RockMyAmadeus

The title of this thread makes me think of this:

Agreed, but I'd rather wait until there's official sanction, personally... You know what Admiral Ackbar thinks.

It would require a decision about UPC errors. The UPC for Danger Girl #3, for example, would pull up three possibilities. I don't suppose that's too much of a problem, but it should be addressed. I suppose it doesn't matter if the UPC is actually in error, if they create their own database. When UPCs are coded correctly, I imagine they can override it with the correct information. There are a LOT of UPC errors, mostly variants that aren't coded correctly (like, for example, later printings that are coded as variants, or variants that are coded as later printings.) I suppose that's not relevant in a ground-up database, other than deciding which is which when confronted with the same code for two different books. I haven't see too many books with issue numbers incorrectly coded, but they do exist, too. Probably not issues they're going to run into a lot, I would imagine.

If there's no existing database, I suppose they would have to manually enter it over time. That's unfortunate, but not insurmountable. I would be surprised if Diamond doesn't already have this information that they'd be willing to sell. I always wondered why comic shops, in my experience (perhaps 40-50 shops in CA and AZ over 28 years) never used the barcode. That's what it was made for, after all. There are still quite a few errors in actual UPC codes, like the DG #3 I mentioned above as an example, as well as Marvel, DC, etc. But that can be addressed. The only thing I'd be concerned about is the effect of laser light exposure to the comics over time. I'm probably completely overblowing the effect; I just don't know. I would guess a comic could be scanned thousands of times before it would even begin to show ink degradation.

I hear New Mutants #98 is on the rise...

I'm not interested in an argument, either. It always takes two to argue. I just want to understand where you're coming from, while being as fair to the OP as possible. Your statement seemed to suggest that the OP should have "known better", and that possibly that's what he should have expected with Voldie, especially after his first bad experience with them. Thank you for explaining your position.

That's what you get when you fall in love....

The GDP of France, Germany, and the UK combined.

That's a girl alright.

So, you're suggesting their customer service leaves something to be desired...? I'm not trying to trick you, here, just trying to understand the implications. You're making it sound like it's the OP's fault for giving Voldemort another chance, when his/her first experience was a poor one, like he should have known better than to do that by virtue of his first experience. Do we not give people and entities second chances?

Posting diatribes where other parties can't give their side of the story is as old as the internet. But the "hot stove" analogy is interesting...are you suggesting that Voldemort purposely screwed him the first time, and going back to give them another chance was a bad decision and the OP's fault...?

No, it's not me. I take it you don't pay attention much to writing styles...?

Yes, because it is a UPC discussion. My dialogue with @valiantman had to do with all books that have UPCs, not just Marvels.

I don't read what Mr. Nobel writes because 1. it's got far too many errors, and 2. he is opposed to correction, and aggressively tries to silence those who suggest them. I was taking Joosh's word for the above, but there are other legitimate errors, like this: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/xN0AAOSwqu9VBQrC/s-l1600.jpg https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/mI8AAOSwBLlVBQos/s-l1600.jpg All of which are coded "00331", which they all cannot be. Now, I don't know what the actual code displays, but if it's the same thing, these sorts of errors would need to be addressed, I would imagine.

Right, but wouldn't that mean they'd have to manually create a UPC "master list" for every issue over the last 40 years? How does it work in retail? Does every retailer have their own "master list" of UPCs that they create be hand, so to speak? (I genuinely don't know, which is why I'm asking.) If Diamond, for example, has a database of UPCs that they could sell, that might be a time and money saver. Don't know, just thinking out loud. And, as Joosh rightly points out above, and as you know, too, there are many "error UPCs", which would have to be addressed. Not insurmountable, but a task nonetheless.

They could conceivably determine them for everything. Default would be Direct, while all newsstand...from 1976 to the present....would be scanned. 1993-up can both be scanned. As a layman, how would that work? Wouldn't CGC need a master list of codes?

Dealers aren't sacred cows. Wherever this is tolerated, it will continue. I know most of us behave like addicts...I get it...but that doesn't mean people should bow down to them just because they provide us our "fixes", no matter who they are, no matter how long they've been around, and no matter who blindly supports them and viciously attacks those who challenge them. And I say this as a friend of many, many dealers...mainly because they do things right, and don't fly off the handle when questioned.

Insanely correct. First appearance of a character that broke out of comics and became a widely recognized icon. Not to mention one of the all-time classic Alan Moore graphic novels. PLUS the resurrection of Britain's biggest superhero in the story that MADE Alan Moore...and changed superhero comics forever. AND ended up as a Marvel Comics character which anyone should be anticipating incorporation into the Marvel Universe. So, yeah, insanely correct. Until Miracleman/Marvelman is resolved and news stories produced, Warrior #1 will always lag. And, it's a mag, so it's got a strike against it. If it was in comic book form, I imagine it would be a several thousand dollar book in ultra high grade.

You're absolutely correct. We'll all have to account for what we've said to others, every word of it. Who, then, do you think will come out ahead in that judgment...? You, the guy who takes every single shot and dig he possibly can, in every venue he can, no matter how small the opportunity...? Or me, who does his level best to avoid you as much as humanly possible...?

Keep it up. Someday, you'll have to account for all of it.

What I will never understand is the resistance. Never will, in 10,000 years, outside of general human nature.

Unfortunately, the "awareness" is not being spread by reputable sources with plain facts, but by cheap hucksters with misinformation. Yeah, but still in a half-assed way. I can't even imagine the purpose of the arbitrary cut-off date. The first is on point, and the totally arbitrary nature of Voldemort's 2000 cutoff...there's nothing at all special about the year 2000 as it relates to newsstand distribution...as well as their unwillingness to research the nature of early UPC books (1976-1979) for which there is no direct edition, is yet another shortcoming. It would have been better not to acknowledge newsstand copies at all, then to acknowledge them from "1977 to 2000." There's not just a lack of scholarly effort in this industry...there's open, aggressive hostility to it, because "don't you get in the way of me making $$$$!" Such a shame.

No, it would make much more sense to take shots from protective cover.

Ahhhh....now THIS...THIS is the way to handle disagreements and conflicts: naked aggression and hostility. Kudos for your contribution to the CGC boards!