Get Marwood & I

Cheers TK, I added it this morning. The seller is quite a prolific APV poster. I've asked them to keep an eye out for a Ghost Rider #30 That completes Ravage 2099 - finally!

Cheers Frisco - I had a quick look and TOS seems pretty consistent. Another 60's mystery to ponder...

No new finds to report - stuck on 1,322. I did see a nicer, clearer copy of the 'official' stickered Wolverine #57 though. With no printed differences, a stickered copy cannot an APV be: Can it......?

Well, given the wonderful consistency of our inclement English weather, I don't think you have to think too hard to come up with a plausible explanation Albert....

Yes. What a load of ballast.

There are a few snippets like that Stephen, that have travelled down the years without anyone ever actually verifying them. That's why I try to stick to verifiable fact myself, and then badge everything else clearly as speculation. The suggested 2-5% early Marvel pence print run has never been verified. The 'makeweight' pre-UKPV UK distribution copies have never been seen. The time it took for books to be printed and then arrive in UK outlets has never been definitively proven - three months, one, six? The cause of the many issue gaps has never been definitively proven - shipping strikes, UK-US contractual issues, US printer problems? We don't know for sure - we only know there is a gap. We can't say for certain which books were printed first - pence or cents - or whether it varied. Again, no direct evidence of a systematic approach. My favourite is the still repeated to this day 'fact' that Thorpe & Porter were the sole UK distributors of UKPVs in the UK. I've proven that to be wrong for Charlton and, briefly, Marvel (L Miller) but I cannot say for certain who distributed the Archie UKPVs, Gold Key or Dell. There's no proof. It's hugely likely That Roberts & Vinter distributed the post-Miller Charlton copies in the UK, but there is no direct proof - yet - that the 'RV' stamp is theirs. It's amazing really how little we know, or can actually prove, about some of these long held, oft repeated assumptions.

Another yellow handed Thunder God!

Morning I had one of those disaster weeks on eBay this week - you know, the ones where you lose out on everything by either not bidding enough, timing error or through some inexplicable one in a million technical glitch type calamity. Anyway, I noticed that the UKPV date eligible Archie #109 was hiding in this lot, just in front of the 110 (which is a confirmed UKPV book): I managed to lose it, along with a few other lots that night. The seller kindly confirmed that #109 and 110 in the lot had 9d prices but has so far not come through with a picture. Understandable really, as I didn't win. I'm surprised they even replied to be honest, but some people are decent like that, even today. So unless the seller comes through, or the winner is a reader here, and posts their win, I will have to keep #109 as unconfirmed for now: Bloody annoying, but what can you do.....

Good spot Albert I wonder if any of the pre-hero boys had noticed this, or know why? @bc @Frisco Larson #32 #33 #34

Cor, don't they look good. I love comics from this age

Not at all, your books are wonderful and who am I to complain if you're happy with the labelling of them Steve. My opinion is just one among many and, though I personally believe that factual accuracy and respect for the publication should always win the day - certainly where the world's largest and most trusted third-party grading service is concerned - there are clearly other considerations at play and they have won out on this occasion. You can't win 'em all...

Matt read the post and has advised that the planned announcement has been pushed back due to other priorities. It does seem from his response that the change will go ahead however, albeit perhaps with some additional tweaks which will no doubt be explained in the announcement when it comes. He did point out that what we see on the census at the moment for slabs like Gadzukes is not the finished design so don't read too much into my earlier illustration - that will change. I don't support the basic premise of the change myself, I think I've made that fairly clear, so for me the finessing of the strategy is unlikely to make much difference. But there is no point being critical of examples of what is clearly not a finished design, so, I will step back and await the formal communication. The only other comment I would make at this point is to question the wisdom of launching a new labelling strategy prior to deciding on the final design and communications. It means that submitters of non-US publications which reprint certain US original content will not really know what to expect when their submissions are returned in the interim. But there you go, I'm not in charge. I've made my case, and it has been heard. So I'll wait for the announcement, have a final moan, and then leave it!

Newton Ring joke, Albert, in case you've not heard of them

There is supposed to be an official announcement on it. It is being discussed on FB and places I don't visit, but the salient points are made in this thread. Have a read.

Yes, it's not attached to the US Marvel record, but has its own La Prensa record even though there is no La Prensa Strange Tales title. Meanwhile, your book takes a back seat to the debate about how CGC have chosen to name and file it.....

You sort of prove my point here Gad, in a way. Respectfully, you're an educated, nuanced, experienced comic collector, and you couldn't find it in the census.

That's very kind of you Antoni, thank you. I may have just missed out on a further Archie UKPV tonight funnily enough - a hidden book, just the edge showing, possibly a 9d, but I was outbid. I've sent a message to the seller regardless - hopefully they'll be kind enough to confirm (although you know me - no image, no confirmation!). I haven't been posting much lately as I have been reorganising my comic files and reworking a lot of the folder contents. I plan to completely rewrite and update all my journal pages - I mentioned that before I think, but it takes so much time. And I know I keep saying this, but I have so much Charlton UK stuff to post I think I could fill a hundred page thread without scratching the surface. Wish me luck there. Thanks again mate - praise embarrasses me, even though I may occasionally fish for it (look at my fing pence variant post!), but it is gratifying when people comment favourably on what you do. Cheers Tatlock - there's a pint in't Rovers with your name on it (Newton Ringley )

Email to Matt sent, I'll leave it at that now.

A recently graded copy of Los 4 Fantasticos #36, posted elsewhere tonight by @gadzukes: It's a lovely comic. On the slab label, the main title and issue number is Strange Tales #111, after this original US comic.... ...with a little rider underneath to show the actual book title and number: Because there are now two different comics in the frame, it is not immediately obvious whether the date of 01/65 relates to Strange Tales #111 or Los 4 Fantasticos #36. The book is marked as a 'Mexican Edition' - regular readers of my threads will know why I dislike that term. If we look at the CGC Verification Page, we see as follows: The third line down has four fields - Issue, Issue Date, Issue Year and Publisher. The first field (Issue) is the issue number of Strange Tales #111. The remaining three fields are the details of Los 4 Fantasticos #36. Confusing. Despite being a local publication of Mexico, printed long after Strange Tales #111, the book is designated as the second appearance of Doctor Strange which, of course, it isn't. The reproduced story might be, but the book isn't. Someone may pay money for that, thinking they have a true second appearance. At the very least, the label should say 'reprints the first appearance of....' We can find the title Los 4 Fantasticos in the CGC Census if we search for it - here are the results: You'll see that our issue #36 does not feature. That is because it is listed under the title Strange Tales: If you select that single entry (#111, not #36), you see the 7.0 graded book above (congratulations Gadzukes, it's the only one graded): Note the absence in that entry anywhere of the actual comic title or issue number. I haven't seen any update from Matt, so I am going to email him with a link to this post and ask him again if he will reconsider this strategy, and revert to labeling publications as what they are and not in line with any key original US content which they happen to reproduce. This strategy is confusing, disrespectful and will corrupt census records going forward. It demeans publications which, whilst reprinting key US work, are publications in their own right. This is my last attempt to head off this disastrous policy, triggered tonight by the sight of Gadzukes book, which I think is a disservice to accuracy and the hobby. Gadzukes - sorry to hijack your book mate. Los 4 Fantasticos #36 is a lovely thing - in its own right There, I used Sumo Man to emphasise the point.

A jot of interference....

Why limit it to today?

Morning all I posted this 'mistake' here yesterday, which readers of this thread will be familiar with: Balls Up Here's another. In October 1978, Marvel changed their price box layout from this style... ...to this style: Our pence copies had the alternative 'All-Colour Comics' banner to fit in, so a bit of work to paste up the new UKPV style masthead was needed. They got it right here... ...here... ...here... ...here (only just)... ...here... ...here... ...and here: But they sodded this numberless one right up: I think they did it on purpose, because they couldn't believe someone could contrive such a rubbish team up.

Gotta go now Frisc - me dinners ready, Cheers for all the posts tonight