So there are two versions of this comic in the database.

Standard, Direct Edition:



Newsstand Edition (Flipbook with Over the Edge #1):



Now THIS:

"/>

Appears to be the same indicia as the Direct Edition, but the words "Direct Edition" are missing from the UPC Box. A quick search of ebay listings show that there are more copies of this issue with this problem.

Should this be added as a variant, like when other comics have info omitted from the cover and then is corrected mid-way through the print run?

Maybe they made a stand alone newsstand edition?

Well at first I thought the UPC box was identical to the direct version, but upon closer inspection the standard direct has a serial number of 59606 04272 2. This version I just uncovered has a serial number of 59606 04500 6. But if it's a newsstand edition, where's the Curtis seal (which is on all the flipbooks)? I wish I had a standard direct to compare the insides.

Flipping through the comic, I notice that except for the back cover and inside front and back cover, all the ads are Marvel house ads. Does anyone know if that was standard for all the direct editions of this title at the time? Otherwise, it might mean it was used for a promotional something or other.

But I'm just speculating.

I've seen that book in the 3 packs you can buy from the dollar store

Can you confirm which version you saw, down to the UPC serial numbers?

Thumbed through a Direct Edition at the local comic shop yesterday. Looks to be the same as the unknown variant I have. Same ads.

I'm intrigued with Thundercron's description, but stumped.

As long as we're speculating...

It might have been packaged with a toy. These days, comics packaged this way are more obviously not originals, but things might have been different then.

It might have been packaged with a completely different magazine. I was looking at an Ultraverse comic the other day. In it was an ad for an issue of Spin magazine (anybody remember that one?) sold in a plastic bag with a special Ultraverse comic.

My favorite idea, though, is that it was packaged for a third distribution channel (not newsstand, not direct sales). Not that I was paying much attention back then to anything but comic-shop comics, but I have seen (in back-issue bins) cardboard retail packaging apparently intended to hold four or five comics for sale as a unit. It is my impression that stores like Wal-Mart sold these. Perhaps the curious UPC area was meant to distinguish the comic from the other two dominant distribution channels.

But, that's just speculation....

Hey Outcast! I'm serious when I say I look forward to your input on the matter of oddball variants. Let me respond to your thoughts on the matter:

1. Packaged with a toy: I remember when this comic came out, and I was also heavy into the Marvel Toy Biz action figures at the time. I can tell you that the toys were not ever packaged with comics back then. This didn't happen until 2000 or 2001 or so, when the Marvel Legends came along and were actually big enough to allow a comic to be packed with the figure in the first place. I suppose it's possible this came with some other piece of merchandising, like the Pressman board games. But even then, the Pressman variants are easily distinguished from the standard version of the comic being reprinted. Not the case here.

2. Packaged with Spin or Dirt Magazine: I thought you hit on the solution here, as Marvel was doing this cross-promotion at the time the Professor Xavier and the X-Men comic was released. But a quick look at other issues in the CCL database clearly show that those magazines were polybagged with the standard direct edition of those comics. So no luck with that theory.

3. Sold in multipacks: As far as I know, there really have been no official, sanctioned-on-a-distributor-level comics sold in multi-packs in the last twenty years or so (save for a few fancy, prestige collections sold through comic shops in the mid-1990's). All the multi-packs I've ever seen (be it at Wal-Mart, Toys R' Us, or Dollar Tree) in that time appear to be back issues packaged together by an entrepreneur somewhere (I myself have some two-packs that contain one book form the late 1970's, and the other book from the 1990's). So I really don't think these were from a multi-pack.

Any other ideas? Anybody??

I am in agreement with you Thunder. Not a toy insert or prepack.

My guess would be a 2nd print. I would check the Indicia to see where it was printed. Much like the Spiderman 2099 2nd print it may just have been printed elsewhere. Check to see where the Direct was printed then this copy.

Only other guess would be a giveaway, but most giveaways are rare so seeing as they have so many listed on ebay doubting that one.

I think this is just the regular newsstand version whereas the flipbook versions were considered deluxe. If you look on ebay you'll see a ton of these so they were definitely not giveaways. Marvel was probably experimenting with price points and seeing if people would rather get the flipbook and spend more money or if there was more interest in splitting up the stores for a cheaper price.

You could always ask one of the sellers on ebay to give you the information you're after or just buy one since it's so cheap.

@ CCComics:

The newsstand theory seems improbable to me. For one thing, Thundercron showed us a scan of a newsstand edition, and its UPC area is notably different from the UPC area of the comic he is asking about. For another thing, UPC barcodes on newsstand comics consistently (like, from 1976–2013 consistently) have two digits in the rightmost block, not the five digits in Thundercron's example.

@ Thundercron:

Thanks for your kind words. I enjoy looking at these oddball items, and trying to properly categorize them, but ultimately I am relying on the same observations and inferences as everyone else.

The cardboard-packaged multi-packs I am thinking of might be the "fancy, prestige collections" you referred to, or they might be of the entrepreneurial variety you mentioned. I really don't know. The impression I got from a brief examination, months ago, was of professional printing and packaging, but I can't say that I specifically remember a publisher's trademark on the package.

However, I do recall rather vividly another case that suggests (to me) that DC engaged in innovative retail packaging. Some years ago, I dated a fan of (among other things) Bugs Bunny. After hanging around me for a few months, she started collecting Bugs Bunny (and other) comics. One day, she came up with this one:



I was surprised because I didn't know it existed. It was clearly not a newsstand comic (no UPC, no color banding on the top edges of the pages). And I didn't remember seeing it offered by DC via direct sales (I think I even checked old Previews to verify; it was never listed). If it wasn't a newsstand comic, and it wasn't a direct sales comic, then what the hell could it be?

In time, my girlfriend located the other two issues in the series. We both examined all three issues for clues. Nada.

Finally, years later, she spotted an auction on eBay for a package containing two comics, of which one was an issue in this series. IIRC, the other was a Batman prestige comic, possibly Batman-Spawn. The eBay auction talked about "original packaging" and such. Taken at face value, the description in the auction accounted much better for the existence of the Bugs Bunny Monthly comic than anything else my girlfriend or I ever came up with.

You may not regard this as proof. Truth be told, I might be a little skeptical if I were hearing this from someone else. But for me, this is reliable evidence that DC engaged in non-newsstand, non-direct marketing, and it's not much of a stretch for me to think that Marvel might have done so also.

Maybe we're all just thinking about this too hard. Maybe it's possible that the initial printing of the Direct Edition was the version I originally posted about, but was missing the words "Direct Edition" from the UPC box. The problem was corrected midway through the printing, with a completely new Direct Edition UPC box pasted up (with a new serial number). This would explain why there are many available on sites like ebay, both the standard direct and this oddball variant.

I agree that a printing error is also a perfectly credible explanation (although the change in barcode number does give me some pause).

Have you looked at how Mile-High Chuck lists these three versions? Tragically clueless.

Just checked MileHigh listings. Wow. For #2-7, he has three versions of each listed, but two of those versions are identical double-listings.

Anyway, I don't think anyone has any clear-cut ideas of what this variant could be. Bottom line--should it be allowed in the database? The differing barcode numbers indicates (to me, anyway), that's it's a different version/release. How should it be added to the database? Just add the barcode difference in the caption?

Mile High is horrible about updating pics.

Ok after rereading this and looking at Mile high here is my guess.

#1 was released for $0.99 at comic stores
a $1.95 edition was released at newstands
a $1.95 edition was released at comic stores, ie a 2nd printing

No...

We have two .99 versions, and the $1.95 flipbook version released at the newsstands. One of the .99 versions is the standard direct edition; the other version lacks the "direct edition" words in the barcode, but retains the number sequence and layout similar to normal direct editions, although the exact numbers in the barcode differ from either of the other versions.

Ah did not see anywhere the 1.95 was a flipbook.So easy
$0.99 direct
$0.99 newstand
1.95 flipbook variant

They did the same thing with Untold tales of spiderman and few more series. Marvel probably wasnt selling enough of the flipbooks so they added some cheap ones as well

If I'm not mistaken, the 99-cent comics (of both Professor Xavier and the X-Men AND Untold Tales of Spider-Man) were never offered via the newsstand. I suspect that the distributor made it known that, in 1995, a comic at that price could not be profitably distributed. The higher-priced flip book is the version that got newsstand distribution (as evidenced by the format of the UPC barcode, with the two-digit rightmost block; also by the off-sale color code on the top edge of my copies of Untold Tales of Spider-Man flip book).

The question is, why does there exist a comic that appears in every way to be a direct-sales comic, but lacks the specific words "Direct Sales" in the UPC area? Printer's error, corrected during the press run, is a possibility; innovative distribution is another. Conclusive evidence remains elusive.