Value of Spawn 1 UPC variant? 0

[RockMyAmadeus]

13 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

I'll respond fully tomorrow Rock, as I disagree with everything you've said. It's late over here and I need my beauty sleep ?

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

No matter. I look forward to the discussion.

[Lazyboy]

1 hour ago, Marwood & I said:

During my completist years I attempted to get a full set of ASM newsstands up to issue 700. I had a friend in the US to help me from ASM issue 690, and he got me the Superior Spideys up to issue 20 when the newsstands then stopped. My experience was that the later issues (500-700) were nigh on impossible to find. I searched for years and never managed to get certain issues (e.g. ASM #694 for which some on these boards have offered $500 bounties).

I spent a lot of time gathering info on newsstands and found that, whilst it was clear that the print run reduced significantly year by year up to the point of cancelltion, I never found that key expert who had the figures.

Right. Good luck getting those numbers from a publisher, especially the Big Two.

1 hour ago, Marwood & I said:

Many of Chucks claims seem to be generalisations, but the spirit of his argument is sound in my experience, i.e. newsstands become harder to find as you move up the years.

Absolutely. Newsstand distribution was equaled by Direct distribution relatively quickly and has been in slow decline ever since. Nobody is disputing that the newsstand percentage has been a shrinking minority for quite some time, only the specific numbers claimed.

One of the problems with Chuck's Marvel newsstand claims is that of interpretation. Even if his 15% in 1990, 5% in 2000, 2% in 2005, etc. claims were remotely accurate, they are company totals, including everything without newsstand distribution, and not applicable to individual issues. But that doesn't stop certain people from claiming that ASM (v.2) 518 Newsstand has 1:50 rarity or that there are only 1500 extant copies.

https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/417506-but-its-just-an-ugly-barcode-right/?page=2#comment-9819180

The more recent the issue, excepting issues that are currently on the stands, the more difficult it should be to find a newsstand copy. This should be obvious, unless you think there are a bunch of non-collecting readers out there who nearly immediately sell their books, and do so in a way that you will see them. What is the alternative for significant availability after the fact?

1 hour ago, Marwood & I said:

Because he is a business man, Chuck knows that a late modern newsstand exists in comparably tiny quantities. He knows that if you look up ebay for, say, ASM #694 or 559, you will not find it. He also knows that the mad collector will pay a ridiculous premium for it. This is why, right or wrong, his newsstand prices are eye watering. One day, people (e.g. mad completists) probably will start to pay $100 or more for a newsstand copy of an ASM book on which the direct sells for $5.

I know nothing about Spawn. But the newsstand position interests me, so I have dived in here. I looked up Spawn #1 on Ebay. 346 results and I counted over 100 directs before I hit a newsstand.

Where were you looking? On eBay.com, a search for "Spawn 1" in the Comics section returns 4429 results with the second listing that actually contains a copy of Spawn 1 (1992)  being a newsstand edition (graded 9.8 by CGC). The fourth and seventh Spawn 1 (1992) listings also feature newsstand editions.

As I recently mentioned in another thread, there are currently around 100 newsstand copies visible on eBay between active and sold listings.

1 hour ago, Marwood & I said:

At the London Fair on Sunday, multiples of Spawn #1 directs. No newsstands. So whether Chuck is right or wrong, the actual process of trying to find the book bears out his overall position. Yes, you will find a Spawn newsstand. But will you in 5 or 10 years time?

I challenge anyone reading this to put together an ASM newsstand run of 600-700. See you in 10 years time.

Don't look at me. My ASM collection ends with 441 when Marvel cancelled the title. I have no interest in collecting any version of those issues.

1 hour ago, Marwood & I said:

I personally put information out on these boards to try to draw out experts who have the answers to my questions (see my threads on Pence, L Miller, 1999 Newsstand Price Variants, Early Marvel Font Variants etc). I never say I have the definitive answers. Only that my research has shown X and that ties in with Y so unless anyone knows better....and I end with 'happy to be proven wrong'.

Exactly. There's a big difference between trying to expand your knowledge when you discover something that you find interesting or unusual and making definitive claims based on that limited knowledge and understanding.

1 hour ago, Marwood & I said:

Too many people on these boards talk in certainties. Chuck is a recognised industry figure with an amazing comic history behind him. Lazyboy is a bloke on a chat forum. If I had to put my money on who knows the most, I would probably pick Lazyboy. I have spoken to countless dealers over 30 years. I mention a comic thing that interests me and they start to lecture me. I fire a question or two back - civil and friendly - and they clam up, when they realise you know more than them. It's natural for dealers to do that - they want to impress you.

I've heard a lot of interesting things from talking with various dealers and collectors over the years. Some coming from a place of great knowledge and really teaching me something about the hobby or industry, others... not so much. I've tried to correct some of the wild theories that people have presented, with some degree of success. I can't even imagine where some of the more outlandish ideas originated.

1 hour ago, Marwood & I said:

Chuck has ventured a set of % data for newsstand print runs. My collecting experience generally bears out his position. Does anyone have actual industry data to disprove his general position? I don't, which is why I try to avoid pounding everyone into submission who poses an alternative position.

Has anybody tried contacting the Image guys (like Todd McFarlane) and asking them to share the real numbers? They may be more forthcoming than the big publishers.

[RockMyAmadeus]

15 hours ago, Marwood & I said:

Devilment I guess. Nice use of white text there. Very clever @Lazyboy

I was going to list out my thoughts on newsstands based on my own experience collecting and researching them for years, but I'm not sure I can face the humourless rebuttal lectures that will follow. @GM8 seems to be doing fine in the meantime.  

If one can't have a discussion without making the discussion personal, I wouldn't consider that "doing fine."

But I digress.

You say here that you are going to base your comments on your own experience collecting and researching them for years...which is perfectly legitimate...except, in another post, you say this:

I know nothing about Spawn.  

Without being too cheeky, doesn't that end your ability to discuss?

Quote

 So whether Chuck is right or wrong, the actual process of trying to find the book bears out his overall position. Yes, you will find a Spawn newsstand. But will you in 5 or 10 years time?

You can find a Spawn #1 newsstand on eBay, right now:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2053587.m570.l1313.TR2.TRC1.A0.H0.Xspawn+1+newsstand.TRS0&_nkw=spawn+1+newsstand&_sacat=0

12 listings, of all flavors.

No one is saying that Chuck's SELF-ADMITTED numbers aren't rough estimates. They are.

What is being said is that Chuck's numbers are wayyyyyyy off in certain cases, and contradict what we know about standard practice OF THE TIME, with regard to books sold. How do we know that?

The SOOs tell us quite a bit. When you combine that with information like Capital City Distribution's numbers, you get a better idea of what the "real numbers" are. And, in 1990, the newsstand market wasn't just 15% of all comics sold. It was probably closer to 30-40% still.

To suggest, as some have, that there are/were only 1 newsstand of books like Spawn #1 for every 100 Direct copies is to, again, not understand how those markets worked at that time. It's so woefully far off, such a claim is understandably laughable to people with even a cursory understanding of the comics industry of the period.

If you take the 1.7 million figure...that means, printed or extant, only 17,000 copies of Spawn #1 newsstand was made and/or is extant.

There are probably 17,000 copies of Amazing Fantasy #15 extant.

There are CERTAINLY, without question, far, farrrr more copies of Spawn #1 newsstand. 

[FlyingDonut]

4 hours ago, 1Cool said:

Anyone have an idea what the 1st direct book would have been?  You would think the 1st direct editions in 1980 or whenever they started designating direct vs newsstand would be rare.

Moon Knight 15.

[revat]

4 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

3 hours ago, Marwood & I said:

During my completist years I attempted to get a full set of ASM newsstands up to issue 700. I had a friend in the US to help me from ASM issue 690, and he got me the Superior Spideys up to issue 20 when the newsstands then stopped. My experience was that the later issues (500-700) were nigh on impossible to find. I searched for years and never managed to get certain issues (e.g. ASM #694 for which some on these boards have offered $500 bounties).

I spent a lot of time gathering info on newsstands and found that, whilst it was clear that the print run reduced significantly year by year up to the point of cancelltion, I never found that key expert who had the figures.

Right. Good luck getting those numbers from a publisher, especially the Big Two.

Quote

Many of Chucks claims seem to be generalisations, but the spirit of his argument is sound in my experience, i.e. newsstands become harder to find as you move up the years.

Absolutely. Newsstand distribution was equaled by Direct distribution relatively quickly and has been in slow decline ever since. Nobody is disputing that the newsstand percentage has been a shrinking minority for quite some time, only the specific numbers claimed.

One of the problems with Chuck's Marvel newsstand claims is that of interpretation. Even if his 15% in 1990, 5% in 2000, 2% in 2005, etc. claims were remotely accurate, they are company totals, including everything without newsstand distribution, and not applicable to individual issues. But that doesn't stop certain people from claiming that ASM (v.2) 518 Newsstand has 1:50 rarity or that there are only 1500 extant copies.

https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/417506-but-its-just-an-ugly-barcode-right/?page=2#comment-9819180

The more recent the issue, excepting issues that are currently on the stands, the more difficult it should be to find a newsstand copy. This should be obvious, unless you think there are a bunch of non-collecting readers out there who nearly immediately sell their books, and do so in a way that you will see them. What is the alternative for significant availability after the fact?

Quote

Because he is a business man, Chuck knows that a late modern newsstand exists in comparably tiny quantities. He knows that if you look up ebay for, say, ASM #694 or 559, you will not find it. He also knows that the mad collector will pay a ridiculous premium for it. This is why, right or wrong, his newsstand prices are eye watering. One day, people (e.g. mad completists) probably will start to pay $100 or more for a newsstand copy of an ASM book on which the direct sells for $5.

I know nothing about Spawn. But the newsstand position interests me, so I have dived in here. I looked up Spawn #1 on Ebay. 346 results and I counted over 100 directs before I hit a newsstand.

Where were you looking? On eBay.com, a search for "Spawn 1" in the Comics section returns 4429 results with the second listing that actually contains a copy of Spawn 1 (1992)  being a newsstand edition (graded 9.8 by CGC). The fourth and seventh Spawn 1 (1992) listings also feature newsstand editions.

As I recently mentioned in another thread, there are currently around 100 newsstand copies visible on eBay between active and sold listings.

Quote

At the London Fair on Sunday, multiples of Spawn #1 directs. No newsstands. So whether Chuck is right or wrong, the actual process of trying to find the book bears out his overall position. Yes, you will find a Spawn newsstand. But will you in 5 or 10 years time?

I challenge anyone reading this to put together an ASM newsstand run of 600-700. See you in 10 years time.

Don't look at me. My ASM collection ends with 441 when Marvel cancelled the title. I have no interest in collecting any version of those issues.

Quote

I personally put information out on these boards to try to draw out experts who have the answers to my questions (see my threads on Pence, L Miller, 1999 Newsstand Price Variants, Early Marvel Font Variants etc). I never say I have the definitive answers. Only that my research has shown X and that ties in with Y so unless anyone knows better....and I end with 'happy to be proven wrong'.

Exactly. There's a big difference between trying to expand your knowledge when you discover something that you find interesting or unusual and making definitive claims based on that limited knowledge and understanding.

Quote

Too many people on these boards talk in certainties. Chuck is a recognised industry figure with an amazing comic history behind him. Lazyboy is a bloke on a chat forum. If I had to put my money on who knows the most, I would probably pick Lazyboy. I have spoken to countless dealers over 30 years. I mention a comic thing that interests me and they start to lecture me. I fire a question or two back - civil and friendly - and they clam up, when they realise you know more than them. It's natural for dealers to do that - they want to impress you.

I've heard a lot of interesting things from talking with various dealers and collectors over the years. Some coming from a place of great knowledge and really teaching me something about the hobby or industry, others... not so much. I've tried to correct some of the wild theories that people have presented, with some degree of success. I can't even imagine where some of the more outlandish ideas originated.

Quote

Chuck has ventured a set of % data for newsstand print runs. My collecting experience generally bears out his position. Does anyone have actual industry data to disprove his general position? I don't, which is why I try to avoid pounding everyone into submission who poses an alternative position.

Has anybody tried contacting the Image guys (like Todd McFarlane) and asking them to share the real numbers? They may be more forthcoming than the big publishers.

this all seems pretty reasonable.  I think EVERYONE agrees that sometime during and after the IMAGE age newsstand comics became increasingly rare, to the point where stuff in the era of ASM 600's newsstands for DC and probably moreso for marvel (after they stopped selling and Barnes and Noble) are likely to be really really rare.  That's in the general case, and I think most people generally accept that.  But to espouse any knowledge of numbers with relation to any specific comic without evidence, its like  guessing how many points and rebounds Kyrie Irving had in the 11th game of the season 4 years ago without looking up the info and just basing it off of your impression of how good he was.  And to try to assign a ratio of direct to newsstand is even more insane, like trying to guess how many points Kyrie scored based on how many rebounds he had that game. 

I'm also not saying Chuck doesn't have some insider knowledge, he might.  But he also has incentive to hype (or overhype) the rarity of a given comic or class of comics, especially since he probably has more of that class of comic than anyone on the planet.  So to trust him blindly on that issue without evidence ... well to each their own.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 hours ago, 1Cool said:

Anyone have an idea what the 1st direct book would have been?  You would think the 1st direct editions in 1980 or whenever they started designating direct vs newsstand would be rare.

The first Direct books that were designated are Marvels dated Feb 1977 (the "fat" diamonds), and DC Whitmans starting in 1978.

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, revat said:

this all seems pretty reasonable.  I think EVERYONE agrees that sometime during and after the IMAGE age newsstand comics became increasingly rare, to the point where stuff in the era of ASM 600's newsstands for DC and probably moreso for marvel (after they stopped selling and Barnes and Noble) are likely to be really really rare.  That's in the general case, and I think most people generally accept that.  But to espouse any knowledge of numbers with relation to any specific comic without evidence, its like  guessing how many points and rebounds Kyrie Irving had in the 11th game of the season 4 years ago without looking up the info and just basing it off of your impression of how good he was.  And to try to assign a ratio of direct to newsstand is even more insane, like trying to guess how many points Kyrie scored based on how many rebounds he had that game. 

I'm also not saying Chuck doesn't have some insider knowledge, he might.  But he also has incentive to hype (or overhype) the rarity of a given comic or class of comics, especially since he probably has more of that class of comic than anyone on the planet.  So to trust him blindly on that issue without evidence ... well to each their own.

Of course...he has a built-in conflict of interest in claiming how rare newsstands are: he's also selling them.

Chuck knows a lot, but there are a lot of things he gets wrong, too. No one...not Chuck, not me, not the most interesting man in the world...is above getting facts wrong, and being corrected. It's how one deals with that that really determines how seriously they should be taken.

[FlyingDonut]

9 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If one can't have a discussion without making the discussion personal, I wouldn't consider that "doing fine."

But I digress.

You say here that you are going to base your comments on your own experience collecting and researching them for years...which is perfectly legitimate...except, in another post, you say this:

Without being too cheeky, doesn't that end your ability to discuss?

You can find a Spawn #1 newsstand on eBay, right now:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2053587.m570.l1313.TR2.TRC1.A0.H0.Xspawn+1+newsstand.TRS0&_nkw=spawn+1+newsstand&_sacat=0

12 listings, of all flavors.

No one is saying that Chuck's SELF-ADMITTED numbers aren't rough estimates. They are.

What is being said is that Chuck's numbers are wayyyyyyy off in certain cases, and contradict what we know about standard practice OF THE TIME, with regard to books sold. How do we know that?

The SOOs tell us quite a bit. When you combine that with information like Capital City Distribution's numbers, you get a better idea of what the "real numbers" are. And, in 1990, the newsstand market wasn't just 15% of all comics sold. It was probably closer to 30-40% still.

