rw2516

What I remember is that every publication has some kind of number. To start a new publication (#1) requires applying for a number and there are costs associated with applying.

PhantomStranger

I agree with Todd McFarlane about the numbering. Growing up, it was very cool to think that a comic had been around for hundreds of issues. I think the collector's market kind of killed that idea, since #1 issues featuring new characters often ended up being the most valuable.

Spiderbite

But hasn't the collector's market in comics pretty much died? Are #1's really worth that much anymore unless it is something super special or rare (like Walking Dead #1)?

I haven't really kept up with new releases since all of my stuff is mostly digital and everything I have is from the 1930's to around 2005 and I honestly have more comics than I can read at this point. I have become a digital comic horder but that is a topic for another thread.

I have been going thru several Marvel series to read and load up on my new tablet and thought it was funny that I found a mistake on an official release. The official House Of M release from a few years ago has two wrong issues of X-Calibur right off the bat (they put right issues numbers of the wrong volume). So even Marvel can't get their shit straight.

And I know this is a separate issue but lord, what a pain in the ass to actually group together an "official" reading order of Marvel's Civil War. So many crossovers going on at the same time but being released at different times that didn't always jive with the storyline. It seemed everyone has a different order for properly reading the Civil War series.

I have been going thru and trying to read every Spider-Man comic is order according to the official "Spider-Man Chronicle" and even that can get wacky in the early years. It seems they would just release these little one-shots like "Giant Size Spider-Man #1" and the like here and there. I know I am screwed once I get to Web Of Spider-Man and have to balance it along with PP Spectacular SM and all the other one-shots goings on in the 80's. But I will likely be an old man or dead by that time the way I am creeping along in my reading.

Xiroteus

I thought most of that went away years ago.

I used to be a bit down on mini series a long time ago because I wanted ongoings yet for quite some time I'm perfect good with mini and maxi series, I like when a story can be complete as not everything has to go on forever. (Different for Marvel and DC of course)

It's such a fluke these days. Ultimate Spider-Man 1 even surprised me back when it came out, still rare for that to happen.

They are even confused themselves!

kodave

I don't collect single issues as a trade waiter, so maybe my opinion is irrelevant, but I say who cares?

Yes, it might be hard to figure out what issues you need to collect a certain title or run now that there's all sorts of numbering nonsense, like the double or triple numbered Marvel NOW books, the decimal points, etc. But there are a ton of sites on the internet that lay out the collecting order for you and explain what is going on in each title.

So if you've got 5 minutes to spare, it's not hard. In 5 minutes you can figure out the numbering/renumbering/title change nonsense of say, Hickman's Fantastic Four/FF run.

If you walk into a comic book shop blind and just decide "Hey, I'd like to buy Hickman's entire Fantastic Four run," then of course you're going to have some level of confusion if the salesperson isn't knowledgeable. But in the internet age, literally all of the information is at our finger tips.

Some of the numbering gimmicks could be helpful. Like when Marvel was using the Point Ones to signify a new jumping on point, which they stuck with for all of a minute until writers/creators just decided to keep going like the Point One issues meant nothing special. Marvel is now taking it to the extreme of seemingly renumbering every book every year. That could be useful if there's a new creative team (like say, the switch from Remender's Uncanny X-Force to whoever is writing it now), but if there isn't, it just seems like a gimmick (like renumbering Waid's Daredevil or Deconnick's Captain Marvel).

Xiroteus

I would go with who cares because everyone has an opinion.

That's what I did however I was looking into dozens of titles and some were much worse than others.

Just looking for one thing is easy enough when you know what you want. (which most would know)

The chromium covers of 2014!

Just a simple volume number would help a lot in the future. Sometimes they do on the inside cover with information yet not always.

resinrats

If I was collecting the books were the numbers kept resetting and then adding in multiple books to get a super high number, that would drive me insane. How do you organize that, especially mutliple books that ran alongside now a part of the #? What about years from now when someone is going back to try to collect? That would just make me give up before getting started trying to figure out when a issue takes place to read in order.


They should really put the year on the cover if they insist on renumbering the issues. At least that could be used to keep them in order. For example, Fantastic Four 24, 2014. So if there have been 5 issues of Fantastic Four 24, at least you know this one was the 2014 version.

Trevor

I'd be on board a law to make the year (and even month) be mandatory on every cover.

Spiderbite

Yeah, that a a good idea. You can usually get the year on the first interior page of the comic but always having it on the cover would be ideal. I don't know why it wasn't always done that way. There are some years in the past which had the years on the covers but it was never consistent.

As kodave said, you can use the internet to get reading orders but the least the comic book companies could do is try to make it a little more consumer friendly if they insist on doing this bullshit. I used to always use the Overstreet guides years before but now that there are so many different volumes of the same titles, using those guides can sometimes be confusing.

fujishig

It's true that #1s aren't as collectible anymore, and I don't think anyone is under the impression that they are still in the speculator age. But the fact is, that for the most part, #1 issues have the highest number of orders, that decreases by a lot by #2, and unless there's just an insane amount of either hype or word of mouth (stuff like Saga or Walking Dead) that number just keeps diminishing and diminishing until there's a creative team change or a renumbering or both (honestly this is also a product of the preordering system, where you don't really see the numbers until you're three months or so into a series, so retailers usually order 1s heavily). So it's easier to just relaunch the series and start from scratch.

