Clairmont X Men/ Miller Daredevil question ?? 1 1

[fastballspecial]

On 6/21/2019 at 4:41 PM, Logan510 said:

On 6/21/2019 at 3:58 PM, sfcityduck said:

 

X-men heated up quickly, before Byrne joined the titled with 108.  Once he did, it heated up more.

Miller got attention within a year, and hit the stratosphere after RC Harvey did a very nice cover article about Miller's DD in the September 1980 Comics Journal.  

At the time, there was no internet and no "hot comics" hype publications (e.g. Comics Values Monthly, etc.).   So they both became very desirable very quickly for the time.

According to Byrne, sales were just enough to avoid cancellation during most of his run. He said they started noticing an uptick around the Dark Phoenix saga, but he says that sales didn't really explode until Paul Smith became the artist

Really I wouldn't have thought that. 

All my older friends loved Byrne's X-Men and were reading it during and before Dark Phoenix. 

By Dark Phoenix all my shops were recommending that title. While Paul Smith was great too
it was no where near as exciting to me until around 175ish.

 

[Logan510]

1 hour ago, fastballspecial said:

Really I wouldn't have thought that. 

All my older friends loved Byrne's X-Men and were reading it during and before Dark Phoenix. 

By Dark Phoenix all my shops were recommending that title. While Paul Smith was great too
it was no where near as exciting to me until around 175ish.

 

I agree, there was a lot of buzz about the title and John Byrne and we can say that having been there as opposed to someone who just read about it years later

I know a lot of people who didn't even realize that Frank Miller was a "hot" artist at one point as opposed to just a writer with acclaim.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just for fun, here are several of the SOOs for the time period...these are sales reported to the US Gov't which was required by any titles which were sent out via second class mail: They're not completely accurate...they mostly only give averages, plus one issue (most likely the December issue), but they are valuable because they are the only published sales data for these books that exists...and published at the time, certified by the publisher. Are they legit...? Probably. Mostly. Some were maybe fudged here or there, but there's been no substantial evidence that there was wholesale fraud in those reported numbers. Enjoy!

X-Men #110 (when the title was still bi-monthly...this is, I believe, the first SOO filed for the New X-Men) - The Statement of Ownership in this issue lists the average sales of the book in the preceding year to be 123,725 copies per issue, with sales of the single issue nearest the filing date to be 130,559 copies.  

https://www.therealgentlemenofleisure.com/2011/05/x-amining-x-men-110.html

X-Men #120 - The Statement of Ownership in this issue declares the average number of issues sold in the preceding twelve months to be 115, 260, with the single issue nearest to the filing date selling  104,915 copies. 

(this is where you see the slight dip in sales in 1978 from 1977.)

https://www.therealgentlemenofleisure.com/2011/08/x-amining-x-men-120.html

X-Men #131 - The Statement of Ownership in this issue lists the average number of copies of each issue sold per month in the previous year as 171,091, with the single issue nearest to the filing date selling 166,017 copies. 

https://www.therealgentlemenofleisure.com/2011/10/x-amining-x-men-131.html

X-Men #144 - 

X-Men #156 - It's Statement of Ownership time! The average number of copies of each issue sold per month in the previous year is reported as being 259,607, with the single issue nearest to the filing date selling 289,525 copies, continuing the book's steady rise up the sales charts (last year's numbers were roughly 192K per month, with around 205K copies of the most recent issue sold)

https://www.therealgentlemenofleisure.com/2012/05/x-amining-uncanny-x-men-156.html

X-Men #169 - Sales continue to rise as, according to the Statement of Ownership, the average number of copies of each issue sold per month in the previous year was 313,955, with the single issue nearest to the filing date selling 327,223 copies 

https://www.therealgentlemenofleisure.com/2012/09/x-amining-uncanny-x-men-169.html

 

So, you can see the rise in sales that Byrne was talking about. It can be assumed that the numbers for 1976 and 1975 were similar to 1977, though we have no published information for any of that. The SOO in #110 would probably have covered issues #103-108. 

