Get Marwood & I

My recollection - I don't have the books anymore - was that the NDS inserts had the same colour centre spread but a number of different front / back page variations. This is the sticker image that I used to customise my books: And as you can see from the images below, there are a number of variations on the other side pages, all of which have the full colour NDS centres: What connects them is the leading National Diamond Sales two page colour ad, so that's what they should really be called. Hopefully I've got that right.

Of the 23 grades in scope for the competition, picking 20 different ones across 20 books would indeed be silly and transparent. You just need a fairly even spread, I think. Four 7.0s in 15 books isn't particularly even, especially with ten in the 5.0 to 7.0 window overall. Maybe I'll just call every book in R4 a 7.0 and see how many bullseyes I get

If the Mycomicshop graders were playing they'd have a cumulative score of 116 so far Very uneven selection of books this tournament isn't it. Mostly gold/silver and all in the same grade brackets - only 3 grades separated the R2 books. We've had 15 books so far and the grades 5.0 to 7.0 alone account for 10 of them.

Thought so. I just updated the journal list above to 1,338 as I forgot to add the last two Barbies (topical!) that I posted in the discussion thread. I haven't been looking much lately if I'm honest. Have you found anything new?

You posted the GR/Blaze #13 with the AUS $3.80 price as well, didn't you?

Hello I cover books like these in the discussion thread. I agree with you that the books are clearly intended to be AUS editions, but I only count books with an AUS related printed difference myself: Stickers can be 'manufactured' after all, and it wouldn't take much for anyone to replicate the scenario below on any date range book: I'm not in charge though - other collectors may happily include them in the figures and it wouldn't trouble me one jot if they did.

I love the off register blue. Never apologise for a printing error Frisco

Nice thread I still have my first piece of original art which I purchased back in 2003 - Amazing Spider-Man #137, page 14 with pencils by Ross Andru, inks by Frank Giacoia and Dave Hunt: Happy 20th Anniversary! Andru was always my favourite growing up and I just wanted to own one piece of his ASM work. I put a copy of the printed work with it: I'd completely forgotten that it was a Mark Jewellers too I've sold other Spidey pieces that I've owned over the years but this one will stay with me no matter what to be discovered when I've gone among a portfolio of my own work from back when I was at school. I love all the little notes and add ons that come with OA: The colorist obeyed! Anyway, that's my first page. It's nice to think it was sat on Ross' drawing board almost 50 years ago. I'll never meet him to say thanks - in this life, anyway - but it's as close a connection as I'll likely ever get.

It's a dumbbell bannered comic, Yoz

Paging @valiantman https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/520064-newsstand-vs-direct-clarity-and-maybe-less-misinformation-needed/?do=findComment&comment=12742712

OK, apologies Mike if I added to your stress. I genuinely thought my solution was sensible and, if anything, would alleviate any issues Happy to go with the majority and I'll get my R3 scores in shortly.

I see and appreciate your points zzutak. I would argue that removing the two books is not a do-over, however. It's just preserving fairness as far as it is possible to do so. It may well be that the books do not have a material impact in the end, but there will always be the perception that something wasn't right if they are left in. There will be participants at the top end of the table who will look at the final leaderboard positions and know that they would have been in the running had they had that key information. Judging people on 18 books, where nothing is hidden, is fair to all. Judging people on 20 books however, where the exclusion of key information on two of them potentially rewards the less vigilant is clearly less fair. So for me there are two choices and one is fairer than the other. If there is no support for my stance I'll leave it alone, of course. I've always tried to support these competitions and it gives me no pleasure to post this. I took a day to think it over before doing so. But I think we're all adult enough to agree that an innocent mistake has been made, but also that that mistake has consequences. For me, correcting it is therefore the best of the available choices and doesn't have to be that much of a deal.

Thanks Chrispy for making this point. I would have liked the opportunity to make the case for discounting those two books but the decision was made while I was asleep in the UK. We are given five days each round to grade the books but were given only a 30 minute window to comment on whether an error which may have a material impact would be allowed to stand. Keeping in books with undisclosed hidden defects is potentially unfair, as I suspect it will disadvantage the better graders. A few people have posted results which showed that they significantly undergraded all five books and, in doing so, bullseyed the HoS. Those with a history of consistently getting within one increment of CGCs grade will of course overgrade books with undisclosed hidden defects. The results will surely end up skewed, peversely penalising the better performers, There is still an option to eliminate any unfairness by dropping those two books. We'll all be judged fairly on 18 level playing field books. Changing a results table after the event rarely looks good regardless of the merits of doing it. Those who drop down feel cheated if it happens and others will feel that they were put out of contention if it doesn't. But the results table hasn't been posted yet. @CGC Mike, is it too late to reconsider?

Providing that assurance was itself a mistake.

I try to stick to the old adage that if you can't say something nice about a person, say nothing. But I've always been mystified by the appreciation of Byrne's work, more so given his well documented personality traits. I rest my case on the floor.

I don't think CGC deduct grades for missing inserts. The reason that you will find blues and greens like the two in your opening post is that CGC are inconsistent, and make mistakes. Even if they have a stated treatment policy (as per the link I gave you) they can still get it wrong Joe.

Here's a new Streamline that I picked up last year for those that manage to find this post: I love the colouring That's the 26th known copy now. Well, to me anyway.

I still can't get over how bright this copy that I picked up last year is for a 64 year old comic: I've been trying to find a copy of #4 and 6 ever since to complete the set but no luck. Here's an old online image of the full set: Maybe one day

A reminder for those that have forgotten...

Imported Harvey comics show us that Miller changed stamps from 6d to 9d around US cover date April 1962, the same time as his printed Charlton UKPVs changed. This helps us date the undated IWs - or at least date when they were likely in UK circulation. As a rule, the 'Top Quality' comics were 6ds and the 'Supers' were 9d: This fits in with the IW dating research elsewhere online, so it's reasonable to assume that Miller was importing them date systematically as he did with Harvey and Charlton, rather than as a bulk lot of unsolds or something like that. The Jungle Comics in your post bears an unbranded shilling stamp - not one Miller ever used - so could have been sold by anyone, perhaps as a later second hand copy that Miller forgot to stamp (as he often did) if indeed it was an original UK distribution copy. Here's a Miller stamped Jungle of mine - Adventures this time, not Comics: Never bring violence to the domain of Taanda. I've always tried to rule that out of my life.

FLASH! AH-AHH! HIS BOOK'S COMPLI-MENTARY! What do you mean, error copy approaching...?

Never meet your heroes, Cat. They're almost always tosspots.

I'm not surprised. Tennis is a filthy game.