Get Marwood & I

I tried to grade a book with 3D glasses but I found they made it look all blurry so I took them off and put my proper glasses on

Ever been there, Albert? @Albert Tatlock

Funnily enough, the nicer line (1961) came after the more basic rendering (1959) Unless they were both copied from....

Nay!

You'll like Flash the four-footed deputy though, Yoz. He's expertly rendered, inside. Not.

Indeed. Jose McBean vs Mr Bean!

We're trending, boys! Narrowly beating the marijuana thread I think I need some...

@Malacoda Rich, you've done marvellously well with all this and you know how highly I rate what you do, your attention to detail and your ability to delve into the mechanics of the situation on the ground which I have never gone near. But I am unconvinced, my friend, on this one. I'm not saying it's wrong, or ill-founded, I'm just not feeling it. And I think you can present it clearer, and in a more concise manner. There's simply too much information to digest, for me, and some of my comments are likely querying elements that you have actually outlined, but which I have missed. I'm in awe of you though, Richmond, if that wasn't clear to anyone else reading

Funnily enough, I have one each of JO #139: So we got both. And as you pointed out, they likely arrived in the UK at different times assuming the UKPV was run at the same time as the cents, and shipped straight away. The pence copies went into the market, and there are no recollections that I have seen of anyone noting that they were pence printed and - in theory - ahead of issue schedule by a few months (if schedule there were). Odd, really, that we can't find a snippet online or in any of these fanzines that mention the event. If the 5p version was printed specifically to test the new distribution system that Rich has outlined, then there would need to have been learning checkpoints put in place along the way. Everyone involved would have had to have instructions, and a set of criteria to record and comment upon to feed back to the decision makers. What could those benchmarks have been? Did they arrive. Yes. Did they arrive on time. Not sure we'll ever know now, but someone would have been checking that. What went right, what went wrong. Etc. All that test data gets gathered up and sent back to the decision makers. How are they gauging whether it was a success, or something that they would want to continue? What were the options, at that point? If we look at Rich's options: Old System: WCP distribute new comics to US wholesalers with cents prices, then IND round up the unsolds, batch them into sales consignments, haul them to the docks and ship them by traditional shipping / break bulk cargo to Liverpool, where they're hauled to Leicester to reprocessed by the Ethels and re-stamped with pence prices. New system: WCP print PV's and ship them by container directly, at time of printing, straight to Newark where they're shipped to Felixstowe in the same container, which is then driven to Leicester, where they're unpacked with no need for Ethel to re-stamp them and are ready for distribution. What are the salient differences between those two models from the UK worker's perspective? Both result in the arrival at a UK port, with onward transmission to Leicester. Everything prior would be US agents work, which they'd set a price for (as they presumably did for the T&P Marvel UKPVs). So what really is the learning that the 'DC' decision makers were seeking? If it was a proof of concept, the US could have just sent cents copies which T&P would have stamped. Why muddy the waters with printed UKPVs, if you are simply negotiating a price for a new model and showing the client how it will work? And would that really be it, this proof of concept. One container. One test. Does that sound right?

But they didn't. They stopped immediately and reverted to the returns model. In fact, they never stopped it, if the stamped cents copies of the existing 1971 UKPVs are any indication? What shipping model did the ongoing post 1971 DC stamped returns go through? If the new container one, then the only cost change is the difference in the old shipping method (port to port) vs the new.

But they were already doing that, Rich, with the DC returns, for ten years. It's 'all they had been doing' since 1960. If leaving the printing press on for an extra 15 minutes to produce UKPVs represents 'absolutely nothing' by comparison then why didn't they do that in the 1960s as they did for Marvel. But Rich, the point I'm trying to get across to you, unsuccessfully, is that I'm not sure what your theory actually is because it doesn't make sense to me as the reason why the DC UKPVs exist? I agree with all your coincidence observations, but I can't feel them, collectively, as being the trigger that made some one say "Pluck out five DC titles and run me off a pallet load of 5p copies. I want to test this new shipping container process". Which, incidentally, then ends immediately. Who was 'testing' the new system against the Marvels, then? What was the nature of the test for them, that led them to stop the stamped returns? The Marvel crowd adopt the new shipping container system and decide to dispense with returns / go UKPV only. The DC crowd test it and revert to the opposite of the Marvel crowd. All the data from that DC test flies back to them and they do what? What could it tell them other than cost and time? And why wouldn't they already know those things, if not only approximately, based on their previous exploits? And who won the FA Cup in 1979? We? Printer, to van, to port, over sea, to port, to distributor is a massive change? It sounds very much like what T&P were doing for Marvel from 1960 up until....

