Eerie #1 Expert Needed 4 4

[CDNComix]

I was the person (along with one other bidder) who took a chance and bid on the "Bill Pearson" copy of the ashcan. It's always been importnat to me to find a copy with close to "ironclad" provedience that extends all the back to Archie Goodwin and its publication in 1965. Bill's auction posting suffered from a lack of information and its provision of a single image of the front cover that was touched up to remove the cover staining (he described in auction description). To frank the posting looked scammy (first image below).

I was fortunate enough to win the auction and to receive in fact what turned out to be a real copy. In the way provendience, Bill signed the splash page, composed a handwritten letter (describing how he was involved and under what circumstances he obtained the copy) and provided it with the book and in addition there's the package with Bill's handwritten address. I was never in doubt that the person selling the book was Bill Pearson, but I was more concerned with the when and how he got it.

It has always bothered me that "we" do not 100% know if the book was produced by Warren as an early publisher-grade photocopy or via standard litho. I will try to find a reasonably priced forensic document expert to provide a short report with their conclusion on this and I will share with everyone. If it does turn out to be litho, then I do not understand why the CGC will not certify copies. If they conclude that it was produced as an early photocopy by Warren, then the reluctance by the CGC will be supported and a serious issue for collectors will remain - how do you know if your copy (or the one you are considering to purchase) is real?

Edited August 12, 2021 by CDNComix

[oakman29]

3 hours ago, CDNComix said:

I was the person (along with one other bidder) who took a chance and bid on the "Bill Pearson" copy of the ashcan. It's always been importnat to me to find a copy with close to "ironclad" provedience that extends all the back to Archie Goodwin and its publication in 1965. Bill's auction posting suffered from a lack of information and its provision of a single image of the front cover that was touched up to remove the cover staining (he described in auction description). To frank the posting looked scammy (first image below).

I was fortunate enough to win the auction and to receive in fact what turned out to be a real copy. In the way provendience, Bill signed the splash page, composed a handwritten letter (describing how he was involved and under what circumstances he obtained the copy) and provided a copy of it (not the originial) with the book and in addition there's the package with Bill's handwritten address. I was never in doubt that the person selling the book was Bill Pearson, but I was more concerned with the when and how he got it.

It has always bothered me that "we" do not 100% know if the book was produced by Warren as an early publisher-grade photocopy or via standard litho. I will try to find a reasonably priced forensic document expert to provide a short report with their conclusion on this and I will share with everyone. If it does turn out to be litho, then I do not understand why the CGC will not certify copies. If they conclude that it was produced as an early photocopy by Warren, then the reluctance by the CGC will be supported and a serious issue for collectors will remain - how do you know if your copy (or the one you are considering to purchase) is real?

That is amazing! 

I am grateful for your ongoing investigation into this book. I too have a copy, and am eagerly awaiting your findings. That was a great buy, and I wish with all the information Mr. Pearson provided is truly an amazing find.

[CDNComix]

1 hour ago, oakman29 said:

That is amazing! 

I am grateful for your ongoing investigation into this book. I too have a copy, and am eagerly awaiting your findings. That was a great buy, and I wish with all the information Mr. Pearson provided is truly an amazing find.

Thank you. You are too kind.

I just needed a real example (it took years) to start chipping away at some this and to share any findings with others.  Whenever I needed guidance or information on the Ashcan, I was always directed here by the on-line search. I have benefited from the experiences and thoughts of others, including yourself on the subject and hopefully we can start closing some "not too sures".

Have you ever read the arrogant taunting message posted by someone within one the heavily splintered ashcan threads? They claimed to know everything about about how to distinguish an actual copy from the rest and posted about 10 comments/questions to the community: how was the ashcan printed, how thick is its paper stock, etc. and never shared a single answer or any information! What a goof. Give me about 6 months and I will return with an answer - photocopy vs litho and anything else that I can share

[oakman29]

5 minutes ago, CDNComix said:

Thank you. You are too kind.

I just needed a real example (it took years) to start chipping away at some this and to share any findings with others.  Whenever I needed guidance or information on the Ashcan, I was always directed here by the on-line search. I have benefited from the experiences and thoughts of others, including yourself on the subject and hopefully we can start closing some "not too sures".

