this hobby. But I'm also on the side of reasonableness, which is why I don't post often

 

Let's be clear here. Are you saying that on these boards YOU have NEVER "estimated" the number of "extant" copies of a particular issue? Say..... NM #98 or MOS #17 or MOS #18?? Talk about self awareness.

 

Are you trying to compare estimating print runs of standard comics books from the early 1990's with estimating print runs of retailer incentive variants of the 21st century...?

 

Really...?

 

1. I'm pretty sure you don't mean extant. "Extant" means "still existing." "Print run" and "extant" are two (usually) completely different numbers. We can't know, with very, very few exceptions, the extant number of copies of any comics printed in the last 100 years, because once they're in the wild, all estimates are, at best, educated guesses.

 

2. We CAN estimate print numbers of standard comics of that era because we HAVE reasonable estimates: the Statements of Ownership plus the Capital City orders (think of those as a pre-cursor to Comichron's numbers... much rougher, granted, but combined with the SOO's, we get a good picture about what was made, and what was sold.)

 

Do you understand that the Statements of Ownership are the ONLY complete record of individual print runs of individual comics that exist for most comics printed? And that even those aren't really complete?

 

In other words, with those 1990's books, we often HAVE a place to start from: the total amount of copies printed.

 

You cannot compare estimates about the print runs of standard comics from a time where we had more, and more accurate, information with 21st century incentive variants, whereby the publishers deliberately conceal those numbers to...VOILA!...sell them.

 

 

I agree that this flood of comic flippers "estimating " an issue will be $12 by Thursady but $7 by the weekend SO ACT QUICKLY! screams of the 90's crash and it scares me. This hobby means the world to me and for those that lived it, this newfound fear is REAL. We see these new blood kids as punks sending our beloved hobby on an all too familiar collision course. Standing up and fighting for the hobby we love is fine, dare I say even noble, but not at the price of being hypocritical. Pick your battles is all I'm saying. And if your fight is misformation.......make sure you use solid factual information yourself, or run the risk of lowering yourself to the same level asthose you fight against.

 

I know.....

 

Thanks for the advice, but I think I've got a fairly good handle on it, and I think my record in that regard speaks for itself.

 

Of course, if I asked for examples of where you believe I have fallen short of "using solid factual information" myself, I suspect you, as most who make the claim, would be incapable of doing so. And that's really the difference, isn't it? If you have examples of my inaccuracy, don't be selfish...share them, so we ALL, you, me, everyone, can benefit from accurate information.

 

Or, is your claim actually justified after all....?

 

 

If I may offer some advice in return: learn to discern, and don't take everything you read at face value. It looks like you've been influenced by the endless barrage of misstatements and straw man theorizing from a few, rather than evaluating what everyone says based on what they actually say, and not what someone else says they are saying.

 

Edited March 16, 2016 by lightninglad

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

 

As said...if you have anything that anyone is inaccurate about, by all means, please share it.

 

We all benefit when we all have and use accurate information.