Newsstand vs Direct Edition, At Grader's Discretion?? 4 4

[valiantman]

Just now, Lazyboy said:

6 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Welcome to the board you joined yesterday. 

Oh, come on, Greg! You really don't recognize him?

My taxonomy for trolls is quite lax, Lazy-b. 

[valiantman]

Just now, Brooklyn860 said:

1 minute ago, valiantman said:

My taxonomy for trolls is quite lax, Lazy-b. 

Hint: I signed up here before you 

Well, I'm user #396, so I guess if you've got a 395-sided-die I'll roll it a couple times and make some guesses. 

[valiantman]

1 minute ago, Brooklyn860 said:

You have the lamest responses too too busy being a fanboy I guess.

I'm genuinely amused that you think I should know who you are, when in reality, your 19 years on this board has made so little impression on me that I literally haven't got the slightest idea of who you are.  Congrats on that level of nothingness - you're excelling at anonymity amongst countless internet trolls even almost two decades later.  That's an accomplishment of sorts.  Not the good sort, but sorts nonetheless.  

[valiantman]

3 minutes ago, Brooklyn860 said:

I think it's more a reflection of your narcissistic nature and your inability to process social cues. Your heads so far up your own butt being the incel fanboy you are that you miss the obvious stuff everyone else notices.

I've been married 25 years, and a member of this board almost 20 years, and an Overstreet advisor for at least 15 years. Everyone on this board who knows me knows all these things.

The fact that you think I'm an "incel fanboy" says more about your head-and-butt location and illumination than mine.

[BoogieWoogie]

Newsstands are OLD NEWS

Does anyone else collect early DIRECT editions? Got a pretty nice one in today 

AFAIK these were distributed in 3-packs at this point. #193 is the first widely distributed direct issue in the ASM run. AFAIK. So... I think... if people ever realize this... direct issues of ASM #194, #210, #212, maybe #209 with the Kraven film coming... might be a bit undervalued. Not sure how quickly the direct program ramped up once it got off the ground 

And honestly I doubt fans will ever care  

[valiantman]

@BoogieWoogie

This thread has established that I'm just a newsstand-hyping fanboy poser, so the fact that I agree with you and also have this is probably just some kind of complete accident.

(or maybe it's the other guy who was in this topic who was full of rancid excrement from head to toe in the Brookly860 Connecticut area code.... but now has been erased from existence by admins and it looks like I've been talking to myself.)

Edited May 27, 2021 by valiantman

[GarBear]

Well, thanks for all the input.  Too bad the discussion had to go sideways.  That newsstand 101 was great and seemed very solid and easy to understand.  I agree that it's a personal preference for newsstand vs direct.  The problem is that once I know what the difference is, I tend to gravitate toward newsstand, leaning more to the 1988 through 1998 comics.  These do seem to be the dates that Marvel really cut distribution down and currently there are fewer in recent sales which shows good proof that "rare" is truly showing up within that era and a little later.  I only am dealing with Marvel and DC mostly.  We all know the market will change many times in the next 10 years and, speculation has always been a collector's way of life.  I was able to glean much from some of every-ones thoughts on the issue.  As to those who think its all fake, well, it's a free United States for now and we all can think what we want.  I just wanted some honest input on the subject.  I believe for the most part I got that.  There will always be opinions, good and bad but I like to look over the information and make my own conclusion rather than go with the herd.  Thanks to all that participated! 

GarBear

[Lazyboy]

53 minutes ago, GarBear said:

I tend to gravitate toward newsstand, leaning more to the 1988 through 1998 comics.  These do seem to be the dates that Marvel really cut distribution down

No, there's nothing rare about Newsstands from that period. If you want a good idea of how absurd the chart is from the article you linked, look here.

By the end of Marvel's newsstand distribution (15 years later), they're relatively rare.

[Lazyboy]

4 hours ago, valiantman said:

There wasn't an established "newsstand system" (of at least 30+ years) for Image (because it was a new publisher), and Spawn #1 was the first Image newsstand book - so unless they took a big risk in making a ton of Spawn #1 newsstands - which were all returnable - (and they had no danger of the 1.X million direct editions being returnable), it's just very unlikely that the new publisher "went big" on Spawn #1 newsstand (and the risk of unsold newsstands for a publisher with no history of returns/losses to reference).

I was just talking about the reason. There is obviously no way as many Newsstands as Directs were printed for Spawn 1. Even if it had the highest Newsstand print run of any comic during that year, it would be dwarfed by the huge Direct sales.

4 hours ago, valiantman said:

We do have numbers now, though... it's not 1% newsstand for Spawn #1. 

