Requesting a new Registry Set question (another question)

[Benjamin Grimm]

The Registry Set Additions thread states that "There must be more than one book in the set or graded by CGC to create a set." But what about when working on requesting a new set, you run into an issue which has no graded copies but is already part of a Registry set for the ongoing title? For example, Spectacular Spider-Man #218. While there are no "points" associated with the issue, but it's still there.

 

So can such and issue be included in a new Registry Set? And on the same note, what about issue which only have 1 graded copy, but are already part of a set? Thanks for any help.

[Gemma]

What this means is that you can't request a title that only has one issue in its series (and is a one-shot) or you can't request a set of titles where CGC has only graded one of the issues.

[Benjamin Grimm]

(thumbs u

 

Thank you, Gemma.

[Benjamin Grimm]

After a little thought, would you mind giving me one final clarification, Gemma?

 

What this means is that you can't request a title that only has one issue in its series (and is a one-shot)...

 

Does this mean that I can't request a Registry Set which only consists of a single one shot, or that I can't included one shots in a larger set? I ask because the Registry Set I'm working toward requesting is fairly large and crosses several titles, but would also need to included several one shot titles (most of which have several copies graded, but a few have none or only 1 copy graded) to be "complete".

[Gemma]

It means that a set has to have more than one comic to be a set, so if it is a combination of related comics that is fine, but if it is only one comic and no others then it won't be created as a set. Is that clear? We have numerous sets that include one-shots within them, but a one-shot by itself cannot be a set.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Perfectly clear. That's what I thought you meant, but I figured it was better to ask now and be sure than to request the set later and cause you a headache because I was wrong. Thanks again, Gemma.