Amazing Spider-Man 361 Print Run

[the blob]

the funny thing is that asm 361 is where i got back into reading comics as my kid brother was collecting/reading comics and i checked it his books out when i was home on a college break, thinking that cover was pretty cool, after having not looked at a comic for about 6 years. i liked the marvel stuff, was not into the DCs at the time (he had the robins minis and what not) and that's where 23+ years of my OCD bizarre behavior began. he stopped reading comics shortly thereafter. my older brother was reading comics as well during this time. eventually his [now] wife forced him to stop in the early 2000s, telling him it was childish, etc. he had all the mcfarlane asm stuff, every hot marvel (and later image) that came out. unfortunately, they were mostly trashed as he would read them in a huge stacks in his bathroom, so you can imagine what happened to them between showers, humidity, stepping on them, pizzing on them....

[Lazyboy]

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.

 

Are they really making out like bandits, or are they simply making a little bit more profit after waiting 20 years? Of course, the little bit extra they are able to make now is largely enabled by things that did not exist when they purchased their copies. So it's really just blind luck then.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

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.

 

If you want to say long established economic principle is "conjecture", and not only that, but false attribution (which is impossible to prove), that's your right, but it won't stop you from being inaccurate. I didn't attribute anything TO YOU, I attributed those things to the average person buying comics at the time.

 

I have provided much evidence, data, numbers, pictures.

 

You and "at least 10" have provided nothing but memory, and you call it "testimony."

 

As I have said now, numerous times: the plural of anecdote is NOT evidence, and just because a group of people, even a majority of people, believe something, that doesn't make it true, especially if the data says otherwise, and it clearly does.

 

One more time: the amount of people saying "this is what happened" does not have any relevance in determining what actually happened. If 100,000 people came here and said "yes, everybody I know, including myself, bought hoards of ASM #361 the day it was released, and none of us ever sold any", that IS NOT PROOF.

 

You put stock in that, and that is where your argument falters.

 

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 is incorrect. The description was NOT "highlighted." Look at the page again:

 

 

Notice: no highlight.

 

Notice: HALF the cover (or perhaps 2/3...certainly not the full cover), in B&W, is shown.

 

Notice: artwork for World Championship Wrestling #1 of roughly the same size is shown on the same page.

 

Notice: the cover to Groo: Carnival is shown on the same page.

 

Notice: the FULL cover to Groo #88 is shown on the same page.

 

Notice: Yuppies From Hell #3 IS highlighted. ASM #361 is not highlighted.

 

Notice: There is a "Spotlight" on X-Men #287. No such "spotlight" exists for ASM #361.

 

Notice: on the facing page is a full page ad for Cage #1.

 

If you are going to continue to argue using factually inaccurate information, your argument will continue to be built on error.

 

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.

 

That's an assumption. You are speaking from hindsight. The assumption being made here is yours. To call "not highlighted as heavily as Cage #1" irrelevant,when ASM #361 got THE EXACT SAME TREATMENT as Namor #25, Death's Head II #2, Guardians of the Galaxy #23, Marvel Tales #260, Hellraiser #12, Dreadlands #4, and James Bond Jr. #4 all of which showed only partial covers or other artwork, and LESSER treatment than those books which showed full covers, is far, far beyond reason.

 

Of the 69 different Marvel comics offered for sale in Previews that month, not including magazines, graphic novels, and TPBs, TWO received full page ads: Cage #1 and MCP #100. Cage was Marvel's "Gem of the Month." MCP #100 was spotlighted.

 

Of those 69 comics, TWENTY NINE had artwork included with their listings, including covers. Of those twenty nine, TWELVE showed full cover art, and ASM #361 was not one of them.

 

No, you're reaching far, far beyond reason to say that ASM #361 was some sort of "standout" in Previews, and you could "tell it was something special."

 

Maybe YOU could...kudos...but neither Marvel nor Previews could.

 

I have PROVEN thus far that ASM #361 was not promoted in any special way, above and beyond other issues out at the same time.

 

To say "That it wasn't as highlighted as heavily as Luke Cage 1, etc. is irrelevant" is very far, far beyond reason.

 

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.

 

That is incorrect.

 

As I detailed to Blob, that reason was MCFARLANE, NOT Venom.

 

That would come later.

 

If you have ANY actual documentary evidence, of which you have provided precisely none for this entire discussion, I would be THRILLED to see and consider it.

 

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?)

 

If you have to question what it is you think I've said, how can you say it was an assumption in the first place...?

 

You aren't even sure what I said!

 

And you are incorrect again. "Lack of appearances" does NOT equate to "lack of popularity."

