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

[Silver Surfer]

There has been maybe only 5 or 6 October copies that have seen the market in the last 15 years and a mid grade copy being the best unrestored example so we may never be able to see its true value in relation to the Nov version. I would love to see a high grade October copy surface one day.

[Ameri]

On another note, I was reading in the Omnibus about Motion Picture Funnies Weekly and one of the articles references it as a theater giveaway. No other information given about the premise of this giveaway. OSPG has the book listed in their promotional section and calls it a giveaway that was to be distributed to movie houses but they didn't go for the idea with "possible distribution to Boston theaters suspected." No information about the premise either.

 

A promotional movie item was usually produced to promote something specific and the film company would have contacted people to produce such an item for an upcoming film, so it appears odd that MPFW was created just on a whim. However, another article in the Omnibus mentions an unproduced Columbia film called "The Lost Atlantis" that may have ties to the Submariner story in MPFW, but the article quickly dismisses that theory saying there is no paper trail that such a film was ever planned, let alone produced. Here is proof that the film was planned and by Columbia Pictures (from Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin December 3, 1938):

 

[rjpb]

"Lost Atlantis" was going to be based on the 1919 novel Atlantid by French fantasy writer Pierre Benoit. I takes place in the desert, not underwater. English language versions have also been published under the title Queen of Atlantis, and a low budget 1949 film adaptation was made titled Siren of Atlantis, which took place in the Jungle.

 

There is a history of retailers and movie theaters giving away comics as a promotional incentive, with content that has nothing to do with what's being sold, though many of these were returned books with new covers. Given that the potential of comic books was just starting to be realized in 1939, it's conceivable that someone might have thought that a weekly giveaway at movie theaters would have been a clever marketing tool. Apparently theater chains didn't agree.

[jimbo_707]

I have to say I'm a little mystified by Roy's arguments on this thread. A few observations:

 

First, MC 1 is a very cool book and I seriously doubt it will ever be anything less than the sixth most valuable book after Action 1, Detective 27, Superman 1, Batman 1, and, maybe, Captain America 1. A good case can be made that it should be no lower than top 3.

 

Second, the market has already spoken about the price difference between Oct. and Nov. copies and the reality is that Oct. copies garner a premium. They are just rarer. So the ship has sailed for those who want to argue that Oct. and Nov. copies should have the same value. I don't think that dog will hunt.

 

BUT, in a collecting world where the very best pedigree copies are all Nov. copies, I can't conceive of a world where the most valuable example of MC 1 will not be a Nov. copy. And that reality will always keep the spread between Oct. and Nov. copies thin. Those folks who own Nov. copies (Roy?) should rest assured that while their copies may not garner quite the same price grade for grade as an Oct. copy, the importance of Nov. copies will never fade away because the very best MC 1s are all Nov. copies. Nov. copies will always be desired and collected.

 

Third, the notion that the Oct. copies and the Nov. copies are from the same press run is contrary to the weight of the evidence. To reach the conclusion that Roy does, you have to disregard the following evidence:

 

(1) Employee recollections are that there were two print runs, a first of 80K in late August and a second of 800K in mid-September;

 

(2) Existing records support those recollections and establish that MC 1 first hit the newsstands in late August; and

 

(3) The Nov. copies with date records show that they hit the newsstands in mid-September, also consistent with the employee recollections.

 

Those three points, ignored by some on this thread, themselves make a much stronger case for two print runs than any of the contrary speculation I've seen on these threads.

 

All you need to accept to conclude that there were two print runs is to that due to a short two week time frame between the two printings, and a desire to save money, that Goodman would have concluded it was better to forego fully re-doing the cover plate and instead opt for correcting the cover and indicia with additional plates/stamps. This is very easy to accept because Goodman was a cheapskate. Whether the correction was done with plates or stamps, both of which would have been used in the same print run as the original plate, is essentially irrelevant.

 

All this speculation about plates versus stamps (again not hand stamps but stamps as part of the print run) tells you nothing about whether there was one or two print runs. For that issue, the employee recollections and records of when the books hit the newsstands is the best evidence.

 

I do, however, applaud the analysis of the moving "Nov." and black circle. While it doesn't help resolve the question of the number of print runs, it is interesting. To my eyes, that analysis suggests that there were two Nov. copy versions. The Nov. and black circle were on the same plate or stamp, but that plate or stamp was replaced with a similar plate or stamp at some point in the process.

