The Unofficial Underground Comix thread... 14 14

[OtherEric]

On 9/19/2022 at 2:39 PM, Shadoww3 said:

Thank you both, previously in this thread several members helped me to identify that it's a printing error of a first edition of "It Ain't Me Babe", so it's a bit unique without reference on ebay or heritage. I've reattached it here. Do print errors typically go for much more than the standard version?

Sorry for my delay in answering.  Print variations like this can go for more if you can find the right buyer... and less if you find the wrong one.  I'm not aware of any general rule, other than "don't assume a single high sale of an error variant means anything."  You want to see at least two or three sales... not asking prices, actual sales... before you can assume there's a premium.

[OtherEric]

Two in today.  Both firsts, although in the case of the Rip Off it's the only print:

[hchill25]

Got this one in today. Guess I'll have to settle for a 4th printing, until a better one comes along...

[Qalyar]

On 10/4/2022 at 12:56 PM, hchill25 said:

Got this one in today. Guess I'll have to settle for a 4th printing, until a better one comes along...

Nice book!

Although I'll just pause here to say that CGC's treatment of this particular comic is ... annoying and inconsistent. There are three separate listings in the census for Snatch Comics #1, plus multiple printings listed under that first entry. Some of the information on some of the labels is incorrect because of how they have approached these books. Let's look a the listings:

• The first census listing gives these books a "No Date" publication year. Which is defensible, as there is literally no date printed in the book (although that's going to cause some conflicts in a little bit). However, we're off to a questionable start because there are no first printing copies attributed to this census record (we'll see them soon, though). What we do have there are second, third, fourth, and sixth printings. The absence of a fifth printing is correct; as the fourth printing label notes: "4th & 5th printings believed to be indistinguishable". Buuuut we have another problem. Because the labels also say that these are all published by Apex Novelties, and that's wrong. In fact, only the first three printings are by Apex; the 4th/5th and 6th printings were produced by Print Mint. Ruh roh. Also... if we're going to "No Date" these books on account of the lack of a printed date, then it's interesting that we have publishers at all, because neither Apex nor Print Mint actually acknowledged their responsibility for this thing on the printed paper.
• The second census listing is for first edition copies, and attributes them with a 10/68 release date. Again, that doesn't appear in the book itself, but it is actually correct for the first printing. First printing copies of Snatch #1 are considerable rarities, as very few were produced (the Kennedy guide says 800; a quoted figure of 250 came at one point from Don Donahue himself). Whatever the exact number, they're quite rare!
• The last census listing up there is duplication. It includes only the 4th printing (again mis-attributed to Apex Novelties) but this time lists the 6/72 publication date that was, in fact, when the 4th printing released.

I guess that could be a lot worse...

For the record, for anyone happening across a copy of this book in the wild and wondering what they have found:

• If it has a 25-cent cover price, it is an Apex Novelties printing:
  • Check pages 10-11. If the comic whose text begins "A Few Mates" is printed across both pages, it's a first printing (250-800 copies, 10/68). Congratulations! You might consider having this graded. Demand and value is high in pretty much any condition, as this is one of the defining books of an underground comics collection.
  • Otherwise, "A Few Mates" will be entirely on page 10, with a different comic on page 11. Now check pages 4 and 12. If page 4 has a Crumb cartoon with a bus stop sign and page 12 has the "Git Whitey!" cartoon, it's a second printing (5000 copies or less, 1969); these are quite rare but not nearly as valuable as firsts. Otherwise, those two cartoons will be reversed and it is a third printing (probably 10000-30000 copies, 1969). Technically, Donahue/Apex printed "third printing" books again in 1970 and 1971, but those three runs are identical (and not counted as separate printings, unlike the 4th/5th; just run with it...) and a 1969 date seems as good as any.
• Otherwise, it's a Print Mint copy. If the cover price is 50 cents, it's the 4th printing (25000 copies, 6/72; that print run includes the 15000-copy 5th printing in 1973 because those two runs are indistinguishable). Otherwise, the cover price should be 75 cents, and you have a 6th printing (10000 copies, 1973).

[hchill25]

Thanks for all the info! I knew a little about this book when I bid on it, now I know a lot more.

[wpbooks01]

We also covered the point to look for to determine a first printing if the book has already been slabbed, a few pages back. It's quite easy to spot if you know what to look for, as CGC has proven that they don't always know what THEY are looking for when it comes to stating a first on Snatch #1. The comic book in question had been sold in a Heritage auction recently, and to my eye it was not a first as described in the catalog!!! Caveat Emptor on this one, folks!

[FoggyNelson]

On 10/4/2022 at 1:56 PM, hchill25 said:

Got this one in today. Guess I'll have to settle for a 4th printing, until a better one comes along...

Looks great but too bad they don’t make a smaller slab🎯

[rjpb]

Lots of rare mini comix and UG related stuff for sale in the Mixed forum

 

[wpbooks01]

This afternoon I attended a rock poster show in San Francisco at Golden Gate Park. Saw lots of UG related works of art and there was one dealer who had a few comix on their table.

I quickly sized up that the copy of Zap #0 he was selling was a first! Hair in 'z' on FC, yellow bit on RC and numbered pages. The book looked to be about VG/F, so I asked what the price was. After being told it was $20, I quickly paid the fellow and did a happy dance in my head!

A bit later I got it home and noticed something I had missed while thumbing through the copy, there were 28 pages when there should have only been 24, including the cover! I then noticed that one page had been inserted twice, as seen in my fair to middlin' photos.

So my question is do the members here consider this a defect or some sort of bonus? I know double covers are a good thing, but what about double pages? It's something I hadn't considered previously and I'm curious as to what opinions you folks may have.

Myself, I think it's a good thing as I have seen mags that have a double page but is also incomplete because the second page replaced the one that should have been there in the binding process...this is not the case here! All the pages are present that should be there, there's just a 'bonus', if you will.

Thoughts?

 

[FoggyNelson]

Mr Natural👍

[rakehell]

Picked these up cheap the other week -

How do I know what printing they are? The cover price is right, but I can't find anything to indicate 2nd or later printings. 

[OtherEric]

On 10/19/2022 at 5:13 AM, rakehell said:

Picked these up cheap the other week -

How do I know what printing they are? The cover price is right, but I can't find anything to indicate 2nd or later printings. 

http://comixjoint.com/zapcomix3-1st.html

http://comixjoint.com/zapcomix10-1st.html

They're both either 1st or 2nd  prints.  The 10 should say if it's a 2nd on the inside front cover, if it doesn't say it's a second them it's a first.

The 3, I don't know how to determine it easily (comixjoint pretty much says break out a micrometer) but is probably a 2nd given the relative quantities.   More info at the link.

Nice pickups, by the way!

[OtherEric]

In today.  1st print. 

[wpbooks01]

On 10/20/2022 at 10:02 AM, OtherEric said:

In today.  1st print. 

Fun by the TUN!!!! Some o'my dupes!!!!

 

 

 

[rakehell]

On 10/19/2022 at 5:17 PM, OtherEric said:

The 10 should say if it's a 2nd on the inside front cover, if it doesn't say it's a second them it's a first.

I thought so with the 10. It's a first.

On 10/19/2022 at 5:17 PM, OtherEric said:

The 3, I don't know how to determine it easily (comixjoint pretty much says break out a micrometer) but is probably a 2nd given the relative quantities.

Again, more or less what I was thinking. Thanks for the link. Very informative. 

Still don't know...

[oldmilwaukee6er]

With the 3 it comes down to thicker cover stock. In my experience the thicker cover stock really stands out on the 3 vs the 4 or even 2. Your cover also looks more matte which may mean thicker vs traditional glossy comic cover stock 

[rakehell]

On 10/24/2022 at 2:40 PM, oldmilwaukee6er said:

With the 3 it comes down to thicker cover stock.

Thicker = 1st or 2nd?

[Qalyar]

On 10/25/2022 at 7:14 AM, rakehell said:

Thicker = 1st or 2nd?

Thicker is the 1st print. But your default assumption should be that you have a 2nd; there were an enormous number of those produced. Micrometer measurements aside, the 1st print cover is almost twice as thick, on average, as the 2nd print cover (there is some variation within both runs). It's pretty noticeable in hand.

[OtherEric]

The last time I was in SF, I had to report I didn’t see a single underground in the vicinity of Haight Ashbury.  This time, it went better.  Not a huge selection, but Mr. Natural #3 was one I needed.  And as a comic geek, buying an underground on the corner of Haight Ashbury was just a perfect moment.

[Axe Elf]

On 10/28/2022 at 5:09 PM, OtherEric said:

The last time I was in SF, I had to report I didn’t see a single underground in the vicinity of Haight Ashbury.  This time, it went better.  Not a huge selection, but Mr. Natural #3 was one I needed.  And as a comic geek, buying an underground on the corner of Haight Ashbury was just a perfect moment.

Finding love on Haight Street...