“I always valued the high issue numbers of long running series. It's why I despise new "volumes" of titles.”
i have never understood why people care so much about numbers. The number is nothing more than a small ink squiggle on the front, and another in the indicia. Any sense of legacy is largely nostalgia combined with economics and marketing. In the golden age it was not uncommon for a book to completely change its content, title and direction but not its numbering. This was primarily because postal regulations meant expense and paperwork to launch a new title. It was cheaper and easier to just change one title into another, rather than end one and begin another. This also sustained a marketing idea that higher numbers would be interpreted as better. If something had lasted a hundred issues it must be good? This kind of thinking may have made sense to younger readers, but as fandom evolved, and the readership aged, they soon realized that a high issue number didn’t necessarily equate to a higher quality product. As the direct market emerged, it became apparent that philosophy didn’t really hold. With standard newsstand distribution, print runs were set by the publisher, and allocations by the distributor. Retail had little control over what title they received or how many. With the direct market this changed and retailers saw that #1 issues sold well, and proceeded to order far heavier on issue #1 than any other issue except perhaps anniversary issues.
And numbering has always been kind of arbitrary. As i mentioned titles often just continued the numbering of other titles. It never made sense that the numbering for Thor and Hulk was higher than the FF even though the FF was first. they picked up the numbering of Journey Into Mystery and Tales to Astonish, even though the first 82 issues of JIM didn’t have Thor and the first 58 issues of TTA didn’t have the Hulk. Stranger still, The numbering for the Incredible Hulk, Included issue #1 of Tales to Astonsh, even though that comic didn’t feature the hulk, but it DIDN’T include Hulk #1 which did introduced him. Its not even applied evenly, Spider-man debuts in Amazing Fantasy #15, yet His next appearance is Amazing Spider-man #1 not Amazing Spider-man #16. It makes no sense
Captain America makes even less sense. His numbering continued that of Tales of Suspense, which he shared with iron Man. When they split them up Iron Man got a new #1 and cap got the numbering of TOS, which is strange as Iron Man and actually debuted in TOS and was in far more issues of TOS than Cap. It would have made mores sense to change the book to Iron Man with #100 and give Cap a #1. Or just pick up the numbering of Cap’s Golden Age series. When Marvel revived Cap in the 50s, that exactly what they did. The 1954 relaunch started with issue #76 picking up the numbering of the Golden Age series. of course Captain America Comics had changed its title to Captain America’s Weird Tales and become a horror anthology for its last couple of issue anyway.
DC did it too, When Flash got his own title again, it starts with 105, picking up the numbering of Flash Comics, yet when Green Lantern gets his silver age title, it starts at #1 and not at #39 (after the numbering of his solo series) or #103 (after the numbering of All American Comics, where he debuted) When his book is cancelled at #89, it starts again several years later at #90 rather than relaunching as #1.
for me all that counts is whether i like the content.
What did you think of Amazing Spider-man #7?
M
Vol 1 - I liked it even though I'm not a fan of the Vulture Vol 2 - Didn't read it Vol 3 - Felt a bit like treading water for Spiderverse, and a way to beef up Ms Marvels profile Vol 4 - Good to see Cloak & Dagger again, but I've never really warmed to Mr Negative as a villain.
Wow you guys are right! typing out Vol# was SO difficult and confusing. I think i need a nap. Damn you Marvel, i could have used all that extra time to learn a language, build a house or be snarky on the internet.
“I always valued the high issue numbers of long running series. It's why I despise new "volumes" of titles.”
i have never understood why people care so much about numbers. The number is nothing more than a small ink squiggle on the front, and another in the indicia. Any sense of legacy is largely nostalgia combined with economics and marketing. In the golden age it was not uncommon for a book to completely change its content, title and direction but not its numbering. This was primarily because postal regulations meant expense and paperwork to launch a new title. It was cheaper and easier to just change one title into another, rather than end one and begin another. This also sustained a marketing idea that higher numbers would be interpreted as better. If something had lasted a hundred issues it must be good? This kind of thinking may have made sense to younger readers, but as fandom evolved, and the readership aged, they soon realized that a high issue number didn’t necessarily equate to a higher quality product. As the direct market emerged, it became apparent that philosophy didn’t really hold. With standard newsstand distribution, print runs were set by the publisher, and allocations by the distributor. Retail had little control over what title they received or how many. With the direct market this changed and retailers saw that #1 issues sold well, and proceeded to order far heavier on issue #1 than any other issue except perhaps anniversary issues.
And numbering has always been kind of arbitrary. As i mentioned titles often just continued the numbering of other titles. It never made sense that the numbering for Thor and Hulk was higher than the FF even though the FF was first. they picked up the numbering of Journey Into Mystery and Tales to Astonish, even though the first 82 issues of JIM didn’t have Thor and the first 58 issues of TTA didn’t have the Hulk. Stranger still, The numbering for the Incredible Hulk, Included issue #1 of Tales to Astonsh, even though that comic didn’t feature the hulk, but it DIDN’T include Hulk #1 which did introduced him. Its not even applied evenly, Spider-man debuts in Amazing Fantasy #15, yet His next appearance is Amazing Spider-man #1 not Amazing Spider-man #16. It makes no sense
Captain America makes even less sense. His numbering continued that of Tales of Suspense, which he shared with iron Man. When they split them up Iron Man got a new #1 and cap got the numbering of TOS, which is strange as Iron Man and actually debuted in TOS and was in far more issues of TOS than Cap. It would have made mores sense to change the book to Iron Man with #100 and give Cap a #1. Or just pick up the numbering of Cap’s Golden Age series. When Marvel revived Cap in the 50s, that exactly what they did. The 1954 relaunch started with issue #76 picking up the numbering of the Golden Age series. of course Captain America Comics had changed its title to Captain America’s Weird Tales and become a horror anthology for its last couple of issue anyway.
DC did it too, When Flash got his own title again, it starts with 105, picking up the numbering of Flash Comics, yet when Green Lantern gets his silver age title, it starts at #1 and not at #39 (after the numbering of his solo series) or #103 (after the numbering of All American Comics, where he debuted) When his book is cancelled at #89, it starts again several years later at #90 rather than relaunching as #1.
for me all that counts is whether i like the content.
What did you think of Amazing Spider-man #7?
M
Vol 1 - I liked it even though I'm not a fan of the Vulture Vol 2 - Didn't read it Vol 3 - Felt a bit like treading water for Spiderverse, and a way to beef up Ms Marvels profile Vol 4 - Good to see Cloak & Dagger again, but I've never really warmed to Mr Negative as a villain.
Wow you guys are right! typing out Vol# was SO difficult and confusing. I think i need a nap. Damn you Marvel, i could have used all that extra time to learn a language, build a house or be snarky on the internet.
That's the thing; what's the difference from typing volume 3 #7 instead of just 759? I know one shows longevity & ongoing continuity. It also can entice new readers to get the back issues beyond the most recent #1 money grab.
I'm guessing few people on this forum starting reading comic books and wasn't enticed enough to go further back.
Plus, new #1s for a title they just canceled to restart the series is just a fuck you, devoted reader.
Wow you guys are right! typing out Vol# was SO difficult and confusing. I think i need a nap. Damn you Marvel, i could have used all that extra time to learn a language, build a house or be snarky on the internet.
You've got the snark down pat.
Now imagine trying to put them in order in your longbox.