 

Final analysis: Great book, indisputably two versions with the earlier Oct. version garnering a premium, and the weight of the evidence supports two print runs with one hitting newsstands in late August (Oct. date) and the other in mid-September (with Nov. date to ensure it was on stands for a full month). More speculative, it appears there are two versions of the Nov. copy.

 

 

 

I agree with the above assessment 100%

 

The idea that Goodman would have printed 880,000 copies of an untested comic book title seems implausible. What makes perfect sense is that he would have run 80,000, distributed them regionally, and then fired the presses back up and run 800,000 more once he got word for the initial distributors that the issue was selling well.

 

Although I know little about printing, I have worked in manufacturing, so I can state that secondary or non-standard processes inevitably result in quite a bit of variation. The fact that the orientation/location/spacing of the "NOV"/black dot are as consistent as they are lead me to believe that they were produced with a plate rather than with stamps. If Goodman had used stamps, even automated ones, I would expect to see far less consistency than what the extant copies exhibit.

 

I am interested in the idea that there could have been multiple NOV print runs. I understand that there would have been 8 covers printed on each sheet of cover stock, right? Was there one massive plate for each color with 8 copies of the cover details on each plate? Or plates with 4 sets of covers that struck the paper twice? Or 2-cover plates that contacted the paper four times as the paper was fed through the press? Something else?

 

[Ameri]

"Lost Atlantis" was going to be based on the 1919 novel Atlantid by French fantasy writer Pierre Benoit. I takes place in the desert, not underwater. English language versions have also been published under the title Queen of Atlantis, and a low budget 1949 film adaptation was made titled Siren of Atlantis, which took place in the Jungle.

 

There is a history of retailers and movie theaters giving away comics as a promotional incentive, with content that has nothing to do with what's being sold, though many of these were returned books with new covers. Given that the potential of comic books was just starting to be realized in 1939, it's conceivable that someone might have thought that a weekly giveaway at movie theaters would have been a clever marketing tool. Apparently theater chains didn't agree.

 

I found this too from Showmen's Trade Review October 7, 1939 issue which talks of free paper products given to movie theaters for the first time and tied in to Lost Atlantis. Pretty wild coincidence especially considering the date.

 

 

[Ameri]

"Lost Atlantis" was going to be based on the 1919 novel Atlantid by French fantasy writer Pierre Benoit. I takes place in the desert, not underwater. English language versions have also been published under the title Queen of Atlantis, and a low budget 1949 film adaptation was made titled Siren of Atlantis, which took place in the Jungle.

 

There is a history of retailers and movie theaters giving away comics as a promotional incentive, with content that has nothing to do with what's being sold, though many of these were returned books with new covers. Given that the potential of comic books was just starting to be realized in 1939, it's conceivable that someone might have thought that a weekly giveaway at movie theaters would have been a clever marketing tool. Apparently theater chains didn't agree.

 

I see what you're talking about. There was this foreign film in 1932 which was apparently reissued in English in 1939. There is a desert but Atlantis is the underground city. However, the Film Bulletin news of Dec 3, 1938 says Columbia is planning their own Atlantis, calling it a "Trem Carr pre-historic production, an important Columbia endeavor." This film was un-produced, but was in the works.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0210844/

[jpepx78]

 

Very cool historical tidbits!

According to the book Tales to Astonish: Jack Kirby, Stan Lee and the American Comic Book Revolution, Columbia Pictures planned to do a Technicolor serial called The Lost Atlantis in response to the success of Undersea Kingdom by Republic Pictures in 1936.

 

The serial, Columbia hoped, would feature explosions, sinking ships, helmets that would allow fish-men to breathe on the surface and a love story between an air-breathing human and an undersea queen. The two would fall in love and the queen would renounce her throne and join the man on the surface, only to discover she couldn't breathe and had to return to her kingdom. Columbia also planned a sequel, Prince of Atlantis, which would detail the adventures of the human and sea queen's son. When the studio discovered it couldn't create the special effects needed for undersea warfare, however, the plans for the film was shelved.

 

But by now, Columbia had already asked Bill Everett's shop, First Funnies Inc to create a black and white comic book for free distribution in movie theaters. The magazine covers would have advertised both films. When Columbia cancelled the films, the comic titled, Motion Picture Comics Weekly, was also cancelled. Just as Martin Goodman began to search for stories to include in Timely's first comic, Everett wondered what, if anything, to do with the character Namor the Sub-Mariner. Once Goodman acquired the rights from Columbia, he scheduled Everett's work in MPFW for inclusion in what was shaping up to be Marvel Comics 1.

