Jaydogrules

If you're being technical, it's because it was not released contemporaneously with the first printing. It was published and released a month later and is specifically the cover B for the third pritning. That's what it is. Why can't that just be okay ? -J.

The announcement from Diamond is but one of MANY sources that calls it the third printing that it is. Nothing has EVER been offered to say that was a "mistake", nor is there any reason to believe that Diamond just so happened to conveniently make a "mistake" on this one particular book. The later publisher date means a different interior indicia. And of course the UPC on the back, CGC, etc all acknowledge it as the third printing it is. What does not in fact exist is anything saying it is a first printing. Because it is not. And anyone who tries to say it is, or pretend or imply that this is even debatable, is being deliberately dishonest. -J.

That one that sold yesterday for $476 was a new GPA high I think. -J.

I never said it wasn't that. It was commissioned and advertised by Diamond for the retailer summit that year. But the technical designation is what you originally said it is- a "cover B/2" of the third printing. -J.

Just because "the market" has decided that a reprint has value does not mean that the book is not a reprint. I believe that what IntoAnother stated a few pages back is probably accurate- a lot of people don't realize that it is a reprint. And again, that is not an "opinion", and this isn't just based on the public announcement from Image and Diamond and the fact that is was published a MONTH after the first prints. It's also based on the indicia and the UPC on the back designating it as a third printing, the fact that CGC pairs It with the third pritning on the census, etc, etc, etc. In fact, what are you (and that other guy) basing your statement that it's a "first printing" on? Nothing, actually. It is both disingenuous and dishonest for you to now be saying this, and you know that it is: https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/390875-most-valuable-modern-variants-the-rankings/?page=8 When I originally started that thread I had the Saga 1 reprint on there, not realizing it was a reprint (I don't include reprints on that list, if you recall). It was you who first alerted me to the fact that it is a reprint. It was you that first alerted me to the link about that Diamond announcement where it was called a reprint. And it was you that explained to me how to read Image UPC codes. You did all of that because I originally questioned you, "are you SURE this is a reprint", and you were emphatic to the point of sarcasm that yes it is. Even after I pointed out that mycomicshop at the time didn't have it as such (although I notice that now, they do, just like CGC they pair it with the other cover of the third pritning on their site, just like CGC does). So I'm not sure what the deal is with your sudden about face, nor does it matter. The book is a reprint. -J.

At one time briefly I think it was..... -J.

ASM 300 "Chromium" (aka Marvel Collectible Classics #1) also comes to mind. -J.

Keep guessing. -J.

Today: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Detective-comics-880-CGC-9-8-Jock-Cover-Very-tuff-in-this-grade-Not-pressed-/263233087042?hash=item3d49ea2642:g:UdEAAOSwG0hZzAeL -J.

https://summits.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/54/787?articleID=118463 Image Comics: Saga #1 Third Printing (Special Retailer Cover) -J.

Flames on the swords definitely have to be digitally added. -J.

Not bad. Was kind of hoping for a wholly original piece from him, but this will have to do. -J.

Cool so it's basically just a background colour change from the original cover? Like the pink Harley thing? Or am I missing something more? -J.

Yeah they're just like this book. Except this book does have a barcode designating it as third printing, together with a public announcement from the publisher and Diamond, the organization that commissioned it, calling it a third printing. https://summits.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/54/787?articleID=118463 You can't be serious. -J.

You are setting up the proverbial straw man. It doesn't matter what some people might "consider" this book to be. The publisher and the organization that commissioned it have already told you what it actually is. https://summits.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/54/787?articleID=118463 But Squarechaos' point is well taken. -J.

Ah I see what you're doing there. -J.

Yes, and it is a fact that this book is third printing. In light of the fact that Diamond itself said it is a third printing, and Image published it a month later, after the first printing, with the corresponding indicia and UPC code as such, someone simply calling that an "opinion" doesn't make it an opinion. -J.

To this day I have never seen the genesis of that "500" print run number. Considering that the book was sent out to retailers after the summit, and "one per attendee", per the Diamond announcement, I don't know how that number could be anything other than a total guess (like most discussions on print runs). Except in this case, the number seems to have been repeated so much as to have become "fact". -J.

This has nothing to do with "opinions". -J.

Using made up terminology to placate one or two people who are basically just trolling the issue at this point doesn't accomplish anything, nor would it magically turn the book into being something other than the third printing with a different cover for the Diamond summit that it is. Here's the link for that public announcement again: https://summits.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/54/787?articleID=118463 -J.

PM sent. -J.

Apologies gents! -J.

Has an image of that thing been posted yet ? -J.

Who said the UPC "always" indicated anything? I just showed what it indicates with regards to this book (and probably most Image comics). If you have some other published announcements from Diamond or Image that contradicts their earlier published announcements of this book as a third printing (and the UPC that also shows such), feel free to post it. "Pedantic" or not, the facts are as they are, and yet here you are, dying on the same hill. -J.

Thanks for expressing your OPINIONS again. Do you ever discuss actual facts or the science behind paper degradation at all ? I've already explained it earlier in the thread, but in case you missed it, I'll give you the abbreviated version of it: 1) The cause of paper deterioration is the break down of the lignin of the paper. 2) This can happen absent any extrinsic environmental factors, literally the acid within the paper itself can cause the lignin to break down and the paper to deteriorate. 3) This can happen (or continue happening) to a book that's already within a slab. 4) The literal "colour" of the paper is neither a cause of nor a direct result of the breakdown of the paper lignin (nor vice versa). 5) Foxing can in fact give the APPEARANCE of a tanned edge. "Tan" is a colour, and does not necessarily have anything to do with the lignin of the paper (see Wikipedia article already quoted above). 6) The "PQ" CGC puts on the label is referencing "page 'QUALITY'" (ie, their best GUESS on the degree of breakdown of the paper lignin at the time they handle and grade the book). They only use "colours" as a shorthand to assess it, because A) That's what collectors have historically done, and B)Not many people know what the heck paper "lignin" is. Now please tell me how "wrong" I am again so I can start unleashing the litany of published articles on paper ephemera and preservation that contradict almost every OPINION that you have on the matter. -J.