1:10, 1:25, 1:50, 1:100 are DISTRIBUTION numbers, not PRINT RUN numbers.

0

One of the topics that has come up in this discussion is the idea that Marvel would NEVER print more copies of a book than they need

 

AND

 

They print up to the 'case pack'

 

Lets' look at some facts that show both of these to be questionable ideas.

 

Comichron's numbers for the Amazing Spider-man in 2005 show:

TOTAL # of copies printed (avg): 150,833 (or 603.33 CASES, an uneven case amount!!!)

Sales thru Dealers: 102,377 (Also an uneven case count)

Subscription Sales: 10,187

Copies not distributed (RETURNS): 35,241 or 23.4% MORE THAN THEY NEEDED!

 

 

In 2008, they appear to have tried to tighten it up a bit:

TOTAL # of copies printed (avg): 125,019 (or 500.76 CASES, an uneven case amount!!!)

Sales thru Dealers: 95,141 (Also an uneven case count)

Subscription Sales: 10,807

Copies not distributed (RETURNS): 17,515 or 14% MORE THAN THEY NEEDED!

 

These are from Marvel's own Statement of Ownership official forms, required by law.

And they show clearly that:

A) Marvel has most definitely printed more copies of a comic than they need and

B) They don't seem to be rounding up to any even case pack amount.

 

 

How does any of this prove a thing about the practice of printing up to a 'case pack'.

You can't use an average then calculate that back to PROVE they don't print to the 'case pack'.

 

Simply put, if you had two issues where you KNEW one issue had 80 case packs and another had 81 printed, the average is 80.5....and now the 80.5 average number is being used to prove they didn't print 80 & 81??

 

That's easily answered: if those books were printed to the "case pack", they would have averaged a ROUND number. Either those books WERE printed to the "case pack", which means the average would be a round number, or AT LEAST ONE issue during the year was NOT "printed to the case pack", which would mean they don't really print to the case pack.

 

What does the "issue published nearest to the publication date" say...?

 

Regardless, those numbers aren't round in any way.

In response to my point you ignored my 'simply put' example which disproves the methodology you use to support your position as it relates to averages being an invalid whole unit to be divided.

I'm not arguing the overall thesis OR whether publishers might be claiming a specific print run for one issue that isn't wholly divisible by the case unit BUT using an average is flawed methodology and applying that already flawed process to the irrelevant distribution/sales to further 'prove' the point isn't even part of this specific discussion.

I wouldn't have pointed it out but this exercise was later cited as proof as the discussion continued and my point is that the math provided proves nothing.....our inability to get a whole number from the print run of a 'specific issue nearest filing date' was not something I disputed in any way since it wasn't part of the statement I responded to.

I provided an example where .50 or a half case pack gets split (now bold italics), I could provide examples that will give you a result showing .33 or .76 would be the result if that helps with explaining the flaw in the conclusions drawn from using this method to prove anything.

.33 case packs

three consecutive issues example:

issue 1 x 2 case packs, issue 2 x 1 case pack, issue three x 1 case pack - total average case packs/issue = 1.33

this sidebar discussion is getting dangerously close to getting a TL:DR /eye roll from sal, if he still reads the garbage posted in this forum

Is anybody debating that they print more than ordered to cover for damages?

 

I think majority understands that they print more than ordered to cover damages. Which is understandable. How much more is the question.

 

As it applies to "incentive" variants, based on the link I posted above, the answer looks to be 5%.

 

As for regular covers, according to multiple boardies, it is in the 5-10% range. Whatever they do above that for re-orders looks to vary by another potential 5-10% (at least from the data ChuckGower posted from ten years ago).

 

Either way, all of this is still based on how many copies of a book are actually ordered. None of these numbers exist in a vacuum.

 

-J.

 

Can we get a list, preferably with links to the relevant posts, of who these "multiple boardies" are and what they have said? "Multiple boardies" sounds awesome as a completely vague support for whatever you want it to mean, but having some idea of who these "multiple boardies" are and what their knowledge base on print runs is would be really useful.

 

If you can't/won't produce this, please stop citing these unnamed "multiple boardies" as support.

 

Already done. Scroll back a few a pages.

 

And the link directly from Diamond shuts down the dispute anyway.

