Get Marwood & I

The CBCS labels shown are no good either. They also say "first appearance" and I don't see the required 'reprint' word anywhere. They make no attempt to date them, and also call the books "UK Editions". In the comic industry, we call a book a Direct Edition to differentiate it from a Newsstand Edition. We call a book a Deluxe Edition to differentiate it from a regular edition. What are we differentiating these books from? They are UK publications. The use of the word 'edition' is unnecessary and, given how it is used elsewhere in the industry, misleading. The books are, at least, titled correctly.

Yes. Maybe that, or he's just realised that something unplanned has arrived in his pants. Gamma influenced flatulence is a dangerous thing, after all....

Who would know Kromak. I've been thinking about it on and off for the last few days and I don't think it's good enough to say an announcement will come in January. This has been going on for over a year. Changes like this don't happen by accident. There would have been a proposal, an internal review and a strategy agreed prior to the first book being slabbed in line with the new operating procedures. Design changes, technical changes, communication, training. But, over a year later, they still can't be bothered to explain themselves to us - the consumer - until they are ready. No guidance to the submitter, that I can see, as to how their book may or may not be treated in the interim. I've been accused of taking this too seriously, and maybe I am. I saw Matt posting on a 'foreigns' FB group and all the members seem pleased with the labelling approach as far as I could see. They are the ones buying the books slabbed this way, after all. The 'experts'. If they are happy, why should any of us rock the boat? Something happened to me this week that made me question why I bother with these 'crusades', as one member here once called them. Out of context, none of it matters. As mere forum members, CGC aren't interested in our opinion on anything. I'm just some irksome chap in the UK, snapping at their heels, trying to get them to see that a dog is a dog and not a dog variant of a cat. If they had any respect for the UK members who have posted here, and maybe for the help on variants that I have given them over the years, they might have at least made an interim explanatory comment here. Something to get across that they understand why it is important to some of us that 'our' books are treated accurately and respectfully. But they never do, do they. Communicate, I mean. They hold all the cards. And comics. They govern the comic industry now, and people like me who - bizarrely - have to fight for the application of basic common sense and fact, are tolerated at best. They will explain their strategy when they are good and ready, thank you, and not before. Be honest, can you see me at the end of January posting a 'we still haven't had it' message here, when the communication doesn't arrive? Of course you can. Either way, let the record show that I think this whole thing - to use an American phrase - 'sucks big time'. Do your communication, CGC, or don't. Frankly, I don't care anymore. I was told recently that getting angry is good. Banging the desk gets results. Well, here's me mildly ruffled. And just a bit fed up with it all. Call the damn things whatever you want, CGC.

Not sure. I thought I recognised the Spidey and Torch poses, so maybe it's an amalgamation of other images. Hulk looks rough though, doesn't he

Repro... Original... https://kidr77.blogspot.com/2020/01/poster-puzzle-finally-solved.html

The multi-coloured sofa? Yes, me too, Winterboy That's a simple story being told there, but one that we can all relate to I suspect. Believable characters, perfectly rendered, in a straightforward but powerful scene (to the teenage mind, at least). I read that over and over.

2022? Thanks Mike. Looking forward to reading all about it.

Is it an important one? Oh, and the only thing that gets me worked up, Stephen, is people saying I'm worked up when I've just presented a calm, reasoned argument

To be clear, I'm arguing that non-US publications shouldn't be called variants or editions Hotkey. Sorry if that wasn't clear. For me, a comic can only be a variant of another comic if they both came from the same presses at the same time as part of the same run (hence 30/35 cent variants, UK Price Variants, Canadian Price Variants and Australian Price Variants all carrying that status). Everything else, by definition, is a reprint or reproduction as it came after the original print run. The word 'edition' is a trickier one, I accept, but I think it is possible to avoid its use completely when labelling non-US comics whether they reprint original US material or not. Our Mystic #40 is not a variant of anything, as it was not produced as part of the same run as any other comic that differs in cover or content to it. It was a stand alone publication, printed in the UK. It is not a 'UK Edition' either. It is a UK publication. The word edition is not required. American first printing comics do not have 'US Edition' on their CGC labels other than to differentiate different types within the same print run (e.g. Direct Edition, Newsstand Edition). So why should non-US publications? I'm arguing against the use of superfluous wording that only adds confusion. Mystic #40 is itself, and the only additional label comment it needs is to state that it reprints TTA#13. CGC can state the country origin if they want to. "Published in / for the UK market", for example, is unambiguous. "UK Edition" however, is. The 'UK Edition' of what?

Another 'first 6' in the pot... ....or second 6 of course, if you believe they were all latecomers...

