Have you guys seen the Phillippine variants? 5 5

[Get Marwood & I]

4 hours ago, ganni said:

Nice to see an example of that one where the price is visible Ganni

https://www.comics.org/issue/1972538/cover/4/

I remember many years back debating with the Spidey completists whether the image on the GCD (link above) - or one like it - was a printing error, perhaps a 30 cent variant related. Those were the days. 

[rakehell]

17 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

I understand that argument Ethel, and it has merits, but I dislike the term 'edition' as, like 'variant', it also implies that there is an original version of the same book extant. To illustrate:

This book is the original - it is an issue of 'The Amazing Spider-Man':

This book is a variant of the original, meeting the key requirements of being printed at the same time in the same location - it is an issue of 'The Amazing Spider-Man':

This next book is not a variant, as it does not meet the criteria, being printed in a different location at a different time:

But it is not an 'edition' either as that suggests it is an issue of 'The Amazing Spider-Man'. It is not. It may carry the same printed title but it remains a locally produced product of the Philippines. It is not part of the sequential issue run of the original US book that it reprints and, as such, is its own thing.

Morning Mildred. Saw your post last thing yesterday & figured I'd chew on it a bit overnight & see if anything fermented.

I agree with the above, up to a point. That point being, while I accept that there was no proper run of Amazing Spider-Man printed by Goodwill Bookstores et al, I don't have a problem calling the above a Philippines Edition of Amazing Spider-Man #111, because that's mostly what it is. Yes, it's a bit of a fudge, but it was printed (albeit with new ads & possibly fewer pages) from the original plates as a single unit entire. That's why I think of it as an edition of this issue, rather than a whole series. A bit like the German editions of Incredible Hulk #181 & the others that were done in 1999.

17 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

This however is not a 'UK Edition' in the same way that the Philippines book is a 'Filipino Edition'....

...as it is its own publication.

I agree with this as well, but possibly for different reasons. The UK paper comics were mostly anthology titles, regardless of who was on the cover, & didn't usually reprint full stories in a single issue. The same is true of the French stuff you know I like. Though they reprinted full stories, they usually bulked them out with 1 or 2 more. It doesn't make much sense to me to call Strange #235

a French Edition of Marvel Super-Heroes #18

when it also has a full Ghost Rider story

and a reprint of Avengers #16, including the cover.

These are clearly country and publisher specific products, which, while they make every effort to reproduce full stories, don't give a monkey's proverbial about continuity.

I would, however, insist that this - 

is a Mexican Edition of this - 

because it represents an equivalent context to the original.

18 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

There are grey areas, but in summary, I believe we should use the terms 'variant' and 'edition' only in respect of the same books produced at the same time in the same place, or part of the same print state.

Yes for variant, no for edition. In my mind the indicia is the key to the term 'variant'. If the comic is from the same pile of innards & has a slightly different cover, it's a variant. If it was printed at a different time or in a different place (& makes an effort at continuity and content), it's an edition.

18 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Everything else is by definition a reprint, and its own thing, and should therefore be labelled as such - not with wording that in some way connects it to the original book which it reprints in full or in part (and regardless of how similar the cover may be to the original).

Again, yes and no. Yes, we're talking about reprints in the broad sense anyway, but if something is so similar to the original that it inspires this kind of discourse, I feel it warrants at least the potential to be classed as an edition, depending on the various factors we've been discussing.

Does that make sense, or do I need more coffee? 

[rakehell]

8 hours ago, ganni said:

Hi, Inside ads are all alemars.  Same ads printed on the back.  And some alemars order form.

Thanks for posting Ganni.

This kind of confirms my assertion that these are 'editions' rather than 'variants'. They were printed later & in a different place.

The key with these three -

is that the interior pages are all from the same print run; same 30c indicia, same ads, etc. The only difference is the price block. That's why the 35c & 12p are 'variants' & not 'reprints' or 'editions'.

Again, this is all just my opinion, built through an application of (I hope) logic & 40+ years of accumulated obsession.

[Get Marwood & I]

6 minutes ago, rakehell said:

Does that make sense, or do I need more coffee? 

It does, and the discussion is what interests me, hearing different viewpoints. I'll respond to your detailed points later as I'm on my tablet and need pictures. I think there are many grey areas and it's really difficult to arrive at absolutes which can't be picked at in some way. But I sense that CGC have not thought through their labelling strategy fully enough when it comes to categorising different comics which print or reprint the same content. Certainly in respect of foreign publications where their labelling examples suggest an absence of uniformity. As the submissions for foreign books is growing, it would make sense for CGC to use the expertise at its disposal - the members here - to help drive out a labelling approach with terminology that the majority at least support. You'd think that a company who to a degree stand or fall on their reputation for accuracy would have a strong interest in getting it right as early as possible into their existence. To be fair, maybe they think they have. No reply to my 'ask CGC' question as yet but it is a holiday period. More witterings later Maud!

[rakehell]

2 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

It does, and the discussion is what interests me, hearing different viewpoints. I'll respond to your detailed points later as I'm on my tablet and need pictures. I think there are many grey areas and it's really difficult to arrive at absolutes which can't be picked at in some way. But I sense that CGC have not thought through their labelling strategy fully enough when it comes to categorising different comics which print or reprint the same content. Certainly in respect of foreign publications where their labelling examples suggest an absence of uniformity. As the submissions for foreign books is growing, it would make sense for CGC to use the expertise at its disposal - the members here - to help drive out a labelling approach with terminology that the majority at least support. You'd think that a company who to a degree stand or fall on their reputation for accuracy would have a strong interest in getting it right as early as possible into their existence. To be fair, maybe they think they have. No reply to my 'ask CGC' question as yet but it is a holiday period. More witterings later Maud!

Ditto, Kathleen, to all of that. I'll mull it over over the weekend & pick up again on Monday. Got a busy-ish weekend looming. 

[Get Marwood & I]

3 hours ago, rakehell said:

I would, however, insist that this - 

is a Mexican Edition of this - 

because it represents an equivalent context to the original.

OK, I'm back at my PC Jean. 

I like that phrase of yours there "...represents an equivalent context to the original" - that is quite persuasive. My issue with the word 'edition', still, is that I feel it implies that the book in question is a version of the original production book. Maybe I'm wrong to think that.

I see 'edition' being used where the book varies to the original but is on a par, for want of a better word, with it. So 'edition' would include things like, where applicable:

• Direct Edition
• Newsstand Edition
• Holofoil Edition
• Deluxe Edition
• Retailer Incentive Edition

Things like that. They are all 'editions' of the same book so to speak. To add a foreign reprint alongside those just doesn't seem right to me and corrupts the distinction.

I see four broad camps of potential categories for US produced comics under which I think it is possible to place all publications which include US comic creations, wherever they are printed:

1. The original US books
2. Variations of the original US books intended for the home market intended for a specific purpose
3. Variations of the original US books intended for a foreign market
4. Foreign publications

Every book with US comic content should fit into one of those categories.

I would then subdivide as follows, within each category:

1. The original books:
   • First printings
   • Second / subsequent printings
   • Different edition types (holofoil, deluxe, newsstand, direct etc)
2. Variations of the original books intended for the home market intended for a specific purpose:
   • US price variants (30/35)
   • US Newsstand Price Variants (1999/2000 $2.29 & $2.49)
3. Variations of the original books intended for a foreign market:
   • UK Price Variants
   • Canadian Price Variants
   • Australian Price Variants
4. Foreign publications:
   • Reprints that carry the same title / content as the original US book (e.g. our Philippines ASM)
   • Reprints under a different title that include original US content (e.g. Spider-Man Comics Weekly / your 'Los 4 Fantastic')

If CGC were to devise such a table, they could create uniformity of labelling and remove all these examples we see of different labelling approaches. So for me, the label would include the following wording as standard under each of the four suggested categories (just examples shown for now, it could be built up to a master template):

