The Whitman Thread
13 13

227 posts in this topic

12 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

We know that Whitman did distribute them, but unless we know that they were exclusively produced for and distributed by Whitman, they aren't Whitmans.

Please provide confirmed proof that the Marvel comics delivered between 1977 and May 1979 with the diamond pattern around the price, issue number were distributed by a company other than Western/Whitman.

Anything from that terrible site should be taken with a mountain of salt.

MCS refers to many non-enhanced Direct editions as Newsstands, so that's not a good argument. And don't get anybody started on Mile High.

But this is the Whitman thread. If they aren't Whitmans, they don't belong in the thread. (shrug)

Jim Shooter indicated that he did not believe direct market retailers bought copies from the Whitman run. The Whitman run is the Marvel comics delivered between 1977 and May 1979 with the diamond pattern around the price, issue number were distributed by Western/ PublishingWhitman.

Saying the site is terrible doesn’t mean the sources or information is incorrect. The information seems credible to me. Can you provide proof to the contrary?

What is a non-enhanced Direct edition?

Do you deny the MHC was an influential player in the comic distribution wars in the late 70’s/early 80’s?

But they are Whitman’s. It says so on the bag. (thumbsu

Edited by ChrispyC66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ChrispyC66 said:

 

Saying the site is terrible doesn’t mean the sources or information is incorrect. The information seems credible to me. Can you provide proof to the contrary?

This has been a subject of much discussion on these boards, and I won't belabour it (too much) here, but maybe one example will help. The author of the article you link to, Benjamin Nobel, is a good writer, but his general approach is to present qualitative or circumstantial arguments as proof. To cite a single example, he points to the fact that "fat diamond" Marvel issues have no cover date, and infers that this backs up the concept that they are Whitmans. His argument is that Whitmans were bagged for sale over an extended period, and therefore did not need cover dates, but (and I quote him here with his italics), "would comic shops really have gotten comics with no cover month on them?" How absurd, he's suggesting! Of course direct editions would have cover dates.

But take a look a look at the comics you may have bought from the comic shop recently, say a Batman #104 or a Venom #30... Guess what? No cover date. Does that mean they can't be direct editions, and (following Nobel's logic) that they must be Whitmans?

Cover prices were necessary for newsstand editions, as they were a signal for newsstand retailers about when to return unsold copies. The removal of the cover date could mean these books were intended for distribution by Whitman (as Nobel suggests), but it also could mean they were intended for direct sales, or (as @bellrules and I suggest) that they were intended for both of these channels.

In general, Nobel's style is very didactic - that is, it is elegantly argued, but with a pre-intended conclusion or outcome (a kind of ulterior motive) rather than an academic or evidentiary approach, which would focus on gathering evidence regardless off its impact on the question at hand (i.e. something more in line with the scientific method).

Having said that, I quite enjoy reading Nobel's stuff - I just don't always find it very convincing, and the example I've given here is but one example why, out of several in the article you linked to.

I do find Jim Shooter's personal recollections much more convincing in this case, but they are merely anecdotal (and - as they say - the plural of anecdote is not evidence) and have been contradicted by others.

To me it's an open question... I'm quite prepared to be wrong on this, but I've yet to see compelling evidence one way or the other. Having said that, over the last couple of years, the market has come to see "fat diamond" Marvels as Whitman variants, and has even begun to ask a premium for them. And while the market isn't always correct, it does tell us something about the collective perceptions of the hobby as a whole... If I were selling "fat diamond" Whitmans somewhere at the moment, I'd probably be finding a way to work a "Whitman" reference into the listing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brock said:

This has been a subject of much discussion on these boards, and I won't belabour it (too much) here, but maybe one example will help. The author of the article you link to, Benjamin Nobel, is a good writer, but his general approach is to present qualitative or circumstantial arguments as proof. To cite a single example, he points to the fact that "fat diamond" Marvel issues have no cover date, and infers that this backs up the concept that they are Whitmans. His argument is that Whitmans were bagged for sale over an extended period, and therefore did not need cover dates, but (and I quote him here with his italics), "would comic shops really have gotten comics with no cover month on them?" How absurd, he's suggesting! Of course direct editions would have cover dates.

But take a look a look at the comics you may have bought from the comic shop recently, say a Batman #104 or a Venom #30... Guess what? No cover date. Does that mean they can't be direct editions, and (following Nobel's logic) that they must be Whitmans?

Cover prices were necessary for newsstand editions, as they were a signal for newsstand retailers about when to return unsold copies. The removal of the cover date could mean these books were intended for distribution by Whitman (as Nobel suggests), but it also could mean they were intended for direct sales, or (as @bellrules and I suggest) that they were intended for both of these channels.

In general, Nobel's style is very didactic - that is, it is elegantly argued, but with a pre-intended conclusion or outcome (a kind of ulterior motive) rather than an academic or evidentiary approach, which would focus on gathering evidence regardless off its impact on the question at hand (i.e. something more in line with the scientific method).

Having said that, I quite enjoy reading Nobel's stuff - I just don't always find it very convincing, and the example I've given here is but one example why, out of several in the article you linked to.

I do find Jim Shooter's personal recollections much more convincing in this case, but they are merely anecdotal (and - as they say - the plural of anecdote is not evidence) and have been contradicted by others.

To me it's an open question... I'm quite prepared to be wrong on this, but I've yet to see compelling evidence one way or the other. Having said that, over the last couple of years, the market has come to see "fat diamond" Marvels as Whitman variants, and has even begun to ask a premium for them. And while the market isn't always correct, it does tell us something about the collective perceptions of the hobby as a whole... If I were selling "fat diamond" Whitmans somewhere at the moment, I'd probably be finding a way to work a "Whitman" reference into the listing.

Thanks @Brock. I appreciate the details of your reply and the time you spent writing it. 
Why do you suppose it’s so difficult to get to the bottom of the full Marvel/Whitman deal details?
Even the Western Publishing Wikipedia page doesn’t site any sources with details. 
It seem the deal Whitman had with DC was more straightforward and permitted actually using the Whitman logo on DC licensed properties.

I guess we may never know the full story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who haven't read much on this topic, check it out in the thread below.  The topic was pretty well discussed and no minds were changed :devil:   There remain different takes on the situation.  That's probably a good place to continue the discussion on Marvel Whitmans vs Marvel direct, and the same ground won't need to be covered in this thread.

PS - I'm in the Marvel Whitman camp. 

Spoiler

Sell me your high grade Marvel Whitmans!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Warlord said:

For those who haven't read much on this topic, check it out in the thread below.  The topic was pretty well discussed and no minds were changed :devil:   There remain different takes on the situation.  That's probably a good place to continue the discussion on Marvel Whitmans vs Marvel direct, and the same ground won't need to be covered in this thread.

The ghost of Christmas Past is here ....... the Whitman's legacy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, bellrules said:

“You shall be visited by three packs!”

As the clock strikes midnight ! Three packs shall visit! The Bud ! The Lager and The Ale !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Brock said:
18 hours ago, ganni said:

As the clock strikes midnight ! Three packs shall visit! The 8-12/80 books, the DC ´Big 8’ and the mysterious Marvel fat diamonds!

FTFY

Thanks Brock

Better stick to three packs and stay away from the six pack.  Too many Christmas Ghosts.

And beater to beater    Ho! Ho! Ho!

sc1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I share a pet peeve? I know that some Whitmans are rare. I know that some Whitmans command high prices. I know that sellers can set any price they want. But I can't believe how many people feel like a Whitman logo is a license to print money.

Case in point: here are two copies of The New Adventures of Superboy. This is a tough book - one of the DC "Big 8". The first copy looks to be about VG+ 4.5 to me, attracted 7 bids, and sold at auction last week for C$76.00 (about US$59). Full disclosure - I dropped put of the bidding at about C$51. I think the price realized (at C$76) is pretty fair, though it could be a tad low. Maybe C$80-C$90 (US$62-US$70) would be normal in a lower grade like this?

The second copy was listed on ebay soon after (and is still listed), and looks to grade about GD+ 2.5. The seller is asking C$275.50 (US$214), which just seems out lo lunch.

It seems to me that - more than any other books - we see Whitmans listed with insanely unrealistic prices all the time. Many of them sit for months with no nibbles. Right now, there are multiple books that have been sitting on ebay for months (years, in a few cases) that I would buy in a heartbeat if they had realistic prices. Even realistic prices plus 10% or 20%.

So, what gives? Wishful thinking? Mass delusion?

As an aside, it's probably worth noting that both of these copies of Superboy were in Canada (one in Ontario, and one in Alberta).

superboy61.jpg

superboy62.jpg

Edited by Brock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it related to everyone afraid of leaving some money on the table. Collectors these days seem to care more about profit, than the actual book. They all want their book to be the next DCCP 22. It’s frustrating but I find patience to be my best friend when it comes to these books. I’ve made offers on certain books repeatedly for years (like the same book, from the same seller, who never budges on price) They are way out to lunch on pricing but what can I do? I try to make my case using completed sales, etc... and hope for the best. If it doesn’t happen, so be it.

 

 

On a side note, you don’t already own a copy of this book?

Edited by bellrules
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
13 13