Douglas W. McCratic

I looked in a lot of places but can't find it either.

I've got an issue of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle: The Last Ronin #1 with "Online Exclusive" on the cover but "Fifth Printing" in the indicia. It doesn't look like the fifth printing already listed and has a different UPC. I added the cover of my book below. It's similar to #1-A but I'm hesitant to use 1-A-5 because there is no 1-A-2 thru 1-A-4 listed in the database. The UPC doesn't follow the rules either, it's 82771401991900161, making it look like a variant rather than a fifth printing because of the last digit. What's the preferred way to move on this?

There are several titles that work the same way and it makes me crazy too. Wait until you look at Star Wars. The first listing is Marvel from 1977 and makes perfect sense. The following title listing is Star Wars (2nd Series) from Marvel, 2015-present although it ended in 2020. The third series is also Marvel and started in 2020. Never mind those pesky Dark horse series with the same titles that ran 1998-2006 and 2013-2014. I know CB and how to find the series I'm looking for....most of the time. Imagine a newb looking for a book though. There are a total of 15 series titled just "Star Wars" (16 if you count Dark Horse's "The Star Wars") with 5 of them being published by Marvel when you throw in the Canadian Edition and the Newspaper Strip books. Granted, Metal Men is different in that they all came from DC but ultimately it's the same inconsistent cataloging. Personally, I would prefer the title followed by the year. My second choice is the title with the publisher in parentheses and then the year. More than once I have tried to enter what I sincerely believed to be a new title only to later learn that those books were already in CB just under a different publisher from the one actually listed in/on the book. I'm struggling to name any now other than "G.I. Joe, a Real American Hero" which was Marvel's baby from #1-155. IDW took the reins at #155.5 but it's still listed under the Marvel title. Then you have Fantastic Comics (Image) is was literally created with the intent of being the next issue of Fantastic Comics (Fox) but received its own listing even though it was #24. Crack Comics has two entries, one from the original Quality series and a second titled "Crack Comics (2nd Series)" even though it was the same thing that Fantastic Comics (Image) was, a part of what they called the "The Next Issue Project." They also did Silver Streak the same way as Crack calling the single issue from Image the 2nd series. I prefer the way CGD does it with each new publisher getting a new entry with a notation in the previous publisher's title to the effect of "numbering continues in Title X from Publisher Y."

I don't have the background to comprehend this kind of thing. Is it something the average user should be worried about?

I have brought it up in another thread about information disappearing but now I'm looking to put this particular book to rest. #0 had four versions. There was the standard version with a blue background There was a red version There was a gold version And finally a platinum (or silver) edition Years ago, when I could still remember this kind of thing, I had entered these into CB. The information attached to them is now gone, no big deal, it is what it is. I do still want to set the record straight on these if at all possible. Topps Comics had a few titles that were a part of their Kirbyverse. In the first issue (I believe) of each title was a coupon to submit to get your Kirbychrome edition of Secret City saga. I cannot recall if the Kirbychrome was the gold or platinum version. I was completely unaware of the red version until years after the fact and have no idea where it came from. I feel like the platinum was something of a "thank you" or retailer incentive but again, cannot remember at all. Does anyone know about these? Is there a way to go through the old databases or corrections to pull this information out? There is little information available on the interwebs and much of it conflicts with other sources.

This worked! I'll let you know if it should strike again. Thank you!

They are different variants. Like most things Lady Death, there was a lot of variants for this issue. Unfortunately, #1-I has the image for one variant and a description of another. #1-I should look more like this: In the lower left corner, of this image, there is an "MM" for Marat Mychaels, the artist. It was likely limited to 15 copies described as artist proofs. The regular red edition was limited to 175 and had the individual number on each issue in place of "MM." #1-J has the correct cover and description: The blue edition was limited to 185 copies, also numbered in the lower left corner. There was also an artist proof edition with the "MM" in place of the limitation and it was likely limited to 15 copies as well. The are also the printing error edtions that have the faded appearance.

Straight from DC's website: "In celebration of its 85th anniversary, DC Comics reprints for the very first time its first-ever published comic book, New Fun #1, the comic that transformed the fledgling industry by being the first ongoing title made up of new stories instead of reprints of newspaper comic strips." So the New Fun is the first and only version so far of that particular reprint. Using the GCD, C-62 was "All-New Collectors' Edition" and was all related to, but not an adaptation of, Superman The Movie. Apparently tabloid sized and the C-62 was used in the indicia.

