Okay boys and girls, we get to see how "dead" Marvel Comics 1 is

[woowoo]

 

I believe so, it was a while back but I believe that was the copy with all the hand written notes in the margin.

 

 

I am 99% that i just saw this copy of Marvel 1 on fast N load when they went to Hall of heroes museum to sell the iron-man car.

[Ameri]

This issue was discussed in much much greater detail in the past. That discussion included detailed analysis and pictures of the modifications made to the indicia and cover. A very simple summary of that discussion is that Goodman was a cheapskate and the modification of the cover was accomplished in the cheapest possible fashion (technical details were, to my recollection, fleshed out by a former printer) and was not an overstrike of previously printed covers. November copies were distributed nationally. I think there were no Canadian copies of Timely's in the early period.

 

I don't think we've ever verified or quantified what the interior differences (indicia, story or margin notes) are between the October and November copies. I've been trying to find out for years and have never seen proof.

 

DiceX was the person who explained how it was done as he used to work at a publisher that used to print comics and magazines. I think a round slug and a Nov stamp were added into the process somewhere along the way.

 

Whether the covers were previously printed and then run through again with the new slug, or whether they were just printed after the original 80,000 and simply added the slug somewhere in the process is still unproven at this point.

 

I'm sure Fishler has plenty he could add to the story as he posed the question years ago about interior differences between Oct and Nov copies. I don't remember the exact conversation.

 

When I graded the October Marvel #1 file copy there were several penciled notes about color changes that needed to be made in the Human Torch story. It was really interesting!

 

was it this one that you graded?

 

 

I believe so, it was a while back but I believe that was the copy with all the hand written notes in the margin.

 

Were those changes ever made to the later released copies?

 

 

I never looked to see if those recommended changes were implemented in the November version.

 

In all these years, I can't believe no one has definitively documented the differences between the two versions. I think it may help answer many questions.

 

I'll email a link to Fishler and see if he has any input.

 

 

Perhaps the origin re-cap in Marvel 2 holds a clue to changes. I always thought it an odd mix of comic book lettering and typewriting. The type looks like a plot synopsis typed out by a writer. Also, the splash says "from the annals of the late Professor Horton." Horton didn't die in the first story so why say he's dead now unless it was one of the recommended changes notated in the file copy?

 

[Ameri]

This book is like the DaVinci Code. I was looking at the credits and the text story Burning Rubber. William Blake Everett was Bill Everett's full name but he also went by other pen names like Willie Bee and Everett Blake. A "Bill" Williams and his mechanic "Fred" are in the story. The 2nd page of Marvel 2 mirrors the graphic on Burning Rubber as well. The Torch's hair looks somewhat more reddish in the 2 as well. Peculiar coincidences:

 

 

 

 

 

[pemart1966]

When Cory took over the Masterworks line the quality of line art and accurate colours improved tremendously over what Marvel hard produced for years before him. Certainly not perfect and there were some mistakes made but overall a vast improvement.

 

The first GA Marvel Mystery Masterworks reprinted the first 4 issues with terrible quality (it was published pre Cory). The Omnibus for Marvel's 70th anniversary was an opportunity to do it right.

 

So if that is a page from the omnibus I'd say the colours are as close to the originals as Cory could get them.

 

I can't find the photo that was published of the Marvel comics #1 that Marvel has but for some reason I'm remembering it as a file copy too.

 

+1

 

Cory really raised the standard at Marvel for remastering. I bought a ton of his books.

 

I still have a Masterworks. It's really bad compared to the Omnibus. Facial details are missing, colors are washed out, and the text is blurry on the Masterworks.

 

[/quote

 

 

The HARD COVER Masterworks was indeed AWFUL for the reasons that you've stated, HOWEVER, the Golden Age Marvel Comics Marvel Masterworks SOFT COVER must have the same print as the omnibus - it's VERY WELL DONE.

[sfcityduck]

Then if that is true there were almost 900,000 copies printed up with oct. on it first and then most were sent back to press to have the bullet and nov. date applied or is it possible that instead of changing the cover art before starting a new print run of nov. dated issues (which seems the most logical choice to me) they actually printed the oct. date at the same time with a bullet covering and a new nov. date added for those "second printings" of 800,000 copies?

