Newsstands and Direct Editions (finally) get a video explainer... Version 1.2 8 8

[MAR1979]

On 7/17/2023 at 4:29 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Found this:

"Even though almost every comic book sold prior to 1979 was technically a newsstand edition, CGC will only identify a newsstand copy if a direct market edition also exists."

https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/513391-cgc-now-recognizes-newsstand-editions-and-multi-packs-on-cgc-label/#comment-12531668

 

Thats good as long as they realize for DC it took place after mid 1980

[valiantman]

On 7/17/2023 at 6:30 AM, MAR1979 said:

Differentiation on Covers was first made in June 1979 by Marvel, then later in Oct 1980 by DC, to prevent books from the direct sale channels from being returned for full credit.

I'm still not sure I understand what you're saying here.

These books are differentiated, and they are February 1977, on sale in late November 1976.

     

You seem to place a lot of importance on the date that Marvel did this for all of its books, but I don't think it matters. A particular issue in your hand is either direct or newsstand regardless of whether the lowest-selling other titles from the same publisher had any direct editions yet.

Edited July 18, 2023 by valiantman

[MAR1979]

On 7/17/2023 at 8:37 PM, valiantman said:

I'm still not sure I understand what you're saying here.

These books are differentiated, and they are February 1977, on sale in late November 1976.

     

You seem to place a lot of importance on the date that Marvel did this for all of its books, but I don't think it matters. A particular issue in your hand is either direct or newsstand regardless of whether the lowest-selling other titles from the same publisher had any direct editions yet.

That was for all books in the line.  You knew that of course. 

[valiantman]

On 7/17/2023 at 7:52 PM, MAR1979 said:

On 7/17/2023 at 7:37 PM, valiantman said:

I'm still not sure I understand what you're saying here.

These books are differentiated, and they are February 1977, on sale in late November 1976.

     

You seem to place a lot of importance on the date that Marvel did this for all of its books, but I don't think it matters. A particular issue in your hand is either direct or newsstand regardless of whether the lowest-selling other titles from the same publisher had any direct editions yet.

That was for all books in the line.  You knew that of course. 

You seem to place a lot of importance on the date that Marvel did this for all of its books, but I don't think it matters. A particular issue in your hand is either direct or newsstand regardless of whether the lowest-selling other titles from the same publisher had any direct editions yet.

[MAR1979]

On 7/17/2023 at 8:54 PM, valiantman said:

You seem to place a lot of importance on the date that Marvel did this for all of its books, but I don't think it matters. A particular issue in your hand is either direct or newsstand regardless of whether the lowest-selling other titles from the same publisher had any direct editions yet.

Do you sell comics?

[valiantman]

On 7/17/2023 at 7:55 PM, MAR1979 said:

Do you sell comics?

Random question, so I'll give you a random answer specific to your argument.

I'm very confident that Fantastic Four #179 does have both direct editions and newsstand editions dated February 1977, and that it does not matter one speck that Marvel would still be selling Yogi Bear #9 without a direct edition two years later in 1979 because they hadn't reached your username on the calendar yet.

Edited July 18, 2023 by valiantman

[paqart]

On 7/17/2023 at 8:37 PM, valiantman said:

I'm still not sure I understand what you're saying here.

These books are differentiated, and they are February 1977, on sale in late November 1976.

     

You seem to place a lot of importance on the date that Marvel did this for all of its books, but I don't think it matters. A particular issue in your hand is either direct or newsstand regardless of whether the lowest-selling other titles from the same publisher had any direct editions yet.

Which of these is direct, and which is newsstand? I looked them up on eBay and see they both have what looks like the same barcode.

[ymisbatg]

Nicely done!  That took time to create and I learned a lot.  Thanks!

[PeterPark]

On 7/16/2023 at 7:04 PM, MAR1979 said:

You claim the video is for the uneducated, well that who exactly who need to be educated to truly have any chance to help them.  leaving out key details that may assist them helps only the liars.

Granted not every single piece of info can be presented but after viewing they should know Avengers 181, Hulk 233, Iron Man 120, X-Men 119, Black Panther 14, Red Sonja 13 etc only had a newsstand edition because it was from March 1979. Providing a link to known "Whitman" distributed Marvels would show them Battlestar #1 does have a direct sale.

The simple point that needs to be made to the uneducated is they should not pay more for a pre-June 1979 Marvel Newsstand or a pre-Oct 1980 DC. With that noted it's up to the uneducated to do with it what they may. Failure to mention it leave them ripe for the scamming. Which bring us back to, you are trying to help the uneducated, correct?

BTW: IMHO the more who do get scammed the more who will leave the hobby. Since I ma a buyer only and do not sell comics that is to my benefit, but yet I argue against it, as I feel wrong is wrong and don't want to see greenhorns scammed.

Right, they should pay more for the direct variant

[FlyingDonut]

On 7/16/2023 at 8:37 PM, valiantman said:

I think we have enough information just in the form of ebay search results for people to "get the picture" on newsstands.

If someone hyperbolically cries "It's a Newsstand Baby!" on Hulk #181... yeah, every ebay result is a newsstand, baby. Direct editions don't exist.

If someone hyperbolically cries "It's a Newsstand Baby!" on Fantastic Four #181... yeah, but almost every ebay result is a newsstand, baby. Direct editions aren't common.

