ASM "Whitman" copies being sold as variants - legal?

[ASM-completist]

Yup, still kicking myself.

[ASM-completist]

, man, be sure and be careful about your comments on these boards. I mentioned no names, handles, id's, etc.. and Samruby went ahead and put me on his blocked bidder list. All this even after successfully buying from him previously. In certain posts I even added praise, agreed with him on some topics, and I apologized in advance if any of my comments offended him as he indicated they did.

 

He blocked me nontheless.

 

Nice...

[Earl Davis]

I notice 4 months on, that more and more people are now calling these 'Whitman Variants'.

 

Earl.

[joe_collector]

Direct comics did not come with the blank UPC or Diamond price areas.

 

I've spoke to a few people that should know what they are talking about, having been involved in the distribution of direct copies and having bought them for stores, and they all say essentially the same thing:

 

"At that point in time, the only reason to have a blank UPC on a comic book was so that retail stores wouldn't ring in the single-issue price or break them out."

 

I also bought tons of those Whitman reprint bags, and even have a few intact, and they all fit the mold. Diamond price, no UPC, 1977-79 or so. Heck, even Chuck has them listed as Whitmans, and as much as I hate his prices, I have to admit the guy knows comics and their distribution history.

 

The earliest Direct copies I remember buying had the smaller diamond price and a UPC that was crossed out, similar to these:

 

 

it looks like this continues into early 1980, where the switch is made to a graphic in the UPC for Direct copies, initially an ASM head shot.

[joe_collector]

One other thing of note:

 

I read Sulipa's comments, and that would suggest he's saying there are ABSOLUTELY NO Marvel Whitman variants, since NONE of the alleged comic book variants has a Whitman logo. None. So I guess Sulipa is saying that Marvel Whitman variants/editions/etc. simply DO NOT EXIST.

 

I submit for evidence a well-known set of Whitman variants (even noted by OS) that were NOT some dealer's left-overs, and were NOT repackaged Direct copies, but a very popular and (even today) common Whitman 3-pack that includes ASM 192, 193, and 194.

 

 

It has an Amazing Spider-man logo on the front, and I myself purchased one in a K-Mart (or some 'mart) while on vacation. This is a definite Whitman edition of the comic, printed and marketed around those EXACT 3 issues, and those 3 comics were sold in serious bulk numbers throughout North America.

 

I'd like Sulipa to chew on that one.

[ASM-completist]

Joe - I don't get it. None of the comics in your Whitman bag have a Whitman logo on them, which is what Sulipa was saying.

[joe_collector]

Joe - I don't get it. None of the comics in your Whitman bag have a Whitman logo on them, which is what Sulipa was saying.

 

That's my point, I feel that that Sulipa is fulla crepe. If he's right, then there is NO, and have NEVER BEEN, any Marvel Whitman comic books in existence. Ever!

 

Do you see my point? NONE of the Marvel comics have a Whitman logo. None. So there are no Marvel Whitmans according to him - kinda Zen/Matrix thing with the spoon.

 

I disagree with that, and feel that Marvel Whitman comic books do exist. and I wonder if Doug really feels that there have NEVER been any Marvel Whitman comics?

[FFB]

Joe - I don't get it. None of the comics in your Whitman bag have a Whitman logo on them, which is what Sulipa was saying.

 

That's my point, I feel that that Sulipa is fulla crepe. If he's right, then there is NO, and have NEVER BEEN, any Marvel Whitman comic books in existence. Ever!

 

Do you see my point? NONE of the Marvel comics have a Whitman logo. None. So there are no Marvel Whitmans according to him - kinda Zen/Matrix thing with the spoon.

 

I disagree with that, and feel that Marvel Whitman comic books do exist.

 

What Sulipa says though is that lots of distributors and dealers were given empty Whitman bags to use to sell books in three-packs, and that leftover direct sale issues were just dropped into the bags, which were then sealed. The fact that your books are in a Whitman bag yet don't have Whitman logos is completely consistent with what Doug has been saying all along.

[joe_collector]

What Sulipa says though is that lots of distributors and dealers were given empty Whitman bags to use to sell books in three-packs, and that leftover direct sale issues were just dropped into the bags, which were then sealed. The fact that your books are in a Whitman bag yet don't have Whitman logos is completely consistent with what Doug has been saying all along.

