Amazing Spider-Man 361 Print Run

[rjrjr]

RMA you keep saying this --

 

" And as I said, several times: you are the exception, not the rule."

 

This is such a blanket statement. What is the boundaries of this? Every man, woman and child in the world than, yes that would be right. But we are talking about comic book collectors. We all post on a comic book collecting website and more people than not have said in this thread that they had multiple copies that they held on to. A small sample size of the larger collective.

 

 

RMA is speaking from his experience, i.e. he is using anecdotal evidence to make such a claim. He has no way of knowing, but his experience tells him this statement is true.

 

Honestly, you can say this about every comic that is hoarded and I'll bet that would be true too. I'm guessing no comic has ever been hoarded by a majority of collectors or even close to a majority. So a statement like, "you are the exception, not the rule" would be correct in all those cases too.

[RockMyAmadeus]

You said the book wasn't hoarded. Some of us said it was. Now you are saying those of us who held onto them were not part of "that group in the first place". Which group? Speculating or hoarding? I'm very confused because it sounds like you are talking about speculators.

 

1. The book wasn't hoarded. That doesn't mean not even one single person hoarded them at the time of release.

 

It means the book wasn't hoarded, as a rule. It means that, generally (meaning, THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS THAT PROVE THE RULE), the book was sold/traded by those who bought multiples at the outset when the book very quickly rose in price.

 

2. The "group" you were not part of was the group of people who bought multiple copies off the shelf to trade/sell in the short term. That makes you THE EXCEPTION, rather than the RULE.

 

I don't know how to make that any more clear.

 

(and again...5 copies doesn't really constitute a "hoard")

 

Those of us who bought many copies and had no intention of selling them would be considered hoarders.

 

That is correct. A small number of people bought multiple copies with no intention of selling in the short term. That absolutely would be considered hoarding, but again...that made you the exception...not the rule. The rule was that those who bought them brand new for cover price were selling/trading them when they very rapidly went up in price, which resulted in much wider distribution than other books of the same era.

 

That has been my point from the very beginning.

 

And never once did I say I was offended. In fact, I corrected you and told you I was amused by your statements. You really should take my word at what my feelings are on the matter.

 

Your words say one thing, but your reaction says another. Telling someone you're "amused" at what they say is another word for "offended." I wasn't being "amusing", so there would be no reason for you to be "amused."

 

And I apologize if I came off as snarky above. It was not my intent.

 

Accepted.

[RockMyAmadeus]

RMA you keep saying this --

 

" And as I said, several times: you are the exception, not the rule."

 

This is such a blanket statement. What is the boundaries of this? Every man, woman and child in the world than, yes that would be right. But we are talking about comic book collectors. We all post on a comic book collecting website and more people than not have said in this thread that they had multiple copies that they held on to. A small sample size of the larger collective.

 

 

RMA is speaking from his experience, i.e. he is using anecdotal evidence to make such a claim. He has no way of knowing, but his experience tells him this statement is true.

 

No. That's not remotely true. I'm speaking from the data, economic principle, and common sense, not just experience.

 

In that regard, not only do I have a way of knowing, but so does everyone else, including you.

 

One more time (and I'll say this as many times as it needs to be said): ASM #361 was underordered. When it came out, it created intense demand. It sold out very quickly, prompting a second printing. Within a month or two, because the demand was so intense, and the supply was not enough to meet the demand, the value of the book had risen to $20-$25 retail, which was very rare for a brand new book, happening only a handful of times in the history of comics.

 

As a result of its rapid and high price rise, those who bought multiple copies when the book came out, in hopes that the book would rise in value, generally ended up trading/selling (keeping in mind that there weren't enough copies to satisfy demand in the first place) those copies, which resulted in those copies ending up in many hands.

 

This is not conjecture, this is not "anecdotal", it's not (just) "my experience", this is fact, supported by all the data and information I've provided thus far.

 

That SOME people missed the opportunity, and SOME people bought multiples with no intention of reselling them in the short term, doesn't change this fact.

 

This isn't rocket science, it's not difficult, it's not controversial. It's fairly straightforward, and doesn't rely on any anecdotes to be demonstrably true.

 

Honestly, you can say this about every comic that is hoarded and I'll bet that would be true too. I'm guessing no comic has ever been hoarded by a majority of collectors or even close to a majority. So a statement like, "you are the exception, not the rule" would be correct in all those cases too.

 

I have never said anything even remotely close to what you're suggesting here, you're misusing/misunderstanding my "exception/rule" argument, so naturally, your "conclusion" fits your "argument." But it's YOUR argument, and "Broke's" argument, not mine.

 

You've just created a straw man, and knocked it down. It's easy to defeat straw men. That's what they're made for.

[rjrjr]

RMA you keep saying this --

 

" And as I said, several times: you are the exception, not the rule."

 

This is such a blanket statement. What is the boundaries of this? Every man, woman and child in the world than, yes that would be right. But we are talking about comic book collectors. We all post on a comic book collecting website and more people than not have said in this thread that they had multiple copies that they held on to. A small sample size of the larger collective.

 

 

RMA is speaking from his experience, i.e. he is using anecdotal evidence to make such a claim. He has no way of knowing, but his experience tells him this statement is true.

 

No. That's not remotely true. I'm speaking from the data, economic principle, and common sense, not just experience.

 

In that regard, not only do I have a way of knowing, but so does everyone else, including you.

 

One more time (and I'll say this as many times as it needs to be said): ASM #361 was underordered. When it came out, it created intense demand. It sold out very quickly, prompting a second printing. Within a month or two, because the demand was so intense, and the supply was not enough to meet the demand, the value of the book had risen to $20-$25 retail, which was very rare for a brand new book, happening only a handful of times in the history of comics.

 

Agreed up to this point...

 

As a result of its rapid and high price rise, those who bought multiple copies when the book came out, in hopes that the book would rise in value, generally ended up trading/selling (keeping in mind that there weren't enough copies to satisfy demand in the first place) those copies, which resulted in those copies ending up in many hands.

 

And this is where you go from talking about facts to making conjecture. You are even going as far as to provide a motive and the actions taken by those who bought multiple copies which you have absolutely no way of knowing.

 

This is not conjecture, this is not "anecdotal", it's not (just) "my experience", this is fact, supported by all the data and information I've provided thus far.

 

Actually RMA, it is just conjecture. You have no proof that those who bought multiple copies traded/sold them so they ended up in many hands. Your experience tells you this was the case. And I have no doubts some people did sell. But I also know some did not.

 

That SOME people missed the opportunity, and SOME people bought multiples with no intention of reselling them in the short term, doesn't change this fact.

 

This isn't rocket science, it's not difficult, it's not controversial. It's fairly straightforward, and doesn't rely on any anecdotes to be demonstrably true.

 

 

You can say it as many times as you want, but it doesn't make it true.

 

The statement you made that started this entire discussion was pretty much cut and dry:

 

And no, this book wasn't hoarded from day one. Books that sell out quickly enough to have a second printing aren't hoarded....they are distributed far and wide.

 

And that just is not true. Several of us have told you we did hoard that book from day one. It doesn't matter if we are the "exception" or the "rule". The fact that we did hoard the book invalidates the entire premise you started this discussion on. You have admitted yourself that some of us did hoard this book eventually although you keep dismissing it as an "exception" which isn't really relevant to what we have been trying to say. You have gone to great lengths to try and frame this statement in such a way to account for those of us who did hoard the book and to keep your original statement true.

 

This has been an interesting discussion, I appreciate your keeping it civil, but at this point, we are so far removed from this original statement you made that others disputed, that I don't really have anything else to say. So you can have the last words.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

As a result of its rapid and high price rise, those who bought multiple copies when the book came out, in hopes that the book would rise in value, generally ended up trading/selling (keeping in mind that there weren't enough copies to satisfy demand in the first place) those copies, which resulted in those copies ending up in many hands.

 

And this is where you go from talking about facts to making conjecture. You are even going as far as to provide a motive and the actions taken by those who bought multiple copies which you have absolutely no way of knowing.

 

Sorry, but that's not accurate.

 

It doesn't take a PhD in economics to know and understand basic free market motivation.

 

It's simply not true that there is "absolutely no way of knowing."

 

It is beyond unreasonable to think that everyone, or even a majority of people, bought multiple copies on speculation, and then sat on them, watching that opportunity come and go. There's no rational reason to do so. Yes, you can claim that "people are irrational", as others have, but that's not generally true, especially where finances are concerned.

 

That's not conjecture. That's a basic understanding of how economics and free markets work, proven by people like Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and others for decades and centuries.

 

This is not conjecture, this is not "anecdotal", it's not (just) "my experience", this is fact, supported by all the data and information I've provided thus far.

 

Actually RMA, it is just conjecture. You have no proof that those who bought multiple copies traded/sold them so they ended up in many hands. Your experience tells you this was the case. And I have no doubts some people did sell. But I also know some did not.

 

Actually rjrjr, it is NOT conjecture. It is a basic understanding of free market principles. It has been proven, over and over and over and over again, that that's what happens in free markets. People speculate, the item rises in value rapidly, they cash in.

 

That's how it has worked for all of recorded history. It has nothing to do with personal experience. These principles are in effect whether you experience them personally or not.

 

That SOME people missed the opportunity, and SOME people bought multiples with no intention of reselling them in the short term, doesn't change this fact.

 

This isn't rocket science, it's not difficult, it's not controversial. It's fairly straightforward, and doesn't rely on any anecdotes to be demonstrably true.

 

 

You can say it as many times as you want, but it doesn't make it true.

 

You can deny it as many times as you want, but it doesn't make your denial accurate.

 

The statement you made that started this entire discussion was pretty much cut and dry:

 

And no, this book wasn't hoarded from day one. Books that sell out quickly enough to have a second printing aren't hoarded....they are distributed far and wide.

 

And that just is not true.

 

Sorry, but that is true, because that's how economics works.

 

Several of us have told you we did hoard that book from day one. It doesn't matter if we are the "exception" or the "rule".

 

It matters entirely if you are the "exception" or the "rule." That's the entire foundation of this discussion. You don't understand that, so you don't understand the argument built on that foundation.

 

Nothing personal, but you demonstrate that you don't understand it by saying it "doesn't matter." And if that's the case, you can't possibly understand the rest of the argument. And this isn't personal...you're just not understanding the issue.

 

The fact that we did hoard the book invalidates the entire premise you started this discussion on.

 

That is inaccurate, because you don't understand that there are specific exceptions that establish the general rule.

 

Do you understand what the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" means?

 

It means that there are general principles to which exceptions exist, and those exceptions prove (test) the rule. That is, a specific exception establishes the general rule.

 

That there were people who hoarded the book does not therefore invalidate the premise that the majority of people who bought multiples of the book for speculative purposes cashed in. It's not a "one or the other, but not both" circumstance. It IS both, but you are the exception to the general rule, not the rule itself.

 

Again...this is basic economic principle going back centuries. You may reject it, but that doesn't invalidate it.

 

You have admitted yourself that some of us did hoard this book eventually although you keep dismissing it as an "exception" which isn't really relevant to what we have been trying to say.

 

You are mischaracterizing what I've said. I did not "admit" anything, nor did I need to admit anything, "eventually" or otherwise. I never claimed, nor implied, at any time, that there was NOT anyone who hoarded this book. I said this book was not hoarded, and it was not.

 

I keep repeating myself, and I really wish I didn't have to, but I'll do it again: "this book was not hoarded" does not therefore mean that not one single person hoarded this book. It means that, generally, the book wasn't hoarded, which is true, and the existence of individuals who DID hoard the book (the exceptions) doesn't therefore invalidate the entire premise, as you are claiming.

 

Frankly, this isn't too subtle or intricate a distinction to understand.

 

You have gone to great lengths to try and frame this statement in such a way to account for those of us who did hoard the book and to keep your original statement true.

 

Inaccurate. You are reading what I've said through the filter of your own bias, and seeing what you wish to see, rather than what is. I have gone to great lengths to help you understand these issues, not to "frame" my statement to "account" for those who hoarded the book, because...and this is critical, and needs to be understood...I didn't exclude hoarders in the first place.

 

One of the great problems this board has (and message boards in general) is that people try to try to nail people to the wall on irrelevancies, while dismissing the relevant points.

 

That's what has happened here. "Well, you said the book wasn't hoarded, and THAT'S NOT TRUE! There WERE people who hoarded this book!"

 

But I never said there were NO hoarders AT ALL, that NO ONE hoarded this book. And as soon as I understood that this was a stumbling block for you, I explained that. No "framing" involved. Just explaining that you were making the exception into the rule.

 

That's why these posts get so damn long: If I say "you have to stop at red lights, and wait for the light to turn green before proceeding", and you say "nuh uh, you're wrong! You can turn right on a red if you aren't prohibited from doing so!"

 

Then, it has to be explained that "yes, that is an exception to the rule, but generally, usually, you have to stop at a red light and wait for it to turn green before proceeding."

 

So many people argue the exceptions, as if they were the rule, not understanding the difference.

 

And explaining that difference eats up paragraphs and paragraphs of text. That's unfortunate.

 

This has been an interesting discussion, I appreciate your keeping it civil, but at this point, we are so far removed from this original statement you made that others disputed, that I don't really have anything else to say. So you can have the last words.

 

Unfortunately, you have missed several important principles, mischaracterized what I've said, and drawn illegitimate conclusions as a result.

 

We aren't removed AT ALL from my original statement. It still stands, because it is generally true, and always has been.

 

You can reject it, which is fine, but it is valid because it rests on principles that have been observed for centuries: the presence of those who hoarded doesn't negate that, but rather, establishes it.

 

This is basic common sense. If a person is buying multiple copies, in the hopes that the book will go up in value, they will sell them if the book goes up in value. That's how it works. Everyone? No, but "everyone" has never been implied. Most people? Yes.

 

I'm sorry you haven't understood this, and I mean you no ill-will, but...you haven't understood this. Nothing personal.

[Gatsby77]

RMA you keep saying this --

 

" And as I said, several times: you are the exception, not the rule."

 

This is such a blanket statement. What is the boundaries of this? Every man, woman and child in the world than, yes that would be right. But we are talking about comic book collectors. We all post on a comic book collecting website and more people than not have said in this thread that they had multiple copies that they held on to. A small sample size of the larger collective.

 

 

RMA is speaking from his experience, i.e. he is using anecdotal evidence to make such a claim. He has no way of knowing, but his experience tells him this statement is true.

 

No. That's not remotely true. I'm speaking from the data, economic principle, and common sense, not just experience.

 

In that regard, not only do I have a way of knowing, but so does everyone else, including you.

 

One more time (and I'll say this as many times as it needs to be said): ASM #361 was underordered. When it came out, it created intense demand. It sold out very quickly, prompting a second printing. Within a month or two, because the demand was so intense, and the supply was not enough to meet the demand, the value of the book had risen to $20-$25 retail, which was very rare for a brand new book, happening only a handful of times in the history of comics.

 

Agreed up to this point...

 

As a result of its rapid and high price rise, those who bought multiple copies when the book came out, in hopes that the book would rise in value, generally ended up trading/selling (keeping in mind that there weren't enough copies to satisfy demand in the first place) those copies, which resulted in those copies ending up in many hands.

 

And this is where you go from talking about facts to making conjecture. You are even going as far as to provide a motive and the actions taken by those who bought multiple copies which you have absolutely no way of knowing.

 

This is not conjecture, this is not "anecdotal", it's not (just) "my experience", this is fact, supported by all the data and information I've provided thus far.

 

Actually RMA, it is just conjecture. You have no proof that those who bought multiple copies traded/sold them so they ended up in many hands. Your experience tells you this was the case. And I have no doubts some people did sell. But I also know some did not.

 

That SOME people missed the opportunity, and SOME people bought multiples with no intention of reselling them in the short term, doesn't change this fact.

 

This isn't rocket science, it's not difficult, it's not controversial. It's fairly straightforward, and doesn't rely on any anecdotes to be demonstrably true.

 

 

You can say it as many times as you want, but it doesn't make it true.

 

The statement you made that started this entire discussion was pretty much cut and dry:

 

And no, this book wasn't hoarded from day one. Books that sell out quickly enough to have a second printing aren't hoarded....they are distributed far and wide.

 

And that just is not true. Several of us have told you we did hoard that book from day one. It doesn't matter if we are the "exception" or the "rule". The fact that we did hoard the book invalidates the entire premise you started this discussion on. You have admitted yourself that some of us did hoard this book eventually although you keep dismissing it as an "exception" which isn't really relevant to what we have been trying to say. You have gone to great lengths to try and frame this statement in such a way to account for those of us who did hoard the book and to keep your original statement true.

 

This has been an interesting discussion, I appreciate your keeping it civil, but at this point, we are so far removed from this original statement you made that others disputed, that I don't really have anything else to say. So you can have the last words.

 

This. All of this.

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who immediately noted the obvious leap from factual statements:

 

One more time (and I'll say this as many times as it needs to be said): ASM #361 was underordered. When it came out, it created intense demand. It sold out very quickly, prompting a second printing. Within a month or two, because the demand was so intense, and the supply was not enough to meet the demand, the value of the book had risen to $20-$25 retail, which was very rare for a brand new book, happening only a handful of times in the history of comics.

 

These are facts. And they are mad accurate.

 

To this:

 

As a result of its rapid and high price rise, those who bought multiple copies when the book came out, in hopes that the book would rise in value, generally ended up trading/selling (keeping in mind that there weren't enough copies to satisfy demand in the first place) those copies, which resulted in those copies ending up in many hands.

 

This is pure conjecture, falsely attributing actions, motives, and theories that were contrary to my experience, and the experience and testimony of (now at least 10) other folks in this thread.

 

You asked me to list assumptions you've made in this thread?

 

1) That no one saw ASM 361 coming, despite yourself showing (as I earlier noted) that the cover & description was highlighted in Previews.

 

That it wasn't as highlighted as heavily as Luke Cage 1, etc. is irrelevant. If you were reading Previews, you could see the book had potential.

 

2) That Venom wasn't popular in 1991.

 

Sure -- he didn't reach supernova status until later, but again, that's irrelevant. Because at the time, ASM 300 was a key back issue, and a $25-$30 book. Why? Venom.

 

3) Lack of appearances equates to a lack of popularity.

 

I think I understand your argument as roughly: that if Venom were _truly_ that popular in Feb. 1992, Marvel would have milked it with more appearances to sell more books. (Is that close?)

 

Which, incidentally, they did. Beginning with this very storyline.

 

But to compare him to Punisher & Wolverine is facetious, as Venom _never_ reached the popularity or over-saturation point of Wolverine, Punisher, or Ghost Rider.

 

Nor did any other Marvel characters of that time period.

 

4) That ASM 361 wasn't hoarded from day 1.

 

Wrong. See nearly everyone else who has written in this thread.

 

5) That it would have been impossible to develop a "hoard" from the day of release on because of its instant popularity.

 

Again, not true, as shown by the testimony of folks in this thread. I went to multiple stores; other folks went to newsstands. And I was 14, without useful resources like...money, or a car. Had I been 19, I likely would have acquired two dozen copies that week.

 

6) That, due to "human nature" we would have sold out when the book skyrocketed instantly.

 

Again, that wasn't the thinking at the time. The thinking was "We have a winner. If it went to $20 so quickly, it'll be a $50 book in a few years. Yay!"

 

But at the end of the day, even if you are correct that that last was a minority view, please consider your audience.

 

It's very likely that you're right those on this message board (and basically everyone else other than you who have posted in this thread) _are_ the exception.

 

After all, my guess is demographically, we're largely 30-something to 40-something males who are all passionate enough about comic books to be posting here 25 years after the fact. That's pretty much the definition of "minority."

 

I'd wager we're not, by and large, the rabble who bought caseloads of & were collateral damage during the 1993 implosion; or, by and large, 20-something millennials who weren't there & don't know the history of ASM 361.

 

So who, exactly, are you trying to convince? Or is it educate? Or maybe, preach to about basic economics & human psychology?

 

I can only speak for myself. Please forgive me, as even today my economics knowledge is admittedly weak, consisting merely of 3 undergraduate courses and 4 graduate courses as part of my MBA program (which, granted, was from a public school). I also managed to get fired from the private equity fund I worked for back in 2008.

 

But, despite that, I think I knew enough about opportunity, supply & demand back in 1992 to see a good long-term bet from day 1.

