• 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.

The Official Saga #1 RRP Appreciation Thread
0

Started by awakeintheashes,

536 posts in this topic

darkstar

darkstar

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Broke as a Joke said:

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that Jaydog doesn't own one of these.  Just a guess...

Considering how he has littered the internet with this tirade in numerous venues over an extended period of time that would be a good assumption. 

If he owns a book he'll make sure you know through his sig and by posting each sale as it happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaydogrules

Jaydogrules

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, HarveySwick said:

Can we just discuss what a subsequent Printing IS?

Isnt the purpose of a subsequent Printing to try to meet demand with supply really to encourage reading of the book? Companies don't want to print too many first prints to prevent supply from seriously outweighing demand and killing value (why NM98 will always have somewhat of a ceiling in value - there's just too many copies). So a publisher makes x amount of copies. Then he book does really well so to encourage continued readership, the company releases a second printing somthat the people who missed out on the first print can pick up a second print and read the book.

The RRP on the other hand is manufactured for the sole purpose of collectibility. To create a rare variant of an issue. So, the RRP of Issue #1 IS the RRP of Issue #1. Jaydogrules, I get it that you're sticking with that advertisement of the book to be given out at the Diamond Summit that says "Third Printing", but I don't think it really is a "Third Printing" based really on the purpose of its creation and distribution. 

I think it's designation and value as "RRP of Issue #1" far outweighs it's release date which you're trying to use as evidence of Printing (yes, along with your link). But you can continue to argue your opinion that it's a Third Printing. Heck, shout it from Hulk #180 Mountain. I still can't figure out how ASM #252 isn't the first appearance of Venom since "Venom" really just = his particular symbiote + host as we've seen with different variations but the market deems ASM #300 as the First Appearance. Oh well. I'm wrong. But just because YOU feel that it's a "Third Printing", I don't think the market agrees with you. :sorry:

Just because "the market" has decided that a reprint has value does not mean that the book is not a reprint.  I believe that what IntoAnother stated a few pages back is probably accurate- a lot of people don't realize that it is a reprint.   And again, that is not an "opinion", and this isn't just based on the public announcement from Image and Diamond and the fact that is was published a MONTH after the first prints.  It's also based on the indicia and the UPC on the back designating it as a third printing, the fact that CGC pairs It with the third pritning on the census, etc, etc, etc.  In fact, what are you  (and that other guy) basing your statement that it's a "first printing" on?  Nothing, actually.   It is both disingenuous and dishonest for you to now be saying this, and you know that it is:

https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/390875-most-valuable-modern-variants-the-rankings/?page=8

When I originally started that thread I had the Saga 1 reprint on there, not realizing it was a reprint  (I don't include reprints on that list, if you recall).  It was you who first alerted me to the fact that it is a reprint.  It was you that first alerted me to the link about that Diamond announcement where it was called a reprint.  And it was you that explained to me how to read Image UPC  codes.  You did all of that because I originally questioned you, "are you SURE this is a reprint", and you were emphatic to the point of sarcasm that yes it is.  Even after I pointed out that mycomicshop at the time didn't have it as such (although I notice that now, they do, just like CGC they pair it with the other cover of the third pritning on their site, just like CGC does).

So I'm not sure what the deal is with your sudden about face, nor does it matter.  The book is a reprint.  

-J.

 

 

Edited by Jaydogrules
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HarveySwick

HarveySwick

Posted
Posted

I absolutely made that original assertion but it really wasn't based on my personal feelings. I see you get into these debates over and over and over again and NO ONE will ever convince you that you are wrong. So I  threw that little tidbit in just to 1zykoi9.gif and to :baiting:the guy that is never wrong.

But the book really is just an RRP of #1. Call it what you want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaydogrules

Jaydogrules

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, HarveySwick said:

I absolutely made that original assertion but it really wasn't based on my personal feelings. I see you get into these debates over and over and over again and NO ONE will ever convince you that you are wrong. So I  threw that little tidbit in just to 1zykoi9.gif and to :baiting:the guy that is never wrong.

But the book really is just an RRP of #1. Call it what you want to.

I never said it wasn't that.  It was commissioned and advertised by Diamond for the retailer summit that year.  lol

But the technical designation is what you originally said it is-  a "cover B/2" of the third printing.

-J.

Edited by Jaydogrules
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broke as a Joke

Broke as a Joke

Posted
Posted

Curious, because I don't know the answer, but when did Batman 608 RRP release?  The conference which they were handed out -- was that before or after 608 was released to the public?  If it was before then 608 regular is really the second printing?  The 2nd printing becomes the 3rd printing and so on? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lazyboy

Lazyboy

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, HarveySwick said:

Can we just discuss what a subsequent Printing IS?

Isnt the purpose of a subsequent Printing to try to meet demand with supply really to encourage reading of the book? Companies don't want to print too many first prints to prevent supply from seriously outweighing demand and killing value

No, they print as many as they know, or think, they can sell plus any extras they need/want. They don't give a :censored: about secondary market value of books... unless it helps them sell more initial copies (see: incentive variants, and they certainly don't care about the long-term value of those).

4 hours ago, HarveySwick said:

The RRP on the other hand is manufactured for the sole purpose of collectibility. To create a rare variant of an issue. So, the RRP of Issue #1 IS the RRP of Issue #1. Jaydogrules, I get it that you're sticking with that advertisement of the book to be given out at the Diamond Summit that says "Third Printing", but I don't think it really is a "Third Printing" based really on the purpose of its creation and distribution.

