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

[MAR1979]

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

There are still warnings on Preparation H not to eat it.

 

uhm then what I am I supposed to do with it to treat them 'roids?

[valiantman]

On 7/16/2023 at 7:39 PM, MAR1979 said:

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

There are still warnings on Preparation H not to eat it.

uhm then what I am I supposed to do with it to treat them 'roids?

[Lazyboy]

On 7/16/2023 at 3:24 PM, valiantman said:

I agree that prior to the direct market, every comic book was just a comic book without the need for a "newsstand" designation... but the point is to establish that newsstand came first, and it was the direct market which was the change.

How would someone get a copy of a brand new Golden Age comic? At a newsstand, supplied by a newsstand distributor, right next to magazines and other publications that were removed/returned once the date was past.

What changed for newsstands in the decades that followed?  Nothing.

It's not necessary to describe the 1930s to the 1960s as "newsstand", but it is correct to do so when establishing the history of both newsstands and direct editions.  The history of newsstand comics goes back to the 1930s. The history of direct market comics does not.

Promotional comics exist, with some being promotional versions of regular issues. Subscriptions were also a thing, meaning those copies were never in the newsstand system. The newsstand system was the primary method of distribution for comics before the direct market overtook it, but it was not the only one.

[paqart]

On 7/16/2023 at 4:58 PM, Pantodude said:

Nice vid. Thanks!  I understand your point being the need to emphasize that the phenomen of selling via newsstands predated selling via dedicated shops (direct editions).  But that can be done without calling the 1930s to 1960s versions "newsstand editions," which actually mischaracterizes them.  They were a whole species onto itself....not an "edition," as there was no counterpart from which to distinguish them.  The need to recognize editions necessarily coincided with the emergence of the direct editions.  I've seen sellers on eBay referring to some BA books as "newsstand editions" despite them never having had a "direct" counterpart, in an apparently shady attempt to garner a premium.  So the use of the term "newsstand edition" should be more date-sensitive, if not also issue-specific.   

I paid $5/each for my 5 copies of newsstand She-Hulk #1 in 9.6-9.8 condition. Then I found out, there isn't a direct edition version of the comic. Not complaining though.

Edited July 17, 2023 by paqart

[paqart]

On 7/16/2023 at 5:02 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Ah, we seem to have just said the same thing.

Something to consider then @valiantman, wouldn't you say?

The way my comic book database works, I have two edition types, newsstand and direct. That means I have to pick one or the other, even when there is only one version of the comic. I considered making a third designation for older comics that didn't have a direct edition, but that violates the logic. Those earlier comics were newsstand editions, period, even if there wasn't any other type of comic. The same is true for modern directs. Should I call them something else because there are no newsstand comics after a certain date? No. They are still direct editions.

[paqart]

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.

FWIW: the first newsstand I bought because it was a newsstand was a slabbed Teen Titans #2 in 9.2 for around $240. I wasn't scammed because the seller didn't advertise it as a newsstand edition. It is newsstand and there is a direct, so there isn't any tomfoolery going on there. However, I was not aware at the time that newsstands from that time period (1982) aren't that hard to find, though it becomes more difficult in a good grade. My impression is that I paid the going rate for the comic, so I don't mind. I am, however, concerned that newsstands are starting to get hefty premiums to the issues that in many cases are the easiest to find. This may be because they are keys from the 1980's, and there aren't as many modern keys, but newsstand status doesn't add much to those issues. Canadian or UK CPVs in combination with newsstand editions and jeweler's inserts and you start to approach the rarity of modern newsstands, but even those are plentiful in comparison to everything after 2000.

[paqart]

On 7/16/2023 at 7:19 PM, valiantman said:

This is a forest. Forests have trees of different types, but before other types of trees were introduced, the forest only had one type of tree.

"What about people who might get ripped off because someone doesn't fully explain about that one type of tree? People are going to overpay for that particular tree! Tell them the date it was planted!"

Uh, some guy wants me to tell you that some trees were planted on a date that doesn't apply to other trees, and that what you pay, which I haven't mentioned at all, is something that... I can't do this, but he's my Mom and I can't tell him "no". Please check for part two of this video, a two hour presentation on all the specific exceptions to this information that does work most of the time because you're not smart enough to know it doesn't work 100% of the time despite all the uses of "usually" and "most" throughout the six minute video.

This reminds me of BBC rules that you can't interview a parapsychologist on air without having a critic on to complain about everything said by the parapsychologist "for balance." What is the point of the interview? To suggest that there is an interesting phenomenon but it's all baloney? At best, the interview time gets cut in half for the guest, whereas the critic can go on whenever he likes without a critic to cut into his time or disparage his research.

@valiantman I don't have any problem with your video. It provides a good amount of information about newsstands, even if it isn't as comprehensive as some would wish, or doesn't discuss the subject from the same perspective as every member of a potential audience.

[paqart]

On 7/16/2023 at 8:14 PM, MAR1979 said:

Prior to June 1979 For Marvel, and prior to October 1980 for DC, Newsstand editions represent almost total print runs.  Beginning June 1979 For Marvel, and beginning October 1980 for DC, Direct sale editions were issued for all books in their lines. Direct Sales editions started in those months as the minority printed, then grew and grew until a decade or so later they would represent the overwhelming bulk of the print runs.

I'm sure above sentence can be made much more succinct, but even as is does not seem like it would take any more than 15 seconds of video.

You have my genuine wish of good luck with your video, even if I'm not sure whether scammer or novices will ultimately benefit most.

I remember getting direct editions at the comic store I worked at in 1978 from Phil Seuling. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 7/17/2023 at 4:11 AM, paqart said:

The way my comic book database works, I have two edition types, newsstand and direct. That means I have to pick one or the other, even when there is only one version of the comic. I considered making a third designation for older comics that didn't have a direct edition, but that violates the logic. Those earlier comics were newsstand editions, period, even if there wasn't any other type of comic. The same is true for modern directs. Should I call them something else because there are no newsstand comics after a certain date? No. They are still direct editions.

My old Spidey spreadsheet was the same paq, but that's a private tracking mechanism created by an experienced collector and not intended to educate the masses. 

That takes me back 

I was up for continuing the discussion last night but it was late and I kept getting 504 errors. I generally like @valiantman's way of doing things and I replied to his thread as it looked like he hadn't had much in the way of feedback at that point. I do understand the arguments presented thus far, the position you and he are taking, and why you are taking it. My view is simply that it is always better to be accurate and to stick to facts when attempting to educate people. 

Here's a comic related comparison scenario. Matt Nelson loves 'foreigns' and, admirably, desires to educate the masses on the wonders of international comics which reprint original US content. One element of his labelling policy is to assign a 'first appearance' designation to any international book which reprints an applicable story outside of the USA, usually long after the original US book was printed. My position was that was misleading and I put it to him (privately and via a discussion thread here) that only the original US book should carry that distinction. So, by way of example, I wanted his slabbed Os Justiceiros #12 below to say "1st appearance of the Justice League of America in Brazil" and not "1st appearance of the Justice League of America".

Those two extra words - in Brazil - make an enormous difference. He wouldn't do it. More here if you're interested.

In a similar vein, I thought it would be more accurate for Valiantman to simply acknowledge that the term 'newsstand edition' did not exist until the introduction of direct market copies as that is the factual, historical position. The books weren't 'newsstand editions', they were comics delivered via the newsstand distribution network. Just that simple addition / amendment makes the history lesson more accurate. It wouldn't take much to add it it, so I was a bit taken aback when the argument blew up. I never understand why people argue against clarity and accuracy. To me, there is something off about calling a 1960s book a 'newsstand edition' in 2023 when the phrase would not have been uttered by a single collector on Earth at that time.

I care about comics but only up to a point. If people want to state things which are - in my opinion - needlessly open to question, then go ahead. No single person is in charge of the hobby and its definitions. But other less informed people will act on the information that individuals decide - usually in good faith - to put out there. Someone will take advantage of the misleading information, someone else may suffer and the facts are slowly eroded over time. I wonder if CGC will label all comics newsstands, if they follow your lead when they get around to introducing their new policy?

Anyway, @valiantman, we're all still friends I hope. I didn't mean to be antagonistic if that is how it came across - I just didn't want to leave you hanging with so few feedback comments after all that well intentioned work. I hope you understand my position a little better now. Good luck with the video.

 

[valiantman]

On 7/17/2023 at 1:08 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Anyway, @valiantman, we're all still friends I hope. I didn't mean to be antagonistic if that is how it came across - I just didn't want to leave you hanging with so few feedback comments after all that well intentioned work. I hope you understand my position a little better now. Good luck with the video.

Yeah, it's all good. Despite my apparent refusal of some critiques, it's actually just pushback. While I called the video "Version 1.0" it was actually about the 8th version I created, just the first I shared publicly.

Version 1.1 of the video is compiling as I type this and it's probably closer to the 12th version I have created.  For the purpose of this discussion, it will only appear to be the second, or even Version 1 Revision 1.

No one is a harsher critic of what I do than I am. When someone offers a suggestion that I refuse, it's usually because I've already thought it over and I don't find the argument (from myself or someone else) strong enough.

I don't agree with you that terms which did not exist should not be used later. There was no reason to specify that voters were men before women's suffrage, but it makes all the sense in the world to point it out today.

There was no reason to specify World War I with a number before World War II, but "World War" sounds ridiculous if we leave off the number when we try to reference either of them today.

There was no reason to specify that Showcase #4 was the first Silver Age comic when the term Silver Age had never been used, but it makes all the sense in the world to point it out today.

There was no reason to specify that comics came from newsstand distribution when newsstand was the only method of distribution, but when two types do exist, it's important that only one of them dates back to the beginning.

It's easy for me to quickly disagree with anyone on the board when I've already had these arguments with myself, and I already know which side of me won.

