How rare are modern newsstand editions? 5 5

[valiantman]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:24 PM, Lazyboy said:

On 1/31/2022 at 1:19 PM, valiantman said:

No - in the situation where the availability in the marketplace is consistently 1%, I stick to my estimate that the original percentage printed might be 5%.

You will stick to your estimate that the percentage of Newsstands printed could be 5% when returns are over 10%? That's... interesting.

What are you quoting when you say that returns are over 10%?

[valiantman]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:24 PM, Lazyboy said:

On 1/31/2022 at 1:19 PM, valiantman said:

Would you like to supply your sources which claim that newsstand was always at least 20% of the original print run?  I'm happy to review them.

No, since I never said that. Come back when you understand what I wrote.

Really?

On 1/24/2022 at 2:34 PM, Lazyboy said:

No, it couldn't have been. The ratio of printed copies was likely never under around 80:20, and even that is pushing it.

[Lazyboy]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:30 PM, valiantman said:

Really?

"Around" 20 does not mean "always at least" 20.

[Lazyboy]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:27 PM, valiantman said:

What are you quoting when you say that returns are over 10%?

Statements of Ownership. Go find me any that show returns under 5%, which is the only possible way the Newsstand print run could be as low as 5%.

[valiantman]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:35 PM, Lazyboy said:

On 1/31/2022 at 1:30 PM, valiantman said:

Really?

"Around" 20 does not mean "always at least" 20.

"Never under around 20, and even that is pushing it" sounds a lot like "at least 20". 

[valiantman]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:37 PM, Lazyboy said:

Statements of Ownership. Go find me any that show returns under 5%, which is the only possible way the Newsstand print run could be as low as 5%.

I need an example.  Statements of Ownership which specify the number of Newsstand issues printed and the returns would be exactly the kind of evidence this topic could use.

Do you have... any? 

[Lazyboy]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:19 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Some people want to discuss the current availability of newsstands in the marketplace, and some others want to criticize them for making what they believe are incorrect claims about the original print run and ratio figures that they are not discussing and have said numerous times that they are not discussing.

In other words, it's the usual CGC board fare when it comes to any subject about newsstands.   

Again, paqart cannot see the marketplace. He can see only a tiny part (yes, though highly visible, it is still only a tiny part) of it. So his claims about availability in the marketplace can be immediately dismissed.

[valiantman]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:43 PM, Lazyboy said:

Again, paqart cannot see the marketplace. He can see only a tiny part (yes, though highly visible, it is still only a tiny part) of it. So his claims about availability in the marketplace can be immediately dismissed.

Are you suggesting that when a newsstand sells for $1,000 in a highly visible portion of the marketplace, that there are other places (not as highly visible) where the item is more available and can still be purchased for pennies on the dollar, or are you just assuming such places must exist?

Because the highly visible portion of the marketplace either reflects the market or it doesn't.  If you think it doesn't reflect the market, you'll need to give an example of specifically where the market deviates.  (For clarity: "in my imagination" isn't a specific place.)

[Lazyboy]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:40 PM, valiantman said:

I need an example.  Statements of Ownership which specify the number of Newsstand issues printed and the returns would be exactly the kind of evidence this topic could use.

Do you have... any? 

Are you kidding?

If the average print run of a title is 85,445 and the average returns (which are all Newsstands) are 11,864, how can Newsstands possibly make up only 5% of the print run? Even if there were somehow 0 copies sold, it is physically impossible.

[valiantman]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:48 PM, Lazyboy said:

Are you kidding?

If the average print run of a title is 85,445 and the average returns (which are all Newsstands) are 11,864, how can Newsstands possibly make up only 5% of the print run? Even if there were somehow 0 copies sold, it is physically impossible.

Show me the 85,445 and the 11,864.  That's what I'm saying... and no, I'm not kidding.

[Lazyboy]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:48 PM, valiantman said:

Are you suggesting that when a newsstand sells for $1,000 in a highly visible portion of the marketplace, that there are other places (not as highly visible) where the item is more available and can still be purchased for pennies on the dollar, or are you just assuming such places must exist?

Because the highly visible portion of the marketplace either reflects the market or it doesn't.  If you think it doesn't reflect the market, you'll need to give an example of specifically where the market deviates.  (For clarity: "in my imagination" isn't a specific place.)

He's making claims about worthless junk like random Catwoman comics, not just Ultimate Fallout 4.

If there was a Newsstand copy of UF4 at my LCS (or Bob's LCS or that flea market in Tacoma) that you couldn't see, why would it have to be priced under market value? Nice strawman.

[Lazyboy]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:49 PM, valiantman said:

Show me the 85,445 and the 11,864.  That's what I'm saying... and no, I'm not kidding.

https://www.comichron.com/titlespotlights/amazingspiderman.html

[Lazyboy]

On 1/31/2022 at 10:07 AM, paqart said:

And that is the point I was making. Mr. Donut seemed to be trying to say that there was a minimum number of newsstands that Marvel or DC would print. The logic is that below a certain number, it isn't worth the cost of manufacture and distribution. I don't deny the logic of the argument but it doesn't fit the evidence very well.

There is no evidence. You're going to a (insert political entity) rally, doing a poll there and then declaring they're guaranteed to win in a landslide.

On 1/31/2022 at 10:07 AM, paqart said:

The point is this: if there was a minimum number below which printing isn't viable, surely UF4 had to go below whatever that threshold was to produce the results we see in the market. That, or the destruction rate for that comic had to be much higher than normal for newsstand comics.

Or you just don't know or understand anything.

 

[valiantman]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:54 PM, Lazyboy said:

https://www.comichron.com/titlespotlights/amazingspiderman.html

Alright!  Now we're getting somewhere.  MARVEL officially states that for 12 issues of Amazing Spider-Man in 2001, they printed an average of 131,367 copies.

They received an average of 17,210 returns - assuming they are all newsstand, correct?  What about direct edition damages?  Anyway...

Marvel specifies that only 114,157 copies exist. (Clearly says "Copies existent")

Are you suggesting that the 17,210 returns - all newsstand issues, by your estimation - still exist?

[Microchip]

On 2/1/2022 at 2:54 AM, paqart said:

On 1/31/2022 at 4:29 PM, Microchip said:

You completely avoided providing a number, you lying person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed.

Answering a question doesn't always require the answer sought. I was asked for a number, I said there was no reasonable method of coming up with one. That is an answer. You may as well ask someone, "when did you stop beating your wife?" If he answers, "I don't beat my wife", is that a non-answer because it wasn't a date?

I was directly quoting our ever so helpful lazyboy.   The quicker he shuffles off to another thread to hassle people there, the better 

[MetalPSI]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:13 PM, Microchip said:

I was directly quoting our ever so helpful lazyboy.   The quicker he shuffles off to another thread to hassle people there, the better 

Again, in no position to state anything of the sort 

[Lazyboy]

On 1/31/2022 at 2:09 PM, valiantman said:

Alright!  Now we're getting somewhere.  MARVEL officially states that for 12 issues of Amazing Spider-Man in 2001, they printed an average of 131,367 copies.

They received an average of 17,210 returns - assuming they are all newsstand, correct?  What about direct edition damages?  Anyway...

I don't believe Direct damages were ever accounted for in the return (which was an anachronism at that point) numbers. The overprint for Directs above the number of copies actually ordered by Diamond would cover that and Diamond would dispose of any extra stock they wound up with in any number of ways rather than returning them.

On 1/31/2022 at 2:09 PM, valiantman said:

Marvel specifies that only 114,157 copies exist. (Clearly says "Copies existent")

That's not part of the actual SoO or from Marvel. That was added by JJM and is not an accurate descriptor.

On 1/31/2022 at 2:09 PM, valiantman said:

Are you suggesting that the 17,210 returns - all newsstand issues, by your estimation - still exist?

All of them? No. Some unknown (and likely relatively small) percentage of them? Absolutely.

[valiantman]

So, if I'm understanding your interpretation of the Statement of Ownership, you believe:

1) Marvel printed 131,367 copies (on average) in 2001 for Amazing Spider-Man

2) 17,210 returns were all newsstand, which would be 13.1% of the total copies printed.

3) Some unknown (and likely relatively small) percentage of the returns still exist.

4) We have no information about the number of newsstand copies sold (not returned).

5) None of the direct edition North American orders reported in the first month (also on Comichron.com) were newsstands, and second month orders, additional reorders, non-North American orders are also direct editions and are not accounted.