1. The original US books:
   • "Second Printing" / "Newsstand Edition" / "Deluxe Edition" etc
2. Variations of the original US books intended for the home market:
   • "30 Cent Variant" / "$2.49 US Newsstand Price Variant"
3. Variations of the original US books intended for a foreign market:
   • "UK Price Variant" / "Canadian Price Variant" / "Australian Price Variant"
4. Foreign publications:
   • "Amazing Spider-Man #CO8-75" coupled with "Distributed in the Philippines by 'Goodwill Bookstore Trading Inc'. Reprints Amazing Spider-Man #111"
   • "Spider-Man Comics Weekly #131" coupled with "Reprints Amazing Spider-Man #97"

So in respect of the fourth category for all foreign publications the CGC label will call the book by it's local title and state the local issue number and it will always state 'reprint' and what is reprinted. The word 'edition' doesn't have to feature at all. The reason I think that works is because it is factual - you are calling the book exactly what it is. "Los Fantastic 4 #1" is exactly that and you do not need to say it is an edition of anything as it is its own solitary thing. If there was a holofoil "Los Fantastic 4 #1" then that would be labelled "Holofoil" edition, but it is not an 'edition' of the original US book.

This is just a talking point - I see scope to merge the first two categories already leaving:

• original US books (and all their 'home' variations)
• original US books for foreign distribution
• everything else!

 

[rakehell]

43 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

OK, I'm back at my PC Jean.

I guess I'm still here as well, Helga.

44 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

I like that phrase of yours there "...represents an equivalent context to the original" - that is quite persuasive.

Ta.

45 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

I see 'edition' being used where the book varies to the original but is on a par, for want of a better word, with it. So 'edition' would include things like, where applicable:

• Direct Edition
• Newsstand Edition
• Holofoil Edition
• Deluxe Edition
• Retailer Incentive Edition

Things like that. They are all 'editions' of the same book so to speak. To add a foreign reprint alongside those just doesn't seem right to me and corrupts the distinction.

I understand your thinking, but to my mind the use of 'edition' on these books is just marketing. They're actually variants, because they'll have the same innards & just a different (fancy) cover. Unless, of course, the indicia changes to reflect a new 'edition' (usually referred to as a reprint).

 

48 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

• The original US books
• Variations of the original US books intended for the home market intended for a specific purpose
• Variations of the original US books intended for a foreign market
• Foreign publications
  • a- Foreign publications with original foreign content
  • b- Foreign publications with edited, expanded or otherwise re-packaged previously published US content
  • c- Foreign publications produced as a complete and entire foreign language version of previously published US content

 

52 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

If CGC were to devise such a table, they could create uniformity of labelling and remove all these examples we see of different labelling approaches.

Again, I agree. CGC, like it or not (& I'm a bit beige on the idea, truth be told) is seen as an official arbiter when it comes to grading and classification. Much the same as the Overstreet guide (but we won't go into the holes in that just now).

58 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

So in respect of the fourth category for all foreign publications the CGC label will call the book by it's local title and state the local issue number and it will always state 'reprint' and what is reprinted. The word 'edition' doesn't have to feature at all. The reason I think that works is because it is factual - you are calling the book exactly what it is. "Los Fantastic 4 #1" is exactly that and you do not need to say it is an edition of anything as it is its own solitary thing.

Hmmmm... I still like the idea that Los Fantastic 4 #1 was intended as a Spanish language edition of FF1. Plus also, It's not technically a reprint, because the original was in English, so it's the first Spanish edition. Maybe 'Spanish Language Edition' is something to consider...

1 hour ago, Get Marwood & I said:

If there was a holofoil "Los Fantastic 4 #1"

I can't tell you how glad I am that there isn't. 

[Get Marwood & I]

Not a run you probably see every day 

  

[Davidone]

I like the term "variant" in relation to the UK and Filipino books, as they are "variations" to the American edition. I mean that in a physical, literal sense. They seem to use the same plates with modifications. Though the Filipino does have different ads, there is nothing inherently "filipino" about the book. The creation of the books were not intended to be new "editions," but close representations of the original printing. The Mexican "editions" are wholly new physical books. Translated text, different plates, new publisher, different paper, new ads, etc. They were created for a Mexican audience using American source material. I very much disagree with the use of the term "reprints," as these are not physical re-printings from the original American plates. They "re-publish" previously released American material, but many of these new "editions" only used their new printing plates ONE time. If they were printed twice, we would not call them "reprint reprints." They would need to be called first Mexican edition, 2nd printing.

It's difficult to define many foreign editions as there are so many variations of publishing situations. I doubt we will ever fully agree on definitions. The most important part of choosing definitions is understanding what is out there and what needs to be classified. I find that people who loudly argue over these definitions are usually basic collectors. Those who do not fully understand how many publishing variations of American material exist. Until now, many people have been comfortable just calling everything, that isn't the first American edition, a reprint. I am enjoying the conversation in this thread, as we may not all agree, but at least there is serious thought going into these opinions. 

[Get Marwood & I]

10 hours ago, Davidone said:

I like the term "variant" in relation to the UK and Filipino books, as they are "variations" to the American edition. I mean that in a physical, literal sense. They seem to use the same plates with modifications.

I see your point, they both physically vary to the US original, but one is a first printing product from the original printing run / state and the other is a reprint made in a different country. I think that distinction is key and deserves to be recognised in the naming conventions otherwise the first printing book is immediately devalued. I doubt that the Filipino books even used the original plates myself - more likely mock ups created from photocopies given the production quality. 

Quote

Though the Filipino does have different ads, there is nothing inherently "filipino" about the book. The creation of the books were not intended to be new "editions," but close representations of the original printing. The Mexican "editions" are wholly new physical books. Translated text, different plates, new publisher, different paper, new ads, etc. They were created for a Mexican audience using American source material. I very much disagree with the use of the term "reprints," as these are not physical re-printings from the original American plates. They "re-publish" previously released American material, but many of these new "editions" only used their new printing plates ONE time. If they were printed twice, we would not call them "reprint reprints." They would need to be called first Mexican edition, 2nd printing.

It's difficult to define many foreign editions as there are so many variations of publishing situations. I doubt we will ever fully agree on definitions.

I agree, it's unlikely we'll ever make everyone happy but I remain of the opinion that every 'foreign' publication can be categorised without reference to the terms 'variant' or 'edition' or in relation to a US book that it may reprint. Just call them exactly what they are - their title, issue number and who published them, along with a rider that the book reprints material from an original US source.

Quote

The most important part of choosing definitions is understanding what is out there and what needs to be classified. I find that people who loudly argue over these definitions are usually basic collectors. Those who do not fully understand how many publishing variations of American material exist. Until now, many people have been comfortable just calling everything, that isn't the first American edition, a reprint.

Yes, that's why it interests me - trying to eliminate all those lingering false perceptions that first printing books from the original US production run with UK, Canadian and Australian are not reprints and should not be lumped in with local foreign reprints. CGC have agreed to call the UK, Canadian and Australian copies 'Price Variants' finally, where they used to call them 'editions'. That's a great step forward, if you agree with the 'price variant' descriptor (which many still don't). But CGC still call foreign reprints 'editions' and don't, in my opinion, make it clear enough that they are their own thing, not a reprinted copy of the US book that they resemble whether in full or in part.

Quote

I am enjoying the conversation in this thread, as we may not all agree, but at least there is serious thought going into these opinions. 

I'm glad you joined in - CGC are still a small part of the hobby overall but their influence seems to grow by the year to the point that many see them as the be all and end all of classification and grading. I think they should reconsider their current labelling approach for all non-US publications which reprint US material before any inaccuracies and false terminology are bedded in. The categorisation and associated wording on their labels / census should never be misleading - it should be the very opposite of that, otherwise CGC run the risk of being responsible for cementing false perceptions in less knowledgeable new collectors minds and normalising questionable terminology. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 11/27/2020 at 9:00 AM, rakehell said:

I don't have a problem calling the above a Philippines Edition of Amazing Spider-Man

How about a Pilipino Edition though? 

[ganni]

7 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

How about a Pilipino Edition though? 

"Pilipino" are the native people living in the country .

 

[ganni]

[ganni]

[ganni]

[ganni]

Neal Adams classic

[BrianR]

[rakehell]

On 11/27/2020 at 10:53 PM, Davidone said:

I like the term "variant" in relation to the UK and Filipino books, as they are "variations" to the American edition. I mean that in a physical, literal sense. They seem to use the same plates with modifications. Though the Filipino does have different ads, there is nothing inherently "filipino" about the book. The creation of the books were not intended to be new "editions," but close representations of the original printing.

