CleverParasite

Member
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CleverParasite

  • Boards Title
    Learning the Ropes
  • Birthday 11/01/1983

Personal Information

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. to answer the question as to what I consider identifying marks of newsstand editions, see these pics - ASM #364 shows the 30th Anniversary graphic in the lower left corner where barcodes usually are printed. The Venom: LP #1 shows the classic Spidey "oh, man!" pic in the same location. But more evident, look at the four Gambit issues: #1, #3, and #4 have basic barcodes, but #2 has a barcode with "DIRECT EDITION" written beside the barcode. I've been told by all who I asked the question of that graphics, "direct edition" branded codes, and basically anything other than a plain barcode, are signs of issues sold to comic vendors; the issues with only a barcode are newsstand volumes. Is this accurate?
  2. wow, many thanks for all the information concerning my original question. now i have a metaphorical rod to cast into the spokes of everyones bike (throwing you for a loop. and maybe a broken arm). see, i never purchased any comics at newsstands or other general book stores, because i was lucky enough to live in a neighborhood as a child that has a comic book store in walking distance that was run by twin brothers. Every volume i own except three or four strays was purchased at that shop. So, if dedicated comic shops are given direct editions when they place orders, how is it that about 30% of my collection bears the signs of newsstand editions? the only potential answer i can think of that is logical is that various comic publishers, at least in the early 90s when my interest was at its peak, comic publisher employees in charge of filling and shipping orders gave not a damn about paying attention to both the type of books they packed for shipping, and where the direct/newsstand versions were supposed to go.
  3. i got you one better - my father told me that when he was a child, kids played a game called "pitch" with cards and marbles or jacks, involving flicking cards onto a cement or asphalt surface with the goal being flicking a card so that it landed upright against the jacks. they would do this for hours until the card lost its integrity or outright disintegrated. n He has specific memories of using cards featuring their favorite players for good luck. these included mel ott, babe ruth, and even a mickey mantle rookie card. near-priceless treasures .
  4. Please excuse the tenor of my post, I just read it and it appears to convey genuine anger. This is not the case. I am more flabbergasted than anything else. I appreciate the explanations, they were very helpful. They also led to disappointment in the publishers of such multi-cover issues, because that's such a pointless and unartistic way to make a specific issue more desired and valuable. I far and away prefer variant covers, as in the Fatal Attractions X-Men #25 issue, with gold titling, smattering of black and white in the cover art, and all the rest of the variants. Now, my prior statement and your replies result in begging this question: In everyones subjective tastes, what are your favorite forms of rare differences in all printed books? More specifically, I wonder about the "error" and "defect" issues, many of which have been claimed to be subject to recall and that only a small percentage "slipped by," which I don't believe for a second, btw. Do you guys prefer defects and errors, or do they have appeal in any way aside from variation in higher value? I have two copies of Wolverine #75 with the hologram on the cover, one appears as intended, and the other is a blue hologram error which is only a blue picture in flat 2D. But, my specific issue is far and away the most defective example of this hologram error I've ever come seen in person or online - faint, thin, deep blue lines can be seen on the sides if viewed at the perfect angle/lighting, but no matter how deeply or closely I look, the rest is black as night with no trace of any picture at all, 2D or otherwise. This interest in rare "recalled" items is nostalgic for me, recalling such examples as the Star Trek: TNG Geordi LaForge action figure shipped without his Visor, and Star Wars Boba Fett action figure with the spring loaded harpoon-ish weapon that was widely recalled after a kid choked on it. So, error issues interest me, and to a far lesser extent, 1st editions and newsstand versions serve up a bit more interest, admittedly only because of potential value.
  5. okay, I'm just returning to comics after a 22 year lull. In my liquidating of my collection, I've only just become familiar with things like newsstand editions, direct editions, variants and errors, and the effect each trait has on value. Questions for the knowledgeable: Why are there newsstand and direct editions at all as opposed to a plain release? What is their purpose in the business of comic book sales? What percentage are direct and newsstand, and why is the value of a volume changed by this? Any answers are appreciated, and feel free to mock my ignorance and explain anything else having to do with values and errors/variants that I did not ask - that would be equally appreciated.
  6. To vary the original question, how about the defective hologram version of Wolverine 75? I've seen versions of this that show a blue halo effect over a 2-D version of what the hologram is supposed to show, but my version is far and away the most drastic example of this error cover I've ever seen: There is NO picture in the hologram, only slight bands of dark blue on each side if you look correctly. See the following two pics
  7. Okay, I'm getting upset with the sheer numbers of error printings, recalls, and pointless to absurdity rarities such as this multiple cover nonsense. Quad-cover, Sextuple Cover? I have a 9.8 ASM 361 first printing newsstand edition, and dammit it only needs ONE cover! Can anyone tell me the rationale behind it? I consider, among error and rare cover difference features, to be the only such variation that's flat out dumb - this multiple cover foolishness. What is with that?
  8. You are not alone in this, my friend. I too own an Amazing Spider-Man 361 first edition, and it has precisely the same manufacturing defects as yours (see my pics below). I con confidently point the finger at the printers because of the exact uniformity in all details of the defects - tiny "tears" in the bottom of the paper, all of which are exactly the same size in height and depth in its crease/tear. Also those short tears in the paper are found across the whole page, and all are equidistant. This sort of damage is practically impossible to happen due to mistreatment or improper storage and climate fluctuations.
  9. I have X-Men 1 (w/ foldout cover), 21, 25, 28, 29, and 30. Ungraded, but if I had to guesstimate, I'd say they all would be qualified at least 9.0 and up. I'm taking any reasonable offers. If you want to see a closeup of any part of any of the comics, just tell me what you'd like to see, via DM or email. NOTE: bad lighting and photographing on an angle have made the pics appear as though there's some degree of damage. For clarification, all of these issues are practically flawless, perhaps the only visible flaws are mild wearing on the corners. All the backing boards in these cases are over 20 years old and have frayed and lost the corners' structural integrity. This is NOT a reflection of the comic.
  10. I'm just getting back into the game after 20 years or so, and the first thing I did was take stock of my collection to see if I had any desirable/rare or valuable issues. Among others, I have a mint condition Amazing Spider-Man #361, first printing, 1st appearance of Carnage. While reading up on differing values, I've come across this issue "featuring triple cover" that just shoots the value up into the stratosphere. However, I cannot find any information explaining the difference. So, just what is a triple cover, anyway?
  11. It's my understanding that, as the blue hologram covers constituted an entire defective print, which is why they were recalled (or so I've heard). As such, it would make sense that there are degrees of defectiveness among those holograms, ranging from issues like mine which are basically 80% black, and yours, which is according to your description not quite as bad, adding up to more like 50% right, 50% wrong. Just my guess.
  12. The standard holograms on the front of the Fatal Attractions seres issues reflect green and yellow/orange as their primary colors. The Wolverine 75 with the blue hologram often doesn't show any picture; only the outer edges of the hologram show a deep blue reflection. See picture of my issue: