Fin Fang Foom wrote:

Are you saying you have personal knowledge of multiple Archives volumes that had much lower initial orders than other Archives released around the same time that came back to outsell those other Archives within the span of a few years?


It isn't always the sales volume that matters -- in this case, it might have been an indication of sustained interest. Slow, but steady sales.


NTT #1 didn't get a second printing until the last couple of years, one of the longest waits ever.


Without any idea what the original print run was (relative to any other book), you can't really use that as a guide.

Again, it all comes down to the question of how useful the initial order estimates in determining, well, too much more than how many books might have been ordered, initially! There is so much more information, so much more context that we're just not privy to.

Well, I'm sure you're right. Archive publishing and sales is no doubt incredibly complex and beyond my grasp. I'm foolish to even generally speculate about them based only on part of the sales picture, inside info from retailers I know, comments I've collected from DC staffers, internet polls of 600+ customers, 12 years of interacting with Greenberger, Brevoort and others on-line. Without COMPLETE information and context, everything I "know" is most likely wrong, insufficient to provide even general indications. Patterns that haven't deviated in 10 years? Meaningless.

Seeing initial sales for Bronze Age books consistently at 10%-30% below Silver Age books is meaningless, because Bronze Age books could somehow have astronomical re-orders, or initial sales could be consistently and grossly underestimated for Bronze Age books only.

DC reps saying that Silver Age Archives outsell and subsidize other Ages, or that Legion Archives are unlikely to continue because they've reached the point where too many collectors already have the (affordable) originals is meaningless. These reps could be lying, exaggerating or maybe their comments were taken out of context.

Several/most Bronze Age volumes taking twice as long to see second printings as Silver Age volumes is meaningless because it's possible Bronze Age volumes consistently have much higher print runs.

Retailers, including TOW and a number of others that I know personally, who say that they NEVER see re-orders in significant enough quantities to enable a book that sells poorly its first month to surpass one that sells strongly its first month are either mistaken, lying or not representative.

When I clearly state that I'm NOT debating overall sales profitability or sustained interest, but rather whether INDICATIONS are that Silver Age sells faster, and therefore GENERALLY BETTER than Bronze, and whether a Bronze Archive with 2200 estimated initial sales is LIKELY to soon pass by a Silver Age volume issued at virtually the same time with 3800 estimated initial sales, your answer is "it isn't always the sales volume that matters -- in this case, it might have been an indication of sustained interest. Slow, but steady sales." Huh? I already conceded that it might not matter - I'm only saying that INDICATIONS are that Bronze Age sales are slower or lower, and that it MIGHT matter with regards to long-term sustainability of the Archives and Masterworks programs. And that's not just navel-gazing, it's being interested in the numbers because I hope the programs continue.

Anyway, I'm with Osgood. I don't want to read your posts, or interact with you any longer. But feel free to continue to disagree and condescend. It isn't you, it's us.