Get Marwood & I

Yes, like this one I picked up last year: For this issue, there are printed dual prices under the sticker on all the copies I've located: For there to be a UK Price Variant, there would have to be a copy with a cents only printed price, making the dual priced one UK distribution specific (like the dual priced 1960s Dells). But lets' wait for my forthcoming thread on it, eh? I've lots to discuss and will flag you guys when I get it going. I don't want to lose the drift of this thread which I'd like to stay focussed on the fact that CGC's labelling strategy for non-US published books is a disaster. If we deviate too far from that, Mr Nelson may stop reading.

I don't, no, but she looks like Sean Young I'm off for my dinner. It's dinner time in Blighty.

Yes, he seems to be the man on them, and I'm hoping he'll join in when I get it started. Yup

That's a cracker. Funnily enough, I've been looking into the 1946 Bell Features books to see if I can find any UK Price Variants, i.e. books where there are both Canadian and separate UK priced books extant, and from the same print run. Here are the current files, which are a work in progress: I hope to start up a thread about them - and other non-US books such as K G Murray, Better Publications and Super Comics - some time soon.

Very welcome, they are great, and sometimes have Dingle interiors too. Lots of good art in them. The stories are typical golden age kind of quality, ranging from somewhat unreadable to still compelling after all this time. That's the one thing that unites us all I think - CGC included. We all love the books.

There's that word 'editions' again. And variant too, I see. "Foreign Edition/Variant" It's not right.

I've been a FB member for a while now Steve - I joined following your comments last year and to see what Matt was saying. I don't post as I don't want to hijack what seems to be a steady, happy ship. Annoying everybody here is enough, I think. And I know my comments here are read by those that make the decisions. Notwithstanding my position, I enjoy the discussion too. A good solid argument about comics - all too rare on this forum, lately. I don't know about that. Why not leave them as undated, and state 'undated' in the data field (if that's possible). That is the factual position, after all. You can always add a note somewhere with an approximate date as a guide, if there is sufficient evidence / collector consensus to warrant it.

Anyway, I've been at this four hours today and it's time to go and do something else. Thanks for your input today @Bronty - it's nice to get some thoughts from someone else if only to make sure I'm not losing my mind! And you Tiffany @rakehell See you in all in few days maybe, when the announcement lands. Or weeks. Months. Years even....

The majority of collectors of these books do appear to be non-US currently, yes. So if CGC want to, say, bring it to wider attention that a given book reprints an established US key, to give it greater focus and collectability, how does that help that current target audience? It drives up the prices and makes it harder to collect, surely?

Great point - take all the effort out of it. My understanding, on which I am entirely happy to be corrected by a CGC representative, is that the strategy is to allow books to be amalgamated in the registry so that someone can collect all the "Hulk #1's", for example, and maybe get a prize. Can you think of another reason, while we await the formal announcement?

Again Rachel, exactly. Great book. It's fantastic that CGC are going to showcase it and others like it. It's laudable and worthy that the are going to bring them to wider attention. But not like this!

Great examples there, @Bronty, of those Canadian books. Very frustrating for those that pay attention to detail and further evidence of how lax CGC labelling has been, and continues to be, despite having all the knowledge at their disposal to mine and improve matters. But I do feel that this new strategy of a calling a non-US produced book by what it reprints, and not what it is, trumps them by a mile. The Canadian examples are inaccurate due to laziness, not by design. This book below is inaccurate by conscious design. It is not Fantastic Four #1. It is not a German Edition of anything. Just a publication in its own right. It does not warrant the label distinction of having the origin and 1st appearance of the title characters. Only the US original should claim that distinction. And it should not be recorded in the census against the record of the original US title. And I shouldn't have to make this argument!

Work backwards, as the stronger, more up to date posts are there. I'd be the first to hold my hands up if someone came on here with an explanation that stood up to scrutiny.

