Get Marwood & I

Aren't you again here assuming that unsold cents returns were off the table? This logic only works if UKPVs were intended to replace cents stamped copies, doesn't it? We have stamped examples extant of all DC issues, including the five UKPVs. So again, where is the evidence that there was ever a stamping break? And earlier were you not suggesting that the UKPVs were only solicited to bridge the UK stamping hiatus? Again, this new logic fails if it was always the intention to return to stamped returns, once the relocated T&P operation was up and running. And why not have a mix of stamped and UKPVs as Marvel had for periods? Either way, it looks like the 7 1/2p stamped GS copies sold OK here, if Kev's Flashes are any indication.

Nice that those two matched up, stamp-wise.

So these two DCs above (Action #350 / Superman #196) seem to fit - both, when I check, have multiples stamped a 3: So that might date the third stamp of the 13th cycle as the end of August 1967 - but 3 months behind DC cover date.

Albert, in my rush last night I missed the point that you didn't always buy from new on the stands. Do you have any examples of stamped DC books where you are sure that you did, that I could look to plot examples of in the sequencing tables, to see if the numbers correspond with the time frames that you purchased them? Did that makes sense?

Quite right. He is the Who, Doctor, after all.

I did two bits of work on this, and lost one. The other you've seen, and it's limited to a few Marvel titles in the 64/65 hiatus. It takes ages to find, file and plot multiple examples of stamped comics. I plotted thousands of saved DC examples to prove the 1-9 cycle sequencing for the first four 1-9 stamp cycles. It would just take too long to do that in any detail for the later cycles for Marvel and DC. And it would kill the eyes. You know me, I love all this, but there are limits. I've got my fingers in scores of research pies so, when I find a result that seems to show enough, I will often draw a line and move on. If you look at these plotted Marvel / DC examples below, from the tables you've seen already in this thread, even in their limited numbers they quickly illustrate the stamp number / issue bunching: I plotted the thousands of DC books to prove the T&P stamp number sequencing because I found that effort to be worth it to finalise that conclusion - the reason for the numbering had been bugging me for years, so to get the answer, and then prove it, was satisfying. I still chuckle when I see my first attempt at seeing whether the numbers were sequential. It was too small, and I foolishly discarded it having proven, so I thought, that there was no sequence. When Albert said there was - having noted it on his original owner DC title runs - I expanded the sample massively, after being sceptical at first, and proved he was right. But I don't feel the urge to expand the Marvel / DC plotting for later cycles any further than I did in the above exercise (and the now annoyingly lost DC/Marvel/Charlton/Archie work I did). The main reason, is that it doesn't excite me as the number sequencing did and has a less robust possible set of conclusions. What does the bunching prove, anyway? Either the books all arrived in the shops in batches, or the number sequencing was meaningless at this point and any plotting is not a reflection of the real world activity. Alberts hand kept notes intrigue me much more - for someone to have recorded when they purchased books in the sixties is cool beyond measure. From that we can prove - for the time period at least - shipping times. And the differences between UKPVs and cents arrivals. Imagine if Albert had actual records for when he bought these, for example: That might spur me on to plot hundreds more examples, if we had a set of "I purchased these books, then" records, to see how it all matches up ( @Albert Tatlock, any more coming?). To date the books in any one shipment to actual UK availability would be cool, and might help us work back and date the first shipment. All that aside, the limited exercise I did shows that Marvel and DC were both bunching up in stamp numbers / issues. Whether that translates into bunching in the shops, is another matter though, because the number sequencing is beginning to degrade at this point and I can't be sure what the plotting is actually representing.

Right, yes I'd missed that. Rich, you've done all the research on the history of T&P commercially, the people and their motivations, and made all the links. It's fascinating stuff, but I feel I'm struggling to add anything of value now. Best that I read and learn from now on, I think, and only chip in if I have something concrete to add that I'm sure about. Which nowadays, isn't that much!

Maybe that actually was them trying to get T&P to go UKPV on DC. "Here's a sample of what they look like. The kids love the Marvel ones. Go on, give em a try." (and we get more money because they're more expensive, heh-heh)

Poppycock! And you leave Albert out of this.

Shhhh! Leave the lot alone - I'm going in at the close

Love it! They were working quick that day. No time for drying...

This is too much detail to read tonight, Rich. I'm not ignoring it - more tomorrow mate.

Cor, I like this Albert. FF #68 was the last UKPV for a bit, and you bought it in the cover month (November) FF #69 was a cents only book, cover dated December, and that one you got in February. A clue to shipping times for UKPVs vs Cents. Can you post some more, along these lines?

You've been busy Rich! I'm tired after a long day, but wanted to chip in - hope I haven't misconstrued anything, but here goes. You theorised that the five DC UKPVs existed because T&P couldn't stamp cents copies due to a relocation and were worried about market availability. Your evidence as I understood it was: the timing of the relocation (based on your research) the absence of July (July/May published) stamped cents Marvels (it seems there are none) the absence of July stamped cents DCs All I pointed out was that there were stamped DCs cover dated July. So if July dated Marvels were affected, why not DC? For the sake of argument, if we hypothesised that the relocation caused the July cover date stamped cents Marvels to vanish, but they were received at a different time to July DCs, then why is there not another month of DCs absent around the time? I see them for March, April, May, June etc If the answer is that the July stamped DCs are all late, then why would T&P have worried at all given that bunching was a thing? Why would one months product unavailability bother them if the product was seemingly arriving in such a haphazard manner anyway around that time? And why no late stamped cents July Marvels? Why weren't they received / stamped late, once T&P had stabilised post relocation and hired some stampers? The books are all stamped 5p with no numbering so we can't establish any 1-9 break through example plotting. If we saw one number missing in the stamp number sequence, that would indicate no arrivals for one shipment, possibly. I do not doubt the veracity of your relocation assumptions - I'm sure they did, some time in 1971. Nor do I doubt that we appear to have a complete absence of July cover dated stamped Marvel books (I checked briefly, but assume you verified that, and I'm sure we have mentioned it in our off site PMs anyway?). But there is no way to establish whether there was a break in DC deliveries that I can see. And even if there was, there are plenty of reasons to see why that would not trouble T&P one jot if recent history showed the bunching of up to five consecutive issues for some titles when stamp numbers allowed us to speculate along those lines - certainly not enough to panic them into one months UKPVs, Shirley? So to be clear, I'm not disproving your theory - I'm just challenging the assumptions and offering up alternate theories. As it stands, and unless I've missed something, you can't even prove there was a one month gap in DC stamping at all, let alone whether the forward planning of that possibility was enough to trouble T&P to solicit one lousy month of UKPVs.

Ding ding! On the road today Rock. Catch up with everything tomorrow

We're on a roll today Bosco. I play the CD often in the car and watch the film every time it's repeated on freeview. Which is roughly every six months over here. The scene where she snaps Lady Mary's neck then starts shooting out the cameras as the watching Blanchet recoils gets me every time. And I like the Hulk in it. Banner. Bana, or whatever his bloody name is

That may have been true in the past JG, but not now. Collector interest in Price Variants - UK especially - has never been higher and international books now seem to be heading in the same direction. Along with a few others, I've battled hard to get UKPVs the recognition and status that they deserve. Before settling on the term UK Price Variant, CGC, you may recall, used to label them as 'UK Editions', the same way as they did UK produced reprint titles. That thankfully changed, but due to CGC's clouded thinking and recent announcements on 'internationals', many uneducated collectors will now again see those two separate groups - price variants and internationals - as the same thing. So it's a step backwards for me in that respect. As for the international books themselves, respectfully, I'll never understand why clearly passionate, educated collectors like you don't care about the labelling approach CGC are taking on them, or how you can bear to see them relegate the books you love to mere reflections of the original books that they reproduce, to whatever degree. Maybe I'll see you in another month's time, to continue the discussion!

Yup It all adds to the fun. Issue #257 was beaten by issues 258 and 259 in the race to get to UK shores

Quite likely, yes. But Rich's argument - unless I've misunderstood it - was that the UKPVs were put in place because they couldn't stamp cents copies owing to the premises move. The existence of cents copies in multiples disproves that specific element. I'm hoping he'll be along shortly for round two, though

1,337....

Do you think Rich passed out when he logged in and saw the stamped July '71 DCs then?

'appen it won't, but a Godiva aint to be sniffed at in any road. Now stop mithering y' daft 'apeth.

Not necessarily earliest distributed - the stamp number determines the order of arrival in the UK, if our collective sums add up. The Action #257 and Superboy #76 are both stamped with a one, indicating they came late / after those stamped 8 and 9 (which we believe to be the first). But they are the earliest stamped copies currently known by cover date for their titles.