Eerie ashcan? 3 3

[SOLAR BOY]

[oakman29]

Well , its not the "second" print. Seems all the first print signs are there. Is the black ink on the back of the book shiny or dull?

[SOLAR BOY]

4 hours ago, oakman29 said:

Well , its not the "second" print. Seems all the first print signs are there. Is the black ink on the back of the book shiny or dull?

Let me check....

[SOLAR BOY]

5 hours ago, oakman29 said:

Well , its not the "second" print. Seems all the first print signs are there. Is the black ink on the back of the book shiny or dull?

Just check it it’s def not shiny. Just looks like regular black ink. I would lean on dull. 

[oakman29]

51 minutes ago, SOLAR BOY said:

Just check it it’s def not shiny. Just looks like regular black ink. I would lean on dull. 

The black ink isn't predominantly shiny, so it's the same texture as the white on the paper?

[SOLAR BOY]

4 minutes ago, oakman29 said:

The black ink isn't predominantly shiny, so it's the same texture as the white on the paper?

It doesnt stand out.....looks like same texture.....and the M in monster is complete and not miscut as I see of the "fake" or "2nd editions" 

[oakman29]

3 minutes ago, SOLAR BOY said:

It doesnt stand out.....looks like same texture.....and the M in monster is complete and not miscut as I see of the "fake" or "2nd editions" 

Wait , I have 60 more criteria. Lol

This where it gets hard to decipher.  The black ink on the back should have been shinier than the paper its printed on.

[N e r V]

6 minutes ago, SOLAR BOY said:

It doesnt stand out.....looks like same texture.....and the M in monster is complete and not miscut as I see of the "fake" or "2nd editions" 

Got to work but I’ll post a few scans of a “real” fake for you to compare later today. For now take a measurement and make sure it’s exact. Fakes are often slightly off in their size. 
Also what’s its background?
 

I can verify only 2 originals currently from their Provenance which predates any “fakes” being in existence...

[SOLAR BOY]

2 minutes ago, oakman29 said:

Wait , I have 60 more criteria. Lol

This where it gets hard to decipher.  The black ink on the back should have been shinier than the paper its printed on.

I know this is the real deal man!!! Im a 100% sure and you can see the pics I posted.....the dude with the 63 criteria  that was funny to read, I know my copy is a real copy from the first 200

[SOLAR BOY]

1 minute ago, N e r V said:

Got to work but I’ll post a few scans of a “real” fake for you to compare later today. For now take a measurement and make sure it’s exact. Fakes are often slightly off in their size. 
Also what’s its background?
 

I can verify only 2 originals currently from their Provenance which predates any “fakes” being in existence...

The background is I got it as a gift from a very dear friend who I trust int eh comic book world more than anyone.  He was Ill 12/13 years ago and sold me his entire collection.  Then pulled me aside, pulled this out of his safe and said you will not see another real one prob, told me he was lucky enough to buy it and said its a 1st print original.  i trust him and know/beleive its the real deal.

[oakman29]

1 minute ago, SOLAR BOY said:

I know this is the real deal man!!! Im a 100% sure and you can see the pics I posted.....the dude with the 63 criteria  that was funny to read, I know my copy is a real copy from the first 200

Then that's awesome. This is why CGC doesnt encapsulate these books . It's just too hard to tell. You have all the makings of the first print, yet the ink on back isn't shiny.  So this is where speculation comes in.

[oakman29]

2 minutes ago, SOLAR BOY said:

The background is I got it as a gift from a very dear friend who I trust int eh comic book world more than anyone.  He was Ill 12/13 years ago and sold me his entire collection.  Then pulled me aside, pulled this out of his safe and said you will not see another real one prob, told me he was lucky enough to buy it and said its a 1st print original.  i trust him and know/beleive its the real deal.

Then I would tend to believe your friend.

[SOLAR BOY]

1 minute ago, oakman29 said:

Then that's awesome. This is why CGC doesnt encapsulate these books . It's just too hard to tell. You have all the makings of the first print, yet the ink on back isn't shiny.  So this is where speculation comes in.

I havent seen anything online saying the ink needs to be shiny for it to be first print......I found the info on the house on page 1 and the bald headed guy blending into the black on page 18 and the wrtiing on page 18,19,20 and the M on the back cover being complete and not cut off......nothing I have found online says anything about that.

[N e r V]

2 hours ago, SOLAR BOY said:

I havent seen anything online saying the ink needs to be shiny for it to be first print......I found the info on the house on page 1 and the bald headed guy blending into the black on page 18 and the wrtiing on page 18,19,20 and the M on the back cover being complete and not cut off......nothing I have found online says anything about that.

 

2 hours ago, oakman29 said:

Then that's awesome. This is why CGC doesnt encapsulate these books . It's just too hard to tell. You have all the makings of the first print, yet the ink on back isn't shiny.  So this is where speculation comes in.

Oakman’s comic collection:

 

Brett’s comic collection:

 

[N e r V]

2 hours ago, SOLAR BOY said:

I havent seen anything online saying the ink needs to be shiny for it to be first print......I found the info on the house on page 1 and the bald headed guy blending into the black on page 18 and the wrtiing on page 18,19,20 and the M on the back cover being complete and not cut off......nothing I have found online says anything about that.

Without sounding rude the difference was both the original and blue staple edition were printed books vs all other counterfeits were copied editions made with methods that were available to the counterfeiters. That’s why the blue staple copy gets collectors attention due to it being an “inside” job as a counterfeit.

Every counterfeit I’ve seen so far including the replicas has a difference in appearance with its look and feel just like the Cerebus counterfeits have as well.

Hence the comment about how the inks look on the printed page.

[SOLAR BOY]

2 minutes ago, N e r V said:

Without sounding rude the difference was both the original and blue staple edition were printed books vs all other counterfeits were copied editions made with methods that were available to the counterfeiters. That’s why the blue staple copy gets collectors attention due to it being an “inside” job as a counterfeit.

Every counterfeit I’ve seen so far including the replicas has a difference in appearance with its look and feel just like the Cerebus counterfeits have as well.

Hence the comment about how the inks look on the printed page.

I get that. Mine looks and feels original. And who I got it from is very trusted hence why I believe mine is real. I can take more pics of the back but clearly mine isn’t a second edition. 

[oakman29]

8 minutes ago, SOLAR BOY said:

I get that. Mine looks and feels original. And who I got it from is very trusted hence why I believe mine is real. I can take more pics of the back but clearly mine isn’t a second edition. 

I realize yours is absolutely not a 2nd edition.  No blue staple, bald man is not visible etc. What I'm worried is that it may just be a copy of an original. 

[oakman29]

22 minutes ago, N e r V said:

 

Oakman’s comic collection:

 

Brett’s comic collection:

 

Maybe shiny isn't the right word. More like a sheen to the black ink.

[SOLAR BOY]

1 hour ago, oakman29 said:

Maybe shiny isn't the right word. More like a sheen to the black ink.

Ok let me pull it out again and see. You’re asking about the black in the words on the black cover? 

[Randall Dowling]

1 hour ago, oakman29 said:

I realize yours is absolutely not a 2nd edition.  No blue staple, bald man is not visible etc. What I'm worried is that it may just be a copy of an original. 

Agreed.  I haven't read anything that indicates certainty that this copy is an original.  @SOLAR BOY I'm not knocking your copy.  It may indeed be an original.  And your anecdote of your friend, while very nice and kind, it is not a complete provenance, and thus, not a provenance at all (at least what you've described so far doesn't).  

There are, potentially, the following possibilities:

-an original that has all the hallmarks (which frankly, are the subject of some debate and not, I believe, completely understood).

-a "2nd Print" which I believe, Oakman has a proper handle on, that it has blue stripes on the staples but I've personally seen at least 2 different kind of blue stripes on staples- one large and fuzzy looking and another with very precise multiple blue lines on staples.  Warren in one of his house ads refers to sending people a copy with "special staples".  It could be both of these, or one of them.  I currently have no idea to identify what is what but I do trust Oakman's copy.

-any number of counterfeits may also be possible.  I've told people several times, I think it's foolishness to assume that there has only been one attempt to counterfeit back in the 70s.  Given the valuation of this book, it is extremely lucrative to produce a bunch of copies and relatively easy to make given current access to various printing methods.

What I can say with certainty is that even the most experienced dealers don't think they can identify an original with 100% certainty and thus won't present and sell copies as such.  To quote Gary, the only copies that he feels certain he can identify are the unusually bad counterfeits.  And if Gary can't identify an original, I'd feel silly claiming I could.  I'm sure this feels like I'm pouring cold water on this, but I don't want overly much misinformation floating around on this book.  It seems like a perfect setup for someone to unknowingly claim an original, sell it for huge money, and have the buyer find out later it's not legit.  I personally would want no part of that equation.

It's unfortunate, but I just don't see being able to identify a copy in person with certainty, let alone via pictures over the internet.