The REAL Marvel issue numbers....

[TheCorpulent1]

It'd be great if we could just go back to that numbering system. Thor could get a real #500 with some actual attention devoted to it.

 

[Themanofbat]

Originally posted by TheCorpulent1
It'd be great if we could just go back to that numbering system. Thor could get a real #500 with some actual attention devoted to it.

The only problem with those numbers are the fact that they don't take into account the original anthology books that had the original numbering; ie Journey into Mystery, Tales to Astonish, etc...

And a great many of us grew up reading these comics in the 70's & 80's based on the continuation of the titles based on the anthology numbers.... so it could be confusing, especially to Hulk & Thor fans.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Yeah, but technically the anthology issues shouldn't count anyway. I like that Marvel's starting to revert a lot of their comics back to the older numbering system but stuff like this Avengers renumbering, followed by a relaunch about 4 issues later, just makes me wonder what the point is.

 

[WeeZiTe]

It's funny, because I was planning on busting out a Wizard and figuring out what original numbering Hulk and Daredevil were on. Thanks, Themanofbat.

 

[Themanofbat]

Originally posted by WeeZiTe
It's funny, because I was planning on busting out a Wizard and figuring out what original numbering Hulk and Daredevil were on. Thanks, Themanofbat.

No sweat.

 

[Al Frocks]

So why are the one's that went back to the original numbering considered vol 1 still?

 

[Themanofbat]

Thor #462

Thor#126-502 vol.1 (Journey into Mystery was renamed to Thor after #125)
Thor#1-85 vol.2

Looks like Thor won't have a chance to make it to #500 after all.... if the rumors are true.

 

[CantThinkOfAName]

Why don't you do Silver Surfer and She-Hulk, too.

 

[Themanofbat]

I love this thread.

 

[Lt. Figgnuts]

Ah, Themanofbat. Your anal retentive attention to detail is an inspiration to us all.

You can't be anal retentive if you dont have an anus.

But I'm pretty sure he does.

...

Carry on.

 

[dk]

Back in 1968, the "First issue = more sales" mentality probably wasn't as prevalent as it is today. They probably decided on keeping the old numbering for people who were buying the books at that time and were following issue numbers, just so they wouldn't get too confused....

I don't really know why....

There were two reasons, basically. Comic publishers had to pay a fee every time they began a new title - some sort of listing with the USPS, I believe. So to get around this, many publishers would continue a new series off an old series' numbering. Their way of fooling the system into thinking it was the same book and avoiding payment.

The other reason was that retailers looked more favorably on books that were established. They were more likely to stock a title that had been around long enough to build up a following. High issue numbers meant "people must be buying this book" as far as retailers were concerned. It would probably still mean that if comics were distributed anywhere outside of comic book shops these days.

 

[Movies205]

It would probably still mean that if comics were distributed anywhere outside of comic book shops these days.

But this goes hand in hand with the reason they do relaunches. Everyone wants to get number 1s, so comics become collector items rather than lititure, so no one wants to bother with them. Hence retailers don't want to stock them since no one's reading them since it's deemed a collectors item like Magic or Pokemon The comic industry is slowly killing it self with it's quick-money schemes.

 

[newnoiseimage]

i dont know, i find something special about say picking up detective comics #800.

to me its almost as if you are taking part in history.. to think that this has been going strong, or strongly enough, fo 800 issues, 60+ years, its something else.

a #1 has that new feel to it, which is great for kids, but for adolescents up, the people who actually have money, its not so good. a relauch is like you said a "collector's item" which is what hurt the industry so badly in the 90's. money should be put into marketing rather than relaunches. look at it this way, if someone recomends you read say wolverine #4, are they talking about the limited series #4, the first ongoing #4 or the more recent #4.

i know continuity refers to characters, but it also has to do with a characters run. to get in on the ground floor and keep riding it to the top has a nice feel to it. to get in on the ground florr, to run 12 floors, and then all of a sudden be back on the first floor just, well, sucks.

marvel has this idea that they are parallel with the film industry, hence the different "chapters" or sequels, and the directors cuts. they should just try to get the character to 500 issues so they can sell it better. what seems more impressive to a prospective buyer or licenser a character that is on issue #5 or issue #505?

just me thoughts.

 

[iloveclones]

Looking at your list sort of reminded me of all the great characters they came up with in such a short amount of time: Spidey, FF, Avengers, Doc Strange, DD, Hulk. Themanofbat, what would be the shortest time frame that you could give that would include a majority of new (Cap and Namor don't count) characters(let's leave it at good guys)?

