Star Trek 1 Gold Key

[SAGAT]

I have also never seen the "regular" back cover in over 30 years of collecting. Overstreet really does need to get this right. Most people would equate "variant" as the scarcer book, which is not the case on this book.

 

I will post a scan of my copy as soon as I get it back from CGC.

 

Thank you for your feedback gentlemen.

 

Scott

 

 

 

the problem is that it is a variant, but ospg lists it as "scarce" and with a much higher price, when just the opposite is true

I submitted this error last year with my report and submitted it again this year with my report, but I guess we need other advisors to chime in too, to get it changed

 

I have owned this book several times and NEVER have I seen the non-photo back version. The Photo back is the COMMON version. No correction will ever be made on Overstreet or it will discredit years of pricing and they will never admit to it. Gemstone won't allow it either.

 

 

 

[mrlatko]

I like to see a picture of the non- photo cover if any CGC member has one.

 

Just checked and all 4 of my copies are the more common photo "variant". Someone must have an ad copy to post??!!

[Evil Uncle]

I like to see a picture of the non- photo cover if any CGC member has one.

 

Just checked and all 4 of my copies are the more common photo "variant". Someone must have an ad copy to post??!!

+1

all of my copies and all that I have seen have the Kirk back cover. I am always looking for one of the ad copies but have never come across one.

[ComicConnoisseur]

I like to see a picture of the non- photo cover if any CGC member has one.

 

Just checked and all 4 of my copies are the more common photo "variant". Someone must have an ad copy to post??!!

+1

all of my copies and all that I have seen have the Kirk back cover. I am always looking for one of the ad copies but have never come across one.

The photo cover is the only version that exists and there is no variant according to

Jon Martin McClure on page 1025 on this years Overstreet Price Guide, so that answers the question as to why we all have only seen the photo variant.

Also now listed in the price guide as no variant exists with ad on back.

Wow it took them 40 years to figure this one out!

[G.A.tor]

Interesting that CgC has certified 2 versions and that have owned both versions

 

.

[KryptoSpidey]

I like to see a picture of the non- photo cover if any CGC member has one.

 

Just checked and all 4 of my copies are the more common photo "variant". Someone must have an ad copy to post??!!

+1

all of my copies and all that I have seen have the Kirk back cover. I am always looking for one of the ad copies but have never come across one.

The photo cover is the only version that exists and there is no variant according to

Jon Martin McClure on page 1025 on this years Overstreet Price Guide, so that answers the question as to why we all have only seen the photo variant.

Also now listed in the price guide as no variant exists with ad on back.

Wow it took them 40 years to figure this one out!

That info sounds wrong.

[ComicConnoisseur]

I like to see a picture of the non- photo cover if any CGC member has one.

 

Just checked and all 4 of my copies are the more common photo "variant". Someone must have an ad copy to post??!!

+1

all of my copies and all that I have seen have the Kirk back cover. I am always looking for one of the ad copies but have never come across one.

The photo cover is the only version that exists and there is no variant according to

Jon Martin McClure on page 1025 on this years Overstreet Price Guide, so that answers the question as to why we all have only seen the photo variant.

Also now listed in the price guide as no variant exists with ad on back.

Wow it took them 40 years to figure this one out!

That info sounds wrong.

Well I am looking at the latest overstreet as we speak,I think Jon McClure an expert on variants and Overstreet wouldn`t have changed it unless they had the right facts.

[KryptoSpidey]

I like to see a picture of the non- photo cover if any CGC member has one.

 

Just checked and all 4 of my copies are the more common photo "variant". Someone must have an ad copy to post??!!

+1

all of my copies and all that I have seen have the Kirk back cover. I am always looking for one of the ad copies but have never come across one.

The photo cover is the only version that exists and there is no variant according to

Jon Martin McClure on page 1025 on this years Overstreet Price Guide, so that answers the question as to why we all have only seen the photo variant.

Also now listed in the price guide as no variant exists with ad on back.

Wow it took them 40 years to figure this one out!

That info sounds wrong.

Well I am looking at the latest overstreet as we speak,I think Jon McClure an expert on variants and Overstreet wouldn`t have changed it unless they had the right facts.

Why would CGC have books graded as photo/no-photo and GPA clearly has sales distinguished between the 2?

G.A.tor and others have had the said book in hand...sounds like enough info to go against whatever was written in the OSPG...

[G.A.tor]

I like to see a picture of the non- photo cover if any CGC member has one.

 

Just checked and all 4 of my copies are the more common photo "variant". Someone must have an ad copy to post??!!

+1

all of my copies and all that I have seen have the Kirk back cover. I am always looking for one of the ad copies but have never come across one.

The photo cover is the only version that exists and there is no variant according to

Jon Martin McClure on page 1025 on this years Overstreet Price Guide, so that answers the question as to why we all have only seen the photo variant.

Also now listed in the price guide as no variant exists with ad on back.

Wow it took them 40 years to figure this one out!

That info sounds wrong.

Well I am looking at the latest overstreet as we speak,I think Jon McClure an expert on variants and Overstreet wouldn`t have changed it unless they had the right facts.

Why would CGC have books graded as photo/no-photo and GPA clearly has sales distinguished between the 2?

G.A.tor and others have had the said book in hand...sounds like enough info to go against whatever was written in the OSPG...

for years I have asked bob to remove the "variant" as the more valueable of the 2, as it is the "reg " or common issue...

but, if OSPG removed notations from issues 1-3, it is just in error... although admittedly, I have not even looked at that section yet...

 

but, just as a fyi, very few folks, if that many at all, in the world are more of an expert on Star Trek collectibles than me, except maybe Mike Kott of intergalactic and a few others whose names escape me, though they are not heavily comic involved...and while I am by no means saying I am always right , there is substantial confirmation that both back covers exsist for issue 1-3 (thumbs u

[BrianR]

Not having read the newest OSPG yet. It has been my understanding the back cover is the same for all the books. It is the inside back cover that has the ad or not. So without actually opening the book up you cannot tell if it is a variant.

[G.A.tor]

Not having read the newest OSPG yet. It has been my understanding the back cover is the same for all the books. It is the inside back cover that has the ad or not. So without actually opening the book up you cannot tell if it is a variant.

that is not correct...there are distinct back cover variants for issues 1-3... interior, sure?, but exterior for sure (I have scans of issue 2 and 3 variants, just never took one of 1)

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think it started just the opposite... the first thought was the photo cover and then GK realized "why aren't we selling ad space" and produced a smaller number used at the end of production

 

don't know of course, only speculating

 

Except they did it for 3 issues in a row....and *maybe* a fourth. There's rumor of a 4th issue, but none have ever surfaced.

 

I would buy the "why aren't we selling ad space" for 1 issue, but at least three issues, I dunno...

 

I'm guessing it was because that's just what Gold Key did in the early 60's...mostly reproductions on the back cover of the front cover art....in these cases, different photos...

 

 

 

 

[G.A.tor]

I think it started just the opposite... the first thought was the photo cover and then GK realized "why aren't we selling ad space" and produced a smaller number used at the end of production

 

don't know of course, only speculating

 

Except they did it for 3 issues in a row....and *maybe* a fourth. There's rumor of a 4th issue, but none have ever surfaced.

 

I would buy the "why aren't we selling ad space" for 1 issue, but at least three issues, I dunno...

 

I'm guessing it was because that's just what Gold Key did in the early 60's...mostly reproductions on the back cover of the front cover art....in these cases, different photos...

 

 

 

there does for sure exist both exterior photo and ad covers for issues 2 and 3... on issue 1, there exists, for sure, both interior photo and ad covers (though, I will admit, I can't find or remember if they also did exterior back cover ads, though I think they did, but maybe I am wrong?)...

 

so, if they have changed the text to not include variants back covers on issues 1-3, then the "expert" is wrong (thumbs u

[BrianR]

Not having read the newest OSPG yet. It has been my understanding the back cover is the same for all the books. It is the inside back cover that has the ad or not. So without actually opening the book up you cannot tell if it is a variant.

that is not correct...there are distinct back cover variants for issues 1-3... interior, sure?, but exterior for sure (I have scans of issue 2 and 3 variants, just never took one of 1)

 

I should have said issue #1

 

Its was this page that had an ad or not so I thought

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think it started just the opposite... the first thought was the photo cover and then GK realized "why aren't we selling ad space" and produced a smaller number used at the end of production

 

don't know of course, only speculating

 

Except they did it for 3 issues in a row....and *maybe* a fourth. There's rumor of a 4th issue, but none have ever surfaced.

 

I would buy the "why aren't we selling ad space" for 1 issue, but at least three issues, I dunno...

 

I'm guessing it was because that's just what Gold Key did in the early 60's...mostly reproductions on the back cover of the front cover art....in these cases, different photos...

 

 

 

there does for sure exist both exterior photo and ad covers for issues 2 and 3... on issue 1, there exists, for sure, both interior photo and ad covers (though, I will admit, I can't find or remember if they also did exterior back cover ads, though I think they did, but maybe I am wrong?)...

 

so, if they have changed the text to not include variants back covers on issues 1-3, then the "expert" is wrong (thumbs u

 

Well...maybe.

 

Here's what is says:

 

"photo back-c is on all copies, no variant exists with an ad on the back-c

 

Then 2-3 have "(rare variation w/photo back-c)"

 

 

[G.A.tor]

I think it started just the opposite... the first thought was the photo cover and then GK realized "why aren't we selling ad space" and produced a smaller number used at the end of production

 

don't know of course, only speculating

 

Except they did it for 3 issues in a row....and *maybe* a fourth. There's rumor of a 4th issue, but none have ever surfaced.

 

I would buy the "why aren't we selling ad space" for 1 issue, but at least three issues, I dunno...

 

I'm guessing it was because that's just what Gold Key did in the early 60's...mostly reproductions on the back cover of the front cover art....in these cases, different photos...

 

 

 

there does for sure exist both exterior photo and ad covers for issues 2 and 3... on issue 1, there exists, for sure, both interior photo and ad covers (though, I will admit, I can't find or remember if they also did exterior back cover ads, though I think they did, but maybe I am wrong?)...

 

so, if they have changed the text to not include variants back covers on issues 1-3, then the "expert" is wrong (thumbs u

 

Well...maybe.

 

Here's what is says:

 

"photo back-c is on all copies, no variant exists with an ad on the back-c

 

Then 2-3 have "(rare variation w/photo back-c)"

 

ok, that makes more sense... 2-3 are "common" with the photo on back cover and "rare" with the ad...so OSPG still has it wrong (as it has been for 40 years)...

on issue 1, there is for sure an interior "variant" (I just called a buddy to confirm), but outside back cover I cannot confirm, because I don't have any scans, etc...I have memory, but maybe I am confusing interior with exterior because 2 and 3 have the exterior variants...

 

over the years, I have probably sold 100+ issues of GK ST #1...in my notes, I have "2" as variant back cover without photo...but I could be referencing the interior

[G.A.tor]

and as mentioned, cgc has confirmed they have graded numberous examples of issue 1 with variant cover (maybe they are refering to interior?)

[RockMyAmadeus]

The problem is, the story in OPG is only half right. There is clearly a variant of SOME kind, but the OPG now states there isn't, by omission.

[KryptoSpidey]

and as mentioned, cgc has confirmed they have graded numberous examples of issue 1 with variant cover (maybe they are refering to interior?)

i have a feeling Steve B. can put an end to this once and for all...

[G.A.tor]

and as mentioned, cgc has confirmed they have graded numberous examples of issue 1 with variant cover (maybe they are refering to interior?)

i have a feeling Steve B. can put an end to this once and for all...

or anyone at cgc...the census alone supports 3 diff variants on issue 1... though I don't know what the 3rd one is, there is certainly enough #'s on the other 2 to "confirm" a second variant cover