Is that scraping noise the sound of goal posts moving, Rich? I'll shut up now, until you've signalled the finish of the fight back

FLASH! (the Four-Footed Deputy) AH-AAH! Guardian of the Universe! Hang on, what?

Trial what!? T&P had been importing (Marvel) new comics for years at this point. What are they trialling!?

Right, but I think that supports my contention. I know it does, that's why I said it. I was agreeing with you on that point but also noting how odd actions could be.

Sorry to butt in before getting the go ahead, but are you really saying this simple process was an 'unknown' to these distribution specialists, and that the cost couldn't be calculated based on previous design components or by simply asking for a price up to the point of UK arrival?

Rich, I'm going to hold fire posting until you give me the nod that you've finished answering my posts @Malacoda

Repaired that for you

We disagree on the definition of 'hiatus'. There has to be an absence for it to be called one. But yes, one for another day (again).

Lunch was nice by the way.

And this is the same T&P, remember, who distributed UKPVs and/or cents stamped copies for Marvel, but only stamped copies for DC, throughout the 1960s. If the costs of doing one was greater than the other, why do the most expensive one all those years? Why did T&P want to 'guarantee' UK deliveries via printed UKPV production, but not care about DC continuity which was reliant on what sold in the US? It's like someone cared more about Marvel than they did DC. I just cannot settle on a test to determine the cost and procedure of a new container shipping model as the reason why five DC UKPVs pop up in one tiny production window. If you think about it, Charlton overprinted their US copies massively. I've posted about this in other threads. And yet Miller solicited printed UKPVs for 3 years in the early 1960s. Why didn't he just go for the - we're assuming - cheaper option of buying the US returns up cheap, as we're guessing was the case with the DC returns, and stamping them as he had always done? There was no issue to issue story continuity in Charltons to mess up - hell, they didn't even have issues numbers on the covers - so who in the UK would've cared about missing an issue? And if Miller could solicit Charltons with a printed cover price of 6d versus the 9d of T&P - 30% cheaper - why couldn't T&P have a grip on the best way to import and distribute DCs? If UKPV solicitation was more expensive than cents returns, how did Miller make a buck at 6d? Charlton, Marvel, Dell - they all have periods of concurrent UKPV distribution. Why not DC? Did the UK public care more about Charlton and Dell than DC?

I'm off to make some lunch. Back in an hour or so.

Rich has put a lot of work into this, and I'm jumping all over it. I know he loves that though. I don't need to sugar coat things with him, as I do others. You do love it, don't you Rich? Remember - he may still be right. I find my comprehension skills diminishing with age, so all I might be doing is missing the point spectacularly and therefore unfairly dropping a turd on all his great work. What is your take, Albert? Do you buy this theory?

Take a chair then

We keep posting over each other, so I'll finish this comment without checking what lands as I'm doing it (Albert has posted as I type). I feel like you (Rich) are saying that some people, who had DC cents returns shipped to the UK for ten years, being the same (original, at least) people who solicited and distributed Marvel UKPVs in the UK for ten years, were faced with a new, container based shipping opportunity, with cost and process being the unknowns. That opportunity, you're saying, was facilitated by the addition of Product Identifier codes. These people, who had total understanding of the costs of both UKPV and cents returns distribution historically, are suddenly clueless as to the new shipping cost and procedure. Their reaction is to run off five DC UKPVs. All they had to do was ship existing returns to identify the shipping cost and process under the new shipping container model. All they had to do was ask the shippers the new cost, and then factor that into the existing E2E model (of which they had experience). Can you see why I'm struggling, Rich? Do I need to better understand who was distributing Marvel, and who DC, and how those two camps differed in their knowledge and processing?