Can we all agree that Marvel Whitmans are not a thing?
2 2

239 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, Warlord said:

I think the Comic Pacs were Whitman as well, I seem to recall that some of them included prizes that included the Whitman name on them (many prizes weren't Whitman specific but were Marvel or currency, but there were a few) but can't find any pics to confirm this.  Anyone have such pics?

Thanks very much, Warlord - I wasn't aware of that.  I'd love to see some pictures!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Warlord said:

I don't disagree with anything shown in this chart, seems correct to me.

1306886525_MarvelPrePackComicsChart.thumb.gif.a84e0cd71d2f74b2a257d630e0d455e7.gif

This is great, and very, very helpful.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whitman was a subsidiary of Western Publishing.   Sorry, but that's a distinction without a difference.  I know people really want these to be special but to all of us that were there, these are reprints and not desirable.  (shrug)

But you guys are the same ones chasing 3rd printings of Hulk 377 and newsstand versions of ASM 300 (Talk about artificial scarcity!).  Go ahead and keep going as you like.  Just don't expect everyone to value them the same as you do.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Randall Dowling said:

Whitman was a subsidiary of Western Publishing.   Sorry, but that's a distinction without a difference.  I know people really want these to be special but to all of us that were there, these are reprints and not desirable.  (shrug)

But you guys are the same ones chasing 3rd printings of Hulk 377 and newsstand versions of ASM 300 (Talk about artificial scarcity!).  Go ahead and keep going as you like.  Just don't expect everyone to value them the same as you do.  

Are you implying newsstand versions of ASM #300 are reprints, or are you implying they're not scarce?

Regardless, the data isn't on your side, but just go ahead and keep not changing your mind as you like.  Good proof never got in the way of bad opinions.

Edited by valiantman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, valiantman said:

Are you implying newsstand versions of ASM #300 are reprints, or are you implying they're not scarce?

Neither.  The distinction between direct and newsstand is just pretty artificial.  Always has been.  Your argument of scarcity would suggest that early direct market books that were sold to comic book stores must be worth a lot more because at that time, there were many more sold at newsstands.  And yet, nobody really cares about that.  (shrug)

The issue I have is with trying to rewrite history and retroactively declare the Whitman/Western books to be the same as or on par with early direct market books sold at comic stores.  They are not.  And that's not a bad opinion.  It's a fact.

I don't like to disagree with you, Greg.  And I just saw that your most recent blog entry is about ASM 300 Direct vs. Newsstand so this is probably a sore point.  What I'm saying is that both the direct and newsstand copies are the same book that came out at the same time.  The only real distinction is one has a bar code and the other doesn't.  The price is the same, the cover art is the same, the interiors are the same.  That's a pretty superficial difference to me.  But if that's what some people like and are into, fine.  Live and let live.

There shouldn't, however, be any need to muddy or distort or spin or otherwise redefine what has been well known for decades by all collectors.  If it's a legitimate thing, it should be able to stand on it's own without that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Randall Dowling said:

The issue I have is with trying to rewrite history and retroactively declare

If the insufficiently_thoughtful_persons back then got it right in the first place, there would be no need for correction. Blame the insufficiently_thoughtful_persons who spouted :censored: without a proper understanding of the subject and the fools who repeated that same garbage.

1 hour ago, Randall Dowling said:

these are reprints and not desirable.

These are not reprints. They have never been reprints. insufficiently_thoughtful_persons perceiving them as reprints does not change reality.

1 hour ago, Randall Dowling said:

But you guys are the same ones chasing 3rd printings of Hulk 377 and newsstand versions of ASM 300 (Talk about artificial scarcity!).  Go ahead and keep going as you like.  Just don't expect everyone to value them the same as you do.

This thread has never been about value. Anyway, as far as value goes, calling them Whitmans somehow makes them worth less? Really? Are you sure?

Plus, to be perfectly clear, I do not have a vested interest in any of this junk and have no interest other than the truth. I do not collect them. I do not sell them. With very few exceptions, I do not own them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Randall Dowling said:

I don't like to disagree with you, Greg.  And I just saw that your most recent blog entry is about ASM 300 Direct vs. Newsstand so this is probably a sore point.  What I'm saying is that both the direct and newsstand copies are the same book that came out at the same time.  The only real distinction is one has a bar code and the other doesn't.  The price is the same, the cover art is the same, the interiors are the same.  That's a pretty superficial difference to me.  But if that's what some people like and are into, fine.  Live and let live.

