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

[Malacoda]

On 5/19/2024 at 6:32 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

T&P would have had operational processing queues for UKPVs which didn't require stamps and cents copies that did.

The warehouse at Thurmaston was probably something on this scale and operation but the warehouse at Oadby was 17k sq ft  (so about 33 yards by 57 yards). I suspect things may have been less optimally organised than we think.   

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/19/2024 at 6:49 PM, Malacoda said:

If they were scheduled earlier (at each point in the production) schedule, then whatever point T&P confirm the order would inherently come sooner.  Also, I suspect that the order for the regular size titles was exactly that....regular....whereas the annuals.....once per year, different size, different cost.....were surely a conversation? 

So you're saying T&P engaged Marvel, or vice versa, and agreed on 5 UKPV annuals which were due to go to print in late May. Some weeks later, they were in contact again to the start up the regular comics again?

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/19/2024 at 7:29 PM, Malacoda said:

The warehouse at Thurmaston was probably something on this scale and operation but the warehouse at Oadby was 17k sq ft  (so about 33 yards by 57 yards). I suspect things may have been less optimally organised than we think.   

Agreed. It would be hard to fit two tables in a space that small, to separate those comics needing stamps from those that didn't. 

[Malacoda]

On 5/19/2024 at 7:23 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

You have more people work on it, consecutively. 

Yes and no.  More people doing the operational stuff, absolutely, I grant you, but these annuals were drawn by Kirby & Ditko. You can't summon up more Kirbys and more Ditkos to work consecutively. If the annuals were all produced by freelancers, you could have more people, but as far as I can see they were produced by all the same people who produced the regular issues who, according to legend, were working flat out (well, Kirby). 

But I grant you that point is probably spurious.  If we're only talking about a single double size issue, then it's a few extra weekends in the basement.  

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/19/2024 at 7:01 PM, Malacoda said:

It doesn't.  It's the other way.  The production schedule for the issue content (well, the finished article) prompts the question 'how many of these jumbo sized, squarebound, twice-the-price johnnies are you going to want?'

No it doesn't. The production schedule for the issue content would be the same whether the intention was to print 5 copies or 5 million. Why am I not understanding your point here Rich? Have I got me stoopid head on? 

[Malacoda]

On 5/19/2024 at 7:38 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

No it doesn't. The production schedule for the issue content would be the same whether the intention was to print 5 copies or 5 million. Why am I not understanding your point here Rich? Have I got me stoopid head on? 

To be honest, I'm losing the thread of which points I'm replying to myself. Shall we knock this on the head and go for a virtual pint instead?  I think 'That's Life' is on in a minute.  

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/19/2024 at 7:36 PM, Malacoda said:

Yes and no.  More people doing the operational stuff, absolutely, I grant you, but these annuals were drawn by Kirby & Ditko. You can't summon up more Kirbys and more Ditkos to work consecutively. If the annuals were all produced by freelancers, you could have more people, but as far as I can see they were produced by all the same people who produced the regular issues who, according to legend, were working flat out (well, Kirby). 

But I grant you that point is probably spurious.  If we're only talking about a single double size issue, then it's a few extra weekends in the basement.  

Yes and no is quite annoying Rich. It's either yes, or no. It can't be both. If I ask Ditko in January that I want 60 pages of story in 5 months time, and he works on it in his spare time, alongside regular stories, as long as he produces it the book is ready for print in May. That's got nothing to do with when T&P make the decision to add 5% volume to the already in place printing schedule. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/19/2024 at 7:41 PM, Malacoda said:

To be honest, I'm losing the thread of which points I'm replying to myself. Shall we knock this on the head and go for a virtual pint instead?  I think 'That's Life' is on in a minute.  

I'm crossing my fingers that you're pissing yourself laughing at all this Rich. I am. Most fun I've had in ages mate. Virtual pint it is!  

[Malacoda]

On 5/19/2024 at 7:45 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

I'm crossing my fingers that you're pisssing yourself laughing at all this Rich.  I am. Most fun I've had in ages mate. Virtual pint it is!  

