There is such a page because you're right they are my assumptions. All of this is also stated in the first comment on the download page, which cannot be removed. If I knew I had it right, I'd not have bothered. I guess I can't assure that no one will remove the page, but then we can't assure no one will do all kinds of nefarious edits either -- though that's much less likely.
I did this mostly to put the final story and text page in place.
I suspect you'll find there are many such reconstructions already on the site not so identified. Maybe not indicia, but ad pages and the such.
I KNEW you would put in such a page, Jon, and I understand the possibilities of nefarious mischief after the scans are out in the public.
There's nothing that we can do to prevent that - I agree. It simply concerns me that we're guessing at things.
Here's a true experience I had TONIGHT. I just got a list of books that Ontology wants to scan and he said the following:
(2) CHARLTON - This Magazine is Haunted v1 15,16 (1954)
NOTE: If your CHARLTON This Magazine is Haunted are vol 2 - 15 and 16 (1957), then they have been scanned already, and you can remove them from the list.
So I went and checked and guess what? If someone had put together an indicia for TMIH #15 based on the March 1954 issue #16, they would have gotten the year wrong. For whatever reason, TMIH #15 is not listed as February 1954, it's listed as February 195
3. (and, actually, both issues are Vol. 3, not Vol. 1.)
Is this significant? I have no idea. Was it published in 1953 or 1954? Again, I have no idea, but someone making a list of, say, all the comics published in 1953 would probably want to know of this discrepancy. If, as you say, there are "many such reconstructions already on the site not so identified," that only makes my point more emphatically than I ever could. I don't download comics from GAC to read. I use them for art identification and for research purposes and I'm probably exactly the kind of guy who would bypass your disclaimer page out of impatience and go right to the indicia page. And the kind of guy who wouldn't question the validity of some other doctored indicia page because I wouldn't expect anyone to make it up simply to have "something" there. I simply don't see the point if it's not real. Maybe I'm being too anal about this, but it just strikes me, especially in conjunction with ad pages and indicia, to be harmful rather than helpful.
But in the end it's just one man's opinion, that's all.
Peace, Jim (|:{>