 

Lack of appearances means the character wasn't popular ENOUGH to get the attention of Marvel editorial.

 

There's an IMPORTANT DISTINCTION there.

 

Again: Marvel knew, by 1991, that Punisher was the hottest character in comics. That's why he appeared in SIXTY SEVEN different publications in 1991, while Venom only appeared in NINE.

 

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

 

Except, of course, it wasn't anything special, despite your protestations to the contrary. If it was...provide the documentation.

 

Anything. Anything at all.

 

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.

 

Wrong again.

 

In 1993, Venom appeared in FORTY SIX publications, not counting foreign editions and trades. While not the same as Punisher in 1991 (I'll have to go back and see what that 67 figure includes), it certainly rivaled him, Wolverine, and certainly beat Ghost Rider.

 

Source: http://comicbookdb.com/character_chron.php?ID=1224

 

To compare, in Ghost Rider's "big year" of 1991, he appeared in FORTY FOUR publications, not counting foreign editions and trades.

 

http://comicbookdb.com/character_chron.php?ID=6703

 

You have to do your research, Gatsby77, which you are loathe to do.

 

 

Nor did any other Marvel characters of that time period.

 

As has been shown, that isn't true.

 

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

 

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

 

That is incorrect. Read what I have said. Don't just skim it. Don't just read REPLIES to it. Read what I said.

 

Again, these are not "assumptions", these are declarations. I am not ASSUMING anything, I am stating these are facts, and I have laid out the reasons for those facts, including documentary evidence, which you will not, or cannot, do. If you can prove me wrong, fine, but that doesn't mean they are assumptions.

 

You are using the word "assumption" to mean "something you say with which I disagree." That is NOT what the word "assumption" means. You are using the word incorrectly, and therefore, not communicating what you really mean properly.

 

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

 

I didn't say anything remotely like that. Nothing even remotely like that. I cannot stress to you how much I did NOT SAY anything like that at all.

 

You cannot invent things I say, then argue against them, as if I said that.

 

What I SAID was, in the CONTEXT of "day of release speculation" was that it would have been DIFFICULT to speculate in any quantity ON THE DAY OF RELEASE, since...as YOU YOURSELF said...there were frequently limits in place, and, of course, there were OTHER PEOPLE buying the issue, too.

 

Come on, Gatsby. You're not being very intellectually honest, here.

 

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.

 

But, you said you got four copies:

 

(as I did, 1 per x 4 store visits that week)

 

FOUR COPIES is NOT a "HOARD", which demonstrates PRECISELY the point I was making HERE: the book was not readily hoardable from Day 1.

 

I didn't say it was IMPOSSIBLE....only that it was DIFFICULT.

 

You can't change what I say, and then argue against what you've changed. That's not how reasonable, rational discussion works.

 

Let's consider this statement again:

 

Had I been 19, I likely would have acquired two dozen copies that week

 

1. That's pure conjecture; you don't know if you would have, or could have. You only know that you wanted to, which isn't the same thing. You don't know if those places would have been sold out, making your effort wasted. I've certainly wasted a lot of time going to stores, looking for books that were already sold out. Does that not count?

 

2. And how much would you have spent in time, energy, and resources (aka gas and wear and tear) running around to other shops to acquire that "two dozen"...? Is that not figured into the cost of acquisition? Does it "not count" because you don't think about it?

 

Would you have gone to all those stores anyways? Or were you just going to those stores to pick up that one book? If so, how can you....you know, the guy who took "4 graduate courses as part of my MBA program" (see below)...not count those costs?

 

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!"

 

Again, you have misrepresented what I said. I didn't say "you" would have, I said the AVERAGE person would have sold the book, especially when they bought multiples for just that purpose.

 

That may have been YOUR thinking at the time...but YOUR thinking, just like MY thinking, doesn't matter in the face of basic economic principle. And YOUR thinking WAS NOT TYPICAL.

 

TYPICAL thinking says "I bought 20 copies for $1.25, and it's now selling for $25...I'll trade/sell 10, or 5, or 15, or 20, or 7 copies now."

 

And that's what happened, and those copies were then distributed to others.

 

Simple.

 

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;

 

1993 was the best year the comics industry had in decades.There was no "1993 implosion." That started (started, mind) in roughly 1994, and was complete by 1997.

 

Does that matter...? Not really, but it does go to the factual inaccuracy which peppers your argument. Am I saying that to annoy you? No, I'm saying it because you don't care much about factual accuracy, but have no problem arguing "the facts."

 

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?

 

That would be anyone reading this. Who are you trying to convince? Or educate? Or maybe, preach to about basic economics and 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.

 

Credentials are meaningless when you argue against long established principle, and are careless with the facts.