Everyone knows the big publishers re-volume and renumber because today's comic buyers like to buy new #1 issues (along with speculators) and new readers like to find new jumping on points. Now we're stuck with an indexer’s nightmare, without even mentioning "zero" issues, "1/2" issues and “1 Million” issues.
“I always valued the high issue numbers of long running series. It's why I despise new "volumes" of titles.”
i have never understood why people care so much about numbers. The number is nothing more than a small ink squiggle on the front, and another in the indicia. Any sense of legacy is largely nostalgia combined with economics and marketing. In the golden age it was not uncommon for a book to completely change its content, title and direction but not its numbering. This was primarily because postal regulations meant expense and paperwork to launch a new title. It was cheaper and easier to just change one title into another, rather than end one and begin another. This also sustained a marketing idea that higher numbers would be interpreted as better. If something had lasted a hundred issues it must be good? This kind of thinking may have made sense to younger readers, but as fandom evolved, and the readership aged, they soon realized that a high issue number didn’t necessarily equate to a higher quality product. As the direct market emerged, it became apparent that philosophy didn’t really hold. With standard newsstand distribution, print runs were set by the publisher, and allocations by the distributor. Retail had little control over what title they received or how many. With the direct market this changed and retailers saw that #1 issues sold well, and proceeded to order far heavier on issue #1 than any other issue except perhaps anniversary issues.
And numbering has always been kind of arbitrary. As i mentioned titles often just continued the numbering of other titles. It never made sense that the numbering for Thor and Hulk was higher than the FF even though the FF was first. they picked up the numbering of Journey Into Mystery and Tales to Astonish, even though the first 82 issues of JIM didn’t have Thor and the first 58 issues of TTA didn’t have the Hulk. Stranger still, The numbering for the Incredible Hulk, Included issue #1 of Tales to Astonsh, even though that comic didn’t feature the hulk, but it DIDN’T include Hulk #1 which did introduced him. Its not even applied evenly, Spider-man debuts in Amazing Fantasy #15, yet His next appearance is Amazing Spider-man #1 not Amazing Spider-man #16. It makes no sense
Captain America makes even less sense. His numbering continued that of Tales of Suspense, which he shared with iron Man. When they split them up Iron Man got a new #1 and cap got the numbering of TOS, which is strange as Iron Man and actually debuted in TOS and was in far more issues of TOS than Cap. It would have made mores sense to change the book to Iron Man with #100 and give Cap a #1. Or just pick up the numbering of Cap’s Golden Age series. When Marvel revived Cap in the 50s, that exactly what they did. The 1954 relaunch started with issue #76 picking up the numbering of the Golden Age series. of course Captain America Comics had changed its title to Captain America’s Weird Tales and become a horror anthology for its last couple of issue anyway.
DC did it too, When Flash got his own title again, it starts with 105, picking up the numbering of Flash Comics, yet when Green Lantern gets his silver age title, it starts at #1 and not at #39 (after the numbering of his solo series) or #103 (after the numbering of All American Comics, where he debuted) When his book is cancelled at #89, it starts again several years later at #90 rather than relaunching as #1.
for me all that counts is whether i like the content.
What did you think of Amazing Spider-man #7?
M
I take your point. But, real talk, when was the last time that anybody asked you about a single, periodical issue of a comic series that wasn't a #1?
I read plenty of titles that stay in their original volume and don't reboot. But nobody is actually asking me "hey did you read Walking Dead #157? Or how 'bout that Saga #28!" It just doesn't happen, at least to me. I might have friends talk about a storyline by storyline name or say something like "I loved Hickman's run in Avengers" or "Batman has been great lately". But no one tends to call out individual issues past a new #1 by number. Maybe the exception being big issues of an event mini (saw a death that is this or such issue of Civil War) but that is a different thing.
I can get why lovers of publishing history and those that love organizing and storing their comics get frustrated by the remembering. But the idea that the remembering is a barrier to talking about comics feels to me like a pretend problem
Wow you guys are right! typing out Vol# was SO difficult and confusing. I think i need a nap. Damn you Marvel, i could have used all that extra time to learn a language, build a house or be snarky on the internet.
You've got the snark down pat.
Now imagine trying to put them in order in your longbox.
Everyone knows the big publishers re-volume and renumber because today's comic buyers like to buy new #1 issues (along with speculators) and new readers like to find new jumping on points. Now we're stuck with an indexer’s nightmare, without even mentioning "zero" issues, "1/2" issues and “1 Million” issues.
Relaunching the same title has normally driven me away from a series.
It's not like at various "new directions" in my life (graduate from HS, college, new job, marriage, having kids, etc) I restart my age.
Wow you guys are right! typing out Vol# was SO difficult and confusing. I think i need a nap. Damn you Marvel, i could have used all that extra time to learn a language, build a house or be snarky on the internet.
You've got the snark down pat.
Now imagine trying to put them in order in your longbox.
Everyone knows the big publishers re-volume and renumber because today's comic buyers like to buy new #1 issues (along with speculators) and new readers like to find new jumping on points. Now we're stuck with an indexer’s nightmare, without even mentioning "zero" issues, "1/2" issues and “1 Million” issues.
Relaunching the same title has normally driven me away from a series.
It's not like at various "new directions" in my life (graduate from HS, college, new job, marriage, having kids, etc) I restart my age.
“I always valued the high issue numbers of long running series. It's why I despise new "volumes" of titles.”
i have never understood why people care so much about numbers. The number is nothing more than a small ink squiggle on the front, and another in the indicia. Any sense of legacy is largely nostalgia combined with economics and marketing. In the golden age it was not uncommon for a book to completely change its content, title and direction but not its numbering. This was primarily because postal regulations meant expense and paperwork to launch a new title. It was cheaper and easier to just change one title into another, rather than end one and begin another. This also sustained a marketing idea that higher numbers would be interpreted as better. If something had lasted a hundred issues it must be good? This kind of thinking may have made sense to younger readers, but as fandom evolved, and the readership aged, they soon realized that a high issue number didn’t necessarily equate to a higher quality product. As the direct market emerged, it became apparent that philosophy didn’t really hold. With standard newsstand distribution, print runs were set by the publisher, and allocations by the distributor. Retail had little control over what title they received or how many. With the direct market this changed and retailers saw that #1 issues sold well, and proceeded to order far heavier on issue #1 than any other issue except perhaps anniversary issues.
And numbering has always been kind of arbitrary. As i mentioned titles often just continued the numbering of other titles. It never made sense that the numbering for Thor and Hulk was higher than the FF even though the FF was first. they picked up the numbering of Journey Into Mystery and Tales to Astonish, even though the first 82 issues of JIM didn’t have Thor and the first 58 issues of TTA didn’t have the Hulk. Stranger still, The numbering for the Incredible Hulk, Included issue #1 of Tales to Astonsh, even though that comic didn’t feature the hulk, but it DIDN’T include Hulk #1 which did introduced him. Its not even applied evenly, Spider-man debuts in Amazing Fantasy #15, yet His next appearance is Amazing Spider-man #1 not Amazing Spider-man #16. It makes no sense
Captain America makes even less sense. His numbering continued that of Tales of Suspense, which he shared with iron Man. When they split them up Iron Man got a new #1 and cap got the numbering of TOS, which is strange as Iron Man and actually debuted in TOS and was in far more issues of TOS than Cap. It would have made mores sense to change the book to Iron Man with #100 and give Cap a #1. Or just pick up the numbering of Cap’s Golden Age series. When Marvel revived Cap in the 50s, that exactly what they did. The 1954 relaunch started with issue #76 picking up the numbering of the Golden Age series. of course Captain America Comics had changed its title to Captain America’s Weird Tales and become a horror anthology for its last couple of issue anyway.