 

Read the post, and go on EBay and buy one of those ASM packs.

 

Those are NOT left-over comics, and they are printed expressly for the purpose of the pre-pack. Are you really saying that all these ten's of thousands of retail packs were magically distributed by multiple dealers using the EXACT same ASM issues, and that the pre-packs were also labelled ASM and Whitman? Wow, what a monumental coincidence.

 

Come on, gimme a break.

 

What Sulipa is REALLY trying to say, is that just because you have a Whitman pre-pack DOES NOT automatically mean it's a pack of Whitman variants. This is due to the dealer thing you mention, but I don't imagine he worded it very well, as he actually stated that there are no Marvel Whitmans in existence, something I doubt he'd ever believe.

[FFB]

What Sulipa says though is that lots of distributors and dealers were given empty Whitman bags to use to sell books in three-packs, and that leftover direct sale issues were just dropped into the bags, which were then sealed. The fact that your books are in a Whitman bag yet don't have Whitman logos is completely consistent with what Doug has been saying all along.

 

Read the post, and go on EBay and buy one of those ASM packs.

 

Those are NOT left-over comics, and they are printed expressly for the purpose of the pre-pack. Are you really saying that all these ten's of thousands of retail packs were magically distributed by multiple dealers using the EXACT same ASM issues, and that the pre-packs were also labelled ASM and Whitman? Wow, what a monumental coincidence.

 

Come on, gimme a break.

 

What Sulipa is REALLY trying to say, is that just because you have a Whitman pre-pack DOES NOT automatically mean it's a pack of Whitman variants. This is due to the dealer thing you mention, but I don't imagine he worded it very well, as he actually stated that there are no Marvel Whitmans in existence, something I doubt he'd ever believe.

 

JC,

 

What proof is there that Marvel ever ran a separate press run for Whitman only? I've never seen any. It is well known that Whitman was Marvel's largest direct market distributor in the late 1970s. Does the fact that they marketed Marvel's direct market issues by selling them in bags of threes make the actual books any different?

 

There is no difference between a direct issue in a Whitman bag and a direct issue sold in a comic store. How is it a variant? Because of the polybag? If so, don't you see a little bit of irony in your position here, given your well-publicized feeling about Marvel's use of the polybag as a differentiating tool for its books in the early 1990s? If the bag is the only thing that makes a comic different, and if the polybag is not considered part of the comic, how is the comic a variant of a "regular" issue that was part of the same press run and is identical in all respects to the "variant"?

[ASM-completist]

As wdb23 pointed out much earlier in this topic, there were Marvel Comics printed WITH the Whitman logo on them. I think they were the Marvel treasury Editions.

 

My original point was simply that there are some people out there that are selling these things as variants, claiming that they are, whether falsely or intentionally. Buyers are unknowingly believing them and paying extra to own them. In fact, samruby recently did it AGAIN.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Amazing-Spider-Man-1...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

CGC does not recognize these comics as being Whitman variants on their labels. CGC does, however, indicate on their labels that a comic may be a variant (Dynamic Forces, $.30/$.35 price, etc.) I wonder what CGC's position is on the definition of variant? I would love to hear it.

 

This seller calls his second print a variant.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...bayphotohosting

 

And this seller calls his limited edition a variant.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/X-23-1-Limited-Editi...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

And this seller calls his convention edition a variant.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/SPIDER-MAN-HOUSE-OF-...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

And this seller calls his retailer incentive edition a variant.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...bayphotohosting

 

So it certainly is not limited to just sellers who call their comics Whitman variants. It applies to hundreds of sellers in thousands of auctions. The word "variant" is so vague that it is not even a keyword really. It only screws completists who think they have found something new that isn't and buyers who think they have found something rare/different that isn't when searching listings.

 

Why don't retailers simply take some issues, bag/seal them, put their store name on the bag, call them variants, and sell them for a premium? That is illegal you say? Is there a difference if someone buys an already-bagged comic, removes it from the bag, calls it a variant, and sells it for a premium? Maybe that analogy is a stretch, but you get the point.

[FFB]

As wdb23 pointed out much earlier in this topic, there were Marvel Comics printed WITH the Whitman logo on them. I think they were the Marvel treasury Editions.

