The "Dreaded Black UPC Line" of 1979 Marvels 0

[RockMyAmadeus]

So I stumbled across this listing just now, and thought it was fascinating:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/X-MEN-130-CBCS-9-8-WHITE-PAGES-1st-Dazzler-Not-CGC-No-Black-Diagonal-Line-/192932828862?hash=item2cebb156be%3Ag%3AjlkAAOSwXSdcrB6I&nma=true&si=pcZmx2xDwvz3lR7bi72sbIDIXss%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

In the description, the seller points out what has become repeated misinformation on the CBCS forum:

"There is no "return mark", the dreaded black diagonal line through the barcode that some collectors find unattractive."

Some people have been led to believe...as this seller implies, and uses as a selling point in the title of the listing...that the diagonal line in the UPC boxes of Marvel comics from June of 1979 to Jan of 1980 is a line drawn in after the fact, post-printing, that grading companies just simply "ignore." 

It's not. The books were printed that way on purpose, because there had already been an issue with Direct copies (specifically those going to Whitman) having barcodes in late 1976/early 1977 that were printed with a UPC, but went into 3-packs...and clerks around the country were scanning the UPC for a single book (at the single copy price), instead of the 3-pack price. (That's the origin of the "blank boxes", by the way.)

To avoid that problem again, Marvel simply printed UPCs with a line through the bar code, so that it couldn't be scanned. UPC problem solved. It is NOT a "return mark", because these were Direct copies that couldn't be returned in the first place. But the easily offended at the CBCS board (and elsewhere) don't want to be corrected, so this kind of misinformation spreads unchecked.

It's true, some collectors find it unattractive, and there's nothing wrong with that...so long as they understand what that mark actually is, and that it was made by Marvel, and that it makes absolutely no difference to the comic or its condition, and that it's a purely aesthetic concern.

As for this seller, it's a bizarre selling point, especially to highlight in the title of the listing. Keyword spamming, "no returns"...yikes. At least the book was substantially discounted.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Direct copy.

Newsstand copy. 

No substantive difference between the two, printed at the same time, one for the newsstand distribution system, and one for the Direct market.

[Jeffro.]

Good god! There are people out there who actually believe the diagonal mark was added post production and denotes a returned comic? I'm speechless. 

[sledgehammer]

Did they ever give any thought to putting that miserable box on the back cover instead of the front?

Were they regulated in to where it was located? Was it just about not hurting the revenue generated by the back cover ad?

I was just looking at my asm 157, and remembering how much I hated seeing that thing for the first time...

[RockMyAmadeus]

33 minutes ago, sledgehammer said:

Did they ever give any thought to putting that miserable box on the back cover instead of the front?

Were they regulated in to where it was located? Was it just about not hurting the revenue generated by the back cover ad?

I was just looking at my asm 157, and remembering how much I hated seeing that thing for the first time...

Just using a little abductive reasoning, I would think that the back cover ads were the reason. We don't see back cover UPCs for the most part until the late 90s. It's funny, to the publishers, the actual content of the book...including the cover art...took a back seat to ad revenue. Can't harm that, after all! It took the total dominance of the Direct market, and the relegation of the newsstand to irrelevance, for the publishers to realize they were no longer shackled by ad revenue, and could move the UPC.

[Lazyboy]

Yeah, adding one more line to that ugly box is what makes it unattractive.

[HarrisonJohn]

The annoying thing is they could have just left the box off for the direct editions. If that's how it had happened, I wonder what the direct/ newsstand desirability ratio would be today. Even in cases where they are rarer, I think that would have completely killed newsstands. As for the line through the bar code, even as a child I could tell they were printed like that.

Edited June 3, 2019 by HarrisonJohn

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

20 minutes ago, HarrisonJohn said:

The annoying thing is they could have just left the box off for the direct editions. If that's how it had happened, I wonder what the direct/ newsstand desirability ratio would be today. Even in cases where they are rarer, I think that would have completely killed them. As for the line through the bar code, even as a child I could tell they were printed like that.

They could have left the box blank, but they could not have left it off. Generally the cyan, magenta, and yellow plates would have been identical for all covers, direct and newsstand. The black plate was changed for the two editions, which is why you still have the box there in later direct editions, just with some artwork instead of a crossed out barcode. The plates probably weren't a huge cost on a print run like this, but being able to run all of the three colors for every book at the same time likely saved a good amount of press time, and that likely would have been the important cost here.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

"…one of the best 9.8's out there!"

[HarrisonJohn]

1 hour ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

They could have left the box blank, but they could not have left it off. Generally the cyan, magenta, and yellow plates would have been identical for all covers, direct and newsstand. The black plate was changed for the two editions, which is why you still have the box there in later direct editions, just with some artwork instead of a crossed out barcode. The plates probably weren't a huge cost on a print run like this, but being able to run all of the three colors for every book at the same time likely saved a good amount of press time, and that likely would have been the important cost here.

Interesting. Marvel would occasionally publish direct editions with no box at all, seemingly for no particular reason to do with the cover artwork or anything  (like Uncanny X-Men 214)- have always been curious what made those books different.

[Lazyboy]

1 hour ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

They could have left the box blank, but they could not have left it off. Generally the cyan, magenta, and yellow plates would have been identical for all covers, direct and newsstand. The black plate was changed for the two editions, which is why you still have the box there in later direct editions, just with some artwork instead of a crossed out barcode. The plates probably weren't a huge cost on a print run like this, but being able to run all of the three colors for every book at the same time likely saved a good amount of press time, and that likely would have been the important cost here.

They could have left it off, but it would be extra cost for no benefit (to the printer and/or publisher). However, there are some issues that don't have a box on the Direct edition, and a few more that appear to not have it until a closer look reveals the solid fill-in.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

On 6/2/2019 at 9:55 PM, Lazyboy said:

They could have left it off, but it would be extra cost for no benefit (to the printer and/or publisher). However, there are some issues that don't have a box on the Direct edition, and a few more that appear to not have it until a closer look reveals the solid fill-in.

This latter point is true, and I realized while listing a copy of DC's Agent Liberty Special on eBay recently that that was the case on that book. (The bottom corner is black only, while the black on the figure is a 4?c black.) There may have been a goos reason on specific issues why there wasn't a cost difference is running all 4 plates as a run rather than just the black.

[Sal]

it's easy to see how someone might think this bar was added post-production;  they have no idea how printing works, and have no ability to question 'facts' which are delivered by a source with confidence.

some people immediately view all information with skepticism, some people view the same information as gospel, and then the rest of us find a healthy mix of the two.  in this case, a rudimentary amount of knowledge about press printing would point a person in the correct direction

[Sal]

actually, the more i think about this, the more i believe someone would have to be willfully ignorant on a level of stupefaction to think that the line would be added as a 'return.'  they would have to believe that the books would be sent back to the PRINTER and then disassembled, and re-run through the freaking line to get that mark on there.

 

okay, so that's pretty idiotic. color me corrected

[divad]

On 6/2/2019 at 1:00 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

It's funny, to the publishers, the actual content of the book...including the cover art...took a back seat to ad revenue.

True dat. 

[divad]

On 6/2/2019 at 10:15 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

It is NOT a "return mark", because these were Direct copies that couldn't be returned in the first place. But the easily offended at the CBCS board (and elsewhere) don't want to be corrected, so this kind of misinformation spreads unchecked.

Yep, this and many other things. 

[divad]

On 6/2/2019 at 10:19 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Direct copy.

Newsstand copy. 

No substantive difference between the two, printed at the same time, one for the newsstand distribution system, and one for the Direct market.

Well, the price block is "substantive"ly different.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 6/4/2019 at 6:31 AM, Sal said:

it's easy to see how someone might think this bar was added post-production;  they have no idea how printing works, and have no ability to question 'facts' which are delivered by a source with confidence.

But here's the thing: a little observation would get them most, if not all, of the way towards figuring it out on their own. First, the line is much too uniform to have been made by hand. The line is too straight, and the ends are squared off in a way that can't be accomplished by hand. Stamp? Could be...which leads us to:

Comparing the reflectivity of the line in comparison to the other lines around it, they'll find they are identical. Matching gloss with a post production addition is really difficult. In nearly all cases, the reflectivity of the added ink will not match that of the cover inks. 

Finally...comparing multiple copies through pictures on the internet, finding all such lines on individual issues are completely uniform (in the way that additions could never be), and one can easily deduce that these were made that way, rather than added post-production.

When I first saw one of these...this would have been in 1990...I, too, thought it might be a line someone had drawn. But...pre-internet, I investigated, saw multiple examples, did the above observations, and realized they were made that way.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 6/4/2019 at 6:35 AM, Sal said:

actually, the more i think about this, the more i believe someone would have to be willfully ignorant on a level of stupefaction to think that the line would be added as a 'return.'  they would have to believe that the books would be sent back to the PRINTER and then disassembled, and re-run through the freaking line to get that mark on there.

 

okay, so that's pretty idiotic. color me corrected

Ohhhh....I see your earlier point. You were arguing that someone might think the books were sent back to the printer as a "return" and "cancelled", like a stamp. In that case, the line would be printed on, just like the rest of the cover, only "afterwards."

Yeah, that would be a pretty bizarre thing to do.

Plus, they'd have to account for the diamond price and issue box....

[shadroch]

The box and the line thru it indicate the book is non-returnable. I have no problem with someone referring to it as a "no return" box. I also see nothing in that listing that implies the lines were added after production. Given a choice between a copy with a line thru the UPC or one without it, I suspect most casual collectors would go for the one they find most attractive.

I have no idea what others say, or why people who are so obviously anti- cbcs feel the need to search their forums for bochincha,  but I've long told people the difference in the two is one was returnable and one was not. Many shops( including my own) stocked copies of both. In my case, many DC books didn't sell well enough to justify ordering the minimum quality of non returnable copies so I'd get newsstand copies two-three weeks after the direct were released. I'm not sure when the term Direct Market began to be used, but as many comic shops didn't even stock new copies, it certainly wasn't used to describe the comic market. I remember a seminar when Seuling and his Sea Gate crew were trying to convince a very skeptical group of comic dealers that getting a bigger discount in return for  non returns was a better deal. Most shops back then either didn't sell new books or simply allowed newsstand distributors to do all the work and collect a nickel per book sold. It wasnt until books became 50 cents that many retailers saw the advantage of switching. In the early 80s, I was spending $50-$75 a week buying books for future sales.  I was getting them wholesale at a third off, pay as you go. Phil offered 50% off but you had to prepay and wait two or three months to get your books, and pay for shipping. On a .25 cent book, I'd pay 18.6 cents from a distributor or .12.5 cents plus shipping from Seagate. Many small dealers just didn't think it worth the effort.

It wasn't until I opened my first shop(all 350 square feet of it) and began order more that it became worth it.

Comics are monthly, and come out 12 times a year., but there are 52 weeks in a year which meant four weeks a year, Marvel " skipped" printing.  This raked havoc on people's cash flow and scheduling. I was a pretty much a one man shop but others had staff's and making payroll on weeks where you bring in 80% less revenue was stalling people's growth.

I believe Carol Kalish convinced Shooter to advocate for the elimination of the dread skip week. She didn't want the rising competition to have week of their own.