DC did it too, When Flash got his own title again, it starts with 105, picking up the numbering of Flash Comics, yet when Green Lantern gets his silver age title, it starts at #1 and not at #39 (after the numbering of his solo series) or #103 (after the numbering of All American Comics, where he debuted) When his book is cancelled at #89, it starts again several years later at #90 rather than relaunching as #1.
for me all that counts is whether i like the content.
What did you think of Amazing Spider-man #7?
M
I take your point. But, real talk, when was the last time that anybody asked you about a single, periodical issue of a comic series that wasn't a #1?
I read plenty of titles that stay in their original volume and don't reboot. But nobody is actually asking me "hey did you read Walking Dead #157? Or how 'bout that Saga #28!" It just doesn't happen, at least to me. I might have friends talk about a storyline by storyline name or say something like "I loved Hickman's run in Avengers" or "Batman has been great lately". But no one tends to call out individual issues past a new #1 by number. Maybe the exception being big issues of an event mini (saw a death that is this or such issue of Civil War) but that is a different thing.
I can get why lovers of publishing history and those that love organizing and storing their comics get frustrated by the remembering. But the idea that the remembering is a barrier to talking about comics feels to me like a pretend problem
If I'm referencing an issue in a discussion, I use the issue number. Someone on another site tried telling Batman does kill because he killed KGBeast. I referenced Batman #439 (Year Three, pt 4) to illustrate otherwise.
So yes, I do use issue numbers. I'd also ask for the issue number if someone else references a fact I want to look into. Someone tells me "issue 7", now I have to figure out which volume.
I've already gotten burned with that once when trying to fill a run.
Wow you guys are right! typing out Vol# was SO difficult and confusing. I think i need a nap. Damn you Marvel, i could have used all that extra time to learn a language, build a house or be snarky on the internet.
You've got the snark down pat.
Now imagine trying to put them in order in your longbox.
Everyone knows the big publishers re-volume and renumber because today's comic buyers like to buy new #1 issues (along with speculators) and new readers like to find new jumping on points. Now we're stuck with an indexer’s nightmare, without even mentioning "zero" issues, "1/2" issues and “1 Million” issues.
Relaunching the same title has normally driven me away from a series.
It's not like at various "new directions" in my life (graduate from HS, college, new job, marriage, having kids, etc) I restart my age.
M
How has your life been selling? ;)
Strong. I keep resetting my age to 1 each year. I've got over 30 volumes already!
“I always valued the high issue numbers of long running series. It's why I despise new "volumes" of titles.”
i have never understood why people care so much about numbers. The number is nothing more than a small ink squiggle on the front, and another in the indicia. Any sense of legacy is largely nostalgia combined with economics and marketing. In the golden age it was not uncommon for a book to completely change its content, title and direction but not its numbering. This was primarily because postal regulations meant expense and paperwork to launch a new title. It was cheaper and easier to just change one title into another, rather than end one and begin another. This also sustained a marketing idea that higher numbers would be interpreted as better. If something had lasted a hundred issues it must be good? This kind of thinking may have made sense to younger readers, but as fandom evolved, and the readership aged, they soon realized that a high issue number didn’t necessarily equate to a higher quality product. As the direct market emerged, it became apparent that philosophy didn’t really hold. With standard newsstand distribution, print runs were set by the publisher, and allocations by the distributor. Retail had little control over what title they received or how many. With the direct market this changed and retailers saw that #1 issues sold well, and proceeded to order far heavier on issue #1 than any other issue except perhaps anniversary issues.
And numbering has always been kind of arbitrary. As i mentioned titles often just continued the numbering of other titles. It never made sense that the numbering for Thor and Hulk was higher than the FF even though the FF was first. they picked up the numbering of Journey Into Mystery and Tales to Astonish, even though the first 82 issues of JIM didn’t have Thor and the first 58 issues of TTA didn’t have the Hulk. Stranger still, The numbering for the Incredible Hulk, Included issue #1 of Tales to Astonsh, even though that comic didn’t feature the hulk, but it DIDN’T include Hulk #1 which did introduced him. Its not even applied evenly, Spider-man debuts in Amazing Fantasy #15, yet His next appearance is Amazing Spider-man #1 not Amazing Spider-man #16. It makes no sense
Captain America makes even less sense. His numbering continued that of Tales of Suspense, which he shared with iron Man. When they split them up Iron Man got a new #1 and cap got the numbering of TOS, which is strange as Iron Man and actually debuted in TOS and was in far more issues of TOS than Cap. It would have made mores sense to change the book to Iron Man with #100 and give Cap a #1. Or just pick up the numbering of Cap’s Golden Age series. When Marvel revived Cap in the 50s, that exactly what they did. The 1954 relaunch started with issue #76 picking up the numbering of the Golden Age series. of course Captain America Comics had changed its title to Captain America’s Weird Tales and become a horror anthology for its last couple of issue anyway.
DC did it too, When Flash got his own title again, it starts with 105, picking up the numbering of Flash Comics, yet when Green Lantern gets his silver age title, it starts at #1 and not at #39 (after the numbering of his solo series) or #103 (after the numbering of All American Comics, where he debuted) When his book is cancelled at #89, it starts again several years later at #90 rather than relaunching as #1.
for me all that counts is whether i like the content.
What did you think of Amazing Spider-man #7?
M
I take your point. But, real talk, when was the last time that anybody asked you about a single, periodical issue of a comic series that wasn't a #1?
I read plenty of titles that stay in their original volume and don't reboot. But nobody is actually asking me "hey did you read Walking Dead #157? Or how 'bout that Saga #28!" It just doesn't happen, at least to me. I might have friends talk about a storyline by storyline name or say something like "I loved Hickman's run in Avengers" or "Batman has been great lately". But no one tends to call out individual issues past a new #1 by number. Maybe the exception being big issues of an event mini (saw a death that is this or such issue of Civil War) but that is a different thing.
I can get why lovers of publishing history and those that love organizing and storing their comics get frustrated by the remembering. But the idea that the remembering is a barrier to talking about comics feels to me like a pretend problem
If I'm referencing an issue in a discussion, I use the issue number. Someone on another site tried telling Batman does kill because he killed KGBeast. I referenced Batman #439 (Year Three, pt 4) to illustrate otherwise.
So yes, I do use issue numbers. I'd also ask for the issue number if someone else references a fact I want to look into. Someone tells me "issue 7", now I have to figure out which volume.
M
And I get the idea of referencing a particular thing that happened, or first appearance, by number. (It seems a slightly lawyerly thing to do in a discussion, as opposed to just saying, 'Hey, Batman killed the KGBeast in the 1980s' or "... during the Batman Year Three story") but it sounds like the context is a discussion where something is being litigated, like the case of whether or not Batman kills, so I could understand citing issue numbers.
But, here's the thing, whether you are checking someone else's references, or making one of your own, unless you're @Adam_Murdough, you are probably not going to pull a specific reference like Batman #439 off the top of your head. You're probably going to have to check. Heck, I would need Google and somebody's online database or article to even know whether something like that happened in Batman vs. in Detective Comics.
So, at that point, when you're on the database, or seeing a reference in a listicle about "Ten Times Batman Killed a Guy", or something like that. If you are looking up the number, then is it all that onerous to also note a volume number?
Again, I understand the frustration, but I don't see it as a problem that actually comes up often enough to feel like a compelling one. I can see how people would prefer if everything just kept the original number forever (even if, in the case of many long running titles, those early numbers ended up getting inflated or brought over from other titles, so the history of some of those numbers are shaky anyway. But to me this feels like a complaint in search of a problem.
On the flip side, as silly as the #1 relaunches can be, if it can give titles a chance to keep getting readers, and existing, I'll take it.
One example comes to mind-- BKV and Alphona's Runaways had a hard time finding an audience. The first volume ended. There was a hiatus. Then they relaunched with a new #1, and that second chance lasted long enough for them to tell their whole story. The additional time meant that the word of mouth and buzz had been building over time thanks to collected editions, and it being selected by a librarian group as a standout title, so that when that second #1 hit, more people came in to check it out. And, as someone that loved that title, I got to get the rest of the story.
And now, if someone 15 years later wants to now checkout Runaways, and follow that run across the two volumes is very easy to follow via the numbered collected editions, or the way that a Comixology will list and queue them for you.
Personally, it was more important to me that I got ~50 issue of BKV and Alphona Runaways than it was that their final issue was numbered #50.
"Litigating" or just being concise? Chances are high if it's something that stands out to me, I'll remember the issue number.
Isn't that part of our comic book culture?!
I see #1s strictly as a way to bump sales for an issue or two. After that, people are moving on. It's why titles seem to have short runs nowadays. I'd respect them more for committing to the titles instead of recycling them.
"Litigating" or just being concise? Chances are high if it's something that stands out to me, I'll remember the issue number.
Isn't that part of our comic book culture?!
I see #1s strictly as a way to bump sales for an issue or two. After that, people are moving on. It's why titles seem to have short runs nowadays. I'd respect them more for committing to the titles instead of recycling them.
M
To me, doing the titles in seasons and being willing to relaunch is a commitment to there continuing to be a title being published with that character. It is a commitment to the idea that a given character is strong enough to keep attracting readers. And giving them more chances and windows to keep doing so.
Sticking with a volume and taking off the table the proven technique of relaunching to get new readers/ attract lapsed readers back is a commitment to your own publishing history and the number on the cover.
To me, the former is about how a character finds new readers and growing audience. The latter is about how a long box gets filled and stored.
The conventional wisdom is that renumbering makes good financial sense. In practice, however, it's annoying and is probably having a detrimental effect on the whole industry. Renumbering is a sales gimmick, unrelated to the quality of the books. It's the new chromium cover. But, creative teams get paid more when sales are higher, and they've got more job security when sales are higher, so the six months to 1.5 year self-contained series is here to stay. Don't get me started on those point 1 issues of limited series that Marvel has sometimes shoehorned into an ongoing series. I'd prefer they stick with legacy numbers and bring back the mini-series and one-shots.
The fashionable opinion these days is that if a kid walks into a comic store and sees “Journey Into Mystery” #645, an untrained reader may think that they can’t buy it, lest they MUST pick up 50 years’ worth of back-issues. #1 issues are also, undoubtedly, the biggest selling issues of a book, and so relaunching allows new readers a convenient jumping on point, and offers companies a nice boost in sales, albeit temporarily. But in the 1950’s, publishers didn’t believe that kids would take a chance on a comic that was “unproven,” and so many times would artificially inflate numbering to make it look like a book had more of a history than it actually did. So what's changed? The way we consume media? When I was a kid, I NEVER cared what issue number it was. If the cover grabbed me, I bought it. If I was already reading the series and liked it? I picked it up.
This is more than trying to help new readers find a jumping on point. If a company can sell 4 times more issues in one issue by numbering it #1 (and creating 10 different variant covers) and selling it to non-readers than it can expect to sell across the proceeding 4 issues to real readers, that company could be tempted to making as many appealing #1 issues as they can versus making quality books. The "issue #1" vs "issue #572" argument is legit but how many times can it play out? My comic shop doesn't ever seem to have many teenagers or kids in it so it's a non-issue in my LCS.
I'm actually saddened at Marvel's eagerness to constantly reintroduce their titles in shiny new packages instead of just letting them run as long as possible. I’m not necessarily averse to the idea of turning books volumes into something akin to tv series, but I do find it unnecessary and a little annoying to my old-school tastes as far as mainstream comics go. And don't get me started on those point 1 issues of limited series that Marvel has sometimes shoehorned into an ongoing series. Organizing my books is something 80% or more comic buyers/collectors do and it can be a problem. I have a feeling there a are lot of geeks out there like me who would have kept buying a lot of comics they had bought for years as much out of habit as enjoyment, but the constant renumbering has served as a great jumping-off point for me. How many others jumped off too? I'm getting no Marvel ongoing books these days and I don't care how many Marvel apologists insist it's no big deal.
Every single issue of a comic is a potential jump off point, and jump on point.
It is the easiest thing in the world to stop reading a comic, and there can be countless reasons to do so. And there will always be attrition, and there always has been.
The harder thing is to get someone to jump in and try one. I don't fault them for doing what they can to make that happen.
PS- And- for those that need to affix labels to those they discuss with, to make them more comfortable with the idea that others might not agree with them- if that makes me a "Marvel Apologist", so be it.
Funny-- those were often done for high-numbered issues of long running titles:
Maybe if they had done a new #1 relaunch instead, they could have got the attention they wanted, without having to up the price for a silly cover, and make an existing, historic FF reader pay more to keep reading a title they collect, just because they were trying to attract speculators to a long-lived title.
Nowadays, people are perfectly willing to pay for a new Amazing Spider-Man for $6 a mere year and half after they bought the last one? Funny they're over 20 years gone and now the relaunch and re-numbering has become the new gimmick. Those gimmicky chromium covers are almost exactly the same thing, a sales boosting gimmick.
Nowadays, people are perfectly willing to pay for a new Amazing Spider-Man for $6 a mere year and half after they bought the last one? Funny they're over 20 years gone and now the relaunch and re-numbering has become the new gimmick. Those gimmicky chromium covers are almost exactly the same thing, a sales boosting gimmick.
Except that one is a plus-size issue, with more comics content inside. So it is a higher price, yes, but for more comics. So if it is a cash grab, it is at least one that is selling you more story pages for the money.
The other is a different kind of cover on the same amount of comics.
(Not that the latter didn't work for DC a year or two ago, when they did their all-shiny comic month. Though, to their credit, they also published normal priced, standard cover versions.)
Nowadays, people are perfectly willing to pay for a new Amazing Spider-Man for $6 a mere year and half after they bought the last one? Funny they're over 20 years gone and now the relaunch and re-numbering has become the new gimmick. Those gimmicky chromium covers are almost exactly the same thing, a sales boosting gimmick.
Except that one is a plus-size issue, with more comics content inside. So it is a higher price, yes, but for more comics. So if it is a cash grab, it is at least one that is selling you more story pages for the money.
I got the first one that stuck an unnecessary and unrelated Inhumans story in it. So does that count as more value?