It is a special version that can't be confused with any other version, no matter what people call it, but if it was printed as part of the same run as the regular third print, it is a variant of the third print. But that doesn't really matter, because it is still accurate to call it the RRP edition and the rarity, rather than the time it was printed, is the primary appeal of the book.

4 hours ago, HarveySwick said:

I think it's designation and value as "RRP of Issue #1" far outweighs it's release date which you're trying to use as evidence of Printing (yes, along with your link). But you can continue to argue your opinion that it's a Third Printing. Heck, shout it from Hulk #180 Mountain. I still can't figure out how ASM #252 isn't the first appearance of Venom since "Venom" really just = his particular symbiote + host as we've seen with different variations but the market deems ASM #300 as the First Appearance. Oh well. I'm wrong. But just because YOU feel that it's a "Third Printing", I don't think the market agrees with you. :sorry:

The market is irrelevant. It determines nothing but prices, which aren't required to conform to any kind of logic. Like I said earlier, the book was printed at a specific time and nothing anybody says can change that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lazyboy

Lazyboy

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Broke as a Joke said:

Curious, because I don't know the answer, but when did Batman 608 RRP release?  The conference which they were handed out -- was that before or after 608 was released to the public?  If it was before then 608 regular is really the second printing?  The 2nd printing becomes the 3rd printing and so on? 

Printing means printing, not distribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquareChaos

SquareChaos

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, HarveySwick said:

Can we just discuss what a subsequent Printing IS?

(...)

The RRP on the other hand is manufactured for the sole purpose of collectibility. To create a rare variant of an issue. So, the RRP of Issue #1 IS the RRP of Issue #1. Jaydogrules, I get it that you're sticking with that advertisement of the book to be given out at the Diamond Summit that says "Third Printing", but I don't think it really is a "Third Printing" based really on the purpose of its creation and distribution. 

I think it's designation and value as "RRP of Issue #1" far outweighs it's release date which you're trying to use as evidence of Printing (yes, along with your link). But you can continue to argue your opinion that it's a Third Printing. Heck, shout it from Hulk #180 Mountain. I still can't figure out how ASM #252 isn't the first appearance of Venom since "Venom" really just = this particular symbiote + host as we've seen with different variations but the market deems ASM #300 as the First Appearance. Oh well. I'm wrong. But just because YOU feel that it's a "Third Printing", I don't think the market agrees with you. :sorry:


This is dubious logic. What is to stop another printing with another cover to ascend past it's spot in the printing order as long as it can be said to have some 'purpose of it's creation and distribution'? But then the secondary comic market is rarely a place to look to find sensible explanations for whatever value phenomenon currently being discussed.

I do find it interesting that no one attempts to dispute - in an evidence based way anyway - the 'third printing' statement on the oft-linked retailer summit site, but there are pages of arguments stating it isn't, or doesn't matter for various other reasons. These boards are a weird place, but at least they're interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
I like pie

I like pie

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

I do find it interesting that no one attempts to dispute - in an evidence based way anyway - the 'third printing' statement on the oft-linked retailer summit site...

Mistakes are made all the time. I would concede if the interior indicia said third printing. Other than that, to me, it will always be a variant of the first print.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaydogrules

Jaydogrules

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:


This is dubious logic. What is to stop another printing with another cover to ascend past it's spot in the printing order as long as it can be said to have some 'purpose of it's creation and distribution'? But then the secondary comic market is rarely a place to look to find sensible explanations for whatever value phenomenon currently being discussed.

I do find it interesting that no one attempts to dispute - in an evidence based way anyway - the 'third printing' statement on the oft-linked retailer summit site, but there are pages of arguments stating it isn't, or doesn't matter for various other reasons. These boards are a weird place, but at least they're interesting.

The announcement from Diamond is but one of MANY sources that calls it the third printing that it is.  Nothing has EVER been offered to say that was a "mistake", nor is there any reason to believe that Diamond just so happened to conveniently make a "mistake" on this one particular book.  The later publisher date means a different interior indicia.  And of course the UPC on the back, CGC, etc all acknowledge it as the third printing it is.  

What does not in fact exist is anything saying it is a first printing.  Because it is not.  And anyone who tries to say it is, or pretend or imply that this is even debatable, is being deliberately dishonest.  

-J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaydogrules

Jaydogrules

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, HarveySwick said:

Why does it have to be a first, second, third or fifteenth printing? Why can't it's just be the RRP Variant of #1?

If you're being technical, it's because it was not released contemporaneously with the first printing.  It was published and released a month later and is specifically the cover B for the third pritning.  That's what it is.  Why can't that just be okay ?

-J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaydogrules

Jaydogrules

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, HarveySwick said:

Well, by those standards, is Batman #608 RRP a "second print" since it wasn't released contemporaneously with #608?

Batman #608 - October 23, 2002

Batman #608 RRP - November 10, 2002

hm

 

No it isn't.  Same indicia as the first print (but no UPC, because the book was never intended to be sold.  It says so right on the book).  Also, unlike the Saga, it was never specifically called a reprint by the people who put it out.  And you're splitting hairs.  It is not just "one thing" that says Saga 1 is a reprint, it is everything.  If anything, a more apt comparison would be trying to call the actual second printing of the 608 (which also a had a different cover), a "variant" of the first printing. When the UPC on that book also specifically indicates that it is a reprint.  I originally also believed that the Saga RRP was like the 608, both intended as first printings, but held back for release until the summit.  I said so in the modern variant thread.  Again, it was you who originally corrected on that, referred me to the advertisement for the book announcing it as a third printing with a special cover for the summit, and taught me how to read those UPC's.  It is what it is.  

-J.

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
0
Go to topic listing