MOST VALUABLE MODERN VARIANTS - THE RANKINGS 17 17

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

I would like to see a picture or a screen shot of that as well. 

But given Spawn's low print numbers at the time (~16,000) it would actually be rarer at the 1:50 ratio. 

-J.

Ratio variants are not printed according to how many are ordered.

[Shoomanfoo]

19 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Ratio variants are not printed according to how many are ordered.

...and obviously how many are ordered are not how many are printed.

So to start with 1:50 as a reference is the best idea we can have to wrap our head around an idea.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

17 minutes ago, Shoomanfoo said:

39 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Ratio variants are not printed according to how many are ordered.

...and obviously how many are ordered are not how many are printed.

So to start with 1:50 as a reference is the best idea we can have to wrap our head around an idea.

No. It's not. That's the whole point.

It's fool's gold, an ocean of red herrings. These ratios refer to one thing, and one thing only: how many copies of the regular version must a retailer order to get a copy of the variant.

That's it. Anything and EVERYTHING beyond that is nothing but (bad) speculation and misuse of those numbers. Trying to say "Well, Diamond reports sales of 79,344 copies, so 1:50 must mean they only printed 1587 copies." No. No, no, a thousand times, no, for reasons detailed ad nauseum on this board. I recognize the easy appeal....but it radically oversimplifies a much more complex system.

It means a retailer had to order 50 copies of the regular to get 1 copy of the variant. That's it. Everything beyond that is a misuse of those numbers. 

[Jaydogrules]

2 hours ago, Shoomanfoo said:

...and obviously how many are ordered are not how many are printed.

So to start with 1:50 as a reference is the best idea we can have to wrap our head around an idea.

 

It is obviously a perfectly rational and reasonable way to get an idea of what's out there.  

But if anything, doing it that way will skew the estimate HIGHER than what was actually produced and ultimately distributed.  

-J.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No. It's not. That's the whole point.

It's fool's gold, an ocean of red herrings. These ratios refer to one thing, and one thing only: how many copies of the regular version must a retailer order to get a copy of the variant.

That's it. Anything and EVERYTHING beyond that is nothing but (bad) speculation and misuse of those numbers. Trying to say "Well, Diamond reports sales of 79,344 copies, so 1:50 must mean they only printed 1587 copies." No. No, no, a thousand times, no, for reasons detailed ad nauseum on this board. I recognize the easy appeal....but it radically oversimplifies a much more complex system.

It means a retailer had to order 50 copies of the regular to get 1 copy of the variant. That's it. Everything beyond that is a misuse of those numbers. 

He didn't claim "foolproof idea" he wrote "best idea." If you have a *better* idea, let's hear it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

14 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

He didn't claim "foolproof idea" he wrote "best idea." If you have a *better* idea, let's hear it.

Come on. You've been around here long enough to know better.

This is a case where "best idea" is actually the "worst idea", because there's so much information that is not known, it leads to people making wild guesses that bear absolutely no resemblance to reality.

Simply put: there IS no way to come up with reasonable estimates, and trying to shoehorn ordering promotions that have virtually nothing to do with anything related to print runs is far, far worse than no guess at all.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Come on. You've been around here long enough to know better.

This is a case where "best idea" is actually the "worst idea", because there's so much information that is not known, it leads to people making wild guesses that bear absolutely no resemblance to reality.

Simply put: there IS no way to come up with reasonable estimates, and trying to shoehorn ordering promotions that have virtually nothing to do with anything related to print runs is far, far worse than no guess at all.

If I'm trying to figure out how many are out there, the ratio and the estimated sales is the best starting point I can think of to determining how many have been distributed and could potentially be available. Not perfect, sure, but I'm not going to let the lack of a perfect answer discourage me from trying to get the best idea from the available information. From that starting point, I'll keep my eyes and ears open to find if people acquired copies via alternate means (such as the variant sales that have bene documented on these boards, or giveaways that have been noted, etc.; some of Valiant's variants, for example, are easier to find than some lower-ratio variants, and I've learned that some were distributed to stores that ordered store exclusives). 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, Jaydogrules said:

It is obviously a perfectly rational and reasonable way to get an idea of what's out there.  

But if anything, doing it that way will skew the estimate HIGHER than what was actually produced and ultimately distributed.  

-J.

No. That is incorrect. You're continuing to advance misinformation. 

"What does 1:50 mean?"

It's an ordering ratio; it tells a retailer how much of the regular version of a book they must order to receive 1 copy of the incentive.

"Does that ratio mean anything else?"

No. Its only purpose is to inform a retailer how much of the regular version of a book they must order to receive 1 copy of the incentive.

"But can't you just apply the ratio to the print run reported by Diamond to come up with an estimate?"

No. Diamond doesn't report print runs. They only report estimated sales in North America for the month in question. They don't report standard American comics sold elsewhere in the world. and that number includes all of the variants sold as well, regardless of type. There's no separation of regular and variant in those numbers.

"Oh. But still, can't you apply the ratio to the number sold for the month in question?"

No, because that doesn't account for sales elsewhere or reorders, and the number sold is skewed by the variants that are included in those sales numbers.

"Well, sure, but can't you at least make a rough estimate using even those figures and applying the ratio...?"

No, because we don't know how many orders qualified. Even if there were 79,344 copies sold that first month, that doesn't mean there were exactly 1586 orders that qualified. There were almost certainly multiple orders that didn't qualify and so could not order a variant, but which are reported in the sales figure."

"Well, ok, but doesn't that mean we can establish a maximum number of copies...?"

No, because it's been demonstrated that the publishers dump incentive variants on the market months, even years after they were published...meaning they can and do print far in excess of what is necessary to fill qualifying orders.

"But...couldn't that just be a "case pack" or overage...?"

No. The numbers dumped have been far in excess of typical overages or "rounded to the nearest case pack."

"Well, that doesn't mean they do that with all of them, right...?"

Probably not, but we have no way of knowing that until and if excess is released to the market through Diamond. If such excess is released through other channels, there's no way to know. 

"Soooo....there are far too many factors that we don't know, and cannot figure out, that trying to apply a ratio number to any numbers we DO have is pretty pointless..?"

Yes. It's an estimate of an estimate of an estimate of an estimate. It's so skewed, it has no real meaning outside of placing orders. It's so useless, trying to apply them actually makes things worse, because it gives people an "estimate" that could have a dozen or more unknown factors which would materially affect said estimate, but which no one has any way of knowing.

Only the publishers and the printers know for sure...and they aren't telling.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

If I'm trying to figure out how many are out there, the ratio and the estimated sales is the best starting point I can think of to determining how many have been distributed and could potentially be available. Not perfect, sure, but I'm not going to let the lack of a perfect answer discourage me from trying to get the best idea from the available information. From that starting point, I'll keep my eyes and ears open to find if people acquired copies via alternate means (such as the variant sales that have bene documented on these boards, or giveaways that have been noted, etc.; some of Valiant's variants, for example, are easier to find than some lower-ratio variants, and I've learned that some were distributed to stores that ordered store exclusives). 

Trying to use an ordering promotion figure and attaching it to an estimated sales figure from only one region of the world for a single month worth of sales is the very definition of "so skewed as to be not just worthless, but worse than worthless."

[MGH]

Down goes another thread 

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 hours ago, MGH said:

Down goes another thread 

I know. It's just terrible.

 

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

14 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No. That is incorrect. You're continuing to advance misinformation. 

"What does 1:50 mean?"

It's an ordering ratio; it tells a retailer how much of the regular version of a book they must order to receive 1 copy of the incentive.

"Does that ratio mean anything else?"

No. Its only purpose is to inform a retailer how much of the regular version of a book they must order to receive 1 copy of the incentive.

"But can't you just apply the ratio to the print run reported by Diamond to come up with an estimate?"

No. Diamond doesn't report print runs. They only report estimated sales in North America for the month in question. They don't report standard American comics sold elsewhere in the world. and that number includes all of the variants sold as well, regardless of type. There's no separation of regular and variant in those numbers.

"Oh. But still, can't you apply the ratio to the number sold for the month in question?"

No, because that doesn't account for sales elsewhere or reorders, and the number sold is skewed by the variants that are included in those sales numbers.

