The "Newsstand Edition" Phenomenon 5 5

[Logan510]

1 minute ago, comix4fun said:

So, how would you have handed it? 

Probably not as nicely as xcomic seems to be handling it now.

[Philflound]

If you want to talk about non-newsstand items, which has been now for several pages, create another thread. This has gotten way off topic.

[comix4fun]

Just now, Logan510 said:

Probably not as nicely as xcomic seems to be handling it now.

We haven't heard anything from RMA on this. Maybe we should.

Personally, if someone questioned my honesty I would demonstrate my honesty by addressing the specific items being called lies or fraudulent statements. Then I would explain the basis for my statements and how I arrived at my conclusions with supporting documentation and facts. Then I would let my statements stand in direct opposition to the claims that I am dishonest. 

[comix4fun]

1 minute ago, Philflound said:

If you want to talk about non-newsstand items, which has been now for several pages, create another thread. This has gotten way off topic.

I think this is a discussion of two sides of the newsstand item discussion. 

[Logan510]

9 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

We haven't heard anything from RMA on this. Maybe we should.

Personally, if someone questioned my honesty I would demonstrate my honesty by addressing the specific items being called lies or fraudulent statements. Then I would explain the basis for my statements and how I arrived at my conclusions with supporting documentation and facts. Then I would let my statements stand in direct opposition to the claims that I am dishonest. 

Seeing the zeal with which you have gone after people you apparently don't like, I can't imagine you would be as calm and collected if someone flat out called you a fraud and a liar and did so on a public message board.

I will admit I may be wrong about that.

My perception is that when it comes to a specific someone, both of our perceptions may be biased.

[mrwoogieman]

Maybe someone could tell the blogger that tldr isn't RMA. Think that will get him on topic and responding to some of the points that have been raised with respect to the facts laid out in his blog?

[comix4fun]

11 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Seeing the zeal with which you have gone after people you apparently don't like, I can't imagine you would be as calm and collected if someone flat out called you a fraud and a liar and did so on a public message board.

I will admit I may be wrong about that.

My perception is that when it comes to a specific someone, both of our perceptions may be biased.

I'm not saying calm. I'm saying rebut, retort, respond and do so in an open setting to correct the record. That means both sides speaking openly without censoring from within or without. Then the facts will decide. 

I'm not even saying cool and collected. Get heated if you must. If they must. Just don't short circuit the disagreement in an attempt to win through silencing the opposition. That's not a win, at least not one based on debate of the facts. 

And if you think I "go after people" simply because I don't like them you might not know me as well as I thought you did.  There are lots of people I don't like that I don't "go after". Liking them has nothing to do with it. It's not a precursor to my "going after them". I "go after" dishonest people, scammers, charlatans, thieves and a whole host of reprobates....which in the end makes me "not like them", but it's not "not liking them" that causes my going "after" them. 

[comix4fun]

6 minutes ago, mrwoogieman said:

Maybe someone could tell the blogger that tldr isn't RMA. Think that will get him on topic and responding to some of the points that have been raised with respect to the facts laid out in his blog?

I agree, he should get back to responding to those points. 

Talking about TLDR, whomever it is, seems irrelevant and certainly not a bar to discussing the blog points and counterpoints. 

[Philflound]

38 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I think this is a discussion of two sides of the newsstand item discussion. 

I'm reading about fake accounts posting blogs and such. What does that have to do with whether a newsstand variant is worthy of collecting? Or do you think they have value? Or will have value in the future? Or should be considered variants? Or what makes them variants? 

Who cares if TLDR is a real person or xcomic has made 2 posts in his entire life on the chat boards? I'm finding this thread becoming useless. I wanted to see what comics may have activity being newsstand variants, or what people have found in the wild, or sold for a profit. I want info, not blah blah blah .

[xcomic]

33 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I don't think I said anything positive or negative about the critique. I am talking about the responses to it the critique. 

 

First: Other readers, please know that this post will be on topic for Newsstand discussion.  Next: to comix4fun, this situation has zero to do with the critique itself and everything to do with the behavior of the person making it.  [Also please know that I have approved every single comment, across both handles (which had identical IPs by the way), that they have ever left on my blog starting in 2016; I have responded to them continually, until this week.]

Here is my offer:   Which will be on topic for newsstand discussion.   I like to quote sources with names, like I did in my newsstand article.  And, I put my name on my work.   The only thing I have seen this person put with their statements is a series of different handles.  If this person has a difference of opinion with John Jackson Miller or with Jim Shooter or with Chuck Rozanski, in a he-said-she-said manner, and wants their alternate view heard, then I offer as follows:   This person will state, as a reply in this thread, how they would like to be quoted by me in the article, they will provide their real full name, and CGC will be asked to verify their full name by checking against their credit card.  If CGC confirms that the name they stated matches, I will quote what they write here verbatim up to 500 words, in the main body of my newsstand article, with their name as the source of the quote.  But I reserve the right to edit for tone or any personal remarks.

