• 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.

Books you just cant find in the Wild
22 22

4,477 posts in this topic

There are not many currently who will come out and admit it. I know several over time from interactions, but clearly currently they newsstands are 
being pushed by speculators and Mile High Chuck.  That's where that ratio number comes from which is misleading until later into the 90s
and on in my opinion.

That isn't to say a NM+ newsstand wont sell for a premium because it will, but it will sell for more the closer it is to 2000 and much more
as its passes 2000. 

Edited by fastballspecial
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fastballspecial said:

There are not many currently who will come out and admit it. I know several over time from interactions, but clearly currently they are 
being pushed by speculators and Mile High Chuck. 

That isn't to say a NM+ newsstand wont sell for a premium because it will, but it will sell for more the closer it is to 2000 and much more
as its passes 2000. 

That matches my buying pattern at the moment. Still, these are interesting to me as long as I perceive newsstands to be bargains. Once the price goes high enough that they aren’t bargains any longer, I become a seller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lazyboy said:
10 hours ago, paqart said:

A funny thing about all of this is that I have always felt that direct distribution effectively ruined American comics.

...

Because of the changes wrought by direct distribution, actual sales overall have gone down.

The indifference, if not outright contempt, from newsstand distributors and retailers nearly destroyed American comics. Multiple large publishers exited the market, not because of the rise of direct distribution, but because of plummeting sales in the 70s under the newsstand system. That's why Marvel and DC embraced direct distribution. Even DC almost gave up publishing due to how bad things had become.

Now, that doesn't mean that everything the direct market enabled is good, but without it, we might not be here right now.

There's no way to know for sure, but I imagine comics publishing as it existed from the 30s to the 70s would have ceased, or become very niche, a la the "Big Little Books." Maybe a 3-pack situation, at best. Jim Shooter is on record saying that Star Wars saved Marvel, and allowed them to keep publishing. But DC didn't have a Star Wars, and famously nearly imploded in 1978. Western didn't have a Star Wars, and they managed to limp along with their 3-pack program for a few more years, before finally closing down in 1984. Charlton sputtered on empty until closing down in 1986. Harvey ceased publication in 1982 for four years, then it, too, sputtered along until the end in 1994.

And yet, with the advent of the Direct market, Marvel and DC enjoyed a renaissance that led, step by step, to the cinematic universes which dominate pop culture. Direct market publishers sprang up and, for a time, were also successful. The Direct market allowed creators to own their creations, and that led to an explosion of creative work, both creator and publisher owned, that is now hailed as "the best ever published."

And, while it can be argued that the Direct market is now in its waning days, it allowed the comic industry to flourish for at least another 40 years. It's not possible to overstate the impact the Direct market had on the comics industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, paqart said:

That is something we’d have to see. It would be interesting to know how it worked with the Star Wars variants. The number that come out of hiding can’t go above the number that exist, and if we’re looking at less than 1:100 now, when over a hundred copies are put out for sale, likely the newsstand copies would be out there right now also, for the same reason the directs are out there. More would be looked for and more found as a consequence, but quite possibly in exactly the same proportions. If the direct version was worth putting out before, it would still be worth putting out, so as the newsstand copies are found, so will directs. More plausibly, people like you and I would be more willing to sell the copies we have but we are finding our copies in tiny quantities, and that presents a totally different scenario.

If the newsstand current rarity is 1% of the market and collectors like myself and others are removing these from the market, it is possible that before long, they make up substantially less than 1% of the market. Then when prices go up significantly, collectors like you and me would disgorge our copies, bringing levels back to around 1%. New copies may be found in the meantime, but of the group that exists today, there will be some attrition before the time when prices go up. Then they have to enter the market and be in decent condition to be interesting. At the same time, they were rare to begin with, thus limiting their potential to affect the number on the market.

with those two scenarios as options, where in version 1, new entries to the market after price increases cause the proportion of newsstand copies to go up as high as 5%, and version 2 is that copies disappear from the market until prices go up and they are returned to a 1% level, I think option two is slightly more convincing. That is because it matches what I am seeing right now. For instance, I have three copies of ASM v2#36 and four copies of ASM v2#30. A casual newsstand customer isn’t likely to buy so many copies of one comic. Therefore, it is possible that returning my copies to the market, and the same for other collectors, has a stronger impact than previously unknown copies. At that point the question becomes, at what stage of the newsstand hoarding process is the market in right now? For instance, at NYCC, I was told of a dealer there (who I didn’t get to meet) who was assembling a collection of ASM 500-600 in newsstand editions, just as I am (though I am going through to numbers above 700). According to the dealer I was talking to, the other dealer is not selling the newsstand copies he gets. How many other dealers are doing the same?

I'll venture to say that it's a blend of Options 1 and 2, because (apart from books like Star Wars 35-cent variants) there are thousands of copies of newsstands for each comics which have not had decades of collectors searching for them.  It will take decades for Option 2, as you describe it, to be the "norm" for newsstands.

If we are able to look back in several years at how the percent of newsstands have changed "in the marketplace" versus their direct edition counterparts, my guess it that we will often see something like:


newsstandprediction.thumb.png.85a06c96696a6e180eabcaea6cb3c438.png

Option 1 as you describe it happens right after a price spike, and Option 2 takes over at some point, but you'll notice that I predict the post-spike percentage of newsstands will be higher than the pre-spike percentage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

Option 2 takes over at some point, but you'll notice that I predict the post-spike percentage of newsstands will be higher than the pre-spike percentage

That makes sense to me, I just wonder what the figure will be when volatility has dissipated. The issue as I see it is that we have the following unknowns, 1) How many people (dealers and collectors) have made a conscious decision to remove newsstands from the market by stockpiling them? 2) When did newsstand editions start getting stockpiled? 3) What percentage of available comics in the marketplace reflect what is left after stockpiling? 4) What is the maximum available pool of newsstand editions (print run)?

The print run can only be estimated from postal records and other figures but without certain knowledge how the print run was divided between newsstand and direct editions, the only safe bet is to assume 99.9% newsstand, .1% direct, though that would be ridiculous. The other questions are also difficult to estimate, though easier because we can at least see what is available in the market. Also, we can see who is selling what. For instance, last night I stayed up until four in the morning to count newsstand copies for every issue of ASM in 2004, 2005, and 2006. One thing that stuck out was that if it weren't for Mile High Comics, many of the issues checked would have had zero newsstand representation. As it was, the lowest rarity I found was 6 directs for every newsstand copy of ASM 508 (N=49). The highest rarity was for ASM 529, with 116 directs and one newsstand copy. In a couple of cases, after doing my count and recording the result, I bought the newsstand copies available, so a check today would reveal different numbers. I don't feel like working out the average at the moment, but glancing over the list, it looks like about 20:1 in favor of directs for 2004, 40:1 for 2005-2006. That said, without the Mile High comics, which in some cases numbered as many as 4 for a single issue, the numbers would be quite different. Another thing about the MH comics is that the prices they asked were about a third of the posted prices on their website, and they were only offering lower grade comics. Whether this is all they have for those issues or a strategic choice, I can't tell.

EDIT:, I've decided that my "random selection" is going to be every issue of ASM between 501-700. This is because many have only fifty offers or so, thus requiring a larger sample. It increases the target population size but as you know, the increase isn't proportionate.

Edited by paqart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stopped by a LCS in Long Island and picked up a Spidey #16 (9.6-9.8) newsie and a Spidey Annual 2001 (9.4-9.6) newsie.

Although,  I did have to go through a long box just to find these two copies.

I'll try to post some pics later tonight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2019 at 12:43 AM, paqart said:

What makes you think this is correct? To take an example of a comic that shouldn't be rare, Superior Spider-Man #1 from January, 2013. The Diamond distribution was 188,182 copies. Rounded up to 200,000 copies for miscellaneous other copies printed, and you have a pretty common issue that should have a lot of copies available. However, at least one industry insider estimated the proportion of newsstand to direct copies in that year was only 1%, or 2,000 copies. A check of eBay shows 117 copies offered, one of which is a newsstand copy (that I bought). That is line with the 1% estimate. Now look at a comic that didn't have the highest print run of the month, Captain America 3. Diamond run of that issue is 59,836. Rounded up app 10% is 65,000 copies printed. One percent of that is only 650 copies, less than half the 1,500 figure you are using. There are plenty of newsstand comics that can't be found at more than 1 per hundred that had print runs less than 150,000. This means that 100:1 rarity is not only possible but likely. The question is whether this is worth a 100x premium? Personally, I've paid as much as around 8x for some comics, but only comics that have very low value outside of their rarity. That said, I would only sell for less than a much higher premium if I was in need of the money. Otherwise, I'd rather keep them because I don't know when or if I'll ever run across more copies of the rarer issues. The "I'd rather keep them" factor shouldn't be forgotten because there will be collectors who won't pay 100x but they also won't sell for 100x, thus reducing the supply even more.

I do not thnk the math works. There were 705 Barnes and Noble stores in the United States (not sure about Canada) in 2013. if each of them got 5 copies of a book, that would be 3,500.

Edited by FlyingDonut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2019 at 5:48 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

If "paqart" is Andrew Paquette, he's in a position to not just know a lot of this, but to have documentation for it, so why on earth he's resisting providing any (no, not just "pay stubs from 1994") AND citing the disreputable "rarecomics" blog is beyond me. He ought to know better, much better.

And he was born in 1965, so there's not much chance for him to have been "working in a comics store in the 70s" except in his early teens, at which point, he wouldn't have had the level of responsibility or the resources to understand the market in any meaningful way, barring some strange Sheldon Cooper-level situation.

