Mark Jewelers inserts...
8 8

131 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, valiantman said:

The CGC Census does not separate Mark Jewelers books from non-MJ.  The label can mention MJ without it being in the CGC Census.  This is the same as a CGC blue label clearly specifying that a book is signed inside ("Name written on interior cover in market"), but the CGC Census just counts it like any other blue label.  "From the Collection of..." is another example that isn't in the CGC Census.

More specifically, all the notes in that location on the CGC label (directly beneath the publisher and date) never gets shown in the CGC Census (there's no census info on page color, no census info on serial numbers).  When books are listed as Newsstand (or, in this example, "Second Printing"), that notation is in a different location on the CGC label, and the underlying field stored in the database is also listed in the CGC Census.

CGC would have to make the decision to "upgrade" the "Mark Jewelers insert" notation to the database's "variant field" (where they currently store "Second Printing", "35-cent Price Variant", "Sketch Cover", etc.), rather than the current database field and label location which appears to be specific to only one book at a time - and like the CGC serial number itself - isn't part of the CGC Census info.

272432694_0703310001_12001.jpg.315ad6451bf52d132e09f72ca7b2f607.jpg

So cgc could technically make it happen at so to speak a push of a button? Since the cert number lookup has most of this info?

And then begs the question why haven't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

So cgc could technically make it happen at so to speak a push of a button? Since the cert number lookup has most of this info?

And then begs the question why haven't they?

That database field/column couldn't be used as a new CGC Census field without creating dozens of "apparent variants" for many books.  Each of the different notes ("Name written on interior cover in marker", "Name written on first page in marker", "Name written on interior cover in pen", "Name written on first page in pen", "Mark Jewelers insert", "From the Collection of...", "Back cover has "1045/2500" written in marker", "Back cover has "1046/2500" written in marker", "Back cover has "1047/2500" written in marker", etc.), would all be "new variants".

CGC would have to purposefully select only those books with "Mark Jewlers insert" to be listed separately, and it would be far easier for them to just "upgrade" that type of note to the variant field (Second Printing, Sketch Cover, 35-cent Price Variant, etc.) because the CGC Census would include it automatically.  However, that field is usually associated with something visible from the outside - a different cover, a different printing, a different pricing, and not something internal like Mark Jewelers insert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T

4 hours ago, valiantman said:

That database field/column couldn't be used as a new CGC Census field without creating dozens of "apparent variants" for many books.  Each of the different notes ("Name written on interior cover in marker", "Name written on first page in marker", "Name written on interior cover in pen", "Name written on first page in pen", "Mark Jewelers insert", "From the Collection of...", "Back cover has "1045/2500" written in marker", "Back cover has "1046/2500" written in marker", "Back cover has "1047/2500" written in marker", etc.), would all be "new variants".

CGC would have to purposefully select only those books with "Mark Jewlers insert" to be listed separately, and it would be far easier for them to just "upgrade" that type of note to the variant field (Second Printing, Sketch Cover, 35-cent Price Variant, etc.) because the CGC Census would include it automatically.  However, that field is usually associated with something visible from the outside - a different cover, a different printing, a different pricing, and not something internal like Mark Jewelers insert.

That's a bummer,  It could be done if they wanted to. If they bother to mark it on the label a method could be found to document it..  How can they document something on the cover that is not inside every issue and not care to keep track of it.?  Seems like such a waste. . do they keep track of books with and without 3-d glasses in a database? probably not, but they should,  Tatooz?? they keep track on the cover but do we know how many graded actually don't or do have them?  probably not but they should.  Do we know the actual amount of books with pinups removed  and those that have them?   Seems like  missed opportunities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, comic_memories said:

T

That's a bummer,  It could be done if they wanted to. If they bother to mark it on the label a method could be found to document it..  How can they document something on the cover that is not inside every issue and not care to keep track of it.?  Seems like such a waste. . do they keep track of books with and without 3-d glasses in a database? probably not, but they should,  Tatooz?? they keep track on the cover but do we know how many graded actually don't or do have them?  probably not but they should.  Do we know the actual amount of books with pinups removed  and those that have them?   Seems like  missed opportunities. 

Although I do agree. As valiantman pointed out the logistics of this would actually be overwhelming.  What point of the rabbit hole do they stop? They note Signed books, but not by who,  or how many. He already pointed out several others such as double covers / multiple covers (  both on outside, or inserted/ centerfold) names written on etc, error books ( misprint, siamese pages/wraps) inserts MJI, Diamond, Atari, Reader Survey, Etc) DC Universe Logo , Bullet Logo, Different ADs in books( but not marked as later prints) and a WHOLE LOT MORE. 

