Get Marwood & I

I gave up following that about 30 years ago. At least, that's how long it seems to have been in the pipeline.

It is indeed #11, which reprints the Charlton title of the same name, #9 as you rightly say - here's a copy from the bay: As you can see from the certificate from the plate set that I posted that no one liked enough to comment on, there were two AC series of Out of This World: The first series ran for 23 issues - you can view them on the GCD here: https://www.comics.org/series/21401/covers/?page=1.2 And the second, 10 issues: https://www.comics.org/series/21402/covers/?page=1.2 The holy grail of that title is OOTW #17 which reprinted Amazing Fantasy #15 and which now commands eye watering premiums. Here's my old copy, now long gone alas: Recent sales You can read up on Alan a bit more here: https://30thcenturycomics.co.uk/extras/alan-class/alan-class-guide/ And here is a nice video interview of the man himself: We won't see his like again, nor the simplicity of the times he operated in.

I'm at 3.5 too. Love that cover

A-ha.

It's on its way Reggie...

Not that I know of, no I've not seen those before - I'd imagine some kids had fun with Jonathan Shatter back in the day though.

No, it doesn't, and occasionally you are right Stu, yes. But you have forfeited the right to be here legitimately and anything positive that you have to say is, for me at least, more often than not, drowned out by the manner in which you say it. You knowingly and willingly cross the line of what is acceptable, and you always resort to childish name calling and personal attacks when pressed to clarify points. Accordingly, you're not someone who I want to engage with and I ask you not to interact with me.

Exactly, good examples Chaz. I'm logging off now. I think I've made my own position, and preferred approach clear. Happy to defend it further if anyone violently disagrees!

My discussions aren't often referred to as intelligent Steve Ignore him by the way - previous banned member who we can't do much about it seems. Even if the mods ban this latest account he'll be back before you know it. It's just something you have to put up with on forums like these. I think the word 'reprint' is appropriate to foreign publications myself, but in the sense that they 'reprint' original US comic content either in full or in part. I understand the argument of local 'first exposure' but I think calling a book, for example, a 'Publication of Greece' and then stating on the label notes that it 'Reprints the first appearance of....' is a factually accurate statement that is defendable. Sometimes it's not possible to coin a single phrase or definition that everyone will be happy with. You have to make the case for the best you can come up with and hope the majority agree.

That wasn't my intention Steve, apologies if you thought that from my replies. And I take your point about my pandering comment - that can't be so if CGC did not consult anyone. Whatever way you look at it, it's a bad decision I think. I had some dialogue with Matt Nelson about the change to 'UK Price Variant' and found him to be reasonable and respectful in his responses. Some people weren't happy with that change - I understood why, but would always hope that I could persuade them at least of my own rationale for it. While not perfect, you can make a case for it that stands up to scrutiny I feel. This decision? I can't see how you can defend it. As I said, a dog is a dog, not a variant of a cat. You can - and should - call something what it is if you are in the grading game - you can't call it what it isn't.

Thanks Steve - they're not areas I visit or follow. Thanks for joining in - it's news to me that this was in the pipeline and a complete coincidence that I started the thread. I just saw that Greek 'ASM #252' in another thread and it annoyed me. It's difficult to imagine why we are here trying to defend calling something what it is, against what it isn't, isn't it Eric. And his Other. If you record data literally as follows.... Title Issue Number Publisher Date Variation Type (UK Price Variant, Mark Jewelers Insert etc) Notes (what original US comic does it reprint?) ....you can't go wrong and everything will make sense both to the eyes when you hold a foreign slab in your mitts and in the census and other such records. Adopting a strategy where you call things what they are not - and then only selectively - is a complete disaster. It is a disservice to accuracy and a pandering to a niche group.

So CGC think that second letter is a lower case 'n' too, do they Get the date right, get rid of 'Greek Edition' and replace 'Marvel' with 'Kabanas Hellas' and that old style approach label would be nigh on perfect.

So to be clear, CGC staff have confirmed verbally that that is now the approach? I don't post online anywhere else Steve - who is this community and where do they voice their views? So they are moving away from literal labelling / accuracy towards pandering to a niche group who get excited by reprints of grails?

