Value of Spawn 1 UPC variant? 0

[GM8]

1 hour ago, FlyingDonut said:

I have zero dog in this hunt, but if you're going to extrapolate the eBay numbers, there's roughly 1200 copies of Spawn 1 on eBay now, so that's 1%. Again, I don't care, but that does seem to go to the 1% of the market theory.

1200 copies is a pretty large sample size.  That again mirrors what Chuck was claiming.  

[Lazyboy]

2 minutes ago, GM8 said:

1 hour ago, FlyingDonut said:

I have zero dog in this hunt, but if you're going to extrapolate the eBay numbers, there's roughly 1200 copies of Spawn 1 on eBay now, so that's 1%. Again, I don't care, but that does seem to go to the 1% of the market theory.

1200 copies is a pretty large sample size.  That again mirrors what Chuck was claiming.

As I said earlier, there are around 100 copies of the Spawn 1 Newsstand edition visible on eBay right now, looking at active and sold listings. Where do you see 9900 Direct editions?

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yeah, when you posted that, I thought he could have meant Direct-only.

Can you believe Marvel "Direct-only'd" Moon Knight and KAZAR...?

Wasn't there a third direct-only title that they experimented with? Micronauts maybe?

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

4 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

As we've all discussed before, that's just what's available for sale right now, and, much like the "ratio = print run" "argument", it's neat to consider...but ultimately useless in any discussion of actual numbers, because those numbers don't tell us anything except how many of each are available for sale right now.

There could be double that next week, of half. Then what?

 

This is a really important point. *If* there are significantly less newsstand copies available for sale right now, that might because those that bought massive quantities for resale later were pre-ordering at comic shops, since they couldn't pre-order at newsstands.

If you want to use the logic that the ratio of what's available to purchase now indicates the ratio of what was printed, then there are some Valiant variants that must be 1:Infinity variants because they're not available at all in the online marketplace.

[Get Marwood & I]

8 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You disagree with everything...? Even the long-established truth of "burden of proof"...?

No matter. I look forward to the discussion.

Well you can't look back on it, as it hasn't happened yet ?

[Get Marwood & I]

9 hours ago, Marwood & I said:

18 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You disagree with everything...? Even the long-established truth of "burden of proof"...?

No matter. I look forward to the discussion.

Well you can't look back on it, as it hasn't happened yet ?

 

Just in from work on a sunny day in Blighty. Looks like my last post killed the thread? I'm getting quite good at that. A sense of humour shared by a field of one 

Anyway, I was going to go into more detail on the LazyRockMyBoy inverse ripostes, but, having reflected, I'm going to respectfully withdraw instead.

Chin chin.

 

[Topnotchman]

I have no dog in this fight, but my opinion of Chuck being a newsstand expert, no he is not.  He built a data base of comics on his web site in the late 90's using images from his own inventory.   By chance some books were imaged as direct or newsstand editions.  Over the years customer feedback was not as described when he shipped books that were not identical to his pictures.   He did not have a solution to the problem until customer feedback was "I will pay more for the exact copy that I want".    So yes there is a premium for select books in select grades that are newsstand.  Since he has unprocessed pallets of bulk comics from the past 20-30 years.  It would be a wise business move to just create a data base of newsstand edition comics and charge a premium for them.   If Chuck was an expert with newsstand editions, why did he not sell them for a premium in his Marvel comics adds in the 1980's?   His newsstand percentages are nothing more than a "guess" to what was printed.   Since his main source of back issue comics going back four decades is from desperate comic dealers selling there unsold back room stock.  Its seems rational that the majority of those books would be direct editions, not newsstand editions.  Thus skewing Chucks inventory to have fewer newsstand books, his claim they are rare is not valid as his sources for inventory is consistent with direct edition copies. 

[fastballspecial]

1 hour ago, Topnotchman said:

I have no dog in this fight, but my opinion of Chuck being a newsstand expert, no he is not.  He built a data base of comics on his web site in the late 90's using images from his own inventory.   By chance some books were imaged as direct or newsstand editions.  Over the years customer feedback was not as described when he shipped books that were not identical to his pictures.   He did not have a solution to the problem until customer feedback was "I will pay more for the exact copy that I want".    So yes there is a premium for select books in select grades that are newsstand.  Since he has unprocessed pallets of bulk comics from the past 20-30 years.  It would be a wise business move to just create a data base of newsstand edition comics and charge a premium for them.   If Chuck was an expert with newsstand editions, why did he not sell them for a premium in his Marvel comics adds in the 1980's?   His newsstand percentages are nothing more than a "guess" to what was printed.   Since his main source of back issue comics going back four decades is from desperate comic dealers selling there unsold back room stock.  Its seems rational that the majority of those books would be direct editions, not newsstand editions.  Thus skewing Chucks inventory to have fewer newsstand books, his claim they are rare is not valid as his sources for inventory is consistent with direct edition copies. 

Yeah pretty much my thought too. Chuck just has too much collusion going on to be called an expert in much anymore. Its in his best interest to create demand because he has the supply and wants quite a bit for his books. 

There is validity to the argument that there is more supply out there. Big money would have to come out first though to really prove the point. It was the 90s after all. I just try to base it on my experiences at conventions and shops over the years. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

21 hours ago, GM8 said:

Then you're just a little too sensitive.  You can't be criticized, see only my comments and not your "pal" who you jump to defend (no matter how wrong) and I'm the one who is out of line.  Sure.  If you're that touchy then don't respond to my comments.  Take a look at yourself and your own condescendingly wrong nonsense before you cast stones.

Let me reiterate, because it is apparent, at least to me, that the thrust of the statement has been "lost" amid misinterpretation, willful or not: it is not necessary to make negative personal comments about others when having a disagreement. It detracts, and ultimately defeats, the argument.

There is, naturally, a difference between legitimate criticism and negative personal commentary. That said, however, pointing this fact out is not proof of sensitivity on my part; it's merely pointing that fact out. Telling someone they are "blathering on and on" is not an example of legitimate criticism, and pointing THAT out is not an example of sensitivity.

If you have legitimate criticism, by all means, please share. All of us can be educated and enlightened if one of us is corrected. Explain how someone is wrong, and we can all learn, rather than denying all of us the chance to learn by saying "you're wrong", without explaining why. Forget the personal commentary; that, more than anything, is the real determiner of just who is being sensitive and touchy, n'est-ce pas...?

PS. Who is my "pal" that you refer to here...?

[valiantman]

I doubt the 100-direct-to-1-newsstand ratio for Spawn #1, so whether it's 50-to-1 or 20-to-1 or even 10-to-1, which seems ridiculously low because there are longboxes of Spawn #1 direct while there are usually singles of Spawn #1 newsstand, but the market price, even at CGC 9.8 $400 for the newsstand is only 5-to-1 compared to CGC 9.8 $80 for direct.

 

The topic seems to be conflating the ratio and the prices, so are people arguing that 100-to-1 is too high, so the market price of 5-to-1 is too high? 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

21 hours ago, GM8 said:

1200 copies is a pretty large sample size.  That again mirrors what Chuck was claiming.  

No, it doesn't.

Here's what Chuck is claiming: in 1990, the newsstand accounted for a mere 15% of the total comics market. In 1995, it accounted for 10%...according to Chuck, who said these were "rough" estimates.

If that's the case (and it's not, but let's accept it for the sake of the argument), then can we say, roughly, that by 1992, that figure was 12-13%?

By that reasoning, yes.

So, 1% of the current listings being newsstands doesn't mirror Chuck's claim at all....and Spawn #1 is a special case. Even if the OVERALL market was what Chuck said, Spawn #1 is one of those exceptions, like ASM #361, that makes the rule.

[RockMyAmadeus]

36 minutes ago, valiantman said:

I doubt the 100-direct-to-1-newsstand ratio for Spawn #1, so whether it's 50-to-1 or 20-to-1 or even 10-to-1, which seems ridiculously low because there are longboxes of Spawn #1 direct while there are usually singles of Spawn #1 newsstand, but the market price, even at CGC 9.8 $400 for the newsstand is only 5-to-1 compared to CGC 9.8 $80 for direct.

 

The topic seems to be conflating the ratio and the prices, so are people arguing that 100-to-1 is too high, so the market price of 5-to-1 is too high? 

 

The "100-to-1" "ratio" is entirely meaningless. ANY ratio is meaningless, because that's not how these were produced or distributed, and these "ratios" have an entirely separate meaning in the comics industry at this point.

[RockMyAmadeus]

20 hours ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Wasn't there a third direct-only title that they experimented with? Micronauts maybe?

Yes, Micronauts went Direct only with issue #38.

[valiantman]

7 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The "100-to-1" "ratio" is entirely meaningless. ANY ratio is meaningless, because that's not how these were produced or distributed, and these "ratios" have an entirely separate meaning in the comics industry at this point.

What do you suggest, then.  If there are about 20 of X for every 1 Y, then you're saying we need a way to say 20-to-1 without saying 20-to-1.

[newshane]

24 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The "100-to-1" "ratio" is entirely meaningless. ANY ratio is meaningless, because that's not how these were produced or distributed, and these "ratios" have an entirely separate meaning in the comics industry at this point.

As clearly demonstrated by DC's recent dump of "ultra rare" variants into the marketplace.

[RockMyAmadeus]

20 minutes ago, valiantman said:

What do you suggest, then.  If there are about 20 of X for every 1 Y, then you're saying we need a way to say 20-to-1 without saying 20-to-1.

We have essentially no way of knowing that there are "about 20 of X for every 1 Y", for just about any book, so applying the ratios is just a wild guess that leads to more confusion.

The problem is that these ratios have been misused and misunderstood, so it would be better to just say "there seems to be about 5% newsstand, 95% Direct on the marketplace" or whatever number is appropriate.  

[valiantman]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

We have essentially no way of knowing that there are "about 20 of X for every 1 Y", for just about any book, so applying the ratios is just a wild guess that leads to more confusion.

The problem is that these ratios have been misused and misunderstood, so it would be better to just say "there seems to be about 5% newsstand, 95% Direct on the marketplace" or whatever number is appropriate.  

So, "there seems to be about 20 direct for every 1 newsstand" doesn't work the same way?

[revat]

28 minutes ago, valiantman said:

So, "there seems to be about 20 direct for every 1 newsstand" doesn't work the same way?

I think this is fine, if you have a rational basis for the theory and make it clear what the underlying assumptions are (and the theory or the evidence isn't easily destroyed under the flimsiest of examination). 

[Philflound]

On 7/3/2017 at 4:50 PM, newshane said:

 

There are currently 3367 9.8 copies on the CGC Census. Once again, the CGC doesn't differentiate between the two editions so we'll never know, for sure, how many CGC examples are out there. Using 5% as the average for newsstand sales (which is probably inaccurate, but just throwing out a figure) there are 168 graded (9.8) newsstand copies out there.

 

They do now. Almost all Image books that have both direct and ns are being differentiated if they 1.) have a price difference and/or 2.)have different paper quality for the ns. In the case of Spawn #1, there is no difference short of the bar code so there won't be a separation between ns or direct.

[Philflound]

17 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No, it doesn't.

Here's what Chuck is claiming: in 1990, the newsstand accounted for a mere 15% of the total comics market. In 1995, it accounted for 10%...according to Chuck, who said these were "rough" estimates.

If that's the case (and it's not, but let's accept it for the sake of the argument), then can we say, roughly, that by 1992, that figure was 12-13%?

By that reasoning, yes.

So, 1% of the current listings being newsstands doesn't mirror Chuck's claim at all....and Spawn #1 is a special case. Even if the OVERALL market was what Chuck said, Spawn #1 is one of those exceptions, like ASM #361, that makes the rule.

Wouldn't there be some record of ns distribution somewhere? Maybe the Image offices themselves? It would be curious to learn from them. I think there is a small market for ns covers and am snatching up any Image book I can get for like $1.50 or under.