"Well, sure, but can't you at least make a rough estimate using even those figures and applying the ratio...?"

No, because we don't know how many orders qualified. Even if there were 79,344 copies sold that first month, that doesn't mean there were exactly 1586 orders that qualified. There were almost certainly multiple orders that didn't qualify and so could not order a variant, but which are reported in the sales figure."

"Well, ok, but doesn't that mean we can establish a maximum number of copies...?"

No, because it's been demonstrated that the publishers dump incentive variants on the market months, even years after they were published...meaning they can and do print far in excess of what is necessary to fill qualifying orders.

"But...couldn't that just be a "case pack" or overage...?"

No. The numbers dumped have been far in excess of typical overages or "rounded to the nearest case pack."

"Well, that doesn't mean they do that with all of them, right...?"

Probably not, but we have no way of knowing that until and if excess is released to the market through Diamond. If such excess is released through other channels, there's no way to know. 

"Soooo....there are far too many factors that we don't know, and cannot figure out, that trying to apply a ratio number to any numbers we DO have is pretty pointless..?"

Yes. It's an estimate of an estimate of an estimate of an estimate. It's so skewed, it has no real meaning outside of placing orders. It's so useless, trying to apply them actually makes things worse, because it gives people an "estimate" that could have a dozen or more unknown factors which would materially affect said estimate, but which no one has any way of knowing.

Only the publishers and the printers know for sure...and they aren't telling.

I like the way you used a pattern of question and factual answer to deflect from the fact that your answer to the final question is your opinion, rather than a fact.

You can ignore the numbers if you want. I think it's always better to make a decision taking into account as many facts as are available, even if all of the facts aren't available

[Jaydogrules]

20 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No. That is incorrect. You're continuing to advance misinformation. 

"What does 1:50 mean?"

It's an ordering ratio; it tells a retailer how much of the regular version of a book they must order to receive 1 copy of the incentive.

"Does that ratio mean anything else?"

No. Its only purpose is to inform a retailer how much of the regular version of a book they must order to receive 1 copy of the incentive.

"But can't you just apply the ratio to the print run reported by Diamond to come up with an estimate?"

No. Diamond doesn't report print runs. They only report estimated sales in North America for the month in question. They don't report standard American comics sold elsewhere in the world. and that number includes all of the variants sold as well, regardless of type. There's no separation of regular and variant in those numbers.

"Oh. But still, can't you apply the ratio to the number sold for the month in question?"

No, because that doesn't account for sales elsewhere or reorders, and the number sold is skewed by the variants that are included in those sales numbers.

"Well, sure, but can't you at least make a rough estimate using even those figures and applying the ratio...?"

No, because we don't know how many orders qualified. Even if there were 79,344 copies sold that first month, that doesn't mean there were exactly 1586 orders that qualified. There were almost certainly multiple orders that didn't qualify and so could not order a variant, but which are reported in the sales figure."

"Well, ok, but doesn't that mean we can establish a maximum number of copies...?"

No, because it's been demonstrated that the publishers dump incentive variants on the market months, even years after they were published...meaning they can and do print far in excess of what is necessary to fill qualifying orders.

"But...couldn't that just be a "case pack" or overage...?"

No. The numbers dumped have been far in excess of typical overages or "rounded to the nearest case pack."

"Well, that doesn't mean they do that with all of them, right...?"

Probably not, but we have no way of knowing that until and if excess is released to the market through Diamond. If such excess is released through other channels, there's no way to know. 

"Soooo....there are far too many factors that we don't know, and cannot figure out, that trying to apply a ratio number to any numbers we DO have is pretty pointless..?"

Yes. It's an estimate of an estimate of an estimate of an estimate. It's so skewed, it has no real meaning outside of placing orders. It's so useless, trying to apply them actually makes things worse, because it gives people an "estimate" that could have a dozen or more unknown factors which would materially affect said estimate, but which no one has any way of knowing.

Only the publishers and the printers know for sure...and they aren't telling.

…..and this is completely false.

"Variant dumps", while they may feature numerous different variants to choose from, the amount of each book available are almost always very "limited" as specifically stated in the solicitations when Diamond has done those.

