sfcityduck

ITEMS 1-3 ARE SOLD!

I've owned and enjoyed collecting A-Bomb comics for a while, but have decided to reallocate to some other interests. TERMS 1)Shipping to USA is $ 20 for USPS Priority Box. 2) Generally, I do not ship to other countries. 3) Payment is by check or money order or Zelle unless we both agree otherwise. 4) No returns for CGC books (unless something dreadfully wrong in which case I will consider it) or books denoted as "reader" copies (just because I'm underpricing somewhat rare books to get you a first copy and the postage is not worth it). 5) First 'I'll Take It" wins in PM OR THREAD.... by time stamp. In the event that time cannot be determined, thread "take its" supercede. 6) I will consider offers. 7) For non-CGC books I will take returns on notice within 3 days of delivery.

Finally, I do want to emphasize that I don't see the bonus Oct. copies can bring as hurting Nov. values. There are two few Oct. copies for Nov. copies to be materially impacted. Some folks may be willing to pay extra for Oct. copies, but I'm not sure I've seen two equivalent copies come up for sale to prove that, but that's not hurting the huge demand that also exists for Nov. copies.

Back in the day, the supposed "floating" blackout and "Nov." were cited to support the existence of three print runs because it seemed like the majority of blackouts and "Nov.'s" were in the same position, and a small percentage were is a second position, suggesting that there may have been two print runs of Nov. copies. What's also obvious is that for the Oct. copies themselves, the plates moved because the registration varies on the Oct. copies which would have been before any "rush." Examples: Registration also varies on Nov. copies. My conclusion: The plates move during the print run. I'd imagine that for the bigger the run (e.g. Nov.), the more movement you'd see.

Definitely funny that we are back having this exchange since we had it 15 years ago or so and what I said then still causes me to believe Art Goodman was a more credible source than the unnamed DC exec: >>>Based on my experience examining witnesses, I have to agree with Crowzilla. While I would expect a detail like the number of print runs for the first comic book ever published by Timely to stick in Goodman's mind because that was the key event in an anecdote about the birth of his brother's comic business, I wouldn't necessarily expect him to remember the exact totals forty or so years later. The fact they started with a small printing of their first comic, sold out, and rushed back to press with a much larger printing and the rest is history ... is the kind of memorable story that witnesses do tend to remember about key junctures in their businesses. The actual details of the print runs is the kind of fact that is ancillary to the point of the story and I would expect to be much more likely to be forgotten or misremembered by a witness. 80 and 800 or 90 and 900 (I've read both in relation to this story) have nice aliterative sounds which are good for story telling, but the numbers may indicate that what really happened is that the second print run was around 10x the first (could have been 25 and 250 etc.). Goodman might have gotten this detail wrong because this detail is not central to the story. In any event, I don't think the amount of the actual print runs matters at this point, because the rarity of the comic is not based on the print runs then, but the extant copies now.<< To repeat, Art Goodman, who it is my understanding worked for Martin back in the relevant time period would have a reason to recall how Marvel Comics got started. The detailed on print runs, probably not. The test printing, happy sales feedback, and gamble on a bigger print run - that seems absolutely like the kind of details a businessman would remember about the founding of a comic book publishing empire. So Art Goodman's story rings true to me. I can't assess the credibility of the unnamed DC exec's story. And other objective evidence makes me feel that the test printing story makes the most sense. As I understand it there are October and November copies emerging from the same regions. We know for a certainty that Funnies Inc. got an October copy early (Compton) in the print run and also got November copies (Pay Copy) - which seems more consistent with two print runs than one to me. We also know that some of the timing assertions which were cited in old threads to support the one print run theory aren't supported (such as the "pay date" on the "Pay Copy" reflects the date the run went to the printer). So I don't really see any evidence that I can assess for credibility other than Art Goodman's recollection which seem credible to me. And I have no idea why Stan Lee is being dragged into this debate - he wasn't working for Goodman when Marvel Comics 1 came out. And he's never said anything that I know of about what happened back when it did.

Now that is funny and true. I just hope that CGC never deletes the old threads. I'd like to see them all archived.

My copy bought on Heritage:

M.C. Gaines wrote an interesting article about comic book printing for a 1943 or so issue of Print Journal. It goes into this in detail. So I know all that. What I got wrong is what I admitted above - I misremembered that the indicia was on the first interior page not, as it is, the inside cover. My mistake.

That's not what I meant, but since that's the facts -- it is what I should have said. I misremembered that tidbit. Funny thing is looking back at one of the old threads I did the same thing back then. I agree that if the indicia is on the inside front cover, then it would still have taken two plates (or stamps) but the corrections would have only been needed when they ran the cover. That does leave open the possibility that print run of the covers was interrupted and the change made. However, there are no witnesses or documents which evidence that occurring. It's an unsupported theory. To recap: There are two theories as to why there are October and November versions of Marvel Comics #1: 1) The presses were stopped and the date was adjusted when it was realized Oct would not allow enough time on the stands. 2) A first test printing sold quickly and a large second printing was then ordered immediately. Moondog made the assertion with no supporting facts that: "November is not a second printing. The book was already being printed when Martin Goodman discovered the October cover date and had them immediately change the black plate to read November. He didn't want his first comic book to have a short on-sale period. Changing it to November gave him the partial October cycle and the entire November cycle." Seifert countered: "Respectfully, I'll disagree. I think the theory set forth in the Marvel Comics Omnibus best fits the available info at this point: An initial 80,000 run was a limited test printing distributed on the East Coast. Goodman apparently had a rep for aggressively working the phones with his distro contacts to get a fast impression for current sales. The limited geographic area further allowed him to make a fast decision. The initial print run (according to the Omnibus info) sold out within 1 week of its Aug 31 on-sale date. He subsequently ordered the second printing of 800,000 copies. The Omnibus implies this number was chosen to be in line with Superman's sales. As we all know, this issue has been discussed extensively here, and there's loads of logistical detail that could be debated. But at this point, barring the unearthing of records or other new info, the above scenario is what I'm inclined to believe." I agree with Seifert because (1) a witness actually supports this telling and (2) it makes sense in light of other points discussed on the old threads. Specifically, a poster relayed on an old board thread: "In 1983, I went to the office of Marvel Comics to have lunch with Art Goodman, the brother of Martin Goodman. Art worked at Timely in 1939 and gave me the story behind the October/November Marvel #1 printings. In 1939, Goodman had mixed feelings about getting into the comic business. They decided to publish Marvel #1 with a total print run of just under 90,000 copies. That 1st printing had a date of October. They hoped the book would sell well but their expectations were not that great. They were shocked when the book sold out within a few days. A immediate decision was made to go back to press with an additional print run of 800,000 copies. That print run had the November cover date." It has been reported that Goodman told Fishler the same story. The contrary view is generally based on the opinions of Greg Theakston based on supposition that did not hold up to scrutiny on those earlier threads in my opinion. Moondog admitted on the old threads that his reasoning was essentially the same as Theakston's. I think that notion was pretty much rebutted in the old threads. My opinion back then on Theakston's theory hasn't changed, it was: >>>[If Goodman] did want to minimize his risk, then it makes sense that he would have started with an initial print run for regional distribution. He could get an idea of the reception for the comic almost immediately if he had a good relationship with the Distributors in his region, which he probably did, just by asking for an informal sampling from newstand owners as to how sales were. It is not far-fetched to think that the Distributor could have found out very quickly if newstands were selling out just by having its delivery guys ask, and could have reported back to Goodman: "You've got a hit!" Goodman could have then rushed back to press, likely within a week, and with minor alterations to the plates to increase the shelf life on the new run of the comic for national distribution (which, of course, meant greater shipping times). The fact that no "October" copies have been found outside of a relatively narrow region supports this view. If "November" copies were found in the same narrow region as "October" copies, I think, that would be further evidence of two print runs, as opposed to the scenario you outline.<<< There are no docs or witnesses who support the one printing theory that I know of. At one point, it was asserted an unnamed Marvel Exec. might be able to support the story, but no name ever surfaced I think. So posters here started attacking the notion that Art Goodman was a credible witness. My response back then still resonates with me today: >>>Based on my experience examining witnesses, I have to agree with Crowzilla. While I would expect a detail like the number of print runs for the first comic book ever published by Timely to stick in Goodman's mind because that was the key event in an anecdote about the birth of his brother's comic business, I wouldn't necessarily expect him to remember the exact totals forty or so years later. The fact they started with a small printing of their first comic, sold out, and rushed back to press with a much larger printing and the rest is history ... is the kind of memorable story that witnesses do tend to remember about key junctures in their businesses. The actual details of the print runs is the kind of fact that is ancillary to the point of the story and I would expect to be much more likely to be forgotten or misremembered by a witness. 80 and 800 or 90 and 900 (I've read both in relation to this story) have nice aliterative sounds which are good for story telling, but the numbers may indicate that what really happened is that the second print run was around 10x the first (could have been 25 and 250 etc.). Goodman might have gotten this detail wrong because this detail is not central to the story. In any event, I don't think the amount of the actual print runs matters at this point, because the rarity of the comic is not based on the print runs then, but the extant copies now.<<