Follow Me Into Darkness #1-B and #1-C have the pics reversed. I didn't think changing pics would be picked up as a correction, so I traded UPC codes instead. The issue below should be UPC 85002766716400131 and is labeled Cover C on the back The issue below should have UPC 85002766716400121 and is labeled Cover B on the back

I'll give it a shot next week. Reloading the new update doesn't do it, it's only on the first pass.

Over the last few updates (4 or 5?) I've been having the same error occur. CB confirms that a new update is available and I begin the download process. The new pane opens and the status bar appears and it reads "initializing." That is all that is does, no progress, nothing at all. I cancel the download and receive a message to the effect of "there was a problem with the update, it may not be fully uploaded" or something similar. I clear the error message, immediately check for updates again, initiate the process and it works like a charm. I'm using v22.0.1.1601.

My experience has been that they are slow to ship, ship the wrong items, and then are impossible to contact. They do occasionally hit upon a good idea, though. John Romita Sr. and Alex Ross have done some sketch covers for them and both are near impossible to get sketches from at all. If I'm getting anything produced by them, it's definitely going to be on the secondary market.

Correct. The name on the cover indicates "Ashcan" but I would compare them to mini comics. The paper is slightly heavier than copy paper. I would guess that they were made on a what was a high end copier at the time and are roughly 5.5" x 8.5" I'm not certain how they were distributed but think that I remember ordering them at my local shop. It has been far too long on a very obscure book.

Agreed. They're all signed. I've only seen one AP come up for sale and, as I recall, the price was not significantly different from any of the numbered copies. I'm not sure what it is about Moebius, but anything he signed seems to hold value far better than most.

By that logic, do we need 275 variants? Each one has a different number written on it. 1/250, 2/250, 3/250...

This is correct. The limited edition is 250, numbered 1-250. Artist Proofs are generally the first copies, but given that these are more or less photo copies there is no real difference in quality between the first copies and the last copies. I have a few Artist Proofs of other items and they are numbered similar to "AP/25." In comics, there is generally no real difference between the regular run and artist proofs. The proofs tend to be given to the creator(s) of the material. In the art world, Artist Proofs can take on a different meaning. They are often the first prints reproduced and sent to those involved in the production of the print/lithograph in order for them to verify the quality, paper, colors, and anything else that may arise. AP's are usually more desirable because they are a smaller limitation of an already limited edition. As a rule, no. There is no discernible difference aside from the numbering.

The signatures appear consistent and both have a limitation with with signature, so I would say yes.

Looking around, I can't find any evidence of a stand alone series "Traci Lords" in 1992. She was the subject of Personality Comics #2 in 1991 which is the same publisher listed in "Traci Lords." I think we're safe to remove the "Traci Lords" title.

When you say "missing data" do you mean that the fields are present but are now empty? Or are the fields/columns not there at all?

I think magazines would be more appropriate solely based on my memory of it. I believe it is slightly larger than digest sized, probably 8-12 pages. I will try to pull it out today to verify.

I believe Pete addressed scanner problems on this past week's ComicBase TV. Honestly, I skipped past because my scanner has been working fine but there was some information in there about the systems that the scanners use.

The update fixed it! Thank you Steven, Pete, and everyone else that worked on this!

Yeah, I don't see #3 at double the value of #1, low distribution or not. Looking at eBay sales, it's hard to compare as there aren't comparable grades moving of each issue. Heritage has sold a few over the last five years or so. #1 brings a premium and #3 edges out #2 in the same grade. 9.6 #3 hovers around $600 while #2 is $400-500. There have been more #3s sold than #2s, likely helping bring the price down. I'm guessing that more #3s were slabbed due to the supposed rarity but with extra sales, the scarcity may not be as big a deal as once thought. Oddly #4 seems to outdo #3 pretty regularly.

I got this a few times too but it cleared itself up with no real input from me. I might have turned the computer off after one of the events, I can't say for certain.

I can't find any evidence online but Vampirella #3 may actually be higher than #1. I was thinking that it was a low distribution issue. I'll keep digging, I'm hoping I'll find an Overstreet to confirm the reasoning.