Yes and no (....joking). 

Actually I'm kind of enjoying the mental work out.  Mental being the word.  I don't realise how little I focus on anything these days until I have to think something through (....it clearly hasn't gone too well on this one).  Though I am pssing myself about the two tables.  Nice one. 

 

Edited May 19 by Malacoda

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/19/2024 at 7:54 PM, Malacoda said:

Though I am pssing myself about the two tables.  Nice one. 

I know it's bad form, but I could hardly type that one for laughing 

[Malacoda]

On 5/19/2024 at 7:56 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

I know it's bad form, but I could hardly type that one for laughing

It was the fact that you referred to it as 'operational processing queues' and then made it clear you were talking about a trestle table with two piles of comics on it. Superb. And probably dead on. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/19/2024 at 8:00 PM, Malacoda said:

It was the fact that you referred to it as 'operational processing queues' and then made it clear you were talking about a trestle table with two piles of comics on it. Superb. And probably dead on. 

Dave the driver must've dropped this one and put it on the wrong table 

[Malacoda]

On 5/19/2024 at 8:01 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Dave the driver must've dropped this one and put it on the wrong table 

Yup.  And there are also T&P stamped cents copies (with the June delivery stamp in this case!) to add to the WTF pile. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 5/19/2024 at 8:04 PM, Malacoda said:

Yup.  And there are also T&P stamped cents copies (with the June delivery stamp in this case!) to add to the WTF pile. 

That will bring us back to do!

Do, re, mi, WTF, don't know!

[Get Marwood & I]

Night Rich. All good fun  

[Malacoda]

Night mate.  

BTW, this was just an amuse bouche.  FF #80 is the main course.  Start doing press ups. 

[Albert Tatlock]

On 5/19/2024 at 2:15 PM, Malacoda said:

As you say, we'll never know, I'm not offering proof, just throwing an idea out, and I'm not sure I can do this in one sentence, but while I'm putting it together, let me add another question to the mix:  why are the 1965 annuals all stamped despite being UKPV's?  It can't be that Ethel accidentally stamped a few - they're all stamped, and they're all stamped with the 1/6 stamp, so clearly not an error.  

Maybe T & P decided, when the Annuals arrived, that the printed price did not look quite right, not quite what they had envisaged when putting in the order.

Instead of the nice clear 9d or 10d of the past, there is what might be mistaken for a vulgar fraction instead of a price in the currency that we Limeys used at the time. There is no sign of the d. Few of the US print operatives on the shop floor would have known of the historical link back to the denarii of Roman Britain.

And the 1/6 is small compared to the usual printed price. To reduce the chances of confusion at the counter of the newsagent or sweetshop, it may have made sense to apply the usual big bold unmistakeable splodge of ink, even though that would have meant paying Ethel a bit of overtime.

[OtherEric]

On 5/19/2024 at 11:23 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

You have more people work on it, consecutively. 

Surely in this case you mean concurrently, rather than consecutively?  Or am I misunderstanding something yet again?

[Malacoda]

On 5/19/2024 at 8:52 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

 

And the 1/6 is small compared to the usual printed price. To reduce the chances of confusion at the counter of the newsagent or sweetshop, it may have made sense to apply the usual big bold unmistakeable splodge of ink, even though that would have meant paying Ethel a bit of overtime.

[Malacoda]

On 5/19/2024 at 9:48 PM, OtherEric said:

Surely in this case you mean concurrently, rather than consecutively?  Or am I misunderstanding something yet again?

Well, he said consecutively, indeed meaning concurrently (as you've spotted, 3 points)  but then realising the inherent and extraordinary wrongness of his position, he backpedalled faster than a French unicyclist, and admitted you'd have to get them all working much sooner in the schedule so he kind of reversed himself into being correct. It would be consecutively, but starting much sooner. 

But can we please stop all pointing out how wrong Steve is about this or we'll be here all night.