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

[Albert Tatlock]

On 5/7/2024 at 8:57 PM, Kevin.J said:

There's an old story that I found a old pound note in a puddle and showed my Dad, he said do you want that dirty old bit of paper or this lovely shiny sixpence, guess what I wanted

You should have held out for 9d then hit the spinner rack.

[Kevin.J]

On 5/8/2024 at 6:21 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

You should have held out for 9d then hit the spinner rack.

I think it was even before my Dandy & Beano days, I didnt know what an American comic was yet  

[Malacoda]

On 3/16/2023 at 6:13 PM, Malacoda said:

Also, my old pal Doc Strange 179, which I still suspect is out there....

 

 

According to Alan Austin, Doc Strange 179 was flat out non-distributed.  According to Duncan, it was a stamp but is scarce as a hen's teeth. 

I wouldn't agree with Duncan's comment that cents copies are common.  You can usually find one or two on ebay where you'd find half a dozen of the ones around it.  Even when you do find someone in the UK selling a complete set of stampies, 179 is always an unstamped cents copy....

 

Over the last 3.5 years, I've looked for this pretty much constantly (always in my ebay automatic searches and on auction sites etc).  Every now and then, there has been a moment.  This one turned out to be an Australian stamp.....

This one might actually have been a T&P stamp, but it's got a weirdly super-thick rim for one of Ethel's.  It was part of a huge load and the seller told me he had already packed them up and refused to unpack them. I won't tell you how high I bid on this this lot. 

However, it turns out the score is Alan 0, Duncan 1, because this dropped onto my doormat this morning....

 

I think the extraordinary difficulty of finding even a single copy of this points more to it being ND with a tiny number of randos turning up either at the time or subsequently than it being distributed in anything like the same volume as a normal T&P Marvel order at the time. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 9 by Malacoda

[Albert Tatlock]

On 5/9/2024 at 1:11 PM, Malacoda said:

However, it turns out the score is Alan 0, Duncan 1, because this dropped onto my doormat this morning....

 

I think the extraordinary difficulty of finding even a single copy of this points more to it being ND with a tiny number of randos turning up either at the time or subsequently than it being distributed in anything like the same volume as a normal T&P Marvel order at the time. 

Haystack 0, needle 1.

Everything comes to him who waits.

[Malacoda]

On 5/9/2024 at 1:33 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

Haystack 0, needle 1.

Everything comes to him who waits.

Indeed, although its existence still leaves some debate open.  With something like Sgt. Fury 167 where it's a super rare PV, we can say that there was a print run and it was distributed because WCP wouldn't have changed the plates and then just run off 1 or 2 copies.  It's super scarce because the print run was small because the title was being cancelled, which means 6% of a very small number were PV's and when they rocked up here, pretty much no one bought them and/or kept them.  One could take either the position that this single issue proves Doc 179 was distributed, or that the incredible scarcity vs comparable distributed issues indicates that it wasn't and that a handful of issues were distributed, potentially after the normal distribution date.  I think the latter would better equip the fervent Doc Strange collector for the struggle ahead. 

There's a few others of these that fall into the same category.  Cap 117 finally turned up a stamp a while ago.  Gary found a stamped Silver Surfer 10.  Nick Fury 13 is ND according to Paul Gravett but not according to Alan & Duncan. And, of course, the mythopoeic Conan #1. 

[Albert Tatlock]

On 4/19/2024 at 8:16 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

The first two Marvels, as we know, were the two 58s, Gunsmoke Western and JIM. Only Gunsmoke Western carried the Miller distribution indicia data - the T&P details were absent from their inaugural UKPV issue:

 

So if anyone had their eyes open, and spotted the UK printed pricing in that first period, the only books they'd have been able to identify the distributor on would be the Miller Gunsmoke.

Let me chuck my two pennorth in here.

I believe that the first batch of Marvels arriving in 1960 numbered three, and not two.

