Is the new Overstreet out yet??

[VintageComics]

It's also a little difficult to label all variants under the same "variant" label.

 

A price variant is obviously different than a cover variant and a production error variant is going to be different than a variant with an intended production change.

 

 

[comicwiz]

Errors, and those issued to correct errors, would thereby not qualify as "variants."

 

I know that with underground comix, errors corrected later would not really establish any noteworthy difference and the only footnote would be the distinguishing feature/tell to identify a separate and/or secondary print run. In the case of Whitman's, the corrected cover price would definitely qualify it as a variant.

[RockMyAmadeus]

It's also a little difficult to label all variants under the same "variant" label.

 

A price variant is obviously different than a cover variant and a production error variant is going to be different than a variant with an intended production change.

 

 

There's no such thing as a "production error variant", so that takes care of that.

 

Examine Silver Surfer #50. Several copies came out without the foil attached.

 

Those are ERRORS, not VARIANTS.

 

Then, Marvel went back and second and third printed them, changing design aspects both times.

 

Those are VARIANTS, not ERRORS.

 

We walk a dangerous (and, frankly, silly) line when we call obvious mistakes "variants"...a variant should imply intent.

[RockMyAmadeus]

In the case of Whitman's, the corrected cover price would definitely qualify it as a variant.

 

Not at all. You're assuming the 40 cent price was an "error", a mistake.

 

How do you know that's true....?

[comicwiz]

It's also a little difficult to label all variants under the same "variant" label.

 

A price variant is obviously different than a cover variant and a production error variant is going to be different than a variant with an intended production change.

 

 

Ultimately, we are in need of more inclusion and critical thinking in this area. Research is absolutely paramount, otherwise we find ourselves stuck operating within the confines of problematic, exclusive or erroneous thinking.

 

When Don Schenker produced the yellow cover variant of Zap Comix 0, it was clearly and intentionally produced excluding the cyan ink during the printing process. The plate he used was from the 5th print run. While this example is one of the very few "variant" examples in UG comix, I believe the variant designation shouldn't be made without the notation of 5th print. This is but one example where research needs to meld with categorical ways of thinking about variants. I hope Jon's article takes us one step closer to a way of thinking where we educate ourselves because its only going to bring more attention and interest to the hobby as a whole.

[comicwiz]

In the case of Whitman's, the corrected cover price would definitely qualify it as a variant.

 

Not at all. You're assuming the 40 cent price was an "error", a mistake.

 

How do you know that's true....?

 

I just noticed how I wrote that out - my bad - I meant to say the condition of correcting the price error during print run definitely qualifies the issue as a variant. The price error is in fact the variant.

[RockMyAmadeus]

In the case of Whitman's, the corrected cover price would definitely qualify it as a variant.

 

Not at all. You're assuming the 40 cent price was an "error", a mistake.

 

How do you know that's true....?

 

I just noticed how I wrote that out - my bad - I meant to say the condition of correcting the price error during print run definitely qualifies the issue as a variant. The price error is in fact the variant.

 

And my response is the same: how do you know it was an "error"...?

 

Since there's no way of knowing if it was done by mistake (and how could it have been done by mistake on so many different books?), how can we then say it's an error, rather than a managerial change during the middle of the process?

 

Since we don't know, and since there was obviously intent, then we can call them variants, rather than errors, to exclude them from the "scarce NO FOIL variant!!!!" crowd who want to legitimize their error and pseudo-error comics, can we not?

[VintageComics]

It's also a little difficult to label all variants under the same "variant" label.

 

A price variant is obviously different than a cover variant and a production error variant is going to be different than a variant with an intended production change.

 

 

There's no such thing as a "production error variant", so that takes care of that.

 

It's a "variant" because it varies from the original.

 

It's not a "variant" because it was an error.

 

See what I mean?

 

I understand exactly where you and Joe are coming from. The problem lies in the way the word is used as a blanket for many things by people who don't know the market that well.

 

Kind of like the way NM is used as a blanket for any book that looks good at arms length by the average person.

[seanfingh]

 

This is a great discussion that is not getting its due because of the thread title. This should be broken out into its own thread. Could be the first substantive CG thread with legs in quite a while.

[comicwiz]

In the case of Whitman's, the corrected cover price would definitely qualify it as a variant.

 

Not at all. You're assuming the 40 cent price was an "error", a mistake.

 

How do you know that's true....?

 

I just noticed how I wrote that out - my bad - I meant to say the condition of correcting the price error during print run definitely qualifies the issue as a variant. The price error is in fact the variant.

