Have you ever wondered just how much Marvel, DC and the others saved on paper and ink? 2 2

[Mokiguy]

I'm not a bean counter so have no clue, but I've wondered just how much extra profit the makers of comics made by trimming a 1/2" of paper off of comic widths around 1960 to go from 7 3/4" wide to 7 1/4", and then how much more again by lopping off another 3/8" inch around 1990 to wind up with a comic that's now down to 6 7/8" wide for modern day comics. At least they left the height relatively unchanged. Maybe there's an ex bean counter that now collects comics that will read this and let me know.

[Lazyboy]

On 3/2/2024 at 3:07 PM, Mokiguy said:

lopping off another 3/8" inch around 1990

The last change in the dimensions of a standard comic happened in 1974.

[Axe Elf]

I don't know what has changed when, but just applying the math...

If you consider the height of a comic book constant at 10.25 inches...

The decrease in width from 7.75 inches to 7.25 inches would result in a decrease of approximately 6.45% in the total surface area of each wrap.

(10.25 x 14.5) / (10.25 x 15.5)

148.625 / 158.875 = 0.93548

93.55%

Shaving an additional .375 off of the width would result in a similar calculation...

10.25 x 13.75 = 140.9375

...resulting in an additional decrease of approximately 5.17% in the total surface area of each wrap...

140.9375 / 148.625 = 0.94828

94.83%

...and a total decrease of approximately 11.29% in the total surface area of each wrap from the original width.

140.9375 / 158.875 = 0.88710

88.71%

Assuming costs per square inch are constant (and they would be for paper, maybe not as much for ink), one could assume the costs would be similarly decreased.

[Nick Furious]

Might have had as much to do with transportation costs and maximizing retail display slots as it had to do with saving on paper and ink.  

[Mokiguy]

On 3/2/2024 at 2:25 PM, Lazyboy said:

The last change in the dimensions of a standard comic happened in 1974.

No, that's not accurate. Here is a cut and paste about sizes from the net .........................

Know the difference in "standard" comic book sizes. The earliest comic books of the Golden Age contained 64 pages, enough to support 4 or 5 adventures within their covers. As the cost of paper gradually increased, the number of pages was reduced to 48, which accommodated up to 3 graphic stories, and then to 32, which usually meant a maximum of 2 stories. Also, while comic books consistently kept a height of 10 1/2 inches (26.7 cm), their width narrowed from the Golden Age dimension of 7 3/4 inches (19.7 cm) to a Silver Age width of 7 1/8 inches (18.1 cm), then widened to 7 1/4 inches (18.4 cm) in the 1970s and 1980s before narrowing to 6 7/8 inches (17.5 cm) in the 1990s. Bags for regular comics are thus broken into the following sizes:

• Golden Age: 7 3/4 x 10 1/2 inches (19.7 x 26.7 cm). This size accommodates Golden Age comics from 1943 up to Silver Age comics published in 1960.
• Silver Age: 7 1/8 x 10 1/2 inches (18.1 x 26.7 cm). This size accommodates some late Golden Age comics published in 1951 as well as Silver Age comics published as late as 1965, including annuals and 80-page giants published during that period.
• Regular: 7 1/4 x 10 1/2 inches (18.4 x 26.7 cm). This size accommodates comics published after 1965, including the late Silver Age and Bronze Age comics of the 1970s to mid-1980s.
• Current: 6 7/8 x 10 1/2 inches (17.5 x 26.7 cm). This size accommodates comics published since 1990.

[Lazyboy]

On 3/3/2024 at 8:27 AM, Mokiguy said:

No, that's not accurate. Here is a cut and paste about sizes from the net

Yeah, it's probably me that's wrong rather than you and some garbage you found that some random insufficiently_thoughtful_person wrote online. Because I know absolutely nothing about comics and don't own thousands of comics from 1975 to current that all just happen to be the same size (within acceptable production variance).

[shadroch]

On 3/4/2024 at 9:08 AM, Lazyboy said:

Yeah, it's probably me that's wrong rather than you and some garbage you found that some random insufficiently_thoughtful_person wrote online. Because I know absolutely nothing about comics and don't own thousands of comics from 1975 to current that all just happen to be the same size (within acceptable production variance).

Lay a current Marvel on top of a 1977 Marvel and then tell us how right you are.  Better yet, take an expensive BA book and slip it into a modern comic bag.  

[Lazyboy]

On 3/4/2024 at 10:49 AM, shadroch said:

Better yet, take an expensive BA book and slip it into a modern comic bag. 

 I wouldn't ever buy whatever anyone calls the smallest, most worthless bags, because they're junk.

On 3/4/2024 at 10:49 AM, shadroch said:

Lay a current Marvel on top of a 1977 Marvel and then tell us how right you are.

I can barely accommodate that due to dropping Marvel decades ago. But luckily, Marvel did actually finally continue Gaiman's Miracleman.

1975, 1979, 1982, 1990, 2023:

Anything else I can do for you?

I am, of course, right. Now, tell me how sorry you are.

[shadroch]

I do feel sorry for you. 

In any event, every source I checked has bronze-age books measuring 7 1/4 inches and comics after 1990 varying between 6 5/8 and 6 3/4 inches. It looks like you have a lot of correcting to do.

A current book slides easily into a 6 3/4" bag, while a 1970s Marvel doesn't.  Weird, how that happens.

 

 

[Yorick]

I think the primary consideration would be the size of the sheet on the printing press.  You need to have trim margins too.

[Lazyboy]

On 3/4/2024 at 12:42 PM, shadroch said:

I do feel sorry for you. 

In any event, every source I checked has bronze-age books measuring 7 1/4 inches and comics after 1990 varying between 6 5/8 and 6 3/4 inches. It looks like you have a lot of correcting to do.

A current book slides easily into a 6 3/4" bag, while a 1970s Marvel doesn't.  Weird, how that happens.

 

 

I literally post PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF (of something everyone should know) and this is the you come up with? I thought you were actually experienced and knowledgeable when it came to comics. 

There is no "1970s Marvel" in this context. This whole thing started when I posted the SIMPLE FACT that the dimensions of a standard comic book last changed in 1974, in the middle of the Bronze Age.

[Lazyboy]

For the original question, it's not just the size, but the quality of materials used that can affect price. I'm looking at you, Marvel.

[shadroch]

You did post photographic proof.  The top book in your first picture is clearly not as wide as the one under it.  I appreciate it, but don't understand why you are disputing it.  Are you saying 1980s books weren't over 7 inches, while today's are 6 7/8? 

[Lazyboy]

On 3/4/2024 at 1:47 PM, shadroch said:

You did post photographic proof.  The top book in your first picture is clearly not as wide as the one under it.

Are you talking about the minor miscuts of the FF and ROM (being slightly wider at the top and bottom, respectively) which can be best seen in the first image? I acknowledged that with "within acceptable production variance" earlier, because there will often be at least minor differences in size between different comics. I know you at least know that comic manufacturing never approached perfection.

Also, you know that CGC's "Modern Age" tier of 1975 to current is because of this as well, right? 1975 wasn't chosen at random.

On 3/4/2024 at 1:47 PM, shadroch said:

Are you saying 1980s books weren't over 7 inches

Absolutely. Standard comic books in the 80s were not 7+ inches wide.

 

EDIT: This thread is relevant to this tangent as well.

Edited March 4 by Lazyboy

[Dr. Balls]

I've tried countless times to stick a BA book into a modern bag, and I can't. I always figured that the size of Moderns got smaller.

The answer to the OPs question: they probably saved a ton of money. You would not make a formatting change like that, unless it resulted in a big number. My guess is that the paper they shaved off one side of the book amounted to something significant on the 'parent sheet' - which is the large piece of paper that runs through the press and gets bound and trimmed into a book.

What also likely contributed is the bindery and prepress technology - when I first started out in graphic design 30+ years ago, bleeds had to be 1/4" outside of your margin. The advancements in technology have made 1/8" bleeds common, with 1/16" bleeds being risky, but do-able. 1/8" difference across 22 pages could make a difference.

Edited March 9 by Dr. Balls

[Mokiguy]

On 3/4/2024 at 8:08 AM, Lazyboy said:

Yeah, it's probably me that's wrong rather than you and some garbage you found that some random insufficiently_thoughtful_person wrote online. Because I know absolutely nothing about comics and don't own thousands of comics from 1975 to current that all just happen to be the same size (within acceptable production variance).

How come you're always a jerk? Most folks here answer question the best they can. They try and be helpful if they can, but you never seem to have a nice thing to say to me and to many others, especially those new to this hobby. So why do you have this big chip on your shoulder and why do you seem to garner pleasure from trying to make others look small?

[Lazyboy]

On 3/9/2024 at 4:51 PM, Mokiguy said:

How come you're always a jerk? Most folks here answer question the best they can. They try and be helpful if they can, but you never seem to have a nice thing to say to me and to many others, especially those new to this hobby. So why do you have this big chip on your shoulder and why do you seem to garner pleasure from trying to make others look small?

Excuse me? I posted a simple fact to correct your erroneous initial post and you spit in my face and told me I was the one who didn't know what he was talking about.

You are in no position to tell experienced people like me that you know better than us, yet you just can't stop doing it at every opportunity.

Your ignorance is not as good as or better than my knowledge. You are the jerk.

[shadroch]

I think I was the one who said you don't know what you are talking about, and I asked you to put a Bronze-Age Marvel into a current bag. Your answer was quite comical, although I doubt you intended it to be. 

[Mokiguy]

On 3/9/2024 at 3:35 PM, Lazyboy said:

Excuse me? I posted a simple fact to correct your erroneous initial post and you spit in my face and told me I was the one who didn't know what he was talking about.

You are in no position to tell experienced people like me that you know better than us, yet you just can't stop doing it at every opportunity.

Your ignorance is not as good as or better than my knowledge. You are the jerk.

Well you've proven the point now haven't you. I have never said a mean or even unkind thing to you, and yet every single time you have commented on anything I post, you go out of your way to ridicule or demean me. If that's what gives you pleasure, then go ahead and enjoy yourself, But take it from me. If you are really as wise and experienced as you so boastfully proclaim yourself to be, then you could do a great service here by helping newbies gain some knowledge rather than trying to demean them. It's not just me, I've seen your comments to others as well when you think their comment or question is beneath you. You almost always mock them or make fun of them rather than trying to help them. You have a chip on your shoulder my friend.  

[Lazyboy]

On 3/9/2024 at 5:40 PM, shadroch said:

I think I was the one who said you don't know what you are talking about, and I asked you to put a Bronze-Age Marvel into a current bag. Your answer was quite comical, although I doubt you intended it to be. 

My answer was comical? I'll try to dig up a current bag (although I wouldn't use them for anything, some people I've bought from have) and put a later Bronze (I already acknowledged that early Bronze is larger) Marvel in it, but you then have to show me a 7"+ wide Copper comic. A standard Copper issue, no TMNT or any other funny business.