Jaydogrules

You obviously have no knowledge of the printing industry. Which is fine. But the printing process, as described by pemart1966, when the reprint was done that is the cheapest, simplest, and ONLY way that black slug and November over print could be done. That isn't debatable. That isn't "opinion". It simply how a printing press works. And even if the October copies were a "mistake", they were still released, and released first, still makes them the first printing and the November copies the reprints. -J.

So you're "annoyed" by the people (almost everyone) who is properly calling the November reprints "reprints". Got it. So it is just more likely, in your "opinion" that Goodman somehow simultaneously had enough faith that he advance printed a million copies of an untested, unproven book, with an "October" cover date, but then released just a fraction of them, why only a fraction, who knows, only to then go back and incur massive additional expenses, not to mention the amount of actual time it would have taken in paying an army of interns to "hand stamp" the "leftover" 800,000 copies that he kept in cold storage "just in case" the book turned out to be a success. Yes, I'm calling that notion patently ridiculous and absurd. Because it is. The November copies are reprints. Sorry if you own one and that makes you view it less favourably (even though virtually everyone on here, including myself), have given props to anyone who has been able to own either printing). -J.

Touche. Guess I just felt the need to put an exclamation point at the end of it. -J.

You forgot the most obvious one: 6) It would actually be cheaper and FAR less time consuming to simply reprint the comic (which is what the November copy is, a reprint) than to pay a gaggle of lackies however long it would take to "hand stamp" nearly a million copies. Such a notion is just patently and ridiculously absurd. -J.

I think we are getting into somewhat disnegenous territory trying to start calling these GA second printings "variants". -J.

Awesome book. Congrats on owning a copy at all. Big time props. -J.

...says the guy who just quoted himself. .....while offering no facts nor understanding of the printing process in spite of what multiple boardies have stated about this matter over the years. Don't stop believin'. -J.

Somebody did a gif showing the black slug in the identical spot on every copy. It was reprinted with the plate in place to cover the October date. The fact that the ink has faded with time proves nothing. Knowledge of the printing industry and common sense is all the "proof" that should be required. You suggesting that a group of lackies hand stamped each copy is preposterous on its face. No need for a time machine. It's a second printing. Sorry. -J.

Your points are well taken and I agree with them for the most part. Let me throw something at you though and see what you think (and I made a similar point about second printings in the modern forum): Okay so the vast majority of the appeal of Marvel Comics 1 is that it's the "first Marvel Comic". That's what the "october" is. But is the second printing of it also that ? Regardless of how old it is now? My opinion is, no. -J.

Okay I got you. I can't say what will happen in the future, although I will say it isn't uncommon for books to peak and plateau, maybe even pull back a little, and then peak again. I was just quibbling with the statement that the CC auction prices hadn't been repeated, which they have been, and then some. -J.

First appearance of Subby. -J.

+1 The November copies of Marvel 1 are absolutely reprints as well (or "second printings", or "second editions" or "second states", whatever). Multiple boardies familiar with the printing process have repeatedly explained that the black slug put over the "oct" with the "nov" plate above it was done as a cost saving device by the publisher after the initial "oct" run, to give the second printing of the book a longer shelf life after the fact. And the fact that the black slug copies are noticeably different than the first print copies and with a later date is prima facie, common sense evidence that the black slug copies are second printings, all wishful thinking aside. The fact that the second printings are also highly prized is rather beside the point, and doesn't change what they are. As for me personally, I wouldn't buy one of them, regardless of how old they are. If I'm spending that much money on a comic, a Batman 1,superman 1, etc. what have you, I would personally want to own the original ,true first printings. -J.

Fiction. They were not only repeated but exceeded (in the last comiclink auction, no less). -J.

No it's not just the price box. It is also missing the cover date month and the interior indicia on the inside front cover is different, reflecting its foreign distribution. -J.

The November copies are reprints. Period. It doesn't matter what Overstreet calls them or doesn't call them. They're reprints (or, like I said, "second issuing" if it makes you feel better). Hence the later month on the cover. No matter what you want to call the black slug copies, however, what they are definitely not "first state" editions. There was already a lengthy discussion about this several months ago. I'm sorry that bothers you. But it is what it is. Many slabbed Superman 1's out there are reprints too that are only identified by an internal indicia and not on the covers. Those don't seem to be valued differently either, and CGC doesn't distinguish on the label. Maybe they should. Unless the person slabbed the book themselves they don't know which one they actually have. I can't speak to the "dot" or "no dot" to Batman 1. But if one or the other is a reprint, those should be noted by grading companies as well. People should know what they're actually looking at and buying. -J.

That's still another great result. We now have *multiple* results in the $2250-$2500 range. And that's before we even see a trailer of the movie. -J

Another 9.8 copy just sold for $2400 yesterday. http://offer.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBidsLogin&item=152554358793&item_hash4=5aedf2a4&LH_Complete=1&LH_BIN=1&_pgn=1&rc=nt&_trksid=p3750801.m370.h1613&rmvSB=true -J.

The one with black slug on it is a reprint (or "second issuing", if you prefer). -J.

Damn very nice. You guys are killing it today. -J.

Thank you for the input. I didn't dislike the image but if I was going to blindly drop that much money without knowing anything about the OA market at all I would rather have done it for a Spider-Man piece by him. -J.

Wow that's a hell of a year. -J.

It was the final work, it looked like a watercolour with some pastel of chalk work. It was also before Dell'otto was really a "thing". Plus it was for a foreign cover with no American release. I don't know if that makes a difference in the OA market but it made a difference to me. Plus the guy didn't want to negotiate on the price AT ALL which usually turns me off on principle alone. Maybe I should have just bought it anyway.... -J.

That's a nice cover. I saw the OA for it on eBay while back. Asking price was about $2500. Knowing nothing about OA pricing, I still don't know if that was a good price or not. My gut told me it was high. -J.

That's good to know. Thank you for the knowledge drop on that. Certainly gives the book a unique context. -J.

Man how the heck do you guys even know this ? -J.