CCL Messageboard

Ok the ONLY reason I ever joined CCL was because it allows users to update DB with new variants.

Now I am so so sick of approves approving one comic but not another based solely on what they LIKE or DISLIKE!

When I joined I saw a severe lack in variants having to do with Spiderman. It is the only thing I collect and I live and Breath spider webs. I have added about 20 variants to just Ultimate Spiderman alone. When I see a variant is missing I dont go steal an image and hope its real. I go out and spend my hard earned money buying the variant just to assure it is real, then I add it to the DB.

Well recently I decided that the Spectacular spidermans needed some work. They had 2 whitman covers in the database and nothing more. So I submitted a known Whitman to be added.

Well 1st TAMWOOD says it is nothing but a newsstand so NO, even though Whitmans are not newsstands and they already had 2 in DB so what does it matter if its a newsstand, direct, or a sample if its a WHitman and CCL has already shown they can be added to DB. So that means it isnt based on CCL standards but TAMWOODS personal beliefs. Anyways one of the approvers then links to BIPS comics with a list of all the acceptable Whitmans. So what do I do? I go out and spend my hard earned money buying up all the rest of them on the list #2-37 and start submitting them. Well guess what now they arent Whitmans.

So they Approve issue #36 but not issue #35? I mean seriously can you all get on the same page. If you would have said hey no Whitmans I could have saved $350 and spent it here.

I'm not quite certain why you're singling ME out. I haven't approved or rejected any of your requests.

It's true, that I don't think they're variants. I think they're newsstand covers. And, just because one issue is already (incorrectly) included in the database, is not justification for other mistakes to be added. That's counter-productive.

In addition, it's not my fault you decided to spend your hard-earned money on a newsstand variant. I don't make anybody spend money on anything, and there's nothing here at CCL that states that you have to buy an issue to add it to the database. I've added tons of comics to the database that I wouldn't ever actually purchase.

So, no. It's not my personal beliefs that have caused any issues here to be rejected. If my personal beliefs had any great sway here, there'd be a lot of other changes made to the system. I go along with the rules put down by CCL in the past (that state a newsstand cover is NOT a variant unless it has different cover art or a different price, and a UPC box or the price-point box is NOT enough of a cover art difference to count), and I go along with the majority ruling of approver votes for major changes to the rules/regulations we use here.

wheres that dead horse...oh wait its in this part of the forum...

It's not CCL's fault that you bought those comics simply for the purpose of adding them CCL. Nobody forced you to, or even asked you to. I wouldn't do that.

But regardless of that fact, if it is a Whitman, then I'd tend to agree that it should be listed as a variant. What if someone is looking for the Whitman versions, specifically, to buy here on CCL?

Question concerning the line thru the UPC. Is the line thru the UPC printed on or done by hand? If it's printed then it isn't a newsstand copy. It was printed specifically for the bagged sets by Whitman, and Whitman books are permitted in the database and should be added whether we personally agree or not. My concern is that they might not have been printed for bagged sets, but for the Direct Market. Is there any proof that they were part of a bagged set. Do you have the scans of sets that would prove it? We need to be sure before we allow these in, but we do want to get them in if they truly belong.

As per the CCL Change Request Guidelines that you stick to:

Do Whitman editions of DC/Gold Key books get special treatment and if so, what?
C - Include both the regular publisher and Whitman on the Whitman variants.

BAM



I am not hugely upset about spending the money but it is the principle of the matter. At this point CCL has accepted and readily accepts Dynamic Forces comics as variants even signed ones.

So lets say tomorrow you see a few on sale that you normally wouldnt collect but see they are missing from DB. Now you buy them and BAM some approver decides that DF books no longer belong. So not only did you waste your money but time as well.

It also helps breed a feeling of why try? I mean seriously how long has CCL been here? Probably 50% of the variants on spiderman I added, but if you keep changing minds, and not all approvers know the rules as shown above then it causes issues.



lol, yeah I think I will just stop trying. I know the variants and can look in my comic boxes for proof.

