...Conan #3-"Limited" or "Lower Distribution"-Effect on Current Prices? 1 1

[picon3]

I am looking at picking up a copy of Conan #3.  This is one of the books I recall having as a kid and now that I’m reliving my childhood, I’ve been doing some research on this book.  I recall way back in the 1970s that this book was always listed as having “limited” or “lower” distribution in some areas and the presumption at the time was it was a harder book to find.  We’ll now with the internet, I can clearly see that it is not hard to find (except in CGC 9.8), and it even appears to be more plentiful than Conan #2 based upon a cursory assessment of what is currently available to buy.  I did some looking back through the board threads and found this from 2003.  Is there anything new on this topic?  Moreover, why would something that dates back to the 1970s in regards to distribution issues, now impact the price of the book currently?  #3 always brings more than #2 for comparable books, but I see no reason why.  Thanks as always, Paul~

Edited May 3, 2018 by picon3
added line about cursory assessment

[jaeldubyoo]

I blame Overstreet.

[N e r V]

It’s a great cover either way. I picked up a couple of HG copies a couple years ago. Like everything else Conan is going up in the back issue market but copies of #3 aren’t exactly cost prohibitive by any means.

 

 

#2 is nice too but I’m not sure if it’s available “less” than #3 or any other issue.

 

 

Either way it’s a great series to collect. Don’t forget about adding Savage Tales mags and the Chamber of Darkness #4 try out to your set.

 

For that matter think about adding some of the original pulp stories...

 

 

[HouseofComics.Com]

I love so many of the early Conan stories but #3 is my favorite.

[Ken Aldred]

5 hours ago, HouseofComics.Com said:

I love so many of the early Conan stories but #3 is my favorite.

The sad ones are often quite memorable.

[lou_fine]

On 5/1/2018 at 9:26 AM, jaeldubyoo said:

I blame Overstreet.

From personal experience, I would agree 100% with you that it is totally Overstreet's fault here.

I remember attending a local comic convention here way back in the day and I was trying to decide between a HG copy of Conan 3 and a HG copy of FF 11 since they were both going for around the same price.  Being the total  that I was then, I decided to to go with the Conan 3 in order to fill the missing gap in my BWS Conan's thinking that it would be tougher to find than the FF 11 given Overstreet's note on this book which he still has to this day in his guide.    I also figured that going forward, who would really want an issue of FF that was noted for featuring Willie Lumpkin the mailman more than anything else.   

The only saving grace was that I was able to pick up 2 copies of X-Men 94 at the same convention.  And the only reason for that was that I had paid a whole dollar for the first copy and then saw another equally minty fresh copy for only 25 cents on my way out the door.  Feeling that I had just gotten totally ripped off   , I decided I better lower my breakeven cost by picking up the second one just in case I ever got around to selling them one day. 

[picon3]

Thanks to all who have posted.  It does seem as if this all extends back to Bob Overstreet's Price Guide listing in the 1970s. 

A bit more research on line yielded this more recent article by Mike Huddleston in March 31, 2016.    http://www.comicbookdaily.com/collecting-community/overvalued-overstreet/overvalued-overstreet-conan-3/

Paul~

[HouseofComics.Com]

5 hours ago, lou_fine said:

From personal experience, I would agree 100% with you that it is totally Overstreet's fault here.

I remember attending a local comic convention here way back in the day and I was trying to decide between a HG copy of Conan 3 and a HG copy of FF 11 since they were both going for around the same price.  Being the total  that I was then, I decided to to go with the Conan 3 in order to fill the missing gap in my BWS Conan's thinking that it would be tougher to find than the FF 11 given Overstreet's note on this book which he still has to this day in his guide.    I also figured that going forward, who would really want an issue of FF that was noted for featuring Willie Lumpkin the mailman more than anything else.   

The only saving grace was that I was able to pick up 2 copies of X-Men 94 at the same convention.  And the only reason for that was that I had paid a whole dollar for the first copy and then saw another equally minty fresh copy for only 25 cents on my way out the door.  Feeling that I had just gotten totally ripped off   , I decided I better lower my breakeven cost by picking up the second one just in case I ever got around to selling them one day. 

What a great story all around!

[Brian48]

I never noticed any real scarcity with #3 either since I started collecting again back in 2011.  Back in the day though (late '70s/early '80s), all Smith Conans were tough in that pre-internet era so you really couldn't tell one way or the other. 

Issue #3 is a great story so I wouldn't be surprised that it's a more popular book than #2.  Maybe the notation should change to "first REH story adaptation in comics"? 

It's too bad Conan and the genre in general has gone down so low in popularity.  My guess is that times have changed and the character might be a bit too misogynistic for mainstream tastes.  The last [awful] Conan movie didn't make things better either.  Dark Horse did a really superb job with the character, but interest is still limited to core fans.  Let's hope the move back to Marvel gives the character a boost. 

In the meantime, it's a great buyer's market even though prices have gone up slightly in the last couple of years.  I completed my high grade Smith run (to include the magazines) in less than year.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Brian48

[Jordysnordy]

On 5/3/2018 at 10:36 AM, Brian48 said:

I never noticed any real scarcity with #3 either since I started collecting again back in 2011.  Back in the day though (late '70s/early '80s), all Smith Conans were tough in that pre-internet era so you really couldn't tell one way or the other. 

