BCR

For both — but especially for the books I sent in being that I went through multiple layers of effort to make sure that this precise thing didn’t occur. I also (as I said) called on two separate occasions to warn them about this issue that was developing. Like, I’m literally spending money to fix their census. Because it’s wrong. Human error is impossible at this point, and laziness is just inexcusable, I think. It’s a clear and obvious error that can be fixed very easily. And it’s an error that could have disastrous long term consequences. And even if it it isn’t disastrous consequences, it should be fixed because it’s wrong.

I don’t care about the toy inserts for issues 1 and 2. That’s the point. They’re not first printings and they were printed and continue to be printed for the toys. There ARE two first printings that arrive in the toys, but those are not issues 1 and 2. So those specific toy comics I do care about.

I think you might be wrong for issue #1. It is indistinguishable other than the art work being cut slightly different. And the average buyer isn’t going to be able to tell the difference. Also…it’s just incorrect. And it doesn’t need to be incorrect. The labels should correctly reflect the encased collectible. It’s literally a part of what we’re paying for. They need to do their job correctly. That’s…their job.

The problem is that the problem is multifaceted. At its most rudimentary it does come down to “you are putting first printings and second printings together”, but I’m having to walk them through how to identify the differences. And even when I did that succinctly in a note on the books themselves, we still arrived here.

So I've actually called CGC twice in the past about this issue, but it was never addressed, so I decided to just pony up the money and fix the census myself. Unfortunately, when I checked on the submission, the error is in the process of being repeated. I'm not sure how well CGC checks emails, so figured I'd post here as well. And I know maybe a lot of people aren't focused on/don't care about these books, but they're books I care about, and they're books that the census is objectively incorrect about. I sent in 1st printings and (intentionally damaged) 2nd printings with a very specific note regarding the differences between the books so there would be zero room to make any mistakes in the categorizing of these books. "Hello -- I just checked on my submission [#######] and noticed that several of the books are being mislabeled. I had contacted CGC via phone several months ago to inform them of an issue on their census data, and that it could result in a major issue down the road. After not seeing anything changed on the census, I sent in some of my own books, and even intentionally damaged two of the books with the sole intention of having the census corrected to notate the existence of those books (2nd printings). I included a detailed note with the submission to make sure that the books would not be mislabeled, but it appears they are being mislabeled. Not only do the 1st printings have different covers than the 2nd printings, but the actual indicia is also different -- with differing publication dates. Yet despite this, the books are all being filed together. The singular change that's being made, is a census is now being created for the "Convention Exclusive" which is the 1st print of Overwatch #2. The second version, that was printed years later, comes with a key chain type toy, and has different indicia and without "Convention Exclusive" in the corner. The primary issue with this is that nearly ALL of the issue #2's that have been graded by CGC have been the "Convention Exclusive" 1st printings. And those are all therefore listed under the existing "Issue 1" moniker for Overwatch #2 on the census. The books I've just sent in will be resulting (per the information sent to me) in the creation of a "Convention Exclusive" tier for Overwatch #2. Which means that anyone who sends in the 2nd printing toy packaged version will end up in that "Issue 1" tier with no designation of a 2nd printing, which would be okay if 1) The date was correct via its indicia and 2) All of the "Convention Exclusive" printings weren't already assigned "Issue 1". The Overwatch #2 comic I sent in damaged, with a giant fold across its front, is the second printing toy package comic. Which I noted with a sticky on its sleeve. It was printed years later, is reflected as such in the indicia, and it is currently in the process of being labeled and slabbed under the publication date of the 1st printing. The issue with Overwatch #1 is even more egregious, and is the one that requires more precision grading. The indicia dating is different, between the 1st and 2nd (toy package) printing, but the only other discernable change in covers is that the artwork is cut off at the bottom. I noted this specifically in the submission for the grader, and like issue #2, I intentionally damaged the comic so that the 2nd print category would be created on the census. Currently, per the data sent to me, these two comics are going to be slabbed with 1) incorrect publication dates, and 2) with incorrect print number notation. People then buying these books slabbed will be buying them under false, incorrect information. Hopefully this will be addressed and the issue corrected. If you need more information from me, I'm at your disposal. Thank you"

We have persons who were working at Marvel at the time who've stated pretty clearly that the fat diamond printings were produced for Whitman to distribute. It's certainly POSSIBLE that some of that product ended up in the "direct market", but think about the fact that even the guys over at Mile High have pushed the erroneous (factually incorrect) claim that the Whitmans were "reprints". If they were receiving that version of the books, if those were "just the direct market versions", why would they have ever claimed that the '77 Whitman Variants are reprints? They would only have the intellectual capacity (e.g. ignorance) to make that claim, if they themselves never received those versions of the comics, and only later saw those books show up in Whitman packs. From their (the direct market's) perspective, they "must have been" reprints (even though we know that they are, in fact, first printings). It really feels like this should be settled by now. There's just no evidence left that points to the fat diamond printings of the '77 Marvel Comics being anything other than comics printed specifically to be distributed via their partnership with Whitman. The LATER diamond variants are a totally separate animal.

It's really bizarre that this conversation continued at all after this post (as it pertains to whether or not the '77 Whitman Variants were printed at the exact same time as the initial printing of the comic). Certainly some of the Whitman Variants might've ended up in the direct market, but it is unarguable fact that the '77 Whitman Variants are FIRST PRINTINGS. We have people who were actually working at these companies confirming it, and we even have PHYSICAL EVIDENCE as shown here that these are first printings. And the ONLY anecdotal disagreement has been people's memories from when they were kid seeing a pack of Whitman comics months after the issues had come out. Yeah, that's because the comics were still on the shelf in bags where they hadn't been purchased. The '77 Whitman Variants are first printings. And literally anyone can tell you that they are by leaps and bounds the hardest first printings to secure in a high grade. Hopefully this aspect of the discussion is closed and agreed on.