Get Marwood & I

It doesn't matter. There are a finite, very limited number of "what landed first" distribution scenarios. They don't matter. You might have missed me saying it, but ORDER OF PRINTING WITHIN A FIRST PRINTING BOOK RUN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ASCRIBING VARIANT STATUS. Shall I say it again?

It would prove that the overwhelming majority of people in the hobby disagreed with CGC on this. Let me be clearer still - if I thought that CGC were right about something, and everyone else was wrong, I would fight tooth and nail for them and their position. But on this occasion everyone thinks they are wrong and they are wrong. Demonstrably. I've seen 'Green Error Variant' many times. Right or wrong, people are correctly identifying that it varies from what was intended using the words 'error', 'variant' or both. That error was probably printed first. They spotted it, and corrected it. Using CGCs logic, that makes the correctly coloured copy the variant!

There you go. MCS identify the black circle book as the variant. CGC don't. To be clear, my challenge was for someone to find a reference online that agrees with CGC's position.

There you go. MCS identify the black circle book as the variant. CGC don't.

For which I'm grateful. But unless I'm misunderstanding you, you said my choice of Marvel 35c variants wasn't a good comparison as they were "printed at the same time", the inference being that you thought our 3 black circle books weren't. I replied that our 3 black circle books were printed at the same time (as the 'regular' copies), the return inference being that you were confused as to what books were produced when. My comparison was good. I was comparing one set of first printing books with another. Respectfully, nothing in your responses convinces me that you understand what a variant is in the first instance, let alone how to correctly ascribe status to one.

A fact which I acknowledge. No one knows the order. I've said this several times. But the salient point is that the order is irrelevant. Variants aren't determined by order of printing. Variants are determined by identifying which book(s) in a first printing run is the addition to the main event. I think we've done this to death now namisgr. I did ask someone to check that I hadn't lost my mind on this and they confirmed that I haven't. I've tried very hard to explain why this decision is wrong, but I accept that you don't see it. I can't present my rationale any other way though, so unless you have something new to say which might give me reason to reconsider my position, I suggest we knock it off.

Hey, a ticket was sent to web help about that months ago Galen. What more do you want - updates? Or in the case of Images and Words, a response?

I don't give a flying fart at a rolling doughnut myself, but there are some here that might. I'm more concerned that it may represent missing content. Do you think all our old card board members (that's the members of the card forum, not members made out of cardboard) are out there trying to find a log in page? Who would know....

The format and functionality are different and the journals have a separate location to standard board threads which makes them hard to find. They have much to commend them however - there is a lot you can do that you can't with standard posting which suits those wishing to share information in a certain way. But they are largely invisible due to Invision, their creator, failing to anticipate how people would use them. Add to that that CGC have expressed no interest in them at all, having dumped them on us without any thought in that act of vandalism some years ago (the existing journals were ruled off and cancelled, which upset a lot of people who subsequently gave up). You can see that I've been battling away for some time now to get the journals greater recognition, here and elsewhere, but all I get is blunt, emotionless one line responses to specific questions whenever I try to push for help. I've put a lot of effort in over the last two years and have not received one comment from CGC that even remotely resembles a thank you in all that time. So my advice to you, given with a heavy heart, is this Phicks: don't bother with the journals. They are impenetrable and there is clearly no plan to make them penetrable.

Later printings can't be variants by definition. They are reprints. Only books from the same print run can be variants.

The different versions of JIM #76, GW #68 and LR #97 were also printed at the same time. I've noted that at least three times now in this thread - why do you keep ignoring it? I don't mean that to sound narky - I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you keep glossing over the points I have made in support of my position and which undermine yours?

Both the corrected and uncorrected versions of our 3 books were printed and distributed at the same time. One did not 'follow' the other, so I don't understand your rationale namisgr, any more than I do CGCs? Using your argument, if the 35c Marvel variants were shown to have been printed first, would you classify the 30c regular versions as the variants? I've made my arguments very clearly. Help me understand your rationale, please.

In the expected absence of any update from CGC staff, it looks like the latter of the two scenarios has come to pass - we've lost the 'Trading Card' forum. Where it has gone, who knows, as my links to the CSG Sports Card forum no longer work. There must be a new web address out there somewhere for the newly combined card forum, but it isn't linked to the card home page at the time of writing: https://www.cgccards.com/ The indexing message here has gone now, so I suppose the separation work is complete. Post counts seem to be down though - mine certainly is - and it looks like Roy is going to have to break through the 100K barrier all over again... That's a whole 715 posts needed without getting a holiday. Can he do it.....

I wouldn't mind owning one of each of those!

These things aren't easy to follow, no. Explaining production theories in words can be tricky. You know what you mean when you are typing, but does anyone else? The three books in question (JIM #76, GW #68, LR #97) all appear to have commenced their cover print runs that way, yes. They may have been assembled - it's possible - but I think it more likely that they were corrected unattached. There is very little movement on the added circle and price. Some of the later examples I posted in this thread show the added elements moving about the cover quite significantly which is what you might expect to see if the books were assembled and cut. The lack of movement on the three black circle books leads me to conclude that the covers were run through as a batch, before being attached to the guts. My summary on page one of this thread shows the extant pricing position of all the January 1962 cover dated books. My exercise on page four, based on arrival dates, shows the likely cut off point when the 12c pricing increase was received. I don't think the books were reprinted. I think it more likely that the three salient books were in mid-production when the message came. They stopped the (cover) presses, and amended the pricing to show 12c on the cover and the indicia. They then ran the incorrect covers through a K plate to add the black circle and 12c price. They didn't bother with, or forgot about correcting the internal 10c indicia price. This wasn't a precise process - it was printing kids comics. We don't need to be experts to know that the 10c priced covers were the starting point of the run. But the corrections to them may have been made after the 'clean' 12c run was completed. The books are still in production at this point. The overprint is official. So it is possible that the corrections were the last thing done, making the black circle books last in the production order. If CGC are using 'printing' order alone to determine variant status, then I would like to know how they know that the black circle books were printed first. My belief is that they can't know. It's possible that the black circle overprinting was last. That aside, my belief is that CGC are wrong to use order of printing alone as the deciding factor when ascribing variant status. The first printing book that varies from the 'main event', often with a smaller print run, produced for a reason / audience separate to the standard. My research has proven that UK Price Variants were sometimes printed prior to the cents copies, but most times not. This is a red herring though, Aman - order of printing, within a first print run, has nothing to do with ascribing variant status. CGC are saying that the regular (their word) 12c copies of JIM #76, GW #68 and LR #97 are the variants. Their rationale is because the black circle copies were 'printed first'. I'm trying to get them to see how foolish that position is if for no other reason than the fact that the regular books look just that - regular - and the black circle books scream variant. This is how I feel about it. CGC are saying "2 + 2 = 7" I'm saying "Guys, no, it's 4" Responding to the challenge, they say "It's 7 because 7 is a bigger number than 4" Using CGC Mike as the messenger - CGC decision makers will never enter direct dialogue with anyone - I proceed to show why 2 + 2 = 4 by using calculators, slide rules, historic text, Einstein's Theory of Relativity and anecdotal examples from history where CGC have stated over and over that 2 + 2 = 4. I then carefully outline why the size of the numbers in question is irrelevant. I invite Mike to tell them to read my thinking, and he says he will. Mike then posts their revised thinking and it says "2 + 2 = 7. Our rationale for this is because 7 is a bigger number than 4" CGC never seem to want to respond directly to the grist of an argument. You can prove that they are wrong, and they will simply ignore you and the merits of your argument. That is why I did not respond to CGC Mike's reply. What would be the point? He's just the messenger, but he may as well have just posted "Push Off". No, that's silly Aman. They are all first printings. The 10c copies were corrected before they were distributed. There wasn't a product recall. There are more regular 12c copies than corrected ones. That puts a reprint out of the question. They would not have run a full compliment, corrected them all, and then run a second full compliment. They had enough trouble selling a full print run as it was, and overprinting was a natural part of production. There's no logical reason that they would then run a second full run, or a reprint run, if the corrected version was placed into distribution. The only thing that makes sense is that the error was spotted mid-run, and corrected. That led to the distribution of a mix of versions, one priced 12c in the normal way and one priced 12c in a variant way. CGC have manifestly picked the wrong book to label as the variant, and have given a reason that doesn't make sense, which, if applied elsewhere, would overturn basic understandings in the hobby. They are saying this is the variant.... ...and this isn't: Putting my arguments to one side, find me another reference point anywhere on the internet that agrees with them. At the end of the day, it gets dark, and there is nothing we can do about it. CGC never explain, never back down. Their response in this thread was an insult, frankly. They would do well to be a bit more responsive, especially when people are trying to help them. Wise move Aman!