Issue #3 is a great story so I wouldn't be surprised that it's a more popular book than #2.  Maybe the notation should change to "first REH story adaptation in comics"? 

It's too bad Conan and the genre in general has gone down so low in popularity.  My guess is that times have changed and the character might be a bit too misogynistic for mainstream tastes.  The last [awful] Conan movie didn't make things better either.  Dark Horse did a really superb job with the character, but interest is still limited to core fans.  Let's hope the move back to Marvel gives the character a boost. 

In the meantime, it's a great buyer's market even though prices have gone up slightly in the last couple of years.  I completed my high grade Smith run (to include the magazines) in less than year.

+1 I really enjoyed what Dark Horse did with Conan, they really did him justice and I’m hoping Marvel can continue where Dark Horse left off but I’m not too optimistic. I can see how the term wenches isn’t endearing in today’s society so Conan probably won’t have a huge following like he did with Marvel in the 70s. Misogynistic applies well to Conan. I just finished rewatching Star Drek DS9 and the Ferengis - talk about misogynistic - I can’t imagine they would be in any reboot  - PC they are not.

[divad]

3 hours ago, Jordysnordy said:

+1 I really enjoyed what Dark Horse did with Conan, they really did him justice and I’m hoping Marvel can continue where Dark Horse left off but I’m not too optimistic. I can see how the term wenches isn’t endearing in today’s society so Conan probably won’t have a huge following like he did with Marvel in the 70s. Misogynistic applies well to Conan. I just finished rewatching Star Drek DS9 and the Ferengis - talk about misogynistic - I can’t imagine they would be in any reboot  - PC they are not.

If you are going to write a book about barbarians . . . they better behave like barbarians.  Or what's the point???

 

[N e r V]

I could be wrong but it seems the demand has  picked up on some of Conan books at least. It seems both Conan #1 and Savage Tales #1 move faster and higher in the past year or so than I remember. I do think the books are still a bargain though as a whole but in this age of jumping prices and classic covers separating themselves from the crowd I wouldn’t be surprised to see Conan see an uptick in prices and #3 enjoy its place as a great cover and story adaptation if not “scarce”. The series is to good to waste away for long.

[Crimebuster]

One interesting note on this. In one of the Conan TPB, Roy Thomas recounts the beginnings of the series, and he says that while sales were initially pretty good, they slid fairly quickly and steadily. He said that each issue of the run had a sales decline from the previous issue, until Stan suggested they change up the cover material with #8. Starting with #8, sales began to go back up again and the series became a hit.

So, based on this, it seems as though the rarest of the early Conan issues should actually be #7. 

[Jeffro.]

3 hours ago, Crimebuster said:

One interesting note on this. In one of the Conan TPB, Roy Thomas recounts the beginnings of the series, and he says that while sales were initially pretty good, they slid fairly quickly and steadily. He said that each issue of the run had a sales decline from the previous issue, until Stan suggested they change up the cover material with #8. Starting with #8, sales began to go back up again and the series became a hit.

I'm curious what this cover change could have been between 7 and 8. I'm looking at both right now and I don't see a marked or obvious difference. 

[Brian48]

Stan recommended that Conan stop fighting monsters on the cover all the time and show him fighting other men instead, bringing him down to earth more and looking less one dimensional.   Starting with issue #8, this sort of happened with the skeletal guards. 

[N e r V]

1 hour ago, Jerkfro said:

I'm curious what this cover change could have been between 7 and 8. I'm looking at both right now and I don't see a marked or obvious difference. 

I don’t either. Issues #1-7 have a mix of him fighting monsters and men (or human like if you prefer). Right after #8’s skeletons you have #9-11 with him back fighting monsters again until issues #12 men. If that was the reason I’m not seeing the logic Roy followed afterwards.

[N e r V]

On 5/2/2018 at 5:38 PM, picon3 said:

Thanks to all who have posted.  It does seem as if this all extends back to Bob Overstreet's Price Guide listing in the 1970s. 

A bit more research on line yielded this more recent article by Mike Huddleston in March 31, 2016.    http://www.comicbookdaily.com/collecting-community/overvalued-overstreet/overvalued-overstreet-conan-3/

Paul~

I could see that story happening my only problem is it’s from Chuckie at Mile High and reading through his “I know better” wording always makes me wonder how much truth is in anything coming out of his mouth. 

[N e r V]

This part of the “Fooling Bob Overstreet” article is hilarious if you ever bought anything from him.

 

“preferring instead to concentrate my efforts (as I do today) on creating a back issue service for fans looking for relatively inexpensive comics.”

 

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by N e r V

[Crimebuster]

Regarding the cover change, Roy said that Stan told him there were too many animals on the covers - spider, tiger, bat, snake from #4-7. So with #8, they started leaning more towards humans/humanoids?

I don't know if there's any actual correlation between this edict and the sales figures, but Roy thought so. Either way, #7 apparently had the lowest sales of the early run according to Roy. 

[picon3]

Here's a scan of the actual page from Chronicles of Conan Volume 1 by Dark Horse 2003 in which Roy discusses this.  I guess if this is true, I'm still not exactly sure why Conan #3 commands a premium in today's market versus any of the other issues around it other than #1 which makes more sense to me because it is the first appearance, etc.  Paul~