Get Marwood & I

It is sitting proud, so must have happened recently, as you said. My thoughts on it breaking were more generic - they would presumably be used to handling old items and mindful of damaging them, even if it seemed obvious that unfolding wouldn't be an issue in this case. But then again, having seen how some auction houses work, especially those not used to handling comic ephemera, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the auctioneers coffee stain on the front.

So we're going for lazy, then? And clumsy, potentially

Steve, I know we've all had a bit of fun with this - it's hard to talk publicly about stuff you want to keep secret - but I do understand where you are coming from. I love showing off comics, especially rare or under the radar ones, but the reality is that all you do in the process is alert the competition and increase your chances of being outbid. I cut down posting about certain books drastically for this reason. It's hard, as sharing is all part of the fun, but the wise thing to do is to keep quiet until you've at least broken the back of it. Unless of course you value or enjoy sharing more than you do acquiring.

I'm the same with Action #1s, Peter. I've been collecting them unsuccessfully for years now. I've grown quite adept at finding them, if I do say so myself, in big online auctions usually. I just need to brush up a bit on the acquisition aspect.

I meant no.

Yes.

Boom Boone! And those bi-monthly books would presumably sit on US shelves longer than the monthly titles, throwing another spanner in the sequence...

I forgot Pat Boone #1 in that table - the Sep/Oct issue has an on sale date of July the 2nd - and it's a T&P stamped book. Albeit possibly a second cycle 6 one.

I thought about this. Recently, I purchased a comic with a fold just like that. I proceeded to fold it back and it came away - the book was more brittle than I anticipated. Maybe they are afraid to do so for that reason. Or maybe it is to show the defect clearly to online buyers. That, or they're lazy. Either way, it didn't stop someone shelling out twenty big ones. I sound like I'm out of the Sweeney there. "He slapped down twenty gees, Guv"

That said, a quick glance for two October issues and we see: Batman #127 (October 1959 cover date) - T&P stamp exists Wonder Woman #109 (October 1959 cover date) - no T&P stamped copy yet (#110 is the first known) Batman #127: August 25th US 'on sale date' Actual arrival stamps August 25th and 27th (spot on!) Wonder Woman #109: August 11th US 'on sale date' Actual arrival stamp August 11th (spot on again!) So in this instance the October Wonder Woman #109 pre-dates the October Batman #127 by two production weeks. On the face of it, this could be an indication as to why one exists as a T&P stamped copy and one doesn't. It supports Albert's speculation and goes against my reservation. Given all the parameters, I'd want to see many more examples for these two and for the other October 1959 cover dated books before drawing anything other than a superficial conclusion. Fun though, isn't it. P.S. The two books below are both T&P '9' stamps, we presume from the first cycle / shipment. Batman #127 (October) - 25th August US on sale date Wonder Woman #110 (November) - 22nd September US on sale date A month apart in production, and yet both seemingly arrive in the UK in the same shipment. There's a WW#110 with an 8 stamp too - earlier, or later...... P.P.S. The missing October '59 Action Comics #257 has an 'on sale date' of 27th August - just two days after our present Batman #127. Ditto Adventure Comics #265.

I've considered this, but I think the process wasn't stable or consistent enough to lend itself to the identification of meaningful production cut off points as being the reason for certain books existing and others not. The stamped DC books are returns, and as we see, they straddle stamp numbers and don't all turn up in the same numbered shipments. That makes sense, as its unlikely that every outlet across the US would undertake returns at the same time. Add to that the fact that arrival dates are hard to find anyway, and often differ significantly across the same issue where multiples can be found. My research in other areas has shown that arrival / on sale dates can help to prove things in certain senarios, but I don't think this is one of them. And remember, we don't even know or agree on whether that first 6 stamped shipment was indeed the first, or a late second cycle.

Me neither. Probably why the Dell connection hasn't been picked up on before. I love it.

A candidate for the old clean and press, no doubt. Get that stain off and you could do well.

Just sold at auction for £15 grand before 27% commission: From the Black Coffee in Bed collection, no doubt...

And to think I've been holding back

Cheers Kromak - amazing colours, aren't they. I picked this up the other day too - I'd not seen it before and thought it might be scarce, but eBay tells me to the contrary. Still interesting though.

I waste my time here Now, I haven't actually found the smoking gun that says who was responsible for soliciting and distributing Dell UK Price Variants in the UK. At an estate sale the other day I picked up this gleaming 1959 book from World Distributors: That's a cracker, isn't it. An absolute riot of colour. Now, on the back cover, what do I find hiding in plain sight? All the titles match, as do the dimensions and the 9d price. The ad doesn't appear to be referring to any of the WDL reprint titles - they were priced at 6d and one shilling as far as I can tell. But the reprints fit too - both their comics and annuals are taken from original Dell content. So is this the smoking gun, finally? Is it really that straightforward? And why haven't I seen this ad before, after all this time!

It's amazing how many times you see "Doctor Who....." as an unrelated press headline in that fashion, isn't it. It gets me every time. Lord.

I will look for you. I will find you. And I will doctor your pence copy.

What did they do with the indicia, Kev - remind me.