 

[newnoiseimage]

That’s two big humps to get over. Retailer confidence is why books like She-Hulk or Runaways tend to launch so low – on the March ’05 order form there are seventy comic books (and seventeen new TP releases) coming from Marvel. It is really hard for an individual book to stand out of the pack in that kind of swell of product (especially when you think about the eighty-three comics and twenty-six books coming from DC in that same month!) It is made harder when 11 of those 70 comics are issue #1.
(Parenthetically, 33 out of 70 comics offered by Marvel for March are issue #4 or below – 47% -- and it is generally understood that it takes 6-8 issues to establish actual sales on a title. DC’s percentage for the same period is 17 out of 83 comics being below issue #4, or 20%)

thought that was an interesting look at the current state of things.

 

[BlackSymbiote]

Man, this thread is OLD, but I'm glad it was bumped up.

 

[Themanofbat]

Looking at your list sort of reminded me of all the great characters they came up with in such a short amount of time: Spidey, FF, Avengers, Doc Strange, DD, Hulk. Themanofbat, what would be the shortest time frame that you could give that would include a majority of new (Cap and Namor don't count) characters(let's leave it at good guys)?

My mind is a blank.

I'll get back to you on this....

 

[iloveclones]

What?!?!?!? I stumped Themanofbat??? This is a red letter day over here in the clone cave.

In my mind, I'm picturing TMOB sitting with his long boxes, with one of those old fashioned accounting machines typing away like crazy, shouting "Should I include Wonder Man?!? He wasn't a good guy 'til later! And what about Wanda. And Pietro. And Magneto?? And.. And...AHHHRRRRHHHRRR"

 

[Tokyo Vigilante #1]

Marvel should do away with #2 issues, and simply release a new #1 every single month for every title they publish.

*shrugs*

I wouldn't have a real problem with that. As long as the insides were good, I wouldn't really give a damn.

 

[dk]

*shrugs*

I wouldn't have a real problem with that. As long as the insides were good, I wouldn't really give a damn.

OK, let me ask you this, then. In the eyes of a collector, what makes #1 vol. 14 more or less significant than #1 vol. 31? If a person likes and follows a certain character, would it be easy or difficult for them to keep track of every #1 released and collect them all? Would it even be necessary to buy back issues, since you're getting in on the "ground floor" every month anyway?

What the constant stop and starts are actually doing is eliminating the collector mentality. There's no loyalty to buying a series and sticking with it through thick and thin anymore. Sales reflect this, as there's a small to non-existent core readership now - people you can count on to pick up a book every month. Title by title, it can change dramatically in an instant. A creative team leaves - sales drop by 30%. "Time for a new #1. We'll get the next group of people willing to jump on the merry-go-round." What about hanging on to the LAST group for more than a year or so?

Used to be, if you were a Captain America fan, you bought Captain America every single month, rain-or-shine, for as long as you read comics. If you dropped it for some reason, you knew you could come back in a year and it'd still be there - at least it wouldn't be on an earlier issue number than when you left. You picked up every back issue you could get your hands on, because you wanted to complete your collection. Do people even do this anymore? I doubt most readers hang on a title for more than a few years average. They jump to another book, or give up reading comics altogether.

Your local comic shop used to stock back issues - not just a few, but thousands and thousands, right there, in the store! They HAD to, because a large part of their sales every month came from back issues. Now, there's vintage dealers, who specialize in 1970's and older comic books, people unloading their recent collections on eBay, and your local comic shop, who - if they're anything like mine - has a total inventory of whatever's sitting on the shelf from the past month or so.

Am I the only one who sees how the current lack of long-term fans dedicated to the hobby is tied to the constant stop-and-starts? And why it's been damaging to the entire industry? Besides distribution, it's the main reason comic book readership has dwindled to what it has - as important, if not more so than pricing, IMO. Most people enter the hobby, stick with it for a few years, give it up, and don't come back. It's too challenging for the casual comic book fan.

 

[KAD]

OK, let me ask you this, then. In the eyes of a collector, what makes #1 vol. 14 more or less significant than #1 vol. 31? If a person likes and follows a certain character, would it be easy or difficult for them to keep track of every #1 released and collect them all? Would it even be necessary to buy back issues, since you're getting in on the "ground floor" every month anyway?

What the constant stop and starts are actually doing is eliminating the collector mentality. There's no loyalty to buying a series and sticking with it through thick and thin anymore. Sales reflect this, as there's a small to non-existent core readership now - people you can count on to pick up a book every month. Title by title, it can change dramatically in an instant. A creative team leaves - sales drop by 30%. "Time for a new #1. We'll get the next group of people willing to jump on the merry-go-round." What about hanging on to the LAST group for more than a year or so?

