X-Factor #38 $1.00 Cover Price Variant

By Benjamin Nobel, October 31, 2022

It is that time of year again: a new edition of our CPV Price Guide has just been published online, which means a fantastic new batch of Market Reports & Articles is now available. Many of my fellow guide collaborators have contributed reports and articles this year, and I felt that others on the team already did a great job of describing the current state of the CPV market. So, for my contribution to our articles section this year, rather than write a “market report” I thought I’d talk about a 1980’s Marvel cover price variant that I’ve been asked about by blog readers and that I think will appeal to all the cover price variant enthusiasts who read our guide: X-Factor #38 (3/1989), $1.00 US cover price variant, featuring Walter Simonson’s stunning Jean Grey vs. Madelyne Pryor cover, the Origin and Death of Goblin Queen (Madelyne Pryor), and Archangel is named for the first time.

X-Factor #38 summary from Key Collectors Comics

I learned of the existence of this variant from a reader, who pointed me to a ComicsPriceGuide page with a very low-resolution image of what is described to be a $1.00 cover price variant version of the issue. Yet, Grand Comics Database did not have a $1.00 variant listed (and still does not as of this writing); Key Collectors Comics makes no mention of a price variant on their page for the issue (as of this writing) despite having a great post about how issue #38 is really the “1st official Archangel” (more on that a bit later); the Overstreet Price Guide doesn’t make any mention of a price variant for #38; neither does Comics Buyers Guide Standard Catalog of Comics.

So: what’s the story with the $1.00 variant for X-Factor #38? After learning of its existence, at first I tried to find one by clicking and reviewing the pictures for every #38 listing on eBay: nope, 100% of the copies I clicked were $1.50 cover price (either direct edition or newsstand). So next I set an eBay alert for “X-Factor 38” and proceeded to spend about a year getting emailed every single new listing of the book by eBay, clicking each one, and always seeing $1.50. I reached a point where I started to wonder if I was wasting my time and whether this variant really existed or if someone photoshopped a $1.00 cover price onto a scan of a #38, shrunk it to a small size, and passed it along to CPG as a prank? I googled, hoping to learn more about whether the variant really did exist. And I found a ten-year-old closed thread on the CGC boards about the X-Factor #38 $1.00 variant where the pictures were too old to still exist, but someone wrote: “I used to look for them all the time, but stopped. I suppose there are several around, but currently only know of four other copies.“

Only four other copies? Reading that, I thought to myself: is it possible this $1.00 variant exists but was just a “test batch” to make sure some equipment configuration was working or something of that nature — like the probable test batch involving hand-numbered “hologram’ed” copies of the X-Men #301 APV that a reader emailed about in January? I.e. could this have been a situation where maybe someone ran off a literal handful of test copies that happened to have the $1.00 cover price on them, but they were never intended for public sale, and they only still exist because a worker then took them home instead of destroying them? Or, is there some other explanation that supports a sold-to-the-public print run batch of these?

Two hypotheses that people had floated in that CGC thread were (1) “Is that the Canadian [Price Variant]?”, and (2) “my guess would be they were made in error (since 1.00 was the normal pricing, and this was a double sized issue at 1.50), inside on the 1st page indicia it is printed as 1.50?“

These are decent guesses, but as far as the possibility of being a Canadian Price Variant, that’s clearly a no: regular copies have a $1.50 US / $2.00 CAN / 50p price box… Therefore, for the X-Factor #38 variant to be a single-price Canadian Price Variant of the issue, we’d expect a single $2.00 price on the variants — but obviously that’s not the case, and furthermore, we can see that the $1.00 price variant for X-Factor #38 has a separate Canadian price listed on it too: $1.00 US / $1.25 CAN / 50p. So although the Canadian price also differs (at $1.25 CAN on the variants versus $2.00 CAN for regular copies), it is the main US price that’s listed at $1.00 for the variants. And all of Marvel’s 1980’s Canadian Price Variants were newsstand copies; the $1.00 X-Factor #38 variant meanwhile has a direct edition logo marking in place of the bar code. So the Canadian Price Variant hypothesis is out.

How about the error batch hypothesis? An error batch is a really decent guess, seeing as how #38 deviated from the norm as a giant-size issue amidst a run where all the close/surrounding issues had $1.00 cover prices:

All the issues immediately before and after X-Factor #38 had $1.00 cover prices…

So could it simply be the case that since they were “used to” printing X-Factor issues with $1.00 US cover prices around this time, that someone simply messed up and printed a batch of #38’s with the “usual” $1.00 price by accident? There are lots of examples of mistakes like this throughout comic history; indeed, Jon McClure categorizes such instances Type 1B variants — readers of this blog are no doubt all too familiar with Type 1A, but I think this may be the first time I’ve ever written the phrase “Type 1B” on this blog so let’s take a look at Jon’s official definition:

Type 1b variants: Cover price reverse variants with regional or otherwise limited distribution, published simultaneously with standard or regular editions. Reverse variants usually exist because material is accidentally printed with a lower price than intended, a mistake not always sufficient for the publisher to destroy otherwise saleable goods. A publisher may also deliberately try a lower price. The indicia and all aspects of the book are identical to regular editions…

One of the requirements to be a Type 1B variant is having identical indicia and interior pages to regular editions. I can confirm that this is the case because I eventually did find one of these cool variants, and I’ll tell you how: after reaching a point of frustration that I was wasting my time reviewing every new #38 listing eBay was sending me and never finding a $1.00 variant, I decided to make one final attempt with a different strategy: I looked through lots/collections of X-Factor comics (which often are listed with an issue range in the title such that “38” isn’t a keyword that would bring up the listing — e.g. “X-Factor #1-50”) and I included international listings. And sure enough, I found one, then two, then three runs of X-Factor books where the #38 in the collection had a $1.00 cover price in the picture. Here’s the indicia — as you can see it is just a normal first print #38 indicia, and states the US price as $1.50 per copy:

But now that I had more than one $1.00 variant in my hands, I noticed a few things that made me question the “error batch hypothesis” — for one thing, there’s a small remnant of black ink to the right of “US” that looks suspiciously like the edge of the letter ‘S’… take a look (circled below in red at left). And when I took a scan of a regular $1.50 cover price copy and lined the two up, then changed the opacity on one of the two so that both scans blend together, take a look at the result:

That’s clearly the right edge of the $1.50 US’s “S” peeking through! Which suggests that when these $1.00 cover price copies were created, they laid down the “$1.00 US / $1.25 CAN / 38 MAR” over the $1.50 US / $2.00 CAN / 38 MAR” — because everything else lines up exactly: the UK 50p, the Approved By The Comics Code Authority box, etc.

To me that suggests Marvel created this $1.00 cover price variant on purpose. Furthermore, among the listings I had actually found, there appeared to be a common pattern as to where the original collector had acquired their X-Factor books (I had found mine only when I scoured international listings — so although this looks to be a Type 1B price variant, I only actually found them when I began to “think Type 1A” in my searches).

Which led me to my own hypothesis: perhaps Marvel had “pre-sold”/contracted-for-sale a year (or more) of comics to a specific partner and that contract laid out specific cover prices… and so to honor the contract they needed any fluke giant-size issues to have a small batch for this one buyer, at the “pre-agreed” $1.00 US / $1.25 CAN / 50p pricing? And I immediately had a thought as to how to test this hypothesis: If I was right, then X-Men #242, also giant-size, also published March of 1989, would very likely have a $1.00 price variant too!

But I was wrong. Or at least I can find no trace of a $1.00 price variant existing for X-Men #242. And even though it may have looked like there was a “Type 1A distribution pattern” among my $1.00 X-Factor #38 finds, the reality is that I’m not approaching the X-Factor #38 landscape as a pristine untouched wilderness… no, by the looks of that CGC Boards thread, at least some number of collectors have been clued-in to the existence of these variants for over a decade now. So the situation might be akin to a delicious apple tree in the middle of your town park: you might approach the tree, observe the distribution of fruit, and think, “aha! I surmise that this tree must only produce apples at the very top branches!” — but in reality the truth of the matter is that all the low-hanging fruit was already picked.