Thanks so much for posting Bronty - I'm not sure how far into the thread you have gone, but there is a lot more to it. I have had some dialogue with Matt Nelson about this, and he assures me that the strategy has been thought through and that he just holds a different opinion to mine. I don't like quoting private dialogue, but what else can I do if no one from CGC will publicly explain their thought process and design approach? I've been given about five dates for their official announcement so far, going as far back to the middle of last year, and all have been missed. If CGC would prefer us not to make assumptions on a model that was incepted a year ago operationally, with the resulting product in circulation, I think they should get on with telling us what it actually is. I also think it is a shame that they do not appear to consult more widely on these things. I'm not saying my opinion should count for anything but the arguments I am making are powerful, factual and appear to have wide support. Why are CGC always so reluctant to mobilise the wealth of experience at their disposal which could be channelled so effectively via this forum with a little time and effort? On that basis, Mike, do you have a new target date for the announcement? Is it imminent or has it been delayed again? @CGC Mike

Exactly.

Yeah, it's a gnat's arse of a mistake and I'd forgive it if everything else salient was as it should be. It doesn't pay to look too closely at examples, I've found, as there are as many individual mistakes to be found as there are strategic ones. Look at this one below - they render the actual title to the third line footnote, which is the strategic problem, but then get it wrong as well. It clearly says (in German) 'The Mighty Hulk':

"What do you think, Dave?" "About what Barry?" "My 'first full appearance of Wolverine' label note" "Oh, that. Yeah. Nice, Barry, nice" "I think so" "It's not though, is it" "Isn't what Dave?" "The first appearance of Wolverine. That's in Hulk #181, aint it? The American one" "This is Hulk #181 Dave" "Don't be silly Barry. It's in French mate" "Yeah, I know that but it reprints Hulk 181 and that's important" "Oh, fair enough. Why don't you say that then?" "Say what, Dave?" "That it's a reprint" "I don't want to" "Fair enough" "It's definitely the first appearance though" "No it isn't" "Ah yes, but get this - it's the first appearance in France" "Oh, is it?" "Yes" "I'll take your word for it" "So you should" "So why not say that then?" "Say what, Dave?" "The first appearance in France" "Don't wanna" "You don't wanna?" "No" "Fair enough. It'd clear up a lot of confusion though, wouldn't it. Adding 'In France' and 'Reprints'" "You're just being awkward Dave" "Am I, Barry? It's just three words mate" "Nah. Aint aving it" "Well you're in charge Barry" "That's right Dave, I am"

I believe that 1900 is the default position when there's no date. Gotta put something in, probably. Yes. But stay on track, Stephen, that's an altogether different assault on the senses my friend.

Here is a further scenario that I will be looking to see how CGC treat, as and when the position arises. If I submit this book to CGC, my understanding is that they will label it as Amazing Fantasy #15 given that it reprints part of that book: I further understand that they will label the book as "the origin and first appearance of Spider-Man", in line with their strategy of recognising the first appearance of a character in the non-US country. But that would be factually incorrect as this book is the first appearance of Spider-Man in the UK: If I'm right, CGC will need to add a second qualifier to their strategy explanation: The first is the current one (as I understand it) of labelling a book as the first appearance in that country The second, additional qualifier would be that the book had to be produced in that country, and not a targeted US import If I'm right, then Out of This World #17 will carry a distinction that only two books should carry - the two that came from the original US print run. If CGC adopted my suggestion of "First appearance...in a UK publication" they would need to apply that only to OOTW#17 and not the UK Price Variant of AF#15. They'd need to adopt my suggestion of stating "Reprints" if they intended to use the description on both UK priced books to separate / honour their differing statuses. See how confusing it all gets? Confusing - and entirely unnecessary.

Indeed. Join in the fun here Robot: https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/505053-seriously/?do=findComment&comment=12252515 It's now 2 days short of a month since CGC Mike told me that the announcement was 2-3 weeks away. While we continue to wait, let's revisit one of the images posted earlier in the thread by Robot - a Super Adventure Comic #11 which CGC have labelled as World's Finest Comics #31 under their new labelling strategy: Most collectors will have only a passing knowledge of books like these. Let's see what CGC do to help people understand what this book is all about. 1. The Book Title As we all now know, CGC intend to give books like these the headline label title of the US book that they reproduce in full or in part, and not the title of the comic itself. That will confuse collectors straight away, of course. Why would you call a book something that it isn't? The words 'World's Finest Comics' do not appear on the cover, or even internally. In this case, unless I have my facts wrong, the connection here is just the cover art. The book has the same cover art as World's Finest Comics #31, and that is enough in CGC's opinion to render its actual title to a footnote below the publisher / date details. To preserve the homage link, it is the same for the issue number. 2. The Content Description On this example, we see that CGC state that the book 'contains' 3 US comics. It is a given, I guess, that whenever this is mentioned, it is the US comics of those titles that are in play. This is one of the reasons that I refer to the labelling strategy as disrespectful - the implication is that only the US originals are important. Note, however, that there is no reference to World's Finest Comics from a content position. CGC note the content of 3 US books, but not the actual book that drives the replacement title. Bizarre. Note also that CGC - who must have given great thought to this strategy - omit to inform that the content is reprinted, and also that it is not present in full. If CGC had used these three words - "Reprints content from.." the confusion goes away and accuracy reigns. CGC have had a long time to consider this. So we can only assume one of two scenarios: They considered the use of descriptors such as "Reprints content from" and decided against them They did not think it through sufficiently I do not think it puts CGC in a good light to do this - refuse to add a handful of words that improve the description beyond measure and remove the potential for misleading collectors. The addition of my proposed three words makes the description water tight. Their omission creates a series of problems around accuracy. Note at this point that I have been making these observations for a year now, and no CGC representative will respond publicly or explain their position. 3. Country of Origin CGC use the words "Australian Edition" to indicate to the viewer that the book is not of US production origin. Returning to my point in point 2 above, CGC will know that the word 'Edition' has strong connotations in the industry: Newsstand Edition / Direct Edition. Regular Edition / Deluxe Edition. For me, the use of 'Edition' here creates a strong impression that a separate book exists which was produced in the same print run as the book in hand. By saying 'Australian Edition', as I have noted many times before, CGC create the impression that the book is somehow a part of the original US print run. It is the Australian edition of World's Finest Comics #31 in the same way that CGC used to label UK Price Variants as 'editions' (with many old slab examples still in circulation). But of course it isn't. By making that mental link, carelessly using words that, as I have said, have strong implications in the industry, I think CGC muddy the water between genuine price variants, produced in the US for overseas distribution, and books locally reprinted under licence in non-US countries. I feel that all the work I have put into making UK Price Variant status clear is now in jeopardy. Thankfully there are no origin or first appearances reprinted in this book for CGC to label as such, and in doing so immediately undermine the legitimacy of true origin appearance books. Read back over this thread for my views on that practice. Label Summary Keeping in mind that CGC should be responsible for clear, accurate descriptions, what does the layman see on this book label: The title and issue number of another book No mention of why that title has been chosen - you have to know the cover to make the link An inaccurate description of internal contents: The stated books are not reproduced in full No content from World's Finest Comics #31 is present Failure to indicate the reprint status. There are non-US publications which actually do include original remaindered US copies (e.g. Double Double books / Thorpe & Porter annuals) so the door is opened here to confusion down the line Not a great start is it. My belief is that CGC could make all these issues go away with some more considered thought, and a more fact based approach to labelling content and descriptions. If CGC want - and I believe this desire to be genuine - to promote these books to a wider audience, this I'm afraid is completely the wrong way to go about it and to me has the polar opposite effect. If there is a desire for slab collectors