Old numbering or new numbering?

[shaxper]

So, following Infinite Crisis, DC restored Superman's original numbering but rebooted Flash and Wonder Woman to #1 once again. Granted, this might be a a new Flash (thus deserving a new title), but WW is probably going back to Diana at the end of this story arc.

So the question: do you prefer that DC stay with one numbering system or do you like/not mind the resets?

[CaptainAwesome]

I dont mind new numbering if something is very different, like in the Flash. But I dont like going back to an old numbering system, because that just screws up all the orginization.

[Adem]

I prefer one numbering system because it is easier when buying back issues. I also don’t see the point in resetting a title because of a high number count. Sure #1s sell more, but I have never seen someone be intimidated by a high number count. Most of the kids who buy comics at my local shop just look for Batman or Wolverine on the cover and the older comic buyers just buy by writers.

[glue]

I prefer one numbering system because it is easier when buying back issues.

Same here.

[shaxper]

When I was younger (before the first Crisis reset) I was always impressed by the big numbers. When I bought an issue, I felt like I was buying a small piece of a very large and long-lasting history. Sure, this was number 427, but that would be something when the title hit #627. It also made insignificant little issue 427 feel somehow connected to the classic early issues. To me, it feels as though reboots spit in the face of that history, like knocking down a historic home that's been around for a century to build a new condo. Plus, it does make back issue collecting confusing. I'm still not sure whether we're on volume four or five of Green Lantern at this point!

Yes, going back to an old numbering system is awfully confusing, but I personally feel it's worth it.

[Hellstormer]

Sure #1s sell more, but I have never seen someone be intimidated by a high number count..I'm intimidated when I wanna jump on to a book, I'd rather start with #1 then #81

[Adem]

Why though? Can't you just wait for a new story arc or catch up with trades? Most creative teams never stay on for very long anymore and when new ones come on it is usually a fresh start. I see no reason for restarting a series just because of some new hot writer or artist.

[Jake Lockley]

If there is a good reason, then I don't really mind restarting a series at #1. For instance, post-Crisis Flash with Wally taking over the title role, starting off at #1 made sense. However, I saw no good reason to reset Wonder Woman to #1 when Perez took over.

I won't even get into the whole renumbering fiasco at Marvel. :rolleyes:

[Riker Omega Three]

I'm not into collecting very much, so I don't care what the numbering is. Admittedly, I do have a little more interest in a title if it's a relaunch, but personally, I think the glamour of new numbering wears off very quickly.

[JohnZ]

I think there is a certain prestige to high numbers. Action Comics and Detective are good examples. They have been using consistant numbering since 1938.
The only real reason to start at #1 again is to boost sales.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I was figuring it up and heres something funny. Flash is 20 issues away from Flash #600 ( both volumes of Barry and Wallycombined). Part of me thinks DC will do something to celebrate that number since its the 600th issue of Flash.

I do like seeing Superman back to its orginal numbering in a way.

[Lex]

I'm not into collecting very much, so I don't care what the numbering is.I'm kinda like that too. I just want a good story and couldn't care less what the issue number is. If restarting a book will get more sales, then that's cool (just look at what it did for Runaways and She-Hulk at Marvel). The only books I'd strongly complain about a renumbering for is Action and Detective.

[glue]

Sure #1s sell more, but I have never seen someone be intimidated by a high number count. Most of the kids who buy comics at my local shop just look for Batman or Wolverine on the cover and the older comic buyers just buy by writers.

Even though I agree with you about preferring the numbering stay constant, I do think that is a little misleading. They may not be intimidated by seeing #204 on the shelf, but a #1 does pull in new readers and not just from people new to comics. I know if I'm buying comics and I happen to see a title with a low issue number I'd be more inclined to give the title a try. It's not the only criteria or even the most important but it can come into play.

[shaxper]

Even though I agree with you about preferring the numbering stay constant, I do think that is a little misleading. They may not be intimidated by seeing #204 on the shelf, but a #1 does pull in new readers and not just from people new to comics. I know if I'm buying comics and I happen to see a title with a low issue number I'd be more inclined to give the title a try. It's not the only criteria or even the most important but it can come into play.


