• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Copper Era newsstand vs direct - variants or not?
0

59 posts in this topic

100,00 retailer spaces for newsstand means nothing.

 

Nothing at all?

 

Barns and noble for example no longer even carries marvel titles. Fact.

 

I'm not sure how this is relevant to 2005, when Barns (sic) and noble DID carry newsstand Marvel titles, which is the argument.

 

DC and Bongo (go figure). Many others carry very few titles if any at all.

 

Your argument holds no more weight than the 10% claim.

 

Oh, I don't know. I think it carries a little more weight. You know, what with the research and hard numbers and data and all.

 

But what do I know?

 

:cloud9:

 

During your research did you happen upon any numbers such as how many books were destroyed at the end of each month because they were unsold? I feel that a lot of people overlook the fact that newsstand edition's are basically destroyed when the next issue is released for partial store credit whereas direct editions aren't.

 

Newsstand editions have a shelf life, I don't think anyone actually knows how many survived from month to month. With direct editions you can go by Diamonds monthly sales list & not have to consider return numbers like newsstand editions. I doubt anyone knows the actual number of newsstand editions that survive each month, especially Chuck from Mile High considering he doesn't deal in them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100,00 retailer spaces for newsstand means nothing.

 

Nothing at all?

 

Barns and noble for example no longer even carries marvel titles. Fact.

 

I'm not sure how this is relevant to 2005, when Barns (sic) and noble DID carry newsstand Marvel titles, which is the argument.

 

DC and Bongo (go figure). Many others carry very few titles if any at all.

 

Your argument holds no more weight than the 10% claim.

 

Oh, I don't know. I think it carries a little more weight. You know, what with the research and hard numbers and data and all.

 

But what do I know?

 

:cloud9:

 

During your research did you happen upon any numbers such as how many books were destroyed at the end of each month because they were unsold? I feel that a lot of people overlook the fact that newsstand edition's are basically destroyed when the next issue is released for partial store credit whereas direct editions aren't.

 

Newsstand editions have a shelf life, I don't think anyone actually knows how many survived from month to month. With direct editions you can go by Diamonds monthly sales list & not have to consider return numbers like newsstand editions. I doubt anyone knows the actual number of newsstand editions that survive each month, especially Chuck from Mile High considering he doesn't deal in them

 

Good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100,00 retailer spaces for newsstand means nothing.

 

Nothing at all?

 

Barns and noble for example no longer even carries marvel titles. Fact.

 

I'm not sure how this is relevant to 2005, when Barns (sic) and noble DID carry newsstand Marvel titles, which is the argument.

 

DC and Bongo (go figure). Many others carry very few titles if any at all.

 

Your argument holds no more weight than the 10% claim.

 

Oh, I don't know. I think it carries a little more weight. You know, what with the research and hard numbers and data and all.

 

But what do I know?

 

:cloud9:

 

During your research did you happen upon any numbers such as how many books were destroyed at the end of each month because they were unsold? I feel that a lot of people overlook the fact that newsstand edition's are basically destroyed when the next issue is released for partial store credit whereas direct editions aren't.

 

Yes, we have all of that information for many books published in the 60's-00's. The Statements of Ownership, published during this time, tells us the net extant copies of any particular title (if not necessarily a particular issue.)

 

Here's an example:

 

SOO1.png

 

From here, you can see the total print run, as well as the actual amount of copies actually distributed (in this case, 184,826 as an average.), as well as the returns from news agents which you describe (that is, 50,045.)

 

Now, there have always been shenanigans on the newsstand returns side, so actual copies reported returned may not be the copies that are actually destroyed, BUT...we know that number is not greater than the number reported, because then those agents wouldn't receive credit for those issues (which, while possible, isn't a mistake many vendors tended to make.)

 

And, granted, in the era of the Direct market (functionally 1979-on), those numbers got a little muddled, because those numbers don't separate out Direct vs. newsstand copies. However, we CAN do a little extrapolating. For example, that New X-Men SOO is from 2002. We know that, in 2002, say, New X-Men #128 (intro Fantomex) has a reported Direct market number of 106,190 copies. If you look at the average amount of copies distributed (184,226) and subtract 106,190 copies from that figure, you arrive at roughly 80,000 Newsstand copies actually sold on average for the year 2002. Now, granted, we don't know precise numbers, and we can't get very precise, except for the "issue published nearest to filing date" which is probably issue #132 or #133, but it's still reasonable enough information.

 

For fun, let's look at #132, since #14 on the SOO says the issue date (which means the publication date, not the cover date) is September, which would make it a November cover date, which would be #132. We see, for the year, the series took a dramatic drop in both printed and sold copies, from an average of 184k copies distributed, to only 132k for the most recent issue. But, returns from vendors also dropped, which means they had a higher sell-through percentage, which is good.

 

We see that the Direct copies remained pretty consistent: 105,640, which means that the newsstand only sold about 27k copies for that particular issue.

 

However...27k copies actually distributed (or, rather, reported as sold and not claimed for credit) is still nearly 26% of the Direct market copies! For every ONE HUNDRED copies sold of that issue, SEVENTY FOUR were Direct, and TWENTY SIX were Newsstand.

 

And, on average for the year, the newsstand books sold about 80% of what the Direct market sold.

 

This is why Chuck's numbers are so ridiculously wrong.

 

2% newsstand vs. 98% Direct? Chuck is claiming that for every ONE HUNDRED copies sold, only TWO were newsstand?

 

Total nonsense.

 

Those numbers, and many like it, prove him drastically, dramatically wrong.

 

And yet...that misinformation is repeated as fact, because research is time-consuming and understanding and relaying data in a meaningful way is difficult, so....here we go.

 

Newsstand editions have a shelf life, I don't think anyone actually knows how many survived from month to month.

 

Not entirely true. Thanks to those statements of ownership, we're not completely in the dark with regards to how many newsstand copies were actually distributed.

 

Where there are no SOOs, yes, we're out of luck entirely. But SOOs exist for the vast majority of DC, Marvel, and even other companies for the time period involved, so we have a pretty fair estimate about what was printed and what, of that, actually still exists.

 

It is vital, as you point out, to always include that "net press run" does NOT equal "extant copies", and I think this board has been exceptionally consistent in making sure that information is repeated on a fairly regular basis.

 

With direct editions you can go by Diamonds monthly sales list & not have to consider return numbers like newsstand editions.

 

Yes and no. Remember, Diamond only reports Direct sales in North America. We have no idea how many US English editions are printed for, and distributed to, the United Kingdom, for example.

 

And, of course, those numbers reported by Diamond are always very carefully caveated to be "estimated." That's important. Here's what Diamond says about it:

 

"Data for Diamond’s sales charts — which includes the monthly market shares and all top product charts — are compiled by Diamond Comic Distributors from sales made to thousands of comic book specialty shops located in North America and around the world. Additional sales made to online merchants and other specialty retailers may be included as well."

 

(Emphasis mine.)

 

http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/237?articleID=174561

 

And here's what the John Jackson Miller of Comichron has to say:

 

"The individual pages for each of these years can be found by clicking the links below. Remember that these pages only show what the comics shops of North America ordered, whereas the Statements of Ownership report sales through all channels. More years coming soon!"

 

http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales.html

 

So, JJM and Diamond conflict a bit, which should be cause to consider.

 

I doubt anyone knows the actual number of newsstand editions that survive each month, especially Chuck from Mile High considering he doesn't deal in them

 

Not entirely true, but certainly true of Chuck, clearly. We don't have to worry about Newsstand Marvels anymore, because they're no longer published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and no. Remember, Diamond only reports Direct sales in North America. We have no idea how many US English editions are printed for, and distributed to, the United Kingdom, for example.

 

And, of course, those numbers reported by Diamond are always very carefully caveated to be "estimated." That's important. Here's what Diamond says about it:

 

"Data for Diamonds sales charts which includes the monthly market shares and all top product charts are compiled by Diamond Comic Distributors from sales made to thousands of comic book specialty shops located in North America and around the world. Additional sales made to online merchants and other specialty retailers may be included as well."

 

(Emphasis mine.)

 

http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/237?articleID=174561

 

And here's what the John Jackson Miller of Comichron has to say:

 

"The individual pages for each of these years can be found by clicking the links below. Remember that these pages only show what the comics shops of North America ordered, whereas the Statements of Ownership report sales through all channels. More years coming soon!"

 

http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales.html

 

So, JJM and Diamond conflict a bit, which should be cause to consider.

 

By the way....JJM introduces a bit of a quandary, here, and potentially altering to the numbers above in incalculable ways.

 

Remember that JJM said that sales reported only what "what the comics shops of North America ordered", while the SOOs report sales through all channels...?

 

So where do the UK Direct market copies fall into the numbers? Only North America gets newsstand copies. And Diamond says their numbers include "sales made to thousands of comic book specialty shops located in North America and around the world."

 

That conflict is a problem. If JJM reports, through Diamond, that the North American Direct market sold 105k copies of X-Men #132, and Marvel reports that about 184k copies were distributed...which figure does the UK Direct market fall into? We know that the "total copies distributed" is an absolute number, into which all other numbers must go.

 

It's a bit of a mystery, but certainly the UK copies, if not included in the Diamond numbers given to JJM, do not eat up the entire remaining 80k copies sold, on average, of course, for Chuck to come up with his "2%" figure.

 

hm

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For every ONE HUNDRED copies sold of that issue, SEVENTY FOUR were Direct, and TWENTY SIX were Newsstand.

 

And, on average for the year, the newsstand books sold about 80% of what the Direct market sold.

 

This is why Chuck's numbers are so ridiculously wrong.

 

2% newsstand vs. 98% Direct? Chuck is claiming that for every ONE HUNDRED copies sold, only TWO were newsstand?

 

Total nonsense.

 

Those numbers, and many like it, prove him drastically, dramatically wrong.

 

And yet...that misinformation is repeated as fact, because research is time-consuming and understanding and relaying data in a meaningful way is difficult, so....here we go.

