Doohickamabob

On 10/22/2017 at 6:19 AM, FoggyNelson said:

I zoomed in on a bunch of theses early Mad borders and there a lots of neat things to see

Yeah, I should scan a cover and post some close-ups. It's interesting that several of the Mad rip-off magazines used similar borders (such as early Cracked issues). I wonder if Mad itself was copying the border style of some earlier publication?

I'm loving this thread.

1 hour ago, mycomicshop said:

I relayed the info to Overstreet, and they said to let the thread know that they've made the change. They were appreciative to get the report.

This is terrific! I was worried that my post might be too much of me just venting/whining, but now I see that other people also want this sort of stuff to be as accurate as possible, and I'm very glad I took the time.

I hope eventually CGC comes around and fixes the spelling as well.

9 hours ago, path4play said:

Corrected:  http://goodgirlcomics.com/category/fox-feature-syndicate/

 

 

Cool! Thank you.

2 hours ago, skypinkblu said:

@Doohickamabob

It seems you were able to influence MCS, why not write to Overstreet and ask them to correct the spelling? That way it will be "in the book". 

I did read the entire thing;) that was a lot of work.

 

I'll give it a try. Thanks, and thanks for hacking and slashing your way through my verbosity.

On 9/22/2017 at 2:44 PM, mycomicshop said:

No longer...

https://www.mycomicshop.com/search?PubID=16031

That's great! At least one entity appreciates the chance to incrementally improve its accuracy.

On 9/22/2017 at 9:48 PM, Hap Hazard said:

Last one for tonight, nice set of Lord of the Rings Ace books, with super rare first edition of the Hobbit with Lion on cover.

Love 'em! Would have commented had I looked sooner.

1 minute ago, SteppinRazor said:

No need to apologize, it's not your fault people have short attention sp

Haha.... (You okay?)

I did take a look at this thread on a smartphone, and wow, that turns the wall of text into a skyscraper of text. Normally I read/write on a home computer with a wide-resolution monitor.

I appreciate everybody's responses, even the ones that lean toward disagreement. Not trying to make a case about this; just wanted to share my experience. I can take "no" for an answer, but it does change how I feel about CGC.

1 hour ago, porcupine48 said:

Anal bum cover for 400$ Alex

Not in the "R's"? That's not what your mother said.

1 hour ago, Robot Man said:

No offense, but tipping a cold one and reading one of those awsome Juniors or Sunnys seems like a far better use of your time. Oh, that's right, now you can't...

(I don't think I even made it halfway down)

I have The Complete Junior and Sunny reprint book, edited by Grant Geissman. I would much rather my dirty paws turn those pages, rather than sullying the originals.

1 hour ago, woowoo said:

I was with you half way but its so long I had to stop for a drink and lost my spot.

That's okay, I also stopped for a drink or two.

Seriously, I know the wall of text messages do not go over well. I wanted to be thorough and put down all the details, but I understand that it can be tedious to read, so my apologies.

I've been meaning to write about this for a while, but it peeved me significantly that I decided to wait.

In early June, I submitted some comics to CGC. Among those comics were some issues by the publisher Fox Feature Syndicate. (The specific issues included the titles Junior and Sunny.)

I've always had a pet peeve about the misspelling of this publisher's name. The name, as indicated in the indicia, as well as the colophon (logo), is "Fox Feature Syndicate." It is NOT "Fox Features Syndicate," with an "s" at the end of "Features." It's just "Feature" (no "s"). It's easy to see how anybody would make this error, since when pronouncing the name out loud, the "s" sound seems like it is attached to the end of the word "Feature" even though it's really only at the beginning of the word "Syndicate." (Sort of like how some people misinterpret the Jimi Hendrix song lyric "while I kiss the sky" as "while I kiss this guy"... Or like the SNL sketch with Sean Connery reading "S Words" as "Swords"...)

First-world problems, right? Okay, sure. But it's also an issue of accuracy. Would you want a CGC label that listed the publisher as "Marvell," or "Tymely," or "Needor"? I wouldn't. I wouldn't trust a company that made those kinds of errors. CGC is the kind of company that is based in the concept of accuracy. It's not a corrugated-cardboard company or aluminum-siding company, where a misspelling or typographical error doesn't matter. It's in the business of paying attention to details and getting little things right. So I feel that it's fair for me to take issue with the misspelling of the publisher's name. So yeah, I think it is a problem, and I think even though it's trivial in the grand scheme of life, within the realm of "Let's be accurate wherever possible," it is an abdication of that commitment to accuracy.

