Get Marwood & I

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?

"The entire chat forum will be temporarily unavailable on September 11th" And for two hours on the 9th

Which, if so, we'll no doubt find out on Tuesday along with what the forum has lost / gained post upgrade!

Thanks. If they would consider the arguments I have put forward in the last few posts of this thread, I'd appreciate it. Starting here: https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/452776-marvel-january-1962-black-circle-repriced-editions/?do=findComment&comment=12921042

I agree - it's great when they take on board the views of the collecting community and effectively utilise their knowledge, as they did when they changed from "UK Edition" to "UK Price Variant". All I ever ask is that they consider a reasoned argument and then explain if / why they disagree. When they won't do that, and dig their heels in when they know they're wrong, that can be dispiriting. Let's see if anything changes as a result of this dialogue - Tim tells me that CGC Mike is back on the case

Sorry, I thought you were defending their current position. They have been inconsistent historically, yes, as the examples I have posted show, but they are currently saying - in response to challenge - that the 'regular' (their wording) version is the variant. I think it does matter which is the variant and their 'order of printing' logic doesn't stack up. If the Marvel 35c variants were found to be printed first, would that make the 30c copies the variants? Of course not. Also, if the overwhelming majority of collectors, nuanced or otherwise, refer to the corrected black circle versions as the variants, then all CGC are doing - once again - is creating confusion in the market place by giving that label status to the uncorrected ones. As you said yourself, the corrected versions are fairly unique in the hobby. They stand out from the crowd due to their unusualness. And what is unusual about them? They vary from the norm.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, they're not. They're currently telling Tim that his corrected copy is the regular and the uncorrected versions are the variants. Indeed. The census volumes aren't that great for either version, so it shouldn't be too hard to maintain consistency.

...

It's clear that they're a little confused with these books. All three of these are incorrectly labelled based on their current position with your book:

You're welcome Tim - sorry for getting you embroiled in it all Here are two more slabbed 6.5 copies - both the corrected version, one labelled variant the other not:

It was always my understanding that SSS never had MJIs too, but a quick scout about online and it appears that they did. You learn something new every day. I wonder if there are any NDS lingerie ones....? "Mum!" "Yes, Timmy?" "Can I order some bras please?" "What, Timmy?"

One of those one off comics that found their way into the mix somehow. It's Jack. Isn't it?

Morning I thought I'd mention this recent example that popped up in the Romance thread the other day. @BuscemasAvengers posted this lovely copy of Love Romances #97, noting that the variant status was missing from the CGC label: He noted that the previous existing highest recorded copy - image courtesy of Heritage - did have the variant label: I pointed out that the Verification tool entry for BuscemasAvengers' 9.2 copy did not have the variant field completed so it would likely be recorded as the regular edition on the census and sure enough that is what happened. So back off to CGC it went in the hope that they would amend the census record and replace the slab label to show the variant status. BuscemasAvengers then received this message: CGC identifies the other version as the variant, so the label is correct. The initial print run was the version with 10 cents covered with a black circle. Marvel changed it to the regular 12-cent circle. As the black circle came first, we consider the regular 12-cent cover to be the variant. I had to laugh when I saw that CGC advised that the 'regular' cover was the 'variant', an oxymoronic statement if ever there was one. Although it is likely that the 10c price covers were printed first, they would then have been run through a correcting printer afterwards to add the correct 12c price once the pricing error was spotted. That may have been done before or after the 'regular' 12c priced copies were run. No one knows that order so it's odd for CGC to use order of printing as a reason to support their decision. The correcting overprint is still part of the original production process, after all. Putting that aspect to one side, a variant is always the copy with the lowest number within a first printing run and which deviates from the 'main event'. The main event in this case is the correct priced US 12c version. That is what was intended to be the 'regular' edition. The corrected versions are a mistake and the additional production details (the overprinted price / black circle) therefore make them the non-standard book. The 12c regulars appear comparatively ample. The 12c corrected copies appear scarce. I doubt there is a nuanced collector alive who would refer to the uncorrected copies as a variant. As @Dr. Love succinctly put it in the romance thread, "collectors know what's what". If CGC hold firm on this, they will have to confirm that the Heritage 8.5 book label posted above was an error. If they change their mind, and agree that 'Black Circle' corrected versions are indeed the variant, they will need to start correcting books like this 7.5 below, if asked: It will be interesting to see which way they go. In the meantime, we can safely assume that the census records cannot be relied upon as any indicator of slabbed volumes for each book type.

That's CGC for you.

A nice T&P stamped Prize Black Magic #4 from 1961 on the bay currently - I have three examples in the files for this issue - very few others though: Cover inspiration for Seven....

So "shut up", you're saying?

Thanks. The 'sort by' filter is the key, I think. If your SSRE isn't familiar with the journals, and has any questions having read the suggestions in this thread, he can always drop me a line. Good luck. Coming up to a month now Mike. Any update? Is the filter possible?

"merging our TCG, sports card and non-sports card Chat Boards" @CGC Mike Mike, this line in the communication suggests there are three chat boards for cards. How else could they be merged. We have one of them here (which you split out from CG following my recommendation earlier in the year): This could mean that two other card forums elsewhere are going to merge with our existing TC forum here which would mean lots of new faces and members turning up all, possibly, with questions and log in related issues. Or it could mean our TC forum here is being removed to join two other card chat boards somewhere else on the web. This would mean we'd lose the members who have been active in the card forum here and they may have questions for you if their home suddenly disappears. Would it not be wise to find out a bit more about it?

Just saw this book on eBay with the following description: "Really rare and hard to find Australian variant cover (only one in the set of 12 that had a variant cover)" I wonder if they've been visiting our pages...

I've always loved that cover. Iron Man looks so jolly in it, like he's posing for the camera It's great to see these books getting the recognition they deserve, and doing so well financially, but I can't help but feel sad that yet another segment of the hobby is moving out of my price range. The days of picking these up for twenty quid are well and truly over it seems. Ah well.

That's not very clear, is it.