The Distribution of US Published Comics in the UK (1959~1982) 15 15

[Get Marwood & I]

15 minutes ago, Garystar said:

Not sure if that indicates a progression, probably bigger sample needed.

Agreed. There has to be a cut of point, from 9d stamp to 10d - the work I'm doing currently will hopefully help flesh it out 

[Kevin.J]

My Strange tales go 126=5/9d, 127=6/10d, 128=4/10d, 129=8/10d  

[Get Marwood & I]

Afternoon boys 

Right, let's see if I can make this clear.

First up, I say upfront that I haven't added enough titles yet for this exercise to stand up to full scrutiny but I think there is enough here to make the points I'm aiming to make.  It is absolutely painstaking gathering multiple images of sequential books and filing them in a way that supports adding them to this table. I usually have fairly good patience for this kind of thing but this particular exercise is just mind-numbing. Hopefully the 'results' wont be!

So, we know about the first four T&P cycles as per our previous exercise which proved as far as possible the sequential nature of the stamp numbering - here's the current summary sheet which also records the earliest known stamped DC examples by title for those that existed at the time:

 

What I have subsequently done is taken a handful of titles and continued plotting examples of those all the way up to the tenth 1-9 cycle.

The first thing I wanted to do was to see if there remained a broad correlation between the number of stamps and the number of calendar months (i.e. was each stamp - if we agree this is what happened - about a month apart and representative of a monthly shipping cycle). The results are quite good here - from the sample, there were 73 stamping events in between 69 calendar months:

That is broadly consistent enough to suggest that stamping was more or less a monthly occurrence, logically so given the largely monthly nature of the periodicals being stamped

Here are the first, eight and ninth cycles:

 

 

The first is fully populated via our previous exercise, the eight and ninth populated only with:

• Action Comics
• Batman
• The Flash
• Wonder Woman
• Amazing Spider-Man (only the stamped issues which exist in the first UKPV hiatus window)

Aside of the stamp to calendar month alignment, the next two things I wanted to establish were:

1. Does a Marvel title follow the same pattern as DC in respect of stamps and cover dates?
2. Do the DC issues still more or less appear in a monthly sequence

Here are some early observations:

• We can see the specific stamp where the stamps change from 9d to 10d as being the '5' stamp of the eight cycle
• The eight Spidey issue cover dates only have a loose alignment with those of the four DC titles which share the same stamps
• 'Bunching' is prevalent with many stamp events having up to 3 consecutive issues within them - stamp 4 of cycle 8 is a great example, 3 Batmans and 3 Actions
• As well as bunching, the same issue often repeats in successive stamp events
• The new 10d stamps replace the old 10d versions around stamp 5 of the 9th cycle - I found examples of the same issue for the same title having both old and new examples which is odd if you think about it and gives an insight into how / where the books might have been stamped

If we assume that each stamping event represents one calendar month, and take the stamp 4 of the eight cycle, are we really saying that comic shops would have received Batman 164, 165 and 166 all at the same time and then nothing for two months?

Hmmmm  

I'll let the sediment settle for a while I think

[Garystar]

Have to have a look on bigger screen pc rather than phone. The eighth eight is odd - no DC but there are Marvel. Did DC perhaps have period when no issues came across like Marvel or is it just the stamping sequence is out?

[Get Marwood & I]

2 minutes ago, Garystar said:

Have to have a look on bigger screen pc rather than phone. The eighth eight is odd - no DC but there are Marvel. Did DC perhaps have period when no issues came across like Marvel or is it just the stamping sequence is out?

I've only populated four DC titles so far - no doubt some of the others would fill it up. I may have to gird myself for further additions....

[Get Marwood & I]

Guys, a question for you all 

How long do you think the shipping time from the US to the UK was? I've seen mention of 3 months in the past. A current shipping website cites 42 days for freight.

This stamped copy of Action 315 has a cover date of August 1964 and an 'on sale' / copyright date of 25th June 1964, backed up by the arrival stamp give or take a few days:

 

If it was on sale in the US from the 22nd of June, it would likely have been there for a month at least before being taken down as unsold. So let's say 22nd July. If it took around two months for it to be sent back to source, packed up, shipped to the UK and then stamped and distributed to UK shops it would be on sale over here around the 22nd of September, one month later than it's cover date. 

For those around at the time, what do you recall as to cover months vs live calendar months? Were they a month in arrears as a matter of course? A one month shipping window would place them on sale here in line with their cover month, a three month shipping window two months in 'arrears'.

What do you think?

Is it possible that the copies sent to us weren't the unsold US copies, but the overprinted copies and they were sent to us directly from the printers? Just a thought. 

 

[Garystar]

By 1973 Marvels were on sale in the UK in the month they were cover dated (World Distributors were distributors by then) so this was a three month lag. Cover dated November were on sale in November which seemed perfectly normal to me at the time, I never gave it any thought that they had been on sale in US three months prior to their cover date.

It would seem odd if by 1973 they were taking three months to reach UK that it could be any faster in the 1960s.

The brief history of Thorpe and Porter I read states that when T&P first started importing comics they were US returns. A conundrum then if UKPVs hot off the presses especially for UK were taking as long to get to UK as returns.

As stated before perhaps Marvel and DC had different routes and/or the method of distribution changed over time. Perhaps Marvels were always new off the presses whilst DC were returns.

I'll ask my mate who was buying off the shelf in 1965 what his recollections are.   

[Get Marwood & I]

56 minutes ago, Garystar said:

By 1973 Marvels were on sale in the UK in the month they were cover dated (World Distributors were distributors by then) so this was a three month lag. Cover dated November were on sale in November which seemed perfectly normal to me at the time, I never gave it any thought that they had been on sale in US three months prior to their cover date.

It would seem odd if by 1973 they were taking three months to reach UK that it could be any faster in the 1960s.

The brief history of Thorpe and Porter I read states that when T&P first started importing comics they were US returns. A conundrum then if UKPVs hot off the presses especially for UK were taking as long to get to UK as returns.

As stated before perhaps Marvel and DC had different routes and/or the method of distribution changed over time. Perhaps Marvels were always new off the presses whilst DC were returns.

I'll ask my mate who was buying off the shelf in 1965 what his recollections are.   

Cheers Gary. 

I plotted Strange Tales this morning (despite the eye strain) as it has the same UKPV issue gap as Amazing Spidey:

 

Again, I couldn't find any stamped books where 9d / 10d UKPVs existed, just for the ten gap issues of #126 to #135:

 

Here's how they plot (I don't have a pictorial example but have added Kevin's 9d stamped #126):

Stamp 6 and 8 above both have two consecutive ASM and ST issues

 

And look at stamp four above there on cycle 9 - three consecutive issues of ASM, three for Strange Tales.

If we are saying that each stamp represents a shipping delivery, and those deliveries were broadly monthly, then it begs the question how did T&P and the newsagents manage this? Did they put three consecutive Marvels on the shelf? I know that chronological cover date order was not necessarily at the forefront of anyone's mind at the time, but this still seems odd to me and throws doubt on whether the stamp numbers really were linked to shipping events.

Maybe those Marvels that I have plotted there belong on a later cycle - who can be sure? But then again the cover date alignment is broadly in line with some of the DCs (I need to plot more titles) and, overall, align to the number of elapsed months. 

If some collectors can say, for example, that was the norm for the time - three issues at once then nothing for months - then it all holds together. But it does show that the broadly monthly process of the early cycles has been somewhat corrupted at this point. The elephant in the room - the historic reference to shipping strikes. Maybe they are something to do with the bunching? 

I'll add a few more titles, I think and try to build up the picture. 

One point I forgot to mention about this whole cycle 7-10 update - the amount of stamps that are unreadable. They are very prevalent in this phase and I think there is a stamp type that was deliberately / unnumbered by design - I'll post some examples later.

 

[Garystar]

My mate’s recollections;

“comics that I recall buying were usually the current month or a month or two behind so would have been released in the States 3 or 4 months earlier. We were behind US release probably due to slower sea shipping back then. This continued for years I think until the late 70’s or so. Also I’m pretty sure that they were firm sale as you could often find comics a couple of years old on the spinner racks. I can recall buying a Spidey # 37 (1966) in a newsagents in Crownhill in 1968. The newsagent at Peverell where I bought mine would receive his US comics once a month. They were always mixed together DC/Marvel and wrapped in newspaper and tied up with string. I would go up to the shop early on the Saturday morning when they arrived (with pocket money that I had saved each month) and while he was setting out his newspapers he would give me some scissors to open the parcel. I then had first pick of the new books and when finished put what’s left in the spinner. I would sometimes sneakily put books that I couldn’t yet afford behind older comics so that I could come back later when I had more money and could afford them. Happy  days!”

[Get Marwood & I]

9 minutes ago, Garystar said:

My mate’s recollections;

“comics that I recall buying were usually the current month or a month or two behind so would have been released in the States 3 or 4 months earlier. We were behind US release probably due to slower sea shipping back then. This continued for years I think until the late 70’s or so. Also I’m pretty sure that they were firm sale as you could often find comics a couple of years old on the spinner racks. I can recall buying a Spidey # 37 (1966) in a newsagents in Crownhill in 1968. The newsagent at Peverell where I bought mine would receive his US comics once a month. They were always mixed together DC/Marvel and wrapped in newspaper and tied up with string. I would go up to the shop early on the Saturday morning when they arrived (with pocket money that I had saved each month) and while he was setting out his newspapers he would give me some scissors to open the parcel. I then had first pick of the new books and when finished put what’s left in the spinner. I would sometimes sneakily put books that I couldn’t yet afford behind older comics so that I could come back later when I had more money and could afford them. Happy  days!”

Brilliant, that fits it doesn't it Gary - the books were either a cover to calendar month date match or a month or two behind, as indeed they would be with a 1-3 month freight shipping window and assuming that they were returns that had been on sale for a month in the US (the DCs I mean - jury's out on whether the Marvel UKPV gap fillers were the same).

The 'firm sale' recollection won't please Albert, but seems more logical to me. But that may be regional as we've said. 

So, imagine books arriving in the UK one or two months behind cover date, and then try to imagine when the shipment with 3 consecutive issues would have arrived......

.....if that is what happened.

[Garystar]

1 hour ago, Get Marwood & I said:

The elephant in the room - the historic reference to shipping strikes. Maybe they are something to do with the bunching? 

Shipping strike would make sense in this instance - comics came across but were late. However with Marvels there are so many issues that don’t fit a straight linear pattern there must have been loads of strikes and a few flown over by plane. Just in small sample for my spreadsheet although 4 is the dominant number june-aug 1965 there are several other numbers appearing in that period, FF for instances has different numbers for each month (as well as 4s). Very puzzling. 

[Albert Tatlock]

5 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Is it possible that the copies sent to us weren't the unsold US copies, but the overprinted copies

But many DCs had US arrival dates on, so obviously had been through the retail chain.

Still, it is possible that we got some that had never been on sale in US. Could the anomalous 6 stamped copies of 1959 have been among them? Do any of those have US arrival dates?

The circulation statement found in February DC issues in the 1960s has a reference to 'left over', along with 'spoiled' and 'unaccounted for'.

We can also gauge the quantity of unsold copies by subtracting the paid circulation figure from the total print run.

[Albert Tatlock]

6 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Guys, a question for you all 

How long do you think the shipping time from the US to the UK was? I've seen mention of 3 months in the past. A current shipping website cites 42 days for freight.

I know you like documentary evidence, Marwood, so here are 3 documents attached.

On 9 July 1975 I had a shipment collected from the luggage room at Grand Central Station, new York.

The ship was due to sail on 14 July, but actually did not depart until 23 July.

By 12 August, I was receiving correspondence from Thomas Cook about the consignment which had arrived a few days earlier.

Maximum crossing time was therefore 19 days (23 July to 11 August).

In 1961, Marvels on sale were cover dated roughly in sequence with the calendar, but DCs were 3 months behind calendar date.

Presuming that both the Marvels and DCs were at sea for the same length of time, the extra 3 months must correspond to the time it took returns to traverse the system in the US.

[Get Marwood & I]

1 hour ago, Albert Tatlock said:

But many DCs had US arrival dates on, so obviously had been through the retail chain.

Good, process indicative point Albert

1 hour ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Still, it is possible that we got some that had never been on sale in US. Could the anomalous 6 stamped copies of 1959 have been among them? Do any of those have US arrival dates?

Not on the ones I've gathered, nay

1 hour ago, Albert Tatlock said:

The circulation statement found in February DC issues in the 1960s has a reference to 'left over', along with 'spoiled' and 'unaccounted for'.

Are you saying we got served left overs Albert 

[Get Marwood & I]

33 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

I know you like documentary evidence, Marwood, so here are 3 documents attached.

On 9 July 1975 I had a shipment collected from the luggage room at Grand Central Station, new York.

The ship was due to sail on 14 July, but actually did not depart until 23 July.

By 12 August, I was receiving correspondence from Thomas Cook about the consignment which had arrived a few days earlier.

Maximum crossing time was therefore 19 days (23 July to 11 August).

In 1961, Marvels on sale were cover dated roughly in sequence with the calendar, but DCs were 3 months behind calendar date.

Presuming that both the Marvels and DCs were at sea for the same length of time, the extra 3 months must correspond to the time it took returns to traverse the system in the US.

That's interesting, to see actual evidence of shipping times - thanks. 

When you say...

"In 1961, Marvels on sale were cover dated roughly in sequence with the calendar, but DCs were 3 months behind calendar date"

...are you saying that was your personal experience?

[Albert Tatlock]

1 minute ago, Get Marwood & I said:

are you saying that was your personal experience?

Yes, definitely.

I can date the early purchases I made by birthdays, school holidays, etc. At the time of my birthday in 1961, Tales Of Suspense # 17 was on sale in a local sweetshop.

I had already noticed that DC titles were always 2 or 3 months in arrears.

I bought FF # 5 during the summer holidays of 1962, so July, or at latest August.

Also, I have some written records, but only from the late 1960s.

Will dig them out later.

[Redshade]

8 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Is it possible that the copies sent to us weren't the unsold US copies, but the overprinted copies and they were sent to us directly from the printers? Just a thought. 

 

I was thinking this myself before I got to the end of your post.
 

[Redshade]

Steve, I am in awe of the work put in by yourself and Albert et al especially all the charts and spreadsheets etc. I just wish that my eyesight was better so that I could read the bally things.

[themagicrobot]

I haunted the local newsagents daily to see if new batches of comics had been added to the spinner rack. In the mid 1960s it would be October or even November before I saw a newly arrived DC with an August cover date. The same went for Marvel comics certainly in the mid 1960s. I remember a friend returning from a holiday in the States with a stack of Marvels dated two or even three months hence from our current date and issue numbers 2 or 3 ahead of new comics I had purchased here that very week. I was amazed as I had no idea they published books with future dates to extend shelf life. I assumed a book sold in August would have an August date displayed. 

 

[Get Marwood & I]

36 minutes ago, Redshade said:

Steve, I am in awe of the work put in by yourself and Albert et al especially all the charts and spreadsheets etc. I just wish that my eyesight was better so that I could read the bally things.

Cheers Stephen. I like to try to put thoughts, discussions and observations into summary documents and graphs to bring them to life. Also to create a visual record that can be easily revisited and which the Google bots can find and pop into everyone's searches. I like pictures too, over long bodies of text. My eyesight is rough lately though and it's getting harder to do. Some things are impossible to capture without the detail and I wish the board software didn't enforce a maximum picture size  (hence I'm always reminding readers to zoom in). 

It's good stuff we're doing here though I think, collectively. I don't think anyone else has attempted to drive these conclusions out this way for books that are 50-60 years old and which have supposedly been reviewed and analysed to death. Oh no!