Similarly, while I’m tempted to reach the conclusion that the vast majority of surviving X-Factor #38 cover price variants are beaten-up reader copies, it is possible that I only have that impression because that’s all that had been left behind by the other collectors who regularly hunt for these. Perhaps those other collectors were even sniping any new copy that came onto eBay within hours of their listing, and those sniped copies never even made it to my inbox as eBay alerts?

I’ll keep looking for these until I’ve landed a copy in nice “CGC-worthy” condition, and if I succeed, I’ll post CGC slab pictures here in the comments section at the bottom. But now let’s move on to a different question: is X-Factor #38 an interesting issue to collect?

Is X-Factor #38 worth collecting?

The first thing that stuck me about X-Factor #38 is its gorgeous red-tone Jean Grey vs. Madelyne Pryor cover by superstar Walt Simonson, and that the story is by his wife Louise Simonson; with Al Milgrom art as well. [A multi-signed CGC SS variant copy would make for one helluva desirable collectible in my opinion and that’s going to be my personal collecting goal for this variant!!] Having looked at the cover each time I opened an eBay listing while hunting for it, I’ve grown quite fond of this cover artwork. A strong cover alone can sometimes create great collectability; but ideally we’d want something more, like a first character appearance.

Alas, it doesn’t look like X-Factor #38 features any first appearances. However, there is an interesting Key Comments note on the CGC label: Origin & “death” of the Goblin Queen (Madelyn Pryor). Furthermore, as I was reading the issue — and as was pointed out by Key Collectors Comics [here] — I noticed that Archangel is not actually called Archangel in the beginning of the issue… He’s right there on Page 2 but look what he’s called:

The Dark Angel. Not Archangel. And indeed, as it turns out, even though most collectors point to X-Factor #24 as the first “full” Archangel appearance, he wasn’t actually named Archangel until issue #38! Here’s the relevant panels where Beast names him Archangel for the first time:

So indeed, issue #38 marking the first time Archangel is named could make it appealing for collectors targeting key Archangel books: I can picture someone having collected X-Factor #24 (and perhaps #21 & #23 too) and then learning this fact about issue #38 and wanting one in their collection as well — and then learning of the existence of the X-Factor #38 $1.00 price variant they might want one as their clear preference and go looking for it…

And then of course there’s the Goblin Queen — Madelyne Pryor — whose origin and “Death” take place in issue #38. Here’s a link to a great YouTube review of the issue and I’ll also highlight a few things below. In the story, once Jean Grey and Madelyne Pryor start to go head-to-head, wow, the writing and artwork are both quite amazing in telling the super-emotional tale… I’ve got to highlight a couple of pages that just stood out to me as quite visually stunning in their design:

The drama continues, with Madelyne’s full detailed origin story revealed, and meanwhile the life of Madelyne-and-Scott’s son Nathan Summers (who first appeared in Uncanny X-Men #201 and later becomes Cable) in jeopardy; and in the end Madelyne attempts to destroy both herself and Nathan and everyone else. And Jean might have died too but then at the last minute Jean accepts the Phoenix force from within Madelyne… who then dies (but don’t worry, this is comics, she’ll eventually be resurrected in a future storyline!).

And the emotionally riveting issue ends with Jean Grey carrying away Madelyne Pryor’s dead body in her arms:

Man oh man, that’s some heavy drama! So with this Madelyne Pryor origin and “Death” story being the prominent theme of the entire issue, it is definitely a critically important issue for collectors of other Madelyne Pryor keys — e.g. X-Men #168 (where a 75¢ cover price CPV exists), featuring Madelyne Pryor’s first appearance. In other words, if you’re going to own the X-Men #168 cover price variant as Pryor’s first appearance, and you then learn of the existence of the $1.00 cover price variant of X-Factor #38, then wouldn’t you also want to own the X-Factor #38 cover price variant, marking her “Death” as well in your collection? I know I would!

In summary:

Stunning red-tone Jean Grey vs. Madelyne Pryor cover by Walt Simonson
Riveting story by Louise Simonson
Archangel named Archangel for the first time
Goblin Queen (Madelyne Pryor) Origin and Death

Any time you come across a rare cover price variant, you hope for some compelling reasons to collect the issue number in general — better to have a rare variant of an important book than a book nobody can think of any reason to collect otherwise. And while X-Factor #38 may not rise to the importance-level of other key issues with major 1st appearance credits, it definitely has a lot going for it, so I think the $1.00 cover price variant is well worth the effort to collect! And my advice when hunting: even though this is a Type 1B price variant, “thinking Type 1A” is how I actually found one myself so maybe that strategy will work for you too.

Happy Collecting! 🙂
– Ben

Grading

Jon’s Views Prevailing (Again)

By Benjamin Nobel, October 2022

“Amazing Spider-Man #238 is not incomplete without Tattooz. It was printed in a standard, old-fashioned way, independent of the Tattooz inserted later, just like many other in-house or paid advertisement inserts from any era. … All any grading company would have to do is say ”no Tattooz” on the label and have a blue label, leaving it to the collector to decide on the relative importance of its inclusion. … The only cure to allow for promotional extras, be they trading cards, inserts, or spare tires, is to eliminate them from the nomenclature as the extraneous and unnecessary items that they are, at least in regards to grading a book independently.”
— Jon McClure, ASM #238 Advisor Note, from the 2022 CPV Price Guide

Long-time readers may already be familiar with Jon McClure’s once-“controversial” stance on the Tattooz inside of Amazing Spider-Man #238, with Jon advocating that their absence should not cause an “INCOMPLETE” label note at CGC nor a green label; in both his Overstreet Price Guide market reports and his CPV Price Guide advisor notes, Jon has been advocating for years that CGC change their approach and use a blue label and a simple “no Tattooz” label note when this extraneous insert is absent.

And there’s no better support for the notion that they really were “extraneous” than their absence from this year’s facsimile edition release of the book. As the solicitation synopsis states: “It’s one of the all-time great Marvel comic books, boldly re-presented in its original form, ads and all!” [Original form, ads “and all” – and yet, no tattooz insert was included in the facsimile, and its mention was edited out of the cover artwork as you can see below.]

Tattooz not mentioned and not included in the Facsimile Edition (5/2022)

So why am I bringing up this subject again today, in connection with the release of our new 2023 CPV Price Guide edition?? Long-time blog readers may have already read Amazing Spider-Man #238: The Tattooz Situation (October 2017) on the tattooz subject, as well as my update, The Overstreet Grading Guide, Staple Replacement, and ASM 238 Tattooz (June 2021). This post provides a further update, because, coincidentally right after the above facsimile came out, CGC announced a labeling change:

“CGC is discontinuing the use of the term “incomplete” on its label, as well as the terms “affects story” and “does not affect story” when parts are missing from the interior of a comic.”
— CGC Comics, Parameters Modified for Defects Listed on CGC Labels

Without making it crystal-clear how the new treatment would impact Amazing Spider-Man #238 specifically with regards to blue-vs-green labeling, it was clear from the announcement that a missing tattooz insert would no longer prompt the inclusion of the “INCOMPLETE” warning on the CGC label, bringing their treatment one step closer to Jon’s viewpoint. Jon McClure’s contrarian views are ultimately prevailing (yet again)!

It has been a few months since this new treatment was announced, enough time for a few tattoozless CGC-graded ASM #238 examples to trickle onto the market. And interestingly, there is inconsistency on the green-vs-blue front so far, where CGC still used a Qualified (green) label for this example graded 6/14/2022 (leading me to wonder: possibly that book was already in-process before the announcement?) but then also this example graded all the way out on 8/5/2022…

But then I spotted the below blue-label tattooz-missing copy on the marketplace:

As you can see, it was given a Universal Grade (blue label), and consistent with CGC’s May announcement, the label does NOT say “INCOMPLETE” on it like they used to write, just “Tattooz insert missing”:

And this same treatment is shown on the certification lookup page itself [https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/4057358001/]:

… Where as you can see above, the grade date for this example was post-CGC’s-announcement with a 7/13/2022 grade date and it was categorized under the Universal tier not just on the label but in the lookup (with an unqualified Modern category shown), meaning that’s where it would fall on census too.