 

And, apparently, so did at least 10 other folks in this thread. Stupid people unite!

[mysterio]

 

As a result of its rapid and high price rise, those who bought multiple copies when the book came out, in hopes that the book would rise in value, generally ended up trading/selling (keeping in mind that there weren't enough copies to satisfy demand in the first place) those copies, which resulted in those copies ending up in many hands.

 

And this is where you go from talking about facts to making conjecture. You are even going as far as to provide a motive and the actions taken by those who bought multiple copies which you have absolutely no way of knowing.

 

Sorry, but that's not accurate.

 

It doesn't take a PhD in economics to know and understand basic free market motivation.

 

It's simply not true that there is "absolutely no way of knowing."

 

It is beyond unreasonable to think that everyone, or even a majority of people, bought multiple copies on speculation, and then sat on them, watching that opportunity come and go. There's no rational reason to do so. Yes, you can claim that "people are irrational", as others have, but that's not generally true, especially where finances are concerned.

 

That's not conjecture. That's a basic understanding of how economics and free markets work, proven by people like Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and others for decades and centuries.

 

This is not conjecture, this is not "anecdotal", it's not (just) "my experience", this is fact, supported by all the data and information I've provided thus far.

 

Actually RMA, it is just conjecture. You have no proof that those who bought multiple copies traded/sold them so they ended up in many hands. Your experience tells you this was the case. And I have no doubts some people did sell. But I also know some did not.

 

Actually rjrjr, it is NOT conjecture. It is a basic understanding of free market principles. It has been proven, over and over and over and over again, that that's what happens in free markets. People speculate, the item rises in value rapidly, they cash in.

 

That's how it has worked for all of recorded history. It has nothing to do with personal experience. These principles are in effect whether you experience them personally or not.

 

That SOME people missed the opportunity, and SOME people bought multiples with no intention of reselling them in the short term, doesn't change this fact.

 

This isn't rocket science, it's not difficult, it's not controversial. It's fairly straightforward, and doesn't rely on any anecdotes to be demonstrably true.

 

 

You can say it as many times as you want, but it doesn't make it true.

 

You can deny it as many times as you want, but it doesn't make your denial accurate.

 

The statement you made that started this entire discussion was pretty much cut and dry:

 

And no, this book wasn't hoarded from day one. Books that sell out quickly enough to have a second printing aren't hoarded....they are distributed far and wide.

 

And that just is not true.

 

Sorry, but that is true, because that's how economics works.

 

Several of us have told you we did hoard that book from day one. It doesn't matter if we are the "exception" or the "rule".

 

It matters entirely if you are the "exception" or the "rule." That's the entire foundation of this discussion. You don't understand that, so you don't understand the argument built on that foundation.

 

Nothing personal, but you demonstrate that you don't understand it by saying it "doesn't matter." And if that's the case, you can't possibly understand the rest of the argument. And this isn't personal...you're just not understanding the issue.

 

The fact that we did hoard the book invalidates the entire premise you started this discussion on.

 

That is inaccurate, because you don't understand that there are specific exceptions that establish the general rule.

 

Do you understand what the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" means?

 

It means that there are general principles to which exceptions exist, and those exceptions prove (test) the rule. That is, a specific exception establishes the general rule.

 

That there were people who hoarded the book does not therefore invalidate the premise that the majority of people who bought multiples of the book for speculative purposes cashed in. It's not a "one or the other, but not both" circumstance. It IS both, but you are the exception to the general rule, not the rule itself.

 

Again...this is basic economic principle going back centuries. You may reject it, but that doesn't invalidate it.

 

You have admitted yourself that some of us did hoard this book eventually although you keep dismissing it as an "exception" which isn't really relevant to what we have been trying to say.

 

You are mischaracterizing what I've said. I did not "admit" anything, nor did I need to admit anything, "eventually" or otherwise. I never claimed, nor implied, at any time, that there was NOT anyone who hoarded this book. I said this book was not hoarded, and it was not.

 

I keep repeating myself, and I really wish I didn't have to, but I'll do it again: "this book was not hoarded" does not therefore mean that not one single person hoarded this book. It means that, generally, the book wasn't hoarded, which is true, and the existence of individuals who DID hoard the book (the exceptions) doesn't therefore invalidate the entire premise, as you are claiming.

 

Frankly, this isn't too subtle or intricate a distinction to understand.

 

You have gone to great lengths to try and frame this statement in such a way to account for those of us who did hoard the book and to keep your original statement true.

 

Inaccurate. You are reading what I've said through the filter of your own bias, and seeing what you wish to see, rather than what is. I have gone to great lengths to help you understand these issues, not to "frame" my statement to "account" for those who hoarded the book, because...and this is critical, and needs to be understood...I didn't exclude hoarders in the first place.

 

One of the great problems this board has (and message boards in general) is that people try to try to nail people to the wall on irrelevancies, while dismissing the relevant points.

 

That's what has happened here. "Well, you said the book wasn't hoarded, and THAT'S NOT TRUE! There WERE people who hoarded this book!"

 

But I never said there were NO hoarders AT ALL, that NO ONE hoarded this book. And as soon as I understood that this was a stumbling block for you, I explained that. No "framing" involved. Just explaining that you were making the exception into the rule.

 

That's why these posts get so damn long: If I say "you have to stop at red lights, and wait for the light to turn green before proceeding", and you say "nuh uh, you're wrong! You can turn right on a red if you aren't prohibited from doing so!"

 

Then, it has to be explained that "yes, that is an exception to the rule, but generally, usually, you have to stop at a red light and wait for it to turn green before proceeding."

 

So many people argue the exceptions, as if they were the rule, not understanding the difference.

 

And explaining that difference eats up paragraphs and paragraphs of text. That's unfortunate.

 

This has been an interesting discussion, I appreciate your keeping it civil, but at this point, we are so far removed from this original statement you made that others disputed, that I don't really have anything else to say. So you can have the last words.

 

Unfortunately, you have missed several important principles, mischaracterized what I've said, and drawn illegitimate conclusions as a result.

 

We aren't removed AT ALL from my original statement. It still stands, because it is generally true, and always has been.

 

You can reject it, which is fine, but it is valid because it rests on principles that have been observed for centuries: the presence of those who hoarded doesn't negate that, but rather, establishes it.

 

This is basic common sense. If a person is buying multiple copies, in the hopes that the book will go up in value, they will sell them if the book goes up in value. That's how it works. Everyone? No, but "everyone" has never been implied. Most people? Yes.

 

I'm sorry you haven't understood this, and I mean you no ill-will, but...you haven't understood this. Nothing personal.

 

I'd prefer to do an RMA style parsing of responding to individual statements, not out of spite (because I may be one of the few that actually enjoys reading those posts and the effort and precision that goes into them) but in that spirit of precision. But, I'm on my phone so that would be too difficult and would take too long.

 

First off, this thread has gotten well off the rails of the OP's question, which was the print run. I think that has been answered to just about everyone's satisfaction.

