A Discussion About How CGC Label Non-US Publications Which Reprint / Reproduce Original US Comic Content 10 10

[Get Marwood & I]

On 12/6/2021 at 2:29 PM, CGC Mike said:

I have brought this up to Matt Nelson.  He says:

we are making an official announcement on this in January.  

2022? 

Thanks Mike. Looking forward to reading all about it. 

[Redshade]

The chap selling the Mystic 40 has reached out to the watchers of the item offering a 3% discount.

He has also changed the description to read "mis-labelled".

I'll try and put up some pictures but my eBay screen has not been playing properly for a few days and the text is blown up and to the left. (I've tried adjusting screen size).

 

[themagicrobot]

The chap selling (lets hope no one takes the bait) the Mystic 40 for a mystical amount of money also seems to have cornered the market for "mis-labelled" reprint books. Even Alan Class ones as well as the K G Murray comics. But don't you think that as well as correcting the titles the CGC really need to give more accurate descriptions of the contents of comics in their slabs. Misleadingly they claim that the Batman 32  "contains World's Finest Comics 58 & Detective Comics 186" when it actually contains ONE STORY EACH from the three comics namechecked.

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by themagicrobot

[Kromak]

I wonder if the opposite applies? Newspaper characters, such as Mickey and the Phantom had their first appearance outside newspapers outside the US.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 12/7/2021 at 11:49 PM, Kromak said:

I wonder if the opposite applies? Newspaper characters, such as Mickey and the Phantom had their first appearance outside newspapers outside the US.

Who would know Kromak. I've been thinking about it on and off for the last few days and I don't think it's good enough to say an announcement will come in January. This has been going on for over a year. Changes like this don't happen by accident. There would have been a proposal, an internal review and a strategy agreed prior to the first book being slabbed in line with the new operating procedures. Design changes, technical changes, communication, training. But, over a year later, they still can't be bothered to explain themselves to us - the consumer - until they are ready. No guidance to the submitter, that I can see, as to how their book may or may not be treated in the interim.

I've been accused of taking this too seriously, and maybe I am. I saw Matt posting on a 'foreigns' FB group and all the members seem pleased with the labelling approach as far as I could see. They are the ones buying the books slabbed this way, after all. The 'experts'. If they are happy, why should any of us rock the boat?

Something happened to me this week that made me question why I bother with these 'crusades', as one member here once called them. Out of context, none of it matters. As mere forum members, CGC aren't interested in our opinion on anything. I'm just some irksome chap in the UK, snapping at their heels, trying to get them to see that a dog is a dog and not a dog variant of a cat. If they had any respect for the UK members who have posted here, and maybe for the help on variants that I have given them over the years, they might have at least made an interim explanatory comment here. Something to get across that they understand why it is important to some of us that 'our' books are treated accurately and respectfully. But they never do, do they. Communicate, I mean. They hold all the cards. And comics. They govern the comic industry now, and people like me who - bizarrely - have to fight for the application of basic common sense and fact, are tolerated at best. They will explain their strategy when they are good and ready, thank you, and not before. Be honest, can you see me at the end of January posting a 'we still haven't had it' message here, when the communication doesn't arrive? Of course you can.

Either way, let the record show that I think this whole thing - to use an American phrase - 'sucks big time'. Do your communication, CGC, or don't. Frankly, I don't care anymore. I was told recently that getting angry is good. Banging the desk gets results. Well, here's me mildly ruffled. And just a bit fed up with it all. Call the damn things whatever you want, CGC. 

[themagicrobot]

Decisions. Decisions. Now, which one should I buy If I'm buying CGC graded books as investments. A Batman 64 graded as a 3.5 for £339.99 or a Bizarro Batman 64 graded as a 3.0 for a more expensive £399.95?

Note well that along with the different page count the Bizarro Batman 64 has had fairly obvious changes to the artwork compared to the original so how can the two items be considered one and the same? 

Edited December 8, 2021 by themagicrobot

[Kromak]

On 12/8/2021 at 6:54 PM, themagicrobot said:

Decisions. Decisions. Now, which one should I buy If I'm buying CGC graded books as investments. A Batman 64 graded as a 3.5 for £339.99 or a Bizarro Batman 64 graded as a 3.0 for a more expensive £399.95?

