[narfstar]

Man you really make some good points Jim and I never really thought about it. I would have to agree that unless we are absolutely sure we should leave out any additions. After all they are only put there for research purposes because it is the story that most are after. If the research is wrong then we have a problem. If sure go ahead but if not then less is better. We may have some bad scans onsite but I doubt they are many and why take the chance of more. Appreciate Jon's efforts but in this case I think we can not be sure.

[JonTheScanner]

I say I assume there are reconstructed comics on site here, because I know they have circulated on ABPC etc.  Commonly this happens.  Some one has a coverless comics.  The front and back covers can usually be found in old Heritage auctions.  Taking the front and back cover images and flipping them in an editor and adjusting the the contrast, you can sometimes tell what the inside covers are by reading through white areas on the front.  Not enough to read the whole ad, but knowing that comic companies often used the same cover ads on many comics the same month, you can read enough to tell what it is if you have something to compare to.

Having said this I also know of comics whose indicia are completely bad.  There is one issue of Strange Adventures that says it's a Mr DA in the indicia (I think I recall that correctly, but the main idea is correct).  I know of other examples where the indicia is right on some copies and wrong on others -- presumably the printers caught the error mid run or something.

[JonTheScanner]

I forgot I was going to give the status of JVJon part two.  I'm currently scanning Crack #24 which is the last in the set.

Posted (22)
Adventures of Alice #2
Barker (Quality) #4 added ads and some pages
Crack (Quality) #22 added cf and some ads
Fightin' Marines (St John) #11  (editing by Mouse 5150)
Golden Lad (Spark) #5  (with fiche cf from Dell4C)
Lawbreakers (Charlton) #1 2 (editing by Mouse 5150)
Lucy the Real Gone Gal (St John) #3
National (Quality) #52 added some pages
Red Band (Rural Home) #2
Rusty (Gleason) #1  (editing by Mouse 5150)
Strange Terrors (St John) #4 improved to ctc
War Heroes (Dell) #4 5 6 7 9 10 (editing by Dell4C)
War Stories (Dell) #5 6 7 8(miss cf)  (editing by Dell4C)

Scanned not yet edited and posted (13)
Buster Crabbe #4
Crack (Quality) #24 54
Cutie Pie (Gleason) #1
Johnny Law Sky Ranger (Gleason) #2 4
National (Quality) #11 30
Pixies (ME) #2
Police (Quality) #105
Red Circle (Rural Home) #4
Red Hawk (ME) #11
Uncle Charlie's Fables (Gleason) #3

Scanned but not posted as another copy was posted first
National (Quality) #36
War Comics (Dell) #2

[boox909]

Man you really make some good points Jim and I never really thought about it. I would have to agree that unless we are absolutely sure we should leave out any additions. After all they are only put there for research purposes because it is the story that most are after. If the research is wrong then we have a problem. If sure go ahead but if not then less is better. We may have some bad scans onsite but I doubt they are many and why take the chance of more. Appreciate Jon's efforts but in this case I think we can not be sure.

I suggest agreeing on an extra word in the title of a "reconstructed" (reconst), "approximation" (apprx) or whatever works best for the situation. However, under no circumstances do I discourage anyone from doing what John has done in this case, and I hope to see more if the situation warrants such.

Thank you for posting the book John!

B. 

[JVJ]

However, under no circumstances do I discourage anyone from doing what John has done in this case, and I hope to see more if the situation warrants such.

Thank you for posting the book John!

B. 

I'm still trying to understand what the situation IS that warrants such, boox.
What is the advantage of it? I see lots of disadvantages, and I've stated them, but I'm still waiting to hear what is gained. It's not like putting photocopies of the covers on a coverless comic. I've no quibbles with that. But, these are scans we're talking about. Having a cover scan from Heritage or even from the GCD makes some sense, but putting ad scans from other books and assembling fake indicias on the inside and/or back covers seems only to mislead and deter anyone from making real ones. Is there some benefit we derive from having a "placeholder" ad scan making up the inside back cover instead of a blank page asking for a real one?

