Rarest 2nd Print Marvel Copper Age Book? 6 6

[divad]

Until money starts bringing out more currently its the X-men 302 blank upc for me at number 1.

 

Stoopid question here: Aren't there a lot of issues that have been printed with a blank UPC block? Seems to me, I've seen many. What makes #302 so special? Is it because it's the only second print with a blank UPC block? hm

[ygogolak]

Until money starts bringing out more currently its the X-men 302 blank upc for me at number 1. I would put Hulk 377 3rd print as second and a Superman 18 4th print as 3rd only because I have found a 5th print, but no 4th print every so here is my top 3 based on my searches. My list can change at any time if I find one, but currently those are the 3 I think are the toughest. I dont count printing errors, double covers, and other oddballs in this list. Books harder to find in higher grade also pushes a book up the list for me.

 

These are only books I have had experience with I have never chased 2nd print Joes because honestly the first 20 issues are so massively reprinted I never wanted to chase anymore of them because I see those first Joe issues ALOT.

 

1. X-men 302 Blank UPC

2. Hulk 377 3rd Print

3. Superman 18 4th print

4. SMF all issues in high grade

4. Several Marvel Legend books in higher grades.

5. Some JCPenny reprints like Sgt Fury 13

 

I bought a huge collection over the weekend that had tons of Copper material, including lots of later printings/reprints. I already pulled a Hulk 377 (3rd), and a few more books that looked like they were reprints that I was unfamiliar with.

 

Pardon the dumb question, but what title is SMF short for?

 

 

SMF = So Much Fun

 

Oh yea

 

http://stlcomics.com/gallery/somuchfun/

[Crimebuster]

Until money starts bringing out more currently its the X-men 302 blank upc for me at number 1.

 

Stoopid question here: Aren't there a lot of issues that have been printed with a blank UPC block? Seems to me, I've seen many. What makes #302 so special? Is it because it's the only second print with a blank UPC block? hm

 

From what I understand, the thing about #302 is nobody has any idea what it is or where it came from. It's not just the UPC that is blank; unlike normal 2nd printings, this one doesn't even have a price on it. And there are apparently very, very few of them. Someone who knows more about this - if there is any more to know about it at this point - will hopefully weigh in.

 

Image from the internet, not mine:

 

 

 

 

[fatninja]

Cool item, but a manufacture error is not a second printing.

 

Exactly - if you wanted to show off a freakshow book, no need to create a new thread for it.

 

In 36,587 post have you ever posted anything where you were not a complete d-bag?

[ygogolak]

Cool item, but a manufacture error is not a second printing.

 

Exactly - if you wanted to show off a freakshow book, no need to create a new thread for it.

 

In 36,587 post have you ever posted anything where you were not a complete d-bag?

 

 

[Guardian Comics]

Cool item, but a manufacture error is not a second printing.

 

Exactly - if you wanted to show off a freakshow book, no need to create a new thread for it.

 

In 36,587 post have you ever posted anything where you were not a complete d-bag?

 

 

 

He ain't exactly trolling

 

Jim

[bellrules]

Smurfs 1-3 third prints are pretty hard to find. The indicia and cover prices are the same on all printings. The only difference is the ads inside and on the back cover. (first prints have Lego; 2nd have Jedi Arena; 3rd have Atari Computers) The third printings can also be identified by the black spidey head in the UPC.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Bellrules1

[ygogolak]

 

He ain't exactly trolling

 

Jim

 

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

[TheLiamSturgess]

 

He ain't exactly trolling

 

Jim

 

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

 

I don't think that's the case here, though.

[PeterPark]

Technically, it's a second printing of UXM 270.

 

Actually, CGC has decided on books like this, that the cover decides what the book is, not the interior.

 

This is UXM 272 with the wrong inards

 

not

 

UXM 270 2nd printing with the wrong cover.

 

according to CGC anyways.

 

Not that it couldnt be looked at either way. But CGC has decided to list books like this by the cover.

 

I would think the later of the two should be "what it is" because you can always use old parts from the past. You can't always use new parts FROM THE FUTURE

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

He ain't exactly trolling

 

Jim

 

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

 

That's a pretty funny definition. It relies on little more than a person's feelings (which are notoriously unreliable) to determine who is, and who is not, a "troll."