Of course it's not. It never was, no matter how much people argued that it was.

4 hours ago, valiantman said:

It was 8% newsstand in GPA for Universal CGC 9.8 Spawn #1 for sales in 2020 (71 newsstand out of 882 sales).

That actually seems pretty likely to be in line with distribution through the different channels. ~10% would be absurdly low for a normal book from that time, but Spawn was not normal.

[valiantman]

8 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

Quote

It was 8% newsstand in GPA for Universal CGC 9.8 Spawn #1 for sales in 2020 (71 newsstand out of 882 sales).

That actually seems pretty likely to be in line with distribution through the different channels. ~10% would be absurdly low for a normal book from that time, but Spawn was not normal.

CGC (and by extension, GPA sales records) only makes sense as the "sampling data" when it makes sense to submit the raw books to CGC in the first place. 

That's why I've focused in on CGC 9.8, because both Spawn #1 direct and newsstand are "worth CGC-ing" in 9.8 raw condition. 

We'd get a very different % newsstand for CGC 9.6 (closer to 18% newsstand), but there's not as much reason (not as much profit) to CGC grade a direct edition 9.6 raw condition book for Spawn #1.  So, there's a good argument for using CGC 9.8 numbers, and ignoring the CGC 9.6 sales until the direct editions are worth at least $100.

However, CGC 9.8 newsstand Spawn #1 has separated itself in the market quite a bit above the direct edition prices, so the 8% estimate could be overstating the overall percentage for newsstand - because the return on CGC costs is much higher for CGC 9.8 newsstand.

However to that however, CGC 9.8 newsstand Spawn #1 could be understating the overall percentage for newsstand - because the survival rate on CGC 9.8 for newsstand books (through normal newsstand distribution channels/handling/damages) is likely much lower than 9.8 for direct edition.

Further howevers, we're talking about 29 years after the printing.  That's not a reflection of original print runs (which happened in a brief window of time) but a reflection of survival rates over nearly three decades since, so there's a good argument to ignore print run discussion altogether and focus in on survival rates in how we describe these estimates.

There are good arguments for and against all these methods, but some of the arguments may actually cancel out, and we're left with the "best available" information using actual numbers as opposed to unsupportable supply suppositions (at suppertime).

[valiantman]

1 hour ago, Lazyboy said:

2 hours ago, GarBear said:

I tend to gravitate toward newsstand, leaning more to the 1988 through 1998 comics.  These do seem to be the dates that Marvel really cut distribution down

No, there's nothing rare about Newsstands from that period. If you want a good idea of how absurd the chart is from the article you linked, look here.

By the end of Marvel's newsstand distribution (15 years later), they're relatively rare.

I think it's all a matter of recognizing the numbers for what they are.

If a particular newsstand book from 1988 through 1998 is available in a particular CGC grade about 10% as often as the same book in the same grade in a direct edition, it's probably not "rare" by any definition... but if you can get the newsstand book right now for a premium of just 50% over the price of the direct edition then the future value gains are probably on your side since you get a 10x harder-to-supply book for only 1.5x the price.   I'm not saying it should be exactly 10x the price, but 1.5x seems like some kind of bargain, even if the newsstand book eventually settles for 2x the direct price.  33% additional gains vs. the direct edition price is easy math.

The math on that scenario is the same whether that's 10 newsstands in existence (truly rare) or 10,000 newsstands already on the CGC census (very common).

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

4 hours ago, valiantman said:

maybe it's the other guy who was in this topic who was full of rancid excrement from head to toe in the Brookly860 Connecticut area code.... but now has been erased from existence by admins and it looks like I've been talking to myself.

 just how fast he popped in then was wiped suggests that it was another one of Stu's shills. 

[bababooey]

2 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

No, there's nothing rare about Newsstands from that period. If you want a good idea of how absurd the chart is from the article you linked, look here.

By the end of Marvel's newsstand distribution (15 years later), they're relatively rare.

The only way to get clarity from that data is to compare 2004 icv2/Comichron direct sales data to the publishers statement of ownership data you linked to on comichron's site. 

Oct04: ASM #513 = 89,615...#11 for the month

Sep04: ASM #512 = 87,236...#14 for the month

Aug04: ASM #511 = 88,118...#13 for the month

Jul04: ASM #510 = 84,750...#11 for the month

Jun04: ASM #509 = 88,289...#13 for the month

Jun04: ASM #508 = 82,268...#16 for the month

May04: ASM #507 = 81,944...#12 for the month

Apr04: ASM #506 = 83,152...#15 for the month

Mar04: ASM #505 = 83,613...#11 for the month

Feb04: ASM #504 = 84,064...#11 for the month

Jan04: ASM #503 = 87,341...#12 for the month

Dec03: ASM #502 = 90,484...#12 for the month

Nov03: ASM #501 = 94,558...#09 for the month

Oct03: ASM #500 = 148,928...#02 for the month

Sep03: ASM #499 (58) = 92,294...#12 for the month

Aug03: ASM #498 (57) = 93,469...#09 for the month

Aug03: ASM #497 (56) = 92,277...#10 for the month

Jul03: ASM #496 (55) = 95,467...#08 for the month

Jul03: ASM #495 (54) = 95,173...#09 for the month

Jun03: ASM = None

May03: ASM #494 (53) = 95,777...#07 for the month

Apr03: ASM #493 (52) = 96,624...#04 for the month

Mar03: ASM #492 (51) = 96,428...#05 for the month

Feb03: ASM #491 (50) = 100,439...#04 for the month

Jan03: ASM #490 (49) = 90,032...#06 for the month

Generally speaking the direct sales were trending down for the 23 issues shown (ASM was 3x per month) but it's guesswork at best...but here's an attempt,  I'm ballparking direct at 90-100K average sales.

Publishers statements in your link show "printed" at 160K & "Dealer sales" which is both newsstand and direct 115K, subs are all direct (8,500), returns are all newsstand (35,331).  Sell through at retail and returns are misleading and quite useless.   

Using direct sales vs. print run we can estimate that 55-65% of the run was printed for the direct market with no returns, so a 22% print run return rate means that 13-23% of the print run was newsstand copies that were sold in 2004.  So in 2004, production data indicates direct copies are 4 to 5 times more common. 

Nowhere close to the rarity claimed by many, you get in the same ballpark subtracting direct sales from total paid circulation. 

The "direct" number omits non-North American direct sales which would bump up the direct % by about 5% or so for those round earthers who believe in the existence of international markets and stuff 

None of this explains current market lack of availabilty but my general commentary is that the @valiantman "X" graph focusing on 1986 is still terribly misleading because it implies that the "lessening" goes to zero since it mirrors pre '79 direct.   Also the glut of direct copies produced in the early 90's happened 5 years after '86 and the newsstand didn't collapse in '92, it failed to keep pace with the direct market insanity.  I don't believe newsstand sell thru became problematic until later in the 90's with Marvel's financial troubles, price increases etc..etc...

Anyways, that's my contribution to this thread.  

Edited May 28, 2021 by bababooey
Deleted 2010 data

[theCapraAegagrus]

Why does it matter?

[valiantman]

11 hours ago, bababooey said:

my general commentary is that the @valiantman "X" graph focusing on 1986 is still terribly misleading because it implies that the "lessening" goes to zero since it mirrors pre '79 direct.   Also the glut of direct copies produced in the early 90's happened 5 years after '86 and the newsstand didn't collapse in '92, it failed to keep pace with the direct market insanity.  I don't believe newsstand sell thru became problematic until later in the 90's with Marvel's financial troubles, price increases etc..etc...

The online discussion of newsstand before my "X" graph was "Newsstands are rarer!" being proclaimed across all ages.  

The purpose of the "X" graph was only to get the discussion of newsstands to the "next level" information and the point of correction that "Newsstands aren't rarer across all ages!"

 

@bababooey your comments are a good example of "level 3 analysis" and valid, and those straight lines in the "X" graph would have more curves.

"Level 4" analysis would see that "X" graph (with "level 3 curvy lines") different depending on the title being discussed.

"Level 5" analysis would show individual books that don't fit the curve even within a title, like ASM #361, which was hoarded by direct edition buyers (and protected like direct edition bagging/boarding) when they popped up on the newsstands.

"Level 6" a few dozen scatterplots with asterisks and caveats that explain odd situations caused by the closing of bookstore chains and distribution company takeovers/mergers.

"Level 7" etc., etc.

The "X" graph is from newsstand101.com - which isn't a graduate level syllabus, it's an "intro to newsstands" domain - a 101 page - "welcome to the world of newsstands, they aren't always rarer."

The statement that "newsstands are rarer!" (without mentioning the dates) was being repeated so often that the first problem to address was that newsstands were more common when direct started, and less common years later, which meant people needed to understand it was much closer to an "X", not a couple of parallel lines with direct in the common range and newsstand in the rare range.  The "X" graph may imply there's a 0% somewhere, but there isn't a 0 on the chart.  The "X" graph may imply direct edition print runs were higher after the glut of 1993, but it really just says there were "more" direct editions relative to "less" newsstand editions, without an actual number (that isn't a year) anywhere on the chart.

