'Marvel "Whitmans"

[Kahnadah]

 

I also do not have a very high opinion regarding that variant mess published in OS a few years back, sorry.

 

Interesting... I found the article very informitive if a bit flawed. What didn't you like about it?

 

Personally, I thought it was too long had too many types. 15 Types and 21 sub-types seems a bit excessive.

 

I don't think reprints and counterfiets are variants. Maybe reprints if they have differences from the originals... Promos, well, maybe if they have differences in cover, or ads...headache coming on...

 

As for the Marvels, I always thought they were akin to the 30-35 cent testers. A way to introduce a new concept (this time in distribution) in a cheaper way by letting Whitman/Western Publishing do the hard work and seeing if people were bothered with the change. Of course, I could be talking out of my hindquaters. I didn't really collect back then.

 

James

[ShieldAgent]

I guess it is easier to not like something, then it is to get published in OS. So instead of just ripping it, I will just mention some things in general-

 

Like you said, the catagories drove me nuts. Anybody can call a book some type or another if they choose, and who cares, but publish it in OS and you got some legitimizing that is not vetted. At least OS hasn't been using these wonderful tedious classifications.

 

I thought the presentation did not work for the publication. You want to create a variant nut, publish a easy to read list.

 

After all of those pages, I did not find anything new. In fact, it seemed that a lot of the text was regurgitation of already known information. You think the author researched all of that? I think he used the web and websites like this one and STL for a majority of it.

 

Last thought - again, if you print it in OS, you may get the benefit of the doubt. There are things like the possibility of Marvel Whitmans, but the author dismisses them as not existing, with as much proof as is in this thread.

 

One thing that always gets lost is a true agreed upon definition of a variant-

-is a reprint a variant? (no, they are reprints)

-is a later print a variant? (no, they are subsequent printings)

-is every book from Canada a variant? (if you are a sucker they are)

-is every foreign book a variant? (no, they are foreign editions)

-is every toybiz / toy / promo a variant? (no, they are subsequent prints)

 

Thats enough for now.

 

 

[PeterPark]

I guess it is easier to not like something, then it is to get published in OS. So instead of just ripping it, I will just mention some things in general-

 

Like you said, the catagories drove me nuts. Anybody can call a book some type or another if they choose, and who cares, but publish it in OS and you got some legitimizing that is not vetted. At least OS hasn't been using these wonderful tedious classifications.

 

I thought the presentation did not work for the publication. You want to create a variant nut, publish a easy to read list.

 

After all of those pages, I did not find anything new. In fact, it seemed that a lot of the text was regurgitation of already known information. You think the author researched all of that? I think he used the web and websites like this one and STL for a majority of it.

 

Last thought - again, if you print it in OS, you may get the benefit of the doubt. There are things like the possibility of Marvel Whitmans, but the author dismisses them as not existing, with as much proof as is in this thread.

 

One thing that always gets lost is a true agreed upon definition of a variant-

-is a reprint a variant? (no, they are reprints)

-is a later print a variant? (no, they are subsequent printings)

-is every book from Canada a variant? (if you are a sucker they are)

-is every foreign book a variant? (no, they are foreign editions)

-is every toybiz / toy / promo a variant? (no, they are subsequent prints)

 

Thats enough for now.

 

 

+1

[keldog]

I guess it is easier to not like something, then it is to get published in OS. So instead of just ripping it, I will just mention some things in general-

 

Like you said, the catagories drove me nuts. Anybody can call a book some type or another if they choose, and who cares, but publish it in OS and you got some legitimizing that is not vetted. At least OS hasn't been using these wonderful tedious classifications.

 

I thought the presentation did not work for the publication. You want to create a variant nut, publish a easy to read list.

 

After all of those pages, I did not find anything new. In fact, it seemed that a lot of the text was regurgitation of already known information. You think the author researched all of that? I think he used the web and websites like this one and STL for a majority of it.

 

Last thought - again, if you print it in OS, you may get the benefit of the doubt. There are things like the possibility of Marvel Whitmans, but the author dismisses them as not existing, with as much proof as is in this thread.

 

One thing that always gets lost is a true agreed upon definition of a variant-

-is a reprint a variant? (no, they are reprints)

-is a later print a variant? (no, they are subsequent printings)

-is every book from Canada a variant? (if you are a sucker they are)

-is every foreign book a variant? (no, they are foreign editions)

-is every toybiz / toy / promo a variant? (no, they are subsequent prints)

 

Thats enough for now.

 

+1

+1

It brought out the speculators and sport card nuts trying to make a fast buck on over priced books that they do not know fudge about.

I started this for fun of the hunt and not to flip like the some people I have ran into.