• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Copper's Heating/Selling Well on Ebay
33 33

Started by fastballspecial,

18,856 posts in this topic

valiantman

valiantman

Posted
Posted

Things were getting rough for the newsstand, but they weren't THAT rough. An 18% sell-through for a mainstream Marvel title in 1990 would have been absolutely unheard of. They were much closer to 30-50% sell-throughs (remember, of the NEWSSTAND copies printed) at that time.

 

Confirmed by magazine numbers, if they are similar to comic books:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/business/cover-story-oh-how-far-a-magazine-will-go-to-stimulate-newsstand-sales.html

 

"Only 35 percent of the magazines offered for sale on newsstands last year [2001] were actually sold, leaving 65 percent of the millions printed destined not for the coffee table but for the industrial shredders and pulpers of the magazine wholesalers.

 

That sell-through rate has been steadily declining over the decades: in 1973, 65 percent of newsstand magazines sold, while 48 percent of them sold in 1988, according to the Magazine Publishers of America."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
the blob

the blob

Posted
Posted

Were these newstand returns getting pulped or repacked in multipacks, sold abroad in multipacks, etc? by the 90s we're past the "affidavit of destruction" stage, right, and the publishers wanted real evidence it was destroyed or an outright return?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
I don't see anything in those catalog photos that would demonstrate that they were published out of order to someone not already versed in this debate. For the uninitiated, I can't see any level of convincing one could do in an eBay listing to get someone to pay up for a 9.8 that doesn't have the notation on the label. That goes to #266. And while I'd agree that the label notation doesn't change the contents or their significance, to someone who isn't up on the details the label provides comfort that they're buying what they're looking for, even if it isn't the actual first appearance.

 

I agree that the general market is going to look at the label, and take comfort in that. Why should they not?

 

The odd thing is when the label changes, and now you have more than one book floating around stating '1st appearance of XXX' like my beloved Hellboy. Now we have John Byrne's Next Men #21 and San Diego Comic-Con Comic #2 floating around stating they are the 1st appearance (older Next Men #21's, newer SDCC #2's). You'll see sellers than listing each based on what those labels state. And there will be buyers that pay a premium for Next Men #21 based on what the label states.

 

Again - knowledge is your safety blanket. That, and having a source you can ask questions of so as to get an education of such changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mysterio

mysterio

Posted
Posted
I don't see anything in those catalog photos that would demonstrate that they were published out of order to someone not already versed in this debate. For the uninitiated, I can't see any level of convincing one could do in an eBay listing to get someone to pay up for a 9.8 that doesn't have the notation on the label. That goes to #266. And while I'd agree that the label notation doesn't change the contents or their significance, to someone who isn't up on the details the label provides comfort that they're buying what they're looking for, even if it isn't the actual first appearance.

 

I agree that the general market is going to look at the label, and take comfort in that. Why should they not?

 

The odd thing is when the label changes, and now you have more than one book floating around stating '1st appearance of XXX' like my beloved Hellboy. Now we have John Byrne's Next Men #21 and San Diego Comic-Con Comic #2 floating around stating they are the 1st appearance (older Next Men #21's, newer SDCC #2's). You'll see sellers than listing each based on what those labels state. And there will be buyers that pay a premium for Next Men #21 based on what the label states.

 

Again - knowledge is your safety blanket. That, and having a source you can ask questions of so as to get an education of such changes.

 

Can't disagree with anything you said. It makes me wonder if having separate threads with titles like "X-men Annual #14 is the first appearance of Gambit" would make that sort of information from these forums more easily discoverable through searches. I know that Google will sometimes find individual posts in a longer thread like this, but not always. The more accurate information out there the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted

I don't see anything in those catalog photos that would demonstrate that they were published out of order to someone not already versed in this debate. For the uninitiated, I can't see any level of convincing one could do in an eBay listing to get someone to pay up for a 9.8 that doesn't have the notation on the label. That goes to #266. And while I'd agree that the label notation doesn't change the contents or their significance, to someone who isn't up on the details the label provides comfort that they're buying what they're looking for, even if it isn't the actual first appearance.

 

Yeah, there's no confirmation of some out of order problem, and it certainly wasn't an "error" at any level past the printer, as has been claimed. As I've said before, creators don't care about what the back issue market cares about (most of them have absolutely no clue what goes on with their books after they are published), so publishing them out of sequence (which they obviously knew was going to happen, by way of the editorial note) wasn't a concern.

 

If there was any thought given to it at all, it was "oh, this guy? If you're wondering about him, check out the upcoming X-Men issues, which tell that story."

 

It just so happens that THIS time, it involved the introduction of a character that became very popular. Hopefully, we can put the issue of X-Men Annual #14 being released "in error" to bed.

 

There is no debate; X-Men Annual #14 is Gambit's first appearance.

 

But this overdependence on "what the label says" when the labels are subject to so much change, is quite unsettling. "It doesn't say what I want it to say! I'm not paying anything for it!"

 

Madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sd2416

sd2416

Posted
Posted
an analysis of the bidding shows that all the "extra" (above roughly the December sales price) came from 2 bidders and the winning bidder bid like 20 times.

 

you should probably press and slab your newstand 9.4 anyway, but i wouldn't assume it will hit $100.

 

and if it does, more power to you. all it takes is two motivated bidders. maybe the winner here will also want a newstand copy and the underbidder will be motivate not to be outbid again!