Edited July 17, 2023 by valiantman

[valiantman]

VERSION 1.1

 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 7/17/2023 at 8:36 AM, valiantman said:

VERSION 1.1

 

Nice to see you took a few of my comments on board, even if we still disagree on how to position 'the beginning' (I'm not saying that terms which did not exist should not be used later - I'm just saying you should explain how they came about:

• "In the beginning......all comic books were newsstand comics"
• "In the beginning......all comic books were distributed through the newsstand system. The actual term 'newsstand edition' didn't come into popular use until.....").

 

Dracula font has gone!

I was hoping to hear the Noveltones' Left Bank Two playing in the background on v1.1, but you can't have everything can you.

Well done Greg! 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Get Marwood & I
Low ceilings

[Pantodude]

On 7/16/2023 at 11:06 PM, paqart said:

I paid $5/each for my 5 copies of newsstand She-Hulk #1 in 9.6-9.8 condition. Then I found out, there isn't a direct edition version of the comic. Not complaining though.

Wait.  Are you calling @valiantman a LIAR?   Them's fight'n words, you know.      Maybe you are joking.    But regardless, you might've confused someone navigating this issue, so let's set things straight.  Consistent with the video, Savage She-Hulk 1 apparently has newsstand and direct editions?    So looks like you got what you wanted.  

(1) the newsstand edition with a regular rectangular box at top/left and barcode on bot/left:

And (2) the direct version with the "diamond" box top/left and Spidey logo instead of barcode in the bot/left:

  

Edited July 17, 2023 by Pantodude

[MAR1979]

On 7/16/2023 at 11:27 PM, paqart said:

I remember getting direct editions at the comic store I worked at in 1978 from Phil Seuling. 

Yes Marvel and DC books were available via early Direct Sales channels in 1978,  but there was no differentiation except for the Whitman distributions.Non Whitman distributed direct sale  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.

BTW: June 1979 cover dated Marvel books were first available for sale in  March 1979 at Newsstands and likley late Jan or early Feb 1979 at direct sale outlets, so practically but not quite 1978.

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by MAR1979

[valiantman]

On 7/17/2023 at 3:02 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Nice to see you took a few of my comments on board, even if we still disagree on how to position 'the beginning' (I'm not saying that terms which did not exist should not be used later - I'm just saying you should explain how they came about:

• "In the beginning......all comic books were newsstand comics"
• "In the beginning......all comic books were distributed through the newsstand system. The actual term 'newsstand edition' didn't come into popular use until.....").

I purposefully did not say "edition" before there was more than one type of comic.

Edited July 17, 2023 by valiantman

[valiantman]

On 7/16/2023 at 8:25 PM, Lazyboy said:

Promotional comics exist, with some being promotional versions of regular issues. Subscriptions were also a thing, meaning those copies were never in the newsstand system. The newsstand system was the primary method of distribution for comics before the direct market overtook it, but it was not the only one.

Agreed, but a collector of comics does not need to determine if a comic they're purchasing was a subscription copy when subscription copies are identical in every way.

I own a CGC slabbed promotional comic which was taped to Wheaties boxes in the 1940s and that was its only distribution method, but all those attributes go way beyond the scope of a six minute introduction video.

Arguably, I could have started earlier than Famous Funnies 1933 and talked about something like Buster Brown shoe comics, but that would be "too much too soon" also.

Edited July 17, 2023 by valiantman

[paqart]

On 7/17/2023 at 2:08 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

I wonder if CGC will label all comics newsstands, if they follow your lead when they get around to introducing their new policy?

 

 

You got me here. I would not want this for the reasons you gave earlier. I know the difference, so tracking them the way I do is fine. If CGC did it, it would be very confusing.

[Lazyboy]

On 7/17/2023 at 6:10 AM, Pantodude said:

Wait.  Are you calling @valiantman a LIAR?   Them's fight'n words, you know.      Maybe you are joking.    But regardless, you might've confused someone navigating this issue, so let's set things straight.  Consistent with the video, Savage She-Hulk 1 apparently has newsstand and direct editions?    So looks like you got what you wanted.  

(1) the newsstand edition with a regular rectangular box at top/left and barcode on bot/left:

 

And (2) the direct version with the "diamond" box top/left and Spidey logo instead of barcode in the bot/left:

 

That's a lot of work to show you're unaware of Sensational She-Hulk 1.

[paqart]

On 7/17/2023 at 7:10 AM, Pantodude said:

Wait.  Are you calling @valiantman a LIAR?   Them's fight'n words, you know.      Maybe you are joking.    But regardless, you might've confused someone navigating this issue, so let's set things straight.  Consistent with the video, Savage She-Hulk 1 apparently has newsstand and direct editions?    So looks like you got what you wanted.  

(1) the newsstand edition with a regular rectangular box at top/left and barcode on bot/left:

And (2) the direct version with the "diamond" box top/left and Spidey logo instead of barcode in the bot/left:

  

Sensational She-Hulk #1, not Savage She-Hulk #1

[Get Marwood & I]

On 7/17/2023 at 8:55 PM, paqart said:

You got me here. I would not want this for the reasons you gave earlier. I know the difference, so tracking them the way I do is fine. If CGC did it, it would be very confusing.

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