|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Nov 14, 2016 19:55:19 GMT -5
I prefer single issues too
I have a few trades, like Watchmen and Batman The Dark Mirror. But generally, I want to read it as it original appeared, in a single issue. Granted, that is impossible for many costly books which is why I will get the most interesting reprint possible (for example, I have the first 6 issues of FF as one of those pocket books Marvel put out in the 70's...or the first issue of Batman as the oversized Treasury they put out). If I can find the earliest reprint possible, that is my goal.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,211 
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 14, 2016 21:06:54 GMT -5
I prefer single issues too I have a few trades, like Watchmen and Batman The Dark Mirror. But generally, I want to read it as it original appeared, in a single issue. Granted, that is impossible for many costly books which is why I will get the most interesting reprint possible (for example, I have the first 6 issues of FF as one of those pocket books Marvel put out in the 70's...or the first issue of Batman as the oversized Treasury they put out). If I can find the earliest reprint possible, that is my goal. I'm kind of that way with certain important runs too (and I mean, important to me). For example I have roughly the first 130 or so issues of Amazing Spider-Man as single issue floppies...but they're all reprints from Marvel Tales. I purposesly hunted down a full collection of those issues in MT in the early 2000s because Spider-Man is my favourite hero and I wanted to read his adventures on newsprint, in single issue format...as the stories were originally meant to be experienced. However, original issues of ASM were just too cost prohibitive for a cheapskate collector like me. But back issues of Marvel Tales could be had for peanuts and, in some cases, the reprints were only a handful of years "younger" than the originals. |
|
|
|
Post by rom on Nov 14, 2016 21:35:09 GMT -5
I have the complete opposite opinion of many people here. First of all, for what it's worth I'm in my mid-40's, and have been collecting comics since I was a little kid in the late '70's. So, I grew up with floppies - i.e., individual comics.
Over the years, I stopped collecting comics temporarily, and then would start up again 4-5 years later. The last time I started collecting again was around 2009, and at that point I really started delving into the collected editions that were out, i.e. Trades, Omnibuses & other HC's, etc. I started collecting floppies again at that point too, primarily Star Wars comics.
Eventually, I stopped collecting floppies cold turkey around late 2014- it was too much hassle to keep up with monthly issues.
And, these days, a collection that takes up the least amount of space is extremely important, since I'm running out out room for my comics. So, I strongly prefer Collected Editions vs. floppies, for several reasons:
1) Comics reprinted in a CE will ultimately take up less room than the same floppies, due to the bags & backing boards I use for floppies.
2) Floppies have the tendency to sometimes bend, etc. even with a backing board. CE's are much more durable.
3) Last but definitely not least, the reproduction/paper quality in CE's is typically far superior to what you saw in floppies, especially if the floppies being reprinted are comics from '60's - '80's. High quality paper wasn't typically used for most comics until the '90's - in many cases.
That all being said, I don't like the Marvel Essential or DC because of the black & white aspect. If a comic was originally in color, I only want to see it reprinted in color. However, I don't mind black & white reprints - as long as they are reprinting comics that were originally b&w - i.e., the Savage Sword of Conan magazine, the Deadly Hands of Kung Fu magazine, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Nov 14, 2016 21:47:39 GMT -5
I prefer single issues too I have a few trades, like Watchmen and Batman The Dark Mirror. But generally, I want to read it as it original appeared, in a single issue. Granted, that is impossible for many costly books which is why I will get the most interesting reprint possible (for example, I have the first 6 issues of FF as one of those pocket books Marvel put out in the 70's...or the first issue of Batman as the oversized Treasury they put out). If I can find the earliest reprint possible, that is my goal. I'm kind of that way with certain important runs too (and I mean, important to me). For example I have roughly the first 130 or so issues of Amazing Spider-Man as single issue floppies...but they're all reprints from Marvel Tales. I purposesly hunted down a full collection of those issues in MT in the early 2000s because Spider-Man is my favourite hero and I wanted to read his adventures on newsprint, in single issue format...as the stories were originally meant to be experienced. However, original issues of ASM were just too cost prohibitive for a cheapskate collector like me. But back issues of Marvel Tales could be had for peanuts and, in some cases, the reprints were only a handful of years "younger" than the originals.
I may need to get myself a Marvel Tales reprint of #129 as that one may escape my purchase range...still hoping I can land a copy of #50 though!
