Get Marwood & I

Ha! I remember that site. It's link is in the pictures I posted earlier. You had a hand in that? Cool. So, the non-newsstand ASM issues from 165 up are direct editions. Not Whitmans, not diamonds, not early directs. Just 'direct editions'. Is that what you're saying?

Sorry Rock, I was half way through a long reply and the phone went. Lost the lot. In your view, and using ASM as the issue number template, what would you call the first unequivocal direct edition number - 193 (re my earlier posts)? And what would you call the issues from 165 to 192 (again, re my earlier post) if you agree with the 193 assessment? Is there a straight quantifiable answer, or is this something people will always debate / differ on?

Thanks, I did miss that @Lazyboy, yes. Have you ever got in touch with the author to debate where you think his assumptions aren't correct? He seems very positive and passionate to me and would likely embrace any positive input that you could corroborate?

Something went wrong. Please try harder.

When I do a search for 'Barry' on my desktop using the top right search bar here..... ....the response comes up for 'all content' as you would expect: However, every search I do from that point on from the top right search bar defaults to 'Status Updates': If you don't spot that you've only searched under Status Updates, you may assume a zero results return is for all content. But you'd likely be wrong. Valuable Barry posts may be missed, if this glitch is not rectified immediately. Immediately I said. Oh C-G-C search func-tion It makes searches di-sa-ppear Oh C-G-C search func-tion Don't go too near (don't go too near!)

Here's a picture of Ditko the cat at work today: He wasn't at all happy to be awoken: And expressed significant disdain accordingly. He doesn't own a copy of Amazing Fantasy 15.

Found a few more on the flash drive. I'm surprised the men in white coats never came for me. Look at that key! FD / DP / G

I didn't know that. Is there not a Marvel historian who knows all this stuff? The only explanations I've seen down the years have always come from fans or dealers - never from Marvel or the distributors?

Cheers @skrank - I've always liked mucking about with graphics. It's funny that after all this time we are all still unsure about so many things in the hobby. You think we'd know what to call them by now wouldn't you.

Whoops, you're right @skrank, I meant to say 'Whitmans / Directs' started from ASM 165, not just 'directs'. The reason I say that is that I've never seen a definitive article that confirms what we should call the diamond shape books (ASM 165-192) which existed prior to the Direct market as we know it settling in. Many sites refer to all the early diamonds as Whitmans, some say that's wrong and that we should call them 'early directs'. I've forgotten more about it than I remember to be honest, but do recall a lot of debate about it (hence my earlier 'Whitman' police post ). I'd love to see that definitive confirmation if you know of it. Meanwhile, I agree that ASM 193 is the first 'real' direct, if for no other reason than it's the first in the run of books that all looked the same (flat diamond with slashed barcode). To me, ASM 192 was the last 'Whitman': Here's an extract of an old record of mine that I posted a while back which I'm posting again here just to show that I used to take it all really seriously! I'm looking at it now and seeing mistakes straight away (so new members ignore). Boy did I get anal over this stuff back in the day

The Water Cooler?

The Water Cooler?

Great review @Doohickamabob. I agree with a lot of your observations, pros and cons. I could add to both. The film will always struggle to match the original which is its better in almost every department in my view. But I caught it at a perfect moment for me and it made its mark in a way few films I've seen have managed. The whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. A perfect moment in time. And we know what happens to them don't we.

I've seen you criticise this site a number of times @Lazyboy Could you give a few examples of the misinformation you refer to please?

Hulk like @Dave2739. Dave2739 kind to Hulk. And Hulks anal stickers. Hulk in wrong thread though. But Hulk will smash Marwood and I if they start up twee nonsense again.

I should've used the Captain America cover with the big chest. That came from hell...

one nil to you @Larryw7

Ta, but they are scans I kept of a collection long since sold alas. I'll do a fuller response another time unless someone beats me to it @Fiddy as I want to include pics and I'm on my tablet at the mo. I'm rubbish on my tablet. No jokes now. But as far as first printings go, there are only two regular versions here - newsstands and directs. If we take Amazing Spider-Man as an example, newsstands were there from the off and directs started at issue 165. The directs appearance was hit and miss in the early days with blank, normal or slashed barcodes and diamond price boxes of various shapes and sizes until the directs settled into a standard format. So, in those early days there were only 2 versions - newsstands and directs (if we ignore price variants) - so any books you have seen with reprint on them are just that - reprints.

....or hell

It's difficult to gauge. If I'm honest, I would have speculated that individual pages wouldn't take off, but they have. So individual panels isn't something you can dismiss out of hand. There is part of me that is appalled at a comic being dismantled, however tatty. But on the flip, I like the idea of one book satisfying many collectors wishes by each of them having their own small part of the history they love, but may not be able to afford in full. And, of course, the seller may well get more money selling his book page by page than in full. So it's hard to begrudge the buyers and sellers especially where the comic was low grade to begin with. It won't be long until someone will realise that a page with say, four Spidey panels, could be cut into four and, potentially, garner more money as a result. But it will only happen if CGC accept it I guess. It like to hear their rationale for not doing it, given that single pages are in.

Maybe that is why staff of board ignore entire 'Support for the New Boards' section of boards. Maybe Hulks last fart has made 'Support for the New Boards' section uninhabitable. Hulk will try to clear fart smell away, encourage staff of board to visit section. Maybe answer some questions. Including Hulks.

Very nice @nesqrick2. Alas, I'm all out of likes again. So I will just have to like them spiritually

Nice show!

It seems you feel my work is not a benefit to the public....?

@Bomber-Bob Bob - re our posts above, CGC already have a method for encapsulating items smaller than a standard comic page - here's an example. It's easy to see how that could be a single panel: