Newsstand bait-and-switch, so it begins... 0

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

CGC had to enter the details of every comic at some point, title, date, artists, appearances, etc.  For each book with a valid barcode, they would just have to bring up the database editor they already use by hand and click the barcode scanner.  It would add the official barcode to the database, a step that is only needed once.  Every time that book arrives after that one step, they could just scan the barcode to enter the submitted books. 

 

Right now, they do a lookup search for the books and sometimes pick the wrong one from the list.  Then we get those mislabeled slabs.  The barcode scanner could end those kinds of errors.

Right, but wouldn't that mean they'd have to manually create a UPC "master list" for every issue over the last 40 years? 

How does it work in retail? Does every retailer have their own "master list" of UPCs that they create be hand, so to speak? (I genuinely don't know, which is why I'm asking.)

If Diamond, for example, has a database of UPCs that they could sell, that might be a time and money saver. Don't know, just thinking out loud.

And, as Joosh rightly points out above, and as you know, too, there are many "error UPCs", which would have to be addressed. Not insurmountable, but a task nonetheless.

Edited June 8, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[bababooey]

UPC "errors" like the Morbius NS copy earlier aren't actual errors, this was just marvels way of sending books to the newsstand like 'subscribers' based on historical orders, The barcode is unique to that book.  A newsstand getting a Morbius book might have ordered some random Spidey mini or one shot years prior.  If you read Ben Nobel's blog on the ASM rotation of "sensational, friendly, amazing" during the early BND 3 times/month schedule you'd know this already.   

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

16 minutes ago, bababooey said:

UPC "errors" like the Morbius NS copy earlier aren't actual errors, this was just marvels way of sending books to the newsstand like 'subscribers' based on historical orders, The barcode is unique to that book.  A newsstand getting a Morbius book might have ordered some random Spidey mini or one shot years prior.  If you read Ben Nobel's blog on the ASM rotation of "sensational, friendly, amazing" during the early BND 3 times/month schedule you'd know this already.   

 

I don't read what Mr. Nobel writes because 1. it's got far too many errors, and 2. he is opposed to correction, and aggressively tries to silence those who suggest them.

I was taking Joosh's word for the above, but there are other legitimate errors, like this:

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/xN0AAOSwqu9VBQrC/s-l1600.jpg

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/mI8AAOSwBLlVBQos/s-l1600.jpg

All of which are coded "00331", which they all cannot be. Now, I don't know what the actual code displays, but if it's the same thing, these sorts of errors would need to be addressed, I would imagine.

 

[bababooey]

It was a Marvel newsstand issue I responded to and you share an indie/direct example?  I don't know how Image uses or reuses their barcodes, for the CGC label discussion if 3 covers share a barcode then it is what it is I guess, maybe their 3 just means there are 3 versions not individually identified versions using 1, 2, 3 like Marvel does.  

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by bababooey
i bettered my clarity

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, bababooey said:

It was a Marvel newsstand issue I responded to and you share an indie/direct example?  I don't know how Image uses or reuses their barcodes, for the CGC label discussion if 3 covers share a barcode then it is what it is I guess, maybe their 3 just means there are 3 versions not originally identified by 1, 2, 3 like Marvel does.  

 

Yes, because it is a UPC discussion. My dialogue with @valiantman had to do with all books that have UPCs, not just Marvels. 

 

[bababooey]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

12 minutes ago, bababooey said:

It was a Marvel newsstand issue I responded to and you share an indie/direct example?  I don't know how Image uses or reuses their barcodes, for the CGC label discussion if 3 covers share a barcode then it is what it is I guess, maybe their 3 just means there are 3 versions not originally identified by 1, 2, 3 like Marvel does.  

 

Yes, because it is a UPC discussion. My dialogue with @valiantman had to do with all books that have UPCs, not just Marvels. 

You're both saying 'error', I explained Marvel NS & hypothesized on Image's possible methodology & I brought it back onto the CGC topic. 

As for scanning I thought some of those databases like collectorz maintains and updates barcodes, I don't use any of that stuff so it's hearsay, maybe someone will chime in...

[valiantman]

I guess I'm suggesting that CGC just needs to start using a barcode scanner.

Currently (unless I'm mistaken), submitters fill out the submission form, they put Amazing Spider-man #300.  The book arrives at CGC and the order entry person needs to identify the book in the CGC system so that it can pick up the book details for the CGC label.  The order entry has to confirm that the book really is Amazing Spider-man #300, so there's a manual "double-check" involved at that point.  If the Amazing Spider-man #300 has a barcode, the manual "double-check" is much quicker because the CGC worker can scan the barcode, see that it pops up as "Amazing Spider-man #300 Newsstand" and move on to the next book in the submission.

