• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archie Canadian price variants blog is up
1 1

16 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, DonSal1976 said:

Please take a look.  Ben has done a wonderful job on it.

 

Please do not link that error filled travesty of a blog. It is a hotbed of misinformation, and the "owner" has shown absolutely zero interest in correcting anything...the opposite, in fact. He goes out of his way to silence criticism. 

He and people like him do a terrible disservice to the comic collecting community.

If you are the "Sal" whom Nobel credits with doing the research, 1. good for you for doing the heavy lifting, and 2. I would publish your results on your own; publishing them in conjunction with that blog may not be as productive as you'd hoped.

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Removed link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amadeus, whatever issues you have with anyone is your business, please don’t involve me. Everyone that has collaborated on it were complete professionals and have done spectacular work. As for the link to the blog I posted, all information relating to it is 100% correct. There has been hundreds of hours of research put into it between myself and the other involved parties. Please allow everyone to enjoy the blog for themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had read that blog and thought it was interesting about Archie comics with their version of price variants. I have known awake of the fact for a long time that Archie did use Canadian prices on covers. Just didn’t know how many titles were used, nor how long Archie applied this. So, the percent of printings with CPV and standards are still unknown. Given time with more research might yield that information. 

Now, to the other comment by Amadeus. Sai does made a good point about not involved someone. I don’t know your history with Sai or the “owner”, nor do I have any history or know with Sai and “owner” personally. So having said, I stay out of that. 

Thank for sharing the link through. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Archie Canadian Price Variants covered 113 separate titles/offshoots and just under 1,400 individual issue between Sept/1982 and May/1997. It would truly be an enormous task for anyone to try and collect every single copy. Should provide years of hunting fun. 

 

Sal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DonSal1976 said:

Amadeus, whatever issues you have with anyone is your business, please don’t involve me. Everyone that has collaborated on it were complete professionals and have done spectacular work. As for the link to the blog I posted, all information relating to it is 100% correct. There has been hundreds of hours of research put into it between myself and the other involved parties. Please allow everyone to enjoy the blog for themselves. 

I have issues with misinformation. The deliberate spread of misinformation hurts people, financially and otherwise, utterly and completely regardless of whether the collaborators were "complete professionals" or not. You cannot "enjoy the blog for yourself" if it contains misinformation on a large scale, which it does.

I am, unfortunately, relatively lacking in information with regards to Archie Canadian newsstands, but I can tell you that your statement that "all information relating to it is 100% correct" is not accurate.

Here, for example, is an error:

"Hopefully all readers of this post are already familiar with our Marvel & DC guide and already know from reading our guide intro — for context — that those two publishers generally produced three versions of each issue during their respective cover price variant windows: a direct edition version with multiple prices (direct-sold to comic dealers/shops at a discount but on a non-returnable basis), and two single-price newsstandversions (copies sold to the general public on newsstands, where unsold copies were returnable by the newsstand for refund/credit)"

While this statement is generally correct, it is misleading, because it does not accurately represent what Marvel & DC were doing during the 80s. What would be accurate would be to say "All comics published by Marvel & DC that were distributed to the newsstand during this time period (10/82-8/86 for Marvel and 10/82-9/88 for DC) had both an American newsstand version, and a Canadian newsstand version, with the American having a lower cover price than the Canadian, to reflect the difference in value between the US and Canadian dollars. Comics that were Direct only, and not distributed to the newsstands during this time period, did not have a Canadian price version." 

We know this because every single standard comic book published by Marvel & DC that had newsstand distribution has also been found to have a Canadian price version (even the most obscure titles, like Funny Stuff Stocking Stuffer #1, Atari Force, and Wally The Wizard.) 

Saying that Marvel & DC "generally produced three versions of each issue" is inaccurate because it makes no distinction between dual-distribution and Direct-only titles, which is important because of Archie's late-entry into Direct market cover markings (but NOT the Direct market itself.) It tells us "what"...but it completely leaves out "why", which is crucial to understanding these books. 

Here's another error:

"Over in the world of Marvel and DC price variants, we’re used to using the population size difference as our guidepost to understanding the market size difference."

Here, Nobel repeats the error he makes over and over again, which is that the population size of Canada to the US can correspond to sales numbers for comic books. This is a bad  assumption, and there is, thus far, zero evidence to support such a contention, much less the multiple (and quite detailed) conclusions drawn from it. If the premise is faulty, the conclusions will, of necessity, be faulty as well.

Here's an error of omission: the blog does not explain why the "cover price variant windows" closed; which is that first Marvel, then DC, discovered it would be cheaper to print ONE version for the newsstand with both the Canadian and US prices on them, rather than having two separate (and thus more costly) print runs for each. That is a glaring omission when the topic is "canadian cover price variants" and why they exist. This is especially important, because Archies did something that Marvel & DC did not: printed "newsstand" comics especially for the Canadian AND UK markets, which had both a Canadian and UK price, but NOT a US price.

