Not even sure if I should send this; my blood is still boiling after reading Mr. Jemas' latest spin on the no overprint policy.

In short, he is now asking, nay, nearly demanding, that retailers engage in dubious, if not downright unethical and eventually self-defeating, business practices.

Purposefully hold back copies to mark up to an exorbitant price on current stock?  Sorry.  New issues of monthly titles stay on the shelf for a full month at cover price.  That is a part of the unwritten compact that I, as a retailer, have with my customers.  I have (and will) on occasion limited purchases on an item in order to make it available to the widest possible audience, but it remains at cover price in such instances.  If in that time those issues happen to sell out and there are no more available, so be it.  Obviously in such cases, I could have sold more were more available (as well as upped orders on later issues), but that has been rendered moot by Marvel's insistence on keeping supply short and calling current issues collectibles.  These are not collectibles, they are comics.

Once the month is up, it is no longer a current issue and it is understood by purchasers that that situation may impose a premium on the price.

I simply and plainly will not engage in any such price-gouging scheme, at any time, in any manner, for any reason.  If the so-called 'top retailers' Mr. Jemas claims to be listening to are promoting such a scheme, both they and he need to take a few steps back and ponder a longer-term view that foments customer loyalty and good word of mouth.  Customer service and good will are worth more to the continued health of the retail operation than any short-term gain obtained by artificially jacking up prices on current issues due to unexpected demand and enforced short supply.  Such an inelegantly constructed house of cards will not long stand.

My store happens to be in a location in which there are no other such stores for my customers to shop at, short of hopping on a plane and flying a long way away.  Were I to engage in such shady practices, not only would it cannibalize my own sales (customers have only so much to spend; that $10 for one book means I sell fewer other new books at cover price, and that loss washes out any 'extra' profit from the artificially higher priced item) but would result not in customers going to buy books elsewhere, but just going -- and not coming back to purchase anything.

Solely in order to provide complete information, my store does not have, never has had, and never will have an ongoing quarter bin.  Just as I don't inflate values on books without valid cause (as generally recognized by the hobby), as opposed to flash-in-the-pan demand, I do not deflate those values either.  And we are fast approaching the twentieth anniversary of the store's opening, no small feat in this business.  In the past, there were local competitors who did engage in practices such as Mr. Jemas is suggesting.  They are all long gone.

As to the 'Must Have' issue, did anyone actually request an anthology issue at nearly 180% of 'standard' cover pricing?  Regardless, please don't define this exercise as overprinting -- it is not; it is a totally different book.

Since this is for posting on an internet site (as was, presumably, Mr. Jemas' commentary), a practice he decries, perhaps it will have little or no impact, but silence surely equals assent in such a case.  These types of communication venues are used because they are convenient and can reach those whom time and distance may not otherwise allow.

I sincerely hope the sky is a pleasing color in Mr. Jemas' world, because it sure isn't the same as the one those of us in the trenches dwell in.