Marvel UK Price Variants 16 16

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/4/2021 at 10:08 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

On 10/4/2021 at 10:05 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

Trimmed along top edge?

I don't think so Albert, no. The pence copies all seem to be cut close to the title - you rarely see the full IND (I was a poet.....)

I had another look Albert, and the book has the same cover dimensions as the others, but it does have a different cut - there is more yellow at the bottom than the others and the IND is almost absent accordingly at the top. The cover sits slightly proud above the innards all the way around, as you would expect, so it looks OK. It's always hard to tell on books of this age though. Happily, most of my collecting habits are with a view to the 'proving' of a run or book type, so condition isn't a big a feature as it was, say, when I was Spidey collecting. 

It's always a joy to pick up a nice, clean, solid book, but in most cases I'm just happy to find a copy to show that a given book exists or was distributed in the UK in the first instance!

[Pantodude]

I don't think this has been addressed before, that I recall.  Anyway, I'm bored.  So please humor me.   I think Marvel chipping (MC) might be very informative on the issue of whether pence variants (UKPVs) came off the press first before their cents counterparts.  As of now, I don't recall having ever come across (either in hand or via the internet) a UKPV with MC, let alone significant MC. 

So my first assumption is that UKPVs either have no MC or at most minimal MC.  Is that a safe bet?     

If so, the next assumption is that UKPVs were printed all at once either BEFORE any of the cents copies or all at once AFTER all of the cents copies, and never at any other point during the print run.  I think the vets on this thread have already stated their belief that UKPVs were very likely printed all at once, so let's assume that was the case either at the start or at the end of a typical Marvel Silver Age print run.    

The next assumption is an easy one -- that at least some Marvel Silver Age issues experienced Marvel chipping during their print run.  It is these print runs that we are considering here, not the print runs that managed to avoid MC on any copies, whether cents or UKPVs.  To be clear, I am using "print run" to refer to the entire production of the issue in question (including cents and UKPVs).  For simplicity, let's assume UKPVs were exactly 5% of the print run.

The next assumption is that the cutting blades were fresh/sharp at the start of each print run of a typical Marvel Silver Age issue and that the rate of wear/dulling of the blades was constant and perfectly correlated to the amount of ensuing MC.  In other words, if the blades became dull enough to start resulting in significant MC before the middle of a print run, then it would necessarily need to be changed/sharpened at least twice before the end of the print run.   On the hand, if the blades became dull enough to start resulting in significant MC only after the middle of a print run, then the blades would only need to be changed/sharpened once during the print run.   

The final assumption is that the UKPV subset of the print run was so small (apparently from 2%-5% of the whole) that, in the absence of MC already happening in the print run, the blades would not have been changed/sharpened after printing all of the cents copies just for the sake of having fresh cutting blades for the tiny subset of UKPVs at the tail-end of the print run.  Another safe bet? 

Does anyone know how often the cutting blades were sharpened/replaced during a typical print run?  I don't, so I'll go through the possibilities, starting with the simplest.  

Scenario 0:  The cutting blades were never changed/sharpened during the print run.  If the UKPVs were printed first, they would have no MC whether or not any subsequently printed cents copies had MC.  If UKPVs were printed last in a given issue, ALL the UKPVs would necessarily have MC at least as severe as the most MC-afflicted cents copies.  In this scenario, the absence of significant MC among UKPVs strongly suggests that UKPVs were printed before cents copies.  

Scenario 1: If the blades needed to be changed/sharpened (due to the incidence of MC) only once prior to the end of the print run, that change/sharpening would necessarlily have taken place at the middle or later of a typical print run.  In that case, if the UKPVs were printed first, no UKPVs would ever be expected to show MC due to the fresh/sharp cutting.  If the UKPVs were printed last, they would not be expected to experience MC unless the cutting blades were changed very close to the middle of the print run.  Only in that circumstance would the cutting blades be worn enough by the end of the second half of the print run to result in any significant MC among the UKPVs.  Because the UKPVs were the final 5% of the print run, if the cutting blades were not changed/sharpened until the print run was 96% or later to the end, UKPVs would be expected to show both the most significant MC and a higher incidence of MC (in the UKPV population) compared to the cents copies.  Of course, if the cutting blades were changed/sharpened at some point after the middle but before 96% of the print run, the cutting blades would be too sharp to cause significant MC in the UKPVs printed at the tail end of the print run.  In this scenario, the absence of significant MC among all the UKPVs again strongly suggests that UKPVs were printed before the cents copies.    

Scenario 2+:  If we increase the number of times the blades needed to be changed/sharpened to two during the print run, that would divide the print run into three segments, with the second segment becoming irrelevant.  I see only two possibilities: 

(1) If the first blade change/sharpening took place at exactly one-third of the print run, then there would be three equal segments, with MC presumably appearing just before the blade change/sharpening.  At the very end of the third segment of the print run (as it happened to the cents copies at the very end of the first segment of the print run ), UKPVs would have experienced significant MC at least as much as the most MC-afflicted cents copies. 

(2) If the blade change/sharpening took place after the one-third mark but before the middle of the print run, then this would also create three segments, but only the first two would be of equal duration, with the third segment (during which the UKPVs would be printed) being smaller.  As before, the second segment becomes irrelevant (because UKPVs would be printed in the final segment), while the third shorter segment would benefit from sharp cutting blades that would not cause significant MC among the UKPVs.  [In fact, this would be true no matter how many times the blades needed to be changed during the print run UNLESS the intervals of change were such that they occurred during the UKPV subset of the print run.  But even then, this would mean that whatever MC appeared in the UKPVs would have been the most severe (prompting the cutting blade change/sharpening), but we have not seen any UKPVs with any, let alone significant, MC.]  In this scenario, the absence of significant MC among UKPVs again strongly suggests that they were printed first before any cents copies. 

All the above said, there is a very narrow, highly unlikely (it seems) situation when you could have no UKPVs with significant MC despite the UKPVs consistently being printed last .  But that would be if the blade change/sharpening only happened precisely when the UKPVs started printing, as opposed to when the MC was too significant to go unchecked.  I am discounting this seemingly extreme and thus unlikely situation for now.  

So, with the above assumptions, the fact that UKPVs of a given issue have not experienced MC as often (relatively speaking) or severely as the cents copies of that issue strongly suggests that they were printed before the cents for that issue. Thoughts?  

Edited October 10, 2021 by Pantodude
formatting

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/10/2021 at 3:51 AM, Pantodude said:

I don't think this has been addressed before, that I recall.  Anyway, I'm bored.  So please humor me.   I think Marvel chipping (MC) might be very informative on the issue of whether pence variants (UKPVs) came off the press first before their cents counterparts.  As of now, I don't recall having ever come across (either in hand or via the internet) a UKPV with MC, let alone significant MC. 

So my first assumption is that UKPVs either have no MC or at most minimal MC.  Is that a safe bet?     

If so, the next assumption is that UKPVs were printed all at once either BEFORE any of the cents copies or all at once AFTER all of the cents copies, and never at any other point during the print run.  I think the vets on this thread have already stated their belief that UKPVs were very likely printed all at once, so let's assume that was the case either at the start or at the end of a typical Marvel Silver Age print run.    

The next assumption is an easy one -- that at least some Marvel Silver Age issues experienced Marvel chipping during their print run.  It is these print runs that we are considering here, not the print runs that managed to avoid MC on any copies, whether cents or UKPVs.  To be clear, I am using "print run" to refer to the entire production of the issue in question (including cents and UKPVs).  For simplicity, let's assume UKPVs were exactly 5% of the print run.

The next assumption is that the cutting blades were fresh/sharp at the start of each print run of a typical Marvel Silver Age issue and that the rate of wear/dulling of the blades was constant and perfectly correlated to the amount of ensuing MC.  In other words, if the blades became dull enough to start resulting in significant MC before the middle of a print run, then it would necessarily need to be changed/sharpened at least twice before the end of the print run.   On the hand, if the blades became dull enough to start resulting in significant MC only after the middle of a print run, then the blades would only need to be changed/sharpened once during the print run.   

The final assumption is that the UKPV subset of the print run was so small (apparently from 2%-5% of the whole) that, in the absence of MC already happening in the print run, the blades would not have been changed/sharpened after printing all of the cents copies just for the sake of having fresh cutting blades for the tiny subset of UKPVs at the tail-end of the print run.  Another safe bet? 

Does anyone know how often the cutting blades were sharpened/replaced during a typical print run?  I don't, so I'll go through the possibilities, starting with the simplest.  

Scenario 0:  The cutting blades were never changed/sharpened during the print run.  If the UKPVs were printed first, they would have no MC whether or not any subsequently printed cents copies had MC.  If UKPVs were printed last in a given issue, ALL the UKPVs would necessarily have MC at least as severe as the most MC-afflicted cents copies.  In this scenario, the absence of significant MC among UKPVs strongly suggests that UKPVs were printed before cents copies.  

Scenario 1: If the blades needed to be changed/sharpened (due to the incidence of MC) only once prior to the end of the print run, that change/sharpening would necessarlily have taken place at the middle or later of a typical print run.  In that case, if the UKPVs were printed first, no UKPVs would ever be expected to show MC due to the fresh/sharp cutting.  If the UKPVs were printed last, they would not be expected to experience MC unless the cutting blades were changed very close to the middle of the print run.  Only in that circumstance would the cutting blades be worn enough by the end of the second half of the print run to result in any significant MC among the UKPVs.  Because the UKPVs were the final 5% of the print run, if the cutting blades were not changed/sharpened until the print run was 96% or later to the end, UKPVs would be expected to show both the most significant MC and a higher incidence of MC (in the UKPV population) compared to the cents copies.  Of course, if the cutting blades were changed/sharpened at some point after the middle but before 96% of the print run, the cutting blades would be too sharp to cause significant MC in the UKPVs printed at the tail end of the print run.  In this scenario, the absence of significant MC among all the UKPVs again strongly suggests that UKPVs were printed before the cents copies.    

Scenario 2+:  If we increase the number of times the blades needed to be changed/sharpened to two during the print run, that would divide the print run into three segments, with the second segment becoming irrelevant.  I see only two possibilities:  (1) If the first blade change/sharpening took place at exactly one-third of the print run, then there would be three equal segments, with MC presumably appearing just before the blade change/sharpening.  At the very end of the third segment of the print run (as it happened to the cents copies at the very end of the first segment of the print run ), UKPVs would have experienced significant MC at least as much as the most MC-afflicted cents copies.  (2) If the blade change/sharpening took place after the one-third mark but before the middle of the print run, then this would also create three segments, but only the first two would be of equal duration, with the third segment (during which the UKPVs would be printed) being smaller.  As before, the second segment becomes irrelevant (because UKPVs would be printed in the final segment), while the third shorter segment would benefit from sharp cutting blades that would not cause significant MC among the UKPVs.  [In fact, this would be true no matter how many times the blades needed to be changed during the print run UNLESS the intervals of change were such that they occurred during the UKPV subset of the print run.  But even then, this would mean that whatever MC appeared in the UKPVs would have been the most severe (prompting the cutting blade change/sharpening), but we have not seen any UKPVs with any, let alone significant, MC.]  In this scenario, the absence of significant MC among UKPVs again strongly suggests that they were printed first before any cents copies. 

All the above said, there is a very narrow, highly unlikely (it seems) situation when you could have no UKPVs with significant MC despite the UKPVs consistently being printed last .  But that would be if the blade change/sharpening only happened precisely when the UKPVs started printing, as opposed to when the MC was too significant to go unchecked.  I am discounting this seemingly extreme and thus unlikely situation for now.  

So, with the above assumptions, the fact that UKPVs of a given issue have not experienced MC as often (relatively speaking) or severely as the cents copies of that issue strongly suggests that they were printed before the cents for that issue. Thoughts?  

Thanks Pantodude, I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this. I've considered quite a few physical aspects when discussing the cents/pence printing order in my time here, looking for clues, but Marvel chipping I have to say hasn't been one of them.

For me, and whilst I enjoy both writing and reading theories, there are just too many unknowns in the production process to be able to state anything with any degree of certainty. It's difficult to guess exactly how things were done in those early days and I often find that any retrospectively applied logic, however sound, can be flawed when based on a lack of direct experience. I've said a few times now that the order of production was likely different throughout the sixties. I've presented examples which sort of indicate both ways - pence first, cents first. Perhaps I should summarise them all one day, in one post. 

I created a thread once that asked the question, would it matter if we were able to prove, say, that the pence copies were run first? It seemed not, to the contributors at least. I think the only significant discovery that could change opinion would be if we could prove a gap between the production of various price types. If you could prove that a pence copy was printed in week one, and a month later the cents were run, that might be significant. But if we all accept that cents and pence copies are all part of the same print state / end to end print run, what does it really matter? 

There is some evidence in collecting that being the 'first' matters. In a limited run of 100 signed copies, 1 of 100 gets some collectors excited. But what does it matter if a pence book was printed first, last or in the middle if there is no way to prove it? 

In a PM discussion about this, when I was trying to get CGC to recognise the US Price Font Variations, Matt Nelson noted that, having handled many copies, CGC graders had noted a deeper colour strike on pence copies, possibly indicating that they were printed first. However, it could just as easily be the case that they were printed last, and that the printers took the opportunity to replenish the inks at the same time the plate was changed. That concept could also apply with the blades in relation to your chipping theory.

I think we know now that the covers and innards were printed separately. So a pence copy could have a cover printed after the cents copies but the first innards off of the press, depending on how they were subsequently assembled. What does that mean for the end product?

I'll keep an eye out from now on for UKPV chipping as the subject interests me, but I see it as just another part of a complicated picture which, in isolation, doesn't definitively prove anything. I think this only matters - the 'what came first' argument - to a tiny number of collectors. A pence copy with a fabulous, deep colour strike will likely still alienate the US purist who will always prefer his cents copy, even if the pence one looks comparatively nicer.

In respect of the US Price Font Variations that I mentioned earlier, there are four versions in existence of Rawhide Kid #17 - a pence and three different cents font copies. By definition, one was printed first, second, third and one fourth. Unless there were four printers running the four different cover plates consecutively! I've not detected even the remotest interest from any collectors as to how any of them should be regarded or valued. The pence collectors love their pence copy, the cents their cents and a smaller group like me love all of them. Though I've tried, I haven't been able to establish if one or more of them are second printings. All the evidence suggests not, but it's difficult to imagine the circumstances where four types of the same book would be printed as one end to end print run. So, being all part of the same assumed end to end print run, they are all 'first printings' and valued accordingly (accepting the long standing pence / cents difference).

I enjoy discussions like these very much but, in the final analysis, and in the absence of concrete evidence backed by an 'at the time' knowledge of the early 1960s printing game (all participants now presumed dad), with all its apparent quirks and oddities, my conclusion is as follows - we'll never know, so love them all. Equally. 

[Pantodude]

On 10/10/2021 at 5:06 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Thanks Pantodude, I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this. I've considered quite a few physical aspects when discussing the cents/pence printing order in my time here, looking for clues, but Marvel chipping I have to say hasn't been one of them.

For me, and whilst I enjoy both writing and reading theories, there are just too many unknowns in the production process to be able to state anything with any degree of certainty. It's difficult to guess exactly how things were done in those early days and I often find that any retrospectively applied logic, however sound, can be flawed when based on a lack of direct experience. I've said a few times now that the order of production was likely different throughout the sixties. I've presented examples which sort of indicate both ways - pence first, cents first. Perhaps I should summarise them all one day, in one post. 

I created a thread once that asked the question, would it matter if we were able to prove, say, that the pence copies were run first? It seemed not. I think the only significant thing that change opinion would be if we could prove a gap between the production of various price types. If you could prove that a pence copy was printed in week one, and a month later the cents were run, that might be significant. But if we all accept that cents and pence copies are all part of the same print state / end to end print run, what does it really matter? 

There is some evidence in collecting that being the 'first' matters. In a limited run of 100 signed copies, 1 of 100 gets some collectors excited. But what does it matter if a pence book was printed first, last or in the middle if there is no way to prove it? 

In a PM discussion about this, when I was trying to get CGC to recognise the US Price Font Variations, Matt Nelson noted that, having handled many copies, CGC graders had noted a deeper colour strike on pence copies, possibly indicating that they were printed first. However, it could just as easily be the case that they were printed last, and that the printers took the opportunity to replenish the inks at the same time the plate was changed. That concept could also apply with the blades in relation to your chipping theory.

I think we know now that the covers and innards were printed separately. So a pence copy could have a cover printed after the cents copies but the first innards off of the press, depending on how they were subsequently assembled. What does that mean for the end product?

I'll keep an eye out from now on for UKPV chipping as the subject interests me, but I see it as just another part of a complicate picture which, in isolation, doesn't definitively prove anything. I think this only matters though - the what came first argument - to a tiny number of collectors. A pence copy with a fabulous, deep colour strike will likely still alienate the US purist who will always prefer his cents copy even if the pence one looks nicer.

In respect of the US Price Font Variations that I mentioned earlier, there are four versions in existence of Rawhide Kid #17 - a pence and three different cents font copies. By definition, one was printed first and one fourth. I've not detected even the remotest interest from any collectors as to how any of them should be valued. The pence collectors love their pence copy, the cents their cents and a smaller group like me love all of them. Though I've tried, I haven't been able to establish if one or more of them are second printings. All the evidence suggests not. So, being all part of the same end to end print run, they are all 'first printings' and valued accordingly (accepting the long standing pence / cents difference).

I enjoy discussions like these very much but, in the final analysis, and in the absence of concrete evidence backed by an 'at the time' knowledge of the early 1960s printing game, with all its apparent quirks and oddities, my conclusion is as follows - love them all. Equally. 

Yes, love them all.  I agree.  I wasn’t making the argument that UKPVs should be valued more than cents, as rational as that may sound (to me, at least!).  This was really an exercise in finding out how helpful the MC inquiry could be to the current hole in the history of the printing order of cents/pence.  Perhaps very helpful if the assumptions hold to a reasonable extent?

All noted above, there is a very narrow, highly unlikely (it seems) situation when you could have no UKPVs with significant MC despite the UKPVs consistently being printed last.  For example, with a print run of 1000 books (which means books 951 to 1000 are the UKPVs), what if the blades are sharpened/replaced at cents book #475 (after the MC started appearing at book #425), and again at the final cents book #950 (after the MC reappeared at cents book #900).  This would mean sharp blades at book #951, the first UKPV, and presumably the rest of the mini-run of UKPVs.  

But wouldn’t it be a real stretch to assume that the blade sharpening or replacement only happened at intervals that coincided with precisely when the tiny mini-run of UKPVs started printing, as opposed to whenever the MC was too significant to go unchecked?  As I have never heard or read anything suggesting that, I am discounting this unlikely situation for now.  So it appears to be much more likely that UKPVs were printed first.  

I’m just curious whether there is an alternative to actual production logs or first-hand knowledge that could provide the missing clarity regarding the order in which pence/cents were printed, whether or not it goes to value.  It’s about the history.  

Edited October 10, 2021 by Pantodude

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/10/2021 at 10:22 AM, Pantodude said:

So it appears to be much more likely that UKPVs were printed first.  

In my experience, the evidence leans more strongly towards pence being printed second, in the majority of early 1960s cases at least, as you can often see where the cents plate price has been 'scratched out' to have the pence price added. There are often tiny remnants of the original cents plate price evident - see this Amazing Spidey #5:

And look at the difference in the ink strike. 

On 10/10/2021 at 10:22 AM, Pantodude said:

I’m just curious there is an alternative to actual production that could provide the missing clarity regarding the order in which pence/cents were printed, whether or not it goes to value.  It’s about the history.  

Oh, I agree. I hope anyone reading my threads would have worked out by now that my interest has always been about the history, not the financials. 

One point to consider - there are infinitely less early pence copies in public circulation than cents, comparative even to a 5% print ratio. So there are much less copies to view and build up that chipping picture. Collectors value condition - it makes sense that the few remaining, preserved pence copies, would be the better condition ones, perhaps. 

[Get Marwood & I]

Another quick example - one of a number of indicative cover scenarios - what does your instinct tell you as to which of these was first, and which was then amended to reflect the different price:

There are many physical scenarios like this involving the cover prices, and also cover months, which give a strong indication as to which version was amended. 

[Pantodude]

On 10/10/2021 at 5:34 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

In my experience, the evidence leans more strongly towards pence being printed second, in the majority of early 1960s cases at least, as you can often see where the cents plate price has been 'scratched out' to have the pence price added. There are often tiny remnants of the original cents plate price evident - see this Amazing Spidey #5:

And look at the difference in the ink strike. 

Oh, I agree. I hope anyone reading my threads would have worked out by now that my interest has always been about the history, not the financials. 

One point to consider - there are infinitely less early pence copies in public circulation than cents, comparative even to a 5% print ratio. So there are much less copies to view and build up that chipping picture. Collectors value condition - it makes sense that the few remaining, preserved pence copies, would be the better condition ones, perhaps. 

The relative size of the cents/pence populations would suggests worse, not better, UKPV populations for those print runs that experienced the most severe MC, if that MC affected cents along with any abutting UKPV production.  The fact that there are so few UKPVs relative to cents in circulation actually strengthens the printed-first argument when you consider the relative frequency and severity of MC among cents/pence.  

Importantly, because the UKPV subset of the print run is so small relative to the cents, it is much more likely that if any MC happened in the print run, it would have started with the cents portion (like 95% vs 5%). No matter how often MC happened during the print run  (i.e., the number of times the blades were sharpened), if UKPVs were printed last, any MC among the UKPVs would likely have already started in the adjoining and immediately preceding cents portion of the print run.   That means that MC among the UKPVs would necessarily have been at least as severe as the most severe MC among the cents for that print run (unless blades were sharpened just for the start of UKPV printing, which no one has ever suggested and does not seem viable).  

And the small population means that ALL of the UKPVs of a given print run would show about the same severity of MC (if the blades could not be expected to get significantly more worn by the end of the UKPV printing compared to the start of that mini-run).

Unless we can say that it would be reasonable to assume that the incidence of severe MC in a print run of cents copies never immediately preceded/abutted the mini-print run of UKPVs, the relative paucity (non-existence?) of severe MC among UKPVs in ALL the Marvel Silver Age issues that are known to have significant MC among the cents copies seems very, very telling.  

Edited October 10, 2021 by Pantodude

[Pantodude]

On 10/10/2021 at 5:53 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Another quick example - one of a number of indicative cover scenarios - what does your instinct tell you as to which of these was first, and which was then amended to reflect the different price:

There are many physical scenarios like this involving the cover prices, and also cover months, which give a strong indication as to which version was amended. 

I agree that is curious if UKPVs were first.  Thank you.  But whether the price spot was amended wisely or not, UKPVs could still have been printed first?   The expected uniformity in the incidence of MC in the entire group of UKPVs of a given print run still means that, if printed last, there should be UKPVs with MC at least as significant as we have seen among the cents of that issue.  

And then all the UKPVs in such a group would share the same severity of MC because there would be so few of them (too few for variations in MC severity to emerge before all the UKPVs are finished printing).  

MC could be another thing to consider, along with the alteration of the price spot that you note.  It is interesting that those two approaches lead to different conclusions!   

Edited October 10, 2021 by Pantodude

[Pantodude]

On 10/10/2021 at 5:34 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Collectors value condition - it makes sense that the few remaining, preserved pence copies, would be the better condition ones, perhaps. 

