Get Marwood & I

That's cool Kev - a 57 on a 58. And nicely placed too - no wonder you didn't spot it for so long. Funny what you say about fussing over stamps - I got an email notification for a comic auction today which included oceans of DCs. I checked every lot's photo and was gutted that not one of them was stamped. When did that happen - stampless comics are now a disappointment!

Looks like it!

Where do you think these stickers originate from boys? Something Eastern looking about them. Any clues?

Morning guys I posted here yesterday in support of the UK / Canadian / Australian discussion because I was mentioned a few times and thought I may as well contribute a few thoughts of my own. In the absence of any invitation to the contrary however, it is a club after all, I personally am going to assume that this thread is for US domestic test price variants only - notably the 30/35 cent Marvel variety. I see a bit of a clue in the opening post, and will abide by it from this point. There are more than enough threads about the other books to find and contribute to if that's your thing, and you'll certainly be more than welcome to pop in, show off and chat in any that I have created. The 30/35 cvs are mythical things of beauty, I have owned many in my time, and it's only right that they have a thread here all to themselves. Have fun!

There are some great covers with that banner, such as Deadpool #1 (2013?), many Superior Spider-Man, Superior Foes of Spider-Man, Daredevil, and Uncanny X-Men. No doubt - I remember being pissed off when they first started putting UPCs on the FC . . . when it could have been easily put on the BC. But I guess the fact that they "sold" the BC to advertisers prevented that. I think they started to appear from cover date December 2012. I understand the appeal of an uncluttered central image but I've always quite liked the cover dressings in a way. They're part of the medium, the history of comics. I don't think anyone was thinking about the defacement of high art when barcodes were introduced! Maybe they should have, but then we wouldn't have all the wonderful variations that different cover dressings can bring. Returning to the red banners, I liked the fact that subsequent printings were colour coded - they had a pleasing uniformity when you lined them up. Blue for second print, green for third etc (although that consistency slipped occasionally....)

Cor, that's a cracking copy Yorick. Six Dee-lightful

There's certainly no shortage of copies available which look like they were always here, if it's possible to look like that. Maybe they just weren't stamped for some reason. Trouble is, no stamp equals no concrete evidence equals we'll never know for sure.

I haven't trawled for them for a while now actually Woogie. Might have another sweep online later.....

@Yorick

Great, that was my suspicion Steven - that it wasn't an actual comic. Probably used in an internal advert or something. Removing it is the right move I think if it can't be validated. That's not my copy as it goes - just taken from eBay probably for illustrative purposes. That said, you can feel free to use any image that I post here that I state as being mine (I usually do). I would prefer the GCD use "UK Price Variant" instead of "British" as the description category, but I'll leave that to you to take forward as a suggestion if you feel it worth considering

Here we go - all printed at the same time, in the same place: US Copy UK Price Variant US Price Variant Lovely!

One last point, on the rarity comparison. In my experience, it fluctuates wildly and I would only make a comparison myself where variants exist for the same issue. There are a bulk of UK Price Variants for which I have seen only a handful of copies - some at the beginning of their existence (1960) and some at the end (1981). On the flip, many UKPVs in the middle are plentiful. Nothing groundbreaking there really, just an observation.

Nuvver one!

Not sure about this one either. Marwood is the expert (or an expert). Read through this if you have time - All 'Marvel Australian Price Variants' have US indicia details and interior contents. Only the covers were printed with AUS specific prices and differences. I summarise those differences in my journal summary entry here (pictures at the end) for those that don't want to read the whole discussion thread: https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/blogs/entry/4916-marvel-australian-price-variants/ I tend to go with the wishes of the OP and the majority contributors in a thread - if they would rather this thread be about domestic US price variants only, I'm OK with that. No point upsetting people. I like the way you put that Robert. It's OK to hold opinions that differ, as long as they can be backed up with rational thought. Like you, I favour the term 'UK/Canadian/Australian Price Variant' as it is the best and shortest group of words that I can think of which satisfy the salient factors which, for me, are to recognize their variant status (they are a small subset from the original print state and, therefore, a 'variant' in the correct sense of the word) and secondly to distinguish them from the locally produced publications and reprints of the countries that they were distributed to. There is more to it, more to say, but my arguments were sufficient to compel CGC to move away from "UK Edition" and, whilst they are by no means the be all and end all of comic categorisation, it shows that a professional organisation with growing influence in the industry were prepared to listen to a rational thought process and act on it by changing their systems. If we all get behind those terms, and understand the production status of the books in question, then surely that's a good thing, no? I accept the term is not perfect in that it encroaches, for want of a better word, on the 'purity' of the US price variant scenario. I understand that logic and thinking and have said so in my threads. When I first joined here my first pence thread was called "Marvel First Printing Pence Priced Distribution Variants". What a mouthful, trying as it was to cover every base. So I distilled it somewhat, to something more manageable. I accept that some dislike it and that it's simply not possible to come up with one short descriptor that will satisfy everyone. So I go with the best I can come up with, and justify it when challenged. For me, as long as everyone knows what the production status of these books was (i.e. they are not / were not reprints) then I'd prefer if we didn't get too uptight about a descriptor which is pretty much physically accurate in every sense. In a nut shell, the UK, Canadian and Australian priced copies were: Printed at the same time, in the same place, and by the same people as the US copies As a result of plate changes, they have small cover differences including but not limited to a non-US cover price This makes them variants - they vary in appearance from their majority US cousins The salient difference is the price - this makes them a price variant Because price variants exist in other forms, we have to add an additional descriptor to differentiate them In the case of the UK copies, UK is that additional obvious descriptor - hence 'UK Price Variant' So, in respect of the same original print state books, we have the following in existence at different points in history: US copies US Price Variants (30/35 and the 1999/2000 ones) UK Price Variants Canadian Price Variants Australian Price Variants Everything else, not being part of the original print state, is by definition a reprint or a locally produced publication. 'Spider-Man Comics Weekly', a UK produced title, may share a cover to an Amazing Spider-Man US original comic, but it is it's own thing - a UK local publication. CGC were calling UK Price Variants of ASM, and UK produced Spider-Man Comics Weeklies, 'UK Editions'. They were calling two different things by one misleading title. This is why I and others challenged them. This is why they changed their labelling approach. If we call UK Price Variants "Foreign Editions" then we lose completely the fact that they are part of the original print run. We have to link them to their majority US counterparts.

Added to the list

In before the refund.

Did you fly over Niagara Falls in a barrel whilst fixing a loose fascia board with a mastic bonding gun?

Yep. Every thread is pure cra- sorry, gold....

I checked it out earlier Gary - load of rubbish.

Ah ha! Well done Eric. The rather conspicuous absence of a number one is telling isn't it. Just this number two (must......resist. Joke.....too....easy). FC 1009 must've sold well, mustn't it. All that cocking I shouldn't wonder..

I spotted this eight stamped Superman #133 in an online auction lot: I wonder if 'Shield' Books were a forerunner of RV? Anyway, the previous example was stamped a nine so we have one #133 in each column now: Here's the nine example: Superman #133 remains the earliest known stamped copy - in fact not much has changed on that front since I populated the table last year: The actual tracking pages are now too full to fit the pages so I have to think of a different way to present the 1-9 cycles now while somehow managing to keep them on one page. There's a portrait version in progress - wish me luck...

I love the way the black and white T&P stamp sits on this issue of World's Finest (not mine) - part of the furniture isn't it

It's Quiz Time again, Yay! Here's old Lucas showing young Mark how to cock a rifle: The things them two got up to. Now, the question is: "What is under the black bar that appears above the date on every single barrel-cocking copy?" Send your answers on a post card to Marwood at the usual address: C, London Winners will be notified by an angry vole the week commencing when it starts (@porcupine48)