 

Chuck says 2% newsstand and 98% Direct.

You're pointing to evidence for 26% newsstand and 74% Direct.

 

There are currently 62 copies of New X-Men #128 for sale on Ebay.

They are 3% newsstand and 97% Direct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For every ONE HUNDRED copies sold of that issue, SEVENTY FOUR were Direct, and TWENTY SIX were Newsstand.

 

And, on average for the year, the newsstand books sold about 80% of what the Direct market sold.

 

This is why Chuck's numbers are so ridiculously wrong.

 

2% newsstand vs. 98% Direct? Chuck is claiming that for every ONE HUNDRED copies sold, only TWO were newsstand?

 

Total nonsense.

 

Those numbers, and many like it, prove him drastically, dramatically wrong.

 

And yet...that misinformation is repeated as fact, because research is time-consuming and understanding and relaying data in a meaningful way is difficult, so....here we go.

 

Chuck says 2% newsstand and 98% Direct.

You're pointing to evidence for 26% newsstand and 74% Direct.

 

There are currently 62 copies of New X-Men #128 for sale on Ebay.

They are 3% newsstand and 97% Direct.

 

"Copies for sale on eBay", while interesting, isn't necessarily a good indicator of what is extant.

 

Remember...Chuck's claim is that his "ratios" represent sales at the time of publication, not survival rates.

 

Also remember that newsstand copies, especially in many lean years, were being sold, copy by copy, to individuals, whereas stores were still in the "order 50 for immediate sale, and 20 for "back issues" at this point. So, as I have said many other times in other places, the amount of copies for sale will tend to be Direct market, rather than newsstand copies, the later in history we get.

 

Yes, newsstand copies, because of their one-by-one nature, tended to suffer greater attrition than Direct copies, no doubt.

 

But there's no way that newsstand copies only accounted for 2% or 5% of total sales in 2002. That's easily disproven, by the numbers given here. That would mean, for example, that only 2,000-5,000 copies of New X-Men #128 were sold throughout all of North America, when there were 3,000 or so Wal-Marts alone that carried newsstand comics.

 

That would also mean that, since about 184k copies were distributed, per the SOO, and 105k went to the North American Direct market, and 2k-5k were sold at the newsstand...where did the other 75k go? England? Not bloody likely.

 

And look at the average number of returns for the year: 50k. Those are returns of Newsstand copies, as you know. If they were only selling 2k-5k copies, and returning 50k, they only had a sell-through rate of 4-10% at the newsstand...which is an abominable rate, and thoroughly unsustainable. Marvel would have axed the program long before 2011/2013 if that were the case.

 

And if all that isn't enough, consider the other side of Chuck's "claim": that in 1979, Direct sales only accounted for "6%" of Marvels sales.

 

Nonsense. That would have been true in 1977...it was NOT true in 1979. The entire company went with the Direct market cover marking program in March of 1979 (cover date June), and Direct market books after this date are quite common. Example: X-Men #125. There are 103 listings in "Bronze X-Men" on eBay. That would mean 6-7 are Direct, and the rest are Newsstand, right?

 

Of those 103 listings (including lots), only 47 are newsstand, while 52 are Direct market (and a couple don't have pictures.)

 

More than half the listings, in an era Chuck claims only had "6%" Direct market, are Direct market copies.

 

Something doesn't add up, and it's got a bear tattoo on its torso.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that with newsstand editions you really can't look at the number that was made and then delivered to the retailer, because that number doesn't reflect how many were returned and destroyed when the next issue was released.

 

Once a direct edition is printed and sold to the retailer it stays in the market until someone buys it. Newsstand editions are sent back to the publisher (at least the cover is) from the retailer when the next issue is released for partial store credit and supposed to be destroyed. I just think it would be hard to keep track of what was printed, what was sold and what was returned/destroyed over a 2-3 month time period.

 

I know that Chuck has an ego bigger than Stan Lee could ever dream of having and likes to think that he knows everything and speculators like to number crunch everything, but with newsstand editions there seems to be a lot of variables that can't be taken into account by just looking at a Diamond sales list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that with newsstand editions you really can't look at the number that was made and then delivered to the retailer, because that number doesn't reflect how many were returned and destroyed when the next issue was released.

 

I just posted a very long post which explains why this isn't true. Did you read it?

 

Once a direct edition is printed and sold to the retailer it stays in the market until someone buys it.

 

Also not true. Retailers frequently throw out unsold copies, sometimes by the caseload, and have for decades. Yes, it shows as "sold"...but that doesn't mean it actually met an end-user.

 

Newsstand editions are sent back to the publisher (at least the cover is) from the retailer when the next issue is released for partial store credit and supposed to be destroyed. I just think it would be hard to keep track of what was printed, what was sold and what was returned/destroyed over a 2-3 month time period.

 

DC, Marvel, and others did it for years in the SOOs. It was required by USPS Second Class postage regulations.