I don't really have  dog in this fight, but I was also born in 1965, and I was working in a comic store part time in 1978 and 1979. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2019 at 10:34 PM, paqart said:

I hate to say it but your infatuation with this subject has intrigued me. For that reason I decided to try and find the Nobel/McClure reference you are talking about. I found one, and this is it, from Nobel's WordPress page "In a previous post, I had mentioned finding out that a January 1998 article by Jon McClure in issue #55 of Comic Book Marketplace magazine is widely credited by collectors as the “catalyst” for widespread awareness of 35¢ price variants." Is that what you are referring to? If it is, then he is not claiming that McClure discovered this. He is pointing out that he (Nobel) learned of it from someone who mentioned McClure's article. He also mentions that McClure is "widely credited", which means "by others, not myself". Also notice what he is reported to have been widely credited with: for being the "catalyst", not the "discoverer" for widespread awareness, not simply "awareness." I don't see here any justification for the umbrage you seem to have taken by the fact that Overstreet apparently published notification of the existence of these variants years before Nobel learned of them through an article written by someone else. This is very much how I could be described as the person who "discovered" Korea my Home, but Philip Levine gets credit (or Overstreet) for "widespread awareness" of it.

I just found another post by Nobel on this. In it, he credits Overstreet with publishing a notice about the price variant twenty years before McClure wrote about it, but does credit McClure with widening the audience for information on the subject. Again, this is unlike what you have claimed.

I'd like to point out that this is 100% incorrect. It is not  "widely credited as the catalyst for widespread awareness" of price variants. Jon's article - when it came out - was helpful but to the people who were putting 30 and 35 cent variant sets together at the time it was if anything an annoyance. Seeing as I was one of those people, I will dispute McLure as the "catalyst" for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2019 at 3:03 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

It's a relatively well known story; McClure called up Overstreet and told him there was something he (Bob) didn't know about Marvels of the 70s. Bob said "that's impossible, there's no publisher as studied as Marvel!" (this is me paraphrasing McClure paraphrasing Bob.)

When McClure told him of the extent of the 30s and 35s, McClure either asked to be made an OPG advisor, or he was rewarded as such by Bob for the "discovery."

So, no, McClure wasn't the one who told Bob about it 20 years earlier. I imagine McClure was a kid at that point.

If anyone can claim to have discovered them, it is the guy who wrote in to Marvel/Sol Brodsky about Star Wars #1, to which Sol responded that they were test versions, with a print run of around 1500 copies.

which, btw, I have. I bought this from an original owner of a 35 cent Star Wars 1 in 1996, which I got graded as a CGC 9.2 and then sold for the then princely sum of $1386 in 2000. That book, BTW, is the 9.6 in the Overstreet guide. What would it for now, $40K?

35centletter.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:

I'd like to point out that this is 100% incorrect. It is not  "widely credited as the catalyst for widespread awareness" of price variants. Jon's article - when it came out - was helpful but to the people who were putting 30 and 35 cent variant sets together at the time it was if anything an annoyance. Seeing as I was one of those people, I will dispute McLure as the "catalyst" for this.

I can't be sure, but I think RMA may have already pointed out some 'inconsistencies' related to those claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:
On 10/9/2019 at 2:48 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

If "paqart" is Andrew Paquette, he's in a position to not just know a lot of this, but to have documentation for it, so why on earth he's resisting providing any (no, not just "pay stubs from 1994") AND citing the disreputable "rarecomics" blog is beyond me. He ought to know better, much better.

And he was born in 1965, so there's not much chance for him to have been "working in a comics store in the 70s" except in his early teens, at which point, he wouldn't have had the level of responsibility or the resources to understand the market in any meaningful way, barring some strange Sheldon Cooper-level situation.

I don't really have  dog in this fight, but I was also born in 1965, and I was working in a comic store part time in 1978 and 1979. 

1. You're old. :D

2. Did you have the level of responsibility or the resources to understand the market in any meaningful way...?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of these points are true, and all of these points can be the same at all times.

1. I am searching high and wide for newsstand copies. I believe they will have a significant market appreciation, the later the better.
2. The "rarecomics" site is garbage. Just garbage. There's data on there that is simply wrong on multiple levels.
3. People pushing newsstands are looking to line their pocketbooks. I see you, Chuck Rosanski, I see you, Benjamin Nobel.
4. There's absolutely no way to determine what a "print run" for a newsstand was. When I try to get a ratio, I think you can start at about 15% of the print run with that dropping to 1-5% by the end, but no one knows what the print run was. All numbers that are being thrown around are at best informed speculation. 
5. I think we can make informed speculation as to the number of newsstand copies made by counting the number of Barnes and Nobles and doing some anectodal thinking. If there were in 2017 (the last newsstand year) 627 Barnes and Nobles, it would go to reason that there would be at least 3,035 copies of an individual book - five copies per store - based on looking at a Barnes and Noble newsstand and counting the copies of a magazine, and probably double that, just to account for spillage and return.. Note that this number is ONLY a guess. That doesn't count any other outlets, but I think a 650 number, just as one that has come out there, is way way way low.
6. That doesn't mean that there are 3,035 copies of a book in existence - but I think the numbers that are put out there are really low. I think they're also put out there by people who are trying to make a buck. Are newsstand books - especially post 2010 - ridiculously hard to find? Yes. Should they have a premium? Yes. Are they being pumped by people who are shady at best? Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

