Comments on: Marvel Expands Self-Cover Trial…?

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 03:24:19 +0000

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.

By: Matt Spatola

Matt Spatola — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 01:19:22 +0000

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.

By: J_Smitty_

J_Smitty_ — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:09:27 +0000

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.

By: Kevin Huxford

Kevin Huxford — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:24:50 +0000

Unless that’s a misprint above, it’s already being tried on a $3.99 title: Scarlet Spider #2.

By: Jane A

Jane A — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:40:41 +0000

I decided to go fully digital a while ago, so I guess I will never notice this change.

By: jedispyder

jedispyder — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:13:33 +0000

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).

By: Zevad

Zevad — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:44:57 +0000

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.

By: Matt Spatola

Matt Spatola — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:06:54 +0000

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.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:30:03 +0000

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?