Have you ever read the arrogant taunting message posted by someone within one the heavily splintered ashcan threads? They claimed to know everything about about how to distinguish an actual copy from the rest and posted about 10 comments/questions to the community: how was the ashcan printed, how thick is its paper stock, etc. and never shared a single answer or any information! What a goof. Give me about 6 months and I will return with an answer - photocopy vs litho and anything else that I can share

Yeah I thought that guy was pretentious at best.  

Ido know that a type of Lytho print was used , because the thickness of the black ink is much darker. It couldnt be made from a basic Xerox copy.

Edited June 13, 2021 by oakman29

[CDNComix]

1 hour ago, oakman29 said:

eah I thought that guy was pretentious at best.  

Ido know that a type of Lytho print was used , because the thickness of the black ink is much darker. It couldnt be made from a basic Xerox copy.

Agreed. Pretentious or worse.

I would be surprised if it was not litho. The only things supporting the publisher grade early photocopy is based on speculation and theory. There's Warren's/Goodwin's statement on how quickly it was produced (24 hours) and Goodwin's use of "special line repro process (or whatever)" in an interview, that some read as a non-litho process.

And reading into the statement from the CGC as to why they do not certify copies "using a process that cannot be authenticated" again or whatever the specific statement was. It's probably going to be litho and the above can be explained away as just being false assumptions by the reader.

There's a lot of smoke surrounding this one and I actually want that issue to be cleared up once and for all. Same would go for the "blue staple" books. I would want to finally 100% know how these were produced and if it differed from the real copy. I believe as part of one those splintered thread about the ashcan, someone had put the claim out there:  real edition had to be produced quickly (photocopy) and the blue staple edition was produced by an insider who had access to the pre-press art at Warrne and time to use litho. Could you imagine, in the unlikely event if this was true!

The thing I would caution on is judging whether something is litho or produced by some other means, based upon its darkness, mattness, shininess or print quality. I am an underground collecotor and I am embrassed to reveal that I did not know that nearly all minis were xeroxes, not litho. These are later date pubs (1981 instead of 1965) but they are pretty good and dark:

Edited June 13, 2021 by CDNComix

[oakman29]

As for the blue staple books. I believe that there was an insider in the company who had used the same printing process and dimensions as the original books, maybe possible using the original printing plates. Hence why there was a mans bald head when on the original printing it did not have that man visible. 

You really scored on that book, the provenance is there.

[oakman29]

The company without a name grading these?

[Randall Dowling]

25 minutes ago, oakman29 said:

The company without a name grading these?

That's very interesting...

[Jayman]

20 hours ago, oakman29 said:

The company without a name grading these?

Yes, interesting. Can’t make out any info on the label. Wonder if it states first print, blue staples or counterfeit?

[oakman29]

3 hours ago, Jayman said:

Yes, interesting. Can’t make out any info on the label. Wonder if it states first print, blue staples or counterfeit?

That is what I was trying to get at too. 

[Stevemmg]

Nothing there other than the date published, which would imply first print. Nothing much in the notes either.  

[N e r V]

On 6/14/2021 at 6:42 PM, oakman29 said:

The company without a name grading these?

 

2 hours ago, Stevemmg said:

Nothing there other than the date published, which would imply first print. Nothing much in the notes either.  

 

6 hours ago, Jayman said:

Yes, interesting. Can’t make out any info on the label. Wonder if it states first print, blue staples or counterfeit?

 

On 6/14/2021 at 7:08 PM, Randall Dowling said:

That's very interesting...

I emailed them along with CGC a few years ago because I wanted to see if I could get my  “original” blue staple counterfeit in a slab. You could argue all day about what an original ashcan was but it shouldn’t have been an issue to get the blue staple counterfeit copy in a slab I thought (mistakenly).

“Hi Brett,

 

Unfortunately we do not grade these because they are easily reproducible. 

 

The CBCS Team”

 

 

It looks like since then they are putting them in a generic case with basic information. They actually have 2 copies in slabs now a 9.4 and a 9.2. I think I’ll check into them again to see if they’ll put mine in a slab noting it as the blue staple counterfeit. Maybe I’ll be challenged for trying to pass off a counterfeit of a counterfeit and they’ll refuse…

 

 

[N e r V]

On 6/13/2021 at 5:45 AM, CDNComix said:

I was the person (along with one other bidder) who took a chance and bid on the "Bill Pearson" copy of the ashcan. It's always been importnat to me to find a copy with close to "ironclad" provedience that extends all the back to Archie Goodwin and its publication in 1965. Bill's auction posting suffered from a lack of information and its provision of a single image of the front cover that was touched up to remove the cover staining (he described in auction description). To frank the posting looked scammy (first image below).

I was fortunate enough to win the auction and to receive in fact what turned out to be a real copy. In the way provendience, Bill signed the splash page, composed a handwritten letter (describing how he was involved and under what circumstances he obtained the copy) and provided a copy of it (not the originial) with the book and in addition there's the package with Bill's handwritten address. I was never in doubt that the person selling the book was Bill Pearson, but I was more concerned with the when and how he got it.

It has always bothered me that "we" do not 100% know if the book was produced by Warren as an early publisher-grade photocopy or via standard litho. I will try to find a reasonably priced forensic document expert to provide a short report with their conclusion on this and I will share with everyone. If it does turn out to be litho, then I do not understand why the CGC will not certify copies. If they conclude that it was produced as an early photocopy by Warren, then the reluctance by the CGC will be supported and a serious issue for collectors will remain - how do you know if your copy (or the one you are considering to purchase) is real?

Congrats. If I was aware of it you’d have paid more…

Seriously though looking forward to your thoughts about the book. The few originals I’ve seen are buried by their owners in deep holes…

[oakman29]

7 minutes ago, N e r V said:

 

 

 

I emailed them along with CGC a few years ago because I wanted to see if I could get my  “original” blue staple counterfeit in a slab. You could argue all day about what an original ashcan was but it shouldn’t have been an issue to get the blue staple counterfeit copy in a slab I thought (mistakenly).

“Hi Brett,

 

Unfortunately we do not grade these because they are easily reproducible. 

 

The CBCS Team”

 

 

It looks like since then they are putting them in a generic case with basic information. They actually have 2 copies in slabs now a 9.4 and a 9.2. I think I’ll check into them again to see if they’ll put mine in a slab noting it as the blue staple counterfeit. Maybe I’ll be challenged for trying to pass off a counterfeit of a counterfeit and they’ll refuse…

 

 

I eagerly await your results.

[N e r V]

2 minutes ago, oakman29 said:

I eagerly await your results.

Would you vouch for my counterfeit?  I’d hate to have them call it an original…

After I spent all night painting the staples blue to hide from the first printing stigma the original ashcans have these days…

[wombat]

29 minutes ago, N e r V said:

Congrats. If I was aware of it you’d have paid more…

 

If only someone would have posted about it here. 

[N e r V]

4 minutes ago, wombat said:

If only someone would have posted about it here. 

It was. We all lead busy lives though so things slip through the cracks. I’ve been paying a bit more attention to rebuilding my Atlas comics collection and less on other areas. Also lost another dog back in April but adopted two more rescue dogs this week. Life’s good. Happy to see another original show up on the boards so quickly after the last one and look forward to the poster with their thoughts.

Edited June 16, 2021 by N e r V

[CDNComix]

3 hours ago, N e r V said:

Congrats. If I was aware of it you’d have paid more…

Seriously though looking forward to your thoughts about the book. The few originals I’ve seen are buried by their owners in deep holes…

Thanks. I think I spotted the book within a couple hours of its posting and had to wait out a very long week until the final bidding.

Yes, of course I intend on sharing. The book is headed up here to Canada now, I had to sent it to a friend (who took those images) in Pennsyslvia since Bill Pearson would not sell outside of the US. Another waiting period for me.

I will get a pro to rule on how it was printed, do some measurements especially staple placement, check if the paper fluoscences, etc. Once some information is in hand and basic unknowns cleared up, then I would like to approach the CGC about finally accepting these for certification. There should be no reason why litho all B&W could not be, especially when they already certify (many, many) books that are known to be produced by their creator via photocopy. Also I would be willing to lend them the Pearson copy if it helped to change their mind on the policy.

[jimjum12]

5 hours ago, N e r V said:

It was. We all lead busy lives though so things slip through the cracks. I’ve been paying a bit more attention to rebuilding my Atlas comics collection and less on other areas. Also lost another dog back in April but adopted two more rescue dogs this week. Life’s good. Happy to see another original show up on the boards so quickly after the last one and look forward to the poster with their thoughts.

Any dogs come around here, I put their little arses to work... GOD BLESS....

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

[N e r V]

Two, not mint but very fine additions…

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by N e r V