xcomic

WOW @Get Marwood & I, that was a really enjoyable read! Your why-they-exist discussion is very persuasive (and slots them into Type 1A in my mind); and in turn I find it fascinating that they still printed them with 15¢ instead of just going with 6p given the target market! I've got to say though, the part I found the most fascinating about these variants is those missing wraps and hence the missing 'full indicia' -- and that 'replacement one-liner' that exists print-run-wide on the bottom of the subsequent page. Just so unique and interesting, never seen anything like it, and I found myself grinning ear to ear while reading you present it all. BRAVO!

Thank you for the help providing missing images for the guide!

Bravo Gary and Steve!! :-) Just wanted to commend you guys and say Great Work! - Ben p.s. Attached below is something I think is cool, it was the idea of varyant555 to look through the GoCollect Top 50 hottest comics the other day to check which ones have corresponding Type 1A cover price variants -- turns out there are quite a lot with Australian price variants and Pence and Canadian too (did we miss any?)

Truly fascinating stuff, great to see these examples laid out. This is the first time I've seen a "type 3" example -- that's quite awesome, and I completely agree with you that with this a printed difference (and clearly intended as an APV) that we must consider it one despite the mishap. A reader I recently had a great email correspondence with about APVs turns out to have owned a newsstand decades back (a "newsagency" in the local terminology), and he let me know they were sometimes required to put stickers on various comic books and magazines -- at times because they were mispriced but he also mentioned censorship as another reason, with the rules about offensive materials varying by state. (Although this may not have ever applied to APVs). But an interesting tidbit he shared was that the distributors would supply the stickers to them, and their staff had to actually stick them on. This would explain why sometimes we've seen copies lacking stickers, when the newstand staff missed any, either by mistake or on purpose (perhaps when a staff member themselves wanted to take a book home). Cool stuff! :-) - Ben

Fantastic news, way to go Steve & Gary!! Courtesy of Arron, the below is the indicia page of his Captain America numbered on the cover with #407 but showing the cover artwork for #410, confirming that it is indeed #410. Arron also shared with me these missing APVs that follow, which you now may already have confirmed from Gary but here they are anyway just in case!

These indicia scans were shared with me today by Paw K. The first is the Journey Into Mystery #65 Pence Price Variant: Second is the Tales To Astonish #16 "No Cover Price" Variant:

Applause to @Brittany M. and the CGC team for your great decision to begin labeling the three categories of Type 1A's with "Price Variant" labels going forward! Applause to @Get Marwood & I for your successful efforts communicating with CGC on the matter, you are a true super-star in this niche of the hobby! This is a milestone moment for Type 1A variants; under the prior CGC labeling notation these US-published price variants were too often confused and conflated with the foreign-published later-reprints (by being given the same [Country] Edition name on their labels as those reprints). The new "Price Variant" labeling for Type 1A's going forward will distinguish them from the foreign-published editions in their labeling, which will surely advance collector awareness that Type 1A's by contrast are in fact true US-published 1st print originals from the original publisher manufactured at the same time with the same equipment (same ink, same paper) as their US-cover-priced counter-parts, then distributed in a foreign market with a different cover price (a way-different situation from being an edition published in a foreign country at a later time by a different publisher, and thus deserving of a different labeling treatment). As an avid collector of these price variants I am thrilled to learn of this new labeling news! The "first impression" a new/unfamiliar collector gets from seeing the CGC label can be a big deal as to whether they investigate the comic further or not; and now, with the go-forward Price Variant labeling, more collectors are sure to want to learn more. Another round of applause, and great thanks, for making this important change happen. Best, - Ben

Hello newsstand collectors and hello again to any readers of this thread who may have been tuned in during pages 5-onward -- I follow up today to share with you all (and to append into the public record of the thread for anyone who reads it in the future), a link to the Official Press Release of the project I kept mentioning; the timing of online availability of our project is what appears to have sparked the "brouhaha" here in the first place (a sneak peek of the project has already been live on my blog for the past few weeks and regular readers have been sharing with their friends around the Internet). Gemstone has now published our press release to Scoop, officially announcing the release of our Type 1A Cover Price Variant Price Guide to the world -- here's a link to the article: http://scoop.previewsworld.com/Home/4/1/73/1012?ArticleID=202171 We hope this online guide (which costs $0.00 to use) will be of interest to all newsstand comic book collectors, especially those who may not have realized there was a 1980's "cover price variant window" during which two types of newsstand comics were produced instead of just one (this "window" and the second much-more-rare newsstand type it gave us, is the focus of our guide). Happy collecting to all and all the best! :-) Sincerely, - Ben

Greetings fellow cover price variant collectors! Ben here, dropping in to share exciting news that I'm certain will be of great interest to everybody participating in this thread! I know some of you have already discovered our price guide project and gotten a sneak peek because it has been live on my blog for the past several weeks, but today marks a milestone: Gemstone has published our press release to Scoop, officially announcing the release of our Type 1A Cover Price Variant Price Guide to the world! Check it out: http://scoop.previewsworld.com/Home/4/1/73/1012?ArticleID=202171 Woo hoo! :-) I want to applaud all the collectors here in this thread for being so very far ahead of the curve of "hobby-wide" awareness of this type of variant and its compelling collectible appeal. You guys and gals caught on early. We think history will rhyme: Twenty years ago many people considered Jon McClure insane when he shared his 30 & 35 cent variant discoveries and articulated their appeal and future value potential, and today, such cover price variants are widely recognized and understood hobby-wide; The parallels to awareness about 75 cent variants (and other Canadian cover price variants) are absolutely striking, and we've now seen awareness rise to the level where our Guide is justified. And here's just one more parallel between the 1970's price variants and 1980's price variants: Jon McClure himself is one of the senior-most collaborators on our six person price guide team! It has been a privilege and a pleasure getting to know Jon and also each of the other fantastic collaborators over the course of all of us putting in the huge amount of time and teamwork that made this guide possible. The cost to use it is exactly $0.00. We hope you like it!!! Here's a direct link to it if you want to skip the press release and jump straight to the price guide itself: https://rarecomics.wordpress.com/the-2018-price-guide-for-1980s-newsstand-canadian-cover-price-variants-type-1a/ - Ben

Stu, you're a funny guy, I genuinely mean that! I got a kick out of your comment here that I waved to. And I respect you for signing your name to your message sent to me over the blog, even if the profanity was unnecessary. Whether you'll believe me or not in what I'll say next I don't know, but: I did indeed call CGC but what I asked Christian about was whether a working email address was the only prerequisite to establishing a new anonymous handle. I didn't ask for anybody to be suspended. That would have been silly/meaningless anyway, you see that, right? So why would have have bothered to ask once the answer to my question had been confirmed? I may be wasting my time here trying to "append the public record" but I hope you can see why I chose to do so... Try to think what you would do if your real name was attached to fraud allegations in a public thread ingested by bots. It was either "append" or "let the public record stand" - those were realistically my only two choices. - Ben

Hi Stu!

[xcomic has been communicating privately with new mediator]

Thanks @revat, reading your post you definitely strike me as fair-minded, logical, objective, and also -- even without having read the full thread to have all the context -- still managed to nail where we are. Only if you are curious to do so, reading the thread will contain the answer to why I will not be directly communicating with RMA in the future, you will see why I made the offer I did, you will see the structural problems with the platform we are on, and you can make your own guess as to whether RMA will ever desire to come forward through a mediator as a named source in the hobby available to writers like me. - Ben

Would you instead be willing to perform the role as a public service, or is your fee non-negotiable? - Ben

I 100% agree with you. Please understand that part of my purpose is to append the public record. All of those here watching Movie #2 already know what will happen next, I just need it to happen so that it is established here and permanently affixed to the thread. - Ben

Hello everyone, thanks for your continued patience with this thread. I have now lost as possible mediator the particular anonymous handle I thought I had identified as being both interested in acting as one, and capable of doing so by their stated off-the-board contact with RMA. As communicated earlier, and I will repeat now, the good faith offer previously stated surrounding the person known to you here as the handle RMA, is one that I am only willing to entertain navigating with a mediator involved. For conflict resolution situations such as this, a mediator is absolutely critical, and non-negotiable for me. I please ask that if another handle here is willing to step forward to volunteer as mediator, to please make yourself known. Thank you very much. Sincerely, - Ben

You're right, I was just testing you. You failed. Next mediator please. - Ben

You bowed in the moment you spoke on behalf of the court of public opinion and polled the judges. Read the transcript. I then nominated you as mediator, asked if I could count on you as mediator, consistently referred to you as mediator (which you never once corrected), and now you're pretending you never had anything to do with it. But no matter. Let's find a new mediator. Who will please step forward? - Ben

Absolutely wrong. Direct communication across this broken-DNA of a message board platform will solve zero and everyone watching Movie #2 knows it. The one and only way to any kind of a real resolution would be through a mediator. The reason your "bowing out" of this mediator role speaks volumes to me, is that it serves as confirmation bias that this person is intolerable to deal with directly: you may say otherwise and give reasons to excuse your newfound rejection of the mediator role, but the only thing I am focused on is your actions. The action I observe is you are now bowing out of the mediator role you previously stepped into. - Ben

