Comic books/frozen item51 messages

With the frozen item I try 244175 this message "When reporting this duplicate, when I look in the history of the item, the wrong catawiki number was reported it had duplication of 228739 " to the administrators but I get an error every time

The link with this item to send an email to administrators seems not to work

Even worse, I think that you can delete an image and place the 2 annoying cameras. Just because it's a duplicate doesn't mean it doesn't have to have an image! With a duplication, an image can also be better checked by the administrators, so that they can rightly remove the alleged duplication.

If I click on change at the item and then on the link to send an email to the administrator, it just works for me. What you can also do is send an email to the administrators of the Suske en Wiske collection area. That button is on the left.

You can type a message, but if you try to send it you will get that error. Did I also mention 20 March , but apparently that was not noticed then.

Indeed overlooked. Let's get started!

You can still type a message, but if you try to send it you will get that error.

Is solved. Let me know if it works well for you now.

Works fine now, message has been sent

If the collection area has no specific administrators, where does that e-mail end up?

In the meantime 9 days ago I sent some e-mails from frozen items, but I have not yet received a response. Or is it my impatience that is troubling me?

Um, just to highlight the foregoing.

How do I get change to a frozen item?

Silence is golden

But my eye's still see

@JozefK Which item in which section are you talking about.

Jije's Don Bosco's with the comics.

Don Bosco 1949 is gewoon fout. Dat moet 1952 zijn (of misschien ook later)

Don Bosco 1951 is ook fout, dat moet ook 1952 zijn (of misschien ook later)

De eerste druk  van Don Bosco, de Veroveraar, is beslist niet eerder dan 1952.

Er zijn van Don Bosco, de Veroveraar (de geheel hertekende versie) twee varianten; een met en een zonder adresgegevens achterop. Ook de ruggen zijn verschillend : papieren of linnen.

De  foutief gedateerde items van 1949 en 1951 zijn 'bevroren' dus die kan ik niet veranderen, want ik ben geen beheerder.

Don Bosco, 'n Robbedoes (eerste versie) en Don Bosco, de Veroveraar (de tweede, geheel hertekende versie) zijn al eerder ter sprake gekomen op het forum.

Overigens, Zwiggelaar Auctions biedt ook een Don Bosco, De veroveraar aan met de foutieve datering '1949', hoogstwaarschijnlijk klakkeloos overgenomen uit de catawiki-catalogus

Ook op de catawiki-stripveiling is al twee maal Don Bosco de Veroveraar '1949'  verkocht.

Ik hoop dat ik JozefK nu een beetje geholpen heb. Misschien wil een van de beheerders hem verder helpen.

Don Bosco 1949 is just wrong. That must be 1952 (or maybe later)

Don Bosco 1951 is also wrong, that must also be 1952 (or maybe later)

The first printing of Don Bosco, the Conqueror is definitely not earlier than 1952.

There are two variants of Don Bosco, the Conqueror (the completely redrawn version); one with and one without address information on the back. The backs are also different: paper or linen.

The incorrectly dated items from 1949 and 1951 are 'frozen' so I can't change those, as I'm not an administrator.

Don Bosco, 'n Spirou (first version) and Don Bosco, the Conqueror (the second, completely redrawn version) have already been discussed on the forum.

Incidentally, Zwiggelaar Auctions also offers a Don Bosco, The Conqueror with the erroneous date of '1949', most likely copied from the catawiki catalog

Don Bosco the Conqueror '1949' has already been sold twice on the catawiki comic book auction.

I hope I have helped JozefK a little now. Perhaps one of the administrators would like to help him further.

Bedankt Tonko,

ik had mijn best gedaan om de verandering voldoende te motiveren en door te sturen naar de verantwoordelijke beheerder.

Hopelijk komt er spoedig verandering want het lijkt mij voor een verzamelaar erg vervelend als je de eerste druk wilt hebben uit 1949 en je enkel dat exemplaar uit 1952 hebt. Wat uiteindelijk gewoon hetzelfde album is, maar verkeerd ingevoerd.

Stel je maar eens voor dat je daar op een veiling goed geld voor betaald om dan binnenkort te merken dat je gewoon twee keer hetzelfde in huis hebt gehaald.

Thanks Tonko,

I had done my best to motivate the change sufficiently and forward it to the responsible administrator.

Hopefully there will be a change soon because it seems to me very annoying for a collector if you want the first edition from 1949 and you only have that copy from 1952. Which in the end is just the same album, but entered incorrectly.

Just imagine that you paid good money for it at an auction, only to soon notice that you just bought the same thing twice.

But help me,

What is the year 1949 based on. After all, Matla mentions 1952 as the first redrawn version in all his catalogs, only from the eighth edition 1951

There are three errors in it:

1. This third edition is not from 1946 but from 1949.

2. This album is a duplicate of this album and therefore not at all from 1949.

3. And this is the variant of the 1952 album, so also from 1952 and not from 1951.

All this is based on the times of advertising that Dupuis himself made and the title lists of albums from the same period.

1. For example, after a few years there is no longer any advertising for Don Bosco, in 1949 advertising again because the album is available again. But there is clearly being advertised for "Don Bosco 'n Spirou". So the not yet redrawn version. So it is impossible that the redrawn version would be from 1949.

2. From 1952 onwards, "Don Bosco the conqueror" = the redesigned version is advertised. There is no difference between the album currently in the catalog from 1949 and 1952. The only thing is that someone incorrectly gave a 1952 album the year 1949.

3. The variant with the address on the back cannot therefore be from 1951, but (as Tonko added in details) from 1952 or later ... It is difficult to say whether this album is a reprint or just a variant because dupuis was again using leftovers from, for example, this other dupuis album from 1952 .

In my accountability I had given some examples of albums containing the relevant title lists, but I don't remember them anymore, then I would have to take them all again.

Hopefully you better get out of it. Thanks in advance for checking it out.

Changed, but check again ...

This kind of information is ideal for a background page.

Adjusted, but check again ...

Only this may also be marked" first edition ". There is no reason or proof that this is not a first edition. Well a variant. (What happened more often with Dupuis.)

The only thing I wonder now is what address is on the title page of the album with the address on the back . But I can't check that myself. Can someone help?

The other album only contains the address in Antwerp.

Thanks for adjusting Jilles!

I read Antwerp and Eindhoven on the back

Album met adres op de achterkant, met papieren rug, catawiki 34361, vermeldt inderdaad : NEDERLAND : Eindhoven en BELGIE : Antwerpen.

Op het titelblad staat : Don Bosco de Veroveraar. DUPUIS, Ommeganckstraat 21, Antwerpen.

Of dit album een eerste druk van een heruitgave is, of een herdruk van een heruitgave is, laat ik aan anderen ter beoordeling over.

Naar mijn mening is de variant met linnen rug de eerste druk van deze " heruitgave".

Overigens, om het weer wat ingewikkelder te maken, beschouw ik 'Don Bosco 'n Robbedoes' en 'Don Bosco de Veroveraar' als twee zeer verschillende uitgaves, weliswaar over het zelfde onderwerp en van dezelfde tekenaar.

Dus eigenlijk vind ik '1952' met linnen kaft een eerste druk van het album met  de volledige titel :  'Don Bosco de Veroveraar'

Album with address on the back, with paper spine, catawiki 34361 , does indeed state: NETHERLANDS: Eindhoven and BELGIUM: Antwerp.

The title page reads: Don Bosco the Conqueror. DUPUIS, Ommeganckstraat 21, Antwerp.

Whether this album is a first press of a reissue, or a reprint of a reissue, I leave to others to judge.

In my opinion, the cloth-backed variant is the first printing of this "reissue".

Incidentally, to make things a bit more complicated, I consider 'Don Bosco 'n Spirou' and 'Don Bosco the Conqueror' as two very different editions, albeit on the same subject and by the same artist.

So actually I think '1952' with cloth cover is a first edition of the album with the full title: 'Don Bosco the Conqueror'

Ik lees Antwerpen en Eindhoven op de achterkant

Ja, achterkant, maar ik vroeg me af wat er op het titelblad stond.

Op het titelblad staat : Don Bosco de Veroveraar. DUPUIS, Ommeganckstraat 21, Antwerpen.

Hetzelfde dus als het andere album. Ik denk dat er dan geen letter anders gedrukt is bij deze albums en dat het dus één en dezelfde druk is. Maar een variant met een andere achterkant. Zien we wel meer bij dupuis gebeuren.

Dus eigenlijk vind ik '1952' met linnen kaft een eerste druk van het album met de volledige titel : 'Don Bosco de Veroveraar'

Daar zou ik me ook wel in kunnen vinden. Nu staat er bij beide albums herdruk, dat zou op zijn minst "eerste druk van een heruitgave" moeten zijn.

I read Antwerp and Eindhoven on the back

Yes, back cover, but I was wondering what was on the title page.

The title page reads: Don Bosco the Conqueror. DUPUIS, Ommeganckstraat 21, Antwerp.

Same as the other album. I think that no letter is printed differently with these albums and that it is therefore one and the same printing. But a variant with a different back. Do we see more happening at dupuis.

So actually I think '1952' with cloth cover is a first edition of the album with the full title: 'Don Bosco the Conqueror'

I could also agree with that. Now both albums say reprint, which should at least be "first printing of a reissue".

Ja, achterkant, maar ik vroeg me af wat er op het titelblad stond.

Zag ik, maar had mijn bericht al gezet

Daar zou ik me ook wel in kunnen vinden. Nu staat er bij beide albums herdruk, dat zou op zijn minst "eerste druk van een heruitgave" moeten zijn.

Is aangepast

Yes, back cover, but I was wondering what was on the title page.

I saw, but had already posted my message

I could also agree with that. Now both albums say reprint, which should at least be "first printing of a reissue".

Is adapted

Sorry, Jilles, you're mixing two things up. We have not yet built a system within Catawiki to indicate that something has been completely or partially redrawn, that everything has been re-translated, lettered, colored, etc. We only have the system that a 'first edition of a reissue' is only used on a first printing in a new album series (page 18 of the handbook). That is not (yet) an issue here.

Perhaps a watertight agreement can be made about how we deal with these kinds of things. For example, how far-reaching must the changes be to 'earn' such an eartag?

has been redrawn in whole or in part, that everything has been re-translated, lettered, colored, etc ... For the time being, this can only be stated at Details.

But with this album is almost nothing the same. Jijé has signed a completely new book. The same story but not even the same page layout, characters look different, texts are different, arrangement on pictures is different (if they seem something), ...

This lion of Flanders has nevertheless also the title of the first edition, while Buth clearly used this as an example . These albums are just as similar as Jijé's Don Bosco's.

Has been adapted

Not yet in the version. But maybe wait what the final decision is.