Marvel Comics #1 October Copy in May Comiclink Auction

[markseifert]

I'm trying to compile a picture list of any copies, just because I think the book is so cool. I have about 35 or so, and am trying to add as many as possible. PM's or posting here would help.

 

thanks!

 

You have pics of 35 copies of the October...?

[markseifert]

Will's reply:

 

" One of the Goodman relatives told this to Steve Fishler, I believe.... "

 

Thanks for reaching out to him, Pat. It would appear that all sources of this theory of events start with Art Goodman.

[sacentaur]

Will's reply:

 

" One of the Goodman relatives told this to Steve Fishler, I believe.... "

 

Not reliable hearsay by any stretch, sorry - I'll stick with Moondog.

[Moondog]

Will's reply:

 

" One of the Goodman relatives told this to Steve Fishler, I believe.... "

 

Thanks for reaching out to him, Pat. It would appear that all sources of this theory of events start with Art Goodman.

 

Well, my source's conversation with Martin and Fishler's conversation with Art contradict each other...

 

Somewhat surprised that Will Murray would accept an account of a comic book dealer when it comes to the early history of Marvel Comics...

[sacentaur]

Will's reply:

 

" One of the Goodman relatives told this to Steve Fishler, I believe.... "

 

Thanks for reaching out to him, Pat. It would appear that all sources of this theory of events start with Art Goodman.

 

Well, my source's conversation with Martin and Fishler's conversation with Art contradict each other...

 

Somewhat surprised that Will Murray would accept an account of a comic book dealer when it comes to the early history of Marvel Comics...

 

Indeed - instead of clarifying the issue, I find it somewhat disheartening as I expected better of Murray.

[markseifert]

Will's reply:

 

" One of the Goodman relatives told this to Steve Fishler, I believe.... "

 

Thanks for reaching out to him, Pat. It would appear that all sources of this theory of events start with Art Goodman.

 

Well, my source's conversation with Martin and Fishler's conversation with Art contradict each other...

 

Somewhat surprised that Will Murray would accept an account of a comic book dealer when it comes to the early history of Marvel Comics...

 

 

I hear ya. Not that it adds much to the conversation, but it seems that Art Goodman was telling others that version as well (I copied a 2002 post from someone upthread).

 

That said, you're absolutely right -- I wish there'd been more hard info behind this.

[Crowzilla]

[

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.

 

This would certainly make the most sense and would fit in with the questions/timeframe that I wrote (which Mark was kind enough to repost).

My guess is that Goodman made sure the October copies were placed into circulation around the NE where they could quickly be gotten to the newsstands for sale.

I still question the 800,000 print run - that would make it the second largest print run ever for a comic at that time (behind Superman #1) - a pretty huge gamble on an unknown book from a new comic publisher.

 

[G.A.tor]

I'm trying to compile a picture list of any copies, just because I think the book is so cool. I have about 35 or so, and am trying to add as many as possible. PM's or posting here would help.

 

thanks!

 

You have pics of 35 copies of the October...?

I doubt there are 35 pictures of Oct copies even in existence...I am sure he means "all" copies (predominantly Nov)

[bluechip]

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.

 

 

This theory fails to explain the change in the indicia. I think its more likely that for the second print they took the cheap way out in altering the cover and indicia plates.

 

I'm not sure it would've been cheaper that way. They had to create a new plate, basically, so why go to the same effort (or even more effort) to put a black circle with a Nov on the cover instead of changing the date and the indicia?

 

Also, that wouldn't explain why the circle "floats" in relation to the other blacks on the cover. But it would explain it if the covers were run through the printer again.

 

(and if you had printed covers already it would definitely have been cheaper to run them through once more than to print brand new covers)

 

I have also noticed that on some Nov copies it appear that the entire black plate was printed twice -- and slightly off-register (leading to a "ghosting" effect most notable on the figure of the torch). That could indicate they initially added the Nov circle to the black plate and ran some copies through, didn't like how they looked and then created a brand new plate with just the black circle NOV and the blacked out indicia. And, since Goodman didn't like to throw anything away, all the overprinted covers were sent to the newsstand anyway.

 

I would prefer the idea of the 2nd printing, because it would mean the Oct copies are the true first printing and thus, a good thing to buy now while people are placing too little added value on it. But it seems most logical that there was a larger printing and most copies were sent through the printer again for the corrections.

 

Of course, even that would mean the Oct copies were the first off the press and the first distriubuted before revisions were made. Amongst book collectors, that in itself can be construed to mean it's a first print.

 

 

 

[sfcityduck]

[

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.

 

This would certainly make the most sense and would fit in with the questions/timeframe that I wrote (which Mark was kind enough to repost).

My guess is that Goodman made sure the October copies were placed into circulation around the NE where they could quickly be gotten to the newsstands for sale.

I still question the 800,000 print run - that would make it the second largest print run ever for a comic at that time (behind Superman #1) - a pretty huge gamble on an unknown book from a new comic publisher.

 

Except, Goodman wasn't a new publisher. He was experienced in periodical publishing and newstand distribution. Goodman's history shows he never hesitated to jump on what he perceived as a successful trend. If he knew that DC was having a LOT of success selling superhero comics, then he might well have thought that the "gamble" of a large print run was a save bet. Keep in mind that Superman was not the pop culture icon back then that he is today, just a new comic character, so Goodman had no reason to believe that he too couldn't achieve Superman-like sales figures with his own super-hero comics.

 

But, if he did want to minimize his risk, then it makes sense that he would have started with an initial print run for regional distribution. He could get an idea of the reception for the comic almost immediately if he had a good relationship with the Distributors in his region, which he probably did, just by asking for an informal sampling from newstand owners as to how sales were. It is not far-fetched to think that the Distributor could have found out very quickly if newstands were selling out just by having its delivery guys ask, and could have reported back to Goodman: "You've got a hit!" Goodman could have then rushed back to press, likely within a week, and with minor alterations to the plates to increase the shelf life on the new run of the comic for national distribution (which, of course, meant greater shipping times).

 

The fact that no "October" copies have been found outside of a relatively narrow region supports this view. If "November" copies were found in the same narrow region as "October" copies, I think, that would be further evidence of two print runs, as opposed to the scenario you outline.

 

I don't see any real significance to the timing of the publication of the second issue. Even if Marvel Comics was originally envisioned as a bi-monthly publication, it is likely that Goodman was committed to publishing more than one issue. It's no surprise that Lloyd Jacquet got going on the production of the second issue around the same time as the first as there was no need to wait and every reason to be well ahead of the deadlines. [Working ahead may have been standard practice for Jacquet, as evidenced by the preparation of the covers for subsequent unpublished issues of MPFW.]

 

[markseifert]

If "November" copies were found in the same narrow region as "October" copies, I think, that would be further evidence of two print runs, as opposed to the scenario you outline.

 

That's actually an excellent point. What November copies have a known East Coast provenance?

 

 

[sfcityduck]

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.

 

 

This theory fails to explain the change in the indicia. I think its more likely that for the second print they took the cheap way out in altering the cover and indicia plates.

 

I'm not sure it would've been cheaper that way. They had to create a new plate, basically, so why go to the same effort (or even more effort) to put a black circle with a Nov on the cover instead of changing the date and the indicia?

 

Also, that wouldn't explain why the circle "floats" in relation to the other blacks on the cover. But it would explain it if the covers were run through the printer again.

 

(and if you had printed covers already it would definitely have been cheaper to run them through once more than to print brand new covers)

 

I have also noticed that on some Nov copies it appear that the entire black plate was printed twice -- and slightly off-register (leading to a "ghosting" effect most notable on the figure of the torch). That could indicate they initially added the Nov circle to the black plate and ran some copies through, didn't like how they looked and then created a brand new plate with just the black circle NOV and the blacked out indicia. And, since Goodman didn't like to throw anything away, all the overprinted covers were sent to the newsstand anyway.

 

I would prefer the idea of the 2nd printing, because it would mean the Oct copies are the true first printing and thus, a good thing to buy now while people are placing too little added value on it. But it seems most logical that there was a larger printing and most copies were sent through the printer again for the corrections.

 

Of course, even that would mean the Oct copies were the first off the press and the first distriubuted before revisions were made. Amongst book collectors, that in itself can be construed to mean it's a first print.

 

 

 

If you're right, another analogy would be to the Beatles' "Butcher" covers. The "October" copy would be a "first state," the "November" copies with blurred back covers a "second state," and the "November" copies with unblurred back covers a "third state."

 

Regardless of the mechanics of how the run was printed, it seems to me that collectors already price "October" and "November" copies differently and will continue to do so into the future.

 

Still, I'm not convinced it would have been cheaper to redo the plates. I don't know what kind of press was being used, but couldn't the printer just add an additional plate to effectuate the correction without altering the original plates or doing a re-run? I thought, for example, such additional plates were used for special inks (like the cover of Silver Streak)? If so, that would also explain the "floating circle" and why changes were made to the indicia as well as the cover.