You'll note that the Guidelines you quoted only mention DC/Gold Key and not Marvel. That's because DC & Gold Key have a Whitman logo on the cover, whereas Marvel doesn't. It is only on the bag that the Whitman logo is present. In order for a book to be accepted as a Marvel/Whitman it must be different from regular newsstand or Direct editions and it must be shown to have been in a bagged set.

Dynamic Forces variants are established variants. Most of them have a large DF logo on the front, and a big CoA comes with the book, which we can see when the submitter provides a scan of the CoA.

Your "Whitman" variants do not have the Whitman logo on them. They have a simple line printed through the UPC code, which, as Pat has just stated, could be either from a Direct Market version, which does NOT make it a variant, or it could be from a Whitman bagged multi-pack. We don't know.

Oh. And, in the Guidelines you so helpfully provided, it does say DC/GOLD KEY books. Those that have the Whitman logo on the cover in place of the DC or Gold Key logos. Your Spider-Man books have a Marvel logo, not a Whitman logo.

(Does that qualify for a BAM?)

SO. If you've got proof, other than word-of-mouth or your saying "it's a whitman" provide it, and this whole business can be ended.

(Is it April yet?)

You know, I just realized that when you guys are saying Whitman, what I was thinking it was, was a Baxter edition. The whole time I'm thinking: "What? Whitman's are easy to spot." lol

So I guess I retract my statement about Whitman's, because I'm not even sure what a Whitman variant is.

How about them Baxter's, though? Pretty nice books. Wish they still existed today.

Doom --- Most times (until this Spider-Man saga) a Whitman variant refers to comics published by Whitman and bearing a Whitman logo. For example:

DC Comics Presents #1 DC Logo

DC Comics Presents #1 Whitman Logo

If you look at the second book, you'll see that, in place of the usual DC logo in the upper-left hand corner, is a Whitman logo. Whitman books are, at least for DC and Gold Key, a bit harder to find, and they can carry a premium. Not always, but occasionally. They're a bit of a niche market item.

The Spider-Man books being discussed, do not bear the Whitman logo. They have the regular Marvel logo. The UPC box, has a black line printed through the barcode. Which may mean the books were part of a bagged set, like you might have seen at Toys R' Us in the past. Or they could be Direct Market covers, with the line through the barcode to signify that they were not sold at the local drug store or on a newsstand.

My study of newsstand and direct-sales comics has convinced me that Marvel published direct editions with slashed barcodes for only a few months. The first true Marvel direct editions were published in 1979, with June cover dates. Marvels published earlier that look like they might be direct editions were actually (I am convinced) distributed by Whitman or by another "jobber" distributor (to borrow John Jackson Miller's term from the (IIRC) 38th Overstreet Price Guide), and were almost certainly sold in bags. I'm not aware of any evidence of Whitman or other "jobber" editions published after the appearance of true Marvel direct editions. (Edit: I've now been made aware of such comics.) The first Marvel direct editions (i.e., Marvels distributed via direct sales AND printed with markings that distinguished them from newsstand comics) were distinguished ONLY by the barcode slash (e.g., X-Men #122), but by the end of the June-dated comics, Marvel's direct editions were distinguished by BOTH the barcode slash AND the price-and-number-in-a-diamond (e.g., Fantastic Four #207; at this point, you have to consult a newsstand edition for a cover date). The barcode slashes continued for awhile; they can be seen on Marvels cover-dated Feb. [1980] (e.g., Micronauts #14). After that, barcodes disappeared for more than a decade, replaced first by Spider-Man images, and later by a variety of promotional messages.

So, if I'm not mistaken, whether a barcode-slashed comic is a direct edition or a Whitman/"jobber" edition can be determined easily by checking the publication date. (Watch out, though, for Marvel Premiere #48—its indicia date is May 1979, but the cover date is June—and barcode-slashed copies are true direct editions.)

I am unaware of any publisher other than Marvel using barcode slashes to identify direct-sales editions.

good luck guys, i hope you can work it out...peacefully...

From the link you provided in the CRs:

"Starting with comics cover dated June 1979, Marvel began sending diamond cover issues to subscribers and comic shops. At this point diamond cover issues became the de facto standard for Direct Sale destinations."

So, basically, the diamond covers are the first Marvel direct market editions. For the Spectacular Spider-Man title, there are diamond covers with strike through UPCs for #32-38. Then with #39 Spidey-head UPCs first appear on the diamond covers. So, we're talking a seven month window.

All of the books you are trying to add claiming to be Whitmans are in that seven month window. As there doesn't seem to be a diamond cover without the UPC strikethrough during this period (please provide evidence if I'm wrong), it is my belief (which is why I simply voted No and did not actual reject anything) that the diamond editions are simply direct market versions of the newsstands we already have in the database. And since CCL does not and has not ever allowed the UPC/price box to be the only reasons for a variant (otherwise we'd have variants for most every DC and Marvel book from 1979-1998 or so), I do not believe these are variants.

They may very well have been included in the Whitman bags, but they appear to also be the same thing sent out to direct markets and subscribers as direct editions.

@SwiftMann:

There are, in fact, lots of Marvel directs that have "a diamond cover without the UPC strikethrough." I think every Marvel direct dated March 1980 thru mid–1982 would fit that description.

Unless your comment was meant to be restricted to the set of covers submitted by the OP. If that was your intent, then please disregard this comment.

Yeah. Sorry if I was unclear. Took about four attempts to get as coherent as I was. I did mean just these few months in question June 1979 to Feb 1980. I'll see if I can shoehorn that in.

I see. I now know I own a Whitman comic since I have that Whitman DC Comics Presents #1. (But it's pretty beat-up.)

I certainly do wish the approvers here would stop confusing the issue at hand with facts and evidence...
Referencing the Change Request Guidelines properly doesn't help, and it makes it even harder to argue when the community's de-facto newsstand expert piles on too.

You can go back and forth with dates times etc but need to pick one or the other.

While I agree there isnt as much evidence that issues #32-38 are whitmans or just when Marvel decided to switch to Diamond covers for Direct issues. However since CCL has already approved issue #36 as a whitman it would reason that issues #32-35 would therefore be Whitmans as well and then you could debate issues #37 and #38.

It is obvious that after issue #38 marvel fixed all of its problems and went to the spidey head on issue #39 and up, though there has been discussion that Whitman tried a come back with issue #60 but wont go into that.

However your dates or BIPS dates are just the standard jargon to encompass all books but has been proven wrong on numerous occasions. I think it was the plan but didnt work on all books. Example here is Star Wars #30 printed December 1979 in a whitman pack well after the cutoff date of June 1979.




So CCL needs to make a stand, if you want to say issues #32+ are too hard to verify then I am fine with that, but you cant say issue #36 is a whitman but not #35.

Also Amazing Spiderman #197 printed 10/1/1979

Dylan, those scans of sealed Whitman bags with those issues in them are sufficient, in my opinion, to get them added as Whitman variants.

That said, I now feel that the June 1979 date is a good cut off for Whitman variants based on my own experience.

I approved some of your requests. I read the info on the BIP site and looked at their examples and took it as good info. I believed that the diamond boxes signified a Whitman variant. I also read the line about Marvel using the diamond on Direct Editions starting in June 1979 (as pointed out by SwiftMann), but it seemed to me that it was not conclusive but could apply to both Direct and Whitman 3-packs. I also read some good posts on another site (Google "Marvel Whitman variants", site is collectors society). But as I read the recent posts here, I became less convinced of the validity of the diamond being exclusive to Whitman after June 1979.

I am now convinced and agree with icarus201 that the only true Whitman variants are pre-June 1979 and have a blank UPC box or a regular UPC box in 1977-78. I came to this conclusion after digging out and checking my own copies of Spectacular Spider-Man. I bought my comics at one of the early comic book shops (The Million Year Picnic in Cambridge MA). I did not buy any Whitman 3-packs. All of my copies of the issues in question have the diamond price box and the UPC box with the slash through it. That has convinced me that Marvel used that on their early version of the Direct Editions.

Just because I may have approved the Whitman variant for any issues after #30 of Spectacular Spider-Man does not mean we will approve any more if that was in error. We make mistakes, we are human and when additional information is brought up, opinions can change.

I hope this helps and that you continue to add info to the database and are not discouraged by this.