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

[Lazyboy]

On 3/22/2023 at 2:26 PM, paqart said:

The issue that always causes these conversations to "swirl" is, as far as I can tell, Chuck Rozanski and comments regarding quantification or rarity. We have some people who will not allow that subject to be discussed without frequent interruptions to say how untrustworthy "Chuck's chart" is. The problem with that position is that Chuck's chart is derived from Jim Shooter, who was in a position to know what Marvel was doing. In addition, Chuck himself played a role in the early years of the direct market and thus had a reason to discuss the subject with Shooter. Whatever errors might be contained in the estimates that went into the chart, I don't see a good reason to dismiss it entirely on the basis of arbitrary individual observations.

You understand that the main problem with Chuck's chart is not the years during which Shooter was in charge at Marvel, right? Not that I believe the earliest numbers are perfect, either.

On 3/22/2023 at 2:26 PM, paqart said:

Related to Chuck's chart are observations made by Benjamin Nobel on his blog. As far as I can tell, they are more informative and accurate than any amount of protest regarding the content.

The problem with Nobel's site is that it is full of terrible assumptions and faulty logic. There is also some basic information there that is good, but it is dwarfed by the bad.

[valiantman]

On 3/22/2023 at 4:24 PM, Lazyboy said:

On 3/22/2023 at 4:05 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Jesus that thread's boring. Who started that shi.....

Oh. One of mine. Well, that's about right then.

@valiantman Data is right up your street, isn't it. You wouldn't dive into all that stuff in the link and see if Lazyboy has presented a reasonable argument for discounting some of the low % Chuck NS numbers would you? Pretty please? I would do it myself but Criminal Minds is on and I want to see what the unsubs are up to 

We already did that last year here. I'm still not sure how Greg was apparently unaware of Statements of Ownership (a significant source of the comic book numbers that are publicly available) before that, but we cleared up that part.

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

Amazing Spider-Man Statements of Ownership

1988 (includes Amazing Spider-Man #300, the most submitted book to CGC overall)

Avg Copies Printed: 451,930

Sales Through Dealers (Direct Editions): 256,500

Avg Copies Printed Which Are Definitely "Not Direct Editions": 195,430 (calculated as 451,930 minus the Dealer Sales 256,500)

Copies Not Distributed (Returns): 178,800

"Not Direct Editions" (195,430) minus the Copies Not Distributed (178,800): 16,630

Direct Editions: 256,500

Newsstand Not Returned: 16,630

Total of these two (256,500 and 16,630): 273,130

Average percentage of 1988 Amazing Spider-Man issues which were Newsstand and Not Returned: 6%

Percentage of CGC 9.6 and CGC 9.8 sales of Amazing Spider-Man #300 during 2022 which were Newsstand according to GPAnalysis: 7%

How am I doing? 

 

[PeterPark]

On 3/22/2023 at 4:48 PM, comicwiz said:

You're fairly new here. Before your time, there was a heated tug of war match for HTD 13 by a contingent of test price variant focus collectors on these boards, I can assure you that given it's a key appearance, and the pre-history of it being one of the more difficult PV's for completists of that early era, we should have seen a lot more if they were out there. Even low-mid grade, which have showed-up over time. The way values have paced since is a completely different story, but it is contextually inaccurate to describe it as something that wouldn't have had value enough to be graded.

I see no need to grade my copy. I have thought about grading my IF 14 and SW 1, although admittedly, I haven't graded those books either. And I was a lurker before I was a member  

My point with that is, without Howard the Duck 13 and Kiss appearances having the appeal of first Sabretooth, or first Star Wars, many more copies of those other 2 books are graded in general. I have seen more copies than the one I have but am focusing on other 35ers to complete my set rather than get more duplicates. 

It felt like this needed census numbers. 

HTD 13 has 736 universal and 23 universal price variants
IF 14 has 6124 universal and 67 universal price variants
SW 1 has 14065 universal and 275 universal price variants

Percentagewise, HTD has the highest ratio of price variants to regular issues graded, despite having the fewest graded copies of the three. Do you think of Howard the Duck 13 as a valuable comic? It is nice among the keys of the 35 cent price variants, but isn't Logan's Run 6, for instance, harder-to-find and more valuable? Price variants are the main thing I collect. It looks to me like most copies that are graded are by completists or resellers (if the grade is high). I didn't check the averages but I would assume SW 1 has the lowest average grade, then IF 14 and then HTD 13. I'd be curious to see that actually but I don't have time right now.

What is your threshold for grading a comic? I don't usually do it unless it is in the $1,000's...your threshold may be lower but I am sure for a lot of people it is not. I don't have a few hundred thousand to drop on grading fees, so it is only the best of my best that I submit. I have boxes of 35 cent variants but the only ones I have graded were ones graded by someone else and not submitted by me.

How long do I have to be on here to not be fairly new?!? 

[Microchip]

On 3/23/2023 at 12:47 PM, valiantman said:

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

Amazing Spider-Man Statements of Ownership

1988 (includes Amazing Spider-Man #300, the most submitted book to CGC overall)

Avg Copies Printed: 451,930

Sales Through Dealers (Direct Editions): 256,500

Avg Copies Printed Which Are Definitely "Not Direct Editions": 195,430 (calculated as 451,930 minus the Dealer Sales 256,500)

Copies Not Distributed (Returns): 178,800

"Not Direct Editions" (195,430) minus the Copies Not Distributed (178,800): 16,630

Direct Editions: 256,500

Newsstand Not Returned: 16,630

Total of these two (256,500 and 16,630): 273,130

Average percentage of 1988 Amazing Spider-Man issues which were Newsstand and Not Returned: 6%

Percentage of CGC 9.6 and CGC 9.8 sales of Amazing Spider-Man #300 during 2022 which were Newsstand according to GPAnalysis: 7%

How am I doing? 

 

We have a working margin of error coming out at +/- 1% for the largest title circulated.  

Thats certainly provides clear definition of the issue at hand, and the assumptions encapsulated.   Anything to the contrary would need to be supported with clear evidence, and supporting data.

[PeterPark]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:47 PM, valiantman said:

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

Amazing Spider-Man Statements of Ownership

1988 (includes Amazing Spider-Man #300, the most submitted book to CGC overall)

Avg Copies Printed: 451,930

Sales Through Dealers (Direct Editions): 256,500

Avg Copies Printed Which Are Definitely "Not Direct Editions": 195,430 (calculated as 451,930 minus the Dealer Sales 256,500)

Copies Not Distributed (Returns): 178,800

"Not Direct Editions" (195,430) minus the Copies Not Distributed (178,800): 16,630

Direct Editions: 256,500

Newsstand Not Returned: 16,630

Total of these two (256,500 and 16,630): 273,130

Average percentage of 1988 Amazing Spider-Man issues which were Newsstand and Not Returned: 6%

Percentage of CGC 9.6 and CGC 9.8 sales of Amazing Spider-Man #300 during 2022 which were Newsstand according to GPAnalysis: 7%

How am I doing? 

 

I forget the specifics but isn't comicchron just the west coast portion of direct distribution? Or something like that?

[Lazyboy]

On 3/22/2023 at 8:47 PM, valiantman said:

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

Amazing Spider-Man Statements of Ownership

1988 (includes Amazing Spider-Man #300, the most submitted book to CGC overall)

Avg Copies Printed: 451,930

Sales Through Dealers (Direct Editions): 256,500

Avg Copies Printed Which Are Definitely "Not Direct Editions": 195,430 (calculated as 451,930 minus the Dealer Sales 256,500)

Copies Not Distributed (Returns): 178,800

"Not Direct Editions" (195,430) minus the Copies Not Distributed (178,800): 16,630

Direct Editions: 256,500

Newsstand Not Returned: 16,630

Total of these two (256,500 and 16,630): 273,130

Average percentage of 1988 Amazing Spider-Man issues which were Newsstand and Not Returned: 6%

Percentage of CGC 9.6 and CGC 9.8 sales of Amazing Spider-Man #300 during 2022 which were Newsstand according to GPAnalysis: 7%

How am I doing? 

 

"Dealers" are everybody who sells comics, not Direct market comic shops. So everything after that is necessarily incorrect.

Edited March 23, 2023 by Lazyboy

[Lazyboy]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:46 PM, PeterPark said:

I forget the specifics but isn't comicchron just the west coast portion of direct distribution? Or something like that?

As stated on every relevant page, it is "Estimated Comics Shipped to North American Comics Shops" that is covered.

[Microchip]

On 3/23/2023 at 1:46 PM, PeterPark said:

I forget the specifics but isn't comicchron just the west coast portion of direct distribution? Or something like that?

There's never been anything suggesting that there is a difference in the two area's.   At the scale of the numbers used, they would be highly representative.

All other counter arguments only amount to "we don't know".  That doesn't hold any water in the face of actual numbers presented. 

[valiantman]

On 3/22/2023 at 10:10 PM, Lazyboy said:

"Dealers" are everybody who sells comics, not Direct market comic shops. So everything after that is necessarily incorrect.

So, you're saying that the Statements Of Ownership tell us absolutely nothing about the breakdown of direct editions to newsstands, and also that they're what you use to make your arguments about the breakdown of direct editions to newsstands.

Wow.

[Lazyboy]

On 3/22/2023 at 10:12 PM, Lazyboy said:

On 3/22/2023 at 9:46 PM, PeterPark said:

I forget the specifics but isn't comicchron just the west coast portion of direct distribution? Or something like that?

As stated on every relevant page, it is "Estimated Comics Shipped to North American Comics Shops" that is covered.

But just to clarify, that page contains Statement of Ownership information, which is different than the monthly Direct sales estimates for which the site is primarily known.

[NP_Gresham]

On 3/22/2023 at 1:02 PM, comicwiz said:

I won't get into what these represent except to call them "multipacks", and that they are on the threshold of scarcity/distribution similar to the pence counterpart if doing a comparison specific to each issue.

It's not possible to compare with other issues of the same period/format, because certain issues (like Star Wars 2) would have had a higher production than issues like Howard the Duck (HTD) 13. It isn't precise, but we have a method of determining this using the metrics assigned by the census. A quick check as an example, has HTD13 35¢ price tests showing 24 graded, where Star Wars 1 35¢ price test has 307 showing. Star Wars 2 35¢ price test with 146.

One of the clues is that these were run at the same time as the newsstand, test price (35¢) variant and pence priced counterparts. One way to check on their ratio (I estimate it to be roughly 1:30 of these multipack diamond price to newsstand), is by using feeBay, and running searches to see how many newsstand show up in comparison. Having just run a quick check on yours (Cap 110), it's still within that range, with a similarly low population of pence editions, and test price variants.

The multipack shown above contains Howard the Duck 13, which for years was regarded as one of the tougher of the 35¢ price test variants. I haven't kept up on that as closely, but feel it's not anywhere close to the abundance of Star Wars 1, and might fall somewhere in the same approximate range of Iron Fist 14's (quick census check shows 74 IF 14 35¢ price tests)

Speaking of Star Wars 1, the other clue we have is that of the same multipack format below, we have issues 2-4, no issue 1. Interestingly, there never was a pence price for Star Wars 1.

The problem with using census numbers are myriad ( how many were CPR, signed, etc) At one point there were exactly 2 copies of Inhumans #12 35 cent variant in the census, but I had 3 Raws just in my own collection(none of which were ever slabbed). Key books have more reliability, but again, how many of those SW#1’s were CPR’d? And how many times each?

 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:39 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

On 3/22/2023 at 9:24 PM, Lazyboy said:

We already did that last year here. I'm still not sure how Greg was apparently unaware of Statements of Ownership (a significant source of the comic book numbers that are publicly available) before that, but we cleared up that part.

Crimminal Minds isn't so good tonight. So, using this data, what would you say the ratio between newsstand and direct for ASM was in 2011. If you had a gun to your head, I mean. Or was threatened with a two week stay in the Gold Reading Room.

@Lazyboy are you prepared to take a stab at this, using the data sources available?

I don't have a copy of ASM #673 anymore to see the SoO, and couldn't find an image online. If the data below from Comichron and the SoO in ASM #673 is all we have to go on (let me know if there are other reference points), how do you arrive at a conclusion that reasonably discounts the single digit 'Chuck' percentages?

Edited March 23, 2023 by Get Marwood & I
Added the table, Mable

[comicwiz]

On 3/23/2023 at 12:19 AM, NP_Gresham said:

The problem with using census numbers are myriad ( how many were CPR, signed, etc) At one point there were exactly 2 copies of Inhumans #12 35 cent variant in the census, but I had 3 Raws just in my own collection(none of which were ever slabbed). Key books have more reliability, but again, how many of those SW#1’s were CPR’d? And how many times each?

 

It's becoming apparent that my post wasn't clear. I indicate it as being imprecise for a reason. My main point however is that in comparing issues of this type (diamond price), they shouldn't be compared with other issues bearing the same price format. They should instead be compared with their own counterpart issue for newsstand, price test, and pence. The elaboration of examples such as SW 1 and IF 14 was in fact to point out that these issues ran during the period where price tests ran, and that certain issues may have had higer print runs. It's mainly to reinforce the notion that to establish a ratio, it's best to run a search from time to time on what's available out in the open market of that specific issue (in your specific context, the Cap 110), to see how they measure up. There are certain issues where you see more than others, and ratios will differ, but as a general rule, I've found it to be 1:30 between newsttand and multipack/price diamonds. It isn't a hard and fast metric, but one I've tracked for the entire time I've been collecting multipacks. 

[ThothAmon]

On 3/22/2023 at 9:30 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

Now that I understood 😂 I'm not perfect guys, I guess kav used to point that out all the time haha 😂 but I'll get by somehow someway serenity now

Don’t go changing a thing. 

[comicwiz]

On 3/22/2023 at 10:43 PM, PeterPark said:

How long do I have to be on here to not be fairly new?!? 

I didn't mean it that way, but at your join date, you probably missed a lot of the early variant mafia shenanigans. Most of it educational of course, but some of it pretty cutthroat. There were a few issues, HTD #13 was one of them. Kid Kolt #208 (IIRC) was the other. And as far as the cutthroat stuff, nowhere as reminiscent as Ian having the wheels in motion turned on him on his quest to complete the DC run with the Double Action. I seem to remember most about the squabbling over Canadian Price Variants (CPV's) and a few of the hardheaded variant mafia giving me and a few others grief for wanting to recognize them as PV's. They know who they are

I stopped grading in 2007/08 after CGC destroyed one of my comics. Beyond this, first printings in UG's and price variants have a coolness and appeal that goes beyond needing to have them graded. Value plays an infinitesimal part in that decision, but I would be totally fine getting a mid-grade slabbed PV if it turned out to be cheaper to get than any raw copy I'd seen that I passed on either due to price or some other reason (being in Canada sometimes means not having the same option as US collectors due to seller US-only shipping restrictions).

There are a short list of PV's I'd want in high grade. But little has to do with their value, and at this point, there is a slight advantage to find them already slabbed in terms of the economics of grading, if I were to change my mind about submitting.

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by comicwiz

[PeterPark]

On 3/23/2023 at 2:25 PM, comicwiz said:

I didn't mean it that way, but at your join date, you probably missed a lot of the early variant mafia shenanigans. Most of it educational of course, but some of it pretty cutthroat. There were a few issues, HTD #13 was one of them. Kid Kolt #208 (IIRC) was the other. And as far as the cutthroat stuff, nowhere as reminiscent as Ian having the wheels in motion turned on him on his quest to complete the DC run with the Double Action. I seem to remember most about the squabbling over Canadian Price Variants (CPV's) and a few of the hardheaded variant mafia giving me and a few others grief for wanting to recognize them as PV's. They know who they are

I stopped grading in 2007/08 after CGC destroyed one of my comics. Beyond this, first printings in UG's and price variants have a coolness and appeal that goes beyond needing to have them graded. Value plays an infinitesimal part in that decision, but I would be totally fine getting a mid-grade slabbed PV if it turned out to be cheaper to get than any raw copy I'd seen that I passed on either due to price or some other reason (being in Canada sometimes means not having the same option as US collectors due to seller US-only shipping restrictions).

There are a short list of PV's I'd want in high grade. But little has to do with their value, and at this point, there is a slight advantage to find them already slabbed in terms of the economics of grading, if I were to change my mind about submitting.

 

Kid Colt 208 has been tough for me, and seems really to be the hardest to find of the 30 centers. I have a nice one but have looked for another one for over a decade. 

Weird Wonder Tales 15? I have 4 or 5...or 6...

[paqart]

On 3/22/2023 at 11:39 PM, valiantman said:

So, you're saying that the Statements Of Ownership tell us absolutely nothing about the breakdown of direct editions to newsstands, and also that they're what you use to make your arguments about the breakdown of direct editions to newsstands.

Wow.

And, to chime in a little bit here, while information about print runs, or estimates of them, are interesting, market availability is more relevant. Or, survivability. In a collecting environment where prices escalate as interest grows, it doesn't make a lot of sense to wait for every last piece of data to come in. Some data, enough to make decisions, sure but not everything.

One of the first things I learned when buying a house is that if I wait to decide if it is the "perfect" house, I'll never get any of the houses I look at. When I bought my house in the Netherlands, I wanted to think about it because it seemed small. By then, my wife had seen dozens of houses and told me "buy it", so I did. The realtor told me that ten minutes after I'd made my offer, someone else gave him another one but they were too late. My current house in NY is like that also. It was put up for sale while I was in an airplane flying to New York, so it wasn't on the list of houses I'd sent a realtor to arrange viewings. When I landed a few hours later, I had a message from my wife asking to add it to the list. I called the realtor, who told me the house sold while I was still on the plane, minutes after being listed. "Still, maybe the deal will fall through" she said, so she said she'd try to arrange a viewing. The deal did fall through and I managed to buy the house. The point is that I had to deal with the time element as much as I had to pay attention to the qualities of the house itself.

In comics, I know what I like and have no problem buying those comics. The issue is price. Sometimes, prices are stable. Other comics have volatile prices. Some are stable but are sleepers. That is the group I put newsstands into. They have great potential but how much? They remind me of the Star Wars #1 35 cent price variant. In that case, it is a popular comic that happens to have had a low print run. Other 35 cent variants are worth multiples of the regular price editions. The prices for all 35 cent variants have been determined by market demand more than hype and have had time to settle down to fairly high levels. However, at the time they were introduced and for some time thereafter, they weren't taken seriously by collectors. Newsstands are starting to be taken seriously now but their rarity is important for determining the right pricing.

All prices are limited by the budgets of the target customers. SW #1 is a good example of a price ($50k) that is about as high as a price can go for a similar comic. UF #4 is the nearest example I can think of in the NS world, which means to me it has room to grow as far as pricing is concerned. More important is the spread between regular edition SW 1 compared to 35 cent pricing. The spread there is about 1:50. In comparison, the Howard the Duck 13 35 cent CPV vs regular edition price spread is closer to 1:10 or 1:9. The same is true of Logan's Run #6. This tells me that the market determined premium for 35 cent CPV comics is between around 1:9 and 1:50 for the least to most desirable comics.

