How To Tell Marvel Graphic Novel printings
3 3

83 posts in this topic

13,053 posts

You didn't prove anything about what I said to be wrong. Your entire argument hinges on the same thread of collectors citing CGC census data to to arrive at an approximation figure. Do people lose their mind when a listing goes up and doesn't reflect PGX, CBCS, or even raw listings of the same book? I have yet to see anyone - not a single person - who has ever publicly complained about it.

 

It's a metric. No one is hanging on to it with the finality you are. Is it comprehensive? No. Nor did I say it was. In fact, I mention in the listing that it's based on the circulation/order data - a reported metric - which was used to arrive at an approximate figure. I don't even know what you're going on about Canadian production numbers, but that's also a well-known formula, used across the board for Canadian produced goods.

 

The viciousness of calling out my listing is one thing, but to suggest it's inaccurate is really the only thing wrong about this situation. But you won't admit what you did was stupid, and uncalled for. My mistake was thinking you were going to admit you were wrong. When I saw your drivel comment about Doug, I realized you can't admit you're wrong about anything, even if it hit you smack in the head.

 

It's a price variant produced for the Canadian market. Probably less than 1000 copies were made, but I chose to take it down to 500-600. Live with it. If you can't see this as me drawing a line in the sand, then you're a bonafide troll.

 

You want a challenge? Try taking a step back and letting a situation go if you're too stubborn to admit you're wrong.

 

As my final word of advice, that would be my suggestion to you.

 

That, and to take the debate to someone who cares about what you have to say on the subject. You're badly misinformed, have been shown all the relevant information for context, but you still need to find a way around the discussion to make whatever point you need to make.

 

It's one thing when you have to argue every minutia of detail to the point where it's starts to hurt, but to start taking swipes at me is probably as good a reason to return to putting you on ignore as any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56,033 posts
You didn't prove anything about what I said to be wrong.

 

The numbers reported in Krause are CAP CITY ORDERS ONLY. They do NOT represent the entire print run, as you stated in your listing.

 

Proof:

 

Cap%20City.jpg

 

Your listing says "The Marvel Graphic Novel first print runs averaged roughly a 5-6K output, meaning 500-600 were produced with the $5.95 cover price. And somewhere between 30-50K copies produced for New Mutants #1, putting the 75¢ price variant somewhere around 3-5K copies. These figures are an approximation based on the circulation statements for the Marvel Graphic Novel series, and New Mutant comic series."

 

That is not accurate.

 

You stated that if the listing was proven inaccurate, you would revise it.

 

Your listing was proven inaccurate.

 

You have refused to revise it.

 

Everyone else can decide for themselves what that means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
290 posts
Has anyone thought to ask CGC how they tell the different printings apart? I know I have seen the $5.95 only price book in a slab with a note saying "$5.95 cover price". That was it. No Canadian notation, no mention of printing.

 

I would think maybe the fine experts at CGC could help shed some light on this issue themselves ;)

 

Can someone just email/tweet/facebook Doug Sulipa, Randy Sauve, or some other person who has been running a comic store in Canada since at least 1982? Maybe they can prove their initial order contained all "$5.95 single price" covers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,053 posts

He just told everyone here it wasn't rushed. You posted Simonson's comment (a person who was there at the time), very nearly revised Simonson's assertions, and still needed a wall of text to backpeddle from his original comment.

 

What Doug has posted on the site is what it is. Leave it be unless you want him to start throwing the debate template at your feet too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56,033 posts
You didn't prove anything about what I said to be wrong. Your entire argument hinges on the same thread of collectors citing CGC census data to to arrive at an approximation figure.

 

That's the opposite of what is going on. You are using incomplete data to arrive at a conclusion, as has been shown here.

 

Do people lose their mind when a listing goes up and doesn't reflect PGX, CBCS, or even raw listings of the same book? I have yet to see anyone - not a single person - who has ever publicly complained about it.

 

You issued a challenge. Your challenge was met. You refused to honor the terms of your challenge. All the rest of this PGX, CBCS, is all superfluous, and unrelated to this discussion. No one has "lost their mind" over anything.

 

It's a metric. No one is hanging on to it with the finality you are. Is it comprehensive? No. Nor did I say it was.

 

So, when you say "The Marvel Graphic Novel first print runs averaged roughly a 5-6K output," you mean something entirely different...?

