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

[Get Marwood & I]

I heard back from Matt Nelson earlier and he has confirmed that the decision to label non-US publications in line with any high profile US original comic with which they share content is indeed strategic. There was mention of a 'gray area', the details of which I await.

In the meantime, and subject to any clarifying detail in CGC's pending strategy announcement, we will presumably see this kind of thing below as the norm now - a non-US publication with a different issue number and title labelled in line with the US original comic that it reprints in full or in part (in this case, "The Amazing Spider-Man #129"):

I reiterated my high level reasoning as to why I think the strategy is wrong as follows......

"If you label things literally, as what they are, you cannot go wrong in any way as you are dealing in facts. If you label things in line with what they are not, you are storing up problems for the future. And, I would argue, you are showing a lack of respect for the non-US publications. They are their own thing and should not be recorded any other way"

......which Matt noted, confirming in the process that he has also read this thread.

Our email dialogues have always been civil, and he thanked me for my thoughts. It was good of him to take the time out of what must be a very busy day.

An announcement will be made in due course - we know our objections have been noted!

 

[Aman619]

It’s past time for a universal numbering/naming system to be used by the entire hobby/industry. Like an ISBN. Maintained and updated online, once every dealer, auction house etc links the IDs (not easy but doable) they can keep their existing in-house numbering as is.  The goal is everyone to be able to search for the unique name/number and find copies.

but I’m not holding my breath... ; )

[Beyonder123]

I just found this thread and as the original posted books are mine, I suppose I should state my opinion.

Personally I believe the "Enaintep Man" book should be labeled as follows...

Σπάιντερ Μαν #164

[Spider Man #164]

Kabanas Hellas 6/84

Greek Publication

I think there should be a distinction between the comic Amazing Spiderman #252, and the story presented within. For example, how would you notate foreign editions that print stories from multiple US titles under one book? Under the current rules whatever the cover is would dictate what the label says.

For example, I currently have a copy of "Hulk #45" published by Atlantic Förlag in the Netherlands. The book prints the story and cover presented in Incredible Hulk #285. But that's not the only story it publishes. It also prints Daredevil 181 (which I believe is in it's entirety). 

So the question I pose is what should the CGC label be for this book? The Incredible Hulk #285? Or Daredevil #181? Both stories are printed inside. The book is from 1984, so both issues had already been made available in the states at this point. The only distinguishing factor is that the foreign print has the cover for the Hulk book. What if my copy is coverless? What if another issue from the same run has a completely redone cover?

What about the Brazilian run of "Secret Wars". The story was heavily edited, and at least one of the covers was completely redone. Is the story that Americans read and the story Brazilians read really the same story? Is it really correct to label it as such?

[Get Marwood & I]

5 hours ago, Beyonder123 said:

I just found this thread and as the original posted books are mine, I suppose I should state my opinion.

Personally I believe the "Enaintep Man" book should be labeled as follows...

Σπάιντερ Μαν #164

[Spider Man #164]

Kabanas Hellas 6/84

Greek Publication

I think there should be a distinction between the comic Amazing Spiderman #252, and the story presented within. For example, how would you notate foreign editions that print stories from multiple US titles under one book? Under the current rules whatever the cover is would dictate what the label says.

For example, I currently have a copy of "Hulk #45" published by Atlantic Förlag in the Netherlands. The book prints the story and cover presented in Incredible Hulk #285. But that's not the only story it publishes. It also prints Daredevil 181 (which I believe is in it's entirety). 

So the question I pose is what should the CGC label be for this book? The Incredible Hulk #285? Or Daredevil #181? Both stories are printed inside. The book is from 1984, so both issues had already been made available in the states at this point. The only distinguishing factor is that the foreign print has the cover for the Hulk book. What if my copy is coverless? What if another issue from the same run has a completely redone cover?

What about the Brazilian run of "Secret Wars". The story was heavily edited, and at least one of the covers was completely redone. Is the story that Americans read and the story Brazilians read really the same story? Is it really correct to label it as such?

We seem to be on the same page Beyonder123, and you highlight again some of the concerns I have expressed. We'll have to wait for the detail of the forthcoming announcement, but I suspect they're going to create problems for themselves going forward and we'll end up with some books being labelled as they are and others in line with the US originals depending on content. I foresee a mess, and I feel it shows a lack of respect for the non-US publications. CGC, of all people, should respect comics for what they are and uphold data accuracy. The proposed strategy, which is unnecessary, doesn't do that in my opinion.  

[Get Marwood & I]

1 hour ago, Get Marwood & I said:

I foresee a mess, and I feel it shows a lack of respect for the non-US publications.

On the mess front, this was posted earlier in the thread - an apparent Mexican Batman #397 labelled as an American Detective #359:

 

If I put the slab number into the verification tool I get the same Detective 359 / Batman 397 combination:

 

 

 

So that's a Batman #397, labelled as Detective #359 due to the high profile cover.

If I type Batman #397 into the census I get two records, the DC original and our Mexican publication (10/67):

 

 

If I click on the Mexican Editorial Novaro entry I get one graded copy:

 

 

But it is a 3.5 and our graded book is a 4.0. And it says reprints Detective #357, not 359 (reprints!)

So what has happened here? Could it be that the added complication of trying to call a dog a cat has created the confusion? You could avoid that, couldn't you, by calling a dog a dog.

And this strategy is a dog, let's face it. It is a dog from the point of view of labelling accuracy, it is a dog from the point of view of showing respect for a publication, and it is a potential / procedural record keeping dog as this example appears to illustrate. Is the 4.0 slab the 3.5 above recorded in error? Or does the 4.0 slab record exist under the US Detective record? How many slabbed Mexican editions are there? And do they reprint 357 or 359? And is the slab date the date of the Mexican comic or the US original? It's labelled as the US original, so maybe. Is the Mexican comic the first appearance of Batgirl? It says it is on the label. No mention of 'reprint' on the label, but it does say reprint on the census so which is it?

Did I get anything wrong here?

 

[Get Marwood & I]

...oh, there it is!

 

I rest my case on the floor.

[HotKey]

Being new to foreign editions and finding that I really love them but dont know much about them, I would definitely prefer a literal label-it-what-it-says-it-is vs a label-it-what-we-think-they-bought-it-as approach so that I can know I have fully correct info on the label, not what could be categorized as essentially "guesswork". Marwood makes many excellent and logical points on why the dog-is-a-dog approach is the best solution for all and it would be the best decision going forward, although it might require a little more work updating the census, but that should really be done anyways if the information is incorrect. I would be very mad if I bought a foreign edition that said "Amazing Spiderman 129" on it and I later found out it was a 3 dollar reprint. 

That is the responsibility CGC has in this. They have... well, great power in this area to set the future standard and they will either set the industry on the right course or create a huge headache for the industry going forward. 

[Get Marwood & I]

3 hours ago, HotKey said:

Being new to foreign editions and finding that I really love them but dont know much about them

...and that's a key point HotKey. A hot key point, you could say 

Not everyone knows explicitly what is going on. Not everyone is an expert in every aspect of comic collecting, certainly not where variants and non-US publications are concerned. This is why clear labelling is important. This approach will mislead some and confuse many I suspect. There are those that will say "tough - if you can't tell a reprint from an original you shouldn't be in the hobby in the first place". That's arrogance speaking. If it is obvious what something is, then it should be quite easy to label it clearly and correctly shouldn't it?

CGC have just got this wrong. They have allowed some noise from outside the circle to override what should be a toweringly obvious guiding principle - label things as what they are, not what you or some interested group want them to be to fit a narrow commercial or competitive interest. 

This is how easy it would be to label all non-US produced comics correctly and factually whilst identifying any link to key US original comic content (using their own verification tool headings):

• Title - the title of the actual comic in hand (alongside a literal US translation if necessary)
• Issue - the issue number of the actual comic in hand
• Issue Date / Year - the date and year of the actual comic in hand
• Publisher - the name of the publisher of the actual comic in hand
• Country - the principle distribution country 
• Variant - not applicable as non-US publications are not variants of US originals. Variants can only come from the same US print run as the original US comic
• Key Comments - the details of any salient US original comic that the comic in hand reprints in full or in part

Do that and you:

• Respect the publication in hand - it is its own thing
• Respect the US original - don't label a non-US publication as the 'first appearance' of a US character that first appeared in a US comic first
• Preserve data integrity - a dog is a dog. Do not ask people to search for it under 'cat'
• Promote industry understanding - let the world know that these books are their own thing. By all means point out the reprinting of key original US content in the notes
• Maintain one, accurate census record - Mexican Batman #397 is what we are searching for. Not American Detective Comics #359 

If you have to put some process in place for the census search where the spelling is non-English standard - I could foresee some technical issues there - then that is your challenge and that is the price you pay for agreeing to grade non-US books. Arguably, CGC have been trying to conquer all preceding industry descriptors and standards since they were incepted. 9.2, 9.4, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9. 10.2. Their grading standards and terminology now seem to rule the land. What right do CGC have to decide to call something produced on non-US shores what it clearly is not? How long before the rest of the comic industry starts to accept their choice of descriptors on - and I hate this term - 'foreigns'?

Write to your local MP* and stop this madness now!

 

*Or your non-English equivalent 

 

[steve566]

4 hours ago, HotKey said:

Being new to foreign editions and finding that I really love them but dont know much about them, I would definitely prefer a literal label-it-what-it-says-it-is vs a label-it-what-we-think-they-bought-it-as approach so that I can know I have fully correct info on the label, not what could be categorized as essentially "guesswork". Marwood makes many excellent and logical points on why the dog-is-a-dog approach is the best solution for all and it would be the best decision going forward, although it might require a little more work updating the census, but that should really be done anyways if the information is incorrect. I would be very mad if I bought a foreign edition that said "Amazing Spiderman 129" on it and I later found out it was a 3 dollar reprint. 

That is the responsibility CGC has in this. They have... well, great power in this area to set the future standard and they will either set the industry on the right course or create a huge headache for the industry going forward. 

The date of publication is on the slab. It tells you the foreign publisher and the month and year that it was published in that country. I understand your concern about buying a current asm 129 that was just a $3 reprint but if the label says "russian edition / 2019" I would hope majority of collectors would take the time to read what the label says and realize that it is a recent print.

A few years ago I saw complaints about someone buying foreigns with the old style label because even then they didn't take the time to read the publication date smack dab in the center of the label. There are a few unscrupulous American ebay sellers that sell the German reprints for inflated prices and people buy them thinking they are silver age comics even though the label says 2010. Number 1 rule as a newbie when buying foreigns is check the publication date. 

5 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

...oh, there it is!

 

I rest my case on the floor.

I believe the plan is to combine the census so it is more accurate. This 3.5 you posted is the old style label (probably slabbed a few years ago) and the 4.0 is the new label (my book slabbed last year). Honestly I would have been happy with either label and no one in the foreign comic collecting community had any input in this decision.  

1 hour ago, Get Marwood & I said:

 

 

 

CGC have just got this wrong. They have allowed some noise from outside the circle to override what should be a toweringly obvious guiding principle - label things as what they are, not what you or some interested group want them to be to fit a narrow commercial or competitive interest. 

 

 

 

 

There has been no "noise" in the community to pressure CGC to change the labels. This was a decision made solely by them. This was my 1st ever submission to CGC and I had no idea my books would be the "guinea pig" for the new style labels.. as I said earlier in the post there are many foreign comic collectors that dislike the labels just as much as you do. 

[Get Marwood & I]

35 minutes ago, steve566 said:

The date of publication is on the slab. It tells you the foreign publisher and the month and year that it was published in that country.

Using the Mexican example above, how does the uneducated person know that, that the publication date on the label is that of the Mexican Batman #397 and not the American Detective Comics #359? Why do you assume that is obvious to all? There are two titles and one date on the slab. That creates uncertainty. And if the foreign publication has a very similar, close date to the US original - even the mildly educated could slip up using the dates. 

Quote

I understand your concern about buying a current asm 129 that was just a $3 reprint but if the label says "russian edition / 2019" I would hope majority of collectors would take the time to read what the label says and realize that it is a recent print.

CGC used to refer to price variants as 'editions' too - again, the uneducated may confuse a Mexican Edition with a UK/Canadian/Australian first printing price variant if they are looking at a historic slab. Many people still don't realise that there are only four countries in scope for price variants in respect of US original comics and many educated US collectors still think a French reprint and a UK Price Variant carry equal status. 

Quote

A few years ago I saw complaints about someone buying foreigns with the old style label because even then they didn't take the time to read the publication date smack dab in the center of the label. There are a few unscrupulous American ebay sellers that sell the German reprints for inflated prices and people buy them thinking they are silver age comics even though the label says 2010. Number 1 rule as a newbie when buying foreigns is check the publication date. 

If CGC labelled correctly, the number 1 rule would be to check the notes which should say "reprints material originally published in....". 

Again, for the uneducated, if the slab says "First appearance of Batgirl" why would someone place a publishing date which they may be unfamiliar with for both the US original and the non-US reprint over the 'certainty' of that label text? CGC are saying in black and white that this book is the first appearance.

Quote

I believe the plan is to combine the census so it is more accurate. This 3.5 you posted is the old style label (probably slabbed a few years ago) and the 4.0 is the new label (my book slabbed last year). Honestly I would have been happy with either label and no one in the foreign comic collecting community had any input in this decision.  

Combine how, if they have different entry titles? Using our Mexican example, it will either be listed as one (Batman), the other (Detective), or both as it currently is. If the US edition wins out, how do we identify which of the overall census numbers for Detective represent the Mexican Batman publications?

Quote

There has been no "noise" in the community to pressure CGC to change the labels. This was a decision made solely by them.

Whilst I accept that, on reflection, I have no evidence of it (the noise), I don't think that it is likely that CGC arrived at this decision themselves without any input from the type of collectors who participate in the registry awards. Maybe CGC will clarify this, and state the reason for the change in approach, when they retrospectively make the announcement of what they have already started doing. An announcement, mind, that may well have influenced your decision to submit your books in the first place (would you have, had you known how they would come back?).

Quote

This was my 1st ever submission to CGC and I had no idea my books would be the "guinea pig" for the new style labels.. as I said earlier in the post there are many foreign comic collectors that dislike the labels just as much as you do. 

If they haven't already, get them to contact CGC. I've emailed Matt - that's as high as you can go I believe - add your voice to mine if you disagree with what they are doing / about to do. It hasn't been announced, so it can be stopped. One chance to stop it.

[steve566]

7 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Using the Mexican example above, how does the uneducated person know that, that the publication date on the label is that of the Mexican Batman #397 and not the American Detective Comics #359? Why do you assume that is obvious to all? There are two titles and one date on the slab. That creates uncertainty. And if the foreign publication has a very similar, close date to the US original - even the mildly educated could slip up using the dates. 

I’m not sure where the uncertainty lies it’s printed right there on the label the Mexican comic was printed by Novaro in 10/67. This comic is most likely going to cost $300-500 so hopefully the buyer realizes that the are buying a foreign edition and not the American comic.. i mean one look at the comic should tell you your not buying an American comic no matter how uneducated the buyer is.

7 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

If CGC labelled correctly, the number 1 rule would be to check the notes which should say "reprints material originally published in....". 

Correct in your opinion.. you keep using the term reprint which in my opinion is incorrect and CGC seems to agree

7 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Combine how, if they have different entry titles?

 

 

Maybe CGC will clarify this, and state the reason for the change in approach, when they retrospectively make the announcement of what they have already started doing. An announcement, mind, that may well have influenced your decision to submit your books in the first place (would you have, had you known how they would come back?).

 

No clue that would be a question for someone that works at CGC...
 

and finally like I’ve already stated from the beginning I had no clue my books would be labeled like this and honestly it wasn’t that big of a deal to me... hundred of more book have been labeled this way after mine. The new label doesn’t bother me and I prefer it to the old label and I made sure to express that to Matt Nelson. 

