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

[Get Marwood & I]

On 2/16/2022 at 7:31 PM, Redshade said:

Keep up the good work Steve. This is a complete fiasco. Rather than proclaiming their professionalism this manifests itself as a gigantic pretence. Either employ a " Foreign  Comics/Reprints" expert or admit that they are not up to the task.

Thanks Stephen. Thing is, if they just stuck to recording the details of the actual comic, they wouldn't necessarily need an expert.

On 2/16/2022 at 7:46 PM, steve566 said:

I'm not too familiar with superboy but if that is the superboy 1 cover then the new labeling strategy would call it Superboy 1 Australian edition.. word on the street is Heritage is going to hold an all foreign edition auction so it seems like the CGC announcement will be in alignment with the heritage auction announcement 

It reprints Superboy #1, and shares the cover, so would be labelled as such under the new regime as you say, yes. Just wondered whether the actual Australian title is 'Comics' or not. What street did you hear the Heritage link up on? Wall Street? 

Spoiler

 

[Redshade]

On 2/16/2022 at 7:52 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Thanks Stephen. Thing is, if they just stuck to recording the details of the actual comic, they wouldn't necessarily need an expert.

I

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Indeed. They could also , of course, ask the sender how they think it should be described.

[Malacoda]

On 1/31/2022 at 6:19 PM, CGC Mike said:

Tree Fiddy

 

Superb. There's no answer to that. 

[rakehell]

On 2/15/2022 at 2:23 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Still no sign of the announcement on this...

With you all the way, Steve, my man.

Nice bit of invective BTW. Still can't quite get this to conform to any logical process, at least not in my cluttered mind. I know it's wrong, but I'm struggling to narrow down or categorize the reasons it's wrong. Just too much wrong, I guess.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 2/17/2022 at 12:40 PM, rakehell said:

With you all the way, Steve, my man.

Nice bit of invective BTW. Still can't quite get this to conform to any logical process, at least not in my cluttered mind. I know it's wrong, but I'm struggling to narrow down or categorize the reasons it's wrong. Just too much wrong, I guess.

Thanks Elsie. I know I'm getting on some people's nerves with this - certainly CGC's - but it is so galactically, manifestly and obviously wrong to me, that I'm genuinely puzzled as to why the argument is even necessary in the first place. As you say, it's wrong on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start. Maybe there will be some concessions or meaningful explanations in the announcement, if and when it comes, I don't know. But, and hopefully without sounding too dramatic, I feel like I'm fighting for the integrity of these books here, and the ongoing record keeping of them. I don't really understand why I have to do that with CGC given all that they stand for (or should, perhaps stand for) and it grates that no one will respond formally after a year of chasing for clarity. If nothing else, there is an absence of knowledge for submitters right now as to how non-US books will be recorded currently - as themselves, or under another US books details? CGC are processing them to the design now, as we speak. So how can it be right that they will not give even an outline of how it will / is working? People are effectively submitting blind with only a loose idea of what constitutes a 'key' US book as a guide to what they may see on their returned book's label. 

I'd like to think that if I was the leading self appointed corporate custodian of all things comics that I would be grateful for a considered, rational argument that was put forward by a seasoned comic enthusiast who was clearly trying to do the right thing by the comics. At least have the courage to respond to it and argue your case. 

If you don't stand for one thing, you'll fall for everything, they say. Well I'm standing for this. Still. 

[themagicrobot]

Here they got some of it right.

 

Could this cover have been unique to K.G. Murray? Why is it described as a DC comic? DC's Batman 25 has a different cover and was published in 1944.. 

 

This is described as a K.G. Murray comic but it isn't number 65.

None of them are really "Australian editions" though.

 

[Yorick]

On 2/17/2022 at 10:42 AM, themagicrobot said:

 

I like this label for the "Australia" designation (rather than "Australian Edition") and the title/#, but that "D. C. Comics" with a date is a problem.  I also like that they note the USA book(s) it originated from.

If a comic contains 99% of the material of another (and is printed later than the first), I believe it is fair to call that a "reprint".  When a comic has an entirely new cover, is composed of various parts of other comics, is printed without color ink, has been translated, and has entirely new advertising - I have a very hard time calling it a "reprint".

Perhaps simplicity is best and the above pictured Batman #25 would be:

Batman #25

K. G. Murray, No Date

Australia

Contains Batman #69 & Detective Comics #179 (D.C. Comics)

[themagicrobot]

Which is what @Get Marwood & I has been asking for all along. And I think they could add a date if they really tried. And the comic doesn't contain the whole contents of Batman 69 and Detective 179, only selected stories. But recently we get stuff like this:-  

Edited February 17, 2022 by themagicrobot

[Get Marwood & I]

It's nice to see all these examples - pre and post the design change - and to hear others thoughts on it all. When the announcement is finally made, and the final design is (hopefully) clarified, I'm going to summarise in detail my thoughts and objections, tailored to any changes that have yet to filter though, one last time in this thread. I may then pop a poll up, to gauge people's thoughts on it all.

We shouldn't have to guess how CGC will label and record any non-US comic. They should label them with their actual title, issue number, publisher and date. Always. If they reproduce some significant original US content, by all means note that too - but prefixed with the words 'Reprints content from...'. And by all means add the country of origin / distribution, but not as an 'Edition' of some US original publication with which it may share full or limited content. 

Do that, and you can't go wrong and have a nice, clean, orderly census record. And you cannot be criticised as everything stated is fact, and nothing is misleading. 

Hopefully not too much longer to wait now. 

[gadzukes]

On 2/17/2022 at 1:42 PM, themagicrobot said:

Here they got some of it right.

