Marvel Comics #1 October Copy in May Comiclink Auction

[MrBedrock]

I don't remember the exact details but I believe the indicia is slightly different (inside front cover)

"October 1939" is blacked out and "November 1939" is printed next to it.

 

and I believe there are also differences in the Torch story.

Not that I'm aware of.

[Moondog]

Ok, just for historical reasons, I would like to know how many October issues were printed compared to November stamp issues. I heard that the first issue sold so well that they printed up thousands more because of demand with the November stamp.

And why do some people call the November release a 2nd printing ? Is it ?

 

November is not a second printing. The book was already being printed when Martin Goodman discovered the October cover date and had them immediately change the black plate to read November. He didn't want his first comic book to have a short on-sale period. Changing it to November gave him the partial October cycle and the entire November cycle.

 

 

[Forbush-Man]

I don't remember the exact details but I believe the indicia is slightly different (inside front cover)

"October 1939" is blacked out and "November 1939" is printed next to it.

 

and I believe there are also differences in the Torch story.

Not that I'm aware of.

 

Right, as far as I know it's just the indica.

 

Perhaps Roy has confussed the Sub-Mariner story from Motion Picture Funnies Weekly #1 and the slight change in the last panel.

[markseifert]

November is not a second printing. The book was already being printed when Martin Goodman discovered the October cover date and had them immediately change the black plate to read November. He didn't want his first comic book to have a short on-sale period. Changing it to November gave him the partial October cycle and the entire November cycle.

 

 

Respectfully, I'll disagree. I think the theory set forth in the Marvel Comics Omnibus best fits the available info at this point:

 

An initial 80,000 run was a limited test printing distributed on the East Coast.

 

Goodman apparently had a rep for aggressively working the phones with his distro contacts to get a fast impression for current sales. The limited geographic area further allowed him to make a fast decision. The initial print run (according to the Omnibus info) sold out within 1 week of its Aug 31 on-sale date.

 

He subsequently ordered the second printing of 800,000 copies. The Omnibus implies this number was chosen to be in line with Superman's sales.

 

As we all know, this issue has been discussed extensively here, and there's loads of logistical detail that could be debated. But at this point, barring the unearthing of records or other new info, the above scenario is what I'm inclined to believe.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

800,000 copies.

 

99.9% of which have vanished into oblivion.

 

Wow.

[Moondog]

November is not a second printing. The book was already being printed when Martin Goodman discovered the October cover date and had them immediately change the black plate to read November. He didn't want his first comic book to have a short on-sale period. Changing it to November gave him the partial October cycle and the entire November cycle.

 

 

Respectfully, I'll disagree. I think the theory set forth in the Marvel Comics Omnibus best fits the available info at this point:

 

An initial 80,000 run was a limited test printing distributed on the East Coast.

 

Goodman apparently had a rep for aggressively working the phones with his distro contacts to get a fast impression for current sales. The limited geographic area further allowed him to make a fast decision. The initial print run (according to the Omnibus info) sold out within 1 week of its Aug 31 on-sale date.

 

He subsequently ordered the second printing of 800,000 copies. The Omnibus implies this number was chosen to be in line with Superman's sales.

 

As we all know, this issue has been discussed extensively here, and there's loads of logistical detail that could be debated. But at this point, barring the unearthing of records or other new info, the above scenario is what I'm inclined to believe.

 

I'm relaying information that was given to me from a former exec of DC who spoke to Goodman before he passed away in '92. I realize that this info may not conform with the current accepted theory, but if you look deep enough into it, both theories have a common root - on-sale cycles.

 

I've never read the Omnibus. Who does it credit regarding the Marvel 1 sales information?

 

 

[VintageComics]

I don't remember the exact details but I believe the indicia is slightly different (inside front cover)

"October 1939" is blacked out and "November 1939" is printed next to it.

 

and I believe there are also differences in the Torch story.

Not that I'm aware of.

 

Right, as far as I know it's just the indica.

 

Perhaps Roy has confussed the Sub-Mariner story from Motion Picture Funnies Weekly #1 and the slight change in the last panel.

 

Nope. Well aware of that one.

 

I thought Fishler came on here and posted something about a difference in the torch story...I just can't remember. I had all that sort of stuff saved on my old laptop which is no longer working.

[markseifert]

 

I've never read the Omnibus. Who does it credit regarding the Marvel 1 sales information?

 

This is part of a fairly comprehensive early-history article by Will Murray. He doesn't break down his specific sources for this (and yep, I'd love to know exact where he got the numbers and dates myself).

 

Below is some info I pieced together in 2006 from several posts here on the subject. I personally think Goodman's proactive stance towards finding out how the book was doing in a limited geographic area addresses Sean's concerns about timeframe, and Murray explains the huge print run with the Superman comparison in his article.

