Detective #27 Proof Pages

[sfcityduck]

Bluechip said: " The proofs are clearly made from stats so they are second generation"

 

I tend to agee. I don't think a proof made directly from a printing plate used in the final production would have that border or the markings in the corners. But, I wasn't a printer. I know someone on this site was. Was that Bluechip?

 

It would be good to hear a printer's opinion on what these might have been.

 

My concern is that if they are second generation from a stat, they could date to any time.

 

Consider this hypothetical: Let's assume for a moment that this is production art which IS "second generation." Perhaps some sort of mid-50s product, but which is now the only surviving reproduction of the original linework sans color. I'd say that is still a significant jpiece -- at the very least from a historical perspective and also to DC from an archival and further reproduction perspective. But it wouldn't be production art for D27, and wouldn't have 1930s provenance. What's the value of such a piece?

 

 

[Mutant Manatee]

Just for reference, so we don't have to keep looking back and forth. (thumbs u

 

 

 

 

 

[BB-Gun]

As long as we are talking about proofs, what about these FC 147 proofs I found? I think I have seen this type of proof on other occasions and they are used by editors, artists and colorists. Does anyone have a bunch from other golden age comics. Stats do seem second generation. They were sometimes used for reprints. I have a full size Kubert original art reprint of a story that first appeared in Tor which has corrections and other things on it. It is much larger than the proofs which are the same size as the comic.

Just wondering about the value since very little Barks' art survived from that time and situation is similar to Tec 27. Although I agree that the Tec art looks like stats and not proofs which probably hold up a little better.

[bluechip]

Bluechip said: " The proofs are clearly made from stats so they are second generation"

 

I tend to agee. I don't think a proof made directly from a printing plate used in the final production would have that border or the markings in the corners. But, I wasn't a printer. I know someone on this site was. Was that Bluechip?

 

It would be good to hear a printer's opinion on what these might have been.

 

My concern is that if they are second generation from a stat, they could date to any time.

 

Consider this hypothetical: Let's assume for a moment that this is production art which IS "second generation." Perhaps some sort of mid-50s product, but which is now the only surviving reproduction of the original linework sans color. I'd say that is still a significant jpiece -- at the very least from a historical perspective and also to DC from an archival and further reproduction perspective. But it wouldn't be production art for D27, and wouldn't have 1930s provenance. What's the value of such a piece?

 

 

I'm not a printer. But I think it's clear from their appearance that a stat was made of the art and then a proof was made from the stat. That doesn't mean it can't be from 1939. They might've done it that way because stats were more expensive and cheap newsprint proofs were the norm. I've seen enough color newsprint proofs from the 40s to know that DC did it that way at the time with the color pages. I can't recall seeing a BW proof print from that era, but that doesn't mean anything

 

So a big question that could solve its authenticity would be if someone who knows DC production history could say when they stopped doing proofs like that on cheap newsprint.. Another thing I found surprising was the dot pattern on the costume. I can't recall seeing that on a BW stat or proof, either.

 

I do know that both Marvel and DC made bunches of stats and proofs which they kept in file cabinets for decades, taking them out to use later. So this could have been taken out for a reprint, but still date back to 1939. Again, a talk with a DC production person might help

 

I will bet the art in the FFE is cleaned up and this wasn't used for that. But if anyone's got a copy of Tec 387 handy, that reprinted the whole story.and may have had a notation on the first page. If the 387 art is clearned up it helps the provenance. If it's the same and the first page is different, then it would have to be ruled out as the source in another way.

 

 

[BB-Gun]

Maybe I should try selling these old reprints from JGB. The first time I read the Flash and Green Lantern origins, they were in these copies from Jerry.

[Bat-Man]

Those pages are incredibly brittle.

 

SO brittle HA with their delicate hands trying to auction them can't keep it from falling apart to make scans.

[markseifert]

Bluechip said: " The proofs are clearly made from stats so they are second generation"

 

I tend to agee. I don't think a proof made directly from a printing plate used in the final production would have that border or the markings in the corners. But, I wasn't a printer. I know someone on this site was. Was that Bluechip?

 

I think the newsprint + shape of the page makes printing plant production of this material at least a very strong possibility. Actual photostat would imply office-made vs printing plant originated to me.

 

And there are traditional prepped-for-press center markings there.

 

 

 

I really do think the border issue is possibly a misdirect. There are corner makings there as well marking out the usable image area. It all depends on how the plate was finally prepped and mounted before press.

 

Which again, doesn't necessarily prove anything about timeframe. But it's interesting!

[sfcityduck]

Bluechip said: " The proofs are clearly made from stats so they are second generation"

 

I tend to agee. I don't think a proof made directly from a printing plate used in the final production would have that border or the markings in the corners. But, I wasn't a printer. I know someone on this site was. Was that Bluechip?

 

I think the newsprint + shape of the page makes printing plant production of this material at least a very strong possibility. Actual photostat would imply office-made vs printing plant originated to me.

 

And there are traditional prepped-for-press center markings there.

 

 

 

I really do think the border issue is possibly a misdirect. There are corner makings there as well marking out the usable image area. It all depends on how the plate was finally prepped and mounted before press.

 

Which again, doesn't necessarily prove anything about timeframe. But it's interesting!

 

But would those markings be on the plate?

[markseifert]

But would those markings be on the plate?

