Get Marwood & I

Let's see if I can get Matt to respond here now - he does visit the site regularly, since his 'exciting update' announcement @mnelsonCGC Matt - if you see this, I hope all is well. Would you be able to spare the time to read the further musings from the members on this topic please - you can read from the top of page seven to this post and won't see a single picture of Leonardo DiCaprio or a comment about what she said (whoever she was). Just a solid, respectful discussion about your labelling policy If you could explain the rationale behind the policy, and outline how you see concerns about the census records being addressed, that would be great. This labelling strategy has been in place for a year or so now I believe, so there will now be hundreds of copies in the system. I think it's reasonable to ask for some meat on the bones now, and hope you will be in a position to provide it. We care about the treatment of these books Matt! Cheers, Steve

There are more harms than just financial in play though, I would argue. CGC harm their reputation for accuracy in my eyes at least with this ill-judged policy, and there is the harm that policy does to the standing of the non-US publication. CGC render its title to a label footnote. They basically say that it is important only in the context of the original book that it part reproduces. That is insulting and harmful those who value it for what it is. Money talks though, hence my earlier ABBA quote, and I accept that that is where most would get animated - where there is a financial implication. Again, a lesser educated collector - perhaps a US based one unfamiliar with L Miller publications - might go looking for 'Tales to Astonish' based on you search results: L Miller did not publish a title of that name. This is how mistakes and misinformation spread.

Thank you, I agree 100% on the reprint point. Valiantman, in respect of your own website, (example search below), if I asked you to interrogate CGC records for the UK publication 'Mystic', how would you be able to do that currently? Under normal circumstances, a search of the title 'Mystic' would deliver the required results. But if copies of Mystic are categorised with the titles of other US books with which they share key content, how would you know what to interrogate? How would you be confident that you had captured everything? Surely the interests of data capture and record keeping are best served by calling things what they are. If books are titled incorrectly, how can that ever be a good thing, or an easier thing to navigate when it comes to data capture, analysis and interrogation?

I would place a greater emphasis on titling the book correctly myself, Valiantman - saying that the absence of the word reprint constitutes 95% of the problem underplays the importance of the title and how it is accessed in CGC records. And it is just plain disrespectful.

Cheers Paul. I get flack sometimes because I believe in the books and fight accordingly. There are very few UK collectors posting here on this forum so if you post the loudest you sometimes get accused of putting yourself on a pedestal and stuff like that. That's why I'm trying to get others to comment - so CGC can hear many voices, not just one. On that point, I'll hold off posting for a bit - see if others fill the gap

I'm sure CGC will have that aspect covered as they make mistakes all the time that have potential financial implications. And they would no doubt argue that they have the title 'Mystic #40' on the label, albeit not prominently, so the buyer was being told. But perhaps there is a distinction between a mistake - e.g. not identifying a valuable 35 cent variant as such - and a conscious, process driven misrepresentation.

Thanks Paul, I suspect a number of us share that overall jaded view whether we submit often or not. Regarding your point two, or your number two, if we're trying to add levity, I want to be clear that, as the loudest drum banger, I'm not outraged. I know it can come across that way when reading the written word, but I'm as calm as a cucumber myself as I hope the little interspersed jokes and light heartedness in some of my posts show. But I do think this is wrong, and I do think it is worth pursuing with CGC. When a few more have commented, as I hope they will, I'm going to send a link to Matt and ask if he will comment further or at least give us a date for the promised official communication. Our homegrown books are being labelled wrongly by the biggest comic grading company in the world. It's been going on for a year or so now. We can't just stand by and let that pass without a fight, can we?

We've all done it Stephen. The £5K graded copy hasn't sold of course, but would anyone bet against it selling in the current market? And if so, what role have CGC played in making such a sale price possible? They gave the seller a legitimate reason to list it solely as 'TTA#13'. They could have done that anyway of course, the seller, but CGC have legitimised it with their label. Haven't they?

There's a good 'head' joke in there somewhere....

Sells for £92 when listed as Mystic #40... ....sits listed at five grand when - legitimately, due to the CGC label - it is titled TTA #13: Thanks CGC

I was hoping you would add your two-penneth Andy. Eloquently put, as always - thank you

It is interesting that CGC make the distinction here between a first printing and a reprint: That is the way to do it. Why do they record the actual book title and note the reprint status on this US produced True Believers #1, but not Mystic #40 and other non-US publications like it? Why get it right on an arguably worthless modern reprint, and consciously wrong on an arguably significant vintage item?

