Newsstand Versions 1 1

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 hours ago, FlyingDonut said:

OK - and please note this is without question not statistically accurate - I've crunched a couple numbers.

2001
There are currently 59 copies of Amazing Spider-Man 36 for sale on eBay. Of those, 12 are newsstands. That's roughly a 20% ratio, which sounds about right.

Comichron shows Diamond orders of 92,765 for that book, so a ratio of 4-1 would equal about 18,867 newsstand copies.

2011
There are currently 35 copies of Amazing Spider-Man 669 for sale on eBay. Of those 2 are newstands. That's a 5.7% ratio, which again sounds about right.

Comichron shows Diamond orders of 71,944 for that book, so a 5.7% ratio would equal about 4,111 newsstand copies.

Again, not nearly accurate, but I think it passes the smell test - 20% of the direct market for a monster book in 2001 on newsstands vs. 5.7% in 2011?

It's a good start, always keeping in mind that those numbers are functionally (but not absolutely) meaningless with such a small sample, because of the factors involved in getting these books to market which have nothing whatsoever to do with their survival rate.

I was looking at Amazing Spiderman #301s...there are newsstand copies of that book for sale all over the place. 1988 is supposed to be a "declining" year for newsstand copies.

But that certainly sounds within reason.

 

[divad]

44 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

At least one board member who used to have a store has mentioned it in the past, but I can't recall who. But then there's this, as well.

A tad vague (for a lawyer) and also immediately contradicted below.

Edited September 7, 2018 by divad

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 minutes ago, divad said:

50 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

At least one board member who used to have a store has mentioned it in the past, but I can't recall who. But then there's this, as well.

A tad vague (for a lawyer) and also immediately contradicted below.

The presence of someone who did not have that same experience does not "cancel out" the experience of someone who did.

 

[divad]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The presence of someone who did not have that same experience does not "cancel out" the experience of someone who did.

 

Just like you don't cancel out me.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, divad said:

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The presence of someone who did not have that same experience does not "cancel out" the experience of someone who did.

 

Just like you don't cancel out me. 

I wouldn't dream of it. Your perspective is just as worthy of consideration as anyone else's, regardless of whether people ultimately agree or not.

[divad]

19 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The presence of someone who did not have that same experience does not "cancel out" the experience of someone who did.

 

Nor does it validate it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

26 minutes ago, divad said:

46 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The presence of someone who did not have that same experience does not "cancel out" the experience of someone who did.

 

Nor does it validate it.

Correct. It neither validates nor invalidates it.

It is a positive affirmation; it needs no independent validation (which is not the same thing as confirmation or proof.)

[jfur]

2 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

What I'm reading seems like it's coming from somebody who doesn't understand the newsstand market and has been reading far too much of the rarecomics blog without the knowledge that would enable them to separate fact from ridiculous fiction.

haha you're impossible!  I'd love to know why you're fixated on this blogger guy.  If you'd take the time to read my original comment on this thread, you'll see that I didn't say anything to support his 'facts', other than newsstands being harder to find supports the argument of a lower print run.  What you'll read is my own experience searching for them, and me saying newsstands are definitely less than 5% of print run, an assumption based on my own experience.  You're buddy over there had to take my entire comment and trying to 'educate' me with examples of coins and a vocabulary lesson on the word 'rare' (which, by the way, was used accurately).  Then you come swooping in to save the day, guns blazing.  You're the real superhero here, champ.  If you're still here, Thanos doesn't stand a chance.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 hours ago, jfur said:

10 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

What I'm reading seems like it's coming from somebody who doesn't understand the newsstand market and has been reading far too much of the rarecomics blog without the knowledge that would enable them to separate fact from ridiculous fiction.

haha you're impossible!  I'd love to know why you're fixated on this blogger guy.  If you'd take the time to read my original comment on this thread, you'll see that I didn't say anything to support his 'facts', other than newsstands being harder to find supports the argument of a lower print run.  What you'll read is my own experience searching for them, and me saying newsstands are definitely less than 5% of print run, an assumption based on my own experience.  You're buddy over there had to take my entire comment and trying to 'educate' me with examples of coins and a vocabulary lesson on the word 'rare' (which, by the way, was used accurately).  Then you come swooping in to save the day, guns blazing.  You're the real superhero here, champ.  If you're still here, Thanos doesn't stand a chance.  

As expected, you have, instead of acknowledging your error, compounded it by becoming offended and reacting in an offended manner.

Newsstands being harder to find doesn't say anything about their print runs, for all the various reasons already given.

Again: 1903-O Morgan dollar. Thought to be so rare, they were the most valuable coin in the entire set in 1960. Found by the hundreds of thousands in 1962-1964, after being forgotten for 60 years. The only difference? The US Mint records mintages, and makes that information public, so that the collecting public knew there were 4.45 million made. 

Marvel, however, does NOT make print runs public, so no one has any way of knowing how many were printed...at all.

Had mintages been classified information, I'm sure people would have come along and claimed "there are only a tiny handful on the market. That MUST mean they were made in tiny numbers!", using the same arguments you use here. Those coins were not rare, by any understanding and use of that word...and those calling them rare were provably flat out wrong. They simply didn't know any better at the time.

Your "less than 5% of the print run" figure, therefore, is pulled out of thin air, with literally nothing to support it. You have absolutely zero way of knowing that, and making up such numbers and saying they are "definite" as you have done here, is misinformation.

The problem with this "blogger guy" is that he deliberately and purposely posts false statements, and does not allow for any fact checking or criticism. In fact, he has even gone so far as to call CGC and successfully have members here (he was not a member here at the time, and has only posted a handful of posts since then) thrown off the CGC site for a number of weeks, on claims of "cyber bullying"...for saying the same things that are being said here. CGC, to their discredit, believed them.

That is not the work of a scholar. That is the work of a demagogue, seeking to advance his own agenda, and anyone who relies on his "information" is going to suffer financially.

You can choose to remain offended...and pretend to "agree to disagree", when you were, as you explain here, quite clearly offended by my original response to you...or you can say "ok, those are fair points. I'll consider them." 

Choice is yours.

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[Lazyboy]

10 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The problem with this "blogger guy" is that he deliberately and purposely posts false statements, and does not allow for any fact checking or criticism. In fact, he has even gone so far as to call CGC and successfully have members here (he was not a member here at the time, and has only posted a handful of posts since then) thrown off the CGC site for a number of weeks, on claims of "cyber bullying"

Wasn't that all Benjamin's d-bag buddy Angelo? Did Benjamin actually have anything to do with it?

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, Lazyboy said:

Wasn't that all Benjamin's d-bag buddy Angelo? Did Benjamin actually have anything to do with it?

CGC told me, in writing, that it was multiple people who called in. I cannot prove that Nobel had anything to do with it, but he started posting immediately, so I'm not sure if I can make any other inference.

Edited September 7, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[jfur]

10 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

As expected, you have, instead of acknowledging your error, compounded it by becoming offended and reacting in an offended manner.

Trust me, I'm not offended.  I just appear to be the only one to call you two out on being pretentious keyboard warriors.  And errors?  I've never claimed anything I said was factual, and have said on numerous accounts that they were assumptions.  What you're not comprehending is your arguments to support your position, are also, based on assumptions as we've said countless times 'we do not know'.  The difference between you and I, is that while I continue to say my post was based on my own experience in hunting and has no bearing on 'facts', you continue to talk about coins as if that example validates your position with 'facts'?  

[jfur]

Anyway my new pals, gotta jet.  Hockey pool draft to work on here.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, jfur said:

Trust me, I'm not offended.  I just appear to be the only one to call you two out on being pretentious keyboard warriors. 

Those are not the words of someone who is not offended. Your second sentence thoroughly refutes your first.

1 minute ago, jfur said:

And errors?  I've never claimed anything I said was factual, and have said on numerous accounts that they were assumptions. 

As stated, you cannot say something is "definitely" anything if it's an assumption or any estimate, especially when you have quite literally not a single piece of information to support such a claim.

You have no idea. Nobody does, except the printer and Marvel, and they're not telling. 

Therefore, you saying the print run for the newsstands was "definitely less than 5%" of the total print run of the book is as valid as me saying "the newsstands were definitely 95% of the print run, and Marvel printed a million copies." Both estimates are equally valid.