 

Interesting.

 

So, when you say " In fact, I mention in the listing that it's based on the circulation/order data - a reported metric - which was used to arrive at an approximate figure.

 

What you actually say is this: "These figures are an approximation based on the circulation statements for the Marvel Graphic Novel series, and New Mutant comic series."

 

...you don't say anything about the fact that the "circulation statements" you're using are from a SINGLE DISTRIBUTOR, that in NO WAY represented the entire market. It is an approximation in the same way that five beans of coffee is "approximately" one pound of coffee beans.

 

If I say "the Box Office at the Burbank AMC16 was $273,000 over the weekend for Furious 7"....which is "a" metric....would it be fair to say "....and therefore, the whole box office nationwide was $273,000"?

 

No, of course not. You're not taking into account anything but the box office from a single theatre.

 

Yet that is exactly what you have done.

 

You have taken the numbers...and not even the numbers for the issue in question, which are currently unknown, but another issue altogether...from a SINGLE DISTRIBUTOR and claimed those are the ENTIRE numbers of the print runs.

 

I don't even know what you're going on about Canadian production numbers, but that's also a well-known formula, used across the board for Canadian produced goods.

 

Being a "well-known formula" doesn't make it accurate. It is too broad to have any functional meaning to the comics market, regardless of its widespread usage "across the board."

 

The viciousness of calling out my listing is one thing, but to suggest it's inaccurate is really the only thing wrong about this situation.

 

Any "viciousness" exists solely in your mind. There is no viciousness here; simply a reporting of the facts. If you didn't want this stated, you might have shown just a smidgen of humility, rather than issuing a challenge, and then, when that challenge was met, refusing to honor your own word.

 

But you won't admit what you did was stupid, and uncalled for.

 

Why would I? It was neither stupid nor uncalled for.

 

My mistake was thinking you were going to admit you were wrong.

 

I have demonstrably proven you wrong, but "your" mistake was thinking *I* would admit that *I* was wrong...?

 

Is this Superboy #68 territory...?

 

When I saw your drivel comment about Doug,

 

Yes, because well reasoned, rational dialogue that you don't agree with, and which comes from a source you don't like, you have always regarded as "drivel", no matter how rational or reasonable.

 

I realized you can't admit you're wrong about anything, even if it hit you smack in the head.

 

Right.

 

Because, you know, I'm the one who says the print run for New Mutants #1 is only 30-50k.

 

meh

 

It's a price variant produced for the Canadian market. Probably less than 1000 copies were made

 

And where is that proof...?

 

, but I chose to take it down to 500-600. Live with it. If you can't see this as me drawing a line in the sand, then you're a bonafide troll.

 

meh

 

You want a challenge? Try taking a step back and letting a situation go if you're too stubborn to admit you're wrong.

 

About WHAT?

 

As my final word of advice, that would be my suggestion to you.

 

That, and to take the debate to someone who cares about what you have to say on the subject. You're badly misinformed, have been shown all the relevant information for context, but you still need to find a way around the discussion to make whatever point you need to make.

 

Except you have done NONE of this.

 

It's one thing when you have to argue every minutia of detail to the point where it's starts to hurt, but to start taking swipes at me is probably as good a reason to return to putting you on ignore as any.

 

No one has taken ANY swipes at you. You have included information that is factually inaccurate in a listing. You stated...your own words...that if you were proven incorrect, you would revise it.

 

You were proven incorrect.

 

You will not revise it.

 

Instead, you double down and rant and rave about how "I can't admit I'm wrong", when you don't even identify what I've said that is wrong.

 

So.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56,033 posts
He just told everyone here it wasn't rushed. You posted Simonson's comment (a person who was there at the time), very nearly revised Simonson's assertions, and still needed a wall of text to backpeddle from his original comment.

 

You speak from anger. You ignore distinction that isn't even subtle because you speak from anger.

 

Creation was rushed.

 

Production was not.

 

Production is a separate process from creation in comic book publishing.

 

No wall. Simple.

 

What Doug has posted on the site is what it is. Leave it be unless you want him to start throwing the debate template at your feet too.

 

And what Doug Sulipa posted on his site re: Canadian newsstand versions isn't entirely accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,572 posts
From Doug Sulipa's website:

 

>>> NOTE; (The Canadian Newsstand Cover Price Variants COMICS, Printed in

the USA but only Sold in Canada, from the 1982-1986 Era REGULARILY Bring

PREMIUMS Sell for 150% to 500% of the Prices of the Common USA Printings =

See the Amazing Results in in the GPA price Guide)

 

And I would have to see sales data that proved....proof, not just statements....that the Canadian Newsstands bring 150% to 500% of the common US printings.

 

Is there a premium? Sure. Is it 150% to 500%?

 

Unlikely.

 

I just pulled a completely random book...ASM #251....and in July of 2012, a Canadian 9.6 sold for $75 (a price no doubt due to census rarity, as opposed to actual rarity)...and in Oct of 2012, a regular 9.6 sold for $42. That's a mere 56% price difference, not 150% to 500%.

 

As well, a 7.0 Canadian version sold for $10 in April of 2010, while a regular 7.0 sold in May of 2010...for $9.

 

Not to debate whether Sulipa's assertion is correct or not, but in your example, you have done the math backwards and/or misinterpreted Sulipa's statement. Sulipa says "Canadian Newsstands bring 150% to 500% of the common US printings", and your Canadian ASM #251 sold for $75 vs. the US $42 - $75 is 179% of $42. Your 7.0 example is much closer, only 111% of the US sales price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
290 posts

Okay, I just checked eBay.ca for Marvel Graphic Novel 3 (Dreadstar!) and found zero "$5.95 single price" copies either available or sold in the last three months in the U.S.

 

There are three "$5.95 single price" copies located in Canada. All are for sale from Doug Sulipa. Curiously, he is not listing these as "Canadian Variants".

 

Until I see evidence to the contrary (and I would love to see proof either way), I now believe the "$5.95 single price" copies of both MGN 3 and MGN 4 are first printings meant to be distributed in Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56,033 posts
From Doug Sulipa's website:

 

>>> NOTE; (The Canadian Newsstand Cover Price Variants COMICS, Printed in

the USA but only Sold in Canada, from the 1982-1986 Era REGULARILY Bring

PREMIUMS Sell for 150% to 500% of the Prices of the Common USA Printings =

See the Amazing Results in in the GPA price Guide)

 

And I would have to see sales data that proved....proof, not just statements....that the Canadian Newsstands bring 150% to 500% of the common US printings.

 

Is there a premium? Sure. Is it 150% to 500%?

 

Unlikely.

 

I just pulled a completely random book...ASM #251....and in July of 2012, a Canadian 9.6 sold for $75 (a price no doubt due to census rarity, as opposed to actual rarity)...and in Oct of 2012, a regular 9.6 sold for $42. That's a mere 56% price difference, not 150% to 500%.

 

As well, a 7.0 Canadian version sold for $10 in April of 2010, while a regular 7.0 sold in May of 2010...for $9.

 

Not to debate whether Sulipa's assertion is correct or not, but in your example, you have done the math backwards and/or misinterpreted Sulipa's statement. Sulipa says "Canadian Newsstands bring 150% to 500% of the common US printings", and your Canadian ASM #251 sold for $75 vs. the US $42 - $75 is 179% of $42. Your 7.0 example is much closer, only 111% of the US sales price.

 

That's not how the word "Premium" is generally used. "Premium" means "above and beyond the price being compared."

 

A 150% to 500% premium would mean that if a regular copy, all other things being equal, sells for $100, then the 150% premium would put the item at $250. A 500% premium would put that $100 item at $600. The "premium" is above and beyond the regular price.

 

150% more than $100 is $250. 100% more than $100 is $200.

 

Therefore, $75, while it may be 179% of $42, is not a "179% premium" over the $42 selling price. That's not how it's calculated. 100% more than $42 is $84. 150% more than $42 is $105. A 179% premium over $42 would be $117.

 

Now...it *could* be reasonably interpreted (and probably is) that Sulipa is saying 150% OF the price of the regulars, which would be better...but not by much, and it doesn't change the math function. That would mean a $42 book would sell for $63 at 150%, which is more in line with reality....but, again, he said 150% TO 500%, which would put that $42 book at $63 to $210, which is clearly not the case. In that case, yes, your $42 example would be 179% OF the $42 selling price....that's not usually how the word "PREMIUM" is used (and not the way I laid out my example, though, granted, either meaning could be seen.)

