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

[fantastic_four]

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.

 

You'd toss a bunch of covers with the only problem being a missing period? And you're the SUPERVISOR? This company isn't made of money...I'm afraid we're going to have to bring this up during your annual performance review.

[ciorac]

I wonder if the fact it was an 8.0 at one time will affect the final price.

 

Would you make that comment if it was consigned to your auction?

[ciorac]

you will also note the erased "s" on the front cover... I seem to recall this book years ago in a 9.0 holder (old label)... so again, I am not questioning brent saying it was a 8.0 pressed to a 9.0, just would have had to of been done before it was graded 12/09/2003...

 

The one Josh sold was an 8.0.

the last 8.0 that josh sold last year for 100K, was my old 8.0... it too, is NOT this soon to be offered 9.0 copy (mine didn't have any erased "s") so I know that 8.0 was not pressed to "this" 9.0 copy

in fact, I think ciorac will back me up, with the BC the way it was on my old 8.0, I didn't even think it was an 8.0 , hence the reason I sold it..so I doubt it would be pressable to a 9.0

 

We both examined the book closely and agreed it was a weak 8.0 at best

[Straw-Man]

I wonder if the fact it was an 8.0 at one time will affect the final price.

 

I've had my 8.0 days. Heck, I'm at jury duty as I type this, so I'm feeling like a 5.5.

 

getting the chance to do your civic duty and you feel bad??? for shame, sir.

[buttock]

 

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.

 

Especially after seeing the success of Superman and multiple printings there.

[bluechip]

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.

 

You'd toss a bunch of covers with the only problem being a missing period? And you're the SUPERVISOR? This company isn't made of money...I'm afraid we're going to have to bring this up during your annual performance review.

 

Since I listed one without the infamous period I got lots of questions about it, and in trying to answer the question I think occam's razor should be the guide.

 

The simplest explanation that answers all the questions is that it was printed first without a period and they added the period it later because it looks weird without it.

 

The small number of copies without the period is most easily explained that it was caught early in the first run so the "No 1" copy would be part of the first printing while other copies with "No .1" are also part of the first printing. It's also consistent with the theory somebody threw out that there was a test run of copies and those just got thrown in with the first printing, not considered worth the effort and expense of culling them out.

 

Every other explanation I've heard (that the "." broke off, or somebody removed it as a joke, etc.) requires assumptions of unlikely events or behavior.

 

Just read the aman theory, that somebody might have removed it because the "." was too close to the 1. Interesting but also unlikely, as there's no question the "No 1" looks weirder than the "No .1" So it would mean they made it worse instead of better --- and that they went to a big effort and didn't bother to finish the job by erasing the "." and putting another "." closer to the "No" Why go to such trouble and not finish it, leaving it worse instead of better? Finally, the very small number of copies would mean the printers did all of that, going to all that trouble, only to change a few copies toward the very end of the run. While it's a well presented theory, Mr. Occam disfavors it on several levels.

 

(you know, it's been a while since I spent this much time talking about a period, and wondering what might have happened to it. But at least this time I'm not wondering whether a missing period is going to show up)

 

Though Batman 1 is not rare by GA standards it is hugely rare compared to any silver age key and one of the most important comics ever, not to mention one of the best. So all existing copies are, and should be, highly valued. Even if the initial uncorrected versions attract some collectors, it will in my view be an added benefit to those issues and will not in any way diminish the value of all the others.

 

BTW Batman 1 is most definitely an undervalued book right now in OSPG and should IMV be a lot closer to the value of a Supe 1

 

 

 

[G.A.tor]

 

BTW Batman 1 is most definitely an undervalued book right now in OSPG and should IMV be a lot closer to the value of a Supe 1

 

 

bob, the only reason I dissagree with you on this is that there are many more unrestored copies of batman 1 (unrestored) that superman 1...and superman 1 is MUCH rarer in high grade (according to census data)

 

a quick comparison:

Batman 1 unrestored cgc copies: 57

Superman 1 unrestored cgc copies: 25

 

Batman 1 above 8.0 :9

Superman 1 above 8.0: 1

 

Batman 1 above 6.0: 16

Superman 1 above 6.0 :3

 

Batman 1 above 4.0: 27

Superman 1 above 4.0: 9

 

by all intent, superman is about 3-4x rarer in vg or above, and there are about 60% less unrestored copies..

 

the spread on them is fine, and the huge gap in value is well warranted imo (thumbs u

[action1kid]

I wonder if the fact it was an 8.0 at one time will affect the final price.

Didnt last time.

different book...the 9.0 that josh sold for 280K is NOT this copy (thumbs u

 

Completely my fault! I just glanced and thought it was the same book.Sorry guys.

 

 

[bluechip]

 

BTW Batman 1 is most definitely an undervalued book right now in OSPG and should IMV be a lot closer to the value of a Supe 1

 

 

bob, the only reason I dissagree with you on this is that there are many more unrestored copies of batman 1 (unrestored) that superman 1...and superman 1 is MUCH rarer in high grade (according to census data)

 

a quick comparison:

Batman 1 unrestored cgc copies: 57

Superman 1 unrestored cgc copies: 25

 

Batman 1 above 8.0 :9

Superman 1 above 8.0: 1

 

Batman 1 above 6.0: 16

Superman 1 above 6.0 :3

 

Batman 1 above 4.0: 27

Superman 1 above 4.0: 9

 

by all intent, superman is about 3-4x rarer in vg or above, and there are about 60% less unrestored copies..

 

the spread on them is fine, and the huge gap in value is well warranted imo (thumbs u

 

Wow. Rick;s done his research. I bow to your statistics. Though I would say at the Good grade the OSPG spread undervalues Bat 1 relative to Supe. (and of course the OSPG is very off on both books in high grade) .

[G.A.tor]

here are some "gator values" that I think folks would pay

Superman 1 in 1.0... $18K

Batman 1 in 1.0... $15K

 

Supes 1 in 2.0...$25K

batman 1 in 2.0...20K

 

Supes 1 in 3.0...$50K

bat 1 in 3.0...25K

 

supes 1 in 4.0...$75K

bat 1 in 4.0...$35K

 

supes 1 in 5.0...$125k

bat 1 in 5.0...$50k

 

supes 1 in 6.0...175K

bat 1 in 6.0...$65K

 

supes 1 in 7.0 (if it existed)...$250k

bat 1 in 7.0...$85K

 

supers 1 in 8.0...500K+

bat 1 in 8.0 ...100K+

 

the spread really moves as you get into higher grades

[action1kid]

I Think the Supes 1 in 7.0 would be higher in price. I bought the 6.0 because I knew it started to become quite Rare in Unrestored condition over 5.0., and at 7.0 you are really getting very rare. Remember the Blue label 7.5 that sold ''years ago'' for some 245k? So I think 7.0 is somewhere in the low to middle 300k to 350k.

My 2 cents.

[VintageComics]

here are some "gator values" that I think folks would pay

Superman 1 in 1.0... $18K

Batman 1 in 1.0... $15K

 

Supes 1 in 2.0...$25K

batman 1 in 2.0...20K

 

That's quite a change from a year ago when a Bats #1 2.0 sold for about $16K

 

[nearmint]

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.

 

Can't do Bat #1(yet), but this one's kinda fun...

 

 

[nearmint]

I wonder if the fact it was an 8.0 at one time will affect the final price.

 

I've had my 8.0 days. Heck, I'm at jury duty as I type this, so I'm feeling like a 5.5.

 

getting the chance to do your civic duty and you feel bad??? for shame, sir.

 

I actually quite enjoyed it. Almost ended up on a murder trial, but alas, I was excused.

[batman_fan]

You know, I just have to say

 

"You know, before I answer any more questions there's something I wanted to say. Having received all your letters over the years, and I've spoken to many of you, and some of you have traveled... y'know... hundreds of miles to be here, I'd just like to say... GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a period! I mean, look at you, look at the way you're dressed! You've turned an enjoyable little Comic, that I collected as a lark for many years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME! "

[tth2]

I wonder if the fact it was an 8.0 at one time will affect the final price.

Didnt last time.

different book...the 9.0 that josh sold for 280K is NOT this copy (thumbs u

 

I hadn't checked the census but didn't realize that there were 2 9.0s out there.

Getting as common as MC #1.

 

Oh wait, Batman #1 has always been common!

[tth2]

 

BTW Batman 1 is most definitely an undervalued book right now in OSPG and should IMV be a lot closer to the value of a Supe 1

 

 

bob, the only reason I dissagree with you on this is that there are many more unrestored copies of batman 1 (unrestored) that superman 1...and superman 1 is MUCH rarer in high grade (according to census data)

 

a quick comparison:

Batman 1 unrestored cgc copies: 57

Superman 1 unrestored cgc copies: 25

 

Batman 1 above 8.0 :9

Superman 1 above 8.0: 1

 

Batman 1 above 6.0: 16

Superman 1 above 6.0 :3

 

Batman 1 above 4.0: 27

Superman 1 above 4.0: 9

 

by all intent, superman is about 3-4x rarer in vg or above, and there are about 60% less unrestored copies..

 

the spread on them is fine, and the huge gap in value is well warranted imo (thumbs u

It's a comparison that doesn't require that much detailed analysis. Anyone who's been collecting comics for more than a few years knows that Batman 1 is one of the most common GA mega-keys and is not difficult to find unrestored, whereas Superman 1 is one of the toughest GA mega-keys, particularly unrestored.

[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.

 

You'd toss a bunch of covers with the only problem being a missing period? And you're the SUPERVISOR? This company isn't made of money...I'm afraid we're going to have to bring this up during your annual performance review.

 

Since I listed one without the infamous period I got lots of questions about it, and in trying to answer the question I think occam's razor should be the guide.

 

The simplest explanation that answers all the questions is that it was printed first without a period and they added the period it later because it looks weird without it.

 

The small number of copies without the period is most easily explained that it was caught early in the first run so the "No 1" copy would be part of the first printing while other copies with "No .1" are also part of the first printing. It's also consistent with the theory somebody threw out that there was a test run of copies and those just got thrown in with the first printing, not considered worth the effort and expense of culling them out.

 

Every other explanation I've heard (that the "." broke off, or somebody removed it as a joke, etc.) requires assumptions of unlikely events or behavior.

 

Just read the aman theory, that somebody might have removed it because the "." was too close to the 1. Interesting but also unlikely, as there's no question the "No 1" looks weirder than the "No .1" So it would mean they made it worse instead of better --- and that they went to a big effort and didn't bother to finish the job by erasing the "." and putting another "." closer to the "No" Why go to such trouble and not finish it, leaving it worse instead of better? Finally, the very small number of copies would mean the printers did all of that, going to all that trouble, only to change a few copies toward the very end of the run. While it's a well presented theory, Mr. Occam disfavors it on several levels.

 

(you know, it's been a while since I spent this much time talking about a period, and wondering what might have happened to it. But at least this time I'm not wondering whether a missing period is going to show up)

 

Though Batman 1 is not rare by GA standards it is hugely rare compared to any silver age key and one of the most important comics ever, not to mention one of the best. So all existing copies are, and should be, highly valued. Even if the initial uncorrected versions attract some collectors, it will in my view be an added benefit to those issues and will not in any way diminish the value of all the others.

 

BTW Batman 1 is most definitely an undervalued book right now in OSPG and should IMV be a lot closer to the value of a Supe 1

 

 

 

Im just spitballing here, and havent a definitive answer. But I do want to point out that your deductive process is fine, but it rests on two unproven points, one is your opinion, and the other unfortunately just anecdotal evidence.

 

1) you feel the No .1 looks better than the No 1. That is your view. To my eyes, I prefer the omission of a period to it being misplaced next to the one. For years I never noticed the period was missing, so it looked okay to me, and viewed the period version when it was pointed out to me as just sloppy production. Not a big deal, just funny looking and symptomatic of cheap comics "get it done asap and cheap" business standards.

 

2) the jury is still out on which version is more plentiful. Yes counting remaining copies suggests the no period version is more plentiful and could therefore be the fixed, last printed version. But we just dont know for sure.

 

I wish we did know! these things are always fascinating. Even applying common sense and printing procedures just doesnt close the door completely.

 

[bluechip]

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.

 

You'd toss a bunch of covers with the only problem being a missing period? And you're the SUPERVISOR? This company isn't made of money...I'm afraid we're going to have to bring this up during your annual performance review.

 

Since I listed one without the infamous period I got lots of questions about it, and in trying to answer the question I think occam's razor should be the guide.

