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

[gpanalysis]

On 11/24/2021 at 12:02 AM, goldust40 said:

I owned a copy of that book as well. There are two on the census, so it's either the one you've posted or the other one listed. The copy I had I sold for a pittance (I regret selling it) and it ended up in the U.S. (I spotted it at a dealer's table when I attended a convention there years ago).

I can't argue that it's all an attempt by CGC to bypass facts regarding what constitutes something that is separate from the norm. It does simplify things for them but also creates other issues - I tried to find information about the Mystic 40 on GPA, and had no luck. Would it be under TTA or Mystic (British Title)? I couldn't find it under either, and there was no entry for the book, so if there are recorded sales they haven't been logged in, which could technically be construed as marginalization.

That Mystic 40 would be considered a curio by the U.S. market, which in effect it is, and it may well be very scarce indeed. But it isn't a Tales To Astonish 13, it's a comic that contains the Groot story amongst other tales.

Yep. It needs to be called that so as to retain its importance to that section of the market rather than it being subsumed by the main focus of the market. It's a reprint book published for a separate readership that would otherwise have had no access to American comic books, which means it is of historical and cultural significance. Not a great deal of it to those who aren't bothered obviously, but let's not airbrush it out of existence!

It was categorised under Mystic #40 (UK Edition), but now it's been re-assigned in the census as Tales to Astonish #13 (UK Edition). When you look at the TOA #13 pricing on GPA, scroll right to the bottom and you'll see this issue separated and grouped under its own section (due to the fact it has a different publisher, L.Miller & Son Ltd).

https://comics.gpanalysis.com/analyse-prices/sales-data/54/13#l111963

[valiantman]

While the whole discussion could be complicated, but I think it's about 95% simple, 5% complicated.

The 95% simple part is that any reprint should have the word reprint somewhere on the label.

The other 5% would be to get all the other details correct, but CGC would get 95% credit from me if they just put "reprint" on every reprint.

[Kevin.J]

I think you have laid it all out better than anyone Steve but they have to read it to understand.

What is the root cause ?

a, Just the easiest option for them ?

b, A lack of understanding the differences ?

c, A grader just guessing without checking or confirming ?

You would think that they would want their data and products to be accurate but we can all see the slackness of late 

I hope that when you copy them in here, they do take the time to read it all and not just skip through as that would not be fair to the time and effort you put in to championing these projects.

If CGC had any sense, they would hire you in some capacity 

Keep at them mate and have no doubts that you are making a difference 

[Redshade]

On 11/23/2021 at 3:34 PM, valiantman said:

While the whole discussion could be complicated, but I think it's about 95% simple, 5% complicated.

The 95% simple part is that any reprint should have the word reprint somewhere on the label.

The other 5% would be to get all the other details correct, but CGC would get 95% credit from me if they just put "reprint" on every reprint.

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.

[valiantman]

On 11/23/2021 at 9:57 AM, Redshade said:

On 11/23/2021 at 9:34 AM, valiantman said:

While the whole discussion could be complicated, but I think it's about 95% simple, 5% complicated.

The 95% simple part is that any reprint should have the word reprint somewhere on the label.

The other 5% would be to get all the other details correct, but CGC would get 95% credit from me if they just put "reprint" on every reprint.

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.

Sure, that's what I meant.  "Reprints the 1st appearance of Groot" on the label would be enough to solve 95% of the problem.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 11/23/2021 at 3:58 PM, valiantman said:

Sure, that's what I meant.  "Reprints the 1st appearance of Groot" on the label would be enough to solve 95% of the problem.

I would place a greater emphasis on titling the book correctly myself, Valiantman - saying that the absence of the word reprint constitutes 95% of the problem underplays the importance of the title and how it is accessed in CGC records. And it is just plain disrespectful. 

[valiantman]

On 11/23/2021 at 10:02 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

On 11/23/2021 at 9:58 AM, valiantman said:

Sure, that's what I meant.  "Reprints the 1st appearance of Groot" on the label would be enough to solve 95% of the problem.

I would place a greater emphasis on titling the book correctly myself, Valiantman - saying that the absence of the word reprint constitutes 95% of the problem underplays the importance of the title and how it is accessed in CGC records. And it is just plain disrespectful. 

True - the 95% I'm calculating is that collectors are 95% less likely to confuse a reprint for a first appearance if the label says "reprint".  Nothing is 100% fool proof, but 95% is reasonable if reprints just say "reprint" (whole or part).

