Clairmont X Men/ Miller Daredevil question ?? 1 1

[sfcityduck]

The OP's question was "When did these books hit and become the it comics?"  It was NOT when did these comics top the sales charts.  They are two different things.

The OP's question is for comic collectors, not a question regarding newsstand sales.  Because in the 1970s those were two different things still.  

And the fan press on X-Men, as evidenced by the 1977 Comic Reader cover I posted, is reflective of the reputation Byrne had gained at Charlton and Marvel before going to X-Men.  He was a fan favorite artist, and joining X-Men made that EVEN MORE of a fan favorite book.  

X-Men 119 reflects, as mentioned up thread, an Eagle Award:

X-Men won the favorite comic award from the Eagle Award voters in 1977, 1978, 1979 (also best writer, artist and inker), etc.  As I said, it was a fan favorite early on.  The Eagles, by the way, started in early 1977, and the voting in 1977 was reflecting popularity for the 1976-1977 time period.  X-Men 98-100 were nominated for favorite continued story in the 1977 awards.

Did the fact the comic was a fan favorite impact overall newsstand sales in the late 70s?  Apparently not.  I suspect 7-11 and Safeway were not anywhere near as responsive to fan demand as the direct market would be.  But newsstand sales are a different issue than fan popularity (e.g. whether they were "it comics")..

RMA's analogy to Spawn is not a good one because Spawn came out in an entirely different time period, well after the direct market dominated and comic stores had proliferated.  The notion that sales stats are a better reflection of the "it comics" perceived by collectors than fan recollections and fan publications and fan awards is not at all scientific.  It is the opposite of the paradigm used by good social scientists and oral historians.

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

10 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I disagree with your analysis, your claims, and your conclusions, and have laid out my reasons why. Memories lie and fade; sales numbers and other hard data do not. Sales for X-Men went DOWN, both on average and for the issue nearest the reporting date, between 1977 and 1978, and moreover, TRENDED down in 1978.

I don't believe further dialogue between us, of any kind, will be beneficial to anyone.

See my above post.  Good historians do not ignore oral history, original texts, and the proper context.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

RMA's analogy to Spawn

Nobody said anything about Spawn.

As I said before, I completely disagree with your arguments, your claims, and your conclusions, and have no interest in arguing with you about anything. Please make your own points without referring to mine, and please don't make an issue out of this.

Thank you.

[delekkerste]

9 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

The OP's question was "When did these books hit and become the it comics?"  It was NOT when did these comics top the sales charts.  They are two different things.

The OP's question is for comic collectors, not a question regarding newsstand sales.  Because in the 1970s those were two different things still.  

And the fan press on X-Men, as evidenced by the 1977 Comic Reader cover I posted, is reflective of the reputation Byrne had gained at Charlton and Marvel before going to X-Men.  He was a fan favorite artist, and joining X-Men made that EVEN MORE of a fan favorite book.  

X-Men 119 reflects, as mentioned up thread, an Eagle Award:

X-Men won the favorite comic award from the Eagle Award voters in 1977, 1978, 1979 (also best writer, artist and inker), etc.  As I said, it was a fan favorite early on.  The Eagles, by the way, started in early 1977, and the voting in 1977 was reflecting popularity for the 1976-1977 time period.  X-Men 98-100 were nominated for favorite continued story in the 1977 awards.

Did the fact the comic was a fan favorite impact overall newsstand sales in the late 70s?  Apparently not.  I suspect 7-11 and Safeway were not anywhere near as responsive to fan demand as the direct market would be.  But newsstand sales are a different issue than fan popularity (e.g. whether they were "it comics")..

I am sympathetic to this line of reasoning, as I don't believe that sales figures always capture the whole story - outright sales could have dropped due to the overall market shrinking, bad economy, changes in distribution, price increases, changes or errors in tracking/calculation methodology, etc.  There are also explanations why a title might stay bi-monthly longer than otherwise justified by sales or "heat".   

