Larson Marvel Comics #1

[Socratic Wonder]

Just listed in Heritages preview for November Sig Auction!

 

http://comics.ha.com/common/view_item.php?SaleNo=826&LotIdNo=7038&txtSearch=marvel+comics&hdnSearch=true

 

 

[showcase4]

yeah....and Heritage has an interesting typo....this book according to them has a "very minor amount of blue on cover".....well if that's the case, the entire front cover must be missing aside from a small piece!

 

Steve

[jbcomicbox]

If I remember correctly, this was in the first Sotheby auction where a non-comicbook guy bought a number of big books including this one and had them on display....subject to sunlight....which leads to fading.....Anyone else old enough to confirm my recollection.....jb

[Silver Surfer]

Looks like MC#1's are red hot, probably a result of the recent strong sales of Action #1's and other GA/SA grails.

[MrBedrock]

If I remember correctly, this was in the first Sotheby auction where a non-comicbook guy bought a number of big books including this one and had them on display....subject to sunlight....which leads to fading.....Anyone else old enough to confirm my recollection.....jb

 

It is faded, but I hadn't heard that story (I must not be as old as you ).

Sounds plausible though.

[Silver Surfer]

Last time this was for sale on Heritage (doesn't seem that long ago) I questioned why it was in PLOD and shortly thereafter it was "fixed" to a blue label. I think I probably saved the seller a ton of cash, I should have been kicked back piece of the action.

[/img]

[/img]

[TomG]

If I remember correctly, this was in the first Sotheby auction where a non-comicbook guy bought a number of big books including this one and had them on display....subject to sunlight....which leads to fading.....Anyone else old enough to confirm my recollection.....jb

 

The mention of slight UV damage was in the 1997 auction catalog with no mention of UV damage in the 1991 catalog.

 

[sacentaur]

If I remember correctly, this was in the first Sotheby auction where a non-comicbook guy bought a number of big books including this one and had them on display....subject to sunlight....which leads to fading.....Anyone else old enough to confirm my recollection.....jb

 

Wasn't it was Sam Walton (the WalMart guy)?

[Socratic Wonder]

If I remember correctly, this was in the first Sotheby auction where a non-comicbook guy bought a number of big books including this one and had them on display....subject to sunlight....which leads to fading.....Anyone else old enough to confirm my recollection.....jb

 

Wasn't it was Sam Walton (the WalMart guy)?

 

..... Doesn't sound like something Sam Walton would do, he was a pretty conservative guy. I have no idea though

[Silver Surfer]

If I remember correctly, this was in the first Sotheby auction where a non-comicbook guy bought a number of big books including this one and had them on display....subject to sunlight....which leads to fading.....Anyone else old enough to confirm my recollection.....jb

 

Wasn't it was Sam Walton (the WalMart guy)?

 

..... Doesn't sound like something Sam Walton would do, he was a pretty conservative guy. I have no idea though

 

You'd think he splurg a little being one of the richest guys in the wolrd? This would be a drop in the bucket, daily interest earned for the guy.

[showcase4]

...not meant to sound negative / unappreciative of the Larson Marvel #1, but it seems to have a combo of 'less than ideal' attributes.....

 

November copy, faded cover, glue, previous but corrected PLOD......I don't know....I guess for the reasons I'm stating here, the book doesn't do much for me.......but I don't plan to bid, so it all worked out OK

[Silver Surfer]

Yeah I agree but I still wouldn't be too upset if that was the only copy I could find to add to my collection. The Larsen pedigree is one of the coolest. Still think whomever bought the Cage October copy from Metro has the gem of gem's that has proven to be probably the rarest Timley of them all by a country mile.

[MrBedrock]

...not meant to sound negative / unappreciative of the Larson Marvel #1, but it seems to have a combo of 'less than ideal' attributes.....

 

November copy, faded cover, glue, previous but corrected PLOD......I don't know....I guess for the reasons I'm stating here, the book doesn't do much for me.......but I don't plan to bid, so it all worked out OK

 

Steve, RE: November copy

I know this has been covered in other threads so I am assuming this is just your personal opinion. But the fact that it is a November copy is not a negative. Faded, glue, resto removal are all things that are possibly "negatives". But anyone who would say that because it has the November overstamp it is undesirable, "less than ideal", or on the same level as the above "negatives" is, at the least, uninformed. Certainly the October copies have some cache over Novembers, but the November stamp does not make it less of a book in the eyes of most knowledgable collectors.

[showcase4]

...not meant to sound negative / unappreciative of the Larson Marvel #1, but it seems to have a combo of 'less than ideal' attributes.....

 

November copy, faded cover, glue, previous but corrected PLOD......I don't know....I guess for the reasons I'm stating here, the book doesn't do much for me.......but I don't plan to bid, so it all worked out OK

 

Steve, RE: November copy

I know this has been covered in other threads so I am assuming this is just your personal opinion. But the fact that it is a November copy is not a negative. Faded, glue, resto removal are all things that are possibly "negatives". But anyone who would say that because it has the November overstamp it is undesirable, "less than ideal", or on the same level as the above "negatives" is, at the least, uninformed. Certainly the October copies have some cache over Novembers, but the November stamp does not make it less of a book in the eyes of most knowledgable collectors.