Below are pics of probably the first 4 pre-hero Marvels I purchased, all at the same time from the paper shop at the bottom of the street where we lived at the time, which until then had been the source of my and my brother's weekly Topper and Beezer, Certainly the first purchased 'set' of the four titles of which I was them aware, Amazing Adventures escaped my notice until # 3 suddenly popped up in a nearby newsagent, which doubled as a sweetshop, situated as it was immediately opposite a primary school.

Three of them are cover dated June 1961, but the JIM is May. At the time, JIM always lagged a month behind the other three titles, a situation, I noticed, which continued until at least the end of 1961.

The reason why can be found in Mike's Amazing World of Comics, where the release date for the JIM is given as 28 February, and the other three as 7 March, just a week apart.

The June JIM, #69, was not released until 6 April, so would have travelled with the July TOS, TTA and ST. I picked up all four of those simultaneously the following month.

Now turning to the May 1960 issues, before the bug had bitten me, but Mike gives the on sale date of JIM # 58 and Gunsmoke Western # 58 as 29 January.

The on sale date of Strange Tales # 75 is also 29 January, which tells me that it would have been sent with the two May issues.

Enough to convince me, at least.

QED?

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/11/2024 at 8:28 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

The on sale date of Strange Tales # 75 is also 29 January, which tells me that it would have been sent with the two May issues

I think we might have discussed this possibility before Albert. When I get time, I'll dig about and check some actual on sale dates. I'm sure I have some saved. If they align with Mike's dates, the argument could be justified, if not proven.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/11/2024 at 8:28 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

The on sale date of Strange Tales # 75 is also 29 January,

Albert, I don't have access to my files, but a quick scan of Heritage and I see three copies of ST #75 with pencilled March arrival dates and one April. Mike's site is invaluable but often the LOC dates don't match those found on physical examples. I don't have time now, but will do the same for the two May 58s at some point and see if they're March too. I've a feeling I've already done this, and likely have a file at home. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/11/2024 at 8:28 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

Now turning to the May 1960 issues, before the bug had bitten me, but Mike gives the on sale date of JIM # 58 and Gunsmoke Western # 58 as 29 January.

The on sale date of Strange Tales # 75 is also 29 January, which tells me that it would have been sent with the two May issues.

So, Albert, I've had a butchers to see whether there is any physical evidence to back up this possibility, the possibility that the June cover dated ST #75 rocked up in the UK at the same time as the May cover dated Gunsmoke Western and JIM number 58's.

First up, Mike's does indeed list all three books as being 'on sale' on the 29th of January in the US of A:

 

Those dates are based on the 'Library of Congress' info, example below:

 

I've found three US issues of ST #75 which have arrival dates in March, and one dated April:

One explicitly states 'rec'd', if you were thinking they could be 'remove from sale' dates.

So the first conclusion is that the LOC dates do not match the extant physical examples. We've always worked on the industry theory that books were on sale around 3 months prior to their cover dates, so March makes more sense than January for a June dated book. We can assume therefore that the UKPVs would have been printed some time in late February 1960.

I've found two examples for JIM #58, and both have early March arrival dates:

 

It does appear, therefore, that the books were printed close to each other so your theory that the corresponding UKPVs could have arrived at the same time in the UK looks distinctly possible.

There are no Gunsmoke Westerns to be found with arrival dates, alas, and I've studied that issue closely on a number of fronts for many years (Miller, Indicia Types, US Price Font Variations) and don't have one example saved. Given that Miller solicited that one though, I wonder if it would have had a different journey from the printers to the UK anyway? Or maybe the Miller and T&P solicitations would have travelled to the UK together...?  Something we'll likely never know.

I found this cool example on Heritage while looking - a UKPV JIM #58 with a T&P stamp on it!

 

Lovely 

One of the other June cover dated books that Mike gives a January 29th LOC date for is Wyatt Earp #29, which has that solitary Miller UKPV. Here's my cents copy:

The 8th of March. How cool is that! 

Oh, and the folder about this I was remembering also had these in it:

 

[Kevin.J]

[Malacoda]

Steady on, Kev.  That's practically porn as far as Steve's concerned. 

On 5/13/2024 at 12:06 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

So the first conclusion is that the LOC dates do not match the extant physical examples.

Those are some definitive ST 75 examples you've got there.  I've always thought it didn't make sense to expect all the distribution dates to align: the date they're registered with the LOC is really an admin date not a real distribution date and the dates from arrival at local wholesalers or retailers would have to be well spaced out (Waterbury to LA would take a week without any stops, I assume a distribution lorry would be stopping all over the place and that the comics would be making their way across country in multiple legs, probably with different distribution companies subcontracted by IND or ECP.   The copies that came off the press bound for NY, by contrast would be there in less than 2 hours). 

However, those dates you've got there span from March 8th to April 24th, if I'm reading correctly, which is huge gap.  That said, according to Mike,  ST 75 was on sale in January with a cover date of June, so our 3 month rule has gone for a complete Burton. 

Edited May 14 by Malacoda

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/14/2024 at 1:10 AM, Malacoda said:

Steady on, Kev.  That's practically porn as far as Steve's concerned. 

 This is porn 

And I think I've added two more since I took that photo 

On 5/14/2024 at 1:10 AM, Malacoda said:

Those are some definitive ST 75 examples you've got there.  I've always thought it didn't make sense to expect all the distribution dates to align: the date they're registered with the LOC is really an admin date not a real distribution date and the dates from arrival at local wholesalers or retailers would have to be well spaced out (Waterbury to LA would take a week without any stops, I assume a distribution lorry would be stopping all over the place and that the comics would be making their way across country in multiple legs, probably with different distribution companies subcontracted by IND or ECP.   The copies that came off the press bound for NY, by contrast would be there in less than 2 hours). 

Yes, it's one of the reasons I've always flagged caution when using those 'on sale' dates on Mike's site to try to prove things. There's no substitute for a gaggle of consistent pencilled arrival dates and, as you say, you wouldn't expect them all to be the same given the different distances travelled. 

On 5/14/2024 at 1:10 AM, Malacoda said:

However, those dates you've got there span from March 8th to April 24th, if I'm reading correctly, which is huge gap.  That said, according to Mike,  ST 75 was on sale in January with a cover date of June, so our 3 month rule has gone for a complete Burton. 

Would that be a Richard Burton, Rich? Not sure I understand that last point. The April pencil date is an outlier, the other three are in the first half of March. Three months forward is June, so the three month rule is supported by the arrival dates. In this instance Mike's 'on sale dates' - the LOC ones - are clearly not the dates that the books went on sale so they can be discounted.

[Get Marwood & I]

Copy A not shown!

 

Copy H!

[Malacoda]

On 5/14/2024 at 7:06 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Would that be a Richard Burton, Rich? Not sure I understand that last point. The April pencil date is an outlier, the other three are in the first half of March. Three months forward is June, so the three month rule is supported by the arrival dates. In this instance Mike's 'on sale dates' - the LOC ones - are clearly not the dates that the books went on sale so they can be discounted.

Right, but if I've understood this, where we're saying April 28th is an outlier, we're still saying that we reckon that ST 75 started hitting the spinners as early as March 8th (or earlier) in some places and as late as April 28th (or later) in some places.  So assuming it was lifted off the shelves at some point in June (the cover dates being time-gentlemen-please dates rather than another-curtain-another-show dates), that means that Mr. March 8th copy was in the spinner for somewhere between 85 days and 114 days and Mr. April 28th copy was in the spinner for somewhere between 34 days and 63 days.   If true, this would mean our standard 3 month window has gone for a Burton (though clearly more Alec Leamas than John Morlar ) as this one is anywhere between 1 month and 4 months. 

Unless you're saying that April 28th is a complete rando in the middle of nowhere (then we're in the Night of the Iguana) 

 

[Albert Tatlock]

On 5/13/2024 at 12:06 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

So the first conclusion is that the LOC dates do not match the extant physical examples. We've always worked on the industry theory that books were on sale around 3 months prior to their cover dates, so March makes more sense than January for a June dated book. We can assume therefore that the UKPVs would have been printed some time in late February 1960.

What would help, if we could find enough of them, would be arrival dates on later than # 58 copies of JIM in 1960 and 1961.

Then, comparing them with arrival dates from the same cover months on TOS, TTA and Strange Tales would inform us whether the alleged 3 week gap in the on sale date was reflected in the arrival dates in bricks and mortar outlets Stateside.

And, if that turned out to be the case, it would make sense for the JIMs sent across to the UK to have been subject to a similar time lag.

I noticed back in 1961 that the late arrival of JIM was what was happening as I religiously focused on those four PHM titles, never missing an issue once I latched onto them, but have not followed up Mike's data further than the end of that year. Maybe it continued right up to # 125, or even beyond, retitled as Thor.

[Albert Tatlock]

On 5/13/2024 at 12:06 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

I found this cool example on Heritage while looking - a UKPV JIM #58 with a T&P stamp on it!

Any idea what this lot sold for?

The JIM UKPV AND stamp may make it unique!

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/14/2024 at 6:03 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

Any idea what this lot sold for?

The JIM UKPV AND stamp may make it unique!

 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/14/2024 at 5:55 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

What would help, if we could find enough of them, would be arrival dates on later than # 58 copies of JIM in 1960 and 1961.

Then, comparing them with arrival dates from the same cover months on TOS, TTA and Strange Tales would inform us whether the alleged 3 week gap in the on sale date was reflected in the arrival dates in bricks and mortar outlets Stateside.

And, if that turned out to be the case, it would make sense for the JIMs sent across to the UK to have been subject to a similar time lag.

I noticed back in 1961 that the late arrival of JIM was what was happening as I religiously focused on those four PHM titles, never missing an issue once I latched onto them, but have not followed up Mike's data further than the end of that year. Maybe it continued right up to # 125, or even beyond, retitled as Thor.

My arrival date studies are focussed elsewhere Albert. Someone else can have a go.

Spoiler

 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/14/2024 at 4:03 PM, Malacoda said:

Right, but if I've understood this, where we're saying April 28th is an outlier, we're still saying that we reckon that ST 75 started hitting the spinners as early as March 8th (or earlier) in some places and as late as April 28th (or later) in some places.  So assuming it was lifted off the shelves at some point in June (the cover dates being time-gentlemen-please dates rather than another-curtain-another-show dates), that means that Mr. March 8th copy was in the spinner for somewhere between 85 days and 114 days and Mr. April 28th copy was in the spinner for somewhere between 34 days and 63 days.   If true, this would mean our standard 3 month window has gone for a Burton (though clearly more Alec Leamas than John Morlar ) as this one is anywhere between 1 month and 4 months. 

Unless you're saying that April 28th is a complete rando in the middle of nowhere (then we're in the Night of the Iguana) 

 

I think we might be talking about different things Rich. In my studies, down the years, early 1960s books tended to have arrival dates around 3 months prior to the cover date. That's always worked out for me and I've spent a lot of time looking at them for various reasons. I'm not sure where you got the cover date being a 'remove from sale date' thing from - I'm not sure I've heard that before. I'm not saying it's wrong, it may well have been, but regardless, the 3 month thing has always chimed with my researching endeavours. I can say for a fact that ST #75 has a June cover date. And I can say for a fact that there are a few extant examples with arrival dates in the first half of March. This means I can reasonably say that there was an approximate 3 month gap between the book going on sale and it's cover date. The fact that that happens so often leads me to refer to it as a general rule and in this case the rule is Burton free.

I can't say when it was removed from sale though, as I currently have no evidence on which to make that claim. 

[Malacoda]

On 5/14/2024 at 6:39 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

I'm not sure where you got the cover date being a 'remove from sale date' thing from - I'm not sure I've heard that before.

I think I've read that at least 3 places over the last 4 years, but the fact that you haven't gives me cause for concern. Maybe it was a brainfart. 

I mean, even if I have read it, it doesn't mean it's correct or that it was actually implemented that way.  One thing we do know is that once it was on the honours system with nothing being returned to the publisher,  then the date it was no longer for sale at the front of the shop is just the date it was for sale in a box at the back.