• 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

Started by fastballspecial,

4,488 posts in this topic

jsilverjanet

jsilverjanet

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, fastballspecial said:

Did you know what it was at the time?
 

No. The guy was moving out of the county. He had other convention variants and he told me he could never find out what it was or how much it was worth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Get Marwood & I

Get Marwood & I

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Aweandlorder said:

How about this

Boom indeed! Cool book.

I did have it, way back. Here's my copy. It was hard to find, but not that hard. If you know what I mean :headbang:

59f0abcbf241c_ToyFair.thumb.JPG.3c7617ee2430958f1b2879b648d5dac1.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites
revat

revat

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, jsilverjanet said:

found this at a flea market a couple months ago. it's the Singapore variant

http://www.recalledcomics.com/CaptainAmerica1TolibaoVariant.php

COMIC%201756_zpsicwdktpz.jpeg

 

I been looking for this one for a long time....Been to Singapore TWICE and couldn't find one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Designer Toast

Designer Toast

Posted
Posted
On 10/22/2017 at 1:38 PM, Marwood & I said:

Here's my old list of Spidey related books if it helps - all gone now, alas:

 

 

 

VENOM 6 TOY.JPG

 

 

 

 

I have this book shrink wrapped against a cardboard insert somewhere...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
xcomic

xcomic

Posted
Posted

Hello Lazyboy, thanks for your critique of my post!  Someone gave me a link to your critique.  Having introduced myself separately in another post, I thought I'd next reply to yours since it is a direct critique of what I wrote about Amazing Spider-Man #400.  I'm new to this board so forgive me if I do not follow the right formatting convention but hopefully anyone reading this can figure out which are your comments and which are my responses.

Quote

 

That huge article just to say the same thing I said in a few sentences in this thread. :facepalm:


 

I hadn't read your sentences to compare, but: Yep, I'm usually pretty verbose, I have to admit! :-)

Quote

No, it's because, for whatever reason, many people don't think the newsstand distribution system got enhanced versions of comics (the "regular" editions of the relatively few enhanced issues before everything got UPCs are also commonly called "newsstands").

I agree that this was likely a factor too -- you'll recognize that "why" people are making this mistake is an opinion question, and there doesn't have to be just one single reason.  You are welcome to disagree with me about which reasons are valid.

Quote

Continuing to show his ignorance: "so in summary, our prediction would be that the “regular” direct edition would carry the numbers 40011 and the “alternate cover” would carry the numbers 40021.  In looking at the two, it seems fairly logical that the special/more-expensive “embossed” version would be the “alternate” cover… while the plain/lower-cover-price version would be the “regular” cover, would it not?"  No, it would be very unwise to assume that. That is not always the case (ie. Action Comics 695, Uncanny X-Men 350).

Forgive my ignorance in assuming it would be a logical "first guess" to predict that the "regular" one would be 40011 (as it indeed is in this case and so many others), and the "enhanced" one would be 40021 (as it indeed is in this case and so many others).  Think about the context of what I was trying to describe and ask: what's the worse that happens if you were to make such a first guess and find it is wrong?  You'd see that it was different, yes... but either way you get to two direct editions which was the larger point.

Quote

Yeah, because the total distribution plummeted, dropping to barely over 100,000. Context.

I changed the post to give a range of the 2001-2008 numbers instead of just the one year, for a larger context, although I hadn't originally thought that necessary since adjacent to that sentence I gave a link to a full table of the numbers from 1978 to 2008.

Quote

 

How can he still think Chuck's numbers mean anything? Does he not pay attention to what he's writing? (shrug)


 

I think you may be pointing out that the 1999 BPA audit citing 14% newsstand sales at Marvel is different from Rozanski's 1990 estimate of 15% and 1995 estimate of 10%.  But since these are three different nearby years and I do not know how the numbers may have bumped around in between, and because I wanted to give more than one number for broader context instead, rather than mention only any one of them as a nearby year estimate, I mentioned all of them for better 1990's context.  If you do not agree with Rozanski's estimates I would be curious if you have your own year-by-year thoughts on newsstand rarity?  If you believe it is not possible for anyone to make accurate estimates and therefore nobody should even make the attempt, nor by extension should anyone (like me) be talking about the attempts of others including others who are indisputably "knowledgeable heavyweights" in comics, then in the alternative, would you support me in organizing an effort to ask CGC to begin "breaking out" all newsstand comics on census, so that in the fullness of time we can study the census data as a valuable resource to measure the newsstand:direct-edition disparity of future graded copies starting at their decision-point to break them out?  Then the truth will self-express in the census data and we'll be armed with information we don't have today.

I notice your picture is an orange cat -- I mention because one of the interesting things I learned about orange cats is that the underlying genetics cause an interesting phenomenon whereby 80% of all orange cats are expected to be male, while just 20% are expected to be female.  And with this 80:20 split among orange cats the way it is, a commonly asked question out there is: "are all orange cats male?"  I heard an expert answering this as a frequently asked question on a radio podcast about animals, and it made me think about comics...  If orange cats were collectibles, wouldn't you want to collect the female ones after learning about the genetics driving the relative rarity?

So that I think with newsstand comics, especially when we start talking about sales (not printed copies before potential paper recycling and not dollars of sales but number of copies sold), and survivorship numbers from there, and the top grades among newsstand survivors from there, we're so far past "female orange cat level rarity" at the intersection of all those Venn diagram circles that the collecting decision as far as which type to prefer  for any given issue I'm looking to collect anyway from the modern age is already a home run: even without a precise consensus percentage about a given year's newsstand:direct split (and even having that, nobody would even know such a precise percentage for certain for a given issue within a given title within a given year even if we do have estimates for that year), give me the 9.8 newsstand copy over the 9.8 direct edition any day of the week, hands down.  (Alas, I really wish CGC would have tracked the types separately on census and then much like how TV ratings and election polling both use a small sample of the population to show relative popularity breakdown, we similarly could have observed the relative rarity between newsstand and direct editions in the census data... such a shame no such data exists due to CGC's individual decisions about classifying/organizing comics).

Bottom line point I always try to make: even with the imperfect information we do have, for me, the collecting decision is a "you had me at hello" on the basis of "newsstand is clearly some amount more rare, yet, often available to me at the same market price as the prevalent well-preserved direct edition."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
maidenmate91

maidenmate91

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, xcomic said:

Hello Lazyboy, thanks for your critique of my post!  Someone gave me a link to your critique.  Having introduced myself separately in another post, I thought I'd next reply to yours since it is a direct critique of what I wrote about Amazing Spider-Man #400.  I'm new to this board so forgive me if I do not follow the right formatting convention but hopefully anyone reading this can figure out which are your comments and which are my responses.

I hadn't read your sentences to compare, but: Yep, I'm usually pretty verbose, I have to admit! :-)

I agree that this was likely a factor too -- you'll recognize that "why" people are making this mistake is an opinion question, and there doesn't have to be just one single reason.  You are welcome to disagree with me about which reasons are valid.

Forgive my ignorance in assuming it would be a logical "first guess" to predict that the "regular" one would be 40011 (as it indeed is in this case and so many others), and the "enhanced" one would be 40021 (as it indeed is in this case and so many others).  Think about the context of what I was trying to describe and ask: what's the worse that happens if you were to make such a first guess and find it is wrong?  You'd see that it was different, yes... but either way you get to two direct editions which was the larger point.

I changed the post to give a range of the 2001-2008 numbers instead of just the one year, for a larger context, although I hadn't originally thought that necessary since adjacent to that sentence I gave a link to a full table of the numbers from 1978 to 2008.

I think you may be pointing out that the 1999 BPA audit citing 14% newsstand sales at Marvel is different from Rozanski's 1990 estimate of 15% and 1995 estimate of 10%.  But since these are three different nearby years and I do not know how the numbers may have bumped around in between, and because I wanted to give more than one number for broader context instead, rather than mention only any one of them as a nearby year estimate, I mentioned all of them for better 1990's context.  If you do not agree with Rozanski's estimates I would be curious if you have your own year-by-year thoughts on newsstand rarity?  If you believe it is not possible for anyone to make accurate estimates and therefore nobody should even make the attempt, nor by extension should anyone (like me) be talking about the attempts of others including others who are indisputably "knowledgeable heavyweights" in comics, then in the alternative, would you support me in organizing an effort to ask CGC to begin "breaking out" all newsstand comics on census, so that in the fullness of time we can study the census data as a valuable resource to measure the newsstand:direct-edition disparity of future graded copies starting at their decision-point to break them out?  Then the truth will self-express in the census data and we'll be armed with information we don't have today.