 

Steve Fishler has stated on a previous thread I was very involved in that he believed ( at least at that time ) that the November copies are a 2nd printing, and I also share this belief. I think when this was previously debated in a thread about Marvel #1, he and I were the only 2 to share this mindset......maybe it's a "Steve" thing.

[MrBedrock]

...not meant to sound negative / unappreciative of the Larson Marvel #1, but it seems to have a combo of 'less than ideal' attributes.....

 

November copy, faded cover, glue, previous but corrected PLOD......I don't know....I guess for the reasons I'm stating here, the book doesn't do much for me.......but I don't plan to bid, so it all worked out OK

 

Steve, RE: November copy

I know this has been covered in other threads so I am assuming this is just your personal opinion. But the fact that it is a November copy is not a negative. Faded, glue, resto removal are all things that are possibly "negatives". But anyone who would say that because it has the November overstamp it is undesirable, "less than ideal", or on the same level as the above "negatives" is, at the least, uninformed. Certainly the October copies have some cache over Novembers, but the November stamp does not make it less of a book in the eyes of most knowledgable collectors.

 

Steve Fishler has stated on a previous thread I was very involved in that he believed ( at least at that time ) that the November copies are a 2nd printing, and I also share this belief. I think when this was previously debated in a thread about Marvel #1, he and I were the only 2 to share this mindset......maybe it's a "Steve" thing.

 

There are very few who share that belief. The facts just don't seem to support it.

Did Steve have an October copy for sale at the time? (Kind of an insinuating question, I know. But I am curious.)

[Forbush-Man]

...not meant to sound negative / unappreciative of the Larson Marvel #1, but it seems to have a combo of 'less than ideal' attributes.....

 

November copy, faded cover, glue, previous but corrected PLOD......I don't know....I guess for the reasons I'm stating here, the book doesn't do much for me.......but I don't plan to bid, so it all worked out OK

 

Steve, RE: November copy

I know this has been covered in other threads so I am assuming this is just your personal opinion. But the fact that it is a November copy is not a negative. Faded, glue, resto removal are all things that are possibly "negatives". But anyone who would say that because it has the November overstamp it is undesirable, "less than ideal", or on the same level as the above "negatives" is, at the least, uninformed. Certainly the October copies have some cache over Novembers, but the November stamp does not make it less of a book in the eyes of most knowledgable collectors.

 

Steve Fishler has stated on a previous thread I was very involved in that he believed ( at least at that time ) that the November copies are a 2nd printing, and I also share this belief. I think when this was previously debated in a thread about Marvel #1, he and I were the only 2 to share this mindset......maybe it's a "Steve" thing.

 

This was while they had the October issue for sale, was it not? I would think I would want to discuss the merits of an October issue too, if that were the case.

 

Wasn't Superman # 1 printed on three occasions, none of which are decernable from the actual first printing?

 

Please feel free to correct me if I am in error..................

[Forbush-Man]

Also, since the November copies are the same as an October printing, with Novemebr printed over the October date, aren't these then actually first printings with stamps placed over the original issue month. I believe we had evidence to that effect as well........the stamps were not uniform, if I remember correctly.

[jkrk]

...not meant to sound negative / unappreciative of the Larson Marvel #1, but it seems to have a combo of 'less than ideal' attributes.....

 

November copy, faded cover, glue, previous but corrected PLOD......I don't know....I guess for the reasons I'm stating here, the book doesn't do much for me.......but I don't plan to bid, so it all worked out OK

 

Steve, RE: November copy

I know this has been covered in other threads so I am assuming this is just your personal opinion. But the fact that it is a November copy is not a negative. Faded, glue, resto removal are all things that are possibly "negatives". But anyone who would say that because it has the November overstamp it is undesirable, "less than ideal", or on the same level as the above "negatives" is, at the least, uninformed. Certainly the October copies have some cache over Novembers, but the November stamp does not make it less of a book in the eyes of most knowledgable collectors.

 

 

I gather that Steve F. wiuld use his November copy as the reading copy so he wouldn't damage his Oct copy?

 

 

 

 

[showcase4]

OK, OK.....forget 1st printing, 2nd printing.......an undeniable fact is that Marvel 1 has a "printing variation"......similar to the Star Wars price variant.....except on this book it is the month. My point was simply that for me, not speaking for others, I find the 'October variant' more desirable.

[BangZoom]

 

Wasn't Superman # 1 printed on three occasions, none of which are decernable from the actual first printing?

 

Theagenes provided the particulars regarding that several months ago here on the boards:

 

The 1st printing of Superman 1 includes a full page house ad for Action 14 with an announcement that it is "On Sale June 2nd."

 

The 2nd and 3rd printings have the same ad with the notice stating, "On Sale Now!"