Again I do agree,  it would be great to have this information, but with the already overwhelmed CGC staff from their uptick in grading and adding the in house signings. Just image the TAT if they had to note any and all differences, as well as place them into a database. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

Although I do agree. As valiantman pointed out the logistics of this would actually be overwhelming.  What point of the rabbit hole do they stop? They note Signed books, but not by who,  or how many. He already pointed out several others such as double covers / multiple covers (  both on outside, or inserted/ centerfold) names written on etc, error books ( misprint, siamese pages/wraps) inserts MJI, Diamond, Atari, Reader Survey, Etc) DC Universe Logo , Bullet Logo, Different ADs in books( but not marked as later prints) and a WHOLE LOT MORE. 

Again I do agree,  it would be great to have this information, but with the already overwhelmed CGC staff from their uptick in grading and adding the in house signings. Just image the TAT if they had to note any and all differences, as well as place them into a database. 

How much of this in the notes for the books?

The transition for Canadian Price variants was hotly advocated by a few people.  We saw the notation on the slabs change from "Canadian Edition" to Canadian Price Variant".   And they even have their own price guide now.  @valiantman do you know when/how long the change took for CGC to enact?    I'm assuming they weren't a separate designation of the census data from the get-go way back in 03.

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

Although I do agree. As valiantman pointed out the logistics of this would actually be overwhelming.  What point of the rabbit hole do they stop? They note Signed books, but not by who,  or how many. He already pointed out several others such as double covers / multiple covers (  both on outside, or inserted/ centerfold) names written on etc, error books ( misprint, siamese pages/wraps) inserts MJI, Diamond, Atari, Reader Survey, Etc) DC Universe Logo , Bullet Logo, Different ADs in books( but not marked as later prints) and a WHOLE LOT MORE. 

Again I do agree,  it would be great to have this information, but with the already overwhelmed CGC staff from their uptick in grading and adding the in house signings. Just image the TAT if they had to note any and all differences, as well as place them into a database. 

I don't see why its an issue. They already make these comments on the slab. I'm not talking about signatures and things done to comics AFTER the fact I am talking about how a comic is originally manufactured.  Sure its data entry, That's what the purpose of slabbing is.. .. verified documentation. Its what we pay for isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, comic_memories said:
9 hours ago, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

Although I do agree. As valiantman pointed out the logistics of this would actually be overwhelming.  What point of the rabbit hole do they stop? They note Signed books, but not by who,  or how many. He already pointed out several others such as double covers / multiple covers (  both on outside, or inserted/ centerfold) names written on etc, error books ( misprint, siamese pages/wraps) inserts MJI, Diamond, Atari, Reader Survey, Etc) DC Universe Logo , Bullet Logo, Different ADs in books( but not marked as later prints) and a WHOLE LOT MORE. 

Again I do agree,  it would be great to have this information, but with the already overwhelmed CGC staff from their uptick in grading and adding the in house signings. Just image the TAT if they had to note any and all differences, as well as place them into a database. 

I don't see why its an issue. They already make these comments on the slab. I'm not talking about signatures and things done to comics AFTER the fact I am talking about how a comic is originally manufactured.  Sure its data entry, That's what the purpose of slabbing is.. .. verified documentation. Its what we pay for isn't it?

I took valiantman to be saying that, it's already on the label, but when cgc enters it into the system, they'd need to change the field

so

this information is already recorded.....

They don't have to go out of their way to record new info :foryou: 

Just use the existing and pay someone to transfer the existing info into a new field for a "database" feature that represents the info. If the "logistics" are tough, it could be much harder if "they weren't already keeping track", which they are :shy: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what I'm trying to describe regarding the CGC Census and the CGC databases (behind the scenes).

cgclookup_and_census.png.13c0da7cfd2359c4370cdb54af7d9095.png

(If "House of Examples" isn't obvious, this is just an example where I combined the data from different books and made up some info.)

Edited by valiantman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Microchip said:

The transition for Canadian Price variants was hotly advocated by a few people.  We saw the notation on the slabs change from "Canadian Edition" to Canadian Price Variant".   And they even have their own price guide now.  @valiantman do you know when/how long the change took for CGC to enact?    I'm assuming they weren't a separate designation of the census data from the get-go way back in 03.

Thanks in advance.

Some books were already noted as Canadian Edition and Canadian Price Variant in the CGC Census of July 2001.

http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/search/title/:Canadian:/label/all/orderby/year/variants/yes/census/010701/

Specifically for Canadian Price Variant, there were only 4 in July 2001.

http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/search/title/:Canadian:Price:/label/all/orderby/year/variants/yes/census/010701/

By the end of 2005, there were about two dozen:

http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/search/title/:Canadian:Price:/label/all/orderby/year/variants/yes/census/051107/

Currently, Canadian Price Variant has 1,079 of them (and also signature, qualified, and restored):

http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/search/title/:Canadian:Price:/label/all/orderby/year/variants/yes/

Much like Newsstand, there are certainly Canadian Price Variant books in slabs that don't mention it.

Edited by valiantman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Microchip said:

How much of this in the notes for the books?

The transition for Canadian Price variants was hotly advocated by a few people.  We saw the notation on the slabs change from "Canadian Edition" to Canadian Price Variant".   And they even have their own price guide now.  @valiantman do you know when/how long the change took for CGC to enact?    I'm assuming they weren't a separate designation of the census data from the get-go way back in 03.

Thanks in advance.

Some of it is already in the notes, some of it isn't.  Double covers are noted. Their location ( two outside covers, one outside/one at centerfold) is not. DC Universe Logo and Bullet Logos are not( even though some are clearly marked as later printings ( which are noted) some have different ads etc that would make them later printings that are not marked or noted. Newsstand are another that should be noted.

Price variants are now being noted , but they still are in their relative infancy, but hopefully more of these gain enough traction to be broken out and noted/tracked.

2 hours ago, comic_memories said:

I don't see why its an issue. They already make these comments on the slab. I'm not talking about signatures and things done to comics AFTER the fact I am talking about how a comic is originally manufactured.  Sure its data entry, That's what the purpose of slabbing is.. .. verified documentation. Its what we pay for isn't it?

Ok Signatures aside ( although considering they are really pushing these now, so they shouldn't be) still a lot of what was mentioned was not after the fact. As mentioned just above, double covers/ errors, dc universe logos/ bullet logo, inserts, different ads( non noted later printings) not all of these are noted or not specific and they have separated some such as the already mentioned Price Variants.  

I do agree that these all should be noted, but again how much time will have to be sacrificed to gain all inclusive data? 

1 hour ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

I took valiantman to be saying that, it's already on the label, but when cgc enters it into the system, they'd need to change the field

so

this information is already recorded.....

They don't have to go out of their way to record new info :foryou: 

Just use the existing and pay someone to transfer the existing info into a new field for a "database" feature that represents the info. If the "logistics" are tough, it could be much harder if "they weren't already keeping track", which they are :shy: 

Again I do agree , the data already recorded would be easiest to transfer and start recording, but there is still a ton that is not, that a lot of collector's do already recognize and pay premiums for what should be. 

 

I really hope that CGC does start recognizing all of these and starts tracking the data to make the real numbers better reflect what is actually out there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2021 at 4:43 AM, hamiltonnathan said:

My favs - MJV have bored a dagger into my soul as part of non stop mission to find these insert variants - love seeing them in any shape, fashion, or form. Kudos to those that recognize them. Adding to my 1200 piece collection. If you have any common stock or keys reasonable on the wallet, my info is hamiltonnathan@bellsouth.net.

How do I PM you? May have valuable info for one of us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, hamiltonnathan said:

Picked up a hoard of MJV and found two oddities. One book with the register way off, miscut. And the other MJV printed upside down (I have two that are upside down, in my collection which spans 2000+ books).

IMG_2588.jpg

Mark Jewelers inserts are cool. Upside down and miscut Mark Jewelers inserts are a whole new level of cool. We are jealous, Hamilton Nathan, very jealous :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thread, particularly @valiantman

I came across a few of these Mark Jewelers variants and inspected them thoroughly before sending them in for a CGC signing.  Has anyone submitted books with the MJI and not received the metadata notation on the slab?  Is there a situation where a book has a MJI and the graders miss it?  I am curious if this was mechanical error of some sort.   One book got it and the other did not, despite both books having the same green colored insert.  Just wondering if anyone in the community has experienced this....?

101F3327-8AAF-4B78-8D43-611B41AC53F0.jpeg

670897B6-EAD3-4804-AD12-4E8DA9B7A046.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
8 8