How rare are modern newsstand editions? 6 6

[valiantman]

On 1/31/2022 at 11:15 PM, FlyingDonut said:

I would add MSH 8, Man of Steel 18, Superman 75, and Batman 428 to that list. That's probably another list - which books have significantly higher marketplace availability as newsstands than others.

Yes, I believe those  issues will be obvious from the marketplace data. We should be able to see a multiplier of newsstand availability percentages compared to nearby issues. 

[bababooey]

Without pulling or working with the Diamond direct sales numbers from the statement of ownership figures, you're just "moving on or forward" to further misinformation, return percentages mean little if you can't reasonably estimate direct sales.  

Applying a 57% (?) return rate from 1999 and using it on data from 12 years later doesn't make any sense.  I'd ask for an explanation but I still don't know if the '86 tipping point was production or sales. 

The Avengers title has some serious changes over 12 years - Liefeld Reborn to Busiek/Perez reboot to Geoff Johns to Bendis as well as being a core Civil War boosted companion book in 2007.  For the record, ASM saw a doubling of direct sales with JMS/JRJR run over a short period of time - - - overall distribution was flat because newsstand sales declined sharply..    

Whatever chart or easily understood graphic comes from the assumptions made in this thread is likely to be misunderstood and misinterpreted by others, I realize that discussions of supply here create demand in the marketplace.  Attempting to align data from "production and distribution" to support the market availability calculations doesn't work in reality but it's worse if you aren't considering all factors available.  In summary, I agree with some of the data and believe that late Marvel newsstands are very rare but it's meaningless without demand..  

Edited February 1, 2022 by bababooey

[FlyingDonut]

On 2/1/2022 at 12:14 AM, valiantman said:

Would this include early Ronin issues of New Avengers?

Maybe the 27 - that's the only one from 2007.

[valiantman]

On 2/1/2022 at 5:31 AM, bababooey said:

Without pulling or working with the Diamond direct sales numbers from the statement of ownership figures...

The Diamond direct sales numbers are North American first month only.  Feel free to plug them in, but you'll be right back where we are now.  Reorders and non-North American orders are not recorded, so the amount of sales which are not first month North American stays the same, and it is a blend of direct reorders, non-North American direct orders, and newsstands combined.  There's no way to divide those buckets.

Edited February 1, 2022 by valiantman

[valiantman]

On 2/1/2022 at 5:31 AM, bababooey said:

Applying a 57% (?) return rate from 1999 and using it on data from 12 years later doesn't make any sense.  I'd ask for an explanation but I still don't know if the '86 tipping point was production or sales. 

The Avengers title has some serious changes over 12 years - Liefeld Reborn to Busiek/Perez reboot to Geoff Johns to Bendis as well as being a core Civil War boosted companion book in 2007.  For the record, ASM saw a doubling of direct sales with JMS/JRJR run over a short period of time - - - overall distribution was flat because newsstand sales declined sharply..    

Whatever chart or easily understood graphic comes from the assumptions made in this thread is likely to be misunderstood and misinterpreted by others, I realize that discussions of supply here create demand in the marketplace.  Attempting to align data from "production and distribution" to support the market availability calculations doesn't work in reality but it's worse if you aren't considering all factors available.  In summary, I agree with some of the data and believe that late Marvel newsstands are very rare but it's meaningless without demand..  

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

For Avengers, the last three return rates prior to the start of the direct market (1976-1978) were right around 54%, and @Lazyboy said we should use the mid-1980s as the 50/50 distribution point, not the 50/50 printing point.  That results in a 57% return rate in the mid-1980s, after the start of the direct market.  The 54%/57% has a basis in pre-direct years and is a "hard" calculation from mid-1980s mid-direct years, so applying 57% in later direct years isn't too far-fetched. It probably wasn't lower than 57%, so these are "highest newsstand estimate" numbers. Plus, return rates generally stay in that range for magazines, etc.

The objections to what others are posting in other locations online is that the "rarity" is being overstated (when it's suggested it's 1%), therefore, I'm working with the people who object to those numbers by trying to find the maximums.  @Lazyboy and @FlyingDonut suggest that print runs were still about 50/50 in 1999, so the "worst case" scenario for Avengers 1999 newsstands, given the return rate recorded in the statement of ownership would be 30% newsstand among surviving copies of the books before they were handled/mishandled/damaged/discarded by the average newsstand shopper or eventual newsstand buyer.  Carrying that method forward to Avengers 2007 newsstands and the "worst case" is about 6% newsstand (or lower).  If the mid-1980s was the 50/50 printing point, all these newsstand percentages would be lower, but we're looking for "worst case".

In other words, even those who strongly oppose the "misinformation" around newsstands are in agreement that 1999 Avengers were probably no more than 30% newsstand and the Avengers 2007 newsstands were probably no more than 6% surviving after returns.  The percentages which can be seen in the marketplace for newsstand are lower in both cases, but the argument can be made that the books do exist "out there" in the hands of those who are less likely to use eBay (or public marketplaces) to sell these issues (at current prices) than active collectors online or people who run fulltime online comic businesses more likely to have inventory which is primarily direct editions.  

Regardless, it is a "win" if you consider that many who read these newsstand topics don't know what to think.  If the newsstand "detractors" say it's 6% and the newsstand "enthusiasts" say it's 1%, then it is a "win" if those who don't know what to think limit their guess to between 1% and 6%.  It has been possible that people have been thinking it could be 50% and that there would be no difference between newsstand and direct, but that has been completely ruled out now for anyone who is literate.

Edited February 1, 2022 by valiantman

[valiantman]

On 2/1/2022 at 8:16 AM, FlyingDonut said:

On 1/31/2022 at 11:14 PM, valiantman said:

Would this include early Ronin issues of New Avengers?

Maybe the 27 - that's the only one from 2007.

A slightly higher rate of returns for Avengers in 2006 (7.7% vs. 7.2% for 2007) would include the earliest Ronin issues.  The 57% returns method points to 86.5% direct, 13.5% newsstand printed, with 5.8% surviving.

That's 5.8% newsstand surviving from 92.3% of the print run (after 7.7% returns), or about 6.3% of surviving copies as newsstand.

CGC has identified $2.99 newsstand separately in the CGC Census for New Avengers #11 (1st Ronin) since mid-2019, and the overall rate of newsstand graded for New Avengers #11 since newsstand was separated out has been 3.1% (15 out of 478 graded copies).  Assuming all the 6.3% newsstand still exist, we're seeing about half-the-likelihood of a newsstand being CGC graded vs. a direct edition for this issue.

Edited February 1, 2022 by valiantman

[FlyingDonut]

On 2/1/2022 at 12:01 PM, valiantman said:

A slightly higher rate of returns for Avengers in 2006 (7.7% vs. 7.2% for 2007) would include the earliest Ronin issues.  The 57% returns method points to 86.5% direct, 13.5% newsstand printed, with 5.8% surviving.

That's 5.8% newsstand surviving from 92.3% of the print run (after 7.7% returns), or about 6.3% of surviving copies as newsstand.

CGC has identified $2.99 newsstand separately in the CGC Census for New Avengers #11 (1st Ronin) since mid-2019, and the overall rate of newsstand graded for New Avengers #11 since newsstand was separated out has been 3.1% (15 out of 478 graded copies).  Assuming all the 6.3% newsstand still exist, we're seeing about half-the-likelihood of a newsstand being CGC graded vs. a direct edition for this issue.

I think that number - 6% or so - in the marketplace for a somewhat key-ish 2007 newsstand passes the smell test.

[bababooey]

@valiantman  I chartified your "57% returns method" for newsstand101.com and rare comics - benjynobel/solarcollector 

 

I've got other ASM number exercises like the ones I posted in the @GarBear newsstand discussion thread I linked earlier but can't really respond to other stuff when my ASM figures tell me NS editions were about 40% of sales late in the v2 Byrne run.   

If your methodology is to just find common ground to appease a critic like @Lazyboy and then expecting others to shape opinions based on arbitrary acceptable thresholds, have fun.

[MetalPSI]

On 2/1/2022 at 11:15 AM, bababooey said:

@valiantman  I chartified your "57% returns method" for newsstand101.com and rare comics - benjynobel/solarcollector 

 

I've got other ASM number exercises like the ones I posted in the @GarBear newsstand discussion thread I linked earlier but can't really respond to other stuff when my ASM figures tell me NS editions were about 40% of sales late in the v2 Byrne run.   

If your methodology is to just find common ground to appease a critic like @Lazyboy and then expecting others to shape opinions based on arbitrary acceptable thresholds, have fun.

40% of sales

Is that common between other titles as well?

[bababooey]

On 2/1/2022 at 1:29 PM, The Meta said:

40% of sales

Is that common between other titles as well?

Maybe X-men but I think ASM was the best selling Marvel newsstand during those late 90's- early 2000's was probably Marvel's last best effort to maintain newsstand distribution after rebooting most of their major titles.  Anecdotally ASM was the only title I could buy at both of the corner stores that carried comics.  Never saw much X-men on the stands till the movie released.

[WoWitHurts]

On 1/31/2022 at 10:53 PM, FlyingDonut said:

That should be relatively easy to do - its just money, yes? Or are you looking for specifically high grades? Newsstands for ASM should be very easy to find.

9.8 white pages is what I look for. I have most of the hard ones out of the way but when someone is asking  >$500 for a run of the mill Rose appearance I know I’m in trouble lol. So yes, just a money issue.

[Lazyboy]

On 2/1/2022 at 5:31 AM, bababooey said:

Applying a 57% (?) return rate from 1999 and using it on data from 12 years later doesn't make any sense.

A 57% return rate is a fairly reasonable estimate to use for a general comparison between years. It's obviously not perfect, but, if anything, it's probably a bit low.

On 2/1/2022 at 5:31 AM, bababooey said:

  I'd ask for an explanation but I still don't know if the '86 tipping point was production or sales. 

The tipping point was definitely sales, not production. The question is exactly when it happened, for both the market in general and for individual titles.

On 2/1/2022 at 5:31 AM, bababooey said:

The Avengers title has some serious changes over 12 years - Liefeld Reborn to Busiek/Perez reboot to Geoff Johns to Bendis as well as being a core Civil War boosted companion book in 2007.  For the record, ASM saw a doubling of direct sales with JMS/JRJR run over a short period of time - - - overall distribution was flat because newsstand sales declined sharply.. 

Yes. Newsstand sales would have varied from title to title and even issue to issue.

[paqart]

On 2/1/2022 at 12:08 AM, valiantman said:

Avengers 2007 has 172,200 copies per issue reported.

87.4% direct would be 150,500 direct editions.

12.6% newsstand would be 21,700 copies printed with 9,300 surviving after 12,400 returns.

 

About half for Avengers 2011:  75,000 direct and 4,700 newsstand after 6,200 returns.

Now I'd like to see the numbers for a lower circulation comic, the kind that has become a no-see-um in the market, like with a print run around 20k. Working with the same percentages, that dips below the supposed minimum for viability.

[valiantman]

On 2/1/2022 at 1:46 PM, paqart said:

Now I'd like to see the numbers for a lower circulation comic, the kind that has become a no-see-um in the market, like with a print run around 20k. Working with the same percentages, that dips below the supposed minimum for viability.

I'm not sure there's a title available with those qualifications: https://www.comichron.com/titlespotlights.html

[Lazyboy]

On 2/1/2022 at 1:46 PM, paqart said:

Now I'd like to see the numbers for a lower circulation comic, the kind that has become a no-see-um in the market, like with a print run around 20k. Working with the same percentages, that dips below the supposed minimum for viability.

For the first step there, you're going to have to find us a title with a verified print run around 20k that was distributed through the newsstand channel. Good luck. I'll wait.

[Lazyboy]

On 2/1/2022 at 1:49 PM, valiantman said:

I'm not sure there's a title available with those qualifications: https://www.comichron.com/titlespotlights.html

Not on Comichron, for sure. But Comichron only has a small number of titles on the site. Unfortunately, full SoO information is generally hard to find online. And, of course, lots of titles didn't have them for various reasons.

[MetalPSI]

On 2/1/2022 at 12:56 PM, Lazyboy said:

Not on Comichron, for sure. But Comichron only has a small number of titles on the site. Unfortunately, full SoO information is generally hard to find online. And, of course, lots of titles didn't have them for various reasons.

Such as?

[Lazyboy]

On 2/1/2022 at 2:04 PM, The Meta said:

Such as?

Statements of Ownership are legal documents required by the USPS for periodicals to qualify for a special class/rate.

DC quit publishing them in the late 1980s. They were not required to publish them any longer because they changed how they mailed subscription copies.

Also, limited series and short-lived titles didn't last long enough for them to ever be published. Generally, the first SoO in a title wouldn't be published until the late-teens/early-twenties. Of course, that's only for new titles. Often, when Marvel relaunched titles, they were considered a continuation of the old title for many purposes, so you would see a SoO in Hulk (v.2) #8, for example.

[paqart]

On 2/1/2022 at 2:49 PM, valiantman said:

I'm not sure there's a title available with those qualifications: https://www.comichron.com/titlespotlights.html

Looks like you're right. Iron Man comes closest but not close enough. If anything, this data highlights the importance of destruction over print run. Now that I think of it, we may have two separate conversations going on here, and a different explanation for each. The first is availability, which seems best explained by destruction/returns. The second is value, and the attempt to justify it on the basis of absolute rarity.

The contentious issue appears to be value/rarity. There doesn't seem to be any significant disagreement regarding availability/destruction. Can we consider the availability/destruction issue resolved as: newsstand comics, particularly those printed after 2000, are often found in quantities less than 1 for every 100 direct edition counterparts? Further, that the range of newsstand availability post 2000 is about 1%-6%, depending on the comic?

