Recent messages

Well, sorry BBW , I thought your example meant all editions that may or may not have a sticker, but apparently you only meant the editions that were afterwards (with a certain arbitrariness), like that Kiekeboe album. In that case I agree with you.
But the first reactions to your initial message also included all kinds of other forms (gadgets, pictures, etc.). That is why I have also written down my vision on those other matters here.

Just to be on the safe side: so if I understand correctly, it is possible to automatically calculate / get what the publisher code is based on the 10 digits and where the bars should be? So a ISBN from SU is then automatically split like this:
90-02 -...
and one from Oberon like this:
90-320 -...
?

Bought today: the Steven Nieland football strip - the toll of fame ( 384515 ). Inside mentions that the original title is “Roy of the Rovers collection”. Does anyone know how this works? Because Roy of the Rovers is just Rob van de Rovers in Dutch, isn't it?

384161 = 384163 The Hawk file edition 2 (introduced almost simultaneously)

Not “Wooden Tower” but “Wooden Tower”

Today the milestone of 3000 games has been reached. The 3000th game is “Wooden Tower”, a Jenga game.

Until the automatic system works, it is at the publishing house Standaard (and you do quite a lot with that) 90-02-vvvvv-c or in case of ISBN -13: 978 -90-02-vvvvv-c. The publisher number of Standaard is 02, so they have 5 positions for the serial number. This is different for each publisher (Oberon = 320, Lombard is 5581 etc…)
And if the check digit (the last position) is an X, then that is a capital letter).
As a service to the users, we put the dashes in between if we know it. Looks great on the export lists and also makes checking easier for administrators.
Once the new system is in place, the dashes are no longer necessary, because they should be placed automatically.

The description for model cars is a strange thing.
With the brand eg Norev there is no scale ratio at eg 1:87
If you go to 1:87 then there is again no brand, all too confusing to look around here.
Oh yes the shop, how can you sell something if you can't look at anyone but yourself ?? ?

In my opinion you are confusing (Experiment626) two things now.
My "criticism" is not about adding an album with actually distinctive additions. Although you can also argue in that case whether it is worth a new addition as a release, the release has literally remained identical. An extra mention in the comments seems to me to be more than sufficient.
The main thing that annoys me is the inclusion of a promotional sticker as a new item. Because let's be honest it's the exact same album, only someone put a sticker on it to get rid of his surplus stock. Under those conditions I could also record albums with a Bruna price sticker, AKO , V & amp; D, etc. as separate releases. That has just as much added value.
I would rather argue in favor of adding a sub-entry for cases like this. Do not know if it is possible, and do not know whether René / Marco see any profit in it, but it could prevent a lot of database pollution.

@BigBadWolf:
I thought the “No. addition ”was created for this purpose. To be able to discuss the same issue, but a different version.
I therefore argue in favor of keeping the album with sticker as a separate item.
Let me illustrate this with two examples:
1) When the 200th album of the red knight came out, these albums were provided with a special RR sticker on the front cover. The retailers received these stickers with their order of this album. So it is up to them to stick this on themselves. This was followed up very well by the shopkeepers, so much so that I had to drive almost half the country to all different points of sale to be able to find a copy of this first edition without a sticker…
2) I have an album, again of the red knight, of the same print (so each time identical to the same release), in which no fewer than three different promotions were held, each time packed together with a different RR item at a different time.
As I said before, the “No. addition ”still ideal…

Eventjes terug van onder het stof gehaald, omdat ik merk dat er hierover toch nog altijd veel onduidelijkheid heerst.
Als ik het goed begrijp, in het geval van ISBN-10, dan vul ik deze (voorlopig althans, tot er een automatisch controlesysteem voor is) in:
ofwel zonder streepjes en zonder spaties
ofwel volgens het schema van Arco “90-uuuuu-vv-c”.
Maar bijvoorbeeld “90-uu-uuuvv-c” kan dus niet? Een foutieve schrijfwijze (?) die ik wel regelmatig zie opduiken…

Dusted off for a while, because I notice that there is still a lot of ambiguity about this.
If I understand correctly, in the case of ISBN -10, I'll fill this in (at least for now, until there's an automatic checking system for it):
either without dashes and without spaces
or according to the schedule of Arco “90-uuuuu-vv-c”.
But, for example, “90-uu-uuuvv-c” is not possible? An incorrect spelling (?) that I see popping up regularly…

224963 = 224291

With standard publishing you can determine in which month the album was printed see back cover and some years there are several prints
I'm familiar with this, but there are more publishers than just Standard.

removed

With standard publishing you can determine in which month the album was printed see back cover and some years there are several prints
The only difference is the month of printing

The catalog includes all Pim Pam Pet versions of which I took pictures or could find them elsewhere. I am sure this list is not complete yet. Who still has old Pim Pam Caps at home and wants to take a few clear pictures of them? The red boxes are especially interesting. Also check the catalog to see if you recognize your own version.

That is handy, yes, for recognisability.
By the way, thank you for your price suggestions on the Queen's Necklace and others. And good that you made those prints correctly at Necklace Cord!

I have consulted Peter Ottens and actually he does not - yet - want his booklet to be used. He is especially afraid that sales will stagnate.
But it is so clearly defined that I use the booklet to possibly date and correct Tintin HC 1st series of books.

[In reactie op voorgaande punt] Vraag me af hoe je dan weet dat het een herdruk in hetzelfde jaar is als alles hetzelfde is, maar dat even terzijde.
Het is op zich een aardig gegeven om te bepalen wat een eerste druk en herdruk zijn.
In beginsel zijn er volgens mij drietal aantal varianten:
- eerste druk
- herdruk
- heruitgave
Hierbij geldt dan voor de herdruk dat je deze weer in twee varianten kunt hebben:
- ongewijzigde herdruk
- gewijzigde herdruk
Verdeeld naar deze mogelijkheden kun je eigenlijk alleen nog twisten over de term herdruk. Met name wanneer een herdruk al dan niet gewijzigd is ten opzichte van de eerste druk. Te denken is dan aan het jaartal en andere colofon-gegevens. Is het in dat geval dan een ongewijzigde of gewijzigde herdruk. Technisch gesproken, ja.
Voorbeeld: Een uitgave van een andere uitgeverij (zoals veel Lombard/Helmond/Dargaud-materiaal) ten opzichte van de eerste druk zou hiermee een gewijzigde herdruk worden.
Het is immers hetzelfde verhaal, maar waarschijnlijk een nieuw omslag en colofon.
Een uitgave in een andere verschijningsvorm, bijvoorbeeld eerst een album en later een paperback is dan een heruitgave.

[In response to previous point] Wonder how you know it's a reprint in the same year if everything is the same, but that aside.
It is in itself a nice fact to determine what a first edition and reprint are.
Basically, there are three variants:
- first print
- reprint
- reissue
Hereby applies to the reprint that you can have it in two variants:
- unaltered reprint
- modified reprint
Divided into these possibilities, you can really only argue about the term reprint. Especially when a reprint has or has not been changed compared to the first edition. This includes the year and other colophon data. In that case, is it an unchanged or modified reprint? Technically speaking, yes.
Example: An edition from a different publisher (such as much Lombard/Helmond/Dargaud material) compared to the first edition would become an altered reprint.
After all, it is the same story, but probably a new cover and colophon.
A publication in a different form, for example first an album and later a paperback, is then a reissue.

What I noticed I added a few beatles is that there are wrong spellings in the labels, maybe I was the cause myself.
But what bothers me a lot is the story that we use Dutch words
Is nothing wrong with that very well even
but if you describe a record then you provide the data of the record
so made in U.K. made in holland
made in USA
I think you should literally copy this
so no United Kingdom, Netherlands United States.
Can also make a difference in rarity.
best regards
Dick52

I think I might not fully understand, because I don't see the problem of multiple reprints in the same year, unless the backsides are completely identical. Do you mean that sometimes?

As far as I know you cannot tell from a release number which releases this is. You can recognize things from a release number, but that is not yet certain.
and maybe I'm a bit older but on the CD I need a very big magnifying glass to read those songs.

removed

Looks like a lot still needs to be done at Tintin (I am talking about the 1st series hc) - it seems to me that a series that is collected a lot. Or the question is how information from “Tintin in sight” can / may be used? Every collector of NL Kuifjes will know that information anyway ... I think people prefer to post scans of albums in good condition - most of my albums, for example, don't produce the best pictures, but if they offer something better they are nice placeholders ;-) take some time off
The Tintin albums, Lombard series etc. could use an extra category under state, because many novice collectors start (especially for the most difficult albums) with copies that can at most be called “mediocre”. They now come under reasonable, but deserve explanation for their own collection or they could be for sale in a shop. It is arbitrary which series / albums that should be of course…

Catawiki numbers 376871, 376883, 376927 and 376901 have been incorrectly approved by me. These items (postcards from Rommeldam-Oisterwijk) must either be transferred to curiosities, or removed with the request to JorisGoedbloed to reintroduce them under curiosities. In that case it is better to crop the images properly.