The Official Saga #1 RRP Appreciation Thread 0

[CBT]

2 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

https://summits.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/54/787?articleID=118463

Image Comics: Saga #1 Third Printing (Special Retailer Cover)

-J.

You said toodles and are still posting, and I already explained it to you above when you posted this the first time.

it's ok to admit you were wrong, just let it go, dust yourself off and move along like you said you were going to...

[Jaydogrules]

Yes, I am quoting and linking all the authorized promotional materials pertaining to the book, calling it exactly what it is (a THIRD PRINTING) but I need to admit I'm "wrong".  Got it.  But did you notice how CGC pairs the "RRP" reprint with the third printing on the census ?  That's not a coincidence. 

I was also going to go into how the completely made up print number of "500 copies" is easily disproved by that same public advertisement for the book, but at this point I think it might physically pain you, so I'll let you see if you can find it in the solicit yourself.  Because it's in there.

-J.

 

Edited September 28, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[CBT]

17 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Yes, I am quoting and linking all the authorized promotional materials pertaining to the book, calling it exactly what it is (a THIRD PRINTING) but I need to admit I'm "wrong".  Got it. 

I was also going to go into how the completely made up print number of "500 copies" is easily disproved by that same public advertisement for the book, but at this point I think it might physically pain you, so I'll let you see if you can find it in the solicit yourself.  Because it's in there.

-J.

 

<Just because its so dumb, have to point out that what confused you so much is not actually a solicit , now, moving on to finish up this exercise in the absurd>

Attached are two pictures.

One them is the THIRD PRINT and has it written on the cover,

The other is the Retailer Summit special printing, aka RRP

 

One of these books was available for shop to order after the second print sold out,

the other book was a fixed small print run exclusively available at one place for one time.

 

You are upset that underneath the cover, the RRP might share an inside(you dont know) with the other book, the THIRD PRINT.

Just because they may share the same inner pages (they are both Saga #1 afterall), and even if the RRP doesnt have a unique indica (it likely does),

They are still completely different books, with different covers, sold in VERY different ways.

 

One is the THIRD PRINT sold to stores after the SECOND PRINT sold out, and is labelled THIRD PRINT, and when it sold out, was replaced by the FOURTH PRINT.

The other is an RRP Variant, exclusively printed and distributed privately... <THE END>

you are done, gibber jab all you want, you cant change reality.

Edited September 28, 2017 by CBT

[Jaydogrules]

The "RRP" is not a "variant" of the first printing, first issue.  

It is a third printing with a different cover that was sent out to attendees (ie, the "retailers") who attended the summit.  If you want to call this third printing a "variant" of the other third printing with the blue lettered title, well I suppose that would be technically accurate. But the book itself is still officially a reprint.  The fact that it has a LATER PUBLISHING DATE than the first prints alone tell you it is a REPRINT, no matter what kind of linguistic gymnastics you try to perform to contort it into something that it is not.  And guess what, now that I think about it, the later publishing date also means that it is GUARANTEED the book has a different interior indicia from the first printing (otherwise CGC would not have separated it from the first printing and paired it with the third printing with the other cover on the census), so that answers that question.  One last thing, the book wasn't "available" anywhere, it was sent out to the retailers who elected to attend the summit after the fact, it was mailed out to them.  Try actually reading the link on the subject. You are literally creating a false narrative that is directly contradicting Diamond, Image, CGC, and the book itself because you don't like that this book is a reprint for some reason.  Sorry, but it is what it is.

-J.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[I like pie]

Most don't consider it a third print and I certainly do not. CGC doesn't. 

Everyone's entitled to an opinion though

[I like pie]

I had an interesting interaction with Vault and CGC on Heathen #1 limited edition. Vault forgot to switch the printing plate and the indica read, "second printing".

I was the first to have mine graded and saw this on my invoice. Called Damian Wassal and he explained it was meant to be a first print. He contacted Brittany McManus and they omitted the "second printing" on the label.

