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

[sfcityduck]

To save me the trouble of a lengthy search of old threads, can anyone tell me what GA keys have known variants?

 

I'm aware of:

 

(1) MC 1 "Nov" and "Oct"

 

(2) Superman 1 "coming soon interior ad" and "now on sale interior ad"

 

(3) Batman 1 "no period" and "with period"

 

and I think I once saw a variant Captain Marvel 1 that looked odd, but I can't recall why.

 

Anyone have pictures of the Capt. Marvel 1 variant or can tell me what other GA key variants are out there?

 

 

[buttock]

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?

[Aman619]

whats funny is that if the typo was leaving the period off, they added it wrong--too close to the 1 not the No!

 

so maybe it was created wrong, with the period next to the 1, and they then decided rather than fix it, they'd just scratch the period off the black plate ON PRESS and go with no period at all. Printing wise, this is the easier and cheaper solution, (no clean up, short delay, same press run) assuming DC cared enough about a typo involving the placement of a period on a funny book.

 

but -- given we have 2 different covers now, I guess obviously they did, so maybe this was the actual sequence of events.

 

then again, if the period looks hand drawn to any degree, they could have ADDED the period while on press too.

[buttock]

whats funny is that if the typo was leaving the period off, they added it wrong--too close to the 1 not the No!

 

so maybe it was created wrong, with the period next to the 1, and they then decided rather than fix it, they'd just scratch the period off the black plate ON PRESS and go with no period at all. Printing wise, this is the easier and cheaper solution, (no clean up, short delay, same press run) assuming DC cared enough about a typo involving the placement of a period on a funny book.

 

but -- given we have 2 different covers now, I guess obviously they did, so maybe this was the actual sequence of events.

 

then again, if the period looks hand drawn to any degree, they could have ADDED the period while on press too.

 

My prediction is that within a year this will be repeated as dogma somewhere on this board!

[Transplant]

One argument I would make against 2 separate print runs is this. Why would DC, with the success of Batman in Tec, feel the need to do a low print run of a #1 issue?

[Bonds25]

What a gorgeous copy! (and first Joker & Catwoman)

[G.A.tor]

Are there any differences on interiors between the two Batman #1 versions?

none

[G.A.tor]

and you probably wouldn't have wanted to write an "s" on the one copy and then erase, that was the most identifiying difference (other than the little chip on the top middle edge too)...

 

Where is the erasure? I saw you say that earlier and I looked for it but couldn't spot it

 

Right edge by Batman's cape.

(thumbs u

[G.A.tor]

Are there any differences on interiors between the two Batman #1 versions?

 

Nope.

(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

[markseifert]

To save me the trouble of a lengthy search of old threads, can anyone tell me what GA keys have known variants?

 

I'm aware of:

 

(1) MC 1 "Nov" and "Oct"

 

(2) Superman 1 "coming soon interior ad" and "now on sale interior ad"

 

(3) Batman 1 "no period" and "with period"

 

and I think I once saw a variant Captain Marvel 1 that looked odd, but I can't recall why.

 

Anyone have pictures of the Capt. Marvel 1 variant or can tell me what other GA key variants are out there?

 

 

this subject also interests me, and I believe Timely stated in a thread a long time ago that All Star 3 has a version with a different ad in it somewhere (perhaps on the back cover, can't remember for sure). I also believe there's some evidence that there are at least two prints of Superman 2.

 

I would suspect that much more of this kind of thing is going to start coming to wider attention.

[markseifert]

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.

[Bat-Man]

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.

 

 

In response to Gator's earlier reply - Even if we were to say that in fact it was one, two, or three printings it can all be argued that it is all the first run since the book was out for months. And since the book was out for months it would seem possible that there were multiple printings but none can be called second prints since it was a 3 month original run any how.

 

But there is no facts either way. Everything we talk about now is simply speculation unless we can talk to someone in the know. Which may prove to be impossible in 2010 as all leads are gone. Except maybe someone could ask Jerry Robinson at a convention he may know.

 

The only thing I will say is it does not matter if there was 1 printing or 2 or 3 or even if there was just one printing were they did stop production mid-print to change the dot. Again it is all speculation. All the Batman 1's are worth the same right now - but if it were me I would rather own a Batman No 1 rather than a Batman No.1 because like you say it is rarer and harder to find. But that is just me. And also even if both the No 1 and No. 1 were printed in the same day - we can logically assume that the No 1 no matter how you look at it came first if even by only a couple of hours.

 

Bottom Line - If I had a choice of a No 1 or No. 1 I would rather own the harder to find No 1 - does the price differ? Not right now. But one day it might. And if for nothing else I personally would rather own a No 1 because it was the first batch off the press. (thumbs u

 

[Primetime]

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.

 

 

In response to Gator's earlier reply - Even if we were to say that in fact it was one, two, or three printings it can all be argued that it is all the first run since the book was out for months. And since the book was out for months it would seem possible that there were multiple printings but none can be called second prints since it was a 3 month original run any how.

 

But there is no facts either way. Everything we talk about now is simply speculation unless we can talk to someone in the know. Which may prove to be impossible in 2010 as all leads are gone. Except maybe someone could ask Jerry Robinson at a convention he may know.

 

The only thing I will say is it does not matter if there was 1 printing or 2 or 3 or even if there was just one printing were they did stop production mid-print to change the dot. Again it is all speculation. All the Batman 1's are worth the same right now - but if it were me I would rather own a Batman No 1 rather than a Batman No.1 because like you say it is rarer and harder to find. But that is just me. And also even if both the No 1 and No. 1 were printed in the same day - we can logically assume that the No 1 no matter how you look at it came first if even by only a couple of hours.

 

Bottom Line - If I had a choice of a No 1 or No. 1 I would rather own the harder to find No 1 - does the price differ? Not right now. But one day it might. And if for nothing else I personally would rather own a No 1 because it was the first batch off the press. (thumbs u

It doesn't matter to me..same time period..same book of GA "goodness" to quote Bill

[sfcityduck]

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 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.

[VintageComics]

Anybody have any newsstand pics from the Spring of 1940?

 

Jeff?

 

 

[1koko]

 

Bottom Line - If I had a choice of a No 1 or No. 1 I would rather own the harder to find No 1 - does the price differ? Not right now. But one day it might. And if for nothing else I personally would rather own a No 1 because it was the first batch off the press. (thumbs u

 

(thumbs u

 

Always take a free option if you have the chance

[Primetime]

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?

[G.A.tor]

 

Bottom Line - If I had a choice of a No 1 or No. 1 I would rather own the harder to find No 1 - does the price differ? Not right now. But one day it might. And if for nothing else I personally would rather own a No 1 because it was the first batch off the press. (thumbs u

 

(thumbs u

 

Always take a free option if you have the chance

that was the "common sense" I was refering too...

DC wouldn't have run a second smaller printing without the period, that makes no sense to me

[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 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.

I have never heard of local dist on batman 1, seems like a stretch?

most likely scenario is the one we have gone with for years... early printing plate was somehow void of the No ".", DC discovered, stopped, hastily (probably) fixed/corrected the plate by adding the "." (which might account for why it is off a bit) and started the presses back up...

 

as far as value, no one in 50 years of collecting has ever differentiated a pricing diff, and in the last 10 years that the info has been "readily" known, no pricing diff either... my suposition is that if it hasn't been seperated out by now, it likely never will, but that is just my opinion