CGC now featuring newsstand copy designation 6 6

[valiantman]

On 9/26/2022 at 6:50 PM, Lazyboy said:

There's nothing wrong with collecting Newsstands, in and of itself. Stripe fetishists deserve the same respect and understanding as everybody else.

...and comic book purists (praise be their name) who ABSOLUTELY DEMAND to only see Spider-Man's head on their Care Bears books deserve our appreciation and obeisance. 

I mean, if Spidey's head wasn't there... well, that would be ridiculous.

(Care Bears in the MCU... you heard it here first!  Barcode lovers will wail and moan that they don't have the preferred Spidey edition of Care Bears #17. Rumor is that John Malkovich is up for the part of Love-A-Lot.)

Edited September 27, 2022 by valiantman

[FlyingDonut]

The issue isn't that the marketplace is saying that newsstands are more valuable. The issue is that people are taking garbage information as gospel. Chuck's chart. Benjamin Nobel's blog. THEY ARE MAKING STUFF UP TO SUIT AN AGENDA.

Are post-2010 newsstands hard to find and rare? Yes, absolutely. Are they 1% of the print run? I think we can actually prove that number to be a fallacy by people who want to sell you things.

Edited September 27, 2022 by FlyingDonut

[paqart]

On 9/27/2022 at 1:28 PM, FlyingDonut said:

The issue isn't that the marketplace is saying that newsstand are more valuable. The issue is that people are taking garbage information as gospel. Chuck's chart. Benjamin Nobel's blog. THEY ARE MAKING STUFF UP TO SUIT AN AGENDA.

Are post-2010 newsstands hard to find and rare? Yes, absolutely. Are they 1% of the print run? I think we can actually prove that number to be a fallacy by people who want to sell you things.

The term "garbage information" is meaningless.

The claim, "They are making stuff up to suit an agenda", is meaningless in the context of actual newsstand rarity, even if the claim about Chuck and Ben is true. As for whether the claim is true, Chuck certainly benefits from a belief that newsstand issues are worth more than non-newsstand issues because he can raise his prices. That doesn't change the fact that those comics are more difficult to find, and thus for him to stock, and collectors are looking for them. All of these things are true regardless whether Chuck benefits. As for Ben, what vested interest does he have beyond recognition of the rarity of these items? His Canadian price guide, if nothing else, shows that he has diligently made the effort to compile pricing information for Canadian comics, many of which are also newsstands. Unlike your posts, every interaction I've had with Ben has been open, informative, and respectful.

The "1% of the print run" claim is a fallacy. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Either way, they show up in the marketplace much less often than direct editions. Therefore, the print run may be irrelevant to any discussion of availability, even if a comparatively low print run sets a limit on how available a given comic can be. This particular claim resembles something I see on some eBay listings, where the seller will add a line saying, "Newsstand, 1:100 rarity?". These often end in a question mark, as if to imply that the 1:100 ratio is an estimate. As such, it is reasonable given how uncommon these are as listings. I've run into quite a number of issues that appear much less often than 1:100 (like UF#4 or any issue of Catwoman (2002) after #42 or so.

For the record, this reply is for those who read FlyingDonut's post and who might want the other side of the story. My impression is that his positions are based in part on available information on print run estimates combined with unproven assumptions about minimum newsstand numbers at various venues. In combination, this has led to assumptions about Chuck Rozanski and Ben Nobel, both of whom have written extensively about newsstand comics. The Achilles heel of these assumptions is that they seem to be based on estimated print runs rather than market availability.

FlyingDonut could respond with some justification that Rozanski and Nobel also make assumptions about print runs. This is true. The difference is that the assumptions made by Rozanski and Nobel match market observations quite well. 

To disprove the notion that all crows are black, one need only find a single contrary example. It is not possible to prove that all crows are black without examining every single one. In comics, Rozanski and Nobel have created a falsifiable premise: that newsstand editions are rarer than their direct counterparts, in proportions that approximate a curve generated by Rozanski. Whether you believe the curve is accurate or not, it does a very good job predicting what one can expect to find in the marketplace. Any claim that this is untrue are easily falsified by checking the marketplace yourself.

Edited September 27, 2022 by paqart

[FlyingDonut]

On 9/27/2022 at 2:28 PM, paqart said:

The term "garbage information" is meaningless.

The claim, "They are making stuff up to suit an agenda", is meaningless in the context of actual newsstand rarity, even if the claim about Chuck and Ben is true. As for whether the claim is true, Chuck certainly benefits from a belief that newsstand issues are worth more than non-newsstand issues because he can raise his prices. That doesn't change the fact that those comics are more difficult to find, and thus for him to stock, and collectors are looking for them. All of these things are true regardless whether Chuck benefits. As for Ben, what vested interest does he have beyond recognition of the rarity of these items? His Canadian price guide, if nothing else, shows that he has diligently made the effort to compile pricing information for Canadian comics, many of which are also newsstands. Unlike your posts, every interaction I've had with Ben has been open, informative, and respectful.

