This character goes through three successive variant regimes, which have almost nothing in common. In 1992, the only distinctions relate to logistics: newsstand version and Australian edition. In 2014-2015, a single number can exist in seven dressings designed to be collected. After 2020, are added covers from external licenses. Understanding which regime a copy belongs to precedes any question of value.
The word “variant” designates three radically different things depending on the decade you look at, and it is the number one source of error on this issue.
In one case, it was a distribution accident that no one wanted. In another, of a deliberately designed product. In the third, a promotional item borrowed from another sector. The rules of rarity, identification and value differ each time.
1992: the variant we endure
On the two founding issues, the catalog notes two distinctions, and neither was designed for collectors.
The version intended for newsstands. At that time, two sales networks coexisted. Specialized stores bought firm, with no return possible; the kiosks received deposits and returned unsold items. The copies of the two circuits came out of the same presses but received different barcode treatment.
The Australian print. Distributed several months later, at a price in local currency, and bearing a cover year corresponding to its local publication date.
These two objects have a common characteristic that makes them interesting:their rarity is real but not documented. No one has counted the copies, no publisher has announced proportions, and sellers generally pay no attention to them.
This is exactly the opposite of what will happen twenty years later. Here, scarcity exists without the market recognizing it — and this is the only situation where an attentive buyer has a real advantage.
A useful clarification: over this period, the relationship between the two circuits was already clearly leaning in favor of specialized stores. The newsstand version is therefore, in principle, the less common of the two – which almost no announcement indicates.
2014-2015: the variant we design
The change in scale is spectacular. On the first issue of the relaunch of July 2014 , the catalog records seven different skins ; on that of October 2015, five.
Above all, these dressings do not stem from a single logic. There are at least five distinct commercial intentions, and it is useful to know how to recognize them.
The Nostalgia Blanket. Entrusted to the historical designer of the character, it is aimed at readers in 1992. It is a reminder of filiation, not a rare object.
The author's cover. Signed by an artist in demand for his own style, regardless of the character. Its value follows the artist's rating, not that of the file.
Quota coverage. Awarded to retailers in proportion to their main run orders. Its rarity is contractual: it results from a ratio fixed in advance, not from a hazard. This is the only category that can be said to be rare, and the only one where the ad must specify the ratio.
Retailer exclusivity. Reserved for one brand, with a confidential circulation and geographically concentrated distribution. Rare, but sought after by a narrow audience - resale is much more difficult than one imagines.
Convention coverage. Sold at a trade show, in quantities limited by the duration of the event. Same logic as the previous one, with a dimension of memory.
Sometimes added a blanket to assemble, the illustration of which continues in the following issues: the device explicitly aims to have several booklets purchased. This is the only case where the variant imposes an on-chain spend.
After 2020: the borrowed variant
The third diet appears in recent publications, including a series launched on May 25, 2022 which has six variations for its opening number alone.
We find the previous categories there, augmented by a new feature: a cover from a license external to the medium, in this case a video game with a very large audience.
This category deserves to be isolated, because its economics are different from all of the above.
Its audience is not that of comics. It targets players, who sometimes buy a booklet without having ever purchased one before. The demand therefore arrives from outside, massively and briefly.
Its value follows foreign news. It depends on the vitality of the license invoked, not on the character or the series. A game that loses its audience automatically leads to its promotional coverage.
She ages quickly. An illustration linked to a season of digital content quickly becomes dated, including for those who purchased it.
Our assessment is blunt: these objects are fun and have no demonstrable conservation value. To buy by taste, never by calculation. On the other hand, they have an unexpected virtue, which it would be unfair to pass over in silence: they bring people to the department who would never have entered there, and some of them stay there.
Why diets don't compare
A confusion comes up constantly, and it costs money: reasoning on a modern variant with the reflexes acquired on an old variant, or the opposite.
The two situations differ in three ways, and it is worth considering them side by side.
The intention. A distinction in 1992 resulted from a constraint: it was necessary to deliver to Australia and supply two sales networks. A variation from 2014 results from a decision: someone wanted it to exist and calibrated it. In one case, the object precedes the collector; in the other, it was made for him.
The documentation. On the old one, there are no figures: no announced circulation, no known proportion, no census. On the modern, the quotas are public and the proportions circulate freely. We can therefore argue the rarity of a recent variant, never that of an old one.
The sense of time. An old variant becomes rarer as copies disappear, without anyone noticing. A modern variant is becoming more common as its owners relist it, having purchased it for resale. The two curves go in opposite directions.