 

-J.

 

"WoWitHurts" is a user who has been here for about a year, and has 38 total posts.

 

Chuck wasn't saying what you claimed he was saying.

 

paul347 made the same errors you keep making.

 

And Larry certainly isn't in your camp.

 

So....either the "multiple boardies" were not reliable, or they didn't say what you were claiming they were saying.

 

Quick question: does this "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with compostable_fertilizer" shtick work for you elsewhere...?

You illustrated my point. I was just interested to see if J would actually provide the credentials of his "multiple boardies" and defend them. Apparently it is easier to make people dig back in a thread rather than provide such supporting information.

One of the topics that has come up in this discussion is the idea that Marvel would NEVER print more copies of a book than they need

 

AND

 

They print up to the 'case pack'

 

Lets' look at some facts that show both of these to be questionable ideas.

 

Comichron's numbers for the Amazing Spider-man in 2005 show:

TOTAL # of copies printed (avg): 150,833 (or 603.33 CASES, an uneven case amount!!!)

Sales thru Dealers: 102,377 (Also an uneven case count)

Subscription Sales: 10,187

Copies not distributed (RETURNS): 35,241 or 23.4% MORE THAN THEY NEEDED!

 

 

In 2008, they appear to have tried to tighten it up a bit:

TOTAL # of copies printed (avg): 125,019 (or 500.76 CASES, an uneven case amount!!!)

Sales thru Dealers: 95,141 (Also an uneven case count)

Subscription Sales: 10,807

Copies not distributed (RETURNS): 17,515 or 14% MORE THAN THEY NEEDED!

 

These are from Marvel's own Statement of Ownership official forms, required by law.

And they show clearly that:

A) Marvel has most definitely printed more copies of a comic than they need and

B) They don't seem to be rounding up to any even case pack amount.

 

 

How does any of this prove a thing about the practice of printing up to a 'case pack'.

You can't use an average then calculate that back to PROVE they don't print to the 'case pack'.

 

Simply put, if you had two issues where you KNEW one issue had 80 case packs and another had 81 printed, the average is 80.5....and now the 80.5 average number is being used to prove they didn't print 80 & 81??

 

That's easily answered: if those books were printed to the "case pack", they would have averaged a ROUND number. Either those books WERE printed to the "case pack", which means the average would be a round number, or AT LEAST ONE issue during the year was NOT "printed to the case pack", which would mean they don't really print to the case pack.

 

What does the "issue published nearest to the publication date" say...?

 

Regardless, those numbers aren't round in any way.

 

In response to my point you ignored my 'simply put' example which disproves the methodology you use to support your position as it relates to averages being an invalid whole unit to be divided.

 

I'm not arguing the overall thesis OR whether publishers might be claiming a specific print run for one issue that isn't wholly divisible by the case unit BUT using an average is flawed methodology and applying that already flawed process to the irrelevant distribution/sales to further 'prove' the point isn't even part of this specific discussion.

 

I wouldn't have pointed it out but this exercise was later cited as proof as the discussion continued and my point is that the math provided proves nothing.....our inability to get a whole number from the print run of a 'specific issue nearest filing date' was not something I disputed in any way since it wasn't part of the statement I responded to.

 

I provided an example where .50 or a half case pack gets split (now bold italics), I could provide examples that will give you a result showing .33 or .76 would be the result if that helps with explaining the flaw in the conclusions drawn from using this method to prove anything.

.33 case packs

three consecutive issues example:

issue 1 x 2 case packs, issue 2 x 1 case pack, issue three x 1 case pack - total average case packs/issue = 1.33

 

Yes, you are correct, that applying "case pack" to averages is flawed methodology. However...I'm certainly no math savant, but it would seem that the law of averages works in such a way that, using these large numbers, you're going to get a number that is recognizably the average of "round" numbers. That is, .333, .666, .5, etc.

Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I don't see a "round average" in 500.76 cases. I'd like to see your numbers on that.

And you certainly didn't need that many words to explain that.

(sidenote: I'm always intrigued when people say "you ignored" some point they were making, if it wasn't directly addressed in a response. I would only assume that if the point was made repeatedly...like to Jay...and remained unanswered. But that's just me.)

