rich_TMNT

Yikes! I hadn't noticed a picture on the listing was from my site. I don't understand why it's even included because there's also a picture of that full page spread from the actual book - which doesn't at all match with mine from a 1st printing. Definitely concerning - something's amiss. Starting to get a sense that maybe this wasn't found at a store after all and we're all being duped. Hope I'm wrong.

Thank you @stock_rotation for the response and feedback on this. In regards to the sheets of newsprint paper, I've seen that paper before but it's my understanding that paper is for art / packing usage and is not suitable (at least not recommended) for use in copy machines since it absorbs too much ink and results in bleeding / runs on the page. There's a statement to that effect on the page you linked to. During research for my articles, I went to a local FedEx Kinkos and asked them about the possibilities of newsprint paper and they said their machines wouldn't work with newsprint so they referred me to a local print shop. That shop didn't recommend using newsprint sheets (due to the bleeding) but instead recommended newsprint rolls through a different machine that ran the paper faster through than a normal sheet-fed machine would (similar to how an offset web press would work). That, of course, doesn't mean it couldn't be done on a copier so I suppose that it might be worth maybe doing a test in the future to see what's possible with that type of paper when used in a copier (and what it looks and feels like). If it turns out that paper works in a copier and produces decent results, that might change my theory about "counterfeits" possibly being proofs. I am meeting this fall with a major printer on the east coast and will definitely ask about the possibilities of newsprint paper printing (aside from web offset). In relation to the Page 33 fist - thank you for providing that picture of your 2nd printing. Would you believe that you're one of three people that have now provided me images of their 2nd printing having the full fist viewable on Page 33? So...that means it may or may not be fully visible in the 2nd printing which also means that's likely true for the 1st printing as well (maybe even for the 3rd, too). I'll keep trying to source more interior page images for further research. But, one neat thing about knowing this fist may or may not be fully visible on Page 33 is that it helps with further authentication of the TMNT #1 Negatives. That fist being fully visible on the negative but not being visible on the printed page really was a mystery to me since it seemed to be something that SHOULD have printed - but now I see that it's just a printing anomaly that affected some copies but not all. AND, knowing your Page 33 has the mark in the upper left margin - that's definitely awesome!

Hi everyone. Sorry I'm late to the game here. I was in talks with @Mike Oliver (the OP buyer) on my FB page about this book and just now saw that @SpideyFein had tagged me here (thanks, btw!). All this can get SO confusing and there's so much to discuss - I'll try to clearly lay out a few things. However, bottom line here is that this is 100% not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Printing of TMNT #1 and isn't an official reprinting of #1 that's ever been made for retail sale by Mirage, IDW, or any other publisher. But, I hesitate anymore to use the "counterfeit" label / term on these copies that aren't official but have interior pages on newsprint (although for the sake of labeling them for clarity, I'll use the term "counterfeit" in parenthesis here). I say that because, as @Dr. Balls mentioned previously, printing on newsprint paper (unless there's something I'm unaware of) requires offset / web press printing that is very logistically involved and really isn't something cost-effective for something you only see a few copies of surface every once in a while. There are also very weird / unique interior page characteristics with the counterfeits I've seen to date that makes me wonder where the heck these ever came from - things that don't completely mesh with using full scans of actual copies. Let me lay out some things here about TMNT #1 that hopefully provides some good insights (and I've linked to pics and info. in order to save space). There's also a wealth of info. about TMNT #1 (specifically related to the TMNT #1 Negatives) in the articles I wrote about the authentication work I did on them. Page 29 - in the lower right corner of Page 29 on the 1st & 2nd printings, a line missing from the artwork, which is directly tied to the way the TMNT #1 Negatives used to make the 1st & 2nd printings were prepared (stripped). The 1st & 2nd printings are the ONLY printings of TMNT #1 I've ever found to be missing this line (which makes sense since the 3rd printing used a different printer and thus, a different set of negatives, plus subsequent printings -including IDWs- likely used original artwork scans or digital files made from the original artwork or master files). My personal "counterfeit" copy of TMNT #1 (which isn't just a 2nd or 3rd printing with the printing designation removed) ALSO does not have this line present in the Page 29 artwork. However, the "counterfeit" copy in question in this thread DOES have this line present. So, that would seem to indicate that 1) the TMNT #1 1st & 2nd printing negatives could have been used to produce some of these newsprint "counterfeits" and 2) scans of 1st & 2nd printings couldn't have been used for the "counterfeit" in discussion here. A 3rd Printing could have been used for this "counterfeit" being discussed (or even the negatives for the 3rd printing, which don't exist anymore) - the quality of the 3rd printing was sub-par and the page images are smaller than 1st & 2nd printings (just like in this "counterfeit" - although I find the print quality on this "counterfeit" to be better than a 3rd printing). Page 33 - this page has a bunch of stuff that's interesting between the 3rd printing and the 1st/2nd printings. But, the thing about this page that is really unique when it comes to the "counterfeits" is Shredder's left fist in the lower left panel. The first three printings (1st, 2nd, & 3rd) of TMNT #1 don't print the entirety of this fist - the knuckle of Shredder's little finger is cut off. However, in the newsprint "counterfeits" I've seen (one of which I own - the other is the one from this thread), the entire fist is printed / visible. That's a real oddity for a couple reasons - 1) "counterfeits" I'm aware of couldn't have used scans of the first three printings since they don't show the full knuckle - 2) the negative used to print the 1st & 2nd printings actually has the full fist visible and unmasked so it SHOULD have printed completely on the 1st & 2nd printings but didn't - likely because that fist extends far outside the printable page boundary that was burned to plate by the printers. So, we already know from Page 29 that the TMNT #1 negatives COULD have only been used for one version of the "counterfeit" but not the one here since the line is present. But now with Page 33 from both "counterfeits" having the full fist visible AS WELL AS the negative having the full fist visible - it's kind of a mystery. I won't go into other pages here but there's more about other pages in the articles I wrote. All to say, I've come to a feasible hypothesis on newsprint "counterfeits" which is essentially that I do think there is a good possibility that these newsprint copies that don't match 1st, 2nd, or 3rd printings and get labeled as "counterfeits" might actually be some type of proof copies or something akin to that. I continue to study all the printings of TMNT #1 as much as possible and I've just not found a good reason why there are very few newsprint "counterfeits" that actually exist (or, at least that have surfaced). With newsprint page printing requiring so much effort, if these "counterfeits" were intentional to pass as authentic copies, why aren't there hundreds or even thousands out there? Regarding the covers on "counterfeits," mine doesn't have the detailed cross-hatching on the cover in the mainly dark areas and the red isn't as vibrant (almost more pink) - that's a pretty obvious giveaway that doesn't match the 1st printing cover. But, is that because the cover used for it was a proof of some sort that got rejected for mass production due to poor quality with the color and cross-hatching? For the cover used on the "counterfeit" in question here, there's the obvious omission of the price on the back cover below the copyright info. It would seem that's a pretty glaringly obvious thing that shouldn't have been omitted by a counterfeiter (especially when you think about how in the world that cover could have been scanned from an original copy and NOT have that price on there - that's bizarre to me since every 1st, 2nd, & 3rd printing has that price on the back cover). So, is that price missing on this "counterfeit" because it was a proof of some sort that got rejected due to the missing price? But, if so, why does the cover of this "counterfeit" more closely match the 1st/2nd printings that it does a 3rd printing yet the interiors more closely resemble the 3rd printing in terms of artwork size and page spacing? So much to think about and it all just adds to the mysterious and awesome history of TMNT #1. I hope to someday get to the bottom of all of this but, until then, it sure makes for an awesome thread.

Nice. I couldn't see any buyer being pleased with this purchase no matter what price.

I thought the same thing. This could be the first of many coverless TMNT #1's coming to market. LOL

Check this out - a coverless TMNT #1. Not sure how CGC authenticated this as a 1st printing since the interior pages for both the 1st & 2nd printings of TMNT #1 are essentially identical (given they were both printed from the same set of negatives). Additionally, it could even be a 3rd printing but I'd need to see the interior pages to know for sure. You can also tell a 3rd printing by the size of the book - a bit smaller than 1st & 2nd printings - but no way to know that from the pictures. Very interested to see what this sells for. With CGC labeling it as a 1st printing it could go closer to a 1st printing price but this could actually be a 2nd printing (or, even worse, a 3rd printing). Yikes.

It's hard to know for sure but I think every printing would typically get its own set of negatives. The 1st & 2nd printings of #1 only used the same negatives because 1) they were printed just a month apart (May & June 1984 respectively) and 2) The Journal Tribune retained the negatives in their flats (saving the need to re-strip them). The Journal Tribune only printed two printings of TMNT - TMNT #1 1st & 2nd printings. For the 3rd printing of #1, E&L used The Lakeville Journal in Lakeville, CT. Then, for the 4th printing, that would likely have been done at Southern Duchess News since the timing is similar to TMNT #4 (June, 1985) and Raphael #1 (April, 1985). It's hard to tell from the pictures of this printer's proof whether it's oversized or modern comic sized. It looks to be oversized but I don't recall ever seeing any sizing information.