I dunno?   I have seen many beater UKPVs of keys, just like I have seen beater cents versions of keys.   Be it cents or pence, I assume that you would expect to see MC’d specimens of keys if they were printed that way, but of course much fewer UKPVs in that case.  As I recall, both the beater and higher grades of UKPVs that I have come across lacked any MC.  Fascinating stuff …. until someone throws water on the whole theory by finding a boat load of MC’d UKPVs!   

Edited October 10, 2021 by Pantodude

[Pantodude]

On 10/10/2021 at 5:06 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

I'll keep an eye out from now on for UKPV chipping as the subject interests me, but I see it as just another part of a complicated picture which, in isolation, doesn't definitively prove anything.

I will also try to be more vigilant about MC among UKPVs!   Should be easy since I always pause to appreciate the ones I come across.   But because of this nascent MC inquiry, I’m not as pessimistic as you about ever knowing definitively, at least practically speaking.  Aren’t UKPVs sufficiently numerous to provide a statistically significant sample size regarding whether they have less MC (than their cents counterparts in the same issue) than would be expected had they actually been printed at the tail end of a print run?  We “just” need reasonable assumptions.  Piece of cake!  🤡

Edited October 10, 2021 by Pantodude

[Get Marwood & I]

Here's another piece of circumstantial evidence that UKPVs were likely printed second - all original art covers always have the cents price added and, to my knowledge, they are used to create the plate. It's another strong indication that the UKPV covers were the result of amendments to the original cents plates:

I do like your chipping consideration Pantodude - it's something I hadn't considered before, as a potential indicator and well worthy of discussion. But if someone with experience of Sparta said to you "Yeah, back in the day we would always take the opportunity to sharpen the blades when we changed the plates for the pence run" the whole argument is immediately undermined. 

Your observation as to the scarcity of UKPVs with chipping is sound if proven by extant copies, but they can't be used as a definitive indicator of production order due to the big question mark over when blades were sharpened.  The examples I posted however, and I don't mean this to sound like one-upmanship at all, actually speak for themselves. It doesn't make any sense, that this pence copy...

...could have preceded this cents copy:

Does it?

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/10/2021 at 12:01 PM, Pantodude said:

I will also try to be more vigilant about MC among UKPVs!   Should be easy since I always pause to appreciate the ones I come across.   But because of this nascent MC inquiry, I’m not as pessimistic as you about ever knowing definitively, at least practically speaking.  

Aw, that saddens me, to see you call me pessimistic on this, after all I've done on the subject. 

On 10/10/2021 at 12:01 PM, Pantodude said:

Aren’t UKPVs sufficiently numerous to provide a statistically significant sample size regarding whether they have less MC (than their cents counterparts in the same issue) than would be expected had they actually been printed at the tail end of a print run?  We “just” need reasonable assumptions.  Piece of cake!  🤡

You can tell us, if you put in a few years of research, gathering sufficient examples to be able to make the case Panto. It's your notion - get cracking! (note that if someone subsequently confirms they used to sharpen the blades when they switched plates....)

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/10/2021 at 12:01 PM, Pantodude said:

I will also try to be more vigilant about MC among UKPVs!  

Me too, Panto 

I've analysed this for the other UKPV bearing publishers too - King, Charlton and Dell all present physical production scenarios, when comparing copies, which strongly indicate that the pence copies were run last. Marvel UKPVs run from 1960 to 1981 and I suspect the printing process must have seen some changes during that period. In the early days, any given book can give an indication either way. The Marvel US Price Font window is a riot of oddities and things that don't make sense with some cents copies clearly only existing in a certain price format because a pence copy was run. I like that, that I was able to prove something 60 years after the event, that had escaped everyone else's attention, by focussing on the pence copies. 

I love the discussion. For me, in summary, I think it was different at different times for Marvel but with a leaning towards cents first. I more than anyone would love to know for sure regardless of the financial implications that most would immediately jump to consider. I've said many times - it's ridiculous how much we don't know about these books that we have been loving and cherishing for 60+ years. 

[Pantodude]

On 10/10/2021 at 7:09 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Aw, that saddens me, to see you call me pessimistic on this, after all I've done on the subject. 

You can tell us, if you put in a few years of research, gathering sufficient examples to be able to make the case Panto. It's your notion - get cracking!

