Beyonder123

On 11/13/2022 at 11:21 AM, lizards2 said:

So bidders can't see the grader's notes, or so they won't know the books are stolen scams?

I'm not talking about ebay. I mean chat boards, groups, forums, etc. So my books can't be used to scam others.

On 11/13/2022 at 12:35 PM, MR SigS said:

On sale items?

I obscure my cert# so no one uses my images in their scam (which someone has done twice with my AF15, before I started doing this). Since I don't sell comics (yet) it doesn't matter to me that no one can check the cert#. If I ever do sell them, naturally the label will be shown because I can't imagine anyone buying a slab with the # they can't check.

When I do sell slabs, which isn't often. I allow the cert to be seen. That's the exception.

On 11/13/2022 at 8:59 AM, ak47po said:

This is why I blur out my labels when putting them online.

Also not trying to be political. Just stating who the guy was.

I saw this a month or so ago. 5.3 million is how much the Mile High copy sold for, so that's where he's getting his number from.  The bald guy is Andrew Tate, a "red pilled" social media influencer who tries to sell his lifestyle, so he has a reason to exaggerate wealth.

On 11/9/2022 at 12:43 PM, Stronguy said:

Reprints don't have return register markings, indicating they never intended to the newsstand.
Reprints could be related to these being licensed properties by Marvel.  Things that got reprints and/or bagged versions in this era were: Star Wars, RotJ, Raider, GI Joe, Transformers, Smurfs, Secret Wars.  All were partnerships with other companies.

Great list! I'll expand upon it later with the editions I have. I also want to add that Thundercats, and Secret Wars II #6 have subsequent printings as well.

It would be interesting if examples could be found of issues of other properties. Strawberry Shortcake, Muppets, Heathcliff, Rom, Indiana Jones, as well as others.

On 11/8/2022 at 6:21 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

Lol not to get sidetracked as they're awesome books! But wanted to say I've never read or seen the inside of early hulks, so thanks! Is it safe to say that the cover of #5 reflects the hulk in the machine of #4?

The cover of issue 5 is Hulk breaking out of Tyrannus' prison. Its been a while since I've read issue 4, but I believe the machine was used to control the transformation between Hulk and Bruce Banner.

I had the trade as a kid for the first 6 issues and read it to death. Every issue they played around with a new idea that always kept it fresh.

On 11/8/2022 at 12:50 PM, Lazyboy said:

Do you think it's a coincidence that the multi-pack/reprint issues are all non-Marvel properties (and Secret Wars, which was created by request to be a toy tie-in)?

Man, you do really come through with little gems like this from time to time. That's a good observation. I just wish you could get them across without the condescension.

At this point I'll pull the tape off the bag for anything with real value. I've been lucky enough to learn my lesson with lower value books.

Got these in today. We already know of this multipacks existence per an earlier post. But I purchased this before hand and it just showed up, so may as well show it for the records.

Issue 7 third print, 8 and 9 second print

On 11/7/2022 at 12:08 PM, ivdyer said:

Many thanks to @Kevlarfor facilitating and @YEPITSMEfor the epic signed bust…..not many Stone/Garfield books out there…..

 

Why is Emma Stone mentioned twice on the label? Is that a mistake?

On 11/5/2022 at 11:05 AM, Who_am_I_D.R.I. said:

Just another little note. I was at my LCS and they had 2 copies of #7 both with the payday add on the back. I checked the indicas, one said second pritning the othe did not. all the internal ads were identical.

That's good to know. That seems to be the only issue that has a second print with identical ads to the first print. I bought one and have it on the way.

On 11/3/2022 at 4:51 PM, Who_am_I_D.R.I. said:

here are my notes and pictures to show the back cover ads. I was not able to recall the ads so you will have to compare with your own notes to be sure of which ads are shown.

 

1 and 3 ESB

4 Risk?

6 Mostly blue with some white dots

7  and 9 and 10 have a green circle and part of a hand

12 has parts of a robot or toy. maybe gobots?

13 yellow with edges of squares

15 pinkish add 

1 - Star Wars back cover (First Print)

3 - Star wars back cover (Weird first print?)

4 - Risk (First Print)

6 - Astronaut (First Print)

7 - Honeycomb (Third Print)

9 - Honeycomb (Second Print, Same release date as 7 third print)

I will have to compare the back cover ads for the rest with my first prints. It looks like your 1-3, and 4-6 multipacks are first print packs, and the 7-9 are later print packs. Your 1-3 is also the second multipack I've seen with the strange version of issue 3.

On 11/3/2022 at 3:16 PM, littledoom said:

That’s a much older nice rustier looking spinner rack than the one I picked up recently. It’s nice the Fawcett branding is still intact. I’d say it’s 50-60s mid century. I mean that’s back when Fawcett was popular enough to get their name on a display right. Could be earlier. The spinner rack I bought recently took up unnecessary space so I sold it today in person for $150. Hope this helps!

I paid 250 so hopefully I didnt overpay. Hard to compare prices since there are so many different types lol. Thanks for the info!

On 11/2/2022 at 7:26 PM, Lazyboy said:

Just a little update here: an old post with a better, clearer image showing that these were not actually distributed by Marvel.

I looked these up on ebay and found an even clearer image. At first I thought it said distributed by Whitman-Golden. But on the clearer image it says, "Imported by Whitman Golden Limited, Cambridge, Ontario". Which makes sense as these are Canadian Variants.

So while whether or not Marvel distributed these in the states is still debatable, it does prove Whitman Golden Limited distributed them in Canada

I'd keep it sealed, but that's just me. Opening it would just feel wrong.

Edit: Also if you do send it in I'd open it myself. They won't grade it with the record and I don't know if there is any guarantee they will send everything back.

On 11/2/2022 at 5:32 PM, Who_am_I_D.R.I. said:

I love when someone tries to peice together some obscure truth from breadcrumbs and old memories. I have 1-15 3 packs. Here are some pictures. Let me know if there's any info I can provide to move you forward. My 7,8 , 9 pack is weird because it looks like a reseal but I do not think it is. I have seen many others with the short bag like in my picture. Also, there are some cool price tags on some of these too, like the 1 cent discount on the Kmart bag lol.

This is an awesome resource! Could you check the back cover ads for each issue? 7 is definitely a 2nd or third print since it's missing the Curtis logo.

On 11/1/2022 at 5:58 PM, Qalyar said:

So, wanting to clarify. So far, at least, all variants are distinguishable by issue number + back cover? I don't see any combinations that would require checking the indicia and/or the internal book checklist in order to distinguish them, correct?

Just saw this. So far every reprint has different ads when compared to their first print counterparts. That is except issue 7 2nd print, which seems to have the same ads as it's first print. I just purchased one on ebay so I can compare them soon.

On 11/2/2022 at 5:56 AM, Qalyar said:

In my mind, this strongly suggests either a multi-pack or a specific reprint order for a single point of distribution (like the JC Penney books), either of which might explain why they don't have a printing in the indicia; they didn't go through normal distribution channels and so were not viewed internally as a new "printing" in the conventional sense.

I agree with the multipack statement. However there are multipacks that have second printings that are marked. I don't know if there was a specific reason they weren't marked or if just by luck of the draw some weren't.

I think the next step is to try to compile images of all the different Transformers multipacks and decipher what combinations exist.

On 11/1/2022 at 8:16 PM, Qalyar said:

it seems 7 released quite a bit later than the Payday-back 4 appears to (from the internals)

I checked my unmarked second prints of 5 and 6, and they appear to be the same as the unmarked 4.

I then compared these with issue 7.

issue 6 second print has exactly the same ads as issue 7 first print, except 6 has an ad for "Fred Hembeck Destroys the Marvel Universe", and the order form that is in 4 second print. It's also lacking the letters page that is in issue 7. In fact I checked and issue 6 first print didn't have a letters page, and the last page has the same Hembeck ad and order form. Also a couple ads have been moved around to make room for a splash page. 

Issue 5 second print also has the exact same ads (again moved around for a splash page) but has the additional order form from issue 6 first print. This differs from the order form in the first print of issue 5.

I dont think the dates on the order form is necessarily a direct indicator of when the book was printed. The date on the order form in the first print of issue 4 is preceeding the cover date by 4 months. Same with the first print of issue 5. If this pattern is consistent, that would give us August of 1985, which is the same date as issue 7.

To conclude, I think we can probably safely say these reprints (4-6) were all released the same time as issue 7 first print. 

Aaaand this might ruin a bit. The ads match up with issue 7. Or so it looks like at a glance. There's no order form in the back of issue 7, like there is in the second print issue 4. Is this just a way to get rid of the letters page? Or were they not released at the same time.

On 11/1/2022 at 6:05 PM, Qalyar said:

Also, thanks to my proficiency with Google and this 2014 blog post, I can confirm the existence of a #4 with the Payday back cover (and, apparently, no indicia change).

That is a great bit of info. So this means every issue from 1-9 had subsequent printings. Looks like he missed the second prints of 5 and 6 on that page. 

On 11/1/2022 at 5:23 PM, Qalyar said:

I have to admit that this has made me considerably more interested in this series, haha!

I'm glad to hear there's interest! It's nice seeing these printings get the the love they deserve haha.