Best,

- Ben

[xcomic]

17 minutes ago, Philflound said:

I wanted to see what comics may have activity being newsstand variants, or what people have found in the wild, or sold for a profit. I want info

The New Mutants #98 that was being discussed (amidst the other stuff) was a newsstand-exclusive phenomenon.  It is one absolutely fascinating situation, a true US-published (by Marvel, in the USA) variant -- it carries a bar code on the cover with the same New Mutants code along the bottom, but "05" for the month along the top right of the code, May cover month, $1.50 cover price, but 100% identical indicia and interior pages to the rest of the print run.  Jon McClure coined the phrase "Type 1A Price Variant" as a thoughtful way to categorize and understand such variants.  Within Type 1A, I find the newsstand-exclusive price variants to be exceptionally interesting.

- Ben p.s.  Marvel newsstand comics of 2006-2013 era can also be found out there with cover prices above the norm in certain cases; for example did you know that over on newsstands, copies of Amazing Spider-Man #607 were distributed with a $3.99 cover price instead of the regular $2.99, and what's more, they were distributed under the "Sensational Spider-Man" code (instead of "Amazing")?  CGC "breaks them out" now on census.

[Philflound]

17 minutes ago, xcomic said:

The New Mutants #98 that was being discussed (amidst the other stuff) was a newsstand-exclusive phenomenon.  It is one absolutely fascinating situation, a true US-published (by Marvel, in the USA) variant -- it carries a bar code on the cover with the same New Mutants code along the bottom, but "05" for the month along the top right of the code, May cover month, $1.50 cover price, but 100% identical indicia and interior pages to the rest of the print run.  Jon McClure coined the phrase "Type 1A Price Variant" as a thoughtful way to categorize and understand such variants.  Within Type 1A, I find the newsstand-exclusive price variants to be exceptionally interesting.

- Ben p.s.  Marvel newsstand comics of 2006-2013 era can also be found out there with cover prices above the norm in certain cases; for example did you know that over on newsstands, copies of Amazing Spider-Man #607 were distributed with a $3.99 cover price instead of the regular $2.99, and what's more, they were distributed under the "Sensational Spider-Man" code (instead of "Amazing")?  CGC "breaks them out" now on census.

The New Mutants with the $1.50 price is the Australian copy.

 

https://www.cgccomics.com/census/grades_standard.asp?title=New+Mutants&publisher=Marvel+Comics&issue=98&year=1991&issuedate=5%2F91

Edited October 28, 2017 by Philflound

[comix4fun]

Well, this thread's getting a little outta hand. 

[greggy]

[Logan510]

2 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

Well, this thread's getting a little outta hand. 

This too shall pass.

[bababooey]

1 minute ago, Logan510 said:

This too shall pass.

Edited October 28, 2017 by bababooey

[xcomic]

4 hours ago, comix4fun said:

I agree, he should get back to responding to those points. 

 

Hi comix4fun, in a separate thread I made a detailed response to all the points raised by another, different, poster here (Lazyboy); it was the "books you can't find in the wild thread" and hopefully this link works for you to find my responses: https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/392663-books-you-just-cant-find-in-the-wild/?page=87

The statement I found in this thread made by the person you know here as RMA, where he took issue with a newsstand article of mine, appears to me to be specifically in regard to disagreement with statements made by sources I quoted.  For example, the following statement was mentioned as being wrong: "Ed Shukin, as the Vice President of Marketing at Marvel Comics, created different printings of monthly comics in the summer of 1979."

Chuck Rozanski is the source of the above quote, from an article he wrote and published publicly (and attached his name to).  If this is wrong and was later corrected by Rozanski, I haven't seen a correction and would welcome you or anyone else to please point me in the right direction.  If there is no later correction available, yet RMA believes the inclusion of this and other statements in my article is not just wrong, but so wrong that I am to be publicly dubbed a liar and a fraud by continuing to include them uncorrected by him, then in the effort to clear my name (which is why I am here), I am fully open to quoting the real person behind the RMA handle as an alternate named source in the article -- the offer I made in an earlier reply is on the table until one week from today.

- Ben p.s.  Last year I showed this same article to a person in the hobby I consider an expert, and this person in their email reply specifically thanked me for avoiding what he dubbed an "urban myth" out there, and the myth he seemed to be referring to sounds a lot like it has to do with whatever point RMA considered important enough to post what he did about me on these boards -- I tell you this for context to better see things from my perspective about what sources I should include as reputable.