Edited May 28, 2021 by valiantman

[bababooey]

3 hours ago, valiantman said:

The online discussion of newsstand before my "X" graph was "Newsstands are rarer!" being proclaimed across all ages.  

The purpose of the "X" graph was only to get the discussion of newsstands to the "next level" information and the point of correction that "Newsstands aren't rarer across all ages!"

 

@bababooey your comments are a good example of "level 3 analysis" and valid, and those straight lines in the "X" graph would have more curves.

"Level 4" analysis would see that "X" graph (with "level 3 curvy lines") different depending on the title being discussed.

"Level 5" analysis would show individual books that don't fit the curve even within a title, like ASM #361, which was hoarded by direct edition buyers (and protected like direct edition bagging/boarding) when they popped up on the newsstands.

"Level 6" a few dozen scatterplots with asterisks and caveats that explain odd situations caused by the closing of bookstore chains and distribution company takeovers/mergers.

"Level 7" etc., etc.

The "X" graph is from newsstand101.com - which isn't a graduate level syllabus, it's an "intro to newsstands" domain - a 101 page - "welcome to the world of newsstands, they aren't always rarer."

The statement that "newsstands are rarer!" (without mentioning the dates) was being repeated so often that the first problem to address was that newsstands were more common when direct started, and less common years later, which meant people needed to understand it was much closer to an "X", not a couple of parallel lines with direct in the common range and newsstand in the rare range.  The "X" graph may imply there's a 0% somewhere, but there isn't a 0 on the chart.  The "X" graph may imply direct edition print runs were higher after the glut of 1993, but it really just says there were "more" direct editions relative to "less" newsstand editions, without an actual number (that isn't a year) anywhere on the chart.

If fixing the misconception of rarer newsstands for the 7 years prior to 1986 was the goal, congratulations!  You've done it at the expense of the 17 plus years after 1986 and beyond.    

I recognize that the chart's original intent but the five year increments on the bottom are clear and the equivalence of the "lessening" on the left/right is also clear. 

The lack of specificity makes its message defensible with the statements you've added above & on your own site....but those caveats don't carry over to places like RARE COMICS who can host your graphic as a stepping stone to their Chucky charts.  Unlike some here I have an appreciation for some of the content on that blog but the data sourcing flaw (chuck) hurts most of the conclusions reached.

You're more than welcome to "level whatever" my raw numbers above to create more clarity for 2004 ASM sales, direct sales vs newsstand copies sold.   Also a minor correction to my previous post ASM was a monthly title (14 issues/ year) at the time NOT 3X per month. 

I would even hypothesize that the 2000/2001 publishers statements are reflective of a secondary tipping point for this title's direct sales vs newsstands.  The direct sales boost ASM enjoyed during the start of JMS' run (v2 #30) doesn't create much change in the publishers copies sold.  Direct sales went from just under 50K to just under 100K in one year, that increase was obviously offset by lost sell-through at newsstands.  Marvel has revisited this post reboot diminishing sales model hundreds of times since but the steadiness of holding a "copies sold" range between 113K and 124K from 2000 through 2004 is indicative of some stability in total sales for the title.  A much larger portion of the copies sold during the Byrne v2 reboot were newsstand issues, in fact I would estimate that there are probably as many copies of some random ASM v2 newsstands as there are direct copies. 

That's 15 years after 1986.

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

And why do those charts stop at 2013?

DC still had Newsstand until August of 2017.. 

Or are we just dismissing those 4 years ?

[bababooey]

8 hours ago, Angel of Death said:

Why does it matter?

[bababooey]

5 minutes ago, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

And why do those charts stop at 2013?

DC still had Newsstand until August of 2017.. 

Or are we just dismissing those 4 years ?

Marvel stopped newsstand distribution at the end of 2013.  We aren't dismissing those 4 years I think we're dismissing DC. 

I think someone fairly reliable posted that DC's statemrnts were garbage data but that could be true for some of the Marvel stuff...

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

13 minutes ago, bababooey said:

Marvel stopped newsstand distribution at the end of 2013.  We aren't dismissing those 4 years I think we're dismissing DC. 

I think someone fairly reliable posted that DC's statemrnts were garbage data but that could be true for some of the Marvel stuff...

A lot of people do dismiss DC, but there are several, myself included, who do collect them. DC did have some garbage data as did Marvel, but the did run newsstand until 2017. Here is the list of projected last newsstand issues vs actual confirmed last newsstand issues.  

And I do know several of these titles can be confirmed by someone who collected every newsstand issue in the titles he collected. 

@Cpt Kirk