To suggest, as some have, that there are/were only 1 newsstand of books like Spawn #1 for every 100 Direct copies is to, again, not understand how those markets worked at that time. It's so woefully far off, such a claim is understandably laughable to people with even a cursory understanding of the comics industry of the period.

If you take the 1.7 million figure...that means, printed or extant, only 17,000 copies of Spawn #1 newsstand was made and/or is extant.

There are probably 17,000 copies of Amazing Fantasy #15 extant.

There are CERTAINLY, without question, far, farrrr more copies of Spawn #1 newsstand. 

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.

[FlyingDonut]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The first Direct books that were designated are Marvels dated Feb 1977 (the "fat" diamonds), and DC Whitmans starting in 1978.

Correct. I thought he meant Direct only, which was Moon Knight 15.

[RockMyAmadeus]

By the by....one of the dealers at Frank & Sons had, about 2 years ago, a long box filled with various newsstands of Marvels from the last 10 years or so, at $1/each. I couldn't bring myself to buy them, even knowing what I know. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute 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.

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?

 

[FlyingDonut]

1 minute 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?

 

Completely agree, but that would be a relatively useful way to check. Run the search every week to get full numbers for a year and then see what happens. I'm not going to do it because I don't care, but it might be useful.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, FlyingDonut said:

Completely agree, but that would be a relatively useful way to check. Run the search every week to get full numbers for a year and then see what happens. I'm not going to do it because I don't care, but it might be useful.

 

Yes, a long-term, scientifically accurate accounting for an extended period of time would certainly be persuasive, if not necessarily conclusive.

That said, I will say, with absolutely 100% certainty, that Image/Malibu DID NOT only print 17,000 or so copies of Spawn #1 in the newsstand format, nor, because of the nature of Spawn #1 and McFarlane, did only 17,000 or so survive.

100% certain.

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:

Correct. I thought he meant Direct only, which was Moon Knight 15.

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

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

[FlyingDonut]

Just now, 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...?

That Ka-Zar book - at the time - was a pretty out there book for Marvel.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Speaking of which...there's an interesting bit of info in Kazar #26, which is the SOO...anyone have a copy handy to print all the relevant details?

It would be a nifty gauge on about how many sales were Direct and newsstand, as the book had gone Direct only during that time period.

Gocollect says 259k printed avg, 80k printed nearest to filing date, but I'd like to get the precise details, see if we can't wrangle any reasonable conclusions from it.

[Logan510]

3 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

Who created the market? Who is benefiting from this artificial market? Who is benefiting from this artificial market more than others? Who is attempting to counter the misinformation surrounding newsstand editions?

You can look around here for a few examples 

[1Cool]

1 hour 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...?

Nope - direct only wouldn't work.  If it was initially uncommon for books to be sold direct and newstant (since it was a new practice to separate them) wouldn't it make sense that there was a few issues where it is rare to find a direct copy?  Or where there so many comic shops selling books that even the first books that had either newsstand or direct still had a high percentage of direct copies?

[GM8]

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Making personally insulting comments about others because you disagree with them is antithetical to the purported rules of this fine establishment..plus, it's a general acknowledgement of the overall inherent unsubstantiality of the position being advanced.

I would ask which statements of yours were "misinterpreted", but, as per regular practice here and throughout modern society, I imagine an answer would not be forthcoming.

Chuck is not a "comic expert" though he is certainly an expert in several fields within comics, as are several people here. 

Good luck in your search for enlightenment.

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.

[FlyingDonut]

9 minutes ago, 1Cool said:

Nope - direct only wouldn't work.  If it was initially uncommon for books to be sold direct and newstant (since it was a new practice to separate them) wouldn't it make sense that there was a few issues where it is rare to find a direct copy?  Or where there so many comic shops selling books that even the first books that had either newsstand or direct still had a high percentage of direct copies?

Ack. Moon Knight 15 (and Moon Knight going forward) was in fact sold direct only.