Top 50 Copper Books in Overstreet 7 7

[PeterPark]

3 hours 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...?

 

There aren't very reliable price guides for modern books at that time. Price guides don't reflect market sales. Not then anyway and even less so for new books.

[Lazyboy]

1 minute ago, PeterPark said:

There aren't very reliable price guides for modern books at that time. Price guides don't reflect market sales. Not then anyway and even less so for new books.

Again, open some comics from that era and look at the dealer ads. You do actually own some comics, right?

[PeterPark]

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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. 

These are only partial numbers anyway so not particularly useful unless you can show they are representative of the whole. Newsstand sales are far more interesting than direct anyway. There's a lot of reading into a small sample size going on here.

[PeterPark]

1 minute ago, Lazyboy said:

Again, open some comics from that era and look at the dealer ads. You do actually own some comics, right?

Oh geez, just remembered I don't own comics. Where did that come from? Those dealer ads weren't very enticing to me. I bought from several LCSs or conventions. These prices were not recorded in dealer ads for comics they were sold out of anyway.

[RockMyAmadeus]

44 minutes ago, 500Club said:

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.

I think this very accurately sums up the situation.

The main problem with Venom as a character was that his popularity was completely muddied by McFarlane's art. It's really not very possible to overstate just how hot McFarlane art was in the time period leading up to Spiderman #1. McFarlane was the hottest artist in the business, by leaps and bounds, and the six month drought in between ASM #328 and Spiderman #1...with only a few covers to satiate demand...drove the market crazy...a tactic Marvel repeated a year later with New Mutants and X-Force.

If Venom had been drawn by, say, Sal Buscema, or Saviuk, or even Byrne or Zeck....well established artists who either never were hot, or whose hotness had come and gone...then it would be a lot easier to see just how much ASM #300 was about Venom.

 But as it was, ASM #300 was about McFarlane, and would remain so, for several years. It was only starting in late '92 that the point of ASM #300 became Venom, rather than McFarlane.

[PeterPark]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I think this very accurately sums up the situation.

The main problem with Venom as a character was that his popularity was completely muddied by McFarlane's art. It's really not very possible to overstate just how hot McFarlane art was in the time period leading up to Spiderman #1. McFarlane was the hottest artist in the business, by leaps and bounds, and the six month drought in between ASM #328 and Spiderman #1...with only a few covers to satiate demand...drove the market crazy...a tactic Marvel repeated a year later with New Mutants and X-Force.

If Venom had been drawn by, say, Sal Buscema, or Saviuk, or even Byrne or Zeck....well established artists who either never were hot, or whose hotness had come and gone...then it would be a lot easier to see just how much ASM #300 was about Venom.

 But as it was, ASM #300 was about McFarlane, and would remain so, for several years. It was only starting in late '92 that the point of ASM #300 became Venom, rather than McFarlane.

McFarlane and Venom weren't separate. 298 is a key McFarlane issue that had a Venom Cameo. 300 is a full Venom appearance with Mcfarlane art and a big round number issue. All of those are good things. I still buy the ASM run because of the McFarlane art but if you asked which ones were the best, I'd say the Venom ones and 312-313. In 1992/3 the books didn't get a bump because oh yeah, that's Venom. There was a lot going on at that time. You are disregarding the trend that all comics were selling more as the 90's hype train kept rolling. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, PeterPark said:

These are only partial numbers anyway so not particularly useful unless you can show they are representative of the whole. Newsstand sales are far more interesting than direct anyway. There's a lot of reading into a small sample size going on here.

Granted.

However...they are the only numbers we have, AND...when compared to the SOO numbers, they are remarkably consistent.

So, if we throw out memories...as we should....and we give the Cap City numbers the proper consideration, which is not particularly useful, not not entirely useless either...what do we have left?

Market reports. Price guide entries. CBG articles. Wizard articles.

A great analogy is Cable. There are some folks who say "Cable was an instant hit, a total sellout, and within a month, people were paying $20 for it!"

But that's also not true. It took a few months...much, much faster than Venom...but New Mutants #87 didn't become a "$20 book" until around New Mutants #98, 99 or thereabouts...almost a year later. And the time period between #100 and X-Force #1 was off to the races coo coo bananas.

And that's reflected in the OPG Updates of 1990. In the earlier Updates...#11, #12, #13...you don't see a lot of mention of Liefeld or Cable. But after X-Tinction Agenda, and the leadup to NM #100, you start seeing more and more reference to both. And in the spring 1991 Updates, it was nothing but Cable Cable Cable all day long.

I think GAMP has agreed with this before: the Wolverine crossover in #93 (and #94) was really the first broad exposure to both Cable and Liefeld, and was that catalyst, that spark, for the run up to NM #87.