 

Well, whether they are part of the plate proper or are on some separate piece, they are an artifact of the printing process. I guess more properly these would be registration marks (particularly the circle with crosshairs type of mark), used to help align the plates. Center markings are used to help indicate where the paper is to be folded.

[bluechip]

Bluechip said: " The proofs are clearly made from stats so they are second generation"

 

I tend to agee. I don't think a proof made directly from a printing plate used in the final production would have that border or the markings in the corners. But, I wasn't a printer. I know someone on this site was. Was that Bluechip?

 

I think the newsprint + shape of the page makes printing plant production of this material at least a very strong possibility. Actual photostat would imply office-made vs printing plant originated to me.

 

And there are traditional prepped-for-press center markings there.

 

 

 

I really do think the border issue is possibly a misdirect. There are corner makings there as well marking out the usable image area. It all depends on how the plate was finally prepped and mounted before press.

 

Which again, doesn't necessarily prove anything about timeframe. But it's interesting!

 

I agree that the corner markings indicate it was prepped for printing. Just saying that those corner markings indicate this is not a photostat. These proofs were either made by copying a photostat or printed from a plate. But the finger smudges on page 2, which do not show up on the final page, indicate this could have been made from a stat as part of the approvals process. None of which alters its value all that much if these were made in 1939. The big value difference is not whether these were made from a plate or a stat but when. If made in 1975, they have value, but not nearly so much. So the big money question remains the same: what can be done to better pinpoint the time these were made.

 

If it's worth all the enormous time and effort spent identifying a pedigree collection of bronze age comics, whose value lies in whether some collector who is virtually if not literally unknown outside the hobby, did or not buy a particular book at a particular grocery store, then it's worth Heritage putting a little bit more effort into figuring out what the deal is with something that could be 1) the earliest of all Batman memorabilia once owned by the co-creator, or 2) a collection of proofs that could've been owned by anyone which were made for a repint in the 60s or 70s.

[markseifert]

I agree that the corner markings indicate it was prepped for printing. Just saying that those corner markings indicate this is not a photostat. These proofs were either made by copying a photostat or printed from a plate.

 

This is just a tangent, but here's what I wonder about that. Would a photostat be made on newsprint?

 

The newsprint at least makes it more likely that these were generated at the printer -- through whatever method. Which at least goes some ways toward eliminating the possibility of multi-generation copies.

 

But as we've been saying all along, doesn't speak to time frame.

[Mutant Manatee]

And there are traditional prepped-for-press center markings there.

 

 

 

The one bullseye marking says "Incorporated" around the left side. It's really too bad that we can't see what is written on the right side, as it might have been a company name that could have been used to date the pieces.

[bluechip]

I agree that the corner markings indicate it was prepped for printing. Just saying that those corner markings indicate this is not a photostat. These proofs were either made by copying a photostat or printed from a plate.

 

 

This is just a tangent, but here's what I wonder about that. Would a photostat be made on newsprint?

 

The newsprint at least makes it more likely that these were generated at the printer -- through whatever method. Which at least goes some ways toward eliminating the possibility of multi-generation copies.

 

But as we've been saying all along, doesn't speak to time frame.

 

I would agree that first or second generation is not nearly as big a question as the time frame. The biggest factor in valuing these is WHEN were they made. If it's December, 1938, then "wow." If it's 1974, then "meh"

[Dark Knight]

Those pages are incredibly brittle.

 

SO brittle HA with their delicate hands trying to auction them can't keep it from falling apart to make scans.

 

I know what you're saying.. I mean looks at those chips on the scan!! These pages are falling apart evertime it is being handled.. I'm wondering how they would be able to ship the pages safely and securely without anymore paper falling off. Hopefully it doesn't come into pieces when it gets delivered to the new owner

[markseifert]

And there are traditional prepped-for-press center markings there.

 

 

 

The one bullseye marking says "Incorporated" around the left side. It's really too bad that we can't see what is written on the right side, as it might have been a company name that could have been used to date the pieces.

 

Good eye, I was trying to decipher that too and wasn't sure what to make of it. A better scan of that would be interesting indeed.

[BB-Gun]

My proofs look like the original art. Only Black shades are seen in the original and the final product.

 

Paper quality is very good for these DD proofs. They look like heavy photo paper and not cheap pulp.

[BB-Gun]

Just for reference, so we don't have to keep looking back and forth. (thumbs u

 

 

 

 

 

Did they recolor Batman for the reprint. He is gray in the proof.

[BB-Gun]

FYI, here's scans of the pages from an original. (now that this discussion has completely destroyed my schedule)

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently they did. He would be gray in both.

[Point Five]

Did they recolor Batman for the reprint. He is gray in the proof.

Not relevant to the discussion of the proof, but it's wild how much the original art has been altered (albeit subtly) in the Tec 27 reprint you posted. Lots of the linework, crosshatching and lettering appear to have been redone almost from scratch. Very annoying...

 

 

[markseifert]

Did they recolor Batman for the reprint. He is gray in the proof.

Not relevant to the discussion of the proof, but it's wild how much the original art has been altered (albeit subtly) in the Tec 27 reprint you posted. Lots of the linework, crosshatching and lettering appear to have been redone almost from scratch. Very annoying...

 

 

I was very surprised by the extent of the differences between original and DC Archive version.