Eerie #1 Expert Needed 4 4

[oakman29]

15 hours ago, CDNComix said:

To me, the big three big comic stories invloving a known infamous fake edition are the: Eerie ashcan, Cerebus #1 and Love and Rockets #1. The CGC currently certifies two of the the three. Why not the third and by far most important book?

In addition, they do a pretty good job navigating the world of undergrounds and all of the printings, corresponding tells and changes with regard to information over time. I would have thought certifying undergrounds would be too small pototes and high risk for the CGC to bother and yet they do. To do a proper job of certifying an underground, the certifying company has to drill down and first determine which printing is the book they are about to grade and certify. It does not help us (ug collectors) if they grade a copy of "Big A*s Comix #1" without identfying which printing it is (tricky to do), so they do and label it as such.

A member of another forum, recently disciovered the real first printing of "Collected Cheech Wizard" nearly fourty years since it was published in the first underground collecting guide. Our collecting community is not up in arms that the CGC has been certifying second printings as first printings up to this point. We recognize that they have been doing the best they can will the most current infomation available to them. There so many examples of "undergrounds" certified by the CGC that have been misidentified and are basically encapuslated mislabelled mistakes that all of the world can see. The underground community does not care because it understands the challenge, so why should the CGC fear the risk with regard to the ashcan?

The other two non-CGCs also certify undergrounds and they are a disaster maybe not grading wise, but defintiely when it comes to the identification of the edition/printing. Zap Comix #2 as a true print (miscut heads edition) is worth hundreds and second edition is worth $20. Both of the "others" fail miserably with making this discinction with their certified Zap #2s. So it does not surprise me that one of them is now certifying the ashcan but not providing all of the information on the label. They are purposely "greying out" the issue.

If the CGC are to cerify any comic, then they have perform restoration checks (deos the book have colour touch-ups, expert restoration, was it trimmed). I would have thought this would be more challenging to them (has the book been altered for the sake of a higher grade) than a side-by-side comparsion of a ashcan candiate to a master file copy.

 

The fake TMNT #1's come to mind not Love and Rockets

[Stevemmg]

Given that the man who was in charge of CGC that made the decision not to grade Eerie 1 ashcans is now the man in charge there, I have to think he’s learned more about properly identifying them. I owe him a call anyway, so I’ll ask. 

[N e r V]

1 hour ago, Stevemmg said:

Given that the man who was in charge of CGC that made the decision not to grade Eerie 1 ashcans is now the man in charge there, I have to think he’s learned more about properly identifying them. I owe him a call anyway, so I’ll ask. 

Captain America has everyone who’s anyone on speed dial…

 

 

Ask him if they are slabbing blue staple counterfeits as well…

 

[N e r V]

1 hour ago, oakman29 said:

The fake TMNT #1's come to mind not Love and Rockets

I always thought you were more of a turtle guy than Love & Rockets myself…

 

 

 

 

[wombat]

Just wanted to have this for reference. Closest I will ever get. 

 

[Jayman]

50 minutes ago, wombat said:

Just wanted to have this for reference. Closest I will ever get. 

 

What is it you have? A known replica? Tell us more! 

[wombat]

7 minutes ago, Jayman said:

What is it you have? A known replica? Tell us more! 

Just a photocopy version. 

[Jayman]

57 minutes ago, wombat said:

Just a photocopy version. 

Gotcha. Was wondering because the off white stock made it look like it had some age to it. It also looks to be around the right size too. From eBay?

[wombat]

20 hours ago, Jayman said:

Gotcha. Was wondering because the off white stock made it look like it had some age to it. It also looks to be around the right size too. From eBay?

Yeah, It was like $15. 

[The Lions Den]

On 6/17/2021 at 7:18 PM, N e r V said:

So I’m guessing with future fanzine subs just email them in advance for a yes or no?

That's probably the easiest course of action...

[The Lions Den]

On 6/17/2021 at 8:55 PM, Stevemmg said:

Given that the man who was in charge of CGC that made the decision not to grade Eerie 1 ashcans is now the man in charge there, I have to think he’s learned more about properly identifying them. I owe him a call anyway, so I’ll ask. 

I'd be interested in finding out what he has to say...    

[CDNComix]

First learning point from the ashcan I had purchased from Bill Pearson. It's a bit surprising (to me). I performed a fluorescence test on my example and is opitically dead (barely fluorescent, appears as dull purple). See attached. I had placed various fluorescent papers around it including its backing board for comparasion. I cannot remove the uv cut-off filter from my cell phone, so the images do not appear the same as directly with the eye (even more pronounced in real life).

This is a bigger conversation - type of lamp, is the Bill Pearson representative of others etc. But my copy barely fluorecences. If this holds true with other known to be real copies, then this could an easy tell that is accessible to most. More information is coming with time.

[wombat]

Do we have a comparison of what a fake copy looks like under the UV light?

[CDNComix]

On 8/3/2021 at 1:17 PM, wombat said:

Do we have a comparison of what a fake copy looks like under the UV light?

That's what I am putting out there, since this is the first time any copy has had its fluorescent properties posted. Let's see how other copies behave: "second" blue staple editions, advertised modern reproductions, possible in-the-time-of fakes, other examples that have provenance and should be real. Fluorecence is only one physical attribute (it may or may not prove useful)  but there are many others. Knowledge and sharing of it is power.

Edited August 3, 2021 by CDNComix

[The Lions Den]

On 8/3/2021 at 1:27 PM, CDNComix said:

Knowledge and sharing of it is power.

[jjonahjameson11]

Cha-Ching $$$

Eerie #1 First Printing (Warren, 1965) CBCS NM 9.4 White pages. | LotID #149003 | Heritage Auctions (ha.com)

[The Lions Den]

On 8/6/2021 at 2:26 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

Cha-Ching $$$

Eerie #1 First Printing (Warren, 1965) CBCS NM 9.4 White pages. | LotID #149003 | Heritage Auctions (ha.com)

Well then...there it is.  

[wombat]

I assume we have no way of knowing if it is legit or not. 

[CDNComix]

I was playing around and marking off the staple positions on the various examples of the Eerie ashcan ("first" printings) on HA. Refer to the 4 examples in top row. I also marked the certified edition due auction this month next to the Bill Pearson's copy on the bottom row. Surpisingly there is no consistant postioning between the copies (top staple placement, bottom staple placement or position between the staples).

Oddly the certified copy (bottom left) seems to match an equally too good to be true (condition) book that sold on HA last year in 2020 (top right).

If these copies are real representatives, then we are looking at hand stapled book.

I did not make an equally lousy comparasion of the blue staple "second" printing, but from my eye, the images of the examples I have on file seem to have a consistant position.

Edited August 15, 2021 by CDNComix

[oakman29]

On 8/15/2021 at 9:22 AM, CDNComix said:

I was playing around and marking off the staple positions on the various examples of the Eerie ashcan ("first" printings) on HA. Refer to the 4 examples in top row. I also marked the certified edition due auction this month next to the Bill Pearson's copy on the bottom row. Surpisingly there is no consistant postioning between the copies (top staple placement, bottom staple placement or position between the staples).

Oddly the certified copy (bottom left) seems to match an equally too good to be true (condition) book that sold on HA last year in 2020 (top right).

If these copies are real representatives, then we are looking at hand stapled book.

I did not make an equally lousy comparasion of the blue staple "second" printing, but from my eye, the images of the examples I have on file seem to have a consistant position.

That might put some credibility to the story that Warren wanted to push the first prints out quickly to establish the copyright. Also for the 2nd prints that they were indeed printed at the Warren facility by a employee as was  presumed.