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 15, 2016 2:03:58 GMT -5
I prefer single issues too I have a few trades, like Watchmen and Batman The Dark Mirror. But generally, I want to read it as it original appeared, in a single issue. Granted, that is impossible for many costly books which is why I will get the most interesting reprint possible (for example, I have the first 6 issues of FF as one of those pocket books Marvel put out in the 70's...or the first issue of Batman as the oversized Treasury they put out). If I can find the earliest reprint possible, that is my goal. I have that FF book, too, as well as the Spidey and Dr. Strange ones. Lovely little books. I used to read them on long car journeys as a kid. |
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,423
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 15, 2016 7:27:57 GMT -5
For practicality and affordability, I prefer trades (even if, in the final analysis, I'd ultimately prefer the original issues).
Collections aren't all equal, however. I really do not care for old comics reprinted on high gloss paper; the colors are too bright and the overall effect looks... wrong. I think DC using paper closer to newsprint ( as used in Kirby's Demon omnibus) is the way to go.
Personally, I really, really liked the Essential line. I wish I had bought more. Relatively inexpensive, right paper, and the advantage of black and white art that looks better (for my favourite artists) than the colour one.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Nov 15, 2016 8:41:03 GMT -5
Personally, I really, really liked the Essential line. I wish I had bought more. Relatively inexpensive, right paper, and the advantage of black and white art that looks better ( for my favourite artist) than the colour one. Right on the mark about the Essentials and Showcase Roquefort. The black and white printing would give many a second thought about artist's they may not have cared for as much in the original color floppies. I can attest that it gave me new insights and pleasure in many cases for artists of lesser renown like Bob Brown and Don Heck (who i always liked but found more joy in seeing his fine line work in B/W) and George Tuska (another i always liked but seeing in B/W showed his work off even more) who were always veteran/professional go to artists whose contributions were sometimes ruined by poor inking/printing and coloring. Without fail Tomb of Dracula, Ghost Rider and Werewolf by Night and Frankenstein all benefit from the black and white highlighting the horror and art more poetically and beautifully than color ever did. The Superman and Batman Showcases are superb for showing off the clean lines of Wayne Boring and Curt Swan and the dark shadows of Frank Robbins, Neal Adams and Bob Brown. Infantino just looks so damn spectacular in the black and white whether it is Batman and Robin or Adam Strange or the Flash and my personal favorites are the DC War books which all looked muddy in color. And with the Essentials and Showcases i enjoyed full series runs i could never afford or track down or might only be marginally interested in reading. I am glad i made an effort to purchase as many as i could over time. They will be missed... |
|
|
|
Post by urrutiap on Nov 15, 2016 14:40:41 GMT -5
I find that the black and white Marvel Essentials along with an Epic Collection they're easier and pretty cheap lately anyway if you want to really go old school to read up on original stuff for X Men or Avengers or Incredible Hulk.
Plus having an Essential X Men trade paperback or an Essential Avengers is cheaper than trying to hunt down a really old single back issue where the old back issue costs like a thousand bucks
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2016 22:40:41 GMT -5
My biggest gripe about trades is that a lot of them go out of print. I wish they would bring back the Marvel Masterworks Trades, they are so much cheaper than the Hardcovers. There are some Masterwork Trades still available, but not enough IMO. I am wondering if we will see some of the Epic Trades start to go out of print as well. Also, I wanted to get the B&W Essential Uncanny X-Men volumes 1 & 2 but only volume 2 remains in stock.
|
|
|
|
Post by urrutiap on Nov 16, 2016 0:49:25 GMT -5
X Men epic collection children of the atom is cheaper on Amazon and cheaper than the Essential Classic X Men Volume 1.
That's what I did a couple of months ago and worth it.
I even just started reading the Children of the Atom Epic Collection today. I'm pooped from the Blob issue lol.