 

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!

 

You argue from anger, annoyance, and frustration, rather than calmly and rationally. You don't like to be challenged, and when you are, you resort to hyperbole, misrepresentation, mischaracterization, and inaccurate information (which you are then loathe to admit when corrected), with snarky comments laced throughout, like "STOP LYING!" and "Stupid people unite!"

 

You take the discussion personally, rather than having a calm, rational, detached intellectual debate about it.

 

When you do that, you gut any points you may have been trying to make.

 

Am I preaching now...? Maybe. I'm hardly immune, but I make a very concerted effort to maintain rationality and civility, because otherwise...my points get gutted, too, lost in the petty snark.

 

Is it possible for someone to disagree with you without you taking it personally, as if you were personally called stupid, or personally put down by being corrected...? I don't know. You haven't demonstrated that very much over the many years I've known you.

 

Am I getting personal now? Perhaps. But, really, you ought to get rid of the chip on your shoulder you have with regards to me. You're not stupid, despite what you may believe I said, and it would be nice to have discussions, and even disagreements, with you, without you taking it personally, and allowing your anger/annoyance/frustration/whatever you want to call it shade your ability to reason.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

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.

 

I'm going to have to disagree to a degree. Of course, as we know, the market was efficient enough, or people wouldn't have been buying multiple copies in the first place, regardless of their motivation (unless they were pure hoarders, with no intention to sell.)

 

There had to be some mechanism in place to convert these things to some benefit.

 

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 you're quibbling over semantics. As I noted before, the amount of people who were "pure hoarders" (that is, people with no intention of selling, ever, for any reason, but only interested in gathering) is quite low.

 

The vast, vast majority of people who bought multiple copies did so because they were looking to profit off of them at some point.

 

In that respect, other than the physical properties, it wasn't much different from being shares of stock.

 

 

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 !!

 

Granted. Speculation is a funny thing. There were no doubt people who would have waffled. But...that was answered, in large part, or at least to a degree, by rationalizing thusly:

 

"I have 20 copies. If I sell a few now, I can make a profit, and still have some left over, just in case the market goes up. And, if I sell some now, at least I'll have made something in case the market goes down."

 

That's a powerful, powerful rationalization, even a subconscious one, which drove a lot of decisions. I know I've been in that situation many, many times myself. How many times have we heard dealers say "I bought this collection, and sold 5 of the books, which paid for the whole thing...the rest is gravy"? That's that same principle at work.

 

So, if someone had 20, or 10, or 5, and sold 10, or 5, or 3, they still did well, and still had a "hedge" against the future, whether that hedge was the copies they sold, or the copies they kept. And the copies they sold....got distributed to others, naturally.

 

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 disagree with your definition of "hoarder", as noted above. True hoarders, the "rational people don't hoard in the first place" people that you describe, don't intend to sell EVER. They may be pushed to sell, by outside forces, but if they are the "not rational" people you describe, they aren't selling otherwise. And, of course, that doesn't describe ANYONE in this thread so far.

 

Otherwise, they're just speculating and stockpiling.

 

And I don't see the "vast numbers of hoarders" (whether they were true hoarders, or just long term speculators) buying this book, because of the way the book behaved.

 

X-Men #268 was a different type of book than ASM #361. It was a slow burn, and while, yes, at one point it was a $20 book...it took a year or more to get there.

 

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.

 

These weren't collectors buying multiples. They were speculators. There's a huge difference. Yes, I know that some of these speculators CALL themselves collectors, but if they intended to sell...whether in 20 minutes, or 20 years...they were not behaving as collectors, but as speculators, at least in that instance.

 

True collectors...even those who are hoarders...don't almost never sell that which they are collecting, rather than speculating on. That is the nature of a collector, much like the hoarder. And, really, what is a collector but someone who hoards to a degree? Is a collection of Daredevil #1-100 any different from 100 copies of ASM #361? Not from that aspect.

 

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.

 

 

It would. My anecdotal experience is that these collections always come in heavy on certain books (#362, 363, Wolverine #50, etc) and very light, if at all, on #361. This makes sense, naturally.

 

As well, due to pollution (people buying copies long after the fact, cherrypicking, etc.) it would be hard to nail down any specifics, but a general tendency can still be seen.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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?

 

Valiant was not more than an "independent" at the time of Harbinger #1 (orders placed in August of 1991), other than having Jim Shooter there. When orders for Harby #1 were due, Valiant had released exactly 9 superhero comic books: Solar #1-3, and Magnus #1-6.

 

Those are the Cap City numbers. Cap City was only ONE of Direct market distributors at that time, and only accounted for a portion of the market.

 

The number most widely reported is 48,000 of thereabouts, but only Valiant knows for sure.

 

---------

 

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.

 

McFarlane only did the cover to issue #423, and his Detective Comics #576-578 aren't listed.

 

Infinity Inc were "hot", because it was early Todd art. So was Hulk. Everything McFarlane was "hot." All Star Squadron #47 was hot, as was Coyote #11-14.

 

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

 

Groo was very hot in 1990. Don't know why. Maybe people just discovered how awesome it was. And it was, and is.

 

But that was the end of that.

[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.

 

Are they really making out like bandits, or are they simply making a little bit more profit after waiting 20 years? Of course, the little bit extra they are able to make now is largely enabled by things that did not exist when they purchased their copies. So it's really just blind luck then.

 

Excellent point. When you compare raw copies to raw copies, like to like, then nobody is making out like anything.

 

You've got raw prices for #361 essentially between $30-$45, with outliers on either side.

 

After you've factored in the cost to list, sell, Paypal, and ship, you're essentially down to about $30 net on average, and you had to store the books for 23+ years...when inflation, storage, and preservation costs are taken into account, you've actually lost money, compared to what you could have gotten 2-3 months after the book came out.

 

Not really what one might call a sound investment strategy.

 

 

[the blob]

As I detailed to Blob, that reason was MCFARLANE, NOT Venom.

------

 

Can you maybe possibly split the baby and say, maybe, $10-$15 of that extra value on 300 was venom, can you?

 

Hulk 390 (feb 1992 cover, so released earlier -- Venom & Spidey T-Shirt ad..venom is the only villian offered on any of the shirts

 

irrefutable evidence that venom was the most popular marvel villian ;-)

 

anyway, criminey, i wasn't even arguing about 361, you sucked me into that! i was more questioning the premise that the vast majority of people who bought multiples unloaded them when the book got hot. i'm still not buying your "human nature" argument because people do dumb things in hindsight like not unload a comic when it has gone up 2000%.

 

 

[the blob]

on an unrelated note, I picked up vthe entire infinity inc. mcfarlane run at NYCC in really nice shape, in mylars mostly, for under a buck a piece. probably no market for them, but that was cool. usually i just see a couple of issues here and there in dollar boxes.

[RockMyAmadeus]

As I detailed to Blob, that reason was MCFARLANE, NOT Venom.

------

 

Can you maybe possibly split the baby and say, maybe, $10-$15 of that extra value on 300 was venom, can you?

 

As I laid out before, it's impossible to "split the baby" and determine what percentage of "extra value" was due to this factor or that.

 

As I said...you have to look at it forensically. In 1991, what was listed as the 1st Venom? ASM #298. What was the value of #298 in the OPG? $32. What was the value of ASM #300? $32, with no mention of Venom.

 

In that ad, no mention of Venom. There WAS a mention of 1st Cable, even though NM #87 wasn't anywhere near as hot as it would become. And, of course, multiple instances of Punisher.

 

No Venom.

 

If I had them handy, I would browse through all the Updates and see where, in that year, Venom started to be mentioned. No single mention tells the whole story, but a picture emerges after a while. The market, as a whole, didn't have Venom on the mind, like they did with Punisher, Wolverine, and even Cable, to an extent. He just wasn't part of the gestalt yet. There's no doubt that individual fans were certainly thinking of him...but individual fans were also thinking of Quasar, the New Warriors, Typhoid Mary, Storm, Howard the Duck, and a whole host of other characters. Ok, maybe not Howard the Duck.

 

These things don't occur in a vacuum; there would have been mention of the character if what you are suggesting was true.

 

You have to look at what is there, and also what is NOT there, to get a clear idea of where the market was at the time.

 

Hulk 390 (feb 1992 cover, so released earlier -- Venom & Spidey T-Shirt ad..venom is the only villian offered on any of the shirts

 

irrefutable evidence that venom was the most popular marvel villian ;-)

 

anyway, criminey, i wasn't even arguing about 361, you sucked me into that! i was more questioning the premise that the vast majority of people who bought multiples unloaded them when the book got hot. i'm still not buying your "human nature" argument because people do dumb things in hindsight like not unload a comic when it has gone up 2000%.

 

 

That is acting contrary to one's financial interests, and as any watcher of Court TV tells you, it's very difficult to get people to act contrary to one's financial interests.

[RockMyAmadeus]

on an unrelated note, I picked up vthe entire infinity inc. mcfarlane run at NYCC in really nice shape, in mylars mostly, for under a buck a piece. probably no market for them, but that was cool. usually i just see a couple of issues here and there in dollar boxes.

 

It's true. The era of the "superstar artist" is over, at least for now.

