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

0

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

And yet, you can't spell "your" correctly....

But again...we're playing wayyyyyyy too fast and loose with the numbers.

We don't have any idea how many copies of each book was in each case for those years. 200? 225? 150? 250?

It's silly, trying to nail these numbers down with so many unknown variables.

It's common to be great at one thing and not the other when it comes between mathematics and language.

But I suck at both, so point is moot

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

Wrong.

I said your "knowledgeable boardies" either didn't say what you thought they said (which vastly weakened your point), or got key details wrong (which further weakened your point), or weren't legitimate sources to begin with (which did your point in completely.)

No "brushing off" done. If I ask you to name four former US Presidents, and you say "Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse, and Goofy", and I said "um, no", you don't get to come back and complain that "hey! You asked for an answer, and I gave you one!!!!!" if your answers aren't valid answers. I never said "it didn't matter", or anything even remotely like that. That's what YOU told YOURSELF that I "said" when you red my post. On the contrary, however, it DOES matter, and if you can't come up with valid answers, INvalid answers aren't going to be acceptable.

That's not how proof and documentation works.

If you would like to come up with "knowledgeable boardies" who:

A. actually know what they're taking about.

B. can support what they say with proof and documentation

C. don't make the same errors you've been making

...then yes, those would be perfectly acceptable.

(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. ).

Right. Because that's how proof and documentation actually works: it has to be proof and documentation.

Who is this so-called "expert"...? Have they proved their "expertise" on these boards? Have they proved their "expertise" elsewhere? No, of course not. I believe Kevin76, who has been here for 14+ years, and has an established history of where he stands, over someone who has been here a year and has 38 posts. That's a standard any reasonable person would have.

So yes, I will absolutely dismiss the "expertise" of a completely unknown quantity, who also makes misstatements.

Proof and documentation has nothing to do with bombast and hyperbole, which is your raison d'être. Bombastic statements like "sinking so low as to dismiss the expertise of one boardie" and "choose not to post relentlessly" (whatever THAT means), which have nothing whatsoever to do with sober, rational proof and documentation.

That's right, Jay. That's how proof and documentation works. It's not "taking someone's word for it." It has nothing to do with "bonafides."

Your bombastic language, filled with outrage, faux or otherwise, is not proof and documentation.

So gasp, sputter, take offense, get red in the face, do all that you feel you need to do, but realize that none of your bombast and outrage is proof and documentation.

I mean, it's almost like you're a real life Spider-Gwen sketch by Cho. I can hear the "Outrage!" from here.

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).

Right. Because documentation is BETTER THAN assumptions, even GOOD assumptions.

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,

Context is king.

Chuck was pointing out that Marvel's PUBLIC RELATIONS dept had said this, not once, but twice (or more), DESPITE the fact that their actions did not match their words. Their "public position" is rendered meaningless when they are CAUGHT doing what they CLAIMED they weren't doing.

Stay with it, Jay, you'll get there eventually.

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),,

Wrong again. Literally. Paul747 quoted a bunch of Diamond-ese that I already told you needed to be translated, and NOWHERE in that post does it say ASM #667 was a "case pack" book of "225"...that was PAUL'S conclusion, not what is made clear by the information he posted.

I already asked you to clarify what he posted, and you either didn't read that, or chose to ignore it.

Regardless, ALL of that aside, that ASM #667 was a "case pack" of 225 doesn't prove or disprove anything other than 225 is how Marvel packed that particular book. That there are 150-250 or so books per case is not in dispute. No one's disputing it, and it's neither relevant to any of this discussion, nor does it prove anything else.

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,

WRONG. Why do you keep making everyone post the same damn things over and over and over? Why do you keep posting the same debunked nonsense over and over and over, as if no one had answered you....?

Allow me to quote ME:

It says this:

 

"By placing an order for the Amazing Spider-Man #666 Comic Shop Variant, you are agreeing to receive an overprint of 5% for free, as there will be no damage or shortage replacements except for severe cases."

 

This was a special event book; where in that press release do you see anything about 5% being standard for anything?

 

That 5% overage has to do with THIS book, with a specific term for retailers; you cannot extrapolate that to ALL books. It doesn't say a single thing about standard practice. You have no idea if this number is related to anything else at all.

 

It's irresponsible to claim otherwise.

 

On top of all of that, all that says is that retailers agreed to RECEIVE an overprint of 5% for free...it doesn't say Marvel is PRINTING ONLY 5% over. Do you not see the rest of the sentence: "....as there will be no damage or shortage replacements EXCEPT FOR SEVERE CASES." (emphasis obviously added.)

 

See that?

 

That means, if there ARE "severe cases" (however Diamond and/or Marvel defines that), there will be MORE THAN 5% overage available.

In other words, nowhere in that ad does it say Marvel is printing ONLY 5% over, NOR does it say that 5% overage is STANDARD.

Come on, Jay.

you continue to pretend that nobody has given you the exact documentation that you have demanded,

Because you haven't, as anyone who can read can see.

that quite handily suggests exactly what I and numerous others have been saying.

As PAINSTAKINGLY, METICULOUSLY explained, no, you haven't done anything of the sort. If you would read what I and others have told you, instead of just repeating your talking points over and over, this might go somewhere.

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?

No, and no one said anything even remotely like that. Once more, that's all you.

As already explained, your assumption that they "only" overprinted by 5% is a bad one. All it says is "you are agreeing to receive an overprint of 5% for free." That doesn't say that 5% is all they were overprinting. That doesn't say that 5% is what they overprint for everything else. But most importantly, even if 5% overprinting IS standard, it doesn't have much bearing on this discussion. 5% overage for a book that is printed to the tune of 1,000, 1,500, 2,000 is 50, 75, or 100 copies. That's not enough to make a dent on the amount of incentives sold down the road from initial distribution. Chuck just bought 30 copies of a 1:25. One retailer. There are THOUSANDS of retailers in North America. THOUSANDS. ONE retailer bought 30 copies, and got them all, of an incentive variant. ONE retailer. 30 copies. Do you think, for a second, that those copies are just "overprinting for damages"...?

And let's discuss overprinting for damages: why do you think they do that? Do you think they're just an insurance policy, and they NEVER use those overages...?

No, of course not! They USE those overages, because books are damaged ALL THE TIME. I don't think there's a week that goes by wherein multiple shops around the country don't RETURN books that are DAMAGED.

So, yes, they actually DO USE those overprintings for what they were actually intended for. I know, shocking!

Come on man, get serious.

The incredible irony of that statement is not lost on many of the people reading this.

You attempt to play yourself off as the last bastion and protector of "logic" and "truth" on these boards,

I don't "attempt to play myself" as anything. I simply post about topics that interest me. Your characterizations about me are YOURS, not mine. They are inventions of YOURS, not mine, and go to proving yet again how you can't help but make these discussions personal, how they always, ALWAYS have to be about the people, rather than the issues.

Why you haven't gotten a strike is incredible. Are you paying the board administration...?

and yet, as your position on this topic has steadily deteriorated into utter nonsense

Right, Jay.

(trying to use irrelevant printing data from 45 years ago),

Where did I "try to use irrelevant printing data from 45 years ago"...?

And how and why was it irrelevant?

You only accuse, you never explain. You only claim, you never bother to prove.

personal swipes,

Jay...you, like all people like you, REDEFINE terms and words to mean things they don't really mean. For example: if someone challenges you, and says that your information is erroneous, you consider that to be a "personal swipe."

You want to know what a personal swipe is...?

You attempt to play yourself off as the last bastion and protector of "logic" and "truth" on these boards

THAT is a "personal swipe."

And then you have the gall, the sheer chutzpahric audacity to accuse others of hypocrisy, when you're doing exactly what you're complaining others of doing.

It's mind-blowing.

and blatant hypocrisy ("no one has said Marvel 'lied', oh wait! I actually did!" ),

Context is king. Context is king. Context is king.

Show the quotes, Jay. Don't paraphrase, don't make up what YOU THINK you red, show what was actually said, IN its context.

it has become fairly obvious that you are less interested in having an honest debate, or making any concessions,

Physician, heal thyself.

Concessions are made when they need to be made (see today's dialogue with bababooey.) When concessions aren't necessary, why make them?

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.

Jay, you're going to break something if you continue along these lines.

You're the broken record you complain about, you won't listen to reason, and I'm stubborn enough to demonstrate how and why.

Please. Find another thread to post in. You're not doing yourself any good.

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

 

And yet, you can't spell "your" correctly....

 

 

 

But again...we're playing wayyyyyyy too fast and loose with the numbers.

 

We don't have any idea how many copies of each book was in each case for those years. 200? 225? 150? 250?

 

It's silly, trying to nail these numbers down with so many unknown variables.

Switching "your" and "you're" is a board callback to that e-bay thread you did, isn't that the origin of "your welcome"?

I'm not trying to argue either side of this discussion, I was simply pointing out what I felt was an error and only did so when it started getting referred to as a fact later in the discussion.

BTW re: your earlier post, ASM was 3 times/month in 2008 - Brand New Day

It's common to be great at one thing and not the other when it comes between mathematics and language.

 

But I suck at both, so point is moot

One of the things that has always gnawed at me is that I can't look at numbers and see them the way, say, Einstein did, or Hawking can. Obviously not even close. I got through high school calculus, and have a decent grasp of algebra and geometry, but I went to school with people who could look at functions, for example, or sine, cosine, tangent, secants, and cotangents, and see the answer, like that. I had to work at it.

It's like looking through a 12 foot thick piece of smoked glass, while they see it right in front of their faces with 20/20 vision.

I know it's there, and I can find it eventually, but it's certainly no cakewalk.

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

 

And yet, you can't spell "your" correctly....

 

 

 

But again...we're playing wayyyyyyy too fast and loose with the numbers.

 

We don't have any idea how many copies of each book was in each case for those years. 200? 225? 150? 250?

 

It's silly, trying to nail these numbers down with so many unknown variables.

Switching "your" and "you're" is a board callback to that e-bay thread you did, isn't that the origin of "your welcome"?

Nice cover, but that only works in one direction, substituting "your" for "you're"...not the other way around, like you did.

I'm not trying to argue either side of this discussion, I was simply pointing out what I felt was an error and only did so when it started getting referred to as a fact later in the discussion.

 

BTW re: your earlier post, ASM was 3 times/month in 2008 - Brand New Day

Yes. ASM did go 3/month, but I wasn't interested in doing the legwork to figure out exactly when.

Concessions are made when they need to be made (see today's dialogue with bababooey.)

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 is it. This is the whole discussion in a nutshell. Right there.

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 is it. This is the whole discussion in a nutshell. Right there.

And that's what jay doesn't understand... it has nothing even to do with what we THINK.... it has to do with critical reasoning skills and seeing exactly what IS known and making a determination based upon it.

The best way to determine TRUTH, is to make a statement and then do everything you can to prove it ISN'T true, until all you have left is either a truth, an untruth, or an inconclusive statement.

There are WAY too many people on this forum who start with a CONCLUSION, and then build their reality to try and make it fit. It's poor reasoning and poor SCIENCE.

Here's the scorecard for anyone having trouble following along (Blob!)

It all started when....

1. Originally Jaydog said that variants are separate from the print run numbers.

This was proven WRONG. He has acknowledged that he was wrong in thinking this.

2. Then jaydog tried to say that publishers print to the ratio. (1:25 - you'd divide the print run by 25, etc.)

He was shown in a number of ways to be in error.

a. A print run is not an even indication of who orders 25 at a time (i.e. for every 25 copies ordered, it could be 3 stores ordering only 8, 8, and 9, meaning none of them would get a 1:25, yet 25 copies were sold)

b. The amount of excess variants left over long after, that Diamond sells for 25-50 cents each.

c. Diamond and Comichron verifies that variants are a part of the print run.

3. Then jaydog tried to say that Marvel has only had one variant sale like that and it would never happen again, because they've tightened up their printing numbers!

This too was proven wrong as Marvel then had a Star Wars variant sale and then in June yet ANOTHER variant sale.

This is an instance where Marvel went back on their word (basically, lied), that he seems to forget about for some reason.

4. Then jaydog said its only for #1's and special books that there are left over variants for, because it's only THEN that Marvel might over print (though he could show no proof of this - it was only another one of his 'theories')

It was shown that's not true by actually posting the variant sale info from Diamond that shows more than half the books on it aren't #1's or special events.

5. Then jaydog, trying, I guess, to STILL rationalize the idea that publishers print pretty close to ratio, yet running out of ways to justify this thought process, said that publishers would never purposely over print, that it doesn't make sense.

It was shown, they HAVE with actual PROOF. Certified proof! Statement of publication 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. Over and over and over and over!

We don't KNOW right now, if they are, because we don't have those numbers, but we do know they HAVE, for DECADES. Back when printing was much more expensive.

6. jaydog has said that Marvel rounds up to case packs

No proof of this is anywhere. Just someone else's words. No ACTUAL proof. No factual data or information that shows it.

And there you have it. As lopsided a debate as you could ever imagine.

Concessions are made when they need to be made (see today's dialogue with bababooey.)

 

multiple mic drops !!!

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...?

Not sure What my membership status or my post count has to do with how much knowledge I have, I just don't have a whole lot of time to devote to this board. This is the first time I have really been on in a while.

When I worked for Marvel Allison Gill was the head of production and I was in her office several times but mostly we talked via phone. She later jumped ship and went to work at DC and I didn't really speak with her after that. (Its funny too that she went to DC, she used to have a big sign in her office that said "If your comic is not on time it is a Delayed Comic with the DC bolded and italicized).

When I did work for DC I mostly talked with the director of production (Rick Taylor).

I am familiar with their production habits however not lately and not after Marvel was purchased by Disney.

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...?

 

Not sure What my membership status or my post count has to do with how much knowledge I have, I just don't have a whole lot of time to devote to this board. This is the first time I have really been on in a while.

 

When I worked for Marvel Allison Gill was the head of production and I was in her office several times but mostly we talked via phone. She later jumped ship and went to work at DC and I didn't really speak with her after that. (Its funny too that she went to DC, she used to have a big sign in her office that said "If your comic is not on time it is a Delayed Comic with the DC bolded and italicized).

 

When I did work for DC I mostly talked with the director of production (Rick Taylor).

 

I am familiar with their production habits however not lately and not after Marvel was purchased by Disney.

So that would be pre-2009?

With what we see of their numbers from Statement of Ownership, they certainly over printed prior to Disney buying them.

26 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Good looking thread. Not seen it before. Some reading for this evening 

11 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

Good looking thread. Not seen it before. Some reading for this evening 

Hey Steve .. is the super bowl a big thing in England ?? or just another game ??

5 minutes ago, 1950's war comics said:

Hey Steve .. is the super bowl a big thing in England ?? or just another game ??

 

Not sure I know what you mean? Is that what Clark Kent goes to the toilet in?