6) Given this information, the Statement of Ownership only provides a wide range of possible percentages from nearly 0% up to about 30% (not first month direct edition orders) of all copies of Amazing Spider-Man from 2001 still in existence which could be newsstand.

Is that accurate?

Using the Statement of Ownership and first month North American direct edition sales numbers to provide a range of possible newsstand percentages still in existence between nearly 0% up to about 30% for ASM in 2001 doesn't really tell us anything... does it?

Edited January 31, 2022 by valiantman

[FlyingDonut]

On 1/31/2022 at 3:09 PM, valiantman said:

Alright!  Now we're getting somewhere.  MARVEL officially states that for 12 issues of Amazing Spider-Man in 2001, they printed an average of 131,367 copies.

They received an average of 17,210 returns - assuming they are all newsstand, correct?  What about direct edition damages?  Anyway...

Marvel specifies that only 114,157 copies exist. (Clearly says "Copies existent")

Are you suggesting that the 17,210 returns - all newsstand issues, by your estimation - still exist?

Neither Lazyboy nor I have ever made this statement. What we are saying is that there is NO CHANCE the print run of that book was 1:100 newsstand to direct. Or 5:100 or whatever number gets thrown out there. That's what Chuck and many many others conflate. The print run with the number of copies in the marketplace.

[paqart]

On 1/31/2022 at 12:04 PM, The Meta said:

I am envious. I've only been able to achieve a trade, I really would have liked to have gone to university, but sometimes, life just doesn't work that way.

I've given serious thought to furthering my education when I retire, so I have the time and funds to do so

FYI: I co-founded an academy for game developers in the Netherlands. I hired lecturers who did not have teaching experience because I preferred real world practical experience. The applicants who had high degrees tended to be awful teachers. I found out because my dean overruled me on a couple of hires and we got saddled with people who were not useful as teachers. For most of my career, I didn't have a degree of any kind. I left high school with an equivalency exam when I was 14, started college, but left because I didn't have the money for school. Instead, I started working for a living and kept it up. 
For the most part, I did not have a positive impression of people with advanced degrees because they were usually less capable than self-taught CG artists and animators (the two roles I most often hired for). At the academy I co-founded, I was required to get an advanced degree. From their point of view, it could be a master's or a PhD. I went for the PhD because I assumed my decades of industry experience would allow me to skip the master's. I also assumed, incorrectly, that it wouldn't be difficult. My assumption was based on the two textbooks on computer graphics that I wrote and illustrated for the academic publisher Springer/UK. I was thinking, "how hard can a thesis be? I am already an established expert in this field. All I have to do is write it up." How wrong I was. I had to do original research in a subject that I didn't know that much about and then deliver a tightly written thesis, which is much different from a textbook.

The end result is that I now have more respect for people who have done a challenging PhD thesis and acquitted themselves well at a school with high standards. However, I remain impressed with people who have no more than practical experience in their field.

In the context of this discussion, I have mentioned the PhD a couple of times for two reasons: the first is that it is relevant to research. Also, there are some posters here who have made incorrect statements on subjects germane to research methodology, which is a subject I have some experience with. I even taught a masters level university class on the subject for a few years. 

So, I am not attempting to make an appeal to authority but am establishing that I do have some experience conducting research. There are research questions that will be accepted as the basis for a PhD thesis and others that simply aren't up to that standard. The question here about newsstand rarity is suitable for a paper or two, maybe even a master's thesis in a business or statistics-oriented field. If the answer were known, however, it would be worthless. The only research questions worth considering are those that haven't been answered yet, or cannot have conclusive answers due to conflicting data. The newsstand question is one example of just such a question.

Attempts by others here to essentially prevent research because they already know the answer, and the answer is, "there is no answer", is a poor way to think through this problem. The rarity questio has real value to collectors, sellers, and even comic book historians. Therefore, it is worth answering. It is difficult to answer due to conflicting and incomplete data. Something else to consider: even if we knew exactly what the print run for direct and newsstand editions were, we still wouldn't know why these comics appear in the ratios we see them in the market. The reason for that may be the numbers discarded, destroyed, or even hoarded. That is not an answer that anyone could reasonably find in a lifetime. Therefore, an estimate is the next best thing and possibly the nly way to get an answer to work with.

Edited January 31, 2022 by paqart