 

It's all about characters, now, which is great in one sense....but I have long boxes full of McFarlane, Liefeld, Jim Lee, Portacio, Platt, Sam Kieth....

 

...all dead.

 

Will it stay that way forever...?

 

Who knows?

[mysterio]

 

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.

 

It's difficult to disagree with your basic premise, that people will act in their best interest. Of course they will. I think we just disagree on how they would or could have gone about that here.

 

I also think that theory is being transmogrified (love me some C & H) into effect in your argument. Basic economic principle is a set of theories to explain economic behavior, they are not proof of anything in and of themselves. One still needs to examine the behavior, not just trust that things proceeded as the theory says just because the theory says so. otherwise why do economists still have jobs? Can't we just apply basic common sense to the rational actors in any economic situation and automatically know what did happen or what will happen?

 

Basic economic principle also does not rule out that a variety of responses to the price spike of #361 could and did happen, and these responses were due to a variety of rational economic decisions to maximize gain. Because that is what people do. At the time, there were opportunities to cash out, and many surely took them when they were there. Also, many surely did not, for a variety of reasons, including a lack of efficient selling venues and an expectation that value would continue to go ever higher in the long term. In this latter example, holding is the rational economic decision. The request for proof that people were selling was simply a reaction to your contention that there was apparently only one "most rational" (quotes mine, not yours) course of action for people holding multiples, when I simply don't think that is true. Selling is one of many rational responses to a price rise, and only when both parties are comfortable with the price.

 

The lack of #361s in collections in 1999 or 2005 or 2015 is also not necessarily indicative of selling out in the initial price spike. There was ample opportunity to have them cherry picked for sale or trade if folks had sat on multiples in the intervening 20+ years.

[the blob]

That is acting contrary to one's financial interests, and as any watcher of Court TV tells you, it's very difficult to get people to act contrary to one's financial interests.

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

 

I know, I know, no politics, but what about poor and lower middle class people voting re**pu-b**l__k****an? (or rich people voting for a bernie sanders type de_*_mokkrat?)

 

 

[valiantman]

I think the ASM 361 Print Run question has been answered, so let's have a visual intermission for the ASM 359 and ASM 360 precursors to "full Carnage".

 

 

Amazing Spider-Man #359 - Letters Page

 

 

 

 

Amazing Spider-Man #360 - Story Page

 

 

 

 

[Broke as a Joke]

That last page of 359 is unique. To show the cover to a book which is not the next issue is something I don't believe I can recall happening back then. The hype was real. ASM readers certainly would have had the jump on 361's breakout potential.

[the blob]

but by the time they read 359 was it too late to order a badjillion extras?

 

nobody is arguing that people weren't running around trying to buy 15 copies when it came out. we have the pictures here to prove it! that just means 15 other people couldn't get a copy then at cover price.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

It's difficult to disagree with your basic premise, that people will act in their best interest. Of course they will. I think we just disagree on how they would or could have gone about that here.

 

I also think that theory is being transmogrified (love me some C & H) into effect in your argument. Basic economic principle is a set of theories to explain economic behavior, they are not proof of anything in and of themselves. One still needs to examine the behavior, not just trust that things proceeded as the theory says just because the theory says so. otherwise why do economists still have jobs? Can't we just apply basic common sense to the rational actors in any economic situation and automatically know what did happen or what will happen?

 

Those theories are developed by observing human behavior. The behavior, not the theory that explains it, comes first. The theories develop because of observation of real life, actual activity. In other words people already behaved in the manner that the theory describes.

 

And if direct, scientific observation and analysis of the behavior of multitudes isn't proof, what is? Others in this thread keep talking about how "testimony" is valid...why, then, is not the scientific analysis of the observed behavior of millions of people not moreso...?

 

Basic economic principle also does not rule out that a variety of responses to the price spike of #361 could and did happen, and these responses were due to a variety of rational economic decisions to maximize gain.

 

I am not, as I have stated many times, talking about individual responses. I am talking about what generally occurred, and always have been.

 

That there are a "variety of responses" doesn't negate what generally occurred. Of course there are a variety of responses. That's what the "bell curve" is all about, for example.

 

But there is a "statistical mean" which most people fall into, and I am arguing that that statistical mean is that this book traded hands more frequently because of its rapid increase in value than others of like time period.

 

In other words: it got distributed far and wide.

 

That doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions to that statistical mean. After all, if you roll a die, you WILL get 1s, 2s, 5,s and 6s, but the statistical mean is 3.5. That doesn't negate the 1s, 2s, 5s, and 6s, as if they didn't happen...but they are not the statistical mean, the expected value.