 

That is....the $10 book variant vs. the $9 regular doesn't mean it sold for a 111% PREMIUM...it sold for an 11% premium, or whatever the amount above and beyond the value of the item being compared.

 

The same works going the other way: if I'm getting a 25% discount, you start with the "start price" and take the amount off of that.

 

In other words, 25% off of $100 isn't $81.25 (which is 25% OF $75)....it's $75.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56,033 posts
Okay, I just checked eBay.ca for Marvel Graphic Novel 3 (Dreadstar!) and found zero "$5.95 single price" copies either available or sold in the last three months in the U.S.

 

There are three "$5.95 single price" copies located in Canada. All are for sale from Doug Sulipa. Curiously, he is not listing these as "Canadian Variants".

 

Until I see evidence to the contrary (and I would love to see proof either way), I now believe the "$5.95 single price" copies of both MGN 3 and MGN 4 are first printings meant to be distributed in Canada.

 

It's a fairly reasonable opinion....but I take the opposite side. I won't believe it is until it is proven so. Three copies does not a conclusion make....

 

hm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56,033 posts
Has anyone thought to ask CGC how they tell the different printings apart? I know I have seen the $5.95 only price book in a slab with a note saying "$5.95 cover price". That was it. No Canadian notation, no mention of printing.

 

I would think maybe the fine experts at CGC could help shed some light on this issue themselves ;)

 

Can someone just email/tweet/facebook Doug Sulipa, Randy Sauve, or some other person who has been running a comic store in Canada since at least 1982? Maybe they can prove their initial order contained all "$5.95 single price" covers.

 

That would be nice. Why not just stop by Silver Snail and ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,572 posts

That's not how the word "Premium" is generally used. "Premium" means "above and beyond the price being compared."

 

A 150% to 500% premium would mean that if a regular copy, all other things being equal, sells for $100, then the 150% premium would put the item at $250. A 500% premium would put that $100 item at $600. The "premium" is above and beyond the regular price.

 

150% more than $100 is $250. 100% more than $100 is $200.

 

Therefore, $75, while it may be 179% of $42, is not a "179% premium" over the $42 selling price. That's not how it's calculated. 100% more than $42 is $84. 150% more than $42 is $105. A 179% premium over $42 would be $117.

 

All this is true. And I think I see where the problem is - I think you are misreading Sulipa's statement due to his lack of punctuation. If we look again, he says "NOTE; (The Canadian Newsstand Cover Price Variants COMICS, Printed in the USA but only Sold in Canada, from the 1982-1986 Era REGULARILY Bring PREMIUMS Sell for 150% to 500% of the Prices of the Common USA Printings". It seems clear that there is a period missing after "PREMIUMS." He doesn't say they sell for "150% to 500% premiums", in which case your revised statement would be correct. He simply says "Sell for 150% to 500% of the Prices of the Common USA Printings", which your example shows once case that fits.

 

I make no claim as to whether his statement is correct or even plausible at the extreme of 500% of the US printings, just that your original assertion that the difference in your own example was 56% did the math backwards. You have given one example that fits within the range (179% of the US price) and one that did not (111% of the US price).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56,033 posts

That's not how the word "Premium" is generally used. "Premium" means "above and beyond the price being compared."

 

A 150% to 500% premium would mean that if a regular copy, all other things being equal, sells for $100, then the 150% premium would put the item at $250. A 500% premium would put that $100 item at $600. The "premium" is above and beyond the regular price.

 

150% more than $100 is $250. 100% more than $100 is $200.

 

Therefore, $75, while it may be 179% of $42, is not a "179% premium" over the $42 selling price. That's not how it's calculated. 100% more than $42 is $84. 150% more than $42 is $105. A 179% premium over $42 would be $117.

 

All this is true. And I think I see where the problem is - I think you are misreading Sulipa's statement due to his lack of punctuation. If we look again, he says "NOTE; (The Canadian Newsstand Cover Price Variants COMICS, Printed in the USA but only Sold in Canada, from the 1982-1986 Era REGULARILY Bring PREMIUMS Sell for 150% to 500% of the Prices of the Common USA Printings". It seems clear that there is a period missing after "PREMIUMS." He doesn't say they sell for "150% to 500% premiums", in which case your revised statement would be correct. He simply says "Sell for 150% to 500% of the Prices of the Common USA Printings", which your example shows once case that fits.

