Randall Dowling

3 hours ago, wombat said:

Awesome magazines!!!!

Agreed, this is a great stuff, Ed!  Keep it coming!

It's an interesting question.  If structure is approximately the same between two books and assuming we're talking of books 1950-1960, I'll tolerate off-white pages and pay the same price either way.  If pq is cream-off-white, I'd pay 30% less.  If pq is cream or less, not interested.  At any price.  There's a copy out there somewhere with better pages and I'll find that one.  And I don't like buying books that I know I'm going to replace.  If we're talking books prior to 1950, the rules change.  I'd love to have nothing but Reilly or Church books but that's not realistic.  I'm probably willing to pay 10% less for cream pages especially for WWII books and earlier but for many of those that I'm after, just finding a copy can be tough and the market is what it is.  If I don't buy it for the market price, someone else will.  And pretty quickly, lately.

On 4/27/2017 at 5:49 PM, TheLostDreams said:

A very early Eisner Spirit page from 1940...

On 4/27/2017 at 5:52 PM, TheLostDreams said:

A lovely partial page from Jet Comics by Williamson/Evans...

On 4/27/2017 at 6:03 PM, TheLostDreams said:

A beautiful Williamson/Frazetta page from Buster Crabbe...

These are 3 beautiful pieces of art that you don't see often.  The Williamson/Evans page is particularly well executed!  Thanks for sharing!!

Just want to thank you, Gator, for posting all of these books.  I've been watching throughout and it's really a treat to see every Centaur in one place!  What an awesome thread!! 

On 6/19/2017 at 1:30 AM, Pat Calhoun said:

That's interesting, Pat.  What book is it from?

Impact 1 has a white logo version and a yellow logo version.  Change due to poor interior printing quality of initial white logo version, Gaines changed printers and used yellow logo.  The biggest change is on Krigstein's Master Race which is nearly unreadable in some white logo copies.

Also, FWIW, I've always thought that Wally must have seen this paperback cover prior to making SS6 as it came out a year or so before.  Or maybe just something in the air...

Just now, sacentaur said:

Interesting - I bought this as a VF/NM also (no stamp on the back, however).

Funny how CGC downgrades a killer copy like this because of the foxing strip, but will grade another book higher even though it has a dark ugly dust shadow strip.

I don't get it.

I could be wrong about the stamp.  At any rate, it's a great looking copy.  I wish I'd bought a copy back then before the run up on prices.  And agreed, I've always disliked dust shadows much more than a little bit of foxing.

On 6/10/2017 at 0:10 PM, sacentaur said:

A non-ped, but it sure looks like one except for the strip of foxing down the spine:

FWIW, about 10 years ago, someone was selling a copy of this book that had foxing in the exact same place.  The book was raw and he had it graded as a 9.0.  Said it was a Bethlehem copy.  I think it had a date stamp on the back cover but I could be wrong.  Anyway, probably just a coincidence but thought I'd share anyway.

3 hours ago, circumstances said:

I could look at that Mystery Men 3 all day.

It would be really something to see the original art to that cover!  I suspect it's out there somewhere, locked up in a collection.

5 hours ago, RyanH said:

Buying this pulp sort of softened my chances of winning some of the Berk comics, but I could not pass this one up.  Great lingerie "Betty and Veronica" knife fight cover by H.J.Ward and very in high grade.  High on my wantlist for sometime now!

That is a gorgeous book!!!  Love the cover!

1 minute ago, oakman29 said:

We cant be the only two looking to make high grade runs.

 No, I think there's quite a few of us.  I've had a lot more competition for room to look at floor boxes during conventions lately!  (For some reason a lot of dealers still think that's where magazines belong, I don't get it)

43 minutes ago, oakman29 said:

Im finding out that high grade examples of Warren mags are getting tougher. 

I know there's this whole warehouse copies " stigma" , but most of those were found to be in VG to Fine grades and that was 30 years ago.

So in my opinion yeah there might be many copies in VG- Fine, but the high grade books are scarce.

I think you're totally right about that.  There are definitely certain issues that you can find crazy numbers of like Eerie 12 and Creepy 20, etc. but there are big chunks of each of the 4 major runs that high grade copies are either locked up in collections or few and far between.  I'm probably 75% complete on Eerie, Creepy, and Vampirella in 9.0 or better but there are some issues that are tough.  It seems like they've really heated up a bit in the last year.

55 minutes ago, RedRaven said:

Is the Spacemen 1965 Yearbook really scarce? It wasn't about 20 years ago. Those things were everywhere, in high grade, and dirt cheap.

BTW: found this on the internet archive while googling for this topic... https://archive.org/details/Spacemen_1965_Yearbook

It seems harder to find in 9.0 or better and commands some respectable prices accordingly.  I know what you mean, though, I started putting together a high grade Warren collection of Warrens 25 years ago and quit because they weren't that challenging or hard to find.  Now, it's a different story!

