RedRaven Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Also, Warren said they were produced and sold: Warren also goes on to state that the original was to cover copywrites. The details are well known. The Ashcan was produced by Jim Warren and Archie Godwin in order to secure rights to the 'Eerie' name for publication. Photocopies were made and very limitedly distirbuted by hand in order to give the perception that Warren already had an Eerie publication on the street. These photocopies are Eerie #1 (1st printing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makmorn Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Somewhere I read in an interview with Warren that he produced and sold copies of Eerie #1 for fans that requested it (second printing). And in the reward flyer he says it was produced and sold, the original was not sold. Don't you find it odd that he clearly describes the second print in the reward flyer if it didn't exist? Just seems like everything points to a second print, including both Overstreet and Warren, yet you say it does not exist. To me there is more proof of a second print than not. What you need is more proof that it does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowzilla Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Somewhere I read in an interview with Warren that he produced and sold copies of Eerie #1 for fans that requested it (second printing). And in the reward flyer he says it was produced and sold, the original was not sold. Don't you find it odd that he clearly describes the second print in the reward flyer if it didn't exist? Just seems like everything points to a second print, including both Overstreet and Warren, yet you say it does not exist. To me there is more proof of a second print than not. What you need is more proof that it does not exist. I agree with everything Raven stated. Stephen Bissette interviewed Goodwin in-depth when he was researching his history of horror comics project in the 80s and specifically asked him for the story on Eerie #1. Warren did instruct Goodwin and Gaspar Saladino to produce the book before a meeting with a distributor and the book was indeed sold - Warren tipped some newsstand operators to have the book on display so that the distributor and competitor he was meeting with would see he was already publishing a magazine using that title. So Warren was correct when he stated that copies were sold. Goodwin stated that the remaining copies were NEVER sold through Warren's magazines or mail order service, but they did sit around the Warren offices for several years and would sometimes be given away to office visitors or to fans who wrote lengthy letters of comment. Warren NEVER did a second printing of #1. The Overstreet guide started noting the 2nd print in 1977, but it should more correctly be included with the "other unauthorized reproductions". the even trimming, house at the bottom of page 1, the "missing" man on page 18, and the sideways artboard text on pages 18,19, and 20 remain the best ways to tell an original from all bootlegs, but as printing technology gets better and better, provenance becomes the only real fail safe to keep from buying a bootleg. The Lions Den 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makmorn Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Then why does the Warren reward flyer describe the second print? "special staples" and "special paper" For what it's worth, the second print I have does not appear to be a photocopy since you can see the way the ink lays that it was done on a printing press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowzilla Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 You are misreading the flyer - it never says second print. It says that Warren produced and sold a limited number of Eerie #1s (clarifying that they were smaller size and not regular paper) and then in the second paragraph describes why those copies were originally made (copyright and registration). the second paragraph is not stating that originals were made to protect copyright, with the first paragraph saying they made a second print to sell to collectors in ads. It's a "here's what we did, and here's why we did it". As already explained, anyone ordering a "first collectors edition" issue through the magazine got a copy of #2. Everything in the Warren flyer is true and correct. They made the copies to ensure that they would be granted the title and some of those copies they made were sold on the newsstand. The second print is not a photocopy (nor is the first). How could a photocopy show a guy not there in the original? It was believed to have been produced from the original art (or stats of the original art) which is why the man on page 18 can be clearly seen when he is not visible in the original. And why would a publisher wanting to present a magazine as being worthy of it's buyers money leave the pages untrimmed? The first print was done by "line repro printing" according to Goodwin. Tom Skulan (Fantaco owner and publisher) reported in that he answered Warren's ad in the 70s and sent his copy (matching Overstreets definition of second printing) to Warren to authenticate and Warren indicated it was a counterfeit. The Lions Den 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makmorn Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Okay, what is specal about the staples and paper in the first print, if that is what is being described? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRaven Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Okay, what is specal about the staples and paper in the first print, if that is what is being described? Nothing at all. That is just J.Warren being the showman/salesman. Special only in the sense that the issue wasnt printed using the standard paper and printing process as regular Warren full run magazines, never mind how cheap the actual process was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowzilla Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 The special paper is just referring to the fact that it is not on regular magazine paper. Warren and Goodwin both have stated over the years that there was only one printing of Eerie #1 done. I can understand that you have something you believe to be a second print, and want to protect the value, but it just didn't happen. (and the dimensions mentioned in the ad are the dimensions of the original trimmed Eerie #1 produced for the meeting). Overstreet also states "at least three different versions exist" before describing the first printing. Does this mean that there is another authorized 3rd print of which they are not giving details? Of course not. They bunch it in with "other unauthorized reproductions" of which the second print is also one. The Lions Den 