GCD Whitespaces

[gifflefunk]

Is this all correct for #1?

Date = April 1957

total pages including covers = 36

Features are in the order you listed.

Stories are 6 pp each and text story is 2 pp without illustrations (typeset text only).

Genre for all = occult (not crime or science fiction)

 

Check. Check. Check. Check. No.

 

"Speedy, the Sport!" is definitely Sci-Fi, all the others could be categorized as Occult.

[selegue]

Is this all correct for #1?

Date = April 1957

total pages including covers = 36

Features are in the order you listed.

Stories are 6 pp each and text story is 2 pp without illustrations (typeset text only).

Genre for all = occult (not crime or science fiction)

 

Check. Check. Check. Check. No.

 

"Speedy, the Sport!" is definitely Sci-Fi, all the others could be categorized as Occult.

 

Thanks.

I added records for both Full Color Comics and They Ring the Bell, clearly stating that they don't exist and were a long-running Overstreet error. That should keep them from creeping back into GCD.

 

Jack

[gifflefunk]

Jack,

 

I've updated the errata pages to keep up with the new uploads at GCD. I did notice that someone is claiming under the Weekly Comic Magazine main entry that I dispute Fox as the publisher of this series.

 

I agree that Fox is the content supplier for the Weekly Comic Magazine (two newspaper fold-up comics), I just don't agree with Fox being the content provider for the Free Weekly Comic Magazine (giveaway magazine) that contains Archie/MLJ material. Clearly MLJ is the content supplier for that issue.

 

 

And if someone else doesn't get to it first, I'll scan and post the cover to the Ribtickler Fox Giant issue (I came across my copy last night).

 

[selegue]

Jack,

 

I've updated the errata pages to keep up with the new uploads at GCD. I did notice that someone is claiming under the Weekly Comic Magazine main entry that I dispute Fox as the publisher of this series.

 

I agree that Fox is the content supplier for the Weekly Comic Magazine (two newspaper fold-up comics), I just don't agree with Fox being the content provider for the Free Weekly Comic Magazine (giveaway magazine) that contains Archie/MLJ material. Clearly MLJ is the content supplier for that issue.

 

 

And if someone else doesn't get to it first, I'll scan and post the cover to the Ribtickler Fox Giant issue (I came across my copy last night).

OK, the series title is Weekly Comic Magazine, right? I'll try to make the note clearer.It looks like we have exactly the same book (same scan) two different places -- As a one-shot as #3 of a series Where do you think it belongs?Thanks,Jack

[gifflefunk]

The Weekly Comic Magazine (the two Fox items with the Blue Beetle on the cover) should probably be under Fox.

 

The Free Weekly Comic Magazine (with all MLJ material) should probably be in the Archie/MLJ listings. If you read the indexed story entries in your second link it even states that all three stories are reprinted MLJ material. So I'm not sure how this could be considered a Fox book.

 

 

[selegue]

The Weekly Comic Magazine (the two Fox items with the Blue Beetle on the cover) should probably be under Fox.

 

The Free Weekly Comic Magazine (with all MLJ material) should probably be in the Archie/MLJ listings. If you read the indexed story entries in your second link it even states that all three stories are reprinted MLJ material. So I'm not sure how this could be considered a Fox book.

OK, I see that the one-shot link that I sent was just a dummy pointing to the other entry.Looks to me like 2 series, one (MLJ) with the word free in the title and the other (Fox) without. I wonder if these are long-running series -- it does say "weekly", odd for a one-shot -- but surviving issues are very scarce. Jon Berk and Bob Beerbohm might know.Jack

[gifflefunk]

The Weekly Comic Magazine (the two Fox items with the Blue Beetle on the cover) should probably be under Fox.

 

The Free Weekly Comic Magazine (with all MLJ material) should probably be in the Archie/MLJ listings. If you read the indexed story entries in your second link it even states that all three stories are reprinted MLJ material. So I'm not sure how this could be considered a Fox book.

 

Just to be clear, I consider these to be two different titles:

Weekly Comic Magazine (Fox): 2 issues

Free Weekly Comic Magazine (MLJ): 1 issue

 

I suspect a third party was involved as the "packager" that solicited this material to clients. Probably Arnold/Eisner in some capacity as these just barely pre-date the Spirit sections and this was something the two were looking into doing at this time... but I have absolutely no evidence that either was involved at the moment.

[gifflefunk]

As promised, a 1066x1513 scan of Ribtickler (Fox Giant)

[selegue]

As promised, a 1066x1513 scan of Ribtickler (Fox Giant)

 

How is this different from Ribtickler (Chicago Nite Life News, 1945)

GCD entry

aside from being a much better scan? At least I can replace the old one with this scan.

 

Same contents as indexed here?

 

Yow, that must have been a long haul to index.

 

I'm falling behind. Is this one of the issues you're suggesting should be moved from Chicago Nite Life News to Fox?

 

Thanks,

Jack

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gifflefunk]

It is a Fox book. Many of the Giants were printed through surrogates, like R. W. Voigt, Wm. H. Wise, and Chicago Nite Life News. None of which are true Fox imprint companies as they also printed material for other publishers. Mike Feldman could better explain the reasons behind these surrogates.

 

I do know that William H. Wise printed Fox and Gleason material "on the side"; Fox material is considered a Fox book and Gleason material is considered a Gleason book. The publisher of record is the surrogate, the copyright holder is usually the comic "group" that contracted the job out and books printed by these surrogates are usually listed with the comic "group" they belong to.

[HouseofComics.Com]

I know the kudos thread is in the selling forum but I feel like leaving kudos to you two for all your good work! Bravo, guys.

 

Marc

[Scrooge]

Jack,

 

can you push the magic button on Prize Western Comics # 106. I just uploaded my scan but it's not showing up in the Gallery or in the Large Zoom.

 

What's going on? I've uploaded many scans before but never before did I run into this issue until recently ...

[selegue]

Jack,

 

can you push the magic button on Prize Western Comics # 106. I just uploaded my scan but it's not showing up in the Gallery or in the Large Zoom.

 

What's going on? I've uploaded many scans before but never before did I run into this issue until recently ...

As far as I know, the scans are moving from an older server to a newer server. The uploads all land on the newer servers, but sometimes the "pointer" still looks at the scan on the older server unless it's reset. Something like that. I don't know why the migration is taking so long.I can't reset right now. #$%^& site is down again #%^&*Too much dependence on one person ##$%^&Jack

[selegue]

Gif':

 

FYI on your Stanmor list, there's a Navy Task Force 7 for sale on ebay w/ no code seal.

 

(Busy day -- just passing on the info w/o looking how it fits in w/ your data.)

 

Looks like the scan is too small to use and has one of those camera icons on it.

 

Jack

[gifflefunk]

That looks to be the #7 (1) issue, not a true #7 (which would be CCA coded).

 

-Giff

[selegue]

That looks to be the #7 (1) issue, not a true #7 (which would be CCA coded).

 

-Giff

OK -- just the messenger. I haven't looked at the difference between #7 and #7 (1)Real Life calls.JPS

[gifflefunk]

I think this is just another case of a numbering/title switch. The first issue is #7(1) a non-CCA stamp issue, then #2 (no stamp), #3 (CCA stamps from here on), #4, #5, #6, #7 and #8. It is possible no true #7 actually exists. A large number of Stanley Morse titles have numbering skips so its very difficult to determine what actually exists.

 

But in this case, I think the CCA code stamp is the key. I don't think any member of the CCA would have risked trying to publish a non-code book at this early stage of the 1954-code.

[gifflefunk]

I should have a scan of Dexter #2 (Dearfield) for GCD tonight (if I can easily find my copy). That should complete the Dearfield entry at GCD.

 

I'm still plodding through the Dell listings (only 21% complete)... lots of books... lots of covers.

 

Any thoughts on removing that Complete Love #173 (Ace) "reconstruction" scan found on GCD? Just compare the large images of #173 and #176 and you can easily see someone has frankensteined two images to create the GCD entry of #173 (and I'm still not sure if the lower half shown is actually from Complete Love #173!). Small things like that really annoy me when they occur on a site that _should_ be trusted by those doing research.

 

Also, good job with all the corrections made so far and for getting a ton of missing pix uploaded to GCD!

[selegue]

I should have a scan of Dexter #2 (Dearfield) for GCD tonight (if I can easily find my copy). That should complete the Dearfield entry at GCD.

 

I'm still plodding through the Dell listings (only 21% complete)... lots of books... lots of covers.

 

Any thoughts on removing that Complete Love #173 (Ace) "reconstruction" scan found on GCD? Just compare the large images of #173 and #176 and you can easily see someone has frankensteined two images to create the GCD entry of #173 (and I'm still not sure if the lower half shown is actually from Complete Love #173!). Small things like that really annoy me when they occur on a site that _should_ be trusted by those doing research.

 

Also, good job with all the corrections made so far and for getting a ton of missing pix uploaded to GCD!

I'm falling behind the corrections and additions, trying to get some summer work done before the fall semester attacks. There's some discussion and I think resolution of the Navy Task Force puzzle, and I think I need to persuade the other editors that the third Weekly Comic Mag needs to be moved away from Fox and then move it. (Seems like that should be as easy as renaming a file on a computer, but it's not with the current software.) Complete Love 173 is now marked for replacement. What an odd job, if it's a Frankenscan. If I were hacking it together, there'd be a sharp, not jagged, like between the top and bottom, and the logo overlap with the photo is nicely done. The lack of date and price are certainly suspicious. Do you think that whoever posted it used the top of 176 w/ similar coloring? No way to check this one in Gerber since he didn't much bother with obscure romance covers -- although those first two painted covers are great. Have you ever seen a real copy of 173?The occasional bum image is a hazard of an all-volunteer, open project. If you put up hurdles, people will be less likely to contribute data. There's talk of adding a cover editor who would inspect the new covers as they come in. Most days it wouldn't be too onerous a task, usually well under 100 new covers. (Anyone looking for an unpaid job with lots of personal satisfaction?) It would be easy enough to filter out obvious fakes and gags (the notorious Four Color 1148 parody -- attached -- and the occasional "cosmetic surgery" Archie covers) or scans that are just plain bad. The problem is, what do you compare the submitted images to. The GCD collection is far beyond Gerber now. Where do I find an authentic Italian Spider-Man reprint from 1983 (or whatever) to make sure that the uploaded cover is legit? If I knew that, I'd have uploaded it!Thanks for your help and information.Jack

[gifflefunk]

Have you ever seen a real copy of 173?

 

As of this morning no, but someone just e-mailed this pic to me!