It would. It's not impossible that a few might have escaped, uncorrected, but I've never seen one. And you know me Matt, I do spend more than a little time looking for these things. Expect an example imminently.

I'm not experienced enough regarding the artists of the era to comment, Yoz. Given the obvious aspiration to production quality though, could it have been the Streamline office cleaner?

I've just added this new one to my gallery, our 27th confirmed Streamline Pictorial Romance book (and my 21st): I love the cheap as chips cover and production values. It reprints three stories from Fox's My Desire #3 dated 1950, two with the the splashes missing and one retitled. I'll post a full write up in the previous journal format at some point and then add it to the two content / format tables I've been running. During my recent online searches I found this old catalogue page from 30th Century Comics website which had somehow previously avoided detection: The books are long gone but you can see reference to two new titles - 'Love Locked Me Out' and 'Foolish Bride' - and then a bumper 'He Scorned Her'. Those three take us up to 30 confirmed copies, unless 30th C. have made a mistake (which I doubt - they're on the ball, those guys). 'He Scorned Her', pictured, is only the second 68 page bumper copy after 'I Lied For Love', incidentally, and shares the same 'dumbbell' cover logo. Could 30 be it then....? It's a nice round number. I hope not. Until next time

Such a brilliant period for comics. So many new things happening, quirks and variations. And all using the old processes

I don't know. There are so many errors and muck ups in this period it doesn't surprise me one bit, Matt

NerV, I'm responding to your comments in the 'Black Circle' variant thread rather than clutter up the romance thread with variant discussions. I respectfully disagree with your position above as the 12c and 10c repriced books are all part of the same print run. Each is a first printing and was published at the same time. They started printing 10c covers, spotted their mistake, switched to 12c and then run the already printed covers through an overprint. So if both books have first printing status, only one can be the variant. In the case of Gunsmoke Western #68 and Journey Into Mystery #76 there are two variants as they run off a pence copy for UK distribution also (see previous post). It's clear to me that the intention was for the late January 1962 books to be priced at 12c, not 10c. When the mistake was noticed, they corrected it mid print run. The black circle and overprinted 12c price make those books unique, as they vary from what was intended / the normal pricing arrangement. So the Black Circle books should surely be regarded as the variants, wouldn't you say?

You're onto something there N e r V. Both the originally 10c and 9d priced copies have 10c indicias. The 'regular' 12c issue has the correct 12c indicia price. This surely means that the US pricing error was spotted after the UK Price Variant covers were printed. So if we follow CGC's current 'order of printing' logic, the pence copy must have been printed first (otherwise it would have a 12c indicia) and therefore the US copies are the variants!

I definitely spent less time here a few hours ago, Galen. Unless you count refreshing the page 6,000 times over two hours as 'spending time' Anyway, it looks like these are the guys that are going to join us on Monday... https://boards.csgcards.com/ https://boards.csgcards.com/topic/1831-cgc-cards-chat-boards-merging/ If they muck it up we could end up with two Buzzes. One's enough, surely....? @Buzzetta Buzz, what do you 'win the day' for over there?