No. I will only work with a mediator after what has transpired here. A mediator is critical to conflict resolution. I thought you would be a good choice, but if you will not do it, and your quote suggests you will not, that speaks volumes to me. Will anybody else here volunteer to replace @comix4fun as official mediator since they appear to be "bowing out" of that role? Thanks in advance to anyone who will step forward -- and perhaps @comix4fun can weigh in on whether the person who steps forward as replacement mediator is a good choice. - Ben

Hi @comix4fun -- great, let's get it resolved; thank you for mediating. And I accept that my own movie when observing RMA and the way they treated me may not be the same movie they themselves (and others here) were watching. Like you all, my brain fit what I was seeing into the movie, where hearing of things like bans and suspensions and simulcasting could easily have led to confirmation bias, toward my conclusion this was a person I should absolutely avoid interacting with any further. My offer and their reaction to it (as mediated by you) will inform me as to whether there is actually a way for us to work together (in a sense), for the benefit of the hobby, by my reaching out -- through you -- for quotes from them. Not just the 500 word spotlight quote I offered here, but potentially in the future as well on topics I may choose to write about where they can provide interesting and knowledgeable input. I look forward to hearing back from you passing along their decision as to how to respond to my offer. When do you anticipate they will let you know and when do you anticipate you will be able to post it here? - Ben

Hi @comix4fun, among the various handles here I am very focused on yours because of your role as neutral mediator, and I was hoping because of this, that you would allow me to share an observation about something you said, describing this whole thing as "weird"... Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) has a very interesting way of describing how it is possible for people to experience different versions of reality at the same time; as he puts it: watching two different movies on the same one screen. In our case, the screen is this thread here. But different people are watching different movies, and their brains are automatically trying to "fit" all new information into the movie they've been watching. Movie #1, as presented by RMA, has Jon as a liar, me as a fraud, and the single thing motivating our entire participation in this hobby being: $$$. Movie #2 features an enterprising young writer who is passionate about comics, works hard to showcase his talent stack by way of a blog, in doing so attracts the attention of many of the great minds in our hobby in the price variant niche, and then goes on to collaborate as part of a six man team on a large-scale project that contributes a resource to the hobby which it has never had before now. Along the way, the writer is treated badly by a multi-aliased individual, chooses to Block that individual from their comments forum, and is immediately Retaliated against, here, with public accusations of fraud. Seeing their name (and their friend's) permanently associated with these accusations in the public record, the writer chooses to append the public record with their side of the story, so that any future reader pulling the thread from the public record can make up their own minds... Perhaps that "weird" feeling your brain gave you, was the recognition that there seems to be something very weird with Movie #1 and it is no longer fitting what you are seeing on the screen. Movie #2 is much nicer, plus, I think you will find it has superior predictive value for what will happen next. Try jumping to it and seeing what you think. - Ben

Hi @Lazyboy, thank you for being forthright; I'm liking you a little more each time we talk. You say the mods usually wipe all traces of bad accounts, but that is reactive instead of proactive, plus it is insufficient: by the time the bad stuff is wiped, lots of people here have seen it, potentially shared the link to anyone in the world, and the bots in Russia that scour for Dirt potentially connecting to names of political figures (or future potential candidates) have already digested it and patted their robot tummies. I have two questions for you if you don't mind: (1) Would you be willing to pay a $1 (One Dollar) Message Board Handle Fee good from today until the expiration of your current credit card, in the interest of CGC enforcing a one-handle-per-person policy? (2) How many handles per person do you feel is appropriate, if not one? - Ben

Appreciate that @Lazyboy, thank you. That he was banned does not surprise me given what he wrote to me and it would have been impossible to share because every other word was profanity; it also shows that banned members can indeed read the messages. The fact that it appears to be your knowledge (and probably also common knowledge) that he occasionally creates new accounts which are later also banned, confirms to me that my assessment of the environment here was correct: any working email address is the single prerequisite to establish a fully-anonymous handle here, and then utilize that anonymous handle to smear a real person's real name with fully anonymous words that go on to become part of the public online record. I must say as a long-time CGC customer it makes me upset that they have built this capability into the DNA of these boards, which should really be for friendly conversations about comics among CGC's customers. Since CGC has all of our credit cards on file, and could in theory improve upon this problem by having a one-alias-per-customer policy enforced by matching up each handle to a credit card, it is within their power to create a better message board environment. - Ben p.s. Would you agree with the spirit of the attached quote by Leonard Lauder?

At 3:36 PM an apparent member of this board by the name of "Stu" has just attempted to comment on my blog with profanity like I haven't seen since grade school. I wanted everybody here to know this happened, for context. I can supply proof if needed, or you can take my word for it. - Ben