Now the question is whether newsstand rarity is similar to 35 cent CPV comics or the more common 30 cent CPV comics, most of which have lower price premiums of around 1:3-1:10. The exceptions are Eternals #1 and 2 and Marvel Spotlight 28 which have sold for prices in UF4 newsstand territory.

My guess based on the research I've done on this to date is that some comics, like NS UF4, have the potential to be equally as rare and desirable as SW1/35 CPV. Other NS editions will be more like the 30 cent CPV Ka-Zar #12. The point is that Mile High's sliding price scale based on presumed print runs misses the mark in a number of ways. Rozanski knows this, which he explains is the reason some of the prices are manually adjusted. 

The problem with moderns is that many of them haven't been around long enough for the characters or first appearances they contain to emerge as important. Some have, like the first Winter Soldier, UF4, Red Hulk, and a few others. Those are the NS comics that have the potential to be worth much more than MH is charging, while most of the rest should be priced far lower.

An interesting thing I've noticed in modern comics pricing is that it heavily favors first appearances or storylines over acclaimed creative teams. I tend to buy based on the artist, sometimes the writer (like Carl Barks but he is also the artist, same for John Byrne). This means that many of the newsstands I pick up will always be in the lower tier of interest relative to the first appearances. For instance, though one poster here seems to think it is hilarious that I like Darwyn Cooke's art on Catwoman, I do like the art so I want to get the run. I also like Gulacy's efforts on the series and some (not all) of the later Hughes covers. In contrast, I strongly dislike the art on UF 4. On that basis, I wouldn't want the comic unless it was underpriced and I could sell it for a profit. The same is true of the first Sam Jackson as Nick Fury in the Ultimates series. The art puts it in the trash heap for me but the first appearance of the new NF makes it collectible.

The reason this is problematic is that art can be evaluated the moment it is published. In the old days of collecting, I did well by purchasing everything by Neal Adams, Berni Wrightson, Steranko, Byrne, etc. Now, the high prices go to comics that may or may not have objectively high quality art but have a story or character that someone in Hollywood wants to use. This is the part that is missing from the MH pricing structure, except for those comics that have already demonstrated their appeal.

Getting back to NS rarity, survivability, and value, the rarity comes into play only if the comic has demonstrated appeal. At that point, the "rarity" that matters is whether the comic is available for purchase. That seems to be much more closely connected to the way collectors treat the comics rather than how many were printed. The comparatively low number of available NS comics from 1979  compared to DE comics tells us that survivability renders the absolute rarity from print run almost irrelevant. SW #1 had a very low print run (estimated 1,500) but it was heavily collected and many of those survive. Meaning, it had high survivability but a low print run. NS comics have lower print runs and very low survivability. SW 1 also benefited from the lack of NS/DE distinctions. Collectors had to buy their copies from the same stock as everyone else. As soon as the direct market was created, collectors migrated to comic shops, thus leaving the NS comics to hordes of buyers who didn't treat the comics very well.

With all this in mind, I think MH has the right idea in part to price based on rarity. It certainly should be taken into consideration if for no other reason but the difficulty of restocking a hard to find issue after it's been sold. And that is where the problem with rarity pricing arises. A standard Wonder Woman New 52 issue is no easier to find than a New 52 issue of Detective Comics #1 but it is much less desirable. How do you price the WW, knowing it might go up a lot in price later because of a new movie and you won't be able to find any NS copies at that time because they are so scarce?

Personally, I like the Chiang art on WW, so I buy them but they are very difficult to find in NS. I normally buy them whenever I see them but am not even close to a full set yet. This may never be an issue for other collectors because they don't want those issues, regardless of rarity. For that reason, their prices would stay low. For others, where the demand is clear, current NS prices look low to me and that is because those comics are sometimes more difficult to find than an SW #1 35 cent CPV but they are just as desirable. UF4 is one of those comics. Another problem with NS comics is that, unlike CPVs, there are so many more comics that are rare because of the NS distinction. Speaking of which, I couldn't care less about hoards. Why? Because I can buy and sell a comic before any hoards affect prices. Why waste timing worrying about something that may never happen, or won't happen at a time that affects you?

