Is there more market manipulation today than at any other time?

[Buzzetta]

I remember MTV reporting on Image and Valiant teaming up to do Deathmate. I remember thinking that was pretty cool at the time.

[StuporMan]

 

It has been said that Valiant would have been nothing without Wizard. While we can't know, I tend to agree with that statement.

 

 

Valiant was onto something or else they wouldn't be re-releasing all these titles. Movies for two of the titles are coming out next year(?) I don't think Wizard has anything to do with that

 

Who said they did? We're talking about 1991-1993, not 2016.

 

On the other hand I don't know if anyone has mentioned or remembers some horrible stuff that Wizard did, like selling CGC books AND printing a CGC price guide in their mag Some might say that their hype was self-supporting/conflict of interest and that's hard to argue even if they were "right"

 

I think early Valiant had the right combination for any collector with or without Wizard. Great art, good storytelling, first appearances in running titles and low print runs. I was hooked after I read Archer & Armstrong #0, well before the Valiant hype was in full effect from Unity (1 issue or so later ) . I started buying up everything I could find. "Coupons clipped? Who cares, I want to READ these, no one will collect these," I said as I clipped the coupons... Maybe Wizard was just good at bringing to the masses what was only know by a few already?

 

Valiant had been around for over a year before A&A #0 was published.

 

Exactly.

 

Valiant wasn't "OMGWTFBBQBABYEATING!!!!" until Wizard. Valiant's first Wizard cover was #7....X-O. And yes, that was also the first issue that Wizard had variant covers...a comics news magazine/price guide, with variants.

 

That should have been the first clue that all was not right in comiclandia.

 

The rationale was that Valiant wasn't published on the newsstand, so newsstand readers wouldn't know who X-O was...but that rationale disappeared rather quickly.

 

After that...it was all cray-cray in coocoo town with Valiant and Wizard.

 

 

I think Comic Book Monthly beat Wizard to it with Magnus #1 on their cover. I think they were on the crazy end of the price guide spectrum with Overstreet being conservative and Wizard in the middle (until CBM fizzled out). I think Wizard even took the idea of not pricing pre-(Marvel) Silver Age in their guide from CBM. BTW that's an awesome rendering of X-O on front of Wizard #7.

[StuporMan]

I remember MTV reporting on Image and Valiant teaming up to do Deathmate. I remember thinking that was pretty cool at the time.

 

MTV reporting, I remember that...

[jsilverjanet]

memory banks? What are you, mr roboto?

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

I'd really have to dig back in my memory banks to figure out when I stopped collecting and how hot Venom was at the time, but it was during the rise of McFarlane's popularity at Marvel. I remember buying Spider-man 1 up to somewhere into the range of about issue #10.

 

Venom wasn't McFarlane's character...he was Michelinie's character. Michelinie was allowed to keep Venom confined to ASM once a year for nearly 4 years after his first appearance, with a tiny handful of cameo exceptions (Quasar #6, She-Hulk #29, Avengers Annual #19, Avengers: Deathtrap, the Vault.)

 

It should be telling that, during McFarlane's tenure on Spiderman, #1-14 and 16, Venom made no appearance.

 

Who DID appear? Hobgoblin, Ghost Rider, Wolverine, Morbius...all ultra-hot at the time.

 

The only character who didn't appear who was ultra hot was Punisher, and I kinda wish he had.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

It has been said that Valiant would have been nothing without Wizard. While we can't know, I tend to agree with that statement.

 

 

Valiant was onto something or else they wouldn't be re-releasing all these titles. Movies for two of the titles are coming out next year(?) I don't think Wizard has anything to do with that

 

Who said they did? We're talking about 1991-1993, not 2016.

 

On the other hand I don't know if anyone has mentioned or remembers some horrible stuff that Wizard did, like selling CGC books AND printing a CGC price guide in their mag Some might say that their hype was self-supporting/conflict of interest and that's hard to argue even if they were "right"

 

I think early Valiant had the right combination for any collector with or without Wizard. Great art, good storytelling, first appearances in running titles and low print runs. I was hooked after I read Archer & Armstrong #0, well before the Valiant hype was in full effect from Unity (1 issue or so later ) . I started buying up everything I could find. "Coupons clipped? Who cares, I want to READ these, no one will collect these," I said as I clipped the coupons... Maybe Wizard was just good at bringing to the masses what was only know by a few already?

 

Valiant had been around for over a year before A&A #0 was published.

 

Exactly.

 

Valiant wasn't "OMGWTFBBQBABYEATING!!!!" until Wizard. Valiant's first Wizard cover was #7....X-O. And yes, that was also the first issue that Wizard had variant covers...a comics news magazine/price guide, with variants.

 

That should have been the first clue that all was not right in comiclandia.

 

The rationale was that Valiant wasn't published on the newsstand, so newsstand readers wouldn't know who X-O was...but that rationale disappeared rather quickly.

 

After that...it was all cray-cray in coocoo town with Valiant and Wizard.

 

 

I think Comic Book Monthly beat Wizard to it with Magnus #1 on their cover. I think they were on the crazy end of the price guide spectrum with Overstreet being conservative and Wizard in the middle (until CBM fizzled out). I think Wizard even took the idea of not pricing pre-(Marvel) Silver Age in their guide from CBM. BTW that's an awesome rendering of X-O on front of Wizard #7.

 

The Overstreet Update, first published in 1982, started the trend of not including pre-SA books.

 

I think you mean "Comics Values Monthly"...?

 

If so, CVM was more of a fantasy-land wishlist pricing for dealers. It wasn't geared towards kids.

[StuporMan]

 

I think Comic Book Monthly beat Wizard to it with Magnus #1 on their cover. I think they were on the crazy end of the price guide spectrum with Overstreet being conservative and Wizard in the middle (until CBM fizzled out). I think Wizard even took the idea of not pricing pre-(Marvel) Silver Age in their guide from CBM. BTW that's an awesome rendering of X-O on front of Wizard #7.

 

The Overstreet Update, first published in 1982, started the trend of not including pre-SA books.

 

I think you mean "Comics Values Monthly"...?

 

If so, CVM was more of a fantasy-land wishlist pricing for dealers. It wasn't geared towards kids.

 

Thanks for correcting that, I did mean CVM. Also, you're right about the Overstreet Update going back only to SA. I always remember the Overstreet was used when dealers would buy and CVM when they would sell. Now it's Overstreet when they buy and eBay pricing when they sell

 

I think Wizard also put out a GA magazine (top 100?) to try to establish themselves, but I don't remember it being very popular. Youngblood #1 is where the investment money was at!!!111 I read CVM until Wizard came out, then when Overstreet came out with their monthly mag, I felt like that was geared more towards back issue bin diggers like us.

[mar-vell]

There is more money in the hobby than ever before, so it follows you will get more manipulation. Much of it is our own fault. Back when the difference between a F/VF and a NM was perhaps 50%, it barely made sense to spend a lot of effort raising a grade. Now that a VF book that sells for $75 can sometimes become a $500 book, it pays to do so. Twenty years ago, we had to contend with color touch. Now there is pressing, micro-trimming and spine manipulation.

 

I think you hit the nail in the head. There's more money and that leads to much of this behaviour. I wasn't talking necessarily about book manipulation but more hot books, rare books, sold out books, or hot artists that people need to buy based on very little facts

 

No.

 

As I said, "more money" doesn't mean "more manipulation." Before the internet, market supply was very tightly controlled, and greatly manipulated, by a small handful of people, mostly dealers, but also publications like :"WIzard", "Comics Values Monthly", and, yes, Overstreet.

 

The internet changed all of that. It's quite difficult to manipulate the perceptions of the market in the way it was possible before, with both access to the market and information about the market terrifically expanded.

 

Did you actually mean to ask if there are more people TRYING to manipulate the market...? Because that's certainly true. The good thing is, those voices don't have anywhere near the impact that they might have in the past.

