Get Marwood & I

But as our T&P stamped 1958 cover dated Charltons show, books clearly came over much later than their cover dates. So there could be no guarantee that the 'first' 1 wasn't actually a very late subsequent years 1.

Nah. I still don't buy that aspect Albert.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was that basic How will we know for sure that it was the first though?

That's more like it. Have you done the work already, or am I about to?

Yes, 1958, the US original. The one I posted earlier is August 1961. Maybe these were the start. That one is a pence copy though - reprint.

I don't see that being one, no Cool though. I wonder what is does signify, if not military?

And one of Betty's hotpots, I said one of Betty's hotpots! (Fred Elliott).

Almost certainly, as the October 1959 issues are stamped with 6 or 7. T & P would not have initiated a new numbering system just for comic books. More than likely they just slotted the newly arrived US additions to their roster into a pre-existing arrangement On what though? Have you ever seen that T&P stamp on something other than an imported US comic? There are a handful of UK publications that - oddly - have them, e,g. the One Shilling Gold Token Books... ...but what else would they have put them on? I'm still looking at those earlier Charltons I posted about....

Focaccia!

Case in point - three copies of Adventure Comics #331, one stamped 1, one stamped 2 and one stamped 3... ...indicating, if our new theory is right, that the US sellers took at least 3 shipment periods to return their unsold copies back to base! And here's another example of a book that was presumably unsold in the UK for @Kevin.J

I don't think so as I've only seen it on comics and a tiny handful of (later) magazines

It's not a word - I made it up Eric. Whenever you see me say 'is that a word...' that means it generally isn't. Unless it is of course

No, thank you Albert - this is your input my friend that has uncovered this pattern Here is an interesting summary sample that I put together this afternoon. I took five key DC titles and looked on eBay at the stamps for their issues between the seven cover date months of December 1964 and June 1965. Here are the results (click to enlarge): First up, we can see the transition from the old numbered 10d stamps to the smaller unnumbered ones as being cover date June 1965. Serendipity, as I was planning to identify that month at some point. For the issues preceding June 65, it's clear that the date sequential - and therefore, we assume, the shipment arrival sequence commences with stamp number 6. So, taking 'Action Comics' as an example: The number 6 stamp shipment included issue 319 So did the number 7 shipment Nothing in shipment 8 Then shipment 9 has issues 319, 320 and 321 The next shipment restarted with stamp number 1 and dutifully has issue 322 Then number 2 has issue 323 Number 3 has issue 324 And then issue 325 doesn't register as it has the new stamp type without a number ending the numbering requirement (I wonder why?) So there is a clear pattern / order there which the other titles more or less follow if you track them in the same way. This is fairly ground breaking for me - a pattern and explanation for the existence of the early T&P stamp numbering that actually, and evidentially, makes sense. It is obvious really that the same issue would find its way into subsequent sequential shipments as the returns in the US would likely have been fairly inconsistent. I can't see that every US newsagent in every town would remove the same unsold books from sale at the same time and send them back to source for onward distribution to the UK. I'm very pleased with this Albert. Well done mate.

OK, not exactly the pattern I was expecting for all my Charlton Feb-59 to Aug-59 cover dated examples: They're quite scarce, early T&P Charltons, so I don't have a huge number of examples to upload, but it looks like the '2' batch may have come over in 1960, not 1959, if that makes sense. But then again all those with a '1' are cover dated later than '2' so maybe they are '2' 1959 and '1' 1960, with '2' possibly being the first ever UK arrival? My head hurts. Coincidentally, Dementia Patient Duty calls, so I'll hopefully be back later.....

One early thought - if my Charlton examples are more or less date sequential with their stamps, starting with '2' appearing on Feb 1959 copies and then moving up with the calendar months as you would expect, this could mean that the first ever US to UK comic shipment was well before the October DC ones which are often referred to as the first books arriving in the UK. It wouldn't make sense for T&P to start at stamp number '7' would it - they'd surely have started with stamp number 1 on the first ever shipment received? I'll try to present it later so that what is in my head translates more clearly on the page