 

My original point was simply that there are some people out there that are selling these things as variants, claiming that they are, whether falsely or intentionally. Buyers are unknowingly believing them and paying extra to own them. In fact, samruby recently did it AGAIN.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Amazing-Spider-Man-1...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

CGC does not recognize these comics as being Whitman variants on their labels. CGC does, however, indicate on their labels that a comic may be a variant (Dynamic Forces, $.30/$.35 price, etc.) I wonder what CGC's position is on the definition of variant? I would love to hear it.

 

This seller calls his second print a variant.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...bayphotohosting

 

And this seller calls his limited edition a variant.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/X-23-1-Limited-Editi...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

And this seller calls his convention edition a variant.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/SPIDER-MAN-HOUSE-OF-...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

And this seller calls his retailer incentive edition a variant.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...bayphotohosting

 

So it certainly is not limited to just sellers who call their comics Whitman variants. It applies to hundreds of sellers in thousands of auctions. The word "variant" is so vague that it is not even a keyword really. It only screws completists who think they have found something new that isn't and buyers who think they have found something rare/different that isn't when searching listings.

 

Why don't retailers simply take some issues, bag/seal them, put their store name on the bag, call them variants, and sell them for a premium? That is illegal you say? Is there a difference if someone buys an already-bagged comic, removes it from the bag, calls it a variant, and sells it for a premium? Maybe that analogy is a stretch, but you get the point.

 

How's that ASM#245 Bubblicious insert variant treating you, by the way?

[joe_collector]

As wdb23 pointed out much earlier in this topic, there were Marvel Comics printed WITH the Whitman logo on them.

 

Sorry, but you are dead wrong.

 

Whitman logos exist on some magazines and other large-size format editions, but I have never, ever, ever, ever seen a Marvel Whitman comic book with the Whitman logo.

 

Feel free to post one and prove me wrong.

[joe_collector]

What proof is there that Marvel ever ran a separate press run for Whitman only? I've never seen any.

 

What is the proof that Diamond Logo issues like ASM 165 were ever sold as Direct copies? I've never seen any.

 

I have also spoken to multiple dealers at the time, as well as people involved in the distribution process, and none state that direct editions with the Diamond logo were available at that time. The earliest any peg the move to "different Direct Edition covers" at is 1978-79 or so, or what many others on here (included old Overstreet quotes) have stated as well.

 

The Direct market itself started earlier, but remember, we are talking about the exact point in time where Marvel created a totally different cover design to handle the non-returnable status.

 

Everyone I've spoken to states it started in either 1978 or 1979, or well after many of these "Whitman Editions" were printed.

[FlyingDonut]

As wdb23 pointed out much earlier in this topic, there were Marvel Comics printed WITH the Whitman logo on them.

 

Sorry, but you are dead wrong.

 

Whitman logos exist on some magazines and other large-size format editions, but I have never, ever, ever, ever seen a Marvel Whitman comic book with the Whitman logo.

 

Feel free to post one and prove me wrong.

 

[joe_collector]

Man, some of you just cannot bother to read:

 

"Whitman logos exist on some magazines and other LARGE-SIZE FORMAT editions."

 

I'm talking about COMIC BOOKS, not magazines, treasuries, graphic novels, etc., but comic books.. like the ones that are in the 3-packs we're all talking about.

[Earl Davis]

Isn't a Treasury sized comic just a big 'comic book' just like the typical Marvel comic pamphlet is a thin ‘comic book’?

[joe_collector]

Isn't a Treasury sized comic just a big 'comic book' just like the typical Marvel comic pamphlet is a thin ‘comic book’?

 

Not at all, but even if you want to stretch the term "comic book" to include everything from Magazines to Treasury Editions to Fireside TPBs, it would still not impact our discussion.

 

This thread all revolves around those Whitman 3-packs from 1976-78 or so, and whether or not those were also sold to comics stores as Direct copies. And as far as I know, Treasury Editions were not folded up and stuffed in comic book-sized Whitman 3-packs.

[Earl Davis]

True. I just get a bit tetchy when the some people try and exclude something as not being a comic based solely on the size of the paper it’s printed on. This makes me something of a hypocrite as I try and exclude this based on the composition of the panels on the page when discussion Platinum Age stuff.

 

Anyway back to the ‘Whitman’ debate.

 

Earl.

[ASM-completist]

How's that ASM#245 Bubblicious insert variant treating you, by the way?

 

Great point!