I believe what @RockMyAmadeus is asking is how the CGC database would know that the barcode belongs to Amazing Spider-man #300 Newsstand.  That would be the "one-time setup" that the CGC worker would need to do.  The first time they scan a barcode for a book, the CGC system could say "Barcode unrecognized" and the CGC worker could look up the book in the CGC database (as they were going to have to do anyway, or as they would already do for a book without a barcode).  Once they find that book in the CGC database, they could switch over to "add a barcode" for the book.  Scan it again, the barcode is associated with the book forever now, and they can move on to the next book in the submission.

Unless I am mistaken, 99% of the time, the barcode which is only 14 digits long is the Newsstand edition.  There are 12 digits, then 2 digits.  The barcode which is 17 digits long is the Direct Edition.  There are 12 digits, then 5 digits.  CGC would have to manually edit whenever this rule isn't true, but we're talking about a rare situation.  CGC spends a whole lot of time manually looking up each book in a submission, when they could speed up that process quite a bit if they'd do the one-time setup of any book that has a barcode.

[RockMyAmadeus]

8 hours ago, valiantman said:

I guess I'm suggesting that CGC just needs to start using a barcode scanner.

Currently (unless I'm mistaken), submitters fill out the submission form, they put Amazing Spider-man #300.  The book arrives at CGC and the order entry person needs to identify the book in the CGC system so that it can pick up the book details for the CGC label.  The order entry has to confirm that the book really is Amazing Spider-man #300, so there's a manual "double-check" involved at that point.  If the Amazing Spider-man #300 has a barcode, the manual "double-check" is much quicker because the CGC worker can scan the barcode, see that it pops up as "Amazing Spider-man #300 Newsstand" and move on to the next book in the submission.

I believe what @RockMyAmadeus is asking is how the CGC database would know that the barcode belongs to Amazing Spider-man #300 Newsstand.  That would be the "one-time setup" that the CGC worker would need to do.  The first time they scan a barcode for a book, the CGC system could say "Barcode unrecognized" and the CGC worker could look up the book in the CGC database (as they were going to have to do anyway, or as they would already do for a book without a barcode).  Once they find that book in the CGC database, they could switch over to "add a barcode" for the book.  Scan it again, the barcode is associated with the book forever now, and they can move on to the next book in the submission.

Unless I am mistaken, 99% of the time, the barcode which is only 14 digits long is the Newsstand edition.  There are 12 digits, then 2 digits.  The barcode which is 17 digits long is the Direct Edition.  There are 12 digits, then 5 digits.  CGC would have to manually edit whenever this rule isn't true, but we're talking about a rare situation.  CGC spends a whole lot of time manually looking up each book in a submission, when they could speed up that process quite a bit if they'd do the one-time setup of any book that has a barcode.

If there's no existing database, I suppose they would have to manually enter it over time. That's unfortunate, but not insurmountable. I would be surprised if Diamond doesn't already have this information that they'd be willing to sell.

I always wondered why comic shops, in my experience (perhaps 40-50 shops in CA and AZ over 28 years) never used the barcode. That's what it was made for, after all.

There are still quite a few errors in actual UPC codes, like the DG #3 I mentioned above as an example, as well as Marvel, DC, etc. But that can be addressed.

The only thing I'd be concerned about is the effect of laser light exposure to the comics over time. I'm probably completely overblowing the effect; I just don't know. I would guess a comic could be scanned thousands of times before it would even begin to show ink degradation.

 

[Martin Sinescu]

Valiantman's right. If they don't do this already, it really should be as simple as attaching another piece of data to the existing model entry in the database and UPC errors should be irrelevant since this would just be an updated entry in their proprietary software (thus, not drawing the info from any "universal" database). I would think there must already be some sort of unique identifier for each entry in their database to keep them all separate and facilitate easy lookup. Basically, most of the hard work has already been done in building the database over the last 20ish years -- this should be as simple as just updating each model with more info, although I think we've also tossed around the idea that they may not be able to update their existing data quite so fluidly.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, Martin Sinescu said:

Valiantman's right. If they don't do this already, it really should be as simple as attaching another piece of data to the existing model entry in the database and UPC errors should be irrelevant since this would just be an updated entry in their proprietary software (thus, not drawing the info from any "universal" database). I would think there must already be some sort of unique identifier for each entry in their database to keep them all separate and facilitate easy lookup. Basically, most of the hard work has already been done in building the database over the last 20ish years -- this should be as simple as just updating each model with more info, although I think we've also tossed around the idea that they may not be able to update their existing data quite so fluidly.

 

It would require a decision about UPC errors. The UPC for Danger Girl #3, for example, would pull up three possibilities. I don't suppose that's too much of a problem, but it should be addressed. I suppose it doesn't matter if the UPC is actually in error, if they create their own database. When UPCs are coded correctly, I imagine they can override it with the correct information. 

There are a LOT of UPC errors, mostly variants that aren't coded correctly (like, for example, later printings that are coded as variants, or variants that are coded as later printings.) I suppose that's not relevant in a ground-up database, other than deciding which is which when confronted with the same code for two different books.

I haven't see too many books with issue numbers incorrectly coded, but they do exist, too.

Probably not issues they're going to run into a lot, I would imagine.

[Illustrious]

On 6/7/2018 at 10:57 AM, valiantman said:

Have you had any sellers "wise up" as a result of asking them to confirm?  As others have mentioned, it seems a little like asking someone selling a "brass ring" if the ring actually has the "14k" imprint like the picture. 

It hasn't happened yet, so I've been lucky so far.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 6/7/2018 at 9:10 PM, FlyingDonut said:

I'm looking for the weird $2.29/$2.49 price variants from 1999-2000.

Have you found me any new ones yet FD? 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Get Marwood & I
Low ceilings

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

On 6/8/2018 at 8:45 AM, valiantman said:

CGC had to enter the details of every comic at some point, title, date, artists, appearances, etc.  For each book with a valid barcode, they would just have to bring up the database editor they already use by hand and click the barcode scanner.  It would add the official barcode to the database, a step that is only needed once.  Every time that book arrives after that one step, they could just scan the barcode to enter the submitted books. 

 

Right now, they do a lookup search for the books and sometimes pick the wrong one from the list.  Then we get those mislabeled slabs.  The barcode scanner could end those kinds of errors.

In most cases. But then you have special variants like the "Secret Variant" for Secret Weapons #1, which has the same barcode. 

[FlyingDonut]

7 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Have you found me any new ones yet FD? 

Two new $2.49 Cables. It is appearing to me that the $2.29s are much harder to find.

[Get Marwood & I]

4 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:

Two new $2.49 Cables. It is appearing to me that the $2.29s are much harder to find.

Excellent! Can you drop pictures of them into the thread? 

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Get Marwood & I
?

[darkstar]

On 6/8/2018 at 9:59 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

I don't read what Mr. Nobel writes because 1. it's got far too many errors, and 2. he is opposed to correction, and aggressively tries to silence those who suggest them.

I was taking Joosh's word for the above, but there are other legitimate errors, like this:

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/xN0AAOSwqu9VBQrC/s-l1600.jpg

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/mI8AAOSwBLlVBQos/s-l1600.jpg

All of which are coded "00331", which they all cannot be. Now, I don't know what the actual code displays, but if it's the same thing, these sorts of errors would need to be addressed, I would imagine.

 

Dark Horse reuses barcodes for some of their titles. Later printings cannot be identified just by looking at the UPC. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, darkstar said:

Later printings cannot be identified just by looking at the UPC. 

It depends on whether it's coded correctly or not.

For example:

This is coded correctly.

[darkstar]

11 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

It depends on whether it's coded correctly or not.

For example:

This is coded correctly.

I was speaking of Dark Horse. For example, if you look at the various printings for the Star Wars Legacy books (the ones with the Adam Hughes covers) or Rebellion every printing uses the same code as the first print for that issue. Since Dark Horse doesn't typically do multiple printings I can't say whether that was a conscious decision on their part or an error. 

[valiantman]

There's a second aspect to this discussion  of adding the UPC to the CGC database. They could also add a cover scan at the same time.  If there is ever a conflict on the UPC, they could pull up the scans.  For all I know, CGC is already doing cover scans and barcode scans, but it doesn't seem like it. 

[valiantman]

Closing out the original post in this topic.

Seller refused to offer a refund because CGC says there's no difference so he says there's no difference.  We went back and forth on "working it out" for a few days as required by Ebay's process.

I referred the case to Ebay on June 10th at 7:04pm in their official "ask us to step in and help" process.  Ebay made a final decision in my favor to issue a full refund on June 10th at 7:10pm. (Six minutes!) 

I returned the book to the seller using Ebay's "no postage necessary" free option for buyers on June 12th.

Ebay issued a full refund today, including the original shipping costs.