Get Marwood & I

Good luck zzu Dr Love might know something - he's a Doctor of Love, after all... @Dr. Love

Thought you'd like her. Have a great Thanksgiving!

Anything Greggy can do, I can do better. With Charlton

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/7990319/st-john-romance-comics-checklist-fantagraphics-books

Could it be in the title True Love Pictorial? This example on the GCD has Teen-Age Romances #24 in it: This might be worth a buy, to check? https://www.ebay.com/itm/324100358579?hash=item4b75e301b3:g:5R0AAOSw9h5eaWmi

Charlton's take on The Justice League! Who knew... @skypinkblu This one below's for you Sharon

What do we think has happened here then? The red seems more vibrant on the back cover of the 'affected' copy, suggesting sun fade to the cover. But would the blue go that way so vividly while reds and yellows still remained? Is this another example of production related colour variance and subsequent sun fade? Slight colour error on Supes cape to the left of his neck too, I see.

Maybe a previous owner inked a cover month, and changed the price, and the owner scratched them off thinking that would improve desirability. People do odd things, after all.

They didn't have enough tippex for the indicia Stephen

It might be my eyes, but is that tippex obscuring the UK price and (what looked to be) inked writing in the date box?

Nice looking copy Albert. It's a shame that 78 buggers up the sequence.

I love books that have multiple colour variations and printing issues - they sort of take on a life of their own. Even some of the sun fade copies posted here have a certain appeal, even though they are technically damaged.

+1

Let's hope Matt has had a few bacon butties before he next logs on

Whoever developed the strategy at CGC must've been starving then

Cheers Andy - I think the silliness of it all is the salient point, where applied, but I believe the intention is only to give the labelling treatment to those books that reprint key US content (which, presumably, CGC will decide on?). That means, if I have it right, that if you send in one of your AUS published books, and CGC noted that it reprinted or shared a cover with a US original 'key', then your book could come back titled in line with that US book. If nothing else, an official announcement is needed to clarify exactly what the intention is here, why, and when it will be applied. You are a very experienced and nuanced collector Andy (cheque's in the post) - you shouldn't have to ask questions about what CGC are doing here, or read pages of discussions about it. CGC have introduced a policy without communication or clarification and, if the comments I have seen are an indication, the design is not yet set in stone. That itself is disrespectful to those of us who care, as it indicates a lack of care.

Using a custom label to highlight any key reprinted content is quite a good idea Rob, yes. They could record the 'facts' correctly - title, issue number, reprint status, etc - but have an area on the label that screams out that the book reprints, for example, TTA#13. If thought through, I think that could actually be a very cool way to show the significance of the issue without compromising it's own inherent status.

Thanks Robot, that's interesting stuff which would be cool to elaborate on in another thread. I'm not sure I agree on the 'UK Price Variant' designation though, based on the little I know about these reprints. On that point, I can almost forgive CGC for missing the price difference on that copy which, let's face it, is a distinction that very few indeed would likely have the knowledge to pick up on. The headline problem here though, I think, the salient, inescapable, toweringly obvious issue, is that the comic in the slab is not Detective Comics #227.

Jesus, I can be stupid at times Don't say it

I knew that

That's cooler than a cool thing from Cool Town, East Cooldonia Reggie Whenever you see 12's and 52's in calculations it normally signifies weeks and months. So it's highly likely that the calculations here are to inform the weekly and annual cost - or income - of something. Beyond that though, who knows? There are elements that don't make sense to me, e.g., in the column below, what is the significance of the 1080 and 5400 numbers in the middle? 18 x 30 = 540 and 540 x 12 = 6480 so why the numbers in the middle? Why split 6480 and show it as 1080 and 5400?