It says something when, in the SF Bay Area, I was able to buy 5 copies of NM #87 as back issues...at $1.25 each...at Halley's Comics in San Lorenzo, CA, AFTER #93 came out. 

[Lazyboy]

2 minutes ago, PeterPark said:

Oh geez, just remembered I don't own comics. Where did that come from? Those dealer ads weren't very enticing to me. I bought from several LCSs or conventions. These prices were not recorded in dealer ads for comics they were sold out of anyway.

So the largest dealers had no inventory and no interest in getting market prices for their inventory? Is that what you're saying?

Nobody cares whether the ads enticed you or not. The point is what they were asking for certain issues and when.

This whole discussion started with people claiming that MSHSW #8 was a pricey book from the start or at least since Venom debuted. That is objectively untrue.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, PeterPark said:

McFarlane and Venom weren't separate.

Yes, they very much were. McFarlane made Venom. Venom DID NOT make McFarlane.

2 minutes ago, PeterPark said:

298 is a key McFarlane issue that had a Venom Cameo. 300 is a full Venom appearance with Mcfarlane art and a big round number issue. All of those are good things. I still buy the ASM run because of the McFarlane art but if you asked which ones were the best, I'd say the Venom ones and 312-313. In 1992/3 the books didn't get a bump because oh yeah, that's Venom. There was a lot going on at that time. You are disregarding the trend that all comics were selling more as the 90's hype train kept rolling. 

Again: no one cared that #298 was a "Venom cameo." To this DAY, no one cares that #298 is a Venom cameo. 

You are, at this point, directly contradicting published, printed market, sales ads, and price guide reports and listings. Go look at the OPG. Go look at Wizard. Go look at sales ads. Go look at the Updates. ASM #298 and #300 were AT PAR from 1988 to 1992. After #361-363, ASM #300 opened the gap, and never looked back. Don't take my word for it. Go look for yourself.

Listen...I'm willing to argue with you all you want...it's my "thing." But, as of yet, you have provided zero examples of sales data, or market reports, or price guide entries, or articles that support anything you're claiming. Until and unless you do that, what's the point...? 

What does "all comics were selling more as the 90's hype train kept rolling" mean...? It has no meaning. It can mean nothing, and it can mean everything. It's a non-statement. I'm not disputing it...but it doesn't have any real meaning.

[500Club]

13 minutes ago, PeterPark said:

McFarlane and Venom weren't separate. 298 is a key McFarlane issue that had a Venom Cameo. 300 is a full Venom appearance with Mcfarlane art and a big round number issue. All of those are good things. I still buy the ASM run because of the McFarlane art but if you asked which ones were the best, I'd say the Venom ones and 312-313. In 1992/3 the books didn't get a bump because oh yeah, that's Venom. There was a lot going on at that time. You are disregarding the trend that all comics were selling more as the 90's hype train kept rolling. 

McFarlane drove the ASM hype initially.  You can tell by which books were hot.  Initially, it was the first McFarlane (298) and the Goblin issue (312).

You're right in that they weren't strictly separate, but the initial love for Venom was overshadowed by the McFarlane hype.

[RockMyAmadeus]

25 minutes ago, PeterPark said:

There aren't very reliable price guides for modern books at that time. Price guides don't reflect market sales. Not then anyway and even less so for new books.

That is untrue. Up until the crash, the OPG Updates...and the OPG itself...were the standard for pricing back issue comics. Every single comic store in the San Francisco Bay Area...Halley's Comics in Pleasanton and San Lorenzo, Land of Nevawuz in Danville and Pleasant Hill, Fact, Fiction, & Fantasy in Livermore, Clay's Comics in Hayward, Comics & Comix in Berkeley, Flying Colors Comics in Concord, Comic Relief in San Francisco, The Comic Shop in San Leandro, Crush Comics in Castro Valley, Lee's Comics in San Jose, and several more that I can't remember off the top of my head, all of them priced by the OPG and the Update.

There was no internet.

Conventions were few and far between.

Mail order was a crapshoot.

There are very little in the way of venues for collectors to cut out the local comic store middle man.

It is true that NOW the OPG is no longer accurate. And there is no more Update, But in the late 80s/early 90s, everyone used the Update. Everyone. 

SOME of them tried to use the silly Comics Values Monthly...but that didn't fly. SOME of them tried to use Wizard after it debuted in 1991. That sort of flew.

But everyone used the Update, and the Update was not just the reflector of the market...it DROVE the market, to a great extent.

Not reliable? Anything but.

[500Club]

8 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Again: no one cared that #298 was a "Venom cameo." To this DAY, no one cares that #298 is a Venom cameo. 

This is absolute truth.  298 was 'first McFarlane on ASM'.  Still is.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, 500Club said:

McFarlane drove the ASM hype initially.  You can tell by which books were hot.  Initially, it was the first McFarlane (298) and the Goblin issue (312).

You're right in that they weren't strictly separate, but the initial love for Venom was overshadowed by the McFarlane hype.

By a lot. And the Goblin issue wasn't all *that* hot until the madness of Hobby in 1991.

Prices from the June, 1990 OPG Update, the first Update after the big guide was published in April:

ASM #298 - $30

#299 - $15

#300 - $30

#301-#305 - $15

#306-315 - $10

#316-#325 - $5

#328 - $8? I want to say $8. This is from memory.

Notice the break....? 

[500Club]

16 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

And the Goblin issue wasn't all *that* hot until the madness of Hobby in 1991.

I can't recall exactly when it got broken out, just that it did long before the Venom books did.  I never thought 312 warranted any sort of bump, but, pre internet, all I got for a gestalt was my limited exposure to LCSs and the OPG Update market reports.

I think the only thing 312 represents for me in this discussion is the idea that this book captured some attention and a price breakout before the Venom books.  To me, that represents the idea Venom didn't become 'market hot' until later.

[Smeagol Eye Cherry]

Hey, my first post was approved! Probably not wise, but who am I to question the moderators? Unfortunately, it shows up hours ago in the thread so many of you didn’t realize I definitively resolved the Venom popularity debate. Just wanting to save ya’ll from needless typing. 

Anyway, I’m a little surprised there was any discussion regarding the removal of Harbinger 1. If 1992 books make the list, it was undoubtedly one of the most important books of its era. Even more popular than Venom at the time. 

Some could argue that without a successful movie, Valiant books will never truly pull off this decade long comeback they’ve been teasing (talk about a slow burn), but then where does that leave comics like Albedo? I can walk into my LCS, try to talk some Albedo, and receive blank stares as if Kumail just mentioned it by name in his last stand up routine. 

Sometimes it’s difficult to compare something with a larger pop culture impact and something with a small, yet passionate following. I suppose that’s part of what makes list making fun. Even among fans there are so many different perspectives. 

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

5 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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. "

A valid example of the appeal to authority fallacy would be if I claimed "Erik Larsen was the worst artist on Venom. See, Micheline says that his style is too cartoony." That's an opinion. That's not what I'm offering up here, so you're incorrect to dismiss what I presented with that fallacy. The reason I brought up the Michelinie interview was to establish that there was an alternate valid reason you didn't see Venom in guest appearances all over the place other than "he wasn't that popular." I agree with the idea that we shouldn't take every aspect of the recollection decades after the fact as gospel, but I think the larger ideas are still valid. I doubt that the reason for Venom's limited use is a complete fabrication. The idea that this was done despite the sales data, maybe that's a detail he would be sketchy on. Certainly during his tenure as writer, Venom started selling a lot more books (leading to the transition to a heroic character with his own book).

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I think GAMP has agreed with this before: the Wolverine crossover in #93 (and #94) was really the first broad exposure to both Cable and Liefeld, and was that catalyst, that spark, for the run up to NM #87.

It says something when, in the SF Bay Area, I was able to buy 5 copies of NM #87 as back issues...at $1.25 each...at Halley's Comics in San Lorenzo, CA, AFTER #93 came out. 

I don't remember exactly when Cable took off, but I do remember that I went out and picked up more copies of New Mutants 86 because the art seemed to have a similar quality to McFarlane's and all of his issues were increasing in value. In only have my one copy of 87, but I still have a few 86s. That's one thing that's really important in this whole conversation; at the time, back issue values were being driven by hot artists far more so than character appearance. (Yes, random appearances of hot characters were important too — Punisher War Journal 6 & 7 are great examples of this — but as I remember it, the books with McFarlane, Lee, Liefeld, etc.'s work were the books to have for a few years.

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 hours ago, Smeagol Eye Cherry said:

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? 

Again, what does "popular" mean? The only way things can be measured in terms of "popularity" is with numbers: how things sell, how the market reacts to them, and how they do on the aftermarket. 

Nice user name, by the way.

6 hours ago, Smeagol Eye Cherry said:

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.

This sort of buzz tends to be reflected in the market, both with new issues sales AND back issue sales. There's nothing, however, in published literature that suggests that this was a widescale phenomenon. There's no special mention of these two in the price guides, or market reports, for years and years...and the Cap City numbers are pretty damaging to the argument.

Ghost Rider #5 and #6, however? Monster hits, and immediately "broken out" in price guides, very shortly after they were published. It was almost like printing money with books like that. Same with Punisher War Journal #6 and #7, from the same time frame as ASM #316. And the numbers support it. PWJ #5? 37,300. #6? 55,300. #7? 54,000. #8? 41,700. GR #4? 39,900. #5? 52,800. #6? 49,600. #7? 44,500. 

