Get Marwood & I

Yes. Competent at best. No flair in my view. Still, I got a letters published in DWB too. But I'm a charity worker, and he's the current lead writer on Dr Who. He's made it, he's in charge, good luck to him.

We're up to 209 confirmed pence copies now - I spotted this Looney Tunes #222 on eBay in the week: We only need LT #223 for a full 9d block now: There's a UK seller who has a helpful habit of placing stickers across the area where a 9d may be: Too pricey to buy on the off chance. I'll try a message. In terms of what may not exist, the spreadsheet screenshot above remains quite telling - no books for the visible titles beyond October 1960 so far. Other hidden titles do have copies from that date of course, so we can never say never, but it is starting to look fairly convincing isn't it. Time will tell...

Sorry?

Chibnall was from Formby, Merseyside, so it is him. Funny isn't it - I'm having such a hard time marrying his obvious fandom credentials to his own take on the show which comes across to me as being the product of someone with only a passing knowledge and understanding of the subject matter. Weird.

All theories are welcome Stephen, and that's as good as any even though there is not one scintilla of information that I've ever seen to support it. Stepping back from all the theories, the simple fact is that the same book (RHK #17) has four variations - one pence copy and three cents with different fonts. It is really difficult to imagine how those four variations were the product of one singular print job in the same location. RHK #17 was a popular book, so a reprint wouldn't be beyond the limits of credulity. And yet, again, no such information exists or is implied anywhere that I can see. Quite the opposite in fact - all books from this time were allegedly overprinted in the first place. And remember, from my research, there are 12 other books with these cents font variations, none of which fit an obvious 'we need a reprint' scenario. So lets hope that Brittany takes up the challenge. Someone out there must know. The answer may be convoluted, simple, or ridiculous. Or a mix of the three. But someone must know, and I think that asking CGC personnel to take up the challenge is a good way of finding that person Imagine how cool it would be to discover something meaningful about these books, 60 years after they've been analysed to death...

It's always the quiet ones you have to watch...

Oh, and for the kind of books you're looking for, these buttons will help: ...but you'll miss any listed with 99c starts of course.

Pain isn't it @Gotham Kid There are a few things you can try to filter out the dross - you can use the 'minus' approach to filter out words - in the example screenshot you posted the top two books have 2011 and 2016 in their titles. If you searched as follows... Detective Comics -2011 -2016 ...any listing with 2011 and 2016 in the title would not show. So if you see regular offending words you can use that approach. It may be that there is a common word that brings up modern stuff - filter that word out. Another thing you could try is the further sub menu. If I select "Other Golden Age Comics" for example that takes me down to only 49 results, all of which seem to be the older books: Another approach, if there was a specific book you were looking for, you could add the date of it. "Detective Comics" brings up 1,702 listings in that category. If I try "Detective Comics 1949" it drops to 28 listings. Of course this won't guarantee you getting all the listings for 1949 books, as many people won't add that to their listings. One final thing that could help - set your search to 'newly listed' if you haven't already. If you review daily, it is possible to see every new book listed for the day which will be a smaller percentage of the 1,702 results. I do this for Australian Marvels and it's effective - you quickly get used to where you were 'up to' and basically just vet the newly listed stuff. Ebay, alas, does not police the correct categorisation of its listings. So we will always be stuck with the dross. You need a lot of patience trying to keep on top of ebay - a lot of time spent daily, often for little or no reward. But you take a week off looking and everything gets listed and sold during that week. It's one of life's little gifts to the comic collector

Ah, cheers. They're up for auction here: https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/dukes/catalogue-id-srdu10067/lot-fd11cf1d-9c80-430a-9eb4-aa2d00eb363b?utm_source=auction-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=auction-alert&utm_content=lot-image-link I'm usually quite adept at finding the books they're from but on this occasion drew a blank. I'm not the lazy seller by the way. I'm usually the one doing the helping...

It's not a ing Charlton Maurice! Got any more?

ThanX MagnusX

Back in the days when you could have fun.

2 nearly years

And still married after 2 nearly years!

I knew I was on to something Hurry up!

(And a dodgy looking old bloke) Few people know that readers could write in and suggest an outfit for Margie. If successful, their suggestions would feature on the covers with a confirmation. Here are some examples Nice aren't they Unfortunately, I cannot show in full the suggestion from Barry from East Dulwich. Sorry about that.

....and from what comic are they from?

https://www.mycomicshop.com/search?q=national book store&mingr=0

@Brittany M. @CGC Comics Hello Brittany! I hope you'll forgive my calling you to this thread. I'm doing so because you are held in high regard here, having proven yourself to be a person who always responds, who gets things done and who promotes doing the right thing! So I'm looking for your help. The CGC boards are a fabulous, free resource for the comic community. Yes, they exist in part to promote the CGC grading process but they are one of the most extensive comic resources online and have the greatest knowledge base buried in its membership. If you have a comic related question, you will find the answer here - or at least have a good debate about it! I think it is important for CGC to promote the highest level of accuracy when it comes to the identification of comics that pass through their grading process. Books must be correctly identified to preserve the integrity of the census and associated records. So I'm hoping that you will try to help us find out why some early Marvel comics between the dates of June 1960 and February 1961 have different US price fonts. To illustrate, Rawhide Kid #17 - a Western 'key' of some value and importance to collectors - has three different US 10c price fonts as follows: Currently, no one appears to know why these variations exist and no conclusive explanation has been forthcoming in this thread. The presence of these variations opens the possibility that one or more of the books may be subsequent printings, or printed for a market other than the US. If proven, that could have significant implications to collectors and it would be important for the CGC grading process to recognise that. So, the point of my post here is to ask you to share this request, if you would, with your expert colleagues to see if anyone can explain the differences in price fonts and articulate any associated impact on how they should be treated / labelled when graded. It stands to reason that CGC staff will have greater access to industry contacts and also a legitimate reason to seek the answer, given that you are currently, it could be argued, grading these books without understanding why they differ. Would you be able to help with this? I would have thought that the grading team would be keen to get to the bottom of this themselves and it seems odd that this question is still outstanding after so many years of these books being under the spotlight. Even if the end result is "no body knows I'm afraid, so CGC will continue to treat all variations as first printings" we will at least have tried. I hope you'll be able to help Cheers, Steve

@dena you wanted to know if this was still happening - seems it is. There are three threads about it now - this thread, the one I just quoted you from and this one:

Have you done this one yet @Spider-Variant?

Who!?