The "Newsstand Edition" Phenomenon 5 5

[shadroch]

7 minutes ago, mosconi said:

Very interesting, I had never heard of this.  Wouldn't this method of ordering allow comic dealers to return unsold newsstand copies if they wanted, which they weren't supposed to be able to do?  Wonder if this method of ordering occurred in the late 70's and early 80's as well? I was of the mindset that newsstand copies meant just that, since they were refundable if unsold  

Several of my friends that had shops had newsstand accounts, as well as  Direct . This let them carry magazines and they would get small amounts of returnable comics. Problem was the comics were three weeks behind.  I never did, because my first shop was done on a real shoe string and the local magazine distributor wanted something like a $1,000 deposit and I had to buy a rack from them.  Had to sell a boatload of .60 cent comics to clear $1,000.  My money was in back issues and D&D, at least for the first few months.  Transformers, as well. I couldn't keep those things in stock. 

Edited October 26, 2017 by shadroch

[Lazyboy]

2 hours ago, skrank said:

Marwood, I think you have to be careful calling whitman copies 'direct' as they were for a different market altogether than the direct to comic store approach, which from what I can tell began in June of '79 for Marvel, so ASM 193.  While they do share the diamond shape price-box, can't be classified as directs, IMO...

The Direct Market started years before the publishers figured out how to properly use it. The defining aspect of Direct distribution is no returns .

Whitman was not part of the newsstand distribution system. They were a Direct distributor, regardless of where they distributed their copies.

43 minutes ago, shadroch said:

That's strange. I don't recall being able to split orders like that. In fact, my distributor made a big deal out of locating newsstand Spidey  Annual 21s for us, as it had a different cover than the direct.  I do remember being able to order the newsstand Man of Steel #1 covers from my distro.

The DM got a variant cover for that issue as well as the regular cover. Not the same as ASM Annual 21, which had different exclusive covers for the two distribution channels.

7 hours ago, Marwood & I said:

I've seen you criticise this site a number of times @Lazyboy

Could you give a few examples of the misinformation you refer to please?

I guess you missed this post. And that's only a small fraction of the errors from one article.

 

 

[shadroch]

As I recall, and it was well over thirty years ago, Man Of Steel #1 came with two covers. The  Newstands got one with Clark Kent ripping open his shirt to reveal the Superman emblem. The DM got one with just a close up of the Superman emblem. 

Added:

Mile High has both DM and Newstand copies of the Clark Kent cover, so it appears you were correct. The closeup is a variant cover. 

Edited October 26, 2017 by shadroch

[Get Marwood & I]

20 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

 

I guess you missed this post. And that's only a small fraction of the errors from one article.

 

 

Thanks, I did miss that @Lazyboy, yes. Have you ever got in touch with the author to debate where you think his assumptions aren't correct? He seems very positive and passionate to me and would likely embrace any positive input that you could corroborate? 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/25/2017 at 9:23 AM, 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. 

You're confusing multiple issues. 

There are "fat diamonds" and "slim diamonds."

The "slim diamonds" became standard cover dress with the June/July 1979 cover dates going forward, all the way to the "M" change of Oct, 1982 cover dates.

However...there are "slim diamonds" that exist all the way back to 1977:

As to the slash marks, you are correct: they were to prevent cashiers from scanning books in "packs" and just charging for the one book. Later, Marvel replaced the slash with artwork. However, this showed a lack of foresight on their parts, because it was just assumed that Direct market customers...aka comic book shops...wouldn't have any use for the barcodes, and thus set the comic book industry back quite a bit in terms of tracking sales and inventory control. 

This was finally rectified in 1993, when Marvel, DC, and others finally put barcodes on their Direct counterparts. 

That said, the June/July 1979 books ARE NOT "Whitmans", definitively, even though the Whitman 3-pack program would continue until 1980 at the very least with Marvel. They are Direct market copies. So, any book you see with a June/July 1979 cover date, small diamond, and slash is just a Direct market copy.

