The Distribution of US Published Comics in the UK (1959~1982) 15 15

[Get Marwood & I]

Could the fact that Charltons were b-monthly have something to do with it? That could make their US returns process different and perhaps explain why their cover dates are earlier than those of the monthly DCs. Perhaps the US newsagents left them on sale longer?

[Albert Tatlock]

16 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

neither of us has seen or can lay our hands on a publication with one of these missing 1-5 stamps on them?

Here is a FM 3, April 1959, but I CANNOT READ THE BLOODY NUMBER.

If Number 4, August 1959, has a 9 stamp, this one, 4 months earlier, should have a 5 stamp.

Looks like FM was running a few months behind the DCs as far as arrival in Blighty was concerned.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Albert Tatlock
substitute 4 for 5

[Get Marwood & I]

11 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Here is a FM 3, April 1959, but I CANNOT READ THE BLOODY NUMBER.

If Number 5, August 1959, has a 9 stamp, this one, 4 months earlier, should have a 5 stamp.

Number 4 you mean:

Quote

Looks like FM was running a few months behind the DCs as far as arrival in Blighty was concerned.

Typical, only 3 copies and one we can't read 

I still think the Charltons and these FM's could be the forerunners. We just need to know more about how they were returned in the US and whether that differed to the DC process. If it did - and there's a case for it - that could explain the 'misalignment' of cover dates to stamp numbers. That would give us our first ever stamp range for 1-5. Remember, Charlton had 833 printed 6d/9d UKPVs (via L Miller) land in the UK before DC had a single one. Why shouldn't they have been the first stamped books to come over, a few months ahead of DC? 

 

[Albert Tatlock]

2 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Number 4 you mean:

Yes, number 4, I edited it, but you had already read the misprint.

[Get Marwood & I]

Just now, Albert Tatlock said:

Yes, number 4, I edited it, but you had already read the misprint.

Reprint? They're out of scope Albert 

[Albert Tatlock]

16 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Why shouldn't they have been the first stamped books to come over, a few months ahead of DC? 

Could be, could be. Charlton gives you more, remember, so why can't they give it you sooner?

Where is stamp 1, though? Maybe we need to look at different mags.

[Get Marwood & I]

2 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Could be, could be. Charlton gives you more, remember, so why can't they give it you sooner?

I like that.

"CHARLTON GIVES YOU MORE. AND SOONER"

It's got a ring to it.

2 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Maybe we need to look at different mags.

Look, what you do in your own time is your concern Albert....

 

[Albert Tatlock]

24 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Typical, only 3 copies and one we can't read

I think FM 3 is a number 7.

If a comic, it would be dated October 1959, so these were running an incredible 9 months later than cover date on arrival here.

[Get Marwood & I]

Just now, Albert Tatlock said:

I think FM 3 is a number 7.

If a comic, it would be dated October 1959, so these were running an incredible 9 months later than cover date on arrival here.

[Get Marwood & I]

[Redshade]

I found this from the current ABC site. Requirement 1 (b) states that back issues are exempt from the SOR process. I assume that this rule also applied in the 60s. The US imports were not available to be ordered every week or month using the distributor's order forms as these were sporadic in their arrival in the UK and therefore were back issues (I assume). I also doubt very much that the comics would have been sold SOR to the UK distributors by DC. Atlas, Charlton etc.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Redshade

[Albert Tatlock]

14 minutes ago, Redshade said:

I also doubt very much that the comics would have been sold SOR to the UK distributors by DC. Atlas, Charlton etc.

I believe that the US publishers would have sold their comics outright to T & P, as by the time they had gone through the UK distribution network, they would have been too seriously out of date in the US to have any value there, but T & P would have given their own customers SOR facility.

[Redshade]

G2 a, ii  "Full issue by issue details" are just not viable in the hit and miss world of UK distribution of US comics where individual issues (not being listed individualyl on retailers' order forms) could not be accounted for thus. They must have been outside of the SOR conditions.

G2. Copies are purchased from the publisher by the retailer, on a sale or return basis, either direct or via the distribution chain (typically distributor and/or wholesaler)

1. You will need to ensure all records required to support the retail sale claim are available for audit. This will include: 

   1. Full details of the exact numbers claimed as unsold or returned copies (including undelivered, lost or stolen copies) for every issue in the audit period.

   2. Full issue by issue details of all financial records and contracts with distributors, wholesalers and retailers, with specific regard to normal and recognised trade terms. These must be reconcilable to the distribution and returns records on an issue specific basis and to the average net retail sales claim.

[Redshade]

26 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

I believe that the US publishers would have sold their comics outright to T & P, as by the time they had gone through the UK distribution network, they would have been too seriously out of date in the US to have any value there, but T & P would have given their own customers SOR facility.

I agree that US publishers would have sold the comics outright as a bulk lot to T&P. There would have been no record of individual titles or issues . I am still not convinced that T&P would shoulder the whole financial weight on their own and sell to retailers SOR. If they bought "as is" then that is how they would have been traded down the chain.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Redshade

[Albert Tatlock]

I reckon the profit margin would have been plenty high enough to give SOR facility.

How much do you reckon T & P were paying DC for out of date comics that would otherwise have been pulped? Not a lot.

I have some figures somewhere on how much Miller were wholesaling for in the 1950s, which i will try to dig out tomorrow. The markup is enormous, which is why they were so popular in the trade.

[Get Marwood & I]

Here's an unusual stamp - a numbered two shilling diamond - which I spotted on a group of already T&P decimal stamped Charltons:

 

 

[Get Marwood & I]

I haven't found a single Harvey with a Thorpe & Porter stamp which is as expected seeing as L Miller were the main distributor as we know from my previous posts:

But my word do they have a lot of other non-distributor specific stamps out there:

I think they deserve the prize for 'biggest variety of stamp types' 

[Get Marwood & I]

13 hours ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Where is stamp 1, though? Maybe we need to look at different mags.

1959

 

1960

[Get Marwood & I]

The cover date of this and the October 1959 Sports Car magazine are both T&P '9's and fit with the DC tabling. I can't find any earlier examples at the moment.

Either way, @Albert Tatlock, your instinct was right again and T&P were indeed importing (and stamping) things other than comics with 1959 cover dates. So it follows that the stamp numbering for our comics may well have started mid-sequence as you suggested earlier with the magazines being the first publications to make use of the numbered stamping system.

It would be cool if we could actually identify the date of the first ever US to UK shipment under this design wouldn't it maybe by looking at historic bills of lading or something like that. If they were ballast though, as has often been suggested, they may not even have been registered?

More applause for you Albert - you've certainly shone a light on this aspect of our history mate 

[Get Marwood & I]

Another US magazine that was running in 1959 - two later 1962 examples but perhaps earlier ones exist: