• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

The Unofficial Underground Comix thread...
14 14

Started by 50 Cent #II (1st),

2,304 posts in this topic

50 Cent #II (1st)

50 Cent #II (1st)

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Since I had a request for clarification on Big #1, thought I would post some info. here. Hopefully this forum thread will stay around (as opposed to other Underground Comix forums that have become digital dust and taking the lost information with them). First time I've opened the new guide since I received it. Was rather disappointed with the main article... Was supposed to be co-authored, but after sending the author a lot of research, he must have decided he could just incorporate some of that info. into a couple added paragraphs and then just list me as someone he "interviewed" for his article, but that's another story and with his daughter being sick I didn't bother complaining or mentioning it until now.

 

There is a white (lower right cover with Crumb signature) box version that was considered the 1st print. This made sense to me also, but the main printer, Moriaty, who was there printing the first editions and saved examples of the covers states that the 1st print had a red box so we went with that as the 1st. Both the 1st and 2nd prints have the pages out of order (All Meat #1, Ms. Quiver, All Meat #2, All Meat #3, Artsy Fartsy on IBC).

 

True 1st print (cover)

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w35/IITravel/image_10.jpeg

 

2nd print

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w35/IITravel/image_2.jpeg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w35/IITravel/image_1.jpeg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w35/IITravel/image_8.jpeg (don't know why photobucket won't let me rotate some of these pics.)

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w35/IITravel/image_6.jpeg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w35/IITravel/image_5.jpeg

 

The 3rd and 4th prints, have the page order corrected (Ms. Quiver, All Meat #1, #2, #3, Artsy Fartsy on IBC). The JK guide states there was a green/green brown/green and a brown/brown printing of the early editions. I think that the green/green and the brown/brown might be the same printing and it changed as they added ink in the print run. This was just a guess and there could be an additional printing, but that would have changed further the number of printings that JK listed. I believe you shouldn't focus on the color of green or brown, but if there is a noticeable difference between colors (not shades). The green/green listing might be better as brown/brown? So if someone finds a new printing... Yes, I can understand how a big title like BA#1 could have been out for 40 years and nobody noticed that the pages where in different orders for different printings and they're angry that they didn't notice it themselves (especially with it not happening just once, but twice). But I came across it, so don't :sorry:

 

4th print

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w35/IITravel/image.jpeg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w35/IITravel/image_4.jpeg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w35/IITravel/image_7.jpeg (don't know why photobucket won't let me rotate some of these pics.)

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w35/IITravel/image_9.jpeg

 

I noticed that the first, of at least 4 or 5 printings, have the girl's half face on the lower left rear cover (next to the black arrow) in red like she's blushing. On the front, you can see the black is blotchy and has specks in it, not clean. If the black on the cover is completely clean, then you probably have a later print. Another tell you can check for on the front cover of the 3rd and 4th print is, if I recall correctly, the front cover red box has a yellow line under, like the red is off a bit.

 

4th print

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w35/IITravel/image_3.jpeg

 

The later printings after these early printings all have the pages reordered with the Ms. Quiver story on the last page. I think the earliest of these still has the red half face and blotchy blacks cover.

 

Freak Brothers #1 (Moriaty also stated that the true first print of Freak Brothers #1 has a blotch of black ink that moved around on the cover). Fogel must have decided to not add this to the new guide.

 

Also, regarding R. Crumb's Comics & Stories in the new guide is wrong. The JK lists there being 1st, 2nd, and 3rd being no cover price but with different types of paper, this was corrected in the new guide as being all the same print with different paper versions. But for the 35 cent editions, there were multiple printings of this. Probably somewhere between 4 to 6 printings (they are listed as all the same printing in the new guide). Then a 50 cent print.

 

As for Freak Brothers #2. The biggest collector of Underground Comix on an extinct forum once eluded to the fact that there was more than one printing of the rainbow cover, that led me to research and purchase multiple copies of the rainbow cover before I came to the conclusion that the 1st 3 printings had rainbow variants. As to them being variants vs. different printings, this was easily discovered when examining different copies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wpbooks

wpbooks

Posted
Posted
Since I had a request for clarification on Big #1, thought I would post some info. here. Hopefully this forum thread will stay around (as opposed to other Underground Comix forums that have become digital dust and taking the lost information with them). First time I've opened the new guide since I received it. Was rather disappointed with the main article... Was supposed to be co-authored, but after sending the author a lot of research, he must have decided he could just incorporate some of that info. into a couple added paragraphs and then just list me as someone he "interviewed" for his article, but that's another story and with his daughter being sick I didn't bother complaining or mentioning it until now.

 

So, for the BA#1 1st and 2nd prints, the pages are out of order. There is a white (lower right cover with Crumb signature) box version that was considered the 1st print. This made sense to me also, but the main printer, Moriaty, who was there printing the first editions and saved examples of the covers states that the 1st print had a red box so we went with that as the 1st. Both the 1st and 2nd have the pages out of order.

 

 

 

I'd love to hear your other story on the main article but since it's the Big A*ss issue that seems to have folks in a tizzy, it's kind of funny that when the white box cover variant makes it's way onto Ebay and other places, it's still touted as the true first.

 

Definitely a case where people want belief to trump first hand information in a way that would seem to call into question many other claims about UG one sees for sale in all the pertinent arenas, eh? Collectors love to live in denial when it suits them, it would appear! Maybe Mr. Moriaty will do them all a favor and just die so the delusion can become the state of things.....too much fun!!! :pullhair:

 

And for you 50..... :golfclap: ad infinitum!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dannyboycheapyboy

dannyboycheapyboy

Posted
Posted
Since I had a request for clarification on Big #1, thought I would post some info. here. Hopefully this forum thread will stay around (as opposed to other Underground Comix forums that have become digital dust and taking the lost information with them). First time I've opened the new guide since I received it. Was rather disappointed with the main article... Was supposed to be co-authored, but after sending the author a lot of research, he must have decided he could just incorporate some of that info. into a couple added paragraphs and then just list me as someone he "interviewed" for his article, but that's another story and with his daughter being sick I didn't bother complaining or mentioning it until now.

 

Thank you with connecting all the dots for me!

 

I had started with the info in: Kennedy, your break through forum thread from 2008 and listing of print variants in the new Fogel. Even until yesterday, I did not understand how some of the conclusions were reached. Now I do.

 

IMO this topic does warrant the full explanation just as you have provided it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wpbooks

wpbooks

Posted
Posted
Here's a pic. of my 35 or so 50 cent editions of FB #2.

image_11.jpeg

 

 

Here's some pics of the different printings of the interior cover rainbow variants of FB#2.

th_image_12.jpeg

th_image_13.jpeg

 

th_image_15.jpeg

th_image_14.jpeg

 

th_image_16.jpeg

th_image_17.jpeg

 

 

I'm curious, since the power of fine image reproduction is here and now, which of your 50 cent (no pun intended) editions would you say, or show, is the likeliest first printing? Now that you've had so many specimens to compare, and I know of no other with such an extensive inventory, it would be logical to defer to your expertise! What's your opinion, Doctor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
50 Cent #II (1st)

50 Cent #II (1st)

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

This can be debated for years. The 1st two printings don't make sense logically which came first. I suggested to Fogel to put 1st/2nd? and then 2nd/1st? for those printings in the guide. I told him my feeling of what the 1st likely was and why I felt so and would let him decide. I believe he didn't want to confuse people with what I suggested and instead, I believe, just went with my opinion on what was likely the 1st (you can tell this version by the white line in the lower center above the pink piece of paper in the street of the cover of the "1st" and, if I recall correctly, there's a line on the "2nd print?" near the upper spine by the "F", this one has the FB#2 ad on the lower left of the IBC. I hope I'm recalling this all correctly as I haven't thought about it in a few years since I did all the research but it may be the other way around and this was one of the reasons against the order I had to consider). If you look at the 3rd printing's ads on the the IBC, you can see they look like copies and aren't very detailed, so that's a tell they aren't the 1st print. So the new guide has what I believe is correct, but it really doesn't make that much of a difference as all 3 of the first printings had rainbow variants and that's what most previously had considered where 1st prints before I came around and those fetch the most money. As I've stated before, they're rainbow VARIANTS because they are part of the same print run. They put in multiple colors on the printer to start and slowly just added more blue ink. So eventually the print run would become a blue interior only and that's why some have a large variety of different colors on the interior and some have just a green and blue or similar interior cover. I believe, years ago, you or someone else stated they bought theirs when it was first released and it matched my belief of what the 1st print was. You can see JK wasn't sure of which came out in which order from his guide. Now presented with this clear evidence, let's see if people update their info.

Edited by 50 Cent #II (1st)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
felixthecat

felixthecat

Posted
Posted

Great stuff 50 Cent #II (1st). If there is anything I like more than reading undergrounds its learning about them. I am in awe of that stack of FB #2. This thread has seen more activity in the last few days than it has in months. I hope we can continue at this pace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wpbooks

wpbooks

Posted
Posted
I am going to be visiting Last Gasp in SF soon. Hopefully I will have some pics for the thread (providing they allow photography)

 

I'm over there fairly regularly and while I've never taken photos on my own, they seem like reasonable people and my guess is they won't have a problem with you taking pictures of the various aisles, shelves, departments, etc. but I would ask first if you are going to take photos of Kristine, Jon, Ron, etc. or Ron's cool man-cave with all his carny accoutrements, pinball machines and other fascinating fu!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wpbooks

wpbooks

Posted
Posted
This can be debated for years. The 1st two printings don't make sense logically which came first. I suggested to Fogel to put 1st/2nd? and then 2nd/1st? for those printings in the guide. I told him my feeling of what the 1st likely was and why I felt so and would let him decide. I believe he didn't want to confuse people with what I suggested and instead, I believe, just went with my opinion on what was likely the 1st (you can tell this version by the white line in the lower center above the pink piece of paper in the street of the cover of the "1st" and, if I recall correctly, there's a line on the "2nd print?" near the upper spine by the "F"). If you look at the 3rd printing's ads on the the IBC, you can see they look like copies and aren't very detailed, so that's a tell they aren't the 1st print. So the new guide has what I believe is correct, but it really doesn't make that much of a difference as all 3 of the first printings had rainbow variants and that's what most previously had considered where 1st prints before I came around and those fetch the most money. As I've stated before, they're rainbow VARIANTS because they are part of the same print run. They put in multiple colors on the printer to start and slowly just added more blue ink. So eventually the print run would become a blue interior only and that's why some have a large variety of different colors on the interior and some have just a green and blue or similar interior cover. I believe, years ago, you or someone else stated they bought theirs when it was first released and it matched my belief of what the 1st print was. You can see JK wasn't sure of which came out in which order from his guide. Now presented with this clear evidence, let's see if people update their info.

