Newsstand vs Direct: Clarity (and maybe less misinformation) Needed 5 5

[Kramerica]

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed here ad nauseum but please bear with me. I just wanted to poke brains and see if what I believed to be true....is accurate regarding newsstands vs direct eds.

From what I understand, newsstand copies don't really become "harder to find" until maybe 1995-1997 or so. In fact, direct editions printed in 1979-1983 might actually be much less common than newsstand copies. Then from that point on, the needle begins to move in the other direction as more specialty comic book stores opened across the lands, eventually overtaking their newsstand brethren perhaps in the late 1980's? NOTE: the number of high grade newsstand copies will be a completely different story due to how they were treated but calling a newsstand copy of ASM #194 a harder to find collectible should be incorrect and ASM #194 newsstand copies could outnumber ASM #194 direct editions by a large (maybe 5 to 1) margin?

Or am I simply a misguided soul when it comes to this debate. But now that we're seeing CGC and major league dealers calling a 1986 newsstand copy a variant and HTF I thought I would seek counseling here.

PS: And should anyone be notating a book from 1977 as a "newsstand" considering the direct market hadn't been created yet?

Edited March 20, 2023 by Kramerica

[Axelrod]

I assume this chart is 100% accurate and the debate is over.

[Kramerica]

On 3/19/2023 at 7:13 PM, Axelrod said:

I assume this chart is 100% accurate and the debate is over.

This is outstanding. Thank you 

[ThothAmon]

My personal experience has newsstands becoming less plentiful than directs in high grades by about 1984. Plenty of examples of premiums being paid for those early copper newsstands like Wolverine Limited 1. 

[Axelrod]

On 3/19/2023 at 10:20 PM, Kramerica said:

This is outstanding. Thank you 

Well, don't get too excited.  I actually think that chart is hotly disputed, with some maintaining is is based on completely fictional and/or made up numbers.

I have no idea.

[Kramerica]

On 3/19/2023 at 7:29 PM, Axelrod said:

Well, don't get too excited.  I actually think that chart is hotly disputed, with some maintaining is is based on completely fictional and/or made up numbers.

I have no idea.

Well, I guess we'll see when someone puts something better together. But for now this is helpful.

[Kramerica]

On 3/19/2023 at 7:22 PM, ThothAmon said:

My personal experience has newsstands becoming less plentiful than directs in high grades by about 1984. Plenty of examples of premiums being paid for those early copper newsstands like Wolverine Limited 1. 

I remember working at a comic shop when Thor #337 came out and we had maybe 1/2 of the copies that the 7-11 down the street had. Of course we went and bought them all.

[lizards2]

I could care less, but it would be hard.

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 3/20/2023 at 11:19 AM, lizards2 said:

I could care less, but it would be hard.

Pervert. But yes 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 3/19/2023 at 9:29 PM, Axelrod said:

Well, don't get too excited.  I actually think that chart is hotly disputed, with some maintaining is is based on completely fictional and/or made up numbers.

I have no idea.

[mosconi]

To me, the most important question is when did "high grade" Newsstand copies begin to become more difficult to find in CGC 9.6 or higher grade in comparison to Direct Edition copies?  Can we pinpoint a specific year that this began to occur?  Or can we just say that Newsstand copies will always be considered harder to find in 9.6 or higher when compared to Direct just because of the fact that they were more poorly handled and many times stored on spinner racks, haphazardly in convenience/book/drug stores, thereby easily bent and manhandled, and just generally not treated as well as the Direct copies in comic stores?   

[awakeintheashes]

There’s a lot of stuff on this topic in this thread. May help answer some questions you have…or confuse you more. I’m sure there are a few more threads on this topic as well. Seems to come up in the modern section quite a bit. 
 

 

[Chaz G.]

On 3/19/2023 at 9:47 PM, Kramerica said:

PS: And should anyone be notating a book from 1977 as a "newsstand" considering the direct market hadn't been created yet?

No.

[universal soldier]

On 3/20/2023 at 2:03 PM, awakeintheashes said:

There’s a lot of stuff on this topic in this thread. May help answer some questions you have…or confuse you more. I’m sure there are a few more threads on this topic as well. Seems to come up in the modern section quite a bit. 
 

 

 that thread was a contentious show  at times. I followed it for quite a while but there is some good info in there, just hard to discern opinion from fact.

[awakeintheashes]

On 3/20/2023 at 2:08 PM, universal soldier said:

 that thread was a contentious show  at times. I followed it for quite a while but there is some good info in there, just hard to discern opinion from fact.

 yeah. A lot of stuff…not sure how good most of it is, but it hits all the notes of the newsstand topic and following debate. 

[mosconi]

I'm not as interested in the print run information, although that can be a factor.  I'm more interested in the survival rate of high grade CGC 9.6 copies or higher, between the two methods.  For example, you could have 100 Direct Edition copies printed that have all "100 graded CGC 9.6" or higher due to the better handling/storage methods employed, while a 100,000 Newsstand print of the same issue where only "10 have graded CGC 9.6" or higher.  Therefore, I'm not as concerned about rarity of print run, but rather rarity of high grade survival in CGC 9.6 or better...

Edited March 20, 2023 by mosconi

[Lazyboy]

On 3/19/2023 at 9:29 PM, Axelrod said:

Well, don't get too excited.  I actually think that chart is hotly disputed, with some maintaining is is based on completely fictional and/or made up numbers.

I have no idea.

Yeah. The general concept is mostly correct, but the actual numbers used are complete and utter bull.

[Lazyboy]

On 3/19/2023 at 9:42 PM, Kramerica said:

Well, I guess we'll see when someone puts something better together. But for now this is helpful.

But it's actually not. It's very misleading. Sure, the trend since the early 70s was the slow decline of the newsstand market and the direct market generally grew over time (at least relative to the newsstand market), but you don't need nonsensical numbers to understand that.

[Lazyboy]

On 3/20/2023 at 1:08 PM, universal soldier said:

 that thread was a contentious show  at times. I followed it for quite a while but there is some good info in there, just hard to discern opinion from fact.

It's really not that hard to tell the difference between opinion, relevant fact, and irrelevant, limited data. I mean, assuming you actually know and understand the topic.

[Lazyboy]

On 3/19/2023 at 8:47 PM, Kramerica said:

PS: And should anyone be notating a book from 1977 as a "newsstand" considering the direct market hadn't been created yet?

I know what you mean, but the direct market was created in the early 70s and different versions of the same issue, with different distribution, did exist in 1977. But, yeah, the mere presence of a bar code does not automatically make a comic a Newsstand edition.