sfcityduck

I call that a win-win.

For the record I never called you corrupt. And I'm impressed by your responsiveness!

Wise man. Do what makes you happy.

You missed your calling. But we both know saying "if someone has x motivation, then they are corrupt" is different than saying "if I don't know someone's motivation, then they are corrupt." C'mon, you need to do just a bit better before you change careers and head to law school. But I do think you are ready to run for Congress.

The context has been given, Marwood's opinion, and my "if" statement: "If that's what drives CGC ..." Seems clear to me. I don't know what does or does not drive CGC, but I know what I view as improper motivation if it is coming into play.

Context is everything. I wasn't accusing CGC of being corrupt. I was reacting to Marwood's comment that: I would be surprised to learn that you'd suppress information that might inflate the value of a comic you are selling for yourself or a consignor because you don't want to hurt the feeling of some existing Superman 1 owners who might get upset at information about two versions being disseminated (are their really any?). Just as I'd guess that you'd have no problem suggesting that an October copy you were marketing might be a bit cooler than a November copy of MC 1 all other things being equal. Because, after all, you make your money selling comics. But, hey, I can be surprised. My experience is that Heritage had no problem hyping a variant GA book for me, even though CGC didn't note it on the label, and it did as a result garner a higher price than an equivalent non-variant. I'd expect savvy dealers to act that way - which you obviously are - and I look forward to seeing what happens when a seller asks Heritage to hype an "on sale June 2" ad version. I suspect for CGC the real problem is that they spend too much time letting themselves be limited by Overstreet. Which may be smart, because one of the few times I've seen them get out in front of OPG on a cutting edge notation they got it, I believe, wrong (e.g. as to what is Neal Adams' first comic cover). So maybe CGC is wise to draft in OPG's wake. But my guess is that OPG will split out Superman someday just because they need to come up with new substantive content to keep people buying it as no one cares about their pricing anymore.

They really want it and don't care who knows? They don't want any problems with last minute bidding to cost them the book? They want to scare others away and deter them from bidding the book up out of the heat of the moment? Might be a good strategy. We'll see.

Does CGC have a “why?” Thanks for the effort and time in getting us the answer so far!

Mystery solved. Someone call Overstreet and CGC. LoL!

Here's my view on when the Superman printings came out. Action Comics #13 has a house ad for a "big complete Superman book" without calling it a No. 1 (and Superman 1 does not say No. 1 on its cover or indicia), and specifying its on-sale date as May 18, 1939 (before there was any thought of having a No. 2). I take this at face value. The earlier version of the Superman comic has a house ad for Action Comics #14 stating it was coming out on June 2. The later version of the Superman Comic has a house ad stating that Action Comics #14 was "On sale now." This also supports that the first Superman comic came out before June 2 on May 18. Given the short time between May 18 and June 2, just two weeks, my belief is that the second and third printings both came out after June 2 and both carry the "On Sale Now" ad. Two weeks it just too quick to run through a 500,000 print run, figure out the demand is crazy, and get back to print. So it makes sense DC would have changed the ad knowing the 2nd printing was coming out after June 2. Further support for this is the multiple Superman 1s pictured above which have early July date stamps. Those are are likely 2nd and/or 3rd printings. Could have been either. Why? Because Action Comics #17 has a house ad for Superman #2 which states the "overwhelming" demand for the Superman book "prompted us to publish this second one..." (and Superman 2 does have a No. 2 on it). DC didn't plan on publishing Superman as a quarterly book. Instead, DC was caught off-guard by the demand and only rushed Superman 2 out by reprinting the newspaper strip. But, that was fully three to four months after the first Superman Comic came out. That suggests to me that it took longer for DC to figure out the "overwhelming demand" than some here think. The second print could have been mid- to late-June with the July books being the final printing or the early July could have been the second print with a later July third printing. Either would make sense. Given that DC probably figured out by sometime in July they would be rushing out a Superman 2 to create a quarterly schedule. What doesn't make sense to me is that DC rushed out a second print of Superman 1 within two weeks of the first printing and didn't change the Action 14 ad until the printing that came out early in July when Action 15 was about to hit the stands.

It would be nice to know what the ad says in this one. The cover was excessively cleaned, but it sure like a "JUL" date stamp: This one too:

Where's this pic from? A publication, news archive, etc.?

Psst. Your Famous First Edition is really a first print of the second edition.

Now we know what version Mitch may have! Or maybe his longtime buddy Theo about whom Scoop once wrote:

What they would notate is "'On Sale June 2' ad version" or "'On Sale Now' ad version." I don't like the terms printings or reprintings in these scenarios. It's really the earlier version and the later version (unless you figure out how to identify which version #2 is). In a perfect world, you'd find copies with distributor dates and look inside and see where the cookies crumbled.

I don't know how it would impact value. Book collectors really want first editions / first printings and are less concerned with getting all the variants. Comic collectors chase variants and a rare variant might garner a strong price. On the other hand, I do think the market values MC 1 Oct. copies more than Nov. copies in the same grade/appeal. But, the best graded copy, regardless of Oct. vs. Nov. will likely get the highest price. It would be really interesting if there was an Oct. copy one graded increment below the top Nov. copy. What would matter more? Grade or edition/print? Pure speculation right now. As for rarity, I assume with early GA comics that earlier is generally rarer. But, if the print run numbers are accurate, that might well be wrong.

If they submitted the book and read it before they did so. If you bought it entombed, then your only choice would be to crack it out. Which might well be worth it.

I don’t know when the distinction was first noticed but I would not be surprised if it was in the last 30 years. I suspect the early version is rare on the market. And we have entered a period where GA variants are now recognized and desired. So my guess is that will change, if it truly hasn’t happened yet (I vaguely think it has because it has been discussed enough over the years) the next time a copy of the early version comes on the market. It is, after all an obvious selling point and a seller would be foolish to ignore it.

If that's what drives CGC, then its a corrupt company. Full stop. What should drive them are profits, credibility, and across the board client service. Worth noting that Heritage has auctioned an unencapsulated Superman within the past 10 years without noting the version. So I guess they're not alone in their choice of business practices.

Not at all difficult for CGC to spot or notate. If they started notating that a copy is the "On Sale June 2nd ad" version, it would likely force a lot of resubmissions. Folks would want to update their holders if they have that version, as any old holders without that notation might be assumed by the market to be the later version. A win for CGC.

It is assumed DA side by sided the Mile High Supermen 1 with his non-pedigree copy and chose the Non-ped. Would he have looked at more than grade? Did the ad influence him? He is a savvy collector, so who knows. What would be most interesting to me is side by side comics with the same ad and see if there were other differences that would allow you to identify a third variant. As it is we’ve got an earlier version and a later version. Knowing the relative populations on each on the census would be helpful. A few days ago on another thread I brought this issue up to cgc Mike. You can read it here:

Sorry, sold that set. The prints are way better than the comics if you want to be able to look at them up on a wall. More durable and no worries.

It is amazing! I feel like this thread has jaded folks a little about Dave. I don't know of an earlier article about a comic collector. I would be shocked if he knew about Thrill 1 and Flash 1. But, he did live in D.C. and maybe the info was available in government records (LoC, copyright, trademark). Still, I was thinking he was looking for Whiz 1 (which didn't exist) and Slam Bang 1.

I thought "whiteness" went to the newsprint pages not the FC.