 

I know that Chuck has an ego bigger than Stan Lee could ever dream of having and likes to think that he knows everything and speculators like to number crunch everything, but with newsstand editions there seems to be a lot of variables that can't be taken into account by just looking at a Diamond sales list.

 

Diamond has nothing to do with newsstand sales, so, no, you can't take any newsstand sales information into account by just looking at a Diamond sales list. The two have nothing to do with each other.

 

Did you read what I posted...?

 

hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For every ONE HUNDRED copies sold of that issue, SEVENTY FOUR were Direct, and TWENTY SIX were Newsstand.

 

And, on average for the year, the newsstand books sold about 80% of what the Direct market sold.

 

This is why Chuck's numbers are so ridiculously wrong.

 

2% newsstand vs. 98% Direct? Chuck is claiming that for every ONE HUNDRED copies sold, only TWO were newsstand?

 

Total nonsense.

 

Those numbers, and many like it, prove him drastically, dramatically wrong.

 

And yet...that misinformation is repeated as fact, because research is time-consuming and understanding and relaying data in a meaningful way is difficult, so....here we go.

 

Chuck says 2% newsstand and 98% Direct.

You're pointing to evidence for 26% newsstand and 74% Direct.

 

There are currently 62 copies of New X-Men #128 for sale on Ebay.

They are 3% newsstand and 97% Direct.

 

"Copies for sale on eBay", while interesting, isn't necessarily a good indicator of what is extant.

 

Remember...Chuck's claim is that his "ratios" represent sales at the time of publication, not survival rates.

 

Also remember that newsstand copies, especially in many lean years, were being sold, copy by copy, to individuals, whereas stores were still in the "order 50 for immediate sale, and 20 for "back issues" at this point. So, as I have said many other times in other places, the amount of copies for sale will tend to be Direct market, rather than newsstand copies, the later in history we get.

 

Yes, newsstand copies, because of their one-by-one nature, tended to suffer greater attrition than Direct copies, no doubt.

 

But there's no way that newsstand copies only accounted for 2% or 5% of total sales in 2002. That's easily disproven, by the numbers given here.

Gotcha. (thumbs u

 

I agree that the original printing ratios are likely very different from the respective attrition rates. I'm personally more concerned with the survival rates or the ratios for availability in the current market. It isn't possible to turn back the clock and buy these books new, so the availability of direct editions and newsstand editions today seems like it can be approximated with something as simple as the sample available on Ebay.

 

The statistical sample of 62 copies currently on Ebay (out of over 100,000+ originally printed) for New X-Men #128 represents a 95% confidence interval at +/-13%. The sample has 3% newsstand, and the +/-13% survival rate (total) for newsstand is likely no higher than 16%, with direct editions at no lower than 84%, or about 5 direct for every 1 newsstand. The confidence interval the other direction would say there might be a negative percentage of newsstand, which isn't possible, but even the midpoint between 0% and 16% would be 8% newsstand, or about 11.5 direct copies for every 1 newsstand. The sample had 30 direct for every 1 newsstand.

 

I wouldn't expect newsstands to be 1:30 today if they started as 1:3... but popular books with the largest samples on Ebay might give us a good survival estimate (by book dates and maybe by publisher) if we could compile enough of them.

 

As far as the Mile High percentages go, it's probably more of a reflection of what Chuck is able to replace than what was originally printed. Newsstand books probably don't turn up in Chuck's large collection/inventory/restocking purchases as duplicates as often as direct editions do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For every ONE HUNDRED copies sold of that issue, SEVENTY FOUR were Direct, and TWENTY SIX were Newsstand.

 

And, on average for the year, the newsstand books sold about 80% of what the Direct market sold.

 

This is why Chuck's numbers are so ridiculously wrong.

 

2% newsstand vs. 98% Direct? Chuck is claiming that for every ONE HUNDRED copies sold, only TWO were newsstand?

 

Total nonsense.

 

Those numbers, and many like it, prove him drastically, dramatically wrong.

 

And yet...that misinformation is repeated as fact, because research is time-consuming and understanding and relaying data in a meaningful way is difficult, so....here we go.

 

Chuck says 2% newsstand and 98% Direct.

You're pointing to evidence for 26% newsstand and 74% Direct.

 

There are currently 62 copies of New X-Men #128 for sale on Ebay.

They are 3% newsstand and 97% Direct.

 

"Copies for sale on eBay", while interesting, isn't necessarily a good indicator of what is extant.

 

Remember...Chuck's claim is that his "ratios" represent sales at the time of publication, not survival rates.

 

Also remember that newsstand copies, especially in many lean years, were being sold, copy by copy, to individuals, whereas stores were still in the "order 50 for immediate sale, and 20 for "back issues" at this point. So, as I have said many other times in other places, the amount of copies for sale will tend to be Direct market, rather than newsstand copies, the later in history we get.

 

Yes, newsstand copies, because of their one-by-one nature, tended to suffer greater attrition than Direct copies, no doubt.

 

But there's no way that newsstand copies only accounted for 2% or 5% of total sales in 2002. That's easily disproven, by the numbers given here.

Gotcha. (thumbs u

 

I agree that the original printing ratios are likely very different from the respective attrition rates. I'm personally more concerned with the survival rates or the ratios for availability in the current market. It isn't possible to turn back the clock and buy these books new, so the availability of direct editions and newsstand editions today seems like it can be approximated with something as simple as the sample available on Ebay.

 

The statistical sample of 62 copies currently on Ebay (out of over 100,000+ originally printed) for New X-Men #128 represents a 95% confidence interval at +/-13%. The sample has 3% newsstand, and the +/-13% survival rate (total) for newsstand is likely no higher than 16%, with direct editions at no lower than 84%, or about 5 direct for every 1 newsstand. The confidence interval the other direction would say there might be a negative percentage of newsstand, which isn't possible, but even the midpoint between 0% and 16% would be 8% newsstand, or about 11.5 direct copies for every 1 newsstand. The sample had 30 direct for every 1 newsstand.

 

I wouldn't expect newsstands to be 1:30 today if they started as 1:3... but popular books with the largest samples on Ebay might give us a good survival estimate (by book dates and maybe by publisher) if we could compile enough of them.

 

As far as the Mile High percentages go, it's probably more of a reflection of what Chuck is able to replace than what was originally printed. Newsstand books probably don't turn up in Chuck's large collection/inventory/restocking purchases as duplicates as often as direct editions do.

 

its all well and nice to have internal ratios for the purposes of internal decision making regarding how much to pay for something and how much to sell it for, but to release that information to the public as 'fact' when it is clearly self serving, and generally quite wrong is disingenuous at best, and almost certainly unethical, and possibly fraudulent (and/or actionable). SOmeone who cares way more than me should ask him to cite some references.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the Mile High percentages go, it's probably more of a reflection of what Chuck is able to replace than what was originally printed. Newsstand books probably don't turn up in Chuck's large collection/inventory/restocking purchases as duplicates as often as direct editions do.

 

its all well and nice to have internal ratios for the purposes of internal decision making regarding how much to pay for something and how much to sell it for, but to release that information to the public as 'fact' when it is clearly self serving, and generally quite wrong is disingenuous at best, and almost certainly unethical, and possibly fraudulent (and/or actionable). SOmeone who cares way more than me should ask him to cite some references.

Since his own warehouse is a giant sample, he may have simply done some counts in his extensive supply of long boxes. As far as applying those inventory ratios to the original print runs, that's definitely a stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the ratios hold on Canadian news stand editions, and the sales volume was only 10% of what was sold in the USA (based on population here), then you can see why the later Canadian editions in 9.4+ condition are so tough to find.

 

I know that 10% figure is tossed around a lot, but it is such a rough number as to almost be rendered useless.

 

I'd sure like to get much harder, more realistic numbers out there.

 

I just a couple of minutes searching online, and a couple of quick notes re: potential comic distribution:

 

- in the 1980s there were a over 20,000 book stores in Canada vs. an estimated 220,000 in the USA (roughly 10%)

 

- 7-11 stores - in 2013 there were 484 in Canada vs. 8,144 in the USA (roughly 6%)

 

- the number of gas stations and grocery stores is in the 10% range as well.

 

How many carried comics is unknown, but it looks like 10% is not an unreasonable estimate of Canadian comic sales relative to the US market. This does not include the direct market, which could sway things a point or two either way.

 

 

 

 

Edited by kimik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2000 and on is very difficult to find some newsstands and even harder to find high grade.

 

Any newsstand I find in high grade I ask a small premium because I never know if I will ever find another one.

 

 

Yup.

 

1985-1990 newsstands were produced in higher amounts than post 2000 newsstands but they are still pretty tough books to find in CGC 9.8 slabs.

 

Look up any key book from those time periods on eBay and you'll see about a dozen CGC 9.8's....and maybe ONE newsstand copy.

 

Those newsstand 9.8's typically sell at a decent premium over CGC 9.8 direct markets......but the premium is much higher, on newsstands from the early 200's and on.

 

GPA does note newsstand sales on SOME books....Spawn #9 has newsstand sales at about 500% the price of direct markets for example.

 

Meanwhile, a Suicide Squad #1 CGC 9.8 3/1987 newsstand sold on 2/21/2016 via Heritage Auction at $359 PLUS a 19.5% buyer's premium.

 

That sale is not notated as a newsstand edition in GPA, nor did the 19.5% buyer's premium figured into the cost of the bid.....IOW, the buyer paid about $470 for that CGC 9.8 SS #1 1987 newsstand...plus shipping/insurance, bringing the total paid for that book to around $500, or thereabouts.

 

That SS 1 newsstand cgc 9.8 that sold on Heritage on the 21st also had very nice centering, as well.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2000 and on is very difficult to find some newsstands and even harder to find high grade.

 

Any newsstand I find in high grade I ask a small premium because I never know if I will ever find another one.

 

 

Yup.

 

1985-1990 newsstands were produced in higher amounts than post 2000 newsstands but they are still pretty tough books to find in CGC 9.8 slabs.

