Get Marwood & I

Here we go, 106 confirmed copies now - and both fit within the expected date range: @Metarog - I've always had you down as an expert on variants and non-US publications like these NBS comics which fairly faithfully reprint their US original's content. I'm not sure if you've read any of the recent posts, or are interested in the discussion, but what would you describe these NBS books as - variants, reprints or something else?

Lovely, thanks Metarog - I didn't get a notification that you'd posted. Will add them to the table soon

That's the spirit!

So you can add it to your IH181 registry set? Is that a cog or a dat?

I will

Correct in your opinion.. you keep using the term reprint which in my opinion is incorrect and CGC seems to agree I plucked this out for a separate discussion if you're up for it - what term would you suggest Steve? There's a difference I think between a book which is a straight reproduction of an original book in its entirety, and a new publication with different title / cover / content that includes material previously printed elsewhere. I wouldn't call MWOM 198 a reprint of IH 181, but I would say it reprints original US content from it in the notes. What would you say in that example?

Aw, cheers Letitia. It can be lonely going this research. Nice when you get the occasional nod of recognition

Morning Steve I started the thread, fairly innocently as it goes, and have responded to all contributors along the way as the new strategy information came to light. I can see why you'd use the phrase 'one man mission', as I have done a lot of the talking! I do think it a little unfair though, that accusation, but understand why you would say it. I have a position on this subject, and I'm sharing it here, because I care. I've made it clear, I hope, what my position is, in some detail, and I have justified it and put together an argument which I hope stands up. I have indeed owned many non-US publications in my time - notably Spidey and Hulk related - but I no longer actively collect them. But I don't need to collect, or know the detailed difference between separate publications which reprint, or reproduce if you would prefer, Wolverine's first (second? ) appearance to have a valid opinion on how they should be labelled and recorded. I accept that the new design label doesn't bother you personally. But I feel like I am championing 'your' books for you. I have stated that I find the labelling approach disrespectful to the books that you collect and are fascinated by. I am saying these books need better treatment, that they are their own thing and should not be treated as anything other than that. And I feel that you are attacking my argument, rather than supporting it, as you might, as an active collector of them. Which I find odd. I would like to think that CGC would listen to my opinion because I have been helpful to them in the past in a number of ways and have earned the right, I hope, to at least be heard. I have put forward a reasoned argument, that is all. They don't have to listen. And I did say, earlier in the thread, that if the change went ahead, so be it, but at least it would do so with my reasoned objection noted. I don't mean for that to sound big headed - I'm just a collector with an opinion that I want to get on the table just on the off-chance that it might help influence a better way forward. I shouldn't have to stay silent for fear of being accused of being on a 'one man mission' or putting myself on a pedestal, should I? I distil the difference between us, simply, as follows if I am understanding your position correctly.: I believe 'La Masa 4' (v2) should be labeled and recorded as such, with a note stating the key US original publication content that has been reproduced. You are comfortable with it being labelled as 'The Incredible Hulk #181'. This is a discussion thread Steve and I do appreciate your input. At the end of the day, it gets dark, and CGC will do whatever they think is right. They have heard both our positions. However they are labelled from this point, you have some really lovely comics.

Using the Mexican example above, how does the uneducated person know that, that the publication date on the label is that of the Mexican Batman #397 and not the American Detective Comics #359? Why do you assume that is obvious to all? There are two titles and one date on the slab. That creates uncertainty. And if the foreign publication has a very similar, close date to the US original - even the mildly educated could slip up using the dates. CGC used to refer to price variants as 'editions' too - again, the uneducated may confuse a Mexican Edition with a UK/Canadian/Australian first printing price variant if they are looking at a historic slab. Many people still don't realise that there are only four countries in scope for price variants in respect of US original comics and many educated US collectors still think a French reprint and a UK Price Variant carry equal status. If CGC labelled correctly, the number 1 rule would be to check the notes which should say "reprints material originally published in....". Again, for the uneducated, if the slab says "First appearance of Batgirl" why would someone place a publishing date which they may be unfamiliar with for both the US original and the non-US reprint over the 'certainty' of that label text? CGC are saying in black and white that this book is the first appearance. Combine how, if they have different entry titles? Using our Mexican example, it will either be listed as one (Batman), the other (Detective), or both as it currently is. If the US edition wins out, how do we identify which of the overall census numbers for Detective represent the Mexican Batman publications? Whilst I accept that, on reflection, I have no evidence of it (the noise), I don't think that it is likely that CGC arrived at this decision themselves without any input from the type of collectors who participate in the registry awards. Maybe CGC will clarify this, and state the reason for the change in approach, when they retrospectively make the announcement of what they have already started doing. An announcement, mind, that may well have influenced your decision to submit your books in the first place (would you have, had you known how they would come back?). If they haven't already, get them to contact CGC. I've emailed Matt - that's as high as you can go I believe - add your voice to mine if you disagree with what they are doing / about to do. It hasn't been announced, so it can be stopped. One chance to stop it.