I'm the exact opposite. An issue with a high number has stood the test of time and maintained sales and reader interest longer than most books on the stands these days. I see more #1s than I can count each month. I see maybe seven books with three digit numbers.

[glue]

Well for titles like DETECTIVE COMICS and ACTION COMICS I know what I'm getting. I was referring more to lesser known characters. For instance if something's at issue 20s or so it could still get canned, but it's far enough along that there's a good chance I'll be lost. Once you get up into the higher numbers it becomes less of an issue.

[Red Berens]

I like the old numbering system. It gives you a connesction to the past. I think it's cool that DC has kept this with some of their titles. Anyone notice that Marvel quietly did this with some of their titles?

[K'Nort]

I mainly prefer consistent numbering for the back issue buying. But also, although I can see renumbering helping for a new book that still hasn't found its legs (Runaways and She-Hulk), not even your brand-new comic buyer walking into the shop is going to think that Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, and Flash are brand new no-back-history series, so that's just silly.

[glue]

not even your brand-new comic buyer walking into the shop is going to think that Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, and Flash are brand new no-back-history series, so that's just silly.

I can assure you my sister has no idea who Green Lantern is and may not know who Flash is.

[Heraclevs]

I don't collect Superman anymore (or anything else, really), but I thought it was cool having a book called "Adventures of Superman" on a monthly basis since the old George Reeves tv show introduced me to the character when I was four years old.



- Romans 9

[scratchie]

I like the continuing numbers, for all the reasons mentioned here. I like the fact that I'm reading the same series that started in 1938, or 1962, or whenever. And I like that it makes it easy to find back issues. I was recently searching for two issues of Doom Patrol that were drawn by Seth Fisher (not the most recent Doom Patrol, but the one before that) and they were next to impossible to find on Ebay because there were so many different Doom Patrol #13 (or whatever it was).

In terms of titles that start over again, I'm actually less likely to buy a new series unless I'm really crazy about either the character or the creative team. I was buying both Wonder Woman and JLA until they ended recently, but having browsed through the new WW in the store, there was nothing in there that inspired me to start buying it again. Since I am buying 52, which is like buying four "normal" books a month, I'm not going to start buying any new DC series unless it really grabs me, and the new WW didn't. But if they had just kept publishing with the old numbers, the "collector" in me probably would have kept buying it out of force of habit unless I really started to dislike it intensely.

[Rylon]

The re-starting of Flash and Wonder Woman at #1 is misleading. One reason why people like picking-up first issues is because there's no back story to get confused by. Suposedly, a new reader can start with #1 and get all the introductions and first meetings that they would have missed if they were reading issue #100. But Flash and Wonder Woman are actually continuing the storyis of existing characters. (That is, unless the new Flash isn't Barry, Wally, Jay, or Bart.)

In the 90's when Kyle took over as Green Lantern, they just started kept on with the numbering it worked fine. Same thing with Green Arrow.

So, unless we're dealing with a brand new character who's title ended years, not months, ago, I'd rather they kept the numbering continous.

[shaxper]

I actually wonder if DC doesn't risk losing old fans in order to attract new fans when they restart numbering. If a new #1 implies that the old history no longer matters, what's to keep anyone other than the most loyal fan reading? I have always adored the post-Crisis Wonder Woman, and Rucka's run was amazing. I'm skeptical of this new creative team and, if #2 doesn't improve dramatically from #1, I'm out. However, if this were the same series that I'd already bought the last twenty-something issues of, I'd feel more obligated to stick around and wait out this creative team.

[Alex L]

I like the old numbering system. It gives you a connesction to the past. I think it's cool that DC has kept this with some of their titles. Anyone notice that Marvel quietly did this with some of their titles?

I noticed. They did it well in that they printed both numbers for several months to ease you back into the old numbering system (making up an issue -- Thunderbolts 6/109, for example).

[JohnZ]

Superman is a good example of why you shouldn't screw with numering:
Superman was fine until it became Adventures of Superman at issue 424. When this happened they restarted Superman at issue 1 again. Then, when Adventures hits 650 they decide to change it back to just Superman and eliminate the Superman that they restarted at issue 1.
Now, instead of screwing with the numbering to boost sales, they could have started Adventures at #1 and not made a mess of things. Maybe I am just nitpicking but I find this annoying.

