It makes searching for issues hard on eBay or via comiXology. Try finding INCREDIBLE HULK #315. Easy-peasy, eh? Not many of those about. Now try finding WOLVERINE #1. That'll be harder.

Try introducing a potential reader to comics:

So, with it being gimmicky, seemingly indecisive and hard to fathom (if you're a "civilian" or lapsed reader), it all seems absurd. Doubly absurd is that Marvel are renumbering months - not years - after reverting to original numbering. Fewer gimmicks would be better.

Now, this isn't a topic solely to bash Marvel. But it is a topic which suggests there is a better way to revamp/rejuvenate titles instead of gimmicky renumbering.

Briefly, I question the premise that #1 issues attract new readers. They may do, but do they sustain new readers? Do those new readers stay on board? Gimmicks are fine. I'm sure a major celebrity appearing in a TV series is fine, but gimmicks don't hook long-term viewers/readers forever. Wrestling learnt that lesson when it booked actor David Arquette to win the WCW World Title. It led to mainstream publicity and USA TODAY headlines, but it didn't attract new wrestling fans or please existing fans.

So, how to revamp/rejuvenate?

Marvel UK titles have, for the most part, been reprint titles. In 1973, SPIDER-MAN COMICS WEEKLY began publication. Here's one issue:

SPIDER-MAN COMICS WEEKLY was Marvel UK's longest-running publication, clocking up 666 issues (what an eerie number, eh?).

In that time, it revamped/changed its name a few times. Here are some of the names it changed to:

SPIDER-MAN COMIC

SUPER SPIDER-MAN TV COMIC

THE SPIDER-MAN COMIC

SPIDEY COMIC

Despite the name changes, it was still the same title, reprinting Spider-Man issues for a UK readership. That never deviated. The back-up strips changed (Iron Man and The Mighty Thor were among those who featured in the comic), but it was the same title. It never felt the need to renumber. And 666 issues is quite an impressive run. The title ran for 12 years from 1973 to 1985.

Although reprint titles and original titles are different kettles of fish, the fact remains, it is possible to revamp and rejuvenate titles without renumbering them.

Some UK comics would often revamp/rejuvenate by having a tagline "Bold, new direction!" on the cover. Gimmicky? Perhaps. But the original numbering remained intact. 2000 AD, a weekly UK comic running since 1977, and which has "Programs" rather than "issues", recently published Prog #2072. I got a letter printed in one issue, where I'd asked if they had any plans to renumber. The editor (Tharg the Mighty) told me that they were proud of the number of issues under their belt - and had no plans to do that. Like other UK titles, they've revamped/rejuvenated without reverting to original numbering.

I know numbers are not the be-all and end-all. A 900th or 1,000th issue can be poor. But I like the sense of history. That is important to me, perhaps too important. My first Batman title was BATMAN #309. Although the contents and art were more important, the sense of history served a point. I realised that the high numbers probably meant my stepdad and dad had both read the title. And that it had been around a long time.

Any title existing for decades is impressive to me. So high numbers count.

I wouldn't be surprised if Marvel once again renumbered before 2020/21. Either reverting to old numbering or having #1 again. And, like I stated, it's gimmicky. I doubt it attracts new, long-running readers. Maybe a lesson for Marvel (and DC!) going forward is to find other ways to hook new readers and revamp/rejuvenate a title. A slight name change can be good (not a complete name change), a new tagline can help, a new logo can rejuvenate, etc, etc. 

And I feel that doing that keeps both current readers on board and potentially hooks new readers. It might also make browsing comiXology a hell of a lot easier.

That didn't stop me from reading them!

Let's face it, some of these renumberings are just lipstick on a pig. As we've seen many times - putting a #1 on an inferior title doesn't guarantee it will be around in six months.

Lipstick on a pig? Indeed.

I agree gimmicks are not needed, but I don't mind occasional hyperbole, e.g. "Bold, new direction for the Man of Steel!" It's a gimmick, sure, but it keeps us current readers sweet whilst potentially hooking a new reader.

Or a lapsed reader, of course. If I hadn't read a comic for a while (e.g. 2000 A.D.), but saw "Bold, new direction and opponents for Judge Dredd" on the cover, I might think, 'Let's look at that again.'

Even non-readers I know (or casual fans) have said, "What, Marvel are renumbering again?"

And a long-time reader - and this may sound excessive on her part - told me she is done with Marvel. She enjoyed the fact Marvel was renumbering, but when she learnt they were reverting to #1 again, she told me the company was creatively bankrupt - and that it was a gimmick. One lost reader.

She *may* have overreacted, but I see her point.

She liked that Marvel had reverted back to old numbering, e.g. DAREDEVIL #598. When she learnt they were reverting back to yet another #1, she said that that was enough for her. She told me she feels Marvel has no long-term plan.

Marvel has done this in the US too. Defenders became New Defenders with #125 and essentially  a different title with the team having far more of an Avengers feel. It may not have been everybody's cup of tea but, for me, it was a great jumping on point and I didn't need #1 to do it. At that time I had hardly read Defenders but collected New Defenders until the title was cancelled. These days, New Defenders would definitely have been an #1. (I guess Power Man and Iron First did something similar.) 

If I want to use an airline, then, yes, I want them to get to a destination on time, but if they are changing their name every five seconds, or flipping back and forth between branding, to me it implies a certain indecisive mindset. Unfair or not, that's the perception.

The stories and art are the most important things, but I don't feel that confident about a company that can't decide on numbering. It implies they are indecisive about direction. Right or wrong, perception can be everything.

I don't feel that way about DC. Sure, they overdid the CRISIS events years ago. But "The New 52" lasted six years or so. It feels like they have a direction with their REBIRTH stuff (I know other things, like their Black Label line, is something we can discuss).

Marvel just seems rudderless. My perception could be wrong. I know that. I will admit if it turns out that way. I wish them luck. But having #1 issues again, months after reverting to old numbering, feels to me like Marvel cannot make their mind up. It doesn't inspire confidence.

It's good that they did that.

Numbers in and of themself have no power, but I don't see what new #1 issues bring to the table, if I'm honest.