 

Fortunately, the direction we flew off the rails has been interesting and enlightening.

 

I do have a couple of questions, or maybe they are observations, to add. The first gets back to the latest tangent on speculators selling their copies, because it is obviously what they would do. RMA, I do have to agree with some of the other posters in that you haven't supplied any data to the effect that these sales happened. After providing hard data in the form of Cap City numbers to establish print runs, and more hard data in the Previews entry for #361, you haven't yet produced any to back up your assertion that everyone paying attention would have sold their copies when they went up. I agree that it would make sense for them to have done so, but I think you'd agree that humans don't always act sensibly, and as the old saying goes, "nobody rings a bell at the top of the market", so folks may not have sold. You're assuming that everyone did the sensible thing, and you may be right. But as yet there is no data for this (nor, I should point out, for the counter argument aside from anecdotes).

 

Your assumption also includes market efficiency, and the market was markedly less efficient in the early 90s pre-eBay. It was harder to dispose of extras for anything near what they were worth, as Blob and others have stated and you have acknowledged to an extent. Yes, it was possible to trade, but that may or may not have been possible in individual markets, and it may or may not have been desirable (what if the shop had nothing you wanted, or had already stocked up on adequate copies?). We've all probably seen instances where people "would rather throw it out than sell for x price", even though that makes no sense. But people can be irrational, and anchor to prices or situations, and decide to hold rather than sell out. This is particularly true if they have reason to believe that the book will be worth more later. Many were prone to believe this in the early 90s, moreso than today I'd wager. We were still naive pre-implosion.

 

Anyway, my point is that you're assuming fully rational actors and a fully efficient market, when neither were in place. So without data to illustrate the quantity and quality of selling during the price run up, there will be resistance to your assumption that everyone would cash out.

[the blob]

But at the time, _many_ of us who hadn't lived through the B+W crash of the mid-80s didn't see that.

-------

 

Bingo. I was out of comics from 1986 - 1992. I was not aware of a B&W crash. Sure, I saw a lot of B&W books in 25 cent boxes in the 90s, but I didn't know until later that Fish Police 1 had been worth something once upon a time.

 

And a lot of people were out of, or never into comics, up until 1991/1992 or thereabouts and then got in/back in, so we didn't fully appreciate the hot potatoe hobby this had become until it was too late. Thankfully, I was not a modern speculator. I bought some books, sure, but I actually wanted to read them. Of course, I bought a lot of mid-grade non-key SA when I got back into the hobby. That was not a great use of my limited resources.

[the blob]

 

 

 

If YOU thought so, great. You were the only one. You won't find it in the literature of the day, because PRIOR TO ASM #361, Venom was NOT the "ultrapopular character" that he would become.

 

-------------

 

The comic ad YOU POSTED showed 300 as a $40 book a year before 361 came out. In 1991 dollars that was A LOT of money and virtually unheard of for a 300-500K+ print-run book that had come out within the last 5 years. It is by far the most expensive book in that whole advertisement as far as I can tell. I don't see the Punisher mini #1 in there, maybe that was more back then. Harbinger 1 was able to become a $100 book quickly because it had a tiny-print run by 1992 standards, basically more of a "limited edition" than most limited editions of the era, and the popularity of the title/hype, etc. There was actual scarcity involved.

 

So why was 300 $40? You say that dealer had high prices, but wouldn't have prices continued to climb in 1991 and early 1992 anyway? Couldn't just be #300 and McFarlane art, seems like Venom had a lot to do with that.

 

I will admit I wasn't reading comics in 1991, wasn't in shops, so I am just looking at this after the fact, but based on the above it seems like maybe you are overplaying your hand here. an advertised price of $40 on a huge print-run book says a lot about the perceptions of Venom at the time even if you say the "street" price was $25. with that said, it does seem that venom only made orders go up 10% or whatever...probably around 30-50,000 copies...a lot for now, not much for then.

 

could it be that maybe after shops ordered a lot of extra copies of 357-359 that actual sales to customers weren't what they hoped and maybe they were a little gun shy when ordering 361? i saw plenty of those late 350s books in 50 cent boxes when i got back into collecting in the 90s. i don't know, maybe there are some other nuances at play.

 

but whatever, it's an awesome book and I hope it hits $150 raw, with the second printing becoming a $500 book! at least until i get around to locating and selling my copies.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Anyway, my point is that you're assuming fully rational actors and a fully efficient market, when neither were in place. So without data to illustrate the quantity and quality of selling during the price run up, there will be resistance to your assumption that everyone would cash out.

 

1. I didn't say that EVERYONE would cash out. If you and others are demanding absolute precision, which is fine, you need to be absolutely precise, too. I said that in general, people would tend to cash out, which is what they did.

 

2. There is no way to "prove" this without record keeping of a level that would be impossible, and obviously didn't happen. The proof, however, is basic economic principle. You do not NEED to have meticulous record keeping when you understand that people generally tend to act in their own economic interests.

 

It is not within the realm of basic common sense to assume that those who bought multiple copies for the express purpose of profiting down the road would then "not act rationally" and MISS that opportunity.

 

Truly, I don't understand why you folks are arguing that people would do that.

 

Were there people who missed the opportunity? Of course! I haven't argued anything contrary.

 

But is it true that ALL of those people missed the opportunity? No, obviously not. Is it true that MOST of those people missed the opportunity? No, that's not within the realm of common sense. Is it true that SOME of those people missed that opportunity? Yes, obviously, because that's also human nature.

 

You gentlemen aren't being very reasonable with your conclusions, here. You are arguing contrary to basic, long established economic principle. Acting in one's own economic self-interest is one of the most consistent of human behaviors that exists.

 

[Broke as a Joke]

Anyway, my point is that you're assuming fully rational actors and a fully efficient market, when neither were in place. So without data to illustrate the quantity and quality of selling during the price run up, there will be resistance to your assumption that everyone would cash out.

 

1. I didn't say that EVERYONE would cash out. If you and others are demanding absolute precision, which is fine, you need to be absolutely precise, too. I said that in general, people would tend to cash out, which is what they did.

 

2. There is no way to "prove" this without record keeping of a level that would be impossible, and obviously didn't happen. The proof, however, is basic economic principle. You do not NEED to have meticulous record keeping when you understand that people generally tend to act in their own economic interests.

 

It is not within the realm of basic common sense to assume that those who bought multiple copies for the express purpose of profiting down the road would then "not act rationally" and MISS that opportunity.

 

Truly, I don't understand why you folks are arguing that people would do that.

 

Were there people who missed the opportunity? Of course! I haven't argued anything contrary.

 

But is it true that ALL of those people missed the opportunity? No, obviously not. Is it true that MOST of those people missed the opportunity? No, that's not within the realm of common sense. Is it true that SOME of those people missed that opportunity? Yes, obviously, because that's also human nature.

 

You gentlemen aren't being very reasonable with your conclusions, here. You are arguing contrary to basic, long established economic principle. Acting in one's own economic self-interest is one of the most consistent of human behaviors that exists.