 

The simplest explanation that answers all the questions is that it was printed first without a period and they added the period it later because it looks weird without it.

 

The small number of copies without the period is most easily explained that it was caught early in the first run so the "No 1" copy would be part of the first printing while other copies with "No .1" are also part of the first printing. It's also consistent with the theory somebody threw out that there was a test run of copies and those just got thrown in with the first printing, not considered worth the effort and expense of culling them out.

 

Every other explanation I've heard (that the "." broke off, or somebody removed it as a joke, etc.) requires assumptions of unlikely events or behavior.

 

Just read the aman theory, that somebody might have removed it because the "." was too close to the 1. Interesting but also unlikely, as there's no question the "No 1" looks weirder than the "No .1" So it would mean they made it worse instead of better --- and that they went to a big effort and didn't bother to finish the job by erasing the "." and putting another "." closer to the "No" Why go to such trouble and not finish it, leaving it worse instead of better? Finally, the very small number of copies would mean the printers did all of that, going to all that trouble, only to change a few copies toward the very end of the run. While it's a well presented theory, Mr. Occam disfavors it on several levels.

 

(you know, it's been a while since I spent this much time talking about a period, and wondering what might have happened to it. But at least this time I'm not wondering whether a missing period is going to show up)

 

Though Batman 1 is not rare by GA standards it is hugely rare compared to any silver age key and one of the most important comics ever, not to mention one of the best. So all existing copies are, and should be, highly valued. Even if the initial uncorrected versions attract some collectors, it will in my view be an added benefit to those issues and will not in any way diminish the value of all the others.

 

BTW Batman 1 is most definitely an undervalued book right now in OSPG and should IMV be a lot closer to the value of a Supe 1

 

 

 

Im just spitballing here, and havent a definitive answer. But I do want to point out that your deductive process is fine, but it rests on two unproven points, one is your opinion, and the other unfortunately just anecdotal evidence.

 

1) you feel the No .1 looks better than the No 1. That is your view. To my eyes, I prefer the omission of a period to it being misplaced next to the one. For years I never noticed the period was missing, so it looked okay to me, and viewed the period version when it was pointed out to me as just sloppy production. Not a big deal, just funny looking and symptomatic of cheap comics "get it done asap and cheap" business standards.

 

2) the jury is still out on which version is more plentiful. Yes counting remaining copies suggests the no period version is more plentiful and could therefore be the fixed, last printed version. But we just dont know for sure.

 

I wish we did know! these things are always fascinating. Even applying common sense and printing procedures just doesnt close the door completely.

 

As a guy so aptly pointed out, it's "just a period." But to play along I'll add that I didn't deduce the no period version was first just because I thought it looked better. Esthetic preferences aside, it's clearly less confusing and more typograrpjcally correct so it doesn't make sense that a correction would be to omit it.

 

I get the sense, not from you but from another poster or two, that some are working backwards from the conclusion, or the preference, that the no period version be the earlier one. I got the same feeling from folks discussing the october marvels and trying to find some way to extrapolate that they didn't come earlier than the novembers. I am not sure why it would matter since they are all rare and desirable and if anything an earlier copy might have some added value but I don't see how that would mean the other copies would somehow have less than they would, otherwise.

 

I haven't worked backward from a desire to have it either way. I once had an october marvel but let it go for what I paid (stupidly), but I still believe the oct was earlier even though what I have now is a november. As for the batman, the no period copy I have is from Kane, so there's no need to try to make that special in any other way. And I have a Batman 1 I am looking to sell that, you guessed it, has the period. So if I had any thoughts that it would make the book less valuable or whatever that it's got the period, then I'd want those copies to be the earliest. But I am sure of two things -- that it did come after the other, and that it doesn't lessen its value at all.

 

Whew. Gotta shout out to the guy who said it's all nuts to obsess over it. As much as anyone, I have shaken my head with sheer consternation and confusion the way people here can see a microdot of "foreign ink" and obsess not just about the dot but about how it got there and what was the guy thinking who put it there. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a printed dot on a Bat 1 could raise so many questions and spark so many theories. I guess I'm more amazed I got drawn into obsessing over it myself. So I guess this thread got my comic book OCD cherry.

[G.A.tor]

I for one, certainly know some folks that I wish didn't have a "."... oh wait, wrong forum