The "Newsstand Edition" Phenomenon 5 5

[RockMyAmadeus]

58 minutes ago, Martin Sinescu said:

Right, totally agree on all points, just wanted to clarify the difference between newsstands of the early 90's vs. late 90's when you say "newsstands in general from the 80's and 90's are not even remotely rare". Also, I specifically avoided using the term "rare" in my response -- it's clearly misapplied in most circumstances throughout the hobby and I knew what you meant in what you said about the late-00's newsstands (and certainly these are in a different league than the late 90's-mid 2000's newsstands). By "far scarcer overall", that was a comparison relative to their direct market releases. 

But, in an absolute sense, as I said above NO newsstands from Marvel, DC, Image, etc, from ANY part of the 90's are remotely rare. That is true, even when you compare them to newsstands of the 80's. 

A lot of misinformation was absorbed into the hobby with Chuck Rozanski's ridiculous "relative newsstand rarity" chart. Newsstands WERE NOT a mere 15% of the entire comic book market in 1990, or 10% in 1995, or 5% in 2000. Those numbers are pulled out of thin air; they're just guesses, AND...I will point out that during those years, Chuck had essentially nothing whatsoever to do with newsstand sales or distribution. There's no way that the newsstand market was only 15% of the entire market in 1990. I was there; these books are common, and every news vendor in town carried them. And only 10% by 1995? 5% by 2000, and now we're starting to see reality line up with Chucks numbers. Still, they're just not that rare. Rare in 9.8? Sure, absolutely. Once you get to 1997 or thereabouts, EVERY newsstand book is going to be tough in 9.8, no doubt. But ALL comics suffered at this time, not just newsstand comics. 2001 remains the record low year for units sold. People just weren't buying comics. Things are substantially better today than they were around the turn of the century.

But overall? Not at all rare. They just are sitting in collections, gathering collection dust, sprinkled into the market here and there. If and when the market makes a SERIOUS distinction between newsstands and Directs, they will show up, because they DO exist. 

ASM #694 newsstand? Ok, maybe not. ASM #437? Piece of cake.

[shadroch]

Imperial News, the only true Newsstand Distributor for comics on Long Island was out of the comic business right after 1991. The only comics they carried were Digest sized, distributed to supermarkets. I'd want to see proof if anyone claimed newsstands were anything near 25% of the market in 1990. 

[exitmusicblue]

2 hours ago, Martin Sinescu said:

80's? No doubt. Through the early 90's? Maybe. Certainly, though, newsstands from the late 90's-mid 2000's are far scarcer overall and much tougher in high grade through this time period. Just as an example, Batman #567 (1999, 1st Cassandra Cain) is a book I've sought out in the newsstand dress. The highest graded copy I've seen since I started looking a few years ago was a 9.4 (might be the only one I've seen, now that I think about it). I own one copy which I bought supposedly in NM range and it was fairly weak (more like VF/NM but at least I have one). Right now on eBay there are about 30 copies (graded or not) and I don't see any that are newsstands. Definitely something I would pay a premium for vs. Direct. 

The market has certainly recognized this kind of relative rarity... the gap appears to be growing over time (personal observation, as I remember the days when virtually no one cared, nor did the market).

I imagine it’s a salve to those who loved the Coppers/Moderns produced in the gazillions but want to feel less... well... “common” about it.  The super popular Venom #1: 100,000 copies doubtless feels better than 1,000,000, esp. when many Newsstands faced greater adversities in grade, to boot.

Edited October 25, 2017 by exitmusicblue

[Get Marwood & I]

11 hours ago, Fiddy said:

I vaguely remember seeing multi-packs of Whitman comics at a local dime store in the 80s that had books without bar codes on the cover.  I always thought those were reprints.  Were those repackaged direct editions or reprints?

They weren't reprints, just the early direct edition front runners and Whitman would bag them up and sell them like this in packs of three:

 

@RockMyAmadeus is probably the best man to ask about their history - I remember reading some in depth posts from him on the subject.

[shadroch]

If you notice the Diamonds on those two packs, the BIG Diamond books seem to be harder to come by than the smaller Diamond ones.  The Big Diamond books were usually specially made for Whitman, while the smaller were just early Direct copies. Whitman books have the slash thru the UPC code so a cashier doesn't scan that and charge  forty cents for the whole bag. As usual, there are no absolutes when it comes to the way these were distributed.  I've heard of many people who bought a book off a newsstand with a Big Diamond. It's possible some retailers bought the three packs and opened them up to sell individually, making an extra six cents in the process.  Some states charged sales tax on the packaged three packs but not on individual comics, others didn't charge sales tax on purchases less than a buck. 

[Get Marwood & I]

26 minutes ago, shadroch said:

If you notice the Diamonds on those two packs, the BIG Diamond books seem to be harder to come by than the smaller Diamond ones.  The Big Diamond books were usually specially made for Whitman, while the smaller were just early Direct copies. Whitman books have the slash thru the UPC code so a cashier doesn't scan that and charge  forty cents for the whole bag. As usual, there are no absolutes when it comes to the way these were distributed.  I've heard of many people who bought a book off a newsstand with a Big Diamond. It's possible some retailers bought the three packs and opened them up to sell individually, making an extra six cents in the process.  Some states charged sales tax on the packaged three packs but not on individual comics, others didn't charge sales tax on purchases less than a buck. 

 

I like that theory on the blank and slashed barcodes @shadroch - it makes sense, to stop an individual comic barcode being scanned in error. If that were true though, wouldn't the Whitman bags have their own barcode? They don't - here's a front and back of my old ASM 192-194 bag:

 

 

Also, this image further undermines the theory:

 

@wormboy has a cracking thread running here with more info on them:

 

As you say, there are no absolutes on these early variations. I think that's why people love them so much 

[shadroch]

I don't think it undermines the theory. it simply doesn't support it.  UPC scanners were far from universal in those days. 

[mosconi]

21 hours ago, Westy Steve said:

Doesn't it work the other way too?  Back in the day, I remember looking for Direct Editions because most books were news stand versions and there were few Direct Editions available.

Interesting discussion.  So although Newsstand copies were much more abundant than Direct Edition's in the 70's and 80's, weren't Newsstand copies subject to considerably more customer/vendor store mishandling, spinner rack damage, book shelf damage, etc? 

[Semicentennial]

2 hours ago, Marwood & I said:

They weren't reprints, just the early direct edition front runners and Whitman would bag them up and sell them like this in packs of three:

 

@RockMyAmadeus is probably the best man to ask about their history - I remember reading some in depth posts from him on the subject.

So these books can potential have three different variations (lined out bar code, bar code, and blank UPC)?  Whenever I've seen the blank UPC I assumed they were Whitman reprints.  Some of the reprints have "reprint" printed on the cover while others don't.  

Cool multi-packs you have there.

 

 

[Get Marwood & I]

30 minutes ago, Fiddy said:

So these books can potential have three different variations (lined out bar code, bar code, and blank UPC)?  Whenever I've seen the blank UPC I assumed they were Whitman reprints.  Some of the reprints have "reprint" printed on the cover while others don't.  

Cool multi-packs you have there.

 

 

Ta, but they are scans I kept of a collection long since sold alas. 

I'll do a fuller response another time unless someone beats me to it @Fiddy as I want to include pics and I'm on my tablet at the mo. I'm rubbish on my tablet. No jokes now. But as far as first printings go, there are only two regular versions here - newsstands and directs. If we take Amazing Spider-Man as an example, newsstands were there from the off and directs started at issue 165.  The directs appearance was hit and miss in the early days with blank, normal or slashed barcodes and diamond price boxes of various shapes and sizes until the directs settled into a standard format.

So, in those early days there were only 2 versions - newsstands and directs (if we ignore price variants) - so any books you have seen with reprint on them are just that - reprints. 

[Semicentennial]

22 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

Ta, but they are scans I kept of a collection long since sold alas. 

I'll do a fuller response another time unless someone beats me to it @Fiddy as I want to include pics and I'm on my tablet at the mo. I'm rubbish on my tablet. No jokes now. But as far as first printings go, there are only two regular versions here - newsstands and directs. If we take Amazing Spider-Man as an example, newsstands were there from the off and directs started at issue 165.  The directs appearance was hit and miss in the early days with blank, normal or slashed barcodes and diamond price boxes of various shapes and sizes until the directs settled into a standard format.