 

I make no claim as to whether his statement is correct or even plausible at the extreme of 500% of the US printings, just that your original assertion that the difference in your own example was 56% did the math backwards. You have given one example that fits within the range (179% of the US price) and one that did not (111% of the US price).

 

Yes, you are correct. I did that one backwards, dividing 42 by 75, rather than the difference (33) by 42, which is the correct way to do it. $75 would be a 78.5% premium over $42, or 178.5% OF the original price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
290 posts
Okay, I just checked eBay.ca for Marvel Graphic Novel 3 (Dreadstar!) and found zero "$5.95 single price" copies either available or sold in the last three months in the U.S.

 

There are three "$5.95 single price" copies located in Canada. All are for sale from Doug Sulipa. Curiously, he is not listing these as "Canadian Variants".

 

Until I see evidence to the contrary (and I would love to see proof either way), I now believe the "$5.95 single price" copies of both MGN 3 and MGN 4 are first printings meant to be distributed in Canada.

 

It's a fairly reasonable opinion....but I take the opposite side. I won't believe it is until it is proven so. Three copies does not a conclusion make....

 

hm

 

13 out of 18 (including ones I've pulled from my boxes) single priced copies have the $5.95 price in Canada.

 

4 out of around 200 single priced copies have the $5.95 price in U.S.

 

 

If the "$5.95 single price" MGN 3 was published after the dual price 4th printing, why did they go back to the old font for "No." yet keep the new font for "$"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
875 posts

Maybe the change in layout happened at the printer because they would not have had the same font that was used in the original file/image when they ran off the Canadian versions? I think we are over thinking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56,033 posts
Okay, I just checked eBay.ca for Marvel Graphic Novel 3 (Dreadstar!) and found zero "$5.95 single price" copies either available or sold in the last three months in the U.S.

 

There are three "$5.95 single price" copies located in Canada. All are for sale from Doug Sulipa. Curiously, he is not listing these as "Canadian Variants".

 

Until I see evidence to the contrary (and I would love to see proof either way), I now believe the "$5.95 single price" copies of both MGN 3 and MGN 4 are first printings meant to be distributed in Canada.

 

It's a fairly reasonable opinion....but I take the opposite side. I won't believe it is until it is proven so. Three copies does not a conclusion make....

 

hm

 

13 out of 18 (including ones I've pulled from my boxes) single priced copies have the $5.95 price in Canada.

 

4 out of around 200 single priced copies have the $5.95 price in U.S.

 

Compelling circumstantial evidence.

 

If the "$5.95 single price" MGN 3 was published after the dual price 4th printing, why did they go back to the old font for "No." yet keep the new font for "$"?

 

That's a very good question, but we don't know that the $5.95 single price was published after the dual price 4th printing.

 

Remember: there are no single price variations for MGN #1 or 2, even though #2 was supposedly published only a month before #3. Why not?

 

And we know that all printings from #5 on have dual pricing, so any single prices would have to have been printed before #5. We know that the MGN #4s identified as second printings have dual pricing...

 

Were the $5.95 single prices for #3 and #4...afterthoughts...? And if that's the case, wouldn't they be...later printings?

 

hm

 

Why did MGN #1 go through 3 printings, but never had a single $6.95 price? Was the $5.95 acceptable to the Canadian market for the meantime? The Canadian market clearly had demand for these later printings...hence the dual pricing...but why is there not any "single price" Canadian versions for the first 3 printings?

 

The 4th printing is a dual price, but with those "mixed fonts" (the original fat, frumpy font for $5.95, combined with the sleeker $6.95 price.)

 

hm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
290 posts
If the "$5.95 single price" MGN 3 was published after the dual price 4th printing, why did they go back to the old font for "No." yet keep the new font for "$"?

 

That's a very good question, but we don't know that the $5.95 single price was published after the dual price 4th printing.

 

Remember: there are no single price variations for MGN #1 or 2, even though #2 was supposedly published only a month before #3. Why not?

 

And we know that all printings from #5 on have dual pricing, so any single prices would have to have been printed before #5. We know that the MGN #4s identified as second printings have dual pricing...

 

Were the $5.95 single prices for #3 and #4...afterthoughts...? And if that's the case, wouldn't they be...later printings?

 

hm

 

Why did MGN #1 go through 3 printings, but never had a single $6.95 price? Was the $5.95 acceptable to the Canadian market for the meantime? The Canadian market clearly had demand for these later printings...hence the dual pricing...but why is there not any "single price" Canadian versions for the first 3 printings?

 

The 4th printing is a dual price, but with those "mixed fonts" (the original fat, frumpy font for $5.95, combined with the sleeker $6.95 price.)

 

hm

 

Perhaps Carol Kalish (or Peter David or whoever) did some research that showed Canadians were unwilling to pay, in 1982 Canadian dollars, $6.95 for a Marvel Graphic Novel.

 

Or perhaps it was too costly to make a second cover for, presumably, a smaller print run of the 2nd and 3rd printings of MGN 1.

 

Whereas for MGN 3 and MGN 4, they each get an initial print run of about, say, 25000 copies each. In this case, printing off 2500 or 3000 Canadian covers is worth the cost of making a second cover.

 

I would lean towards the latter explanation.

 

Also, if the $5.95 single prices for #3 and #4 were "afterthoughts" (2nd printings), then wouldn't all MGN #4's with dual prices actually be 3rd printings? Yet, as you said, "We know that the MGN #4s identified as second printings have dual pricing..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56,033 posts
If the "$5.95 single price" MGN 3 was published after the dual price 4th printing, why did they go back to the old font for "No." yet keep the new font for "$"?

 

That's a very good question, but we don't know that the $5.95 single price was published after the dual price 4th printing.

 

Remember: there are no single price variations for MGN #1 or 2, even though #2 was supposedly published only a month before #3. Why not?

 

And we know that all printings from #5 on have dual pricing, so any single prices would have to have been printed before #5. We know that the MGN #4s identified as second printings have dual pricing...

 

Were the $5.95 single prices for #3 and #4...afterthoughts...? And if that's the case, wouldn't they be...later printings?

 

hm

 

Why did MGN #1 go through 3 printings, but never had a single $6.95 price? Was the $5.95 acceptable to the Canadian market for the meantime? The Canadian market clearly had demand for these later printings...hence the dual pricing...but why is there not any "single price" Canadian versions for the first 3 printings?

 

The 4th printing is a dual price, but with those "mixed fonts" (the original fat, frumpy font for $5.95, combined with the sleeker $6.95 price.)

 

hm

 

Perhaps Carol Kalish (or Peter David or whoever) did some research that showed Canadians were unwilling to pay, in 1982 Canadian dollars, $6.95 for a Marvel Graphic Novel.

 

Sure, but I doubt they put that much research into it. And, as noted before, the difference in the exchange rate wasn't enough to do anything about it until after the middle of the year (cover date October.) Eventually, they didn't have a choice.

 

Or perhaps it was too costly to make a second cover for, presumably, a smaller print run of the 2nd and 3rd printings of MGN 1.

 

It didn't require a second cover....just a change of the price.

 

Whereas for MGN 3 and MGN 4, they each get an initial print run of about, say, 25000 copies each. In this case, printing off 2500 or 3000 Canadian covers is worth the cost of making a second cover.

 

I would lean towards the latter explanation.

 

Also, if the $5.95 single prices for #3 and #4 were "afterthoughts" (2nd printings), then wouldn't all MGN #4's with dual prices actually be 3rd printings? Yet, as you said, "We know that the MGN #4s identified as second printings have dual pricing..."

 

Yes, theoretically, they would be "third" printings...but misidentified "additional runs after the fact" are not without precedent in comics history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,053 posts
Maybe the change in layout happened at the printer because they would not have had the same font that was used in the original file/image when they ran off the Canadian versions? I think we are over thinking it.

 

The first print MGN #4 with the single price of $5.95 walks like a Type 1a price variant (see Jon McClure's article "A History of Publisher Experimentation and Variant Comic Books.") but talks like a Spectacular Spider-Man #1 (mag) where a 40c price variant was made for the Canadian market, with no mention of 35c price alternative in the indicia (which is a test "determinant" price variant collectors are enslaved by).

 

Spectacular_Spider-Man_Magazine_Vol_1_1.jpg

 

SSM1_variant.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,078 posts

My 40 cent Cdn copy's indicia mentions only the 35 cent price. Is that what you meant? I'm not familiar with the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3