How rare are modern newsstand editions? 6 6

[valiantman]

Fun math time!  (Woo hoo, are you excited?) 

Let's say that 90% of direct editions are protected for the decades that follow, but only 10% of newsstands are protected as well.

1982 supposedly had 80% newsstand and 20% direct editions.

If 90% of the direct editions were protected, then 18% of the original number are still around.

If 10% of the newsstand were protected, then 8% of the original number are still around.

Today, we'd see 8-out-of-26 newsstands and 18-out-of-26 direct editions.

When it comes to Wolverine #1 (1982), we're actually seeing 4-out-of-26 newsstands (15%) and 22-out-of-26 direct edition (85%).

If the 80% newsstand and 20% direct editions estimate for 1982 apply to Wolverine #1 (1982), then, mathematically...

That means that a 10% survival rate for newsstands is too high, that a 90% survival rate for direct editions is too low, or BOTH.

The only mathematical alternative is that BOTH the direct editions and the newsstands have low survival rates, but the newsstands were still destroyed 20 times more often.

Any way you run the numbers... books in the hands of direct edition buyers survived more often, by a huge percentage.

Newsstand survival absolutely depended on direct edition buyers getting involved, otherwise, 90%+ of newsstands didn't survive.

If they're still out there, as @Lazyboy claims, just not anywhere that can be seen in the market, then what does it matter? 

Purple unicorns may exist, just not anywhere that anyone can see.  Let's cross our fingers for the continued unseen safety of all those newsstands and purple unicorns, even though decades of data make it pretty clear that the newsstands and purple unicorns are not in the care of professionals or even serious collectors (except for the conspiracy theory that serious purple unicorn collectors just don't want anyone to know how many purple unicorns they're hiding).  Yeah, that's the most likely scenario... secret cabals of purple unicorn hoarders.  Not math.  Seems legit.

Edited January 4, 2022 by valiantman

[ygogolak]

Brevity is key.

I think you're saying that some will say 2+2 = 4 and some will say it's 5. As a society we have agreed it is 4. However, as a hobby we have not accepted any type of count of newsstand copies produced after the direct market era.

[valiantman]

On 1/4/2022 at 11:21 AM, ygogolak said:

Brevity is key.

I think you're saying that some will say 2+2 = 4 and some will say it's 5. As a society we have agreed it is 4. However, as a hobby we have not accepted any type of count of newsstand copies produced after the direct market era.

Agreed.  What data we have available, and applying brevity, says that newsstands didn't survive anywhere near as often as direct editions.  If anyone's tired of reading (and for brevity), stop here.

That survival wasn't a decision the books made. It was decided by the book owners. Direct edition owners generally saved books for decades.  Newsstand owners generally didn't. 

Newsstand survival was absolutely impacted by the decision of direct edition owners to pursue newsstands, or not, and most often the direct edition buyers didn't bother.  The available data for the newsstand issues where direct edition buyers did get involved (Thor #337, ASM #252, ASM #361) might as well be a different type of book altogether.

DE - normal direct edition

NS - normal newsstand

NS-DE - newsstands bought in large quantities by direct edition buyers (Thor #337, ASM #252, ASM #361)

It is wrong to use Thor #337, ASM #252, and ASM #361 data as evidence for newsstand survival rates, and it is wrong to use normal newsstand issue data as evidence for survival rates on these particular books.

The behavior of direct edition buyers toward the newsstands is the determining factor.

Edited January 4, 2022 by valiantman

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

On 1/4/2022 at 11:10 AM, valiantman said:

secret cabals of purple unicorn hoarders. 

Sounds like a custom title waiting to happen. 

 

Or a good title for a sales thread.. 

[Lazyboy]

On 1/4/2022 at 11:10 AM, valiantman said:

If they're still out there, as @Lazyboy claims, just not anywhere that can be seen in the market, then what does it matter?

It matters because they exist and can come to market, regardless of if or when that actually happens. Also, just because something isn't available somewhere with high visibility (like feeBay), that doesn't mean it isn't available. You might not have any idea what is available at my LCS, but I can see and buy it. Do you have any idea how much store/dealer stock exists that isn't visible online?

On 1/4/2022 at 11:28 AM, valiantman said:

It is wrong to use Thor #337, ASM #252, and ASM #361 data as evidence for common newsstand survival rates

Fixed, but yes, of course it is.

[valiantman]

On 1/4/2022 at 1:51 PM, Lazyboy said:

On 1/4/2022 at 11:10 AM, valiantman said:

If they're still out there, as @Lazyboy claims, just not anywhere that can be seen in the market, then what does it matter?

It matters because they exist and can come to market, regardless of if or when that actually happens. Also, just because something isn't available somewhere with high visibility (like feeBay), that doesn't mean it isn't available. You might not have any idea what is available at my LCS, but I can see and buy it. Do you have any idea how much store/dealer stock exists that isn't visible online?

Unless it's a store-specific variant (of which there are now literally thousands), there's no reason any LCS would have huge stocks of newsstand books that they somehow locked up, just waiting for the 41st year after printing to dump them on the market. 

Could it happen?  Yes, just like the purple unicorn thing.

Is it likely?  Uh, well... you don't seem to like numbers and statistics, so I'll just go with "no".

[Lazyboy]

On 1/4/2022 at 11:10 AM, valiantman said:

90%+ of newsstands didn't survive

Printed? Or sold?

Though it's a ridiculous statement either way, I want to know how absurd you really are

[valiantman]

On 1/4/2022 at 2:20 PM, Lazyboy said:

On 1/4/2022 at 11:10 AM, valiantman said:

90%+ of newsstands didn't survive

Printed? Or sold?

Printed... the basis for the "80% newsstand, 20% direct edition" for the 1982 estimate.

[Lazyboy]

On 1/4/2022 at 2:21 PM, valiantman said:

Printed... the basis for the "80% newsstand, 20% direct edition" for the 1982 estimate.

From Chuck? He's talking about sales numbers in the section before that (emphasis mine):

"Jim Shooter, way back in 1979. Jim had been quietly keeping track of Seagate's sales to comics shops, even though that was not really within the pervue of his role as Editor-In-Chief. What he told me at that time was that approximately 6% of Marvel's total sales were going into comics shops"

"1979

94%

6%"

[divad]

On 1/4/2022 at 7:29 AM, valiantman said:

Newsstands - which where purchased only by collectors who regularly purchased their books at the newsstand.

 

I agree with this.

On 1/4/2022 at 7:29 AM, valiantman said:

survived at a substantially lower rate than newsstands purchased by direct edition collectors who went to the newsstand and stocked up.

This is poppycock and there is zero evidence to support this.

Are you saying because I never went to a "comic book store" my books are ?

Are you saying "direct edition collectors" are more enthusiastic and less likely to frick up their books? 

[divad]

On 1/4/2022 at 9:28 AM, valiantman said:

Direct edition owners generally saved books for decades.  Newsstand owners generally didn't. 

Baloney - I still have HG books I bought off the rack in 1969, and older books I bought from a collection in 1967. 

[divad]

On 1/4/2022 at 7:38 AM, valiantman said:

1982 should have been a newsstand dominated time, but the direct edition collectors got as many Wolverine #1 (1982) as they wanted from their comic shops and ignored the newsstands (weeks later).

The result is that it's not even close to 50/50 or 80/20 in favor of newsstand editions of Wolverine #1 (1982), when compared to the direct editions. 

It's the opposite of what the number printed would have predicted based on newsstand and direct edition numbers.

How did the opposite happen? 

The narrative that newsstand dominated in 1982 and the behavior of direct edition collectors didn't matter for newsstand survival is the opposite of reality.

I didn't want to believe it either, but the numbers, over and over, for decades now, kept telling me that I was wrong.

Even Chuck Rozanski - trying to make newsstands rarer than they are - predicts 80% newsstand for 1982.

https://www.milehighcomics.com/newsletter/031513.html

Where are all those newsstand Wolverine #1 (1982) books?  Who has them today?

The only word that matters to survival is "protection".  Who did the protecting?

When you know who did the protecting, you know who is responsible for survival.

You're drinking the CGC Kool-Aid - There are easily tens of thousands of collectors who have never submitted a book to CGC, and even more than that, that don't even know the difference between a Newsstand and Direct edition.

You're not even considering that before 1992 (or even later) collecting was pretty much a private affair.

 

[divad]

On 1/4/2022 at 9:28 AM, valiantman said:

It is wrong to use Thor #337, ASM #252, and ASM #361 data as evidence for newsstand survival rates,

These are actually probably more accurate models than what you propose as fact.

[divad]

On 1/4/2022 at 9:10 AM, valiantman said:

purple unicorn

Add me to the ranks 

[valiantman]

On 1/5/2022 at 5:34 PM, divad said:

On 1/4/2022 at 11:28 AM, valiantman said:

Direct edition owners generally saved books for decades.  Newsstand owners generally didn't. 

Baloney - I still have HG books I bought off the rack in 1969, and older books I bought from a collection in 1967. 

What makes you think the quote you've selected would be talking about pre-direct market?

Of course pre-direct market has people saving newsstands, it's the only version that existed.

With the introduction of the direct market - to the very shops where serious collectors were buying and saving newsstands - the serious collectors switched over to direct editions (without doing anything different). 

When the direct market arrived, who was left buying newsstands?

The market could have been 80/20 majority newsstand, but if the serious collectors were buying the 20 and casual collectors bought the 80, we'd get a complete flip in survival rates. 

... and here we are.

Edited January 6, 2022 by valiantman

[valiantman]

On 1/5/2022 at 5:44 PM, divad said:

These are actually probably more accurate models than what you propose as fact.

No.

I'm only responsible for what I say, not for how much of it you understand.

Edited January 6, 2022 by valiantman

[valiantman]

On 1/5/2022 at 5:42 PM, divad said:

You're drinking the CGC Kool-Aid - There are easily tens of thousands of collectors who have never submitted a book to CGC, and even more than that, that don't even know the difference between a Newsstand and Direct edition.

You're not even considering that before 1992 (or even later) collecting was pretty much a private affair.

How many of those tens of thousands of collectors have raw 9.8 newsstand Amazing Spider-Man #300?  It's not thousands. It's tens.

[fastballspecial]

On 1/4/2022 at 11:28 AM, valiantman said:

Agreed.  What data we have available, and applying brevity, says that newsstands didn't survive anywhere near as often as direct editions.  If anyone's tired of reading (and for brevity), stop here.

That survival wasn't a decision the books made. It was decided by the book owners. Direct edition owners generally saved books for decades.  Newsstand owners generally didn't. 

Newsstand survival was absolutely impacted by the decision of direct edition owners to pursue newsstands, or not, and most often the direct edition buyers didn't bother.  The available data for the newsstand issues where direct edition buyers did get involved (Thor #337, ASM #252, ASM #361) might as well be a different type of book altogether.

DE - normal direct edition

NS - normal newsstand

NS-DE - newsstands bought in large quantities by direct edition buyers (Thor #337, ASM #252, ASM #361)

It is wrong to use Thor #337, ASM #252, and ASM #361 data as evidence for newsstand survival rates, and it is wrong to use normal newsstand issue data as evidence for survival rates on these particular books.

The behavior of direct edition buyers toward the newsstands is the determining factor.

What about the argument money brings them out? I agree to an extent, but I am playing devil's advocate here.

 

[valiantman]

On 1/5/2022 at 6:55 PM, fastballspecial said:

What about the argument money brings them out? I agree to an extent, but I am playing devil's advocate here.

Amazing Spider-Man #300 is one of the most common books of all time. Everyone knows about eBay and Facebook, etc. 

Are high grade ASM #300 newsstands not valuable enough yet? 

Thousands of them just sitting in boxes forgotten?

Ummmm... no. They don't exist. Tens might, but thousands don't.

Edited January 6, 2022 by valiantman

[fastballspecial]

On 1/5/2022 at 7:07 PM, valiantman said:

Amazing Spider-Man #300 is one of the most common books of all time. Everyone knows about eBay and Facebook, etc. 

Are high grade ASM #300 newsstands not valuable enough yet? 

Thousands of them just sitting in boxes forgotten?

Ummmm... no. They don't exist. Tens might, but thousands don't.

Okay fair enough, but you need more to convince me completely. 

We still see packs of books show up periodically like this. Last one I remember
was KS Avengers 10 Annual. A few years back I actually cut the string of a run
of Max Carnage ASM books. Not ASM 300 I know, but was still a pack of 50 of each book
which was 150 total in a warehouse find. They were all NM or better. 

Not saying you are not right the logic is there I just have trouble believing G.I. Joe 21 is
so much harder in newsstand to find. The supply was abundant at that year. Its just a hard
pill to swallow when it was readily available or Joe 1 for that matter.