4 minutes ago, jfur said:

What you're not comprehending is your arguments to support your position, are also, based on assumptions as we've said countless times 'we do not know'.

This is inaccurate, for the very simple reason that I have no position; as I have made quite clear multiple times, other than very basic, very broad inferences. That is the fundamental difference between your argument and mine.

7 minutes ago, jfur said:

The difference between you and I, is that while I continue to say my post was based on my own experience in hunting and has no bearing on 'facts', you continue to talk about coins as if that example validates your position with 'facts'?  

Of what value is "your own experience", and, indeed, anyone's experience, when it leads you to pull numbers out of thin air, and state they are "definite"...?

The example is to illustrate the actual fact that, despite KNOWN production numbers, that particular coin was considered "rare" by everyone in 1960, because no one knew there were hundreds of thousands of them hidden away. How much LESS so with UNKNOWN production numbers, such as Marvel Comics' print runs...?

Why is such a big deal being made? Because there are people who infest this hobby with their speculative nonsense, and convince others that their factually inaccurate information is legitimate. Those people then take that information, and make bad decisions that hurt them financially, because they relied on someone who presented themselves as an "expert", when they were anything but.

So...which one will you choose to be? Someone who throws around misinformation, and then gets offended when called on it...like Mr. Nobel...or someone who is interested in the facts, however they come...?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 6/5/2018 at 8:33 AM, valiantman said:

On 6/5/2018 at 3:22 AM, Joosh said:

Another tell that helps: Notice the barcode is actually two separate barcodes. The smaller of the two barcodes is only 2 digits on newsstands. I’ve yet to see where this method fails. There is a lot more to it (like what those codes mean) but this basic knowledge is  a great way to tell quickly.

That's correct - picture a barcode as two sections:

||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| = direct edition

||||||||||||||||||||| |||| = newsstand

Or, just look at the numbers and ignore the left section:

01234567890 12345 = direct edition  (10 numbers, then 5 numbers)

01234567890 12 = newstand (10 numbers, then 2 numbers)

And, for further help: the first five numbers are the publisher code...the second five numbers are the title code....and the title code is DIFFERENT depending on whether it is newsstand or Direct.

In the newsstand version, the "two numbers" are almost always the issue number during that calendar year. For example, a Batman #402, with a cover date of Dec, 1986, would have a "12" for that number...but if there were more than 12 issues during the year, that number would be different. For example, Amazing Spiderman #310, since it was bi-weekly during the summer of 1988, has the number "15", since it was the 15th issue published that calendar (cover) year.

Occasionally, that number will simply be the last two digits of the issue number, a la Batman #428 newsstand, which has "28" in that space.

For the Direct market, it's a little different: the first 3 digits in the number are the issue number, the 4th digit is the version, and the 5th digit is the printing.

Since the 00s and the madness of variant, those numbers have become nonsensical, but most of the time, it still holds true.

Thus, an Amazing Spiderman #430 would have a 5 digit code of "43011"

A variant would have "43021"

A second printing would have "43012"

...etc.

If done correctly, and they often were not.

Good luck!

 

[divad]

59 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That is not the work of a scholar. That is the work of a demogogue, seeking to advance his own agenda, and anyone who relies on his "information" is going to suffer financially.

I would submit that he's more of a narcissist than a scholar or demagogue. (See, we can agree sometimes.) 

[Corona smith]

On 11/3/2016 at 3:31 PM, valiantman said:

1980s direct editions either had a line through the barcode or they replaced the barcode with words/art.

Some 1990s barcodes say "Newsstand Edition" or "Newsstand Sales" but some say nothing.

Direct Editions in the 1990s started saying "Direct Edition" or "Direct Sales" in the box with the barcode, but some don't.

(Comic shops started using barcode scanners at the register.)

 

Are you all ready for the secret of newsstand identification?

 

Barcodes are two sections of lines. The wide first section (twelve numbers) and the little second section.

The second section of the barcode is always skinny for newsstands (two numbers).

The second section of the barcode is five numbers for direct editions.

 

Direct:

 

Newsstand:

 

Now, start looking at those tiny pictures on Ebay... and see what you can find.

By far the easiest way to distinguish newsstands from direct editions.