[shaxper]

Superman is a good example of why you shouldn't screw with numering:
Superman was fine until it became Adventures of Superman at issue 424. When this happened they restarted Superman at issue 1 again. Then, when Adventures hits 650 they decide to change it back to just Superman and eliminate the Superman that they restarted at issue 1.
Now, instead of screwing with the numbering to boost sales, they could have started Adventures at #1 and not made a mess of things. Maybe I am just nitpicking but I find this annoying.

I can't decide whether the current Superman title is vol. 1 or vol. 3 :(

I would have just kept "The Adventures of Superman" and discontinued the post-crisis Superman line. No need to confuse people unnecessarily. They could have lost the "The Adventures of" prefix a year or so down the line without anyone being half as confused.

[Rylon]

I actually wonder if DC doesn't risk losing old fans in order to attract new fans when they restart numbering.I agree.

This is how I think about it. Kyle could have ended his stint as the Green Lantern in his own book. Rebirth didn't have to be it's own mini. After the story was over, Hal would have been the main character. I putting the whole arc in one continusly numbered series would have made it less confusing.

Wonder Woman, Flash, and JLA, could have all went on hiatius instead of re-starting.

The numbering of Superman to Adventures of Superman back to Superman dosen't bother me that much, but it is confusing.

[krammocon]

I don't care even if that same title has no number. I just wanna read and then keep it.

[Deadpooligan]

I always got the sense of "my collection isn't complete" if I don't have a series from #1... Missing issues can be confusing, as they might yet not be available in TPB.

I'm all for renumbering.

[Ontir]

If putting #1 on a cover helps sell issues, and it means I get more of the stuff I love, they can re-number as much as they want!

[glennsim]

I can assure you my sister has no idea who Green Lantern is and may not know who Flash is.

How likely is it she's going to go into a comic book shop?

[Brack360]

I like the old numbering and would never want to see a long-running series like Detective, Batman, or Action be relaunched with a new #1. However, I admit that I am more likely to buy an issue #1 of a series that I never read than I am to buy a continuing issue. I bought both Wonder Woman #1 and Flash #1 but would probably not have bought either if them if they were not #1's.

[Lonewalker]

I don't mind in a way, but then I just also feel that staying with the "one numbering system" is better and more organized.

It's 50-50 for me; but all I buy are TPBs anyway.

[Lorendiac]

The re-starting of Flash and Wonder Woman at #1 is misleading. One reason why people like picking-up first issues is because there's no back story to get confused by. Suposedly, a new reader can start with #1 and get all the introductions and first meetings that they would have missed if they were reading issue #100. But Flash and Wonder Woman are actually continuing the storyis of existing characters. (That is, unless the new Flash isn't Barry, Wally, Jay, or Bart.)

In the 90's when Kyle took over as Green Lantern, they just started kept on with the numbering it worked fine. Same thing with Green Arrow.

I was thinking much the same thing. When Kevin Smith started writing a "Green Arrow" series with a #1, it was chock full of references to previous continuity. A retcon connected to the events of the Final Night, mention of the time he got blown up in #100 of his previous series, dragging in "Stanley and His Monster" out of left field from some old continuity I think I had never heard of before; mention of a time when Batman saw Ollie's wrist get broken during a battle way back when . . . if the old series had still been coming out, and if Kevin Smith had taken over with #180 or something, I think it would all have worked out just as well that way. The "#1" did not mean that brand new continuity was getting started for people who didn't want to be bothered with references to any of that old stuff from 10 or 20 years earlier! :)

So, unless we're dealing with a brand new character who's title ended years, not months, ago, I'd rather they kept the numbering continous.

Now that I made it clear that I agreed with your general attitude, above, I'm going to nitpick a little, just to stay in practice :)

I wouldn't call a character a "brand new character" unless he never had his own title before, because he's just recently been invented out of thin air. (Although it's okay if he's recycling the name of a previous character, as the new Blue Beetle is doing.) To me, saying that someone is "brand new" and that his last title "ended years ago" is a contradiction in terms. Perhaps you meant something like this?

"Unless we're deaing with a brand new title about an obscure character whose last title ended years, not months, ago, I'd rather they kept the numbering continuous."