Gregory Hecht

Well, Jimenez did the interior artwork, so it isn't so much that he is attaching his signature to Jim Lee's cover as it is attaching his signature to a book for which he did the inside pages.

On a tangentially related matter, does it make sense to include "Jewish superhero" in *all* of the issue notes?

I would not be in favor of recording legacy numbering in instances where it is not explicitly stated somewhere in the comic by the publisher. There have been a few examples of headscratchers where a publisher did or did not count certain issues to get to the particular milestone number that they desired.

The latest update added the title 2020 Iron Manual to the Books category. I am not familiar with this item. Is it an actual book that was a giveaway? Or is this something that is similar to Marvel's "Official Handbook" publications, meaning that it should be placed in the Magazine category?

My (very old) copy of Overstreet does indicate that Vampirella #3 had low distribution. It places the values in very similar ballparks, though. But, as I said, it is a very old copy of Overstreet, so it is very possible that the valuations may have moved at different rates over the years. Still, I am surprised that CB puts #1 at $775 and #3 at $1.4K (almost twice the value of #1). That sounds like something is a little askew... but I could be wrong. I would think that Heritage would have some data on those two issues... so if that kind of difference is warranted, there should be data to back it up. Also as a point of reference, the database puts the valuations for Vampirella #2 at $160, #4 at $165, #5 at $240, and #6 at $40.

I think that the Grading Notes field (which already exists) is supposed to serve this function. Any contents that a seller has in the Notes field that don't match the master database get imported into the Atomic Avenue listing. Sometimes those imported Notes are old field contents that used to be in the master database but got deleted or updated, but the seller's database still has the old info in there. Sometimes it is information about the particular copy of the comic that the seller put in there before the Grading Notes field existed. (The Grading Notes field came into existence not too long ago... so the Notes field was used for sellers' grading notes for many many years.) At this point, I suspect that the inconvenience that you describe is something that we'll just have to live with for quite some time. It would be problematic to require all AA sellers to go through each of their listings to transfer grading information out of the Notes field and into the Grading Information field. Sellers who have hundreds or even thousands of items for sale on AA would be REALLY UNHAPPY with that kind of labor intensive requirement... and if a seller has gone to the effort of putting together information to help a buyer understand the details of the condition of the item that they are selling, that isn't a seller that you want to piss off. 🙂

Way back in the day, this thread on the old msg boards took a look at suspect valuations in the database for some of Warren's magazines. Eventually the prices on those issues were "right sized" (more or less) but over the years since then unusual drift on some of those issues seems to have returned. Particular issues that I would suggest get a second look at pricing would include: Creepy (Magazine) #3, #5, #8, #11, #17 (holy cow!), #64 (because it is too low rather than too high), #71 (wow!), #78, #80 (!!!), #81 (!!!), #82, #84, #89, #96, #123. And probably also #12, #15, #16, #39, #72, #92, #103, #108, #132, #133, #137, #138, #142. I am less certain of the current market values for #1 and #2, so truly high grade copies of those issues might fetch the prices shown in the database. Eerie (Warren) #3, #7 (too low), #9, #28, #38, #39, #48, #63, #79, #81 (too low). And probably #13, #15, #17, #23, #25, #42, #47, #67, #68, #71, #73, #75 through #78, #90 (too low), #116, #118 though #120, #122, #123, #138 (too low). Similar comment re: issues #1 and #2 as for Creepy. Vampirella (Magazine) #3 (priced higher than #1?), #50, #68 (too low), #96, #100, #104 (too low), #111 (too low). And probably #14, #15, #19, #30, #70, #73, #92, #102, #103, #106, Annual #1. If #113 is truly valued at $2.7K, why in the world is #113-A only valued at $5.00? If Special Edition #1 is valued at $255, how is it that Special Edition #1 HC is only valued at $12.50?

I recognize that. My comment regarding the accuracy of the valuation was meant for Joel as he was asking for a price check. Which I don't think is really needed here. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that!

No, ComicBase is NOT asserting that $295 is the NM value for that issue, not even close. The database pegs that particular issue at $11.50 in NM condition. I don't think that the valuations in the CB database are out of whack, they actually seem to be lower than some other places (e.g., mycomicshop). If I understand Fred's question, he was less concerned about the fact that somebody has posted a copy w/ a Deadpool card for $295 and more concerned that particular listing was inappropriately inflating the valuation for that issue. He was assuming that all first print copies of X-Force #1 w/ trading cards would have the same value, but it turns out that the market does put the Deadpool card at a higher value.

My understanding is that the Deadpool card is indeed associated with greater demand than any of the other cards. I would say that $250 (unslabbed) is well above where the market is, but yes the Deadpool card version does realize a higher price on the market than the other cards.

Dynamic Forces I believe that they are part of a group of companies that includes Dynamite Entertainment. Dynamic Forces was especially active in the 90's/early 00's (if my memory serves correctly) contracting with publishers to make variant covers exclusively for them. DF would exclusively sell via mail (they placed advertisements in comics) and eventually online once the Internet became a thing. Based on their website, it looks like they are still an active business.

I agree with you that the fact that the comic was originally sold in a polybag should be noted in the master database. (Simply stating that a trading card was included with the comic doesn't necessarily mean that the issue was polybagged... there are plenty of instances where trading cards have been bound into the comic and therefore that issue was not sold in a polybag.) I'm just not seeing the rationale for listing the bagged state as a unique variant entry in the master database. Incorporated somehow into the condition field? Sure, if there is a reasonable way to do that which is reasonably intuitive for users of CB and AA.