[xcomic]

4 hours ago, Philflound said:

The New Mutants with the $1.50 price is the Australian copy.

 

https://www.cgccomics.com/census/grades_standard.asp?title=New+Mutants&publisher=Marvel+Comics&issue=98&year=1991&issuedate=5%2F91

Yes: you found the initial census entry for the precise book I was referring to.  Each of the copies listed on that census page carry the same New Mutants bar code box as the North American newsstand copies, but instead with "05" at the top right of the code (denoting the month of May), and May also appears on the front cover of the book below the #98.  CGC's initial decision on how to catalog the book was to create a 5/91-issue-date entry in the census.  However, the indicia (and interior pages as well) are 100% identical to the rest of the print run; the rest of the print run has an indicia date of 2/91.   Because of this, it was suggested to CGC that they mention this critical indicia information in the Key Comments note of labels, and they accepted that suggestion, which you will see reflected in that census entry link where it reads as follows (note the very end):

1st appearance of Deadpool (Wade Wilson), Gideon & Copycat (Vanessa Carlysle) as, Domino. Indicia reads 2/91

So to now explain further what I had mentioned to Marwood&I, is how sometime in between the addition of that last part of the note about the 2/91 indicia, and today, CGC has since created a second "Australian Edition" census entry (by the way we could talk further about naming convention as a separate topic if you wish, but for now just know that when CGC says "Australian Edition" for this issue, they are referring to the book we are discussing), in the main 2/91 issue date for New Mutants #98.  One copy now appears at the bottom beneath the "regular" copies (separate topic again but CGC should really be "breaking out" newsstand copies from direct edition broadly):

https://www.cgccomics.com/census/grades_standard.asp?title=New+Mutants&issue=98&publisher=Marvel+Comics&year=1991&issuedate=2%2F91

Interesting, right? :-)  Either there is another variation I've not yet seen out there with a 2/91 cover month, or, more likely in my opinion, someone convinced CGC the proper issue date for categorization on their census is the indicia date.  I haven't asked them to be certain, but only because I was already going to submit my newly acquired copy anyway (so I was going to learn the answer one way or the other).

Best,

- Ben

[comix4fun]

37 minutes ago, xcomic said:

 

- Ben p.s.  Last year I showed this same article to a person in the hobby I consider an expert, and this person in their email reply specifically thanked me for avoiding what he dubbed an "urban myth" out there, and the myth he seemed to be referring to sounds a lot like it has to do with whatever point RMA considered important enough to post what he did about me on these boards -- I tell you this for context to better see things from my perspective about what sources I should include as reputable.

 

I understand what you're saying, and I mean no disrespect when I say this and while I can see how having someone you respect as an expert confirming what you've written is gratifying, but this is the type of anecdotal (and heretofore anonymous) confirmation doesn't really place what you've written on any firmer factual or corroborative ground than it stood before he thanked you. 

For example, imagine if RMA were to post something entirely the opposite of what you wrote and then to back it up, and give context, stated that a person in the hobby (unnamed, unvetted, unknown to all but him) who he considered an expert thanked him and agreed with him that his take was correct. To the reader of that post it's entirely unpersuasive. Anecdotal, anonymous, commentary confirming and supporting your original position may feel like something cementing correctness but it could just as easily lead to confirmation bias on the part of the guy you're referring to and to yourself. 

It's a positive that you're willing to include RMA's statements or information in your blog. It seems he's not able to respond right now though, because I believe he'd probably want to given all the posting today. From reading his posts in this thread it seems his statements about you stemmed from what he understood as a refusal to be open to this additional information and/or correction to the blog, or an attempt to silence a voice discordant with yours. We've seen many many people come and go from these boards who are adept at pumping what they own in order to dump at a premium. So much so that when conflicting information arises, and isn't met with an open mind initially, the worst gets assumed. 

Perhaps there's a chance to mend this with a full and open discussion of these variants, and a willingness to share sources and make additions or corrections where warranted. No one could rush to judgement in such an environment. 

Edited October 29, 2017 by comix4fun

[Philflound]

Interesting, right? :-)  Either there is another variation I've not yet seen out there with a 2/91 cover month, or, more likely in my opinion, someone convinced CGC the proper issue date for categorization on their census is the indicia date.  I haven't asked them to be certain, but only because I was already going to submit my newly acquired copy anyway (so I was going to learn the answer one way or the other).

Best,

- Ben

 

Actually this was a mistake where a grader created this entry by accident and I was told it has already been fixed and will show up soon in an updated census.