• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About waahehe94

  • Boards Title
  1. Your reasoning is flawed. DC, Marvel, and the rest kept meticulous records because they HAD to: both for postal service regulations AND because they had contracts in place with various distributors, who you bet kept close track of what they sold and what they returned. Your contention doesn't make any sense. The printer knew exactly how many copies they printed; they had to. Marvel knew how many copies they ordered. DC knew how many copies were claimed for credit. They all, if they were sent out via subscription, had to keep these numbers for filing every year. When you have competing interests making sure everything was accounted for, of course they would keep meticulous records. Does that mean there wasn't human error and fraud? Of course not. But that doesn't therefore mean Marvel just told the printer to print whatever they felt like printing, and vendors to claim whatever they felt like claiming on returns, and no one kept accounts. What printing company are you referring to? UNLESS you have competing interests keeping everybody honest. No one said it was absolutely NASA precise down to the very last copy, but it's beyond silly to think that Marvel, DC, and the rest kept loose books. Not the point. The point was, and is, that record keeping was precise 230+ years ago, so to say "well, technology wasn't that advanced in 1970" doesn't fly. Wait...are you envious of Chuck? And what do you mean, "comic publishers weren't good businessmen prior to Disney buying Marvel"? Warners has owned DC since the 60's. Martin Goodman, owner and publisher of Marvel comics from 1939 to 1972, was a very capable businessman. You haven't submitted one bit of solid evidence here that the publishers have kept meticulous records and can account for the number of newsstand copies that survived other than your opinion and maybe a quick google search you've done in your spare time. There's other factors to consider than you seem to be aware of when producing a product, storing it, shipping it, selling it and dealing with returns. I'm not saying that the publishers don't have a general idea of the newsstand copies that survived, just that it probably isn't as precise and accurate as most people seem to believe or claim. Anyone with any experience in that type of sales and returns knows what I'm talking about. Nothing is exact when you work with machinery like a printing press, you have 2 sets of numbers that you go by, Efficiency and True Efficency. If you don't know what those are then I suggest that you step away from your keyboard, get some real world experience in the industry and then check back with me in about 10 or 15 years if you make it that long. You keep saying that my statements are wrong and that my reasoning is flawed. Exactly what proof do you have that my statements aren't as accurate as yours? Do you work for DC, Marvel or any other publisher? Exactly what and how much experience in this field? I only have 30+ years of experience dealing with comics, how much do you have? As far as Chuck goes, I've met the guy on several occasions at cons and we have some of the same friends and associates in the comics industry. I don't like him, never have and never will. The only difference between him and 90% of the other comic dealers that I know is that he got a lucky break and was smart enough to exploit it and take advantage of it. How do you know how efficient or inefficient recording keeping was X-Amount of years ago before technology advancements like computers were avaliable? Were you there X-Amount of years ago? Were you even involved in the industry in the 70's or 80's or are you just assuming? Please enlighten me on your experience in the comics industry and dealing with newsstand editions since I seem to know so little about it and you have all of the answers?!?
  2. Publishers were only required to give averages per USPS regulations, and specifics only for the issue "nearest to filing date." So yes, it stands to reason that the only one who has actual figures for each particular issue would be the publisher. The real answer is that no one knows, not even the publishers, whether it was 1970 or 2002 or today, the precise number of copies destroyed or still extant, and never will, because that information isn't possible to obtain except on a theoretical level. Because of the filing requirements, the records for comics from 1970 would not have been much different from the records from 2000. After all, we have accurate records of US Mint activity going back to its founding in 1792. They're not perfectly complete, of course, but we have excellent records going back 230+ years. Again: because of the filing requirements, the record keeping at publishers who distributed comics via the USPS (that is, most of them) wouldn't have been radically different in 1970 than they were in 2000. Advancements in technology didn't change the way people counted things; only the speed in which it was done. We know precisely how many 1885-CC Morgan dollars were minted, because the Mint in Carson City kept meticulous, daily records of those facts....and that was when there was no computer technology of any kind. You would be incorrect. They kept meticulous records, because that was how people were paid and companies stayed in business. Marvel, DC, and the others weren't fly-by-night companies with sloppy accounting (at least internally.) They may not have preserved those records...but they certainly kept them. I have to disagree with you in the fact that I don't feel that publishers like Marvel & DC kept meticulous records on the number of comics they published each month and on the returns. My reasoning behind this is because when I was in college, many years ago, I worked part time for a Fortune 500 Company in both ops and warehouse. This company supplied its product to retailers all over North America and tried to keep track of what it produced, what it had in inventory and its returns through several different types of tracking methods including a monthly inventory of all its warehouses. Even a Fortune 500 Company with all its tracking and inventory measures in place couldn't keep a 100% complete accurate record of everything that it produced, shipped and the returns with modern technology, so I highly doubt a printing company that has been on the verge of bankruptcy on several occasions could. There are just so many unkown factors that come into play throughout the production process, through the shipping and warehouse process and in the return process to the fudge factor that you have to allow for when people are involved that it just isn't possible to keep track of everything. Comic collecting isn't like coin collecting in the fact that Marvel and DC aren't likely to be hoarding back issues of comics away in a safe like the U.S. Mint could be with coins. I can pretty much guarantee that Marvel and DC doesn't have the accountability for each indiviual comic produced that the U.S. Mint does with each coin or paper bill produced also. If history and experience has taught me anything it's that Chuck's ego is only overshadowed by the amount of sheer luck that he has had in his career and comic publishers weren't good businessmen prior to Walt Disney buying Marvel.
  3. Nothing at all? I'm not sure how this is relevant to 2005, when Barns (sic) and noble DID carry newsstand Marvel titles, which is the argument. Oh, I don't know. I think it carries a little more weight. You know, what with the research and hard numbers and data and all. But what do I know? During your research did you happen upon any numbers such as how many books were destroyed at the end of each month because they were unsold? I feel that a lot of people overlook the fact that newsstand edition's are basically destroyed when the next issue is released for partial store credit whereas direct editions aren't. Yes, we have all of that information for many books published in the 60's-00's. The Statements of Ownership, published during this time, tells us the net extant copies of any particular title (if not necessarily a particular issue.) Here's an example: From here, you can see the total print run, as well as the actual amount of copies actually distributed (in this case, 184,826 as an average.), as well as the returns from news agents which you describe (that is, 50,045.) Now, there have always been shenanigans on the newsstand returns side, so actual copies reported returned may not be the copies that are actually destroyed, BUT...we know that number is not greater than the number reported, because then those agents wouldn't receive credit for those issues (which, while possible, isn't a mistake many vendors tended to make.) And, granted, in the era of the Direct market (functionally 1979-on), those numbers got a little muddled, because those numbers don't separate out Direct vs. newsstand copies. However, we CAN do a little extrapolating. For example, that New X-Men SOO is from 2002. We know that, in 2002, say, New X-Men #128 (intro Fantomex) has a reported Direct market number of 106,190 copies. If you look at the average amount of copies distributed (184,226) and subtract 106,190 copies from that figure, you arrive at roughly 80,000 Newsstand copies actually sold on average for the year 2002. Now, granted, we don't know precise numbers, and we can't get very precise, except for the "issue published nearest to filing date" which is probably issue #132 or #133, but it's still reasonable enough information. For fun, let's look at #132, since #14 on the SOO says the issue date (which means the publication date, not the cover date) is September, which would make it a November cover date, which would be #132. We see, for the year, the series took a dramatic drop in both printed and sold copies, from an average of 184k copies distributed, to only 132k for the most recent issue. But, returns from vendors also dropped, which means they had a higher sell-through percentage, which is good. We see that the Direct copies remained pretty consistent: 105,640, which means that the newsstand only sold about 27k copies for that particular issue. However...27k copies actually distributed (or, rather, reported as sold and not claimed for credit) is still nearly 26% of the Direct market copies! For every ONE HUNDRED copies sold of that issue, SEVENTY FOUR were Direct, and TWENTY SIX were Newsstand. And, on average for the year, the newsstand books sold about 80% of what the Direct market sold. This is why Chuck's numbers are so ridiculously wrong. 2% newsstand vs. 98% Direct? Chuck is claiming that for every ONE HUNDRED copies sold, only TWO were newsstand? Total nonsense. Those numbers, and many like it, prove him drastically, dramatically wrong. And yet...that misinformation is repeated as fact, because research is time-consuming and understanding and relaying data in a meaningful way is difficult, so....here we go. Not entirely true. Thanks to those statements of ownership, we're not completely in the dark with regards to how many newsstand copies were actually distributed. Where there are no SOOs, yes, we're out of luck entirely. But SOOs exist for the vast majority of DC, Marvel, and even other companies for the time period involved, so we have a pretty fair estimate about what was printed and what, of that, actually still exists. It is vital, as you point out, to always include that "net press run" does NOT equal "extant copies", and I think this board has been exceptionally consistent in making sure that information is repeated on a fairly regular basis. Yes and no. Remember, Diamond only reports Direct sales in North America. We have no idea how many US English editions are printed for, and distributed to, the United Kingdom, for example. And, of course, those numbers reported by Diamond are always very carefully caveated to be "estimated." That's important. Here's what Diamond says about it: "Data for Diamond’s sales charts — which includes the monthly market shares and all top product charts — are compiled by Diamond Comic Distributors from sales made to thousands of comic book specialty shops located in North America and around the world. Additional sales made to online merchants and other specialty retailers may be included as well." (Emphasis mine.) http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/237?articleID=174561 And here's what the John Jackson Miller of Comichron has to say: "The individual pages for each of these years