I understand why collectors would be irritated that prices go up, sometimes so high that they are priced out of the market but that doesn't mean the prices are unreasonable. 

 

[Lazyboy]

On 3/23/2023 at 3:07 PM, paqart said:

And, to chime in a little bit here, while information about print runs, or estimates of them, are interesting, market availability is more relevant. Or, survivability. In a collecting environment where prices escalate as interest grows, it doesn't make a lot of sense to wait for every last piece of data to come in. Some data, enough to make decisions, sure but not everything.

1. Once again, feeBay is NOT the market, so just looking there tells you very little about market availability.

2. There is no way to quantify survival rates of sold/distributed copies and suggesting they're low only illustrates your agenda. Plus, again, the survival rate of "returns" is above 0%.

3. People keep touting Chuck's numbers as gospel. Since those numbers are (alleged) distribution (percentage) numbers, real distribution numbers need to be used to debunk them.

4. There is absolutely not enough data to make the claims that have been repeated over and over in this thread and others by people like you.

[paqart]

On 3/23/2023 at 4:42 PM, Lazyboy said:

1. Once again, feeBay is NOT the market, so just looking there tells you very little about market availability.

2. There is no way to quantify survival rates of sold/distributed copies and suggesting they're low only illustrates your agenda. Plus, again, the survival rate of "returns" is above 0%.

3. People keep touting Chuck's numbers as gospel. Since those numbers are (alleged) distribution (percentage) numbers, real distribution numbers need to be used to debunk them.

4. There is absolutely not enough data to make the claims that have been repeated over and over in this thread and others by people like you.

I'm beginning to enjoy your predictable responses. They remind me of Roy and his tape recorded voicemail message on the IT Crowd, "Have you tried turning it off and then on again?" Maybe you like my posts for the same reason?

One thing that enhances the experience is how you mention eBay but I didn't. 

Funny thing about quantifying survival rates is that there is a way. More than that, it's not the only way. I do it all day long, so do others on this board. The fact you don't like it doesn't change the reality that it can be done and is done. Maybe not 100% accurately but that is always the case with estimates. Again, your commentary brings a smile to my face sometimes, like now.

You mention Chuck in a context that is unrelated to my post. Kind of like you just cut and paste ready-made answers, regardless what you are responding to. I do not treat his numbers "as gospel". My post criticized the fact that his pricing structure is weighted heavily toward rarity, without incorporating other factors. Still, nice try at writing something related to the post you are responding to. Maybe you are responding to a different post?

"Not enough data to make claims". That doesn't stop anyone from trying and for good reason. Outside of comics, this can be done with disastrous consequences. Here though, there actually is some data and it doesn't hurt anyone to explore the possibilities. Maybe I should take some inspiration from you and put together a set of generic responses to your posts, preferably as long as possible, so I don't have to keep writing the same things over and over again.

 

[Lazyboy]

On 3/23/2023 at 1:54 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

I don't have a copy of ASM #673 anymore to see the SoO, and couldn't find an image online. If the data below from Comichron and the SoO in ASM #673 is all we have to go on (let me know if there are other reference points), how do you arrive at a conclusion that reasonably discounts the single digit 'Chuck' percentages?

Based on the available numbers, the ASM newsstand distribution percentage for 2011 could easily have been a single digit, but that isn't the claim that was made. Chuck was already down to single digits when he claimed that the newsstand distribution percentage for 2000 (you know, 11 years earlier) was 5%. Considering how bad the overall market was then, I guarantee Marvel would have immediately dropped newsstand distribution then rather than waiting another 13 years.

The other issue is that the chart was never claimed to be applicable to any or every individual title or issue, though it is very often misused as though it were. Different titles could have significantly different numbers and, of course, some titles weren't distributed through the newsstand system at all. Also, the newsstand percentage for the entire comics market didn't even approach, let alone reach, 5% until after Marvel's exit.