Nobel is quite fond of using anecdotes and estimates to draw hard conclusions, but that's not how research and scholarship works. He draws conclusions, then searches for data to fit those conclusions, rather than letting the data dictate the conclusions.

Do not misunderstand me: I respect and acknowledge the effort you have put into researching these...but the conclusions that Mr. Nobel draws from your research is inaccurate and misinformed, because your research is far from complete.

Because of the research of others over many years, the "Canadian price version" records of both Marvel and DC are complete. But that is not the case with Archie...not yet. And while I applaud the effort you've made, when you mix truth with error, the whole thing becomes useless: no matter how small the amount of error it will, like yeast, work its way through the whole thing, spoiling it all. "One bad apple spoils the bunch" and all.

Like I said: misinformation hurts people, because it leads them to make decisions that they otherwise would not make given accurate information. Those who purposely and deliberately spread it...like Mr. Nobel and others...for their own reasons, resisting correcting the information even when pointed out to them and proven with evidence, deserve to be called out for what they are doing: hurting people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Fan Boy said:

Now, to the other comment by Amadeus. Sai does made a good point about not involved someone. I don’t know your history with Sai or the “owner”, nor do I have any history or know with Sai and “owner” personally. So having said, I stay out of that. 

My comments have nothing to do with anyone personally. I do not know "DonSal1976" nor Benjamin Nobel, and have no comment about either of them personally. My comments are strictly limited to the misinformation contained on the rarecomics blog, which does massive and long term damage to people who don't know what is truth and what is error, and which, to date, Mr. Nobel has been completely unwilling to correct, even going so far as attempting to silence those who challenge the misinformation on his blog.

For example: Jon McClure "discovered" the 30 and 35 cent Marvel variants in the same way Christopher Columbus "discovered" the Western Hemisphere: he made Overstreet, and thus the general public, aware of their extent, but he certainly DID NOT discover them...evidenced by the fact that they had been included, to a limited extent, in the OPG for nearly 20 years at that point.

Here's a couple of pictures from the 1988 Overstreet Update (#7), published 10 years before Jon McClure claims to have discovered these variants:

1136249971_xmen30centopgupdate.thumb.jpg.bc74bf3f691fc48ccbb7262436938d83.jpg921627084_xmen30centopgupdate2001.jpg.e990702122ea6fe6e4765b10726bd7f8.jpg2056811406_ironfist35cent15.jpg.538e2679c9e33022031d65f78bed4780.jpg

They were known long before 1998...just not their extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Here's another error:

"Over in the world of Marvel and DC price variants, we’re used to using the population size difference as our guidepost to understanding the market size difference."

Here, Nobel repeats the error he makes over and over again, which is that the population size of Canada to the US can correspond to sales numbers for comic books. This is a bad  assumption, and there is, thus far, zero evidence to support such a contention, much less the multiple (and quite detailed) conclusions drawn from it. If the premise is faulty, the conclusions will, of necessity, be faulty as well.

Your first point (not quoted) is semantics, I understood what you quoted from the blog as having the same meaning as your rewrite. (shrug)

On the 1/10th issue, I don't understand why there is such an issue with use of this as a guidance for estimates.  Factors that could affect the ratio one way is a less robust direct market in Canada leading to a higher percentage of sales "staying" with the newsstand distribution model until Canada's market matures but I don't know if that's true and in fact could be a false assumption.  There could also be a higher per capita comic interest in Canada given the harsher climate, higher literacy rate etc..  Going the other way, a good chunk of Canada's population is primarily French speaking and as evidenced by the existence of the translated reprints (heritage) so while I don't disagree that some leaps are being made to reach conclusions, to say there is ZERO evidence that population is a reasonable methodology for determining consumer interest seems like you're reaching a conclusion by abandoning ANY evidence that could be utilized to create an estimation for public discussion.

Do I think any of the estimates warrant conclusions about number of copies?  No, but percentage estimates seem less conclusive.   Do I think creating price guides is a wise "next step" for this blog?  No again.  The main problem with the blog is the reliance on Chuck's newsstand estimates.

You seem more than willing to use cap city numbers to estimate print runs on copper stuff and you also started a "this book that I own should not exist" thread and you're discussing the rarity based on numbers of copies owned by people on these boards and/or for sale/sold on ebay.  

In conclusion if you're going to laud others for making the effort, I'd suggest you offer evidence why the 10% factor is incorrect.  I've shared some thoughts above on why it could be higher or lower.   So...why is it a bad assumption?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bababooey said:

Your first point (not quoted) is semantics, I understood what you quoted from the blog as having the same meaning as your rewrite. (shrug)

....because you come into the discussion already having a certain level of knowledge and experience that many others do not. It isn't semantics to people who don't know any better.

