Get Marwood & I

It's not stuff that will appeal Robot. Too niche.

And in the UK, too. Very odd.

Yup https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/502880-fantastic-four-199-marvel-special-market-edition-distributed-by-whitman/#comment-12176286

That's a good question. I recently bought five copies of this... ...from a chap in the UK who discovered (I think) 500 in a box somewhere. Maybe to be worthy of making the list, a book has to have a prevalence that the market detects and which affects pricing? The above FF199 'Whitman' find seems to have translated into a glut of graded high grade copies on a book which was previously believed to be scarce. Prices are falling now, I see, so the find has had a notable affect on the market, pricing and has been noticed by the hobby.

I would say that there are two categories here, Drake. The first, as others have pointed out, are variations in the colour strike that are a normal part of the printing process. Though some can appear more visually striking than others, they are quite common and not what I would call a mistake or 'error'. The inks run low, and affect the colouring. Perfectly normal. Here's an example: Because that is a normal, expected part of the printing process, no one refers to them as a mistake, or an error, or a variant, so CGC do not label them as such. The second group is where something has gone wrong. In other words, the end product is the result of something being missed or done incorrectly. Here is an example of that: Hopefully you can see why CGC might label that as a production error - it's pretty obvious that the inks were messed up and the result is not how the printers intended the book to come out. It's not a variant though - just an misprinted regular copy. There is a third set of books, that have visual differences and those are sun faded copies. You can read about those here, if you're interested: https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/497893-show-us-your-examples-of-sun-fade/#comments So there will be three occasions when you might find a comic to look different, or out of place when sat next to other copies: Printing errors - books that look different because something went wrong during production (warranting a label note or qualified grade) Natural colour variations - books that can look different due to the mix of inks producing, sometimes markedly different results during printing Sun faded / post production damage - books that look different because something has happened to them after the production event to change their appearance. Sun fade is the obvious one, but water damage can alter a books appearance too I've found I really like noticeable colour variations and used to collect Spidey ones. If you like them too, that's great, but I don't think you'll be able to convince anyone to label, classify or value them any differently to any other prevalently coloured copy in their production run.

Yes. It's amazing how quickly the 'one' is replaced by the next 'one' once you've finally found it, isn't it. Still, things don't always have to make sense do they. If you enjoy the process, and can afford it, crack on Kev, crack on.

Just as you give the last one away, they'll announce a Captain Gallant film.

Post that picture again Kev

One man's slight damage is another man's massive effin hole, I suppose

Lots of interesting thoughts in there, Albert, on the nature of collecting and sharing. I touched on a similar theme in a post here, which took me half a year to find this morning: https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/501003-book-collecting-seems-harder-today-then-it-was-last-year/?do=findComment&comment=12108770 I actually posted a different response to your post, earlier, and then hid it as I realised I'd made a common mistake. I suppose if you don't share, and keep everything you learn or discover quiet, did it ever happen? Once you're dead, I mean.

No chance of that. They'd only f the labels up, if I did.

I saw it online earlier - the end credits to the Peacemaker TV show - something about the character Chemo, I think - Ross co-created him.

Was Charlton's Captain Gallant #1 a warehouse book? That seems to be everywhere.

And the full issue tracker, which I haven't shown yet:

Updated version:

Yup It can't be helpful to the hobby to have titles ascribed to publishers who never produced books with those titles, in the census. If that element of the design stands, CGC will be rightly accused of spreading misinformation. Two examples below: It's not the K G Murray World's Finest #128, is it. Come back in eight years to see what is planned. I presume that is the new target date for the announcement....

This post comes with an 'Outrageous Speculation Alert' so only read on if you're genuinely interested in these books (or Dotty) In consideration of what further 15c variants might exist, I have broken the possibilities down into four categories: Books cover dated before April 1972 Books cover dated after October 1972 Issue gaps among the known 15c variant titles Titles with no 15c variants in the 15c variant cover date range Before I comment on each, here is a quick recap of what we currently know: Earliest cover dated 15c variant – April 1972 Latest cover dated 15c variant – October 1972 Number of titles published between those inclusive cover dates – 41 Number of issues published between those inclusive cover dates – 102 Number of titles with one or more 15c variant confirmed – 13 Number of 15c variants confirmed – 30 If the starting assumption is that any Harvey book within the 15c variant cover date window could have a variant copy we have: 28 titles with no 15c variants confirmed 72 additional issues which could theoretically have a 15c variant extant Here are my thoughts on what further books might exist in each of the four categories – there is a lot of speculation here, so don’t take any of it as fact. It could all change with one out of pattern book discovery (and often does!). 1. Books cover dated before April 1972 My current assessment is that there will be no 15c variants cover dated prior to April 1972, the date the first known variant appears. Apart from my usual ‘gut feel’ the reasons for this are as follows: We haven’t found one yet (very obvious, but currently very true) We’ve only found one April variant, followed by six in May, which to me implies a beginning which ramps up Harvey published only six titles in April, but seventeen in March. I would expect one of those March issues to have shown by now, if they exist, given that eight of the seventeen are 15c variant bearing titles The early April/May 15c variant issues have a ‘getting started’ feel to them, with no standard indicia pattern and some cover dressing mishaps So for the time being, I’m going for zero additional 15c variants in this time frame. 2. Books cover dated after October 1972 I also believe that we will not see any November cover dated 15c variants. The reasons this time include: We haven’t found one yet (still obvious, still true) All of the 15c variant bearing titles are priced 20c from this point, a price that was acceptable to the UK market (see my UK lower page count request theory, outlined earlier in the journal). Maybe the September books snuck in before the message to abandon got through. I have evidence of November dated books, circulating in the UK, with price sticker residue and pencilled prices that indicate they were UK distributed. If 15c variants were made especially for the UK market, you wouldn’t expect to see many 20c copies with UK distribution marks - they would be priced 15c I accept that they’re not exactly smoking guns there, but I think we can discount all books from November onwards at this stage. That brings us back to a starting scope of 41 titles and 102 books. 3. Issue gaps among the known 15c variant titles In respect of the thirteen confirmed titles, I believe that all the missing issues could have 15c variants. I have plotted the indicia types for the twenty three 15cv copies I own to show which has a unique indicia and which has the regular version (click to enlarge): As you can see, after a mixture in April, May and June, the unique 15c indicia seems to bed down from July onwards and become standard. If that standard practice was fully observed, then it would follow that any July / August / September dated 25c copy would have the variant indicia on the 11th page and, therefore, a 15c variant should exist. The four missing July / August / September issues are: Little Audrey & Melvin #54 Little Dot Dotland #54 Playful Little Audrey #102 Spooky #131 As we can see from the following charts, Audrey #102 and Spooky #131 both have the unique 15c indicias on the 11th page in their 25c copies. So I expect them to have 15c variants: The other two titles I have yet to see inside the 25c copies, but expect them to have the unique indicias too - I'll update you when I finally find copies - even the 25c versions are hard to get hold of it seems: So that's July to September done. If we then look at the first three months, we have one April 15c variant book (Richie Rich #113) of three possible: If we look on Mikes Comic Newsstand, we see that all three April books have the same ‘on sale date’ of the 15th of January: If, say, Richie Rich #113 had a later date than the other two books, I could see how it could have made the cut date-wise to be the first and only April 15c variant. But if the three books all have the same production date, then you would imagine, as titles in scope for the 15c experiment, that all three would have had a 15c copy printed. One word of caution here, though - I mention often in my research that the dates on MCN often don’t correlate with the date stamps that we see on the actual books themselves. Here are two examples (just illustrative). First up, Wendy #74 which has an ‘on sale’ date of the 15th of May, according to MCN: Sure enough, here is my regular 25c copy with a 16th May date: A very close match Not so close here though, for my copy of Devil Kids #55, which has an eleven day difference: The word of caution here, is that the dates on MCN might not relate closely to the printing order. This opens the possibility that our Richie Rich #113, whilst having the same ‘on sale’ date as the other two in scope April books, may have been printed later and, therefore, be