Top 50 Copper Books in Overstreet 7 7

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

19 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Venom has not been popular since '88, in any measurable, quantifiable way. Not that anyone is expected to know this, but this has been discussed at length on the board. If you have any evidence of the "McFarlane Venoms" and ASM #332-333 being worth "$5 a month later", please do share it.

The truth about Venom is that, until ASM #361-363, which was really the catalyst, and then the one-two punch of ASM #375 and Venom: LP #1 in 1993, Venom was not the main driver of value for any book. Prior to that, he was an interesting character, but nothing particularly special. You refer to the "overkill of Venom-themed issues", but the fact is, from ASM #298 (Mar, 1988) to ASM #361 (Apr, 1992), Venom appeared in a grand total of 22 comics:

ASM #298

#299

#300

#315

#316

#317

Quasar #6

#330

#331

#332

#333

Avengers Annual #19

#344

#345

#346

#347

What If #31

She Hulk #29

ASM Annual #25

Web Annual #7

What If #34

Darkhawk #13

Plus three mentions in the Official Handbook to the Marvel U and Spiderman Saga #4...the vast majority of which were cameos. Venom is the substantive/main character in only SEVEN (7) comic books published in four years: ASM #300, 316-317, 332-333, and 346-347.

By contrast, the Punisher appears in, by my count, 233 different comics in that same time period.

You will find functionally no mention of Venom in contemporary collecting literature (OPG, Update, etc) concerning Venom until 1992. Venom was...most assuredly...NOT an "instant hit", but a slow burn, over several years.

I'm not taking a position one way or another in the conclusion to this argument, but the number of Venom's appearances is not necessarily a good indicator of his popularity in the period. I read an interview with David Michelinie that there was a call to use Venom more, but Salicrup (ASM editor at the time) wanted to save him for special occasions. Salicrup was also the editor on the Adjectiveless Spider-man while McFarlane was on it, except for McFarlane's last issue, which was an X-Force crossover, so that might explain why he was never used in those early issues. Salicrup left Marvel in late 1991/early 1992 to go be the editor in chief of Topps, so that might explain the explosion of Venom around that time.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

2 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I'm not taking a position one way or another in the conclusion to this argument, but the number of Venom's appearances is not necessarily a good indicator of his popularity in the period. I read an interview with David Michelinie that there was a call to use Venom more, but Salicrup (ASM editor at the time) wanted to save him for special occasions. Salicrup was also the editor on the Adjectiveless Spider-man while McFarlane was on it, except for McFarlane's last issue, which was an X-Force crossover, so that might explain why he was never used in those early issues. Salicrup left Marvel in late 1991/early 1992 to go be the editor in chief of Topps, so that might explain the explosion of Venom around that time.

https://www.comiccrusaders.com/comics-icon-david-michelinie-talks-about-the-early-development-of-one-of-spider-mans-greatest-villains/

[Brock]

On 4/1/2019 at 10:12 AM, PeterPark said:

This top 50, being Overstreet, should be value based only, as the guide tries to be non-sentimental in it's own lists

I'm the OP... let me first say how great it is to see all this activity in the thread. I file my Market Report to Overstreet in December every year (and it gets published the following July), but I'm always keeping an eye on the discussion here.

The original rationale was that the existing lists in Overstreet (as has been referenced above) were based solely on price, which meant that for things like Bronze and Copper books, it was always rare variants (like the 2D edition of Miracleman 3D) that dominated those lists. To my mind, this doesn't tell me a great deal about the overall market, and my mandate from Overstreet was to try to increase late bronze, copper and modern content in the market reports.

I try to cover lots of ideas and trends (and I'm always open to feedback), but my sense was that an ever-evolving list of what the marketplace saw as "keys" would be of interest, as it mixes ideas of market demand, content appreciation, and the cultural "zeitgeist" in a way that a numerical price list doesn't. And rather than just using my own list, I though it would be cool to leverage the collective knowledge of these boards to support that effort.

The result is a list that I'm sure nobody is 100% in agreement with (including me), but that hopefully represents a general consensus about what the Copper Age keys are... or at least the beginnings of a consensus.

The fascinating thing for me is that the list does change from year to year. For a time, Apocalypse appearances really were "hot" - and they climbed onto the list. That's clearly not the case now, but as the hobby changes, so does the list.

It is (at best) an imperfect exercise, but I feel that input and discussion can only improve it, and the OSPG more broadly.

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Brock

[Aweandlorder]

asm300 was an instant hit. Not because of venom. But because of Mcfarlane. That book is what Mcfarlane was seeking after years and years of hard work. It was a $6 in 1988 $12 book by 1989 and a $40 by 1991 soon after McSpidey series was released. Back then, it was labeled as the "giant, Mcfarlane black costume battle" book

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I'm not taking a position one way or another in the conclusion to this argument, but the number of Venom's appearances is not necessarily a good indicator of his popularity in the period. I read an interview with David Michelinie that there was a call to use Venom more, but Salicrup (ASM editor at the time) wanted to save him for special occasions. Salicrup was also the editor on the Adjectiveless Spider-man while McFarlane was on it, except for McFarlane's last issue, which was an X-Force crossover, so that might explain why he was never used in those early issues. Salicrup left Marvel in late 1991/early 1992 to go be the editor in chief of Topps, so that might explain the explosion of Venom around that time.

Salicrup could not have withstood orders from above him. Perelman's plan was to flood the market with anything and everything they thought would sell. Any resistance from mid-level editorial wouldn't have had a chance. Who was the call from to use Venom more? 

Do not forget...creators and editors had a long history of being overridden by management at Marvel. Creators who wanted to save characters for "special occasions" (like Claremont tried to do with Wolverine) were blissfully ignored when management got wind of any hint of popularity. 

Even Chris Claremont...the writer of of the best selling Marvel title for well over a decade...could not withstand management forcing him to both kill off, and bring back, Phoenix/Jean Grey.

So, yes, the sparse number of appearances of Venom...especially when compared to that of Punisher, Wolverine, and the like...is a decent indicator of overall popularity at the time. Not the best...but decent. Remember: Venom had a mere 22 appearances in his first four years of existence. Punisher had 233 in the same time frame, more than ten times as many. That is an overwhelming discrepancy that can't all be chalked up to editorial control. 

And the sales numbers from Cap City go a long way to demonstrating that. After all...look at the difference between order numbers for #330-331...and then #332-333. That's a significant drop in sales. From #330-#335, the lowest orders were of the two issues starring Venom. If Venom was the insanely hot property he was claimed to be at the time...a full two years after his first appearance...those numbers should not be what they were.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Salicrup could not have withstood orders from above him. Perelman's plan was to flood the market with anything and everything they thought would sell. Any resistance from mid-level editorial wouldn't have had a chance. Who was the call from to use Venom more? 

Do not forget...creators and editors had a long history of being overridden by management at Marvel. Creators who wanted to save characters for "special occasions" (like Claremont tried to do with Wolverine) were blissfully ignored when management got wind of any hint of popularity. 

Even Chris Claremont...the writer of of the best selling Marvel title for well over a decade...could not withstand management forcing him to both kill off, and bring back, Phoenix/Jean Grey.

So, yes, the sparse number of appearances of Venom...especially when compared to that of Punisher, Wolverine, and the like...is a decent indicator of overall popularity at the time. Not the best...but decent. Remember: Venom had a mere 22 appearances in his first four years of existence. Punisher had 233 in the same time frame, more than ten times as many. That is an overwhelming discrepancy that can't all be chalked up to editorial control. 

And the sales numbers from Cap City go a long way to demonstrating that. After all...look at the difference between order numbers for #330-331...and then #332-333. That's a significant drop in sales. From #330-#335, the lowest orders were of the two issues starring Venom. If Venom was the insanely hot property he was claimed to be at the time...a full two years after his first appearance...those numbers should not be what they were.

A few things:

• The drop in sales could be fallout from McFarlane no longer being on the title. That takes a few issues to have an effect, and his last issue was 328.

• Claremont, as a writer, would have had less control than an editor

• While I don't disagree that a lot of direction comes from outside the Creative department, I don't think that kicked into high gear until a few years into the '90s, when every character that had an ongoing suddenly had a family of titles (Thunderstrike, War Machine, an explosion of X-books, etc.)

• Since McFarlane's art was certainly a very visible reason for the popularity of Spider-man, management may not have been as acutely aware of a demand for more Venom. I doubt management is reading letters from readers.

Read the link I posted. I'd say that Micheline's version of events is a much better indication of what happened than our speculation as to what we think happened inside the Marvel offices

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

https://www.comiccrusaders.com/comics-icon-david-michelinie-talks-about-the-early-development-of-one-of-spider-mans-greatest-villains/

From that interview:

"Dave: Well maybe I‘ll steal it from myself and use it somewhere. With VENOM, Jim Salicrup was wise enough and kind enough to keep the character exclusive to AMAZING SPIDER-MAN. He turned down people who wanted to use the character somewhere else."

Venom appeared in Quasar #6, Avengers Annual #19, the Avengers: Deathtrap, The Vault graphic novel, She-Hulk #29, and What If...? #31 during this time. 

And Salicrup's last issue as editor was #345...well before the "explosion" of Venom appearances. So, did Fingeroth continue "holding back" Venom for the next year and a half...?

Dave also repeats what I mentioned above in the next response:

"Joe: Oh, there were a lot of requests from other editors and writers to bring him over to their other books?

Dave: Yes. Jim wouldn‘t let that happen, and he didn‘t force me to do new stories, even though the character became very popular, selling books. He didn‘t say “OK let‘s do a VENOM story.” Instead, he let me do VENOM whenever I came up with a story that moved the character along, that did something different, that showed something new, and I think that‘s one of the reasons for his popularity. Whenever VENOM showed up, there was something you hadn‘t seen before. It wasn‘t just him hitting people. I developed the character. (Eventually) I had to come up with ideas to make VENOM a hero because they were going to make him a hero, they were going to give him his own series. Initially, I turned that assignment down twice, but then finally admitted..."

Note what Joe asks: "there were a lot of requests from other editors and writers." 

Requests from other editors and writers, as you know, is not the same as directives from management...which Dave refers to as "they" in his response. "...they were going to give him his own series." 

And the most important part about the number of appearances and why they matter? The "explosion" of Venom appearances didn't start to happen until late 1992. After his two parter in Darkhawk, and the concurrent ASM #361-363...Venom didn't appear again for five more months...starting with November cover dated books (aside from a cameo in "Kid n' Play #9 the month prior.)

So what happened? Management saw the numbers for Spidey #361-363. Numbers that Spiderman hadn't sold in decades, if ever. ASM #361 was the first nationwide sellout the book had had since #252, 8 years earlier. Cap City orders alone for #363 were 102,000 copies....and Cap City was 20-30% of the Direct market at the time. 

And management saw those numbers, and said "you must use these characters." And you can see the trajectory pretty clearly when you look at the sales numbers, and the timing of the "explosion" of appearances. 

Of special note, the Cap City numbers for Darkhawk:

#11 - 40,700

#12 - 39,200

#13 - 43,800

#14 - 39,700

#15 - 37,300

#16 - 37,900

So a bump, but not a head-turning one. And I'll give you two hints who the editor on Darkhawk was, and the first doesn't count...

[RockMyAmadeus]

23 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

A few things:

• The drop in sales could be fallout from McFarlane no longer being on the title. That takes a few issues to have an effect, and his last issue was 328.

Look at the Cap City numbers again. 

#329 - 58,200

#330 (Punisher) - 72,000

#331 (Punisher) - 67,500

#332 - 58,500

#333 - 59,400

#334 - 63,300

#335 - 61,800

Those are numbers that retailers thought they could sell. McFarlane had already taken breaks from the book before...#324, #326-327...and buyers knew he was leaving. #332 was a full five months after his last issue. That dip isn't related to McFarlane.

26 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

• Claremont, as a writer, would have had less control than an editor

Yes, but not really very relevant. Claremont functioned as the de facto (not the DeFalco) editor on X-Men since Byrne left the book; and "editors" were simply rubber stamps at that point. But, this is really getting into the weeds. Management had the final say, whether you're an editor, creator, or janitor. If it came from Shooter or DeFalco...or above them...all the editorial protests in the world meant nothing.

29 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

• Since McFarlane's art was certainly a very visible reason for the popularity of Spider-man, management may not have been as acutely aware of a demand for more Venom. I doubt management is reading letters from readers.

You'll have to show me expressions of that demand, on a broad enough scale that it would have had an impact. The Cap City numbers don't lie; you see very little positive effect...and even a NEGATIVE effect, for issues #332-333...for Venom appearances. "Letters from readers" carry very little weight next to sales numbers. 

Again...issue #350 smoked both #346 and #347 in sales. And issue #350 was just a plain ol' anniversary issue.

In fact, you want to see numbers that made management happy?

#353 - 79,200

#354 - 76,800

#355 - 78.300

#356 - 79.500

#357 - 76,500

#358 - 98,400

Compare that to #342-350:

#342 - 57,900

#343 - 58,500

#344 - 61,500

#345 - 60,000

#346 - 64,800

#347 -63,000

#348 - 59,100

#349 - 65,100

#350 - 75,600

And why did those issues do those numbers...? 

39 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Read the link I posted. I'd say that Micheline's version of events is a much better indication of what happened than our speculation as to what we think happened inside the Marvel offices

I'd rather look a hard data, personally, rather than recollections decades after the fact that don't focus on specific details....even from the creator of the character. I don't believe Michelinie is saying what you're trying to make him say, because Michelinie's "version of events" isn't focused on what we're discussing. Michelinie isn't answering your questions, after all, or mine...he's answering St. Pierre's, and St. Pierre isn't drilling down on the specifics.

Again: show me contemporaneous reports that support the idea that Venom was this "insanely hot" character, right out of the gate, whose appearance in books guaranteed the fans would go crazy demanding more, with sales to match. That didn't happen until ASM #374. The very first issue that anyone can point to and say "the order numbers for this book are up substantially, and the reason is: VENOM!" is ASM #374....a comic published in 1993. The Cap City orders for #374 over #373 were a staggering 50%. And the numbers for #375 blew those out of the water. Orders for #375 were at 224% of orders for #373.

Let's stop relying on memories...even the memories of the creator...and focus on what was said at the time, and who was saying it.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

14 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

From that interview:

"Dave: Well maybe I‘ll steal it from myself and use it somewhere. With VENOM, Jim Salicrup was wise enough and kind enough to keep the character exclusive to AMAZING SPIDER-MAN. He turned down people who wanted to use the character somewhere else."

Venom appeared in Quasar #6, Avengers Annual #19, the Avengers: Deathtrap, The Vault graphic novel, She-Hulk #29, and What If...? #31 during this time. 

And Salicrup's last issue as editor was #345...well before the "explosion" of Venom appearances. So, did Fingeroth continue "holding back" Venom for the next year and a half...?

Dave also repeats what I mentioned above in the next response:

"Joe: Oh, there were a lot of requests from other editors and writers to bring him over to their other books?

Dave: Yes. Jim wouldn‘t let that happen, and he didn‘t force me to do new stories, even though the character became very popular, selling books. He didn‘t say “OK let‘s do a VENOM story.” Instead, he let me do VENOM whenever I came up with a story that moved the character along, that did something different, that showed something new, and I think that‘s one of the reasons for his popularity. Whenever VENOM showed up, there was something you hadn‘t seen before. It wasn‘t just him hitting people. I developed the character. (Eventually) I had to come up with ideas to make VENOM a hero because they were going to make him a hero, they were going to give him his own series. Initially, I turned that assignment down twice, but then finally admitted..."

Note what Joe asks: "there were a lot of requests from other editors and writers." 

Requests from other editors and writers, as you know, is not the same as directives from management...which Dave refers to as "they" in his response. "...they were going to give him his own series." 

And the most important part about the number of appearances and why they matter? The "explosion" of Venom appearances didn't start to happen until late 1992. After his two parter in Darkhawk, and the concurrent ASM #361-363...Venom didn't appear again for five more months...starting with November cover dated books (aside from a cameo in "Kid n' Play #9 the month prior.)

So what happened? Management saw the numbers for Spidey #361-363. Numbers that Spiderman hadn't sold in decades, if ever. ASM #361 was the first nationwide sellout the book had had since #252, 8 years earlier. Cap City orders alone for #363 were 102,000 copies....and Cap City was 20-30% of the Direct market at the time. 

And management saw those numbers, and said "you must use these characters." And you can see the trajectory pretty clearly when you look at the sales numbers, and the timing of the "explosion" of appearances. 

Of special note, the Cap City numbers for Darkhawk:

#11 - 40,700

#12 - 39,200

#13 - 43,800

#14 - 39,700

#15 - 37,300

#16 - 37,900

So a bump, but not a head-turning one. And I'll give you two hints who the editor on Darkhawk was, and the first doesn't count...

Her's what I find interesting about the appearances you're calling out:

Quasar: Part of a line-wide crossover. While editors might be protective of characters in their family of books, you were right that they're not going to have complete control when it comes to something like this. Does Micheline's comment that Salicrup was protective mean that he NEVER EVER let others use the character? Obviously not, because there are a few other appearances. But I see no reason to doubt that there were requests from others to use the character. Also, note that while he's one of four villains in the book, he gets a special callout on the cover. That suggests that they already anticipated that Venom would sell.

Avengers Annual: "appearance" is in a recap of Acts of Vengeance, and he's one of dozens of characters in the recap. Doesn't really count as an appearance, I would say. His inclusion here is due to his inclusion above.

What If?: One-time alternate timeline stories is different from an in-continuity appearance. Also, while he's not central to the story, he's featured on the cover. That suggests that they already anticipated that Venom would sell.

Deathtrap: The Vault: Written by the new Spidey-editor as Salicrup was close to the end of his run. Note that Venom is the most prominent character on the cover. That suggests that they already anticipated that Venom would sell.

Your speculation about what happened is speculation. I would say that the take of those who actually created the books holds more weight.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

7 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Again: show me contemporaneous reports that support the idea that Venom was this "insanely hot" character, right out of the gate, whose appearance in books guaranteed the fans would go crazy demanding more, with sales to match. That didn't happen until ASM #374. The very first issue that anyone can point to and say "the order numbers for this book are up substantially, and the reason is: VENOM!" is ASM #374....a comic published in 1993. The Cap City orders for #374 over #373 were a staggering 50%. And the numbers for #375 blew those out of the water. Orders for #375 were at 224% of orders for #373.

Again, I'm not suggesting that Venom was insanely hot out of the gate. That's someone else's claim. I'm giving evidence as to the lack of appearances compared to other hot characters at the time. (The fact that Venom is a villain rather than a hero or anti-hero probably has something to do with it too; you can't have him defeated every month in multiple books if you want the character to seem like a threat.) I *do* remember as a reader than when he showed up, it seemed like a big deal to my teenage mind

[Smeagol Eye Cherry]

Hi. Longtime lurker, almost never contributor, the boards are different than they were years ago, and I have a new email now anyway. But enough about me.

Venom had two Toy Biz action figures in 1991. That didn't happen for new characters unless they were popular. There were seven talking characters, three X-Men, Spider-Man, Hulk, Punisher and Venom.  Doesn't that just perfectly sum up Marvel Comics in 1991? The X-Men, Marvel's two most iconic characters, and two of its most popular characters at the time? I would argue that Ghost Rider would have received a figure earlier if not for, you know, a certain large portion of the USA and its stance on selling demons with hellfire covered heads in toy aisles circa 1991. I remember my Sam Keith Spidey vs. Ghost Rider t-shirt did not go over well at Christian youth groups back in the day. Then again, I wasn't wearing a Spidey v Venom shirt, so maybe that disproves my argument? 

Anecdotally, I also remember hitting up newsstands for extra copies of Amazing 316 and 317 because of Venom and not just McFarlane. There was a strong nerd buzz about the character early on. I had to talk to nerds to get my comics, and that's why I know.

In the end, isn't this really a Hulk vs. Thor kind of argument? It's fun but can only be proven to a certain degree. Also, there isn't any harm done to comic book history by claiming Venom was growing in popularity in 1990 or 1993. So we don't really have to worry about damaging misinformation leaking out into collector's circles. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

18 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Her's what I find interesting about the appearances you're calling out:

Quasar: Part of a line-wide crossover. While editors might be protective of characters in their family of books, you were right that they're not going to have complete control when it comes to something like this. Does Micheline's comment that Salicrup was protective mean that he NEVER EVER let others use the character? Obviously not, because there are a few other appearances. But I see no reason to doubt that there were requests from others to use the character. Also, note that while he's one of four villains in the book, he gets a special callout on the cover. That suggests that they already anticipated that Venom would sell.

Avengers Annual: "appearance" is in a recap of Acts of Vengeance, and he's one of dozens of characters in the recap. Doesn't really count as an appearance, I would say. His inclusion here is due to his inclusion above.

What If?: One-time alternate timeline stories is different from an in-continuity appearance. Also, while he's not central to the story, he's featured on the cover. That suggests that they already anticipated that Venom would sell.

Deathtrap: The Vault: Written by the new Spidey-editor as Salicrup was close to the end of his run. Note that Venom is the most prominent character on the cover. That suggests that they already anticipated that Venom would sell.

Everything you've said in this discussion thus far completely contradicts your opening statement, which was "I'm not taking a position one way or another in the conclusion to this argument"

Clearly, you are taking a position.

You can come up with all sorts of speculative reasons about why Venom was used in this book or that book, but you don't really know. For every speculative reason why such and such an appearance happened, I can give you a speculative reason that says  the opposite, so that exercise is futile. What IS known is that these appearances contradict the claim...in print...that Venom was only for "special occasions." Obviously, other creators and other editors used the character, to the extent they wanted to. And, since Salicrup left Marvel in mid 1991...NOT "late 1991/early 1992" as you claimed above...there was a full year and a half after he left where Venom wasn't under his personal control, for use on special occasions.

None of that matters, however. What matters is evidence. Sales data. Market reports. Price guide entries. Things that were published at the time, by people who were on the front line of the business of selling comic books. 

18 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Your speculation about what happened is speculation. I would say that the take of those who actually created the books holds more weight.

That's precisely correct, which is why I have refrained from speculating, and insisted on hard data.

Got any...?

Edited April 2, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

8 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

, it seemed like a big deal to my teenage mind

Go with that.

[Catwomancomics]

So, What are the top 50 Copper books in Overstreet? 

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's precisely correct, which is why I have refrained from speculating, and insisted on hard data.

Ummmm…

 

49 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

So what happened? Management saw the numbers for Spidey #361-363. Numbers that Spiderman hadn't sold in decades, if ever. ASM #361 was the first nationwide sellout the book had had since #252, 8 years earlier. Cap City orders alone for #363 were 102,000 copies....and Cap City was 20-30% of the Direct market at the time. 

And management saw those numbers, and said "you must use these characters." And you can see the trajectory pretty clearly when you look at the sales numbers, and the timing of the "explosion" of appearances. 

This is speculation.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

51 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

And management saw those numbers, and said "you must use these characters." And you can see the trajectory pretty clearly when you look at the sales numbers, and the timing of the "explosion" of appearances. 

This is speculation.

So is all of this:

21 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Quasar: Part of a line-wide crossover. While editors might be protective of characters in their family of books, you were right that they're not going to have complete control when it comes to something like this. Does Micheline's comment that Salicrup was protective mean that he NEVER EVER let others use the character? Obviously not, because there are a few other appearances. But I see no reason to doubt that there were requests from others to use the character. Also, note that while he's one of four villains in the book, he gets a special callout on the cover. That suggests that they already anticipated that Venom would sell.

Avengers Annual: "appearance" is in a recap of Acts of Vengeance, and he's one of dozens of characters in the recap. Doesn't really count as an appearance, I would say. His inclusion here is due to his inclusion above.

What If?: One-time alternate timeline stories is different from an in-continuity appearance. Also, while he's not central to the story, he's featured on the cover. That suggests that they already anticipated that Venom would sell.