Totally spot-on @jaybuck43 ! Just based on the lack of gap between Pages 2 & 3, I'd almost guarantee this is a proof of the 3rd printing (which would put it at 1985, not "nineteen eighty-uh six I think-somewhere like that" - LOL). The real tell would be on Page 29 - but I have yet to see Page 29 from this proof copy.

I can totally relate to the long journey to get all these. I've collected TMNT for almost 40 years and am still missing a few of these.

I really only have a select few OA pieces on my wall but I can imagine the difficulty of fitting everything (or trying to). The Pelican 1650 is water and air tight but that's due to the rubber seal around the lid and not any kind of lining or filling in the walls. I can't imagine that the Pelican would affect comics adversely since it's essentially just a more rugged version of a storage container (and much more secure since it's can be padlocked). It's not fireproof though, but (as you said) those aren't good for comics. Any type of fireproof container (like fire safes) gets its fire protection from special linings which have very high moisture content - thus, the staple rust damage that can occur when stored in those.

I store mine in Pelican 1650 cases with custom foam - one fits modern size slabs and the other fits magazine slabs. But I do take pics of them first and then post them on my website. I have way too many books to have them all out and displayed.

Yes, the 1986 ones (especially the Turtles) look a bit different (and Fugitoid was added for 1986). The Turtles have the same poses but the 1984 are darker and are more "bubble-like" in appearance. Also the TMNT logo is vastly different between 1984 & 1986. You can see the differences in the pics that @spracknetch23posted. They can be hard to identify in the wild if you don't know what to look for. I don't recall that there are any dates on the iron-ons themselves so that makes it even more difficult.

Very cool. This is quite an accomplishment - the four Turtles and Fugitoid are very tough to find, especially in great shape like the ones you found. Not everyone realizes there are two different sets of these (1984 & 1986) so that makes this all the more special. Congrats!

Thank you much. I'm really pushing to get these to larger Cons like Boston, NYCC, and maybe even SDCC.

Awesome! You'll love it - really comfy. Appreciate the support. Thanks ! Hopefully I can get some shows to schedule the exhibit this year or next - would be great to meet you.

I'm currently working to get these out on tour for 2023/2024. Still nothing solid - more to come.

Bring The TMNT #1 Production Negatives Exhibit To Your Local Convention / Event ! Ready for showtime.

Quite the accomplishment! Great job. #13 is my all-time favorite cover.

Yikes! That's shameful.

Are you serious? They sent you back the wrong books? Just hard to believe how bad CGC has gotten. I had to send back all of my books from the Last Ronin signing due to case issues but at least I got the same ones back. LOL But, can you imagine if you sent in a TMNT #1 and you got back a different book?

Great seeing you again! So glad you enjoyed the exhibit - appreciate the compliments. It was a ton of work to get them to the point they could be easily displayed but now they are ready to travel. Hope to do more shows here in the coming year.

This is awesome! Definitely get it sent back to CGC ASAP for re-holder so you can have it back for Granite Con. I sent all of mine back that came from the signing due to quality issues with the cases. It only took about 2.5 weeks to get them back.

Hey everyone. The public debut of The TMNT #1 Production Negatives will be at Granite State Comicon next month in Manchester, NH. These are incredible pieces of TMNT history so get out to see them if you're able to attend - and also say "hi" - would be great to put faces with names.

There's also another version of this error where the magenta color is missing. I've been trying to find a copy for years - still looking. Both error copies are really tough to find.

One likely reason for the sizing difference of #32 is that it was actually printed a year before #31 was printed. Peter released issue #31 digitally only at first. Then, for FCBD 2014 he made printed copies of #32 - and then later released it digitally. Fans wanted a printed copy of #31 to go with #32 so he made printed copies of #31 for FCBD 2015. Below are some links with information about issues #31 & #32 directly from Peter Laird's blog. Also, within issue #32, Peter mentions wanting to print copies of #31 eventually (obviously meaning that #31 hadn't yet been printed when #32 was printed). For sure some odd history for these last two books. May 09, 2014 May 11, 2014 April 28, 2015 May 22, 2015