Get Marwood & I

Any update, Mike?

I think those are Overstreet definitions, Colin? Here are CGCs: https://www.cgccomics.com/grading/grading-scale/ What surprises me about the CGC scale is the wording used as you go up the scale. They use the terms 'moderate' at the lower end, and 'major' towards the top. Shouldn't that be the other way around? Wouldn't you expect a 4.5 description to include the word 'major' and a 7.0 'moderate'? That seems counter intuitive to me. Can a 4.5 not have a major defect? The descriptions don't make a lot of sense really, when you go beyond the above / below average starting points. Maybe you have to buy Nelson's book to get a greater level of finesse. The grading notes for your book are as follows: I wouldn't give a book with 'multiple piece(s) out of full bottom of front cover' a 4.5 myself - Mycomicshop certainly wouldn't - but I'm not surprised that CGC would. Do you think your book looks like a 'slightly below average collectible with multiple moderate defects'? Can a 'multiple piece out full bottom of front cover' be described as moderate? Who defines moderate?

I would post this in the Gold forum, here: https://boards.cgccomics.com/forum/14-golden-age-comic-books/ It goes without saying how much an original is worth, so prepare yourself for a strong response. CGC Mike may move it there for you if you leave it a while. I believe that an original DC27 has Batman's rope running through the top yellow of the cover. Yours doesn't, so that's the first red flag that I can see. Others will know more. https://www.bipcomics.com/showcase/fakes/index27.php

It likely means that your question is awaiting approval @richard8158

Sacre bleu! Better start doing the lottery Gary.

Happy Birthday!

Yours too I take it? Very nice. I just cross referenced to some of the posts in my sun fade thread and these are clearly printing errors. This might be one of the missing colour plates: https://comics.ha.com/itm/memorabilia/mmms-hulk-poster-production-materials-marvel-1966-/a/121610-11818.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515 MMMS Hulk Poster Production Materials (Marvel, 1966). Make Mine Marvel! This large stat image of the Hulk (taken from the Jack Kirby side of the cover from Tales To Astonish #67) was used to create the much beloved Hulk poster offered in 1966 Merry Marvel Marching Society poster set. The image was created from a 18.5" tall stat image that was then altered with a small amount of original art shading, and white paint highlights. This group comes with the black, yellow, and red rubylith overlay acetate sheets for color separation work by the printer. The stat is affixed to a 15" x 20 illustration board with a few ripples in it. The board is tanned and the stat is starting to come loose, otherwise in Very Good condition and a wonderful part of Marvel Comics history. @Garystar will love them.

They're superb. They remind me of the two tone contents of the old UK weeklies. Nicely done, greggy.

They're lovely. Are they colour faded or printing errors? I've not seen them before but a quick google shows them to be more colourful. Perhaps the top labels were folded over? @Garystar

Forget it, I was being childish. It's always important to recognise when you're being childish.

Well that's me told, isn't it.

We like Bill. I find that the things that blow you away in life are the things where the magic dust settles on every element, and everyone plays their part to perfection. Everyone delivers at the top of their game. Flair crashes into talent and falls over exceptionality. The new Who may indeed turn out to be 'brilliant', to quote the spectacularly uninspiring and happily missed Whitterer's opening line, but the new theme is a dog. Not the type that follows you around in the park mind, but the type that gives you rabies and craps on your lawn.

I would describe it as shit.

I'd prefer that! Or this.

There's a tangible absence of flair isn't there. I know Russell T is a highly regarded story teller, and rightly so, but he should have insisted on something much more in keeping with the original spirit of the show. He should've sought edgy, dangerous, atmospheric. It's a pedestrian orchestral, everything but the kitchen sink version with only the odd annoying 'new' flourish to distinguish it from any of the other recent ones. Great themes elevate shows in the memory. I would want to hear Russell say "No. No. NO!" upon hearing that. "That is not what I want". Imagine it's 1963 again. Listen to the original. What on Earth... Exactly. Not on Earth. I don't know what's up with everyone nowadays, why they can't see it. Or hear it, in this case.

Kimmie, I don't think your books are that far away from a 4.0 grade for you to be overly concerned. CGC may have listed more defects on one than the other, but that doesn't mean those are the only defects. They're just what the grader chose to list. Also, it's not the number of defects that determines a grade, comparatively, but the amalgamation of them. Some are worse than others. So I can see why you have asked the question, but I think both books are in the 4.0 territory from what I can see. If one looked significantly better than the other, I'd be with you. But both books look 4.0ish. Try not to set too much stall by the defects CGC do or do not list. They're by no means definitive. Nice books, by the way.

I was down in Ramsgate last week and found the Petticoat Lane Emporium, which was one of the biggest indoor knick-knack places I think I've ever seen. I didn't take pictures, but this is from their website: I was just about the only one in there. I spent a good while looking for comics and such and right at the end found a stall with some Doctor Who Target novels. I used to have a full set back in the day and I found them dripping in nostalgia and pleasing to the touch. They were in superb, bright, unread condition and only three quid a pop. Alas, I had forgotten to bring out my wallet, so I resolved to return. I did, and it was shut. Undeterred, I went a third time and there they still were. This time, I inspected each carefully and pulled out 4 of the very best condition ones, two of which were first printings with the original black logos. Remember them? Off I went to the till, to be told the till wasn't working and it was cash only. I had none. So I never got them. One of them was a Baker, and I was looking forward to the teeth and curls description that I recall he used in every one. Yes, I'd have liked to have read them again, for old time's sake, but it wasn't to be.

That's lovely Treasure that.

Happy days, weren't they. My brother had more of that stuff than me, being that bit older. For some reason, it all seemed a bit out of reach to me, the fan stuff in the ads. Not sure why. Maybe because we didn't have a the proverbial pot, who knows.

I don't dislike it Paul, but I'm not a fan of the big orchestral versions. They seem to me to be just that - a big orchestral version of the Doctor Who theme, rather than the Doctor Who theme itself. Does that make sense? It's like the version that you'd find on an old TV compilation tape by Geoff Love and his orchestra. I like the look of what I'm seeing in the trailers so far - it feels very much like the adults are back in charge - so we'll see how it pans out once Tennant's hopped it for the second time. I have a suspicion that it will be good, but also that I've already seen the best it will ever be. Time will tell, as usual...

I did Gary. Even if you're not intending to collect, it's a great trip down memory lane for the collector of a certain age. Looking forward to the next one

Here's a UK focussed scenario, outside of the thread dates. I recently discovered a new ASM variant in the form of a second Spidey head UPC direct edition for ASM #320: You can read more about it here but all the newly discovered copies appear to exist over here in Englandville. We're always in the variant mix, aren't we

Hulk like beans. Beans good for Hulk's constitution. Tasty in Hulks belly. But if Hulk should accidentally overdo it on beans, and eat more beans than is recommended in one sitting for Hulk, then Hulk will FART!