So, in those early days there were only 2 versions - newsstands and directs (if we ignore price variants) - so any books you have seen with reprint on them are just that - reprints. 

Thanks for the response on this.  I remember seeing .35 Star Wars #1 with a white box instead of a bar code thinking it was a reprint.  I believe those were actual reprints and assumed all white boxed bar codes were reprints.

[Lazyboy]

23 hours ago, The_Investor said:

With all due respect , Canadian Newsstands from the 1980's are scarce to rare in (8.0 +) and not mid to lower grades. These books were printed at the same time on the same printers as the american ones. Try finding a higher graded key Canadian Newsstand in higher grades...very tough. Just look at the CGC census and it speaks volumes (i.e. ASM 238, 252, etc...) The ratio between the direct and newsstands is huge (about 2 percent are Canadian) .

The CGC census is absolutely useless for Canadian Newsstands. There are far too many that weren't properly classified when they were graded.

23 hours ago, The_Investor said:

there's a great site that has done lots of research and the top senior advisors from Overstreet that pointed out the 30/35 cent books have been pounding the table about the Canadian Price Variants. These books are not foreign books...lots of proof of individuals buying them across the border into the USA as well.

I know all about Canadian Newsstands, but they aren't really what we're discussing.

23 hours ago, The_Investor said:

www.rarecomics.wordpress.com  

You shall also find an excellent explanation of why they are rare . The first price guide geared to value these books is also presented for free.   

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by trying (there is no "www." in the address) to link to one of the hype/misinformation sources I referenced. That site is terrible.

[Westy Steve]

52 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

Ta, but they are scans I kept of a collection long since sold alas. 

I'll do a fuller response another time unless someone beats me to it @Fiddy as I want to include pics and I'm on my tablet at the mo. I'm rubbish on my tablet. No jokes now. But as far as first printings go, there are only two regular versions here - newsstands and directs. If we take Amazing Spider-Man as an example, newsstands were there from the off and directs started at issue 165.  The directs appearance was hit and miss in the early days with blank, normal or slashed barcodes and diamond price boxes of various shapes and sizes until the directs settled into a standard format.

So, in those early days there were only 2 versions - newsstands and directs (if we ignore price variants) - so any books you have seen with reprint on them are just that - reprints. 

Ok, I know that the focus of this thread is about how rare Newsstands were later.  And we all know Whitmans are pretty rare.  But based on what Marwood is saying (above), book like....say....Spiderman #166 should be hard to find as a Direct (non-Whitman) edition.  FWIW, this corresponds to the 30 cent cover price era.

[darkstar]

On 10/24/2017 at 2:38 PM, Lazyboy said:

There are a handful of people manipulating this market with hype and misinformation. And many suckers are apparently buying it.

and that is all that needs to be said.

[The_Investor]

4 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

The CGC census is absolutely useless for Canadian Newsstands. There are far too many that weren't properly classified when they were graded.

I know all about Canadian Newsstands, but they aren't really what we're discussing.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by trying (there is no "www." in the address) to link to one of the hype/misinformation sources I referenced. That site is terrible.

I agree with the fact that CGC has not labelled a number of Canadian Price Variants so the pool of books out there are slightly higher but none the less scarcer than their counter-parts and thus , in my opinion more desirable investment-wise in the top grades  (9.2-9.8) .  CGC accepted a return with one of the  books I purchased online and will relabel it at no cost to me and that was nice to hear. Now if only we can get CGC to label them correctly!!! These are not Canadian editions but " 75 cent cover price variants"... ."95 cent cover price variants" , etc...

In regards to the discussion on the thread I only noticed afterwards that it was not pertaining to Canadian Newsstands (I did not have time to read all the previous messages)- so my bad. 

In regards to proving anything, we are all here to have a respectful and cordial discussion about a topic that engages us all and brings the passion out in all of us:)  

Maybe I'm not following you, so I apologize if I misunderstood but the website I quoted above is a very good source of information that I have personally verified (I am only referring to the Canadian Price Variant articles that he wrote which I can state with certainty the information is very interesting and accurate indeed ) . 

Anyhow, back to the discussion at hand about the Newsstands     

Edited October 26, 2017 by The_Investor

[fastballspecial]

Money always brings out the books everytime. I don't recall anyone stating newsstands in the 80s or early 90s are rare. As you float back to the later 90s and early 00s then they get tough.

High grade newsstands are tougher in general. I never pass on a NM newsstand copy of any book from the 90s and up if its cheap.  The Venom book being discussed is tougher to find for some reason as a newsstand. It should be that hard to find, but I am looking quite a bit and I have found 2 copies.

Local shop sold their copy in 1 day for $45.00 in VF/NM. The book is hot simple as that. Now you can see more copies are coming out now. I think I see about 15 or so on ebay now. It looks currently in raw to pull $50 in NM or better while lesser copies are $25-40 currently. Be interesting to see if more come out in high grade and if they do the price will come down some. The leaked movie --script or so called leak is always helping the hype train currently on the book.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by fastballspecial

[exitmusicblue]

46 minutes ago, fastballspecial said:

Money always brings out the books everytime. I don't recall anyone stating newsstands in the 80s or early 90s are rare. As you float back to the later 90s and early 00s then they get tough.

High grade newsstands are tougher in general. I never pass on a NM newsstand copy of any book from the 90s and up if its cheap.  The Venom book being discussed is tougher to find for some reason as a newsstand. It should be that hard to find, but I am looking quite a bit and I have found 2 copies.

Local shop sold their copy in 1 day for $45.00 in VF/NM. The book is hot simple as that. Now you can see more copies are coming out now. I think I see about 15 or so on ebay now. It looks currently in raw to pull $50 in NM or better while lesser copies are $25-40 currently. Be interesting to see if more come out in high grade and if they do the price will come down some. The leaked movie ---script or so called leak is always helping the hype train currently on the book.

 

 

Didn’t know about the leaked -script, consensus is that it’s good?

[fastballspecial]

Who knows. Its been in the media for the last week or so I am sure it helps the book a little.

 

[Lazyboy]

1 hour ago, mosconi said:

Interesting discussion.  So although Newsstand copies were much more abundant than Direct Edition's in the 70's and 80's, weren't Newsstand copies subject to considerably more customer/vendor store mishandling, spinner rack damage, book shelf damage, etc? 

More? Sure. Considerably more? Maybe, but remember that the unsold Newsstand copies were (theoretically) destroyed and it's likely that those unsold copies were the most damaged.

5 hours ago, The_Investor said:

I agree with the fact that CGC has not labelled a number of Canadian Price Variants so the pool of books out there are slightly higher but none the less scarcer than their counter-parts and thus , in my opinion more desirable investment-wise in the top grades  (9.2-9.8) .  CGC accepted a return with one of the  books I purchased online and will relabel it at no cost to me and that was nice to hear. Now if only we can get CGC to label them correctly!!! These are not Canadian editions but " 75 cent cover price variants"... ."95 cent cover price variants" , etc...

No, they are Canadian Newsstand editions. That's why they were produced and it's the most accurate description for them.

5 hours ago, The_Investor said:

In regards to proving anything, we are all here to have a respectful and cordial discussion about a topic that engages us all and brings the passion out in all of us:)  

Maybe I'm not following you, so I apologize if I misunderstood but the website I quoted above is a very good source of information that I have personally verified (I am only referring to the Canadian Price Variant articles that he wrote which I can state with certainty the information is very interesting and accurate indeed ) .

There is no article on that site that is accurate. Sure, there is some good information in most of the articles, but there is misinformation (usually a significant amount) in EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

[mosconi]

10 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

  12 hours ago, mosconi said:

Interesting discussion.  So although Newsstand copies were much more abundant than Direct Edition's in the 70's and 80's, weren't Newsstand copies subject to considerably more customer/vendor store mishandling, spinner rack damage, book shelf damage, etc? 

 

More? Sure. Considerably more? Maybe, but remember that the unsold Newsstand copies were (theoretically) destroyed and it's likely that those unsold copies were the most damaged.

 

It makes sense that the unsold/remainder Newsstand copies would be the most damaged issues.  But my point is that although Newsstand copy print runs are not rare in the 70' and 80's, aren't the Newsstand copies overall considered slightly more difficult in "ultra high grade" in comparison to the Direct Edition copies, which were handled, stored, and cared for much better by vendors and collectors? 

Edited October 26, 2017 by mosconi