In other words, inventory from remaindered case packs.

Furthermore, "unreported international orders" account for 10% or less of what Diamond ships, which, if anything, can be used as a reasonable counter balance when estimating numbers, given the fact that, as you mentioned, not all orders will qualify for a variant, and that variants themselves are included in the Comichron sales reports.

-J.

Edited October 17, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[RockMyAmadeus]

59 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I like the way you used a pattern of question and factual answer to deflect from the fact that your answer to the final question is your opinion, rather than a fact.

Of course it's my opinion...an opinion for which I laid out my case in great detail. That was the entire point of the post.

No "deflection" made or necessary. Bad argumentation is bad.

59 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

You can ignore the numbers if you want. I think it's always better to make a decision taking into account as many facts as are available, even if all of the facts aren't available

And that is your opinion. I...and others...disagree. No one is "ignoring" the numbers. The issue is that the numbers being used do not apply to this situation.

I mean, I can quote Babe Ruth's home run statistics...those are numbers, too....but they have about as much to do with the print runs of retailer incentives as the Diamond sales reports for comics sold in North America in the first month of publication do, which is none.

We don't have any facts. There are no facts available which you may take into account. We know nothing whatsoever about how many retailer incentives publishers print, and trying to backdoor shoehorn numbers that are entirely unrelated to each other isn't "taking facts into account"...it's making things up in the absence of any real data.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

25 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

…..and this is completely false.

"Variant dumps", while they may feature numerous different variants to choose from, the amount of each book available are almost always very "limited" as specifically stated in the solicitations when Diamond has done those.

In other words, inventory from remaindered case packs.

Furthermore, "unreported international orders" account for 10% or less of what Diamond ships, which, if anything, can be used as a reasonable counter balance when estimating numbers, given the fact that, as you mentioned, not all orders will qualify for a variant, and not that variants themselves are included in the Comichron sales reports.

-J.

No. This has all been debunked over and over again. 

Edited October 16, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus

[Jaydogrules]

24 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No. This has all been debunked over and over again. 

"Debunked" only in your imagination lol.

-J.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

4 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Of course it's my opinion...an opinion for which I laid out my case in great detail. That was the entire point of the post.

No "deflection" made or necessary. Bad argumentation is bad.

And that is your opinion. I...and others...disagree. No one is "ignoring" the numbers. The issue is that the numbers being used do not apply to this situation.

I mean, I can quote Babe Ruth's home run statistics...those are numbers, too....but they have about as much to do with the print runs of retailer incentives as the Diamond sales reports for comics sold in North America in the first month of publication do, which is none.

We don't have any facts. There are no facts available which you may take into account. We know nothing whatsoever about how many retailer incentives publishers print, and trying to backdoor shoehorn numbers that are entirely unrelated to each other isn't "taking facts into account"...it's making things up in the absence of any real data.

Show me where I said I was determining print numbers. I said the numbers are useful in helping to determine how many copies might have been distributed and therefore potentially be available for purchase. Estimated sales are going to be of more help than Babe Ruth's statistics, so you're just plain wrong there.

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Show me where I said I was determining print numbers.

That's the entire discussion: how to determine print runs for incentive variants.

4 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Estimated sales are going to be of more help than Babe Ruth's statistics, so you're just plain wrong there.

No. They're not. You cannot get there from here. They are numbers that have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. "1:X" is a ratio used to order retailer incentives, nothing more.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's the entire discussion: how to determine print runs for incentive variants.

No. They're not. You cannot get there from here. They are numbers that have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. "1:X" is a ratio used to order retailer incentives, nothing more.

Some of us can see the value in partial information. Some of us, it seems, cannot.

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

7 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's the entire discussion: how to determine print runs for incentive variants.

No. They're not. You cannot get there from here. They are numbers that have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. "1:X" is a ratio used to order retailer incentives, nothing more.

Some of us can see the value in partial information. Some of us, it seems, cannot.

Again: it's not "partial information." It's no information. The sales numbers that Diamond reports have absolutely nothing to do with the ordering ratios for retailer incentives. You end up with not just bad"estimates", but worse: fiction, entirely  made up numbers that fool the people who don't know better.