The "1% of the print run" claim is a fallacy. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Either way, they show up in the marketplace much less often than direct editions. Therefore, the print run may be irrelevant to any discussion of availability, even if a comparatively low print run sets a limit on how available a given comic can be. This particular claim resembles something I see on some eBay listings, where the seller will add a line saying, "Newsstand, 1:100 rarity?". These often end in a question mark, as if to imply that the 1:100 ratio is an estimate. As such, it is reasonable given how uncommon these are as listings. I've run into quite a number of issues that appear much less often than 1:100 (like UF#4 or any issue of Catwoman (2002) after #42 or so.

For the record, this reply is for those who read FlyingDonut's post and who might want the other side of the story. My impression is that his positions are based in part on available information on print run estimates combined with unproven assumptions about minimum newsstand numbers at various venues. In combination, this has led to assumptions about Chuck Rozanski and Ben Nobel, both of whom have written extensively about newsstand comics. The Achilles heel of these assumptions is that they seem to be based on estimated print runs rather than market availability.

FlyingDonut could respond with some justification that Rozanski and Nobel also make assumptions about print runs. This is true. The difference is that the assumptions made by Rozanski and Nobel match market observations quite well. 

To disprove the notion that all crows are black, one need only find a single contrary example. It is not possible to prove that all crows are black without examining every single one. In comics, Rozanski and Nobel have created a falsifiable premise: that newsstand editions are rarer than their direct counterparts, in proportions that approximate a curve generated by Rozanski. Whether you believe the curve is accurate or not, it does a very good job predicting what one can expect to find in the marketplace. Any claim that this is untrue are easily falsified by checking the marketplace yourself.

TL:DR people have agendas and want to charge you more money for things and make mess up to do that.

[FlyingDonut]

And again, my issue isn't with literally anything you said.

My issue - as always - is with people MAKING THINGS UP and people taking that information as gospel. Both Chuck and Benjamin Nobel make emphatic assertions that newsstand print runs were 1% of the print run and that this is the only possible answer.

Note that there is (1) no way they can know this (2) they have literally no idea about print runs (3) they have literally no idea about distribution and (4) while post-2008 newsstands are most definitely rarer than their direct counterparts there is absolutely no way to quantify this rarity and any attempt to do so is shouted down by those people who have a vested interest in keeping the marketplace believing in the 1-100 "ratio".

[Lazyboy]

On 9/27/2022 at 1:28 PM, paqart said:

The term "garbage information" is meaningless.

... says a top purveyor of such.

[Lazyboy]

On 9/27/2022 at 11:38 AM, valiantman said:

...and comic book purists (praise be their name) who ABSOLUTELY DEMAND to only see Spider-Man's head on their Care Bears books deserve our appreciation and obeisance. 

I mean, if Spidey's head wasn't there... well, that would be ridiculous.

(Care Bears in the MCU... you heard it here first!  Barcode lovers will wail and moan that they don't have the preferred Spidey edition of Care Bears #17. Rumor is that John Malkovich is up for the part of Love-A-Lot.)

I'm with MAD. I win.

[rexinnih]

I'm fine with this. 

[paqart]

On 9/27/2022 at 2:49 PM, FlyingDonut said:

no way to quantify this rarity

We disagree on this. I quantify it all the time by comparing market availability on various auction sites (eBay for less pricey items, eBay and Heritage for more expensive ones). You may doubt whether the counts I make represent an absolutely accurate value but it still represents quantification of rarity. Also keep in mind that while you worry whether this or that estimate are absolutely accurate, prices and demand for these keep going up. Speaking of agendas, I have to wonder what yours is. Seriously, why do you care that other people find this collecting niche worthwhile? I wouldn't be collecting at all if not for this because it is fun to hunt these down. Forget about 2008 and up, there are plenty of earlier newsstands that are just as difficult to obtain or more so. Also remember that DC newsstands between 2012-2017 are somewhat easier to find than between 2002-2008.

Collecting newsstands would not be rewarding if it were easy. It is not easy. All by itself, that indicates that the balance of accuracy leans more heavily in favor of Rozanski and Noble than yourself. Again, all one has to do is check. I have checked. If anything, 100:1 rarity is on the low end for some issues. 50:1 is more "normal" for the comics I'm looking for, though I have most of those now. My current interest is in the no-seeums for which no reasonable rarity estimate can be made because, after looking through over a thousand listings for each, no newsstand examples have been found. As much as it irritates you to think of a 100:1 ratio, how do you like the idea of 1,000:1? That, I believe, is exactly the case for some newsstands.