 

By that same token, that doesn't mean that there weren't people who bought multiples and held onto them, contrary to the rapid rise in price. No one has said, or is saying, that, despite the quite confrontational protestations of some.

 

It just means that that is not what tended to happen.

 

Because that is what people do. At the time, there were opportunities to cash out, and many surely took them when they were there. Also, many surely did not, for a variety of reasons, including a lack of efficient selling venues and an expectation that value would continue to go ever higher in the long term. In this latter example, holding is the rational economic decision. The request for proof that people were selling was simply a reaction to your contention that there was apparently only one "most rational" (quotes mine, not yours) course of action for people holding multiples, when I simply don't think that is true. Selling is one of many rational responses to a price rise, and only when both parties are comfortable with the price.

 

I don't disagree with any of that, and haven't said anything to the contrary, except here: there is ALWAYS only one "most rational" course of action to take, by the definition of the phrase "most rational"...but what that course is is not set in stone. It depends on circumstances and motivations. "One of many" rational responses does not mean that there isn't one that is better than the rest, in almost all (if not all) cases.

 

I'll say it again: if you're buying multiples in the hopes of making a profit (however one defines "profit"), then the most rational course is to sell when the market is hot...not sit on them.

 

As I said before, "lack of efficient selling venues" was clearly not that great an obstacle, or people wouldn't have been buying multiples as readily as they did (and we know that this was the case...literally....non-dealers buying by the caseload, waiting for "the next big thing.")

 

Were there people who bought multiple copies and did not sell "at the height" in the hopes that the book would go higher?

 

And when the market started to falter, what then?

 

Did they hope it would come back? Of course. And some of those people, no doubt, deluded themselves all the way to the bottom, convinced that things would turn around eventually.

 

Obviously, some of them, like gamblers saying "if I play just one more hand, it'll all come back to me!", did so. But the tendency would be to get out while the getting was good, and that is what people tend to do.

 

And, of course, there would have also been a lot of people who distributed copies (ie, "cashed out"), on the way UP, too. The future is not knowable. No one knew for SURE that this book would be $25 in two months. But hey, it was $8 now, and that's a pretty good return, so I'll take it.

 

On the upward track, there are ALWAYS more buyers than sellers, because that's why it's on the upward track...supply is not sufficient for the demand. Therefore, it was an EASY SALE at $5, $8, $10, etc, and that ease of sale was attractive to flippers. Showing up at a local store with your 20 copies, when people are clamoring for the book, and the retailer cannot keep them in stock is going to get you an easier transaction for those 20 copies.

 

Because of the nature of this book, and the handful of others like it, pressure would have been exerted at a faster and higher rate, which would have led more people to "cash out", thus resulting in wide® distribution than other comics of the period.

 

"But, if I wait just a little longer, it will go higher!" - Some surely thought that. But, the moment there was price resistance, as there always is, these "flippers" would start to dump.

 

And, as I said before, leveraging was happening on a significant scale, too.

 

None of that changes the basic premise: because the book behaved in a special way, it got distributed much further and wider than it otherwise would have been (see Wolverine #50, et al.)

 

There are no numbers to "prove" this. That's like asking 'how many shares of Coca-Cola did Fred Thompson buy and sell in the summer of 1947?" Only Fred Thompson knows that answer. Asking for "proof" of those numbers, then, and then saying "well, YOU always ask for PROOF, and you CAN'T, so, therefore, your entire argument is INVALID!" is a petulant, knee-jerk reaction by some in this thread.

 

The lack of #361s in collections in 1999 or 2005 or 2015 is also not necessarily indicative of selling out in the initial price spike. There was ample opportunity to have them cherry picked for sale or trade if folks had sat on multiples in the intervening 20+ years.

 

Here's what I said earlier:

 

As well, due to pollution (people buying copies long after the fact, cherrypicking, etc.) it would be hard to nail down any specifics, but a general tendency can still be seen.

 

That was posted a few posts before yours. You're saying the same things I'm saying. It's not necessarily indicative...but it's not "not", either. And individual collections are not proof, true. However...when many of these collections are observed, patterns start to emerge, and it is from those patterns that you can make some broad generalizations, looking at context, which is critical.

 

For example: if a collection has multiple copies of #362 and #363, it is not likely that those books were picked up "after the fact", long after those books were dead. It's possible, but not likely. After all...just like everyone wants "the hot book", nobody wants "the dead book." And those books have been dead since the initial price spike, and are barely worth the cost to slab today...which doesn't mean they wouldn't be; obviously, they have been in very large numbers.

 

So, if you observe a collection with multiple copies of #362 and #363, it's more likely than not that those were bought at the time of release (setting aside random, non-focused "collections" that aren't collections, but rather happenstance massings of books.)