It's frankly comical, heh heh, that we have to argue for calling a thing by what it is and not by what it is not. Isn't it? ABBA once said "Money, money, money, must be funny, in a rich man's world". Could it be that calling Mystic #40, which reprints the first appearance of Groot - 'Tales to Astonish #13', which is the first appearance of Groot - has artificially inflated the price? Or encouraged sellers to list it so aggressively? Here is how the eBay seller has described the item: "Tales to Astonish 13 cgc 5.0 L.Miller & Son Ltd 1963 super rare printed reprinted cover only 3 years later for Mystic 40 uk edition." What role have CGC played here, in establishing the facts about these comics? Have they spread confusion, do we think? Is that a reasonable opinion to hold - that CGC are spreading and perpetuating confusion?

Thank you Elsie! That is why I call it disrespectful - I don't think those in the US who formulated the strategy completely get it, because it is not 'their' book that is being misrepresented. The UK produced Mystic #40 would not exist if the US created TTA #13 did not precede it. At least not with that content. That is why a graded Mystic #40 should have an appropriate label notation - "Reprints material previously published in TTA #13 (Marvel Comics)" - something like that. When did readily apparent fact go out of fashion as a labelling concept?

Guys - as representatives of the UK based members here, whose home produced books are being consciously mislabelled by CGC, could you read the above two posts and tell me what you think of this? Am I making a mountain out of a molehill or is there a principle here to uphold? Please, let me know what you think by posting. Maybe if Matt sees a consistent message from us it might influence the decision making or at least bring forward an official explanation @goldust40 @rakehell @Albert Tatlock @Redshade@nmtg9@Kevin.J@Garystar@Pantodude@Malacoda @Ken Aldred @Comicopolis@Boz ska G G s © ® ™@batmiesta@valiantman Anyone else reading who has a firm view either way, especially if you haven't already posted in the thread, please - dive in.

Still no sign of any official announcement on this. I saw this book on eBay today: You'd have to wonder what a father might do for his son for Christmas, who let slip that he would "Love a TTA #13, the first appearance of Groot". "Ah, here's one! He's going to love this" Anyway, as is now standard CGC labelling practice, Mystic #40 is now Tales to Astonish #13 and is the first appearance of groot: It was graded on the eleventh of last month. All the usual head scratchers are there on the Verification Tool record: The wrong title The wrong issue number The right date The right publisher The wrong variant status - the UK Edition of what? A variant of what? Do CGC understand what the word 'variant' means? The actual title of the comic relegated to 'Label Text' Key comments - the first appearance of Groot - no, a reprint of the first appearance of Groot This is a complete misrepresentation, as I've said over and over again. I was told by Matt Nelson that the census records were "not the finished state". Currently, still, they are completely inaccurate and have been now for over a year. "Mystic" has two 'L Miller' records on the census - one 'Co', one 'Son': Neither record shows our issue #40: Presumably, our Mystic #40 is buried in the TTA#13 'L Miller' record here, even though Miller never published that title: Yep, looks like it: I'm a reasonable bloke, but I cannot fathom this strategy. CGC may well be planning an announcement and some remedial census record work. We don't know what that will comprise, or when it will happen. In context, and I the only one who thinks this is an absolute disaster? How on Earth can a grading company contrive to create records against publishers of titles that they never produced? Under what circumstances is it reasonable to label and record 'Mystic #40' as 'Tales to Astonish #13'? How is that not misrepresentation? I think this strategy is doing a great disservice to non-US publishers and publications. It is disrespectful. Matt knows my feelings on this, so there is little point tagging him as, presumably, I will get the same answer as before. I will continue to bang the drum every so often until we at least get an official statement, explaining the strategy and intentions for record keeping. I think that's the least we deserve.

Do you think they opened the saloon door without looking Ken, and hit the bloke behind it? Or maybe he's got his finger stuck Either way, he doesn't look all the ticket.

These three AUS Barkers are on eBay currently missing, as usual, the fourth issue: There are three potentially missing issues across three of the four Barker titles: Here are a few other books that have yet to materialise (there are others, but these stick out a bit): Ghost Rider #30: Night Thrasher Four Control #1: Spider-Man 2099 #40: Spectacular Spider-Man #239: Sabretooth #2 and 4: There's no reason that I can see why these issues wouldn't exist as AUS copies - each has a standard US newsstand copy (see below) and there are no obvious informative patterns as to why one or more of them may not have made the cut. But the longer the absence goes on....

A rare GSP sticker sighting from the bay... ....plus a less obvious 1'3 stamp. And a penned '3'. How much is this farking thing Nice cover banter there too, from the girls.

Covered in dead bugs

No time to die like the present.

We could've done with him, the Neeson. I will look for you. I will find you. And I will rewrite your deeply unsatisfactory ending.

I did. I did.

Exactly. And that's exactly why I thought it so wrong, so unjust that he loses his life. Fictional character aside, he deserved to live. I wanted him to live.