The Official Saga #1 RRP Appreciation Thread 0

[HarveySwick]

I only posted the link. I didn't discuss the UPC. 

[I like pie]

52 minutes 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?

[HarveySwick]

[Jaydogrules]

9 minutes ago, HarveySwick said:

I only posted the link. I didn't discuss the UPC. 

My mistake you're right, that was another boardie.  

-J.

[SquareChaos]

18 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

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.

But if one printing of a book takes place prior to another, surely you have to call the later print... a later print?

[Jaydogrules]

8 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

But if one printing of a book takes place prior to another, surely you have to call the later print... a later print?

Thing is, the dates Harvey posted for the 608 were release dates, not printing or publishing dates.  Both covers for the 608 were intended as first printings, the RRP was just distributed later as a surprise "thank you" at the actual summit (physically handed out directly to retailers then, I guess they stopped doing that at some point). 

Unlike the Saga which does have different official publishing date, a prior announcement calling it a third printing, as well as an uncertain release date since they were mailed out to all the retailers at some point after the summit.   

-J.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[SquareChaos]

Just now, Jaydogrules said:

Thing is, the dates Harvey posted for the 608 were release dates, not printing or publishing dates.  Both covers for the 608 were intended as first printings, the RRP was just distributed later as a surprise "thank you" at the actual summit (physically handed out directly to retailers then, I guess they stopped doing that at some point). 

Unlike the Saga which does have different official publishing dates, a prior announcement calling it a third printing, as well as an uncertain release date since they were mailed out to all the retailers at some point after the summit.   

-J.

I have to imagine the only date known for sure is release date - based on this logic, how do you know the Saga RRP wasn't printed and held until later?

[Jaydogrules]

Just now, SquareChaos said:

I have to imagine the only date known for sure is release date - based on this logic, how do you know the Saga RRP wasn't printed and held until later?

As I've said, apart from the people who put the book out and the UPC on the book calling it a third printing, it also has a later  publishing date from the first prints- 3/12 (first printing), 4/12 (third pritnings).

-J.

[SquareChaos]

Just now, Jaydogrules said:

As I've said, apart from the people who put the book out and the UPC on the book calling it a third printing, it also has a later  publishing date from the first prints- 3/12 (first printing), 4/12 (third pritnings).

-J.

The UPC argument appears to be the weakest of the main arguments in my opinion. The other arguments are stronger.

[Broke as a Joke]

So the Batman 608 RRP had no upc but could have been printed after the initial printing.  The saga RRP just happened to have a upc thrown on it.  Apples and oranges...

[Jaydogrules]

8 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

The UPC argument appears to be the weakest of the main arguments in my opinion. The other arguments are stronger.

It's all six of one/half dozen of the other and it's all saying the same thing.  

Image still uses the same identifiers on its UPC's even now.

Seven to Eternity #1 first print  (last 5 on UPC "00111", meaning issue 1, cover 1, printing 1):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Seven-to-Eternity-1-Image-2016-CGC-9-8-1st-print-Opena-Hot-Free-S-H-/332348162979?epid=236467001&hash=item4d617e83a3:g:UKUAAOSwvVlZllvj

Seven to Eternity #1 second print  (last 5 on UPC "00112, meaning issue 1, cover 1, printing 2):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Seven-to-Eternity-1-CGC-9-8-Jerome-Opena-2nd-Printing-Cover-/182764943761?hash=item2a8da3b991:g:5z0AAOSwJx1ZuqNW

-J.

 

[Jaydogrules]

14 minutes ago, Broke as a Joke said:

So the Batman 608 RRP had no upc but could have been printed after the initial printing.  The saga RRP just happened to have a upc thrown on it.  Apples and oranges...

Except the 608 wasn't printed later because it has the same indicia. 

But yes, it is apples and oranges. The saga was an announced reprint and everyone knew in advance they would eventually be getting one if they attended the summit, and it actually does have a later publishing date (you can see that right on the slabs or the CGC census), and the 608 is not (although it was released a little later at the summit for which it was always intended as a surprise "thank you" to retailers).

-J.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[bababooey]

3 hours ago, SquareChaos said:

Not really. You can't refute the statement anymore than he can prove it. We don't know the print runs of the vast majority of the books, or how many survive. It is a pointless exercise.

There was a facepalm in that gif - I was being sarcastic since the answer given had nothing to do with the post he responded to, even though, valiantman put his key points about his market cap theory in CAPITAL LETTERS.  

[valiantman]

On 9/30/2017 at 7:00 PM, bababooey said:

There was a facepalm in that gif - I was being sarcastic since the answer given had nothing to do with the post he responded to, even though, valiantman put his key points about his market cap theory in CAPITAL LETTERS.  

I figured by page 24 we would have already passed the issue details (RRP variant of the third printing) and gotten into some discussion about the market for reprints (in small batches with new covers) in general.

 

My mistake.  

[sleepindeath]

So, in the end this is still a RRP #1?

[Jaydogrules]

2 hours ago, sleepindeath said:

So, in the end this is still a RRP #1?

If you're asking if this is the "RRP" of the third printing of #1, the answer is actually "no".

After doing a little more research, turns out,"RRP" ("Retailer Round table Programs") were hosted directly by the publisher DC, and DC was the one that called them "RRP's".  I don't know if the term is proprietary, but the only actual "RRP" books are DC books.  Image has never hosted anything like an RRP as far as I can see, and if they did, is wasn't called that.   

This reprint of Saga 1 is a "DRS" ("Diamond Retailer Summit") book.  It was commissioned by Diamond much in the same way a con or a retailer will commission an exclusive variant cover from the publisher.  This particular Diamond summit was conducted by Diamond prior to the C2E2 of that year. 

Other Image DRS books commissioned by Diamond include a Saga 19 and a Walking Dead 127.

-J.

[sleepindeath]

RRP - "Retailer Roundtable Promotions"?

[sleepindeath]

RRP - "Retailer Rewards Program"?

[Jaydogrules]

19 minutes ago, sleepindeath said:

RRP - "Retailer Roundtable Promotions"?

RRP = Retailer Round table Program.  A DC program.

-J.

[Whitelanterncorps]

Hi all;

The common belief is that there were 500 copies of this printed.  Is there any evidence to actually support this?  Not sure if I’ve ever seen anything definitive on this.