The fact that the publisher issued the book in its signed state is what I think triggered the move to make that item its own variant. I'm sure that @Peter R. Bickford or @Mark J. Castaneda can clarify the thinking on that item if I am not correct. I can't speak to why your note wasn't accepted as part of the database entry, but again maybe Pete or Mark can provide thoughts on that. A bit of an odd duck, but my guess is that the "special CGC label" is what earned that issue its variant status. If those particular CGC'ed copies were indistinguishable for a copy that was sent by any old Tom, Dick, or Harry for slabbing by CGC, my bet is that there wouldn't be a separate issue entry for it in the master database. But I think that you are implying that these are the very rare exceptions that prove the rule that CGC cases don't really merit new variant issue entries in the master database... in which case I would agree with you. And I think that the same logic would apply to polybags containing periodical comics and shrinkwrap around hardcover comics.

Printings and variants are states that exist prior to the comic arriving in the hands of the purchaser. They are essentially states of existence that are determined by the publisher/manufacturer. These kinds of things merit unique issue entries in the master database. Condition (including whether or not a polybagged comic remains in that polybag) is a state of the comic that is ultimately the consequence of how the comic is treated and handled after it is produced by the publisher/manufacturer... most especially by the purchaser of that comic. For that reason, any new "Bagged" field would have to be treated as a condition, not as a variant or different printing. Changes in condition don't merit unique entries in the master database.

Yes, but that isn't the same thing as creating a new variant entry for that issue. Yes, but again, that isn't the same thing as creating a new variant entry which is what I am understanding from your OP.

I'm not sure I see why that is necessary, especially in cases like Lance's example of Heavy Metal which is often sold in a plain unmarked clear polybag. The bag does nothing except prevent a potential customer from flipping through the issue prior to purchase. One *might* argue that removal of the bag automatically changes the grade of the issue, but it definitely isn't creating a variant. A variant would certainly warrant its own entry in the database, but changing the grade of an item would not. EDITED TO ADD: The logic of adding a separate entry for an unbagged issue of Heavy Metal wouldn't be any different than the logic of adding entries for Marvel omnibus books that have been removed from their shrinkwrap IMO... and I don't see a need to do that, either. Again, as I said up above, sellers who follow best practices will indicate the presence/absence of a polybag in the Grading Notes field prior to posting on AA. Collectors at home can do as they wish, of course.

I'm not a big fan of adding a separate field to indicate polybagged or not. The Notes field and/or Item Description fields can be used to indicate that a comic was polybagged and included other items (trading cards or whatnot). Sellers on AA can (and should!!!) indicate in their Grading Notes whether the bag and/or additional items are included with the copy they are selling. Home users can track their own collection items as they see fit. Individual issues where the Notes field and/or the Item Description field contents are contradictory or need some sort of clarification should be noted in some manner (correction submission sent from a database, posting to these boards, or an email to CB support) so that the CB editorial team can give them the proper clean-up. And adding a dedicated polybag field doesn't guarantee that other fields will get necessary clean-up, those would still need to be addressed as I stated above. Polybags that have no printing on them and which are not intended to keep ancillary tchochkes with the comic are IMO not much different than the shrinkwrap around brand new hardcover collected editions. The presence or absence of the bag doesn't necessarily mean that the item for sale cannot be legitimately graded as NM condition, but sellers that mention that the original wrap is present *might* realize a bump in their sale price if they mention it in their grading notes.

Both the AA and the mobile app functions are pretty important, actually, especially as more items that were tracked in the original "single category" configuration of ComicBase get moved into the Magazine and Book categories.

What is the rationale for that decision? This is a magazine, so there isn't a need to adhere to the traditional issue numbering. The practicality of Walt's suggestion of just numbering the issues based on the date insulates database users from ructions and conniptions if a previously unknown issue turns up and has to be entered into the title. This feels like a facepalm-worthy decision.

That is how I interpreted Walt's OP. I believe that this title has no indicia and the only indication of a date is that the front page logo area includes a mention that the catalog is for "[month] cover date [year]" comics. (This would explain how the earliest issue currently in the database got pegged with issue #1 even though it is apparently not even close to being the first issue.) Walt, can you confirm?

Yeah, at one point DC needed to shift their cover dates to be a smidge closer to reality, so all of their publications went through a "Winter 1988" issue and then a "Holiday 1988" issue to allow the Real Life calendar catch up a little bit to the DC cover dates. Those issues preceded the "January 1989" cover dated issues. My guess is that if Mark ultimately decides that HC is OK with the "198510" style of numbering, you could go with something like "198813" for the Winter 1989 issue and "198814" for the "Holiday 1989" issue; a notation regarding the listed cover date should probably go into the Notes field. Using those numbers should get those two issues to sort in proper chronological order between the 198812 and the 198901 issues.

I don't know for sure if HC still expects imprints to be tracked in the same way that they used to track (for example) Vertigo titles under a separate publisher designation than the rest of DC's output. It looks like all of the Black Label titles have DC listed as their publisher, and a quick spot check of a couple of titles did not show any of them even mentioning "Black Label" in their entries. Again, @Mark J. Castaneda should be able to provide a clear answer on that.

My recommendation would be to renumber all of the listed issues using your suggested method since the listed #1 is apparently not the first issue at all... and your suggested numbering suggestion would insulate the listing from problems if issues surface that pre-date your earliest issue. That will, of course, be Mark/Human Computing's decision.

Mark can correct me if Human Computing feels differently, but that kind of information is not normally tracked in the database.

Since this is a magazine and not a comic *and* apparently lacks an indicia, is there any reason not to go with the suggested numbering, e.g., 198510?