Jump to content

Gregory Hecht

Moderators
  • Posts

    582
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    27

Everything posted by Gregory Hecht

  1. Depending on your definition of "serious", the answer is yes for specific issues. Not sure that I would personally put that kind of value on those issues, but apparently there is a segment of the market that does. And not a lot of people save their preview magazines, so there are likely to be some scarcity issues for those kinds of things, I think.
  2. Looks like Superman: The Man of Steel (Compilations) Book #3 is the same thing as #3/HC. To be consistent with the listings for volumes 1 and 2 of the recent hardcover compilations from DC, #3 should be deleted (the scan for that item can be moved to #3/HC). For similar reasons, the listing for Book #4/HC should be changed to #4/HC.
  3. Fantagraphics recently published a book reprinting Tops #1 and #2 (from 1949) in an oversize hardcover format. I'm not finding that book in the database (not too surprising, the HC offices don't tend to get these kinds of books in the comic shipments that they use for generating the weekly updates), but I'm also not finding the original series in the database. Am I overlooking it somewhere? For reference, here is the listing for the original 1949 comics title on mycomicshop.com. Also, note that Tops is not the same thing as Tops Comics (from 1944, which *is* in the database).
  4. Not missing, see Superboy (1st series)... both the first print and second print are included in the database. For the major publishers (especially Marvel and DC), it is highly unlikely that periodical comics from the 60's to the present aren't included in the database, although some items are occasionally cataloged in idiosyncratic places.
  5. Supposedly there are some issues from Marvel that are forthcoming in the next few weeks that will have this “feature”. I think that Marvel has indicated that they have heard the negative reaction esp since it results in more damages when shipping to retailers. So with a little luck Marvel will go back to the previous cover stock (which, as I said before, isn’t much different than the interior page stock anyway).
  6. I took your suggestion and posted it on Slack so that Pete will see it.
  7. But Marvel has been incrementally downgrading the paperstock for the covers of their periodical comics for years now. While I understand that this latest round has been a step too far, is it so different (other than the social media outrage) from what Marvel has been doing over the last few years that it warrants database tracking?
  8. BTW, it looks like all of the Action Comics #1000 issues list "Butch Guiche" as an inker. That should of course be corrected to "Butch Guice."
  9. My CB database matches what is shown on Atomic Avenue for the specific variants that you list in your most recent post. When you do your content updates, do you have the radio button for locking the notes field contents checked or unchecked?
  10. It probably is the same paper as the interior pages. I assume that you are asking so that you can track this in your own custom fields? The reason I ask is that I doubt that this is the sort of thing that HC is particularly worried about tracking in the master database.
  11. Maybe I am missing something here, but won't the settings shown in Don's screenshot result in reducing the price of his inventory by another 25% every day? Also, what happens if he wants to end the reduced price sale? Is there a way for him to bump up his prices by 133.33% (which is what it would take to restore his original prices prior to dropping them by 25%)?
  12. Jeez, this fell off my radar screen for way too long. Just submitted it this evening.
  13. A late addition to the Grim Reaper Report: DC has cancelled all orders for their Sandman #1 Facsimile Edition (located in ComicBase as Sandman #1/A). It will presumably be resolicited, but for now it has been cancelled and should be removed from the database.
  14. This week's content update re-created the 2020 Iron Manual comic book title (the correct magazine title remains in the database).
  15. And just like Dark Phoenix, they're back! This week we have new comic title versions for Back Issue and Comic Book Creator. @Mark J. Castaneda @Peter R. Bickford Any chance you can give the ComicBase editorial department a reminder on this one? (see my original post in this thread, thanks)
  16. Marvel has also cancelled Deadly Neighborhood Spider-Man (to be resolicited in the future, evidently) even though it will be in the forthcoming April 2022 catalog (for items shipping beginning in June 2022). I don't think that it is in the database yet, but the ComicBase editorial team should hold off on that title when they add the comics from the April 2022 solicitations.
  17. Or perhaps even Hawkeye Omnibus (Panini) Using that title would save Hawkeye Omnibus just in case Marvel ever decided to make a generically named omnibus for that character.
  18. Marvel has apparently cancelled Secret Invasion (2nd series). Smart money is that this will get resolicited when the MCU show is closer to release on Disney+, but for now this title is cancelled and should be removed from the database.
  19. 2M might not be impossible. Comics.org (aka the GCD) says that they have >1.8M issues listed. They also claim >156K variant issues, but I don't know if that figure is separate from or a subset of the 1.8M figure. I am sure that some of the items included at GCD (such as OHOTMU, Who's Who, index titles, etc) are classified as something other than comics in ComicBase, but surely that only accounts for a tiny fraction of the difference of hundreds of thousands in item count.
  20. Somehow the recent Iron Man Epic Collection #20 got conflated into two database entries, one for issue #20 and another for issue #19. The correct listing is for #20, so the #19 entry should be deleted.
  21. The Demon (1st series) Book #1/HC and The Demon Omnibus (Jack Kirby's...) #1/HC appear to be the same thing. The indicia of the book does not include "omnibus" in the title (IIRC, it was solicited with omnibus in the title, but the actual publication is "Jack Kirby's The Demon" in the indicia). The separate Omnibus title should be deleted. The database also lists The Demon (1st series) Book #1 (not hardcover) with the same cover date as the hardcover. I am pretty sure that listing is supposed to be this trade paperback. If so, then the publication date needs to be fixed.
  22. The database includes two listings for DC's hardcover reprint of New Fun Comics #1. Both are listed under the Famous First Edition title (which is appropriate, given the indicia of the book). #62 is listed with a cover date of 4/1/1979 and #63/HC is listed with a cover date of 7/1/2020. Based on the indicia of the book, the listing for #63/HC in the database is correct and that listing should be retained in the database. I am not able to find anything verifying that a #62 (or a #C-62, for that matter) exists for this title, nor am I able to find anything verifying that there was a reprinting of New Fun Comics #1 in 1979. The listing for #62 should be deleted.
  23. There are three entries under the title Kull the Destroyer: The Original Marvel Years Omnibus. Issue #1/HC is a duplication of Book #1/HC. Since the DM variant is listed as Book #1/A, I suggest deleting #1/HC and keeping Book #1/HC. Before deletion, however, please move the scan for #1/HC over to Book #1/HC.
  24. The original plan for Lost Girls was to publish it in periodical form, and that is what generated the publication of Lost Girls #1 and #2. Then that plan was set aside midstream in favor of the publishing the whole thing all at once. The deluxe set is three volumes sold together in a slipcase. It is the entire story. (The one volume edition, which is what was recently added to the database, was published later.) Lost Girls #1 contains chapters 1-3 and #2 contains chapters 4-6. Volume 1 of the slipcase set includes chapters 1-10, so it contains all of the story in Lost Girls #1 and #2 plus four additional chapters. Volumes 2 and 3 of the slipcase were entirely new.
  25. "Generating a warning message" as you describe in your first paragraph is probably not going to have the positive reaction. At best, sellers will ignore it. At worst, they will think that they are being told that they need to go through their individual listings and manually move info from one field to another, and to the extent that they believe that is what they are being told, they will get upset. And that doesn't do anybody any good. Presumably a tool could be devised as you describe in your second paragraph. But I don't know if this is in any way high priority for Pete & co. at the moment (maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I honestly don't know... it could very well be that Pete isn't concerned at all about people using both Notes and Grading Notes to get pertinent info up onto Atomic Avenue). But to go all of the way back to your OP, I think that the implication from Michael Wagner's post is that you're overthinking a problem that most folks aren't sure actually exists b/c of the presence of custom fields (and a few others, such as Grading Notes) that are already available to users.
×
×
  • Create New...