Gregory Hecht

Which version of ComicBase are you using? If you are on the Free version, there is a limit as to how many comics you can have in your inventory. When you say you are unable to add comics, what do you mean exactly? Are you trying to add comics using a bar code reader? Are you going to a particular comic that is listed in the program and manually trying to change the quantity? Or is the program not finding particular titles or issues? I have had an intermittently recurring issue where some issues and titles don't get added from the weekly updates unless I do File Tools -> Rebuild Lists immediately prior to doing the weekly content update. More details on your issue would be helpful.

It is in the database under the title Born (as one would expect). Make sure that your database isn’t set to hide adult/mature titles. In addition, you might try File Tools —> Rebuild Lists

Again, still there, unchanged.

New Book title: Neal Adams’ Classic DC Artist’s Edition Should that really be indexed as Classic DC Artist’s Edition (Neal Adams'...) ?

Well, there are reasons why the "Item Title" field was created. And situations like this is one of them.

New magazine title CLIJ was added to the database. Based on the cover scans, the title for this does indeed appear to be CLIJ. However, the title description refers to the title twice as CLIP, so that needs to be fixed.

The Shadowmen II title still needs to be deleted.

The title description still there, unchanged.

I'm not finding License to Kill as a title in my database or on AA (the latter reflects the master database). I am finding Licence to Kill in both my database and on AA.

New Comic Book title: Rube Goldberg Inventions Can somebody verify that this is comics? I suspect that this is prose with illustrations. I guess part of the question is whether one considers Rube Goldberg's invention single panel illustrations to be sequential story telling or not. New Magazine title: The Wonderful World of Marvel I notice that the title description for this is verbatim with wording from the mycomicshop website without attribution. As a former University professor that frowned upon plagiarism, I have to ask: is that allowed here? I assume somebody asked mycomicshop for permission to use their text?

As I understand it, automatching relies on matching up UPC codes. So old National and Quality comics won't work with automatching b/c those issues won't have UPC's. Something like GI Joe ARAH might work since (I assume) all of those issues have UPC's (at least the newsstand editions would, at any rate).

Dreadstar is similar, the title was published continuously but changed publishers from Marvel to First in midstream. The database treats this run as just a single title. But Tarzan starts out as Tarzan (Dell), then goes to Tarzan (Gold Key), then goes to Tarzan (DC). I don't know for sure, but I don't think that there was a break in publication for the title, so it seems that it may be fairly analogous to GI Joe ARAH. I am guessing that the CB editors handle this on a more or less case-by-case basis. To some degree, I am fine with this. For short run indie titles that might have hopped around amongst a couple of publishers during their brief lifespan, I think having multiple titles in the database is overkill. But for much longer runs (Tarzan, GI Joe ARAH) I can definitely understand the reasoning behind breaking things up by publisher. The situation for GI Joe ARAH has been in the database this way for many years now, so the rationale of "we don't want to mess up people's inventory" might be invoked here. But now we have the "automatching" function. @Peter R. Bickford @Mark J. Castaneda thoughts on this?

Under the New Mutants Omnibus title, issues #1, #1/HC, and #1/A are listed. As far as I know, only two variants of volume 1 were ever published and these appear to be fully represented by issues #1/HC and #1/A. There is no scan for issue #1 but it appears to be a duplicate of either #1/HC or #1/A. With that in mind, issue #1 should be deleted from the database. Also, Item Description fields for #2/HC and #2/A contain information that is really better suited for the Notes field. I've made this change in my database and added cover artist information to the Item Description field, and then submitted the changes. The UPC is incorrect for #2/A. I corrected that prior to my submission as well.

The database currently has the titles Shadowmen (Black Coat) and Shadowmen II under the Comic Book category. The Amazon entries for these titles (see here and here) indicate that they are biographies of comic characters and their creators with "150 b&w illustrations" and "330 b&w illustrations", respectively. So these appear to be prose books rather than comic books. I suggest the following: 1. Move Shadowmen (Black Coat) into the Book category as a numbered series. The existing Shadowmen (Black Coat) book should be #1 in that series. 2. The entry for Shadowmen II should become #2 in the Shadowmen (Black Coat) book series and the Comic Book title Shadowmen II should be deleted.

With today's update, it looks like the Geiger Book #1/HC entry was created. However, the Geiger (2nd series) Book #1/HC still needs to be deleted.

The comic title Geiger (2nd series) includes an entry for Book #1/HC. My understanding is that this collects issues #1 through 6 of the first Geiger series. (There has not been a hardcover collection of the second Geiger series yet AFAIK.) Consequently, that item should be moved to the Geiger title.

The database lists issue #1 under the Blade Epic Collection title. That item should be listed as issue #2. (Epic Collections are not necessarily released in chronological order; the volume that has been released this year entitled "Nightstalkers" is marked as "volume 2" on the back cover, so it should be listed as issue #2 in the database. This has been the standard practice for Marvel's Epic Collection trade paperbacks since the line started up years ago.)

Have you done a "Rebuild Lists"? File --> File Tools --> Rebuild Lists After rebuilding lists, check to see if those issues are listed in your database. If not, download the latest content update. (If you have already run the latest content update, you'll want to hold the shift key down while executing this function to force it to run again.) Then rebuild lists again. (I ran into a situation where for a couple of weeks in a row new titles and items from the content update wouldn't show unless I did the Rebuild Lists function immediately prior to downloading the update. Don't know what caused it, don't know why the problem went away, all I know is that the Rebuild Lists function got me around the problem when it was happening. Rebuilding lists after the content update didn't seem to help.)

New Comic title: The Best of John Wagner’s Judge Dredd This should be indexed as Best of John Wagner's Judge Dredd, The But there is already a title with that same name in the database... same cover scan and same cover price, but the new title has a publication year of 2025 and the pre-existing title has a publication year of 2022.

I know that Marvel uses 9999 for anything that is $99.99 or higher. So for example omnibus books that are $100, $125, or $150 all get 9999 at the end of the UPC. (It is a little annoying when creating entries in CB for those books since CB autopopulates fields with $99.99 for those ISBNs, and you have to go and correct them with the correct cover price.)

The database includes DC All In, DC All In Special, and DC All In 2025. I think that the first and last of those are duplicative. All of the variant info is under DC All In 2025, so it is probably easier to just delete DC All In. In terms of relatedness vis actual story content, DC All In Special is something different, it is the one-shot from several months back. While fully understanding the different interpretations of the indicia title for the FCBD issue, my vote would be to keep them separate from the DC All In Special bc the contents of the FCBD issue is previews of other DC books.

Are the titles DC All In and DC All In 2025 the same thing? I'm guessing that they are, and if that is the case then I suggest deleting the former and retaining the latter. (The latter better matches the indicia.)

ANOTHER SET OF UPDATES: 1. In the new version of Marvel Masterworks: The Uncanny X-Men vol. 2, the indicia states "3rd edition, 1st printing." I have submitted this as follows: • Marvel Masterworks: The Uncanny X-Men #2/E for the silver and black dustjacket edition (somebody else will need to submit a cover scan and a UPC number). • Marvel Masterworks: The Uncanny X-Men #2/F for the marble dustjacket edition 2. In the new version of Marvel Masterworks: The Fantastic Four vol. 3, the indicia states "3rd edition, 1st printing." I have submitted this as follows: • Marvel Masterworks: The Fantastic Four #3/C for the silver and black dustjacket edition (somebody else will need to submit a cover scan and a UPC number). • Marvel Masterworks: The Fantastic Four #3/D for the marble dustjacket edition 3. In the new version of Marvel Masterworks: Captain America vol. 1, the indicia states "1st edition, 4th printing." With that in mind, I have submitted this as follows: • Marvel Masterworks: Captain America #1/HC-4 for the silver and black dustjacket edition (somebody else will need to submit a cover scan and a UPC number). • Marvel Masterworks: Captain America #1/A-4 for the marble dustjacket edition.

OK, I just realized all of these months later that this fell off my radar screen. ? I cleaned up the Notes field for #1 and #1-2 and submitted from my database. While doing that, I noticed that an incomplete UPC was present for #1-2, so I cleared that field prior to submission. So that field should be cleared out inn the master database, and hopefully somebody with #1-2 can submit the correct complete UPC. I submitted #1-C (with scan) as we agreed above. [I am suspicious that #1-2 might actually be the presumed "2nd edition" but without a copy available to me, I cannot be sure. For now we will live without #1-B in the database, pending clarification from another user(s).]

If re-running the content update still does not solve your problem, consider this: I had this problem happen to me a couple of times, some items in the content update just never appeared in my database. In those instances, I found that "Rebuilding Lists" prior to re-running the content update made the problem going away. (Re-running the content update without rebuilding lists beforehand did not solve the issue.)