Reasonable Price for ASM 361 0

[valiantman]

10 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

And, for the most part in this era, there is going to be a much higher survival rate in high grade for newsstands, because even casual buyers were taking better care of them than in the past.

Right, but if the numbers being produced (surviving returns) were 80/20 for direct/newsstand, then even collector protection at the same rate (which seems unlikely) would still result in 80/20 ratios.

Edited June 24, 2017 by valiantman

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, valiantman said:

 

Despite RMA's assertion that we're looking at 1:1.05 ratios, when it comes to slabs, it's clearly not.  By no means do I believe that 12-to-1 is the ratio of direct to newsstand for ASM #300, but I do believe that could be an accurate reflection of the ratio for "CGC worthy (that is, already slabbed)" copies of ASM #300, which speaks to the condition of the books, the likelihood of many non-collectors keeping their newsstands 25+ years, and the likelihood that those copies (not returned/destroyed) will end up in a CGC slab.  12-to-1 for direct vs. newsstand for ASM #300... consistently, for a decade.

Could it change?  Sure.  Will it switch from 12:1 to 1.05:1?  No way.

You misstate my assertion.

Allow me to state again:

"And newsstand copies of ASM #361 are probably rareR than Direct copies by perhaps a factor of 1:1.05. In other words, for every 1,000 newsstand copies, there are, perhaps, 1,050 Direct copies. "

Please note what that said. "for every 1,000 newsstand copies"...that mean total extant copies, not just SLABBED copies, of THIS SPECIFIC BOOK.

You can't compare total extant copies...from which my newsstand:Direct "1:1.05" ratio is derived...of a SPECIFIC BOOK to the newsstand:Direct ratio of SLABBED copies of a DIFFERENT BOOK.

Yes, when it comes to slabs, that ratio is, as you state, clearly not applicable.

However...on that note, I will say that for a book like ASM #361, the ratio of 9.8 newsstand:Direct is going to be substantially HIGHER than for a book like ASM #300, because ASM #300 wasn't an instant sellout like #361.

Instant sellouts behave differently in terms of both surviving copies AND surviving copies in high grade. You will find far fewer copies of ASM #300 newsstand as a PERCENTAGE of total extant copies, than for #361. Perhaps 50% of the newsstand print run for ASM #300 was "returned" and destroyed; that percentage almost certainly dropped to 5% OR LESS for ASM #361.

 

[valiantman]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You misstate my assertion.

Allow me to state again:

"And newsstand copies of ASM #361 are probably rareR than Direct copies by perhaps a factor of 1:1.05. In other words, for every 1,000 newsstand copies, there are, perhaps, 1,050 Direct copies. "

Please note what that said. "for every 1,000 newsstand copies"...that mean total extant copies, not just SLABBED copies, of THIS SPECIFIC BOOK.

You can't compare total extant copies...from which my newsstand:Direct "1:1.05" ratio is derived...of a SPECIFIC BOOK to the newsstand:Direct ratio of SLABBED copies of a DIFFERENT BOOK.

Yes, when it comes to slabs, that ratio is, as you state, clearly not applicable.

However...on that note, I will say that for a book like ASM #361, the ratio of 9.8 newsstand:Direct is going to be substantially HIGHER than for a book like ASM #300, because ASM #300 wasn't an instant sellout like #361.

Instant sellouts behave differently in terms of both surviving copies AND surviving copies in high grade. You will find far fewer copies of ASM #300 newsstand as a PERCENTAGE of total extant copies, than for #361. Perhaps 50% of the newsstand print run for ASM #300 was "returned" and destroyed; that percentage almost certainly dropped to 5% OR LESS for ASM #361.

 

Gotcha.  So, you're suggesting that the number printed for ASM #361 in 1992 was actually about 50/50 for newsstand and direct edition, since you are asserting that there are 1:1.05 surviving (after 5% return).

If so, then 50/50 seems too high for newsstand in 1992.

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Right, but if the numbers being produced (surviving returns) were 80/20 for direct/newsstand, then even collector protection at the same rate (which seems unlikely) would still result in 80/20 ratios.

There are too many factors which are unknown to reasonably come up with any meaningful numbers. We don't know what percentage of a given print run was newsstand, if we even know the print run, and what was Direct. We do know that Direct copies have, in many cases, a 90% or better survival rate from this era (late 80's/early 90's) in all conditions. Newsstand copies, however, had "return" rates of up to 70-80% of the entire newsstand print run...but were all of those actually destroyed?

Too many unknown variables. All we can reasonably conclude is that 1. Direct market books have generally survived in higher numbers than newsstands at least from about 1986-on. 2. Direct market books generally survive in higher grade.