@Albert Tatlock I changed tack Albert and placed every DC example I have in my files dated September 1959 to February 1960 onto a table numbered 1-9 in line with their T&P cover stamps (remember, this was a brief review of the early period and I have yet to go any further than early 1960 so far). The results fully support your theory I'm pleased to say: The table shows quite clearly that almost all the examples around these dates are populated in the 8-9-1 sequence - certainly enough to pass the test in my mind that the results inform design. So perhaps the operational sequence for DC comics at least was indeed arrival date based and, perhaps, was something like as follows: US sellers return their unsold copies to a central point - highly unlikely that they would all do so in the exact same way and at the same time hence different copies of the same issue arriving in the UK out of natural cover date sequence The relevant US operational team bundle up the receipts intended for the UK based on what is received from all US outlets by a certain cut off point Those copies go on the next available ship They arrive in the UK T&P intercept and stamp the whole lot with the relevant stamp They then distribute to UK newsagents If true, this would explain why: The majority of copies of the same comic have the same T&P stamp number in the UK Some copies have different numbers because they were likely sent back 'late' in the US and, therefore, came over in a later batch We see anecdotal evidence / recollections from UK collectors of books appearing at newsagents out of cover date / issue number sequence So for me, Albert, you may well have cracked that dimension of the process - the numbering reflects the arrival dates in the UK and has no real link to cover dates other than the associated timing link to US sellers returning their unsold copies. Good man you! Does this mean I wonder that there were only 9 annual shipments? Why else have that number? Over time, I'll add in the examples that I have for the other publishers. I think my previous exercises were single issue focussed so I'm glad you chimed in now Albert and puled me away from the path of mumpsimony. Is that a word? It is now. All good fun.

Got a picture?

If you mean the current crop in the films, Superman + Batman. The other way around for comics. Timmy the Timid Ghost + L'il Genius vs Casper the Friendly Ghost + Little Audrey

I saw this in the latest Mycomicshop.com newsletter (Buddy's Banter) and it seemed quite relevant to the discussion here: A bit about why we collectors collect Collectors of anything--not just comics--collect for several reasons, one reason usually being more prominent than the others. The great thing about comics is that there's an extra dimension to collecting them than, say, when one collects stamps, coins, barbed wire, or beer cans. None of those other things can be read. With comics you get a--hopefully--good, exciting story as well. That's what attracted me to comic books in the beginning and that remains my main source of pleasure in this wonderful hobby. Folks also buy comics as an investment. I know people, and I'm sure you do, too, who never read the comics they buy. They just bag and board and put them away, expecting their comic investment to yield dividends over time. Comic collectors, who are usually boys/men, find the investment argument a handy dodge when trying to justify the pleasure they get from reading comics. An understanding wife/girlfriend/parent will accept the investment possibilities. The kind of wife or girlfriend who doesn't want her husband/boyfriend to find pleasure anywhere else, is the kind to be avoided. We see too many "divorce" collections. The last reason collectors collect that I'll speak of here applies to all kinds of collecting, not just comics, but it is little understood or remarked on. The collecting reason I speak of is the deep and visceral desire to complete a set or run. Run and set collectors are, to one extent or another, all of us. We love the challenge of completing title runs--the thrill of finding that last, especially hard-to-find issue of Mystery in Space! There is easily as much pleasure in finding a rare item as there is in possessing it. I know that feeling, that thrill. It is a thrill non-collectors will never know. How much we pity them!

My first helicopter review is inconclusive Albert - a large percentage of the images I have saved in the files don't fit your suggested pattern I'm afraid. Before I go any further, can I just make sure I'm understanding your date vs number chart. Using the 1960 extract below.... 1960 JAN 1 FEB 2 MAR 3 APR 4 etc .....are your months there arrival dates or cover dates? Are you saying that for 1960, any book cover dated January will likely have a '1' stamp etc? If you are saying arrival dates, how do you know those were the dates and indeed that they were even monthly? I've tried to establish how often shipments came over and can find nothing. The books have always been alleged to have come over as ballast and were almost certainly never the sole reason for a ship leaving US shores in the early years. So without knowing how often they came over, it's really difficult to gauge what went on and make your suggested pattern stand up to scrutiny.

Financial, storage and availability constraints mean that I no longer collect what I would like to in my heart, but the small niche that I have settled upon keeps me busy, happy and in the hobby - albeit, I feel, very much on the fringes.

Oh, it's annoying that isn't it - detached staples on a otherwise lovely book. I've had a few like that down the years. I remember a 9p JIM that was absolutely pristine with the most delightful firmness to it and yet it was detached at the bottom staple rendering it virtually valueless. Your book isn't a particularly pricey one so there's little reason to restore it from a financial perspective in my view. If you just love the book however, I'd leave it as is and just enjoy it. It has nice eye appeal other than the flaw and will look nice in a bag. But if the flaw really bugs you - and it would many - I'd pop it in as a free reader with the next book you sell on eBay, if you do that kind of thing (that's what I did with mine).