The next no-tattooz copy I spotted was this blue-label freshly-graded copy below:

As you can see, it too was given a Universal Grade (blue label), and just like the first example the label does NOT say “INCOMPLETE”, just “Tattooz insert missing”:

And this same treatment is shown on the certification lookup page [https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/3864639003/]:

And as you can see from the certification lookup screen-captured above, the grade date for this example was also post-CGC’s-announcement, with a 6/22/2022 grade date, and the category is once again an unqualified Modern designation.

These two above-pictured ASM #238 examples match pretty much exactly what Jon had advocated for slabs to ideally look like, where the warning of “INCOMPLETE” is now gone from the label, a blue label was used, and the remark on the label simply states whether the tattooz insert is absent.

But overall this was an even green/blue split of the copies I was able to find without tattooz that were graded by CGC following their May announcement, which at first would suggest there isn’t 100% consistency yet… I wondered, could it be up to chance of who was on staff the day of grading? But then I realized something: in both of the green-label instances I had spotted, the books had the “regular” label style, whereas in both of the blue-label instances the submitter had paid $5 extra for a fancy special/premium label. [Leading me to wonder: is CGC’s commitment to their no-tattooz labeling treatment so loose that it is possible to “buy” a Universal Grade simply by upgrading to the $5 fancy label selection?]

Whatever the case may be to explain these above examples — whether it was a matter of the $5 upgrade or an underlying change in treatment — it was neat to find them on the marketplace as 2022-graded ASM #238 CGC slabs which both effectively matched Jon’s once-controversial viewpoint, almost to the letter. We should all be listening to Jon more (Hey Overstreet! Hint Hint!); here’s two other things he said about ASM #238 that we as collectors (and Gemstone as publisher of the OPG) should be paying attention to:

(1) “The day will come when Amazing Spider-Man #238 is selling for serious money…”
(2) “[Overstreet needs to change] the explicit mistaken statement that no Type 1a Canadian variants exist with Tattooz … ”
— Jon McClure, ASM #238 Advisor Note, from the 2022 CPV Price Guide

You can follow more of Jon’s thinking by reading his ongoing Overstreet market reports including his Overstreet Price Guide #50 Full Market Report which I was honored to publish here on the Rare Comics Blog in its full form in 2020, and by picking up a copy of A History of Publisher Experimentation and Variant Comic Books, 2021 Edition which is included within the pages of The Overstreet Guide to Grading Comics, Sixth Edition.

And here below for anyone who did not already see it, was Jon’s full “Advisor Note” for ASM #238 from the 2022 edition of the CPV Price Guide:

“Amazing Spider-Man #238 is not incomplete without Tattooz. It was printed in a standard, old-fashioned way, independent of the Tattooz inserted later, just like many other in-house or paid advertisement inserts from any era. This problem originates from the fact that the comic’s cover mentions Tattooz, as does the cover to Fantastic Four #252(3/83). Ideally, the Tattooz are absent due to the slow degradation of the contents that will eventually affect the paper quality inside. Overstreet Guide listings are confused, forced to respond to CGC’s myopic view. Once upon a time, I called Bob Overstreet and told him that the Fantastic Four #252’s Tattooz were being used as Amazing Spider-Man #238’s Tattooz and that the cure was to list them as same value, which he agreed with and subsequently did so. Collectors aren’t sure what to believe and that’s how the myth is perpetuated, the myth of being incomplete without Tattooz. At some point, although my original note remains in the guide about the switching of Tattooz between books, this was changed back to the original mistaken listing (including the explicit mistaken statement that no Type 1a Canadian variants exist with Tattooz) with two values, with and without Tattooz. Fantastic Four #252 is listed in the Overstreet Guide #50 at $8 with Tattooz and $6 without in NM-, and Amazing Spider-Man #238 is listed at $180 with and $85 without in NM-, a discrepancy that highlights this dilemma, with Tattooz worth between $2 and $95 for the same useless item, which is ridiculous. Worse yet, the Tattooz are valued at $10 higher than the book by itself! All any grading company would have to do is say ”no Tattooz” on the label and have a blue label, leaving it to the collector to decide on the relative importance of its inclusion. There is little difference between the mistaken use of the term ”Canadian Edition” for Type 1a variants and insisting books without inserts are incomplete; thankfully the misidentification of “Canadian Edition” now reads “Canadian Price Variant.” Any NM- or better copy should be taken seriously with or without the insert. Tattooz were inserted in Amazing Spider-Man #238 and Fantastic Four #252 and advertised on the covers; Captain America #279(3/83) and Star Wars #69(3/83) were also given Tattooz inserts without any advertising on the covers. Because neither of the latter books are considered incomplete without the inserts and would receive CGC blue labels, it stands to reason that Amazing Spider-Man #238 and Fantastic Four #252 are not incomplete without Tattooz either; the only difference is the ads on the covers, and those are irrelevant as they are part of the cover of the comic book. The only cure to allow for promotional extras, be they trading cards, inserts, or spare tires, is to eliminate them from the nomenclature as the extraneous and unnecessary items that they are, at least in regards to grading a book independently. Any insert loosely attached at the staple is not part of the book. If an item is glued into the binding it becomes part of the book, just as rebound comics exist, but those become a new and unique product that is not a variant. The day will come when Amazing Spider-Man #238 is selling for serious money and the color of the label, instead of the quality of the book, will largely determine the value, which creates an increasing financial incentive for inserting the Tattooz. If you are investing in this book, do you really think half of the value is in the Tattooz?”
— Jon McClure, ASM #238 Advisor Note, from the 2022 CPV Price Guide

Happy Collecting!

« Back To MARKET REPORTS & ARTICLES

Direct Edition vs. Newsstand Edition Comic Books

Applause to CGC Now Recognizing Newsstand (And Multi-Pack) Comics!

By Benjamin Nobel, September 28, 2022

“CGC is pleased to announce the identification of newsstand editions and multi-packs, beginning September 26, 2022. Because of their rarity, newsstand editions and multi-packs have been increasingly sought out by comic collectors in recent years, making the recognition of this attribute an important component of certification.”
— CGC Comics, 9/26/2022

I would like to publicly applaud CGC for their announcement that they will now differentiate newsstand comics (and multi-pack comics) as distinct census variants and on their labels! I know that for a great many of us newsstand-focused collectors, we thought that after competitor CBCS announced their own recognition of newsstand comics in 2017, that CGC was bound to follow suit, but 2018 passed without action, then 2019, then Covid hit, and it started to feel like CGC might never take this much-needed action… So to see this week’s news is an exciting thrill that felt like it came out of nowhere!

But in reality — based on the highly detailed CGC article accompanying the announcement — it strikes me that instead of “coming out of nowhere” that CGC has actually been quietly working on this for some time, and the impression I get is that CGC really wanted to “get it right” and understand the full spectrum of newsstand comics, start and end dates for all the different publishers, “quirks” like issues where there aren’t actually two distinct versions (e.g. Sensational She-Hulk #1 “appears” to have a newsstand edition but the reality is that Marvel printed only the one type for that issue, i.e. direct sales orders were fulfilled with the same copies as were sent to newsstands; there are not two distinct types for that particular issue — and other such quirky examples exist out there), and that CGC also wanted to take a stance on the pre-June-1979 direct-sold/non-returnable books that were created for multi-pack distribution and have always been the subject of differing opinions in the hobby about what to call them (I myself weighed in on that subject here).

As announced in their article, CGC will be labeling such books as “Multi-Pack Edition” going forward across both Marvel and DC, which sounds like a fair and good choice to me (although direct-sold and non-returnable, leading some to want to call them “direct editions” I always felt that such books fell into a different “bucket” and I support “Multi-Pack Edition” as CGC decided to go with).

“Between 1977 and 1979, just prior to Marvel’s move to direct distribution, numerous issues from several Marvel titles were printed with altered covers and distributed in pre-sealed multi-packs. The main alteration consisted of placing the price and issue number within a diamond, rather than the traditional square box. These variants have sometimes been referred to as “Whitman variants” in the community … In addition to acknowledging newsstand editions, CGC will also identify both Marvel and DC multi-pack copies with a notation of “Multi-Pack Edition” on the label.”
— CGC Comics, 9/26/2022

I have to imagine that CGC felt that in order to get the labeling right internally, they had to first spend the time to document and understand all the differences so that their team could properly identify such books; otherwise it might have caused a mayhem of mis-labeled books and “mechanical error” returns. So I’m hoping that the long delay in making this important move forward reflects that CGC’s internal documentation is now really solid and their team will have no trouble identifying when a newsstand edition (or multi-pack edition) passes through their doors and properly label it (fingers crossed)! I also have to imagine that CGC wanted to have all this internal knowledge and documentation in order to go “full spectrum” out of the gate — one of the criticisms many of us had about CBCS’s 2017 announcement is that they chose an arbitrary time window of 1977 through 2000 (why end at 2000 many of us including myself asked?) for their Newsstand Edition recognition.

And having taken the extensive research time, there is now a huge added bonus to all of CGC’s internal work: they’ve now taken on the role of teacher — because their newly-published article covers so many of the important basics of understanding why newsstand comics are so desirable that the link to their article [https://www.cgccomics.com/news/article/10675/comics-newsstand-multipack/] is bound to be passed around for years to come:

CGC’s article talks about the returnable versus non-returnable difference (direct sold comics being discounted but non-returnable): “Unlike newsstand editions, direct editions could not be returned for credit…”

They give several graphical examples of newsstand versus direct edition comics, teaching collectors how to tell them apart at the different stages of the timeline as comic designs changed.

They talk about the difference in who was buying newsstand comics and how they were treated: “… most newsstand buyers were casual readers who did not preserve their comics, and in most cases threw them away after they were read.”

They talk about the print run difference: “As newsstand editions diminished throughout the 1980s, their survival rate diminished as well … By the 2000s, the number of newsstand editions within a print run was miniscule, making them true rarities compared to their direct edition counterparts.”

Between all of this, new-to-newsstand collectors will most certainly “get it” that between the lower sales and lower survivorship, copper and modern newsstand comics are way more desirable than their direct edition counter-parts, especially in top grades; let’s repeat CGC’s newsstand description from the above sentence one more time: “true rarities compared to their direct edition counterparts.”

They could not have spelled it out any more clearly, and how nice is it to see these words published by CGC themselves! I wonder how long will it be before CGC 9.4 & 9.6 newsstand is more desired and valuable than CGC 9.8 direct edition among modern comics?? Have we reached that point already for some of the later-published issues (like ASM 607 below — top is a recent CGC 9.8 direct edition auction result; bottom is a recent CGC 9.4 newsstand auction result)?

So to conclude, yes, this CGC announcement is a “milestone moment” for newsstand-focused collectors; for years we’ve watched newsstand awareness build in the hobby much like a snowball rolling down a mountain. If anybody had any doubts that this snowball was unstoppable this announcement should remove all doubt. Applause and congratulations once again to CGC on this milestone Newsstand Edition labeling announcement, this is truly a giant step forward for the hobby; I’ve been publicly and privately pushing for this for a long time so I wanted to make sure with this post that my public thanks go out to all those at CGC who were involved in making this happen!!

Happy (Newsstand) Collecting! 🙂

– Ben p.s. I felt that seeing CGC use the phrase “true rarities” was a highly quotable moment, and I’ve updated my Newsstand Rarity Discussions & Estimates and Educational Images pages with the below graphic:

1/23/2023 UPDATE —

Hi everyone, submitting newsstand books post-CGC’s-announcement, several of us have noticed that CGC has apparently implemented their “Newsstand Edition” labeling roll-out using the “Pedigree” data-field: the labels themselves look just as if “Newsstand Edition” was the Variant name, but when you actually look up the book by certification number you can see this is not the case. Here’s an example: Incredible Hulk #377 (I love that Dale Keown & Bob McLeod future-classic-cover-contender!)…

As you can see this is a newsstand copy, and the label shows “Newsstand Edition” exactly as we’d expect it to look, but as it turns out, CGC has not actually created a new census entry for the above book — one giveaway to this fact is that the “key comments note” on the right side of the label says, ‘Direct Sales have “Tiger Electronics” insert included.’ Here’s a close-up of the label:

Why would a newsstand-labeled book have a special note on it about the completely-separate Direct Edition/Direct Sales version?!? That seems both unnecessary and confusing; and the reason for it is that they have not actually created a separate variant census entry for newsstand copies of the issue… Instead, they’ve utilized the “Pedigree” field for the “Newsstand Edition” notation and categorized it under the regular/main census entry for issue #377. Here’s a screenshot of the Verification Lookup page for the above book to illustrate what I mean:

See how the circled Newsstand Edition wording is under the “Pedigree” data field? Illustrating the data-field difference even better, below here’s another example, for a book that has both a Variant field utilized and the Pedigree field utilized (this being a Web of Spider-Man #90 newsstand copy that was submitted inside its sealed polybag and thus was categorized under the “Polybagged Edition” census variant entry, but was also a newsstand copy as opposed to a direct edition, and so CGC utilized the Pedigree field to denote the newsstand edition information):

Here’s how that information ends up looking on the label for Web of Spider-Man #90 (true first appearance of Spider-Man 2099):

So what’s the problem? Perhaps you’re reading this and wondering, “so? They’re still labeling it distinctly as a Newsstand Edition just like they promised, so what’s the problem?” And you’re right, they’re distinguishing newsstand comics just as they promised… but the problem is that the “Pedigree” data-field is — currently — not visible anywhere on the online census.

In other words, CGC is tagging all newsstand copies now (which is great) but the data-field they’re using means the data is currently only visible to them internally; i.e. the problem is that the public cannot see how many newsstand 9.4’s / 9.6’s / 9.8’s etc. have been accumulated onto the census for the above… that data exists, but it is invisible to collectors.

That’s the bad news. But the good news is that apparently this situation is going to change! I wrote to CGC and inquired as to whether their use of the Pedigree field was just a temporary stop-gap measure, a mistake, or actually their intended roll-out of their new newsstand labeling, and I pointed out the problem with the data not being visible to the public. Here’s what they wrote me back:

"Good Afternoon, Benjamin, I wanted to update you regarding the Pedigree/Newsstand on the comic labels. The President of Grading replied the location of the Newsstand information on the label is intentional and we’re waiting on programming for it to populate on the census. "

So that’s welcome news indeed: while we can’t see the newsstand data online now, apparently it is “on deck” for their programming team to implement at some time in the future.

🙂

Rare Comics To Collect

Saga of the Swamp Thing: 1st John Constantine Appearance

By Benjamin Nobel, December 21, 2021

Let’s start with a game: I’ll show you twelve images, and you mentally mark which ones you recognize as John Constantine. From your selections, we’ll learn where you stand on the true first appearance of John Constantine in comics. (Don’t worry, I’ll explain what I mean by that as we go). Ready? Play!

OK! Have you reviewed all twelve and decided which ones you recognize to be John Constantine? The first answer that I want to ask you about, is what you decided for #10. Here is the context: the panel pictured in #10 follows a “horrific accident” where Abby is being harassed by a salesman, just as a car comes along with a swordfish strapped to its roof, and, well, here’s how that ended:

Yeah… the salesman was impaled by the swordfish.

Abby then tries to leave the crowd of onlookers (“Please… I have to come through…”)…

And just over her shoulder, is… someone… He isn’t named and he doesn’t speak, but he’s definitely somebody. Take a look at the full panel in context:

Who? Who is that?!? Well, at this point in time it is June of 1984 — the issue we’ve just been reading is Saga of the Swamp Thing #25, and the name “John Constantine” wouldn’t appear until a year later in issue #37.