What is not resolved is value based on rarity. This is unresolved because, 1) a known print run provides the lower bounds of rarity. Because these numbers are unknown, this boundary is also unknown, 2) The number of extant newsstands not on the market is unknown. This number has the potential to radically alter the availability of comics presumed to be rare if the hoards are of sufficient size. Thus, in combination with an unknown print run, lack of information about extant newsstands creates risk that absolute rarity is an illusion created by lack of information, 3) market availability may not accurately reflect absolute rarity, though it is representative of current market availability at any given time.

There are arguments provided in this thread and elsewhere that are designed to allow an inference to be made regarding absolute rarity on the basis of market availability. The opposing side of the argument contend that market availability cannot be a true reflection of absolute rarity on the basis of many factors. One of those factors is the claim that estimates of rarity are based on flawed estimates rather than data. The fact that those estimates come from people who are possibly in a good position to know this information (a Marvel executive and the owner of what may be the largest inventory of comic books in North America, respectively) is disregarded as irrelevant. Both claims are untrustworthy, they say, because one is a casual answer to a question with no serious research behind it, and the other comes from a biased person who stands to gain financially from the false belief that newsstand editions are significantly rarer than their direct counterparts.

Unfortunately for those who find the absolute rarity based on market availability argument wanting, their own positions are generally articulated in a way that is both demanding and evidence-free. They are also loaded with copious insults, false accusations, name-calling, and generally vitriolic and emotional language. It is an abuse of this forum, the English language, and the hobby of comic book collecting to argue in such a manner. In contrast, the other side has been far more reasonable. All by itself, this makes their argument more compelling because it is less offensive. If the counter-argument, weak as it is, happens to be right, it would be best for proponents of it to learn how to present their position more graciously.

Speaking for myself, I find it extremely hard to believe that absolute rarity as an expression of print run volumes, tells us more than current marketplace availability. As my LCS owner once told me, "I'm in the business of selling comics, as many as possible and as fast as possible." From his point of view, he'd rather sell a comic for a small profit now than hold out for a larger profit later. The result is a successful shop with high sales and reasonable prices. A check of the market, meaning multiple online venues, not just eBay, suggests that my LCS owner is not the only dealer who feels that way. For those reasons, and a few others, I do think market availability does reflect rarity, even if imperfectly. It is entirely possible that some comics haven't been released yet because they haven't become valuable enough to do so, but then we run into the following situation:

Dealers are not the primary market for, or buyers of, newsstands. Dealers sell comics on eBay but so do non-dealers. Comics go up for sale every day for a few dollars apiece. This is not "significant value". Dealers tend to bundle low value comics as "sets". Non-dealers sell as sets or as single copies. Either way, dealers and non-dealers put low value items up for sale every day. Dealers normally do not buy newsstand editions and, until their rarity became a topic of interest, they had no incentive to seek them out. Therefore, marketplace observations that dealers have fewer newsstands than non-dealers make sense. And this is why eBay is such a valuable tool for finding newsstands: because it is here that they are most likely to be found. The eBay venue is an open marketplace not restricted to dealers, thus making it possible for the original purchasers of newsstand comics to sell them to the widest audience possible. That scenario presents the real possibility that the proportion of newsstand editions to directs as found on eBay is an over-representation of their absolute rarity. EBay effectively concentrates newsstands on their platform because the people most likely to own them are also most likely to use eBay as a sales venue.

With the above paragraph, I have taken a step beyond suggesting that marketplace availability can be used as an indicia of absolute rarity. I am saying that rather than erring in the direction of making newsstand editions appear to be more rare, I think it is possible that eBay makes newsstand editions appear to be less rare than they actually are.

[Lazyboy]

On 2/1/2022 at 10:50 AM, valiantman said:

The objections to what others are posting in other locations online is that the "rarity" is being overstated (when it's suggested it's 1%), therefore, I'm working with the people who object to those numbers by trying to find the maximums.  @Lazyboy and @FlyingDonut suggest that print runs were still about 50/50 in 1999, so the "worst case" scenario for Avengers 1999 newsstands, given the return rate recorded in the statement of ownership would be 30% newsstand among surviving copies of the books before they were handled/mishandled/damaged/discarded by the average newsstand shopper or eventual newsstand buyer.  Carrying that method forward to Avengers 2007 newsstands and the "worst case" is about 6% newsstand (or lower).  If the mid-1980s was the 50/50 printing point, all these newsstand percentages would be lower, but we're looking for "worst case".

Well, the theoretical maximum is the number of copies printed. The realistic maximum is lower, of course. But there's no way of knowing how many people like Lifesuggs and his friend are out there