Note well that along with the different page count the Bizarro Batman 64 has had fairly obvious changes to the artwork compared to the original so how can the two items be considered one and the same? 

The AU copy looks better, since there is no missing piece. Do you know why it has an inferior grade?

[Beyonder123]

On 12/8/2021 at 10:54 AM, themagicrobot said:

Note well that along with the different page count the Bizarro Batman 64 has had fairly obvious changes to the artwork compared to the original so how can the two items be considered one and the same? 

Simple answer is they aren't the same. But CGC really wants them to be for some reason. I honestly don't know if I will continue to have my foreign books graded if they are going to be labeled incorrectly. I feel the frustration of GM&I. I feel like this is a very dumb problem that shouldn't even be an issue. CGC hasn't had to deal with alot of foreign books in the past and it shows. There's more to a comic than just the cover.

[Lazyboy]

On 12/8/2021 at 11:11 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

I've been accused of taking this too seriously, and maybe I am. I saw Matt posting on a 'foreigns' FB group and all the members seem pleased with the labelling approach as far as I could see. They are the ones buying the books slabbed this way, after all. The 'experts'. If they are happy, why should any of us rock the boat?

That's exactly why.

Experts?

[themagicrobot]

THe AU copy looks better? Even with its cheap newsprint cover? Anyway it ISN'T an Australian copy. THIS is the Australian copy.

 

[rakehell]

On 12/8/2021 at 5:11 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

I'm just some irksome chap in the UK, snapping at their heels, trying to get them to see that a dog is a dog and not a dog variant of a cat.

That's my little poppy seed. 

On 12/8/2021 at 5:11 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

If they had any respect for the UK members who have posted here, and maybe for the help on variants that I have given them over the years, they might have at least made an interim explanatory comment here.

The fact that they don't is mostly what keeps me from slabbing anything. I know what I have & I'm pretty good at grading. Why would I want to pay some collection of uncaring goobers to mislabel something I wanted bad enough to shell out for?

Seriously, though, speaking as an American who happens to live in the UK I like to think I have a slightly different perspective on a lot of these issues. From a purely American, business-growth, income-generating position, I get what they're trying to do. But I still don't agree with it. CGC are the de facto authority on grading and, sadly, labelling information. They have a responsibility for accuracy, of which they seem to be wholly unaware. The problem is that on a corporate level, our concerns are too low a priority to register. Our problem is that we can't unsee nonsense like this. 

 

[Get Marwood & I]

The CBCS labels shown are no good either. They also say "first appearance" and I don't see the required 'reprint' word anywhere. They make no attempt to date them, and also call the books "UK Editions". In the comic industry, we call a book a Direct Edition to differentiate it from a Newsstand Edition. We call a book a Deluxe Edition to differentiate it from a regular edition. What are we differentiating these books from? They are UK publications. The use of the word 'edition' is unnecessary and, given how it is used elsewhere in the industry, misleading. The books are, at least, titled correctly. 

 

[Redshade]

On 12/10/2021 at 8:11 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

The CBCS labels shown are no good either. They also say "first appearance" and I don't see the required 'reprint' word anywhere. They make no attempt to date them, and also call the books "UK Editions". In the comic industry, we call a book a Direct Edition to differentiate it from a Newsstand Edition. We call a book a Deluxe Edition to differentiate it from a regular edition. What are we differentiating these books from? They are UK publications. The use of the word 'edition' is unnecessary and, given how it is used elsewhere in the industry, misleading. The books are, at least, titled correctly. 

 

Oo-er, hark at that. 'Oo rattled 'er cage?

Forgetting for a moment the "UK Edition" designation (which, I am hazarding a guess is used here as a synonym for "comic", or is that a speculation too far?). All the reprint info is on the back of the labels.

The text is too blurry to read because the case stops the comic from lying flat on the copying plate so I won't bother trying to photocopy the rear labels. I suppose that I'm going to have to dig them out again and transcribe the info here. Gissa min.

 

[Redshade]

On 12/10/2021 at 11:12 PM, Redshade said:

Oo-er, hark at that. 'Oo rattled 'er cage?

Forgetting for a moment the "UK Edition" designation (which, I am hazarding a guess is used here as a synonym for "comic", or is that a speculation too far?). All the reprint info is on the back of the labels.

The text is too blurry to read because the case stops the comic from lying flat on the copying plate so I won't bother trying to photocopy the rear labels. I suppose that I'm going to have to dig them out again and transcribe the info here. Gissa min.

 

The information on the back labels whilst not being thoroughly indicative of what is exactly reprinted gives enough information so as to enable the searcher to discover precisely what they need to know and is a massive leap forward from CGC's attempts (I mean no disrespect to CGC here, I am merely explaining where we are at currently). As an addendum the information given by CBCS is not even present in the GCD so CBCS seems to have done its research. I had a very vague hope, to no avail it would seem, that showing these pieces might induce CGC to get its finger out and bring forward any comments that they are planning to make.

Text on rear labels reproduced verbatim :

Sinister Tales 23.

Prints Tales of Suspense 39. World of Fantasy #7, 12, 14, 17 & Tales to Astonish #48 in black and white.

Mystic 54.

Prints Avengers #1. Spellbound #24, #25, #29 & #31 in black and white.

Creepy Worlds 32.

Reprints Fantastic Four #1, Journey into Mystery #84, #86, Strange Tales #49, Tales to Astonish #34. #40 & Amazing Adult Fantasy 11 in black and white.

Creepy Worlds 35.

Prints Fantastic Four #3, and stories from Journey into Mystery #91, #92 & #93, Mystical Tales #2, Strange Tales #107 & Tales to Astonish #41 in black and white.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 12/10/2021 at 11:12 PM, Redshade said:

Oo-er, hark at that. 'Oo rattled 'er cage?

That's twice you've done that now Stephen 

On 12/10/2021 at 11:12 PM, Redshade said:

Forgetting for a moment the "UK Edition" designation (which, I am hazarding a guess is used here as a synonym for "comic", or is that a speculation too far?). All the reprint info is on the back of the labels.

The text is too blurry to read because the case stops the comic from lying flat on the copying plate so I won't bother trying to photocopy the rear labels. I suppose that I'm going to have to dig them out again and transcribe the info here. Gissa min.

On the CBCS slabs that you posted (which might get pulled if someone reports them), the labelling issues are on the front, and the front is what most people look at. Many sellers don't add back scans in sale lots. So if CBCS think it's a reprint (or 'print', if you have recorded the contents correctly in your subsequent post) they should put that on the front as it is important. The front says 'first appearance', the back says 'print/reprint'. That's unnecessarily misleading.

On your point regarding 'editions', I understand what the intention is. I understand that the word 'edition' is being used to indicate that the book is a UK 'comic'. I believe that is their position (CGC). The word edition can be considered in a number of ways, however. I understand what a first edition is in relation to a book. I understand what she means when my wife tells me to pick up the January edition of the Sainsburys magazine. I understand what the late edition of the Evening Standard is. In comics though, the word 'edition' tends - in my experience at least - to indicate a different version of the same thing. Newsstand Edition ~ Direct Edition, etc. So if a dealer says to me "Look at this beauty, Steve! It's the Whatever Edition", I'm immediately looking to see of what. The 'whatever edition' of what?

I had my little battle with CGC over their previous practice of calling both first printing UK Price Variants and subsequent licensed UK reprints as 'editions'. That was misleading, hence my argument. One book was a first printing, one a reprint. That requires a distinction, so I fought for it. When they changed to calling the first printings 'UK Price Variants', I did say at the time that the use of the word 'edition' on the non-US publications was still misleading and should be dropped. So this is phase II of my argument, if you like. If the word 'edition' evokes an instinct in comic collectors that its use must indicate the presence of a sister edition, then it should be dropped if the publication is a stand alone book. The danger otherwise is that people build a mental connection between books that have none. It also, in my opinion, continues to undermine the first printing price variant books which still have 'UK Edition' labelled slabs in circulation, and images online. 

CGC don't label Amazing Spider-Man #146 as a 'US Edition'. It's a stand alone book, with only one version. So why label the Miller reprint titles as 'UK Editions', if they are stand alone books? If comics are a global phenomenon, why must everything be judged by US sensibilities? Shouldn't CGC and CBCS judge all books by the same standard, regardless of where they were published and what they contain? By all means state the country that a book was produced by/for on the label. Just don't use the word 'edition' to do so if you don't need to, and then only on non-US publications.