I understand your thinking, but there is an important distinction: the UK books are from the same print run as the US books (same press, same paper, same day, same guy pushing a button) & the Filipino books were printed in the Philippines several weeks/months/years after the original run. My preference for 'edition' as a tag for the Filipino books is down to where and when they were printed. 

 

On 11/27/2020 at 10:53 PM, Davidone said:

The Mexican "editions" are wholly new physical books. Translated text, different plates, new publisher, different paper, new ads, etc. They were created for a Mexican audience using American source material. I very much disagree with the use of the term "reprints," as these are not physical re-printings from the original American plates. They "re-publish" previously released American material, but many of these new "editions" only used their new printing plates ONE time. If they were printed twice, we would not call them "reprint reprints." They would need to be called first Mexican edition, 2nd printing.

Been thinking about this over the weekend. I agree with what you say about them being referred to as 'reprints'. They are not reprints, in the strictest sense of the word, as they don't reprint the source material in its original format.

 

On 11/28/2020 at 9:29 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Just call them exactly what they are - their title, issue number and who published them, along with a rider that the book reprints material from an original US source.

That said, I'm warming to Marwood's assertion that Los Fantastic 4 is its own thing & not an 'edition' per se. It's a fine line, but I think they could only truly be called an edition if they were made by the original publishers (Marvel in this case) as a different batch, specifically for whatever market they were going into.

Is this too pedantic? Don't answer, Francine.

[Get Marwood & I]

3 hours ago, rakehell said:

That said, I'm warming to Marwood's assertion that Los Fantastic 4 is its own thing & not an 'edition' per se. It's a fine line, but I think they could only truly be called an edition if they were made by the original publishers (Marvel in this case) as a different batch, specifically for whatever market they were going into.

Is this too pedantic? Don't answer, Francine.

I'm afraid I must Georgina!

Jesting aside, I've been pondering this a bit more and sketching out definitions on a table for my own amusement in an attempt to try to present something we could review and perhaps agree on or at least agree to disagree on. It's not easy. You can look to the actual dictionary definitions of words like 'edition' for guidance but they themselves can be subject to interpretation and aren't always used today in the way they were originally technically understood.

Reading over this and other discussions, the one thing that is clear to me is that collectors will never agree on a standard set of wording. There will always be a group who present a reasonable case for opposing whatever another group have reasonably proposed because, essentially, this is not a black and white, two plus two is four situation.

So the best we can hope for perhaps is a set of definitions that are consistent even if some will believe them to be consistently wrong e.g. @Lazyboy who argues against the use of 'Price Variant' for Canadians etc. CGC have achieved a consistency now in respect of the UK, Canadian and Australian priced first print state books, but many still disagree. But at least they are consistent now. They are not consistent with books that are not from the original print state, like our Filipino priced books in this thread.

I don't buy to sell any of the books that I 'fight for' and have no interest in promoting them for financial gain as has been suggested by some. As a lover of the medium, with a particular interest in all the variations, I would just like to see CGC label things reasonably and consistently to a broad consensus. I don't like to see labelling practices which cement arguably obvious falsehoods and which muddy the waters that some of us have been battling to clear.

In respect of the stories printed in original US produced comics, I think there are only really three book types that need distinguishing from each other:

• The original US books (and all their 'home' variations)
• The original US books printed for foreign distribution
• Everything else

Once those high level distinctions are clear, consistent labelling practices will cover all the nuances.

I'm conscious that some may feel that I have hijacked this thread, which is supposed to be for the appreciation of the Philippine publications. Sorry if that is so, but it has a kind of relevance as it is attempting to push CGC to categorise them in an arguably better way. I'll see if my 'Ask CGC' question gets a response and perhaps we could take the discussion there?

 

[Get Marwood & I]

8 hours ago, BrianR said:

"Stay back! Even we don't stand a chance against... THAT!"

"Against what?"

"CGC's labelling practices for foreign reproductions"

"Oh, right"