 

I'm willing to bet they won't! Thanks for the detailed explanation. I bought my copy around 1972-73 but I've never really thought about it being a first, especially after I read all the confusion about identifying it as such. I know one of my #1's is for sure, and I have pink paper editions of either or both (it's been awhile since I've dug them out), but now I might have to give my #2 a serious examination and figure out what exactly it might be. Must have been somebody else, though, who matched on your belief. it's always been a source of confusion for me thus causing me to make no claim one way or another. I just know when and where I bought it (kind of.....).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldmilwaukee6er

oldmilwaukee6er

Posted
Posted (edited)
...particularly Big 1 & Freak Brothers 2...
wink, wink, nudge, nudge :baiting: My two major contributions to that guide. :angel::whistle:

 

lol 50c- To be fair. Yeah, I took two shots in that post, though I honestly didn't know who the first one was directed at (though I suspected based on past activity around FFFB2).

 

For what it is worth, I long ago decided not to venture into Big #1 because of the questions with the book and given the money that book commands (really no pony in that race).

And I did say that I threw my other two guides away and was using the F UG 15 (and also am aware of your excellent contributions via Fogel/O40, whereas mine was very low this time). :foryou:

 

I am excited to review the information that you shared. Because I do have a strong affinity for Freak Brothers #2. Was it posted before?

 

As a way of background, my views are thus...

1) Kennedy was 34 years closer to the sources and almost 50 years closer to the source material. Any changes to the seminal guide should not be taken lightly.

2) Given that... Changes to the actual printing process (plates, ads, etc) have far more weight than paper stock, staple configuration or any color variation. Based on what we know, one can possibly re-engineer the printing process using the former, but likely NOT the latter without credible evidence (which, unfortunately, we are losing every day).

3) With possible exception w/ FFFB2 ... which (as you no doubt know *Ed- you have illustrated) was blobbed on manually and can result in all sorts of variations from beautiful rainbow, to purple green, to brownish (by the end of the blob).

 

 

 

Edited by oldmilwaukee6er
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldmilwaukee6er

oldmilwaukee6er

Posted
Posted
The back looks as clean as the front. I was talking with oldmilwaukee6er and he thinks it was brought down by 2.0 because of the "Name , sketch, and 1984 in pen". I have to agree, although that book still looks to me like it should be 9.0 at least.

 

lf1RJ4OCEN_zpsd7qohv8f.jpg

 

 

 

My theory is...

AT LEAST a -2.0 grade deduction for the writing on the cover.

Arnie (gooddr) had a Plymell that was signed by Crumb... exact same thing. They slabbed it old label 8.0. It's an old school CGC thing.

 

THIS WAS SO.. .the book itself could qualify as a blue label (downgraded for writing versus "qualified")... so that when the second signature hit, it could get Yellow SS.

 

I am just guessing, but can imagine, if Howard was presented with the option between Qualified Green or SS Yellow... he wanted that Yellow label. Just not many people doing SS undergrounds.

 

This is a classic case of 'buy the book and not the label.'

That books presents KILLER and has two great sigs 2c

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldmilwaukee6er

oldmilwaukee6er

Posted
Posted
I find it kind of crazy that the thing that makes this book so special and unique resulted in a much lower grade than if it just had the witnessed signature.

 

Strongly agreed!

 

 

**coughs**Voldemort 'verified signature' slab

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wpbooks

wpbooks

Posted
Posted

 

As a way of background, my views are thus...

1) Kennedy was 34 years closer to the sources and almost 50 years closer to the source material. Any changes to the seminal guide should not be taken lightly.

 

 

 

Normally I might agree with you, but the listing in Kennedy for Big A*ss #1 has always bugged me because the mistake in the pages at the rear was so obvious and so ignored that it made me dubious about the whole way the book is described in his guide.

 

I did have 1 or 2 later printings of BA where the mistake had been fixed so it was doubly obvious that something funny was going on. Now that we have information from a source who was actually there at the moment of conception, if you will, I'm happy to discount Kennedy when it comes to that book. It's possible he was keeping the point a secret for personal reasons, or never really noticed it, but if either of those reasons is correct, then it calls into question the whole purpose of creating a guide like his, doesn't it?

 

What other entries in Kennedy need to be considered suspicious or ignorant of the facts? You got me, as I don't collect everything...just the books by artists and writers that interest me, so I defer to someone as obsessive as 50, and so far he's got my confidence!!! Hell, he should do a guide...probably the true successor to JK, if you ask me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
14 14
Go to topic listing