Get Marwood & I

Mebbe. I was hoping for a nice parcel, with a few surprises, maybe, but there you go. Everything's a million quid nowadays.

29 comics in all Stephen, according to the written description. Maybe there was something nice hiding in there, that they missed, and an in person viewer saw, hence the bidding. I didn't get around to asking for a full list, so will never know now. Silly me. It doesn't help having undisclosed books in a lot, which seems to happen a lot lately. I think they should at least take a few pictures showing every comic in the lot, even if it's from a distance. This is the third lot this year I've missed out on due to the relatively low value books that I want being lumped in with higher value books - and often, books which have no relation to each other. What can you do. You're either lucky or rich. Lately, I'm neither

I can see him now, in adamantium reinforced sling backs

I was disappointed to miss out on this lot in the A&G auction yesterday - the sort of lot that was made for me, with examples of everything that floats my boat (including Charltons, Harveys and a Wyatt #29). I ended up bidding double what I intended to and still lost. It went for over £500 with fees: It's the sort of lot, I'm sure, that would have gone for a tenth of that not so long ago. Oh well. Hard going, lately.

If you mean this book... ...then that is a "UK Price Variant" and should be labelled as such. It is not a reprint - it came off the same press, as part of the same print run, as its US cents priced counterpart.

Yes. And I heard that style rubs on the heels.

Nice. Is the Thing wearing boots because he doesn't like getting his feet wet? Either way, stylish....

At the end of the day Steve, it gets dark, and money will find a way into the mix. Now, an old guiding hand of mine once told me that if you make a mistake, make amends. I'm a little embarrassed by that puffed up post of mine a few entries above so I'd like to apologise for its overblown tartness to any who read it and rightly thought "What an overblown tart". Here (hare, here), look how sorry we are, Marwood and I: Comics can get you all ruffled up sometimes, if you care enough about them, but there's no excuse for bad manners is there. Unless you're Buster Bloodvessel or course.....

They just did.

Duh duh duhhh, duhhhhhhh.

He's got one of them too, Spooner. Go in t'bar o t'Rovers, pass Betty's hot pots and it's on t'left o back door facing t'cabin.

There is. 1-4 have Miller indicia cents copies.

http://southafricancomicbooks.blogspot.com/2014/04/americom-luke-cage-hero-for-hire-1.html

This one's not on the GCD, so it must be fairly rare. In fact, I can't find it online anywhere... https://www.comics.org/series/66331/covers/ No issue number or date. It has a nice two-tone interior and reprints 'My Crazy Dreams', 'My Security' and 'For Mother's Sake'. It's in surprisingly good shape, and somehow doesn't look like an 'old' comic. Anyone recognise the source for the cover?

That cover's a riot. Love it. Is that a misprint, the absence of yellow ink in the blurb wording (and the white bar at the foot of the book)?

Then you'll be delighted to hear that they don't, Stu. Despite a full year of consciously mislabelling and disrespecting them, they still can't find the time to announce what their strategy actually is. Happy to see you on their side on this. Not that it's needed, but your condemnation actually supports my case.

"Young"

It's a hobby Mark, but you've got to stand up and have a go once in a while, if you believe in what you're saying. I like CGC Mike, and have been very supportive of him publicly and privately, but saying 'be patient' just misses the mark and is a little patronising. "Settle down children, we'll get to you..." It's not what I want to see. I want to see "Gee, this is really important to you guys. Let me see if I can get an interim response at least on this - it's the least you deserve". It seems you can't even shame CGC into making an announcement on anything they don't want to. They're just like everyone else nowadays in positions of power. They hold all the cards, and they fob you off. I'd have more respect for them if they just told me to off.

All this rubbish labelling ain't satisfactioning me.

1845?

They don't like the opposition's products to be shown here Stephen. Your intent was clear, as part of a valid discussion, so it's just pettiness on their part to remove those images. Like CBCS is any competition to them anyway. I recommend a little more action.

I can't remember where I saw the original image I posted. It's in your flat cap It's a book I'd like to have, as a nice to have, for the right price. All those stamps are great. The book has lived a little

Bloody Jedi mind tricks... I've made your, sorry, our argument clear now Kev, I think, over the many pages of this thread. I've made it in pictures, in sound bites, in summary and in walls of detailed explanatory text. And I've done so calmly, and respectfully, bar that one understandable 'have at it' post. All CGC have done is deliver the end product, a year in advance, from a procedural change born of an internal review the details of which they have not shared or explained. That is not the right way to do things. I find it insulting that @mnelsonCGC won't come on here and explain the position of the company he is President of, when the nature of the argument I am putting forward - with some support - at the very least keeps them honest whether they accept it or not. In context, it's disrespectful just to say "we'll get back to you". It makes me think that they don't understand comics and that they don't understand the people who love comics, their concerns and their passions. They understand money though, it seems, and how to make lots of it. That's all CGC is at present, to me. A great big money making machine. On this labelling topic, they have strayed wildly from what should be their core purpose - to accurately and factually describe and record the collectables they encapsulate. It should be one of their primary concerns from which everything else flows. CGC would not exist without the comics that they encapsulate. This must have a higher priority than celebrity signature signings and all those wonderful events of theirs that they put so much time and energy into, surely? They've lost focus. Matt can try to convince us otherwise by posting here now.

That's twice you've done that now Stephen On the CBCS slabs that you posted (which might get pulled if someone reports them), the labelling issues are on the front, and the front is what most people look at. Many sellers don't add back scans in sale lots. So if CBCS think it's a reprint (or 'print', if you have recorded the contents correctly in your subsequent post) they should put that on the front as it is important. The front says 'first appearance', the back says 'print/reprint'. That's unnecessarily misleading. On your point regarding 'editions', I understand what the intention is. I understand that the word 'edition' is being used to indicate that the book is a UK 'comic'. I believe that is their position (CGC). The word edition can be considered in a number of ways, however. I understand what a first edition is in relation to a book. I understand what she means when my wife tells me to pick up the January edition of the Sainsburys magazine. I understand what the late edition of the Evening Standard is. In comics though, the word 'edition' tends - in my experience at least - to indicate a different version of the same thing. Newsstand Edition ~ Direct Edition, etc. So if a dealer says to me "Look at this beauty, Steve! It's the Whatever Edition", I'm immediately looking to see of what. The 'whatever edition' of what? I had my little battle with CGC over their previous practice of calling both first printing UK Price Variants and subsequent licensed UK reprints as 'editions'. That was misleading, hence my argument. One book was a first printing, one a reprint. That requires a distinction, so I fought for it. When they changed to calling the first printings 'UK Price Variants', I did say at the time that the use of the word 'edition' on the non-US publications was still misleading and should be dropped. So this is phase II of my argument, if you like. If the word 'edition' evokes an instinct in comic collectors that its use must indicate the presence of a sister edition, then it should be dropped if the publication is a stand alone book. The danger otherwise is that people build a mental connection between books that have none. It also, in my opinion, continues to undermine the first printing price variant books which still have 'UK Edition' labelled slabs in circulation, and images online. CGC don't label Amazing Spider-Man #146 as a 'US Edition'. It's a stand alone book, with only one version. So why label the Miller reprint titles as 'UK Editions', if they are stand alone books? If comics are a global phenomenon, why must everything be judged by US sensibilities? Shouldn't CGC and CBCS judge all books by the same standard, regardless of where they were published and what they contain? By all means state the country that a book was produced by/for on the label. Just don't use the word 'edition' to do so if you don't need to, and then only on non-US publications. CGC and CBCS can say that the words 'UK Edition' mean 'a comic published for the UK'. But they don't need to, is my argument, as it is superfluous. If a word has different, industry specific connotations, and is not actually required, why use it? If the book has no other first print versions, no designation is required as there is nothing to differentiate it from. It is itself. If the book reprints content from a previous publication, just state that. "Reprints...." So, every book is itself, and every book is the product of a country, for a target audience. Just record that, factually. If it reprints content, in full or in part, just record that, factually. If it has multiple versions within the same print run, just record that, factually.

I spotted it while I was trawling the seemingly never ending auction lots Albert. Nice to see an old friend again. It even had a price sticker, at some point