This is interesting: After the trial on Fantastic Four #601, Marvel seems to be moving towards the “self-cover” format for its titles – wherein the paper stock for covers and interior pages are the same – with the following titles being switched to the format according to the most recent shipping update:
AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #679.1 (DEC110645, $2.99, FOC 01/23/12)
AVENGERS ACADEMY #26 (DEC110603, $2.99, FOC 01/30/12)
BATTLE SCARS #4 (OF 6) (DEC110594, $2.99, FOC 01/16/12)
CAPTAIN AMERICA AND BUCKY #627 (DEC110609, $2.99, FOC 01/30/12)
DAKEN DARK WOLVERINE #21 (DEC110671, $2.99, FOC 01/16/12)
DEADPOOL #51 (DEC110679, $2.99, FOC 01/30/12)
FANTASTIC FOUR #603 (DEC110652, $2.99, FOC 01/30/12)
FF #15 (DEC110653, $2.99, FOC 02/06/12)
FF #15 BRIGMAN VAR (DEC110654, $2.99, FOC 02/06/12)
GENERATION HOPE #16 XREGB (DEC110683, $2.99, FOC 01/23/12)
JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY #634 (DEC110606, $2.99, FOC 01/16/12)
NEW MUTANTS #38 XREGB (DEC110687, $2.99, FOC 01/30/12)
SCARLET SPIDER #2 (DEC110632, $3.99, FOC 01/16/12)
SPIDER-MAN #23 (DEC110660, $2.99, FOC 01/30/12)
SUPER HEROES #23 (DEC110661, $2.99, FOC 01/16/12)
TWELVE #10 (OF 12) (DEC110664, $2.99, FOC 02/06/12)
THUNDERBOLTS #170 (DEC110659, $2.99, FOC 01/23/12)
X-FACTOR #232 XREGG (DEC110675, $2.99, FOC 04/23/12)
X-MEN LEGACY #262 (DEC110680, $2.99, FOC 01/30/12)
Another trial, or perhaps the start of a push towards a new format for Marvel books in general…?
This entry was posted
on Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 1:21 pm and is filed under Marvel, News & Views.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
January 13th, 2012 at 1:30 pm
I didn’t see FF #601, so … does this mean that the interior stock going to be heavier or the cover stock going to be lighter?
January 13th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Well not sure why the headline needed a question mark. But that’s Graeme I guess.
As to the change in cover stock I didn’t get the FF issue so I’m curious to see how it looks and feels. Also I noticed how it is being used on $2.99 titles. I wonder the reasoning they are cutting costs on their cheapest titles. You would think the natural inclination would be to cut costs on the $3.99 titles since supposedly they are the more expensive to produce.
January 14th, 2012 at 8:44 am
They probably want to test it out first before changing the 3.99 titles. But cutting costs and saving money is the goal of any company. So if it helps them in the long run and there’s no negative results they will go for it.
January 14th, 2012 at 10:13 am
The interior was normal and the cover was the same as the interior (so a lighter and more flimsier quality). I didn’t really like it all that much, it made the issue not really feel like a comic but instead like a stack of stapled paper (hope that makes sense, it’s the best I can describe it).
January 14th, 2012 at 10:40 am
I decided to go fully digital a while ago, so I guess I will never notice this change.
January 14th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Unless that’s a misprint above, it’s already being tried on a $3.99 title: Scarlet Spider #2.
January 14th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Not to sound like a grumpy old man but before the card stock cover craze of the 90′s all covers were of a quality akin to current interior pages. I prefer it, actually. Anybody who treats comics as a collectible is missing the point, in my opinion. Roll ‘em up, trade em, recycle them away.
Also, in theory, cost should go down.
In another theory higher quality paper and printing have led to more and more delays as artists are able to add hilarious levels of non-essential detail. I don’t believe that cartooning or illustration have benefitted in many ways from this added level of detail. Don’t get me wrong, I think artists have made gains by using computers but the reproductions of the work on the higher quality paper stock have done nothing.
January 16th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Kev I did see that Scarlet Spider #2. However that is only one out of 19 books listed. So with that I figured the generalization of them trying out these books on a bunch of the lower priced titles was ok to use.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
The stock on the self covers – the pages and the cover are all the same but the paper stock used is a bit heavier than the regular interior stock and a bit lighter than the regular cover stock. I had heard about this before picking up Fantastic Four #601 but forgot all about it until now. I guess that means I didn’t notice the difference. I wonder if Marvel had stayed mum about this whether most people would notice at all.