Oh, and "in the interest of being completely fair" dept....though using an average printed over 12 months isn't a valid methodology to disprove the "case pack" idea, it's leaps and bounds "more reasonable" than trying to apply a ratio to a sales figure to try and conjure a print run, wouldn't you say...?

Oh, and "in the interest of being completely fair" dept....though using an average printed over 12 months isn't a valid methodology to disprove the "case pack" idea, it's leaps and bounds "more reasonable" than trying to apply a ratio to a sales figure to try and conjure a print run, wouldn't you say...?

 

..... is it possible that the print totals that exceed the case multiples ARE the variants ?......after all, it's the same book, only the cover is different. The totals may also not add up to case count multiples to account for complimentary copies given to creators, associates, and friends.... GOD BLESS....

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

If there's a yearly average and the year had 12 issues, then multiply to get the total number of books sold in the year. See if that total number is a nice round number for the number of cases.

If it works for the annual total, then there's a chance that each month was also a valid number of (full) cases.

Good god RMA, either you are a complete hypocrite, or you even forget about what YOU say:

RMA, 5/24/16:

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9367878&fpart=4000

No one is (really) disputing that Marvel "prints to the case" (even though Marvel hasn't confirmed this, it's a reasonable assumption to make.)

 

That's not the issue.

 

It's become rather evident that you are simpy interested in the belaboring this (non) point solely for the sake of doing so. Earlier in this thread you asked me to name and quote the knowledgeable boardies whom I was citing. When I did so you brushed it off and said it didn't matter (even sinking so low as to dismiss the expertise of one boardie outright simply because he chooses not to post relentlessly on these boards. Classy play man. Classy play. ).

Then you ask for "documentation" from Marvel and/or Diamond where they discuss print runs, case packs, etc (even though you appeared to accept the point yourself back in May). And in spite of the fact (as you and I agree) that they are usually very tight lipped on their print run machinations, I not only re-quote verbatim a post by ChuckGower where he stated Marvel's public position on the matter, a Diamond solicit provided by Paul747 literally showing a reference to case packs and how many copies of one book in particular (ASM 667 Dell'otto variant) was in a case pack (225), and a link to another Diamond solicit for the ASM 666 (an event book, no less), where Diamond specifically states that the publisher is only over-printing by 5% for damages, you continue to pretend that nobody has given you the exact documentation that you have demanded, that quite handily suggests exactly what I and numerous others have been saying. Yes, the solicit for the ASM 666 "only" applies to the ASM 666. But if the publisher is "only" over-printing by 5% over orders received on a major event incentive book, do you think that they would arbitrarily over-print by 500% on some other random incentive that is not expected to receive one-third of the orders?

Come on man, get serious. You attempt to play yourself off as the last bastion and protector of "logic" and "truth" on these boards, and yet, as your position on this topic has steadily deteriorated into utter nonsense (trying to use irrelevant printing data from 45 years ago), personal swipes, and blatant hypocrisy ("no one has said Marvel 'lied', oh wait! I actually did!" ), it has become fairly obvious that you are less interested in having an honest debate, or making any concessions, even as your points look more and more ridiculous and ignoring all of the actual "data" that you have asked for, and are more interested in sticking to your guns, even as you are standing on a ship that has sunk.

Have fun with that.

-J.

I don't see a "round average" in 500.76 cases. I'd like to see your numbers on that.

9 months @ 501 cases

3 month @ 500 cases

Gives you a 500.75 average,

-bababriefly

Oh, and "in the interest of being completely fair" dept....though using an average printed over 12 months isn't a valid methodology to disprove the "case pack" idea, it's leaps and bounds "more reasonable" than trying to apply a ratio to a sales figure to try and conjure a print run, wouldn't you say...?

 

 

 

..... is it possible that the print totals that exceed the case multiples ARE the variants ?......after all, it's the same book, only the cover is different. The totals may also not add up to case count multiples to account for complimentary copies given to creators, associates, and friends.... GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

No, because we don't know how many the publishers print for each issue, except sometimes the "issue nearest filing date", and even that information has been almost entirely non-existent in the era of the incentive variant (claims by "oxbladder" and others aside, incentive variants have only existed since about the early to mid 2000s. They are most assuredly a 21st century invention.)

