• 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.

Whitman Variants, Direct vs Newsstand
5 5

194 posts in this topic

When buying, they are Whitmans that many collectors say are reprints.

When selling, they are rare early Direct Market copies with extremely low distribution.

 

I personally call them Whitmans, but has anyone come up with an explanation of why Marvel Whitmans tend to be found in much higher grades than their DC counterparts?:flipbait:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is free to call them whatever they want. But I'm afraid the burden of proof is trying to be shifted improperly. If these are "Whitmans", then documentation proving that should be provided...not documentation proving they are not.

I'll try and lay it out as succinctly as I can:

These books with different cover markings exist, beginning in late 1976, with Feb 1977 cover dates.

These different cover markings obviously denoted something. What was that something?

We can strongly infer that they denoted the inability to return these copies for credit with the publisher, since that was the layout, with modifications, that was adopted for the entire company later on. And we know that that layout was specifically made for the Direct market, due to contemporaneous printed acknowledgements of that fact (see Overstreet #10, #11, etc.)

The Direct market, which began in 1973/74, and was not quite as small as some have implied, created a new channel for distribution, whereby purchasers could buy comics directly from the publishers at a higher discount, in exchange for losing the ability to return unsold copies.

So...if these comics were "specially marked" so that they could not be returned through newsstand distribution channels, then we can assume they were for the Direct market...and they bear no markings indicating they were to be distributed by any specific company...then, the most correct name for them would be:

Direct market copies.

Regardless of who they were distributed to, or by, these books were marked so that they could not be returned for credit. By definition, that makes them part of the Direct market program, and therefore are properly called "Direct market copies."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2020 at 4:27 PM, shadroch said:

By the way, no one persuaded Marvel to do away with Phil's monopoly. New Media sued in Federal Court and won. Marvel had no choice in the matter.

That's right...Bud Plant, Rozanski, and others pressured the publishers and broke Phil's monopoly, as I mentioned earlier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2020 at 8:08 PM, Warlord said:

Appreciate the info.   Your summary gives a sense of scale of the volume that Seuling might have been distributing in those early years. 

I'm interested in the timeline of events regarding the late 1970s,  here are a few key items:

  • On sale in November 1976 (newsstand copies), Marvel's Feb 1977 cover dated comics begin appearing in Western's Whitman pre-packs.  Presumably Western's pre-packs containing these comics were on retailer's shelves within a short timeframe.

 

  • In November 1977, Seuling wrote in his newsletter:
Quote

"For a few months, an off-the-wall pseudo "distributor" on the middle of the East Coast [New Media Productions/Irjax] has been telling everyone that "Seuling is out. He won't be able to deliver books any more." This nut has also suggested returning unsold books (bought from him) through the local distributor as "returns,", a policy which would automatically get you cut off from all supplies from all publishers...

This suggests to me that some? all? "distributors" (Irjax at a minimum of course) were receiving comics in 1977 that were identical to newsstand copies, otherwise the alleged returns fraud wouldn't be possible.  The Seuling comment comes almost one year after the debut of Western's Whitman pre-packs of Marvel comics.

  • Sea Gate began to expand into having regional sub-distributors in late 1977/1978.

 

  • Oct 2, 1978, Irjax Enterprixes sued Seuling and major comics publishers in MD federal court for antitrust, significantly cited were the favorable terms (discount!) including Seuling getting his customers' orders collated and shipped directly to them from the printer.

 

  • By the Summer of 1979, major issues of this 1978 suit had been resolved in a series of settlements.  No longer were orders shipped directly from the printer to retailer, but instead comic distributors received comics at their newly established warehouses.   [I'd like to find more specifics about the "series of settlements".  This change in the shipping meant that direct distribution was no longer quite so direct.] 

 

  • On sale in March of 1979, Marvel's June cover dated comics for all titles start to have either the slashed UPC and/or the diamond price box.

 

There's a lot of speculation in here...and a lot of information missing/still unknown. There is a lot of fuzzy timelines and details involved in this discussion.

As I mentioned, Bud Plant, who was resisting getting into distribution, was persuaded by Charles Abar to take over his business. Bud knew Phil personally, but he also knew that his monopoly on Direct distribution couldn't last. If Phil was writing in November of 1977 about his issues with New Media, it was obvious that his monopoly was already broken by that point.

That Seuling wrote about making illegal returns is no surprise, but it doesn't prove that the Direct market was only receiving newsstand copies.

In fact, an earlier comment by Shadroch...that he bought books from Bud and a lot of the diamond copies showed up...indicates that Bud might have been receiving these Direct copies, too.