I notice your picture is an orange cat -- I mention because one of the interesting things I learned about orange cats is that the underlying genetics cause an interesting phenomenon whereby 80% of all orange cats are expected to be male, while just 20% are expected to be female.  And with this 80:20 split among orange cats the way it is, a commonly asked question out there is: "are all orange cats male?"  I heard an expert answering this as a frequently asked question on a radio podcast about animals, and it made me think about comics...  If orange cats were collectibles, wouldn't you want to collect the female ones after learning about the genetics driving the relative rarity?

So that I think with newsstand comics, especially when we start talking about sales (not printed copies before potential paper recycling and not dollars of sales but number of copies sold), and survivorship numbers from there, and the top grades among newsstand survivors from there, we're so far past "female orange cat level rarity" at the intersection of all those Venn diagram circles that the collecting decision as far as which type to prefer  for any given issue I'm looking to collect anyway from the modern age is already a home run: even without a precise consensus percentage about a given year's newsstand:direct split (and even having that, nobody would even know such a precise percentage for certain for a given issue within a given title within a given year even if we do have estimates for that year), give me the 9.8 newsstand copy over the 9.8 direct edition any day of the week, hands down.  (Alas, I really wish CGC would have tracked the types separately on census and then much like how TV ratings and election polling both use a small sample of the population to show relative popularity breakdown, we similarly could have observed the relative rarity between newsstand and direct editions in the census data... such a shame no such data exists due to CGC's individual decisions about classifying/organizing comics).

Bottom line point I always try to make: even with the imperfect information we do have, for me, the collecting decision is a "you had me at hello" on the basis of "newsstand is clearly some amount more rare, yet, often available to me at the same market price as the prevalent well-preserved direct edition."

 

too-long-didnt-read.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mr_highgrade

mr_highgrade

Posted
Posted
On 10/27/2017 at 12:39 PM, xcomic said:

Hello Lazyboy, thanks for your critique of my post!  Someone gave me a link to your critique.  Having introduced myself separately in another post, I thought I'd next reply to yours since it is a direct critique of what I wrote about Amazing Spider-Man #400.  I'm new to this board so forgive me if I do not follow the right formatting convention but hopefully anyone reading this can figure out which are your comments and which are my responses.

I hadn't read your sentences to compare, but: Yep, I'm usually pretty verbose, I have to admit! :-)

I agree that this was likely a factor too -- you'll recognize that "why" people are making this mistake is an opinion question, and there doesn't have to be just one single reason.  You are welcome to disagree with me about which reasons are valid.

Forgive my ignorance in assuming it would be a logical "first guess" to predict that the "regular" one would be 40011 (as it indeed is in this case and so many others), and the "enhanced" one would be 40021 (as it indeed is in this case and so many others).  Think about the context of what I was trying to describe and ask: what's the worse that happens if you were to make such a first guess and find it is wrong?  You'd see that it was different, yes... but either way you get to two direct editions which was the larger point.

I changed the post to give a range of the 2001-2008 numbers instead of just the one year, for a larger context, although I hadn't originally thought that necessary since adjacent to that sentence I gave a link to a full table of the numbers from 1978 to 2008.

I think you may be pointing out that the 1999 BPA audit citing 14% newsstand sales at Marvel is different from Rozanski's 1990 estimate of 15% and 1995 estimate of 10%.  But since these are three different nearby years and I do not know how the numbers may have bumped around in between, and because I wanted to give more than one number for broader context instead, rather than mention only any one of them as a nearby year estimate, I mentioned all of them for better 1990's context.  If you do not agree with Rozanski's estimates I would be curious if you have your own year-by-year thoughts on newsstand rarity?  If you believe it is not possible for anyone to make accurate estimates and therefore nobody should even make the attempt, nor by extension should anyone (like me) be talking about the attempts of others including others who are indisputably "knowledgeable heavyweights" in comics, then in the alternative, would you support me in organizing an effort to ask CGC to begin "breaking out" all newsstand comics on census, so that in the fullness of time we can study the census data as a valuable resource to measure the newsstand:direct-edition disparity of future graded copies starting at their decision-point to break them out?  Then the truth will self-express in the census data and we'll be armed with information we don't have today.

I notice your picture is an orange cat -- I mention because one of the interesting things I learned about orange cats is that the underlying genetics cause an interesting phenomenon whereby 80% of all orange cats are expected to be male, while just 20% are expected to be female.  And with this 80:20 split among orange cats the way it is, a commonly asked question out there is: "are all orange cats male?"  I heard an expert answering this as a frequently asked question on a radio podcast about animals, and it made me think about comics...  If orange cats were collectibles, wouldn't you want to collect the female ones after learning about the genetics driving the relative rarity?

So that I think with newsstand comics, especially when we start talking about sales (not printed copies before potential paper recycling and not dollars of sales but number of copies sold), and survivorship numbers from there, and the top grades among newsstand survivors from there, we're so far past "female orange cat level rarity" at the intersection of all those Venn diagram circles that the collecting decision as far as which type to prefer  for any given issue I'm looking to collect anyway from the modern age is already a home run: even without a precise consensus percentage about a given year's newsstand:direct split (and even having that, nobody would even know such a precise percentage for certain for a given issue within a given title within a given year even if we do have estimates for that year), give me the 9.8 newsstand copy over the 9.8 direct edition any day of the week, hands down.  (Alas, I really wish CGC would have tracked the types separately on census and then much like how TV ratings and election polling both use a small sample of the population to show relative popularity breakdown, we similarly could have observed the relative rarity between newsstand and direct editions in the census data... such a shame no such data exists due to CGC's individual decisions about classifying/organizing comics).

Bottom line point I always try to make: even with the imperfect information we do have, for me, the collecting decision is a "you had me at hello" on the basis of "newsstand is clearly some amount more rare, yet, often available to me at the same market price as the prevalent well-preserved direct edition."

Actually CGC has already started tracking newsies in the census. Although, they will only note it on the label when it's a different price.

https://www.cgccomics.com/census/grades_standard.asp?title=Amazing+Spider-Man&issue=600&publisher=Marvel+Comics&year=2009&issuedate=9%2F09

https://www.cgccomics.com/census/grades_standard.asp?title=Hulk&issue=9&publisher=Marvel+Comics&year=2009&issuedate=2%2F09

Link to comment
Share on other sites
xcomic

xcomic

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, mr_highgrade said:

Actually CGC has already started tracking newsies in the census. Although, they will only note it on the label when it's a different price.

https://www.cgccomics.com/census/grades_standard.asp?title=Amazing+Spider-Man&issue=600&publisher=Marvel+Comics&year=2009&issuedate=9%2F09

https://www.cgccomics.com/census/grades_standard.asp?title=Hulk&issue=9&publisher=Marvel+Comics&year=2009&issuedate=2%2F09

It is awesome that they deemed the differing cover price attribute as worthy of being "broken out" on census, isn't it?! :-)  I am so grateful they reached this ultimate decision, and applaud them for doing so!  Way to go CGC!  Another highly interesting Marvel example is Venom/Deadpool: What If #1 from all the way out in 2011 with $3.99 cover price.   I'm even aware of a broken-out Marvel example all the way out in 2013, the year they pulled the plug on the newsstand channel.  I applaud this as one great step forward by CGC in recognizing an important "class" of newsstand comics.  But it is a small "class" in relation to the whole universe; so I hope over time they will widen their field of view even further, such that the entirety of issues where multiple types were published are broken out with unique census counts for each type.

Best,

- Ben p.s.  Maybe we can ask them to consider "breaking out" newsstand comics that have a partially different cover price as another baby step in the right direction.  As a random example, look at the cover of New Avengers #26 and notice the direct editions are $2.99 US / $3.75 CAN... but the newsstand copies are priced $2.99 US / $4.25 CAN, marking a partial difference in cover price between the types.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mr_highgrade

mr_highgrade

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, xcomic said:

It is awesome that they deemed the differing cover price attribute as worthy of being "broken out" on census, isn't it?! :-)  I am so grateful they reached this ultimate decision, and applaud them for doing so!  Way to go CGC!  Another highly interesting Marvel example is Venom/Deadpool: What If #1 from all the way out in 2011 with $3.99 cover price.   I'm even aware of a broken-out Marvel example all the way out in 2013, the year they pulled the plug on the newsstand channel.  I applaud this as one great step forward by CGC in recognizing an important "class" of newsstand comics.  But it is a small "class" in relation to the whole universe; so I hope over time they will widen their field of view even further, such that the entirety of issues where multiple types were published are broken out with unique census counts for each type.

