Beyonder123

Also I have located proof of a second print 7th issue. Very interestingly the advertisements are the same. This would seem to indicate they were released on the same month.

Someone who has 7 copies of #2 was able to look through and confirm the second and third prints of number 2 are noted in the indicia. Also the marvel checklists inside those issues align with my given dates. He has 10 copies of #3 he will be going through later.

What's actually in immacuclean? Or is it top secret? Same. It seems that just blue light doesn't seem to do any damage though. Hopefully CGC is alert when it comes to checking if books have had peroxide used on them.

This is the biggest problem. I've seen multiple submissions where people's newsstands haven't been noted since the change. They're super obvious and I don't think they necessarily need to be noted, but it is the new policy. And again the second and third prints sometimes get swapped if they even notice it's another printing. I just think it would help the average collector know what they have if they weren't informed on the subject. And perhaps the hobby as a whole would start taking note. Maybe at some point I'll create a poll. But for now I think the next thing to research in regards to this subject would be to compile photos of the multipacks and try to differentiate all the printing combinations within.

I'm thinking something along the lines of "Second Print", and "Distributed in 3 Packs" in the key comments.

Both Marvel "Whitmans" and DCU's had multiple printings. Why do these have no reason to be noted? Not even in key notes?

Super unfortunate. That's a nice book.

Just saw this video, and with the current hotness in comic cleaning being peroxide use, this seems like something more people should know about. Tldr; peroxide weakens paper fibers in comics

I also want to better explain this. Multipack 4-6 would have been released alongside issue 6 in July. In August multipack 4-6 would have been re released. This time with a first print of issue 4, and second prints of 5 and 6, alongside issue 7. But like you said, why a first print of issue 4 in the multipack, and not issue 6. I honestly can't solidly answer that. My theory would be they printed second prints of 5 and 6 to accompany extra copies of issue 4. But I could only prove that if I found a multipack with these exact printings in them. Again, did Marvel distribute these? You think not, I think so, but regardless of who distributed them, there has to be some sort of pattern to the arrangement.

@Lazyboy so, I had a bunch written out as a response, but the page refreshed and I lost most of it so I will keep it as brief as possible. I'm not trying to argue about this, but simply understand it. I'm using this thread to better understand all the different printings of these books, when they were released, and how they were released. I'm sure we actually agree on most things about this. The big hangup is whether or not "Marvel Books" actually distributed these or rather some other distributor using the name. I'm inclined to believe the first, but all in all I don't think it's super important. We both agree that the subsequent printings were only released in multipacks. We both agree on the release dates (I would assume), and we both agree that Curtis was not the distributor. As for my outlines, they aren't final or official and I'm sure they will change. I just want to know what combinations of multipacks existed and when they were released. Obviously some packs were re released, and there's some correlation between that and the printings (can we agree on that?) As for this being something new or unknown I think this really is something that is new and unknown to most people. CGC is recognizing other types of multipack editions and I think this should be noted too. I also think this would be a good resource for people who want to better understand them.

As a follow up, I also think it's important to outline something Lazyboy said regarding ASM 252. Despite insane demand for the book, there was never a second printing. So with that knowledge, why would the second and third prints of these Transformers books be available as individual issues on store shelves? What we can prove is that these editions were in fact available in multipacks. It's not provable that they weren't sold as individual issues, but given the evidence it's unlikely. And either way if someone is making the claim that they were sold individually, the burden of proof rests with that person. There's a local shop that has been around since the 80s that was tight with a big comic distributor in the area at the time. Ill try to ask him about it this sunday.

Well that's the whole point of second printings. Lack of foresight for the demand of a book. You run out of copies of your first printing and so there is a need for another print. You can even see per my outline that they did use first printings when available. The 4-6 Multipacks all have first print copies of issue 4. (Edit: additionally through contributions on this thread we know there are 4-6 multipacks that exist with all first printings) I don't think whether or not Marvel made the multipacks is even a debate at this point. And whether Marvel distributed them or Joe Blow did is moot. The point of the matter is exactly what you said; they were printed specifically for the multipacks.

Where did you get those shelves and how do you like them? They look very sturdy.