 

Look up any key book from those time periods on eBay and you'll see about a dozen CGC 9.8's....and maybe ONE newsstand copy.

 

Those newsstand 9.8's typically sell at a decent premium over CGC 9.8 direct markets......but the premium is much higher, on newsstands from the early 200's and on.

 

GPA does note newsstand sales on SOME books....Spawn #9 has newsstand sales at about 500% the price of direct markets for example.

 

Meanwhile, a Suicide Squad #1 CGC 9.8 3/1987 newsstand sold on 2/21/2016 via Heritage Auction at $359 PLUS a 19.5% buyer's premium.

 

That sale is not notated as a newsstand edition in GPA, nor did the 19.5% buyer's premium figured into the cost of the bid.....IOW, the buyer paid about $470 for that CGC 9.8 SS #1 1987 newsstand...plus shipping/insurance, bringing the total paid for that book to around $500, or thereabouts.

 

That SS 1 newsstand cgc 9.8 that sold on Heritage on the 21st also had very nice centering, as well.

 

Wonder if there was tax involved as well as some states like Florida and California I believe heritage adds that to the total price. hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the ratios hold on Canadian news stand editions, and the sales volume was only 10% of what was sold in the USA (based on population here), then you can see why the later Canadian editions in 9.4+ condition are so tough to find.

 

I know that 10% figure is tossed around a lot, but it is such a rough number as to almost be rendered useless.

 

I'd sure like to get much harder, more realistic numbers out there.

 

I just a couple of minutes searching online, and a couple of quick notes re: potential comic distribution:

 

- in the 1980s there were a over 20,000 book stores in Canada vs. an estimated 220,000 in the USA (roughly 10%)

 

- 7-11 stores - in 2013 there were 484 in Canada vs. 8,144 in the USA (roughly 6%)

 

- the number of gas stations and grocery stores is in the 10% range as well.

 

How many carried comics is unknown, but it looks like 10% is not an unreasonable estimate of Canadian comic sales relative to the US market. This does not include the direct market, which could sway things a point or two either way.

 

 

 

 

Yes, but those numbers have no relevance to the actual decisions of Marvel/DC/Archie et al in printing copies of Canadian newsstand copies.

 

They sound reasonable, but they're still just guesses, and it's like saying "well, there are 10 provinces in Canada, and 50 US states, so Canada must have 20% of the population of the US"...but that's not at all accurate.

 

It's just a guess, no better than 1% or 20% or 50% or .05%. It would be nice to have something more concrete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100,00 retailer spaces for newsstand means nothing.

 

Nothing at all?

 

Barns and noble for example no longer even carries marvel titles. Fact.

 

I'm not sure how this is relevant to 2005, when Barns (sic) and noble DID carry newsstand Marvel titles, which is the argument.

 

DC and Bongo (go figure). Many others carry very few titles if any at all.

 

Your argument holds no more weight than the 10% claim.

 

Oh, I don't know. I think it carries a little more weight. You know, what with the research and hard numbers and data and all.

 

But what do I know?

 

:cloud9:

 

During your research did you happen upon any numbers such as how many books were destroyed at the end of each month because they were unsold? I feel that a lot of people overlook the fact that newsstand edition's are basically destroyed when the next issue is released for partial store credit whereas direct editions aren't.

 

Yes, we have all of that information for many books published in the 60's-00's. The Statements of Ownership, published during this time, tells us the net extant copies of any particular title (if not necessarily a particular issue.)

 

Here's an example:

 

SOO1.png

 

From here, you can see the total print run, as well as the actual amount of copies actually distributed (in this case, 184,826 as an average.), as well as the returns from news agents which you describe (that is, 50,045.)

 

Now, there have always been shenanigans on the newsstand returns side, so actual copies reported returned may not be the copies that are actually destroyed, BUT...we know that number is not greater than the number reported, because then those agents wouldn't receive credit for those issues (which, while possible, isn't a mistake many vendors tended to make.)

 

And, granted, in the era of the Direct market (functionally 1979-on), those numbers got a little muddled, because those numbers don't separate out Direct vs. newsstand copies. However, we CAN do a little extrapolating. For example, that New X-Men SOO is from 2002. We know that, in 2002, say, New X-Men #128 (intro Fantomex) has a reported Direct market number of 106,190 copies. If you look at the average amount of copies distributed (184,226) and subtract 106,190 copies from that figure, you arrive at roughly 80,000 Newsstand copies actually sold on average for the year 2002. Now, granted, we don't know precise numbers, and we can't get very precise, except for the "issue published nearest to filing date" which is probably issue #132 or #133, but it's still reasonable enough information.

 

For fun, let's look at #132, since #14 on the SOO says the issue date (which means the publication date, not the cover date) is September, which would make it a November cover date, which would be #132. We see, for the year, the series took a dramatic drop in both printed and sold copies, from an average of 184k copies distributed, to only 132k for the most recent issue. But, returns from vendors also dropped, which means they had a higher sell-through percentage, which is good.

