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

[rakehell]

On 11/24/2021 at 12:06 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

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

Pb&j toast is brain food!

[Get Marwood & I]

On 11/24/2021 at 12:08 PM, rakehell said:

Pb&j toast is brain food!

Let's hope Matt has had a few bacon butties before he next logs on 

[Pantodude]

A bit late to this party (busy last few days and only just now remembered to return to this thread).  But Mystic #40 is even more late to the 1st Groot appearance party, a full 3 years late!   So no way that the L. Miller & Son issue of 1963 could be considered Groot's 1st appearance, as some CGC labels profess.  And this is on top of the absurdity of CGC using a a different title for a book than the one plainly appearing on the cover of the book (here, Mystic #40).   That is so wrong that CGC should offer to re-slab and properly label those books free of charge.   

CGC needs to be extra careful when dealing with older books that have been reprinted years later.  Less and less folks have actual personal experience with SA books as they hit the newsstands, so they are more likely to act on mis-identified books.  We want newcomers to enjoy venturing into this hobby, not feel like it's a minefiled with subtle, label-related traps for the unwary.  This is really just about CGC taking responsibility as a particulary influential player in this hobby.   

EDIT:  To be clear, Mystic #40 is cool in its own right, adding its own flavor to the mix.  I'm talking about mis-labeling a book such that it is confused for a much, much more expensive first appearance issue.  Not suggesting folks aren't looking for Mystic #40, too.   So label it as Mystic #40! 

Edited November 24, 2021 by Pantodude

[nmtg9]

The seller of the slabbed Mystic 40 seems to be deliberately playing on this labeling error as well. If someone buys this book at 5k and then understands what it really is I do wonder what recourse they might have against cgc and /or the seller. 

It's a clear misrepresentation of a product. 

How is this any different than labelling Marvel Tales 137 as an AF15? 

 

[Malacoda]

Just to update, this Mystic #40 is now at the princely sum of £9,495, which looks a bit random, but a quick check of Overstreet and exchange rates shows it's pretty much exactly the value of TTA #13.....but in 9.4 NM condition, not 5.0. 

Also on offer, this, which you will notice is conspicuously labelled as Alan Class AND as a UK edition AND, as a footnote, as a reprint of Avengers #69.  He has also priced it very accurately at £300. The story takes place in the year 4000 AD, which is precisely when this comic will finally be worth £300. 

 

 

 

[Beyonder123]

So I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up already as it has been awhile since I've read through this thread. But while doing research I realized that the Greek spiderman books seem to have started over and re print books while continuing the numbering. Are these going to be labeled the same? Will the cencus differentiate them?

[Get Marwood & I]

On 12/5/2021 at 4:33 AM, Beyonder123 said:

So I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up already as it has been awhile since I've read through this thread. But while doing research I realized that the Greek spiderman books seem to have started over and re print books while continuing the numbering. Are these going to be labeled the same? Will the cencus differentiate them?

More potential trouble for CGC here, yes. In a PM earlier in the year, Matt advised that CGC would label a non-US book as a 'first appearance' of a US creation when it was the first appearance in that country (which, strategically, I strongly diagreed with). So they'd have to be on the ball here, wouldn't they, the labellers and census recorders. Given that they reprint the covers of US Marvel keys, the Greek books above would presumably both be labelled in line with their US original source books (Amazing Spider-Man #4 and #7) but in respect of the 'ASM #4', only one of them could carry the 'first appearance' designation based on the proposed strategy. Assuming one of them was the first Greek Sandman appearance, of course (which I don't myself know).

I'll say it again - all of the problems highlighted in this thread go away if they return to labelling books as what they are.

Matt has been on line since I tagged him, and a separate reminder has been sent that we are overdue an official communication on this, so I'm hopeful he'll take steps to update us on the strategy soon. 

[HotKey]

First appearances in any country are just that. We shouldn't expect either the worldwide comic community or the American comic community who is involved in foreign editions to agree that only American 1st appearances count. Why should someone in Brazil not have a 1st appearance designation on their 1st appearance of anyone published in Brazil? It seems in the same vein as elitism and gatekeeping, just imo. The comic community is worldwide and everyone deserves a seat at the table under the new much bigger tent, let's accept that and make any necessary changes to implement this fact into grading.

If a foreign edition contains the 1st appearance of any character printed in that country, it should absolutely state so on the label. It should also state when the (original) American publication happened as well. 

All this information can easily fit on the label, whether the front or the back. 

I definitely agree that CGC needs to be very publicly open about whatever policy they do implement regarding this though. 

The foreign editions market is growing nearly daily and it is just a matter of time before someone has a huge financial regret from buying a foreign edition marked incorrectly or insufficiently. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 12/5/2021 at 11:08 AM, HotKey said:

If a foreign edition contains the 1st appearance of any character printed in that country, it should absolutely state so on the label. It should also state when the (original) American publication happened as well. 

I don't have any issue with a clear, factual statement, tailored to a non-US publication appearance, such as "Reprints the first appearance of...." or "First appearance of...in a Greek publication". But to have just "First appearance of...." is factually incorrect and potentially leads to.... 

On 12/5/2021 at 11:08 AM, HotKey said:

.... someone has having a huge financial regret from buying a foreign edition marked incorrectly or insufficiently. 

Doesn't it?

By all means have CGC indicate that it is a first appearance in a publication for the country in question, but I think they should use the correct wording to differentiate it from the first appearance in any publication myself (which they could do by highlighting the reprint status). 

[HotKey]

On 12/5/2021 at 12:02 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

I don't have any issue with a clear, factual statement, tailored to a non-US publication appearance, such as "Reprints the first appearance of...." or "First appearance of...in a Greek publication". But to have just "First appearance of...." is factually incorrect and potentially leads to.... 

 

By all means have CGC indicate that it is a first appearance in a publication for the country in question, but I think they should use the correct wording to differentiate it from the first appearance in any publication myself (which they could do by highlighting the reprint status). 

This seems an easy and perfect solution.

"1st appearance of Spider-Man in Brazil. Reprints material from the original 1st appearance of Spider-Man in Amazing Fantasy 15" 

And then if it contains multiple issues, just put a line for each issue it contains.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 12/5/2021 at 5:36 PM, HotKey said:

This seems an easy and perfect solution.

"1st appearance of Spider-Man in Brazil. Reprints material from the original 1st appearance of Spider-Man in Amazing Fantasy 15" 

And then if it contains multiple issues, just put a line for each issue it contains.

That's the sort of factual accuracy I'm battling for HotKey - label it as what it is. On that, we're on the same page 

[Lazyboy]

On 12/5/2021 at 5:08 AM, HotKey said:

First appearances in any country are just that. We shouldn't expect either the worldwide comic community or the American comic community who is involved in foreign editions to agree that only American 1st appearances count. Why should someone in Brazil not have a 1st appearance designation on their 1st appearance of anyone published in Brazil? It seems in the same vein as elitism and gatekeeping, just imo. The comic community is worldwide and everyone deserves a seat at the table under the new much bigger tent, let's accept that and make any necessary changes to implement this fact into grading.

If a foreign edition contains the 1st appearance of any character printed in that country, it should absolutely state so on the label. It should also state when the (original) American publication happened as well.

[bababooey]

On 12/5/2021 at 6:08 AM, HotKey said:

First appearances in any country are just that. We shouldn't expect either the worldwide comic community or the American comic community who is involved in foreign editions to agree that only American 1st appearances count. Why should someone in Brazil not have a 1st appearance designation on their 1st appearance of anyone published in Brazil? It seems in the same vein as elitism and gatekeeping, just imo. The comic community is worldwide and everyone deserves a seat at the table under the new much bigger tent, let's accept that and make any necessary changes to implement this fact into grading.

If a foreign edition contains the 1st appearance of any character printed in that country, it should absolutely state so on the label. It should also state when the (original) American publication happened as well. 

All this information can easily fit on the label, whether the front or the back. 

I definitely agree that CGC needs to be very publicly open about whatever policy they do implement regarding this though. 

The foreign editions market is growing nearly daily and it is just a matter of time before someone has a huge financial regret from buying a foreign edition marked incorrectly or insufficiently. 

Not all foreign series are on the same publication timelines as the original US versions so, as an example, if Mexico started reprinting Daredevil and ASM series at the same time, is DD #2 the first Mexican appearance of Electro or would the ASM #9 be the first Mexican edition reprinting the first appearance of Electro?   

There are no country specific first appearances, every "first appearance" label that doesn't contain the first published version of the issue, wherever it was printed, should have a qualifier (2nd print, reprint, foreign edition etc...)

Edited December 5, 2021 by bababooey

[Get Marwood & I]

On 12/5/2021 at 11:13 PM, bababooey said:

Not all foreign series are on the same publication timelines as the original US versions so, as an example, if Mexico started reprinting Daredevil and ASM series at the same time, is DD #2 the first Mexican appearance of Electro or would the ASM #9 be the first Mexican edition reprinting the first appearance of Electro?   

There are no country specific first appearances, every "first appearance" label that doesn't contain the first published version of the issue, wherever it was printed, should have a qualifier (2nd print, reprint, foreign edition etc...)

I actually like that Hotkey is 'sticking up' for non-US publications here, but you're right on the facts. The love of American comics extends far beyond the shores of the home producing nation and collectors in many other countries cherish them, and all their local reproductions, just as keenly as anyone in the US does. But we shouldn't conflate the two elements being expressed. There is no question that non-US publications have value in their own right and they should be respected. But facts are facts and a company in CGC's position should be doing all that they can to preserve and promote them. If you set yourself up as a grading company, and encapsulate comics for posterity, you have an absolute duty to label the contents as clearly and factually as possible. There should be no room for doubt as to what is encased, no possibility of misrepresentation, no gimmicks. The notion that "experienced collectors will know what we mean" should never enter the equation. 

A title is a title. An issue number is an issue number. Reprinted content is reprinted content. These are facts, and a CGC label should respect and note them.

There are a finite number of data fields on the CGC label. CGC should have a meeting and establish exactly what each label (and census / verification record entry) is there for, and then apply a factual set of standard wording to be used in all cases. So, for example, if we take what I believe is called the 'Key Comments' entry field:

• "First appearance of Spider-Man" - this wording should only ever appear on the original 1962 Amazing Fantasy

If a subsequent publication - US or non-US - reproduces that first appearance in part or in full, then the label should state that and say:

• "Reprints the first appearance of Spider-Man from Amazing Fantasy #15 (Marvel Comics, 09/62)"

I can question how most of the data fields are being used by CGC, currently, but there are three main concerns as I see them. I think there is a consensus here that:

1. CGC should call a book by it's title, not the title of an earlier 'key' book that it partially or fully reproduces - 'Mystic #40' is not 'Tales to Astonish #13'
2. CGC should designate where content is reproduced / reprinted - 'Mystic #40' is not the first appearance of Groot
3. CGC should correctly designate the 'variant' status, and stop referring to stand alone original publications as country variants of other US publications - 'Mystic #40' is not a 'UK Edition' variant of TTA#13

CGC are storing up so many problems for themselves here it is a wonder why they would even want to go down this path. 

@mnelsonCGC Matt - please - come and explain CGC's official position on this. Tell us why you think your strategy is right, and we are wrong. If for no other reason, there is nothing on the CGC website that I am aware of to indicate to submitters how you may handle and label their non-US books that reprint key US content. That can't be right. By labelling and presenting a book as if it is another book, CGC have deviated significantly from what any person might reasonably expect to see on a slab label. This has been going on for a year now - I believe you have a duty to explain your position. 

 

[HotKey]

On 12/6/2021 at 5:24 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

 

1. CGC should correctly designate the 'variant' status, and stop referring to stand alone original publications as country variants of other US publications - 'Mystic #40' is not a 'UK Edition' variant of TTA#13

 

@mnelsonCGC

I have to disagree on this point. Right or wrong, the vast majority of the comic community thinks "same guts, different cover" when they see the word variant, and as most who have dipped their toes in foreign editions know, that is hardly ever the case. Labeling them "variants" is going to lead to confusion for some who will then think they are actually USA variants. 

When the guts change, or combine random panels from multiple comics, that is not a variant by the definition most have accepted, whether its the correct definition or not. 

I think "editions" is a more correct term and when people see that term, they would know it was referring to a foreign comic.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 12/6/2021 at 12:19 PM, HotKey said:

I have to disagree on this point. Right or wrong, the vast majority of the comic community thinks "same guts, different cover" when they see the word variant, and as most who have dipped their toes in foreign editions know, that is hardly ever the case. Labeling them "variants" is going to lead to confusion for some who will then think they are actually USA variants. 

When the guts change, or combine random panels from multiple comics, that is not a variant by the definition most have accepted, whether its the correct definition or not. 

I think "editions" is a more correct term and when people see that term, they would know it was referring to a foreign comic.

To be clear, I'm arguing that non-US publications shouldn't be called variants or editions Hotkey. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

For me, a comic can only be a variant of another comic if they both came from the same presses at the same time as part of the same run (hence 30/35 cent variants, UK Price Variants, Canadian Price Variants and Australian Price Variants all carrying that status). Everything else, by definition, is a reprint or reproduction as it came after the original print run. 

The word 'edition' is a trickier one, I accept, but I think it is possible to avoid its use completely when labelling non-US comics whether they reprint original US material or not. Our Mystic #40 is not a variant of anything, as it was not produced as part of the same run as any other comic that differs in cover or content to it. It was a stand alone publication, printed in the UK. It is not a 'UK Edition' either. It is a UK publication. The word edition is not required. American first printing comics do not have 'US Edition' on their CGC labels other than to differentiate different types within the same print run (e.g. Direct Edition, Newsstand Edition). So why should non-US publications?

I'm arguing against the use of superfluous wording that only adds confusion. Mystic #40 is itself, and the only additional label comment it needs is to state that it reprints TTA#13.  CGC can state the country origin if they want to. "Published in / for the UK market", for example, is unambiguous. "UK Edition" however, is. The 'UK Edition' of what?

[Redshade]

On 12/6/2021 at 12:36 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

I'm arguing against the use of superfluous wording that only adds confusion. Mystic #40 is itself, and the only additional label comment it needs is to state that it reprints TTA#13.  CGC can state the country origin if they want to. "Published in / for the UK market", for example, is unambiguous. "UK Edition" however, is. The 'UK Edition' of what?

Perhaps you are getting too worked up Steve. Let's remind everyone that M40 is NOT a reprint of TTA13. M40 reprints ONE STORY from TTA13.

[Redshade]

On 12/6/2021 at 12:56 PM, Redshade said:

Perhaps you are getting too worked up Steve. Let's remind everyone that M40 is NOT a reprint of TTA13. M40 reprints ONE STORY from TTA13.

Mystic 40 and Tales to Astonish 13 Indices from GCD.
All stories in M40 are reprint stories from various US publications.

TTA 13 Index.

I Challenged... Groot! the Monster from Planet X. (7 pages).

Special Sale (text story). (2 pages).

I Found the Abominable Snowman. (6 pages).

My Friend is... Not Quite Human. (5 pages).

I Found the Hidden World! (5 pages).

Mystic 40 Index.

I Challenged... Groot! The Monster From Planet X. (7 pages).

(The Shark People). (8 pages).

Doctor of Crime. (7 pages).

White Birds of Death! (8 pages).

Third Grave on the Right... (4 pages).

Two Frightened People! (5 pages).

Davey and His Dame. (4 pages).

Too Timid to Live. (5 pages).

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Redshade

[Get Marwood & I]

On 12/6/2021 at 12:56 PM, Redshade said:

Perhaps you are getting too worked up Steve. Let's remind everyone that M40 is NOT a reprint of TTA13. M40 reprints ONE STORY from TTA13.

Is it an important one?

Oh, and the only thing that gets me worked up, Stephen, is people saying I'm worked up when I've just presented a calm, reasoned argument 

[CGC Mike]

I have brought this up to Matt Nelson.  He says:

we are making an official announcement on this in January.