Get Marwood & I

So a cover only swipe could get the respective US title, but a full story reprint with original cover doesn't. That makes sense! How's it going down in your world Steve, the announcement?

Much like comics, Doctor Who has been a lifelong love for me. I can still remember Aggedor running through the cave towards Jon Pertwee, the piano bars of Baker's robot, the Krynoid getting bigger and bigger, the mummies, the maggots and Weng Chiang. And Eldrad must live! of course. The cards in the weekly Weetabix box were a thing of wonder and excitement. Doctor Who Weekly became Doctor Who Monthly and my Target novelisation collection grew and grew. Then, as I matured to a teenager, I started to get right into it. During the Davison era, I started sending my drawings to fanzines and started collecting any memorabilia I could afford. I watched Mawdryn Undead again, for the first time in many years recently. Oh dear how badly it had aged! But I loved it at the time, and Doctor Who more or less kept pace with my own development right up to the Capaldi era which I loved as an adult, just in a different way to my love as a kid for the Pertwee to McCoy era. Anyway, I spotted an eBay listing for all the original printing pages of Doctor Who Bulletin #33 and couldn't resist buying it: I wonder what the % would be today, for getting shot of Chibbers, were he not already leaving? The listing said it was for every page but #13, the artwork page: Here's the missing art page, in the printed copy: And here, reunited for the first time since 1985, is my original artwork page that was sent back to me after printing all those years ago: I get a kick out of that - bringing together the entire issue templates for the first time in nearly 40 years: I miss those innocent days

To be fair, I was a little further down the track when I jumped ship. I sort of see you as Dilbert. I mean that in a nice way Indeed. We sometimes fall into the trap of 'all or nothing' approaches in life. I know I have, at times. Keep what you love - really love - sell, the rest, live comfortably. Keep in the hobby, but don't let it dominate your life. Post here as long as you're happy, walk away when you're not. A nice bit of balance.

It's fairly offensive without it I think that's fair comment. The idea to promote books which reprint original US keys is fine - but they made a bad initial strategic move and then have seemingly tried to fit a design around it. So does that mean this will not be recorded as AF15 then, given that it doesn't share the cover? @steve566 Steve - what's your take?

I think I've posted about this one before Steven during one of the 'what came first' discussions as I have these images in my 'Printing Order' related Marvel file: I forget what I said before, but they sort of show the progression - colour starts to go during the cents run, goes, and is then gone for the UK copies. That certainly suggests pence printed last. Like I've said many times - the order of printing likely changed during the 20 years of UKPVs. I have examples where cents looks first, and some pence (mostly early sixties). But it doesn't really matter, does it, if you consider books from the same print run as all being first editions. I love the speculation though. It's hard when you have no direct experience of the printing practices of the day.

@rakehell Daphne, help me out here. Is the announcement telling us that only non-US books that share an original US cover will get labelled as the US edition? Not content - only cover? And does the cover have to be a 'key'?

Oh, that's priceless Daphne. Rob Rong. They're rong and we've been robbed I'm sure he's a great guy with enormous experience. Have CGC put it to good use, though?