...and that's a key point HotKey. A hot key point, you could say Not everyone knows explicitly what is going on. Not everyone is an expert in every aspect of comic collecting, certainly not where variants and non-US publications are concerned. This is why clear labelling is important. This approach will mislead some and confuse many I suspect. There are those that will say "tough - if you can't tell a reprint from an original you shouldn't be in the hobby in the first place". That's arrogance speaking. If it is obvious what something is, then it should be quite easy to label it clearly and correctly shouldn't it? CGC have just got this wrong. They have allowed some noise from outside the circle to override what should be a toweringly obvious guiding principle - label things as what they are, not what you or some interested group want them to be to fit a narrow commercial or competitive interest. This is how easy it would be to label all non-US produced comics correctly and factually whilst identifying any link to key US original comic content (using their own verification tool headings): Title - the title of the actual comic in hand (alongside a literal US translation if necessary) Issue - the issue number of the actual comic in hand Issue Date / Year - the date and year of the actual comic in hand Publisher - the name of the publisher of the actual comic in hand Country - the principle distribution country Variant - not applicable as non-US publications are not variants of US originals. Variants can only come from the same US print run as the original US comic Key Comments - the details of any salient US original comic that the comic in hand reprints in full or in part Do that and you: Respect the publication in hand - it is its own thing Respect the US original - don't label a non-US publication as the 'first appearance' of a US character that first appeared in a US comic first Preserve data integrity - a dog is a dog. Do not ask people to search for it under 'cat' Promote industry understanding - let the world know that these books are their own thing. By all means point out the reprinting of key original US content in the notes Maintain one, accurate census record - Mexican Batman #397 is what we are searching for. Not American Detective Comics #359 If you have to put some process in place for the census search where the spelling is non-English standard - I could foresee some technical issues there - then that is your challenge and that is the price you pay for agreeing to grade non-US books. Arguably, CGC have been trying to conquer all preceding industry descriptors and standards since they were incepted. 9.2, 9.4, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9. 10.2. Their grading standards and terminology now seem to rule the land. What right do CGC have to decide to call something produced on non-US shores what it clearly is not? How long before the rest of the comic industry starts to accept their choice of descriptors on - and I hate this term - 'foreigns'? Write to your local MP* and stop this madness now! *Or your non-English equivalent

...oh, there it is! I rest my case on the floor.

On the mess front, this was posted earlier in the thread - an apparent Mexican Batman #397 labelled as an American Detective #359: If I put the slab number into the verification tool I get the same Detective 359 / Batman 397 combination: So that's a Batman #397, labelled as Detective #359 due to the high profile cover. If I type Batman #397 into the census I get two records, the DC original and our Mexican publication (10/67): If I click on the Mexican Editorial Novaro entry I get one graded copy: But it is a 3.5 and our graded book is a 4.0. And it says reprints Detective #357, not 359 (reprints!) So what has happened here? Could it be that the added complication of trying to call a dog a cat has created the confusion? You could avoid that, couldn't you, by calling a dog a dog. And this strategy is a dog, let's face it. It is a dog from the point of view of labelling accuracy, it is a dog from the point of view of showing respect for a publication, and it is a potential / procedural record keeping dog as this example appears to illustrate. Is the 4.0 slab the 3.5 above recorded in error? Or does the 4.0 slab record exist under the US Detective record? How many slabbed Mexican editions are there? And do they reprint 357 or 359? And is the slab date the date of the Mexican comic or the US original? It's labelled as the US original, so maybe. Is the Mexican comic the first appearance of Batgirl? It says it is on the label. No mention of 'reprint' on the label, but it does say reprint on the census so which is it? Did I get anything wrong here?

