Get Marwood & I

That's brilliant Rich. I used to have all 291 Marvel Tales and never spotted that one before. There are a lot of MT vs ASM vs SCW scenarios that I've seen elsewhere but that's a new one on me. I think we did ASM 96 at one point in this thread, with its expanding art? A rich(mond) source of comicana triviana. Love it

I was never happy with my journal pages and planned a complete rewrite for all the seven UKPV bearing publishers, to include the cents distribution elements too. Archie is such an interesting one with its T&P, Miller and UKPV mix.

Bill doesn't post here anymore, Iksar. Do you have an image you could share? The list I'm running is based on books that we have an actual image of

There's a T&P / Miller distribution summary here Albert (as well as my summary on page 1 of this thread): Here's my #1

Indeed. I wish them luck. I had to order to four copies before getting the right one. Including from sellers who do not use stock images. Usual drill.

It was a good shout Geeks. I'm pleased to see any comments really. I'm quite surprised by how muted the response to the discovery of a 30+ year old ASM variant has been. What can you do. My mistake was to post about it on a comic forum

Not sure if I see these on your list

I'm sure it was you Robert... Ring any bells?

I see what you mean about the Spidey head UPC, but there's no real comparison there for me. The Shan-Lon books were smaller, repackaged comics, made for a specific purpose. That's not really what's going on with the 320 which is priced and in (largely UK) circulation just as a standard issue would be.

You tried. And you tried. And you tried. And you tried. And you got one! Is it the absence of the 2nd print that prevents you from getting satisfaction, BA? Always nice to read a happy "I just got the comic I wanted" post, first thing on a Monday morning

One for the Spidey completists, two types of Direct Edition exist for ASM #320 Something About Amazing Spider-Man #320 That You Might Not Have Spotted

OK, after three false starts, a Spidey head UPC copy has finally arrived. I haven't checked the story text word for word, but the contents appear the same in both copies, including the indicias: UPCs aside, the only other differences appear to be the text placements within the issue / date boxes, which differ in a number of ways. That production line / mark under the A of LATE appears to be on every Spidey UPC head copy, the $1.00 sits higher in the box and the 'UK 50p' is wonky on them all too. For whatever reason, it looks like the cover plate for this issue was made up a twice, resulting in these differing copies, and it looks like the majority of the Spidey UPC ones came to the UK. That doesn't necessarily have to have any bearing on it though, the fact that they're all in the UK. Maybe they didn't produce enough copies in error overall and the UK allocation included all the rerun copies. Or they may have run the Spidey UPC copies first, realised a McFarlane UPC was supposed to be in place, and changed the plates then. Perhaps the 'wrong' copies, being run first, all came to the UK as they were moved out first to take account of the shipping times. Or something else. Who knows. The scruffiness of the date / issue boxes on the Spidey UPC copies sends my gut a message that they were done first. We'll probably never know though. Anyway, two ASM #320 Direct Editions out there, if you're interested. No evidence as yet of any similar scenarios with other issues.

I can make it now, in please

It sure is Daphers. You and I have actually discussed this sticker before in the Brent thread. I've picked up a few more examples since then, including some from this seller. A single retailer's sticker was my guess, a theory now further supported by this small, likely original owner run.

Not the clearest picture, is it. I would put my money on that being added post production. Find a second example and we're in business Paq. And no slash jokes.

I will look for them. I will find them. And I will post about them here

@androolx sent me a PM saying the exact same thing. I gathered up a few of the X-Factor books some years back. I thought I'd posted about them here but can't find the link now. I suspect not, but haven't done a deep dive yet. I'm away at the moment but will hopefully have a copy of the Spidey head UPC waiting for me when I get back. I'll post a full comparison then and will check the surrounding issues.

Hello It's always nice to discover something new when you're looking for something else, isn't it. The other day, while looking for Mark Jewelers copies, I spotted something about Spidey #320 that I hadn't spotted before. I'm wondering how many of you might not have spotted it either, despite it being 34 years old and sitting in plain sight. The GCD has the two known versions - newsstand and direct.... ...as does Pete's place, the home of Spidey Completists worldwide (one of which I used to be): Here are my two copies: Anyway, I was looking for a jewelers copy the other week and found that eBay USA had 205 results for "Amazing Spider-Man 320": Of those 205 listings, 168 (83%) where the Direct Edition: 35 of them (17%) were the Newsstand: None of them, however, were this Spidey head UPC version: On eBay UK, 3 of the 12 copies for sale, and 3 of the 8 sold were this hitherto (by me) unspotted version: So, none out of 205 listings in the US, but 6 out of 20 in the UK. Hmmm.... I ordered a Spidey head UPC copy so I could do a full comparison but the seller sent me the Paladin UPC copy (I suspect on purpose, as I ordered one of each type which likely brought it to their attention). From the eBay images I've seen, the only difference besides the Spidey and Paladin UPCs are a tiny production related line under the word 'LATE' which appears on all the Spidey head UPC copies: The indicias appear the same - no indication of a second printing or anything like that. I've ordered some more copies and will do a full review when they arrive, but in the meantime I thought some of you might find this interesting if, as I suspect, it has passed you by too.

The pictures have gone awol Reggie

Thanks for thinking of me Yoz, but I'm going to have to sit this one out I'm afraid. Good luck mate

Afternoon I nabbed a few Charlies off of eBay the other day in support of a wider piece of mucking about that I've been working on for about 98 years now. Here's one of them and, as you can see, it has a rather nice 25p sticker on the bag from Odyssey who used it up and wore it out in the seventies: There were three Charlies in total, or tree if you're of Irish (Price Variants don't exist)* descent: *Always throw in a topical joke Anyroad, Fred Elliott, I was proper intrigued as to whom Odyssey might have been as it rang a bell. Being a bit of a smart arse, I cunningly Googleated "Odyssey" and the phone number on the sticker and came up with this issue of Starburst from 1982 with, happily, a Deckardian cover: 1982.... So, inside we had this ad page... ...with this ad: Woohoo! Then I saw the 7 and Googelated "Odyssey 7" and about eight thousand results came up, including this one: Not so smart then, after all, missing Blake's number. I recognise the chap in the ad from old ads in old magazines from old times. Anyway, that's that meaningless ramble over, to take us back to 22k again. See you next time BE SEEING YOU

Try posting in this thread, William: It's where all the Whitman experts hang out

I'd like to raise a glass to Bill who I was talking to the other day, who started this thread all those years ago and who gathered the most information about these books before I cheekily tagged on at the end. Cheers Bill! @bill999

To be fair to @Magmar, who has not been back online since starting the thread, and who may or may not be impressed by the way it has developed, I can see his point. Putting aside whether you agree with picture labels or not, it does seem underhand to 'un-retire' a label that - if I'm understanding this correctly - was originally sold on the basis of limited exclusivity. For the record, I think picture labels detract from the comic so I'm not a fan. They are jockeying for your attention, and therefore detract from what should be the main event - the presentation of the book. They're a bit like Newton Rings in that respect - something annoying that stops you appreciating the comic in the slab. I also dislike modern images of characters being placed on old books. That seems curiously insulting to the original artist to me. But there is clearly a market for them and CGC have placed exploiting that market over any other considerations. That's fair enough, as they are a private company. Some of us may feel that the integrity of the hobby has been diluted or cheapened a little by them existing - gimmicks tend to have that affect - but we at least have the choice not to buy them. Having introduced them however, selling a label on an exclusive basis, and then at a later date making it unexclusive is underhand at best, surely. Have I got that right Magmar? Is that what CGC have done? If so, I say shame on them. If not, why are we here again?