It's important for any serious scholar to keep in mind that, while anecdotal evidence has some value, memory is unreliable, and studies have shown that eyewitnesses to events have even remembered contradictory details soon after. It's far superior, from a scholarly standpoint, to refer to data that was recorded and published at or near the time in question, especially official forms like the SOOs. 

These numbers give us very strong data for the sales numbers of new issues as the X-Men grew in popularity, from a bi-montly title perpetually hovering around cancellation (1975-1978) to the #1 best selling title on the market by the early 80s.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The number differences reported between #120 (covering #109-#116) and #131 (#117-#128) is remarkable, and almost certainly accounts for the buzz that many remember at this time. You can *almost* pinpoint that moment in 1978 when the collecting public woke up and discovered how good X-Men was, en masse.

[HarrisonJohn]

I remember in the mid 80's when I first became aware of the title (probably around the time of the Paul Smith run) the X-Men were the be all end all of comics at my LCS, but nobody outside of comic book collectors had ever heard of them. The book may have been really uneven in awareness and sales at comic stores vs. supermarkets and newsstands.

[sfcityduck]

17 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The number differences reported between #120 (covering #109-#116) and #131 (#117-#128) is remarkable, and almost certainly accounts for the buzz that many remember at this time. You can *almost* pinpoint that moment in 1978 when the collecting public woke up and discovered how good X-Men was, en masse.

For the late 70s early 80s time period, the reported sales for a title say more about the growth of the comic collecting community with the dramatic spread of comic stores at the advent of the direct market, and less about whether a particular title was considered a "hot title" before that boom occurred.  If you are basing your analysis on just statistics and not your personal memories of the time period, then I think your data is not sufficient to pinpoint what collectors viewed as a hot series.

I can tell you that Cockrum was a hot artist on LSH and X-Men, and Byrne was a hotter artist.  

 

X-Men 110 and 111 made it very clear that Byrne was special. And Claremont's writing was cut above.  X-Men was a fan favorite book before you think.  Now there was not the same type of "hot market" hype back then as there is now (no internet - wide regional variation - national selling was through adzines and dealer lists).  If you really want to do an analysis of what collectors thought, you need to ask collectors of the time and look at adzines (which may be of limited help for relatively low value books).  

I can also tell you that Miller took a bit of time to be discovered, but he was discovered well before DD 181 (April 1982), having been cover featured on Comics Journal in September 1980 which is when it became pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that this was a special artist.  DD 158 was a hot book in 1980, over a year before 181 came out.  In fact, 181 was sort of the end of the line.  By only a few issues later, Miller was no longer doing the pencils (just layouts) and the quality was viewed as having declined.

  

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by sfcityduck

[RockMyAmadeus]

17 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

For the late 70s early 80s time period, the reported sales for a title say more about the growth of the comic collecting community with the dramatic spread of comic stores at the advent of the direct market, and less about whether a particular title was considered a "hot title" before that boom occurred.  If you are basing your analysis on just statistics and not your personal memories of the time period, then I think your data is not sufficient to pinpoint what collectors viewed as a hot series.

I can tell you that Cockrum was a hot artist on LSH and X-Men, and Byrne was a hotter artist.  

 

X-Men 110 and 111 made it very clear that Byrne was special. And Claremont's writing was cut above.  X-Men was a fan favorite book before you think.  Now there was not the same type of "hot market" hype back then as there is now (no internet - wide regional variation - national selling was through adzines and dealer lists).  If you really want to do an analysis of what collectors thought, you need to ask collectors of the time and look at adzines (which may be of limited help for relatively low value books).  

I can also tell you that Miller took a bit of time to be discovered, but he was discovered well before DD 181 (April 1982), having been cover featured on Comics Journal in September 1980 which is when it became pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that this was a special artist.  DD 158 was a hot book in 1980, over a year before 181 came out.  In fact, 181 was sort of the end of the line.  By only a few issues later, Miller was no longer doing the pencils (just layouts) and the quality was viewed as having declined.

  

 

I disagree with your analysis, your claims, and your conclusions, and have laid out my reasons why. Memories lie and fade; sales numbers and other hard data do not. Sales for X-Men went DOWN, both on average and for the issue nearest the reporting date, between 1977 and 1978, and moreover, TRENDED down in 1978.

I don't believe further dialogue between us, of any kind, will be beneficial to anyone.

[NoMan]

Thanks for the in-depth research. Don't have to time to read at the moment. Work calls. But will soon.

Thanks to all who participated.

[Lazyboy]

37 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

For the late 70s early 80s time period, the reported sales for a title say more about the growth of the comic collecting community with the dramatic spread of comic stores at the advent of the direct market, and less about whether a particular title was considered a "hot title" before that boom occurred.

That would only be true if the sales of all titles increased proportionately, which they certainly did not.

37 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

 If you are basing your analysis on just statistics and not your personal memories of the time period, then I think your data is not sufficient to pinpoint what collectors viewed as a hot series.

There have been many comic titles that were cancelled despite critical acclaim. No company that makes their money through sales has ever cared about "heat" that didn't result in an increase in sales.

Both titles that are being discussed in this thread were trending the right way and no doubt got more attention than they had as a pseudo-cancelled reprint title and a title one misstep from cancellation, but is that really saying much?

[Broke as a Joke]

Not sure if the original question by the thread starter is in terms of just sales or fan attention?  X-Men took off after Byrne got there as evidenced by the fan award notations that were even published on the covers of 119 and 132.  Eventually, because of Byrne and Claremont, it would be the top selling book after they left.  They were the foundation for the sales chart victory.

[RockMyAmadeus]

There are two very important distinctions to be made in this conversation:

When did these books become popular as back issues?

When did these books become popular as new issues?

Those two are not the same thing, and often don't coincide.

For a great example, consider McFarlane's run on Amazing Spiderman. While it was being published, the series...based on numbers in both the SOOs and Capital City...actually saw a slight decline in sales throughout most of his tenure on the book, only seeing an uptick towards the end, after it was announced he was leaving the title. That's not to say ASM wasn't popular at the time that McFarlane was being published...it was, to an extent...but not so popular that it was setting any sort of sales records.

However...when Todd left the title, and there was no new McFarlane art book for 6 months, until the release of Spiderman #1 in June...the popularity of the ASM back issues soared through the roof, seeing gains in value not seen since X-Men in the very early 80s. It was tremendous, and fans simply could not get enough of McFarlane back issues...as well as, of course, the new Spiderman, with reported sales of each issue that positively dwarfed that of ASM of a year or two earlier. It's shocking when you compare numbers around ASM #315 to numbers of Spiderman #1-14. It makes total sense why those ASMs saw so much increase in price. Example: in the Standard Catalog, Cap City orders for ASM #316 were 44,100. Orders for Spiderman #6, a mere 18 months later? 202,500. Yes, a LOT of those were going to speculators, but even if speculators were buying 10, 20, 100 copies, that's still demand.

I don't place too much stock in anecdotal memories, even my own, and I witnessed all of that firsthand, front row center. It's like the people who swore up and down that Venom was a popular character from his first appearance, which is untrue, and has been demonstrated to be untrue. Again, I was there, witnessed it firsthand...but my memories aren't very valuable. What is valuable is the firsthand reports of the people who wrote and published them at the time the events took place. 

So, when did X-Men become popular as a back issue? Summer of 1978. That's when people started buying them and driving up prices. When did it become popular as a new issue? Depends on what someone means by "popular." "Best selling title"? Not even close, and wouldn't be until 1982. Spidey beat the pants off of X-Men throughout the 70s. 

Miller DD shows a similar trajectory: people started buying back issues towards the end of 1980 (as I mentioned above.) But new issue sales didn't become really popular until the very late 170s, and on into the 180s. Like I mentioned, the difference of availability, especially among high grade copies, is STARK when you compare the 160s and early 170s to the 180s. You can barely throw a stick at a con and not hit 100 copies of #181-191, but good luck trying to find anything but ragged copies of books below #173. #174-#180 is a mixed bag, getting easier as the numbers go up. It must be remembered: the title was nearly cancellation, and remained bi-monthly for over two years into Miller's tenure.

Interestingly, with DD, #158 was the clear and breakout star, with that book being advertised at as much as $30 by the summer of 1980...a little more than a year after publication...but #168, with Miller's debut as a writer AND the first Elektra wasn't broken out for a few years more. It's, again, one of the reasons why ultra high grade copies are so valuable: they weren't bought in huge numbers at the time of publication.

Edited June 25, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus

[HouseofComics.Com]

Couple comments--

There were lots of bimonthly titles back in the day and I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say bimonthly meant headed towards cancellation, necessarily. (for instance, the only time I've heard Batman mentioned as a possible cancellation target was 1963 or so, just before the New Look but the book had a multidecade run before it became a monthly).

Also, I find it interesting that the Stan's Soap Box for that month totally highlighted both DD 158 and Frank Miller by name. They seemed to think they had someone special, albeit just as a penciler.

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, HouseofComics.Com said:

Also, I find it interesting that the Stan's Soap Box for that month totally highlighted both DD 158 and Frank Miller by name. They seemed to think they had someone special, albeit just as a penciler.

The credits in #158 are positively gushy.

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, HouseofComics.Com said:

There were lots of bimonthly titles back in the day and I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say bimonthly meant headed towards cancellation, necessarily. (for instance, the only time I've heard Batman mentioned as a possible cancellation target was 1963 or so, just before the New Look but the book had a multidecade run before it became a monthly).

True, but it started out as a quarterly, then bi-monthly, then 8 issues per year.

In the 70s, though, taking a book bi-monthly usually meant it was hovering near cancellation. Spidey, FF, and Iron Man never went bi-monthly, but DD (issue #148) and X-Men, which had already been cancelled twice, did. Same with Subby, which was cancelled as of #72.

[HouseofComics.Com]

I bet we could find some titles that chugged along at bimonthly for a good long while. I think it was a step in the process for a lot of books. Maybe headed towards cancellation, maybe taking a pause to see if sales would pick up. I can't help but wonder if it also had to do with editorial concerns a bit--they seemed to have such trouble staying on deadline, especially in the 70s, that having a good pct. of the books as bimonthly might mean fewer missed deadlines or reprint filler issues.

[HouseofComics.Com]

Since I'm so focused on war books right now, I took a quick look at Star Spangled War Stories, and you can see that the dnosaur issues in 1963 and 1964 are just chugging along as bimonthly, in the middle of the multiyear War That Time Forgot series. They try Enemy Ace, also bimonthly. Switch to Unknown Soldier with 151 and in a year or two, bam, it goes monthly (well, not exactly, 11 issues published in 1973, only to fall to 7 (!) in 1974, which probably had more to do with comic sales plunging across the board, than any real Unknown Soldier weakness, considering the title was published for another eight or so years.

OTOH, you could argue that a war title can always switch leads (as SSWS did many times, from Marie to dinos to Enemy Ace, to US) whereas a title like Daredevil is certainly showing weakness by dropping to bimonthly. Plus SSWS started out in a period where DC had tons of non-monthly titles.

[HouseofComics.Com]

Our Fighting Forces is a really weird one. Starts bimonthly like many new DC titles, gets up to monthly after 1.5 years, but that only lasts awhile and it settles into a quite weird schedule through the end of the 60s, typically six or eight a year, and then when they try the Losers, they wait five months for the next issue (I had no idea!). So obviously they were letting the sales data come in. The title seems to be just a regular 70s DC bimonthly book ...until they need to give Kirby work to finish his contractual obligations with them and bam, the title jumps to monthly! Do we think the title really started selling better just thanks to Kirby? Basically as soon as he's gone, it settles into bimonthly for the last few years until DC, really foundering on the newsstand by 1978, pulls the plug.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1978 was a very, very bad year for comics.

[HouseofComics.Com]

But a very good year to pick up as many copies of Cancelled Comics Cavalcade as you could!

[Lazyboy]

2 hours ago, HouseofComics.Com said:

There were lots of bimonthly titles back in the day and I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say bimonthly meant headed towards cancellation, necessarily.

It's not being published bi-monthly that was the issue, it's dropping to bi-monthly after formerly being monthly.