Pick a number, any number...

[JohnMayo]

A question that came up during the Previews Teleconference this month was if any Marvel title had gone from the original issue numbering to a new numbering, flipped back to the original and then gone to yet another new numbering and flipped back a second time.

Fantastic Four was renumbered and reverted to the original numbering during the Waid run and is now get renumbered again with FF #1 to presumably revert back to the original numbering with #600 a year or so from now.

Will that be the first time that has happened or has it happened before?

[Trev]

A question that came up during the Previews Teleconference this month was if any Marvel title had gone from the original issue numbering to a new numbering, flipped back to the original and then gone to yet another new numbering and flipped back a second time.

Fantastic Four was renumbered and reverted to the original numbering during the Waid run and is now get renumbered again with FF #1 to presumably revert back to the original numbering with #600 a year or so from now.

Will that be the first time that has happened or has it happened before?

Are we talking just about the title or the particular volume? Are the volumes switching?

I have to think Cap or WW are likely candidates, though I don't know if Cap ever went back to original and then renumbered other than the current.

Does it count if it's just one anniversary issue or does it need to be a run? What about Adventure, which had dual numbers for a while and now I think just has the original numbering.

btw, I was reading description of a podcast today and they talked about the original numbering as the 'classic' numbering. Kind of like that phrase.

[JohnMayo]

I'm thinking specifically about a series that went from the original "classic" number, restarted with a #1 and ran for a while, reverted back to the "classic" numbering, ran for a while, restarted a second time with a new #1, ran for a while and then reverted for a second time to the "classic" numbering.

The key point is the reverting multiple times to the "classic" numbering after trying to take advantage of the sales bump from a new #1.

The volume distinction is meaningless in my opinion which the volume number usually bumps up with the new #1.

With Wonder Woman, that title had the "classic" numbering, restarted wit ha new #1, ran for a long time, restarted a second time with a new #1 and then reverted to the "classic" numbering. Since it only reverted the once to the original numbering scheme, it doesn't really count. Likewise for Captain America which has had four #1s across five "volumes" (what ever that term volume really means in this context) but only reverted to the original numbering scheme once.

(And I'm torn on the "classic" numbering phrase since it seems to be an endorsement of sorts of the renumbering practice.

[spid]

I do not have a problem with the renumbering. People like to jump at anniversary or #1 issues. Until the buying public changes its practices then the companies can not be faulted for using those habits to get people to try out books.

[Trev]

I do not have a problem with the renumbering. People like to jump at anniversary or #1 issues. Until the buying public changes its practices then the companies can not be faulted for using those habits to get people to try out books.

that's true -- used to be that the public mistrusted low numbers and so titles would change, but keep the numbering of the previous title. The industry has always numbered according to what sells, I think.

I like higher numbers on older titles, not because it is a measure of quality, but bec. it is one of longevity and commitment to a character/team.

I think there are probably now only a few titles that do/could exist with such numbering, aren't there?:

* WW
* Superman
* Action
* Detective
* ASM
* Batman
* X-men
* FF
* Avengers
* JLA
* Flash
* GL
* Hulk
* Cap

And a few of those the numbering didn't start with the same title we know today.

Anything else imo can be numbered however they want, but for some reason I want the numbering on these to remain pure and it annoys me when it is otherwise.

[BobBretall]

From Trev's list (adding a couple he missed):

These have not yet diverted from their "classic" numbering
Action Comics
Batman
Detective Comics
Uncanny X-Men- Started life as X-Men, canceled briefly after #66, was picked back up with #67 and reprints ran thru #93 when it started the modern team as the "all new all different X-Men" in #94. The title picked up the "Uncanny" tagline on #115 Nov 1978

These have stopped/restarted and not yet been reverted to "classic" numbering:
Flash - Golden Age "Flash Comics" stopped at 104 in Feb 1949. Silver Age Flash picked up at 105 in March 1950 (but there were no intervening issue #s). It stopped at #350 in Oct 1985 and has not yet been reverted to "classic" numbering
Green Lantern - Silver Age started at #1 (did not continue Golden Age #ing) and ran 205 issues thru Oct 1986. 1990 series ran 181 issues from June 1990 thru Nov 2004. Current series started in Jly 2005 and is up to #61 as we speak.
Justice League - Has had numerous series over the years, but DC has not yet tried to pull them all together to put a large "artificial" issue number on something.