We seem to be on the same page Beyonder123, and you highlight again some of the concerns I have expressed. We'll have to wait for the detail of the forthcoming announcement, but I suspect they're going to create problems for themselves going forward and we'll end up with some books being labelled as they are and others in line with the US originals depending on content. I foresee a mess, and I feel it shows a lack of respect for the non-US publications. CGC, of all people, should respect comics for what they are and uphold data accuracy. The proposed strategy, which is unnecessary, doesn't do that in my opinion.

As we discussed offline Rich, you would need to research this for years to build up the full picture. Three sweeps of the web will give a snapshot, but it takes years of sweeping to find all the available examples. If only I had had the foresight to gather examples of stamped copies during the many years spent gathering the UKPVs...

I'm not a DC collector as such, but I thought the plotting exercise that I did for the first four cycles of the T&P stamps on DCs (20 cycles for selected titles) if anything proved there was consistency. There are only a handful of missing stamped issues for the first 46 in scope titles which is admirable given that it was the start of it all, wouldn't you say? For DC, UKPVs appeared briefly in July/August 1971 for just five issues and then more fully from cover date February 1978 to October 1981. That's much smaller than Marvel's UKPV window of course but I wouldn't call a near four year run a flirtation Rich? There were 840 UKPVs in the cover date windows vs 1,227 cover dated issues in total. I haven't ever looked to see whether the titles and issues that did not get a UKPV during the time arrived as stamped copies. Not enough hours in the day!

I heard back from Matt Nelson earlier and he has confirmed that the decision to label non-US publications in line with any high profile US original comic with which they share content is indeed strategic. There was mention of a 'gray area', the details of which I await. In the meantime, and subject to any clarifying detail in CGC's pending strategy announcement, we will presumably see this kind of thing below as the norm now - a non-US publication with a different issue number and title labelled in line with the US original comic that it reprints in full or in part (in this case, "The Amazing Spider-Man #129"): I reiterated my high level reasoning as to why I think the strategy is wrong as follows...... "If you label things literally, as what they are, you cannot go wrong in any way as you are dealing in facts. If you label things in line with what they are not, you are storing up problems for the future. And, I would argue, you are showing a lack of respect for the non-US publications. They are their own thing and should not be recorded any other way" ......which Matt noted, confirming in the process that he has also read this thread. Our email dialogues have always been civil, and he thanked me for my thoughts. It was good of him to take the time out of what must be a very busy day. An announcement will be made in due course - we know our objections have been noted!

That's right, people can be unreasonable. If you spend your life battling them for your version of justice, you will live a very unhappy life.

I agree with Bird. Life can be unfair, people and institutions unreasonable. As long as you get the book returned in the same state it was sent, block them, move on and forget about it. The book will find a happy home with the right person at some point.

Yes, it came in a Charlton lot I purchased from eBay Albert. No way of knowing where these books have been really, is there. Or what order, anyway.

Not sure I follow you Rich, but to my knowledge there weren't any DC Canadian or Australian priced copies around that time, if that's what you meant. If you meant the sticker, I've seen that one on many comics in the US and assume it to be of US origin. For the comic to get to the UK, it would have had to be unsold in the US. I thought it odd that (presumably) a US outlet placed a higher price sticker on the book and then returned it to the re-distribution arm once it didn't sell, thereby giving the game away that they were overcharging. Potentially!

Here's an interesting book, which came to me in a lot recently. How does a 12c printed book, stickered in the US to 15c (way in advance of any printed price rise, and probably why it didn't sell), find its way over here for a 9d stamp I wonder? And when....

Morning I haven't done that for a while. Archie UKPVs never took off did they, really, as a thread. Still, I haven't added a new 9d find in over 16 months, despite my regular search routine. Just shows you how rare they are I suppose - virtually non-existent in fact. But routinely unloved. I have more examples of L Miller stamped cents copies in the files now than the UKPVs. Here's a few I picked up recently to slot into the forthcoming Charlton research update (all will be explained): Funnily enough, I didn't detect much interest or love for the Archie 15 centers either: I've only found one more of those since I gatecrashed that thread - 79 confirmed copies of those now. Anyway, it was something to do while I wait for the rain to stop, this post. See you in another year maybe

Good spot Androolx, thanks - Captain Rupert America It fits the table as being the last NBS issue, yes: 104 confirmed copies now...