1 hour ago, Brian48 said:

Was Issue 113 a Warren published book?  I thought the series ended at 112?

113 is published after Warren by Harris with a reproduced cover from Vampirella 64. The print run wasn't super high and it was at a low point for Warrens so high grade copies are tougher than a lot of magazines.  And yes, 112 is the last Warren issue.

29 minutes ago, exitmusicblue said:

Anything stopping EC from starting up a new horror series?

One would think (or hope) it'd be better than most of the drivel out there today !

Hearkening back to the glory days...

The ghost of Frederick Wertham is out there somewhere and he's still angry...

Those are both difficult in high grade.  Nice grabs, Oakman!

27 minutes ago, N e r V said:

Foxing is ugly although foxing does not affect the actual integrity of the paper.

Agreed.  And apparently is still a mystery as to what it even is.  Some say iron molecules in the paper rusting others say it's a mold or fungus.  In any case, I don't like it!

11 minutes ago, atomic1950s said:

Yeah you may be right, but even tanning covers with nice pages scare me because it tells me the covers are not far off from being brittle. I guess I care more about the cover paper quality then the page quality, while others are the opposite.

Interior cover tanning is unfortunately a function of the pulp that makes up the body of the book and its chemical offgassing.  You can find books that have no cover tanning and cream to off-white pages.  Likewise you can find books that have white pages with tanning on the cover.  It really varies from a given issue to another issue.  Although, I've owned several Gaines File Copies with significant tanning to the interior of the cover (a common phenomena on some GFCs and some ECs in general) and had no sense that the cover was brittle.  Likewise, I've had other books where the cover cracked at the spine and the interior cover wasn't really tanning.  Hard to anticipate.

The OP's question is one that each collector decides for themselves.  What you're essentially asking is "Why don't eye appeal, gloss and freshness count as much as structure when considering grade?"  The answer is that it used to but with the advent of CGC and other grading companies the focus has shifted to structure.  Mainly because structure is more easily quantifiable.  You can count the number of folds or spine stresses and create a numerical system that corresponds accordingly.  Not so with eye appeal, gloss, and freshness.  The best we have from grading companies in that department is page quality and even that can be all over the place.  There have been other attempts to address the less tangible qualities, with marginal success.  In the end, desirability is in the eye of each collector.

FWIW, like Ken says above, there are many who still factor gloss and freshness in to their grading and even some who value it above structure.

Apparently $146,444 got it.

54 minutes ago, pemart1966 said:

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.

I think there are at least a couple of people trying to redefine Marvel 1 November copies as reprints or second printings and presenting themselves as experts in this thread.  This would amplify any current perceived delta in value between the October copies and November copies that already exists.  Given the number of people on these boards that have owned or currently own a copy of Marvel 1, it seems disingenuous to suggest that these boards have no impact on or represent some portion of the high end comic market.  Value is based on perception, perception can be distorted by even the smallest of whispers.  Happens everyday on Wall Street.

27 minutes ago, MrBedrock said:

But that is the crux of the debate. No one knows if there were two distinct print runs (Hey, we sold out! Let's go back to print!), or if the press was stopped (Hey, we need to change something! Let's fix it!), changes made, and then press continued.

I had always heard (or read, I forget which as I'm getting older) that Goodman seriously underestimated how well it would sell and when reports came back that it was already sold out in a week, he realized he had a hit on his hands and went back and ordered another 800,000 copies (or whatever the number was).  This is, of course, completely heresay, rumor, and conjecture that MAY be true but isn't certain or fact. And shouldn't be treated as such.  Even if this is so, the fact that there are differences is more of a curiosity than a real tangible reason to devalue November copies.

I think also that everyone is viewing this through the same methods and practices in place today.  When Marvel or DC make a second printing today (and over the last 25 years), it is clearly marked or has a different cover artwork or other significant difference.  In the 30s, 40s, 50s, and even 60s, I'd be willing to bet that the "edition size" of a given comic was nowhere near as fixed, as people like to imagine it.  These were comic books, of no value than the cover price kids and GIs paid to read them.  If you sold a bunch, call the printer and have him print some more and ship 'em to the stands.  I'm sure this was more common than we'll ever know.  The books on this thread are probably the tip of the iceberg with most "second printing" events being indistinguishable from the rest.  And I agree, there's no way you can call November copies reprints.  That implies the same material being repackaged in a different way.  The black stamp over October (which does look to me like it was run through mechanically as Gator and Geppi suggest) doesn't come close to qualifying as a reprint to me.  

The Whitman Marvels in the 70s were reprints.  This ain't that.

This conversation reminds me of Voltaire- "Doubt is an unpleasant condition but certainty is absurd"

Gator- that's really amazing that you had one of each at the same time.  I think there aren't many people that know the high end market as well as you and Mr. Bedrock (a.k.a. Tall Texan).  Thanks for your posts and insights as they're always valued.