Get Marwood & I

Hello Blue This thread has rarely been the home for discussions about value, so I'd give it a miss if that's what you're looking for. It's more about the books themselves, and the love of them. I post opinions on value here and there when invited to do so, but it's not what interests me personally. Others might chip in though. Here are my thoughts on desirability however, which is linked of course to value: And here is a Marvel UK Price Variant: It is currently the only known copy in existence. No one I know has ever seen another copy (expect another hundred to arrive within the hour, therefore). Does that make it worth a fortune? No, because it doesn't have Spider-Man or one of the Avengers in it. If it was announced tomorrow that Joe there on the cover was going to be in the next Avengers film, it would suddenly become a very desirable, expensive book. As it stands though, no one gives a monkeys whether there are one or five million of them. I'm kidding with you, of course, sort of

Dumbo Remarked

No worries Daphers - hope it subsides. For tomorrow, here's another reason why I'm looking at arrival dates lately. In my Charlton research, I have had Konga #1 documented as the 'first' Charlton UKPV by nature of the data on Mikes Comic Newsstand and the GCD. The book has no cover month, and an indicia that says only 1960. So I had it plotted as a June book following the GCD date (Mike's showed April): However, when we look at the arrival dates on the comics themselves, we see three mid-November date examples as follows: That tells us that Konga #1 went on sale in the US around the middle of November 1961, some way later than the April 1st date on Mike's site and GCD's June. My research has shown, generally, that books have arrival dates two-three months in advance of their cover dates. That would make Konga #1 a January / February cover dated book, were it indeed cover dated. So I look at other Charltons cover dated February 1961 and I find these two straight away (and others): Romantic Secrets #31 Submarine Attack #26 Both have November arrival dates. So I plot Konga #1 alongside them as, in theory, he was being placed on the newsstand at the same time as those other two February 1961 cover dated books: In doing so, Konga is no longer the 'first' Charlton UKPV. Quite an important distinction, I think. I've done the same for Gorgo #1 and all the other Charlton books without cover dates and the results make much more sense when you look at the revised overall position. One of my learning points is this - let the books themselves tell you what was going on. Don't rely on (admittedly great) websites like Mikes Comic Newsstand and the GCD. Let the comics tell you what you need to know.

...Chongo, it's Danger Island next 2-3 months seems to be the norm, noting that books would be printed throughout a calendar month, some at the start and some at the end, etc. It has been discussed in my 'distribution' thread at length, yes, but essentially what I'm suggesting is that the 'on sale' dates, evidenced by the actual hand applied arrival dates on the comics themselves, may correlate with the printing order. Crudely, if I print a run of title A in the first week of the month, I would expect that lot to ship out before the title I print in the second week of the month. So if I have a comic that is cover dated November, with a hand applied shop arrival date of the 24th, I'm assuming that was printed later in the production month cycle than a different book with the same cover month but an arrival date of, say, the 7th. Does that make sense? It's only speculation, and of course uses the US cents data as a guide. You need to further assume that the pence copies (covers) were printed at the same time as the cents and, therefore, follow the same printing cycle. Basically, I'm trying to see if the printing sequence dates inform in any way why certain UKPVs exist and others don't where they share the same cover month. I'm exploring the possibility that an instruction to the printers to cease production of UKPVs that came mid way through one cover months production cycle of titles could be the reason that some UKPVs snuck through and others didn't. The ultimate purpose is to further cement the assumptions that I have made around what books will not surface as UKPVs. I think! Thanks for chipping in Daphne

Ah, yes. 'No Life Hand', they call it, in the medical profession....

They are. I look at the gaps where there should be a UKPV and wonder how long I will have to wait for one damn copy to materialise. You know me, I look for patterns, and sometimes they are there. Look at these three: There are never more than four UKPVs per title. Could that lone Katy have taken Jughead #62's position in error? I kind of proved that scenario with two of the Marvel UKPV titles where one lone UKPV seemed to take the place of another ongoing UKPV titles issue. But if Jughead #62 does exist, or Laugh #112 for that matter, where in the world are they? Not one copy, one sniff in the last 3 years of intensive looking. The most copies of one Archie UKPV I have seen is four. At this rate we could all go to our makers without ever knowing if these missing issues are by design. Don't be too envious, one of them is falling apart Someone has to be first I suppose. US Archie sales were massive as I recall but I doubt that had any bearing on it. They're still comparatively scarce whether UKPVs or stamped in comparison to Marvel etc. And a six month UKPV window doesn't scream success does it. Dunno without looking. Don't forget, Marvel UKPVs were split between Miller and T&P at the start. I know T&P won the war, and Miller has been largely forgotten, but maybe there was a rivalry at the time. Maybe Miller was the front runner, who knows. As I always say, it's something to do. Similar musings over at Marvel yesterday, if you get five Daphne. All I got for my troubles was a typo correction