[paqart]

On 9/27/2022 at 3:37 PM, Dewus2? said:

You have no idea who you're talking to, do you? Dan cares about the truth, period.

Apparently, not exactly. I care about the truth also. FlyingDonut appears to be arguing that everything stated on the subject by Rozanski and Noble are lies, despite everything they say being true. He manages this by segregating what they write from what he sees in the market, on the basis that they are biased and cannot be trusted. Despite this, he admits that the general thrust of their published information is correct. It's like he doesn't want to admit that those specific people can be right about anything because Mr. Donut "knows for a fact" that the print run estimates are de facto faulty. Reading his posts is like reading a treatise telling me that bees can't fly because their bodies are too heavy for their wings,  and then a bee flies by my window.

I hate to say it but I do not come away from reading a Donut post with the impression that "Dan cares about the truth, period." 

Edited September 27, 2022 by paqart

[Get Marwood & I]

  

[FlyingDonut]

On 9/27/2022 at 3:35 PM, paqart said:

We disagree on this. I quantify it all the time by comparing market availability on various auction sites (eBay for less pricey items, eBay and Heritage for more expensive ones). You may doubt whether the counts I make represent an absolutely accurate value but it still represents quantification of rarity. Also keep in mind that while you worry whether this or that estimate are absolutely accurate, prices and demand for these keep going up. Speaking of agendas, I have to wonder what yours is. Seriously, why do you care that other people find this collecting niche worthwhile? I wouldn't be collecting at all if not for this because it is fun to hunt these down. Forget about 2008 and up, there are plenty of earlier newsstands that are just as difficult to obtain or more so. Also remember that DC newsstands between 2012-2017 are somewhat easier to find than between 2002-2008.

Collecting newsstands would not be rewarding if it were easy. It is not easy. All by itself, that indicates that the balance of accuracy leans more heavily in favor of Rozanski and Noble than yourself. Again, all one has to do is check. I have checked. If anything, 100:1 rarity is on the low end for some issues. 50:1 is more "normal" for the comics I'm looking for, though I have most of those now. My current interest is in the no-seeums for which no reasonable rarity estimate can be made because, after looking through over a thousand listings for each, no newsstand examples have been found. As much as it irritates you to think of a 100:1 ratio, how do you like the idea of 1,000:1? That, I believe, is exactly the case for some newsstands.

The key phrase in this post is "I, believe". That's fine. You have your opinion, I have my opinion. That's great. What I object to - and this is what you seem to NOT UNDERSTAND - is when people state what their opinion is as objective fact - when, in reality, there is no possible way to prove it.

Are those newsstands rare and are some of them very hard to find? Absolutely. Does the marketplace value them more? Absolutely. Is there a premium paid for specific issues? Absolutely. Is it a cool little niche that people find interesting to hunt down? Absolutely. Is there a way to quantify the amount of books printed? Absolutely not.

Chuck Rosanski and Benjamin Nobel and many others making blanket statements about print runs and ratios are - at best - hucksters trying to separate fools from their money.

[FlyingDonut]

and, I'd like to point out that I collect newsstand Spawns and there are approximately 10 copies of Curse of the Spawn 17 newsstands known to exist. Does this mean that it is a 1:1000 ratio variant? No. It merely means that there's 10 of them known to exist and it is ridiculously hard to find. Same with Spawn 111.

[paqart]

On 9/27/2022 at 4:00 PM, FlyingDonut said:

The key phrase in this post is "I, believe". That's fine. You have your opinion, I have my opinion. That's great. What I object to - and this is what you seem to NOT UNDERSTAND - is when people state what their opinion is as objective fact - when, in reality, there is no possible way to prove it.

Are those newsstands rare and are some of them very hard to find? Absolutely. Does the marketplace value them more? Absolutely. Is there a premium paid for specific issues? Absolutely. Is it a cool little niche that people find interesting to hunt down? Absolutely. Is there a way to quantify the amount of books printed? Absolutely not.

Chuck Rosanski and Benjamin Nobel and many others making blanket statements about print runs and ratios are - at best - hucksters trying to separate fools from their money.

