Get Marwood & I

3p T&P

The only Miller one and six I've ever seen on a comic (but not on a magazine)

The only T&P I've ever seen on a Harvey

And just look at that: A positive enhancement!

I know I've posted it before, several times, but I just love this one: Knowing that most collectors would recoil in horror adds to the fun of having it

Indeed - all stamps fascinate me, even the non-UK ones. I love collecting the Milano ones that turn up every now and again, usually in bulk: Distribution marks add to a comic, I feel. When I was Spidey completisming, I used to pass T&Ps over for clean US copies. It would be the other way around now. A stamp-free comic hasn't lived!

Stop mucking about and post some proper Flys, KirbyJack! So is the plural form of fly supposed to be flys? The short answer is no—the plural noun form of fly, meaning a winged insect, is spelled flies. The word flys isn't a real word in modern English: it's just a common spelling error.

I mentioned earlier how prolific, or otherwise, some UK price stamps are and whether it is worth gathering and plotting them, to see what they might tell us. For me, there are only four stampers worth their weight in investigation: Thorpe & Porter L Miller Roberts & Vinter Goldstar These are the only ones that I have been able to gather enough examples of to prove something meaningful, and systematic, and each has a variety of types that makes for interesting gathering and assessment. There are other stamp types that crop up here and there, with various levels of interest attached, but those four above, which encompass the full stamping era, are the only UK distribution stamps worth writing about in my book. I put this table below together a while ago to show other stamps that exist in multiples - I could probably add quite a few extra ones now: I love finding new types of stamp, and file or buy them when I do, but none of them ever amount to anything and I don't expect to ever again find a type that has any significance attached. They're just a fun foot note in the overall UK distribution window.

Hopefully CGC Mike can influence things in the right direction. We rarely get to hear how these matters resolve themselves, which itself speaks volumes, but I wish you the best of luck.

I'm really confident of my R4 scores, Paq - I got this

Welcome to Fly Club, comicjack! Love it

You're right, mistakes do happen even in the most experienced, careful operations. Placing notes in the box is a good idea, and can only help. But submissions to CGC can include items valued in the tens of thousands. Is it too much to expect that a thorough investigation of each box is not standard? It likely is of course, and what we have here is just an example of human error. Missing a book in a box is no different to missing an upside down comic in QC. It will happen, as people are human, and they make mistakes in pressured, high volume environments. They end up missing the one thing that they are there to do. I think we can accept that. What the issue is for me - and it's a recurrent theme for me - is I'm reading about the way that CGC are handling the mistake and I am not liking it. They have the evidence, and are not sharing it. That is the issue, for me, not the mistake.

Here's a few: Do they still have Spars?

Frontline, Streamline - we'll all be snorting a line at this rate.

That's a good shout - I've got a few of those stickers in the comic files. I never knew who they were but, again, the volumes weren't prolific enough to warrant reporting anything. If the first S is Seymour, what could the B.S. stand for then? Actually, don't answer that

OK. CGC appear unwilling to explain the circumstances under which microchamber paper is used. Maybe I am misunderstanding this, but I always thought there was a general expectation in the community that the answer should be "at all times" - certainly for books of a certain age. Read into it what you will.

Are you sure it was "November 1966" that you typed, to bring that up Robot? I've not heard of them myself. Maybe Richmond has come across them in his distribution deep dive.

Another day, another thread that calls into question the integrity of CGC's working practices. There are a finite number of reasonable scenarios here (in general, not specific to the OPs case): The submitter did not include the magazine on purpose, in an attempt to defraud CGC The submitter did not include the magazine in error The magazine was taken out of the parcel by an unknown third party after it was sent, and before it reached CGC The magazine was in the parcel, CGC missed it, and it is still in the parcel (re Vintage Roy's scenario) The magazine was in the parcel and CGC have lost it To protect themselves and the customer, CGC tell us that they film the opening of packages. They tell @Ghostzapper - a member here for 14 years - that they have reviewed the video and that it was not there. To stand any chance of retaining credibility, they must show Ghostzapper that video evidence. Ghostzapper - I'm sorry to hear of your recent troubles and I hope this gets resolved quickly and to your satisfaction.

Yes, another one of those effort vs reward scenarios. I don't feel inclined to go beyond adding to this personally: But who knows... God help us.

@Kevin.J Kev. Kev. KEV! There's a Fly Club here, mate

Your flies are undone

Welcome to Fly Club I have a few Fly Man examples saved in the files. They have an assortment of different UK stamps and stickers, starting with Gold Star, so we could still get our grubby mitts on them once Thorpe & Porter buzzed off. Are they your copies, in the photo array?

I'm one of the two current eBay watchers. It's only the 3rd oblong I've seen on a Gold Key. There are a few of the shilling circles ones too, but their overall presence is less than prolific. That shilling circle vs 10d oblong dual presence is a funny one, isn't it.

Thanks boys