 

Edited September 28, 2017 by I like pie

[Jaydogrules]

4 hours ago, I like pie said:

Most don't consider it a third print and I certainly do not. CGC doesn't.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion though

This isn't a matter of an opinion, and yes, they do (as does Image, who released it):

First printing, publishing date 3/12:

-J.

[Jaydogrules]

THIRD PRINTING, publishing date 4/12:

-J.

 

[I like pie]

Unless you work for Image and as long as the labels on the slabs don't say third print, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on both counts

[Jaydogrules]

16 minutes ago, I like pie said:

Unless you work for Image and as long as the labels on the slabs don't say third print, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on both counts

CGC doesn't dictate the market or reality with their labels.  You can't be serious with that.  

I don't work for Image but I read their press release about the book.  Here it is again for you:

https://summits.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/54/787?articleID=118463

And here's how you read UPC symbols on the back of the books to know which printing is which:

00111 March - First Print

 

00112 March - Second Print

 

00113 April - Third Print

 

00123 April - Diamond Retailer Summit Reprint (third print, second cover)

First digit is issue number, second digit is cover version, third digit is the printing number.   

Here is a link to the blue lettered title third printing:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SAGA-1-3rd-printing-VF-/122727333986?epid=2169601782&hash=item1c931e8062:g:6h0AAOSwjL5ZD9bh

Here is a link to the "RRP" cover of the third printing:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Saga-1-Cgc-9-8-Retailer-Incentive-Edition-Image-Comics-RRP-Signature-Series-/222633618952?hash=item33d5ff6e08:g:Q18AAOSwOMdZXWpJ

Notice they both have the "3" (third printing) as the third digit.  You can of course choose to believe in whatever you want, just don't mind that the facts disagree with you. 

-J

Edited September 28, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[SquareChaos]

It doesn't matter what print it is. It used to be a hard and fast rule - anything other than the first print was undesirable garbage. The hobby has grown outwards, it hasn't become deeper, if anything it has stretched thin and become more shallow in order to become more inclusive with regards to what is desirable. Now, more than at any other time since I've followed comic collecting, people chase presumed rare printings and pin-up like covers and variants as their first order of business, and the  more "rare" the better. It just is what it is, some would have you believe it is the new normal, that this is what collecting comics looks like now, others will tell you its just a phase like foil covers 

 

[Jaydogrules]

8 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

It doesn't matter what print it is. It used to be a hard and fast rule - anything other than the first print was undesirable garbage. The hobby has grown outwards, it hasn't become deeper, if anything it has stretched thin and become more shallow in order to become more inclusive with regards to what is desirable. Now, more than at any other time since I've followed comic collecting, people chase presumed rare printings and pin-up like covers and variants as their first order of business, and the  more "rare" the better. It just is what it is, some would have you believe it is the new normal, that this is what collecting comics looks like now, others will tell you its just a phase like foil covers 

 

This must be why a couple people are acting as though I'm kicking their dog by pointing out that the book is actually a reprint.   I didn't originally realize it either until another boardie pointed it out to me in the modern variant thread.

-J.

[IntoAnother]

40 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

CGC doesn't dictate the market or reality with their labels.  You can't be serious with that.  

I don't work for Image but I read their press release about the book.  Here it is again for you:

https://summits.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/54/787?articleID=118463

And here's how you read UPC symbols on the back of the books to know which printing is which:

00111 March - First Print

 

00112 March - Second Print

 

00113 April - Third Print

 

00123 April - Diamond Retailer Summit Reprint (third print, second cover)

First digit is issue number, second digit is cover version, third digit is the printing number.   

Here is a link to the blue lettered title third printing:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SAGA-1-3rd-printing-VF-/122727333986?epid=2169601782&hash=item1c931e8062:g:6h0AAOSwjL5ZD9bh

Here is a link to the "RRP" cover of the third printing:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Saga-1-Cgc-9-8-Retailer-Incentive-Edition-Image-Comics-RRP-Signature-Series-/222633618952?hash=item33d5ff6e08:g:Q18AAOSwOMdZXWpJ

Notice they both have the "3" (third printing) as the third digit.  You can of course choose to believe in whatever you want, just don't mind that the facts disagree with you. 

-J

You can't argue with facts. No matter how much any of us love the Saga RRP, it is not a first print. I lean towards it being a third print variant now and don't think any less of the book, it's absolutely stunning. I have a feeling though that quite a few people who want a copy, and probably even a few who own a copy have no idea that it is not a first print. I'm sure some even assume it was released the same day Saga #1 was. Like Square said though, that may not even matter, rarity is boss right now. 

[darkstar]

2 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

CGC doesn't dictate the market or reality with their labels.  You can't be serious with that.  

I don't work for Image but I read their press release about the book.  Here it is again for you:

https://summits.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/54/787?articleID=118463

And here's how you read UPC symbols on the back of the books to know which printing is which:

00111 March - First Print

 

00112 March - Second Print

 

00113 April - Third Print

 

00123 April - Diamond Retailer Summit Reprint (third print, second cover)

First digit is issue number, second digit is cover version, third digit is the printing number.   

Here is a link to the blue lettered title third printing:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SAGA-1-3rd-printing-VF-/122727333986?epid=2169601782&hash=item1c931e8062:g:6h0AAOSwjL5ZD9bh

Here is a link to the "RRP" cover of the third printing:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Saga-1-Cgc-9-8-Retailer-Incentive-Edition-Image-Comics-RRP-Signature-Series-/222633618952?hash=item33d5ff6e08:g:Q18AAOSwOMdZXWpJ

Notice they both have the "3" (third printing) as the third digit.  You can of course choose to believe in whatever you want, just don't mind that the facts disagree with you. 

-J

In regards to the UPC indicating the issue number, cover number, and printing number that is not always true.

 

Also this remains an incredibly stupid, pedantic hill to die on.

[Jaydogrules]

11 minutes ago, darkstar said:

In regards to the UPC indicating the issue number, cover number, and printing number that is not always true.

 

Also this remains an incredibly stupid, pedantic hill to die on.

Who said the UPC "always" indicated anything? 

I just showed what it indicates with regards to this book (and probably most Image comics).  If you have some other published announcements from Diamond or Image that contradicts their earlier published announcements of this book as a third printing (and the UPC that also shows such), feel free to post it. 

"Pedantic" or not, the facts are as they are, and yet here you are, dying on the same hill.

-J.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[ebtorres]

[I like pie]

16 minutes ago, ebtorres said:

[ygogolak]

4 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

CGC doesn't dictate the market or reality with their labels.  You can't be serious with that.  

 

-J

Um, they most certainly do. There are plenty of people who have never read the books they own and go by the label.

[darkstar]

1 hour ago, Jaydogrules said:

Who said the UPC "always" indicated anything? 

I just showed what it indicates with regards to this book (and probably most Image comics).  If you have some other published announcements from Diamond or Image that contradicts their earlier published announcements of this book as a third printing (and the UPC that also shows such), feel free to post it. 

"Pedantic" or not, the facts are as they are, and yet here you are, dying on the same hill.

-J.

I'm not arguing about this book. Just pointing out that you were wrong to generalize the UPC numbering system as a way to identify printings, issues, and covers in regards to comics. That system is not always followed. 

[Lazyboy]

4 hours ago, darkstar said:

I'm not arguing about this book. Just pointing out that you were wrong to generalize the UPC numbering system as a way to identify printings, issues, and covers in regards to comics. That system is not always followed. 

It's not wrong to generalize it, because the deviations are a tiny minority. It would be wrong to say that the system is perfect and always followed without exception.

12 hours ago, I like pie said:

Most don't consider it a third print and I certainly do not. CGC doesn't. 

Everyone's entitled to an opinion though

It's a variant of the third print.

People can (and do) have all the worthless opinions they want, but arguing with facts just makes them look bad.