So at the time this issue was published, when asked “who is that?,” you were likely to answer, “Sting!” [image 1 from the twelve you looked at in the beginning is Sting in Quadrophenia], or perhaps you might have said “Gordon Sumner!” (which is Sting’s real name)…

Or at least that answer is what the artistic team was apparently going for! [Although I for one was somehow reminded of Dana Carvey from Choppin’ Broccoli… image 3 from the twelve in the beginning]

John Constantine was meant to resemble Sting

Because this unnamed non-speaking character was meant to look like Sting, and after drawing him the artists tasked Alan Moore with figuring out who he would become — here’s Stephen Bissette commenting on this:

I love how he put that, “You better do something with him, because we’re not going to stop drawing him” … and just to remind you who Stephen Bissette is, yes, it is that Stephen Bissette, as in the same one in the art credits when you look up Saga of the Swamp Thing #25 on CGC’s census:

So it is very cool to hear John Constantine’s “origin-story-as-a-character from-the-creative-team’s-perspective” straight from the source! How awesome that Steve Bissette and John Totleben effectively decided “we want to draw a character that looks like Sting,” and then straight-up said to writer Alan Moore, “You better do something with him, because we’re not going to stop drawing him!” This was no accidental background character; no: this was somebody. In June of 1984 the world just didn’t know who it would be, quite yet.

Moore remembers it exactly this same way, remarking in a Wizard Magazine interview that his approach as a writer was always to work as closely with the artists as possible, so in the case of Swamp Thing he struck up an immediate friendship with Bissette and Totleben, asking them for notes about things they wanted to do in the series.

“One of those early notes was they both wanted to do a character that looked like Sting. I think DC is terrified that Sting will sue them, although Sting has seen the character and commented in Rolling Stone that he thought it was great. He was very flattered to have a comic character who looked like him, but DC gets nervous about these things. They started to eradicate all traces of references in the introduction of the early Swamp Thing books to John Constantine’s resemblance to Sting. But I can state categorically that the character only existed because Steve and John wanted to do a character that looked like Sting. Having been given that challenge, how could I fit Sting into Swamp Thing? — Alan Moore”

They may have worked to eradicate most traces to Sting in the early Swamp Thing books but definitely not all were removed… Remembering that Sting’s real name is Gordon Sumner, check out the name of John Constantine’s boat in the below panel from Swamp Thing #51:

“The Honorable (?) Gordon Sumner!!“

So from that first drawing of a character physically based upon Sting in Saga of the Swamp Thing #25, and the discussions among the creative team that followed, Alan Moore then developed the character John Constantine…. who would appear by name in issue #37.

“I had an idea that most of the mystics in comics are generally older people, very austere, very proper, very middle class in a lot of ways. They are not at all functional on the street. It struck me that it might be interesting for once to do an almost blue-collar warlock. Somebody who was streetwise, working class, and from a different background than the standard run of comic book mystics. Constantine started to grow out of that. — Alan Moore”

So that’s how Hellblazer “began” — a really neat “creative-team-level origin story” wouldn’t you agree? And lest you think that there’s a possibility that there was an “earlier Sting” drawn prior to Saga of the Swamp Thing #25, for example in DC Sampler #3 (the book which provided image number 4 from the twelve you looked at in the beginning), let’s have Stephen Bissette set you straight on that:

I think the reason some collectors get confused about the timeline of DC Sampler #3 is because CGC only categorizes it with the year 1984 on their census (no month is listed on census, as there is no month mentioned in the indicia page of the book), making it understandable that some collectors might in turn question when in 1984 it was actually published. And inside that issue is the following promotional material, where the character we now know as John Constantine still isn’t named yet but his image appears in this gorgeous promotion:

But this above artwork demonstrably came after issue #25 of Saga of the Swamp Thing (which is cover dated June 1984 and has a Library of Congress Copyright Date of February 28, 1984). Meanwhile DC Database lists DC Sampler #3 under the cover date of November 1984 with a publication date of September 25, 1984; and MAW corroborates this date, showing DC Sampler #3 with a Library of Congress Copyright Date of September 25, 1984. Here’s what Stephen Bissette shared about that ad:

So: Saga of the Swamp Thing #25 came first — where the yet-to-be-named character was drawn for the first time and the artists asked the writer to figure out who he would become — and then by the time the DC Sampler ad appeared later that same year, they already had it “pretty much worked out” (yet fans would have to wait until Saga of the Swamp Thing #37 for more than just an image of who we now know to be John Constantine).

In addition to DC Sampler #3, some collectors have also asked about other issues that could potentially “lay claim” to Constantine’s first appearance — another book I’ve heard discussed is Crisis on Infinite Earths #4 (but why anyone would have questioned that book is a puzzle to me since that’s way out in July of 1985). All of the quotes I’ve been showing you from Bissette are from a conversation that took place in 2018 on Facebook on this very subject in response to the following question posed by Rich Handley, asking this exact John Constantine question (“someone is claiming there was an appearance before #25?”), to which Stephen Bissette then replied to set the record straight and conversations ensued:

Case closed: Bissette says nope, no prior appearances, it all started in that panel from #25, where the character we today know as John Constantine was standing behind Abby, just after the salesman and the swordfish “met”!

So: when you looked at those 12 images I showed you in the beginning, what was your answer when you looked at #10? Did you recognize that image as being John Constantine?? And now that you’ve heard the backstory, how do you feel now?

And how does the rest of the hobby answer (currently)? Let’s next take a look at how some of the big names in the hobby answer the same question! OK big names, have a look at #10 and tell us what you think!

First, let’s ask the Overstreet Price Guide. When they look at that panel from #25, they say: yes, that’s John Constantine:

Then there’s my fellow CPV Price Guide collaborator, Doug Sulipa, an absolute encyclopedia of comic book knowledge: his “Advisor Note” for issue #25 of Saga of the Swamp Thing makes crystal clear that when he looks at that panel, he says yes, that’s John Constantine:

How about ComicBase? When they look at that panel, they too say yes, that’s John Constantine:

Next let’s see what MyComicShop thinks… yep, they too say yes, that’s John Constantine:

Over at ComicsPriceGuide, they too cite the 1st cameo appearance of John Constantine in this issue, as well as pointing out the connection to Sting:

And then over at ComicLink we have quite an interestingly-phrased description: “Retroactively determined to be 1st appearance (in cameo) of John Constantine.“

Among the sources we’ve reviewed thus far, the phrase “retroactively determined” gives us the first “hint” that there’s a little bit of “controversy” in the hobby over the first appearance of John Constantine. And indeed, there’s even an article out there entitled, “The debate surrounding John Constantine’s first appearance” which cites DC sources as standing by issue #37 as the “official” first appearance of John Constantine.

DC Database says the following about issue #25:

Wow: although I give them credit for stating that “John Constantine could have possibly made his first appearance in this issue” and giving an explanation stating their viewpoint, it strikes me as “highly incomplete” to pass off the cameo as simply a character that “shares no other traits … other than physical inspiration” and then saying that “some people” have claimed this to be Constantine’s first appearance.

“Some people”? Don’t take it from “some people”… take it from Stephen Bissette himself!! In the 2018 exchange cited earlier, Bissette taught us the true origin: that he and Totleben drew the “unnamed, non-speaking character” not as some random unimportant background character but rather with deliberate intention that this was “someone” (someone drawn with specific inspiration [Sting] and meant to be a recurring character) and that Alan Moore had better figure out a story for him (“You better do something with him, because we’re not going to stop drawing him!“)

That’s the origin of the creative-team-development of this character that Bissette is describing here, which is a way different situation from the picture painted by DC Database in their commentary. Bissette drew “him” and said he was going to keep on doing so — that’s why Alan Moore came up with a name and a backstory, and ultimately the character we know as John Constantine was developed and “assigned” to “him.” I suppose you could argue that this assignment was done “retroactively”… but that doesn’t do full justice to the backstory behind the creation of John Constantine because via the behind-the-scenes creative process among the creative team you can draw a direct line from that one-panel cameo in #25, to the character we came to know in issue #37.

