Dr. Love

Have digests made their way into slabs? Yes, slowly, and far and few between. With CGC's debut of pulp slabs coming to the Collector's Summit 11/4/23, I would imagine that more extensive sci fi/mystery digest slabbing may not be that far behind. One of the big questions, for me at least, will be what kind of slab will the digests go into. The one below is in a 1" deep slab, the deepest slab CGC has in production, more in keeping for a thicker pulp. This introductory issue for Imagination has 164 pages. But the typical digest has 132 pages. Whether it can be put into a less deep slab, and of course centered (rather than right justified), will have a lot to do with the decision to submit. At least for me!

But what is a digest? is it defined by size? content? both? The below is from the Science Fiction Encyclopedia. I have found ISFDB, the Internet Speculative Fiction Database to be of great value in researching digests. I believe that this is the database CGC is pulling from for label attributes on digests, moving forward, as GCD would be of no or little use to them here. "A term used to describe a Magazine format, in contrast to, for example, Slick or Pulp, which are both larger. The format was made popular by the Reader's Digest, which first appeared in February 1922, though at that time the word "digest" meant that the magazine was presenting a selection of material from a wide range of other sources and thus making it "digestible" to the reader. The word referred to the content, not the size, but that original meaning has long since been superseded. The page size of a digest is approximately 7.5 x 5 in, though it can vary slightly; for example, Galaxy was normally a little smaller than Astounding. The latter was the first important sf magazine to turn digest, in November 1943, and by the mid-1950s almost all SF Magazines had followed suit, the Pulp format disappearing. The popularity of science fiction led to the digest magazine boom of the period 1952 to 1955, but by the end of the 1950s a blight had settled over the sf field. The competition with paperbacks led to some magazines taking on the pocketbook format, which averages 7 x 4.25 in; notably New Worlds in the mid-1960s and Destinies from 1978 to 1981, an approach further encouraged by the growing market in Original Anthologies during the 1970s. Magazine circulation has continued to fall, especially newsstand sales, and magazines have tried various formats to retain their visibility. Some, such as Vertex and Science Fiction Age tried the letter-size Slick format, whilst both Analog and Asimov's have twice increased their dimensions so that they are now large digest, measuring 8.5 x 5.75 in, virtually Review size (see Academic Journals). The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction is now the only surviving true digest size sf magazine, retaining a consistency from its first issue in 1949."

Could be anybody, Jeff, but my first thought was Ritter. He has been known to buy big grade books, do his thing, and roll the dice on a submit. Ask him when you see him next. If he hesitates, bingo!

Adam Anderson, Conan Saunders, John Verzyl Jr., Austin Reece I love seeing the next generation come up in this business RIP Mikey Halperin

This one doesn't require the Master. On HA search for "promise collection", click the sold tab, and then in the left column open the Genre dropdown and click Adventure. Of the 5,017 sold, HA has 694 with the attribute "Adventure". Surprisingly, two Tomahawk issues are included. How different outfits handle their databases is pretty interesting. From MC's sold list, Adventure includes: Boy Comics. Boy Commandos, Captain Easy, Fight Comics, Four Color, Moon Girl, Rulah, and Seven Seas.

Blissard gets numbers that others can't. And btw it's Hartley Whitney's romance masterpieces are undeniable and within the ACG "Fab 4": Romantic Adventures 49, 50 and Lovelorn 52. Lovelorn 53 is part of the group but not a Whitney.

The economic decision to put $ into stabbing and getting sigs in addition to these lower grade copies mystifies me. For ACG romance? I dont get it. In addition, the placement of Bald's signatures for the most part are in bad taste. Lastly, Bald's sig itself is painful to look at - it's clearly the hand of a very very elderly gentleman. Bald was 96 years old in 2016. Maybe some think it's great he'd be out there signing at an advanced age. Not me.

and speaking of Baily identifiable in terms of the hand, but no one trick pony

if by underappreciated, you mean hated with the heat of a red hot sun by many SA fans, then yes! I strongly recommend a great book, "The Thin Black Line: Perspectives on Vince Colletta, Comics’ Most Controversial Inker" I can't say enough about Colletta's work. At his peak in 1954, it was the best. Not just covers - unlike most others, he could do the heavy interior lifting as well. No harder genre to draw than romance, cause there really wasn't anything exciting happening. Even later in 1958 when he was phoning it in as a surprise uncredited artist in this DC book, his talent shows through

well apparently darwination is the one who uploaded a scan of the entire book to GCD about 13 years ago. So, enjoy. Although one reviewer left this comment as regards this issue: "A very nice scan but some astonishingly bad art in this issue." Except for the Baily cover, I would have to agree!

Vinnie the Godfather. And I don't mean Vinnie Z!

I've done it in the past and never had a problem. I don't think there's any risk of a downgrade. But there is absolutely risk, in terms of getting lost or damage in transit to and from, and damage to the book while at cgc. I wouldn't do it these days. I reholder only when necessary.

yeh, they're not seeing things the right way on this - as you've mentioned previously, Black Circle Variant is what it should be. But, while the label would have been nice - collectors know what's what.

99 promise romance, none have come up for resale on an auction platform, that is, like HA

Meaning the losing bidder is still out there. If you're serious about selling it, I'd list it as a BIN/Make Offer at $650, and I'd do it today.

A Snuff-Man copy from @BOOT just went for $828.88 on Ebay. Congrats to buyer and seller!

I hear that. You can ask for it from CL. Just like you have to do for many of the books posted for sale here on the boards. I've seen 50k books on sale threads with no back cover shots. Sellers who damn well have the time cant be bothered. Well me either.

4 films for 166 mil. 2 family friendly and 2 harder edged adult cuts. World building, franchise building, max IP. Incredible live sets in addition to CGI, which has reached its peak and begun its decline as the favored content driver. Kneel before Zach!

Another Taylor Sheridan hit for Paramount, with him writing each episode so far. I'm current with it and it hasn't stumbled at all, just gotten better. Great plot, pacing, casting, and acting. Nicole Kidman is very present in an active supporting role, and as for Zoe Saldana... just a great use of her talent. Best role for her since Colombiana.

+1 Havent had problems with either USPS or FedEx. Unfortunately, both drop Signature Required packages in front of the door. The difference for me is with FedEx I can speak to someone on the phone if a package gets stalled somewhere in transit, and the big thing is I can direct a package to be held for pickup at my convenience at a FedEx location for which my ID is required. That's a game changer.

In the past there absolutely were state specific permissions, both on the sender side and shipper (HA) side I believe. CA and NY amongst them. HA's language in the email may be understandable but not germain to your situation. "We" cannot "redirect". Once in route I could get that HA cannot reach into FexEx's system and institute either a change of shipping address or a Hold at location. And it may also be that within FedEx's system, if you are an accountholder and not just viewing options through tracking, changing a shipping destination might be considered different than a Hold. The variables need to be clearly understood.

Same in CA. My FedEx account allows me to change the delivery to Hold at Location - that being a FedEx location. As shippers, in the FedEx system, for my account, HA and CL "allow" this. CGC does not.

How it works now. If you hurt your back you won't receive pain meds from a hospital or your primary or the pain management practice your primary sent you to. If the words pain meds come out of your mouth not only will you be denied but your chart is likely to be updated to include the notation "drug seeking behavior" and you being invited to seek treatment elsewhere. Stay healthy my friends!

and when it comes to coloring - this one is pretty rad too