Two separate Dave Sim series have the same numbers: the original series and a reissue renumbered from 1.On a statement from September 5, 2026, 27 numbers exist in both at the same time. And the difference in asking price is not marginal: for issue 3, the median is $2.88 on the reissue side compared to $359.95 on the original series side — a factor of one hundred and twenty-five. Buying « le numéro 3 » without looking at the exact title is like flipping a coin on two objects that only have their rank in common.
Most numbering traps cost an untidy line of inventory. This costs money, in both directions: you can pay the price of the original for a reissue, or miss out on an original by taking it for a reissue.
The mechanism is simple and perfectly legitimate. An editor takes a narrative arc published in a monthly series and republishes it under its own title, starting from number 1. Nothing wrong there: it is a common editorial practice. The difficulty arises from the fact that the two objects then circulate side by side, on the same market, with overlapping ranks.
What the statement counts
I asked the American market on September 5, 2026 about two requests, one for the reissue, the other for the original series. After withdrawal of the lots, 155 advertisements relate to the first and 116 to the second. The amounts aresommes demandéesOn that day, sales were never concluded, and an observation of a single day does not measure any evolution.
The reissue covers 30 distinct issues, not exceeding rank 44. The original series covers 73, tiered up to rank 300. Their median differs markedly: $3.96 for the reissue, $9.00 for the original — a ratio of two and a half which, on its own, doesn't say much since it compares two baskets of different content.
The number that counts is elsewhere:27 issues appear in both series. For these twenty-seven ranks, an announcement mentioning only a number does not designate an object. She names two, and they don't have the same price.
Number 3, factor one hundred and twenty-five
$2.88 median on the reissue side over 4 listings, $359.95 on the original series side over 3 listings. Same rank, two unrelated markets.
Number 2, factor forty
$2.90 versus $115.00. The difference is found on number 4, at $2.90 against $89.95. This is not an isolated case but a pattern.
Number 1 is an exception
$7.50 versus $17.99, a ratio of only two and a half. The most sought-after rank of the two series is also the one where confusion costs the least.
Vingt-sept rangs concernés
The overlap zone goes from row 1 to approximately row 27. Beyond that, a high number necessarily belongs to the original series.
We must immediately place a reservation on these discrepancies. The original series medians are based on two to four announcements per issue: these are indicative positions, not odds. One more seller, one less seller, and the number changes significantly. What the survey firmly establishes is not the exact value of each rank, but the existence of a difference of an order of magnitude between the two series for the same numbers - and this is confirmed by four out of four ranks.
The ratio of two and a half between the two overall medians is the most misleading figure in the statement. It gives the impression of a moderate gap, even though it compares different sets: the reissue only covers the first rows, the original series extends to the three hundredth.
It is by comparing the same ranks with each other that the real difference appears. The rule applies well beyond this case: two medians can only be compared if the baskets they summarize contain comparable objects.
How to know which one you're looking at
The most reliable marker is the full title printed on the cover, not the number. The reissue is named after the arc; the original series is named after the character. A careful seller writes one or the other, and the record shows that many do.
The second marker is the year. The announcements that mention it place the reissue at the turn of the 1990s and the low ranks of the original series a decade earlier. When the difference in years is of this order for the same rank, it is not a question of two impressions of the same object but of two distinct objects.
The third benchmark is the rank itself, and it only works one way. An issue greater than thirty necessarily belongs to the original series, since the reissue ends well before that. On the other hand, a low rank says nothing: it is precisely the overlap zone.
A fourth clue, less obvious, is the asking price itself – and we must be wary of it. A low rank offered at a few dollars is most likely a reissue, but the reverse does not follow: a seller can charge a lot for a reissue that he believes to be rare. Price is a weak signal, never proof.
It is worth dwelling on the particularity of this case, because it differs from the most common numbering collisions. When a series is relaunched under the same title, the two sequels share a name and are distinguished by a generation — a mention like "second series" eventually appears somewhere, and the collector knows to look for it. Here, nothing of the sort: the two publications have different titles, which gives the reassuring illusion that confusion is impossible.
It's exactly the opposite. Two different titles don't protect anything if sellers abbreviate, and they abbreviate often. An advert which contains only the name of the character followed by a number is perfectly understandable for its author, who has the object in front of him, and strictly ambiguous for the buyer. The full title exists, it is simply absent from the line we read.
This observation has general significance. The best-documented numbering pitfalls — repeats, suffixes, parallel numbering — are those where the ambiguity is visible in the data itself, and the informed collector looks for it. The most expensive are those where the data appears complete: a title, a number, nothing wrong. You must then know in advance that the title read may be an abbreviation, and the only solution is to check the subject rather than the ad.
Six consequences for a collector
Pay for the original for the reissue
The most costly risk. On ranks 2 to 4, the median difference goes from thirty to one hundred and twenty-five times depending on the number.
Missing an original
Symmetrical risk, less visible. An original poorly titled by its seller is drowned among the reissues for a few dollars.
A series never complete
Mixing the two in the same tracking creates duplicate rows and simultaneous holes. The rest seems incoherent without us seeing why.
Une estimation faussée
Assigning to one example the median of the other series shifts the value by an order of magnitude, in one direction or the other.
Rank alone is never enough
Out of twenty-seven values, the number does not designate an object. The number field must always be accompanied by the exact title of the series.
L'année lève l'ambiguïté
A decade separates the two publications for the same rank. Noting the year of publication settles the matter in almost all copies.
What this statement does not establish
It does not set any odds. The medians by number are based on single-digit numbers, sometimes two or three announcements: they represent an order of magnitude and nothing more. Anyone who took $359.95 as « la valeur du numéro 3 » would be making exactly the mistake this article seeks to avoid.
It also does not say exactly how far the overlap zone goes. Twenty-seven common ranks were observed that day; the current catalog of the reissue may have more issues than were on sale at that time. Counting a series from a Saturday's offering makes no sense.
Finally, he does not compare anything between the condition of the copies. The announcements mix very diverse declared states, and part of the difference observed on a given rank is undoubtedly due to this rather than to the series. This is all the more reason to read these figures as orders of magnitude, not as measurements.
Translate this into a file
La règle :the exact title of the series is part of the identity of the copy, just like its number.An inventory line which bears « numéro 3 » without specifying which of the two series is a line which designates nothing, and which cannot be corrected without reopening the box.
Always add the year of publication. This is the field that separates the two series in almost all cases, it can be read in the title of the copy, and it will serve you well beyond this particular case. A decade of difference in the same rank is the clearest signal we could wish for.
For the price paid, note the actual amount and the date, never an estimate taken from elsewhere. On rows where the difference between two objects reaches a factor of one hundred, a value inherited from a poorly assigned reading permanently contaminates the estimate of the entire collection.
A last reflex if you buy remotely. When the ad doesn't give the full title or year, ask before buying rather than after. Of these twenty-seven rows, the question fits in one sentence and avoids precisely the most expensive mistake that this market allows to be made.
Because an arc published in the monthly series was republished under its own title, starting from issue #1. This is a common and perfectly legitimate editorial practice. The difficulty is not in the republication, it is in the fact that the two objects then circulate on the same market with overlapping ranks on twenty-seven values.
By the full title printed on the cover: the reissue bears the name of the arc, the original series that of the character. The year confirms, with a decade difference between the two publications for the same rank. The number alone only decides in one direction: beyond thirty, it can only be the original series.
On number 3 of the statement of September 5, 2026, yes: $2.88 median compared to $359.95. But these medians are based on three or four announcements: they give an order of magnitude, not a rating. What is firmly established is the existence of a gap of an order of magnitude — four out of four ranks show it, with factors from two and a half to one hundred and twenty-five.
The gap falls to two and a half, compared to thirty to one hundred and twenty-five in the following ranks. The reading does not allow us to give the cause. We can note that the first number of a reissue is itself researched, which brings the two levels together: it is a plausible reading, not a demonstration.
Three fields: the exact title of the series, the number, and the year of publication. The title identifies, the number locates, the year decides. Add the price actually paid with its date: on ranks where two objects differ by a factor of one hundred, an estimate inherited from a misattributed statement permanently distorts the entire collection.
The title and year, not just the number
My Comics Collection keeps the series, rank and year separately, so that two separate items stop occupying the same row.