The practical consequence can be summed up in one sentence.On the old one, look for what the seller doesn't know; on the modern, be wary of what it highlights. These are two different professions, and to confuse them is to pay dearly for an abundance or to miss a scarcity.
How to identify what is being offered to you
Four checks, in order of effectiveness.
Legal notices. First interior page. This is where the mention of a possible reprint, the name of the edition and the date appear. On an old booklet, it is also the only proof of original printing.
The barcode. It distinguishes distribution channels on issues prior to the late 1990s. Claim bottom corner of cover, uncropped.
The entire cover. Not a detail, not a close-up: the complete image, including the edges. Many announcements show a tight framing which hides precisely what would make it possible to decide.
The printed price. On foreign editions, it immediately identifies the destination market.
A transversal rule:a seller who cannot tell which edition it is sells the regular edition. This is the most likely hypothesis, and you should buy accordingly.
What each diet is really worth
Let's summarize the orders of magnitude, without figures - they move, the relationships much less.
The 1992 distinctions count for little today, but they are the only ones whose rarity is not organized. This is the track that can hold surprises in the long term, precisely because no one is following it.
The 2014-2015 skins saw their premium evaporate in the months following their publication, with the exception of the most restrictive quota covers. This is the usual fate of this category.
Recent covers do not have sufficient precedence for us to make an opinion, but their commercial logic does not encourage optimism.
One last observation, valid beyond this file. The three regimes also differ in their demands on the collector's time. Spotting a 1992 award requires attention to every ad, for years, with no guarantee. Buying a modern variation only requires a decision at the time of publication.The first approach rewards patience, the second rewards promptness— and it’s rare for the same buyer to excel at both.
For general file levels, see ourrating analysis.
What we can ignore without remorse
Completeness on modern coverings. Bringing together the seven versions of a 2014 issue is possible, expensive, and without effect on the value of the whole. It is an aesthetic project, not a heritage one.
Blank covers. Designed to be drawn by an artist during a dedication, they are of interest only once illustrated - and their value then depends entirely on who held the pencil.
Circuit editions on recent publications. The distinction has lost its meaning: the network of kiosks no longer weighs anything, and the proportions no longer have a measurable effect.
The covers to assemble. The principle consists of distributing the same illustration over several consecutive issues, so that it only takes on its meaning once the issues are aligned. It is a direct invitation to increase purchases. Know that the composition obtained only has value together: an isolated element loses all interest, and the reconstituted whole is never worth the sum of what it cost. Buy them if you like the image, considering the expense as final.
On the other hand, never neglect checking the legal notices on the founding booklet: the reprint is distinguished by a detail that the photo poorly betrays, as explained in ourarticle about his beginnings.
Points of vigilance in question
Three for each: the main print, a version intended for newsstands, distinguished by its barcode, and an Australian print priced in local currency with a shifted vintage. None of these distinctions were designed for collectors — they are consequences of distribution logistics.
Only two categories. The distinctions of 1992, the rarity of which is real but which no one counts or reports. And the quota covers of the 2010s, the rarity of which is contractual since it results from a ratio fixed in advance - it is the only one which we can say is rare, and the announcement must then specify this ratio.
Few, with some exceptions. Their premium evaporated in the months following publication, which is the usual fate of this category. Only the versions most constrained by a quota maintained a gap. Bringing together the seven skins of the same issue is an aesthetic project, not a heritage one.
By taste only. Its audience is not that of comics, its value depends on the vitality of an external license, and illustration quickly goes out of fashion. Demand arrives massively then disappears, without leaving a base. They are fun objects with no demonstrable conservation value.
Four requests, in this order: the legal notices of the first inside page, the bottom corner of the cover not cropped for the barcode, the entire cover image including the edges, and the printed price. Many announcements show a tight framing which hides precisely what would make it possible to decide.
Assume this is the regular edition, and purchase accordingly. This is by far the most likely hypothesis, since the main edition represents the vast majority of copies. Paying a variant premium without proof is the most common error in this type of file.
Not in itself. It is designed to be drawn at a dedication, and its value then depends entirely on the artist who held the pencil. A blank copy is just a booklet without a cover illustration, which makes it even less attractive than the regular edition for most buyers.
No, on recent publications. The network of kiosks no longer weighs anything, and the proportions no longer have a measurable effect on availability. The distinction only retains its interest on issues prior to the end of the 1990s, where the two circuits still represented comparable volumes.
Distinguish your editions and track your copies with My Comics Collection.
Discover the application