But did DC Database actually know all of that before their commentary was written? Have others in the hobby who dismiss issue #25 actually heard what Stephen Bissette and Alan Moore had to say on the subject? Given that the Bissette conversation is buried in a 2018 Facebook thread, I have to wonder if the #25 detractors are operating with incomplete information (or wrote their views a very long time ago)?

I only added issue #25 to my collection within the last year (and naturally, as a collector who cares about rarity, I went after the 95¢ cover price variant), and at the time I started my hunt I wasn’t actually aware that there was any debate over John Constantine’s appearance in this issue… Given what appears in the Overstreet guide I had assumed it was a settled fact. It wasn’t until my copy returned from CGC grading and I looked at what they placed on the label, that I realized that this first appearance must be one of those fun situations that falls under the category of “it’s complicated”… because CGC mentions nothing about John Constantine whatsover on their label (currently) for issue #25! Can you believe it? I was shocked to see that the only Key Comments note they place is “Jason Blood appearance”:

Among all of the “big names” in the hobby, arguably CGC is the one whose stance has the biggest result on market value… So given their current stance of completely ignoring the 1st cameo appearance of John Constantine (perhaps siding with the view currently held by DC Database), no wonder Saga of the Swamp Thing #25 has such a lower market value versus what we might expect!

And CBCS gives the book the exact same treatment as CGC does, merely stating “Jason Blood appearance” on their label as well:

I propose that it is time for CGC and CBCS to study this situation further, to learn from what Stephen Bissette shared in 2018 about the true behind-the-scenes “origin story” of John Constantine’s creation as a character, and then to update their labels! This cameo truly deserves mention. And to completely ignore it, as CGC and CBCS currently do, is truly an unfortunate situation that needs a fix. Readers: please bombard CGC and CBCS with requests to update their key comments notes for issue #25 and share the facts with them, won’t you?

Keanu Reeves Interview

Keanu Reeves has been giving interviews recently, to promote the new Matrix film (side note: did you know that Reeves is Canadian and was raised in Toronto?), and you probably know that he played John Constantine in the 2005 film.

So I found it quite noteworthy during this Colbert interview, when he was asked, “Is there a character you’ve played before you’d like to play again, that noone is asking you to? And keep in mind, when you say this, someone will then ask you to!”

Keanu answered “that’s not true” to the “someone will then ask you” part, but then said: “I would love to play John Constantine again.”

Stephen Colbert then followed up, “Great film! Love that! Are you saying right now, on national television, that you are willing to play John Constantine again — with the prospect that Stephen Colbert might have a guest-starring role — that noone will make that movie?!?“

Keanu answered, “I’ve tried. I’ve tried, Stephen.” Listen to the crowd’s reaction when he says this… It is in this clip, and the exchange starts about 25 seconds in: I’d say the people want another John Constantine movie. And importantly, so does Keanu — to the point where he states that he’s tried, actively to get one made! Might it help that he’s now discussed this on national television, and that Colbert only-half-jokingly wants a role in it as a “reluctant demon”?

Happy Collecting! 🙂

Whether we ever get another Constantine movie (or not), I find the comics surrounding his 1st appearance to be very highly collectible, especially Saga of the Swamp Thing #25 given that it is currently “overlooked” by CGC, and of course his “full” first appearance in #37 is incredibly appealing as a collectible (and yes, there’s a 95¢ cover price variant of that one too, and that most-rare Canadian Price Variant type is exceedingly difficult to find in high grade, so set your expectations low: as of this writing on 12/21/2021 there is still not a single 9.8 price variant copy on CGC’s census for issue #37).

Happy Collecting!

– Ben p.s. The twelve pictures from the beginning are (1) Sting in Quadrophenia, (2) Keanu Reeves in Constantine, (3) Dana Carvey from Choppin’ Broccoli, (4) Constantine in the ad in DC Sampler #3, and (5) through (12) are all from Saga of the Swamp Thing #37 & #38, with the exception of (10) from #25.

Canadian Newsstand Edition, Market Report

CPVs: The Even Rarer Newsstand Choice

By Benjamin Nobel, November 2021

Hi everyone, this is my market report for the 2022 edition of our CPV Price Guide just released, marking our 5th edition! [Be sure to read all the other great reports too!] Our guide usage has grown steadily since we “carved out” the price guide onto its own web domain name in 2019, and during this year we surpassed the 2,500,000 cumulative total hits milestone — here’s our monthly hits chart:

I attribute a lot of the growth in our guide’s website usage to one of the “mega-trends” that has been slowly unfolding in our hobby: investment grade newsstand comics from the copper and modern ages have slowly but surely taken over as the hands-down-preferable type to collect among collectors who (a) know about them and (b) care about relative rarity, with 2021 market trends bringing newsstand copies even further ahead and leaving the prevalent direct edition type further in the dust.

We continue to see examples of growing newsstand awareness across the hobby, whether it is GoCollect showing, for example, Spider-Man 2099 #1 9.8 newsstand sales volume at a prevalence less than 2% that of the direct edition version in 9.8 — and with GoCollect in turn giving 9.8 newsstand a value almost 10x higher than the corresponding 9.8 direct edition value as screencaptured below…

Think about it: with 19 sales of newsstand copies in 9.8 versus 1,446 sales of direct edition copies in 9.8, the newsstand 9.8 prevalence is not even 2% of the direct edition; and GoCollect ascribes a newsstand value almost 10x that of the direct edition, at $1,150 versus $120. Now compare the 9.8 prevalence of key *CPVs* against the 9.8 direct editions… does the rarity data in turn argue that 9.8 CPVs should be trading at wider multiples than where the market prices them currently? Multiples more like the GoCollect multiple we see above? Food for thought!!

… or whether it is GPAnalysis breaking out newsstand sales for many comics including keys like ASM #300, thereby enabling newsstand rarity research like never before — for instance Overstreet Advisor Greg Holland’s research based on GPAnalysis data shared in this article entitled Newsstand & Direct Edition Data – Where GPAnalysis is Leading the Way, which included this unforgettable ASM #300 chart:

Can anybody in the hobby sitting here in 2021 really say, with a straight face, that they don’t care which version above — direct edition vs newsstand — they prefer to own in high grade in their collections?? Only someone who truly cares nothing about the rarity of the comics they collect, or someone who is actively selling off their direct editions and doesn’t want buyers scared away, would try to pretend the difference is meaningless or try to dismiss the appeal of the newsstand version.

And of course CBCS has meanwhile been way out in the lead over CGC in newsstand comic book recognition, with 2021 marking the 5th year that CBCS has been “breaking out” newsstand comics separately from direct editions; and with their online census released as of last year, the CBCS population report now marks yet another treasure trove of data demonstrating relative newsstand rarity in no uncertain terms. While the chart above represents Greg’s GPA-sales-based estimates for CGC census data (where they sadly still don’t directly tell the versions apart over at CGC), here meanwhile is what the CBCS population report for ASM #300 shows for their own actual broken-out direct-vs-newsstand numbers reported as of 10/28/2021:

Amazing Spider-Man #300 was published in 1988, well past the point when direct edition sales overtook newsstand, and from both the observed market values we see out there among high grade surviving copies of the two types, and from the rarity picture illustrated by the above charts, the newsstand version is hands-down the more desirable and valuable type to collect in high grade.

But there’s no CPV for the issue, unfortunately, because Marvel had already ended their CPV window in 1986. However, DC at the time was still going with their CPVs: the year 1988 marked the last of DC’s CPVs; Batman #423 marked the last CPV in that title. And guess what? DC’s 1988 CPVs are newsstand comics and furthermore were published simultaneously with the other types, and aside from the higher cover price are fully 100% identical to their regularly-cover-priced newsstand counterparts…

And of course we can say the very same thing of Marvel’s CPVs of the 1980’s comics as well: that the cover price variants are newsstand comics and 100% fully identical to the regular newsstand copies except for the higher cover price. My point here is this: If Mr. Market has already decided that ASM #300 and other copper age newsstand comics in general are more valuable than direct editions, then the CPVs of this same era, as newsstand comics, in turn have absolutely incredible collectible appeal… because they are even more rare than the regularly-cover-priced newsstand version that Mr. Market has already valued at a premium vs. the direct edition!

To anyone who has followed our guides over the past five years what I’ve just said above is no secret — we Type 1A price variant collectors have known this to be true for quite a long time. But elsewhere in the hobby, others who previously seemed oblivious are finally catching on too. For example: if you browse the October ComicLink auction, and click through on some of the CPVs that they have listed, you might very well notice that ComicLink, apparently, has now caught onto this very fact — e.g. take a look at the “ComicLink Comments” paragraph highlighted in red below, for the FF #291 CPV in the October auction:

As you can see from the screenshot above, the “ComicLink Comments” includes the following description (numbers and highlighting added), which I’ll discuss next by numbered/highlighted section:

“Canadian Price Variants with a higher-than-expected cover price, like this example copy, (1) are 1st print US-published originals that the publisher produced simultaneously with the regularly priced copies, and then shipped them North for distribution on Canadian newsstands. (2) All aspects of the variants are 100% identical to regular newsstand copies, except for the higher cover price. The Canadian newsstand market (3) serviced a population less than one tenth that of the USA. This dramatic market size difference, coupled with newsstand exclusivity for the price variants, (4) make them dramatically rarer than their US newsstand counterparts as well as the direct edition type sold in comic shops.”

The above “ComicLink Comments” CPV description does a great job of conveying these four points about CPVs, which really could actually be a great “CPV FAQ”:

(Q) Are CPVs first printings or are they foreign reprints? (A) CPVs are true 1st print copies of the given issue, published simultaneously with the regularly priced copies and published in the USA!
(Q) What physical differences exist between the CPVs and the other copies? (A) Beyond the cover price box the CPVs are 100% identical to regular newsstand copies!
(Q) Was there a market size difference at the distribution level? (A) Yes, the CPVs were distributed to a market size with a population one tenth that of the regular newsstand copies.
(Q) Gosh, doesn’t that make the CPVs dramatically more rare? (A) Yes, the CPVs are dramatically rarer than both the regular newsstand edition and the well-preserved direct editions.

Pretty noteworthy, I feel, to see the above commentary published on a major comics auction house website. When it comes to ComicLink (and the major auction houses in general), their influence within the CPV market has actually been growing notably: Back in 2020, just 1 of the top 10 entries in our guide’s “Noteworthy CPV Sales” table that year was from one of the major comic book auction houses — it was ComicLink’s auction of a CGC 9.6 price variant copy of ASM #238.

And at that time, it was also the only ComicLink sale of a CPV to have crossed above $1,000. But this year, as I work to assemble our updated Noteworthy CPV Sales table, I can’t help but notice that we’ve now recorded seven ComicLink sales of CPVs >=$1,000 and yet every single one of those have been “pushed out” of the top ten, and in many cases the higher-ranking books were sold at competing AUCTION HOUSES (as opposed to eBay). This is a major shift from the past, when the vast majority of top sales were observed on eBay. Two of the “new top 10” CPV sales examples include:

• Amazing Spider-Man #238 CPV in CGC 9.8, $7,800 at Heritage
• Thor #337 CPV in CGC 9.8, $4,301 at Pedigree

In fact, Heritage, which was a name that didn’t even show up on the list in 2020, now commands spots #1, #6, #7, #8 and #12, and meanwhile the ASM #238 ComicLink sale that used to rank #1 in 2020, now ranks a mere #14 as the table currently stands in my most recent draft as I type this.

It is definitely interesting to see the major comic book auction houses increasingly producing the top CPV sales at auction, and perhaps that result is reflective of a wider embrace of newsstand comics in general, and CPVs specifically, by these powerhouses in our hobby. Plus, it does stand to reason that at a certain high price point, buyers might have a higher level of “comfort” bidding high amounts on an HA auction, versus, say, some recently-created eBay handle with questionable feedback rating.

And yet, I find it absolutely remarkable, that even as we break new records at the auction houses on CGC 9.8’s, CPV awareness among “the average collector” is still low enough that we simultaneously continue to see a steady stream of “mis-listed variant opportunities” (i.e. instances where a collector has absolutely no clue that the comic they just listed for sale is a variant, as revealed by their failure to include any of the important keywords that would lead CPV collectors to actually find their listings, and yet, a picture of the variant is clearly shown.)

I know, I know, I’ve been harping on and on about mis-listed variant opportunities for years (and I “blame” Overstreet for not doing their part to educate collectors about what they own when it comes to newsstand comics in general and CPVs in particular; to this day CPVs are still inexplicably omitted from their guide).

A collector looking to price a comic of theirs for sale might turn to the value page in their Overstreet guide, see just the one type listed, and not think twice about whether their copy might actually be a price variant… and then end up mis-listing it!

Naturally, the vast majority of these mis-listed variants are going to be “raw” / ungraded books, not the CGC 9.8 CPVs that have been breaking the records at auction houses. But that doesn’t mean there haven’t been some phenomenal opportunities to be had on some really nice-looking “CGC-worthy” books. To give just one example, somebody won this Batman #404 mis-listed variant in condition described by the seller as NM- / 9.2, for a price that represented a >75% discount to our 2021 9.2 variant guide value:

And there are mis-listed variant opportunities among other types of variants as well, including the other two types of Type 1A price variants: the UKPVs, and also the APVs like this Amazing Spider-Man #361:

[For those who haven’t heard of APVs before, just like how Marvel produced higher-cover-price Canadian price variant newsstand comics during a short window in the 1980s, they also produced higher-cover-price Australian price variant newsstand comics during a short window the following decade in the 1990s. ASM #361, New Mutants #98, and Iron Man #282 are three of the bigger keys of that window, and recently I wrote a post highlighting the APVs that exist surrounding the first appearance of Spider-Man 2099.]

Inflation Has Struck

One of the major general themes of 2021 was a surge of price inflation (e.g. the latest CPI report showing the biggest surge in the last THIRTY YEARS), and this hit our comic collecting hobby in a big way, both in terms of higher market values, and also the costs we face as collectors in the hobby.

For example, CGC’s service pricing last year, as chronicled at the Internet Archive, was such that a year ago if you had a stack of 15 or more comics published 1975 or later valued under $200/each, you could take advantage of the “QuickPress” tier (15-book-minimum) for $8/each at CCS, and CGC’s grading cost was meanwhile $20/each. So your total cost per book for a modern-tier press-and-grade was $28.

This year, in a “sneakflation”-style move, CGC announced that its QuickPress tier was “too good” to keep charging just $8 for (my take on their statement), and got rid of it leaving “regular” press as the only option, saying the QuickPress elimination was due to “enhancements that have reduced the differences between QuickPress and regular pressing”… But that’s not all: they simultaneously hiked the cost of a “regular” press from $12 to $15 — so now, if you want a press, instead of an $8 option you’re facing $15, a cost increase of +88%. And the grading cost meanwhile was hiked +10% from $20 to $22. That brings your new total cost per book for a modern-tier press-and-grade to $37 — a combined 32% increase.

But wait! Lest you think this 32% cost increase is all you’re facing as far as increased CGC/CCS costs, now consider that as I type these words the turnaround time without “fast track” is, I kid you not, 200 working days (so about 10 months) at CCS alone for the press, plus 131 working days for the CGC grading (a further 6-7 months). [WOW is CGC busy with new submissions, they’ve obviously been slammed with the submission volume the pandemic has brought them; no wonder they raised prices!!!]. So unless you wish to wait for roughly double the human gestation period for your CGC slabbed comic to be delivered, you’ve got to pony up a further $15 each for Fast Track to CCS & CGC ($30 fast track total), bringing your cost to $67. That’s a huge number if you were used to paying $28!

Inflation within the CPV Price Guide itself was also apparent between our 2021 and 2022 editions, with most of the top books having seen an increase in value. For books that didn’t increase, with price inflation pushing nearly everything else higher all around us, for a comic to have “stayed still” in value this year is effectively like a price decrease in this inflationary environment.

Only a handful of CPVs saw their guide values lower this year against the inflationary backdrop; one example which saw the red down arrow ▼ was Uncanny X-Men #201. This issue features the 1st appearance of Nathan Summers (who you will know as “Cable”) — pre-dating New Mutants #87. And for Storm fans, she becomes team leader in this issue. There’s even a cameo appearance by President Ronald Reagan.

Personally, I think this particular variant is under-appreciated and I myself am really drawn to it! The black background makes it really tough in high grade and I’m jealous of the ONE CGC 9.8 CPV copy that presently exists as of the census today (the best I’ve personally done is 9.6). I added another raw CPV copy of the issue to my collection this year but it looks 9.0-9.2 at best.

Another book that saw the red down arrow ▼ was Rocket Racoon (actually, the whole mini-series saw decreases), which I suppose makes sense as the years since the 2017 Guardians of the Galaxy #2 movie continue to tick by. But apparently James Gunn tweeted that movie #3 has just started filming and the tentative date it will hit theaters is May of 2023. So perhaps that will act as a positive catalyst on the horizon?

So if you like the idea of being a contrarian and “hit ’em where they ain’t” then these are a couple of ideas where you might be able to find bargains out there with less bidding competition. (I also really liked the “Undervalued CPV” section of Angelo’s report — and I totally agree that Legends #3, which he profiled, definitely seems under-appreciated and there have been some bargain sales lately!)

CGC Census Data

Something I really like to look at for each edition of our guide, is the year-over-year change in CGC census counts for both regular and variant copies of each issue (our “Most Active” section). We first did this exercise for our 2019 Edition and the top two issues by submission volume of “regular” copies that year was (1) Secret Wars #8 with +1,681 new copies added to the census that year, and (2) ASM #252 with +1,069. Those were the only two issues that year to see submission volume in excess of +1,000 copies, across the universe of issues covered in our guide.

The following year, our 2020 edition showed three issues with year over year submission volume in excess of +1,000 new copies — the (1) and (2) spots were the same, with Secret Wars #8 at +2,090 and ASM #252 at +1,911, and coming in at number (3) was Thor #337 with +1,009.

The number of issues exceeding +1,000 year-over-year new “regular” submissions continued to grow with last year’s edition, with five issues: spots (1), (2), and (3) were claimed by the same three issues, with Secret Wars #8 at +2,569, ASM #252 at +1,828, and Thor #337 at +1,732. And coming in at number (4) was Amazing Spider-Man #238 with +1,060 new “regular” copies, and Amazing Spider-Man Annual #16 with +1,031 in spot number (5).

Notice so far that every issue breaking +1,000 has been Marvel. Well, with this year’s new guide, there are now six issues clearing that level: (1) and (2) remain the same, with Secret Wars #8 at +2,709, ASM #252 at +2,090, and the number (3) spot is taken over by a non-Marvel issue — TMNT Adventures #1 (1988), with +1,516 new “regular” copies added to the census during the year. Thor #337 then comes in at number (4) with +1,513; at number (5) is ASM Annual #16 at +1,340, and at number (6) is ASM #238 at +1,202. Runners-up getting close to the +1,000 mark were Star Wars #68 at +839 and Secret Wars #1 at +861.

Adding up these year-over-year census additions from just this past year, for just this handful of issues mentioned in the paragraph above, there were +12,070 new “regular” copies absorbed by the market for just these particular keys.

I had been working on the new Most Actives table, and seeing these numbers, just ahead of reading Greg Holland’s new article, Canadian Price Variants (CPVs) and the CGC Census… and I was struck by the table he included at the very top which showed the current grand-total count of all CPVs on census across all issues for Marvel at 6,979, for DC at 2,273, and for Archie at 395.

The juxtaposition is rather stunning, isn’t it? Secret Wars #8 alone added more “regular copies” to the CGC census year over year than there are DC-wide CPVs on census across all issues in total that have ever been submitted to date. Wow. When you think about how the comic book marketplace absorbed all of those new regular CGC-graded copies and still saw price increases, it really puts into perspective how few CGC-graded CPVs there really are to go around. Market value is all a matter of supply and demand, and with small CPV supply numbers like this, a little bit of new demand in our niche can go a long way…

Greg’s article covered only those issues where there is a CPV on record at CGC, and he calculated a Marvel-wide CPV census percentage at 2.6%, and a DC-wide CPV percentage at 2.9%. However, something I’ve noticed about DC is that there are a whole lot of very-low-census-volume issues, so when you include only those issues that do have a CPV, there are a lot of “2 regular, 1 variant” type situations, and all the “2 regular, 0 variant” issues that might have “offset” those situations, are left out if you are looking only at the universe of DC issues with 1 or more CPV. [Take Action Comics #564 for example: there is just 1 CPV copy on record, but, there’s also only two regular copies. Thus, the CPV percentage on census is 33%, but that’s only because of the extremely-low total submission count. Meanwhile, similarly-low-submission-volume example Action Comics #576 has 2 regular copies but zero CPVs. Hence, those regular copies would not be counted in Greg’s data, since it isn’t an issue where CGC has a CPV on record.]

Our variant photo coverage has gotten really good over the years, so I decided to take a look at the CGC census for every Marvel and DC issue where we’ve photo-confirmed the existence of the CPV, even if no census copies appear yet. And doing this exercise, I got to a result of 2.5% census rarity for DC overall, 2.5% for Marvel as well. For only the top 100 variants and runners-up in this year’s guide, the CPV census percentage among Marvel & DC issues was 2.3%. At the very end of this post I’m including tables of the top 100 plus each individual photo-confirmed-CPV issue and its CPV census percentage as of September 2021, for Marvel & DC, with various total counts summarized at the bottom of the tables.

I’ll end my report there, and I hope you’ll be sure to read ALL the other market reports in this year’s edition of the CPV Price Guide as well! Here are some teaser quotes from some the other articles you’ll find in this year’s guide:

“The increased interest in CPVs combined with higher sales prices for CPVs has them being submitted to CGC and entering the market more often than the overall CGC Census percentages in recent years. As the prices have increased for CPVs, the condition which is “worth submitting” to CGC has decreased.” — Greg Holland, Canadian Price Variants (CPVs) and GPAnalysis.com Recorded Sales

“Much like the rest of the comic market I believe we’re seeing the threshold begin to lower in terms of what constitutes an acceptable grade. Collectors are realizing that there are some CPVs that are out of their price rage in the higher grades or simply aren’t available, so as a result, they’re eyeing the copies they can afford or that are available in hopes of possibly upgrading later.” — Tim Bildhauser, 2021 Canadian Price Variant Market Report

“I predict with confidence, if the economy holds up, Key CPV’s will break many more records given that new collectors as well as seasoned ones, not yet into this space, develop a better understanding of their true potential value.” — Angelo Virone, Canadian Price Variants And Overstreet’s Top 25 Copper Age Comics

“The gap between certified 9.6 and 9.8 books in what they sell for, is still continuing to grow wider and wider. At comic book auction houses, I have noticed that some certified 9.8 graded copies of popular key books are sometimes bid up three times or more than 9.6 copies of the same book, in the same auction in just the first couple of days of being at auction.” — Bill Alexander, CPV Market Report: Year In Review

“A dramatic increase in the numbers of CPV Marvel comic books graded by CGC is evident, particularly in the last five years. A similar recent increase can be observed for CPV D.C. Comics issues, although the counts are significantly lower.” — Greg Holland, Canadian Price Variants (CPVs) and the CGC Census

“I’ve always felt Spidey and Star Wars are the two easiest CPV’s to find, as it should be, as these were immensely popular titles during that time. But in high grade, most of the Star Wars CPVs are still extremely elusive.” — Jay Halstead, The Hottest CPVs of 2021

Thanks for reading and Happy Collecting! 🙂

– Ben