What's the payoff?

Curious minds want to know...

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[boox909]

However, under no circumstances do I discourage anyone from doing what John has done in this case, and I hope to see more if the situation warrants such.

Thank you for posting the book John!

B. 

I'm still trying to understand what the situation IS that warrants such, boox.
What is the advantage of it? I see lots of disadvantages, and I've stated them, but I'm still waiting to hear what is gained. It's not like putting photocopies of the covers on a coverless comic. I've no quibbles with that. But, these are scans we're talking about. Having a cover scan from Heritage or even from the GCD makes some sense, but putting ad scans from other books and assembling fake indicias on the inside and/or back covers seems only to mislead and deter anyone from making real ones. Is there some benefit we derive from having a "placeholder" ad scan making up the inside back cover instead of a blank page asking for a real one?

What's the payoff?

Curious minds want to know...

Peace, Jim (|:{>

All I am saying is that in the case of a "reconstructed" or "approximation" (ala Shield-Wizard #13 in this case), why not just put one of those two words or another agreed upon phrasing on the file title? That is all that I am saying. The only benefit I am ever interested in is having access to the stories. That's the only payoff that Boox909 is concerned about -- the stories in the book. I am not here to thread-jack or engage in a debate that steps on toes. I remember when people gave Narf (or was it Rez) a hard time over the digicam books; I saw it as a neat way to gain access to a book and the stories within it. I want options for access. I am not asking for anything to be perfect. Where there is no paper or C2C, I have no problems with fitch or partials or "reconstructions".

Yes these are scans. I doubt that what John has done will deter anyone from 'making real ones'. GA-UK is about fandom fun and a shared joy of Golden Age gems that would otherwise crumble into dust unseen -- everyone please excuse overly cheerful Boox909 (he is loony at times, blame his academic nerdness), but I am keeping "the fun" in my sights and letting others focus on the deep questions of C2C or no ads, Fitch or paper, reconstructions or incompletes.

Mea culpa in advance.

B. 

[JonTheScanner]

As I said, you can often get a back cover as well as a front cover from Heritage.  These are real covers just not from the identical copy.  In fact, I often use them even when I have a whole book, because Heritage tends to auction nicer books than I have so their covers have no tears or rips.

In fact I'll confess I have something of a reputation for filling others coverless scans over on ABPC.  This does not generally involve reconstructing an indicia which are more often on the first newsprint page.

You can often tell what the inside covers are as well.  Certainly not on every Heritage scan, but often enough to make looking at the various different Heritage scans to make it worthwhile.  In many other cases we have a fiche scan so we know exactly what is "missing."  With fiche scans of ifcs I can usually tell what the indicia reads exactly.  In those few cases when the indicia was too blurry to read for sure, I used the fiche indicia and then under that retyped my best bet as to what it read.

Generally I label each such page in the file as a reconstruct, but I do see I forgot to do that in this case.  I'll go back and label the pages as such and re-up the file if that is the general wish.

[JVJ]

Please, guys,
I'm not trying to insult or censure anyone. I'm simply asking what is it that is gained by this? I fully understand getting a cover or backcover from Heritage. It's analogous to putting a color xerox on a coverless book. And I'm ALL for fiche or photos or whatever it takes to reproduce a book. It's just that we have no idea what is going to be important or critical or even of mild interest to future viewers of the scans.

A simple example might be some future researcher who combs the coupons in ads to isolate subtle changes in addresses to mail to. What if there were different suffixes in different books on the same ad? Sticking a copy of an ad from one title into another one might invalidate a perfectly good theory or research project. And what if the "assembled" comic happens to be one of the really freaky books where the indicia was on the inside back cover, or not present at all? These things actually do occur. VERY rarely, for certain, but they DO.

Now, who knows if such things ever happened in any of the books that have been reconstructed here or on other sites? Not me. Not any of us. My question is simply, why GUESS at something like this? What is the advantage the GAC perceives in a mock-up of the comic? Putting pieces together from various copies of the same issue seems harmless enough and I can't argue too much against the practice. I think the advantages greatly outweigh the possibility of error - though there ARE two entirely different printings of Tally-Ho Comics in two different physical dimensions and with two different indicias! So the possibility DOES exist. 