Deathtrap: The Vault: Written by the new Spidey-editor as Salicrup was close to the end of his run. Note that Venom is the most prominent character on the cover. That suggests that they already anticipated that Venom would sell.

Here, let me use a device you used earlier:

"Does Micheline's comment that Salicrup was protective mean that he NEVER EVER let others use the character?"

To which I will reply: "Does my comment that I refrained from speculating mean that I NEVER EVER speculated at any point in the entire conversation?"

See? So let's not play that game.

Again: None of that matters, however. What matters is evidence. Sales data. Market reports. Price guide entries. Things that were published at the time, by people who were on the front line of the business of selling comic books. 

Got any...?

 

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

So is all of this:

Here, let me use a device you used earlier:

"Does Micheline's comment that Salicrup was protective mean that he NEVER EVER let others use the character?"

To which I will reply: "Does my comment that I refrained from speculating mean that I NEVER EVER speculated at any point in the entire conversation?"

See? So let's not play that game.

Again: None of that matters, however. What matters is evidence. Sales data. Market reports. Price guide entries. Things that were published at the time, by people who were on the front line of the business of selling comic books. 

Got any...?

 

Sorry that the primary source evidence of those that worked on the books isn't enough for you

[RockMyAmadeus]

12 minutes ago, Catwomancomics said:

So, What are the top 50 Copper books in Overstreet? 

Hey, at least it's still relatively on-topic, as opposed to the derailing of other threads.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

18 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Sorry that the primary source evidence of those that worked on the books isn't enough for you

That's an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. 

I'm neither accepting nor dismissing Michelinie's views on the matter. I am merely giving them the weight they deserve, especially when his statements flatly contradict the sales data we actually have.

Here's his quote: "Yes. Jim wouldn‘t let that happen, and he didn‘t force me to do new stories, even though the character became very popular, selling books. "

And here is the relevant sales data (that we have):

#313 - 45,900

#314 - 42,200

#315 - 41,400

#316 - 44,100

#317 - 44,700

#318 - 45,900

#319 - 48,800

#329 - 58,200

#330 (Punisher) - 72,000

#331 (Punisher) - 67,500

#332 - 58,500

#333 - 59,400

#334 - 63,300

#335 - 61,800

Under Salicrup's tenure on the book, there were FIVE comics featuring Venom (#300, 316-317, 332-333) and an additional SEVEN cameo appearances (#298, 299, 315, 330-331, 344-345.)

Discounting the additional cameo appearances...we know those weren't selling the books...there are a grand total of FIVE comics published in Salicrup's tenure on ASM that can reasonably be said to feature Venom. And of those five, one is the first (full) appearance, so that can't be counted, the next two show essentially nothing in terms of sales movement, and the last two show a DECLINE in sales for those two issues, as compared to both before AND AFTER the Venom appearances.

So what was Michelinie referring to....? How can he have claimed that Venom was "very popular, selling books" under Salicrup when those books were A. limited to 5, and B. sold in numbers that contradict his claim?

Obviously, his memories don't match up with the data (that we have.)

It's a good lesson on why relying on memories and experience is not always wise, and why appealing to authority is always a logical fallacy. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus
Clarity

[500Club]

3 hours ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Since McFarlane's art was certainly a very visible reason for the popularity of Spider-man, management may not have been as acutely aware of a demand for more Venom. I doubt management is reading letters from readers.

Management - probably not - but there was a mechanism whereby letter feedback played a role in decisions.   The best example I can think of was Cloak and Dagger in PPTSM 64.  They proved popular enough, and Marvel got enough feedback, that they promptly appeared again in PPTSS 69 and 70, and then again in 81 and 82.

My recall of Venom was that he was 'grassroots hot', but not overtly hot like Punisher, Wolverine and Ghost Rider.  Readers loved him.  Obviously Salicrup knew this, as he wanted to save Venom for use in ASM.   That grassroots love took some time to manifest in market heat, though.  Early on, ASM 298 was a bigger book than 300, and 312 was broken out (Hobgoblin vs GG) before 315-317.