 

 

Thanks to everybody who has posted what they know about the book. There has been some very good theory posted on the boards about this issue, and I think the emerging theory of the Oct run being limited geographically may be another important part of the puzzle.

 

Anyway, here's the previous posts (from 2002, I believe):

 

Scoobly:

Quote:

 

 

In 1983, I went to the office of Marvel Comics to have lunch with Art Goodman, the brother of Martin Goodman. Art worked at Timely in 1939 and gave me the story behind the October/November Marvel #1 printings. In 1939, Goodman had mixed feelings about getting into the comic business. They decided to publish Marvel #1 with a total print run of just under 90,000 copies. That 1st printing had a date of October. They hoped the book would sell well but their expectations were not that great. They were shocked when the book sold out within a few days. A immediate decision was made to go back to press with an additional print run of 800,000 copies. That print run had the November cover date. Nuff Said!

 

 

 

 

 

zillatoy's response:

Quote:

 

 

This seems to be a pretty direct contradiction to the information that has been relayed by Greg Theakston (a Superb comic historian who, when working at Marvel had access and permission to search through their records) and others.

I'm not saying it isn't true mind you, but it still seems unlikely.

Consider the following:

 

1) Goodman was already an experienced publisher with pulps, and certainly had some inside knowledge about how strong the sales of comics were: Superman #1 had already come out, the Fox/National lawsuit had started. New publishers Harvey, MLJ, Quality and McKay had all started with some success.

 

2) Frank Torpey (sales manager for Funnies, Inc) was the person who talked Goodman into having the Jacquet studio make up the book for him and probably would have insisted on a higher print run. But 800,000 for a second print is a crazy high number. None of Funnies, Inc. books had print runs that high, and only Action and Superman approached those numbers at that time. It seems strange to go from a "test" of 90,000 to a print run of 800,000 for an experienced publisher.

 

3) It is still very hard to fit a second print in the timeframe. We know that #2 had a December cover date and had arrived at stores by early-mid October. That means it was at the printers by early-mid September and was being worked on in August. If Goodman was so unsure of the project, why would he have the studio be working on a second issue before getting numbers in for the first?

 

4) We know that the first issue hit the stands in Colorado in mid September (9-15 arrival date on the Mile High copy), yet it didn't go to the printer's until early-mid August. So Goodman got the book printed, got back sales numbers, ordered a second printing and had it distributed in less than 30 days? That's something that rarely happens today with direct distribution and instant sales data from Diamond.

If somehow he got back incredibly quick numbers on the first issue (very hard to do right away in the late 30s), why would you go back to press with a run nearly 10x greater than what you had just done and not change the date to at least December to give all those copies a chance to sell through (not to mention possibly hurting sales on the #2 which was getting ready to go to print)?

 

5) The book wasn't finished until the first of August (July 31st), so of course it was going to have a November cover date, you don't print a book up to give it a shelf life of just a few days. The book was running late, so a last minute change was needed on the cover date to make sure it got exposure on the shelf.

 

It seems much more likely and probable that because of the dealy in starting up the new book, that the original intended date (October) need to be changed because of the lateness of the issue to insure that it would receive adequate exposure on the newstands. If it was reaching the Western states in mid-September some distributors might not distribute it at all if it had an October date because they would be picking it up for returns within two weeks. Wasn't worth the hassle for the low profit margin. It HAD to be available on the stands for at least 30 days to make it a worthwhile carry (I wouldn't be surprised if the Distributors didn't make him change the date).

 

[VintageComics]

We had a pretty extenstive discussion about October/November copies in this thread.

 

 

West made this post about whether the Nov. copies were reprints:

 

 

P.S. Is there any doubt that the Nov. editions are a second printing?

 

Yes. Actually most evidence leads many experts to believe it is not a second printing. I believe one of those experts is putting together an article on all his findings... based on what he told me.

 

West

 

Oooh...tell me more.

 

 

He asked a few of us here at CGC about the Marvel #1. He told us some of his findings he already had and we shared some of ours, including some hand written notes that were written in the Marvel 1 file copy. Pretty conclusive IMO. I'll save the details for his article.

 

West

 

West

 

Addtionally, this was interesting to me and where I got the idea of the changes in the Torch story.

 

Rob's site preserved the eBay lister's description of the Compton Marvel 1 as follows:

 

This Copy was Also a Publisher/Packager (Funnies, Inc) File Copy Which Came Off the Press without Staples and Was Put into a Binder Type Holder for the Writer John Compton (Very Tiny Holes at Spine Area Slightly Larger than a Pin Size Hole) Which is Where the “Spine Splits Sealed” and “Staples Replaced, Reinforced” Come In. At Some Point After Publishing, The Staples Were Put In When The Book was Taken Out of the Binder-Type Holder. Staples were NOT put in the Book After it Came off the Printing Press - It Went right into the Publisher’s/Writer’s Bound Volume/Binder. Also Important to Note, This Was the Personal Copy of Funnies, Inc Writer John Compton. His Pencil Notes Appear on a Few Pages of the Human Torch Story (1st Story). They (The Writers and Publisher) Were Still Revamping and Tweeking This Issue’s Story-Line and Content During the First Printing as Evident by John Compton’s Pencil Notes on These Few Pages.

 

>>> THIS COPY COULD VERY WELL BE THE VERY FIRST ISSUE EVER OFF THE PRINTING PRESS …Given the Information We Have and Noted Here.

 

Not at all sure what the assertion that the story-line was still being tweaked means. Makes me wonder if Metropolis wanted to see the Human Torch story in a Nov issue in order to ascertain if any Compton's pencil notes led to changes in the Torch story as printed in the Nov issue.

 

 

[VintageComics]

So now I have to ask if West's references to an upcoming publication was Will Murry's intro to the omnibus.

 

Will seems to have concluded the opposite to what West had alluded to.

 

Anybody?

 

[markseifert]

Heh. Every time a new Oct thread pops up, I tell myself I'm not going to post, because we sort of going round and round without much hard info.

 

But it's a darn interesting mystery. I should register marvelcomics1oct.com and throw a wiki up there and collate data.

[Moondog]

Heh. Every time a new Oct thread pops up, I tell myself I'm not going to post, because we sort of going round and round without much hard info.

 

But it's a darn interesting mystery. I should register marvelcomics1oct.com and throw a wiki up there and collate data.

 

Well, it appears that the info I received and Theakston's are basically the same. From a business standpoint, it just makes more sense than the second printing theory. It's sure a lot of fun to speculate about!

[markseifert]

Heh. Every time a new Oct thread pops up, I tell myself I'm not going to post, because we sort of going round and round without much hard info.

 

But it's a darn interesting mystery. I should register marvelcomics1oct.com and throw a wiki up there and collate data.

 

Well, it appears that the info I received and Theakston's are basically the same. From a business standpoint, it just makes more sense than the second printing theory. It's sure a lot of fun to speculate about!

 

Yeah, I hear ya. Incidentally, thanks for relaying stuff like this and all the other historical tidbits you've talked about. That plus all your other industry experience, you ought to write a book, man!

[Moondog]

Heh. Every time a new Oct thread pops up, I tell myself I'm not going to post, because we sort of going round and round without much hard info.

 

But it's a darn interesting mystery. I should register marvelcomics1oct.com and throw a wiki up there and collate data.

 

Well, it appears that the info I received and Theakston's are basically the same. From a business standpoint, it just makes more sense than the second printing theory. It's sure a lot of fun to speculate about!

 

Yeah, I hear ya. Incidentally, thanks for relaying stuff like this and all the other historical tidbits you've talked about. That plus all your other industry experience, you ought to write a book, man!

 

It's coming out right after Matt's book.

 

 

 

[Primetime]

800,000 copies.

 

99.9% of which have vanished into oblivion.

 

Wow.

what was Timelys normal print run, say, after Marvel Mystery hit full swing...versus a Cap 1? Compared to DC titles of the same time period?

[Silver Surfer]

Heh. Every time a new Oct thread pops up, I tell myself I'm not going to post, because we sort of going round and round without much hard info.

 

But it's a darn interesting mystery. I should register marvelcomics1oct.com and throw a wiki up there and collate data.

 

Actually this is the first time I've seen some much info about the printing mystery in one thread, kind of refreshing for a change, keep it going.

[Silver Surfer]

Hard to guess a price range, just look at the deals you got on your 9.2 copy and the one Jim landed for the chicago copy. Both were restored November copies but both were pedigrees and they went for a song.

 

Why does pedigree matter if a copy is restored? I thought the whole point of pedigree was it may be an indicator of quality -- hence the price bump. But, doesn't that go out the window if we're talking a restored copy?

 

Pedigree copies of any book always adds a little more value, especially GA stuff but resto does put a dent in final sales figures. I'm not a big fan of resto books but they are growing on me especially slight or moderate examples. Resto is a bit of a blessing in disguise because otherwise I'd never be able to afford a decent copy of this book.

[Silver Surfer]

Book in question:

 

[Rip]

The color registration is nice on that copy. Often the color will print out of alignment on that book.

[Ted Knight]

The color registration Everything is nice on that copy.

 

Fixed that for you.