 

We see that the Direct copies remained pretty consistent: 105,640, which means that the newsstand only sold about 27k copies for that particular issue.

 

However...27k copies actually distributed (or, rather, reported as sold and not claimed for credit) is still nearly 26% of the Direct market copies! For every ONE HUNDRED copies sold of that issue, SEVENTY FOUR were Direct, and TWENTY SIX were Newsstand.

 

And, on average for the year, the newsstand books sold about 80% of what the Direct market sold.

 

This is why Chuck's numbers are so ridiculously wrong.

 

2% newsstand vs. 98% Direct? Chuck is claiming that for every ONE HUNDRED copies sold, only TWO were newsstand?

 

Total nonsense.

 

Those numbers, and many like it, prove him drastically, dramatically wrong.

 

And yet...that misinformation is repeated as fact, because research is time-consuming and understanding and relaying data in a meaningful way is difficult, so....here we go.

 

Newsstand editions have a shelf life, I don't think anyone actually knows how many survived from month to month.

 

Not entirely true. Thanks to those statements of ownership, we're not completely in the dark with regards to how many newsstand copies were actually distributed.

 

Where there are no SOOs, yes, we're out of luck entirely. But SOOs exist for the vast majority of DC, Marvel, and even other companies for the time period involved, so we have a pretty fair estimate about what was printed and what, of that, actually still exists.

 

It is vital, as you point out, to always include that "net press run" does NOT equal "extant copies", and I think this board has been exceptionally consistent in making sure that information is repeated on a fairly regular basis.

 

With direct editions you can go by Diamonds monthly sales list & not have to consider return numbers like newsstand editions.

 

Yes and no. Remember, Diamond only reports Direct sales in North America. We have no idea how many US English editions are printed for, and distributed to, the United Kingdom, for example.

 

And, of course, those numbers reported by Diamond are always very carefully caveated to be "estimated." That's important. Here's what Diamond says about it:

 

"Data for Diamond’s sales charts — which includes the monthly market shares and all top product charts — are compiled by Diamond Comic Distributors from sales made to thousands of comic book specialty shops located in North America and around the world. Additional sales made to online merchants and other specialty retailers may be included as well."

 

(Emphasis mine.)

 

http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/237?articleID=174561

 

And here's what the John Jackson Miller of Comichron has to say:

 

"The individual pages for each of these years can be found by clicking the links below. Remember that these pages only show what the comics shops of North America ordered, whereas the Statements of Ownership report sales through all channels. More years coming soon!"

 

http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales.html

 

So, JJM and Diamond conflict a bit, which should be cause to consider.

 

I doubt anyone knows the actual number of newsstand editions that survive each month, especially Chuck from Mile High considering he doesn't deal in them

 

Not entirely true, but certainly true of Chuck, clearly. We don't have to worry about Newsstand Marvels anymore, because they're no longer published.

 

I appreciate the research you've done with your X-Men example from 2000, but I still stand by my statement that only the publisher has an idea of the exact number of newsstand books to survive each month and I would guess that the records from 2000 would be far more accurate than from 1970 with the advancement of technology.

 

I'm pretty sure that in 2000 the upc code associated with each books pallet or package would have been scanned and entered into the database and when a return was made roughly a month later the returned covers upc would be scanned and entered into the database.

 

Back in the early days of comics before computers existed I would bet that the publishers didn't keep as detailed records as they did after computers & upc codes made the job quicker & easier with keeping up with returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the research you've done with your X-Men example from 2000, but I still stand by my statement that only the publisher has an idea of the exact number of newsstand books to survive each month and I would guess that the records from 2000 would be far more accurate than from 1970 with the advancement of technology.

 

Publishers were only required to give averages per USPS regulations, and specifics only for the issue "nearest to filing date."

 

So yes, it stands to reason that the only one who has actual figures for each particular issue would be the publisher.

 

The real answer is that no one knows, not even the publishers, whether it was 1970 or 2002 or today, the precise number of copies destroyed or still extant, and never will, because that information isn't possible to obtain except on a theoretical level.

 

Because of the filing requirements, the records for comics from 1970 would not have been much different from the records from 2000. After all, we have accurate records of US Mint activity going back to its founding in 1792. They're not perfectly complete, of course, but we have excellent records going back 230+ years. Again: because of the filing requirements, the record keeping at publishers who distributed comics via the USPS (that is, most of them) wouldn't have been radically different in 1970 than they were in 2000.

 

Advancements in technology didn't change the way people counted things; only the speed in which it was done. We know precisely how many 1885-CC Morgan dollars were minted, because the Mint in Carson City kept meticulous, daily records of those facts....and that was when there was no computer technology of any kind.

 

I'm pretty sure that in 2000 the upc code associated with each books pallet or package would have been scanned and entered into the database and when a return was made roughly a month later the returned covers upc would be scanned and entered into the database.

 

Back in the early days of comics before computers existed I would bet that the publishers didn't keep as detailed records as they did after computers & upc codes made the job quicker & easier with keeping up with returns.

 

You would be incorrect. They kept meticulous records, because that was how people were paid and companies stayed in business. Marvel, DC, and the others weren't fly-by-night companies with sloppy accounting (at least internally.)

 

They may not have preserved those records...but they certainly kept them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2000 and on is very difficult to find some newsstands and even harder to find high grade.

 

Any newsstand I find in high grade I ask a small premium because I never know if I will ever find another one.

 

 

Yup.

 

1985-1990 newsstands were produced in higher amounts than post 2000 newsstands but they are still pretty tough books to find in CGC 9.8 slabs.

 

Look up any key book from those time periods on eBay and you'll see about a dozen CGC 9.8's....and maybe ONE newsstand copy.

 

Those newsstand 9.8's typically sell at a decent premium over CGC 9.8 direct markets......but the premium is much higher, on newsstands from the early 200's and on.

 

GPA does note newsstand sales on SOME books....Spawn #9 has newsstand sales at about 500% the price of direct markets for example.

 

Meanwhile, a Suicide Squad #1 CGC 9.8 3/1987 newsstand sold on 2/21/2016 via Heritage Auction at $359 PLUS a 19.5% buyer's premium.

 

That sale is not notated as a newsstand edition in GPA, nor did the 19.5% buyer's premium figured into the cost of the bid.....IOW, the buyer paid about $470 for that CGC 9.8 SS #1 1987 newsstand...plus shipping/insurance, bringing the total paid for that book to around $500, or thereabouts.

 

That SS 1 newsstand cgc 9.8 that sold on Heritage on the 21st also had very nice centering, as well.

 

GPA only notes newsstand sales when CGC notes newsstand editions on the label. Spawn #9 has a note about "newsstand edition" because it was printed without a poster (and it's not a flaw if a newsstand edition is missing the poster).

 

Generally speaking, CGC does not indicate newsstand books... and GPA doesn't identify it if CGC doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the research you've done with your X-Men example from 2000, but I still stand by my statement that only the publisher has an idea of the exact number of newsstand books to survive each month and I would guess that the records from 2000 would be far more accurate than from 1970 with the advancement of technology.

 

Publishers were only required to give averages per USPS regulations, and specifics only for the issue "nearest to filing date."

 

So yes, it stands to reason that the only one who has actual figures for each particular issue would be the publisher.

 

The real answer is that no one knows, not even the publishers, whether it was 1970 or 2002 or today, the precise number of copies destroyed or still extant, and never will, because that information isn't possible to obtain except on a theoretical level.

 

Because of the filing requirements, the records for comics from 1970 would not have been much different from the records from 2000. After all, we have accurate records of US Mint activity going back to its founding in 1792. They're not perfectly complete, of course, but we have excellent records going back 230+ years. Again: because of the filing requirements, the record keeping at publishers who distributed comics via the USPS (that is, most of them) wouldn't have been radically different in 1970 than they were in 2000.

 

Advancements in technology didn't change the way people counted things; only the speed in which it was done. We know precisely how many 1885-CC Morgan dollars were minted, because the Mint in Carson City kept meticulous, daily records of those facts....and that was when there was no computer technology of any kind.

 

I'm pretty sure that in 2000 the upc code associated with each books pallet or package would have been scanned and entered into the database and when a return was made roughly a month later the returned covers upc would be scanned and entered into the database.

 

Back in the early days of comics before computers existed I would bet that the publishers didn't keep as detailed records as they did after computers & upc codes made the job quicker & easier with keeping up with returns.

 

You would be incorrect. They kept meticulous records, because that was how people were paid and companies stayed in business. Marvel, DC, and the others weren't fly-by-night companies with sloppy accounting (at least internally.)

 

They may not have preserved those records...but they certainly kept them.

 

I have to disagree with you in the fact that I don't feel that publishers like Marvel & DC kept meticulous records on the number of comics they published each month and on the returns.

 

My reasoning behind this is because when I was in college, many years ago, I worked part time for a Fortune 500 Company in both ops and warehouse. This company supplied its product to retailers all over North America and tried to keep track of what it produced, what it had in inventory and its returns through several different types of tracking methods including a monthly inventory of all its warehouses.

 

Even a Fortune 500 Company with all its tracking and inventory measures in place couldn't keep a 100% complete accurate record of everything that it produced, shipped and the returns with modern technology, so I highly doubt a printing company that has been on the verge of bankruptcy on several occasions could. There are just so many unkown factors that come into play throughout the production process, through the shipping and warehouse process and in the return process to the fudge factor that you have to allow for when people are involved that it just isn't possible to keep track of everything.

 

Comic collecting isn't like coin collecting in the fact that Marvel and DC aren't likely to be hoarding back issues of comics away in a safe like the U.S. Mint could be with coins. I can pretty much guarantee that Marvel and DC doesn't have the accountability for each indiviual comic produced that the U.S. Mint does with each coin or paper bill produced also.

 

If history and experience has taught me anything it's that Chuck's ego is only overshadowed by the amount of sheer luck that he has had in his career and comic publishers weren't good businessmen prior to Walt Disney buying Marvel.

Link to comment
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
0