Why do people think New Mutants #98 had a "high print run"...? 0

[RockMyAmadeus]

225-250K is what has been previously established, I thought.

 

:shrug:

 

 

 

-slym

 

Considering I find HG copies of this book 24/7 and CGC has already graded almost 10k copies....

 

Yes this book has a pretty big print run and very common, however it is now a mega key of the copper age. No difference now in ASM 300 and NM 98. Blue chip book.

 

250K copies is a lot for our hobby even back then.

 

250k print run....about 175-200k copies (maybe) surviving.

 

And that was about average for most of Marvels at that point. Uncanny was selling almost double that, and McFarlane's Spiderman had a print run 4x+ that.

 

I will be finding this book till I die.

 

I found 4 alone at Terry's show.

 

 

You missed an easily pressable 9.8, but the dealer (as usual) was asking too much for what it was at that point.

[RockMyAmadeus]

From Liefeld -

 

http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/rob-liefeld-looks-back-deadpools-real-secret-origin

 

They let me introduce Cable, and "New Mutants" #87 has eleven new characters in the first issue. It is like we showcased all new villains and this powerful new character that was designed to take over the book and transform it. And our sales went boom! We went up twenty-five thousand, and then we went up fifty thousand, and then in no time, we were at half-a-million.

 

Most everything Liefeld says must, must, MUST be taken with several grains of salt.

 

Example:

 

"My editors said, "Rob, can we fast-track Deadpool? This is the most mail we've seen on a character in 15 years. People love him." It's why Deadpool is a trading card with "X-Force" #1, and a Fact File, and why he is the first 12 pages of "X-Force" #2. "X-Force" #1 is the second best-selling comic of all time; it sold five million copies. You have to ask yourself, "Why does the second issue begin with Deadpool for 12 pages?" Because the fans demanded it.
"

 

Nonsense.

 

Why?

 

Because Deadpool wasn't featured in the book AGAIN until issue #11, outside of the cameos of #4, #5, and #10.

 

Cable, on the other hand, is PROMINENTLY featured on most of the covers of that run.

 

If what Rob says is true, Deadpool should have easily spun off into his own series at that point...after all: both Silver Sable and Nomad got their own ongoing titles.

 

Deadpool, however, didn't get his own series for another SIX years, after TWO minis (1993 and 1994) failed to ignite popular demand for the character.

 

And his "sales went boom!" comment is erroneous, too. Sales did OK...they improved quite a bit...a good 50-75%...but they didn't go "boom", and the only issue of New Mutants to EVER sell half a million copies was issue #100.

 

Not sure if your reasoning is enough to truly discredit Liefeld himself there. X-Force 2 on the cover it even says "Deadpools Back!!" Not sure they would even do that unless fans were interested in the character. As for why Deadpool didn't get his own series right away, who really knows? And the powers that be at Marvel were not happy with Liefeld and the Image boys, so maybe they didn't want to give his creation more shine on purpose.

 

Gotta correct the errors.

 

Image didn't exist at that point. Marvel was absolutely THRILLED with what would become the "Image boys"...after all, sales of those books set records.

 

"Deadpool's Back" is not very convincing evidence that "the fans" were interested. As noted here and elsewhere, "no one" cared about Deadpool until his first mini, in 1993, 2+ years after his first appearance.

 

And Deadpool, like all other work-for-hire creations of those days, belonged entirely to Marvel. No one in control of Marvel at that time cared one whit about "who's creation" it was. All they cared about was: "does it sell, yes/no?"

 

It's silly to imagine anyone at Marvel even thinking along those lines with characters they owned completely. It wasn't "Rob Liefeld's Deadpool." It was "Marvel Comics' Deadpool."

 

After all...Cable completely dominated X-Force, and even spun off into his own title, in 1993. Cable was also "Rob's creation" (even Weezy says this.) You can see where the reasoning doesn't follow.

 

Lots of people try to re-write history; Liefeld is no exception. However, it remains to historians to keep people honest, and Deadpool simply did not excite imaginations for many, many, many years.

[Broke as a Joke]

So you are a self proclaimed historian now? Ok, it might be time to just admit your facts that use in debate are as subjective as any one else. You are the same guy that stated moon knight was once the hottest character in comics.

[NewWorldOrder]

225-250K is what has been previously established, I thought.

 

:shrug:

 

 

 

-slym

 

Considering I find HG copies of this book 24/7 and CGC has already graded almost 10k copies....

 

Yes this book has a pretty big print run and very common, however it is now a mega key of the copper age. No difference now in ASM 300 and NM 98. Blue chip book.

 

250K copies is a lot for our hobby even back then.

 

250k print run....about 175-200k copies (maybe) surviving.

 

And that was about average for most of Marvels at that point. Uncanny was selling almost double that, and McFarlane's Spiderman had a print run 4x+ that.

 

I will be finding this book till I die.

 

I found 4 alone at Terry's show.

 

 

You missed an easily pressable 9.8, but the dealer (as usual) was asking too much for what it was at that point.

 

How much was he asking?

 

And why dont you come up and say hello?

 

I dont know what you look like to come up myself.

[Gatsby77]

Oh, and no, X-Force #1 is NOT the "second best selling comic of all time."

 

First, the "5 million figure" is totally unconfirmed.

 

This is news to me.

 

Multiple contemporary sources reported that X-Force # 1 was the second-best-selling comic of all time (with about a 5 million print run) way back in the early 1990s.

 

Is the 7.5 million reported print run for X-Men # 1 also unconfirmed?

 

Other stuff that was reported as gospel back then:

 

Youngblood # 1 was the best-selling independent book of all time, before it was surpassed, in turn, by Spawn 1 & WildCATS 1.

 

I'd also heard from multiple sources back then that Superman 75 had a 4 million or so issue print run for the first print, but why is that considered more confirmed that X-Force 1?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Oh, and no, X-Force #1 is NOT the "second best selling comic of all time."

 

First, the "5 million figure" is totally unconfirmed.

 

This is news to me.

 

Multiple contemporary sources reported that X-Force # 1 was the second-best-selling comic of all time (with about a 5 million print run) way back in the early 1990s.

 

Multiple contemporary sources reported it was the BEST selling comic of all time, until X-Men #1 came out two months later, but you will not find any official numbers ANYWHERE. The 5 million figure is a relatively new invention; I'd love to be proven wrong, but I doubt you will find anything with that number from contemporary sources.

 

Was it really the best, then second best, selling comic of all time?

 

Remember: WDC&S sold 3-4 million copies a month in the 1950's. Those were actual sales to actual individuals, not speculators buying multiples and retailers getting stuck with mounds of unsellable stock.

 

But if you have multiple sources that cite the actual sales figures of X-Force #1, by all means, please share.

 

(My Standard Catalog is in a box at the moment, or I'd post the CapCity numbers, which would certainly not suggest a sell-through of 5 million copies.)

 

Is the 7.5 million reported print run for X-Men # 1 also unconfirmed?

 

The number thrown around is usually 8.1 to 8.5 million copies.

 

But are any of those numbers real?

 

Guinness, no (usual) slouch in the records dept, "certified" the 8.1 million figure in 2010...nearly 2 decades after the fact.

 

What you won't see is any official info from Marvel, and, again, the Standard Catalog numbers represent only a small portion of this number.

 

And were they actually sold? No, of course not. They were "sold" to retailers who got stuck with product that didn't sell, and in reality, maybe 3 million copies actually sold to consumers.

 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/05/09/my-monthly-curse-by-phill-hall-9-%e2%80%93-taking-apart-a-guinness-world-record/

 

But, again, all unconfirmed. You won't see any official accounting records from Marvel, because: Marvel.

 

Other stuff that was reported as gospel back then:

 

Youngblood # 1 was the best-selling independent book of all time, before it was surpassed, in turn, by Spawn 1 & WildCATS 1.

 

I'd also heard from multiple sources back then that Superman 75 had a 4 million or so issue print run for the first print, but why is that considered more confirmed that X-Force 1?

 

By all means...if you have any of these sources, share them.

 

I think you'll find a lot of circular citing going on.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So you are a self proclaimed historian now? Ok, it might be time to just admit your facts that use in debate are as subjective as any one else. You are the same guy that stated moon knight was once the hottest character in comics.

 

Yes. I am a "self-proclaimed" historian, as are all historians in fields such as this. Plus, I have a relatively firmer grasp on basic English grammar than you, for whatever that's worth. And yes, Moon Knight was, at one point in the mid to late 70's, the hottest character in comics. You really ought to tone down the rancor. You have no respect for actual research, and, as I said, it was a mistake to reply to you.

 

Why are you so angry that you need to make things personal? Do you just not like people challenging what you think and believe? You can't even be bothered to say what facts you imagine I ought to be admitting are "just as subjective as any one (sic) else." Is that reasonable?

 

Have you ever contributed actual research to this board, as I and others have done on many occasions, or have you only denigrated people for disagreeing with whatever you happen to believe, and correcting your (easily confirmed) errors?

 

 

 

[jimjum12]

So you are a self proclaimed historian now? Ok, it might be time to just admit your facts that use in debate are as subjective as any one else. You are the same guy that stated moon knight was once the hottest character in comics.

 

Yes. I am a "self-proclaimed" historian, as are all historians in fields such as this. Plus, I have a relatively firmer grasp on basic English grammar than you, for whatever that's worth. And yes, Moon Knight was, at one point in the mid to late 70's, the hottest character in comics. You really ought to tone down the rancor. You have no respect for actual research, and, as I said, it was a mistake to reply to you.

 

Why are you so angry that you need to make things personal? Do you just not like people challenging what you think and believe? You can't even be bothered to say what facts you imagine I ought to be admitting are "just as subjective as any one (sic) else." Is that reasonable?

 

Have you ever contributed actual research to this board, as I and others have done on many occasions, or have you only denigrated people for disagreeing with whatever you happen to believe, and correcting your (easily confirmed) errors?

 

 

 

...... I had drifted away from comics by the late 70's but one thing I know for sure..... when I got back into comics in the early 80's, there were 4 titles that were must haves for me each month...... FF, Swamp Thing, New Teen Titans, and Moon Knight. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Broke as a Joke]

So you are a self proclaimed historian now? Ok, it might be time to just admit your facts that use in debate are as subjective as any one else. You are the same guy that stated moon knight was once the hottest character in comics.

 

Yes. I am a "self-proclaimed" historian, as are all historians in fields such as this. Plus, I have a relatively firmer grasp on basic English grammar than you, for whatever that's worth. And yes, Moon Knight was, at one point in the mid to late 70's, the hottest character in comics. You really ought to tone down the rancor. You have no respect for actual research, and, as I said, it was a mistake to reply to you.

 

Why are you so angry that you need to make things personal? Do you just not like people challenging what you think and believe? You can't even be bothered to say what facts you imagine I ought to be admitting are "just as subjective as any one (sic) else." Is that reasonable?

 

Have you ever contributed actual research to this board, as I and others have done on many occasions, or have you only denigrated people for disagreeing with whatever you happen to believe, and correcting your (easily confirmed) errors?

 

 

 

Actually there are real comic book historians out there. You are not one of them. Unless you can provide me to a book that you have published on the subject, you are nothing but a message board spinster.

 

Believe me, I don't get angry about anything on these boards. It's entertainment for me and usually informational. I do disagree with a lot of what you throw out there as facts based on some diamond sales numbers and some quick google clicks. But hey, leave it at that. No need to get personal.

 

Also, saying Moon Knight was once the hottest character in comics is definitely a subjective statement, but you know that.

[lou_fine]

Was it really the best, then second best, selling comic of all time?

 

Remember: WDC&S sold 3-4 million copies a month in the 1950's. Those were actual sales to actual individuals, not speculators buying multiples and retailers getting stuck with mounds of unsellable stock.

 

 

When it comes to the number of actual readers, the GA books most definitely wins out.

 

You have to remember that it was common to pass the GA books around to your friends for them to read. I guarantee you that this was not being done by the MA speculators who were busy buying and stashing away their latest "hot" books.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So you are a self proclaimed historian now? Ok, it might be time to just admit your facts that use in debate are as subjective as any one else. You are the same guy that stated moon knight was once the hottest character in comics.

 

Yes. I am a "self-proclaimed" historian, as are all historians in fields such as this. Plus, I have a relatively firmer grasp on basic English grammar than you, for whatever that's worth. And yes, Moon Knight was, at one point in the mid to late 70's, the hottest character in comics. You really ought to tone down the rancor. You have no respect for actual research, and, as I said, it was a mistake to reply to you.

 

Why are you so angry that you need to make things personal? Do you just not like people challenging what you think and believe? You can't even be bothered to say what facts you imagine I ought to be admitting are "just as subjective as any one (sic) else." Is that reasonable?

 

Have you ever contributed actual research to this board, as I and others have done on many occasions, or have you only denigrated people for disagreeing with whatever you happen to believe, and correcting your (easily confirmed) errors?

 

 

 

Actually there are real comic book historians out there. You are not one of them. Unless you can provide me to a book that you have published on the subject, you are nothing but a message board spinster.

 

Mark Evanier is an actual comic book historian, and has been for decades, and anyone who knows much about him would not dispute that at all. His first published "history" book, Kirby: King of Comics, didn't come out until 2008. Was he, then, not a "real comic book historian" before then?

 

Nonsense. The criteria for being a historian isn't "have you published a book." The criteria for being a historian is "have you studied history, and can you make intelligent, informed, rational, reasoned arguments and presentations about that history." The definition for being a historian is "A writer or author of a history; esp. one who produces a work of history in the higher sense, as distinguished from the simple annalist or chronicler of events, or from the mere compiler of a historical narrative."

 

Note the word "esp." It means, in Layman's terms "not required, but it helps."

 

I have written more than just about anyone else on this board about comics history and the industry, and certainly more than anyone else about the comic book industry from 1980-2005. And not just in quantity, but in quality. That, in itself, should be more than enough evidence to "take me seriously" as a comic book historian.

 

I am not an Egyptologist, nor do I claim to be. I am, however, an ephemerist, that is, one who studies ephemera, particularly of the comic book kind.

 

Believe me, I don't get angry about anything on these boards.

 

Your words say one thing; your actions another. Which should people believe...?

 

It's entertainment for me and usually informational. I do disagree with a lot of what you throw out there as facts based on some diamond sales numbers and some quick google clicks.

 

Such as....?

 

 

See, there's the heart of your problem right there: you can't be bothered, as here, to offer any actual evidence to support your claims.

 

Why is that, do you think....?

 

When you're asked to get specific, you cannot, or will not. You won't give specific examples that demonstrate how what I "throw out there as facts" is inaccurate, but you have no problem making that claim nonetheless.

 

What value is your claim, if you cannot, or will not, make even the attempt to support it? That's incredibly selfish of you, to withhold information that would improve everyone's knowledge base, just because you have a problem with me.

 

But hey, leave it at that. No need to get personal.

 

I wish you would live by that. You, and a small handful of others, have gotten it into your heads this image, this persona, that doesn't exist.

 

If you have something that proves something I say to be inaccurate, why on earth would you withhold it? Do you think that helps anyone, least of all me? Do you think I can't, or won't, be corrected?

 

Yes, you and a few others think that. It is, to you, the epitome of "getting personal": "that RMA, he always thinks he's sooooo right all the time. Who does he think he is?"

 

And you claim there's "no need to get personal"...?

 

Right.

 

Also, saying Moon Knight was once the hottest character in comics is definitely a subjective statement, but you know that.

 

I see....so, now, since Jimjum came and confirmed what I said, and no one has refuted it, you now modify...ever so subtly...your statement from "you, RMA, are clueless about everything, or at least most things, because you said Moon Knight was the hottest character in comics" (which you said in spirit, if not in actual words) to "well, that's really just a subjective statement." I appreciate the toning down of your claim that I'm a clueless buffoon who has no idea what he's talking about.

 

Do you know what else is subjective? Grading. But do you know what we can do now? We can make a reasonable estimation of a book's grade, based on known factors, to arrive at a fair consensus, most of the time. That is, reasonable people who are reasonably educated can say "this book is a 9.2", and other reasonable, reasonably educated people won't come along and say "no, no! That book is no better than a 3.5!"

 

Same with "who is THE hottest character in comics." Is that subjective? Obviously. But can we arrive at a fair estimation of who is at any given moment in time, based on certain factors?

 

Of course.