 

I agree with this. There are still pitfalls but there is more opportunity than ever to get a fair shake collecting today.

[ComicConnoisseur]

Venom was extremely popular, which is why they followed up with Carnage.

 

I believe I was out of comics shortly after Venom arrived and before Carnage arrived but ASM #299 on (along with anything McFarlane did) was big news.

Venom was so cool.His appearances by Todd McFarlane got me back into comics.

I remember I had lost interest in comics than one day at a mom and pops I saw this.

 

 

I couldn`t put it down,and ended up buying it.

I was hooked on Spider-Man and comics again.

 

[FineCollector]

The Overstreet monthly was anti-hype... prices never changed!

[Prince Namor]

Venom was extremely popular, which is why they followed up with Carnage.

 

I believe I was out of comics shortly after Venom arrived and before Carnage arrived but ASM #299 on (along with anything McFarlane did) was big news.

 

No.

 

You remember, this was when you weren't in comics, right...?

 

Venom did a slow burn up until ASM #361. Slowwww burn.

 

He's not even mentioned in most market reports in 1991.

 

Then, Carnage showed up in ASM #361, and lit the fire...then #374-375 got things boiling...then things went supernova with Lethal Protector in 1993.

 

(Sorry for the odd words, many folks don't seem able to understand that these aren't, and cannot be, absolutely precise concepts.)

 

For perspective:

 

Venom appeared in 9 unique comics in 1991, including a Handbook appearance, and a couple of brief cameos.

 

http://comicbookdb.com/character_chron.php?ID=1224

 

Punisher appeared in 67.

 

http://comicbookdb.com/character_chron.php?ID=161#year_1991

 

Punisher and Wolverine were on fire into the late 1980's, I remember that.

 

I'd really have to dig back in my memory banks to figure out when I stopped collecting and how hot Venom was at the time, but it was during the rise of McFarlane's popularity at Marvel. I remember buying Spider-man 1 up to somewhere into the range of about issue #10.

 

Now I'm not meaning to say that Venom was immediately as hot then as he was later, but I believe that McFarlane had a cache where very quickly any thing he touched (or had touched in retrospect) became worth collecting. So yeah, Venom was cool but probably didn't get peak until I was more or less out of comics.

 

I got married in late 1991 so I was out of comics by then and focusing on other things.

 

There was actually some controversy amongst longtime Spidey fans when McFarlane first came on board the main book in November of 1987.

Looking at the Comichron numbers, ASM's Monthly paid circulation for the (unknown) month nearest pub;location of those numbers in 1987 was: 284,692 after logging in at 276,064 the year before. (And 326,000+ for 1985 which included ASM #263-275)

McFarlane's first year ASM's Monthly paid circulation for the (unknown) month nearest publication of those numbers was 271,100, which is DOWN from the previous few years, and then 1989 was 266,100 was a little MORE down....

 

So new fans may have jumped on, but some old timers evened it out by jumping off.... maybe?

[Broke as a Joke]

Yeah, they killed off Hobgoblin in super lame fashion, married off Parker and Al Milgrom was even doing covers. I would say people were getting a little bit peeved.

 

 

[StuporMan]

Venom was extremely popular, which is why they followed up with Carnage.

 

I believe I was out of comics shortly after Venom arrived and before Carnage arrived but ASM #299 on (along with anything McFarlane did) was big news.

Venom was so cool.His appearances by Todd McFarlane got me back into comics.

I remember I had lost interest in comics than one day at a mom and pops I saw this.

 

 

I couldn`t put it down,and ended up buying it.

I was hooked on Spider-Man and comics again.

 

Same iss. got me hooked on venom. I don't see Todd as the creator of the character, but definitely his look.

[ComicConnoisseur]

Venom was extremely popular, which is why they followed up with Carnage.

 

I believe I was out of comics shortly after Venom arrived and before Carnage arrived but ASM #299 on (along with anything McFarlane did) was big news.

 

No.

 

You remember, this was when you weren't in comics, right...?

