Underground Comix 'Bijou #1'

[50 Cent #II (1st)]

I'm assuming you're referring to the Zap Comix #2 Head First offset/miscut you first pointed out but didn't think to contact Donahue to confirm it while he was still around, which I did and wrote about (giving you full credit)? Or the fact that there was so many more printings of Zap Comix #2 that have ever been recorded or documented?

 

Without me asking Donahue about the Zap Comix #2 first print, we may have never learned about the what happened with the 1st print and the numbers of the print run...(thanks for never crediting me for that).

[comicwiz]

The tell. And since you insist on pushing it, it wasn't so much the attribution (which I can't take all the credit for, as I was able to confirm it to be accurate from online dialogue and discourse amongst UG collectors which evolved a whole ten years before your research). It's the approach and method you used. You solicit members from the CPG boards for help, and then set terms and conditions on how you intend to share the research? BrotherJ and a few others thought it was was off-putting to say the least.

[50 Cent #II (1st)]

OK, fair enough, you don't like the way I collected the info. so you ignore it. That's fine...

[comicwiz]

Guy, that was a long time ago. Who cares what I think anyway? What matters is the memory of how the information was obtained. The rest is just data with some usefulness in your collecting pursuits. I've done my research independently because that is the way I learn best.

 

If it's any consolation, I have had to learn that whatever my opinion, its moderated according by prevailing views and perceptions of the collecting community. It took nearly 8 years before Howard (EggsAckley) got CGC to notate the Heads First miscut on the label. I had been banging on that drum for years prior, and while Mark was receptive to it whenever I saw him at cons, he still insisted in using CGC's own approach to determining a first print (which relied partially on Jay Kennedy's research, and the weight of paper determined by the "feel" of someone on CGC's staff).

 

At the end of the day, what CGC says is a first print is what keeps the hobby-machine oiled and running.

[50 Cent #II (1st)]

Just saying, it might have had something to do with my research on Zap Comix #2 and documenting what information I obtained talking to Donahue, why CGC started noted it? I'll probably continue to sound like an , but perhaps we should ask Howard if he passed my research on to CGC for them to start noting it on the label?

[BLBcomics-migration]

Hello, Mike Danyurs FB's me this conversation is going on. I might stay for a while, but am wrapped up working my eBay store & such attempting to mercantile vintage funny books & related material.

 

One thing re the myth & legend re the origins of Zap #1: Robert Crumb never did the baby carriage thing at Haight & Ashbury with the baby carriage. That was Dana and Don, lasted about 15 minutes.

 

There were a number of people who participated in the folding, trim and stapling of those early printings before Print Mint took over. Have interviewed them all. Names some of you have never heard of (yet).

 

that notebook, while interesting, and contains pertinent data, is not "complete"

 

Am compiling the origin of Zap Comics for the FBI omnibus from right before the Plymell was printed to when #3 came out. Just 1968.

 

Lots of myth has built up over the years. A few stray words in an interview here and there back in the day, then repeated in a book here and there, then that got repeated over and over. Perception became "reality."

 

When I finish it, then it gets run past the guys who "own" Zap.

 

Starting back in 1972 when I partnered up with the late John Barrett and the more silent C&C partner Bud Plant, I interviewed many a person no one else has yet to date, some no one else can as they are now dead, like Moe, fer starters, whom I talked with quite a few times. Moe is KEY to Zap getting off the ground. I think I finally have it all worked out so it makes sense

 

While I am here am posting the URL for my UG stuff below which I list as "counterculture" material in my eBay store. Some fun item in there am taking offers on

 

Robert Beerbohm

http://www.facebook.com/BLBcomics

http://stores.ebay.com/BLBcomics/COUNTERCULTURE-MUSIC-/_i.html?rt=nc&_fsub=8973197&_sid=741687&_sticky=1&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14&_sop=3&_sc=1

 

 

[50 Cent #II (1st)]

A recent auction that may add fuel to the fire. Dated 1962 or earlier in the listing is way off, it's probably more like April/May 1968. If authentic, then the 4,000 is closer to the 3,500 than other estimates, if this was to include the 2nd print of the est. 5,000 addition, then the numbers are way off for the 2nd print.

Jesse was born 01 April 1968 and the 1st print came out 25 Feb. 1968. #2 came out Jun.-Aug. 1968.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/260952945129?ssPageName=STRK:MESINDXX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1436.l2649

 

A Christmas card (probably written by Dana) to the same person from Dec. 1969.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ROBERT-CRUMB-ORIGINAL-SIGNED-POSTCARD-XMAS-CARD-1969-NR-/260952957198?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cc202210e

 

What I failed to add previously, was when I presented the above research from Donahue's records to Plymell via e-mail a couple years ago, he conceded that the info. was probably correct and that the print run for the 1st print was probably closer to "3,000".

 

[50 Cent #II (1st)]

A letter I purchased that arrived today. It's to William "Bill" Cole, the one I believe is the rumored guy with 50 copies of the 1st print hiding in his closet who wouldn't sell any back to Robert and Dana after it sold out and they didn't keep any copies for themselves. He passed away in 2000, wonder if he kept them through the years and if so what happened to them (hope they didn't get thrown out in the trash)? He also supplied Robert with the copies of the art of Zap Comix #0 after the originals went missing. He also printed the Head Comix book.

 

http://www.lionheartautographs.com/autograph/13950-FEIFFER,-JULES-Mad-has-triumphed-without-my-sympathies,-and-so-may-R.-Crumb

[oldmilwaukee6er]

Not sure if this was mentioned or not (RE Bijou #1 1st print). None of the GPAnalysis or CGC census data would reflect a first printing. This is because the very large overhang of the cover relative to the white pages. CGC will not slab it. It is sometimes thought by collectors, e.g. Weist's portion of his 2000 reference guide, that a NM 9.4 first printing of Bijou #1 likely does not exist due to this overhang. That over time, shelf wear, & bagging/boarding, the right hadn of the cover wears consistent with Moondog's copy.