Newsstand Comics Question 1 1

[valiantman]

2 hours ago, Martin Sinescu said:

Yes, it's safe to say a chart with "more" and "less" up the y-axis was made as a simplistic illustration to help people understand the generally-accepted downward trend of newsstands over the years and it is based on no concrete information as there has never been any data as fas as I'm aware from either of the big two regarding the newsstand/direct split. Even between the big two, their numbers would look different since DC continued long after Marvel stopped.

What's relevant today for those of us that are UPC Chasers is how many of each have survived and are available in high grade. As a few of us have said ad nauseam here, if CGC had or would at some point begin differentiating these versions, then census numbers and GPA data could give us some tangible stats rather than relying on conjecture and occasional sales. But, oh well....

 

Collectors are hearing/reading "newsstands can be tougher to find in high grade" and then applying that statement to their 1979-1983 comics.  This chart helps correct that problem.  There's a 50/50 split somewhere around the mid-1980s, and the chart shows that.  By the mid-1990s, it would be nearly impossible to find a book that's more common in newsstand than direct.  The chart shows that, too.  It's simplistic, but simple answers are what's needed first.

Edited March 30, 2018 by valiantman

[Peshka]

For someone who doesn't live anywhere near a comics shop, Newsstand copies were the only ones available.

So I never got to see all those 'bonus' artwork Mcfarlane put inside the UPC box during his ASM run until many years later when I finally got the direct editions.

[Martin Sinescu]

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

Collectors are hearing/reading "newsstands can be tougher to find in high grade" and then applying that statement to their 1979-1983 comics.  This chart helps correct that problem.  There's a 50/50 split somewhere around the mid-1980s, and the chart shows that.  By the mid-1990s, it would be nearly impossible to find a book that's more common in newsstand than direct.  The chart shows that, too.  It's simplistic, but simple answers are what's needed first.

Agree that they should become harder to find as the general production dwindled, but I've actually found it to be true that they are tough to find in high grade across the board, even for those early days (in spite of the fact that the early 80's numbers "should" be in their favor).

[valiantman]

23 minutes ago, Martin Sinescu said:

3 hours ago, valiantman said:

Collectors are hearing/reading "newsstands can be tougher to find in high grade" and then applying that statement to their 1979-1983 comics.  This chart helps correct that problem.  There's a 50/50 split somewhere around the mid-1980s, and the chart shows that.  By the mid-1990s, it would be nearly impossible to find a book that's more common in newsstand than direct.  The chart shows that, too.  It's simplistic, but simple answers are what's needed first.

Agree that they should become harder to find as the general production dwindled, but I've actually found it to be true that they are tough to find in high grade across the board, even for those early days (in spite of the fact that the early 80's numbers "should" be in their favor).

Interesting! 

[Lazyboy]

9 hours ago, Martin Sinescu said:

Yes, it's safe to say a chart with "more" and "less" up the y-axis was made as a simplistic illustration to help people understand the generally-accepted downward trend of newsstands over the years and it is based on no concrete information as there has never been any data as fas as I'm aware from either of the big two regarding the newsstand/direct split. Even between the big two, their numbers would look different since DC continued long after Marvel stopped.

My main point was that the chart reflects distribution numbers, not print numbers like valiantman said.

While we don't have complete or perfect numbers, we do have some numbers. I have mentioned this before.

9 hours ago, Martin Sinescu said:

What's relevant today for those of us that are UPC Chasers is how many of each have survived and are available in high grade.

Survival and availability, in any grade, are two very different things.

9 hours ago, Martin Sinescu said:

As a few of us have said ad nauseam here, if CGC had or would at some point begin differentiating these versions, then census numbers and GPA data could give us some tangible stats rather than relying on conjecture and occasional sales. But, oh well....

 

Yeah, they should have done that from the start. You certainly aren't going to see me arguing against precise labeling.

The problem with starting to acknowledge them now is that certain people will - and do, since CGC does now inconsistently recognize some regular Newsstand editions - say "Hey, look! There are only 3 newsstand copies on the census! That's superultramegarare!" as they ignore the fact that 99% of the copies were submitted before the differentiation. It creates a false perception that will always be at least slightly skewed.

[valiantman]

1 minute ago, Lazyboy said:

My main point was that the chart reflects distribution numbers, not print numbers like valiantman said.

The chart does not have enough specifics for you to be sure about that.

[Martin Sinescu]

7 hours ago, valiantman said:

Interesting! 