Diverted and returned (DC)
Superman - Stopped after #423 in Sept 1983, returned to "classic" with #650 in May 2006
Wonder Woman - Stopped after #329 in Feb 1986, returned to "classic" with #600 in Aug 2010


Diverted and returned (Marvel)
Amazing Spider-Man - Stopped after #441 in Nov 1998, returned to "classic" with #500 in Dec 2003
Captain America - Started with #100, continuing #ing from Tales of Suspense. Stopped after #454 in Aug 1996, returned to "classic" with #600 in Aug 2009
Iron Man - Ran 332 issues thru Sep 1986, will return to "classic" with #500 in Feb 2011 timeframe (next issue)
Thor - Started with #126, continuing #ing from Journey into Mystery. Stopped after #502 in Sep 1996, returned to "classic" with #600 in Apr 2009


Marvel "Contenders" (have stopped original #ing more than once
Avengers- Stopped after #402 in Sep 1996, returned to "classic" with #500 in Sep 2004 and stopped after 503 (Avengers Disassembled) in Dec 2004. Not attempt to re-start #ing again, but we're not up to a point to do a #600 yet, so we'll see.
Daredevil - Stopped after #380 in Oct 1998, returned to "classic" with #500 in Oct 2009 and stopped after 512 (Shadowland) in Feb 2011, being renamed to "Black Panther Man Without Fear" as of #513
Incredible Hulk - Started with #102, continuing #ing from Tales to Astonish. Stopped after #474 in Mar 1999, returned to "classic" with #600 in Sep 2009 and stopped after #611 (WW Hulk) in Oct 2010, being renamed to "Incredible Hercules" as of #612. "Incredible Hulks" (plural) picked up same #ing with #612 in Nov 2010, so it looks like Marvel is ignoring the Hercules issues (as they should).

NOTE: Marvel has shown a tendency to renumber as a "stunt" only to pull the plug again a few issues later, not in any kind of sincere desire to return to the original #ing.

AND THEN THERE is FF:
Fantastic Four - Stopped after #416 in Sept 1996, returned to "classic" with #500 in Sept 2003. Will stop again after #588, to start up FF #1. Our Theory is that they will go back to original #ing again with #600 (the first title to do so a 2nd time), but will they change the #ing soon thereafter again like with Avengers/DD/Hulk???

The only title that seems like it can beat FF to the punch is the Incredible Hulk, if it drops the "s" and keeps the #ing from the Incredible Hulks issues before FF #600 hits the stands in a year or so.

[ctowner1]

AND THEN THERE is FF:
Fantastic Four - Stopped after #416 in Sept 1996, returned to "classic" with #500 in Sept 2003. Will stop again after #588, to start up FF #1. Our Theory is that they will go back to original #ing again with #600 (the first title to do so a 2nd time), but will they change the #ing soon thereafter again like with Avengers/DD/Hulk???

The only title that seems like it can beat FF to the punch is the Incredible Hulk, if it drops the "s" and keeps the #ing from the Incredible Hulks issues before FF #600 hits the stands in a year or so.

How does Heroes Reborn play into this? Did FF revert back to "classic" numbering once Heroes Reborn ended, and then go into the Waid numbering from #1, and then return to classic numbering? Or did it go straight to the Waid run from Heroes reborn? I'm thinking the latter, but want to confirm.

e
L nny

[BobBretall]

How does Heroes Reborn play into this? Did FF revert back to "classic" numbering once Heroes Reborn ended, and then go into the Waid numbering from #1, and then return to classic numbering? Or did it go straight to the Waid run from Heroes reborn? I'm thinking the latter, but want to confirm.

e
L nny

Heroes reborn only lasted a year. That was followed by a 70 issue run that started with "Heroes Return" and which Mark Waid wrote the last 10 issues of. Waid then wrote #500 - 524 of the series after it returned to it's original #ing, which gives him a 3 year run in total.

BTW.... All the books that were interrupted by Heroes Reborn started over with new #1s after they canned Heroes Reborn.

[ctowner1]

How does Heroes Reborn play into this? Did FF revert back to "classic" numbering once Heroes Reborn ended, and then go into the Waid numbering from #1, and then return to classic numbering? Or did it go straight to the Waid run from Heroes reborn? I'm thinking the latter, but want to confirm.

e
L nny

Heroes reborn only lasted a year. That was followed by a 70 issue run that started with "Heroes Return" and which Mark Waid wrote the last 10 issues of. Waid then wrote #500 - 524 of the series after it returned to it's original #ing, which gives him a 3 year run in total.

BTW.... All the books that were interrupted by Heroes Reborn started over with new #1s after they canned Heroes Reborn.

oh..right. For some reason I remembered the new series starting w/Waid, when it did not. Looked it up - Scott Lobdell started it off for a short run.

e
L nny

[JohnMayo]

I do not have a problem with the renumbering. People like to jump at anniversary or #1 issues. Until the buying public changes its practices then the companies can not be faulted for using those habits to get people to try out books.

While I'm not a fan of renumbering, I'm not in favor of it either. I get that the companies need to promote their material but it would be like next year the CW starting up Smallville with a new "first season" yet keeping pretty much the same cast and crew.

There is a dishonestly to the practice of renumbering for the short term with the clear intention of going back to the original numbering within a dozen or so issues. I mean, come on, these days that is only about two story arcs.

The practice also shows a serious problem in how comics are marketed if they need to focus on the issue numbering instead of the contents of the comic.

[spid]

In television they do things like stunt casting, move the characters to a different location, or get a new job. To me that is the same thing as renumbering a comic on the title side. I do not find it dishonest when Matt Damon or Salma Hayek become semi regulars on 30 Rock for a ratings boost. I am not going to get mad at Marvel or DC for essentially doing the same thing with renumbering.

[ctowner1]

I do not have a problem with the renumbering. People like to jump at anniversary or #1 issues. Until the buying public changes its practices then the companies can not be faulted for using those habits to get people to try out books.

While I'm not a fan of renumbering, I'm not in favor of it either. I get that the companies need to promote their material but it would be like next year the CW starting up Smallville with a new "first season" yet keeping pretty much the same cast and crew.

There is a dishonestly to the practice of renumbering for the short term with the clear intention of going back to the original numbering within a dozen or so issues. I mean, come on, these days that is only about two story arcs.

The practice also shows a serious problem in how comics are marketed if they need to focus on the issue numbering instead of the contents of the comic.

I'm not a fan of renumbering either, even though I understand their perceived need for it. OTOH, I kind of DO like the return to the old numbering. Even though it's messy, it was NICE to see FF in the 500's, and it will be nice to see it in the 600's some day, as well.

So I guess the question is - even if you're not a fan of renumbering from 1, are you a fan of renumbering BACK? And I would say that I am.

And once you're a fan of renumbering back, the next question is: are you a fan of re-re-re-numbering back? And for the same reason as above, I am (i.e., even if FF is going back to 1 from the original numbering again, I want them to some day bring it back to "classic" numbering, despite the mess).

As to whether it shows a problem in their focus - I dont' really think so - it's not like focus on content is mutually exclusive as focus on schtick (at least I'd like to think it isn't! lol).

e
L nny

[JohnMayo]

So I guess the question is - even if you're not a fan of renumbering from 1, are you a fan of renumbering BACK? And I would say that I am.

And once you're a fan of renumbering back, the next question is: are you a fan of re-re-re-numbering back? And for the same reason as above, I am (i.e., even if FF is going back to 1 from the original numbering again, I want them to some day bring it back to "classic" numbering, despite the mess).

As to whether it shows a problem in their focus - I dont' really think so - it's not like focus on content is mutually exclusive as focus on schtick (at least I'd like to think it isn't! lol).

e
L nny

I dislike anything that makes it more difficult to sort comics.

Why? Because I might make a different decision than the people who run the comic store or convention booth. Consecutive numbering keeps things simple. I shouldn't have to describe which Captain America #1 I'm talking about. People shouldn't have to figure out which volume the issue of Fantastic Four they are looking for fell into in the back issue bins for a given store of convention booth.

Sure, I prefer the "classic" numbering to a degree but I much prefer a lack of confusion over it. If they renumber a title, they should live with that decision. None of this flip-flopping back and forth for the easy sales bump.

Does it work? Sure. I have zero doubt that the *DEATH* issue of Fantastic Four and the renumbering to FF #1 will do extremely well for Marvel as far as a short term sales bump goes. The question is how long will that bump last. At what issue will FF be back in that 35K-50K range it has been in for the past two years?

And keep in mind that to get the bump in sales Marvel is having to "kill off" a member of the Fantastic Four (again) *and* renumber the series (again). Each time they do this, they leach some of the juice from each of those sales gimmicks.

There have been so many Wolverine #1 issues that Wolverine: The Best There Is #1 didn't even crack 60K. The publishers have taken the previous reliable sales technique of a new #1 and drained it of much of the power it used to have. Obviously #1 issues can be successful but they are now no longer virtually guaranteed to be so.

I'm not trying to imply that Hickman isn't going to deliver with the story on Fantastic Four or FF. Just that publishers seem to have a hard time promoting books that are delivering good content.

It is the title of FF itself that makes it exceedingly clear to me that the series will have to be named down the line. FF as a name, like JLA and JSA over at DC before it, work to the "in crowd" that know what they stand for. FF is an inaccessible title for new readers.

There are better ways to promote comics than stunts like "killing off" a character and renumbering a series.