Those are the kind of sales bumps you should expect to see from an "insanely hot" character.  

Now, this is anecdotal, but I remember looking at ASM #316 at one point and thinking "well...it's the first real Venom cover, and it's pretty neat...but I don't see a lot of strong support in the market for it as a special issue." And, with a few exceptions (mainly 2007 and 2018), that's mostly been true. And I've always looked at comics with an eye towards "how much might this potentially be worth?"

[RockMyAmadeus]

27 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

A valid example of the appeal to authority fallacy would be if I claimed "Erik Larsen was the worst artist on Venom. See, Micheline says that his style is too cartoony." That's an opinion. That's not what I'm offering up here, so you're incorrect to dismiss what I presented with that fallacy. The reason I brought up the Michelinie interview was to establish that there was an alternate valid reason you didn't see Venom in guest appearances all over the place other than "he wasn't that popular." I agree with the idea that we shouldn't take every aspect of the recollection decades after the fact as gospel, but I think the larger ideas are still valid. I doubt that the reason for Venom's limited use is a complete fabrication. The idea that this was done despite the sales data, maybe that's a detail he would be sketchy on. Certainly during his tenure as writer, Venom started selling a lot more books (leading to the transition to a heroic character with his own book).

That's not how the appeal to authority fallacy works. The appeal to authority fallacy is a pretty simple one: "so and so is an authority on this, so so and so is (or must be, or should be) correct."

That is what you presented when you said "Sorry that the primary source evidence of those that worked on the books isn't enough for you"

Of course it's not enough for me. It shouldn't be enough for YOU, either, or anyone else for that matter. Like I said earlier: I was a full grown adult, working IN the comics industry during the time frame discussed, and not a starry eyed adolescent. But that doesn't mean MY recollections are accurate. It just means they're more likely to be so. If my recollections contradict the data, would you tell people "Sorry that someone who was actually working in the industry at the time isn't enough for you" in defense of my statements?

No. Of course not. Nor should you.

The appeal to authority fallacy has nothing to do with whether or not something is an opinion. What experience and authority give is a greater likelihood of being correct. It does not make them error-proof, especially when their recollections contradict the actual data. 

I recognize that you have an alternate reason for why you didn't see Venom guest star all over the place. I reject that it is a valid one. He simply wasn't popular enough for management to notice and issue orders that Venom make appearances...as they did with Wolverine, Punisher, Ghost Rider, etc...and that's NOT speculation, by the way; if they hadn't, there wouldn't be 233 Punisher appearances to Venom's 22. He was just popular *enough*, but not *too* popular, that creators and editors felt they could "reserve" characters...characters that they did not own, and had no actual say in how and when they were published.

And Michelinie's tenure lasted a longgggggg time, so yes, it's natural to expect there were changes over that time frame.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

43 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's not how the appeal to authority fallacy works. The appeal to authority fallacy is a pretty simple one: "so and so is an authority on this, so so and so is (or must be, or should be) correct."

That is what you presented when you said "Sorry that the primary source evidence of those that worked on the books isn't enough for you"

Of course it's not enough for me. It shouldn't be enough for YOU, either, or anyone else for that matter. Like I said earlier: I was a full grown adult, working IN the comics industry during the time frame discussed, and not a starry eyed adolescent. But that doesn't mean MY recollections are accurate. It just means they're more likely to be so. If my recollections contradict the data, would you tell people "Sorry that someone who was actually working in the industry at the time isn't enough for you" in defense of my statements?

No. Of course not. Nor should you.

The appeal to authority fallacy has nothing to do with whether or not something is an opinion. What experience and authority give is a greater likelihood of being correct. It does not make them error-proof, especially when their recollections contradict the actual data. 

I recognize that you have an alternate reason for why you didn't see Venom guest star all over the place. I reject that it is a valid one. He simply wasn't popular enough for management to notice and issue orders that Venom make appearances...as they did with Wolverine, Punisher, Ghost Rider, etc...and that's NOT speculation, by the way; if they hadn't, there wouldn't be 233 Punisher appearances to Venom's 22. He was just popular *enough*, but not *too* popular, that creators and editors felt they could "reserve" characters...characters that they did not own, and had no actual say in how and when they were published.

And Michelinie's tenure lasted a longgggggg time, so yes, it's natural to expect there were changes over that time frame.

It's not *my* alternate reason, it's the reason presented by someone who created the books. And you've presented no evidence that invalidates that reason. Maybe find an interview with Salicrup that contradicts it? That would seem to be the one thing that could do it.