Bat Maaaaan! No, not Wayne, but Masterson, as played by our friend Gene Barry: A nice, clean 9d copy for the files and the box. I like how the artist has clearly taken his inspiration from a photo of Gene, as he looks the same in every panel: That same expression gets a bit disconcerting after a while. The baby browns are faithfully captured in close up: Although they look blue on the cover I used to like Gene in The Adventurer, with Barry Morse: It had one of the best themes of the day, by John Barry. Click above if you're unsure. John Barry, Barry Morse, Gene Barry.... lightful

I actually like that Hotkey is 'sticking up' for non-US publications here, but you're right on the facts. The love of American comics extends far beyond the shores of the home producing nation and collectors in many other countries cherish them, and all their local reproductions, just as keenly as anyone in the US does. But we shouldn't conflate the two elements being expressed. There is no question that non-US publications have value in their own right and they should be respected. But facts are facts and a company in CGC's position should be doing all that they can to preserve and promote them. If you set yourself up as a grading company, and encapsulate comics for posterity, you have an absolute duty to label the contents as clearly and factually as possible. There should be no room for doubt as to what is encased, no possibility of misrepresentation, no gimmicks. The notion that "experienced collectors will know what we mean" should never enter the equation. A title is a title. An issue number is an issue number. Reprinted content is reprinted content. These are facts, and a CGC label should respect and note them. There are a finite number of data fields on the CGC label. CGC should have a meeting and establish exactly what each label (and census / verification record entry) is there for, and then apply a factual set of standard wording to be used in all cases. So, for example, if we take what I believe is called the 'Key Comments' entry field: "First appearance of Spider-Man" - this wording should only ever appear on the original 1962 Amazing Fantasy If a subsequent publication - US or non-US - reproduces that first appearance in part or in full, then the label should state that and say: "Reprints the first appearance of Spider-Man from Amazing Fantasy #15 (Marvel Comics, 09/62)" I can question how most of the data fields are being used by CGC, currently, but there are three main concerns as I see them. I think there is a consensus here that: CGC should call a book by it's title, not the title of an earlier 'key' book that it partially or fully reproduces - 'Mystic #40' is not 'Tales to Astonish #13' CGC should designate where content is reproduced / reprinted - 'Mystic #40' is not the first appearance of Groot CGC should correctly designate the 'variant' status, and stop referring to stand alone original publications as country variants of other US publications - 'Mystic #40' is not a 'UK Edition' variant of TTA#13 CGC are storing up so many problems for themselves here it is a wonder why they would even want to go down this path. @mnelsonCGC Matt - please - come and explain CGC's official position on this. Tell us why you think your strategy is right, and we are wrong. If for no other reason, there is nothing on the CGC website that I am aware of to indicate to submitters how you may handle and label their non-US books that reprint key US content. That can't be right. By labelling and presenting a book as if it is another book, CGC have deviated significantly from what any person might reasonably expect to see on a slab label. This has been going on for a year now - I believe you have a duty to explain your position.

Oui. Although it turned out that there was quite a few things wrong with it in the end

Never Eat Shredded Oeufs.

What are the French words for 'scraping the barrel' Reggie?

No arrow?

Spidey's wearing Cuban heels too....

Second set of speech marks missing in the first thought box too....

Never Eat Shredded Wheat.

That's the sort of factual accuracy I'm battling for HotKey - label it as what it is. On that, we're on the same page

I don't have any issue with a clear, factual statement, tailored to a non-US publication appearance, such as "Reprints the first appearance of...." or "First appearance of...in a Greek publication". But to have just "First appearance of...." is factually incorrect and potentially leads to.... Doesn't it? By all means have CGC indicate that it is a first appearance in a publication for the country in question, but I think they should use the correct wording to differentiate it from the first appearance in any publication myself (which they could do by highlighting the reprint status).

More potential trouble for CGC here, yes. In a PM earlier in the year, Matt advised that CGC would label a non-US book as a 'first appearance' of a US creation when it was the first appearance in that country (which, strategically, I strongly diagreed with). So they'd have to be on the ball here, wouldn't they, the labellers and census recorders. Given that they reprint the covers of US Marvel keys, the Greek books above would presumably both be labelled in line with their US original source books (Amazing Spider-Man #4 and #7) but in respect of the 'ASM #4', only one of them could carry the 'first appearance' designation based on the proposed strategy. Assuming one of them was the first Greek Sandman appearance, of course (which I don't myself know). I'll say it again - all of the problems highlighted in this thread go away if they return to labelling books as what they are. Matt has been on line since I tagged him, and a separate reminder has been sent that we are overdue an official communication on this, so I'm hopeful he'll take steps to update us on the strategy soon.