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

[Get Marwood & I]

2-3 weeks have come and gone. Getting on for four now. 

The 1st of April is looking nailed on, isn't it.... 

[rakehell]

On 3/22/2022 at 9:22 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

The 1st of April is looking nailed on, isn't it.... 

Yeah, but nailed on to what?

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/22/2022 at 10:25 AM, rakehell said:

Yeah, but nailed on to what?

The gravestone of common sense. Or punctuality, if there's no space left on the former.

[themagicrobot]

No time to post here. Too busy cutting up the cover of my Miller Mystic 40 into postage stamp-sized pieces.

Edited March 22, 2022 by themagicrobot

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/22/2022 at 6:10 PM, themagicrobot said:

No time to post here. Too busy cutting up the cover of my Miller Mystic 40 into postage stamp-sized pieces.

Indeed. Join in the fun here Robot:

https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/505053-seriously/?do=findComment&comment=12252515

It's now 2 days short of a month since CGC Mike told me that the announcement was 2-3 weeks away. 

While we continue to wait, let's revisit one of the images posted earlier in the thread by Robot - a Super Adventure Comic #11 which CGC have labelled as World's Finest Comics #31 under their new labelling strategy:

Most collectors will have only a passing knowledge of books like these. Let's see what CGC do to help people understand what this book is all about.

1. The Book Title

As we all now know, CGC intend to give books like these the headline label title of the US book that they reproduce in full or in part, and not the title of the comic itself. That will confuse collectors straight away, of course. Why would you call a book something that it isn't? The words 'World's Finest Comics' do not appear on the cover, or even internally. In this case, unless I have my facts wrong, the connection here is just the cover art. The book has the same cover art as World's Finest Comics #31, and that is enough in CGC's opinion to render its actual title to a footnote below the publisher / date details.

To preserve the homage link, it is the same for the issue number.

2. The Content Description

On this example, we see that CGC state that the book 'contains' 3 US comics. It is a given, I guess, that whenever this is mentioned, it is the US comics of those titles that are in play. This is one of the reasons that I refer to the labelling strategy as disrespectful - the implication is that only the US originals are important. Note, however, that there is no reference to World's Finest Comics from a content position. CGC note the content of 3 US books, but not the actual book that drives the replacement title. Bizarre.

Note also that CGC - who must have given great thought to this strategy - omit to inform that the content is reprinted, and also that it is not present in full. 

If CGC had used these three words - "Reprints content from.." the confusion goes away and accuracy reigns. CGC have had a long time to consider this. So we can only assume one of two scenarios:

1. They considered the use of descriptors such as "Reprints content from" and decided against them
2. They did not think it through sufficiently

I do not think it puts CGC in a good light to do this - refuse to add a handful of words that improve the description beyond measure and remove the potential for misleading collectors. The addition of my proposed three words makes the description water tight. Their omission creates a series of problems around accuracy.

Note at this point that I have been making these observations for a year now, and no CGC representative will respond publicly or explain their position.

3. Country of Origin

CGC use the words "Australian Edition" to indicate to the viewer that the book is not of US production origin. Returning to my point in point 2 above, CGC will know that the word 'Edition' has strong connotations in the industry: Newsstand Edition / Direct Edition. Regular Edition / Deluxe Edition. For me, the use of 'Edition' here creates a strong impression that a separate book exists which was produced in the same print run as the book in hand. By saying 'Australian Edition', as I have noted many times before, CGC create the impression that the book is somehow a part of the original US print run. It is the Australian edition of World's Finest Comics #31 in the same way that CGC used to label UK Price Variants as 'editions' (with many old slab examples still in circulation). But of course it isn't.

By making that mental link, carelessly using words that, as I have said, have strong implications in the industry, I think CGC muddy the water between genuine price variants, produced in the US for overseas distribution, and books locally reprinted under licence in non-US countries. I feel that all the work I have put into making UK Price Variant status clear is now in jeopardy.

Thankfully there are no origin or first appearances reprinted in this book for CGC to label as such, and in doing so immediately undermine the legitimacy of true origin appearance books. Read back over this thread for my views on that practice.

Label Summary

Keeping in mind that CGC should be responsible for clear, accurate descriptions, what does the layman see on this book label:

• The title and issue number of another book
• No mention of why that title has been chosen - you have to know the cover to make the link
• An inaccurate description of internal contents:
  • The stated books are not reproduced in full
  • No content from World's Finest Comics #31 is present
• Failure to indicate the reprint status. There are non-US publications which actually do include original remaindered US copies (e.g. Double Double books / Thorpe & Porter annuals) so the door is opened here to confusion down the line

Not a great start is it.

My belief is that CGC could make all these issues go away with some more considered thought, and a more fact based approach to labelling content and descriptions. If CGC want - and I believe this desire to be genuine - to promote these books to a wider audience, this I'm afraid is completely the wrong way to go about it and to me has the polar opposite effect.

If there is a desire for slab collectors to be able to group sets of books that share a cover, or key content, in the registry, then CGC should have found another way of doing that - and one that does not require the corruption of basic self-evident facts.

Let's turn now to the census records for this book.

Census Records

The book was slabbed on the 26th of May last year:

In a private message last year, Matt Nelson asked that I point out that the design was not finalised, and some of the observations that I had made about the census would not feature in the final design. It has been my expectation since that there would be some revision to the census entries, therefore.

If the design is in place now (the ------script has been written for the announcement) then I would expect the census as it stands now to be the one we will see going forward. It doesn't seem likely to me that we will see a revision of existing records, but we'll see.

So, as a collector who likes the look of the Australian distributed book called Super Adventure Comic, I type the following into the census...

....and I get this:

All good so far - the title exists, and against the correct publisher (K.G. Murray).

I click on that and I get this:

OK, my issue #11 is absent. At this stage, the CGC census is telling us that Super Adventure Comic #11 has never been graded by CGC.

And yet it has.

Let's try World's Finest #31 then:

Hmmm. Here we go - two entries - one for the DC original, one for K. G. Murray:

The K. G. Murray one is our book - note how there is no mention of the actual book title anywhere:

 

So how can that be right?

We have a book that cannot be found against its actual title and publisher, but can be found against the record of a different comic with which it shares a cover.

So the CGC census ascribes books to publishers that never produced a book with that title and, in doing so, creates confusion (there is actually a K.G. Murray title of World's Finest Comics in 1979 - CGC's approach here undermines the existence of that book).

Being a nosey parker, I look at other websites - here's two, the GCD and the AUS Reprints site (note they know what a reprint is):

Try matching the book contents of those two sites to the CGC label.

CGC Records Summary

So for this book alone, we have a whole host of misleading and inaccurate records which are confusing even if you know what you are doing. All of these issues would go away if CGC would just accept logic and label on a factual basis against a standardised set of widely accepted descriptors.

A licensed reprint, is a licensed reprint.

A title is a title.

An issue number is an issue number.

A publisher is a publisher.

A first appearance is a first appearance.

A publication of a non-US country is a publication of a non-US country

Why would a company like CGC seek to muddy these waters unnecessarily by deviating from fact with a mix and match approach to salient details? Why have the US title and issue number, but the actual book publisher and date? And a company with a clear duty for factual, accurate record keeping and presentation too. If you mislead a collector into thinking a book is a first appearance, that collector may make a financial commitment on the back of what they believe to be trusted information. That cannot be desirable, justifiable or right. Can it?

In my observations throughout this thread, I have tried to be fair and I have suggested alternatives. Here are the main ones again:

1. Title and number the book factually. If there is key original US content involved, highlight that another way on the label and build a link in the census to enable the amalgamation of books in the registry
2. Use the word "Reprints...." in front of any content that is thus, e.g. "Reprints original US content from....."
3. If CGC believe there is a requirement to state - as I believe is the case - that a non-US publication is the first appearance 'in that country', then state that by adding the words "....in Australia" after the first appearance label wording, e.g. "First appearance of Spider-Man in an Australian publication"
4.  Replace the word 'edition' with publication, e.g. "Australian Publication"

And of course by labelling a book as it is, the census record issues go away.

If there are simple solutions to the problems CGC have created here, why won't they adopt them? And why won't they explain why they won't adopt them? Apart from one episode of hopefully uncharacteristic stroppiness, born of frustration, I have been nothing but factual, professional and reasonable here in my arguments. And I have offered solutions, as have others.

I will write again, when the announcement comes, to see if any of my points have been answered. I will do so because I care about the integrity of the books. I want CGC to treat them fairly and with respect and judging by the contributions to this thread, many of you do too.

As ever, we have to wait, and we shall see. 

