L.B. Cole cover thread! Post your favorites by the master! 40 40

[RedGiant]

On 8/3/2023 at 3:14 PM, Ryan. said:

Crazy how many Bonnett's Stamps survived.  Great book!

[manetteska]

Very happy to finally cross this one off the list!

[Bronty]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I can't help but notice the strong offer history on the LB cole material at HA via make an offer.    Motivated collector trying to do a set?

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

On 8/11/2023 at 2:58 PM, Bronty said:

I haven't read the whole thread, but I can't help but notice the strong offer history on the LB cole material at HA via make an offer.    Motivated collector trying to do a set?

What book(s)?

[Professor K]

A question I've been meaning to ask. Mask #2.

According to mycomicshop (Lone Star Comics, who are awesome imo and give us a detailed census for free) there are two versions of Mask 2. It says Mask 2A and 2B so I guess thats what they mean.

I've looked at many and I have noticed a difference in the location and/or quanity of the tiny black markings that can be seen especially on the white theatre masks and also on the title logo. Every copy I've seen has these, some are nearly identical, some aren't. 

The only other thing I have detected is the two squigly lines between the eyes of the right theatre mask. I believe these are part of the art and not random markings. Most have them. But the Mask 2 that sold on CC recently doesn't seem to have them. Here is the CC copy and the Promise copy. Check out the right mask . Anyone know what mycomicshop is talking about? Maybe it's this? 

Also every cgc copy I've seen says Fall 1945. I just noticed mycomicshop says 2A is May 1945 and 2B is September 1945. All Mask 1's are dated 2/3 1945 by cgc as far as I can see. 

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Professor K

[Point Five]

Those random lines on the logo and masks look kind of wispy and don't have the finesse of the rest of the art. Hard to be sure but I'd guess those are small production defects from the black plate slowly getting dirty on press.

 

[Professor K]

On 8/12/2023 at 6:09 PM, Point Five said:

Those random lines on the logo and masks look kind of wispy and don't have the finesse of the rest of the art. Hard to be sure but I'd guess those are small production defects from the black plate slowly getting dirty on press.

 

Hey PF, I'm sure too that the lines are defects like you said. However the 2 squigly lines between the eyes of the mask on the right are on most copies I believe. Scratch that,  actually I just looked at about 20 copies from past sales. The 2 squiglys in question are on about 2 out of 5 copies. Pretty much identical on each one. That's the only reason I'm wondering if the were intentional and thought maybe if there were 2 prints of the book that could be the tell tale sign to tell them apart.

[Point Five]

On 8/12/2023 at 6:31 PM, Professor K said:

Hey PF, I'm sure too that the lines are defects like you said. However the 2 squigly lines between the eyes of the mask on the right are on most copies I believe. Scratch that,  actually I just looked at about 20 copies from past sales. The 2 squiglys in question are on about 2 out of 5 copies. Pretty much identical on each one. That's the only reason I'm wondering if the were intentional and thought maybe if there were 2 prints of the book that could be the tell tale sign to tell them apart.

If you zoom into the 7.5 copy, there's lots and lots of what look like black printing artifacts on all the faces that aren't on the 5.0 copy... I've circled just a handful. I know what you mean about the squiggly lines 'looking' intentional compared to the others, but I still suspect they're unintentional, areas of the black plate that weren't meant to print and started to collect black ink/dirt over the course of the print run. They don't look like LB Cole's linework at all.

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by Point Five

[Professor K]

On 8/12/2023 at 8:01 PM, Point Five said:

If you zoom into the 7.5 copy, there's lots and lots of what look like black printing artifacts on all the faces that aren't on the 5.0 copy... I've circled just a handful. I know what you mean about the squiggly lines 'looking' intentional compared to the others, but I still suspect they're unintentional, areas of the black plate that weren't meant to print and started to collect black ink/dirt over the course of the print run. They don't look like LB Cole's linework at all.

 

I see what you mean. They are unintentional you're right. There are just on so many copies I've looked at and many or most are in the same places that I thought some might have been intentional. I looked at the past 32 sales I found going back to 2005 (some were sold multiple times so about 20 or so different books) and only few have no "black printing artifacts". Thanks for helping me see that.

Not that it matters much but I still wonder why mycomicshop has the book categorized  as having an A and B copy. The A copy as May and B as September.  Do you think there was a 2nd printing months later? If Mask #1 is dated Feb/March 1945 it would make sense that Mask #2 was an April/May issue. And if there was a second print maybe one of the printings has those artifacts and the other doesn't. Maybe nobody alive knows for sure but if I was to guess and if there were two printings and I would think most likely it is the 2nd printings that have no printing artifacts. 

printing artifacts

[adamstrange]

On 8/13/2023 at 2:01 AM, Professor K said:

Not that it matters much but I still wonder why mycomicshop has the book categorized  as having an A and B copy. The A copy as May and B as September.  Do you think there was a 2nd printing months later? If Mask #1 is dated Feb/March 1945 it would make sense that Mask #2 was an April/May issue. And if there was a second print maybe one of the printings has those artifacts and the other doesn't. Maybe nobody alive knows for sure but if I was to guess and if there were two printings and I would think most likely it is the 2nd printings that have no printing artifacts. 

