jimbo_7071

That's one way to spin it, but the fact remains that on of the "traunches" is a first printing and the others are not. Many collectors likely don't know about this issue; most would prefer to own the first printing if they did know, I'll warrant. An original is an original. There is really no excuse for CGC's not noting which house ad a particular copy contains. If they want to steer clear of calling some copies first printings and other reprints, so be it. They can put the information about the house ad on the label and let a duly informed market decide if one "variant" is more valuable. There's no doubt in my mind how that would shake out.

Red, orange, and yellow flames to Red Mist on an orange and yellow cover.

Roughly. If only the 3rd printing has the "On Sale Now" verbiage, those would only be 1/6 of the total printed, or about 16.7%. The 178 slabbed copies constitute a big enough sample size to see if it's really that scarce. If both the 2nd and 3rd printings have that language, which is what I suspect, then that would be 4/9 of the total, or about 44.4%.

If?

It's reasonable to conclude that the three printings exist in roughly the same proportions as their print runs. If only the first printing carried the "On Sale June 2nd" verbiage, then roughly 56% of existing copies should have it. If both the first and second printings have that verbiage, then roughly 84% of existing copies would have it—that's a big difference. Likewise, the percentage of copies with the "On Sale Now" verbiage would be 44% or 16%. CGC could know by now if they wanted to. If they've been recording data on that information, they haven't shared it.

See my post above (posted a sew seconds before yours). The creator of the original thread pointed out that surveying the existing copies to see what percentage have the "On Sale June 2nd" language would allow us to draw a reasonable conclusion regarding whether the 2nd printing carried that language (which it shouldn't have, since it was likely printed after June 2nd). If that can be established, the first printing could be labeled as such, but the others could simply be labeled as reprints. After all, a first edition is a first edition—and a reprint is a reprint.

I another thread, it was logically argued that the 2nd printing would have likely been produced after June 2nd and should have carried the "Now on Sale" verbiage in the ad—if DC was paying attention to details—which would mean that only the copies stating "On Sale June 2nd" are first editions while all of the others are reprints.

Yes. Supposedly, some of the highest-graded copies held by influential collectors are not first editions, so there is a vested interest in not noting the distinction on the CGC labels—if you catch my drift. That's the way this hobby works.

Fawcett #3 to Fawcett from 4/44.

Some people are made very differently from me, I guess. I can't stand urban areas and wouldn't live in a big city unless it was much, much cheaper than living in a suburban or rural area.

Avon Boy Detective to Avon Space Detective.

I did not know that property in Vancouver was that expensive, but I read that this was a trendy "Point Grey" neighborhood, so I guess it was considered a prime location. I imagine someone tore it down and built a more modern house? There have been some renewal efforts in Detroit, but for the most part, nobody wants to live there, so house in the city usually sell for far less that houses in the nicer suburbs. (There are a few exclusive neighborhoods in Detroit, but not many.) I get it now! I have not been following U.S. politics enough lately to know that there was a Senator by that name.

Tears to tear.

Timely hero with female sidekick to same.

Having grown up in the Detroit area, I've always dreamt of living someplace as chic and cosmopolitan as West Virginny!

Really? I haven't priced houses anywhere, but here in the Detroit suburbs a million dollars would get you a mansion. But then again you did say major city . . ..

Ped Whiz to ped CMA.

I picked up this one. It really wasn't on my radar screen prior to this auction, but I like the cover.

It's good to know that they're catching it some of the time—although I suspect that it's often missed. Have you heard anything to suggest that CGC can detect light-only lightening? I don't know of any way that they could do that.

Nothing surprises me because many collectors have little to no impulse control. If they want a book, they want it now, and they don't care if they overpay.

I'd stay away from it until CGC starts differentiating between the original and the two early reprints. That house of cards has to fall eventually.

Using blue light with peroxide may be considered restoration in theory, but as I understand it, it's only detectable if someone messes up and blisters the paper—so there are presumably many, many blue-label books out there that have had this treatment. Blue light is also being used without peroxide, i.e., blue light only. I don't believe that that is detectable at all. If it's used on non-white areas, it will cause fading, but CGC can't detect fading, anyway (unless it's severe). I don't think that CGC has ever claimed to be able to detect light-only whitening.

No, that treatment will not result in a PLOD. I don't even think CGC can detect it.

The latest technique is using blue light to lighten comic book covers, especially the white parts of the covers. (I have no idea whether that was done to this comic.) CGC isn't treating it as restoration, probably because they don't have a way to detect it. Here's one video on it:

The most fun I had collecting was digging through unsorted boxes of comic books at used book stores and antique stores as a kid before I even knew that comic book conventions or dedicated comic books stores existed.