Just keep that between us, though 

4 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

My main point was that the chart reflects distribution numbers, not print numbers like valiantman said.

While we don't have complete or perfect numbers, we do have some numbers. I have mentioned this before.

Survival and availability, in any grade, are two very different things.

Yeah, they should have done that from the start. You certainly aren't going to see me arguing against precise labeling.

The problem with starting to acknowledge them now is that certain people will - and do, since CGC does now inconsistently recognize some regular Newsstand editions - say "Hey, look! There are only 3 newsstand copies on the census! That's superultramegarare!" as they ignore the fact that 99% of the copies were submitted before the differentiation. It creates a false perception that will always be at least slightly skewed.

Yeah, your last point is absolutely true, there's some creeps in this hobby that will take advantage of it. For one, I think the potential reholders for CGC of folks wanting the updated info on their label could help shift the balance slightly toward a more accurate census. Another thing they could consider is a modifier in the census which could say **designation added 4/2018** for that block of data. so at least it will give those unfamiliar the heads-up that its a more recent addition and the numbers will be in their infancy.

[Lazyboy]

6 hours ago, valiantman said:

The chart does not have enough specifics for you to be sure about that.

If the chart is supposed to reflect distribution numbers, it's a vague generalization which is somewhat misleading. If the chart is supposed to reflect print numbers, it's just wrong. Print numbers being equal by the mid-80s would mean ~0% sell-through of Newsstands at the time, which obviously did not happen.

This chart is better, but still far from perfect (hey, what do you expect from something I did in 3 minutes):

 

[valiantman]

14 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

If the chart is supposed to reflect distribution numbers, it's a vague generalization which is somewhat misleading. If the chart is supposed to reflect print numbers, it's just wrong. Print numbers being equal by the mid-80s would mean ~0% sell-through of Newsstands at the time, which obviously did not happen.

This chart is better, but still far from perfect (hey, what do you expect from something I did in 3 minutes):

 

Shouldn't the red line also plunge around 1994 when the blue line does?

[Lazyboy]

4 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Shouldn't the red line also plunge around 1994 when the blue line does?

Plunge? No. Drop more? Sure. Why didn't you ask if it should rise around 1991 instead of continuing its downward trajectory?

The red line obviously wouldn't be perfectly straight if it was based on actual industry data, but the decline of the Newsstand market was generally slow and steady.

[HarrisonJohn]

In the 70s/80's newsstands were usually sold on spinner racks, which left those books prone to damage. I remember I would never buy those when I saw them because they always looked beat up. My LCS always seemed to have a mix of both in their back issue stock.

Edited March 31, 2018 by HarrisonJohn

[valiantman]

16 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

Plunge? No. Drop more? Sure. Why didn't you ask if it should rise around 1991 instead of continuing its downward trajectory?

The red line obviously wouldn't be perfectly straight if it was based on actual industry data, but the decline of the Newsstand market was generally slow and steady.

My chart shows direct and newsstand relative to each other. Yours is somehow trying to incorporate the industry as a whole, but ignoring things that you don't find important, like newsstands dropping in step with direct after the boom (relative to each other), so you're making things barely-better by making the understandability of the chart worse.

I think the KISS principle applies here.

[Get Marwood & I]

30 minutes ago, valiantman said:

My chart shows direct and newsstand relative to each other. Yours is somehow trying to incorporate the industry as a whole, but ignoring things that you don't find important, like newsstands dropping in step with direct after the boom (relative to each other), so you're making things barely-better by making the understandability of the chart worse.

I think the KISS principle applies here.

Is that kiss as in "one more word Lazyboy and I'll give you a Glasgow kiss"? 

[Lazyboy]

48 minutes ago, valiantman said:

My chart shows direct and newsstand relative to each other. Yours is somehow trying to incorporate the industry as a whole, but ignoring things that you don't find important, like newsstands dropping in step with direct after the boom (relative to each other), so you're making things barely-better by making the understandability of the chart worse.

I think the KISS principle applies here.

Sorry, can you explain why you think a distribution channel that didn't quickly lose nearly all of its distributors and the majority of its retailers dropped in step with one that did?

The dates on your chart are garbage. Simple extrapolation implies that Newsstands ceased to exist by 2000 or so, which is very misleading.

[zosocane]

I only target a dozen or so Copper Age books for my collection, but I prefer them newsstand edition and will pay a 10% or so premium.