1. You're old. :D

2. Did you have the level of responsibility or the resources to understand the market in any meaningful way...?

 

1. I'm very old
2. Yes. I was dealing at shows and through the CBG starting at 13. BUY X-MEN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:
On 10/9/2019 at 9:34 PM, paqart said:

I hate to say it but your infatuation with this subject has intrigued me. For that reason I decided to try and find the Nobel/McClure reference you are talking about. I found one, and this is it, from Nobel's WordPress page "In a previous post, I had mentioned finding out that a January 1998 article by Jon McClure in issue #55 of Comic Book Marketplace magazine is widely credited by collectors as the “catalyst” for widespread awareness of 35¢ price variants." Is that what you are referring to? If it is, then he is not claiming that McClure discovered this. He is pointing out that he (Nobel) learned of it from someone who mentioned McClure's article. He also mentions that McClure is "widely credited", which means "by others, not myself". Also notice what he is reported to have been widely credited with: for being the "catalyst", not the "discoverer" for widespread awareness, not simply "awareness." I don't see here any justification for the umbrage you seem to have taken by the fact that Overstreet apparently published notification of the existence of these variants years before Nobel learned of them through an article written by someone else. This is very much how I could be described as the person who "discovered" Korea my Home, but Philip Levine gets credit (or Overstreet) for "widespread awareness" of it.

I just found another post by Nobel on this. In it, he credits Overstreet with publishing a notice about the price variant twenty years before McClure wrote about it, but does credit McClure with widening the audience for information on the subject. Again, this is unlike what you have claimed.

I'd like to point out that this is 100% incorrect. It is not  "widely credited as the catalyst for widespread awareness" of price variants. Jon's article - when it came out - was helpful but to the people who were putting 30 and 35 cent variant sets together at the time it was if anything an annoyance. Seeing as I was one of those people, I will dispute McLure as the "catalyst" for this.

With what are you disagreeing? We've covered in the past the fact that McClure definitely didn't discover the price variants, but why would his article have been an annoyance to the people who were already aware and collecting them if it didn't cause widespread awareness, creating more competition and/or price increases from dealers for the books?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FlyingDonut said:

1. I'm very old
2. Yes. I was dealing at shows and through the CBG starting at 13. BUY X-MEN.

Stop it. lol There's no way in hell...barring being Sheldon Cooper...anyone would have had the experience and knowledge of the market that "paqart" claimed he did at 12-14. You neither.

It's just silly. Dealing at shows and through CBG isn't the same thing. lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, then here's the real question:

I've got a line on probably 30-50 (unique issues) late Marvel newsstands (the last two years of newsstands) from non-main titles (not AMS, UXM, Avengers, Wolverine).  They're generally in VF shape and cost somewhere between $7-$10 each.  Most of them are issues I've never really seen for sale anywhere else.  Should I pull the trigger for a long-term investment?  Will there be enough completionists someday to pay $20-$50 per?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

With what are you disagreeing? We've covered in the past the fact that McClure definitely didn't discover the price variants, but why would his article have been an annoyance to the people who were already aware and collecting them if it didn't cause widespread awareness, creating more competition and/or price increases from dealers for the books?

I don't think it made the marketplace bigger. It made people increase their prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, revat said:

Ok, then here's the real question:

I've got a line on probably 30-50 (unique issues) late Marvel newsstands (the last two years of newsstands) from non-main titles (not AMS, UXM, Avengers, Wolverine).  They're generally in VF shape and cost somewhere between $7-$10 each.  Most of them are issues I've never really seen for sale anywhere else.  Should I pull the trigger for a long-term investment?  Will there be enough completionists someday to pay $20-$50 per?

I think so. It is a very speculative play, but one I think you should do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FlyingDonut said:

if each of them got 5 copies of a book, that would be 3,500

True enough. If the newsstand run was 2%, then they would have had 4,000 for B&N, which would have been enough. One thing I wonder is if the couple of estimates we've seen are of final sales after returns are subtracted, rather than print run percentages. Alternatively, maybe they didn't print enough copies for every Barnes & Nobles to get 5 copies. Maybe the stores decide what they want and some don't want any.

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
22 22