There is a weird psychological barrier people have to certain things. I agree that miniseries tend to "not count" regardless of what happens in them, and there's a resistance to collecting them monthly and not just waiting for the trade because you know there's a finite ending. There is also the thinking that it's hard to jump on to numbered books, and this is (IMHO) mainly because of the whole write for the trade era and decompressed storytelling. Much easier to just relaunch the new jumping on point/new creative team/new direction with a new numbering system, which is a kind of universal sign of a jumping on point.

Besides, what do they care about back issues? They don't make any money off of those. If it's too confusing for people, well, they'll make money reselling those issues to you in trade form.

Xiroteus

That's likely what it comes down to. They have no stake in the back issue market and will just release a trade or hardcover to collect whatever stories they want to. However they likely have a bit of a stake in the digital back issue market.

Supermallet

The easiest way to do it is just go to the trades, but I've been going through individual issues online, and the numbering on some of these make my head spin. I read five or six issues of volume one of Guardians of the Galaxy, not realizing that this was a totally different team than the one featured in the movie (although it ended up being helpful because volume 2 refers back to characters and events from volume one). And that's just a basic volume numbering problem. Things can get much more confusing.

I say just run a series. If it gets canceled and comes back years later, keep the same numbering. Then when someone says they want Alan Moore's run on Swamp Thing, anyone with a little knowledge can say, "Oh, that's issues 24-36" or whatever. Or if you want a specific run of Fantastic Four, you can easily find out that it's numbers 263-287. No worrying about which year it might have come from, which volume, which edition, whatever. It would make life so much easier.

Xiroteus

Even though some would wonder where this high number issue came from out of no where I don't think I care. At least it would make since because the release date does not matter as long as the numbers are in order.

Hulk over the last few years, wow, not sure they could confuse that name changing odd numbering series anymore if they tried their best.

Supermallet

And I don't say this too often, but McFarlane is right on the money. The publishers are losing more readers than they gain with these gimmicks, because it shows a basic lack of respect for the loyal readers. It says we value new readers, most of whom we won't retain for more than a few issues, over the people who bother to come back month after month, despite our shitty editorial decisions and lack of direction.

leahcim

I buy comics to read, not collect. Numbering means nothing.

Gimme a $2.29 issue of X-men at DCBS over a $6 or more variant or numbered edition any day. I mean just to say "hey look, my issue is rarer than your"........comon!

Xiroteus

I'm just taking about standard issue numbers and how confusing they have made everything over the years. Variants etc... are something else I have not looked at it well over a decade.

Supermallet

The only time I care about a variant is if I think the cover art is better than the standard issue. For example, the Maxx reissues have new cover art that so far has been inferior to the originals covers. The original covers are being released as variants (luckily at the same price), and those are the ones I go for.

Josh-da-man

My main gripe against variant covers is when there are variant regular covers. The 1:100 covers don't really bother me, but when multiple 'regular' covers do, especially when they're released in a ratio and not orderable separately.

IDW's Angel: After the Fall was particularly bad in this regard, when they would release the covers 1:1 with one cover usually being butt-ugly. I would like to be able to order the cover I want instead of treating it like a lottery.

I don't mind if I can order the cover I want, the way DH currently does their Buffy and Serenity books and Avatar does with their regular/wrap/torture/gore/rape variants, but it can be a pain in the ass to find the cover you want if you're trying to buy back issues.

madcougar

It's strange when Todd McFarlane is the voice of reason.

fujishig

I don't think they care that much about the digital back issue market. If they did, why still broker through comixology?

I don't think the numbering thing is what's losing them fans. Like I said before, fans eat it up, otherwise they'd stop doing it. That #1 issue is still like a shiny glittery object to the captivated fans. It's probably preventing them from gaining many new ones, though.

PhantomStranger

I'll come out and say that Marvel completely lost me as a customer with their crazy numbering schemes. Actual comic book purchases that ended up going to their competitors. I don't have the time to follow their constantly shifting mess of mini-series, one-offs, re-numbered spin-offs, etc.

sinned

I wonder why DC is often times lumped with Marvel when it comes to re-numbering. They did a re-numbering back in the 80's and then another one on 2011 when they did the New 52. That's it. Marvel on the other hand seems to do it on a yearly basis. How many Captain America #1's have we had over the past few years?

The other thing that bugs me is that a new # 1 should mean a clean slate, that new readers should be able to come in. Well, the new Hulk # 1 storyline starts off with "Who Shot Bruce Banner?", an event that occurred in the last issue of the previous series, meaning if you want to know what's going on you'll need to read back issues.

Marvel often says "it's just a number, it doesn't matter", but in that case why not go with a dual numbering system? A big # 1 for the new fans and a smaller legacy numbering system at the bottom for the older fans. It's a win-win solution but for some reason they won't go for it.

Obi-Wanma

They actually did that at one time, and then they just stopped for some reason.

Xiroteus

DC had a couple odd number moments, Adventures turning back into Superman which was not horrible because the numbers stayed the same. Adventure comics and Wonder Woman stopped at 44 then had 600-614 just so they could hit that 600. It would have just been better to have issue 45 and say the 600th issue of Wonder Woman.

It seems like that stopped that once they hit some major number again.

sinned

Another thing, we know that Marvel is consistently re-launching #1 issues because of the boost in sales. But I wager that the boost in sales is not because comic fans are flocking to the comic stores clamoring for the new #1 issue. It's because for every # 1 issue they put out retailer variants which makes the retailer have to order a huge number in order to get the variant which they can then turn around and sell for a huge profit. So it doesn't matter if I have 50 extra copies of Hulk # 1 that I can't sell (a loss of $100) if I get a few variants that I can sell for $200.