So I have just finished compiling a list of the first 9 issues which all have different printings (minus 4). As well as their front page ads, back cover ads, and back interior cover ads. I then matched these ads with their first print counterpart to come up with a release month. Basically just an upgraded version of the first list. Several interesting things popped up. Transformers #1 - Inside Cover: Last Starfighter, Inside Back Cover: Muppets Take Manhattan, Back Cover: Star Wars (09/84) Transformers #1 (Second Print) - Inside Cover: Gobots, Inside Back Cover: Indiana Jones, Back Cover: Risk (03/85) Transformers #1 (Third Print) - Inside Cover: Rip Offs, Back Cover: Acne 12 (06/85) Transformers #2 - Inside Cover: Mario Bros, Inside Back Cover: Dungeons and Dragons, Back Cover: Star Wars (11/84) Transformers #2 (Second Print) - Risk (03/85) Transformers #2 (Third Print) - Acne 12 (06/85) Transformers #3 - Inside Cover: Mario Bros, Inside Back Cover: Dungeons And Dragons, Back Cover: Star Wars (11/84) Transformers #3 - Inside Cover: Monogram, Inside Back Cover: Activision, Back Cover: Montezuma (01/85) Transformers #3 (Second Print) - Risk (03/85) Transformers #3 (Third Print) - Inside Cover: Rip Offs, Inside Back Cover: Star Comics, Back Cover: Acne 12 (06/85) Transformers #4 - Inside Front Cover: Go Bots, Inside Back Cover: Indiana Jones, Back Cover: Risk (03/85) Transformers #4 - Inside Back Cover: Secret Wars II, Back Cover: Pay Day (08/85) Transformers #5 - Inside Cover: Rip Offs, Inside Back Cover: Star Comics, Back Cover: Acne 12 (06/85) Transformers #5 - Inside Cover: Noxema, Inside Back Cover: Secret Wars II, Back Cover: Payday (08/85) Transformers #6 - Inside Front Cover: Reeses Pieces, Inside Back Cover: Huffy, Back Cover: Astronaut (07/85) Transformers #6 - Inside Cover: Noxema, Inside Back Cover: Secret Wars II, Back Cover: Pay Day (08/85) Transformers #7 - Inside Cover: Noxema, Inside Back Cover: Secret Wars II, Back Cover: Pay Day (08/85) Transformers #7 (Second Print) - Back Cover: Pay Day (08/85) Transformers #7 (Third Print) - Inside Cover: Astronaut, Inside Back Cover: Bullpen Bullitins, Back Cover: Honeycomb (11/85) Transformers #8 - Inside Cover: Secret Wars II, Inside Back Cover: Star Comics, Back Cover: Astronaut (09/85) Transformers #8 (Second Print) - Inside Cover: Astronaut, Inside Back Cover: Bullpen Bullitins, Back Cover: Honeycomb (11/85) Transformers #9 - Inside Cover: Astronaut, Inside Back Cover: Secret Wars II, Back Cover: Rip Offs (10/85) Transformers #9 (Second Print) - Inside Cover: Astronaut, Inside Back Cover: Bullpen Bullitins, Back Cover: Honeycomb (11/85) So the things that stood out. There are more printings noted in the indicia for a few more. So I was wrong about that. Issues 5, 6 and perhaps 2 and 7? Are the only ones that are not marked. I only say that about issue 2 because I was unable to find photos of the indicia for the second or third print, however I imagine when one turns up there's a good possibility it will in fact be noted. The problem with issue 7 is I still am unable to locate a second print, or even a photo of the back cover of a second print for that issue. Very strange. With this completed list we can now make a timeline of release dates for everything. 09/84 - Issue 1 first print 11/84 - Issue 2 first print, Issue 3 first print? 01/85 - Issue 3 first print, 03/85 - Issue 1 second print, issue 2 second print, issue 3 second print, issue 4 first print 06/85 - issue 1 third print, issue 2 third print, issue 3 third print, issue 5 first print 07/85 - Issue 6 first print 08/85 - issue 4 second print, issue 5 second print, issue 6 second print, issue 7 first print, 7 second print 09/85 - issue 8 first print 10/85 - issue 9 first print 11/85 - issue 7 third print, 8 second print, #9 second print, issue 10 first print What is remarkable about this is that we can see a clear pattern of newest issue, and then 3 printings of 3 consecutive previous issues. This would line up perfectly with multipack releases. March of 85', a multipack with issues 1-3 is released alongside issue 4. Knowing they will release another multipack they print extra copies of issue 4. This is why there are no subsequent printings of issue 4. June of 85' the multipack is re-released alongside issue 5. August of 85' a multipack with issues 4-6 is released alongside issue 7. There's a possibility that a multipack is released alongside issue 8 in September of 85' with issues 5-7 unmarked in the indicia. This would explain why issues 5 and 6 aren't marked and issue 7 seems to have no second print. But until one is found this is just speculation. And finally the last multipack is released in November of 85' with issues 7-9 alongside issue 10. Feedback again would be appreciated. This makes me feel even more strongly that the extra printings are multipack editions.

Come on... this is anything but boring.

Someone pointed me in another direction yesterday. Looks like Smurfs was another one with multiple printings yet no notation in the indicia. I'm waiting for pictures from him of the interiors to confirm the lack of notation. CGC notes 3 printings of this one.

I'm not sure how CGC docks points for drawing on cover. I'd imagine it's quite alot. Let me know what you think.

I don't belive so. The reason is because the advertisements in what I think to be the reprints, match the advertisements that would be used in later issues. Also some of these "reprints" have a marvel checklist that matches the marvel checklist several issues forward. For example. The 3rd print (indicia marked), of Transformers #3, has the Noxema Acne ad on the back. This would then be used on the standard edition of Transformers #5 nine months later. It seems to me the simpler answer is that the third print of issue 1 came out at the same time as Transformers #5. Of course the problem is I don't have all of these printings or the ability to check to make sure the interior ads match up 100 percent.

Unfortunate. But not 100 percent unexpected. This does lend more credence to issue 4 not having any subsequent printings. As shown before there are 2 different versions of the 1-3 multi pack. One with all first printings, and one with all second printings. Again perhaps there are multiple releases of the multipacks that were released on different months with different ads. I don't know how one would prove (if it is indeed the case) that the subsequent printings weren't available on store shelves individually. Maybe sales logs, old photos, personal recollection? Also here's some photos of my copies of 5 and 6 so people don't think I'm crazy.

I never said they were the same company. Marvel Comics Group was a division of the parent company "Cadence Industries". Which "Marvel Books" also happened to be. It's not like some random joe shmoe found a warehouse of books and started polybagging and flipping them to make a quick buck. The polybags were specifically made and licensed by Marvels parent company. As others have said, these multipacks were largely distributed and Marvel would never allow direct competition to use their characters, name, and logo on their product. But in case you don't believe me here's more 80s ephemera where the name and logo is used. As well as info inside.

My prediction is #4 - Risk, and #5 and 6 - Payday

1. You seem to have said alot about how things "didn't" work. If you have some sort of insider information on the inner machinations of 80s marvel comic distribution, please feel free to elaborate. 2. Whoever distributed the multipacks evidently had the licensing rights to use both the company name, logo, and characters on the bags. So again, if you have evidence for this claim, feel free to show it.

Definitely a first printing 👍

I hate the term, "Blue Galactus Variant". It's misleading because it leads people to believe it's rare or uncommon. The "Blue Galactus Variant" is in actuality the standard edition. Almost all copies were printed like that until it was caught quite late in the run. If CGC wants to denote it on the label, (which I'm all for) they should use the terms "Blue Galactus Version/Edition" and "Corrected Version/Edition".

Regardless of whether or not they are mutlipack editions, (which i think we can confirm at this point) I think they are still later printings, as supported by the fact that the ads in the multipack issues line up with the ads printed in the same title a couple months later. Right now I'm looking for any evidence that any of the 3rd printings were released in multipacks for the first 6 issues. But in summary issues 1, 2, and 3 with the "Star Wars" ad sets, and issue 3 with the Montezuma ad; are first prints. And issues 1, 2 and 3 with Risk ads are second prints. And here is my theory for why there are 2 (technical) first prints for issue 3. Timeline: Both issues 1 and 2 go on sale on newsstands by 11/84. When the 3rd issue comes out, they also intend to release a three pack including issues 1, 2 and 3. Issue 3 is set to go on sale by 1/85, but for the multipack there is an extra step between being printed and going on shelves, and so issue 3 needs to be printed a little earlier to make up for that lost time. The problem is next months advertisements aren't ready. Whether that be because they haven't secured advertisers, or they haven't yet received the advertisements from the advertiser, etc etc. So what do you do? You print issue 3 with last months advertisements specifically for the multipack. By the time those are done and bagged, the advertisements are ready. Now you can print the rest with the correct months advertising. That would give you the same comic on sale on the same month with 2 different advertisements. One in a multipack and one on shelves. The next month, the multipack is re-released; this time with this months advertisements (3/84). And so all 3 issues get printed with Risk ad sets, same as issue 4, which is on sale on the same month. Make sense? Lol. What do people think?