 

And my response is the same: how do you know it was an "error"...?

 

Since there's no way of knowing if it was done by mistake (and how could it have been done by mistake on so many different books?), how can we then say it's an error, rather than a managerial change during the middle of the process?

 

Since we don't know, and since there was obviously intent, then we can call them variants, rather than errors, to exclude them from the "scarce NO FOIL variant!!!!" crowd who want to legitimize their error and pseudo-error comics, can we not?

 

I get what you're saying. And to tie in Roy's point, the blanket definition is meant to arouse curiousity and interest, but the opposite is happening. The folks who have an intimate knowledge can be guarded about explaining the "differences" and "variations" in a concise way because of the hours they've spent pouring over the research. To some extent, I don't blame the ones who have had absolutely no online competition - why wake a sleeping giant?

 

I think ultimately (and going back to you question), we're working from independent research because the Overstreet has left those gaps, and if Little Lulu #262 with a 40¢ cover price is regarded as a "price error variant", why mess with it? Seriously, omitting the "error" or "variant" from a designation given by an authority on the subject just won't allow people the option to a) figure out the difference between the 50¢ copy; and b) that there was a change during the print run of that particular issue. Whether an error or not, the variant designation sticks, and if by keeping the details intact allows newbies an opportunity to understand it as a "variation" then (contrary to belief) if they want to believe it should be attributed to a price increase, so be it.

[thirdgreenham]

A variant needs to be defined as a difference to "the standard" that is done on purpose. "On purpose" simply means that someone at some point consciously changed something for a reason, even if that reason is whim or was done unofficially.

 

The Gold Key Star Trek #1-3 photo variants qualify. Though Gold Key almost certainly didn't intend to create a variant for the reason(s) we think of today (that is, to sell more copies), the fact is, at some point, someone came along and thought it would be a good idea to change the back cover before, during, or after the initial "regular" print run. We can surmise that the photo back covers are the variants, because the rest of Gold Key's output from those months have the "regular" back cover.

 

Errors, and those issued to correct errors, would thereby not qualify as "variants."

 

 

I'm not so sure, Rocky. An error is a variant as well, as long as it had been re-issued with a corrected version. You really seem to be focusing on the more modern variants and all this "on purpose" jazz. That's how your mind got clouded.

 

Andy

[2020-migration]

Released at San Diego. Will be on sale the week following.

 

Cannot wait to see the new Overstreet at San Diego

 

I love reading the articles

[CKB]

One thing that could be part of the definition is a conscious decision to release the book. If these GK price variants were indeed a mistake and corrected partway through the run (or in subsequent runs) but they were not recalled, that's an "official" variant (IMHO) and not an error. I think others were getting at this I just wanted to spell it out.

 

If the error was discovered and the book recalled to be destroyed, we are in a grey area. There are so few examples of this that they can be broken out in their own category.

 

As for test runs and other mistakes that happen in the printing process, these are just misprints to me. Double covers, missing staples, books missing a ink color (except that zap), etc...

 

[plasticide-migration]

This is but one example where research needs to meld with categorical ways of thinking about variants. I hope Jon's article takes us one step closer to a way of thinking where we educate ourselves because its only going to bring more attention and interest to the hobby as a whole.

 

Yeah, great, more variant speculators entering the hobby

[RockMyAmadeus]

It's also a little difficult to label all variants under the same "variant" label.

 

A price variant is obviously different than a cover variant and a production error variant is going to be different than a variant with an intended production change.

 

 

There's no such thing as a "production error variant", so that takes care of that.

 

It's a "variant" because it varies from the original.

 

It's not a "variant" because it was an error.

 

See what I mean?

 

I understand exactly what you mean.

 

I just think it's a very bad choice of words, and leads to abuse from hucksters.

 

By your logic, I can call a 4.0 Spidey #3 a "variant", because it "varies" from the original by having a cup ring stain on the front cover. The originals didn't come with this "variation."

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

A variant needs to be defined as a difference to "the standard" that is done on purpose. "On purpose" simply means that someone at some point consciously changed something for a reason, even if that reason is whim or was done unofficially.

 

The Gold Key Star Trek #1-3 photo variants qualify. Though Gold Key almost certainly didn't intend to create a variant for the reason(s) we think of today (that is, to sell more copies), the fact is, at some point, someone came along and thought it would be a good idea to change the back cover before, during, or after the initial "regular" print run. We can surmise that the photo back covers are the variants, because the rest of Gold Key's output from those months have the "regular" back cover.