So, if we don't know how many they print, we can't possibly determine what numbers go where and how.

Maybe this illustration will explain things better:

Print run of the incentive = ?

Print run of the regular = ?

Print run of non-incentive variants = ?

Print run of variants for which Marvel and/or Diamond and/or retailer gives an exact number = varies, based on program

Total print run of standard comic with all versions = ?

Sales reported by Diamond through Comichron = X

Portion of print run sold through Diamond = ? - X

Sales reported for REorders by Diamond through Comichron = ?

Number of qualifying orders for incentives = ?

Number of qualifying orders for incentives that actually ordered the incentive = ?

Number of incentives printed for "overage/damage" = ?

With so many unknowns, and worse, unknowns that tend to cancel each other out, who in their right mind would come along and say "oh, yeah, sure, we can reasonably estimate the print runs of the incentives!" based on an ordering matrix ("you order X copies of the regular, we'll give you 1 copy of the variant"), and sales numbers for North America....?

It's sheer, complete, utter madness....

And yet, you've had people arguing (and doing; check out eBay!) that very thing for a few years now.

"So, Superchica #37 had a 1:50 variant...? Alright, so Comichron reports 37,288 copies, so if we just divide 37,288 copies by 50, then that must mean they only printed 745 copies of the incentive!"...as if 37,288 is the print run, and incentive variants are printed according to the ratio, neither of which is true.

And not only that, but those false numbers are routinely used by eBay sellers and others.

It's appealing because it's easy math, but it's fatally flawed from the outset, for all the unknown variables listed above. Those numbers have no relation to reality.

Good god RMA, either you are a complete hypocrite, or you even forget about what YOU say:

 

RMA, 5/24/16:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9367878&fpart=4000

 

No one is (really) disputing that Marvel "prints to the case" (even though Marvel hasn't confirmed this, it's a reasonable assumption to make.)

 

That's not the issue.

 

 

It's become rather evident that you are simpy interested in the belaboring this (non) point solely for the sake of doing so. Earlier in this thread you asked me to name and quote the knowledgeable boardies whom I was citing. When I did so you brushed it off and said it didn't matter (even sinking so low as to dismiss the expertise of one boardie outright simply because he chooses not to post relentlessly on these boards. Classy play man. Classy play. ).

 

Then you ask for "documentation" from Marvel and/or Diamond where they discuss print runs, case packs, etc (even though you appeared to accept the point yourself back in May). And in spite of the fact (as you and I agree) that they are usually very tight lipped on their print run machinations, I not only re-quote verbatim a post by ChuckGower where he stated Marvel's public position on the matter, a Diamond solicit provided by Paul747 literally showing a reference to case packs and how many copies of one book in particular (ASM 667 Dell'otto variant) was in a case pack (225), and a link to another Diamond solicit for the ASM 666 (an event book, no less), where Diamond specifically states that the publisher is only over-printing by 5% for damages, you continue to pretend that nobody has given you the exact documentation that you have demanded, that quite handily suggests exactly what I and numerous others have been saying. Yes, the solicit for the ASM 666 "only" applies to the ASM 666. But if the publisher is "only" over-printing by 5% over orders received on a major event incentive book, do you think that they would arbitrarily over-print by 500% on some other random incentive that is not expected to receive one-third of the orders?

 

Come on man, get serious. You attempt to play yourself off as the last bastion and protector of "logic" and "truth" on these boards, and yet, as your position on this topic has steadily deteriorated into utter nonsense (trying to use irrelevant printing data from 45 years ago), personal swipes, and blatant hypocrisy ("no one has said Marvel 'lied', oh wait! I actually did!" ), it has become fairly obvious that you are less interested in having an honest debate, or making any concessions, even as your points look more and more ridiculous and ignoring all of the actual "data" that you have asked for, and are more interested in sticking to your guns, even as you are standing on a ship that has sunk.

 

Have fun with that.

 

-J.

And you still don't have one shred of proof for any of the positions you've taken.

You said that variants are separate from the print run numbers. We showed you PROOF that you were wrong. So you changed your position.

You've said they print to the ratio. We've shown they don't by the amount of left overs are for sale through Diamond. That's proof. So you changed your position.

