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

[Bronty]

On 11/23/2021 at 7:18 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Thank you Elsie!

That is why I call it disrespectful - I don't think those in the US who formulated the strategy completely get it, because it is not 'their' book that is being misrepresented. 

The UK produced Mystic #40 would not exist if the US created TTA #13 did not precede it. At least not with that content. That is why a graded Mystic #40 should have an appropriate label notation - "Reprints material previously published in TTA #13 (Marvel Comics)" - something like that. When did readily apparent fact go out of fashion as a labelling concept?

agree completely.

Also agree that simply calling it what it is on the label - grading the book that's in front of you and not pretending its something else - is the only sensible approach.

[Bronty]

On 11/23/2021 at 10:57 AM, Redshade said:

I agree with you to a certain extent. But. Mystic 40 is NOT a reprint of TTA 13. It reprints ONE story from TTA 13, not the whole comic. M 40 needs to be identified as a periodical in its own right. Then perhaps in the notes it could be entered that the Groot story from TTA 13 and the cover are reprinted in M 40 or some such.

all sorts of examples like that, and that's why you grade what's in front of you 

[Bronty]

On 12/8/2021 at 12:11 PM, 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?

 

You want it addressed because the mistakes are obvious and many.   I understand where you're coming from.   

[Bronty]

I think looking at the labelling of whites is helpful because they were some of the first foreign books graded.     Frankly I think it shows that CGC didn't have a plan with this type of material 20 years ago, and I think it shows (and this thread shows) that they are still figuring it out.    On the one hand I understand them needing time to wrap their heads around it, on the other hand... ITS BEEN TWENTY FREAKING YEARS, GUYS!!

 

This book was graded either in 2003 or 2004.    Labelled as "Triumph" #26 when even a legally blind person could see the appropriate title is "Triumph Comics".    Publisher is correct.    No date given, no artist given.   Its shocking just how little is on this label.   

The cover is clearly signed Adrian Dingle on the cover.     And the date is something that at a minimum I feel should be disclosed. 

 

 

[Bronty]

This is another early graded book  - having been sold in 03 it was graded no later than 03.

This time, we are appropriately calling it "WOW COMICS" instead of just "WOW" (analogous to the Triumph labelling above).

Still no artist info, despite being clearly signed Dingle. 

CGC calls it a 1944 book, and without looking it up, I doubt that's correct.   Its the second to last issue and the title ended in 1946 I believe.   Its likely 1945 or 1946.    Could that be why they left the date off the Triumph above?   Someone caught them in an error and rather than fix it they decided it was just too hard?

Edited March 23, 2022 by Bronty

[Bronty]

Ten plus years later, we've still got no date.    No artist info.   (Not sure how much larger the signature on the cover needs to be?    Especially considering this artist later worked on US comics including the Va-va-voom Dagar 14 cover).      

Annoyingly, CGC is now calling it a CANADIAN EDITION despite it not being a variant or edition of a book published elsewhere.   Its simply a canadian comic and should be distinguished from Canadian editions of US books, like Canadian editions of EC's. 

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Bronty

[Bronty]

Around the same time, a significant white gets a half decent labelling job.

We've finally got a date, and first appearance notations!!    Poor Tang's first app didn't get noted, but I can live with that. 

Still no artist info.   Still erroneously 'canadian edition.'

Edited March 23, 2022 by Bronty

[Bronty]

Around the same time, on a less important book, we are a little sloppier again.   No date!  (1942).    No artist!  (yet again, clearly signed on the cover...).    Canadian edition erroneously noted.

 

[Bronty]

Around the same time, we have no date again.   Finally, some artist info.   However, no first appearance info (1st Nitro).      Canadian edition erroneously used. 

[Bronty]

So, to their credit, its improved slightly over time, and is slightly better on the bigger books.

On the other side of the ledger, they've had 20 years to figure this out, still aren't getting it right (!), and aren't even consistent in their mistakes.

Its hard to draw a conclusion other than they have don't have a labelling plan and don't much care to have one.

[Get Marwood & I]

Great examples there, @Bronty, of those Canadian books. Very frustrating for those that pay attention to detail and further evidence of how lax CGC labelling has been, and continues to be, despite having all the knowledge at their disposal to mine and improve matters.

But I do feel that this new strategy of a calling a non-US produced book by what it reprints, and not what it is, trumps them by a mile. The Canadian examples are inaccurate due to laziness, not by design. 

This book below is inaccurate by conscious design.

It is not Fantastic Four #1.

It is not a German Edition of anything. Just a publication in its own right.

It does not warrant the label distinction of having the origin and 1st appearance of the title characters. Only the US original should claim that distinction.

And it should not be recorded in the census against the record of the original US title.

And I shouldn't have to make this argument! 

 

[rakehell]

On 3/23/2022 at 2:03 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

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':

Doesn't stop me wanting one. Great book. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/23/2022 at 3:57 PM, rakehell said:

Doesn't stop me wanting one. Great book. 

Again Rachel, exactly. Great book. It's fantastic that CGC are going to showcase it and others like it. It's laudable and worthy that the are going to bring them to wider attention.

But not like this!

[Bronty]

Agreed.   

It seems to be a conscious mistake, for what reason?   Presumably to dumb things down so very far that US collectors can build type sets of books that reprint FF1 without having to think or educate themselves?

I mean, if your worldview is that the US is the only country in the world, fine.   But foreign comics are, wait for it, also collected by foreign people.    I would think they are most of the market for these books, in fact?    Certainly its Canadians collecting Canadian whites.   

[Bronty]

On 3/23/2022 at 12:00 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Again Rachel, exactly. Great book. It's fantastic that CGC are going to showcase it and others like it. It's laudable and worthy that the are going to bring them to wider attention.

But not like this!

You're right that its to their credit that they do it at all.   But damn it, get it right.   Especially after all this time.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/23/2022 at 4:01 PM, Bronty said:

Agreed.   

It seems to be a conscious mistake, for what reason?   Presumably to dumb things down so very far that US collectors can build type sets of books that reprint FF1 without having to think or educate themselves?

Great point - take all the effort out of it.

On 3/23/2022 at 4:01 PM, Bronty said:

I mean, if your worldview is that the US is the only country in the world, fine.   But foreign comics are, wait for it, also collected by foreign people.    I would think they are most of the market for these books, in fact?    Certainly its Canadians collecting Canadian whites.   

My understanding, on which I am entirely happy to be corrected by a CGC representative, is that the strategy is to allow books to be amalgamated in the registry so that someone can collect all the "Hulk #1's", for example, and maybe get a prize.

Can you think of another reason, while we await the formal announcement?

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/23/2022 at 4:01 PM, Bronty said:

I mean, if your worldview is that the US is the only country in the world, fine.   But foreign comics are, wait for it, also collected by foreign people.    I would think they are most of the market for these books, in fact?    Certainly its Canadians collecting Canadian whites.   

The majority of collectors of these books do appear to be non-US currently, yes. So if CGC want to, say, bring it to wider attention that a given book reprints an established US key, to give it greater focus and collectability, how does that help that current target audience? It drives up the prices and makes it harder to collect, surely?

[CGC Mike]

Spoiler

 

On 3/23/2022 at 10:26 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

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

The latest info I have received was on 2/25 and it was this:

"So it’s done and with MX to build the page for the website and put together the email blast. We’re estimating 2-3 weeks until it launches.  Just in case anyone asks."

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/23/2022 at 4:18 PM, CGC Mike said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The latest info I have received was on 2/25 and it was this:

"So it’s done and with MX to build the page for the website and put together the email blast. We’re estimating 2-3 weeks until it launches.  Just in case anyone asks."

 

Anyway, I've been at this four hours today and it's time to go and do something else. Thanks for your input today @Bronty - it's nice to get some thoughts from someone else if only to make sure I'm not losing my mind! And you Tiffany @rakehell

See you in all in few days maybe, when the announcement lands. Or weeks. Months. Years even.... 

[steve566]

On 3/23/2022 at 10:03 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

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':

 

Looks like you must have found me on Instagram or Facebook since that’s a book I just got back last week! I too am confused as why they didn’t put the entire German title and instead just sub labeled it hulk 1.. I’ll stay out of the argument since I’ve already shared my opinion which seems to be the way that CGC is heading (or has been doing it for over a year now). I do enjoy hearing opinions from both sides though..