So it comes down to the way they express themselves? FYI: I have a PhD from King's College, London. One of the first things I learned in my studies there is that absolute knowledge or certainty in anything is an illusion. Therefore, pretty much anything anyone knows is their position (opinion) based on the best evidence available to them, and that evidence is always incomplete. Therefore, complaining that the accuracy of one person's estimate cannot be determined with any certainty isn't saying something that couldn't be said about almost anything else. It is, in other words, a given that we are always looking at what amounts to a best guess scenario. The fact that you can't know if a 100:1 rarity ratio is exactly the right ratio (vs, presumably, 99:1 or 101:1) doesn't change the big picture that the comics in question are rare compared to Direct editions. Frankly, I don't understand why you are prompted to argue about this. Your quibble seems to be with 2 specific people, not the information. Why bother? You may as well engage in shadow boxing.
I feel compelled to point out that different standards of evidence are used in different situations for a variety of reasons. The standard used by a news magazine is seriously inferior to most scientific journals. Regardless, news magazines present information in a way that is digestible to people who wouldn't have the patience or knowledge to follow the same information in a journal article. On that basis, I count the CGC forum as having a lower standard than the news magazines and think it is unwise to hold Noble and Rozanski to the scientific journal standard, which you seem to misunderstand. Even there, it is acknowledged that any given article is a position based on the assumptions and methodology used. 
 

Edited September 27, 2022 by paqart

[paqart]

On 9/27/2022 at 4:06 PM, FlyingDonut said:

and, I'd like to point out that I collect newsstand Spawns and there are approximately 10 copies of Curse of the Spawn 17 newsstands known to exist. Does this mean that it is a 1:1000 ratio variant? No. It merely means that there's 10 of them known to exist and it is ridiculously hard to find. Same with Spawn 111.

So you don't like their attempt to quantify rarity because you don't think it is possible. Sorry, that position is difficult to justify. When absolute numbers can't be had, an estimate is the next best thing. Speaking of which, even Marvel's 1:100 variants (or 1:35, 1:25, etc) aren't exactly what they purport to be because of the way they print them based on orders from retailers. Again, the exact numbers aren't known but reasonable estimates can be made while waiting for new information that can be used to update the estimates.

 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 9/27/2022 at 3:15 PM, paqart said:

So you don't like their attempt to quantify rarity because you don't think it is possible. Sorry, that position is difficult to justify. When absolute numbers can't be had, an estimate is the next best thing. Speaking of which, even Marvel's 1:100 variants (or 1:35, 1:25, etc) aren't exactly what they purport to be because of the way they print them based on orders from retailers. Again, the exact numbers aren't known but reasonable estimates can be made while waiting for new information that can be used to update the estimates.

 

OK but these 1:100 listings? Do they state they made up that number or at the very least say, "it's an estimate waiting on further proof?" If you find 1, you can win a "No prize!" Till then? People will always need a voice of reason like @FlyingDonut and others

 

[Lazyboy]

On 9/27/2022 at 3:15 PM, paqart said:

Speaking of which, even Marvel's 1:100 variants (or 1:35, 1:25, etc) aren't exactly what they purport to be because of the way they print them based on orders from retailers.

They are exactly what they purport to be: the numbers retailers need to order to be able to order a copy of that variant. Again, you're only proving you know nothing.

[valiantman]

On 9/27/2022 at 1:53 PM, Lazyboy said:

I'm with MAD. I win.

You won in 1978, when it was new. When MAD was comparing to covers with no obstructions.

Barcodes are uglier than when there was NO ugly box of any kind, NO bars, NO Spidey head (when it doesn't make sense, like Care Bears), NO "Millenium is coming...", no nuthin'.

But 15 years later... 1993... EVERY book gets a barcode whether it's direct edition or newsstand.  It doesn't matter anymore when EVERY book has a barcode (and direct editions have MORE lines) for the next 20 years.

You're living in 1978. Congrats. You're 44 years older than you think you are. 

[paqart]

On 9/27/2022 at 4:36 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

OK but these 1:100 listings? Do they state they made up that number or at the very least say, "it's an estimate waiting on further proof?" If you find 1, you can win a "No prize!" Till then? People will always need a voice of reason like @FlyingDonut and others

 

There is a difference between "a voice of reason" and FlyingDonut, who treats every attempt to discuss the subject as an opportunity to prevent the conversation from happening. Also, the disclaimers aren't necessary in that context, when question marks are frequently used. I don't see you complaining about people listing everything with a barcode as a newsstand edition. I think that is a much bigger problem than a claim of 100:1 rarity when it might actually be 53:1 (or even 1,000:1).

Edited September 27, 2022 by paqart

[paqart]

On 9/27/2022 at 5:53 PM, Dewus2? said:

Man do you have your head up your posterior 

This is obviously impossible, as you are aware. In the words of FlyingDonut, you are clearly "lying" and "have an agenda", or to quote more directly, "YOU HAVE AN AGENDA"