Used to be, if you were a Captain America fan, you bought Captain America every single month, rain-or-shine, for as long as you read comics. If you dropped it for some reason, you knew you could come back in a year and it'd still be there - at least it wouldn't be on an earlier issue number than when you left. You picked up every back issue you could get your hands on, because you wanted to complete your collection. Do people even do this anymore? I doubt most readers hang on a title for more than a few years average. They jump to another book, or give up reading comics altogether.

Your local comic shop used to stock back issues - not just a few, but thousands and thousands, right there, in the store! They HAD to, because a large part of their sales every month came from back issues. Now, there's vintage dealers, who specialize in 1970's and older comic books, people unloading their recent collections on eBay, and your local comic shop, who - if they're anything like mine - has a total inventory of whatever's sitting on the shelf from the past month or so.

Am I the only one who sees how the current lack of long-term fans dedicated to the hobby is tied to the constant stop-and-starts? And why it's been damaging to the entire industry? Besides distribution, it's the main reason comic book readership has dwindled to what it has - as important, if not more so than pricing, IMO. Most people enter the hobby, stick with it for a few years, give it up, and don't come back. It's too challenging for the casual comic book fan.

Sounds like a job for.........



Uhmmm someone, anyone HELP

 

[Gambit8370]

Sounds like a job for.........



Uhmmm someone, anyone HELP

Someone else OTHER THAN Joe.

I blame him every single time I see a Marvel title end and get relaunched.

 

[Themanofbat]

You picked up every back issue you could get your hands on, because you wanted to complete your collection. Do people even do this anymore? I doubt most readers hang on a title for more than a few years average.

Well, if it makes you feel better... I still do it.

While there are not that many comics I need to hunt down, I have a few. Especially if I start a new series that may be so-many issues from number One, I'll pick up from the start. When I signed on to Spider-Girl, it was around issue #67, and digging up the first 66 issues was kind of fun (in an 80's reminiscent (sic) sort of way). I did get the first 55 issues of e-bay, but it was fun searching for the next 11 issues. (and rather difficult, because most shops didn't have an extra copy of a low-selling title that high in its run).

And for the record, when I start collecting a title, I do so til it's over or I decide it's really not worth it anymore. And it takes me about 3 consecutive years of bad books to decide to drop a title, becausde when I do, I'll probably never go back to it. I still have 200 issue runs from books that I bought from the early 80's until I sort of gave up on comics in 1997 (except for about 4 or 5 titles). When I got back into comics in 2001, I didn't bother start getting those titles (except for the Spidey's, which I have filled in the gaps), because I would feel the need to hunt down 4 years worth of missing comics, most of which would be "bad comics", because comics from 1997 to 2000 were "bad".

The collector's mentality really works against me this way.

 

[Tokyo Vigilante #1]

OK, let me ask you this, then. In the eyes of a collector, what makes #1 vol. 14 more or less significant than #1 vol. 31? If a person likes and follows a certain character, would it be easy or difficult for them to keep track of every #1 released and collect them all? Would it even be necessary to buy back issues, since you're getting in on the "ground floor" every month anyway?

Interesting point.

I can't speak for the "collector standpoint" because I'm not a "collector." I'm here for stories and art. Sides it would seem that most collectors are more interested in creative teams than numbers these. And sadly more interested in creative teams than stories...but that's another thread for another time.

 

[dk]

While there are not that many comics I need to hunt down, I have a few. Especially if I start a new series that may be so-many issues from number One, I'll pick up from the start. When I signed on to Spider-Girl, it was around issue #67, and digging up the first 66 issues was kind of fun (in an 80's reminiscent (sic) sort of way). I did get the first 55 issues of e-bay, but it was fun searching for the next 11 issues. (and rather difficult, because most shops didn't have an extra copy of a low-selling title that high in its run).

Spider-Girl is a prime example of a book you CAN collect, though. Because it's had a fairly long, sustained run. And you did exactly what most collectors used to do - came in late, liked what you saw, and went back to fill in your run. That's what it's all about. Would you have felt the need to do that if - instead of one series that's run 80-some issues - collecting Spider-Girl meant tracking down six series than ran anywhere from 12 to 25 issues a pop? Would you just pick one series to collect - the most recent, maybe? Would you zero in on a particular creative team? Or would you say, "Aw...the heck with it. I can't figure it out without a price guide and a bunch of research on the internet" and bag the whole thing?

And for the record, when I start collecting a title, I do so til it's over or I decide it's really not worth it anymore. And it takes me about 3 consecutive years of bad books to decide to drop a title, becausde when I do, I'll probably never go back to it.

You hit on a key point. I think a lot of comic fans, once they really drop a book, never come back to it - at least not as regular monthly readers. A shiny new #1 may draw in a new crop of (fickle) fans, but it also serves as a great jumping off point for (loyal) fans who may have been buying a book for years. Call it fanboy attrition.