 

Who is the hottest character in comics right now?

 

Deadpool.

 

Is that subjective? Can a claim be made for other characters? Yes. But is it reasonable to make the claim, based on the evidence that exists?

 

Obviously.

 

So, why would it not be reasonable to make that claim in other eras?

 

Who do you think was the hottest character in comics in 1991? Do you think it's possible to make that claim? You say it's not, because it's all just "subjective."

 

I can tell you who was NOT the hottest character in comics in 1991: Batman. Spiderman. Fantastic Four. Superman. Inhumans. Captain Carrot. Omega Men. Etc etc etc.

 

So, if one can say, fairly definitively, who was NOT "the hottest" at a given moment in time...why do you think it's not possible to say who WAS?

 

If you stopped being offended by the way you think I come across and instead considered the substance of what I post, and understand that I'm not here to be "right", but to get to the truth, I suspect you'd have a lot better time dealing with me. All of us are enriched by a vibrant, spirited intellectual engagement. None of us is enriched when people get huffy and make things personal that need not be.

[divad]

I think there's a pill for this . . .

[jaeldubyoo]

I think there's a pill for this . . .

 

cyanide

[Broke as a Joke]

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think there's a pill for this . . .

 

It's jagged, and little...

[kimik]

I had a quick chat with a LCS owner yesterday when I popped into his store quickly for some supplies. They had new copies of NM #87 ($80 CDN for a FNish copy due to storage wear) and #98 ($700 for a VF) in the display case and he was commenting on how he was surprised at how well #87 was selling. He mentioned that he found a box of each sitting in storage from back in the day, but unfortunately sold most of the 98s for $30 apiece a couple of years or so ago. He was happy to be doing better with his 87s.

 

I remember when he sold 10,000+ back stock books to another store in the early 00s that he had actually moved close to a long box of NM 98s in the deal. I wonder how many more he has sitting from speculative purchases in the back? When it came out he would have had 3 locations if I recall correctly.

[lou_fine]

He mentioned that he found a box of each sitting in storage from back in the day, but unfortunately sold most of the 98s for $30 apiece a couple of years or so ago. He was happy to be doing better with his 87s.

 

I remember when he sold 10,000+ back stock books to another store in the early 00s that he had actually moved close to a long box of NM 98s in the deal. I wonder how many more he has sitting from speculative purchases in the back?

 

You have to remember that for every one big winner a LCS was fortunate enough to have save, they are probably also sitting on hundreds and even thousands of boxes of sure fire Marvel winners such as Star Brand, Death's Head, Team America, Heathcliff, etc. let alone other publishers such as Maibu with Prime, Ultraforce, and their other in-demand Ultraverse titles.

[JayT]

Is the 7.5 million reported print run for X-Men # 1 also unconfirmed?

 

The number thrown around is usually 8.1 to 8.5 million copies.

 

But are any of those numbers real?

 

 

By all means...if you have any of these sources, share them.

 

I think you'll find a lot of circular citing going on.

 

Regarding the X-Men #1 sales, I've heard Jim Lee state he got paid by Marvel (he got royalties and I'd suspect he'd remember such a specific number representing what was at the time perhaps the biggest payday in the industry for an artist - not to mention a personal highlight) on 7.7 million copies sold officially, the single biggest check he got until Image started.

[Mercury Man]

I dunno, every time I turn around, seems like somebody is whipping out a copy.

 

About a month ago at one of my LCS, he bought about 6 longboxes off of a guy, without even looking through them, and he pulled out 4 NM #98 as he was sorting through them. .

[the blob]

I dunno, every time I turn around, seems like somebody is whipping out a copy.

 

About a month ago at one of my LCS, he bought about 6 longboxes off of a guy, without even looking through them, and he pulled out 4 NM #98 as he was sorting through them. .

 

OK, this is not the issue. Nobody says it is hard to find. Even RMA concedes there are well more than 100,000 copies out there, maybe 200K+, at this point I forget. It's just that this is a chunk less than the "real" sellers at marvel at the time. Everything is relative, that's all.

 

By today's standards, the print run was very high. Not by the standards of the era.

 

If someone had a long box of NM 98s, they probably had long boxes of all the Liefield NM books around it too, at least at some point.