It might seem obvious, but here’s the one gimmick that always works for a comic book in my opinion – great writing, beautiful art and a sense that you’ve spent your time and money well by reading that issue. For my tastes, just stamping #1 on the cover isn't a worthy gimmick and neither is a foil enhanced cover – the only books fans fondly remember are the ones that were truly worth reading.
"Litigating" or just being concise? Chances are high if it's something that stands out to me, I'll remember the issue number.
Isn't that part of our comic book culture?!
I see #1s strictly as a way to bump sales for an issue or two. After that, people are moving on. It's why titles seem to have short runs nowadays. I'd respect them more for committing to the titles instead of recycling them.
M
To me, doing the titles in seasons and being willing to relaunch is a commitment to there continuing to be a title being published with that character. It is a commitment to the idea that a given character is strong enough to keep attracting readers. And giving them more chances and windows to keep doing so.
Sticking with a volume and taking off the table the proven technique of relaunching to get new readers/ attract lapsed readers back is a commitment to your own publishing history and the number on the cover.
To me, the former is about how a character finds new readers and growing audience. The latter is about how a long box gets filled and stored.
"Litigating" or just being concise? Chances are high if it's something that stands out to me, I'll remember the issue number.
Isn't that part of our comic book culture?!
I see #1s strictly as a way to bump sales for an issue or two. After that, people are moving on. It's why titles seem to have short runs nowadays. I'd respect them more for committing to the titles instead of recycling them.
M
To me, doing the titles in seasons and being willing to relaunch is a commitment to there continuing to be a title being published with that character. It is a commitment to the idea that a given character is strong enough to keep attracting readers. And giving them more chances and windows to keep doing so.
Sticking with a volume and taking off the table the proven technique of relaunching to get new readers/ attract lapsed readers back is a commitment to your own publishing history and the number on the cover.
To me, the former is about how a character finds new readers and growing audience. The latter is about how a long box gets filled and stored.
I look at #1s as either a new character trying to get something started or a gimmick to sell variants & initial issues.
If I jump onto a title that's into high numbers, for whatever reason, I look at it as a solid character with a rich longevity. Chances are, I'll head back to the bins and try to get issues leading up to where I jumped on.
If I see issue #12 is volume 7, then I'll probably only hunt down issues 1-11 of volume 7. There's a reason why my run of Amazing Spider-man ends with volume 1.
Nowadays, people are perfectly willing to pay for a new Amazing Spider-Man for $6 a mere year and half after they bought the last one? Funny they're over 20 years gone and now the relaunch and re-numbering has become the new gimmick. Those gimmicky chromium covers are almost exactly the same thing, a sales boosting gimmick.
Except that one is a plus-size issue, with more comics content inside. So it is a higher price, yes, but for more comics. So if it is a cash grab, it is at least one that is selling you more story pages for the money.
I got the first one that stuck an unnecessary and unrelated Inhumans story in it. So does that count as more value?
It might seem obvious, but here’s the one gimmick that always works for a comic book in my opinion – great writing, beautiful art and a sense that you’ve spent your time and money well by reading that issue. For my tastes, just stamping #1 on the cover isn't a worthy gimmick and neither is a foil enhanced cover – the only books fans fondly remember are the ones that were truly worth reading.
Well, sure. No one is going to suggest that each issue shouldn't be as great as it can be. I think that goes without saying.
But these ideas aren't mutually exclusive-- when a new direction for a series is great, should it not get all the audience it can?
A case in point-- the Brubaker/ Epting/ etc. run of Captain America. Looked and felt different than what came before. Deserved a big audience, I think. One of the best runs on Cap I've ever read, and I have read a lot of them.
Maybe it would have got one if it started on an issue #whatever instead of a #1. Impossible to know as a counter-factual. But it got an audience, and one big enough to even let it stay out of a lot of the crossovers going at the time. Got to do its thing. I would guess that the #1 relaunch helped a comic with great writing and beautiful art, worth the time spent, get an audience to check it out, and choose to spend more time with it. If a #1 gimmick got some of those readers there, then they were probably glad for it when they found a book that good.
I would guess that the #50 foil stamped issue of Silver Surfer Volume 3 helped a comic with great writing and beautiful art, worth the time spent, get an audience to check it out, and choose to spend more time with it. If a foil stamped cover gimmick got some of those readers there, then they were probably glad for it when they found a book that good.
I would guess that the #50 foil stamped issue of Silver Surfer Volume 3 helped a comic with great writing and beautiful art, worth the time spent, get an audience to check it out, and choose to spend more time with it. If a foil stamped cover gimmick got some of those readers there, then they were probably glad for it when they found a book that good.
A gimmick is still a gimmick.
And not every comic deserves a relaunch.
and if SS 50 had been a better comic, and the foil cover got people there, then a good comic got read. I don't know if I read it, so I can't speak to it.
Some would say guest appearances are a gimmick.
You could play the same game as you did above, but insert Amazing Spider-Man vol 1 #1. Which heavily featured the FF to entice their readers to give this new Spider-Man solo title a try.
I hear that most people seemed to think that was money well spent, and it looks like a lot of those FF readers stuck around.
But, hey. A gimmick is still a gimmick. That Spider-Man got a new #1 and guest stars on the cover.
I wonder if anyone at the time was mad that Amazing Fantasy didn't get to stick around and get to higher numbers. It can be awkward to have your longbox go from AF 15 to ASM 1.
I would guess that the #50 foil stamped issue of Silver Surfer Volume 3 helped a comic with great writing and beautiful art, worth the time spent, get an audience to check it out, and choose to spend more time with it. If a foil stamped cover gimmick got some of those readers there, then they were probably glad for it when they found a book that good.
A gimmick is still a gimmick.
And not every comic deserves a relaunch.
and if SS 50 had been a better comic, and the foil cover got people there, then a good comic got read. I don't know if I read it, so I can't speak to it.
Some would say guest appearances are a gimmick.
You could play the same game as you did above, but insert Amazing Spider-Man vol 1 #1. Which heavily featured the FF to entice their readers to give this new Spider-Man solo title a try.
I hear that most people seemed to think that was money well spent, and it looks like a lot of those FF readers stuck around.
But, hey. A gimmick is still a gimmick. That Spider-Man got a new #1 and guest stars on the cover.
I wonder if anyone at the time was mad that Amazing Fantasy didn't get to stick around and get to higher numbers. It can be awkward to have your longbox go from AF 15 to ASM 1.
Wasn't Amazing Fantasy ending with #15 which is why Lee used his Spider-man idea?
Plus, in the 90s, Amazing Fantasy did return at issue #16, so technically, it wouldn't go from AF 15 to ASM 1.
I would guess that the #50 foil stamped issue of Silver Surfer Volume 3 helped a comic with great writing and beautiful art, worth the time spent, get an audience to check it out, and choose to spend more time with it. If a foil stamped cover gimmick got some of those readers there, then they were probably glad for it when they found a book that good.
A gimmick is still a gimmick.
And not every comic deserves a relaunch.
and if SS 50 had been a better comic, and the foil cover got people there, then a good comic got read. I don't know if I read it, so I can't speak to it.
Some would say guest appearances are a gimmick.
You could play the same game as you did above, but insert Amazing Spider-Man vol 1 #1. Which heavily featured the FF to entice their readers to give this new Spider-Man solo title a try.
I hear that most people seemed to think that was money well spent, and it looks like a lot of those FF readers stuck around.
But, hey. A gimmick is still a gimmick. That Spider-Man got a new #1 and guest stars on the cover.
I wonder if anyone at the time was mad that Amazing Fantasy didn't get to stick around and get to higher numbers. It can be awkward to have your longbox go from AF 15 to ASM 1.
Wasn't Amazing Fantasy ending with #15 which is why Lee used his Spider-man idea?
Plus, in the 90s, Amazing Fantasy did return at issue #16, so technically, it wouldn't go from AF 15 to ASM 1.
M
Of course, given that Jorney Into Mystery started with #83, longboxes would have been hell back then. (If they had existed.)
I would guess that the #50 foil stamped issue of Silver Surfer Volume 3 helped a comic with great writing and beautiful art, worth the time spent, get an audience to check it out, and choose to spend more time with it. If a foil stamped cover gimmick got some of those readers there, then they were probably glad for it when they found a book that good.
A gimmick is still a gimmick.
And not every comic deserves a relaunch.
and if SS 50 had been a better comic, and the foil cover got people there, then a good comic got read. I don't know if I read it, so I can't speak to it.
Some would say guest appearances are a gimmick.
You could play the same game as you did above, but insert Amazing Spider-Man vol 1 #1. Which heavily featured the FF to entice their readers to give this new Spider-Man solo title a try.
I hear that most people seemed to think that was money well spent, and it looks like a lot of those FF readers stuck around.
But, hey. A gimmick is still a gimmick. That Spider-Man got a new #1 and guest stars on the cover.
I wonder if anyone at the time was mad that Amazing Fantasy didn't get to stick around and get to higher numbers. It can be awkward to have your longbox go from AF 15 to ASM 1.
Wasn't Amazing Fantasy ending with #15 which is why Lee used his Spider-man idea?
Plus, in the 90s, Amazing Fantasy did return at issue #16, so technically, it wouldn't go from AF 15 to ASM 1.
M
Of course, given that Jorney Into Mystery started with #83, longboxes would have been hell back then. (If they had existed.)
Actually, isn't that when the 1st Marvel issue of the book was released? I believe its first issue was from Atlas, the precursor to Marvel. Technically, if you picked up issue 83 & wanted to issues 1-82, they do/did exist.
I guess you could argue if you picked up Spectacular Spider-man 140, you'd only be able able to find issues 134-139 because issues 1-133 were Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-man, but I'm not certain that'd be difficult to deduce (I didn't have any problems when I was filling gaps in my run).
I would guess that the #50 foil stamped issue of Silver Surfer Volume 3 helped a comic with great writing and beautiful art, worth the time spent, get an audience to check it out, and choose to spend more time with it. If a foil stamped cover gimmick got some of those readers there, then they were probably glad for it when they found a book that good.
A gimmick is still a gimmick.
And not every comic deserves a relaunch.
and if SS 50 had been a better comic, and the foil cover got people there, then a good comic got read. I don't know if I read it, so I can't speak to it.
Some would say guest appearances are a gimmick.
You could play the same game as you did above, but insert Amazing Spider-Man vol 1 #1. Which heavily featured the FF to entice their readers to give this new Spider-Man solo title a try.
I hear that most people seemed to think that was money well spent, and it looks like a lot of those FF readers stuck around.
But, hey. A gimmick is still a gimmick. That Spider-Man got a new #1 and guest stars on the cover.
I wonder if anyone at the time was mad that Amazing Fantasy didn't get to stick around and get to higher numbers. It can be awkward to have your longbox go from AF 15 to ASM 1.
Wasn't Amazing Fantasy ending with #15 which is why Lee used his Spider-man idea?
Plus, in the 90s, Amazing Fantasy did return at issue #16, so technically, it wouldn't go from AF 15 to ASM 1.
M
Of course, given that Jorney Into Mystery started with #83, longboxes would have been hell back then. (If they had existed.)
Actually, isn't that when the 1st Marvel issue of the book was released? I believe its first issue was from Atlas, the precursor to Marvel. Technically, if you picked up issue 83 & wanted to issues 1-82, they do/did exist.
I guess you could argue if you picked up Spectacular Spider-man 140, you'd only be able able to find issues 134-139 because issues 1-133 were Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-man, but I'm not certain that'd be difficult to deduce (I didn't have any problems when I was filling gaps in my run).
M
They would change names but continue old numbering on some titles. It was a way to skirt the cost of registering a new periodical. Something like that. Some regulatory burden for distribution that they wanted to save a buck on. Because it seems they figured, hey, they're just numbers. What's important is whether the new one out to buy gets bought.
EDIT- Correction, what I was thinking of is not how JIM started, you're right, that was Atlas. Rather it is that Thor Vol 1 starts with #126 or something like that. Because when Journey Into Mystery became Thor, they changed the name but kept the numbering from the Atlas days. I think there may have been other times they did that as well.
I would guess that the #50 foil stamped issue of Silver Surfer Volume 3 helped a comic with great writing and beautiful art, worth the time spent, get an audience to check it out, and choose to spend more time with it. If a foil stamped cover gimmick got some of those readers there, then they were probably glad for it when they found a book that good.
A gimmick is still a gimmick.
And not every comic deserves a relaunch.
and if SS 50 had been a better comic, and the foil cover got people there, then a good comic got read. I don't know if I read it, so I can't speak to it.
Some would say guest appearances are a gimmick.
You could play the same game as you did above, but insert Amazing Spider-Man vol 1 #1. Which heavily featured the FF to entice their readers to give this new Spider-Man solo title a try.
I hear that most people seemed to think that was money well spent, and it looks like a lot of those FF readers stuck around.
But, hey. A gimmick is still a gimmick. That Spider-Man got a new #1 and guest stars on the cover.
I wonder if anyone at the time was mad that Amazing Fantasy didn't get to stick around and get to higher numbers. It can be awkward to have your longbox go from AF 15 to ASM 1.
Wasn't Amazing Fantasy ending with #15 which is why Lee used his Spider-man idea?
Plus, in the 90s, Amazing Fantasy did return at issue #16, so technically, it wouldn't go from AF 15 to ASM 1.
M
Of course, given that Jorney Into Mystery started with #83, longboxes would have been hell back then. (If they had existed.)
Actually, isn't that when the 1st Marvel issue of the book was released? I believe its first issue was from Atlas, the precursor to Marvel. Technically, if you picked up issue 83 & wanted to issues 1-82, they do/did exist.
I guess you could argue if you picked up Spectacular Spider-man 140, you'd only be able able to find issues 134-139 because issues 1-133 were Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-man, but I'm not certain that'd be difficult to deduce (I didn't have any problems when I was filling gaps in my run).
M
They would change names but continue old numbering on some titles. It was a way to skirt the cost of registering a new periodical. Something like that. Some regulatory burden for distribution that they wanted to save a buck on. Because it seems they figured, hey, they're just numbers. What's important is whether the new one out to buy gets bought.
EDIT- Correction, I think I am thinking of a different early Marvel title, that did that change the name but keep the number trick. A few did that, but at this moment I am forgetting which ones. Others will know.
Close; issue 126 became The Mighty Thor, but that was after multiple issues of the book titled: Journey into Mystery with the Mighty Thor.
Continued numbering with a soft name transition like PP:TSSM to TSSM.