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRaven Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 The second print is not a photocopy (nor is the first). How could a photocopy show a guy not there in the original? ..... The first print was done by "line repro printing" according to Goodwin. I wasn't aware that the first and second issues were actually printed. I, at some point, got it in my head that they were both photocopies from the same source. What is 'line repro printing'? I googeld the term but couldn't find a good explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowzilla Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Raven, I'm really not sure either, but Goodwin mentioned it to differentiate it from a regular photocopy (remember Xerox had just made the photocopier available in 1960, and it weighed 650 lbs and cost $29,500 - they were still very expensive and their use was not widespread like it is today). Maybe a type of mimeograph machine of some sort to save Warren money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makmorn Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 (edited) Well upon reading pg 41 of the Warren Companion, Warren specifically mentions the blue staples, that is why I am a bit confused. Why mention the special staples in the flyer and specifically "Blue" staples if it was all just showmanship? Pg 41 Edited February 19, 2012 by Makmorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowzilla Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 You just answered your own question. Warren is answering a question about stopping the counterfeiters and mentions that that money could have exchanged hands before the kid found out it was a fake, only when Overstreet mentioned years later that about the printing differences and the blue staples that people were saved from the counterfeit copies. He was implying there that the blue staple copies were the counterfeits. Notice he also mentions right before that about couriers waiting to take copies of Eerie #1 that he had printed for copyright purposes to newsstands to make sure some copies were sold. Those are the sold copies mentioned in the flyer/ad. Nothing in there about a second printing being made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRaven Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I think this has turned out to be a great thread and some much needed action for the Mag Forum. I still want more info on the printing process for the ashcan and the second print, so I PMd RonKasman to see if he a has anything to add. Hopefully with that answered we can refer to this as a definitive thread for Eerie#1. The Lions Den 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makmorn Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I agree, pretty good thread and much needed for the mag forum. Truth be told, I got my copy in a group of Eerie's and it was just a bonus since one of the books graded out a 9.8, which made it worth it to me for the whole lot. So no, I am not worried or concerned about the outcome. I do find it interesting though about the staples, and the fact Warren mentions them in a couple of locations. Heck, being a showman with a flair for the dramatic, I would not put it past him to have actually printed the second copy just so he could make news. (maybe not, but anything is possible) Whoever printed it, definately had the original film, and access to a printer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makmorn Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Well, during all this, I emailed Doug Sulipa and this is his response: I only had one copy of Eerie #1 and that was in the Mid 1980's. If my memory serves, the copy that i did have, had that strange 1/4" blue strip on the staples, so i must have been the elusive 2nd Printing. But i think the 2nd prnting is actually lower print & scarcer than the 1st printing, that might explain why it is so hard to find. Thanks! .... DOUG I had hoped he could help a bit more than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makmorn Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Hmm, got an interesting email from Doug a bit ago. I recall when it was offered to me in the 1980's, wondering if it was the Counterfeit copy. But the fellow who sold it to me had a used & torn Warren mags mailing envelope with it & that convinced me it was an Original. I have seen mostly 1st printings for sale over the last 30 years, with only a few 2nd printings. I have never seen an identified Counterfeit copy for sale. Doug Ze plot thickens I still don't get the special staples and paper in the reward flyer either, the original printing did not have those features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 What is 'line repro printing'? I googeld the term but couldn't find a good explanation. I used to do this kind of work, back in the day when I was a stripper "line repro printing" uses line art, i.e. art that is converted into lines or dots with no actual continuous tones or "grays". This was done using a graphics (or stat) camera, whereby art could be photographed and converted into line-art using film with special screens overlaid that converted the resultant image into line art - hence the term line repro printing. The Lions Den 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makmorn Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Ah yes, the great days of stat cameras, rapidographs, and screens. Thanks for reminding me how old I am Nothing quite like the bright light of a stat camera when you have a hangover. I miss them at times, not a lot, but a little, I was never a stripper, my folks wouldn't allow that. I hope you realize how difficult it was for me to resist posting an inapproriate picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDS Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 Thanks for the links to the other threads. Very interesting. Heritage sold one in 2006 they say was a 1st print. No provenance was mentioned. I wonder who authenticated it? I've sent an e-mail to see if they would still consign one and if so, under what conditions. I couldn't find any sales from clink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Ah yes, the great days of stat cameras, rapidographs, and screens. Thanks for reminding me how old I am Nothing quite like the bright light of a stat camera when you have a hangover. I miss them at times, not a lot, but a little, I was never a stripper, my folks wouldn't allow that. I hope you realize how difficult it was for me to resist posting an inapproriate picture. Of course stripper refers to stripping film to burn printing plates. It was always fun telling people I did shipping for a living. But I'm dating myself But seriously guys, this has been a great thread to follow - very informative and thought-provoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