 

It's a very victim-y definition.

 

If someone posts something that is completely false ("Superman the movie was the best film of 1984!"), and someone else corrects them, more often than not, that person is "upset" that they were corrected publicly.

 

Has the corrector now "trolled" them? By that definition...yes.

 

You're new here. You don't know the backstory. You would be well served to do some research before posting conclusions (as would we all.)

[ygogolak]

 

That's a pretty funny definition. It relies on little more than a person's feelings (which are notoriously unreliable) to determine who is, and who is not, a "troll."

 

It's a very victim-y definition.

 

If someone posts something that is completely false ("Superman the movie was the best film of 1984!"), and someone else corrects them, more often than not, that person is "upset" that they were corrected publicly.

 

Has the corrector now "trolled" them? By that definition...yes.

 

You're new here. You don't know the backstory. You would be well served to do some research before posting conclusions (as would we all.)

 

True, usually if I join a chat forum I spend the first year reading all the threads on the board. Then, after that year, I feel I am entitled to respond.

I don't know if he's trolling every thread, but he definitely has no couth, as was exemplified by his first comment on this thread.

[divad]

Agreed (as to RMA's post). That definition (as so many are on the internet) is lame. It entirely ignores the inherent definition of the word as a verb, which is to search and follow, as in prowl. A troll is someone who intentionally searches and follows another poster, posting inflamatory comments or responses, in an effort to disturb or annoy that poster, or in an attempt to avenge some perceived prior insult by that poster.

 

We don't need no stinkin' internet to know what words mean.

[divad]

True, usually if I join a chat forum I spend the first year reading all the threads on the board. Then, after that year, I feel I am entitled to respond.

I don't know if he's trolling every thread, but he definitely has no couth, as was exemplified by his first comment on this thread.

 

So then, you shouldn't be posting here until December 2014?

[ygogolak]

True, usually if I join a chat forum I spend the first year reading all the threads on the board. Then, after that year, I feel I am entitled to respond.

I don't know if he's trolling every thread, but he definitely has no couth, as was exemplified by his first comment on this thread.

 

So then, you shouldn't be posting here until December 2014?

 

[divad]

[Noodlez]

Agreed (as to RMA's post). That definition (as so many are on the internet) is lame. It entirely ignores the inherent definition of the word as a verb, which is to search and follow, as in prowl. A troll is someone who intentionally searches and follows another poster, posting inflamatory comments or responses, in an effort to disturb or annoy that poster, or in an attempt to avenge some perceived prior insult by that poster.

 

We don't need no stinkin' internet to know what words mean.

 

I can give a name from here; of a member who loves to "prowl" upon me.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

That's a pretty funny definition. It relies on little more than a person's feelings (which are notoriously unreliable) to determine who is, and who is not, a "troll."

 

It's a very victim-y definition.

 

If someone posts something that is completely false ("Superman the movie was the best film of 1984!"), and someone else corrects them, more often than not, that person is "upset" that they were corrected publicly.

 

Has the corrector now "trolled" them? By that definition...yes.

 

You're new here. You don't know the backstory. You would be well served to do some research before posting conclusions (as would we all.)

 

True, usually if I join a chat forum I spend the first year reading all the threads on the board. Then, after that year, I feel I am entitled to respond.

I don't know if he's trolling every thread, but he definitely has no couth, as was exemplified by his first comment on this thread.

 

 

Who are you saying was trolling, JC or fatninja....? (I think everyone assumed you were referring to fatninja. JC has demeaned people here for a very long time.)

[ygogolak]

 

Who are you saying was trolling, JC or fatninja....? (I think everyone assumed you were referring to fatninja. JC has demeaned people here for a very long time.)

 

JC

[vaillant]

I believed "trolling" was not referred to a specific person.

As far as I have read on the "netiquette" a troll is someone who deliberately disrupt a conversation off its topic, and it’s more the behavior than the content that defines it.

 

The example you made, RMA, is not about a troll, but simply about one which is annoyed by a legitimate (and hopefully polite) reply.

 

I mean, joe_collector just needs to re-read what he writes… and think about it for some time.