@Aman619 posted this comment over in my Marvel UKPV thread: The database searching isn't really my number one issue, Aman. I disagree with the core principles that underpin the entire approach. I appreciate that the announcement looks very slick, and that it will be enticing to many. That's a good thing, undoubtedly - bringing the books to wider attention and increasing awareness. But if the basic principles that underpin the labelling and recording approach are wrong, then it doesn't really matter how good it looks, how much effort went into it, or how true the desire was. This is a very peculiar way to classify 'international comic books' (the title of their announcement): The top two are the same thing - books that were published by and for an overseas market. The third set - the Price Variants - are published in the US for distribution in a non-US market. They should not feature in the article at all. It is the most clumsy way to categorise separate entities that I can imagine and creates the false perception that the US produced UK, Canadian and Australian Price Variants are somehow part of the whole 'foreign' thing. They are clearly not, as I have been battling to show in my time here. And there are US Price Variants too, don't forget. It's all so vague and unnecessary and it muddies the waters and the distinctions that exist between book types. There are original first printing books produced in the US and there are non-US published books which reproduce US original content under license. Two categories, which you can sub-divide into home grown books and those targeted for overseas distribution. What do we think when we see the word 'unique'? What does it imply here? It's so badly thought out. Here is CGC's definition for 'Unique Editions': And here is the definition for the 'Foreign Editions' Why on Earth would you seek to artificially split these books into these categories? They are all non-US published books which reprint or make reference to original US content. I can see part of the cover of Amazing Spider-Man #42 in the 'Unique Edition' example. Why then is that not a 'Foreign Edition' and labelled as ASM #42, as the Koloss example is? It is such an unnecessary contrivance, and fraught with danger and the potential for misunderstanding. CGC are creating categorisation types out of thin air, which do not exist. How arrogant, is that? All non-US published books are 'unique to their country of origin', aren't they? 'Out of This World #17 is a UK Alan Class publication which is unique to the UK. It is neither a 'Foreign Edition' or a 'Unique Edition'. It doesn't have to be categorised with consideration to anything but itself. A note stating the reproduction of any key original story content is all that is needed. I don't think CGC have chosen their examples well, for the announcement. Look at this: Why would you use a Canadian Price Variant (or newsstand, as @Lazyboy would say) and a US Direct Edition to illustrate the price difference? If you knew what you were doing, comparing apples with apples, you would use the US Newsstand Edition, like so: It's so lazy and shows a lack of care and, possibly, a lack of true understanding. How long has this announcement been in the making? And how can you say that Price Variants were "typically printed in the United States" when by definition they all were printed as part of the same original print run? This again implies an instinctive lack of knowledge. The statement "CGC classifies price variants the same as their US counterpart” further implies that they are not part of the same print run and are somehow of 'foreign' origin. Of course they are labelled the same - they're the same book from the same print run, just with a different price for overseas distribution. These are the basics that CGC are getting wrong here. Why are Disney an exception to the rule? If they can be labelled by their foreign title with the US title displayed in the label text, why not adopt that common sense approach for all books? Why the contrivance? Now, if CGC plan to amend the census as is implied here... ...then does that not invalidate the reason for the 'labelling as the US edition' strategy in the first place? If users will be able to identify the books in both categories, why would they need to use the US title as the headline title at all? So, Aman, my objection is that the whole thing has been poorly conceived and founded on illogical foundations which are full of contradictions and misleading elements. Yes, CGC deserve huge credit for the focus, effort and spotlight that they are attempting to shine on these little known about books. But the way they are going about it is catastrophically bad for the books - all of them, US originals too - and the hobby. If we look at this final comment here: Do we believe that? Here is one example of where they do not listen, in my opinion. CGC say they want to place a 'first appearance' designation on a non-US publication that reprints original US material: My position is that the only book that deserves that designation - the first appearance of Hulk, for example - is the original US book in which his first appearance was made. To give that designation to a later overseas reprint is massively misleading as well as disrespectful to the US original. But it is important to some for the first appearance of a character in a publication from their country to be recognised. So the solution is to add two words - 'in' and 'Country'. So it becomes as follows: Hulk #1 (US original) - "First appearance of the Hulk" Greek Hulk Comic - "First appearance of the Hulk in Greece" Something like that makes the issue go away, and preserves the intentions, but they choose not to do it. They choose to be wilfully misleading. Some of these non-US books look old. Inexperienced collectors will buy them assuming they have the first Hulk. It's just not right. I can and have proposed an alternative to every strategy aspect that CGC have adopted here and they have ignored them all. The use of additional wording on a strategic basis ("reprints" etc) makes the overall approach water tight. Yet they refuse to listen. This is how I feel about it all. I have a specific spot in my garden that is important to me, with a small shrine to a thing loved. CGC come along and say they want to pay homage to it too - and spread the word. They build the most wonderful looking shrine. It is slick and professional looking. I see them beaming with pride, for what they have built in its name. But they have built it in the wrong spot, and using the wrong materials. There are no foundations, so it will crumble. I have the unenvious task of telling them that, knowing how their hearts will sink - they put so much into it! Wrong is wrong. Their strategy is wrong. In the pursuit of a gimmick - to allow the lazy to find all books that reprint key US content - they have created this monster which manages to disrespect books from both camps. A US original can no longer claim to be the first appearance alone, and the non-US reprint isn't good enough to be known by its own title. Think about it. If you label factually, and literally, you cannot go wrong. Build a link in your census to allow collectors to see what books reprint US original content. But if you adopt CGC's strategy, the possibilities for confusion are endless. They have deviated from their core purpose - respect the books, preserve data integrity, eliminate misconceptions, promote accurate understanding. It's a disaster, I think. That's my take on it. That's my attempt to fight for the integrity of the books, and how they should be recognised and understood.