Pessimistic was a poor choice of word on my part.   Did not mean to sadden you!  I agree with you it shouldn’t really matter what the order ends up being, as the initial print run is the initial print run.  I just still think we can know, but then again I have only started considering the issue, so maybe I’m being naive (as opposed to optimistic).  

As for the research, seems daunting!  I’m game (maybe), but do you happen to know if anyone has already estimated the incidence of MC for the different issues?    Short of that . . . .  

Edited October 10, 2021 by Pantodude
Minimize confusion

[Pantodude]

On 10/10/2021 at 7:06 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Does it?

I’m still thinking.  🙈

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/10/2021 at 12:42 PM, Pantodude said:

Pessimistic was a poor choice of word on my part.   Did not mean to sadden you!  

No worries Panto, that's me being over sensitive. Sometimes, when you've spent years researching something, you can get tetchy at the inference you're a 'Debbie Downer' on your favourite subject 

On 10/10/2021 at 12:42 PM, Pantodude said:

I agree with you it shouldn’t really matter what the order ends up being, as the initial print run is the initial print run.  I just still think we can know, but then again I have only started considering the issue, so maybe I’m being naive (as opposed to optimistic).  

I love it that you're interested, and thinking along these lines. Love it. 

On 10/10/2021 at 12:42 PM, Pantodude said:

As for the research, seems daunting!  I’m game (maybe), but do you happen to know if anyone has already estimated the incidence of MC for the different issues?    Short of that . . . .  

If they have, they've kept it quiet. Notwithstanding my 'when were the blades sharpened' position, if you were to do some analysis you'd have to do it on cents copies too. I just checked some of the mid grade ASM#1's and AF15's on Heritage, and didn't find many cents copies with chipping. Is it really that prevalent?

Now, another point to consider - the indicia differences. Take this tatty copy on eBay right now:

 

Again, when compared to the US copy, what does your instinct tell you as to what was original, and what has been subsequently amended?

Is it likely that a printer would produce a plate with no month, a UK specific line of distribution data, and what is, in this case, a rather suspect looking out of place 9d cover price, and then change the plate to get rid of the indicia data, add a cover month and then a rather more 'in place' looking cents price?

  

What does your instinct tell you as to which copy was the original, and which was the product of an amended plate?

[Pantodude]

On 10/10/2021 at 7:55 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

What does your instinct tell you as to which copy was the original, and which was the product of an amended plate?

As I acknowledged before, the “expected” order of plate amendment suggests UKPVs at tail end, ie the opposite of my MC inquiry.  Who doesn’t enjoy a good mystery?   Whether or not the UKPVs were printed at the tail end, wouldn’t it be most intriguing if it turns out that we cannot find any UKPVs with MC?  It started out as a which was first inquiry, but that discrepancy in MC is potentially much more mysterious!   

Edited October 10, 2021 by Pantodude

[Pantodude]

On 10/10/2021 at 7:55 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Notwithstanding my 'when were the blades sharpened' position, if you were to do some analysis you'd have to do it on cents copies too.

Maybe not!   It would be most convenient if it turns out that we cannot find any UKPVs with MC for issues known to have experienced MC.  That would obviate the need to quantify the extent of MC among the cents, as it would be enough to know pence didn’t have any.  That would minimize the effort required significantly.  

We would need to research the extent of MC among cents copies too if we find at least some UKPVs with MC, because then it might be relevant whether cents or pence experienced more MC as a rule.  

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/10/2021 at 1:31 PM, Pantodude said:

Maybe not!   It would be most convenient if it turns out that we cannot find any UKPVs with MC for issues known to have experienced MC.  That would obviate the need to quantify the extent of MC among the cents, as it would be enough to know pence didn’t have any.  That would minimize the effort required significantly.  

We would need to research the extent of MC among cents copies too if we find at least some UKPVs with MC, because then it might be relevant whether cents or pence experienced more MC as a rule.  

Report back in a few years 

[Albert Tatlock]

UKPVs with chipping are quite commomplace.