Chuck Rozanski's numbers are completely made up, and bear no resemblance to reality, however.

 

[ygogolak]

53 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Sure, and that's why it's simple logic.

In this case, however, this is an exception that makes the rule. Books like Superman #50, ASM #252, Thor #337, Batman #457, and other "hot the day they came out" books weren't subject to the usual conditions.

And, for the most part in this era, there is going to be a much higher survival rate in high grade for newsstands, because even casual buyers were taking better care of them than in the past.

I'll take you're word for it. That's before my time of Wednesday Warrioring.

[AnthonyTheAbyss]

361 is no longer "reasonable".  If you didn't get one when it was hovering around $200 you missed the boat.  I recommend picking up the "other" book.  Which is actually a pretty good book with two first appearances...

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

Gotcha.  So, you're suggesting that the number printed for ASM #361 in 1992 was actually about 50/50 for newsstand and direct edition, since you are asserting that there are 1:1.05 surviving (after 5% return).

If so, then 50/50 seems too high for newsstand in 1992.

Normally, that would be the case.

But let's look at some hard numbers, and see if we can't come up with some reasonable extrapolations.

According to the SOO printed in ASM #375, which would cover approximately issues #358-372 (keeping in mind that ASM was a 15 times a year title that year), there were an avg. of 660,958 copies printed that year. Avg. sales was 544,900.  Returns (this would be newsstand copies only) was 115,308 copies.

Remember, these are averages. We know, for example, that ASM #365 almost certainly had a print run of over a million copies, based on the Cap City numbers for that issue. So that would skew the averages quite a bit.

The sell-through rate for that year was a phenomenal 82.4%, exceeded only once, a year later, in the "standard newsstand" era. Keep in mind though, that that number represents the combined Direct AND newsstand sales, while the number returned represents ONLY newsstand copies. So what percentage of sales was Direct, and what was newsstand? We don't know. We can guess, based on very rough estimates, but they're only very rough estimates. Only Marvel and Curtis would have known the actual newsstand numbers, and they're probably lost by now.

We can make some guesses, based on historical sell-through rates from before the Direct market era, but they are only the broadest of guesses.

It's as reasonable as anything to say, however, that print runs in early 1992, when this book was published, were fairly evenly distributed between Direct market and newsstand.

Normally, even if initial print runs were identical...and they weren't, but say they were...then at 30-60% (or more) of the newsstand run would have been returned and destroyed, or "destroyed", as "unsold"...meaning that, even with matching print runs, surviving copies of Direct (which normally had a 90%+ survival rate) and newsstands (which had a 20-50% survival rate), would be substantially different...maybe 75/25, or 66/33, or, as you say 80/20.

So, then, a certain percentage was returned and destroyed...right?

For this book, no. Or, at least, not really. This book was hot the day it came out (keeping in mind this was just before the internet, so widespread information about the cover...other than the small pic on the letter's page of #359...wasn't available. Previews didn't have a picture of it, for example. It wasn't particularly hyped, either.) Needless to say, that cover thrilled the entire comics buying world, and it was an immediate sellout at comics stores across the nation, within the week.

Because of the 2-3 week lag between Direct and newsstand, by the time the newsstand copies of this book came out, it was a $5-$10 book. So, people haunted the newsstands to scoop up those copies, and scoop them up they did. At that time, there was very little distinction paid on the secondary market to whether a copy was Direct or newsstand; it was simply a copy.

In this case, then, with of course the very small percentage that didn't sell at the newsstand...and it would have been VERY small, and VERY unlikely in any place close to a metropolitan area...the distribution of this book, as I have said elsewhere, was far and wide, both on the primary, then the secondary, markets. Newsstand copies of this particular book would have survived nearly universally, without the usual "unsold percentage" of books like, say, #357 or #359. In fact, it's probably fair to say that extant newsstand copies of those books don't exist in anywhere near the numbers of #361. If more than 5% of the newsstand run was "returned as unsold", I would be shocked.

It's reasonable to say, then, that roughly as many newsstand copies as Direct copies of this book still exist, AND it's also reasonable to say that they exist in very high grade in about even numbers, too. Any book that had this kind of instant sellout, like the ones mentioned above, would have immediately entered the secondary market, where, because collector, rather than retail, prices were paid, far more care was taken as a result.

Exact numbers? We'll never know.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, ygogolak said:

I'll take you're word for it. That's before my time of Wednesday Warrioring.

New books, at least on the West Coast, came out on Friday in those years.

[RockMyAmadeus]

For the record, I think #361 is Bagley's best cover, ever, and one of the best covers in all of ASM. Certainly in the top 50.

[divad]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Because of the 2-3 week lag between Direct and newsstand, by the time the newsstand copies of this book came out, it was a $5-$10 book. So, people haunted the newsstands to scoop up those copies, and scoop them up they did. At that time, there was very little distinction paid on the secondary market to whether a copy was Direct or newsstand; it was simply a copy.

There was no "lag" of course if you lived in one of the many, many rural areas where there were no comic book shops.  

[Lazyboy]

4 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

There are too many factors which are unknown to reasonably come up with any meaningful numbers. We don't know what percentage of a given print run was newsstand, if we even know the print run, and what was Direct. We do know that Direct copies have, in many cases, a 90% or better survival rate from this era (late 80's/early 90's) in all conditions. Newsstand copies, however, had "return" rates of up to 70-80% of the entire newsstand print run...but were all of those actually destroyed?

Too many unknown variables. All we can reasonably conclude is that 1. Direct market books have generally survived in higher numbers than newsstands at least from about 1986-on. 2. Direct market books generally survive in higher grade.

Chuck Rozanski's numbers are completely made up, and bear no resemblance to reality, however.

 

Even worse is people believing his numbers are accurate and then adding another layer of garbage by wrongly interpreting them as being applicable to individual issues when they are actually for the entire market, including everything without newsstand distribution. But, yeah, his numbers are highly questionable at best.

[divad]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

In this case, then, with of course the very small percentage that didn't sell at the newsstand...and it would have been VERY small, and VERY unlikely in any place close to a metropolitan area...the distribution of this book, as I have said elsewhere, was far and wide, both on the primary, then the secondary, markets. Newsstand copies of this particular book would have survived nearly universally, without the usual "unsold percentage" of books like, say, #357 or #359. In fact, it's probably fair to say that extant newsstand copies of those books don't exist in anywhere near the numbers of #361. If more than 5% of the newsstand run was "returned as unsold", I would be shocked.

Once again, not bad with facts but lacking in any serious anecdotal knowledge  Many, many copies went unsold in East Buttfork. Shocked!

[divad]

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

It's reasonable to say, then, that roughly as many newsstand copies as Direct copies of this book still exist, AND it's also reasonable to say that they exist in very high grade in about even numbers, too. Any book that had this kind of instant sellout, like the ones mentioned above, would have immediately entered the secondary market, where, because collector, rather than retail, prices were paid, far more care was taken as a result.

Spoiler

Actually, great presentation, poor conclusions. C-

Just for RMA.

Edited June 25, 2017 by divad

[RockMyAmadeus]

19 minutes ago, divad said:

There was no "lag" of course if you lived in one of the many, many rural areas where there were no comic book shops.  

Yes, that's very true. In many areas outside of major metropolises, there weren't any comic shops within 50-100 miles, and the newsstand was the only way to get anything comics, unless you had a subscription (which quite a few did.)

It was before the internet, after all. When did online ordering of new comics become "a thing"? Early 00's?

[divad]

e-mail was new to most of us in what, 1992? And I remember our first e-mail server had one address - emails had to be sub-distributed.

 

[valiantman]

36 minutes ago, divad said:

e-mail was new to most of us in what, 1992? And I remember our first e-mail server had one address - emails had to be sub-distributed.

 

Email was still new in 1995.  There were a few years when most people thought AOL was a different internet (and they bragged they paid extra to be on it). 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, divad said:

Once again, not bad with facts but lacking in any serious anecdotal knowledge  Many, many copies went unsold in East Buttfork. Shocked!

Never having been to East Buttfork, I'll take your word for it that many copies went unsold there.

They must have been triggered by the words "Spawn", "Venom", and "Carnage."

[kimik]

10 hours ago, ygogolak said:

All were taking is numbers on the census. Not sales prices. There are hundreds of ASM 361 newsstands that may have never been recorded. So, unless it's retroactive the numbers will be inaccurately skewed.

There are plenty of newsstand copies. I know two local collectors, one of whom is a boardie, that were on the ball and went around to clean out all of the newsstands they could hit of ASM #361 when it came out. One of them also placed a big spec order at his LCS and has/had nice stacks of both.

[divad]

1 hour ago, kimik said:

There are plenty of newsstand copies. I know two local collectors, one of whom is a boardie, that were on the ball and went around to clean out all of the newsstands they could hit of ASM #361 when it came out. One of them also placed a big spec order at his LCS and has/had nice stacks of both.

Although, this doesn't extrapolate. 

[divad]

5 hours ago, divad said:

Many, many copies went unsold in East Buttfork. 

But this does immeasurably.