Perhaps I've simply seen too many comics that fall just outside the expected norm to be confident that anyone can predict EXACTLY what appeared in a book if they haven't seen an actual copy. ...and I'm beating a dead horse here, so I'll just stop.

Sorry. I didn't mean to cause a problem.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[JVJ]

All I am saying is that in the case of a "reconstructed" or "approximation" (ala Shield-Wizard #13 in this case), why not just put one of those two words or another agreed upon phrasing on the file title? That is all that I am saying. The only benefit I am ever interested in is having access to the stories. That's the only payoff that Boox909 is concerned about -- the stories in the book. I am not here to thread-jack or engage in a debate that steps on toes. I remember when people gave Narf (or was it Rez) a hard time over the digicam books; I saw it as a neat way to gain access to a book and the stories within it. I want options for access. I am not asking for anything to be perfect. Where there is no paper or C2C, I have no problems with fitch or partials or "reconstructions".

Yes these are scans. I doubt that what John has done will deter anyone from 'making real ones'. GA-UK is about fandom fun and a shared joy of Golden Age gems that would otherwise crumble into dust unseen -- everyone please excuse overly cheerful Boox909 (he is loony at times, blame his academic nerdness), but I am keeping "the fun" in my sights and letting others focus on the deep questions of C2C or no ads, Fitch or paper, reconstructions or incompletes.

Mea culpa in advance.

B. 

I'm getting a sense here of a little over-reacting, b.
I'm ALL for fun and I think you know it. I have gone so far as to offer my comics to the site for free to ADD to the fun. I'm all for fandom, having been part of it for 40 years. You're making me sound like someone who's trying to rain on your parade. T'ain't so, and I think you know that, too. But I'm also a VERY serious historian who occasionally is going to ask a serious question or two. To deliberately misinterpret my intentions and my questions doesn't really help address the issue. Please take a step back and recognize me for who I am - and my questions for being at least worth thinking about. The only things I'm strenuously objecting to are: reconstructing indicias and adding interior covers and ad pages from other books when their content is based on assumptions rather than observations. PERIOD. Fiche, digicam, and partials are things I've never mentioned as problems. If it can reproduce the content of the comic, I'm all for it. So please don't throw up straw effigies of me to shoot down, because, well, it makes me out to be someone I'm not. And despite my crotchety rough edges at times, I am rather satisfied with who I am and part of who I am is NOT someone who attacks other peoples' positions for the sake of argument.

I'm sorry if you perceived that what I said was directed against you, personally. I'm not like that and actually tend to shy away from personal confrontations of any kind. I wanted to talk about an idea and I know that the messenger is not the message. Please accept my apologies if I came across too bluntly. You'll learn, as we go along, that that is who I am and how I talk, and it's not meant to be confrontational. I recognize this as a personal flaw that could (and probably should) be addressed. But I'm 62 years old and change is not so much in the cards at this point in my life. I hope you can look past it to find that the core of comments are well-intended and non-threatening.

Thanks for listening.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[rez]

Interesting conversations with many valid points. I for one will now take a more historical aspect in the presentation of a scan knowing we may be laboring for future generations of a book that may not be scanned again for a goodly length of time if ever again at all

and in so doing see it only fit be as attentive to detail as is possible within the use of the tools available

as it seems advantageous to both readers and historians to supply a book as close to the original paper as possible as well as making the best use of the time and labor involved in readying a book for the site.

However, now that opens up a whole new vista of somewhat detailed questioning as to what processes will be in use when involved in the scanning work seeking accuracy.

Questions such as how far to go in the art rendering as to color tones, elimination of scuff marks, ink marring and such within the body of the panels, panel realignment within the edges of the page, croppng a cover the minute millimeters needed at times to doctor the cover to square, and a host of others that could be addressed and perhaps at a future time.

Above all tho' with the idea of attentiveness to detail, we certainly don't want to create the impression of complexity to newbie arrivals to this young up-and-coming site, showing up with the love of comicdom burning in their souls coupling to the marvel and excitement of access to the thousands of books available

and the discovery that they too might personally be able to join forces to the work already here by imparting some of their own books in scans and then being scared off or becoming disenchanted with that possibility because of what might seem like too complex to attempt

remembering my own introduction to the site and that attempt at performing a scan and actually getting it on up to the dowload site. To a novice computer user it was quite an accomplishment

and if I had not had the generous continued help and handholding from a number of fellow GAUKers taking a newbie under the wing so to speak there is the probabilty I would have deemed the process too much and shined it on.

Just thought to add my meager two cents to the conversation.
Carry on.
 

[JVJ]

Above all tho' with the idea of attentiveness to detail, we certainly don't want to create the impression of complexity to newbie arrivals to this young up-and-coming site, showing up with the love of comicdom burning in their souls coupling to the marvel and excitement of access to the thousands of books available and the discovery that they too might personally be able to join forces to the work already here by imparting some of their own books in scans and then being scared off or becoming disenchanted with that possibility because of what might seem like too complex to attempt

remembering my own introduction to the site and that attempt at performing a scan and actually getting it on up to the dowload site. To a novice computer user it was quite an accomplishment and if I had not had the generous continued help and handholding from a number of fellow GAUKers taking a newbie under the wing so to speak there is the probabilty I would have deemed the process too much and shined it on.

Just thought to add my meager two cents to the conversation.
Carry on.
 

Point taken, Rez,
I'll try to lighten up.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[rez]

Ha! Didn't know I was making a point. Wasn't meaning to make a reference to you outside of agreeing that we should lean to historical accuracy as well as artistic presentations.

Without being able to see facial expression, body language and the many forms of interpersonal communication in one-on-one talk, Ye old cyber communication always leaves wide open possibilities of varied interpretations.

Don't you dare 'lighten up'!

[JVJ]

Don't you dare 'lighten up'!

Too late, Rez,
I've already lost 8 pounds.



Peace, Jim (|:{>

[boox909]

All I am saying is that in the case of a "reconstructed" or "approximation" (ala Shield-Wizard #13 in this case), why not just put one of those two words or another agreed upon phrasing on the file title? That is all that I am saying. The only benefit I am ever interested in is having access to the stories. That's the only payoff that Boox909 is concerned about -- the stories in the book. I am not here to thread-jack or engage in a debate that steps on toes. I remember when people gave Narf (or was it Rez) a hard time over the digicam books; I saw it as a neat way to gain access to a book and the stories within it. I want options for access. I am not asking for anything to be perfect. Where there is no paper or C2C, I have no problems with fitch or partials or "reconstructions".

Yes these are scans. I doubt that what John has done will deter anyone from 'making real ones'. GA-UK is about fandom fun and a shared joy of Golden Age gems that would otherwise crumble into dust unseen -- everyone please excuse overly cheerful Boox909 (he is loony at times, blame his academic nerdness), but I am keeping "the fun" in my sights and letting others focus on the deep questions of C2C or no ads, Fitch or paper, reconstructions or incompletes.

Mea culpa in advance.

B. 

I'm getting a sense here of a little over-reacting, b.
I'm ALL for fun and I think you know it. I have gone so far as to offer my comics to the site for free to ADD to the fun. I'm all for fandom, having been part of it for 40 years. You're making me sound like someone who's trying to rain on your parade. T'ain't so, and I think you know that, too. But I'm also a VERY serious historian who occasionally is going to ask a serious question or two. To deliberately misinterpret my intentions and my questions doesn't really help address the issue. Please take a step back and recognize me for who I am - and my questions for being at least worth thinking about. The only things I'm strenuously objecting to are: reconstructing indicias and adding interior covers and ad pages from other books when their content is based on assumptions rather than observations. PERIOD. Fiche, digicam, and partials are things I've never mentioned as problems. If it can reproduce the content of the comic, I'm all for it. So please don't throw up straw effigies of me to shoot down, because, well, it makes me out to be someone I'm not. And despite my crotchety rough edges at times, I am rather satisfied with who I am and part of who I am is NOT someone who attacks other peoples' positions for the sake of argument.

I'm sorry if you perceived that what I said was directed against you, personally. I'm not like that and actually tend to shy away from personal confrontations of any kind. I wanted to talk about an idea and I know that the messenger is not the message. Please accept my apologies if I came across too bluntly. You'll learn, as we go along, that that is who I am and how I talk, and it's not meant to be confrontational. I recognize this as a personal flaw that could (and probably should) be addressed. But I'm 62 years old and change is not so much in the cards at this point in my life. I hope you can look past it to find that the core of comments are well-intended and non-threatening.

Thanks for listening.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

I see no one overreacting. I simply see people who respect each other sharing their varied opinions. A few of those opinions are terse, well intended, loony, far-out, and not to mention not always easy to interpret because we're doing all of this over the internet (so of course toes can and will be stepped on); but all of them are meant to contribute toward a dialectical evolution toward the issues surrounding scanning these treasures.

Circle of life...

B. 

[narfstar]

I demand the right to over react. Everything must be done my way or else I'll just take my comics and go home so there

[Yoc]

First I want to thank Jon for his hard work on getting this file put together and his help with novice scanner Paw Boom.  Great work guys!

Ok,I admit I didn't think of some of the pitfalls that JVJ Jim mentioned.
In hopes that perhaps someone with a real, c2c issue of Shield-Wizard 13 might scan the missing pages, I've renamed the file on the site as a 'reconstruction' and asked for the real fills should someone have them.

How does that sound?
-Yoc

[boox909]

First I want to thank Jon for his hard work on getting this file put together and his help with novice scanner Paw Boom.  Great work guys!

Ok,I admit I didn't think of some of the pitfalls that JVJ Jim mentioned.
In hopes that perhaps someone with a real, c2c issue of Shield-Wizard 13 might scan the missing pages of renamed the file on the site as a 'reconstruction' and asked for the real fills should someone have them.

How does that sound?
-Yoc

Thumbs up from my corner, Yoc. 

B.

[JonTheScanner]

JVJ only has me by a couple of years, can we have a contest to see who can shout louder at you kids to get off of our lawns?

(Big tongue in cheek if tone isn't obvious.)

[OtherEric]

I think the advantage of doing reconstructions is that we want the books as close to original as possible, Jim.  As simple as that.  The problem is that on some level we may have lost site of the forest for the trees.  Note the MAY; I'm not sure yet exactly what I think about things.  I fully support adding alternate copies of missing pages or covers where possible; for example.  And I'm delighted with all the work Yoc is doing on making the Phantom Lady 19 I found look good.  So the real question for me is, where do we draw the line?  (Now that you've mentioned the subject, I plan to release an "unedited" copy of the PL 19 once Yoc's version has been out.  Partly so that the original is available; and partly so people realize just how much work and effort Yoc is putting in on it.)  I don't yet know where the line is; I do think that documenting any changes/ fills is an important thing to add to our projects if we do that.  (Not necessary if we know our source is another copy of the original, such as Heritage.  But if we find a different reprint or alternate ad sources.)

[narfstar]

Maybe a University can host a researcher's archive. Raw original scans for research purposes only. Could include DC, Marvel and S&S with access limited to those recognized as comic historians.

[JVJ]

I think the advantage of doing reconstructions is that we want the books as close to original as possible, Jim.  As simple as that.  The problem is that on some level we may have lost site of the forest for the trees.  Note the MAY; I'm not sure yet exactly what I think about things.  I fully support adding alternate copies of missing pages or covers where possible; for example.  And I'm delighted with all the work Yoc is doing on making the Phantom Lady 19 I found look good.  So the real question for me is, where do we draw the line?  (Now that you've mentioned the subject, I plan to release an "unedited" copy of the PL 19 once Yoc's version has been out.  Partly so that the original is available; and partly so people realize just how much work and effort Yoc is putting in on it.)  I don't yet know where the line is; I do think that documenting any changes/ fills is an important thing to add to our projects if we do that.  (Not necessary if we know our source is another copy of the original, such as Heritage.  But if we find a different reprint or alternate ad sources.)

Okay, I promise that this will be my final post on this subject. Meaning no disrespect to Eric or other proponents, this argument seems analogous to another I don't understand at all: Vegetarians who want their food to look as much like meat as possible. I mean, do we want Golden Age Comics or things that resemble Golden Age Comics? If what we're after here at GAC-UK is the real stuff, what benefit does the site receive from having things that approximate the real stuff? As Eric says

we want the books as close to original as possible

. My personal modification of that statement is that I

want the books as close to original as possible

. "Close" doesn't appeal to me as much as it seems to to most people. One man's opinion.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

AND IF I EVER CATCH any OF YOU ON my LAWN! Watch out!

[rez]

AND IF I EVER CATCH any OF YOU ON my LAWN! Watch out!

hahahaha Now that's funny right there!

An Applaud to JVJ for award winning stuff!

[Yoc]

I want to thank everyone for being so civil in this discussion.  I've heard nightmare stories of other boards turning into flame wars over a lot less.
Jim, reconstructions are pretty rare and Jon has been diligent about telling people when they are being done by him.  So 99.9% of the time you can safely download a scan and get an original.  Fiche scans by Darkmark and others are also being used to complete books and are from originals.

-Yoc

[OtherEric]

Okay, I promise that this will be my final post on this subject. Meaning no disrespect to Eric or other proponents, this argument seems analogous to another I don't understand at all: Vegetarians who want their food to look as much like meat as possible. I mean, do we want Golden Age Comics or things that resemble Golden Age Comics? If what we're after here at GAC-UK is the real stuff, what benefit does the site receive from having things that approximate the real stuff? As Eric says

we want the books as close to original as possible

. My personal modification of that statement is that I

want the books as close to original as possible

. "Close" doesn't appeal to me as much as it seems to to most people. One man's opinion.

Well, like I said I'm not sure we haven't gone too far in that direction, Jim.  Part of the issue is scanning books like this is a relatively new "art", or craft, or whatever you want to label it.  So we started with one reasonable step- adding alternate covers to the books when we didn't have the original- and followed that route quite a way.  Fiche fills are also a reasonable step, to my mind.  Guessing at ad pages?  I would have thought that was just another step, now I'm not sure after your comments.  We're still learning here; and we may have taken reasonable steps too far in the wrong direction.  We'll figure things out; but this discussion is worthwhile and important. 

I'm not the vegetarian who wants his food to look like meat; with this place I'm the starving man who found an unlimited feast.  You've just called my attention to some of the additives and toppings in the food; now I need to figure out how I feel about them.  I may still want some of them; but previously I hadn't though about it, I just gorged myself. 

[narfstar]

I have turned a long way from where I started. I was a minimalist who settled for digicam as good enough. I became convinced that quality counted but I still saw no point in ads. Then I was convinced to become a completist for history sake. Now some of the completests argue for possibly inaccurate but complete comics. I am 100% in favor of completing comics with fills from elsewhere. After all a scan of a page is a scan of a page. If your page 2 is better than my page 2 of the same book please you are not only welcome to change it but I would appreciate it. If you have a book that I provided without ads and want to add the ad please do. But I am now in Jim's corner (maybe it's the name) and 100% against guesses. I just do not see the reason for them at all. I started adding the ads for pimple poppers, etc for historical purposes not that anyone really cares to see that same ad again. If it is only a guess that the pimple popper ad belongs then what is the point. It is not the ad that matters but its actual placement in the original. I am not going to argue or be upset with anyone who disagrees or anyone who does ad extras. I do think this has been a very worthwhile discussion and I wish everyone perfectly popped pimples now and forevermore.