There shouldn't, however, be any need to muddy or distort or spin or otherwise redefine what has been well known for decades by all collectors.  If it's a legitimate thing, it should be able to stand on it's own without that.

You've accurately described the first few weeks of Amazing Spider-Man #300's life.  They were printed at the same time, same price, same art, same interiors.  Amazing Spider-Man #300 is now 32 years old.  They were the same for 0.2% of their existence.  The places they were sold and the conditions they've been treated to for the last 1,660 weeks are quite different, as evidenced by these otherwise identical books being graded by the same company and brought to the same market.

I believe your argument is correct, and worth that 0.2% weighting... and mine the other 99.8%.

Edited by valiantman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, valiantman said:
3 hours ago, Randall Dowling said:

There shouldn't, however, be any need to muddy or distort or spin or otherwise redefine what has been well known for decades by all collectors.  If it's a legitimate thing, it should be able to stand on it's own without that.

You've accurately described the first few weeks of Amazing Spider-Man #300's life.  They were printed at the same time, same price, same art, same interiors.  Amazing Spider-Man #300 is now 32 years old.  They were the same for 0.2% of their existence.  The places they were sold and the conditions they've been treated to for the last 1,660 weeks are quite different, as evidenced by these otherwise identical books being graded by the same company and brought to the same market.

I believe your argument is correct, and worth that 0.2% weighting... and mine the other 99.8%.

And when did noticeable market price differences begin? Was it perhaps after certain fabricators of falsehoods started spewing their huckster garbage? Randall's right about one thing: things really should be able to stand on their own, without the support of a foundation of hype and lies (and omissions of inconvenient truths).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lazyboy said:
2 hours ago, valiantman said:
3 hours ago, Randall Dowling said:

There shouldn't, however, be any need to muddy or distort or spin or otherwise redefine what has been well known for decades by all collectors.  If it's a legitimate thing, it should be able to stand on it's own without that.

You've accurately described the first few weeks of Amazing Spider-Man #300's life.  They were printed at the same time, same price, same art, same interiors.  Amazing Spider-Man #300 is now 32 years old.  They were the same for 0.2% of their existence.  The places they were sold and the conditions they've been treated to for the last 1,660 weeks are quite different, as evidenced by these otherwise identical books being graded by the same company and brought to the same market.

I believe your argument is correct, and worth that 0.2% weighting... and mine the other 99.8%.

And when did noticeable market price differences begin? Was it perhaps after certain fabricators of falsehoods started spewing their huckster garbage? Randall's right about one thing: things really should be able to stand on their own, without the support of a foundation of hype and lies (and omissions of inconvenient truths).

I assume you're not talking about my data - but the generic "only 1 in 100 copies" vague estimates that got turned into "proof from an expert" when repeated enough times.  The hobbies change, thankfully, in the direct of fact most often... since it is impossible in 2020 to pretend that a comic book is "rare" when there are 100 copies on Ebay.  It was much easier to do so in prior decades, when checking it out was much tougher.  Captain America #25 had the potential to be another death knell for the industry (remember how speculation killed comic books right after Superman #75?), but thankfully, "checking it out" showed plenty of supply on Ebay for such a supposedly "important, industry-changing event".

Thousands of years of "well known" information can be quickly overturned by proof and evidence to the contrary, so I don't know why our industry less than 100 years old needs to rely on anything "well known for decades by all collectors" when we can clearly see otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, valiantman said:

I assume you're not talking about my data

Of course not. While that data is very limited and superficial (for reasons I've stated multiple times before), it is still data, presented with the proper context, and not just fabricated garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

These are not reprints. They have never been reprints. insufficiently_thoughtful_persons perceiving them as reprints does not change reality.

They changed the price mark at the top of the cover to make them look different than typical newsstand copies, they released them many months (or even a year) after they were initially for sale on newsstands, and only sold them in 3 packs.  If you don't want to call those reprints, fine.  Call them whatever you like.  For 4 and half decades they've been recognized as Whitman reprints but sure, call them something else if it feels better.  I think you're splitting hairs.  2c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The direct edition did something the newsstand never did... it made comic books permanent.  Newsstand comics could be pulled and reimbursed.  They had a shelf life and an expiration date.  Direct edition comics could not be reimbursed, therefore, they MUST have been sold for many months (or even a year) after they were initially for sale as long as supplies lasted, but if they were printed at the same time on the same equipment, they are not reprints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Thousands of years of "well known" information can be quickly overturned by proof and evidence to the contrary, so I don't know why our industry less than 100 years old needs to rely on anything "well known for decades by all collectors" when we can clearly see otherwise.

Thousands of years of facts can also be dissembled and repackaged for a new narrative that is false, just to suit a new group that want to legitimize their perspective.  History is rife with examples of this.  Just because it's been known for a long time doesn't mean it's wrong.  And I don't know what you think is clear to see about the Whitman reprints.  I haven't seen any proof that these are like Mark Jewelers variants or price variants.  All I've seen is a bunch of supposition, guesses, hearsay, and amazing leaps to conclusions that aren't supported by any new information.  What am I missing?

Edited by Randall Dowling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Randall Dowling said:

Thousands of years of facts can also be dissembled and repackaged for a new narrative that is false, just to suit a new group that want to legitimize their perspective.  History is rife with examples of this.  Just because it's been known for a long time doesn't mean it's wrong.  And I don't know what you think is clear to see about the Whitman reprints.  I haven't seen any proof that these are like Mark Jewelers variants or price variants.  All of I've seen is a bunch of supposition, guesses, hearsay, and amazing leaps to conclusions that aren't supported by any new information.  What am I missing?

If they were printed at the same time as newsstand, they aren't reprints.  The fact that they were sold long after isn't a proof of reprinting, because the direct market existed to eliminate refunds.  If you buy a 1978 comic book from a dealer today who has had it since 1978, you're still participating in the original direct market purchasing the book "new" from the original retailer.  Bagged direct editions sold months (or years) later aren't reprints (even if it seemed like they would have to be reprints for 40 years) if they were printed at the same time as the newsstand books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, valiantman said:

The direct edition did something the newsstand never did... it made comic books permanent.  Newsstand comics could be pulled and reimbursed.  They had a shelf life and an expiration date.  Direct edition comics could not be reimbursed, therefore, they MUST have been sold for many months (or even a year) after they were initially for sale as long as supplies lasted, but if they were printed at the same time on the same equipment, they are not reprints.

This is not something you know.  This is something you believe.  Many have claimed this but it's not well supported from experience of the time.  These books weren't available at the same time as newsstand copies and then kept on the shelves for months.  They didn't even show up for sale until months afterward.

Edited by Randall Dowling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Randall Dowling said:

They changed the price mark at the top of the cover to make them look different than typical newsstand copies, they released them many months (or even a year) after they were initially for sale on newsstands, and only sold them in 3 packs.  If you don't want to call those reprints, fine.  Call them whatever you like.

As I've stated multiple times before: printing means printing, distribution means distribution, and they are two different things.

Many, many other Direct editions look different than Newsstands in the price box as well, so I don't know why you would even bring up that irrevevant fact.

7 minutes ago, Randall Dowling said:

For 4 and half decades they've been recognized as Whitman reprints but sure, call them something else if it feels better.

I think you meant "For a couple of decades, they were falsely thought by most insufficiently_thoughtful_persons to be reprints, despite the fact that the few that were actually reprints were explicitly marked as such."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lazyboy said:

As I've stated multiple times before: printing means printing, distribution means distribution, and they are two different things.

Many, many other Direct editions look different than Newsstands in the price box as well, so I don't know why you would even bring up that irrevevant fact.

I think you meant "For a couple of decades, they were falsely thought by most insufficiently_thoughtful_persons to be reprints, despite the fact that the few that were actually reprints were explicitly marked as such."

You're certainty about things you can't know makes it difficult to continue this.  You're entitled to your opinion, which ultimately, is all this is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2