How rare are modern newsstand editions? 5 5

[Lazyboy]

On 1/31/2022 at 2:52 PM, valiantman said:

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

Unfortunately, it does not tell us what we really want to know.

[valiantman]

On 1/31/2022 at 3:07 PM, FlyingDonut said:

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?

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.

Got it - but I have to ask... what does that matter?

There is no practical difference between "15% of the print run was newsstands and returned" and "some very small percentage of the copies still in existence are newsstand".

The topic is "How rare are modern newsstand editions?", not "How many did they make before thousands were returned and supposedly destroyed?"

[valiantman]

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

On 1/31/2022 at 2:52 PM, valiantman said:

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

Unfortunately, it does not tell us what we really want to know.

I'll concede that a higher percentage of newsstands than I suspected was printed.

The corresponding high percentage of the overall print run being returns doesn't give us the information we really want to know, but it does provide the possibility that both sides of this discussion can be true at the same time.

Something like 15% newsstand could have been printed while 1.9% newsstand might have survived, since there is documentation that 13.1% were returned. 

It's the 15% (or 30% or 14.5%) clarification that we need, and there is not a source for that.

When we consistently see 1.9% newsstand in the marketplace, it could be the correct newsstand survival rate, but it might be far from correct.  Regardless, it is the percentage in the marketplace.

Edited January 31, 2022 by valiantman

[FlyingDonut]

On 1/31/2022 at 4:10 PM, valiantman said:

Got it - but I have to ask... what does that matter?

There is no practical difference between "15% of the print run was newsstands and returned" and "some very small percentage of the copies still in existence are newsstand".

The topic is "How rare are modern newsstand editions?", not "How many did they make before thousands were returned and supposedly destroyed?"

It matters because the fundamental rock upon which all of this discussion rests is the print run.

Benjamin Nobel, Mile High Chuck, and everyone else hyping up newsstands for resale - and I fully admit that I am very happy to ride that wave and make money selling newsstand copies of books at a premium - trumpet the 1:100 ratio constantly as the print run, which it is not. The fundamental point for all of these discussions is a fallacy as to the print run, and that number is - while unknown - without question higher than 1:100. I believe, based on the number of outlets available to sell items that the print run ratio of any post 2010 newsstand is in the 1:10 range.

Is the 1:100 ratio of newsstand copies to direct copies available in the marketplace accurate? Maybe. For that we have some data - some - that tends to show it, but I'll bet if someone spent a summer hitting Half Price Books and other places those ratios would go down.

[paqart]

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?

That is about 10% but it is also the year 2001, when we would expect a newsstand print run of about 10%. Of course this would be returns, so there's no telling how many were sold, just that the number has to be less than the total and might be about the same amount as the returns. And that leaves the question: Where did they all go? The newsstands clearly do not disappear at the same rate as directs.

[FlyingDonut]

The roughly 10% return number holds for 2011 as well. This is the last year for which empirical data exists.

[paqart]

On 1/31/2022 at 4:19 PM, FlyingDonut said:

It matters because the fundamental rock upon which all of this discussion rests is the print run.

Benjamin Nobel, Mile High Chuck, and everyone else hyping up newsstands for resale - and I fully admit that I am very happy to ride that wave and make money selling newsstand copies of books at a premium - trumpet the 1:100 ratio constantly as the print run, which it is not. The fundamental point for all of these discussions is a fallacy as to the print run, and that number is - while unknown - without question higher than 1:100. I believe, based on the number of outlets available to sell items that the print run ratio of any post 2010 newsstand is in the 1:10 range.

Is the 1:100 ratio of newsstand copies to direct copies available in the marketplace accurate? Maybe. For that we have some data - some - that tends to show it, but I'll bet if someone spent a summer hitting Half Price Books and other places those ratios would go down.

I tried to put you on ignore but got a message saying I couldn't add you to my ignore list. I suppose that means you have special status.

In response to your most recent peroration, we have been talking about marketplace availability the entire time. We are not talking about print runs except incidentally as a possible contribution to the low numbers found in the market. I wrote this earlier, as did @Valiantman, so you really are trying to smash invisible piñatas here.

What's the name of your store? I want to avoid it.

[valiantman]

On 1/31/2022 at 3:19 PM, FlyingDonut said:

On 1/31/2022 at 3:10 PM, valiantman said:

Got it - but I have to ask... what does that matter?

There is no practical difference between "15% of the print run was newsstands and returned" and "some very small percentage of the copies still in existence are newsstand".

The topic is "How rare are modern newsstand editions?", not "How many did they make before thousands were returned and supposedly destroyed?"

It matters because the fundamental rock upon which all of this discussion rests is the print run.

Benjamin Nobel, Mile High Chuck, and everyone else hyping up newsstands for resale - and I fully admit that I am very happy to ride that wave and make money selling newsstand copies of books at a premium - trumpet the 1:100 ratio constantly as the print run, which it is not. The fundamental point for all of these discussions is a fallacy as to the print run, and that number is - while unknown - without question higher than 1:100. I believe, based on the number of outlets available to sell items that the print run ratio of any post 2010 newsstand is in the 1:10 range.

Is the 1:100 ratio of newsstand copies to direct copies available in the marketplace accurate? Maybe. For that we have some data - some - that tends to show it, but I'll bet if someone spent a summer hitting Half Price Books and other places those ratios would go down.

I agree on all points.

 

 

 

 

(I waited for those of you following the discussion to regain consciousness.)

The "print run" is the wrong term to apply.  Mile High Chuck began his table of percentages by using the "percent of Marvel sales going into comic shops", which would be the net percent after newsstand returns, not the original print run.  Then he goes on to include "survivability" and damage, which sounds like he's including the returns again... but I think he's talking about comic book conditions and consumer behavior (discarding).  Still, his numbers are thrown around as if they are the "print run" and they are not.

What Chuck does have available, that few of us would have anything close by comparison, is that his database of millions of comics does reflect the percentages of newsstand in his inventory of millions of books.

Whether the percentages shown in his article are accurate to his own inventory (or at least, at the time of writing that undated article), is also unknown.

Edited January 31, 2022 by valiantman

[Lazyboy]

On 1/31/2022 at 3:21 PM, paqart said:

That is about 10% but it is also the year 2001, when we would expect a newsstand print run of about 10%.

No, we wouldn't. You might. Newsstand print runs were not that low back then. Also, valiantman chose that specific year because the returns were unusually low compared to the surrounding years.

[MetalPSI]

On 1/31/2022 at 2:08 PM, paqart said:

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.

When I just got out of high school, I got a job with a man named Mogens Smed.

He refused to hire people with any type of business degree for the same reasons. I have a great respect for this man. Highly intelligent and very successful 

[Lazyboy]

On 1/31/2022 at 3:27 PM, paqart said:

In response to your most recent peroration, we have been talking about marketplace availability the entire time. We are not talking about print runs except incidentally as a possible contribution to the low numbers found in the market. I wrote this earlier, as did @Valiantman, so you really are trying to smash invisible piñatas here.

No, you have been talking about what you can see. However, nobody can see more than a tiny fraction of the market. So your observations mean very little.

On 1/31/2022 at 3:27 PM, paqart said:

What's the name of your store? I want to avoid it.

  He doesn't have a store.

[MetalPSI]

On 1/31/2022 at 2:41 PM, Lazyboy said:

No, you have been talking about what you can see. However, nobody can see more than a tiny fraction of the market. So your observations mean very little.

  He doesn't have a store.

I had used to think of it as Ron Jeremy's Mustache Ride Emporium, but then Ron Jeremy turned out to be the exact unsavory character he, well lets be honest, most of us expected him to be

[FlyingDonut]

On 1/31/2022 at 4:43 PM, The Meta said:

I had used to think of it as Ron Jeremy's Mustache Ride Emporium, but then Ron Jeremy turned out to be the exact unsavory character he, well lets be honest, most of us expected him to be

Hey now - I don't think anybody expected that.

[MetalPSI]

On 1/31/2022 at 2:44 PM, FlyingDonut said:

Hey now - I don't think anybody expected that.

Well I can't presume to move in porn star circles

But yeah, I didn't expect that 

[Lazyboy]

On 1/31/2022 at 3:15 PM, valiantman said:

Something like 15% newsstand could have been printed while 1.9% newsstand might have survived, since there is documentation that 13.1% were returned. 

That is completely unrealistic. Also, it's interesting that you are focusing solely on that year instead of the following year that had 25% returns (or the previous year).

[valiantman]

On 1/31/2022 at 4:16 PM, Lazyboy said:

That is completely unrealistic. Also, it's interesting that you are focusing solely on that year instead of the following year that had 25% returns (or the previous year).