15 minutes ago, bababooey said:

On the 1/10th issue, I don't understand why there is such an issue with use of this as a guidance for estimates.  Factors that could affect the ratio one way is a less robust direct market in Canada leading to a higher percentage of sales "staying" with the newsstand distribution model until Canada's market matures but I don't know if that's true and in fact could be a false assumption.  There could also be a higher per capita comic interest in Canada given the harsher climate, higher literacy rate etc..  Going the other way, a good chunk of Canada's population is primarily French speaking and as evidenced by the existence of the translated reprints (heritage) so while I don't disagree that some leaps are being made to reach conclusions, to say there is ZERO evidence that population is a reasonable methodology for determining consumer interest seems like you're reaching a conclusion by abandoning ANY evidence that could be utilized to create an estimation for public discussion.

It's an example of an argument from ignorance. "You can't prove me wrong, so I must be correct." Saying no conclusion can be drawn is not the same thing as reaching a conclusion. The contention is an assumption based on nothing other than "sure...that sounds good." It isn't supported by any evidence. 

As I said in another thread: Canada produces 75% of the world's maple syrup, despite being only .5% of its population. Population size does not mean anything in terms of production or consumption. 

All of the factors you discuss here are theoretical, with no actual data to support them. There IS zero evidence that population is a reasonable methodology. If you have anything that contradicts that...by all means, share it.

25 minutes ago, bababooey said:

The main problem with the blog is the reliance on Chuck's newsstand estimates.

It's hardly the only problem, but it is one of the biggest. And it's not just the reliance on Chuck's newsstand estimates: it's the creation of entire arguments and theoretical models accepted prima facie based on Chuck's "completely made up out of thin air (and contradicted by other, more reputable sources)" numbers.

It's bad scholarship.

27 minutes ago, bababooey said:

You seem more than willing to use cap city numbers to estimate print runs on copper stuff and you also started a "this book that I own should not exist" thread and you're discussing the rarity based on numbers of copies owned by people on these boards and/or for sale/sold on ebay.  

That's because 1. Cap City numbers are direct evidence; 2. I have never relied on Cap City numbers alone to draw any conclusions; 3. when combined with the numbers from Statements of Ownership, which is also direct evidence, those numbers start to make a compelling case; and 4. I go to great lengths to make clear that I am estimating, and that all such estimates need to be considered in light of the evidence we have, and that such estimates are subject to change in light of new evidence.

I can demonstrate how Chuck's numbers are total nonsense. You cannot say the same of the SOOs and Cap City numbers. That's the difference.

And no, I did not start a "this book that I own should not exist" thread. I started a "this book should not exist" thread. If you can demonstrate where I've drawn conclusions based on "numbers of copies owned by people on these boards and/or for sale/sold on eBay", please, by all means, let me know.

There's a difference...and I've said this to you before...between people looking for the facts of a matter, regardless of where those facts lead, and people who start with conclusions, and try to make the facts fit their conclusions. 
 

36 minutes ago, bababooey said:

In conclusion if you're going to laud others for making the effort, I'd suggest you offer evidence why the 10% factor is incorrect. 

Again, that's the argument from ignorance: "you can't prove me wrong, so I must therefore be right." I already made it clear that the "10% factor" can neither be proven nor disproven without evidence that is not publicly available. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the validity of the claim either way.

You're also asking me to disprove someone else's claim. 

Here, watch me do it: the US has 10 times the population of Canada. Therefore, I conclude that the US has ten times the amount of Native American pottery sales as Canada.

Prove me wrong.

The real question is, why are you defending a blog that is filled, not just with errors in reasoning and bad conclusions that might be difficult for the casual reader to discern, it's also filled with flat out false information that could easily be fact-checked...?

45 minutes ago, bababooey said:

So...why is it a bad assumption?

Because there is no evidence of any kind to support it. There is no public sales data from the Canadian market of any kind, no evidence that would directly or indirectly point to any conclusion about how comics actually sold relative to total population. Absent that, it makes as much sense to say "Canada had 10% of the US population, therefore comic sales must also be directly proportional to that population" as it does to say "Canada had 10% of the US population, therefore goldfish sales must also be directly proportional to that population."

And that doesn't even BEGIN to address the problem of using estimates of estimates of estimates for the numbers we DO have.

That's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what I think might be a great example of why using population to determine proportion of comic book sales is a bad idea:

According to that source, there are comic sales in Japan, both totally and for individual issues, which dwarf US comic book sales.

Now, granted, I'm not familiar with how those numbers work, nor comics sales in Japan in general, so if someone wants to look at the source and explain it better, by all means, please do.