 

Errors, and those issued to correct errors, would thereby not qualify as "variants."

 

 

I'm not so sure, Rocky. An error is a variant as well, as long as it had been re-issued with a corrected version. You really seem to be focusing on the more modern variants and all this "on purpose" jazz. That's how your mind got clouded.

 

Andy

 

Not at all.

 

Batman #2, 1940. Canadian price "variant."

 

Someone changed the price on purpose.

 

Variant, not error.

 

Errors are errors, not variants. Corrected errors are corrections, not variants (FF #110, for example.)

 

Variants should be confined to that which is done with intent. My justification for that is to exclude a whole bunch of unquantifiable "errors", so that a meaningful census of variants can be taken and understood.

 

Nothing clouded about it. In fact, quite the opposite. Makes things a whole lot clearer.

[RockMyAmadeus]

To those who want to call errors "variants"....

 

Would a book printed with 2, 3, 4...or 9...covers be considered a "multple cover variant"....?

 

Even though it was obviously unintended? Even if subsequent copies (obviously) were "corrected"...?

 

To be consistent, you'd have to.

 

And therin lies the problem.

[cloudofwit]

To those who want to call errors "variants"....

 

Would a book printed with 2, 3, 4...or 9...covers be considered a "multple cover variant"....?

 

Even though it was obviously unintended? Even if subsequent copies (obviously) were "corrected"...?

 

To be consistent, you'd have to.

 

And therin lies the problem.

 

I'd have a problem with a "multple cover variant" because I'm convinced "multple" is a variant spelling to "multiple".

 

On a serious note (), when you say that variants "should be confined to that which is done with intent," you're arguing (I assume) practicality and convenience because it breaks things down to more manageable proportions. Are there arguments to the contrary or is this whole variant discussion still fluid enough to where paths are being forged and a consensus hasn't developed? In other words, do you think you are you in the minority or majority of folks who think/feel this way? :shrug: And why?

 

I honestly am curious and am largely ignorant on the variant sub-culture. Or, ahem, "co-culture" so as not to denigrate my variant brethren.

[comicwiz]

A variant needs to be defined as a difference to "the standard" that is done on purpose. "On purpose" simply means that someone at some point consciously changed something for a reason, even if that reason is whim or was done unofficially.

 

The Gold Key Star Trek #1-3 photo variants qualify. Though Gold Key almost certainly didn't intend to create a variant for the reason(s) we think of today (that is, to sell more copies), the fact is, at some point, someone came along and thought it would be a good idea to change the back cover before, during, or after the initial "regular" print run. We can surmise that the photo back covers are the variants, because the rest of Gold Key's output from those months have the "regular" back cover.

 

Errors, and those issued to correct errors, would thereby not qualify as "variants."

 

 

I'm not so sure, Rocky. An error is a variant as well, as long as it had been re-issued with a corrected version. You really seem to be focusing on the more modern variants and all this "on purpose" jazz. That's how your mind got clouded.

 

Andy

 

Not at all.

 

Batman #2, 1940. Canadian price "variant."

 

Someone changed the price on purpose.

 

Variant, not error.

 

Errors are errors, not variants. Corrected errors are corrections, not variants (FF #110, for example.)

 

Variants should be confined to that which is done with intent. My justification for that is to exclude a whole bunch of unquantifiable "errors", so that a meaningful census of variants can be taken and understood.

 

Nothing clouded about it. In fact, quite the opposite. Makes things a whole lot clearer.

 

Nothing to do with intent, but everything do with the printing process. If the books are coming from the same place, running at the same time on the same press with "differences", they are variants. This really isn't as difficult a concept to grasp for anyone whose collected and studied underground comics, because this is largely how distinguishing differences (cover prices, interior and cover tells) allowed and later led to the identification and reporting of "variations" in printings (i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). In the days of Superior and Bell Features Comics, those editions were printed in Canada and would fall into the category of foreign edition.

[comicwiz]

As for test runs and other mistakes that happen in the printing process, these are just misprints to me. Double covers, missing staples, books missing a ink color (except that zap), etc...

 

I agree. Though not all can be construed as misprints, as some fall into the category of experimentation. There was a recent sale of a Plymell Zap which I believe came from Jay Lynch's collection that Heritage started branding "the light blue Zap 1." I commented at the time it was being auctioned (or shortly afterwards), and it seems that Heritage is trying their hand at it again with my old copy. Cool it is - just not a variant.