 

My recollection is that the most in prior discussions concluded is that it was the later. Here's my best recollection as to why:

 

* The govt. records show that the MC 1 hit the stands at the end of August. That is consistent with an October cover date. There would have been no reason to stop a print run and change to "Nov." for a late August distribution as the book would have been on the stands for the full month of September.

 

* The employee recollection is that MC 1 had two print runs, one in late August of 80K copies and one two weeks later of 800K copies. This recollection is consistent with the govt. records showing MC 1 hit the stands in late August (which would have been the first printing of October copes).

 

* Various "November" copies exist with notations that show a mid-September distribution date -- which again is consistent with the employee recollection of two printings -- one distributed in late August (Oct.) and the second distributed in mid-September (Nov.). [The govt. records also show that MM 2 hit the stands in the middle of October further confirming the chronology.]

 

* A "Nov." cover date for a mid-September printing makes sense so that it was on the stands for at least one month.

 

* Variations in the centering of the black circle on the underlying "OCT" on the "November" copies strongly suggests that the black circle was on an additional black plate along with the "Nov." Adding a second black plate to the process, instead of just redoing the first plate, according to a printer, would have been a cheap solution for the second printing -- and Martin Goodman was a notorious cheapskate.

 

* While it is possible that instead of adding a second black plate to the cover print job, it could have been that the covers were printed once and then run through a second time for an overstrike, for a variety of reasons this was thought unlikely, especially given that the indicia was also changed and running that interior page through again for an overstrike was considered unlikely. So it was thought most likely that the changes were accomplished by adding a second black plate.

 

* A Funnies, Inc. review or file copy exists with an "Oct." cover date. This suggests that the "Oct." printing came first.

 

* A Funnies, Inc. "Pay Copy" exists with a "Nov." date, but it was not felt that an accounting dept. would necessarily have done their thing immediately upon printing so that was not necessarily decisive of anything.

[Bronty]

Very convincing on the first four bullet points alone

[N e r V]

Well I guess that makes some sense if I look at it through 1939 eyes and not 2016 where just changing the cover proof before going back to press would make more sense.

 

 

So I can see the short time between printings would make sense for a rushed solution (which printing Oct. then overstamping it in the same run with Nov. added on seems kind of crazy) but I can totally see it being an option in 1939 and Martin going with it if it was cheaper.

 

What's interesting to me then is they took the time to make the slight interior changes on the guts of the book (some already pointed out above in the thread). The indicia seems to have followed the same cheap solution as the cover since it wasn't completely redone but the hair colour change (which is either something I forgot or never noticed before) I have to wonder if it was an actual change on purpose or just different in the second printing due to other reasons? Maybe the original colour was a mistake and they corrected it?

 

Either way this was just the first in many mysteries Goodman would offer collectors of Timelys/Marvel.

[sfcityduck]

but the hair colour change (which is either something I forgot or never noticed before) I have to wonder if it was an actual change on purpose or just different in the second printing due to other reasons? Maybe the original colour was a mistake and they corrected it?

 

 

Until we see a comparison of an Oct. interior and Nov. interior, I'm not going to assume there was a "hair color change." The coloring of a Masterworks or Omnibus isn't really helpful evidence.

[sfcityduck]

So I can see the short time between printings would make sense for a rushed solution (which printing Oct. then overstamping it in the same run with Nov. added on seems kind of crazy) but I can totally see it being an option in 1939 and Martin going with it if it was cheaper.

 

My recollection is that the way it works is that even in "four color printing" more than four plates can be used. For example, a lot of comics had metallic inks on the cover (see Silver Streak No. 1). Those metallic inks would be added by an additional plate used during the same print run as the original four color plates. What would have happened here is that the additional plate would have been a second black plate with the black circle and the "Nov." Likewise, for the indicia, it would have contained the black bar and additional text. Adding that in during the original run is far simpler than "over striking" a previously printed sheet in a second run.

[Ameri]

So basically, every copy is an October copy but with some partial plate adjustment to show November. Makes sense because if it were two separate runs from scratch, you would think that someone would have made an effort to correct the double imaged Torch problem. Oct and Nov copies both have fuzzy Torch's.

[Jaydogrules]

So basically, every copy is an October copy but with some partial plate adjustment to show November. Makes sense because if it were two separate runs from scratch, you would think that someone would have made an effort to correct the double imaged Torch problem. Oct and Nov copies both have fuzzy Torch's.

 

Actually from what I'm reading , the November copy is a second printing.

 

-J.

[N e r V]

So basically, every copy is an October copy but with some partial plate adjustment to show November. Makes sense because if it were two separate runs from scratch, you would think that someone would have made an effort to correct the double imaged Torch problem. Oct and Nov copies both have fuzzy Torch's.

 

Actually from what I'm reading , the November copy is a second printing.

 

-J.

 

 

In 2016 it's now called a variant cover.

[podboy66]

Mine's coverless, so no idea if its Oct or Nov

 

[sfcityduck]

So basically, every copy is an October copy but with some partial plate adjustment to show November. Makes sense because if it were two separate runs from scratch, you would think that someone would have made an effort to correct the double imaged Torch problem. Oct and Nov copies both have fuzzy Torch's.

 

Actually from what I'm reading , the November copy is a second printing.

 

-J.

 

Correct. The above evidence and analysis suggests that November was printed two weeks after October.

 

Also no doubt that October is rarer and garners a price premium over November.

[stock_rotation]

This is a great thread. For anyone else who wants to read the old threads but can't figure out how to get this *spoon* search engine to return any useful results:

 

October 2002 thread

 

March 2009 thread

 

October 2011 thread

 

(Thanks, Google!)

 

Can someone point me in the direction of a discussion of the "hair color change"? I'm not following that.

[pemart1966]

So basically, every copy is an October copy but with some partial plate adjustment to show November. Makes sense because if it were two separate runs from scratch, you would think that someone would have made an effort to correct the double imaged Torch problem. Oct and Nov copies both have fuzzy Torch's.

 

Actually from what I'm reading , the November copy is a second printing.

 

-J.

 

Correct. The above evidence and analysis suggests that November was printed two weeks after October.

 

Also no doubt that October is rarer and garners a price premium over November.

 

Which would make sense then because I don't see Goodman paying to have 880,000 copies or covers printed BEFORE knowing the sales of the first 80,000 copies especially if the original plan was east coast distribution only before even thinking about going national and (possibly) Canada wide.

 

Once he knew he had a hit on his hand, it would appear that he used the cheapest and quickest method possible to print the second run of 800,000 copies.

[N e r V]

If there was only a 2 week gap between printings that doesn't leave much time to get sales results back.

 

 

[pemart1966]

If there was only a 2 week gap between printings that doesn't leave much time to get sales results back.

 

 

No it doesn't. But previous threads have suggested that even back in 1939 he was able get that info. I don't see him going forward with an additional 800,000 copies WITHOUT that information...

[lou_fine]

If there was only a 2 week gap between printings that doesn't leave much time to get sales results back.

 

 

Have you not heard of the internet before and the availability of instantaneous information?

 

Seriously though, he probably had the same advanced help as the Egyptians did when it came to them being able to build the Pyramids so quickly way back in the day.

[Ameri]

This is a great thread. For anyone else who wants to read the old threads but can't figure out how to get this *spoon* search engine to return any useful results:

 

October 2002 thread

 

March 2009 thread

 

October 2011 thread

 

(Thanks, Google!)

 

Can someone point me in the direction of a discussion of the "hair color change"? I'm not following that.

 

Thanks for finding those threads. I read through them and they are exhausting. The two camps of thought running neck and neck are that 1) there were two or more printings of Marvel 1 with the NOV overprints added to the 2nd printing by an additional printing plate and 2) there was only one printing and the NOV overprints were rubber stamped in to extend the shelf life of the book on the newsstands. I tend to agree with the 2nd scenario. Here is the other example I remember where Marvel deployed another black slug rubber stamp. This does not appear to be a 2nd printing. The book changed from 10c to 12c and had to be corrected (perhaps like Marvel 1). Regarding your question about the red hair...the Marvel Omnibus shows a Human Torch with red hair whereas Marvel 1s do not. The issue was that the hair might have been intended to be red. However, one of the threads you supplied had a comment about the Human Torch stories in the Oct and Nov editions and the Torch is blonde in both.