pemart1966

Maybe it's just me and maybe it has something to do with the photo of the non-logo version being a bit smaller than the others but there are what appear to be enough variances in the non logo version to make me believe that it's not the real McCoy. A recreation perhaps. Anyone else agree/disagree?

Do you have a scan of the Batman 2 No Logo? I've never seen that one before.

errr sorry about that. I reversed the issue numbers in my original post (since edited). It's the 43 that has the 15 cent version and the 47 that has dual Canadian/US pricing AND copies with just the 10 cent pricing... I'm sure that there are undiscovered books printed around this time with 15 cent pricing. There seems to be too much of a randomness to the issues that have surfaced thus far.

Detective 43 has a 15 cent version. Detective 47 has 2 versions. One version has just the 10 cent price and the other has both the 10 cents and 15 cents in Canada directly underneath it.

Except that both of these villains were Batman specific - a team up yes but not a crossover...

Did Vandal Savage not first show up in Green Lantern and then against the Justice Society?

Vandal Savage maybe?

I can't think of any bigger villains than Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo...

Unfortunately, you missed the Silver Age and for that you have my sympathy, but since clearly you have discovered what a great era it was you have my respect for your good taste

I saw a lot of stuff at that corner store - all in 10.0 w/white pages I got my money to buy comics by picking up 2 cent pop bottles. He would not take single bottles. You had to have 6 bottles (12 cents) in order to get $. It would have taken me a loooong time to gather up enough bottles to afford that book so as such, I couldn't justify the expenditure for the unknown return. I must admit though that every time I went to the cash, I took a look at that book wondering what it was like inside. It was only as an adult that I found out - now I'll have to sit down and read it as opposed to just leafing through it.

I remember this book well as a boy. The local corner store (Hi Mr. Sherman ) had a copy and it stayed high above the cash for several years. At 3 times+ the cost of a regular comic book, it's easy to see why. I'm sure that had it been down with the magazines near the comics it would have still been there after the same amount of time but with a substantially more wear and tear from all of the kids leafing through it

There are great books beyond 25...unless you're working your way backwards

What's the story about it sitting in HA's vaults for that long??

The books that we saw in our youth always seem to have more lasting impact than ones that we encounter later in life. I saw neither one as a kid so I'm biased towards the 12...

How about the prequel? Oh the SUSPENSE !!!!! You can feel the tension! Gotta buy it to see what happens in the next 2 seconds!!!!

Here's a description that Heritage has used: Marvel Comics #1 (Timely, 1939) CGC VG/FN 5.0 Cream to off-white pages. Marvel #1's first print run was a sellout, prompting a second printing that involved blacking out the October date and placing "NOV" above it. This copy is from the rarer first printing,...

You're making the assumption that there are people on this thread trying to devalue November copies. That's not the case at all. What it's supposed to be is a fun discussion as to possibly how and why there were two distinct versions of this book produced. I've got my theories, you've got yours and still others have theirs. Nothing short of a Martin Goodman letter detailing the events will change anyone's mind. It's the market that will determine the ultimate value of these two different books not anything that's said on these boards.

Exactly. There were two separate and distinct printings. Both versions are rare and coveted, the first one being more so.

Makes sense to me and probably explains why none of the pedigrees is October dated.

I don't see Goodman making an 80,000 copy mistake. I do see him making, what at the time was a short 80,000 copy run given that it was in effect the launch of what was essentially a new comic book endeavour. Anything I've read talks about the 80,000 copy run selling out. If Goodman had made a mistake, why did he wait so long before "correcting" the mistake? One would think that it would be "stop the presses, make the changes and continue printing". Why are there so few October copies? 80,000 vs 800,000. 80,000 is not that big a run. I would assume a survival ratio of 1 October copy for every 10 November copies all things being equal. We all know what comics from the 40s in particular went through. It's a miracle that any of them survived. You're correct. None of us will know the truth but I do find it interesting to have fun discussion (well I thought it was a fun discussion as opposed to "theoretical hyperbole") regarding a very interesting book in comic history...

Hand stamping was Ameri's claim not mine. I've always contended that the November version is a reprint so I'm not too sure what it is you think I missed

I'm a bit surprised at that. You'd think with their name so strongly attached to these listings that they'd want to vet everything that gets listed on their site and dispense pricing/photography etc advice (as was clearly needed in this case) if they felt it was needed.

I had asked myself the same question but I was replying in part using Ameri's assertion that they were "hand stamped". It would definitely have to have been some sort of mechanical process for sure. Any printers know if mechanical stamping could be done circa late 1939?

I'm saying printed for the following reasons: 1. Goodman didn't have "a squadron of staff" to do all of that hand stamping. 2. Goodman being as cheap as they say he was was not going to outsource the hand stamping of 800,000 copies nor was he about to pay what staff he did have to hand stamp 800,000 copies. 3. Once Goodman found out that the October version had sold out quickly he would have wanted the reprint (there...I said it) out ASAP. He would not have been able to wait for 800,000 copies to be hand stamped. Too costly and too time consuming. 4. I suspect that since the elapsed time between the October and November versions was quite narrow, that the plate for the October issue still existed at the time the decision was made to do the reprint. Goodman had the printer put some sort of a plug on the plate where "Oct" had been and had the printer add a "NOV" plate and then ordered 800,000 copies printed. These new added "mini plates" may well have moved during the printing process explaining why copies aren't consistent wrt their placement on the cover. 5. If the NOV copies had been hand stamped, I think that the difference in inks between the "stamp" and the printed cover would be pretty obvious - even after almost 80 years. I would have expected to see smudging, bleed through etc etc after almost 80 years of handling, storage etc.

I'm surprised that clink would allow a listing like that...