 

And if these collections contain multiple copies of #362 and/or #363, but few(er) or no copies of #361, that says something. No one collection tells the story...but a lot of them together, and the picture fills in a little more. That doesn't mean that the #361s weren't cherrypicked long after the fact....but their "deadness" until the last couple of years has fairly well ensured that even cherrypicking wasn't going to be done on too great a scale.

 

This is especially true if the collection is "original owner" (which lost much of its meaning in the early 90's, but the understanding still works), and that owner did not sell anything in the intervening years...a relatively common occurrence. Again, not proof...but over time, that pattern emerges.

 

Many collections, with few(er) or no #361s, relative to #362 and/or #363, and you start to see something.

 

And, of course, that assumes these collections ever had 361s to begin with, which isn't necessarily the case, either!

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

but by the time they read 359 was it too late to order a badjillion extras?

 

Generally, yes. Orders for #361 would have been due right around the time of #359's release.

 

It would have influenced some, but in what amount is impossible to say.

[showcase22gr1959]

but by the time they read 359 was it too late to order a badjillion extras?

 

nobody is arguing that people weren't running around trying to buy 15 copies when it came out. we have the pictures here to prove it! that just means 15 other people couldn't get a copy then at cover price.

 

Comics stores can still re-order and upped their numbers since it's two months away. Hence, that's why some dealers were able to speculate on this early.

[mysterio]

 

It's difficult to disagree with your basic premise, that people will act in their best interest. Of course they will. I think we just disagree on how they would or could have gone about that here.

 

I also think that theory is being transmogrified (love me some C & H) into effect in your argument. Basic economic principle is a set of theories to explain economic behavior, they are not proof of anything in and of themselves. One still needs to examine the behavior, not just trust that things proceeded as the theory says just because the theory says so. otherwise why do economists still have jobs? Can't we just apply basic common sense to the rational actors in any economic situation and automatically know what did happen or what will happen?

 

Those theories are developed by observing human behavior. The behavior, not the theory that explains it, comes first. The theories develop because of observation of real life, actual activity. In other words people already behaved in the manner that the theory describes.

 

And if direct, scientific observation and analysis of the behavior of multitudes isn't proof, what is? Others in this thread keep talking about how "testimony" is valid...why, then, is not the scientific analysis of the observed behavior of millions of people not moreso...?

 

Basic economic principle also does not rule out that a variety of responses to the price spike of #361 could and did happen, and these responses were due to a variety of rational economic decisions to maximize gain.

 

I am not, as I have stated many times, talking about individual responses. I am talking about what generally occurred, and always have been.

 

That there are a "variety of responses" doesn't negate what generally occurred. Of course there are a variety of responses. That's what the "bell curve" is all about, for example.

 

But there is a "statistical mean" which most people fall into, and I am arguing that that statistical mean is that this book traded hands more frequently because of its rapid increase in value than others of like time period.

 

In other words: it got distributed far and wide.

 

That doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions to that statistical mean. After all, if you roll a die, you WILL get 1s, 2s, 5,s and 6s, but the statistical mean is 3.5. That doesn't negate the 1s, 2s, 5s, and 6s, as if they didn't happen...but they are not the statistical mean, the expected value.

 

By that same token, that doesn't mean that there weren't people who bought multiples and held onto them, contrary to the rapid rise in price. No one has said, or is saying, that, despite the quite confrontational protestations of some.

 

It just means that that is not what tended to happen.

 

Because that is what people do. At the time, there were opportunities to cash out, and many surely took them when they were there. Also, many surely did not, for a variety of reasons, including a lack of efficient selling venues and an expectation that value would continue to go ever higher in the long term. In this latter example, holding is the rational economic decision. The request for proof that people were selling was simply a reaction to your contention that there was apparently only one "most rational" (quotes mine, not yours) course of action for people holding multiples, when I simply don't think that is true. Selling is one of many rational responses to a price rise, and only when both parties are comfortable with the price.

 

I don't disagree with any of that, and haven't said anything to the contrary, except here: there is ALWAYS only one "most rational" course of action to take, by the definition of the phrase "most rational"...but what that course is is not set in stone. It depends on circumstances and motivations. "One of many" rational responses does not mean that there isn't one that is better than the rest, in almost all (if not all) cases.

 

I'll say it again: if you're buying multiples in the hopes of making a profit (however one defines "profit"), then the most rational course is to sell when the market is hot...not sit on them.

 

As I said before, "lack of efficient selling venues" was clearly not that great an obstacle, or people wouldn't have been buying multiples as readily as they did (and we know that this was the case...literally....non-dealers buying by the caseload, waiting for "the next big thing.")

 

Were there people who bought multiple copies and did not sell "at the height" in the hopes that the book would go higher?

 

And when the market started to falter, what then?

 

Did they hope it would come back? Of course. And some of those people, no doubt, deluded themselves all the way to the bottom, convinced that things would turn around eventually.

 

Obviously, some of them, like gamblers saying "if I play just one more hand, it'll all come back to me!", did so. But the tendency would be to get out while the getting was good, and that is what people tend to do.

 

And, of course, there would have also been a lot of people who distributed copies (ie, "cashed out"), on the way UP, too. The future is not knowable. No one knew for SURE that this book would be $25 in two months. But hey, it was $8 now, and that's a pretty good return, so I'll take it.

 

On the upward track, there are ALWAYS more buyers than sellers, because that's why it's on the upward track...supply is not sufficient for the demand. Therefore, it was an EASY SALE at $5, $8, $10, etc, and that ease of sale was attractive to flippers. Showing up at a local store with your 20 copies, when people are clamoring for the book, and the retailer cannot keep them in stock is going to get you an easier transaction for those 20 copies.

 

Because of the nature of this book, and the handful of others like it, pressure would have been exerted at a faster and higher rate, which would have led more people to "cash out", thus resulting in wide® distribution than other comics of the period.

 

"But, if I wait just a little longer, it will go higher!" - Some surely thought that. But, the moment there was price resistance, as there always is, these "flippers" would start to dump.

 

And, as I said before, leveraging was happening on a significant scale, too.

 

None of that changes the basic premise: because the book behaved in a special way, it got distributed much further and wider than it otherwise would have been (see Wolverine #50, et al.)

 

There are no numbers to "prove" this. That's like asking 'how many shares of Coca-Cola did Fred Thompson buy and sell in the summer of 1947?" Only Fred Thompson knows that answer. Asking for "proof" of those numbers, then, and then saying "well, YOU always ask for PROOF, and you CAN'T, so, therefore, your entire argument is INVALID!" is a petulant, knee-jerk reaction by some in this thread.

 

The lack of #361s in collections in 1999 or 2005 or 2015 is also not necessarily indicative of selling out in the initial price spike. There was ample opportunity to have them cherry picked for sale or trade if folks had sat on multiples in the intervening 20+ years.

 

Here's what I said earlier:

 

As well, due to pollution (people buying copies long after the fact, cherrypicking, etc.) it would be hard to nail down any specifics, but a general tendency can still be seen.

 

That was posted a few posts before yours. You're saying the same things I'm saying. It's not necessarily indicative...but it's not "not", either. And individual collections are not proof, true. However...when many of these collections are observed, patterns start to emerge, and it is from those patterns that you can make some broad generalizations, looking at context, which is critical.

 

For example: if a collection has multiple copies of #362 and #363, it is not likely that those books were picked up "after the fact", long after those books were dead. It's possible, but not likely. After all...just like everyone wants "the hot book", nobody wants "the dead book." And those books have been dead since the initial price spike, and are barely worth the cost to slab today...which doesn't mean they wouldn't be; obviously, they have been in very large numbers.

 

So, if you observe a collection with multiple copies of #362 and #363, it's more likely than not that those were bought at the time of release (setting aside random, non-focused "collections" that aren't collections, but rather happenstance massings of books.)

 

And if these collections contain multiple copies of #362 and/or #363, but few(er) or no copies of #361, that says something. No one collection tells the story...but a lot of them together, and the picture fills in a little more. That doesn't mean that the #361s weren't cherrypicked long after the fact....but their "deadness" until the last couple of years has fairly well ensured that even cherrypicking wasn't going to be done on too great a scale.

 

This is especially true if the collection is "original owner" (which lost much of its meaning in the early 90's, but the understanding still works), and that owner did not sell anything in the intervening years...a relatively common occurrence. Again, not proof...but over time, that pattern emerges.

 

Many collections, with few(er) or no #361s, relative to #362 and/or #363, and you start to see something.

 

And, of course, that assumes these collections ever had 361s to begin with, which isn't necessarily the case, either!

 

Yeah, I think at this point I'm arguing that you can fit 100 angels on the head of a pin, and you're arguing 99.

[showcase22gr1959]

I think the ASM 361 Print Run question has been answered, so let's have a visual intermission for the ASM 359 and ASM 360 precursors to "full Carnage".

 

 

Amazing Spider-Man #359 - Letters Page

 

 

 

 

Amazing Spider-Man #360 - Story Page

 

 

 

 

Nice Image. Amazing Spiderman 360 is like a Hulk 180.