Back to the diamonds: while the early Direct market was, indeed, dominated by Western ("Whitman") and their needs, they weren't the only ones. Comic book shops had figured out that they, too, could order comics at a much cheaper price through the Direct market, but also have a newsstand account (Curtis or ID) which they could then funnel unsold books back into for a return, thus milking the system. 

Marvel recognized that either it was already happening, or it COULD happen, which is why they instituted the designation in the first place. After all...Western already had its own DM designation label, which was "Whitman"...the newsstand books were still Gold Key, as they had been since 1962.

The prevailing wisdom...that these are all just 3-pack "Whitmans"...has certainly needed to be revisited over the years. One thing that few consider is the fact that Whitman often (nearly always...?) packaged books in sets of consecutive issues...meaning the FIRST issue in the pack was already a couple of months old by the time the last issue showed up. That time delay is why 1. many people thought these were reprints: they wouldn't show up at K-Mart or Payless or Thrifty for months after the book was published; 2. they weren't necessarily part of the "newsstand returns" program, because the publishers didn't wait forever for the books to be stripped/returned/affidavits filed. If my first issue has passed the deadline for filing for credit, I am less likely to try and game the system, especially if I'm Western/Whitman, which I doubt would even have tried.

The fact that you heard of people buying fat diamond books off the newsstand seems to confirm that. After all...a newsstand vendor would have to go to the effort of acquiring these packs from other retailer establishments (K-Mart, etc.) and by then, the books would be many months old...and for not much profit. If you're a newsstand vendor, why would you want an ASM #188 alongside an ASM #195? I suspect these are vendors, in the fuzzy heyday transition between traditional newsstands and comic book specialty stores (remember when they were called "specialty"...?), who played both sides of the fence.

No, I have long suspected that the reason for the cover dress change was either 1. to prevent regular Direct market comic stores from gaming the system and/or 2. to forestall such attempts. Clearly, it had been an issue, which is why Marvel addressed it in the first place, and it's doubtful that Whitman/Western was the responsible party in the fraud. Maybe their sub-distributors, maybe, but I suspect it was just regular ol' DM customers, buying from Seagate (Phil Seuling) or Bud Plant or whomever.

All that aside, I also find it interesting that Western was interested in selling its own competition in its 3-packs.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/25/2017 at 11:29 AM, Fiddy said:

On 10/25/2017 at 8:27 AM, 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.

The only reprints you're going to see are the Star Wars #1-6. Those were the only ones identified as reprints.

Interestingly, Star Wars #1-6 has the most variations of any of these books in this time period.

For example:

There are Star Wars #1s with the word "reprint" on the cover, in the logo box.

There are Star Wars #1s with the word "reprint" in the indicia.

There are Star Wars #1s that are reprints WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES AS REPRINTS (I have one of these; it's a fat diamond 35 cent copy. Still a reprint, probably bound with the guts of a non-reprint.)

And, of course, the usual Star Wars #1 first printings, 35 cent test, etc.

This is critical: none of the other "fat diamond/slim diamond" books of this era are reprints. 

None of them.

Overstreet confused the issue with Star Wars #1-6, and for a very, very, VERY long time, people thought of ALL of these books as reprints...because, of course, they remembered buying them months after the fact. 

But they weren't. They never were. They were all first (and only) printings, that Western/Whitman had just been gathering at their warehouse/distribution/pack-making facility, and then packaged and sent out when they were ready.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 hours ago, skrank said:

23 hours 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. 

Marwood, I think you have to be careful calling whitman copies 'direct' as they were for a different market altogether than the direct to comic store approach, which from what I can tell began in June of '79 for Marvel, so ASM 193.  While they do share the diamond shape price-box, can't be classified as directs, IMO...

On the contrary: I think you have to be careful calling DIRECT copies "Whitmans." 

Those Whitmans were absolutely, positively, without a doubt "Direct market" participants. ALL Whitmans were Direct copies, but NOT all Direct copies were Whitmans.

In 1977, there were, what, 100 comic book stores throughout the country? Maybe? The Direct market, begun when Phil Seuling convinced Marvel, DC, and others to initiate in '73-'74...and which Beerbohm claims happened as early as 1967 with Zap #1, but which is entirely DIFFERENT discussion, even though sharing the same track...was a young, unusual system. Clearly, though, some customers had attempted to game the system, or someone had unusual foresight, which is why Marvel developed the different cover dress program in late 1976: these books had to be distinguished in some way. 

It is perfectly acceptable to call Whitmans "Direct market" copies, because that is what they were: designed to prevent these DISCOUNTED books from being returned for credit via the normal newsstand distribution system that had been in place for 40 or so years.

So, while yes, Western/Whitman dominated (and dictated) the early Direct market program, by late 1978 the writing was on the wall, and Marvel implemented the company-wide Direct market cover marking program with the Feb-Mar 1979 published comics ("June-July" cover dates.) Whitman was not the only participant in the program; Bud Plant, Seagate (Seuling), etc were all early participants as well.

[RockMyAmadeus]

45 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

4 hours ago, skrank said:

Marwood, I think you have to be careful calling whitman copies 'direct' as they were for a different market altogether than the direct to comic store approach, which from what I can tell began in June of '79 for Marvel, so ASM 193.  While they do share the diamond shape price-box, can't be classified as directs, IMO...

The Direct Market started years before the publishers figured out how to properly use it. The defining aspect of Direct distribution is no returns .

Whitman was not part of the newsstand distribution system. They were a Direct distributor, regardless of where they distributed their copies.

1 hour ago, shadroch said:

That's strange. I don't recall being able to split orders like that. In fact, my distributor made a big deal out of locating newsstand Spidey  Annual 21s for us, as it had a different cover than the direct.  I do remember being able to order the newsstand Man of Steel #1 covers from my distro.

The DM got a variant cover for that issue as well as the regular cover. Not the same as ASM Annual 21, which had different exclusive covers for the two distribution channels.

8 hours ago, Marwood & I said:

I've seen you criticise this site a number of times @Lazyboy

Could you give a few examples of the misinformation you refer to please?

I guess you missed this post. And that's only a small fraction of the errors from one article.

I agree. The author, "Benjamin Nobel", has not corrected errors in his "blog"

This entry, particularly, is filled with errors:

https://rarecomics.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/comic-book-newsstand-editions-understanding-the-difference/

And, a comment that I made two days ago is "awaiting moderation" aka double-speak for "never going to be published."

That's not the behavior of a serious scholar, but someone who doesn't like to be corrected.

[BlowUpTheMoon]

23 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

Quote

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.

Just read through that site.  Hype and misinformation everywhere.

[Get Marwood & I]

43 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

On the contrary: I think you have to be careful calling DIRECT copies "Whitmans." 

Those Whitmans were absolutely, positively, without a doubt "Direct market" participants. ALL Whitmans were Direct copies, but NOT all Direct copies were Whitmans.

In 1977, there were, what, 100 comic book stores throughout the country? Maybe? The Direct market, begun when Phil Seuling convinced Marvel, DC, and others to initiate in '73-'74...and which Beerbohm claims happened as early as 1967 with Zap #1, but which is entirely DIFFERENT discussion, even though sharing the same track...was a young, unusual system. Clearly, though, some customers had attempted to game the system, or someone had unusual foresight, which is why Marvel developed the different cover dress program in late 1976: these books had to be distinguished in some way. 

It is perfectly acceptable to call Whitmans "Direct market" copies, because that is what they were: designed to prevent these DISCOUNTED books from being returned for credit via the normal newsstand distribution system that had been in place for 40 or so years.

So, while yes, Western/Whitman dominated (and dictated) the early Direct market program, by late 1978 the writing was on the wall, and Marvel implemented the company-wide Direct market cover marking program with the Feb-Mar 1979 published comics ("June-July" cover dates.) Whitman was not the only participant in the program; Bud Plant, Seagate (Seuling), etc were all early participants as well.

Sorry Rock, I was half way through a long reply and the phone went.  Lost the lot.

In your view, and using ASM as the issue number template, what would you call the first unequivocal direct edition number - 193 (re my earlier posts)?

And what would you call the issues from 165 to 192 (again, re my earlier post) if you agree with the 193 assessment?

Is there a straight quantifiable answer, or is this something people will always debate / differ on?

 

[Lazyboy]

8 hours ago, The_Investor said:

I respectfully need to differ with you in regards to the Canadian Edition labels. "Canadian Edition" should refer only to the 1940's + comics because those books had some different content (cover page at times....and different ads) . Also, the printing slabs were shipped from the USA to Canada thus having a different origin altogether. On a different point, being a Canuck yourself ( I am as well) I'm certain you're aware that at the start of WW2 a law was passed in Canada that limited imports from the USA (this included comic books) therefore Canadians felt the need to create their own content  (i.e, thus the creation of Nelvanna , etc...)

To be clear, I do not endorse CGC's "Canadian Edition" terminology. There are 3 versions of comics from those years in the 80s: Direct, Newsstand, and Canadian Newsstand. They were all published by the same company and printed at the same time.

The 1940s "Canadian Edition" comics are the same as almost any other foreign edition. They were licensed to a publisher in another country.

8 hours ago, The_Investor said:

However, the 1980's is a whole different story. These comics were printed at the same time, same ink, same location with the same content as direct copies (except for the bar code and the price listed on the cover which was slightly higher to compensate for the falling loonie). These Canadian Price Variants were also sold in the USA in certain locations either testing the market with a higher cover price or to fill in under-supplied areas just south of the border (Some large Chain stores such as 'Toy's "R" Us ' sold these books in multi packs but having been shipped from Canada back to the USA the books were not in the best of conditions.

What happened to any copy after initial distribution is irrelevant to this discussion.

The "test market" theory is 100% pure bull from hucksters who want people to equate Canadian Newsstand editions with 30/35c variants. First of all, the Canadian prices don't line up with the U.S. increases. Secondly, the DM (with its dual-priced copies) was quickly becoming the dominant distribution channel. Finally, no "price test" lasts 47-72 consecutive months, includes an increase, and perfectly matches the Canadian price on DM editions the entire time.

8 hours ago, The_Investor said:

Funny thing that we are discussing the "Canadian Edition" labels, rarecomics.wordpress.com  just released an article yesterday about this very topic and it's a very good read and accurate indeed.

No, it isn't.

[cranky's]

51 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

On the contrary: I think you have to be careful calling DIRECT copies "Whitmans." 

Those Whitmans were absolutely, positively, without a doubt "Direct market" participants. ALL Whitmans were Direct copies, but NOT all Direct copies were Whitmans.

In 1977, there were, what, 100 comic book stores throughout the country? Maybe? The Direct market, begun when Phil Seuling convinced Marvel, DC, and others to initiate in '73-'74...and which Beerbohm claims happened as early as 1967 with Zap #1, but which is entirely DIFFERENT discussion, even though sharing the same track...was a young, unusual system. Clearly, though, some customers had attempted to game the system, or someone had unusual foresight, which is why Marvel developed the different cover dress program in late 1976: these books had to be distinguished in some way. 

It is perfectly acceptable to call Whitmans "Direct market" copies, because that is what they were: designed to prevent these DISCOUNTED books from being returned for credit via the normal newsstand distribution system that had been in place for 40 or so years.