Except the indicia on the first page of the interiors was changed as well. Moondog, who I respect immensely and brought the Windy City copy to market (really from Pennsylvania), I think, got this wrong. There were two changes (1) the addition of the black circle and "Nov." to the cover and (2) the black out of a line in the indicia and addition of a new line to delete the Oct. date and change it to a Nov. date. This was either done by an extra fifth metal plate (normally used for special inks like silver) for both the interior run and the cover run or by including rubber stamps for the interior run and the cover run. The "test print" theory of two printings has a lot of objective support discussed in the threads, plus the only witness to talk on this supports it. Is it a definitive answer? No. There is room for doubt. But it is the better of the two options in my view.

I know less because I didn't remember some of the points made on the old threads - even when I made them. Here's another October copy stamped Property of Funnies Inc. by its writer John Compton. And here's another early thread on this debate:

Great minds think alike. After reading a lot of debate on this subject, it seems clear to me that the Oct. copies are a first print and the Nov. copies are a second print using two additional plates (one for the change to the indicia that they all have and one for the blackout slug and "Nov." on the cover). It also seems that the highest graded Nov. copy will always be worth more than the highest graded Oct. copy because no one has ever claimed to have seen a high grade unrestored "Oct." copy -- but you never know what's buried in one of the secretive collections out there. However, grade for grade, all things being equal, my guess is a buyer would pick the Oct. copy. The size of the print runs doesn't matter to me. All that matters is the number that survived. These were pre-WWII comics which may have gotten swept up in paper drives. I'd tend to agree that the Oct. copies are one of the rarest big books, maybe the rarest, in high grade universal condition. The rarest in high grade universal condition might well be Captain Marvel nn (#1) (highest graded are two universal CGC 5.0s with a raw Mile High held by the Dentist I think) - but since CGC doesn't break out Oct. from Nov., which is crazy favoritism of some collectors over others, we don't know now and may never know what the highest graded universal Oct. copy is.

This a helpful thread that goes into detail:

This has been discussed extensively over the years on these boards. The 80K/800K figures were published in a Marvel Comics omnibus 15 or so years ago. Supposedly, those numbers were sourced from or confirmed by Art Goodman, Martin Goodman's brother, as being a test run that sold out instantly and then led to a big nationwide run. It might have been a regional test run as some say the Oct. copies were all from the East Coast.

The CGC 8.0 MP sold on CLINK in 2011. That same year, G.A.tor sold a CGC 6.0 ext. and also stated he'd owned a raw 2.0, CGC 5.0 ext., and CGC 4.5 ext.. Not too far earlier Metro sold a CGC 7.0 slight. A lot of the Octobers seem to be restored.

Correction reported rape rate. According to a Cambridge study: "Japan is often said to have one of the lowest rape rates in the world, and Japanese police claim to solve 97 percent of rape cases. But in reality, only 5–10 percent of rape victims report it to police, and police record half or less of reported cases while prosecutors charge about one-third of recorded cases." Doing the math: Japan's reported rape statistics account for 2.5% to 5% of actual rape cases.

Aren't a lot of the Octobers restored? I believe the top Oct. was a 8.0 R but the restoration may have been slight. Could be wrong.

If you want to make an offer nows the time. Otherwise these are off to other venues.

Agree. I sold this census topping copy on Heritage in 2018. Two of the other five 9.6s have sold since ... for less with the same page quality and no date stamp.

I ran a search this morning before I posted here looking for copies of issues in the series. Just in case. Didn't want to post and then learn something cool was on eBay. I didn't check completed items though. One day late. Oh well, that quest is over for me. Glad my post flushed out new info.

I've looked and never found another issue. That's the first I've seen. But its not signed by him unlike the preceding Space issue. Correction: I need better glasses!

You are a better man than I. This was my response back in 2019. Prescient? I think I was right especially with CGC finally "officially" encapsulating pulps now. Begin quote: We all get our own 2 cents. I am not a long-time LB Cole collector. While I first became aware of LB Cole and Cole collectors from OPG No. 11 and thought the covers cool, they were not so cool I wanted to collect them. Back then, I think most collectors were more motivated to get superhero runs and keys, than to seek out a relatively obscure artist's covers for minor publisher's comic books which generally had interior stories with little comic history significance or redeeming qualities. CGC obviously has tipped that dramatically by turning comics into baseball cards such that what matters most is the cover. And now Cole covers are a very valuable and sought after. Consequently, covers featuring GGA, certain artists, and notable or lurid horror/sf themes are now much more appreciated than they once were. BUT, inexplicably, pulps and paperbacks, which feature GGA, great artists (including many who are sought after for their comic covers), and notable or lurid crime/horror/sf themes are grossly under valued in the marketplace. Why the difference? One answer is that Pulps and paperbacks generally aren't pressed and encapsulated. But, the Complete How-To Book of Space can be, and there's already three on the census. So its already begun to enter the realm that LB Cole comics inhabit. And, unlike Cole's other pulp and paperback work, the Complete How-To Book of Space is done in exactly the same line drawn style, at the same time, as some of his most valuable space covers. The Complete How-To Book of Space is part of that body of work by Cole. You may not think it is as good as other Cole space covers, but a lot of collectors do like it. I have no doubt that some day it will be considered a hard to find "crux" for someone trying to put together a Cole space cover run. If you don't have it, you don't have all of his space covers from the high-point of his career. Frankly, I'm clearly a bit ahead of the curve based on the response here, but I suspect it will get the appreciation it deserves sooner rather than later. Heritage has never auctioned one off. If it doesn't sell soon, I will likely get it CGC'd and see how it does. I am sure that Heritage will hype it as being rare and desirable. Maybe then you'll want one. Or maybe not. It's all cool. End quote. P.S. Ryan: I just read some messages that reminded me of your nice comments on that 2019 thread and the similar rare Cole item for which I sent you a link to a Turkish seller. I'd forgotten that one. To bad the guy wouldn't ship.

I don't sell much, but when I do run a sales thread I usually throw in some interesting rare stuff. Surprisingly, most folks don't seem to ever appreciate how rare and interesting some of this stuff was. So with this L.B. Cole Space piece. It took me a lot of effort to sale it. I made money, and LB Cole is not my collecting focus, but it took convincing to get folks to appreciate it was hard to find and a great piece to go with the Blue Bolt space covers. One Boardie and Cole collector messaged me that "this particular one never did anything for me" and "I wouldn’t even pay $100 for it if offered at that price." I dunno, I run some sales threads where I end up just scratching my head at what folks were thinking. Happening now with some really rare items. I don't think anyone whose bought a rare item from me has regretted it and I'm sure some regret taking a pass.