[G.A.tor]

so few Oct copies even ever come up for sale, that the pricing diff is really not that "different" in that there is really not a large enough pool of sales to extrapolate that info from... very few folks "care" about oct vs Nov copies, just as very few folks "care" about first or 2nd batman 1 or superman 1 printings, etc... just to have "a" copy of marvel 1, is the driving force, etc

[markseifert]

Still, I'm not convinced it would have been cheaper to redo the plates. I don't know what kind of press was being used, but couldn't the printer just add an additional plate to effectuate the correction without altering the original plates or doing a re-run? I thought, for example, such additional plates were used for special inks (like the cover of Silver Streak)? If so, that would also explain the "floating circle" and why changes were made to the indicia as well as the cover.

 

Something I've long been curious about this is if there are other examples of such a quick-fix date change on any pulps or magazines of the era. Regardless of the reasoning (2nd printings or mistakes) you'd have to presume it came up occasionally.

[bluechip]

so few Oct copies even ever come up for sale, that the pricing diff is really not that "different" in that there is really not a large enough pool of sales to extrapolate that info from... very few folks "care" about oct vs Nov copies, just as very few folks "care" about first or 2nd batman 1 or superman 1 printings, etc... just to have "a" copy of marvel 1, is the driving force, etc

 

True. But when you see what people pay for a 9.8 vs9.6 .(or anything less) then it's obvious that it only takes a few people who care about that difference enough to pay massive multiples. Sometimes it only takes two.

[Silver Surfer]

so few Oct copies even ever come up for sale, that the pricing diff is really not that "different" in that there is really not a large enough pool of sales to extrapolate that info from... very few folks "care" about oct vs Nov copies, just as very few folks "care" about first or 2nd batman 1 or superman 1 printings, etc... just to have "a" copy of marvel 1, is the driving force, etc

 

I agree Rick not enough data right now but the few copies that have sold, in particular the lower grade October copies, are fetching much more than Nov copies in similar grade.

[Silver Surfer]

If "November" copies were found in the same narrow region as "October" copies, I think, that would be further evidence of two print runs, as opposed to the scenario you outline.

 

That's actually an excellent point. What November copies have a known East Coast provenance?

 

 

Indeed great point. Sometimes I think we are over analyzing some of the finer details. The success of the Superman sales must have been mind boggling to these guys back then so after the first $80,000 issues of MC#1 were snatched up with such a small target market I don't think it would be a stretch to increase the print run by 10 fold and distribute them nationally.

[sacentaur]

Something I've long been curious about this is if there are other examples of such a quick-fix date change on any pulps or magazines of the era.

 

Yes, we just discovered one for Amazing Stories Vol. 5 #11 (February, 1931).

 

My copy has all slick (Life magazine-like) pages, while another Boardie has a copy with 50% pulp paper and 50% slick paper, while yet another Boardie has a copy that is all standard pulp paper.

 

The presumption is that some type of pulp paper shortage occurred during the press run, thus requiring a partial, then a full slick paper, transition in order to complete the job.

 

It's a standard, non-descript issue so can't imagine a reason for a 2nd or 3rd printing.

 

[markseifert]

so few Oct copies even ever come up for sale, that the pricing diff is really not that "different" in that there is really not a large enough pool of sales to extrapolate that info from... very few folks "care" about oct vs Nov copies, just as very few folks "care" about first or 2nd batman 1 or superman 1 printings, etc... just to have "a" copy of marvel 1, is the driving force, etc

 

True. But when you see what people pay for a 9.8 vs9.6 .(or anything less) then it's obvious that it only takes a few people who care about that difference enough to pay massive multiples. Sometimes it only takes two.

 

I think the state of the marketplace on this is purely based on lack of knowledge of the identifiable printings in the general marketplace. I wouldn't bet on this staying the same 10 years from now.

[Silver Surfer]

Something I've long been curious about this is if there are other examples of such a quick-fix date change on any pulps or magazines of the era.

 

Yes, we just discovered one for Amazing Stories Vol. 5 #11 (February, 1931).

 

My copy has all slick (Life magazine-like) pages, while another Boardie has a copy with 50% pulp paper and 50% slick paper, while yet another Boardie has a copy that is all standard pulp paper.

 

The presumption is that some type of pulp paper shortage occurred during the press run, thus requiring a partial, then a full slick paper, transition in order to complete the job.

 

It's a standard, non-descript issue so can't imagine a reason for a 2nd or 3rd printing.

 

 

Steve is this an example of just different paper being fed into the printing press because of a paper shortage [in the middle of the depression] or are there actual date differences?