 

In response to #1.

 

You are talking in generalities. So has the other side of that argument.

 

#2.

 

It seems people's best interest would have been to hoard them and sell now 20 something years later at increasingly higher prices. Not everyone rushes out to make $5 - 10 dollars in LCS trade in values. In fact I would say that doing trade in deals at your LCS for 361 would have been the exception and not the rule. People bought alot of comics in the early 90's. Many people ended up holding on to these, especially after the crash hit. We are talking comic books, economic principle seems to not be as serious when you're only in $30 for a stack of 30 books.

 

Speaking of missed opportunities, I bet the few that did get LCS store credit for their couple copies wished they would have held on to a bigger hoard of them since the people who "acted not rationally" are making out like bandits now.

[the blob]

Speaking of missed opportunities, I bet the few that did get LCS store credit for their couple copies wished they would have held on to a bigger hoard of them since the people who "acted not rationally" are making out like bandits now.

 

------

 

Depends on what they used those store credits for, of course. Unless those 361s stayed 9.8s over the last 23 years and you slab them, what are we talking about, a $25-$50 book raw in nm? a lot of good things could have been done with a $15-$20 store credit in 1992. how many VG+ copies of Iron Man 55 or VF+ to VF/NM copies of Heroes for Hire 1 (not to mention copies of NM 98) could you have picked up trading in a stack of 361s?

[the blob]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Invincible-Iron-Man-55-VG-Marvel-Comic-Book-1st-Appearance-Of-Thanos-JH6-/262072544455?hash=item3d04bdacc7:g:ADgAAOSwd0BV49ss

 

seriously, the copy i sold when the spike started, for around $170, was about the same as this, purchased around 1993-1994, and it had a $9 price tag on it from my local shop (meaning i probably bought it for $4.50)

[Broke as a Joke]

Blob: Yes, that would be the way to spend a store credit.

 

I just don't recall stores ever buying any "fresh" (1-3 months old) book from a customer back then. They had to much inventory to be buying books from a kid off the streets.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

 

If YOU thought so, great. You were the only one. You won't find it in the literature of the day, because PRIOR TO ASM #361, Venom was NOT the "ultrapopular character" that he would become.

 

-------------

 

The comic ad YOU POSTED showed 300 as a $40 book a year before 361 came out. In 1991 dollars that was A LOT of money and virtually unheard of for a 300-500K+ print-run book that had come out within the last 5 years.

 

You are incorrect.

 

Batman #426-429 were the king of recent back issues throughout much of 1989. Batman #426 was even a $50 book in the GUIDE at one point (Update #9, reporting from July of 1989.) #427 was $35, and #428 was $30. At the height of craziness, June-August of 1989, it was not unheard of for #426 and #428 to sell for $75.

 

Those books were the hottest of the hot. Granted, Batman didn't have *quite* the print run of ASM at the time, but it wasn't too far off.

 

Cap City orders for the issues:

 

#426 - 32,550

#427 - 31,250

#428 - 32,450

 

Not too much off of contemporary ASM issues:

 

#308 - 35,200

#309 - 35,000

#310 - 36,200

 

The last avg sales numbers we have for Batman (1987) have avg sales of 193,000, while ASM was 284,692. So, Spiderman sold about 50% more than Batman, at a time when Batman sales were pretty bad.

 

Batman sales for 1989-1990 would dwarf ASM.

 

Yes, the ad I POSTED showed #300 was being offered for $40.

 

But the reason it was a $40 book was NOT because of Venom...it was because of Todd McFarlane.

 

In 1990-1991, Todd McFarlane was the hottest artist in the comics industry. His run on Amazing Spiderman was the king of the current back issue crop. It's what everybody wanted, though New Mutants #87 was the individual champ at the time.

 

It is by far the most expensive book in that whole advertisement as far as I can tell. I don't see the Punisher mini #1 in there, maybe that was more back then. Harbinger 1 was able to become a $100 book quickly because it had a tiny-print run by 1992 standards, basically more of a "limited edition" than most limited editions of the era, and the popularity of the title/hype, etc. There was actual scarcity involved.

 

Small correction: Harbinger #1 didn't have a "tiny print run" by independent comics standards of the era:

 

Harbinger #1 - 10,900

Miracleman #21 (written by then current hot writer Neil Gaiman) - 6,900

Miracleman #22 - 7,000

The Vampire.Lestat - 7,450

Bone #1 - 3,000

Strangers in Paradise #1 - 3,000

 

Harbinger was the third new series from Valiant, and the first consisting of original characters. It had a respectable, if not particularly impressive, print run for the era.

 

So why was 300 $40? You say that dealer had high prices, but wouldn't have prices continued to climb in 1991 and early 1992 anyway? Couldn't just be #300 and McFarlane art, seems like Venom had a lot to do with that.

 

Yes, I'm sure it seems that way to you...which is, of course, absolutely impossible to prove.

 

Let me say that again: it is absolutely, unequivocally, totally impossible to account for what factors contribute to what percentage of any book's value.

 

So, how do we do it?

 

We have to forensically reconstruct the situation, based on what we DO have, which is recorded for us in publications of the day.

 

So what do we have?

 

The 1991 OPG (which was the annual guide "in effect" at the time ASM #361 was published, though superseded by the Updates) lists ASM #298 as "1st Venom." This is as of April of 1991, about 10 months before ASM #361.

 

Granted, there are Updates at the time that I don't have my fingers on at the moment, so if anyone has them, by all means, please post them.

 

What does that demonstrate? It shows that there was a bit of a debate in the comics industry about what, exactly, was "the book" for Venom's first appearance. So, right there you see that #300 wasn't yet THE book for Venom.

 

Also....

 

In that OPG, you find that #315-317 are NOT broken out. There is no further mention of Venom after ASM #298.

 

Then....the 1992 OPG, which was published in April of 1992, three months AFTER #361 (but compiled just before then), and we see this:

 

#298 - $32 "1st app Venom w/o costume (cameo on last pg.)"

 

(This wasn't technically true...the costume DID appear, briefly, but that's technical and not too relevant.)

 

#299 - $16 1st Venom with costume (cameo)

#300 - $36 1st full Venom app

 

Any mention of Venom beyond that?

 

No.

 

And this highlights my point: there was a legitimate, not-quite-settled debate about what the collector community was going to call the first appearance of Venom. Was he gaining popularity? No doubt, he was certainly ticking up. But it wasn't anything like it would be quite shortly.

 

By the way...price for #361-362 - $1. Of course, the information was completed just before ASM #361 came out, so there's that.

 

So that's the big guide...let's look at Cap City orders for the era:

 

#295 - 33,500

#296 - 34,100

#297 - 35,200

#298 - 36,300

#299 - 36,300

#300 - 42,900

#301 - 33,100

#302 - 33,700

#303 - 35,200

#304 - 35,700

#305 - 35,000

 

#311 - 40,600

#312 - 42,400

#313 - 45,900 (McFarlane's art is starting to make an impact on sales, reflected in #311, but this specific bump was also due to the Inferno crossover. X-Men were still a force to be reckoned with, and X-Men CC orders were a good 50-100% higher than ASM)

#314 - 42,200

#315 - 41,400

#316 - 44,100

#317 - 44,700

#318 - 45,900

#319 - 48,800

#320 - 48,600

 

McFarlane's art is beginning to have an impact, but even with that phenomenal cover to #316, which is very prized today, back then, sales aren't impacted for later issues all that much. Same basic upward trajectory, with statistically negligible differences in numbers for #315-317 over those before and after.

 

#329 - 58,300

#330 - 72,000

#331 - 67,500

#332 - 58,500

#333 - 59,400

#334 - 63,300

#335 - 61,800

 

Here we see that Venom's NEXT outing in ASM results in a sales LOSS over #330-331, which feature the Punisher, who was rapidly becoming the single hottest character in comics.

 

#342 - 57,900

#343 - 58,500

#344 - 61,500

#345 - 60,000

#346 - 64,800

#347 - 63,000

#348 - 59,100

#349 - 65,100

#350 - 75,600

 

The next outing, we see the first "sort of" glimmers of Venom's future popularity, but again, #346 only has about an 8% bump over #345's numbers, while #347 loses a bit of ground.

 

And, there was quite a bit of push back on Venom because of Larsen's disdain for, and subsequent mockery of, the character. #346-347 made Venom LOSE a bit of ground.

 

Granted....GRANTED...these are only Cap City numbers, and while Cap City was #1/2 in the Direct market at the time, it only tells SOME, not ALL, of the picture. But they are the only numbers we have. These issues of ASM don't even make Diamond's Top 100 issues list, the only other numbers we have for the year.

 

Before McFarlane took over, ASM sales weren't exactly setting the world on fire. It had been a while since ASM was Marvel's flagship solo title in terms of sales, and reports from the era (1986-1990) confirm that.

 

Now...the next step in forensically reconstructing what happened is to look at the Updates from the time period, which are a good reflection of the back issue market. As I said, I don't have them at my fingertips, but when I get them, I will look them over. As I recall, Venom isn't mentioned more than icasually until ASM #361. As has already been shown, the Guide (still a potent force in those days) called #298, not #300, "1st Venom."

 

So, now, let's look at the ad:

 

 

Notice the prices for #302-305: $25. Was that because of Venom? Obviously not. Yet, those prices are OVER OPG (this ad was published in Jan of 1991.)

 

Why?

 

McFarlane.

 

Notice what's missing? #298-299.

 

Look further...

 

#316-325 - $10

 

ALL the McFarlane issues (if not ALL the ASM issues) were priced HIGHER in this ad than in OPG #21, which would come out about 3 months after this. It was also higher than the Updates, which had these prices:

 

#298 - $30

#299 - $15

#300 - $30

#301-305 - $15

#306-315 - $10

#316-325, 328 - $7

 

Notice, no breakout for issue #316, which would later become "the iconic" early Venom cover. No breakout for #317.

 

Now here's something interesting: #332-333 WERE broken out at $3, BUT...it was priced the same as #263-up, including all the non-key, non-McFarlane issues, at the end of the listing. This may have just been a matter of convenience.

 

Now, look at New Mutants #87...what does it say? "1st Cable."

 

Look at ASM #330-331...$4, and "Punisher"

 

But what's the note on #300? Nothing. If Venom was supposed to be ultrahot at this point, why no mention?

 

Now look at Batman - #426 $40, #427 $30, #428 $25, #429 $10....this was Jan of 1991, and while Robin was hotter than sliced bread, those issues had cooled off considerably....yet, #426 is still priced the same as #300.

 

So what DO you see all over that page?

 

"Punisher, Punisher, Punisher."

 

All over the place.

 

No mention of Venom, just about a year before ASM #361.

 

I will admit I wasn't reading comics in 1991, wasn't in shops,

 

Bingo.

 

so I am just looking at this after the fact, but based on the above it seems like maybe you are overplaying your hand here. an advertised price of $40 on a huge print-run book

 

Inaccurate. ASM #300 did NOT have a "huge print run." It had a bump because it was an anniversary issue, but average sales for the year were 271,100, and ASM #300 wasn't an exceptionally heavily ordered issue in that year.

 

That means the average amount of extant copies for these 1988 books...a couple of years before the speculation madness of the early 90's...is just about 271k copies, and many, many of those copies weresingle copy purchases.

 

There was no substantial hoarding of any of these books. When ASM #298 came out, Todd McFarlane had zero impact on the comics world.

 

It was #300 that made people say "hey...you know, this guy is pretty good. Let's see where he goes!" That was really the FIRST time that people noticed McFarlane, and even then, he didn't start impacting sales dramatically for another year or so.

 

In fact....average sales for the NEXT year, 1989, were 266..about 5,000 LESS THAN 1988. Those are averages, and we know from the Cap City numbers that the numbers were making a slow climb issue after issue, but the real climb in numbers didn't happen until McFarlane was GONE. The next year, 1990, for which McFarlane only did one issue (#328), the average sales were up to 334k. Due to McFarlane, but mostly a rubber band effect.

 

says a lot about the perceptions of Venom at the time even if you say the "street" price was $25.

 

It does. All of this information tells us that, at least up to 1991, which was almost THREE YEARS after he first appeared, Venom wasn't where it was at. I would love to see the first mention of Venom in one of the trade journals (OPG Update, etc), but I suspect it wasn't until very late 1990 that that happened.

 

If anyone can pull out the Updates, and see what they say, that would be great.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

In response to #1.

 

You are talking in generalities. So has the other side of that argument.

 

That is correct. And...? I have said the word general about 30 times in this thread so far...is there anything that would lead you to believe I think I am NOT "talking in generalities"...?

 

What I have said is generally true, while "the other side" is generally not true.

 

#2.

 

It seems people's best interest would have been to hoard them and sell now 20 something years later at increasingly higher prices.

 

 

Ok.

 

I hope you realize that that is entirely hindsight, and can in no way have influenced decisions back in 1992, right...? And that, for the vast majority of the years in between, that wouldn't have been remotely true...?

 

If not, at least you've been told.

 

Not everyone rushes out to make $5 - 10 dollars in LCS trade in values. In fact I would say that doing trade in deals at your LCS for 361 would have been the exception and not the rule.

 

Do you have any evidence for this conjecture, which ignores basic economic principles?

 

People bought alot of comics in the early 90's.

 

ASM #361 was NOT like "alot" (sic) of comics in the early 90's

 

It was different, and behaved differently. It was one of a rare handful of books in comics history, as I've already explained.

 

Many people ended up holding on to these, especially after the crash hit. We are talking comic books, economic principle seems to not be as serious when you're only in $30 for a stack of 30 books.

 

So you say. Economic theory says otherwise.

 

Speaking of missed opportunities, I bet the few that did get LCS store credit for their couple copies wished they would have held on to a bigger hoard of them since the people who "acted not rationally" are making out like bandits now.

 

Really...? So, you believe that holding a book for TWENTY THREE YEARS just so that the people who missed the opportunity then could "make out like bandits" now...?

 

Have you done the math?

 

If you saved them for TWENTY THREE YEARS (almost 24), and you got 9.8s, GREAT! You've done OK.

 

Let's look at the math:

 

Slab cost = ~ $25, all in, roughly.

 

90 day average for 9.8s = $190.

 

eBay cost (because, really, this is what makes up most of the average.) - 10%

 

Paypal - 3%

 

Let's say you charge for shipping, so let's not consider that.

 

So, on that $190 average sale, $19 and $5.50 is taken right off the top. Ok, fine, cost of doing business.

 

So, with a $190 sale, we're at $140 net.

 

So, you turned a $1.25 "investment" into $140.

 

Congratulations! You made an average of 23% per year return on your investment!

 

You beat the Dow!

 

But what about inflation? Storage cost? Preservation cost? Do you not take these things into account?

 

And that's IF...and that's a BIG IF...you got a 9.8.

 

What if you get a 9.6?

 

90 day is $94

 

All costs in, net sale is $56.88.

 

18% interest annually. Not bad!

 

Now....how many times would you have to repeat that to make it mean anything real?

 

How about 9.4? We're down to $76. What about 9.2? $55. 9.0? $52.

 

So, if you didn't take great care of your book, and you only got a 9.0...you made about $20, while carrying that book around for TWENTY THREE+ years.

 

In other words...about what you would have made in 1992, had you sold it yourself around the height of the market for that book.

 

And that doesn't even account for the cost to store, preserve, and inflation, which is not insubstantial.

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Blob: Yes, that would be the way to spend a store credit.

 

I just don't recall stores ever buying any "fresh" (1-3 months old) book from a customer back then. They had to much inventory to be buying books from a kid off the streets.

 

Not of ASM #361 they didn't.

 

Once again: ASM #361 was the exception, in so many ways.

 

No store was interested in Wolverine #50. They had plenty.

 

Every store was interested in #361. It sold out, and the demand far outstripped the supply.

 

This isn't a revolutionary concept.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Speaking of missed opportunities, I bet the few that did get LCS store credit for their couple copies wished they would have held on to a bigger hoard of them since the people who "acted not rationally" are making out like bandits now.

 

------

 

Depends on what they used those store credits for, of course. Unless those 361s stayed 9.8s over the last 23 years and you slab them, what are we talking about, a $25-$50 book raw in nm? a lot of good things could have been done with a $15-$20 store credit in 1992. how many VG+ copies of Iron Man 55 or VF+ to VF/NM copies of Heroes for Hire 1 (not to mention copies of NM 98) could you have picked up trading in a stack of 361s?

 

There you go! Now we're talking!

[the blob]

Small correction: Harbinger #1 didn't have a "tiny print run" by independent comics standards of the era:

 

Harbinger #1 - 10,900

 

------

 

Valiant was more than an "independent" at that point though, they had multiple titles, were recycling some characters with histories, came in with a bang, known names were working on the books, even some big ones. And was it really only 10K? I thought it was in the 30-40K range? Whatever the print-run it was a fraction of cancellation numbers for DC and Marvel, no?

 

---------

 

I am curious, what were the McFarlane infinity inc. books going for at this time? I know he had not really developed his style yet. They're not on this page. Neither at the Hulk books. His Batman issues, which predate his ASM work I think (?), are only $3 in that ad.

 

Groo 1 is $25. Wow. And not even the pacific comics #1. What was that about? I love Groo and all.

[Hamlet]

It doesn't take a PhD in economics to know and understand basic free market motivation.

 

It's simply not true that there is "absolutely no way of knowing."

 

It is beyond unreasonable to think that everyone, or even a majority of people, bought multiple copies on speculation, and then sat on them, watching that opportunity come and go. There's no rational reason to do so. Yes, you can claim that "people are irrational", as others have, but that's not generally true, especially where finances are concerned.

 

That's not conjecture. That's a basic understanding of how economics and free markets work, proven by people like Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and others for decades and centuries.

 

The problem here is that your model of basic free market motivations doesn't necessarily resemble reality in this case. That model assumes rational actors and a relatively efficient market. Neither is clearly true here.

 

Hoarding is almost by definition an irrational act. If it was rational, people would call it stockpiling or speculation instead. So saying that this book isn't widely hoarded because rational people would sell them when the price rose isn't a great argument. Rational people don't hoard in the first place.

 

I think we should look at the set of possible behaviors and compare them to a normal issue of the time-

 

1. People speculating in large quantities ahead of time. The order information makes it pretty clear that this was ordered in near-normal numbers for the time. People who did order ahead of time would have been very likely to sell most of them through compared to a book like Wolverine 50, which had no demand. I doubt that there would be unusual hoarding in this group, for the reasons you state. Note that I don't really consider the people who got stuck with Wolverine 50 as hoarders, just failed speculators. I'm not hoarding Wolverine 50, I'm just stuck with them because I didn't find many buyers.

 

2. People who saw the book and bought one as they normally did for ASM. Not much to see here.

 

3. People who saw the book and bought one because they liked it, or wanted to be in on the hot new thing. Not much to see here either. This helps drive the price up, but their behavior probably doesn't differ that much from the #2 folks.

 

4. People who saw the book and bought as many as they could because they wanted to resell them for more money fairly quickly, ie flippers/speculators, etc. I'm sure that there were more of these people than normal for this issue. They would buy the max allowed at their LCS, visit multiple comic shops, hit up the newsstands, etc. This book would have been hot enough that they shouldn't have had much problem selling them. However, it was also hot enough that they might just decide to keep them because they were going up Oil discovered in Hell !!

 

5. People who saw the book and bought as many as they could with no immediate plans to sell them. These are the hoarders. I suspect that there are a larger than normal number of people in this category. Lots of people like to hoard things that other people want. The number of books per hoarder probably isn't a huge number, but I bet there are vast numbers of hoarders who got say 2-20 copies. Most probably got only 2-5 given how hot the book was, but I would guess that a lot of people did this, like I did with X-men 268.

 

I think you may be overestimating the likelihood of the price increase driving these people in group 5 to sell them. Honestly, I don't think most collectors tend to sell very often. We see the sellers on the boards here, but most of the casual collectors I know tend to just sit on books, even when they end up with multiples. The hoarding nature is loathe to sell.

 

It would be interesting to see people keep track of how many of this book they find in collections they buy. I suspect that the number of big numbers is small, because no one got stuck with vast numbers. However, I suspect that the number of collections with 3-5 copies might be higher than a normal issue of ASM from the time. I also think the number with zero might be higher than normal, as it would be a book that would get cherry picked.