But Japan's population is 1/3 the population of the US...and their comic book sales are not even remotely proportional to population. 

Absent any evidence, using population to determine proportional comic book sales is probably not even in the same area code, much less ballpark, with what was actually happening on the ground. 

By the way...I take it "One Piece" is extremely popular in Japan...? 2 million+ sales per issue? That's astonishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm guessing Japan's comic sales are about as relevant as the maple syrup production analogy.  Still don't see anything that constitutes a reason to dismiss population as a benchmark to begin a discussion or share reasons as to why 10% is too high or low.

Asking you @RockMyAmadeus for a reasoning to dismiss 10% shouldn't be misrepresented as defending solarcollector's blog, he's not the first or last to estimate using population.  I tagged since I couldn't be bothered quoting and hockey is on now so...post closed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bababooey said:

Well I'm guessing Japan's comic sales are about as relevant as the maple syrup production analogy.  Still don't see anything that constitutes a reason to dismiss population as a benchmark to begin a discussion or share reasons as to why 10% is too high or low.

Sure, sure, if it doesn't suit, no problem, just dismiss. Again: there is insufficient evidence to start with any number.

Why 10%? Why not 15%? Or 50%? Or 90%? What does the proportion of the general populations of the two nations have to do with the proportion of comic book sales between the two nations? Nothing. When you have no evidence, any number is a "benchmark." 

Here's the real dirty secret: those who start with the "10%" benchmark, citing the proportion of overall population, are starting with estimates of estimates already. How many copies of ASM #273 did Marvel print? How many did they sell? No one but Marvel knows. All we have are Cap City numbers and SOOs...and those are averages and estimates. Good estimates. Better than Chuck estimates. But estimates nonetheless. So, taking averages and estimates, extrapolating to the proportion of the general population, and you have numbers that are guesses of guesses, and end up being functionally useless. Drawing conclusions from guesses of guesses is bad scholarship. You need to have SOME hard data before you start drawing conclusions from that data...and here, we have none.

It's just basic statistics.

2 hours ago, bababooey said:

Asking you @RockMyAmadeus for a reasoning to dismiss 10% shouldn't be misrepresented as defending solarcollector's blog, he's not the first or last to estimate using population.  I tagged since I couldn't be bothered quoting and hockey is on now so...post closed!

Whether he's the first or last to estimate using population isn't relevant; it's bad accounting no matter who does it. I gave you the reason: there's no evidence that suggests that 10% is a legitimate figure from which to start, because we have no idea how many comics sold in proportion to the populations of each nation, just like we have no idea how many goldfish or how much Native American pottery was sold. That's really the bottom line.

2 hours ago, dupont2005 said:

You never know which thread is gonna be the Friday thread, especially with CAL around, and especially on a Saturday 

Yes, a boring lecture on the proper and improper usage of statistical data is the Friday-ist of all Friday threads.

:cloud9:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

14 hours ago, bababooey said:

On the 1/10th issue, I don't understand why there is such an issue with use of this as a guidance for estimates.

There are numerous instances, particularly company's subcontracting or licensing production in Canada, mainly due to the population size and market complexities (i.e. consumer protection act, language laws, broadcasting/children advertising laws) that have used this as a guidance. Furthermore, there are publicly available documents in the form of consumer/language law cases, recall mandates, and broadcast advertising strategies which use this as a guidance to predict revenues (and in the case of recalls, the estimated amount of product sold in Canada that is effected by the recall notice). 

Edited by comicwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

My comments have nothing to do with anyone personally. I do not know "DonSal1976" nor Benjamin Nobel, and have no comment about either of them personally. My comments are strictly limited to the misinformation contained on the rarecomics blog, which does massive and long term damage to people who don't know what is truth and what is error, and which, to date, Mr. Nobel has been completely unwilling to correct, even going so far as attempting to silence those who challenge the misinformation on his blog.

 

Ahh I see. It is about the issue of misinformation. When you come up in your first post, I thought it looks like you were against the OP. It was not. So, thank for calcify. Maybe Sai should hire you as the editor. Your correct fixes with the paragraph quoted from the blog actually is better. Much clear than the original statement.

as for your question about Japan’s popular manga One Piece.  Yes, it is one of highest most popular manga for the past ..oh about 15 years since I think. I have been following it since. In fact, they have made a theme park and possibly a live action movie coming up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2019 at 4:06 AM, DonSal1976 said:

Please take a look.  Ben has done a wonderful job on it.

 

https://rarecomics.wordpress.com/2019/06/01/archie-canadian-price-variants/

Great work Sal. I appreciate the amount of work and research that you have put in to arrive at this list. It's much bigger than the pence one! Well done  :golfclap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1