Get Marwood & I

In the early 1960s, Marvels were printed as cents copies, and pence copies. The pence copies were sent to the docks and shipped to the UK, and then distributed. Costs known. The distributor was Thorpe & Porter. Still in the early 1960s, DCs came over as unsold cents returns, and were stamped up by the distributor, Thorpe & Porter. Costs known. In your Product Identifier / New Container Shipping model, what exactly is different? There would have been a quoted cost associated with the container shipping. Why did the distributor of DC need to have five pence copies printed to establish E2E costs, comparative to their ongoing returns model? And who were these people at this stage, that existed to solicit the new DC shipping experiment, but then were not around to establish whether it worked? Why did Marvel go one way (UKPVs only) post PI and DC the other (stamped returns)? If the costs were wildly different, was one of them an idiot? If costs are a deciding factor, why would the distributors of Marvel and DC be using different models at that stage of the distribution game?

What I'm struggling with is why UKPVs existed well before your proposed DC five book cost / system experiment. Charlton, Dell, King, Marvel, all had long periods of UKPV production. Marvel did so alongside stamped cents copies. If the crux of your argument is that those activities preceded the addition of the Product Identifier, which you say facilitated the container shipping process, then why did Marvel stop the stamps but DC continued (by that I mean the distributors of them)? Why does DC differ?

And you think five comics were enough to prove that? Why would they not already know the costs, or be able to predict them by simply adding each component part up? What are the unknowns here?

That's what I thought.

I know you're online Rich, and I'm hoping for a shortish answer

EINMALIGE SONDERAUSGABE! I sort of knew there would be. And be careful - 'hay-ho' could be deemed a non-profanity profanity around here

@Malacoda Well done Rich. Lot's of research effort summarised there. Before I give you my thoughts, and to ensure I'm understanding you, are you saying, in a nut shell, that the five 1971 DC UKPVs were an attempt to see if UKPVs were cheaper to distribute in the UK than cents returns?

It certainly adds to the mystique, doesn't it. I really like the look of it, but I don't collect foreign reprints anymore so I'd be buying it just for the love of it if I did. I can't go down that road again, as I'd start buying everything again. And if I put that with my 75p UKPV, I'd then be itching for the German one. I don't actually know if there is a German one, but there probably is and I'd want it along with all the others that probably exist. Before you knew it, I'd have to buy a massive box for them all. I love treasuries but they're poxy things to store when you don't live in a mansion.

I've seen it before, oui. It's a très agréable looking thing, isn't it

Do you know, I thought I'd made some good points in this thread today. I really did. Now I'm trying to defend myself against an accusation from Roy about something that I certainly did not intend to say and I'm reasonably confident that I didn't. Everyone goes quiet. No one comes forward to defend me, as I would them. This is Roy's forum. He never gives an inch. I wish I was as right about one thing as he is about everything. I made a point, he twisted it, and now we have all this. Night everyone.

I'll say it again. I am not criticizing CGC slabs for not being able to take an impact. I am criticising CGC slabs with the amount of room that BigLeague's book has for making damage a near certainty. It's even in the words above. Note also how I didn't call you 'Dude', and shout a lot in capitals. That's because I'm calm and not trying to be patronising.

Your posts gave the impression that I was saying that a CGC slab should protect a book from a severe impact. I very clearly did not say that. CGC slabs clearly do protect books on their travels. The 200+ slabs I have owned prove that. I was specifically saying that a book with the amount of room for movement that BigLeague's ASM #300 had would likely get damaged by even the smallest movement. That's a big difference. I've answered in good faith and did not stoop to calling you stupid while doing so. And I did not attempt to give you a lecture on the laws of physics, adding laughter emojis. That's insulting. You very clearly attempted to belittle me.

No, you've misunderstood me and you're hung up on the 'odd' comment. I don't appreciate the implication that I'm stupid. I know what mischaracterize means. I can see now why so many people struggle with you Roy.

The oddness that I was talking about is in the rest of my post that you didn't quote. You've misrepresented me by taking a single line out of context. If I did that to you, you'd point it out. I don't need to think your point through as it's just a reiteration of what was in the rest of my post which you didn't quote.

I just saw this back cover of Dracula Lives #64, week ending January 10th 1976: So that's when we'd have been buying our 75p copies

Not you, him! God Almighty.

I was just about to respond "well, he is full of it sometimes"

Prepare to be consternated!

Good for you for sticking up for him, but he's a paid employee and is either working today by design or not. He sent the micro-chamber request to his superiors last Wednesday. If he's going to log on on a Sunday and post about his moderation of Roy, when no one online has invited him to do so, then he opens himself up to the comment I made which was actually 75% tongue in cheek. No one is interested in Roy apart from Roy and Mike as far as I can see, unless you can think of anyone else off the top of your head? I'd prefer he dealt with matters that CGC members are interested in, if he's going to log on on a Sunday. And of course, there's nothing to stop him quickly posting "not yet Steve", is there?

I tagged CGC Mike earlier today for an update on the micro chamber position but he didn't respond. He did find time to make a detailed post about moderating Roy though, which no one tagged him about. It's all about priorities, isn't it. Exactly. There's a reason why the phrase "shaken book in a double mylar and heavy fullback syndrome" never caught on.

A beautifully flat, tight 8.0

Follow his eyes and....

It's odd really, isn't it. The overwhelming majority of slabbed books will undergo a shipping event at some point, and yet we're always shocked and appalled at the damage that knocks and bangs can cause to a book that sits in a plastic sleeve that has room for movement and which can pinch the outer cover. When you put a book in a boarded mylar, the convex result keeps the book from moving, including the guts. As the mylar curves to the edges, it keeps the whole comic in place. The CGC inner sleeve has square edges - more like a top loader than a mylar sleeve / bag - so the chances of movement increases accordingly. When you see how postal staff treat packages, it's a wonder that any slabbed comic survives the journey from CGC back to its submitter. Look how much movement is possible within the inner sleeve that CGC put BigLeague's book in. ASM #300 is a double sized comic, so there was likely some pinching of the covers. The book was likely tight in the sleeve. It's a near certainty therefore that any knock will result in that damage. The tightness will hold the covers in place, with the guts free to move up, down and to the right within the sleeve space. I don't see 'shaken case syndrome' there. I see badly designed case syndrome. Am I being unreasonable? Look at the room for movement around that comic.

@BigLeagueCHEW So sorry to see that. Have you contacted CGC about it? Though it's no comfort to you, these things are going to happen as long as CGC continue to operate this way. What are they going to do for you, to make it right?