 

[Get Marwood & I]

Here is a further scenario that I will be looking to see how CGC treat, as and when the position arises.

If I submit this book to CGC, my understanding is that they will label it as Amazing Fantasy #15 given that it reprints part of that book:

I further understand that they will label the book as "the origin and first appearance of Spider-Man", in line with their strategy of recognising the first appearance of a character in the non-US country. 

But that would be factually incorrect as this book is the first appearance of Spider-Man in the UK:

 

If I'm right, CGC will need to add a second qualifier to their strategy explanation:

• The first is the current one (as I understand it) of labelling a book as the first appearance in that country
• The second, additional qualifier would be that the book had to be produced in that country, and not a targeted US import

If I'm right, then Out of This World #17 will carry a distinction that only two books should carry - the two that came from the original US print run. 

If CGC adopted my suggestion of "First appearance...in a UK publication" they would need to apply that only to OOTW#17 and not the UK Price Variant of AF#15.

They'd need to adopt my suggestion of stating "Reprints" if they intended to use the description on both UK priced books to separate / honour their differing statuses.

See how confusing it all gets?

Confusing - and entirely unnecessary. 

[rakehell]

On 3/23/2022 at 11:34 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Hmmm. Here we go - two entries - one for the DC original, one for K. G. Murray:

Is it me, or are they claiming that the Super Adventure 11 that reprints the cover of WF31 was actually published 47 years before the original?

I know we can be a bit pedantic 'round these parts, but that's just careless. 

[Redshade]

On 3/22/2022 at 6:10 PM, themagicrobot said:

No time to post here. Too busy cutting up the cover of my Miller Mystic 40 into postage stamp-sized pieces.

I saw that abomination on another site. Did it sell? I am almost lost for words.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/23/2022 at 12:58 PM, rakehell said:

Is it me, or are they claiming that the Super Adventure 11 that reprints the cover of WF31 was actually published 47 years before the original?

I know we can be a bit pedantic 'round these parts, but that's just careless. 

I believe that 1900 is the default position when there's no date. Gotta put something in, probably.

On 3/23/2022 at 12:59 PM, Redshade said:

I saw that abomination on another site. Did it sell? I am almost lost for words.

Yes. But stay on track, Stephen, that's an altogether different assault on the senses my friend. 

[Get Marwood & I]

 

 "What do you think, Dave?"

 "About what Barry?"

 "My 'first full appearance of Wolverine' label note"

 "Oh, that. Yeah. Nice, Barry, nice"

 "I think so"

 "It's not though, is it"

 "Isn't what Dave?"

 "The first appearance of Wolverine. That's in Hulk #181, aint it? The American one"

 "This is Hulk #181 Dave"

 "Don't be silly Barry. It's in French mate"

 "Yeah, I know that but it reprints Hulk 181 and that's important"

 "Oh, fair enough. Why don't you say that then?"

 "Say what, Dave?"

 "That it's a reprint"

 "I don't want to"

 "Fair enough"

 "It's definitely the first appearance though"

 "No it isn't"

 "Ah yes, but get this - it's the first appearance in France"

 "Oh, is it?"

 "Yes"

 "I'll take your word for it"

 "So you should"

 "So why not say that then?"

 "Say what, Dave?"

 "The first appearance in France"

 "Don't wanna"

 "You don't wanna?"

 "No"

 "Fair enough. It'd clear up a lot of confusion though, wouldn't it. Adding 'In France' and 'Reprints'"

 "You're just being awkward Dave"

 "Am I, Barry? It's just three words mate"

 "Nah. Aint aving it"

 "Well you're in charge Barry"

 "That's right Dave, I am"

 

[rakehell]

On 3/23/2022 at 1:14 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

I believe that 1900 is the default position when there's no date.

No date, huh? Well, there's nothing like a bit of research when you're in an industry that trades on minute detail, is there?

No, I guess there isn't.

Just spent, oh, call it a minute, looking up Super Adventure on GCD. Admittedly, not all entries are fully indexed. Number 10 is. And number 13. Both 1951. Now, I'll go out on a limb and say that 11 comes right between 10 & 13, with a little room to spare. So, it would follow logically (I know, I know) that 11 was also published in 1951. If CGC mistrust the veracity/authenticity/accuracy/etc of GCD's indexing, a stab at a date would only be one more error in a census entry (or on a label) already filled with errors. 

[rakehell]

On 3/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

 "Ah yes, but get this - it's the first appearance in France"

 "Oh, is it?"

 "Yes"

 "I'll take your word for it"

Except it's actually Canadian. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/23/2022 at 1:58 PM, rakehell said:

No date, huh? Well, there's nothing like a bit of research when you're in an industry that trades on minute detail, is there?

No, I guess there isn't.

Just spent, oh, call it a minute, looking up Super Adventure on GCD. Admittedly, not all entries are fully indexed. Number 10 is. And number 13. Both 1951. Now, I'll go out on a limb and say that 11 comes right between 10 & 13, with a little room to spare. So, it would follow logically (I know, I know) that 11 was also published in 1951. If CGC mistrust the veracity/authenticity/accuracy/etc of GCD's indexing, a stab at a date would only be one more error in a census entry (or on a label) already filled with errors. 

Yeah, it's a gnat's arse of a mistake and I'd forgive it if everything else salient was as it should be.

It doesn't pay to look too closely at examples, I've found, as there are as many individual mistakes to be found as there are strategic ones. 

Look at this one below - they render the actual title to the third line footnote, which is the strategic problem, but then get it wrong as well. It clearly says (in German) 'The Mighty Hulk':

 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/23/2022 at 2:01 PM, rakehell said:

Except it's actually Canadian. 

Exactly.

[Bronty]

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

Hello. What do we think of how CGC currently label 'foreign' publications - those intended for a non-US audience - which reprint original US comic content? Are they getting it right?

I saw these two examples in the 'Foreign' thread today:

 

The 'Spidey' is fairly OK. I don't like the word 'France' just hanging there on it's own, but the book is labelled in line with it's title, issue number, date and publisher. And it notes the original US comic content which the book reproduces. It doesn't seem to bother CGC that the book caries an existing US title, and the census separates them accordingly:

That's not too bad really.

The Greek book is another matter. 

If CGC are happy to call the French Spidey 'Spidey' - because that is its title - why do they not call this book 'Enaintep Man', or the actual Greek text equivalent? How can it be called 'Amazing Spider-Man' #252 when:

• It isn't called Amazing Spider-Man (English text)
• It is number 164

How can it be labeled as tying with Marvel Team Up #141 as the first appearance of the black costume when it is a later reprint? Should that designation not be reserved for the US original only?

Why is it a 'Greek Edition' when the the previous Spidey book is simply 'France'? Does this imply a lack of uniformity in the labelling approach? Or is it because CGC are saying that the book is the 'Greek Edition' of Amazing Spider-Man #252 (which I would argue it very much isn't).

I raised an 'Ask CGC' question along similar lines here in relation to comics produced for the Philippines - have a read if you're interested: 

My offer of a discussion group was not taken up.

In addition to that, some of you may be aware of the discussions I have been involved in relating to the correct labelling of what CGC now call 'UK Price Variants'. Whilst that work ended in CGC changing their labelling approach for the UK, Canadian and Australian first printing variants (they were printed at the same time as the US copies), they did stop short at agreeing to stop calling UK publications 'Editions'. So there was some progress, admittedly, but CGC still I feel have a very confused approach to the labelling of non-US publications which reprint original US comic content, often produced long after the original US printing.

What do others think? Are CGC getting it largely right do you think, or is there an argument for this area to be revisited, with strategic labelling approach corrections made, before there are so many examples out there that it will take years to rebalance? Do CGC have a duty not to confuse us with inconsistent approaches?

CGC know my thoughts on this and I'm not going to 'marshal' this discussion or try to push it in a certain direction. I want to hear what others think and, if there is a consensus of opinion one way or the other, maybe CGC may take heed of it. After all, what is the point of having all the experience that this forum gathers if you aren't prepared to use it and listen to suggestions which may ultimately improve your operating model? At the very least, a desire for accuracy should be uppermost in CGC's mind in all respects I think. 

What do you think?

You make great points and I agree.

Their labelling of Canadian Whites is poor also.    They list no artists, no dates, no first appearances, and call them "Canadian Editions" when there is no edition of that book in any other country.   

In your Greek example, they should just called the book what it is, in Greek, and then on the label state what US book it is a Greek edition of.

And, if they use the words "Greek Edition" for Greek versions of US books, then they should not use "edition" for books of non US original contents, like Canadian whites.

As for the word "France" I'd have no problem with that if they were at least consistent.    Why not label the Greek book "Greece" or Canadian books "Canada."

Its super clear that they never thought any of this out nor really know what they are looking at.    On some level I can understand that, but it would be nice if they figured out some sort of consistent logical framework and used it.    In addition, I feel like with the Canadian original content world war 2 books they should at least figure out a few basics like artists, dates, and first appearances given the books are often four figure values. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/23/2022 at 2:18 PM, Bronty said:

You make great points and I agree.

Their labelling of Canadian Whites is poor also.    They list no artists, no dates, no first appearances, and call them "Canadian Editions" when there is no edition of that book in any other country.   

In your Greek example, they should just called the book what it is, in Greek, and then on the label state what US book it is a Greek edition of.

And, if they use the words "Greek Edition" for Greek versions of US books, then they should not use "edition" for books of non US original contents, like Canadian whites.

As for the word "France" I'd have no problem with that if they were at least consistent.    Why not label the Greek book "Greece" or Canadian books "Canada."

Its super clear that they never thought any of this out nor really know what they are looking at.    On some level I can understand that, but it would be nice if they figured out some sort of consistent logical framework and used it.    In addition, I feel like with the Canadian original content world war 2 books they should at least figure out a few basics like artists, dates, and first appearances given the books are often four figure values. 

Thanks so much for posting Bronty - I'm not sure how far into the thread you have gone, but there is a lot more to it. I have had some dialogue with Matt Nelson about this, and he assures me that the strategy has been thought through and that he just holds a different opinion to mine. I don't like quoting private dialogue, but what else can I do if no one from CGC will publicly explain their thought process and design approach?

I've been given about five dates for their official announcement so far, going as far back to the middle of last year, and all have been missed. If CGC would prefer us not to make assumptions on a model that was incepted a year ago operationally, with the resulting product in circulation, I think they should get on with telling us what it actually is. 

I also think it is a shame that they do not appear to consult more widely on these things. I'm not saying my opinion should count for anything but the arguments I am making are powerful, factual and appear to have wide support. Why are CGC always so reluctant to mobilise the wealth of experience at their disposal which could be channelled so effectively via this forum with a little time and effort?

On that basis, Mike, do you have a new target date for the announcement? Is it imminent or has it been delayed again? @CGC Mike

[Bronty]

You're right, I only got a couple pages in.    I'll skim what else there is on the thread.

Of course they are going to say they have put thought into, but its hard for anyone to make heads or tails of what they are doing when it seems like they are all over the place. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/23/2022 at 2:29 PM, Bronty said:

You're right, I only got a couple pages in.    I'll skim what else there is on the thread.

Work backwards, as the stronger, more up to date posts are there.

On 3/23/2022 at 2:29 PM, Bronty said:

Of course they are going to say they have put thought into, but its hard for anyone to make heads or tails of what they are doing when it seems like they are all over the place. 

I'd be the first to hold my hands up if someone came on here with an explanation that stood up to scrutiny. 

[Bronty]

On 4/25/2021 at 12:24 PM, steve566 said:

I think CGC had to decide which direction they were going to go with foreign comics and decided on a “cover approach” rather than the “guts approach”. I’m heavily involved with foreign comic collectors and can say for a fact that some are outraged by the new labels and others love them. I think CGC still has a ways to go but they are at least trying to do SOMETHING with foreign Editions. I think by using the cover approach they are making it much easier to search the census for foreign books since all you have to do is type “Spiderman 300” and you see all of the different countries publishers in one place. Is the information 100% accurate, no.. but it’s a start. I’ll include pictures of my slabbed foreigns so you can see more new labels

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suspense 39 from 1975, huh?  

[Bronty]

On 5/26/2021 at 6:32 PM, Aman619 said:

Rough estimate, how many people collect these foreign editions?  And how many of you are getting them slabbed? I see a lot more raw copies than slabs. Given the font issues in using the actual comics names as the title and issue, and then juryrigging  new database fields (after 20 years) for a second title name, and then making them easy to find in the census?  Good luck.  But if some American collectors want all foreign reprints of certain key books, covers and/or stories, it’s fine as is... but not perfect for every foreign comic (run) collector.  

Honestly, that just sounds like you don't GAF because it doesn't affect you.    

Sure, no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to get these graded.    You can choose to simply buy & sell raw.   But how would you like buying a US Hulk #5 that was labelled as Hulk #17?    I'm sure it would bother you, and that would be understandable.