Some of the black and white Essential X Men trades are worth it but I can skip on some such as Essential X Men volume 9-11 where I can get a few certain single back issues cheaper from the comic book shop
|
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Nov 16, 2016 8:16:55 GMT -5
A random question: Has anyone seen a breakdown, for Marvel and DC, as to how much of their publishing revenue comes from new comics vs. trades and other reprints of "new" material vs. various reprints of "classic" material (meaning bronze age or earlier)? I've seen some singles vs. trades comparisons and digital vs. physical, but nothing that compares recent trades vs. classic collections. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 16, 2016 11:17:02 GMT -5
A random question: Has anyone seen a breakdown, for Marvel and DC, as to how much of their publishing revenue comes from new comics vs. trades and other reprints of "new" material vs. various reprints of "classic" material (meaning bronze age or earlier)? Easiest way to compare is to look at the monthly solicitations on how it breaks down. Publishers respond to how the public buys. Newer reprints obviously outweigh the older, probably 4 or 5 to 1 |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 16, 2016 11:32:37 GMT -5
I haven't seen much in the way of stats and you have to discount anything from Diamond on the subject, as that is mainly comic shops and stuff Diamond distributes to bookstores (which is mainly indie stuff). Warne has made a ton of money in bookstores, though mainly over the long haul, with perennial favorites. I worked for B&N for 20 years and we had steady sales; but, usually, most trades sold a couple of copies, when new, except for really major releases. These days, it's mostly Walking Dead, Watchmen, V For Vendetta (the Occupy movement sold a ton of those), and the big Batman stuff. Manga blows them out of the water, still, and Bone was a consistent seller.
I never understood Marvel's mentality of basically just doing one or two print runs (relatively speaking) and letting them go out of print quickly. It takes time for people to discover them. By the time much of the audience learned of their titles, they are long gone. They also had some serious quality issues, in the early 00s. Covers would come off left and right.
As far as percentage of money as a revenue stream, to their total? Probably not much. Book sales are bigger than comic book sales; but, not by huge numbers, outside of bestselling books. The real revenue comes from licensing and has, since the 70s.
|
|
|
|
Post by rom on Nov 16, 2016 15:29:10 GMT -5
I could be completely off-base here, but IIRC I read something online (several years back) which stated that Marvel/DC is somehow able to "afford" to continue publishing reprints (Trades, HC's, etc.) because of the strong?! sales of their new monthly floppies. I.e., presumably if Marvel/DC didn't have a strong monthly comic program, they may not be able to generate enough revenue to publish reprints - if that makes sense.
And, without being in "the business" at all, it seems to me that producing reprints of comics from the '60's - '90's is more expensive than producing new comics. With reprints, you have to track down the original print(s), recolor this in most cases (unless the coloring job is great to begin with, or if the art is originally in b&w), remaster this, correct any printing/art errors, etc.
Conversely, if you're creating a new comic you just create the whole thing from scratch. Plus, I'm sure the technology available these days makes it a lot easier to produce comics than it was 20/30/40 years ago.
If this is indeed true, it's ironic in my case - because I only collect CE's, no floppies anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 16, 2016 16:30:45 GMT -5
Well, it has been said that the monthlies pay for the costs involved in producing the books. For reprints, it needs to have a certain level of built-in sales or it won't sustain itself. You are getting into a much smaller niche market. Those Titan Simon & Kirby books are great; but, a significant portion ended up as remainders (those sold at bargain prices) Nostalgia and curiosity only go so far.
Publishing ain't cheap. You have to have decent size print runs to get the per book cost down to a level that will attract consumers; but, it can be a crapshoot as to whether they will respond to the level printing. When paper was cheaper, publishers could get away with overprinting and accepting strip returns (cover were torn off and returned for credit on new orders, a carryover from newsstands). That changed in the late 90s, as paper costs skyrocketed and major overprinting of several big name books led to tons of returns, nearly bankrupting more than a couple of publishers. Publishers started tightening print runs and developing faster reorder systems, to make another print run, if a book took off. Book sales have dropped to the point that bookstores only get small amounts of even hot titles and most authors have only one or two books in their catalogue shelved as backlist (older) titles. Part of that was digital; but, that kind of plateaued, a readers split into those that prefer digital and those who like print and some in the middle (mixture of both). rint sales stabilized after that. Borders bankruptcy led to major loss of revenue with publishers, as they lost a big client and their customer base wasn't necessarily absorbed by the competition. A lot just went away, and that includes buying from Amazon.
Print-on-demand helps fill more specific niches and I wonder if DC and Marvel (and other comic publishers) might not be better off in this avenue. The drawback, though, is you need to keep things rather basic, to keep your per book costs down. As it is, they are more expensive than doing a set print run.
I work for a print company, now, and have had to explain book economics to some customers who thought they could duplicate things like 100+ page cookbooks, with binding and have it cost the same as a paperback at B&N. They get some serious sticker shock when we show them the cost of production.
|
|