I had a polite tete-a-tete with RMA a while back about when Wolverine became a breakout superstar in the Marvel Universe, and a lot of his arguments in favor for 1988 (I argued for at least 5 years earlier, though, I certainly don't wish to rehash the argument here) were similarly based on sales figures and editorial decisions (like why did Dazzler get a solo book before Wolverine), which I wouldn't completely discount, but, which I don't think tell the whole story, necessitating the consideration of things like fan awards, critical acclaim/press, back issue pricing, demand for sketches and signatures at conventions, and our memories about what people were actually thinking/feeling at the time (which can, like eyewitness testimony, often be flawed, though, they can also be spot on).  

Edited June 25, 2019 by delekkerste

[sfcityduck]

4 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Nobody said anything about Spawn.

 

Spawn, Venom, 90s drek is all Latin to me.

[sfcityduck]

50 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I am sympathetic to this line of reasoning, as I don't believe that sales figures always capture the whole story - outright sales could have dropped due to the overall market shrinking, bad economy, changes in distribution, price increases, changes or errors in tracking/calculation methodology, etc.  There are also explanations why a title might stay bi-monthly longer than otherwise justified by sales or "heat".   

I had a polite tete-a-tete with RMA a while back about when did Wolverine become a breakout superstar in the MCU, and a lot of his arguments in favor for 1988 (I argued for at least 5 years earlier, though, I certainly don't wish to rehash the argument here) were similarly based on sales figures and editorial decisions (like why did Dazzler get a solo book before Wolverine), which I wouldn't completely discount, but, which I don't think tell the whole story, necessitating the consideration of things like fan awards, critical acclaim/press, back issue pricing, demand for sketches and signatures at conventions, and our memories about what people were actually thinking/feeling at the time (which can, like eyewitness testimony, often be flawed, though, they can also be spot on).  

The fact that Dazzler was given a title before Wolverine says zero about the two characters' respective fan popularity.  It does say a lot about Marvel's marketing strategies, not much of it good.  Dazzler was an intentional ploy to create a movie exploiting the Disco era which never really took off, outlived its relevance, but which certain Marvel personnel could not let go of (misplaced hope in getting to Hollywood).  The only reason Dazzler 1 was so popular was because we were all suckers who thought that it would be the next GS X-Men 1 due to the fact it was direction market only, not because people loved the character (I don't know anyone who did).  We all learned a lesson about supply and demand.  

Your memories are much better evidence of Dazzler's true popularity vis a vis Wolverine.  Especially since, when it came to team books, back then the fan popularity of a character was not necessarily a mandate for a solo title.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

27 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

and a lot of his arguments in favor for 1988 (I argued for at least 5 years earlier, though, I certainly don't wish to rehash the argument here)

My position, then and now, is 1984-1986...not 1988, nor 1980.

One data point...in this case, sales figures...never tells the whole story. It is always an aggregate of data, from as many sources as possible, that is important. However...as you well know, some data points are more equal than others, and sales figures are the strongest piece of evidence we have...especially when you compare sales figures. For example...while 1978 was a horrible year for comics, with companies slashing their production to the bone, not every title was suffering. For example...ASM only experienced a slight dip in sales in 1978...about the same, percentage-wise, as X-Men (and, for some reason, subscriptions saw a massive gain that year.) But ASM was selling roughly 200%-250% of X-Men throughout the 70s. 

And ASM never saw the same meteoric rise in sales as the X-Men...but that rise didn't begin until 1979, and wasn't complete until 1983 or thereabouts.

If people are going to argue that "critical acclaim" is a factor...sure, lots of things are critically acclaimed which didn't appeal to the masses. And critical acclaim does not meet the standard definition of "when did this get hot"? Can winning an Academy Award for Best Picture mean a film is "hot"? Sure...but often it doesn't. Sometimes it coincides...like with Titanic...but other times, like with "Moonlight"...no one would make the claim that said film was ever "hot." But that obviously happened with the X-Men (it "got hot"), as it climbed from near-cancellation status to the #1 best selling title in the entire industry. 

And then you have to make the distinction between back issues and new issues. For back issues, sales figures for new issues are meaningless, as you know. That's why I mentioned the information in the OPG, which saw the new X-Men books rise from cents in the 1978 OPG to $50-$60 by the 1981 OPG; an astonishing feat no other comics in history have ever managed to pull off. That is, for back issues, by far the most compelling and persuasive information we have, especially in consideration of the facts that 1. there is no internet, eBay, GPA, or, more than likely, even auction data from which to draw, 2. dealer price lists tended not to survive, but would also almost certainly show a similar massive increase in prices, 3. The OPG was, in those days, much more responsive to moves in the "new" (as Overstreet saw them) comics of the period, meaning the data tends...important word, there...to be more accurate, 4. market reports from the time are sparse to non-existent, since during this time frame, there were still only a few hundred...at most.."comics specialty stores" around the nation.

The idea that a title is hot because it is featured on the cover of a trade publication isn't a strong one, since trade publications, by their nature, are there to promote comics. For example...the Comic Reader #144 had a cover feature on the Creeper...#146 featured Superman. Being featured in a trade publication isn't very strong evidence for mass popularity. 

I am in complete agreement with you, as stated previously, that information gathered and published at the time is also important to have...unfortunately, the collector market of the time was still too nascent for a lot of that material to have survived, or for those observations to have been made in the first place. So, we make do with what we have.

The argument that the X-Men were "hot" while sales of new issues are in the dumpster isn't going to be a very persuasive one.

[delekkerste]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

My position, then and now, is 1984-1986...not 1988, nor 1980.

Most Significant X-Men Thread

When did Wolverine really become popular? Thread

With all due respect, you argued for late 1980s (at least twice just from my brief cursory review of these threads right now).  I am metaphysically certain that you didn't argue 1984-1986 because I also spied multiple examples of me citing examples from 1984-1986 to support my case that Wolverine had achieved super-stardom much earlier than the late 1980s. You even cite all the mini-series that came out in 1984 and 1985 (e.g., Hercules' second mini, Magik, Nightcrawler, Wolvie playing second fiddle to Kitty Pryde in their mini-series) to show how Wolvie was just another X-Man during this period. 

Edited June 25, 2019 by delekkerste

[delekkerste]

29 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

One data point...in this case, sales figures...never tells the whole story. It is always an aggregate of data, from as many sources as possible, that is important. However...as you well know, some data points are more equal than others, and sales figures are the strongest piece of evidence we have...especially when you compare sales figures. For example...while 1978 was a horrible year for comics, with companies slashing their production to the bone, not every title was suffering. For example...ASM only experienced a slight dip in sales in 1978...about the same, percentage-wise, as X-Men (and, for some reason, subscriptions saw a massive gain that year.) But ASM was selling roughly 200%-250% of X-Men throughout the 70s. 

And ASM never saw the same meteoric rise in sales as the X-Men...but that rise didn't begin until 1979, and wasn't complete until 1983 or thereabouts.

If people are going to argue that "critical acclaim" is a factor...sure, lots of things are critically acclaimed which didn't appeal to the masses. And critical acclaim does not meet the standard definition of "when did this get hot"? Can winning an Academy Award for Best Picture mean a film is "hot"? Sure...but often it doesn't. Sometimes it coincides...like with Titanic...but other times, like with "Moonlight"...no one would make the claim that said film was ever "hot." But that obviously happened with the X-Men (it "got hot"), as it climbed from near-cancellation status to the #1 best selling title in the entire industry. 

