Get Marwood & I

I like that. "CHARLTON GIVES YOU MORE. AND SOONER" It's got a ring to it. Look, what you do in your own time is your concern Albert....

Reprint? They're out of scope Albert

Number 4 you mean: Typical, only 3 copies and one we can't read I still think the Charltons and these FM's could be the forerunners. We just need to know more about how they were returned in the US and whether that differed to the DC process. If it did - and there's a case for it - that could explain the 'misalignment' of cover dates to stamp numbers. That would give us our first ever stamp range for 1-5. Remember, Charlton had 833 printed 6d/9d UKPVs (via L Miller) land in the UK before DC had a single one. Why shouldn't they have been the first stamped books to come over, a few months ahead of DC?

Could the fact that Charltons were b-monthly have something to do with it? That could make their US returns process different and perhaps explain why their cover dates are earlier than those of the monthly DCs. Perhaps the US newsagents left them on sale longer?

Definitely possible. The sequential monthly spread of Charltons gets me though - if their sequential stamps correlate with the 1960's stamping, not 1959's, why would the monthly cover dates have a cover date / stamp number sequential pattern? Why would the US send their year old Charltons over a year later than when they were returned in the US, sequentially and not in one lump? Why haven't all the Charltons that I plotted got the same number on them, if they are from the previous year? Don't you find it odd though that neither of us has seen or can lay our hands on a publication with one of these missing 1-5 stamps on them? The 1959 Charltons exist - we have ample examples starting from Feb 1959 with a '2' stamp. Is it not more likely that they are the 'missing' first set of stamps, than these conspicuously absent magazines that no one has ever seen? They tie in with the Charltons though. Well, the two examples we have do.

I love all those operational quirks. Good job we have the internet now. If that happened in the 1960's we'd all be here now trying to work out why...

The early seasons were some of the best TV I have ever seen. I really took to the whole cast and I miss them. The final season was a disaster. An absolute disaster. It almost has the Chibnall / Whittaker destruction of Doctor Who beat. Almost.

Got ya. Do we know why a different title was used by the way, as opposed to the actual title of the publication?

As a result of Albert's input, and the subsequent number crunching, I'm comfortable with the idea that the T&P stamp numbering was an internal operational procedure and likely directly linked to the sequential arrival of comics in shipments from the US. The table summaries that I put together are quite convincing in that respect for the DC titles. The Charlton dates cast a bit of doubt though in as much as they don't fit the DC pattern when transposed. So there is clearly more to it, more to learn. I don't however currently support the notion that the stamps were of any significance to the newsagents for the many reasons I've outlined so far. I'll need a lot more evidence to buy in to that theory.

That was my first thought VM, but then I thought that the two digit number indicated the number of issues of the title in question registered for the year. So it would be an 01 for Thor, as it would be the first issue registered in the calendar year. The same should apply for the Superior Special though as that is also the first issue of that specific 'special' title. Maybe they attributed it to the existing Superior Team-Up ongoing title and the special was the 12th issue registered? Who's the newsstand barcode numbers expert around here?

Good spot. Silly question probably, it's been one of those days, but why do you think Superior Spider-Man Team-Up Special #1 has an annual issue barcode number of 12 instead of 01 as it should have being the only issue of the title that year? Thor Crown of Fools #1 is 01:

The 1,304th confirmed APV courtesy of Matt over at Ben's

Afternoon I had a quick go at overlaying the 1959 cover dated DC, Charlton and the only two examples of 1959 Famous Monsters onto the same grid to see if I could show that the sequential Charlton's (Feb 59 onwards) were the starting point, i.e. the first wave use of the numbered T&P stamp. Here's what came out. Charlton in black Famous Monsters in bold DC in purple My thinking was that maybe the Charltons were the first use of the stamp - we have lots of stamped copies date sequentially starting from the Feb 1959 cover dates. So I split them as shown then added in the DC and two Monsters. Alas, it doesn't seem to fit, with the 8's, 9's and proposed second use 1's having clear gaps month-wise between the DC and Charlton examples. I was thinking maybe the Famous Monsters #1 and #2 may be the elusive first use of the 1 stamp but there are no US copies that I can find with a stamp - only the 1959 UK indicia reprint which, either way, you can't make out the number of. If we look at all the 8's in the table, the Charltons are cover dated March to June, the DC's November & December - no cover date 'fit' as a group. And yet both sets have an 8 stamp. It's difficult to see how either set could have come over in a different #8 shipment however given how relatively close their cover dates are. So it's a puzzle isn't it? The 1959 Archie's that I have more or less mirror the DC placements / date configuration. As usual, Charlton sticks out as an anomaly. Could Charlton have had a completely different returns process / cycle, that would explain the variation in months compared to the DC groupings? Hmmmm

Indeed

I might have the answer to this - or someone I know does See earlier post below in this thread for my helicopter findings on Marvel: Gotta go - see you tomorrow hopefully....

Albert, Gary, Eric if you're still there I've got to go. I really enjoyed this debate today - it's so unusual for me to have this kind of debate here and I loved it. I couldn't give a monkey's armchair about being right as long as we get to what we think is the truth. Albert - you're a genius Great stuff

Odd though that only recently I commented on an unusual MJI star stamp in a circle in the MJI thread...

If a newsagent didn't need a shelf life indicator for a printed 9d or 10d price variant, why would he need one for a stamped US copy?

You and your effin shelf life indicator theory!

You and your effin shelf life indicator theory!

Unless there's a Charlton '1' out there, waiting to be found that is the 'first' '1', followed by the Feb 1959 '2's' below (the shown '1' being the subsequent 1960 '1')... Dunno. Hoping you might.

Sesterces? Certes!

I have lots of examples of printed price UKPV books with T&P stamps - operator error seems just as likely a reason to me.