Tales is Suspense was similar; it transitioned into Tales of Suspense featuring the Power of Iron Man. By issue 100, it became Captain America, which was sharing the title with Stark.
Nowadays everyone can have an Amazing Spider-Man #1. And if you missed getting it 6 months ago, just wait a few more months, another will come along. My point was that this current trend of rapid relaunches is just another sales gimmick. The excuse that they don't want people "put off" by high issue numbers is just an excuse they use to implement the useful sales gimmick.
In March 2015 Spider-Gwen #2 sold 107,070 and that same year, November 2015 Spider-Gwen #2 (V2) sold only 62,209. I'm hoping the diminishing returns of the relaunches/re-numberings like this will end the practice before we're looking at series' whose volume numbers are higher than the actual number of issues the volume contains: "Hey, I'm looking for Amazing Spider-Man #11 volume #13. Do you have it?"
Just like a weekly television show, there's going to be normal attrition, but most people who are curious will check out something without thinking that they have to go all the way back to the beginning. And that's what the back-issue market is for (which the publishers get no action from). Besides, they can get on Marvel Unlimited and read that way. If it's really that big a deal, why put numbers on the cover at all? Just say the name of the story arc and what part it is, like a limited series... oh wait.
How about this for a new system?
Besides, if the comics would go back to the lost art of the one & done what difference would the numbering make at all? Just treat these like pamphlets or magazines.
Nowadays everyone can have an Amazing Spider-Man #1. And if you missed getting it 6 months ago, just wait a few more months, another will come along. My point was that this current trend of rapid relaunches is just another sales gimmick. The excuse that they don't want people "put off" by high issue numbers is just an excuse they use to implement the useful sales gimmick.
In March 2015 Spider-Gwen #2 sold 107,070 and that same year, November 2015 Spider-Gwen #2 (V2) sold only 62,209. I'm hoping the diminishing returns of the relaunches/re-numberings like this will end the practice before we're looking at series' whose volume numbers are higher than the actual number of issues the volume contains: "Hey, I'm looking for Amazing Spider-Man #11 volume #13. Do you have it?"
Just like a weekly television show, there's going to be normal attrition, but most people who are curious will check out something without thinking that they have to go all the way back to the beginning. And that's what the back-issue market is for (which the publishers get no action from). Besides, they can get on Marvel Unlimited and read that way. If it's really that big a deal, why put numbers on the cover at all? Just say the name of the story arc and what part it is, like a limited series... oh wait.
How about this for a new system?
Besides, if the comics would go back to the lost art of the one & done what difference would the numbering make at all? Just treat these like pamphlets or magazines.
And maybe also the lost art of having an exciting story moment on a cover, that in no way takes place in the story inside? Those were the days.
Or reprint stories published with new numbers as if they were new issues, as X-Men did for almost 30 issues in the late '60s.
I'm not saying that you have to like gimmicks. But they have been with Big 2 comics from the beginning. What gimmicks have worked can change with the times, sure. But I don't think there has ever been a time without some gimmick or other.
At the end of the day, if the comic entertains me enough to want to read it, I will. What games they play to get other people to try to read it, too, doesn't bother me. Though I will acknowledge that those that are more into the organizing and keeping of comics would be more bothered by this than I would. For me, it is all about the reading. So how they number the cover is just metadata. Packaging.
Comments
Vol 2 - Didn't read it
Vol 3 - Felt a bit like treading water for Spiderverse, and a way to beef up Ms Marvels profile
Vol 4 - Good to see Cloak & Dagger again, but I've never really warmed to Mr Negative as a villain.
Wow you guys are right! typing out Vol# was SO difficult and confusing. I think i need a nap. Damn you Marvel, i could have used all that extra time to learn a language, build a house or be snarky on the internet.
I'm guessing few people on this forum starting reading comic books and wasn't enticed enough to go further back.
Plus, new #1s for a title they just canceled to restart the series is just a fuck you, devoted reader.
M
Now imagine trying to put them in order in your longbox.
Everyone knows the big publishers re-volume and renumber because today's comic buyers like to buy new #1 issues (along with speculators) and new readers like to find new jumping on points. Now we're stuck with an indexer’s nightmare, without even mentioning "zero" issues, "1/2" issues and “1 Million” issues.
I read plenty of titles that stay in their original volume and don't reboot. But nobody is actually asking me "hey did you read Walking Dead #157? Or how 'bout that Saga #28!" It just doesn't happen, at least to me. I might have friends talk about a storyline by storyline name or say something like "I loved Hickman's run in Avengers" or "Batman has been great lately". But no one tends to call out individual issues past a new #1 by number. Maybe the exception being big issues of an event mini (saw a death that is this or such issue of Civil War) but that is a different thing.
I can get why lovers of publishing history and those that love organizing and storing their comics get frustrated by the remembering. But the idea that the remembering is a barrier to talking about comics feels to me like a pretend problem
It's not like at various "new directions" in my life (graduate from HS, college, new job, marriage, having kids, etc) I restart my age.
M
So yes, I do use issue numbers. I'd also ask for the issue number if someone else references a fact I want to look into. Someone tells me "issue 7", now I have to figure out which volume.
I've already gotten burned with that once when trying to fill a run.
M
M
But, here's the thing, whether you are checking someone else's references, or making one of your own, unless you're @Adam_Murdough, you are probably not going to pull a specific reference like Batman #439 off the top of your head. You're probably going to have to check. Heck, I would need Google and somebody's online database or article to even know whether something like that happened in Batman vs. in Detective Comics.
So, at that point, when you're on the database, or seeing a reference in a listicle about "Ten Times Batman Killed a Guy", or something like that. If you are looking up the number, then is it all that onerous to also note a volume number?
Again, I understand the frustration, but I don't see it as a problem that actually comes up often enough to feel like a compelling one. I can see how people would prefer if everything just kept the original number forever (even if, in the case of many long running titles, those early numbers ended up getting inflated or brought over from other titles, so the history of some of those numbers are shaky anyway. But to me this feels like a complaint in search of a problem.
On the flip side, as silly as the #1 relaunches can be, if it can give titles a chance to keep getting readers, and existing, I'll take it.
One example comes to mind-- BKV and Alphona's Runaways had a hard time finding an audience. The first volume ended. There was a hiatus. Then they relaunched with a new #1, and that second chance lasted long enough for them to tell their whole story. The additional time meant that the word of mouth and buzz had been building over time thanks to collected editions, and it being selected by a librarian group as a standout title, so that when that second #1 hit, more people came in to check it out. And, as someone that loved that title, I got to get the rest of the story.
And now, if someone 15 years later wants to now checkout Runaways, and follow that run across the two volumes is very easy to follow via the numbered collected editions, or the way that a Comixology will list and queue them for you.
Personally, it was more important to me that I got ~50 issue of BKV and Alphona Runaways than it was that their final issue was numbered #50.
Isn't that part of our comic book culture?!
I see #1s strictly as a way to bump sales for an issue or two. After that, people are moving on. It's why titles seem to have short runs nowadays. I'd respect them more for committing to the titles instead of recycling them.
M
Sticking with a volume and taking off the table the proven technique of relaunching to get new readers/ attract lapsed readers back is a commitment to your own publishing history and the number on the cover.
To me, the former is about how a character finds new readers and growing audience. The latter is about how a long box gets filled and stored.