These books were, as I mentioned before, fundamentally experiments by Marvel. Since they were printed expressly for the purpose of preventing returns through the newsstand distribution channels, which is the definition of the Direct market, they are, properly, Direct market copies...regardless of who they were distributed by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, Phil's exclusive deal with publishers involved the publishers expediting Phils orders and shipping them for free. Other distributors existed but were at a huge disadvantage. You could buy from Seagate and get your books faster and shipped for free or buy from Irmjax or a half dozen other places and get them later and pay for shipping.

When comics were 25-30 cents, the difference wasn't that great. Buy from Phil at 40% off or from your local newspaper distributor at 30% off. Until comics got to fifty cents each and Phil started giving better discounts, it really wasn't a huge advantage. 

I started looking into opening a comic shop around 1980, but it would have been back issues only.  By 1983, it was viable. Many of the people I talked to emphasized the advantage of now having a new source of future back issues, rather than looking at the sale of new comics. I would order 100 copies of this month's Xmen, not because I could sell them this week, but because they invariably went up in value and would be a steady seller. 

My records are long gone but my  memory of the pre- Secret Wars days was that my back issue sales brought in more revenue than new books.  

In 1980, there were two comic shops in Queens. In 1985, there were enough to hold a shop owners soft ball game. By 1988, the Batman movie  caused it to explode. When I sold Quest End, there were four other shops within a mile of my shop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, shadroch said:

As I understand it, Phil's exclusive deal with publishers involved the publishers expediting Phils orders and shipping them for free. Other distributors existed but were at a huge disadvantage. You could buy from Seagate and get your books faster and shipped for free or buy from Irmjax or a half dozen other places and get them later and pay for shipping.

That makes sense, and jives with what Bud explained to me. Thanks for sharing this. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, shadroch said:

I started looking into opening a comic shop around 1980, but it would have been back issues only.  By 1983, it was viable. Many of the people I talked to emphasized the advantage of now having a new source of future back issues, rather than looking at the sale of new comics. I would order 100 copies of this month's Xmen, not because I could sell them this week, but because they invariably went up in value and would be a steady seller. 

The former manager of Bud's Comics & Comix in Sacramento (mgr from 1978-ish to 1985-ish) said that this was a sea change in how new comics were bought by retailers, and developed over this time period. He said the real first time anyone bought multiple copies in large numbers was Wolverine Ltd #1, which makes sense. He said they started to buy new issues for future back issue sales around 1981-82.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Everyone is free to call them whatever they want. But I'm afraid the burden of proof is trying to be shifted improperly. If these are "Whitmans", then documentation proving that should be provided...not documentation proving they are not.

I'll try and lay it out as succinctly as I can:

These books with different cover markings exist, beginning in late 1976, with Feb 1977 cover dates.

These different cover markings obviously denoted something. What was that something?

We can strongly infer that they denoted the inability to return these copies for credit with the publisher, since that was the layout, with modifications, that was adopted for the entire company later on. And we know that that layout was specifically made for the Direct market, due to contemporaneous printed acknowledgements of that fact (see Overstreet #10, #11, etc.)

The Direct market, which began in 1973/74, and was not quite as small as some have implied, created a new channel for distribution, whereby purchasers could buy comics directly from the publishers at a higher discount, in exchange for losing the ability to return unsold copies.

So...if these comics were "specially marked" so that they could not be returned through newsstand distribution channels, then we can assume they were for the Direct market...and they bear no markings indicating they were to be distributed by any specific company...then, the most correct name for them would be:

Direct market copies.

Regardless of who they were distributed to, or by, these books were marked so that they could not be returned for credit. By definition, that makes them part of the Direct market program, and therefore are properly called "Direct market copies."

The markings were created to differentiate non-returnable versions from newsstand, there is no debate that their intention was to use these for the direct market...but the beta customer and by far the largest customer was Whitman/Western.  There's no evidence I've seen posted that these were the copies distributed in bulk for the direct market, whatever you imagine the '73 to 79 direct market to be at the time was likely serviced through the supply of newsstand copies.  If you wish to ignore the many differences from this era by grouping pre-national distribution copies with everything after that's up to you.  There's no need for anyone to provide documentation to you, that's silly posturing on your part, we've all seen the bagged three packs that were used at the time...show me a pic of dealer back issues with a dozen fat diamond versions.

Also, I just looked and both MCS & Mile High use the term "Whitman" to identify these for collectors who are looking to buy or sell them.  So whether it is right or wrong in your mind, the colloquial and industry accepted reference to the Marvel books from this era is:

Whitman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, bababooey said:

Also, I just looked and both MCS & Mile High use the term "Whitman" to identify these for collectors who are looking to buy or sell them.  So whether it is right or wrong in your mind, the colloquial and industry accepted reference to the Marvel books from this era is:

Whitman

There are many things in the hobby that somebody with influence got wrong many years ago and most people now just mindlessly parrot. That doesn't make them correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, shadroch said:

As I understand it, Phil's exclusive deal with publishers involved the publishers expediting Phils orders and shipping them for free. Other distributors existed but were at a huge disadvantage. You could buy from Seagate and get your books faster and shipped for free or buy from Irmjax or a half dozen other places and get them later and pay for shipping.

Free shipping plus shipped directly to the retailer == direct  ^^

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

As I mentioned, Bud Plant, who was resisting getting into distribution, was persuaded by Charles Abar to take over his business. Bud knew Phil personally, but he also knew that his monopoly on Direct distribution couldn't last. If Phil was writing in November of 1977 about his issues with New Media, it was obvious that his monopoly was already broken by that point.

On the above point, I'd highlight the following:

Quote

Oct 2, 1978, Irjax Enterprises sued Seuling and major comics publishers in MD federal court for antitrust, significantly cited were the favorable terms (discount!) including Seuling getting his customers' orders collated and shipped directly to them from the printer

This lawsuit indicates that in 4Q78 that Seuling still had a lock on the most advantageous terms - best discount, comics from multiple publishers collated, free shipping, direct to retailer.  Could other distributors buy from the publishers?  Apparently so, but not with the same terms, thus the lawsuit.  This lawsuit makes it clear that Seuling wasn't the only distributor by this date.  Of far more importance is that at this late date he was the singular, most-favored distributor getting terms far better than available to others.

Anyone have access to legal records from Baltimore?   Unfortunately information on the Baltimore court's website doesn't appear to be available earlier than some point in the '90s.   I think this October 1978 lawsuit could reveal some important info if we could find a way to get a look at it.

Edited by Warlord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That Seuling wrote about making illegal returns is no surprise, but it doesn't prove that the Direct market was only receiving newsstand copies.

Are you suggesting that some distributors of non-returnable comics were receiving newsstand copies while at the same time some distributors of non-returnable comics were receiving the black diamond copies in 1977?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

There are many things in the hobby that somebody with influence got wrong many years ago and most people now just mindlessly parrot. That doesn't make them correct.

If a group of people use terminology that is universally understood to describe something specific why would it be beneficial to abandon this 40 year old descriptor to lessen the distinction conveyed by the widely used term?   I'm okay with people using widely understood terms on these boards.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Warlord said:

Are you suggesting that some distributors of non-returnable comics were receiving newsstand copies while at the same time some distributors of non-returnable comics were receiving the black diamond copies in 1977?  

Are there Diamond copies for every Marvel of that era?  I thought there were gaps. If so, doesn't that mean that every retailer would have been receiving a mix. Unless some titles weren't offered to the direct market which doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, shadroch said:

Are there Diamond copies for every Marvel of that era?  I thought there were gaps. If so, doesn't that mean that every retailer would have been receiving a mix. Unless some titles weren't offered to the direct market which doesn't make sense.

From 1977 through May 1979, no there are not.   Yes, there are HUGE gaps in some titles and some titles completely skipped over.

Of the titles being published with "on sale Mar 1979" / "cover date Jun 1979" there are titles that NEVER had even a single issue published in the Whitman format - Ghost Rider, Master of Kung-Fu, Sgt Fury, and What-if are easy to spot (just off the top of my head from looking at this image I snagged from the amazing Mike's Amazing World site).   Also among this crop of issues are many titles that had only one or a small handful of Whitman format issues including Doctor Strange (1), Godzilla (2), Power Man(1), Spider-Woman (4), and X-Men (1). 

Other notable titles that barely ever registered an issue in the Whitman format are Daredevil (2), Devil Dinosaur (1), Howard the Duck (1), John Carter (1), Kull (1), Machine Man (3), Marvel Premiere (2), and Super-Villain Team-Up (2).  That's not a complete list, because I omitted a few for various reasons.  

Note:  For future reference, just so I don't keep typing it over and over,  all further comments I make about Whitman format are specific to the pre-June 1979 cover date period.  :)

 

1723362683_OnSaleMar1979CoverDateJun1979MarvelDirect.thumb.jpg.cc2a8584fc834c5ea71a7ec81d996599.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Warlord said:

From 1977 through May 1979, no there are not.   Yes, there are HUGE gaps in some titles and some titles completely skipped over.

Of the titles being published with "on sale Mar 1979" / "cover date Jun 1979" there are titles that NEVER had even a single issue published in the Whitman format - Ghost Rider, Master of Kung-Fu, Sgt Fury, and What-if are easy to spot (just off the top of my head from looking at this image I snagged from the amazing Mike's Amazing World site).   Also among this crop of issues are many titles that had only one or a small handful of Whitman format issues including Doctor Strange (1), Godzilla (2), Power Man(1), Spider-Woman (4), and X-Men (1). 

Other notable titles that barely ever registered an issue in the Whitman format are Daredevil (2), Devil Dinosaur (1), Howard the Duck (1), John Carter (1), Kull (1), Machine Man (3), Marvel Premiere (2), and Super-Villain Team-Up (2).  That's not a complete list, because I omitted a few for various reasons.  

Note:  For future reference, just so I don't keep typing it over and over,  all further comments I make about Whitman format are specific to the pre-June 1979 cover date period.  :)

 

1723362683_OnSaleMar1979CoverDateJun1979MarvelDirect.thumb.jpg.cc2a8584fc834c5ea71a7ec81d996599.jpg

I know with Micronauts, issue 1, 2, and 3 had the big diamond, issues 4 and 5 had newsstand only, and issue 6 had the regular square box but with a strike through the UPC (like is pictured above) as well as the newsstand version.  From issue 7 on, the issues had the newsstand and small diamond direct versions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2020 at 5:10 PM, Warlord said:
On 3/2/2020 at 8:41 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

That Seuling wrote about making illegal returns is no surprise, but it doesn't prove that the Direct market was only receiving newsstand copies.

Are you suggesting that some distributors of non-returnable comics were receiving newsstand copies while at the same time some distributors of non-returnable comics were receiving the black diamond copies in 1977?  

Maybe, which I think I said in the other thread. This was fundamentally a 2 year experiment to see how it would work. I think what's more likely is that everyone in the Direct market distribution channel received a mixture of books. The cover markings wouldn't have made any difference to the retailers that were selling them; as far as they were concerned, they were the same books to sell at the same time. They really only mattered to Marvel circulation, which could then keep track of where these books went, and see if they were receiving any back through newsstand channels. 

I have no doubt it was driven by Western, but those months that Western placed orders, there's no reason to think they wouldn't have sent them out to Sea Gate and other distributors. Western wasn't returning them, so there wasn't a fundamental need for them to be different if they were *just* going to Western. Now...I realize I can't prove that, but I think it's a reasonable conclusion based on what we know about Western's program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's illuminating to look at the transition period from Whitman to direct market covers.  I've chosen Avengers for this image because this title was quite often available from Western with almost 20 issues in Whitman format.   Avengers #179 and #180 were the last two large diamond issues in Whitman format. This is followed by two Mar/Apr 1979 issues available only in newsstand format with UPCs.   These Mar/Apr 1979 newsstand-only issues coincide with Micronauts, Shogun Warriors, and Battlestar Galactica issues in Whitman pre-packs.  For these two months, no Whitman issues exist for any other Marvel titles because Western went all-in on these titles.   This is one of the clearer indicators that we can see that illustrates how these black diamond issues were made for Western, or weren't made AT ALL.   These Whitman Micronauts, Shogun Warriors, and Battlestar Galactica pre-packs are abundant and quite readily available.   Finally we have a last appearance of the Whitman format in Avengers #183 with the first small diamond on any Avengers issue, and a blank UPC box.    Now at this point, June or July 1979 cover dated issues start appearing in direct format for all titles and all issues (no exceptions by July/August AFAIK, are there?).  Oddly enough, the Avengers #184 does NOT utilize the black diamond or blank UPC box, instead this first non-Whitman issue has a newsstand appearance except for the slashed UPC code.  That's interesting....   Then we arrive in July with Avengers #185, and we start seeing the small diamond and slashed UPC code used uniformly across all Marvel titles.

 

1743906380_WhitmantoDirect-Avengers.thumb.jpg.8594792adb0aee3863b20ec724847e9f.jpg

 

 

1635249152_marvel3packMultiMagsavengers179Conan94hulk231-bottom-f.thumb.jpg.98bcd49c9e08a394fc44b5e7d19bf413.jpg

Edited by Warlord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

I know with Micronauts, issue 1, 2, and 3 had the big diamond, issues 4 and 5 had newsstand only, and issue 6 had the regular square box but with a strike through the UPC (like is pictured above) as well as the newsstand version.  From issue 7 on, the issues had the newsstand and small diamond direct versions.  

Yes, Micronauts had only 3 Whitman format issues.  I chose not to list Micronauts as one of the "hardly ever had a Whitman issue" titles despite that low number.  The title was only launched a few months before the end of the Whitman era, so that limited the number of issues in that format.

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
5 5