It's quite funny that in their rush to call #25 #181 that they forgot to mention Poison Ivy isn't it. If they followed my suggested strategy of 'calling them what they are', would there be a problem with those Indonesian comics? If you answered the following factually, would the issue go away? Title Issue Number Publisher Date Variation Type (UK Price Variant, Mark Jewelers Insert etc) Notes (what original US comic does it reprint?) I changed 'designation' by the way to 'variation type' - designation wasn't a good choice of word on reflection. We could probably debate what that data element should be called as it goes.

First things first, you have some lovely books there Steve. Really nice. I'm glad I started this thread now, as I wasn't aware that CGC were actually starting to label in a cover vs guts, as you say, way. Personally, I think that is a disaster. If they are going to label the Danish publication Batman #25 as "Batman #181" then what will they call number 26, 27 or 300 if it doesn't have a 'key' cover? That's madness. What if the Danes suddenly decide to produce an issue with a unique cover - does it suddenly magically become itself, just because there is no US original with the same cover? Will we end up with issues in the same run of a foreign publication categorised in different ways, some as themselves and others in line with the US originals that they reprint? Prioritising the 'key' content status of the US original over the actual details of the comic being graded is a ridiculous strategy. It's all about status and, by nature of the financial implication, greed, when it should be about accuracy of data and reality, surely? I'm at a loss here. Someone help me. Very yes: Very no:

Probably, yes. In that example, where the title may as well be in hieroglyphics for all the sense it makes to English speaking audiences (not that they're the only audiences of course, other countries citizens collect and submit comics) it might be best to include a title translation if it is not immediately obvious to help those who don't speak the language that the book is written in. So this book could either be labelled with the title exactly as it shows (pretty sure there will be a programme to allow that) or as shown and accompanied by a translation in brackets. Just don't call it "The Amazing Spider-Man #361" and group it with that original US comic. If anyone reading this thinks that that might be unreasonable, unrealistic, or too onerous for CGC to administer, then I would say 'tough'. If CGC want to position themselves in the market as the go-to grading company, and carry a reputation for accuracy on all fronts, then they need to do the work and spend the money to create an operating model to accommodate all possibilities. To me, they haven't put enough thought into the grading of 'foreigns'. With submissions increasing, perhaps they should.

I've started some for less We know

I've started some for less

You've probably hit the nail - or a nail, at least - on the head there Chazgee. If what you have said is true (I've never submitted) the submission process reinforces the possibility of incorrect classification and, as you say, QC are likely too stretched to care. Shame though, if true, as it means they have built a model which will over time corrupt the integrity of the data and, as I say, cement confusion.

Thanks Chaz. The application of the approach I set out - label and categorise what is in front of you - cannot go wrong, as it is factual. We could perhaps create an additional data entry field for the target country where the publication is of non-US origin, and preserve the 'designation' field as I called it for variant descriptions such as Mark Jewelers, Canadian Price Variant etc. Just make it clear on the label that the publication is of and for a foreign market for those that can't read Greek. And the notes section is there to bring out any salient points of interest, e.g. the reprinting of a popular US original book. But to label a comic as something that it is evidently not can only, surely, generate confusion. A dog is a dog. It is not a 'Dog Edition' of a Cat. And #164 is not #252. What on Earth are CGC doing here?

If so, the potential for confusion will grow I think. I could populate the thread with many examples of these types of misleading, non-sensical labelling practices. The central thrust of my argument is that a comic should be labelled as what it is itself, not what it is a subsequent derivation of, in full or in part. A CGC label has the following basic entry fields: Title Issue Number Publisher Date Designation (UK Price Variant, Mark Jewelers Insert etc) Notes I believe they should be populated with the correct physical details of the comic being graded. So our Greek 'ASM #252' would be: Title - Enaintep Man Issue Number - 164 Publisher - Kabanas Hellas Date - 06/84 Designation - Publication of Greece (for example) Notes - Reprints The Amazing Spider-Man #252 This would be factually correct. That book is not Amazing Spider-Man #252 and the only justification for those words being on the slab label are to indicate the reproduction of it. CGC should, I think, grade what it is in front of them and not seek to link the publication to something that it is not in their systems. And they certainly should not label it as such. I see this very clearly. Does anyone else?