I don’t quite understand your one man mission to discredit these new labels.

 Do you own any foreign comics?.. could you tell me the difference between a La Masa 4, La Masa 40 and a mighty world of marvel 198? The difference between Die spinne 3, homem aranha 1, and el sorprendente hombre arana 1; what makes el sorprendente hombre arana 128 so special? These are question any basic foreign collector could answer but sounds greek to someone not involved in the niche..
if you don’t collect these books and don’t know the history behind these fascinating “reprints” then no offense but why should CGC listen to your opinion? 
 

 

[Prince Namor]

On 4/25/2021 at 6:05 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Does this imply a lack of uniformity in the labelling approach?

Yes.

[Get Marwood & I]

6 hours ago, steve566 said:

I’m not sure where the uncertainty lies it’s printed right there on the label the Mexican comic was printed by Novaro in 10/67. This comic is most likely going to cost $300-500 so hopefully the buyer realizes that the are buying a foreign edition and not the American comic.. i mean one look at the comic should tell you your not buying an American comic no matter how uneducated the buyer is.

Correct in your opinion.. you keep using the term reprint which in my opinion is incorrect and CGC seems to agree

No clue that would be a question for someone that works at CGC...
 

and finally like I’ve already stated from the beginning I had no clue my books would be labeled like this and honestly it wasn’t that big of a deal to me... hundred of more book have been labeled this way after mine. The new label doesn’t bother me and I prefer it to the old label and I made sure to express that to Matt Nelson. 

I don’t quite understand your one man mission to discredit these new labels.

 Do you own any foreign comics?.. could you tell me the difference between a La Masa 4, La Masa 40 and a mighty world of marvel 198? The difference between Die spinne 3, homem aranha 1, and el sorprendente hombre arana 1; what makes el sorprendente hombre arana 128 so special? These are question any basic foreign collector could answer but sounds greek to someone not involved in the niche..
if you don’t collect these books and don’t know the history behind these fascinating “reprints” then no offense but why should CGC listen to your opinion? 

Morning Steve 

I started the thread, fairly innocently as it goes, and have responded to all contributors along the way as the new strategy information came to light. I can see why you'd use the phrase 'one man mission', as I have done a lot of the talking! I do think it a little unfair though, that accusation, but understand why you would say it. I have a position on this subject, and I'm sharing it here, because I care. I've made it clear, I hope, what my position is, in some detail, and I have justified it and put together an argument which I hope stands up. 

I have indeed owned many non-US publications in my time - notably Spidey and Hulk related - but I no longer actively collect them. But I don't need to collect, or know the detailed difference between separate publications which reprint, or reproduce if you would prefer, Wolverine's first (second? ) appearance to have a valid opinion on how they should be labelled and recorded.

I accept that the new design label doesn't bother you personally. But I feel like I am championing 'your' books for you. I have stated that I find the labelling approach disrespectful to the books that you collect and are fascinated by. I am saying these books need better treatment, that they are their own thing and should not be treated as anything other than that. And I feel that you are attacking my argument, rather than supporting it, as you might, as an active collector of them. Which I find odd.

I would like to think that CGC would listen to my opinion because I have been helpful to them in the past in a number of ways and have earned the right, I hope, to at least be heard. I have put forward a reasoned argument, that is all. They don't have to listen. And I did say, earlier in the thread, that if the change went ahead, so be it, but at least it would do so with my reasoned objection noted. I don't mean for that to sound big headed - I'm just a collector with an opinion that I want to get on the table just on the off-chance that it might help influence a better way forward. I shouldn't have to stay silent for fear of being accused of being on a 'one man mission' or putting myself on a pedestal, should I?

I distil the difference between us, simply, as follows if I am understanding your position correctly.:

I believe 'La Masa 4' (v2) should be labeled and recorded as such, with a note stating the key US original publication content that has been reproduced. You are comfortable with it being labelled as 'The Incredible Hulk #181'.

This is a discussion thread Steve and I do appreciate your input. At the end of the day, it gets dark, and CGC will do whatever they think is right. They have heard both our positions. However they are labelled from this point, you have some really lovely comics. 

 

[Get Marwood & I]

7 hours ago, steve566 said:

14 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

If CGC labelled correctly, the number 1 rule would be to check the notes which should say "reprints material originally published in....". 

Correct in your opinion.. you keep using the term reprint which in my opinion is incorrect and CGC seems to agree

I plucked this out for a separate discussion if you're up for it - what term would you suggest Steve? 

There's a difference I think between a book which is a straight reproduction of an original book in its entirety, and a new publication with different title / cover / content that includes material previously printed elsewhere.

I wouldn't call MWOM 198 a reprint of IH 181, but I would say it reprints original US content from it in the notes. What would you say in that example?

[rakehell]

Just stumbled across this thread yesterday. Still reading through. I agree with your approach, Linda, not least for the sake of continuity. If I were trying to slab a full run of Might World of Marvel, why does my 198 have a slab that doesn't match the rest of the run? Pedantic, yes, but then I collect comics. 

On 4/25/2021 at 2:53 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

A dog is a dog. It is not a 'Dog Edition' of a Cat.

Plus, also, I'll just interject this here -

I'm disappointed nobody else spotted that. 

[Get Marwood & I]

3 minutes ago, rakehell said:

Just stumbled across this thread yesterday. Still reading through. I agree with your approach, Linda, not least for the sake of continuity. If I were trying to slab a full run of Might World of Marvel, why does my 198 have a slab that doesn't match the rest of the run? Pedantic, yes, but then I collect comics. 

So you can add it to your IH181 registry set? 

3 minutes ago, rakehell said:

Plus, also, I'll just interject this here -

I'm disappointed nobody else spotted that. 

Is that a cog or a dat?

[rakehell]

52 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

So you can add it to your IH181 registry set? 

But that prevents me adding it to my MWM registry set...

 

53 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Is that a cog or a dat?

That is a ...CatDog! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CatDog

[HotKey]

I gave this some more thought and came up with a basic layout idea for foreign editions. I know it would create a headache for any currently graded ones, but that can't be helped in almost any change to the labeling system for these. I think a split label would be a good idea as it would immediately tell the buyer that they are looking at a foreign edition. I have no graphic skills but you can get the idea from this. Split the label down the middle with the bar code and whatever else you want there, then put 2 columns of information on either side. If an edition contains multiple comics, you can add multiple rows to the contains side. This would be the most informative approach, at least imo coming in with almost no knowledge of these. I would be able to immediately tell just about everything I would want to know about the edition and its US counterpart. It also would prevent any future confusion as buyers would immediately know by the different layout of the label that this was not a normal US version.

[steve566]

4 hours ago, rakehell said:

Just stumbled across this thread yesterday. Still reading through. I agree with your approach, Linda, not least for the sake of continuity. If I were trying to slab a full run of Might World of Marvel, why does my 198 have a slab that doesn't match the rest of the run? Pedantic, yes, but then I collect comics. 

Plus, also, I'll just interject this here -

I'm disappointed nobody else spotted that. 

As far as I know the UK MWOM 198 is still labeled as such.. I sent in a creepy worlds 32 (Uk fantastic four 1) and it retained the old style label..  I actually just sent my MWOM 198 in with my La Masa’s for grading so we will see how the labels come back this time around. 

[rakehell]

7 minutes ago, steve566 said:

As far as I know the UK MWOM 198 is still labeled as such.. I sent in a creepy worlds 32 (Uk fantastic four 1) and it retained the old style label..  I actually just sent my MWOM 198 in with my La Masa’s for grading so we will see how the labels come back this time around. 

I maybe should have used a better example, but Marwood already used La Masa 4.

The closest I could get from my own collection is this -

& it ain't what it looks like. That's not Wolverine's hand & this isn't a 'Greek Edition' of Hulk 181. I forget which issue it does contain, but it's definitely not 181.