When you're first learning about any hobby, the worries are about counterfeits and reproductions/reprints.  Both situations should always be on the label, comics, cards, posters, cars, coins, any hobby in the world.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 11/23/2021 at 4:12 PM, valiantman said:

True - the 95% I'm calculating is that collectors are 95% less likely to confuse a reprint for a first appearance if the label says "reprint".  Nothing is 100% fool proof, but 95% is reasonable if reprints just say "reprint" (whole or part).

When you're first learning about any hobby, the worries are about counterfeits and reproductions/reprints.  Both situations should always be on the label, comics, cards, posters, cars, coins, any hobby in the world.

Thank you, I agree 100% on the reprint point.

Valiantman, in respect of your own website, (example search below), if I asked you to interrogate CGC records for the UK publication 'Mystic', how would you be able to do that currently? Under normal circumstances, a search of the title 'Mystic' would deliver the required results. But if copies of Mystic are categorised with the titles of other US books with which they share key content, how would you know what to interrogate? How would you be confident that you had captured everything?

Surely the interests of data capture and record keeping are best served by calling things what they are. If books are titled incorrectly, how can that ever be a good thing, or an easier thing to navigate when it comes to data capture, analysis and interrogation?

 

[valiantman]

On 11/23/2021 at 10:19 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Thank you, I agree 100% on the reprint point.

Valiantman, in respect of your own website, (example search below), if I asked you to interrogate CGC records for the UK publication 'Mystic', how would you be able to do that currently? Under normal circumstances, a search of the title 'Mystic' would deliver the required results. But if copies of Mystic are categorised with the titles of other US books with which they share key content, how would you know what to interrogate? How would you be confident that you had captured everything?

Surely the interests of data capture and record keeping are best served by calling things what they are. If books are titled incorrectly, how can that ever be a good thing, or an easier thing to navigate when it comes to data capture, analysis and interrogation?

 

It's definitely a problem - I'm not saying "reprint" on the CGC label would solve everything, but it's important to focus on what harm may occur because of the problem. 

There's not any harm if a Mystic collector, who already knows it's a reprint, buys a copy of Mystic #40 which has been mislabeled "Tales to Astonish #13 U.K. Edition".

The harm comes when someone purchases (and overpays for) Mystic #40 thinking it's the 1st appearance of Groot because the word "reprint" is not on the label.

There's wrong (calling it TTA #13 U.K.), and then there's harmful wrong, not mentioning the reprint.

In other words, it's certainly wrong to label a block of brass as gold, but the harm is to those who thought they were buying gold... no real harm to any buyer who always knew it was brass.

(But I agree... if they would just get it right, then it wouldn't matter where the harm occurs because there wouldn't be any harm.  But since 100% accurate is unlikely, it's better to limit harm as the priority.)

Edited November 23, 2021 by valiantman

[valiantman]

Since you asked about CGCdata.com, I would suggest searching for the publisher "L Miller" and seeing what CGC says they've printed.

http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/search/publisher/:L:Miller:/desc/no/label/all/orderby/year/variants/yes/

Edited November 23, 2021 by valiantman

[Get Marwood & I]

On 11/23/2021 at 4:55 PM, valiantman said:

It's definitely a problem - I'm not saying "reprint" on the CGC label would solve everything, but it's important to focus on what harm may occur because of the problem. 

There's not any harm if a Mystic collector, who already knows it's a reprint, buys a copy of Mystic #40 which has been mislabeled "Tales to Astonish #13 U.K. Edition".

The harm comes when someone purchases (and overpays for) Mystic #40 thinking it's the 1st appearance of Groot because the word "reprint" is not on the label.

There's wrong (calling it TTA #13 U.K.), and then there's harmful wrong, not mentioning the reprint.

In other words, it's certainly wrong to label a block of brass as gold, but the harm is to those who thought they were buying gold... no real harm to any buyer who always knew it was brass.

(But I agree... if they would just get it right, then it wouldn't matter where the harm occurs because there wouldn't be any harm.  But since 100% accurate is unlikely, it's better to limit harm as the priority.)

There are more harms than just financial in play though, I would argue. CGC harm their reputation for accuracy in my eyes at least with this ill-judged policy, and there is the harm that policy does to the standing of the non-US publication. CGC render its title to a label footnote. They basically say that it is important only in the context of the original book that it part reproduces. That is insulting and harmful those who value it for what it is. 

Money talks though, hence my earlier ABBA quote, and I accept that that is where most would get animated - where there is a financial implication. 

On 11/23/2021 at 4:56 PM, valiantman said:

Since you asked about CGCdata.com, I would suggest searching for the publisher "L Miller" and seeing what CGC says they've printed.

http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/search/publisher/:L:Miller:/desc/no/label/all/orderby/year/variants/yes/

Again, a lesser educated collector - perhaps a US based one unfamiliar with L Miller publications - might go looking for 'Tales to Astonish' based on you search results:

 

L Miller did not publish a title of that name. This is how mistakes and misinformation spread. 

[Get Marwood & I]

Let's see if I can get Matt to respond here now - he does visit the site regularly, since his 'exciting update' announcement 

@mnelsonCGC Matt - if you see this, I hope all is well. Would you be able to spare the time to read the further musings from the members on this topic please - you can read from the top of page seven to this post and won't see a single picture of Leonardo DiCaprio or a comment about what she said (whoever she was). Just a solid, respectful discussion about your labelling policy 

If you could explain the rationale behind the policy, and outline how you see concerns about the census records being addressed, that would be great. This labelling strategy has been in place for a year or so now I believe, so there will now be hundreds of copies in the system. I think it's reasonable to ask for some meat on the bones now, and hope you will be in a position to provide it. We care about the treatment of these books Matt!

Cheers, Steve

 

 

[themagicrobot]

There seem to be numerous foreign reprint comics from a number of publishers where the same bonkers descriptions are used by the CGC. This can be problematical when an average low value reprint comic is labelled as if it were a "valuable" number 1 or key issue just because of the cover. But they aren't just doing it for "key issues" like the Groot example. The cover image appears to dictate the title at the top of the CGC slab. 

So unbelievably this Batman 73 becomes Detective 227 even though it obviously isn't. The interior is in black and white for a start. And it is unlikely both back up features within Detective 227 are included in this issue. It only contains 28 pages rather than 36 (although there are no interior ads unless they are on the inside front/back covers)

And to add insult to injury the CGC describe this as an Australian comic when although Published by K G Murray more correctly it is a UK price variant of an Australian comic. It has a 6d price not a 9d price as found on the Australian copy. To begin with in the early 1950s these comics were printed by Gale and Polden in Aldershot UK. That company also produced books on the Military, postcards, cigarrette cards and numerous periodicals. The indicea on many 6d Batman and Superman copies I own says:

Printed by Gale & Polden Ltd., for the K. G. Murray Publishing Co. Pty. Ltd., 56 Young Street, Sydney, Australia. Distributed by Atlas Publishing & Distributing co. Ltd., 18 Bride Lane, Fleet Street, London, E.C.4.

I understand from down-under websites that at some point these comics began to be printed in Australia for both their comsumption and ours. Our copies shipped with changes in price and sometimes UK adverts on the back covers. Australian Batmans (and Superman/Superboy/Superadventure) were only 6d for the first few issues. The price soon increased to 8d and by the time this issue was on sale 9d was the going rate. Eventually these comics reached the price of 1/- in Australia whilst the UK variants remained at 6d from the beginning to the end of the run.

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by themagicrobot

[Get Marwood & I]

On 11/23/2021 at 7:06 PM, themagicrobot said:

There seem to be numerous foreign reprint comics from a number of publishers where the same bonkers descriptions are used by the CGC. This can be problematical when an average low value reprint comic is labelled as if it were a "valuable" number 1 or key issue just because of the cover. But they aren't just doing it for "key issues" like the Groot example. The cover image appears to dictate the title at the top of the CGC slab. 

So unbelievably this Batman 73 becomes Detective 227 even though it obviously isn't. The interior is in black and white for a start. And it is unlikely both back up features within Detective 227 are included in this issue. It only contains 28 pages rather than 36 (although there are no interior ads unless they are on the inside front/back covers)

And to add insult to injury the CGC describe this as an Australian comic when although Published by K G Murray more correctly it is a UK price variant of an Australian comic. It has a 6d price not a 9d price as found on the Australian copy. To begin with in the early 1950s these comics were printed by Gale and Polden in Aldershot UK. That company also produced books on the Military, postcards, cigarrette cards and numerous periodicals. The indicea on many 6d Batman and Superman copies I own says:

Printed by Gale & Polden Ltd., for the K. G. Murray Publishing Co. Pty. Ltd., 56 Young Street, Sydney, Australia. Distributed by Atlas Publishing & Distributing co. Ltd., 18 Bride Lane, Fleet Street, London, E.C.4.

I understand from down-under websites that at some point these comics began to be printed in Australia for both their comsumption and ours. Our copies shipped with changes in price and sometimes UK adverts on the back covers. Australian Batmans (and Superman/Superboy/Superadventure) were only 6d for the first few issues. The price soon increased to 8d and by the time this issue was on sale 9d was the going rate. Eventually these comics reached the price of 1/- in Australia whilst the UK variants remained at 6d from the beginning to the end of the run.

 

Thanks Robot, that's interesting stuff which would be cool to elaborate on in another thread. I'm not sure I agree on the 'UK Price Variant' designation though, based on the little I know about these reprints. On that point, I can almost forgive CGC for missing the price difference on that copy which, let's face it, is a distinction that very few indeed would likely have the knowledge to pick up on. 

The headline problem here though, I think, the salient, inescapable, toweringly obvious issue, is that the comic in the slab is not Detective Comics #227. 

[AJD]

So... let me see if I have this right. The Australian run of Rangers Comics (reprinted material from US Fiction House issues) includes the following issues.

#8 has the cover from US edition #62 - so that one would be labelled "Fight Comics #62"

#25 has the cover of US comic Wings #120, and will be labelled "Wings Comics #120"

#33 has (I think) a cover adapted from a panel in an ANG war comic - so is labelled

Others, such as #5 and #7 in the run, have Australian drawn covers and would presumably be labelled Fight Comics #5 and #7

Sorry, but that is just silly.

 

[rakehell]

Just a thought that occurred to me while I was waiting for the toaster to pop at snack-time last night...

CGC already offer 'special' labels. Could they maybe offer the TTA13 label for Mystic 40 (or Avengers 1 for Mystic 54, or what have you) as a special? 

It seems to me that collectors interested in acquiring sets of foreign covers might be interested in having their books have matching labels, whereas collectors who like to acquire foreign books in their own right would rather have them labelled to reflect what they actually are, rather than what part of them is representing.

I know this would cause problems with the census, but surely there are ways around that.

 What does anyone else think?

[Get Marwood & I]

On 11/24/2021 at 11:47 AM, rakehell said:

Just a thought that occurred to me while I was waiting for the toaster to pop at snack-time last night...

CGC already offer 'special' labels. Could they maybe offer the TTA13 label for Mystic 40 (or Avengers 1 for Mystic 54, or what have you) as a special? 

It seems to me that collectors interested in acquiring sets of foreign covers might be interested in having their books have matching labels, whereas collectors who like to acquire foreign books in their own right would rather have them labelled to reflect what they actually are, rather than what part of them is representing.

I know this would cause problems with the census, but surely there are ways around that.

 What does anyone else think?

Using a custom label to highlight any key reprinted content is quite a good idea Rob, yes. They could record the 'facts' correctly - title, issue number, reprint status, etc - but have an area on the label that screams out that the book reprints, for example, TTA#13. If thought through, I think that could actually be a very cool way to show the significance of the issue without compromising it's own inherent status. 

[rakehell]

On 11/24/2021 at 11:58 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

If thought through, think that could actually be a very cool way to show the significance of the issue. 

I get some of my bestest thinkin' done at snack-time. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 11/24/2021 at 11:41 AM, AJD said:

Sorry, but that is just silly.

Cheers Andy - I think the silliness of it all is the salient point, where applied, but I believe the intention is only to give the labelling treatment to those books that reprint key US content (which, presumably, CGC will decide on?). 

That means, if I have it right, that if you send in one of your AUS published books, and CGC noted that it reprinted or shared a cover with a US original 'key', then your book could come back titled in line with that US book. 

If nothing else, an official announcement is needed to clarify exactly what the intention is here, why, and when it will be applied. You are a very experienced and nuanced collector Andy (cheque's in the post) - you shouldn't have to ask questions about what CGC are doing here, or read pages of discussions about it. CGC have introduced a policy without communication or clarification and, if the comments I have seen are an indication, the design is not yet set in stone. That itself is disrespectful to those of us who care, as it indicates a lack of care.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 11/24/2021 at 12:02 PM, rakehell said:

I get some of my bestest thinkin' done at snack-time. 

Whoever developed the strategy at CGC must've been starving then