Best,

- Ben p.s.  Maybe we can ask them to consider "breaking out" newsstand comics that have a partially different cover price as another baby step in the right direction.  As a random example, look at the cover of New Avengers #26 and notice the direct editions are $2.99 US / $3.75 CAN... but the newsstand copies are priced $2.99 US / $4.25 CAN, marking a partial difference in cover price between the types.

I would call Sean at CGC and ask him. You never know until you try. :wishluck:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lazyboy

Lazyboy

Posted
Posted
On 10/27/2017 at 11:39 AM, xcomic said:

I agree that this was likely a factor too -- you'll recognize that "why" people are making this mistake is an opinion question, and there doesn't have to be just one single reason.  You are welcome to disagree with me about which reasons are valid.

Have you discussed this confusion with many people? I have and the near unanimous answer is that they didn't think newsstands got enhanced editions. Every post I've seen on these boards about this subject says the same thing.

On 10/27/2017 at 11:39 AM, xcomic said:

I think you may be pointing out that the 1999 BPA audit citing 14% newsstand sales at Marvel is different from Rozanski's 1990 estimate of 15% and 1995 estimate of 10%.  But since these are three different nearby years and I do not know how the numbers may have bumped around in between, and because I wanted to give more than one number for broader context instead, rather than mention only any one of them as a nearby year estimate, I mentioned all of them for better 1990's context.  If you do not agree with Rozanski's estimates I would be curious if you have your own year-by-year thoughts on newsstand rarity?  If you believe it is not possible for anyone to make accurate estimates and therefore nobody should even make the attempt, nor by extension should anyone (like me) be talking about the attempts of others including others who are indisputably "knowledgeable heavyweights" in comics,

I don't have enough data to make estimates. Unlike others, I'm smart enough to realize this and won't even try.

Everyone has limits, even "knowledgeable heavyweights."

Anyway, even if the numbers Chuck published were accurate, they still could not be applied to individual issues.

Quote

then in the alternative, would you support me in organizing an effort to ask CGC to begin "breaking out" all newsstand comics on census, so that in the fullness of time we can study the census data as a valuable resource to measure the newsstand:direct-edition disparity of future graded copies starting at their decision-point to break them out?  Then the truth will self-express in the census data and we'll be armed with information we don't have today.

It's unfortunate that CGC didn't differentiate the different editions from the start and it would be good if they began to do so and if *cough* others expanded their recognition of different editions.

However, the data still wouldn't paint an accurate picture of what's out there, even if it was magically retroactively applied to all past graded copies.

Quote

If orange cats were collectibles, wouldn't you want to collect the female ones after learning about the genetics driving the relative rarity?

No. I don't care (much) about rarity.

Quote

So that I think with newsstand comics, especially when we start talking about sales (not printed copies before potential paper recycling and not dollars of sales but number of copies sold), and survivorship numbers from there, and the top grades among newsstand survivors from there,

Don't forget to account for fraud in the newsstand system, which has resulted in the continued existence of many "unsold" copies which often never even hit the shelves when they were released. Have you ever even mentioned this on your blog?

Quote

(Alas, I really wish CGC would have tracked the types separately on census and then much like how TV ratings and election polling both use a small sample of the population to show relative popularity breakdown, we similarly could have observed the relative rarity between newsstand and direct editions in the census data... such a shame no such data exists due to CGC's individual decisions about classifying/organizing comics).

CGC submissions would still be a very biased poll and not at all equivalent to TV ratings or election polling.

Quote

Bottom line point I always try to make: even with the imperfect information we do have, for me, the collecting decision is a "you had me at hello" on the basis of "newsstand is clearly some amount more rare, yet, often available to me at the same market price as the prevalent well-preserved direct edition."

Good. Collect what you want and be happy doing so. But please don't contribute to the spread of misinformation which is rampant in this hobby right now.

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
Go to topic listing