the only April book that made the cut. Pure speculation of course, but worth pointing out. All that said, for now, I’m going to stick my neck out and expect our other two April books – Wendy #72, and Sad Sack & The Sarge #94, to appear one day. I can’t rely on the indicia to be informative in these copies by the way, neither 25c copy has the 11th page 15c indicia, but we know that doesn't discount them as the indicia correlation scenario is only cemented from July onwards. The three missing May and June books are: Little Lotta #101 Spooky #130 Wendy #73 My charts for these three show that Wendy #73 has a unique 15c indicia on the 11th page of the 25c copy, so that I expect to see it as a 15c variant: Spooky #130 doesn't have the unique indicia in the 25c copy, but we know that the 15c variant may still exist as May dated 15c variants have a mixture of regular / unique: Little Lotta #101 I have yet to see, but the same theory applies: So I think all nine of the missing books may exist in this group. 4. Titles with no 15c variants in the 15c variant cover date range There are 41 titles in the April to September 1972 15c Variant cover date window with 13 having one or more variant confirmed. I believe there could be a fourteenth title – Richie Rich Riches. I believe that because issue #1, dated July 1972, has the unique 15c variant indicia on the 5th wrap / 11th page of the 25c regular copy. This to me is a strong indication that a 15c variant will exist as that indicia scenario exists in all the July 15c variant books I have checked to date. We have a fly in the ointment however, in that the 25c copy of issue #2, cover dated September, doesn’t have the 15c indicia on the 11th page. So we have a conflicting picture there. All eight September 15c variants have the unique indicia so for issue #2 of Riches to not have it pushes me to think that the #1 may have it in error or that it's an odd one issue variant wonder. Time will tell – Richie Rich Riches #1 is a could be, #2 an unlikely. Turning to the remaining 27 titles, I have the following three groups: Titles where no 15c Variant is expected to exist due to the August / September cover dated 25c issues having no 15c Variant indicia on the 5th internal wrap (page 11): Casper & Nightmare (#35-38) – #37 (August) has no 15cv indicia Casper Space Ship (#1-2) – #1 (August) has no 15cv indicia Casper's Ghostland (#66, 67, 68) - #68 (September) has no 15cv indicia Devil Kids (#54-56) – #54 and 55 (August) have no 15cv indicia Hot Stuff Sizzlers (#49, 50, 51) - #50 (August) has no 15cv indicia Richie Rich Diamonds (#1-2) – #1 (August) has no 15cv indicia Richie Rich Dollars & Cents (#48, 49, 50, 51) - #50 (August) has no 15cv indicia Richie Rich Fortunes (#4-6) – #4, 5 and 6 (September) have no 15cv indicia Richie Rich Millions #53-55 – #54 and 55 (September) have no 15cv indicia Richie Rich Money World #1 – #1 (September) has no 15cv indicia Sad Sack Navy Gobs 'n' Gals (#1-2) – #1 (August) has no 15cv indicia Sad Sack with Sarge and Sadie (#1) – #1 (September) has no 15cv indicia Sad Sad Sack World (#36, 37, 38, 39) - #38 (August) has no 15cv indicia Spooky Spooktown (#44, 45) - #45 (September) has no 15cv indicia TV Casper and Company (#36, 37) - #36 (August) has no 15cv indicia Wendy Witch World (#44-45) – #44 and 45 (September) have no 15cv indicia As we know, it’s looking very likely that all July, August and September 15c variants have unique 15cv indicias. If true, then the absence of a variant indicia on the 11th page of a 25c priced book for those months is a very strong indication that no 15c variant will exist. I have discounted all the above titles on that basis. October 20c titles where no 15c Variant is expected due to there being no preceding issues in the 15c Variant date window: Baby Huey, the Baby Giant (#98) - #97 is dated October 1971 Casper and Spooky (#1) – First issue Casper and Wendy (#1) – First issue Little Lotta Foodland #29 - #28 is dated October 1971 Richie Rich Bank Book #1 – First issue Richie Rich Jackpots #1 – First issue Spooky Haunted House (#1) – First issue Whilst not conclusive, it’s difficult to see Harvey printing 15c variant copies for books that have their first issue in October, the final 15cv month. Similarly, books that have an October issue, but no preceding issue in the variant window are also unlikely to appear. I have discounted this group too, on that basis. TBC (yet to check indicias): I have yet to locate a copy of these following books, so cannot make a judgement at present. None of them have a UK distribution history however, so are unlikely to feature I think. Little Dot's Uncles and Aunts #42, 43 (no August/September issues) Richie Rich Success Stories #43, 44, 45, 46 Sad Sack Laugh Special #65, 66, 67 Sad Sack's Army Life Parade #39, 40, 41, 42 (August / September issues in bold) I'll update this as and when I pick up a copy. Conclusion So, if we recap on the four categories, we can see a projection of a further 10 15c variants potentially being out there, making an overall total of 40: Books cover dated before April 1972: 0 additional 15c variants Books cover dated after October 1972: 0 additional 15c variants Issue gaps among the known 15c variant titles: 9 additional 15c variants Titles with no 15c variants in the 15c variant cover date range: 1 additional 15c variant (Richie Rich Riches #1) In other words, after all that, the nine blanks on this chart... ...plus one - maybe two (maybe none) - Richie Rich Riches. Time will tell if I'm right. I probably won't be, but it was fun putting this all together and gathering up 25c copies to look inside. They did like a yellow cover didn't they: Yellow comic!

It's nice to see all these examples - pre and post the design change - and to hear others thoughts on it all. When the announcement is finally made, and the final design is (hopefully) clarified, I'm going to summarise in detail my thoughts and objections, tailored to any changes that have yet to filter though, one last time in this thread. I may then pop a poll up, to gauge people's thoughts on it all. We shouldn't have to guess how CGC will label and record any non-US comic. They should label them with their actual title, issue number, publisher and date. Always. If they reproduce some significant original US content, by all means note that too - but prefixed with the words 'Reprints content from...'. And by all means add the country of origin / distribution, but not as an 'Edition' of some US original publication with which it may share full or limited content. Do that, and you can't go wrong and have a nice, clean, orderly census record. And you cannot be criticised as everything stated is fact, and nothing is misleading. Hopefully not too much longer to wait now.

Thanks Elsie. I know I'm getting on some people's nerves with this - certainly CGC's - but it is so galactically, manifestly and obviously wrong to me, that I'm genuinely puzzled as to why the argument is even necessary in the first place. As you say, it's wrong on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start. Maybe there will be some concessions or meaningful explanations in the announcement, if and when it comes, I don't know. But, and hopefully without sounding too dramatic, I feel like I'm fighting for the integrity of these books here, and the ongoing record keeping of them. I don't really understand why I have to do that with CGC given all that they stand for (or should, perhaps stand for) and it grates that no one will respond formally after a year of chasing for clarity. If nothing else, there is an absence of knowledge for submitters right now as to how non-US books will be recorded currently - as themselves, or under another US books details? CGC are processing them to the design now, as we speak. So how can it be right that they will not give even an outline of how it will / is working? People are effectively submitting blind with only a loose idea of what constitutes a 'key' US book as a guide to what they may see on their returned book's label. I'd like to think that if I was the leading self appointed corporate custodian of all things comics that I would be grateful for a considered, rational argument that was put forward by a seasoned comic enthusiast who was clearly trying to do the right thing by the comics. At least have the courage to respond to it and argue your case. If you don't stand for one thing, you'll fall for everything, they say. Well I'm standing for this. Still.

Thanks Stephen. Thing is, if they just stuck to recording the details of the actual comic, they wouldn't necessarily need an expert. It reprints Superboy #1, and shares the cover, so would be labelled as such under the new regime as you say, yes. Just wondered whether the actual Australian title is 'Comics' or not. What street did you hear the Heritage link up on? Wall Street?

This book predates their strategy change, so they would have gone with the actual book title Gary. AUS Reprints lists it as 'Superboy Comics' but they may have gone for the GCD title which is just 'Superboy'. I haven't seen the indicia myself, so don't know what that says - if anything. @steve566 Steve - any idea which is the correct title for this one?

Indeed. Not everyone in the hobby is as clued up on these things. We wouldn't have a newbie Q&A forum if they were. I really hope they don't stick with that part of the strategy. Add just a couple of words, and the potential for problems and misunderstanding goes away. Keep that 'first appearance' distinction for the books that warrant it.