Get Marwood & I

@rolandtiu's Marvel Premier #30 brings us up to 115: And it sits neatly in the 'monthly issue' date block: I've added each confirmed book to the spreadsheet as a P1.75 for the time being, as that seems to be the standard price, when a price is in evidence. Mostly, the NBS books are printed with a blank price area - a few are blacked out - and any price is stamped, presumably by hand, and usually in the format on our Marvel Premiere #30: The only different stamped price I've captured so far is this one at what looks like P1.80: Given that the vast majority are priced at P1.75, I wonder why they left the price box blank for later stamping and did not just print the price?

Sooper! I'll add it in later

http://www.comicpedigrees.com/index.php

Here's my copy I once asked whether furniture maker related title quips were liked by people called Walter. They told me "Lantz likes them, yes, but Walt Disney"

Added! I have those down as Alemars, not NBS, from 1979 - am I right on that? Brilliant! Only #192 missing if the title fits the pattern: 114 Confirmed! Keep going @rolandtiu

I think so, yes. It's really hard to find multiple copies, but I managed it for a lot of the 1960s Charlton one shots without cover months, which allowed me to place them much more accurately alongside their peer titles by cover month. Gorgo and Konga #1 went from being the first UKPVs to not, via the application of this method. Not flawless by any means, but so much more accurate and justifiable than the conclusions that preceded it, in my opinion. It's a big old complicated pattern, all this stuff, with multiple strands, that can all join together to present the best possible version of what might have happened 60 years ago, without actually being there to confirm it.

I concentrated on the first four cycles of DC, to prove the salient point regarding the sequential 1-9 numbering system. I did plot some titles - Marvel and Charlton - beyond, and it gets messy. Lots of bunching, for Marvels, and rarely a correlation between Marvel and DC cover dates. You'd have to spend a lot of time fleshing those out, to make some informed guesses as to what was going on.

The Library of Congress date for DD4 was the 4th August - Mikes Comic Newsstand refers to it as the 'on sale date'. The dates on the covers could be arrival, removal, and be by retailer or someone else in the distribution chain. But they are an indicator that, if correctly applied, the comic existed - and was therefore printed - prior to the 28th July. When found in numbers, these date stamps can really help place when a comic came out. In the case of Charlton, the dates on Mikes CN are miles out. I'm not saying they are for Marvel, but they are a potentially informative piece of any research jigsaw, even with all the inbuilt flaws. If you found a few examples all with the same date, obviously by different retailers / distributors, and you could match that same date to a book that was supposedly released later or earlier, then you can potentially prove theories that online reference data otherwise corrupts. If that made sense.

Here are some DC / Marvels I plotted for the number cycle review - note how the DC stamped 10ds all begin on the 5th stamp cycle but a couple of Marvel 9ds slip in: There are 5 x Action 317's stamped a 5 / 10d, and only one stamped a 3 / 9d. From the examples I gathered, at least.

It's actually Amazing Spider-Man annual (King Size Special): https://www.ebay.com/itm/324567181141?hash=item4b91b62755:g:RZ4AAOSw1Apgc89o https://www.comics.org/issue/21403/ It might be that your Dad collected, or had access to unsold copies. To ensure that they were not reused, the covers were either removed in full or in part by the sellers before they were returned. Early Spideys will get some interest, even in this condition, so I would list them on eBay as an auction and see what happens. Or keep them to read! Type in "remaindered" as an eBay comic search, and you'll see what I mean.

One thing to consider Rich - create a journal here, and add the summaries of your gap / hiatus discoveries there, like I've done with my variant research. That way, there's a more easily accessible record of what you have established. Things get buried in threads quite quickly and I've forgotten most of what I have posted now, here and in the other threads. Your research piece is too good to just sit on page 108 of this thread. I'll help you with the doing of it, if you want. Either that or write a book, like I've been threatening to do for the last 5 years

The seller had gallons of them in multiple listings - he couldn't give them away!

I'm going to say it again, Rich - that's staggeringly good work @Malacoda But never place an image of Marwood dancing starkers in my head again.

That is absolutely first rate work, Rich. Top draw stuff. I never imagined anyone would ever surpass the detail I have gone into down the years but this is just another level of scrutiny, research and piecing together. Absolutely terrific stuff. I'll let the sediment settle, read it again, and come back with any thoughts. One early one - the difference between published release dates and actual arrival dates on comics can be illuminating when patterns don't fit. This one backs the published date up though, August 12: And I found the KC#119 reference we were discussing privately: "10 copies of Marvel Kid Colt Outlaw #119 (UK Edition) - November 1964VF/NM to Fine unread copies as pictured. Crisp, bright and flat copies with minor blemishes in places. Yellow pages. Photos are of the actual books you are bidding on. These books are from a lot of abandoned retail stock that was in storage since it was new."

If only! Sorry, that's Kev isn't it @Kevin.J

I shall nay post until thy have finished

That was the first season. There was a great first season episode - The Troubled Spirit - that starts with a chap playing a sitar (or something like that) which rolls into the first theme. It was proper exciting. I used to be able to find it on Youtube but I can only find the sitar bit now so they must have removed it. I liked both themes as it goes - both very different, but both marvellous:

I'm logging off now, so catch up tomorrow. We don't do too bad here, do we, us three. I outline what exists, and by implication what doesn't. Rich tells us why it doesn't. And Albert owns everything that does.... I want to be Albert! Night boys

The Rich version

Over to Rich then, for the real reason... Rich! Get on with it.

I can still watch them now. I often have this playing in the background while pottering on comics...

It looks like dock strikes were never a reason for any of the key Marvel UKPV gaps, a myth has perpetuated up until now - agreed?

https://www.nytimes.com/1964/01/22/archives/british-dock-strikes-settled.html LONDON, Jan. 21 (Reuters) —Strikes in Britain involving about 11,000 dock workers and affecting more than 100 ships were settled today. About 9,000 workers at Liverpool and Birkenhead returned to work after a one‐day strike over an overtime dispute. At Glasgow, 2,000 dockers decided to resume work tomorrow to aI1ow discussions on mechanization to take place with the employers. https://www.nytimes.com/1964/08/18/archives/british-dock-strike-near.html SOUTHAMPTON, England, Aug. 17 (Reuters)—The huge trans ‐ Atlantic shipping docks here are expected to be tied up by a strike of 700 railroad workers scheduled for midnight Sunday. The National Union of Railroadmen has challenged the giant Transport and General Workers union over promotions of dock foremen.

It's very hard to find any actual confirmation that a strike actually took place in 1964. This Pathe News reel refers to meetings to discuss a strike: https://www.britishpathe.com/video/VLVA2QYSVUOBF5J8MUU77JC71JID2-UK-LONDON-DOCKERS-MEETING-DISCUSSES-STRIKE/query/DOCKERS+STRIKE But I can't find any videos on Youtube or elsewhere confirming that one ever took place - whereas there are many videos for other strike dates. And, unless I missed it, nothing written online either, even in books like this: http://www.billhunterweb.org.uk/books/TKWTF.pdf Maybe it never happened....