CGC and CBCS can say that the words 'UK Edition' mean 'a comic published for the UK'. But they don't need to, is my argument, as it is superfluous. If a word has different, industry specific connotations, and is not actually required, why use it? If the book has no other first print versions, no designation is required as there is nothing to differentiate it from. It is itself. If the book reprints content from a previous publication, just state that. "Reprints...."

So, every book is itself, and every book is the product of a country, for a target audience. Just record that, factually. If it reprints content, in full or in part, just record that, factually. If it has multiple versions within the same print run, just record that, factually.

[Kevin.J]

On 12/11/2021 at 9:55 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

CGC don't label Amazing Spider-Man #146 as a 'US Edition'. It's a stand alone book, with only one version. So why label the Miller reprint titles as 'UK Editions', if they are stand alone books? If comics are a global phenomenon, why must everything be judged by US sensibilities? Shouldn't CGC and CBCS judge all books by the same standard, regardless of where they were published and what they contain? By all means state the country that a book was produced by/for on the label. Just don't use the word 'edition' to do so if you don't need to, and then only on non-US publications.

CGC and CBCS can say that the words 'UK Edition' mean 'a comic published for the UK'. But they don't need to, is my argument, as it is superfluous. If a word has different, industry specific connotations, and is not actually required, why use it? If the book has no other first print versions, no designation is required as there is nothing to differentiate it from. It is itself. If the book reprints content from a previous publication, just state that. "Reprints...."

So, every book is itself, and every book is the product of a country, for a target audience. Just record that, factually. If it reprints content, in full or in part, just record that, factually. If it has multiple versions within the same print run, just record that, factually.

I tried to write something like this last night, however I was very tired and failed to word it correctly and just gave up, so somehow, this is really my post and Steve just copied what I was gonna say 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 12/11/2021 at 11:30 AM, Kevin.J said:

I tried to write something like this last night, however I was very tired and failed to word it correctly and just gave up, so somehow, this is really my post and Steve just copied what I was gonna say 

Bloody Jedi mind tricks...

I've made your, sorry, our argument clear now Kev, I think, over the many pages of this thread. I've made it in pictures, in sound bites, in summary and in walls of detailed explanatory text. And I've done so calmly, and respectfully, bar that one understandable 'have at it' post.

All CGC have done is deliver the end product, a year in advance, from a procedural change born of an internal review the details of which they have not shared or explained. That is not the right way to do things. I find it insulting that @mnelsonCGC won't come on here and explain the position of the company he is President of, when the nature of the argument I am putting forward - with some support - at the very least keeps them honest whether they accept it or not. In context, it's disrespectful just to say "we'll get back to you". It makes me think that they don't understand comics and that they don't understand the people who love comics, their concerns and their passions. They understand money though, it seems, and how to make lots of it. 

That's all CGC is at present, to me. A great big money making machine. On this labelling topic, they have strayed wildly from what should be their core purpose - to accurately and factually describe and record the collectables they encapsulate. It should be one of their primary concerns from which everything else flows. CGC would not exist without the comics that they encapsulate. This must have a higher priority than celebrity signature signings and all those wonderful events of theirs that they put so much time and energy into, surely? They've lost focus. 

Matt can try to convince us otherwise by posting here now. 

[Redshade]

On 12/11/2021 at 9:55 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

That's twice you've done that now Stephen 
 

Done what mate? I hope that I haven't inadvertantly upset you in some way. That was not my intention.

Editions? Yes I totally agree that this could/should be clarified.

I was not postulating that the CBCS wording was phrased to such an extent that it would not benefit from revision.

The re/prints dichotomy is exactly as it appears on the slabs.

I expect that they are always amenable to further recommendations.

I was not suggesting that CBCS is perfect, merely reporting that they seem to be making more of an effort than CGC at the moment.

 

 

[Redshade]

Oh it appears that someone took exception to my CBCS posts and the mods have removed my photos for soliciting for sale in a non-sales post, which I was not but there you go.

[CGC Mike]

On 12/11/2021 at 9:04 AM, Redshade said:

Oh it appears that someone took exception to my CBCS posts and the mods have removed my photos for soliciting for sale in a non-sales post, which I was not but there you go.

Sorry, the wrong warning template was used.  Although, I did state in bold the reason the books were removed.