The fashionable opinion these days is that if a kid walks into a comic store and sees “Journey Into Mystery” #645, an untrained reader may think that they can’t buy it, lest they MUST pick up 50 years’ worth of back-issues. #1 issues are also, undoubtedly, the biggest selling issues of a book, and so relaunching allows new readers a convenient jumping on point, and offers companies a nice boost in sales, albeit temporarily. But in the 1950’s, publishers didn’t believe that kids would take a chance on a comic that was “unproven,” and so many times would artificially inflate numbering to make it look like a book had more of a history than it actually did. So what's changed? The way we consume media? When I was a kid, I NEVER cared what issue number it was. If the cover grabbed me, I bought it. If I was already reading the series and liked it? I picked it up.
This is more than trying to help new readers find a jumping on point. If a company can sell 4 times more issues in one issue by numbering it #1 (and creating 10 different variant covers) and selling it to non-readers than it can expect to sell across the proceeding 4 issues to real readers, that company could be tempted to making as many appealing #1 issues as they can versus making quality books. The "issue #1" vs "issue #572" argument is legit but how many times can it play out? My comic shop doesn't ever seem to have many teenagers or kids in it so it's a non-issue in my LCS.
I'm actually saddened at Marvel's eagerness to constantly reintroduce their titles in shiny new packages instead of just letting them run as long as possible. I’m not necessarily averse to the idea of turning books volumes into something akin to tv series, but I do find it unnecessary and a little annoying to my old-school tastes as far as mainstream comics go. And don't get me started on those point 1 issues of limited series that Marvel has sometimes shoehorned into an ongoing series. Organizing my books is something 80% or more comic buyers/collectors do and it can be a problem. I have a feeling there a are lot of geeks out there like me who would have kept buying a lot of comics they had bought for years as much out of habit as enjoyment, but the constant renumbering has served as a great jumping-off point for me. How many others jumped off too? I'm getting no Marvel ongoing books these days and I don't care how many Marvel apologists insist it's no big deal.
It is the easiest thing in the world to stop reading a comic, and there can be countless reasons to do so. And there will always be attrition, and there always has been.
The harder thing is to get someone to jump in and try one. I don't fault them for doing what they can to make that happen.
PS- And- for those that need to affix labels to those they discuss with, to make them more comfortable with the idea that others might not agree with them- if that makes me a "Marvel Apologist", so be it.
Maybe if they had done a new #1 relaunch instead, they could have got the attention they wanted, without having to up the price for a silly cover, and make an existing, historic FF reader pay more to keep reading a title they collect, just because they were trying to attract speculators to a long-lived title.
Nowadays, people are perfectly willing to pay for a new Amazing Spider-Man for $6 a mere year and half after they bought the last one? Funny they're over 20 years gone and now the relaunch and re-numbering has become the new gimmick. Those gimmicky chromium covers are almost exactly the same thing, a sales boosting gimmick.
The other is a different kind of cover on the same amount of comics.
(Not that the latter didn't work for DC a year or two ago, when they did their all-shiny comic month. Though, to their credit, they also published normal priced, standard cover versions.)
It might seem obvious, but here’s the one gimmick that always works for a comic book in my opinion – great writing, beautiful art and a sense that you’ve spent your time and money well by reading that issue. For my tastes, just stamping #1 on the cover isn't a worthy gimmick and neither is a foil enhanced cover – the only books fans fondly remember are the ones that were truly worth reading.
If I jump onto a title that's into high numbers, for whatever reason, I look at it as a solid character with a rich longevity. Chances are, I'll head back to the bins and try to get issues leading up to where I jumped on.
If I see issue #12 is volume 7, then I'll probably only hunt down issues 1-11 of volume 7. There's a reason why my run of Amazing Spider-man ends with volume 1.
M
But these ideas aren't mutually exclusive-- when a new direction for a series is great, should it not get all the audience it can?
A case in point-- the Brubaker/ Epting/ etc. run of Captain America. Looked and felt different than what came before. Deserved a big audience, I think. One of the best runs on Cap I've ever read, and I have read a lot of them.
Maybe it would have got one if it started on an issue #whatever instead of a #1. Impossible to know as a counter-factual. But it got an audience, and one big enough to even let it stay out of a lot of the crossovers going at the time. Got to do its thing. I would guess that the #1 relaunch helped a comic with great writing and beautiful art, worth the time spent, get an audience to check it out, and choose to spend more time with it. If a #1 gimmick got some of those readers there, then they were probably glad for it when they found a book that good.
And not every comic deserves a relaunch.
Some would say guest appearances are a gimmick.
You could play the same game as you did above, but insert Amazing Spider-Man vol 1 #1. Which heavily featured the FF to entice their readers to give this new Spider-Man solo title a try.
I hear that most people seemed to think that was money well spent, and it looks like a lot of those FF readers stuck around.
But, hey. A gimmick is still a gimmick. That Spider-Man got a new #1 and guest stars on the cover.
I wonder if anyone at the time was mad that Amazing Fantasy didn't get to stick around and get to higher numbers. It can be awkward to have your longbox go from AF 15 to ASM 1.
Plus, in the 90s, Amazing Fantasy did return at issue #16, so technically, it wouldn't go from AF 15 to ASM 1.
M
I guess you could argue if you picked up Spectacular Spider-man 140, you'd only be able able to find issues 134-139 because issues 1-133 were Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-man, but I'm not certain that'd be difficult to deduce (I didn't have any problems when I was filling gaps in my run).
M
EDIT- Correction, what I was thinking of is not how JIM started, you're right, that was Atlas. Rather it is that Thor Vol 1 starts with #126 or something like that. Because when Journey Into Mystery became Thor, they changed the name but kept the numbering from the Atlas days. I think there may have been other times they did that as well.
Continued numbering with a soft name transition like PP:TSSM to TSSM.
Tales is Suspense was similar; it transitioned into Tales of Suspense featuring the Power of Iron Man. By issue 100, it became Captain America, which was sharing the title with Stark.
M
In March 2015 Spider-Gwen #2 sold 107,070 and that same year, November 2015 Spider-Gwen #2 (V2) sold only 62,209. I'm hoping the diminishing returns of the relaunches/re-numberings like this will end the practice before we're looking at series' whose volume numbers are higher than the actual number of issues the volume contains: "Hey, I'm looking for Amazing Spider-Man #11 volume #13. Do you have it?"
Just like a weekly television show, there's going to be normal attrition, but most people who are curious will check out something without thinking that they have to go all the way back to the beginning. And that's what the back-issue market is for (which the publishers get no action from). Besides, they can get on Marvel Unlimited and read that way. If it's really that big a deal, why put numbers on the cover at all? Just say the name of the story arc and what part it is, like a limited series... oh wait.
Besides, if the comics would go back to the lost art of the one & done what difference would the numbering make at all? Just treat these like pamphlets or magazines.
Or reprint stories published with new numbers as if they were new issues, as X-Men did for almost 30 issues in the late '60s.
I'm not saying that you have to like gimmicks. But they have been with Big 2 comics from the beginning. What gimmicks have worked can change with the times, sure. But I don't think there has ever been a time without some gimmick or other.
At the end of the day, if the comic entertains me enough to want to read it, I will. What games they play to get other people to try to read it, too, doesn't bother me. Though I will acknowledge that those that are more into the organizing and keeping of comics would be more bothered by this than I would. For me, it is all about the reading. So how they number the cover is just metadata. Packaging.