Why would 2 copies of the same book have diff back covers? 1 1

[lostboys]

Just curious if this is normal...

 

 

[revat]

1 hour ago, lostboys said:

Just curious if this is normal...

 

 

It’s not abnormal for this specific comic, but I can’t remember why.  The raw one might be worth marginally rarer and worth more, but they’re both not worth much

[Jordysnordy]

Are both 1st prints or is 1 a 2nd print?

[revat]

Just now, Jordysnordy said:

Are both 1st prints or is 1 a 2nd print?

I don’t think there’s a second print??? (Not sure though)

[Jordysnordy]

2 minutes ago, revat said:

I don’t think there’s a second print??? (Not sure though)

 😂 I doubt it also but it’s all I could come up with

[shadroch]

Perhaps the WWE only paid to advertise in X amount of copies, or Image was committed to Y amount of house ads for their products.

Wetworks was originally plagued by massive delays so maybe the WWE product may have been outdated.

[theCapraAegagrus]

I haven't heard of this occurring during same-print runs. That would be interesting.

[Qalyar]

I can confirm that both versions seem readily available, which makes it a little surprising that none of the big indexes seem to have taken notice of the variants. Also, my sample size to check was very, very small, but all the newsstand prints I was able to access seem to have the Stormwatch back cover.

Makes me wonder, though, whether there are any similar issues in this series, or in other Image stuff from this timeframe?

[Get Marwood & I]

         

[William-James88]

6 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

         

The comic component itself is the same, no?

[Get Marwood & I]

2 minutes ago, William-James88 said:

The comic component itself is the same, no?

Yes. Just a different fold out back cover ad configuration. Same for the newsstand copy too - one of each: