Marvel UK Price Variants 16 16

[Get Marwood & I]

On 7/20/2021 at 9:52 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

Edit FF 66 to 56.

Dunnit. 

[rakehell]

On 7/20/2021 at 3:09 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Then I thought I'd have a go at a random Marvel UKPV related date,

uh oh...

On 7/20/2021 at 3:09 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

There are 15 Marvel titles cover dated November 1966.

What's the relation between cover date & printing date? I know they tended to be printed a couple of months ahead of schedule. Would the printers maybe bunch the titles together that were scheduled to have a UKPPV? Has this been discussed already? Probably.

On 7/20/2021 at 3:09 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

If I replot these books using those actual dates instead of those on MCN, I get this:

That's interesting, but, again, do we know that they were printed in that order? I mean, you're kind of implying that, so I get that you're thinking along the same lines. It just feels like this equation is being read backwards. You're trying to intuit a printing order from the 'on sale' date. Am I getting it?

On 7/20/2021 at 3:09 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

I'll need to find actual examples for the remaining non-UKPV books of course, for the exercise to stack up fully - maybe those dates are different too - but it's interesting how cleanly it panned out after the brief assessment.

I'll be watching... maybe not at the same time that you're posting, but still...

[Get Marwood & I]

On 7/21/2021 at 2:04 PM, rakehell said:

uh oh...

...Chongo, it's Danger Island next 

On 7/21/2021 at 2:04 PM, rakehell said:

What's the relation between cover date & printing date? I know they tended to be printed a couple of months ahead of schedule.

2-3 months seems to be the norm, noting that books would be printed throughout a calendar month, some at the start and some at the end, etc.

On 7/21/2021 at 2:04 PM, rakehell said:

Would the printers maybe bunch the titles together that were scheduled to have a UKPPV? Has this been discussed already? Probably.

That's interesting, but, again, do we know that they were printed in that order? I mean, you're kind of implying that, so I get that you're thinking along the same lines. It just feels like this equation is being read backwards. You're trying to intuit a printing order from the 'on sale' date. Am I getting it?

I'll be watching... maybe not at the same time that you're posting, but still...

It has been discussed in my 'distribution' thread at length, yes, but essentially what I'm suggesting is that the 'on sale' dates, evidenced by the actual hand applied arrival dates on the comics themselves, may correlate with the printing order. Crudely, if I print a run of title A in the first week of the month, I would expect that lot to ship out before the title I print in the second week of the month. So if I have a comic that is cover dated November, with a hand applied shop arrival date of the 24th, I'm assuming that was printed later in the production month cycle than a different book with the same cover month but an arrival date of, say, the 7th.

Does that make sense? It's only speculation, and of course uses the US cents data as a guide. You need to further assume that the pence copies (covers) were printed at the same time as the cents and, therefore, follow the same printing cycle. 

Basically, I'm trying to see if the printing sequence dates inform in any way why certain UKPVs exist and others don't where they share the same cover month. I'm exploring the possibility that an instruction to the printers to cease production of UKPVs that came mid way through one cover months production cycle of titles could be the reason that some UKPVs snuck through and others didn't. The ultimate purpose is to further cement the assumptions that I have made around what books will not surface as UKPVs.

I think!

Thanks for chipping in Daphne 

[rakehell]

On 7/21/2021 at 2:44 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Thanks for chipping in Daphne 

No probs Velma. You've caught me awake and properly caffeinated. Having said that, I'm buggering off home now. Too hot. I'll re-read this tomorrow & chip in again, if the headache keeps its distance. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 7/21/2021 at 2:55 PM, rakehell said:

No probs Velma. You've caught me awake and properly caffeinated. Having said that, I'm buggering off home now. Too hot. I'll re-read this tomorrow & chip in again, if the headache keeps its distance. 

No worries Daphers - hope it subsides.

For tomorrow, here's another reason why I'm looking at arrival dates lately. In my Charlton research, I have had Konga #1 documented as the 'first' Charlton UKPV by nature of the data on Mikes Comic Newsstand and the GCD. The book has no cover month, and an indicia that says only 1960. So I had it plotted as a June book following the GCD date (Mike's showed April):

However, when we look at the arrival dates on the comics themselves, we see three mid-November date examples as follows:

  

That tells us that Konga #1 went on sale in the US around the middle of November 1961, some way later than the April 1st date on Mike's site and GCD's June.

My research has shown, generally, that books have arrival dates two-three months in advance of their cover dates. That would make Konga #1 a January / February cover dated book, were it indeed cover dated. So I look at other Charltons cover dated February 1961 and I find these two straight away (and others):

 
                  Romantic Secrets #31                                 Submarine Attack #26

Both have November arrival dates.

So I plot Konga #1 alongside them as, in theory, he was being placed on the newsstand at the same time as those other two February 1961 cover dated books:

In doing so, Konga is no longer the 'first' Charlton UKPV. Quite an important distinction, I think.

I've done the same for Gorgo #1 and all the other Charlton books without cover dates and the results make much more sense when you look at the revised overall position.

One of my learning points is this - let the books themselves tell you what was going on. Don't rely on (admittedly great) websites like Mikes Comic Newsstand and the GCD. Let the comics tell you what you need to know.

[Bluemedgroup]

I don’t think I have the time to read 86 pages.  So what’s the consensus on pence copies?  Worth more or worth less?  
 

IMHO, Compelling argument for worth more is rarity.  Argument for worth less is the comic not from its “original origin” country.  

[Get Marwood & I]

On 7/21/2021 at 3:35 PM, Bluemedgroup said:

I don’t think I have the time to read 86 pages.  So what’s the consensus on pence copies?  Worth more or worth less?  
 

IMHO, Compelling argument for worth more is rarity.  Argument for worth less is the comic not from its “original origin” country.  

Hello Blue 

This thread has rarely been the home for discussions about value, so I'd give it a miss if that's what you're looking for. It's more about the books themselves, and the love of them. 

I post opinions on value here and there when invited to do so, but it's not what interests me personally. Others might chip in though. Here are my thoughts on desirability however, which is linked of course to value:

And here is a Marvel UK Price Variant:

It is currently the only known copy in existence. No one I know has ever seen another copy (expect another hundred to arrive within the hour, therefore).

Does that make it worth a fortune? No, because it doesn't have Spider-Man or one of the Avengers in it. If it was announced tomorrow that Joe there on the cover was going to be in the next Avengers film, it would suddenly become a very desirable, expensive book. As it stands though, no one gives a monkeys whether there are one or five million of them. 

I'm kidding with you, of course, sort of 

[serling1978]

Not sure if this has already been discussed in this long running thread and I missed it, but are there any known examples where the more rare version (both original, no reprints) of a comic ISN'T considered more desirable /valuable than the more common one?  In the community as a whole, pence books are the only ones I can think of. 

Wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing something though. 

[Pantodude]

On 7/21/2021 at 1:24 PM, serling1978 said:

Not sure if this has already been discussed in this long running thread and I missed it, but are there any known examples where the more rare version (both original, no reprints) of a comic ISN'T considered more desirable /valuable than the more common one?  In the community as a whole, pence books are the only ones I can think of. 

Wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing something though. 

This portion of my response to someone else's related question is getting double-duty!   A cents version today is more likely to fetch FMV than a pence version (let's call it UKPV), unless UKPV hunters are in the mix, who pay what they must.   In recent years, while UKPVs have increasingly sold for the same or even more than cents versions in fixed-price listings, UKPVs have often sold at auctions for about 75% to 90% of the cents version.   UKPVs do best in fixed-price listings where UKPV hunters are willing to pay premiums (and some folks are neutral or fond of UKPVs and willing to pay FMV or just a bit more), and worse in auctions where, even if you have a UKPV hunter, he/she would only need to bid more than the next guy (who might be neutral or not interested without some discount).  There are exceptions, but that's what I've observed.   Why?  Many folks still mistakenly believe that UKPVs are "foreign" editions that were printed years later, while other folks, despite knowing all the facts, apparently prioritize cents versions either for nostalgia or consistency reasons, since most of their collection is in cents.   Long-term, that will likely be less of an issue because the hobby has been trending toward embracing the relative scarcity of versions of keys (as you noted, including 35-cent and Canadian price variants, but also certain newsstand versions), or just embracing relative scarcity in general, as seen with Golden Age resurgence recently.  But while UKPVs might be due a huge correction upwards eventually, there are many new participants with limited knowledge on the issue, which could slow the progress seen the past couple of years.   