to be able to group sets of books that share a cover, or key content, in the registry, then CGC should have found another way of doing that - and one that does not require the corruption of basic self-evident facts. Let's turn now to the census records for this book. Census Records The book was slabbed on the 26th of May last year: In a private message last year, Matt Nelson asked that I point out that the design was not finalised, and some of the observations that I had made about the census would not feature in the final design. It has been my expectation since that there would be some revision to the census entries, therefore. If the design is in place now (the ------script has been written for the announcement) then I would expect the census as it stands now to be the one we will see going forward. It doesn't seem likely to me that we will see a revision of existing records, but we'll see. So, as a collector who likes the look of the Australian distributed book called Super Adventure Comic, I type the following into the census... ....and I get this: All good so far - the title exists, and against the correct publisher (K.G. Murray). I click on that and I get this: OK, my issue #11 is absent. At this stage, the CGC census is telling us that Super Adventure Comic #11 has never been graded by CGC. And yet it has. Let's try World's Finest #31 then: Hmmm. Here we go - two entries - one for the DC original, one for K. G. Murray: The K. G. Murray one is our book - note how there is no mention of the actual book title anywhere: So how can that be right? We have a book that cannot be found against its actual title and publisher, but can be found against the record of a different comic with which it shares a cover. So the CGC census ascribes books to publishers that never produced a book with that title and, in doing so, creates confusion (there is actually a K.G. Murray title of World's Finest Comics in 1979 - CGC's approach here undermines the existence of that book). Being a nosey parker, I look at other websites - here's two, the GCD and the AUS Reprints site (note they know what a reprint is): Try matching the book contents of those two sites to the CGC label. CGC Records Summary So for this book alone, we have a whole host of misleading and inaccurate records which are confusing even if you know what you are doing. All of these issues would go away if CGC would just accept logic and label on a factual basis against a standardised set of widely accepted descriptors. A licensed reprint, is a licensed reprint. A title is a title. An issue number is an issue number. A publisher is a publisher. A first appearance is a first appearance. A publication of a non-US country is a publication of a non-US country Why would a company like CGC seek to muddy these waters unnecessarily by deviating from fact with a mix and match approach to salient details? Why have the US title and issue number, but the actual book publisher and date? And a company with a clear duty for factual, accurate record keeping and presentation too. If you mislead a collector into thinking a book is a first appearance, that collector may make a financial commitment on the back of what they believe to be trusted information. That cannot be desirable, justifiable or right. Can it? In my observations throughout this thread, I have tried to be fair and I have suggested alternatives. Here are the main ones again: Title and number the book factually. If there is key original US content involved, highlight that another way on the label and build a link in the census to enable the amalgamation of books in the registry Use the word "Reprints...." in front of any content that is thus, e.g. "Reprints original US content from....." If CGC believe there is a requirement to state - as I believe is the case - that a non-US publication is the first appearance 'in that country', then state that by adding the words "....in Australia" after the first appearance label wording, e.g. "First appearance of Spider-Man in an Australian publication" Replace the word 'edition' with publication, e.g. "Australian Publication" And of course by labelling a book as it is, the census record issues go away. If there are simple solutions to the problems CGC have created here, why won't they adopt them? And why won't they explain why they won't adopt them? Apart from one episode of hopefully uncharacteristic stroppiness, born of frustration, I have been nothing but factual, professional and reasonable here in my arguments. And I have offered solutions, as have others. I will write again, when the announcement comes, to see if any of my points have been answered. I will do so because I care about the integrity of the books. I want CGC to treat them fairly and with respect and judging by the contributions to this thread, many of you do too. As ever, we have to wait, and we shall see.

Export Publishing Canadian reprint. GCD entry here: https://www.comics.org/issue/1464309/ Another eBay Canada example here, with the same back cover: https://www.ebay.ca/itm/252689011362?hash=item3ad57052a2:g:ZmIAAOSwJ7RYWEst @eccomic knows a lot about these things

The gravestone of common sense. Or punctuality, if there's no space left on the former.

2-3 weeks have come and gone. Getting on for four now. The 1st of April is looking nailed on, isn't it....

Me too. A muntin mishap