It's not like the early 1990s, when all it took was one publication saying "THIS IS RARE!" and people went nuts. 

Anyone crying "It's a Newsstand, Baby!" or "It's RARE" or "It's MINT" or "Hard to find" is as believable as the ebay results let them be. Usually, not at all.

Sellers who want to trick buyers exist in every possible hobby and industry.

We can't protect everyone from everything. There are still warnings on Preparation H not to eat it.

 

Just to be clear, there are MANY sellers who state books are "newsstands" when there was (1) no such thing as a "direct" version of the book and (2) in some cases there was no such thing as the "direct market" at the time. You may want to make a blanket statement in there somewhere about that.

[FlyingDonut]

On 7/17/2023 at 8:59 PM, valiantman said:

Random question, so I'll give you a random answer specific to your argument.

I'm very confident that Fantastic Four #179 does have both direct editions and newsstand editions dated February 1977, and that it does not matter one speck that Marvel would still be selling Yogi Bear #9 without a direct edition two years later in 1979 because they hadn't reached your username on the calendar yet.

The FF 179 with the diamond is NOT a "direct edition" as we know it - it was in a Whitman pack. I would absolutely not call that book a "direct sale edition" as it wasn't, and to say it was is just wrong.

[FlyingDonut]

On 7/18/2023 at 2:17 AM, paqart said:

Which of these is direct, and which is newsstand? I looked them up on eBay and see they both have what looks like the same barcode.

That's because they're the same book. I disagree with @valiantman on this.

[valiantman]

On 7/18/2023 at 1:17 AM, paqart said:

On 7/17/2023 at 7:37 PM, valiantman said:

I'm still not sure I understand what you're saying here.

These books are differentiated, and they are February 1977, on sale in late November 1976.

     

You seem to place a lot of importance on the date that Marvel did this for all of its books, but I don't think it matters. A particular issue in your hand is either direct or newsstand regardless of whether the lowest-selling other titles from the same publisher had any direct editions yet

Expand  

Which of these is direct, and which is newsstand? I looked them up on eBay and see they both have what looks like the same barcode.

Diamond is direct.  30 cents in a diamond shape, without the CC for newsstand circulation is the change that was made for direct editions.  Whitman books are not newsstand books and they were not returnable.

Edited July 18, 2023 by valiantman

[valiantman]

 

On 7/18/2023 at 9:08 AM, FlyingDonut said:

Just to be clear, there are MANY sellers who state books are "newsstands" when there was (1) no such thing as a "direct" version of the book and (2) in some cases there was no such thing as the "direct market" at the time. You may want to make a blanket statement in there somewhere about that.

Version 1.1 has it

Edited July 18, 2023 by valiantman

[FlyingDonut]

On 7/18/2023 at 10:40 AM, valiantman said:

Diamond is direct.  30 cents in a diamond shape, without the CC for newsstand circulation is the change that was made for direct editions.  Whitman books are not newsstand books and they were not returnable.

While I don't disagree with you that they are not "newsstand" books and are different, they were not "direct" books in the same way that post 1979 Marvels were. We are very much splitting hairs here but want to be accurate.

[FlyingDonut]

On 7/18/2023 at 10:43 AM, valiantman said:

 

Version 1.1 has it

I would be even more emphatic but yes.

[valiantman]

On 7/18/2023 at 10:19 AM, FlyingDonut said:

While I don't disagree with you that they are not "newsstand" books and are different, they were not "direct" books in the same way that post 1979 Marvels were. We are very much splitting hairs here but want to be accurate.

Right, they're more of a precursor to the full direct market, but looking back through time there are two different "lifecycles" associated with these books since their release.

Newsstand would have an "expiration date", they would be returnable, and except for when they were not systemically destroyed as expected, they should disappear into various homes, pulping facilities, or the landfill.

Direct books would have no "expiration date", they would be unreturnable, and they would not be systemically destroyed. 

What we find in the marketplace as collectors today is not only a reflection of what was originally printed, but the full history of those books for the past 40+ years and beyond the first couple of months they existed, they don't really have much in common.

[lostboys]

When I first started selling my old books on Ebay I listed an X-Men book as a newsstand because it had a barcode.

I honestly didnt know any better...just thought barcode = newsstand.

I got a very passionate message from a buyer asking why I was calling my book a newsstand when they didnt exist at the time the book was released.

 

 

[valiantman]

On 7/18/2023 at 12:30 PM, lostboys said:

When I first started selling my old books on Ebay I listed an X-Men book as a newsstand because it had a barcode.

I honestly didnt know any better...just thought barcode = newsstand.

I got a very passionate message from a buyer asking why I was calling my book a newsstand when they didnt exist at the time the book was released.

That's funny because it was a newsstand. All comics were newsstands. Maybe you implied that some other version exists and that yours happened to be a newsstand, but you weren't wrong about the newsstand part... just wrong about other versions existing.

[FlyingDonut]

On 7/18/2023 at 1:33 PM, valiantman said:

That's funny because it was a newsstand. All comics were newsstands. Maybe you implied that some other version exists and that yours happened to be a newsstand, but you weren't wrong about the newsstand part... just wrong about other versions existing.

That's what I mean. Many sellers indicate a book is a "newsstand" as if it was something special. No, slappy, the only copy of Fantastic Four 165 - just as an example - is a newsstand.