can be found by clicking the links below. Remember that these pages only show what the comics shops of North America ordered, whereas the Statements of Ownership report sales through all channels. More years coming soon!" http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales.html So, JJM and Diamond conflict a bit, which should be cause to consider. Not entirely true, but certainly true of Chuck, clearly. We don't have to worry about Newsstand Marvels anymore, because they're no longer published. I appreciate the research you've done with your X-Men example from 2000, but I still stand by my statement that only the publisher has an idea of the exact number of newsstand books to survive each month and I would guess that the records from 2000 would be far more accurate than from 1970 with the advancement of technology. I'm pretty sure that in 2000 the upc code associated with each books pallet or package would have been scanned and entered into the database and when a return was made roughly a month later the returned covers upc would be scanned and entered into the database. Back in the early days of comics before computers existed I would bet that the publishers didn't keep as detailed records as they did after computers & upc codes made the job quicker & easier with keeping up with returns.
  4. I feel that with newsstand editions you really can't look at the number that was made and then delivered to the retailer, because that number doesn't reflect how many were returned and destroyed when the next issue was released. Once a direct edition is printed and sold to the retailer it stays in the market until someone buys it. Newsstand editions are sent back to the publisher (at least the cover is) from the retailer when the next issue is released for partial store credit and supposed to be destroyed. I just think it would be hard to keep track of what was printed, what was sold and what was returned/destroyed over a 2-3 month time period. I know that Chuck has an ego bigger than Stan Lee could ever dream of having and likes to think that he knows everything and speculators like to number crunch everything, but with newsstand editions there seems to be a lot of variables that can't be taken into account by just looking at a Diamond sales list.
  5. Nothing at all? I'm not sure how this is relevant to 2005, when Barns (sic) and noble DID carry newsstand Marvel titles, which is the argument. Oh, I don't know. I think it carries a little more weight. You know, what with the research and hard numbers and data and all. But what do I know? During your research did you happen upon any numbers such as how many books were destroyed at the end of each month because they were unsold? I feel that a lot of people overlook the fact that newsstand edition's are basically destroyed when the next issue is released for partial store credit whereas direct editions aren't. Newsstand editions have a shelf life, I don't think anyone actually knows how many survived from month to month. With direct editions you can go by Diamonds monthly sales list & not have to consider return numbers like newsstand editions. I doubt anyone knows the actual number of newsstand editions that survive each month, especially Chuck from Mile High considering he doesn't deal in them
  6. Recently looked at a copy of New Mutants 98 at a comic shop in Tennessee. The shop owner has been saying that it's such a high grade copy that he's going to send it off for grading if someone doesn't buy it soon. This gained my interest so I decided to check it out and maybe make an offer on it, but after examining it I have some questions that I'm hoping that some more experienced graders can help me with? Inside the display case, from a 3 foot distance in low light the cover does look immaculate, but on closer inspection it seems to have some issues that raise concern for the amount of money that he's asking for it. The spine has some small stress marks on it causing color breaks on it. There's not a lot of evidence of spine stress or color breaks, but they are there and noticeable when you have the book laying on a counter in front of you. The cover also isn't bright and glossy, but it isn't dull either. The colors don't really pop out at you, they're just there. The biggest concern I have is the stench that comes from the book when you open it up. The odor that comes from the book will literlly make you take a step back if you are not expecting it. The only way that I can describe it is the book smells like it was left in a car that was on a week long roadtrip full of chain smokers whose cars A/C wasn't working in the middle of July and they didn't want to roll down the windows. The pages of the book are kind of a yellow to off yellow with maybe of a hint of being white at one time 25 years ago. My last concern is that the bottom corners of the pages don't seem to have been cut properly from the printers. Each corner of every page is cut with a small box on them that hangs out bellow the cover. I know it's nearly impossible to assign a grade without having the book in front of you, but I would appreciate any ideas on the amount of points these flaws would take away from an overall grade