 

I already pressed my 9.4 raw copy earlier today, took it out half an hour ago and it is a solid 9.8 candidate.

 

I grabbed a standard full back, standard mylite 2 and 4 BCW silver boards(I support all of my books with extra boards so they don't get jacked up at shows)............

 

then I labeled the book and filed it into my $10 convention stock.

 

I think a 9.8 copy of the book would catch $100 or so, via a BIN listing.Depends how quickly you want to sell it, I'd imagine you'd get a quicker sale at $75 (plus shipping) via BIN, than $100 (plus shipping).A lot of Marvel copper collectors that I've talked to are 25th anniversary completionists and if one does the research on the 25th anniversary covers, it is plain to see that collectors pay a premium for them.Newsstand or not.

 

I could submit it and make a decent profit on it but I also sell raw comics at shows so I can't submit everything I can make a buck on.It's good to have raw, high grade copper books in my convention inventory.So, I don't mind giving someone a good deal on the book, that is how I do things.Greedy bastards do not get repeat customers;)

 

Furthermore, I've already got about a 100 books which I will be submitting to CGC at the Big Apple Con on March 7th.They're mostly moderns,a few silvers and a few magazines.With grading fees (economy tier plus $8 fast track on most), I'm looking at around a $2500 bill from CGC.That's with a 10% CGC membership discount......that's a signifigant kick in the nuts.

 

 

Prescreen them. Would you rather pay $5 for the rejects or have a book that graded 9.4 that you thought was "a solid 9.8 candidate"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
the blob

the blob

Posted
Posted

As always, RMA is correct. And he's extra correct because my stack of Annual 14s is much bigger than my stack of 266s. If only I could get him to budge a little on NM 86, accept a "potential 1st app. cameo" designation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ComicConnoisseur

ComicConnoisseur

Posted
Posted

 

Things were getting rough for the newsstand, but they weren't THAT rough. An 18% sell-through for a mainstream Marvel title in 1990 would have been absolutely unheard of. They were much closer to 30-50% sell-throughs (remember, of the NEWSSTAND copies printed) at that time.

 

Confirmed by magazine numbers, if they are similar to comic books:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/business/cover-story-oh-how-far-a-magazine-will-go-to-stimulate-newsstand-sales.html

 

"Only 35 percent of the magazines offered for sale on newsstands last year [2001] were actually sold, leaving 65 percent of the millions printed destined not for the coffee table but for the industrial shredders and pulpers of the magazine wholesalers.

 

That sell-through rate has been steadily declining over the decades: in 1973, 65 percent of newsstand magazines sold, while 48 percent of them sold in 1988, according to the Magazine Publishers of America."

I bet the publishers really want digital to succeed because of the sell-through rate.

I Imagine that in 2001 which was 14 years ago that the 65 percent of the millions printed destined for the industrial shredders and pulpers of the magazine wholesalers would be much higher now.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted

 

There is no debate; X-Men Annual #14 is Gambit's first appearance.

 

 

Oh thank god. I've been reading this thread for 5+ pages now wondering what the answer was. FINALLY, I can stop! :whee:

 

lol

 

Why I oughtta...!

 

Buncha smartypants around here...

 

:cloud9:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aweandlorder

Aweandlorder

Posted
Posted
I don't see anything in those catalog photos that would demonstrate that they were published out of order to someone not already versed in this debate. For the uninitiated, I can't see any level of convincing one could do in an eBay listing to get someone to pay up for a 9.8 that doesn't have the notation on the label. That goes to #266. And while I'd agree that the label notation doesn't change the contents or their significance, to someone who isn't up on the details the label provides comfort that they're buying what they're looking for, even if it isn't the actual first appearance.

 

I agree that the general market is going to look at the label, and take comfort in that. Why should they not?

 

The odd thing is when the label changes, and now you have more than one book floating around stating '1st appearance of XXX' like my beloved Hellboy. Now we have John Byrne's Next Men #21 and San Diego Comic-Con Comic #2 floating around stating they are the 1st appearance (older Next Men #21's, newer SDCC #2's). You'll see sellers than listing each based on what those labels state. And there will be buyers that pay a premium for Next Men #21 based on what the label states.

 

Again - knowledge is your safety blanket. That, and having a source you can ask questions of so as to get an education of such changes.

 

Can't disagree with anything you said. It makes me wonder if having separate threads with titles like "X-men Annual #14 is the first appearance of Gambit" would make that sort of information from these forums more easily discoverable through searches. I know that Google will sometimes find individual posts in a longer thread like this, but not always. The more accurate information out there the better.

 

I agree.. I've moved it HERE

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silverdream

Silverdream

Posted
Posted
As always, RMA is correct. And he's extra correct because my stack of Annual 14s is much bigger than my stack of 266s. If only I could get him to budge a little on NM 86, accept a "potential 1st app. cameo" designation.

 

This was discussed once before in the modern forums, about a year and half ago Here- Gambit 1st in Modern forum

 

Im sure it was discussed prior to this one as well.

 

Ive always been confused about why they called annual 14 a cameo, as I bought and read it new off the stands. Never saw the dude before that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
We might as well address the First Appearance of Killer Croc while we're at it . . . so many so-called authorities just have it plain wrong. ;)

 

Detective Comics 523: 1st cameo.

 

But I'll have to go check out my raw copy how many times he appears. I thought it was him in the shadows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
33 33
Go to topic listing