[ejpetrie]

This issue contains 46 images, one of which is the really great JVJ and Rangerhouse signature page at the end.  One of the 46 scans appears to be a vertical representation of two pages combined, so if that is indeed the case then the count is correct at 46.  But whether it's 45 or 46 pages--something's wrong.  Forty-five pages is impossible for any book, and a 46 page count is unlikely for a book from this post-war period. Forty-four pages, yes, and 48 is also possible (although highly unlikely).  The GCDb lists the books on either side of this issue (#'s 37 and 39) as being 44 pages in length, but this issue is listed as being a 52-pager.  My guess would be that the GCDb listing for #38 is accurate and that this was a 52-pg. magazine and some pages are missing, so the ctc labeling seems to be inaccurate.  Or am I missing something here?

[movielover]

The problem is that an extra page was inserted into the book. The original Yoc edit (which seems to have been deleted here,) had 41 pages (missing ifc, ibc, bc). As best as I can tell. page 34 here was inserted for some reason. That would make it c2c plus an unneeded page.

[Snard]

The problem is that an extra page was inserted into the book. The original Yoc edit (which seems to have been deleted here,) had 41 pages (missing ifc, ibc, bc). As best as I can tell. page 34 here was inserted for some reason. That would make it c2c plus an unneeded page.

The extra page in question is a rotated version of the ad at the bottom of page 33. (The page is labeled 33a.) It appears to have been added so that it can be read without turning your head sideways.

[Kracalactaka]

This is not the original Yoc edit

I re-edited from the original Rangerhouse Raw scans

the cover spread ads came from another JVJ - RH book, and are correct as they have been confirmed from pics in an ebay listing for this book.

The GCD listing is INCORRECT, this is a 44p book

like Moose said, I flipped that one ad down as an extra page so it can be read easier

and ejpetrie I am responsible for the tag page as I edited this copy

[ejpetrie]

Thanks to all!  I knew I was missing something in this one.  And Krac--great tag page!  I'm sure that both JVJ and RH must have been well pleased.