Edited July 21, 2021 by Pantodude

[Tghutcn]

Got this one today the previous  owner didn’t want it cause it was a pence copy so I’m more then happy to give it a good home where it’ll be appreciated and another gap is filled in the pence collection and silver surfer run

[Pantodude]

What goes around, comes around!  Here the Torch is being attacked instead. 

[Garystar]

On 7/21/2021 at 2:44 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Basically, I'm trying to see if the printing sequence dates inform in any way why certain UKPVs exist and others don't where they share the same cover month. I'm exploring the possibility that an instruction to the printers to cease production of UKPVs that came mid way through one cover months production cycle of titles could be the reason that some UKPVs snuck through and others didn't. The ultimate purpose is to further cement the assumptions that I have made around what books will not surface as UKPVs.

 

In your distribution thread I thought we had as near proved on sale dates were the driver (rather cover date) to Marvel UKPVs at least until 1971.

• When UKPVs ceased in July 1971 we showed those with release date earlier than 13/4 had UKPVs, those later didn’t. 
* November 1971 giant Marvels - why  some are 6p printed and some 8p with sticker was also explained by looking at release dates.

* The randomness of the very first Marvels distributed was almost cleared by looking at release dates.

I can’t recall if anyone (even me) looked at the missing ‘66 Marvels by sale date - will have to check.

I agree with you that looking at release dates would give a clearer picture than looking at cover months. I think I said this when I did my very first table of Marvel T&P stamps although it would be a lot of work looking at four weeks of dates rather than one month cover date.

 

 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 7/22/2021 at 8:23 AM, Garystar said:

In your distribution thread I thought we had as near proved on sale dates were the driver (rather cover date) to Marvel UKPVs at least until 1971.

• When UKPVs ceased in July 1971 we showed those with release date earlier than 13/4 had UKPVs, those later didn’t. 
* November 1971 giant Marvels - why  some are 6p printed and some 8p with sticker was also explained by looking at release dates.

* The randomness of the very first Marvels distributed was almost cleared by looking at release dates.

I can’t recall if anyone (even me) looked at the missing ‘66 Marvels by sale date - will have to check.

I agree with you that looking at release dates would give a clearer picture than looking at cover months. I think I said this when I did my very first table of Marvel T&P stamps although it would be a lot of work looking at four weeks of dates rather than one month cover date.

 

 

We did Gary, yes, you're right. Time to let it go now on Marvel, I think, for me. Let the value boys - and the actual active collectors - take over.

Marvel UK Price Variants.... I let you go.

[Garystar]

On 7/22/2021 at 8:35 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

We did Gary, yes, you're right. Time to let it go now on Marvel,

I have thought about amending my spreadsheet to release dates but it’s a lot of work - maybe if we are in lockdown during the winter. 
Post 1971 I’m not sure there’s anything that can be deduced from release dates - new UKPVs will only be uncovered by diligence such as yours in finding the MSH and MTA issues. 
You’ve done “sterling” work. 

[rakehell]

On 7/21/2021 at 3:15 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

No worries Daphers - hope it subsides.

Cheers Velmsy. All better now. Great bit of research, btw.

On 7/21/2021 at 3:15 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

In doing so, Konga is no longer the 'first' Charlton UKPV. Quite an important distinction, I think.

I agree , it is important. As an expert researcher, you will already know that research is at least 50% revision.

On 7/21/2021 at 3:15 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

One of my learning points is this - let the books themselves tell you what was going on.

Again, I agree. "Let the books tell you" should be an axiom by which we approach all comic book related inquiries.

[grendelbo]

[Tghutcn]

Another one for the fantastic four pence run I need to also pick up cent copies to have a complete set but that’s getting harder to do still at least this one was free with a Xmen 101 so I’m not going to complain 

[Tghutcn]

And of course it’s a paste pot Pete cover to so I can’t flaw it

[Pantodude]

In memoriam....

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Pantodude

[Tghutcn]

On 8/2/2021 at 10:33 PM, Pantodude said:

In memoriam....

 

 

 

I don’t think you can get any better of a Spider-Man cover then 50