Get Marwood & I

One down, two to go (Super Publications Ltd version) I like how you can see the imprint of another copy on the back cover of this copy: @eccomic There is a very faint residue from what was likely a sticker on the front of my copy. I noticed that many other copies online also have what could have been a sticker removed: Even though they are dual priced, do you think the UK six pence copies may have had one shilling stickers applied at some point - perhaps like those we see on Bell Features books, from the same period?: The location of the cover damage on the Lucky Coynes obviously doesn't line up with covering the cover price, but it does seem odd to me that so many copies have that sort of damage.

That's very kind of you to say Krypto, thank you. And not a gif or meme in sight I see! There, you can do it I may have banged on the most here, and kept it all bubbling along (nothing new there, there are pence books involved!) but many excellent contributions and valid observations have been made by others in the lifetime of the thread. There's a fairly clear for and against divide across the collecting community I think, here and elsewhere, in respect of the key CGC strategy points. Whichever camp you're in though, I think the love for the books shines through. Let's not forget - whatever they are encased in, however they are labelled, whatever they are recorded as, the books are the stars. If the spotlight CGC are shining on them brings new collectors into the fold, that's great as it keeps them and the hobby alive and opens new avenues for those who perhaps may have exhausted home grown US fayre. Those new, potentially less experienced collectors may just have to work a little harder than they otherwise would have needed to, had CGC adopted respectful, literal record keeping! Now, I'm out! (but really, thank you)

So Matt put the gloss on it, you're saying.

I just tweaked my tweaks, and plan to leave it at that now in this thread. It's possible to overplay your hand on these things and I don't enjoy 'conflict' when it comes to comics. If there is no possibility of design influencing discussion with CGC, as seems to be the case, then it can become tedious and counterproductive to just go over the same points again and again. It only went on so long (this thread) because the announcement took over a year to arrive, with many promised dates missed, so I kept going with examples and commentary to keep it on the radar. Now the design intentions are finally in the public arena however, with basic principles that are unlikely to change, people can make up their own minds on the merits of the strategy and whether to submit their books as a result. It would be nice to know whether a submitter can request literal labelling, and override CGC's default design approach, but maybe someone else can take that investigative challenge up - someone, perhaps, who actually submits non-US publications to CGC (nobody likes an armchair critic, it seems!). Although I disagree with the core design approach, I do want to pay tribute to the effort that CGC have put in here. Tackling overseas books is a mammoth undertaking, fraught with difficulties and hampered by a lack of knowledge and historic reference points. They deserve huge credit for the work they have done and for having a go at it. Some people will have worked really hard on this and I don't doubt their intentions and passion for the hobby for one moment. We may disagree on the approach, but credit where credit is due. It's a significant effort and the work and intentions deserve recognition. I absolutely love comics, of all types, hence the stand I've taken here with the support and contributions of many like minded, experienced collectors. It was worth having, I think, even though there was no direct input from CGC and I probably ended up personally alienating some people in the process. Passion can often be confused with arrogance, and I did get a little flustered at the back end of last year, and acted like an overblown tart in a fit of self righteous indignation. Given my background here, I'll still do my best to put my arguments forward if I see anyone confusing US produced, first printing price variants with non-US published books with reproduced US content. I will continue to bang the drum for the UK, Australian and Canadian Price Variants, and how they fit into the picture if anyone asks. Thanks to all who joined in - it was a good, honest debate about comics. By all means carry on without me, but I've said my piece now. Someone else can hog the limelight for a change. As always, have fun!

That's an unusual approach to body shading on that cover - it almost makes the area look hairy or dirty and stands out once you notice it. I wouldn't miss it if it wasn't there.

Three things come to mind here: #1- The sellers you point out are mass sellers so they could simply be typos, #2- I would assume that if there was any question in the grader's mind about the legitimacy of the insert and whether or not it's original or married from another copy, they would simply not list it on the label rather than put "Married Mark Jeweler's Insert." and #3- CGC is not perfect. I think the design intention is for the insert to be noted on the label when present but CGC sometimes miss it, just as they occasionally miss other salient aspects and features when labelling. When I was collecting inserts, I would often see MJI eBay listings but on contacting the seller was advised that the book did not have it. Some sellers use previous listings to create new ones and then forget to remove the description wording that doesn't apply. It was always better to check, if there wasn't any internal photos / evidence (although I'd dive in on faith if I saw the star stamp on a BIN for fear that someone else might snag it while I was querying!).

Excellent work, TM! Love it

Only four tweaks needed, really: Make the actual comic title primary in all cases, and the reproduced US cover title secondary as a label note (census record should always be literal too, with a searchable function for books that share the same cover) Where reprinted, first appearance notations to always include the relevant non-US appearance country (e.g. "1st appearance of the Hulk in Italy") so as to preserve the integrity of the original book Reprint status to always be noted (e.g. "Reprints original material from The Amazing Spider-Man #1 (Marvel Comics 1963)") The word 'Edition' to be banished (because it isn't required, and can be misleading)

"Origin and 1st appearance of an obtuse labelling strategy"

That won't confuse anyone, will it.

Yes. 3 year TAT though.

We're on the same page Gad.

You've read their announcement. What do you think they'll do? Foreign Editions This classification is assigned to international comics that feature a cover to which a US counterpart exists but is not a facsimile....... .....CGC classifies and labels foreign editions by the title and issue number of their US counterpart, but also lists the foreign title and issue on the label as well. The country of origin is listed as the edition, such as “Norwegian edition”. The contents of each foreign edition are researched, with pertinent stories, appearances, or artists listed in the art and key comments on the label

What do you think of it all, Gad? You're a non-US enthusiast. Are you happy with what they're doing? @gadzukes

It's the real reason for adopting the US titles. Easier to spell.

Poxy foreigns

I feel better now.

Nobody likes a smart arse Gadzukes I spelled the other word wrong too

Nay. From whence may it be purchased?

Nicely done Steven

My last parody of the situation got pulled, which doesn't say much for their sense of humour I suppose. Better knock it on the head now - I don't want to get banned before I come last in the next grading competition

CGC Certification of International Comic Books - Exam Paper Without looking, see how many you get right Answer: Answer: Answer: Answer: Answer: Answer: Answer: How did you do?

Getting involved? They're the self proclaimed market leaders Steve!

Which makes your point valid - is this really just about pimping up the reproduction of famous original US covers?

Spot on, Wardevil. I'd like to hear an argument to the contrary. Why would you do that? Unless I am misunderstanding the future intentions, you will never see a consecutive issue run of the actual series title in the census or on the book labels. Only those issues that do not have a US key cover reproduced will have their actual publication title recorded. This is two plus two is five stuff, surely? Given how long it has taken for the announcement to come, we shouldn't be asking these types of questions at this stage, and second guessing what will happen should we? Why is it important to herald and separate a reprinted US key cover on one book, but not the actual story reprinted in another (if the cover is unique)? Isn't it more important to flag key content in 'foreign' books with covers which don't give the game away?