Overstreet lists two printings of Mask 2, one with Publisher of Rural Home and the other with no publisher listed.  That is probably the source for the MCS listing.

Mask 2 is uncommon so I can't recall having seen both versions.

[Professor K]

On 8/13/2023 at 2:01 PM, adamstrange said:

Overstreet lists two printings of Mask 2, one with Publisher of Rural Home and the other with no publisher listed.  That is probably the source for the MCS listing.

Mask 2 is uncommon so I can't recall having seen both versions.

Ok yep that's probably where they got it from, Overstreet. I just looked in my Gerber Vol.2 and it's listed with a cover date of April/May 1945. CGC really should have changed that long ago as they have them all noted as Rural Home, Fall 1945.

I suppose to find out you need to see the info inside the book but I haven't found a way to read it online or any pics of the interior pages. Just my senseless curiosity but I do wonder if the copies without the black printing artifacts are from a different print run than the ones that have them. Thanks for that info 

[Point Five]

On 8/13/2023 at 3:00 PM, Professor K said:

Ok yep that's probably where they got it from, Overstreet. I just looked in my Gerber Vol.2 and it's listed with a cover date of April/May 1945. CGC really should have changed that long ago as they have them all noted as Rural Home, Fall 1945.

I wonder what the backstory is re the second printing. A second publisher who bought the printing plates cheap and rolled the dice on the strength of the cover art?

This seems like a fairly rare instance of a second print that *wasn't* due to a popular central character (e.g. Superman, Batman etc). Unless, I suppose, there are tons of other GA books with second prints with no identifying markings, and we just don't know about them.

 

[Professor K]

On 8/13/2023 at 9:02 PM, Point Five said:

I wonder what the backstory is re the second printing. A second publisher who bought the printing plates cheap and rolled the dice on the strength of the cover art?

This seems like a fairly rare instance of a second print that *wasn't* due to a popular central character (e.g. Superman, Batman etc). Unless, I suppose, there are tons of other GA books with second prints with no identifying markings, and we just don't know about them.

 

Yeah I'd like to know. One reason is I love a good mystery but now that I just acquired a B-3 I really want to know. I hope it wasn't a second publisher , I mean if so it's not really the same book, practically a re-print.

I wish somebody here knew for sure. If 2nd prints aren't Rural Home's the proof has gotta be probably on the 1st page. And I'm still thinking the printing artifacts (I like that term) , or the lack of, might be an indicator. I'm seeing about 1 in 4 copies without the marks (gonna do an exact count later tonight). Could be the the ones without the marks are just the early ones off the presses before ink/debris built up,  but could be they are the 2nd prints, or 1st. 

[Point Five]

Just an observation that Great Comics #1 is a very similar situation—classic Cole cover from right around the same time, and three different printings (I believe, from three different companies) that by now are pretty much just lumped together by collectors.

Back on Mask Comics #2. I wonder, are the ads identical from one printing to the other?

 

[Ryan.]

[Point Five]

Thanks to Frank/Black Bat for this beauty. Was holding out for one with nice rich colors like this. Yay!

With this book, I've got Blue Bolt #105, 107, 108, 110, 112-119 & Ghostly Weird #120-124, and just need #106 and #111 to finish out the BBs that I'm still after. 

[Professor K]

On 8/16/2023 at 4:51 PM, Ryan. said:

4.0 just went for 10,800 on HA. 

6.5 on CC was up to 10k last I looked. For once I can say I'm glad I got mine when I did.

 

[thewritestuff]

On 8/19/2023 at 10:08 PM, Point Five said:

Thanks to Frank/Black Bat for this beauty. Was holding out for one with nice rich colors like this. Yay!

With this book, I've got Blue Bolt #105, 107, 108, 110, 112-119 & Ghostly Weird #120-124, and just need #106 and #111 to finish out the BBs that I'm still after. 

Love this issue. One of the most underrated Coles.

[pmpknface]

Thinking of sending this one in. The defects are obvious, but I wanted to get public opinion. Thoughts? I included the indica, as it was recently asked for. 

I know it's beat up, but still worth what I paid for it 17 years ago. 

[Professor K]

On 8/26/2023 at 3:35 PM, pmpknface said:

Thinking of sending this one in. The defects are obvious, but I wanted to get public opinion. Thoughts? I included the indica, as it was recently asked for. 

I know it's beat up, but still worth what I paid for it 17 years ago. 

Hey! Thanks for posting that pic of the indicia. A friend of mine sent me a pic of one of his by phone and it's the same as yours. It's blacked out but you can still read it. It says Rural Home April May 1945 Mask #2. Underneath the blacked out part it says MASK COMICS Fall 1945. So that must be why CGC has Fall 1945 on the label. As far as I'm concerned this case is closed. 

Just one more thing, I almost forgot. This copy of yours, Speaking sales potential wise..  If you think it may or probably come back a Point Five in my experience you may be better off keeping it as is. I had a Point Five complete AF 15 that went for a mere 9k  in auction. Around the same time two raw copies that looked like they went through several wash cycles then 8 hours on tumble dry sold for a few thousand more. They were hideous. Lou_Fine described this phenomenon at the time, something to do with "Hope" if I recall correctly. It made sense.  I've seen bad raw copies sell for more than in my opinion nicer looking .5's that were complete.