Batman # 1 Blue label 9.0 to be auctioned on ComicLink again.

[Ze-man]

 

I believe the most likely scenario is that the "No 1" version was the original printing and that early copies of the book were brought to DC's offices for review, and an editor notice the missing period, and called down to the printer and asked them to stop the run and fix the plate. That would explain (1) why Bob Kane's reference copy is a "No 1" version (it was one of these first off the press versions which went to DC's offices), and (2) why the period is misplaced (placement was left to the printer not chosen by an editor).

 

I don't see why DC would have run a "local distribution run" first for a book that came out after the established success of Superman 1-4 and Flash Comics 1-6, and in the full bloom of the DC superhero explosion. Batman 1 was the seventh DC superhero title to come out its debut month. So the notion that they wanted to test the title locally doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

While it is all just speculation, I would lean towards the scenario duck laid out as the most likely given what we are left with. 2 differing copies, with one tiny difference.

 

It was not a matter of "STOP THE PRESSES!!!"

 

But probably a case of the suits getting an early copy to approve before the entire run was printed,and calling to have the error fixed. Or more likely the head pressman caught the error when adjusting colors early in the run and corrected it to match the approved mock up he already had, in hand. And the location of the dot makes me lean towards the pressman adding a dot to the plate himself.

 

We will probably never know though, but the simplest answer is probably the correct one. It was a printing adjustment done early in the run for whatever the reason.

 

All that aside, I simply cannot fathom a low initial print run given the overwhelming success of Batman in the Tec run. I would bet that all these copies came from the same print run.

[markseifert]

I believe the most likely scenario is that the "No 1" version was the original printing and that early copies of the book were brought to DC's offices for review, and an editor notice the missing period, and called down to the printer and asked them to stop the run and fix the plate.

 

Have to say I find that pretty unlikely. Stopping the press is costing everybody. To fix this small of an error, I'm not seeing it.

[pennynike1]

Both have their periods...

 

I mean both have the red spotting...

 

I mean, both are "period pieces"...

 

I mean, both are "No .1" versions.

 

Can someone reiterate the diff between the "No. 1" and "No 1" versions?

 

 

Batman 1 had multiple printings during its few months on the stands. At least two.

As far as I know the No 1 is "rarer" and was the first print. And the No. 1 was a "second printing" during what we still call its "first run" - both books are regarded the same in price currently. But to me I feel the No 1 is more special. Prices are the same though again currently.

 

Any evidence to show that this was indeed the case? I recall something about looking at ads promoting it as being on sale, but didn't think anything conclusive was reached.

 

No hard evidence at all in the sense of different interior elements. Just speculation as far as I know from supposed "people in the know" and what I have heard over the years. Board member "blupchip" is a good person to ask. But the difference of the No 1 and No. 1 copies seems proof enough that there had to be at least two separate printings. No 1 was a much smaller print (possible even in house?) while the No. 1 was the larger and or more mass scale print.

the initial run of covers was without the "." and was quickly "corrected" during the print run... there is only "one" print run of batman 1 that I am aware of, and it supposedly was just an accidental omission of the "." that was noticed very early on and fixed...

 

out of all the batman 1's I have owned, 2 didn't have the "." and the other 10+ did

 

I understand that's the conventional thinking, but is there any proof?

only common sense (thumbs u

 

well... why would that be more likely than having a smaller second printing without the period, a tiny screwup that no one noticed? I'd think that's more likely than the idea that they stopped the initial run to fix something so small. Stopping a print run mid stream is a pretty big deal.

 

edit -- thinking about it, it might be even more likely that there was a small initial/separate run that accounts for the "no period". I've been warming to the idea that some of these known printings were local-distro motivated (a printing for the NY/east coast area, and another one nationwide). But I wish there was more evidence in the form of known provenance on some of the rare versions.

 

I worked at a printing plant for 5 years, and actually worked on the presses for about 1 year. The process was that you would do a brief run to start out with to make sure all of the colors were in alingment. Once satisfied that all was correct, then a customer service rep would have to approve that all was A-OK before continuing. This would seem to explain the presence of a period, or lack thereof.

[pennynike1]

 

It was not a matter of "STOP THE PRESSES!!!"

 

But probably a case of the suits getting an early copy to approve before the entire run was printed,and calling to have the error fixed. Or more likely the head pressman caught the error when adjusting colors early in the run and corrected it to match the approved mock up he already had, in hand. And the location of the dot makes me lean towards the pressman adding a dot to the plate himself.

 

The above pretty much echoes my thinking, only phrased differently. The suits or office types must approve before the press can fully move (thumbs u

[G.A.tor]

Both have their periods...

 

I mean both have the red spotting...

 

I mean, both are "period pieces"...

 

I mean, both are "No .1" versions.

 

Can someone reiterate the diff between the "No. 1" and "No 1" versions?

 

 

Batman 1 had multiple printings during its few months on the stands. At least two.

As far as I know the No 1 is "rarer" and was the first print. And the No. 1 was a "second printing" during what we still call its "first run" - both books are regarded the same in price currently. But to me I feel the No 1 is more special. Prices are the same though again currently.

 

Any evidence to show that this was indeed the case? I recall something about looking at ads promoting it as being on sale, but didn't think anything conclusive was reached.

 

No hard evidence at all in the sense of different interior elements. Just speculation as far as I know from supposed "people in the know" and what I have heard over the years. Board member "blupchip" is a good person to ask. But the difference of the No 1 and No. 1 copies seems proof enough that there had to be at least two separate printings. No 1 was a much smaller print (possible even in house?) while the No. 1 was the larger and or more mass scale print.

the initial run of covers was without the "." and was quickly "corrected" during the print run... there is only "one" print run of batman 1 that I am aware of, and it supposedly was just an accidental omission of the "." that was noticed very early on and fixed...

 

out of all the batman 1's I have owned, 2 didn't have the "." and the other 10+ did

 

I understand that's the conventional thinking, but is there any proof?

only common sense (thumbs u

 

well... why would that be more likely than having a smaller second printing without the period, a tiny screwup that no one noticed? I'd think that's more likely than the idea that they stopped the initial run to fix something so small. Stopping a print run mid stream is a pretty big deal.

 

edit -- thinking about it, it might be even more likely that there was a small initial/separate run that accounts for the "no period". I've been warming to the idea that some of these known printings were local-distro motivated (a printing for the NY/east coast area, and another one nationwide). But I wish there was more evidence in the form of known provenance on some of the rare versions.

 

I worked at a printing plant for 5 years, and actually worked on the presses for about 1 year. The process was that you would do a brief run to start out with to make sure all of the colors were in alingment. Once satisfied that all was correct, then a customer service rep would have to approve that all was A-OK before continuing. This would seem to explain the presence of a period, or lack thereof.

seems to be a reasonable explaination along the same line of thought that the no "." were from early printing, some stopage , then a correction and "continued" printing

[G.A.tor]

a shame we will really never know, but in the scheme of things, not really that important, relatively speaking (thumbs u

[pennynike1]

It's all in the details Rick

[markseifert]

2 differing copies, with one tiny difference.

 

It was not a matter of "STOP THE PRESSES!!!"

 

But probably a case of the suits getting an early copy to approve before the entire run was printed,and calling to have the error fixed.

 

Even this I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around. It's not just a handful or a couple hundred copies we're talking about here, it's what... maybe 10-20%-ish of the entire run based on anecdotal evidence and a glance at the heritage archives. And they are not as tough as Marvel 1 Octs, I don't think.

 

I can buy the idea that it was a hasty placement, however.

 

But it's perhaps an initial, separate run, yeah. For what purpose I'm not sure.

[Aman619]

but if the initial run was small, and later corrected with the period added, you are still only talking about cover proofs! Why include that small run of uncut cover proofs that were wrong, and needing a fix, in the final assembly process of the stapled comics? You wouldnt. Youd toss the bad covers. and overprint the corrected ones to the ordered press quantity.

 

UNless DC was just being cheap and said "go ahead and include the bad ones". But, as Isaid earlier, if DC was cheap and didnt care about quality control, why bother to add the period?

[Aman619]

quicker to scrape off a period ON press than add one. No new plating needed.

[VintageComics]

Anybody have any newsstand pics from the Spring of 1940?

 

Jeff?

 

that would be cool to see...April 1940 to be exact...I think April 25 was the release date on Bat 1...I'd say that was one month prior to Marvel Mystery 9 being on the rack (May '40 with a cover date of July 1940), right Roy?

 

 

That would make a sweet pic.

[markseifert]

I worked at a printing plant for 5 years, and actually worked on the presses for about 1 year. The process was that you would do a brief run to start out with to make sure all of the colors were in alingment. Once satisfied that all was correct, then a customer service rep would have to approve that all was A-OK before continuing. This would seem to explain the presence of a period, or lack thereof.

 

ok, makes sense. I'm puzzled by how many of these there seem to be, but that's not hard evidence by any means.

 

Isn't there someone around here who worked at Sparta? Is that you, or am I completely making that up?

[pennynike1]

quicker to scrape off a period ON press than add one. No new plating needed.

 

That is correct. You can remove the period from the plate relatively easy. If you want to add a period, it would require a new plate.

[pennynike1]

 

Isn't there someone around here who worked at Sparta? Is that you, or am I completely making that up?

 

Not me I'm afraid. Wouldn't mind working for DC or Marvel though

[markseifert]

but if the initial run was small, and later corrected with the period added, you are still only talking about cover proofs! Why include that small run of uncut cover proofs that were wrong, and needing a fix, in the final assembly process of the stapled comics? You wouldnt. Youd toss the bad covers. and overprint the corrected ones to the ordered press quantity.

 

UNless DC was just being cheap and said "go ahead and include the bad ones". But, as Isaid earlier, if DC was cheap and didnt care about quality control, why bother to add the period?

 

Excellent point. I would looooove to know more about the early printing plants. Where would these have been printed? The same plant where the early Marvels were printed (was it someplace in Connecticut that I'm thinking of...)?

[pennynike1]

My guess would be that the early comic books were printed from a newspaper printing plant that had gone out of business. Admittedly, I could be totally off the mark on this.

[SuperBird]

IIRC, from reading Men of Tomorrow (which you should read, if you haven't yet) DCs were printed in printing plants owned by those who owned DC. Not sure if they would be printing competitor's publications?

[markseifert]

but if the initial run was small, and later corrected with the period added, you are still only talking about cover proofs! Why include that small run of uncut cover proofs that were wrong, and needing a fix, in the final assembly process of the stapled comics? You wouldnt. Youd toss the bad covers. and overprint the corrected ones to the ordered press quantity.

 

UNless DC was just being cheap and said "go ahead and include the bad ones". But, as Isaid earlier, if DC was cheap and didnt care about quality control, why bother to add the period?

 

Excellent point. I would looooove to know more about the early printing plants. Where would these have been printed? The same plant where the early Marvels were printed (was it someplace in Connecticut that I'm thinking of...)?

 

Ah, to have been there...

 

 

 

[Bronty]

WOW great photos

[rodan57]

Would a "period" need to scraped off or could a temporary fix, added before the run began, break or fall off in some way?