Why though? Why not do that for all books?

Buzz, you sound unhappy in your job to me. You must have resources, that you can put to better effect - could you not use them, to reshape your working life somehow, and find something more fulfilling? I did, and it was one of the best things I ever did. You don't want that feeling for another 3,000 days, do you? As for this place, there is definitely an addictive element to the boards, I think. And there are some people here who you would not choose to associate with given the choice, as there are in all walks of life. It can be a chore to have them 'in your life' by way of your participation here as some are difficult to block out. The trick, I think, is to stick with what you enjoy. If you enjoy it, carry on. If you don't, then move on. If you can, of course. You enjoy your figures and toys thread - just post there, if you enjoy it, and sod everything else. For me, the negative aspects of participation here overtook the positive some time ago so I have been visiting less and less as a result. Most of my board friends here have moved on so the desire to log on each day is fading. But the bits I enjoy still give me pleasure so I continue to log on most days, to see what is going on. A bit like reading a newspaper - most days, nothing doing. It's a simple lesson in life - do what you enjoy, avoid what you don't, if you can. If you have choices, means and courage, use them. We can spend too much of our lives being inadvertently unhappy, if we're not careful.

Nine sixty, recorded.

It's about eight pound fifty now, isn't it?

Proper comics.

It can happen. And the Spanish Inquisition too.

Result

I like Giordano's work too. Love his Charlton covers.

The UK colourist (with a u) really expressed himself well on those bottles, didn't he. That's worth a label note on its own.

CGC deserve credit for trying to bring non-US published books to wider attention. A lot of work has gone into it and I don't doubt the honesty of their intentions. We all love the books. I just hold a distinctly opposing view as to how they are going about it and, despite putting forward what I thought was a concrete, fact based argument, my position hasn't won the day. That's fair enough - the majority of 'foreign' collectors seem broadly supportive of what CGC are doing. I fought against it because I believed - and still believe - that the interests of the books - and those that can be connected to them - are best served by adopting a fact based labelling and recording approach. I understand the 'first appearance in country X' argument, but fundamentally disagree with it. But the majority don't. We'll just have to start our own grading company, Robot, and show them how it's done! I'll sell the Charltons - that should raise enough for the start up costs. Assuming the start up costs are 39 pence of course....

I don't think we were expecting anything else - CGC are set on this strategy. Apart from the needless, water muddying reference to UK/Canadian/Australian Price Variants, the only aspect of interest I found was this: That suggests that the census search function will be adapted to allow books that are labelled with US original titles to be located under their actual title as well. It'll be interesting to see how that is achieved, and what it looks like.

I've owned two cents error copies in my time but have never seen a UKPV error example. Logic suggests there wouldn't be one. If the cents were run first, you'd expect the print error to have started the run, and then been corrected. If pence were run first, the error would have had to have occurred when the plates were changed for the cents copies, otherwise there would be pence errors out there. Likely printing order: Cents error Corrected to cents regular Plate change to pence Expect a pence error any minute then.

Could you discuss it over here please, Aman: https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/488611-a-discussion-about-how-cgc-label-non-us-publications-which-reprint-reproduce-original-us-comic-content/#comments Cheers

I don't think it's like that, really. I'm not that important, despite all the research. It is what it is. Best leave it now.

In addition to my threads and journal pages on their forum, I have liaised directly with Matt Nelson and - with his blessing some time back - put together a guide that I prepared describing what Price Variants are. I've sent them descriptions showing to how to differentiate key pence books in relation to internal content. And on several occasions I have offered my services as a sounding board.

Shame to see this though, after all I've tried to do here - CGC lumping Price Variants (UK/Canadian/Australian) in with international / 'foreign comics': https://www.cgccomics.com/news/article/10086/international-comics/

I saw this over in a PGM post - that' a cracking cover sticker isn't it https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/506597-pgm-asm-4-1st-sandman-uk-price-variant/#comment-12297973