So back to my experience this past summer: I submitted some comics in early June. Prior to submitting, I called CGC's customer service and asked them about the "Fox Features Syndicate" problem. I said I wanted to submit, but didn't want the label to have the misspelled publisher. I was told that they would address the misspelling and that it shouldn't be a problem, so go ahead and submit the comics. So I did.

When submitting the comics, I attached a hand-written note on each comic sleeve, saying "Please note that the publisher's name is 'Fox Feature Syndicate,' not 'Fox Features Syndicate.' Please make sure the label reflects that." (Incidentally, I did my best to be polite in every communication the matter.)

When the comics were received by CGC and processed as Verified, they were posted in my account's submissions section with the wrong publisher name, "Fox Features Syndicate." I thought that meant that they were ignoring my request for the misspelling to be fixed, so I called CGC customer service again. I was told, "Oh, that's just because it's the way it's currently spelled in our database. We will look into that issue before the comics are graded and the labels printed." I said okay, but also said "I don't want the comics graded if the publisher is going to be misspelled." The customer-service rep noted my request.

Fast-forward a couple months. In early August, the comics were Scheduled for Grading (it took a while, and I realize it was convention season so there would be a delay), with the publisher still wrong. I sent an email asking if they were going to fix it, and again stating that I did not want the comics graded with the wrong publisher name on the label.

Not long after, the comics were Graded and out for shipment (Shipped/Safe) in short order. I looked at the grades online and saw that the comics were still listed as "Fox Features Syndicate" as the publisher. That same day, I received an email response that stated the following:

"Thank you for your email. I have confirmed with the graders and the Publisher "Fox Features Syndicate" will remain unchanged. I have also confirmed that they will not be indicating the issue date for the MLK comic as there is not one listed on the book. The Original printing is apparent from the "No Date" issue date and the Fellowship Publisher."

Regarding the MLK comic mentioned above, I had requested if possible for the date of the comic's publication (1957) to be indicated on the label, to distinguish it from the reprints that happened a decade or so later. I didn't know how CGC had labeled the MLK comics in the past, but thought if they could include the date on the label, that would be useful since the whole point of getting comics CGC graded is to certify that they're authentic, and having the date of that comic on the label would make that clear.

What I find interesting about this detail is that the crux of the reason they couldn't put the date on the label for the MLK comic was that "the date is not listed on the book." If CGC is that concerned about adhering to what is listed on the book, then why do they misspell "Fox Feature Syndicate" when it is written that way in the indicia?

I called customer service again, and got Cynthia again. Incidentally, I would like to state that Cynthia was very professional and polite throughout each conversation, even though I got very frustrated with the situation at the end. I also realize that Customer Service reps are just doing what they're told to do by somebody higher up the chain.

Here are the various reasons I was told for why CGC cannot publish "Fox Feature Syndicate" comics with the correct publisher name. I typed these down after the phone call, and they are as close to direct quotes as possible:

-- Fixing the spelling of the publisher "would cause us to have to change our database." Yes, this was given as a reason. I cannot fathom why this shouldn't be a trivial change for a professional, functional company to make to a database.

-- "Other sources (publications/companies) also use that spelling." This is true, others do use the misspelled name, particularly the Overstreet guidebook. I see no reason why CGC should commit to compounding an ongoing error just because others do. I looked through multiple sources, and here are some of the ones who get the spelling right: Webcitation, the Comics Library, Wikipedia, Toonopedia, ComicBookPlus, Comic Vine, DC Comics Artists, Revolvy, the Digital Comic Museum, International Hero, Grant Geissman (in several of his published books), BIP Comics, and  The Grand Comic Book Database.  HAS IT WRONG: The DC Comics Database, My Comic Shop [fixed after reading this message! cool!], Good Girl Comics [FIXED! Gracias!], and the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide. And....CGC.

-- "Both spellings are equally correct. Your spelling is correct, but our spelling is not incorrect." This is a direct quote. For the record, the "Fox Features Syndicate" spelling of the publisher name is absolutely incorrect. I did a fair amount of research to make sure I wasn't making a mistake on my own side. Until 1944 they were Fox Publications and listed addresses in Massachusetts. Then the business was reincorporated as Fox Feature Syndicate, Inc., and they were located at offices located at 10 E. 43rd St. and also 50 E. 42nd St. in New York, New York until declaring bankruptcy in 1950. All of their indicia say "Fox Feature Syndicate," with there being two exceptions -- two issues of Romeo Tubbs from 1950, where it does say "Fox Features Syndicate."  There are a handful of instances where the name says "Fox Publications" or "Fox Comics," and there are a handful of late issues that present the cover title with the words "Fox Features." But the indicia/colophon is spelled out as "Fox Feature Syndicate" 99% of the time.

To quote the Grand Comic Book Database (from multiple pages, separated by ellipses): "Nearly all of Fox's post-war material was published as Fox Feature Syndicate, which is the name that the MSU Comic Art Collection applies to all of Victor Fox's publishing ventures. Only Romeo Tubbs #26(27) and #28 say "Fox Features Syndicate". ... Probably the result of a typo, this alternate company spelling (note the "s" on the end of "Features") has been spotted on one series (so far) from 1950. The vast majority of issues list the indicia publisher without the "s". ... Entry for Fox Feature Syndicate has 306 issues with the name A Fox Feature Publication (or Fox Feature Syndicate), as opposed to 2 issues of Romeo Tubbs.  ...  Confusingly, a few series in the early 50's [2 issues of Romeo Tubbs] featured an indicia publisher of "Fox Features Syndicate, Inc." (note 's' at end of "Features"), which is listed as a separate indicia publisher. However, that form is rare."

-- "We cannot put the date on the MLK comic, because the indicia does not have the date. We can only put on the label that which is on the indicia." / ME: "The indicia for the other comics says Fox Feature Syndicate." / CGC: "That is correct, but our spelling is not incorrect."

-- Finally: "If you want, you can mail them (the Fox Feature Syndicate comics) back and have them removed from the holder, and then you can get a refund."

During our phone conversation, at one point the customer service rep. put me on hold to double-check with the grader/manager who was telling her the situation. While I was on hold, there was a CGC recording touting the company as setting the industry standard for its "commitment to accuracy." I found that ironic.

The phone conversation ended with me telling the customer-service rep that I expected better from CGC. I tried not to be rude, but it really did frustrate me because I thought I made a strong case, and I felt like CGC didn't care about my concerns, and was just blowing me off without much explanation (or with explanations that didn't have much merit, in my view).

I have since cooled off about it, but I wanted to write something to get this off my chest. I realize I am sort of tilting at a windmill here. But it does bug me. I have to say, at the time, I felt like it put me off of the comics-collecting hobby to a large degree. It also made me question getting anything graded again.

I do see how CGC might want to just consolidate a bunch of "Fox Feature Syndicate" related publisher names into one catch-all name that they can use for all the Fox publications in their database, to make it easier on themselves. I also see that Fox comics are a pretty small percentage of the stuff that CGC grades, given that it's a solely Golden Age publisher and not something that is going to affect anything but a tiny percentage of customers, many of whom don't care anyway.

I also realize that CGC was dealing with convention season at the time, and probably had much bigger fish to fry than dealing with this issue, even if they agreed with it to some extent ("Your spelling is correct, but our spelling is not incorrect.") AND... I can see why CGC would not want to open a can of worms by suddenly writing the publisher a different way, because then all the people who had labels with the other spelling would have a spelling deemed "incorrect" by CGC and could then demand to have their comic reholdered for free to fix the error.

Nonetheless, I am frustrated and disappointed that CGC has stated they have no concern about a verifiable error being published on the labels of their graded comics. I am also disappointed that CGC misled me about a situation until it was too late for me to make the decision not to have the comics graded (though they offered a refund if I sent the comics back for de-slabbing, which is kind of an insult.) I have spent several thousand dollars at CGC and would hope to be treated as a valued customer, not somebody whose concerns are a joke to them.

Okay, well.... I think I have fully vented here. Thanks for reading.

Recently got this back from CGC. This is the original (there were later many reprints).

Found this a couple weeks ago. I've seen it auction for as much as $100, in nice condition. This is a lower-grade copy but still presents well, and I got it for a few bucks -- got lucky!

On 7/24/2017 at 1:48 PM, JerryLeeJones said:

I have been trying to find out who this model is and if it is true that the model is a boy dressed as a girl.

There is a single article claiming that it is a boy and that article says "As I recall..."  Does anyone know the real story?

This is one of the weirdest things I've heard in a while, but it's feasible...? She (she....he?) has broad shoulders, and a sorta masculine face. The hair would most likely need to be a wig (or a long-haired guy who curled his hair, I guess0, and hairy body areas would have to be shaved/waxed.

Thin waist, not much suspicious about the private area, normal-sized fingers, flat chest, and nothing else in the magazine hinting at a gender-bent cover...

Seems most likely she really is female. Though it would be believable that National Lampoon would pull a prank like this.

Who was the editor? Maybe we should track down P.J. O'Rourke and see if he knows anything.

I used to have a subscription and this was in my collection. Are you trying to mess with my memories?

On 8/21/2017 at 2:11 PM, Ricksneatstuff said:

Continuously, slowly but surely, upgrading my copies of this book. It sure is a classic, at least to me. 

Thanks to a boardie for pointing me towards it. 

I have trouble reducing scanner glare. 

 

Wanna trade?

On 8/21/2017 at 5:47 PM, atomic1950s said:

 

I have got to say that I have never seen that amazing cover, nor have I heard of this series. Cool!!

It's actually the line that later became Tales From the Crypt.

On 8/21/2017 at 4:12 PM, Robot Man said:

This walked up to my booth at a show on Saturday. Kind of a scarce issue I believe. Fun to still see the occasional "Paul" books turn up once in a while.

I love this issue. The cover has a really happy color palette considering it's about biological weapons.

I can't get over how great this cover is. But the back cover -- great in its own way!

"They were lovers caught between the heaven of their frenzied love-making and the hell of fighting the Triffids."

Man, I hate that.....when )(#@*%)^* TRIFFIDS are interrupting your frenzied love-making!

Not nearly enough action in this thread! Paperbacks should be its own section, whether or not CGC grades 'em.

Here's one I found at the local library the other day. The library sells books that people donate, but what I didn't realize is they have a hidden-away section of books they suspect are more valuable.  They only show them if you ask. I asked, and among the books from the 1800s, etc., they had this one sleazy paperback, which I bought (it was only a few bucks):

9 hours ago, FoggyNelson said:

Used to like reading,  Cartoons?????

Me too. Editorially, the magazine was not very cohesive, but the stories were fun. They had a section of reader-submitted drawings, and I really wanted to draw a cool car and send it in and get published. I drew a lot of cars, but never got organized enough to mail in a submission. I used to pore over the drawings that other people sent in, and really study the way they drew the tires and other parts. I was really fascinated by all the different shapes and approaches that were possible, in designing, shading, texturing the chrome, etc. Man, I can open up one of those magazines and it like a time machine that takes me back to my 10-year-old self, where all of a sudden I am in my childhood home and my dad is in the next room making me a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich, and the TV is playing a Sid & Marty Krofft show and I'm reading CARtoons magazine and trying to draw the coolest car in the world.

43 minutes ago, chevalmeow said:

Looks to be a 2nd print.  First print has the staples "side stapled", i.e. punched onto the edge of the spine on and through the front cover.  Second print has the  staples "saddle stitched" (the way all comics are currently issued) like yours.

Ah! Thank you. I knew there was a reason I had nagging doubt. Wishful thinking, I was.

Taking pics of stuff I've owned for a while. Here are two of my favorites: Vampirella #1, and an issue from the Italian knock-off magazine.

A couple more:

(1) Lurid men's magazines. Two favorites. I've considered trying to collect these more aggressively, but they go for premium prices, and some of them are so sadistic...

(2) Satan, a cheeky pinup magazine. Just the fact that they named their magazine Satan puts them into a weirder than average category. The #2 issue, with the Bettie Page cover, is the toughest to find.

(3) Pussycat. Some amazing Bill Ward art throughout this one. If you like the comic book Torchy, this is a must-have.

(4) Two copies of Shock Illustrated #3. Supposedly only 100 of these were ever released, bound by hand in the EC offices. The PLOD copy has slight color touch and is missing the Reed Crandall story for some reason.