 

A label note stating the cover is from "Adventure Comics 160" would have been nice (and probably some of the interior)

[themagicrobot]

I suppose it all comes back again to being about money and the CGC happy to tell you that your comic is now more valuable because they have decided it has transformed into a Golden Age World's Finest and is no longer deemed to be a black and white reprint comic from a decade later. But by encasing comics in plastic the CGC have become an important tool for preserving these coloured pamphlets for future generations. They have a duty to get their facts right if they are serious about slabbing non-US comics. How can someone be accused of mis-selling a UK Mystic as a USA TTA 13 if that's what it says right there on the label? Even more important, as has been shown in some detail above by @Get Marwood & I (did I do it right this time?), the  CGC database is getting messed up with random descriptions when it ought to be building up into an important definitive reference work that people can use, navigate easily and trust. This all needs nipping in the bud before too much more time elapses.

Edited February 18, 2022 by themagicrobot

[Get Marwood & I]

On 2/18/2022 at 9:51 AM, themagicrobot said:

Even more important, as has been shown in some detail above by @Get Marwood & I (did I do it right this time?),

Yup 

On 2/18/2022 at 9:51 AM, themagicrobot said:

the  CGC database is getting messed up with random descriptions when it ought to be building up into an important definitive reference work that people can use, navigate easily and trust.

It can't be helpful to the hobby to have titles ascribed to publishers who never produced books with those titles, in the census. If that element of the design stands, CGC will be rightly accused of spreading misinformation. Two examples below:

 

It's not the K G Murray World's Finest #128, is it. 

 

Come back in eight years to see what is planned. I presume that is the new target date for the announcement.... 

[Beyonder123]

Bumping this. I got a bunch of foreign books in and I dont wanna send them in if they aren't going to be labeled right.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 2/26/2022 at 12:48 AM, Beyonder123 said:

Bumping this. I got a bunch of foreign books in and I dont wanna send them in if they aren't going to be labeled right.

CGC Mike advised me that the announcement is another 2-3 weeks away so we're looking at the latter half of March at this rate. Re your point, Beyonder, it will be interesting to see to what extent the submitter can influence the labelling, if at all. If you didn't want your book to be titled as something else, I mean.

[gadzukes]

I love the comic & love the grade.

I HATE that there is NO mention of ASM 101 reprint.   THOR 165 is in this comic too, but no mention.  Ugh

Edited March 15, 2022 by gadzukes

[rakehell]

On 3/15/2022 at 6:37 PM, gadzukes said:

I love the comic & love the grade.

Me too. Very nice.

On 3/15/2022 at 6:37 PM, gadzukes said:

I HATE that there is NO mention of ASM 101 reprint.   THOR 165 is in this comic too, but no mention.  Ugh

Me too again. This is a good example to illustrate the issue here.

This: 

is reprinted in these:  

The label on yours doesn't even get it wrong in the right way. Does that make sense? Don't answer, Marwood.

As you say, no mention of ASM 101, or the first appearance of Morbius, or the second half of either of these, or the cover swipe, or Thor 165. It does say what it is, which is Spider-Man Weekly Comics 140. I guess that's halfway right. If they'd done what they've been doing, your label would say "Amazing Spider-Man #101" on top & 'Marvel Comics, 10/75' under that & maybe 'Spider-Man Weekly Comics #140' really small under that & probably 'UK Edition' somewhere, which would be completely wrong for a number of reasons, one of which being that SCW 140 only reprints the second half of the original story. So if you submitted SCW 139 what would the label say? 

Am I nitpicking? 

 

[Lazyboy]

On 3/15/2022 at 1:37 PM, gadzukes said:

I love the comic & love the grade.

I HATE that there is NO mention of ASM 101 reprint.   THOR 165 is in this comic too, but no mention.  Ugh

I love this label. It's great! Sure, it could have more details about the contents, but it actually matches the comic, which is what really matters.

[Redshade]

On 3/16/2022 at 1:30 PM, rakehell said:

On 3/15/2022 at 6:37 PM, gadzukes said:

I love the comic & love the grade.

I HATE that there is NO mention of ASM 101 reprint.   THOR 165 is in this comic too, but no mention.  Ugh

 

I think that we are trying to get CGC to label UK reprints correctly.
I would have added "Marvel UK" to this but as it does not say this anywhere on the cover we can forgive them.
I agree that the cover should be acknowledged as being from ASM 101 ( and possibly that this is the second part of the story) but not mention the other internal stories. They would have to virtually print out the entire contents page which I don't think is feasible. Imagine having to do that with a multi-story Alan Class for example.
We have to concede that CGC will have the final say but I wish that there could be some input from the owner of the comic as to how they think that it should be labelled.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Redshade

[gadzukes]

On 3/17/2022 at 2:22 PM, Redshade said:

I wish that there could be some input from the owner of the comic as to how they think that it should be labelled.

I'm the owner.

I think everything that's there can stay the same, but simply add to the notes:

"Reprints 1/2 of Amazing Spider-Man 101 (1st Morbius the Living Vampire)" 

"Reprints 1/2 of Thor 165 (1st full appearance of HIM/Warlock)"

Edited March 18, 2022 by gadzukes

[Redshade]

On 3/17/2022 at 6:41 PM, gadzukes said:

I'm the owner.

I think everything that's there can stay the same, but simply add to the notes:

"Reprints 1/2 of Amazing Spider-Man 101 (1st Morbius the Living Vampire)" 

"Reprints 1/2 of Thor 165 (1st full appearance of HIM/Warlock)"

Oh apologies. I wasn't specifically meaning you and this comic. I was waffling in a more general sense.