I asked Donna to see if she could get it removed, but she was too busy chopping trees down to respond: @comicdonna

Yes. The second one suits the style of the times I suppose, but I do like the original with its three hearts in the lettering

Morning Regular readers, sorry, Rakehell will know that I have yet to identify who was responsible for ordering and distributing the Archie Comics UK Price Variants. There are two UK distributors in the frame - L Miller & Co and Thorpe & Porter. The Archie books themselves have no distinguishing marks. There is no 'LM' next to the price, as there is with Charlton UKPVs (see below) and no bespoke indicia details to say that the books were 'exclusively distributed' by either company as is the case with early Marvel comics: Charlton 'LM' logo Miller Marvel T&P Marvel Archie UKPVs have just the cover price change - everything else is the same, on all 24 confirmed issues: The Archie UKPV cover date window is only six months - March 1960 to August 1960. The March 1960 (Archie #108) book holds the record of earliest known UKPV of all the seven publishers, incidentally. In the absence of a distinguishing distributor mark, the next logical step is to look at the UK distributed cents copies. Typically, copies exist with both L Miller and T&P stamps - two examples below: L Miller 9d Distribution Stamp Thorpe & Porter 9d Distribution Stamp I've been collecting, and gathering images of stamped copies for some time now and an analysis of the dates shows as follows: Thorpe & Porter UK Distribution Stamps (Cents Copies) - exist from mid-1959 to early 1964 UK Price Variants - exist from March 1960 to August 1960 L Miller UK Distribution Stamps (Cents Copies) - exist from December 1961 to late 1963 Looking at those dates, the logical assumption is that T&P were responsible for the UKPVs as there is no evidence that Miller was in the frame in that period. Additionally, There is only one known UKPV for The Adventures of The Fly - the May 1960 cover dated number six. Here are my two copies: T&P stamped cents copies exist for issues #1, and then 7 through to #29. Here's #8, to illustrate: It doesn't seem likely to me that Miller could have been responsible for the Archie UKPVs given that: The UKPVs are surrounded by T&P stamped cents copies Miller distribution evidence does not emerge until over a year later (their 9d LM stamped copies) There are no distinguishing Miller marks on the UKPVs as per their Charltons & Marvels So it seems Thorpe & Porter are the safe, logical bet. This copy is likely telling too I suppose - the only printed UKPV I've seen with a UK stamp on it too, and it's a T&P: Interestingly, you'll see that the T&P and Miller stamped copy dates cross over in my date analysis above. It appears that Miller adopted the Archie cast titles (Archie, Jughead, B&V etc) whereas T&P retained the super hero lines - these two May 1962 cover dated books illustrate: I wonder how that worked contractually - that split of titles across two different UK distributors? The same as it did with the early Marvels I presume. So, in conclusion, the evidence shows that: T&P were the first to distribute UK stamped Archie Comics in the UK from mid-1959 cover dates T&P were likely responsible for the six months of printed UKPVs T&P shared the UK stamped distribution with L Miller from December 1961 Enjoy that Daphne? @rakehell All good fun

Depends if you work for CGC or not

Thanks Steve.

Dunnit.

Hooray for Mandrake!

Are you sure? No breaks in the middle?

Any advance on four though Mikey

The original Spidey logo is indeed iconic, and I never liked the first replacement, but I always had a fondness for the '67 cartoon logo and would loved to have seen that as the main title: The Marvel Tales Spider-Man logo got close to it though, albeit less higgledy-piggledy:

Well played Ken

Which do we prefer here - old or new?

Yes. I'm rarely a fan of detailed to bland. I do like all three Hulk's though in a way. Bland, to detailed, then back to bland again:

Secrets of The Unknown 18, 148 and 246 from a quick scan. When you think about it, it would have made much more sense to reuse the same book across different titles. Any kid who collected just Uncanny Tales would ultimately see the same cover four times. If Alan had used it four times across four titles however.... It's not as if the titles were specific to the reprinted content.