You've said its only for #1's and special books, we've shown that's not true by actually posting the same info from Diamond that shows more than half the books on it aren't #1's or special events. That's proof. So you changed your position.

You've said that publishers would never purposely over print, that it doesn't make sense. We've shown, they HAVE with actual PROOF. For decades they did it. It may be 10-20-30 years old, but it shows a pattern of consistent over printing that HAS occurred.

You've said they round up to case packs, but you haven't shown proof. Just someone else's words. You have no ACTUAL proof. No factual data or information that shows it.

Its not a matter of proving you wrong, you just can't prove your right. You have no proof.

And if you don't think that people here can't see you back track and try and out talk your way out of this you're wrong. They do.

You know you're in a bad way when contentious trolls like BabaBooey come and chime in on your side.

Face it, slugger, you got NOTHING. Until you come up with proof, statistics, a letter from Joe Quesada verified by a lawyer, the position your taking CAN'T be proven.

And really, that's ALL that WE'VE been saying all along.

You can't actually PROVE what you're position is on this. You MIGHT be right, but until you can PROVE it, we can show you a number of ways you're PROBABLY wrong.

This all began over trying to say you could figure a variant print run by dividing the 1:25 into the print run. Way wrong and way off course.

I would love to see RMA's yellow legal pad of notes next to his desk. Must be a work of art.

Good god RMA, either you are a complete hypocrite, or you even forget about what YOU say:

 

RMA, 5/24/16:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9367878&fpart=4000

 

No one is (really) disputing that Marvel "prints to the case" (even though Marvel hasn't confirmed this, it's a reasonable assumption to make.)

 

That's not the issue.

 

It's still not the issue.

Pay attention, Jay.

It's NOT THE ISSUE.

No one is (really) disputing that Marvel "prints to the case."

It's a reasonable assumption to make.

Now, pay close attention to this, because it's critical to understanding: that's still an ASSUMPTION.

Whether they do or do not, it's an ASSUMPTION.

That means: IT'S NOT PROVEN.

That means: THERE'S NO DOCUMENTATION (yet.)

Try and understand nuance, Jay.

Do you really think that, just because you tailor your arguments ("moving the goalposts") to salvage them, that others do the same thing...?

Yes.

I believe you do.

If you have documentation PROVING that Marvel prints "to the case", by all means....SHARE IT.

Until then...it's the same old song and dance from you: lots of wind, no substance.

You know you're in a bad way when contentious trolls like BabaBooey come and chime in on your side.

You're words, they go right in.

You know you're in a bad way when contentious trolls like BabaBooey come and chime in on your side.

 

You're words, they go right in.

 

 

 

 

Well...to be fair, he has a point.

And "your"...

 

I would love to see RMA's yellow legal pad of notes next to his desk. Must be a work of art.

No notes.

I don't see a "round average" in 500.76 cases. I'd like to see your numbers on that.

9 months @ 501 cases

3 month @ 500 cases

 

Gives you a 500.75 average,

 

-bababriefly

Yes, but not 500.76.

And, at these numbers, that 1 point difference is significant.

OK, are CG and RMA in agreement over whatever is being disputed here? I am trying to figure who is on what side.

If there's a yearly average and the year had 12 issues, then multiply to get the total number of books sold in the year. See if that total number is a nice round number for the number of cases.

 

If it works for the annual total, then there's a chance that each month was also a valid number of (full) cases.

150,833 (2005 avg printed ASM) x 12 = 1,809,996

125,019 (2008 avg) x 12 = 1,500,228

We're playing fast and loose with numbers, though, and they're getting further and further unmoored from reality.

I don't see a "round average" in 500.76 cases. I'd like to see your numbers on that.

9 months @ 501 cases

3 month @ 500 cases

 

Gives you a 500.75 average,

 

-bababriefly

 

Yes, but not 500.76.

 

And, at these numbers, that 1 point difference is significant.

Ask your sidekick to clarify how he rounded the numbers to get .76 and then I can demonstrate how using the number of issues as a denominator I can come up with .20, .25, .33, .50, .66 .75, 80 or a handful of others.

https://ca.ixl.com/math/grade-6/word-names-for-decimal-numbers