Bedlam 1 1

[Nico Esq]

Since no one else has complained, I will. I am very disappointed that Image decided to print more copies of the NYCC variant than it led buyers to believe. This is, in my opinion, one of the most unprofessional, inappropriate moves a comic company can make. I remember back in the 90's when Opee Che Premiere Hockey cards went back to press and destroyed the value of those cards. Before they went back to press the cards were selling for thousands of dollars a set and afterwards the sets were only a few hundred dollars. I was a teenager and I lost my shirt. Now obviously the impact of an additional 500 or 1500 copies of the NYCC variant won't cost retailers and collectors nearly as much money, but it still costs us money. In legal terms its unlawful because it amounts to negligent misrepresentation and/or constructive fraud, inter alia, but as a decision it is immoral and shows a lack of consideration for those who purchased the items under the impression that the print run was a particular number when it was not. It would have been much more professional to simply change the coloring on the cover to 2 or 3 colors instead of full color. This is an easy solution and it wouldn't have cost a significant amount of money. I imagine that the cost of changing the color of the book would be substantially offset by the reduced cost of printing the cover in a limited amount of colors. What's everyone think?

[ThoseBackPages]

i like collecting comic books. if they are "worth money" then that's a bonus.

[500hpAudiS4]

Since no one else has complained, I will. I am very disappointed that Image decided to print more copies of the NYCC variant than it led buyers to believe. This is, in my opinion, one of the most unprofessional, inappropriate moves a comic company can make. I remember back in the 90's when Opee Che Premiere Hockey cards went back to press and destroyed the value of those cards. Before they went back to press the cards were selling for thousands of dollars a set and afterwards the sets were only a few hundred dollars. I was a teenager and I lost my shirt. Now obviously the impact of an additional 500 or 1500 copies of the NYCC variant won't cost retailers and collectors nearly as much money, but it still costs us money. In legal terms its unlawful because it amounts to negligent misrepresentation and/or constructive fraud, inter alia, but as a decision it is immoral and shows a lack of consideration for those who purchased the items under the impression that the print run was a particular number when it was not. It would have been much more professional to simply change the coloring on the cover to 2 or 3 colors instead of full color. This is an easy solution and it wouldn't have cost a significant amount of money. I imagine that the cost of changing the color of the book would be substantially offset by the reduced cost of printing the cover in a limited amount of colors. What's everyone think?

It's like what they did with the WD 103 variant. Not much we can really do .

[ThoseBackPages]

as far as Bedlam variants and "value" go, i think its far worse that there are 6 (or is it 7) different variants.

 

how many top long term selling comic books have that many #1 variant covers?

Edited October 19, 2012 by ThoseBackPages

[boymeetscomics-migration]

Since no one else has complained, I will. I am very disappointed that Image decided to print more copies of the NYCC variant than it led buyers to believe. This is, in my opinion, one of the most unprofessional, inappropriate moves a comic company can make. I remember back in the 90's when Opee Che Premiere Hockey cards went back to press and destroyed the value of those cards. Before they went back to press the cards were selling for thousands of dollars a set and afterwards the sets were only a few hundred dollars. I was a teenager and I lost my shirt. Now obviously the impact of an additional 500 or 1500 copies of the NYCC variant won't cost retailers and collectors nearly as much money, but it still costs us money. In legal terms its unlawful because it amounts to negligent misrepresentation and/or constructive fraud, inter alia, but as a decision it is immoral and shows a lack of consideration for those who purchased the items under the impression that the print run was a particular number when it was not. It would have been much more professional to simply change the coloring on the cover to 2 or 3 colors instead of full color. This is an easy solution and it wouldn't have cost a significant amount of money. I imagine that the cost of changing the color of the book would be substantially offset by the reduced cost of printing the cover in a limited amount of colors. What's everyone think?

 

Dude. Easy on the caffeine. I'm not sure what your fraud allegation is coming from... but the last time I checked, Image was in the biz to make money.

[Nico Esq]

I'm not saying that I would bring suit, but the conduct meets the legal definition of constructive fraud. My point wasn't that it was illegal as much as it was thoughtless and that they should have printed it with a different color cover b/c people paid good money for their copies only to later find out that they weren't as limited as they were told. It also puts retailers in the secondary market in a bad position b/c they relied upon the misrepresentation and repeated it to their customers who trust them. Anyway, this is a short description of the common law since at least one person thinks I'm bonkers for saying that it constitutes constructive fraud.

 

Fraud may be either actual or constructive. The word “fraud” is a general term and construed in its broadest sense embraces both actual and constructive fraud. Actual fraud, or fraud involving guilt, is defined as anything falsely said or done to the injury of property rights of another. Hulings v. Hulings Lumber Co., 38 W.Va. 351, 18 S.E. 620 (1893). Actual fraud is intentional, and consists of intentional deception to induce another to part with property or to surrender some legal right, and which accomplishes the end designed. Miller v. Huntington & Ohio Bridge Co., 123 W.Va. 320, 15 S.E.2d 687 (1941). See also, Steele v. Steele, 295 F.Supp. 1266 (S.D.W.Va.1969); Bowie v. Sorrell, 113 F.Supp. 373 (W.D.Va.1953).

 

[3] Constructive fraud is a breach of a legal or equitable duty, which, irrespective of moral guilt of the fraud feasor, the law declares fraudulent, because of its tendency to deceive others, to violate public or private confidence, or to injure public interests. Miller v. Huntington & Ohio Bridge Co., 123 W.Va. 320, 15 S.E.2d 687 (1941). See also, Steele v. Steele, 295 F.Supp. 1266 (S.D.W.Va.1969); Bowie v. Sorrell, 113 F.Supp. 373 (W.D.Va.1953); Loucks v. McCormick, 198 Kan. 351, 424 P.2d 555 (1967); Bank v. Board of Education of City of New York, 305 N.Y. 119, 111 N.E.2d 238 (1953); Braselton v. Nicolas & Morris, 557 S.W.2d 187 (Tex.Civ.App.1977).

 

[4] Perhaps the best definition of constructive fraud is that it exists in cases in which conduct, although not actually fraudulent, ought to be so treated, that is, in which conduct is a constructive or quasi fraud, which has all the actual consequences and legal effects of actual fraud. In Re Arbuckle's Estate, 98 Cal.App.2d 562, 220 P.2d 950 (1950). Constructive fraud does not require proof of fraudulent intent. The law indulges in an assumption of fraud for the protection of valuable social interests based upon an enforced concept of confidence, both public and private.FN4 Perlberg v. Perlberg, 18 Ohio St.2d 55, 247 N.E.2d 306 (1969). In this respect, constructive fraud closely parallels the wrongful discharge in Harless, which contravened a substantial public policy principle.

 

 

Stanley v. Sewell Coal Co. 169 W.Va. 72, 76-77, 285 S.E.2d 679, 682 - 683 (W.Va.,1981)

Edited October 19, 2012 by Nico Esq

[I like pie]

I would be upset as well but I held off on these because there was a question before Thursday, what the print run actually was. Its bad form and bad buisness to advertise one thing then change it without an official announcement. On top of that, they bumped the price of the book mid con. Shady.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Jrdawg

[Underground44]

Bumping the price mid way through the con was definitely dodgy but I guess they can charge what they want when they want.

Do you think the number of variants will stop? I really hope they stick to one regular issue after #1. It's a great book, but too many variants might kill it.

[Shocker]

I say definitely a 1000 print run on the NYCC variant. I bought 40 of them on the 1st day and saw many others buying 25. Not to mention other people who seem to originally only want 1 copy, but when they saw other people buying 25 decided to pick up 5 or 10. Also, the Detroit Fanfare Bedlam variant is 1000 not 500.

[krighton]

i've always thought a convention edition should be sold to those at the convention only (and then on the after market). Though i seriously doubt many copies will be available for order.

Edited October 19, 2012 by krighton

[shaunofthedead9]

Picked up the NYCC edition today at my LCS for $5. Great looking book.

[plasticmoz]

This is the one of the strangest occurrences I can remember regarding a convention exclusive. I suppose I'm thankful I only bought a single copy for myself - but it's a pretty bad situation all-around.

[Pike's Comics]

Glad I just stuck to ordering the Store Variants. At least those I know are limited to just 1000 and not the 2000 print run the NYCC one has.

[ThoseBackPages]

Glad I just stuck to ordering the Store Variants. At least those I know are limited to just 1000 and not the 2000 print run the NYCC one has.

 

says who?

[Solar]

I actually just spoke to someone at image and confirmed the run is 10,000!!!!

 

The copies not distributed through Diamond will be included in 3 packs with Hell Yeah #1 and Epic Kill #1 and sold at Walmart and Toys R Us.

[I like pie]

[ThoseBackPages]

I actually just spoke to someone at image and confirmed the run is 10,000!!!!

 

The copies not distributed through Diamond will be included in 3 packs with Hell Yeah #1 and Epic Kill #1 and sold at Walmart and Toys R Us.

 

[Pike's Comics]

Glad I just stuck to ordering the Store Variants. At least those I know are limited to just 1000 and not the 2000 print run the NYCC one has.

 

says who?

 

Well people have mentioned SEEING more then 500 at NYCC and estimate they say around 1000 at the show. Now its being released by Diamond to stores...sooo.. 2000k is a good estimate of the print run.

[Balham's Finest]

I practice English law, not US, but the idea that Image or any other publisher owes a legal or equitable duty of care to the consumer with respect to how many copies of a comic they print, or the price on the secondary market, is frankly a bit ridiculous.

 

In any case, people bought them at the con for what, $5? And they're probably still worth that now, even with the loads of other copies being printed. So where's the loss? Under English law, lost profits/lost opportunities are only relevant in certain limited situations - and this wouldn't be one of them.

 

[I like pie]

I practice English law, not US, but the idea that Image or any other publisher owes a legal or equitable duty of care to the consumer with respect to how many copies of a comic they print, or the price on the secondary market, is frankly a bit ridiculous.

 

In any case, people bought them at the con for what, $5? And they're probably still worth that now, even with the loads of other copies being printed. So where's the loss? Under English law, lost profits/lost opportunities are only relevant in certain limited situations - and this wouldn't be one of them.

 

 

What about the people on the board who bought them for $40 bucks a pop and when it takes a nose dive, their investment will be gone?