Interesting, thanks GPA. Taking the above scenario - the labelling and categorisation of a foreign publication by cover in line with a US original publication - how would you expect a graded copy of this to be labelled?: It would have to be labelled as "Mysteries of Unexplored Worlds #20" as it shares its cover: Here is a graded example however: As it turns out, everything is right in my opinion apart from the "UK Edition" label entry. It is not the 'UK Edition' of Out of This World because it's cover and contents do not match that of the US title of the same name. It is just 'Out of This World #17', published by Alan Class. The 'edition' is not required. It just happens to reprint Amazing Fantasy #15. Surely you do not think it should be labelled as, and grouped with, Charlton's Mysteries of Unexplored Worlds #20, just because it shares a cover image?

Cool Just so I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying you think this is a conscious decision by CGC - to group and label foreign publications to an original US comic where they share the same cover - as opposed to calling them what they are? You favour calling #184 of a Greek publication which translates as 'Spainder Man' as 'The Amazing Spider-Man' and labelling it #252?

Good points. I agree that the French comic is labelled OK aside of the rather clumsy 'France' sitting there. The data present is factually accurate and therefore defendable. Here are the various entries for ASM #252 on the census: Our Greek comic is the 'Kabanas Hellas' entry: As you say, they probably found it easier to piggy back off of the ASM #252 record than to create a new category but I don't know how their systems work. Maybe they can't create a title that involves foreign text in their system? I don't even know what the second character in the title that looks like a lower case 'n' is? It's all Greek to me

Hello. What do we think of how CGC currently label 'foreign' publications - those intended for a non-US audience - which reprint original US comic content? Are they getting it right? I saw these two examples in the 'Foreign' thread today: The 'Spidey' is fairly OK. I don't like the word 'France' just hanging there on it's own, but the book is labelled in line with it's title, issue number, date and publisher. And it notes the original US comic content which the book reproduces. It doesn't seem to bother CGC that the book caries an existing US title, and the census separates them accordingly: That's not too bad really. The Greek book is another matter. If CGC are happy to call the French Spidey 'Spidey' - because that is its title - why do they not call this book 'Enaintep Man', or the actual Greek text equivalent? How can it be called 'Amazing Spider-Man' #252 when: It isn't called Amazing Spider-Man (English text) It is number 164 How can it be labeled as tying with Marvel Team Up #141 as the first appearance of the black costume when it is a later reprint? Should that designation not be reserved for the US original only? Why is it a 'Greek Edition' when the the previous Spidey book is simply 'France'? Does this imply a lack of uniformity in the labelling approach? Or is it because CGC are saying that the book is the 'Greek Edition' of Amazing Spider-Man #252 (which I would argue it very much isn't). I raised an 'Ask CGC' question along similar lines here in relation to comics produced for the Philippines - have a read if you're interested: My offer of a discussion group was not taken up. In addition to that, some of you may be aware of the discussions I have been involved in relating to the correct labelling of what CGC now call 'UK Price Variants'. Whilst that work ended in CGC changing their labelling approach for the UK, Canadian and Australian first printing variants (they were printed at the same time as the US copies), they did stop short at agreeing to stop calling UK publications 'Editions'. So there was some progress, admittedly, but CGC still I feel have a very confused approach to the labelling of non-US publications which reprint original US comic content, often produced long after the original US printing. What do others think? Are CGC getting it largely right do you think, or is there an argument for this area to be revisited, with strategic labelling approach corrections made, before there are so many examples out there that it will take years to rebalance? Do CGC have a duty not to confuse us with inconsistent approaches? CGC know my thoughts on this and I'm not going to 'marshal' this discussion or try to push it in a certain direction. I want to hear what others think and, if there is a consensus of opinion one way or the other, maybe CGC may take heed of it. After all, what is the point of having all the experience that this forum gathers if you aren't prepared to use it and listen to suggestions which may ultimately improve your operating model? At the very least, a desire for accuracy should be uppermost in CGC's mind in all respects I think. What do you think?