 

Venom did a slow burn up until ASM #361. Slowwww burn.

 

He's not even mentioned in most market reports in 1991.

 

Then, Carnage showed up in ASM #361, and lit the fire...then #374-375 got things boiling...then things went supernova with Lethal Protector in 1993.

 

(Sorry for the odd words, many folks don't seem able to understand that these aren't, and cannot be, absolutely precise concepts.)

 

For perspective:

 

Venom appeared in 9 unique comics in 1991, including a Handbook appearance, and a couple of brief cameos.

 

http://comicbookdb.com/character_chron.php?ID=1224

 

Punisher appeared in 67.

 

http://comicbookdb.com/character_chron.php?ID=161#year_1991

 

Punisher and Wolverine were on fire into the late 1980's, I remember that.

 

I'd really have to dig back in my memory banks to figure out when I stopped collecting and how hot Venom was at the time, but it was during the rise of McFarlane's popularity at Marvel. I remember buying Spider-man 1 up to somewhere into the range of about issue #10.

 

Now I'm not meaning to say that Venom was immediately as hot then as he was later, but I believe that McFarlane had a cache where very quickly any thing he touched (or had touched in retrospect) became worth collecting. So yeah, Venom was cool but probably didn't get peak until I was more or less out of comics.

 

I got married in late 1991 so I was out of comics by then and focusing on other things.

 

There was actually some controversy amongst longtime Spidey fans when McFarlane first came on board the main book in November of 1987.

Looking at the Comichron numbers, ASM's Monthly paid circulation for the (unknown) month nearest pub;location of those numbers in 1987 was: 284,692 after logging in at 276,064 the year before. (And 326,000+ for 1985 which included ASM #263-275)

McFarlane's first year ASM's Monthly paid circulation for the (unknown) month nearest publication of those numbers was 271,100, which is DOWN from the previous few years, and then 1989 was 266,100 was a little MORE down....

 

So new fans may have jumped on, but some old timers evened it out by jumping off.... maybe?

Maybe cheaper cover prices?

 

 

McFarlane era!

[StuporMan]

Venom was extremely popular, which is why they followed up with Carnage.

 

I believe I was out of comics shortly after Venom arrived and before Carnage arrived but ASM #299 on (along with anything McFarlane did) was big news.

 

No.

 

You remember, this was when you weren't in comics, right...?

 

Venom did a slow burn up until ASM #361. Slowwww burn.

 

He's not even mentioned in most market reports in 1991.

 

Then, Carnage showed up in ASM #361, and lit the fire...then #374-375 got things boiling...then things went supernova with Lethal Protector in 1993.

 

(Sorry for the odd words, many folks don't seem able to understand that these aren't, and cannot be, absolutely precise concepts.)

 

For perspective:

 

Venom appeared in 9 unique comics in 1991, including a Handbook appearance, and a couple of brief cameos.

 

http://comicbookdb.com/character_chron.php?ID=1224

 

Punisher appeared in 67.

 

http://comicbookdb.com/character_chron.php?ID=161#year_1991

 

Punisher and Wolverine were on fire into the late 1980's, I remember that.

 

I'd really have to dig back in my memory banks to figure out when I stopped collecting and how hot Venom was at the time, but it was during the rise of McFarlane's popularity at Marvel. I remember buying Spider-man 1 up to somewhere into the range of about issue #10.

 

Now I'm not meaning to say that Venom was immediately as hot then as he was later, but I believe that McFarlane had a cache where very quickly any thing he touched (or had touched in retrospect) became worth collecting. So yeah, Venom was cool but probably didn't get peak until I was more or less out of comics.

 

I got married in late 1991 so I was out of comics by then and focusing on other things.

 

There was actually some controversy amongst longtime Spidey fans when McFarlane first came on board the main book in November of 1987.

Looking at the Comichron numbers, ASM's Monthly paid circulation for the (unknown) month nearest pub;location of those numbers in 1987 was: 284,692 after logging in at 276,064 the year before. (And 326,000+ for 1985 which included ASM #263-275)

McFarlane's first year ASM's Monthly paid circulation for the (unknown) month nearest publication of those numbers was 271,100, which is DOWN from the previous few years, and then 1989 was 266,100 was a little MORE down....

 

So new fans may have jumped on, but some old timers evened it out by jumping off.... maybe?

Maybe cheaper cover prices?

 

 

McFarlane era!

 

IMHO those are all underappreciated, especially 301 - but I haven't seen a 9.8 of 301 for sale auction in a while...

[chrisco37]

Venom was extremely popular, which is why they followed up with Carnage.

 

I believe I was out of comics shortly after Venom arrived and before Carnage arrived but ASM #299 on (along with anything McFarlane did) was big news.

 

No.

 

You remember, this was when you weren't in comics, right...?

 

Venom did a slow burn up until ASM #361. Slowwww burn.

 

He's not even mentioned in most market reports in 1991.

 

Then, Carnage showed up in ASM #361, and lit the fire...then #374-375 got things boiling...then things went supernova with Lethal Protector in 1993.

 

(Sorry for the odd words, many folks don't seem able to understand that these aren't, and cannot be, absolutely precise concepts.)

 

For perspective:

 

Venom appeared in 9 unique comics in 1991, including a Handbook appearance, and a couple of brief cameos.

 

http://comicbookdb.com/character_chron.php?ID=1224

 

Punisher appeared in 67.

 

http://comicbookdb.com/character_chron.php?ID=161#year_1991

 

Punisher and Wolverine were on fire into the late 1980's, I remember that.

 

I'd really have to dig back in my memory banks to figure out when I stopped collecting and how hot Venom was at the time, but it was during the rise of McFarlane's popularity at Marvel. I remember buying Spider-man 1 up to somewhere into the range of about issue #10.

 

Now I'm not meaning to say that Venom was immediately as hot then as he was later, but I believe that McFarlane had a cache where very quickly any thing he touched (or had touched in retrospect) became worth collecting. So yeah, Venom was cool but probably didn't get peak until I was more or less out of comics.

 

I got married in late 1991 so I was out of comics by then and focusing on other things.

 

I think Hobgoblin was a bigger deal in 91 before Venom got popular. Also at that time, Punisher, Wolverine and Ghost Rider were appearing in EVERYTHING.

 

Yeah, at the time, Hobby was probably the biggest/baddest Spidey villain.

 

People loved Venom too, but "we" loved McFarlane more. I remember 315-317 were great and Venom was a cool new villain. When he next appeared (early 330's), Larsen was drawing him and he amped up the tongue/slobber and he wasn't as cool.

[Broke as a Joke]

Whose Venom was worse Larsen or Bagley?

 

Larsen did the over exaggerated style with Venom because he hated the character, yet the fangs and long tongue actually caught on and was accepted by a lot of fans. I never liked the Bagley Venom but in contrast I did enjoy his Carnage. He made Venom look like he had a horse head.

 

Would have loved to see McFarlane do a Venom/Carnage storyline.

[StuporMan]

Venom was extremely popular, which is why they followed up with Carnage.

 

I believe I was out of comics shortly after Venom arrived and before Carnage arrived but ASM #299 on (along with anything McFarlane did) was big news.

 

No.

 

You remember, this was when you weren't in comics, right...?

 

Venom did a slow burn up until ASM #361. Slowwww burn.

 

He's not even mentioned in most market reports in 1991.

 

Then, Carnage showed up in ASM #361, and lit the fire...then #374-375 got things boiling...then things went supernova with Lethal Protector in 1993.

 

(Sorry for the odd words, many folks don't seem able to understand that these aren't, and cannot be, absolutely precise concepts.)

 

For perspective:

 

Venom appeared in 9 unique comics in 1991, including a Handbook appearance, and a couple of brief cameos.

 

http://comicbookdb.com/character_chron.php?ID=1224

 

Punisher appeared in 67.

 

http://comicbookdb.com/character_chron.php?ID=161#year_1991

 

Punisher and Wolverine were on fire into the late 1980's, I remember that.

 

I'd really have to dig back in my memory banks to figure out when I stopped collecting and how hot Venom was at the time, but it was during the rise of McFarlane's popularity at Marvel. I remember buying Spider-man 1 up to somewhere into the range of about issue #10.

 

Now I'm not meaning to say that Venom was immediately as hot then as he was later, but I believe that McFarlane had a cache where very quickly any thing he touched (or had touched in retrospect) became worth collecting. So yeah, Venom was cool but probably didn't get peak until I was more or less out of comics.

 

I got married in late 1991 so I was out of comics by then and focusing on other things.

 

I think Hobgoblin was a bigger deal in 91 before Venom got popular. Also at that time, Punisher, Wolverine and Ghost Rider were appearing in EVERYTHING.

 

Yeah, at the time, Hobby was probably the biggest/baddest Spidey villain.

 

People loved Venom too, but "we" loved McFarlane more. I remember 315-317 were great and Venom was a cool new villain. When he next appeared (early 330's), Larsen was drawing him and he amped up the tongue/slobber and he wasn't as cool.

 

McFarlane was such a bad- at the time that he was swiping his own cover...a year later. To stay OT, there were how many versions of Spiderman #1?!?

 

[StuporMan]

Whose Venom was worse Larsen or Bagley?

 

Larsen did the over exaggerated style with Venom because he hated the character, yet the fangs and long tongue actually caught on and was accepted by a lot of fans. I never liked the Bagley Venom but in contrast I did enjoy his Carnage. He made Venom look like he had a horse head.

 

Would have loved to see McFarlane do a Venom/Carnage storyline.

 

I tried to find a Venom drawn by Rob Liefeld, but I couldn't so here's this:

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Venom was extremely popular, which is why they followed up with Carnage.

 

I believe I was out of comics shortly after Venom arrived and before Carnage arrived but ASM #299 on (along with anything McFarlane did) was big news.

 

No.

 

You remember, this was when you weren't in comics, right...?

 

Venom did a slow burn up until ASM #361. Slowwww burn.

 

He's not even mentioned in most market reports in 1991.

 

Then, Carnage showed up in ASM #361, and lit the fire...then #374-375 got things boiling...then things went supernova with Lethal Protector in 1993.

 

(Sorry for the odd words, many folks don't seem able to understand that these aren't, and cannot be, absolutely precise concepts.)

 

For perspective:

 

Venom appeared in 9 unique comics in 1991, including a Handbook appearance, and a couple of brief cameos.

 

http://comicbookdb.com/character_chron.php?ID=1224

 

Punisher appeared in 67.

 

http://comicbookdb.com/character_chron.php?ID=161#year_1991

 

Punisher and Wolverine were on fire into the late 1980's, I remember that.

 

I'd really have to dig back in my memory banks to figure out when I stopped collecting and how hot Venom was at the time, but it was during the rise of McFarlane's popularity at Marvel. I remember buying Spider-man 1 up to somewhere into the range of about issue #10.

 

Now I'm not meaning to say that Venom was immediately as hot then as he was later, but I believe that McFarlane had a cache where very quickly any thing he touched (or had touched in retrospect) became worth collecting. So yeah, Venom was cool but probably didn't get peak until I was more or less out of comics.

 

I got married in late 1991 so I was out of comics by then and focusing on other things.

 

I think Hobgoblin was a bigger deal in 91 before Venom got popular. Also at that time, Punisher, Wolverine and Ghost Rider were appearing in EVERYTHING.

 

Yeah, at the time, Hobby was probably the biggest/baddest Spidey villain.

 

People loved Venom too, but "we" loved McFarlane more. I remember 315-317 were great and Venom was a cool new villain. When he next appeared (early 330's), Larsen was drawing him and he amped up the tongue/slobber and he wasn't as cool.

 

No, Larsen hated Venom, and almost killed him.

 

That ridiculous nonsense of a cover to #347 should be ample proof of that:

 

 

It took Bagley to rescue him.