You do realize that higher returns means fewer exist, right? 

If I had picked those years, you'd be complaining that I picked the year with the fewest surviving.

Edited January 31, 2022 by valiantman

[Lazyboy]

On 1/31/2022 at 4:45 PM, valiantman said:

You do realize that higher returns means fewer exist, right? 

Only if the number printed is the same. And if the "returns" don't still exist.

[jimjum12]

On 1/31/2022 at 4:19 PM, FlyingDonut said:

Is the 1:100 ratio of newsstand copies to direct copies available in the marketplace accurate? Maybe. For that we have some data - some - that tends to show it, but I'll bet if someone spent a summer hitting Half Price Books and other places those ratios would go down.

... another point would be the choice of examples .... using UF 4 may not be the best choice to pursue a ratio/proportion type of analysis and then attempt to apply those numbers to the Modern market at large, for the simple reason that hoarding may be more of a factor with this issue. I've said this before, trying to categorize the entire comic book back issue industry as one giant market to me is disingenuous. As time goes on, that "market" is going to splinter into many single "specific issue" markets. Take UF 4 for example. My Pal suggested I buy 2 copies when it first came out.... I NEVER bought current books at that time. I still have one of them today. Raw. 

   Years ago. the newstand edition came out a month after direct, so if that was still the case, the dynamic between the two will be altered. I remember riding around and scarfing up Thor 337, ASM 361, and other similar issues a month after they became hot.... but ONLY for those type of books. Books with enough data to make a comparison may not be a typical sample when talking about newstand variants as a whole. Using the current sold and available copies is only a partial reveal, especially when cast across the entire back issue industry. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

[paqart]

On 1/31/2022 at 5:55 PM, jimjum12 said:

... another point would be the choice of examples .... using UF 4 may not be the best choice to pursue a ratio/proportion type of analysis and then attempt to apply those numbers to the Modern market at large, for the simple reason that hoarding may be more of a factor with this issue. I've said this before, trying to categorize the entire comic book back issue industry as one giant market to me is disingenuous. As time goes on, that "market" is going to splinter into many single "specific issue" markets. Take UF 4 for example. My Pal suggested I buy 2 copies when it first came out.... I NEVER bought current books at that time. I still have one of them today. Raw. 

   Years ago. the newstand edition came out a month after direct, so if that was still the case, the dynamic between the two will be altered. I remember riding around and scarfing up Thor 337, ASM 361, and other similar issues a month after they became hot.... but ONLY for those type of books. Books with enough data to make a comparison may not be a typical sample when talking about newstand variants as a whole. Using the current sold and available copies is only a partial reveal, especially when cast across the entire back issue industry. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

Strangely enough, it doesn't look like anyone disagrees with you. It reminds me of when I wanted to get an apartment in Maine when I was in my 20's.My wife thought I would spend too much and I thought she wouldn't spend enough to get a decent place. Turns out we had exactly the same figure in mind.

FlyingDonut & Co are complaining about print run ratios, despite a conversation about rarity in the market. They also complain that we can't know the answer, which is true. It certainly does not mean we can't make an educated guess or act on what we see in the market.

As for hoards, if we wait for everything to settle down information-wise, we may have missed the best buying opportunities.

The reason I don't focus on comics like ASM 300 is that they are common in newsstand and direct in addition to being too expensive. I also don't focus on UF4 because it is too expensive for me. Unless I get lucky at a flea market, this isn't a comic I expect to see in my collection. That said, both of those comics are good for setting benchmark availability because they are so well-represented in the market.

Other comics are more interesting to me because they appear to be either just as rare as UF4 but they are affordable and have something decent to recommend them. For instance, I like Darwyn Cooke's art a lot, so I am looking for newsstand editions of his work, many of which are spectacularly difficult to find though inexpensive.

Print run ratios, it would seem, must influence availability. However, when a comic from 1980 starts with 80% newsstand and ends up with 14% newsstand, there is a huge destruction rate. What that tells me is that destruction , or survivability, is more important to market availability. Comics like UF4 throw a wrench into that theory however, unless they also had a small run of newsstand editions. By "small" I mean less than 5%.

The circulation notices I'd be most interested in are for the 2005-2008 period, when newsstand availability seems to be the lowest.

[fastballspecial]

I've found the ignore command useful these last few years on here more so than ever before.