Get Marwood & I

That's what you get for dating Crusher Creel I suppose

Indeed, that is so wrong. Brown and blue will never do. Don Diego is rocking the hairy chest look though, isn't he. Catching people at it whilst standing in a doorway rather oddly dressed seems to be a theme for this title. Below, our lass has come back because she's clearly forgotten her trousers:

Coincidence....

Indeed. No mobile phones and selfies back in the eighties. We did, rather than spend all our time photographing what we did.... Here's Ian some time after he set up in the shop downstairs - around 1990 if the racking stock is anything to go by. He started out with a small bit at the back of the upper shop - that's where I first saw ASM #179 hanging up on a rope - and then graduated to the downstairs. Me and my older brother spent a lot of time in there. I remember once organising all the cupboards for Ian one afternoon and he let me have a Dr Who annual for it. Ian, my brother and another chap called Glyn all went to see Empire when it came out but left me behind. Gutted, I was. Many happy memories though, of Rodney's, in all its forms, and of the time in general.

You could say the same about this... ...and this: That's how a lot of people feel, I suspect. Like you, I want them to do the right thing. I believe they can still be a successful, profitable company by doing the right thing. Telling people that Newton Rings are normal isn't the right thing. Giving people two weeks remediation windows isn't the right thing, and so on. I want to use my grading credit and feel that I'm using a company that is acting to the highest standards and in good faith. I want to visit this forum without being reminded of how many times they appear not to.

Right, thanks. If correct, your process timing calculations strengthen my theory that AI might be grading a lot of the books. Maybe the human graders just do the pre-moderns which seem to represent a much smaller part of the overall volume if BCs extracted data is correct. If you were running a grading company, and got a human to count the pages, do a resto check and look for internal issues on every submission, and the statistics then showed that 99.8% of moderns always had the right number of pages, no resto and no internal structural issues, what would you do? Carry on doing that, or accept the risk of that tiny percentage of books with issues getting through and then being discovered? Carney's AI might be sorting the books into work queues and sending everything before a given date to the humans for grading and grading the rest itself - probably at the same time - based just on the covers. It then directs those to encapsulation having populated the records. AI may even then do some QC. If it can identify any title from a possibility list of millions, it could match the cover title to the label etc. There are lots of opportunities for it to add value, I'm sure. Anyway, it's not our business what CGC do or how they do it. It's fun to speculate, but all we can do is decide whether to pay for the end service. If we're happy, we carry on submitting. If we're not, we have the option of not using them (although most seem to carry on if this thread is any indicator). When the process works, the end product looks fabulous. When it doesn't, it gets posted about here and in other places online. Mike says that CGC has a very low failure rate. That's probably true. When greggy does one of his 98 thousand graded book acquisition posts they all look fine to me. So maybe this thread and others do only represent a very small failure rate. Thousands of happy people, who say nothing, scores of unhappy people, who post here. Who knows. Those kinds of figures would be acceptable in most industries though, I'll bet. I've only joined in here because, once again, I've come to the forum looking for fun and interaction and this thread stands out. CGC don't pay attention to it. They don't change their practices or anything because of it or any other thread. They have their model and it's working for them. Use it, don't use it. If you complain, Mike may send examples of systematic failure through, and then nothing will happen. Five years in, and the solution to Newton Rings - after all that debate - is that they can't / won't fix them and they're now normal. For me, that is why I pause before submitting. It's not because I fear being in the tiny failure rate group (although I'm lucky like that). It's because if the failure rate is very low, then CGC should be remediating customers. The cost of doing so would be low, as the failure rate is low. But they're not. They're trying to normalise failure and have you pay for it. That's the reason I'm hesitant to use them.

Same cover month as my last obliterator example, Albert Different 10d stamp though...

You're in luck. I found it:

I'm sure @valiantman will share a video with you that explains it all when he next logs on.

Have a read of this thread, km.....

We're supposed to know better Rich

It's a T5P, isn't it I thought it was one of these:

Sorry, I don't get what you mean there, Ex?

Books probably, Richmond. It's a late in the day pic judging by the store sign and modern glass frontage. I'd likely moved by then. I'd love to see a photo of it in the old days when the front was set back, there was a canopy and it had all those lovely UK reprints at the back. Anyway, is it me, or is this combination uncommon: 5p / shillings I've seen many of, but 10d....

And the AI that probably grades all the moderns. You don't think that they actually check the insides of moderns, do you, and count pages? How many moderns would have internal issues anyway, do you think? How low would that percentage be? How big a gamble would it actually be, not to check them? Who's going to bust them all out post slabbing to check? If Carney's AI can identify a collectible among millions of possibilities in a near instant, it can probably identify cover flaws on a modern and grade it in a near instant too. Maybe that's why QC is so dreadful (according to this thread) - the humans can't cope with the flow of blink-of-an-eye graded moderns from AI. Probably. https://www.cgccomics.com/news/article/11945/ Carney has been the instrumental leader in building a proprietary platform that enables CCG to identify a collectible from among millions of possibilities in a near-instant using artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning and advanced computer vision and image processing technologies. The resulting efficiency gains have enabled CCG to have the fastest processing times in the industry, which was achieved after eliminating a record backlog of more than 1 million collectibles. The trailblazing AI platform has enabled the company to scale to meet the rapidly growing demand for authentication and grading services amid a continued surge of interest in collectibles.

4 pee, I see. PBC? Oui.

Hulk like I'd go 4.5 but I could see CGC going higher. Good luck

That's a very nice pence lot. I was only writing yesterday about the relative scarcity of Hulk #1. You don't see him as often as the others. Good luck with the submission.

That looks like one of the handwritten 'N' numbers often seen on APVs. Regrettably, it looks like it's been rubbed out which may impact the grade.

....on a roll, here's #85... ...and Archie 131... ...taking us up to 94...

I've been slowly buying back some of the Doctor Who fanzines that I had art published in way back in the 1980s. Here's the Whovian community's attempt at Live Aid, the imaginatively titled "Fan Aid" from 1985 (I think): Here's my "too much of a good thing" page inside: Not my best piece by a long shot - rather pedestrian - and I never liked Baker's finished hair. It's hard, drawing hair, sometimes. His hand was alright though. They were happy days for me, the 80s

I already have a nice copy of this Audrey 15cv but couldn't resist buying this extra eBay UK copy for two reasons: For it's wonderful original UK owner cover doodles As further proof - if proof were needed anymore - that these books were indeed predominantly distributed in the UK