So, while yes, Western/Whitman dominated (and dictated) the early Direct market program, by late 1978 the writing was on the wall, and Marvel implemented the company-wide Direct market cover marking program with the Feb-Mar 1979 published comics ("June-July" cover dates.) Whitman was not the only participant in the program; Bud Plant, Seagate (Seuling), etc were all early participants as well.

All this makes my head hurt...  sooo my question now:

Is it safe to say, that pre-'79 diamond price-box comics are single-distributor pre-cursors to the industry-wide Direct Market that went into effect with the June 1979 cover date for Marvel, October 1980 for DC?

And therefore... were there other companies involved other than the Whitman/Western?

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/24/2017 at 4:08 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

Speaking of which, are you the Benjamin Nobel that owns that wordpress blog you link here?

@The_Investor

Hi. Still waiting for a response on this. Thanks!

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, skrank said:

All this makes my head hurt...  sooo my question now:

Is it safe to say, that pre-'79 diamond price-box comics are single-distributor pre-cursors to the industry-wide Direct Market that went into effect with the June 1979 cover date for Marvel, October 1980 for DC?

And therefore... were there other companies involved other than the Whitman/Western?

Other companies involved in what? Direct market distribution, or Direct market cover marking?

No, it's not safe to say that. There were multiple Direct market distributors...Seagate, Bud Plant, Pacific Comics etc....before Marvel started experimenting with cover dress in late 1976. 

Aside to @Lazyboy and @darkstar...would it kill ya to give some of my posts a like once in a while...?  I go around, liking all your posts, and get NO love in return. Jeez.

[RockMyAmadeus]

29 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

Sorry Rock, I was half way through a long reply and the phone went.  Lost the lot.

In your view, and using ASM as the issue number template, what would you call the first unequivocal direct edition number - 193 (re my earlier posts)?

And what would you call the issues from 165 to 192 (again, re my earlier post) if you agree with the 193 assessment?

Is there a straight quantifiable answer, or is this something people will always debate / differ on?

 

The first unequivocal Direct market issue of ASM is #165.

The great folks at BIP comics...with some uncredited help from yours truly...have put together this fine list:

http://www.bipcomics.com/showcase/Direct/index.php

[cranky's]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No, it's not safe to say that. There were multiple Direct market distributors...Seagate, Bud Plant, Pacific Comics etc....before Marvel started experimenting with cover dress in late 1976. 

That's what I was asking.  Your patience is commendable.

[Get Marwood & I]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The first unequivocal Direct market issue of ASM is #165.

The great folks at BIP comics...with some uncredited help from yours truly...have put together this fine list:

http://www.bipcomics.com/showcase/Direct/index.php

Ha! I remember that site. It's link is in the pictures I posted earlier. You had a hand in that?  Cool.

So, the non-newsstand ASM issues from 165 up are direct editions. Not Whitmans,  not diamonds,  not early directs. Just 'direct editions'. Is that what you're saying?

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, BlowUpTheMoon said:

On 10/25/2017 at 12:48 PM, Lazyboy said:

Quote

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.

Just read through that site.  Hype and misinformation everywhere.

By the way...this is why I've been so relentless about getting a hold of every bit of research material possible and reading, reading, reading.

The author...Benjamin Nobel...makes some careless mistakes that he wouldn't make if he were more dedicated to serious scholarship.

For example, in this article:

https://rarecomics.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/the-75-cent-price-puzzle-parallels-to-35-cent-variants/

...in which the author tried to "parallel" to "35 cent variants" (there is NO parallel), he makes the mistake of quoting a mistake in CBM from 1998. To whit: 

"“Of the eight 35¢ variants and five 30¢ variants noted in Overstreet #27, four of them are Star Wars #1-4, three are X-Men #98-99, and #106, and the eighth is Iron Fist #15. That’s right, two out of three are popular, high visibility, high demand comics. Only four others have been noticed and referred to by Overstreet in the last 20 years!”

(Jon McClure, Comic Book Marketplace issue #55, Jan 1998)

Except that Mr. McClure was, himself, in error. 

Now, Mr. Nobel suggests Mr. McClure might be mistaken:

"unless the article has a typo and 106 is meant to be 100 — similarly, I have to wonder if Iron Fist #15 was meant to say #14 as the 1st appearance of Sabretooth"

...but not for the right reasons. Again, here's where an understanding of the history of HISTORY...that is, how the past was perceived at different points in the nearer past...would make these things clearer. For example, for a very long time, almost from the time of publication, Iron Fist #15 was a key issue, and the most valuable book in the run, because it was an early John Byrne X-Men story. Far and away, for over a decade, #15 was THE key issue. However, since the early 90's, IF #15 has faded away, while #14 has taken center stage. But one wouldn't know that, unless they read the literature of the time period. The answer in 1998 was NO, Jon McClure DID NOT mean IF #14...he meant #15, which is what he said.

Also, Mr. McClure didn't make a typo: if he had meant X-Men #100, he would have simply written X-Men #98-100. Now, I don't have my OPG #27 handy, but I recognize the passage, and believe that McClure was correct in quoting the OPG, but he is still in error about the details (obviously.) 30 cent issues HAD been known, and commented on, as far back as the mid-80's, when these books were a decade old. They even appear in OPG Updates, as "X-Men #98-100 30 cent price. NOT rare!" So, these books WERE known, on some level, by OPG and others...but nobody cared. 

But, of course, if someone didn't research that, they'd have no way of knowing. 

[BlowUpTheMoon]

25 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

On ‎10‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 7:08 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

Speaking of which, are you the Benjamin Nobel that owns that wordpress blog you link here?

@The_Investor

Hi. Still waiting for a response on this. Thanks!

[RockMyAmadeus]

10 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

15 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The first unequivocal Direct market issue of ASM is #165.

The great folks at BIP comics...with some uncredited help from yours truly...have put together this fine list:

http://www.bipcomics.com/showcase/Direct/index.php

Ha! I remember that site. It's link is in the pictures I posted earlier. You had a hand in that?  Cool.

So, the non-newsstand ASM issues from 165 up are direct editions. Not Whitmans,  not diamonds,  not early directs. Just 'direct editions'. Is that what you're saying?

I didn't have a direct hand in BIP, no, but several paragraphs in that article are lifted from posts I made, probably at the Valiantfans board, over the years. Specifically, these paragraphs:

"Diamond issues are the same printing as the newsstand issues but with modified covers to denote that these issues were sold directly for redistribution and not for newsstand sales (issues distributed by Curtis Circulation). The earliest distributor of these diamond cover issues was Western Publishing Company which sold these issues in their Whitman three-packs. Unlike newsstand issues which could be returned if unsold, diamond cover issues could not be returned and the cover modification was Marvel's way of marking these issues.

From Marvel in "The Marvel Comics Guide to Collecting Comics" (page 6):
The number, month and price in this diamond shape means the issue was not distributed by Curtis Circulation and, that you probably got it from a direct sales comic shop or other outlet. The two boxes (not shown here) with a little "cc" symbol means it was circulated by Curtis. It means nothing as far as value is concerned to collectors. Please Note: MARVEL has recently replaced the diamond shape with this newly designed symbol: 
[pictured is the M symbol mentioned below]

While it is true Western Publishing was the largest distributor of these early diamond issues between 1977-1979 there is anecdotal evidence that indicates they were not the only distributor. Recollections of several dealers have indicated that they had received diamond issues at varying points in time prior to 1980. Regardless of these recollections, it is clear that Western Publishing was the driving force behind these early diamond cover print runs. Starting with comics cover dated June 1979, Marvel began sending diamond cover issues to subscribers and comic shops. At this point diamond cover issues became the de facto standard for Direct Sale destinations."

...are mine. Sounds like me, doesn't it.

By the way...I also found my thank you letter from Arnold at Gemstone for my contribution to the OGG, 2nd edition. I'm famous!