And then you have to make the distinction between back issues and new issues. For back issues, sales figures for new issues are meaningless, as you know. That's why I mentioned the information in the OPG, which saw the new X-Men books rise from cents in the 1978 OPG to $50-$60 by the 1981 OPG; an astonishing feat no other comics in history have ever managed to pull off. That is, for back issues, by far the most compelling and persuasive information we have, especially in consideration of the facts that 1. there is no internet, eBay, GPA, or, more than likely, even auction data from which to draw, 2. dealer price lists tended not to survive, but would also almost certainly show a similar massive increase in prices, 3. The OPG was, in those days, much more responsive to moves in the "new" (as Overstreet saw them) comics of the period, meaning the data tends...important word, there...to be more accurate, 4. market reports from the time are sparse to non-existent, since during this time frame, there were still only a few hundred...at most.."comics specialty stores" around the nation.

The idea that a title is hot because it is featured on the cover of a trade publication isn't a strong one, since trade publications, by their nature, are there to promote comics. For example...the Comic Reader #144 had a cover feature on the Creeper...#146 featured Superman. Being featured in a trade publication isn't very strong evidence for mass popularity. 

I am in complete agreement with you, as stated previously, that information gathered and published at the time is also important to have...unfortunately, the collector market of the time was still too nascent for a lot of that material to have survived, or for those observations to have been made in the first place. So, we make do with what we have.

The argument that the X-Men were "hot" while sales of new issues are in the dumpster isn't going to be a very persuasive one.

I didn't mean to dismiss the rest of your post, which makes some good points.  That said, while I agree that a lot of the points are "necessary but not sufficient" conditions, taken in the aggregate, I think it paints a picture of Byrne X-Men having more heat than the circulation figures alone suggest.  

[sfcityduck]

Sales data serves a function, but that function varies over time.  For the Golden Age, sales data tells you a lot of about the pop culture significance of characters because comic books were a much more important piece of pop culture back then as compared to now.  Sales data does not tell you anything about comic fandom of the time.  

For the Silver Age, sales data is not real helpful in identifying fan favorite comics because the newsstand market was still strong and fans were trending towards comics which appealed to an older readership.  The best source for info from that time period are recollections, fan publications and awards.

The late 70s to 80s, I admit, is a transition point.  The import of sales data increases as the direct market becomes the dominant venue for fan purchases.  By the mid-late 80s sales date is really important.  But, that had not yet occurred, IMHO, in the time periods we are examining for X-Men.  Sales data just doesn't tell the story of 1977 and 1978 fan favorites.  Note I say "fan" favorites, not critical favorites.

Comic Reader was not an "industry publication," it was an ad zine / fan zine.  Comic Buyer Guide was an ad zine / fan zine.  There were many others.  They all survive.  As do the pure fan zines that dominated the time period, such as Comics Journal.  They are all much better original sources that tell you much more about what fans thought than sales data.  Same is true for dealer and collector recollections.  

Maybe you had to live through that period as a comic collector to understand, but a statement like this is just wrong: "unfortunately, the collector market of the time was still too nascent for a lot of that material to have survived, or for those observations to have been made in the first place."  

The collector market was nascent in the early 1960s.  By the mid to later 1970s, it was established.  The 1977 OPG was the Seventh Edition.  And while Bob was not known for being on top of brand new comic pricing surges in that time period, it is notable that only two years after GS X-Men 1 had come out, he'd already doubled the price from two years earlier.  And I'm sure that was overly conservative a price increase.

 

[Logan510]

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

I didn't mean to dismiss the rest of your post, which makes some good points.  That said, while I agree that a lot of the points are "necessary but not sufficient" conditions, taken in the aggregate, I think it paints a picture of Byrne X-Men having more heat than the circulation figures alone suggest.  

It did have more heat, which led to people incorrectly believing that sales must have been huge back then, but they obviously weren't.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

My position, then and now, is 1984-1986...not 1988, nor 1980.

Most Significant X-Men Thread

When did Wolverine really become popular? Thread

With all due respect, you argued for late 1980s (at least twice just from my brief cursory review of these threads right now).  I am metaphysically certain that you didn't argue 1984-1986 because I also spied multiple examples of me citing examples from 1984-1986 to support my case that Wolverine had achieved super-stardom much earlier than the late 1980s. You even cite all the mini-series that came out in 1984 and 1985 (e.g., Hercules' second mini, Magik, Nightcrawler, Wolvie playing second fiddle to Kitty Pryde in their mini-series) to show how Wolvie was just another X-Man during this period. 

Here's what I said, which you quoted in the above post:

"Storm, Colossus...and then Rogue, were all featured as prominently as Wolverine in the X-Men, UNTIL about issue #200 (1985), then it all, admittedly, became about Wolverine."

AND..."I think it's safe to say that Wolverine was NOT *THE* big draw for the X-Men until the late 80s (generally, 1986 and beyond)..."

(Emphasis added.)

Those are direct quotes of mine, which you just re-quoted. I stated it as specifically as I could, so there would be no ambiguity, and I would not be misquoted.

I am as disinterested as you of rehashing this argument, but I'm also not interested in being misquoted.

Edit: If you interpreted "late 80s" as 1988, my apologies for not being more explicit about what I meant. I understand that there's room for misunderstanding in that phrase, which is why I clarified "1986" to specify what I meant.

Edited June 25, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus

[sfcityduck]

52 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

It did have more heat, which led to people incorrectly believing that sales must have been huge back then, but they obviously weren't.

Which, I think, is a reflection that back then it was not collector demand which drove sales.  That changed fairly quickly with the rise of the direct market.

But, back then, sales data doesn't tell you what fans thought.  To get that insight, you have look at fanzines, adzines, and talk to people who lived the period.  We all knew X-Men were the "it book" back then and Byrne was the "it artist."  The Eagle Awards are pretty definitive evidence of the popularity of the books amongst fans.

[HouseofComics.Com]

The British were probably a year ahead of us in figuring out what was good.

[Logan510]

44 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Which, I think, is a reflection that back then it was not collector demand which drove sales.  That changed fairly quickly with the rise of the direct market.

But, back then, sales data doesn't tell you what fans thought.  To get that insight, you have look at fanzines, adzines, and talk to people who lived the period.  We all knew X-Men were the "it book" back then and Byrne was the "it artist."  The Eagle Awards are pretty definitive evidence of the popularity of the books amongst fans.

Not to mention the CBG awards.

[HouseofComics.Com]

CBG awards are a little later, no?

[Logan510]

16 minutes ago, HouseofComics.Com said:

CBG awards are a little later, no?

You're right, started in 1982.

[sfcityduck]

3 hours ago, HouseofComics.Com said:

The British were probably a year ahead of us in figuring out what was good.

LoL!

marvel certainly liked the attention!  That or the Eagle award covers are cents variants of pence originals!! 

[Sal]

did the Eagle award badge get put on any other books? I feel like there were some but can't remember any.

 

for me, Wolverine became a really interesting person extemporaneously with 162, the issue where he fights off the Brood infection in what is essentially a solo story.

 

and the most disappointing day of my early collecting life was removing issue 176 from the brown paper sleeve they used to send subscription copies in and seeing that JR JR cover.  especially since 175 is my favorite non-Byrne cover of the whole title

[delekkerste]

14 hours ago, Sal said:

and the most disappointing day of my early collecting life was removing issue 176 from the brown paper sleeve they used to send subscription copies in and seeing that JR JR cover.  especially since 175 is my favorite non-Byrne cover of the whole title

I own the original cover art to #176...first comic I ever bought off the newsstand, so, it has special meaning for me.   

My friend owns the #175...I would have nabbed it except it popped up on eBay while I was traveling and I missed it!    Great cover, though, it always bugged me that Wolvie has his back turned (same with #178, another favorite from the same era...not that I wouldn't still love to own both!) 

It was all about the X-Men, and Wolverine in particular, back when I started collecting comics in 1983 (I started reading the X-Men from borrowed copies with issue #172, and started buying them myself with #176).  I'm not surprised that the circulation figures were so much higher for the Smith and JRJR issues than the Byrne issues, because we all saw what Byrne back issue prices were doing back in 1983 and 1984 and me and a lot of others were buying up 2 or more copies of Uncanny X-Men every month back then.