Batman (vol 1) newsstands that state “multi-pack reprint”, not sure which printing these represent, you get to decide. But the back cover IS important, it helps to see which month these were printed. The back cover is the only thing that changes, the front cover doesn’t.
#416:
#415:
What does the indicia say for these issues?
As I stated in my opening paragraph, “multi-pack reprint”, no number of reprint is stated. Just, “multi-pack reprint”.
It seems these are the newsstand version of #415 and#416. I would advice to add these. You can always edit the entries in your local datasbase to suit your personal taste.
I would beg to differ. The 1st print newsstand edition of each of these comics has a completely different back cover add (for a role playing game picturing a Valkyrie on a horse in the snow - TSR games for Sept. 1988). If this is a 1st print newsstand, how do you explain the Hulk Hogan add on the back cover that DC was using for Dec. 1988 comics printed two months after the 1st print edition came out?
This is also why I insist on having the back covers added (when they are important, like here) when CLZ is the database most of the comic book reading public goes to for reference on which printing edition they have just purchased. If you are the guys that don’t care, why use you for reference at all?
Hi there, so looked at 416 first. Made some changes in Core and added a ton of data along with the book you own, now being #416G. My guess is that this is the 4th printing but DC decided to skip that number for some odd reason. I came to that conclusion by the following data:
By these points, I believe that my guess is probably correct. I put it in the spot where the 4th print would’ve been if it was named that but left the 4th naming out of it since it isn’t mentioned anywhere.
Noted both versions of the 3rd print to Core. Normally I’d avoid adding stickers (I’m mostly referring to the newsstand stickers) over the UPC box but this was an exception since it came from the distributor this way. The one with the stickers was probably the one distributed trough the multi-packs and the one without at newsstands.
This is much better and what I usually would expect from CLZ, thank you. I appreciate the effort and attention to detail.
I will be making a comprehensive audit of this title sometime in the future with back covers and actual printings indicated in the indicia. I just haven’t purchased all the different printings as of yet.
But thank you again!
I understand that it can be frustrating when you go into detail on a post, for it then to be initially dismissed by one of us. But please understand that things can be missed or overseen the first time, we’re all human here. No need to be salty about it. Just a: “Hey, would you mind looking at this again? I think you missed something here” would have sufficed. We can always come back on it ourselves or by a different content manager, that’s why it’s done here in this forum format.
Same thing has now been done for #415 although I couldn’t find as much info on this issue.
Thank you for posting! 
I appreciate the return and you looking into this deeper. But I don’t think I used salty language. Here in the states, if things were salty between people, they were cussing each other out. Using the “F” word, calling someone a bitch, or some other descriptive word for making them feel inferior. Unless you were talking about my comment about why even use CLZ as a reference if you don’t care about the extended print editions available. I still wouldn’t consider it salty, though maybe you do because it is general put-down? Not sure.
Please understand, I wouldn’t use salty language on this forum, it isn’t the correct manner I want to communicate that kind of language. Still like CLZ, and will continue to help you make it better!
I’m not going to argue with you over one word. You understood what I meamt right?
Glad to be of service
No, I guess I don’t. Didn’t use salty language. Have a good day. 
Sounds pretty salty to me.
We are doing our best here, we do care. Please keep it nice and respectful.
So, this was in response to my post about further printings of a Batman title and wether the back cover helped in determining the print number (and it does), but the individual that responded stated that my post was just a newsstand edition (and was already accounted for in the database) which it wasn’t. Seemed to me that if you are the group that puts up the printings and all the different variants that come with comics, that you should be concerned with how many printings have been put out, and which printing is which.
My post clearly stated what was happening (back covers were changing on subsequent printings, and my newsstand had a different back cover than a 1st print) and this idea seemed to not be of any concern to the individual that responded to me. So, in my mind, that gained my response. And I didn’t get angry, and didn’t use profane language. Simply called out what I thought was a simple logic problem. “If the referencing group doesn’t seem interested in keeping the printings straight, how useful would that refrencing group be?”
That doesn’t seem salty to me, that seems like logic.
Okay, got it. Let’s move on. We really don’t have the time for discussions like this.