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=CFhbqswztWkC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=%22the+lost+atlantis%22+columbia+movie&source=bl&ots=8p7BgvBtww&sig=_Ab4D2UHriAk0cjswU_9nVMb-VE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidq86MvajPAhUFPCYKHUg5CkQQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20lost%20atlantis%22%20columbia%20movie&f=false

 

[VintageComics]

Very cool historical tidbits!

According to the book Tales to Astonish: Jack Kirby, Stan Lee and the American Comic Book Revolution, Columbia Pictures planned to do a Technicolor serial called The Lost Atlantis in response to the success of Undersea Kingdom by Republic Pictures in 1936.

 

The serial, Columbia hoped, would feature explosions, sinking ships, helmets that would allow fish-men to breathe on the surface and a love story between an air-breathing human and an undersea queen. The two would fall in love and the queen would renounce her throne and join the man on the surface, only to discover she couldn't breathe and had to return to her kingdom. Columbia also planned a sequel, Prince of Atlantis, which would detail the adventures of the human and sea queen's son. When the studio discovered it couldn't create the special effects needed for undersea warfare, however, the plans for the film was shelved.

 

But by now, Columbia had already asked Bill Everett's shop, First Funnies Inc to create a black and white comic book for free distribution in movie theaters. The magazine covers would have advertised both films. When Columbia cancelled the films, the comic titled, Motion Picture Comics Weekly, was also cancelled. Just as Martin Goodman began to search for stories to include in Timely's first comic, Everett wondered what, if anything, to do with the character Namor the Sub-Mariner. Once Goodman acquired the rights from Columbia, he scheduled Everett's work in MPFW for inclusion in what was shaping up to be Marvel Comics 1.

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=CFhbqswztWkC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=%22the+lost+atlantis%22+columbia+movie&source=bl&ots=8p7BgvBtww&sig=_Ab4D2UHriAk0cjswU_9nVMb-VE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidq86MvajPAhUFPCYKHUg5CkQQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20lost%20atlantis%22%20columbia%20movie&f=false

 

Wow.

[Ameri]

I found two more references, both from Variety Jan 4, 1939. The first talks about Snow White's influence on the upcoming Lost Atlantis in it's use of "plastic animations" and the 2nd names the screenwriter as Niven Busch and the film will be shot in the next 6 months. Something must have went south and it was abandoned but perhaps promotional items were prepared before it stopped production.

 

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

I have to say I'm a little mystified by Roy's arguments on this thread. A few observations:

 

First, MC 1 is a very cool book and I seriously doubt it will ever be anything less than the sixth most valuable book after Action 1, Detective 27, Superman 1, Batman 1, and, maybe, Captain America 1. A good case can be made that it should be no lower than top 3.

 

Second, the market has already spoken about the price difference between Oct. and Nov. copies and the reality is that Oct. copies garner a premium. They are just rarer. So the ship has sailed for those who want to argue that Oct. and Nov. copies should have the same value. I don't think that dog will hunt.

 

I have no idea why you are responding to me about value when my entire conversation has been devoted to the publishing of the book back in 1939. I have not once talked about which copy is worth more.

 

BUT, in a collecting world where the very best pedigree copies are all Nov. copies, I can't conceive of a world where the most valuable example of MC 1 will not be a Nov. copy. And that reality will always keep the spread between Oct. and Nov. copies thin. Those folks who own Nov. copies (Roy?) should rest assured that while their copies may not garner quite the same price grade for grade as an Oct. copy, the importance of Nov. copies will never fade away because the very best MC 1s are all Nov. copies. Nov. copies will always be desired and collected.

 

I haven't owned a copy of Marvel #1 for 6 or 7 years now.

 

Third, the notion that the Oct. copies and the Nov. copies are from the same press run is contrary to the weight of the evidence. To reach the conclusion that Roy does, you have to disregard the following evidence:

 

(1) Employee recollections are that there were two print runs, a first of 80K in late August and a second of 800K in mid-September;

 

(2) Existing records support those recollections and establish that MC 1 first hit the newsstands in late August; and

 

(3) The Nov. copies with date records show that they hit the newsstands in mid-September, also consistent with the employee recollections.

 

Those three points, ignored by some on this thread, themselves make a much stronger case for two print runs than any of the contrary speculation I've seen on these threads.

 

All you need to accept to conclude that there were two print runs is to that due to a short two week time frame between the two printings, and a desire to save money, that Goodman would have concluded it was better to forego fully re-doing the cover plate and instead opt for correcting the cover and indicia with additional plates/stamps. This is very easy to accept because Goodman was a cheapskate. Whether the correction was done with plates or stamps, both of which would have been used in the same print run as the original plate, is essentially irrelevant.

 

Which conclusion have a reached? Please point that post out to me.

 

All this speculation about plates versus stamps (again not hand stamps but stamps as part of the print run) tells you nothing about whether there was one or two print runs. For that issue, the employee recollections and records of when the books hit the newsstands is the best evidence.

 

I'd trust records over recollections. The human memory is not a very reliable source even in a court of law.

 

But I find the discussion of plates and dates most interesting for the sole reason that it seems that unless someone else can produce a non-Timely example, Goodman was the only person to do this and I am curious as to why he did it at least twice (MC #1 and Mystic #4).

 

 

I do, however, applaud the analysis of the moving "Nov." and black circle. While it doesn't help resolve the question of the number of print runs, it is interesting. To my eyes, that analysis suggests that there were two Nov. copy versions. The Nov. and black circle were on the same plate or stamp, but that plate or stamp was replaced with a similar plate or stamp at some point in the process.

 

We still haven't concluded that the two different sets of NOV/Circle are identical within their own respects but they do look to be.

 

 

Final analysis: Great book, indisputably two versions with the earlier Oct. version garnering a premium, and the weight of the evidence supports two print runs with one hitting newsstands in late August (Oct. date) and the other in mid-September (with Nov. date to ensure it was on stands for a full month). More speculative, it appears there are two versions of the Nov. copy.

 

Do you have real world examples that Oct copies fetch more than Nov copies? I'm not saying they don't. I ask simply because I didn't follow the two different examples closely in the past and GPA doesn't differentiate between the two.

[VintageComics]

Marvel 1 gets more attention than any other book. The Oct and Nov dates on the cover are but one facet that draws people in. There were additional print runs on Superman 1 and Batman 1 but nobody ever analyzes those in such great detail. To have so much attention lavished is a testament to the greatness of Marvel 1.

 

Well ... there has been the same type of threads here on Batman 1. The debate there is which came first -- no period or period.

 

Superman 1, I agree, is not discussed much on these boards because it is the ugly little secret of the CGC collecting world: It is a book that indisputably had multiple print runs, it is easy to identify the early versus later print runs, but CGC encapsulation makes it impossible for collectors to know what they've got because (1) CGC didn't realize or didn't check the print runs and note it on the label and (2) you can't tell the print run unless you open the book. Thus, anytime you buy a Superman 1 in a holder you have no idea what you are buying. The lesson of MC 1 is that the difference could matter.

 

Do you own any of the top 10 GA keys?

[VintageComics]

Marvel 1 gets more attention than any other book. The Oct and Nov dates on the cover are but one facet that draws people in. There were additional print runs on Superman 1 and Batman 1 but nobody ever analyzes those in such great detail. To have so much attention lavished is a testament to the greatness of Marvel 1.

 

People's tastes change as dollar values change and movie hype increases but Marvel #1 is by far my favorite book of all time and has been since the early 1980's.

 

 

[N e r V]

Marvel 1 gets more attention than any other book. The Oct and Nov dates on the cover are but one facet that draws people in. There were additional print runs on Superman 1 and Batman 1 but nobody ever analyzes those in such great detail. To have so much attention lavished is a testament to the greatness of Marvel 1.

 

People's tastes change as dollar values change and movie hype increases but Marvel #1 is by far my favorite book of all time and has been since the early 1980's.

 

 

 

Probably tied with Tec #27 for me but

[sfcityduck]

 

Do you have real world examples that Oct copies fetch more than Nov copies? I'm not saying they don't. I ask simply because I didn't follow the two different examples closely in the past and GPA doesn't differentiate between the two.

 

Truth be told, I'm basing this off of Fishler's statements on these boards which I take as credible given that he states he has sold some 20 or so MC 1s.

[sfcityduck]

 

Do you own any of the top 10 GA keys?

 

Nope. Do I need to have to comment?

 

Please understand I wasn't implying you were trying to talk up Nov. copies, my recollection was that you had owned an MC 1 (and an MPFW 1), but thought you may have sold the MC 1 to fund a Whiz 2 (1). I addressed my comments to you only because you appeared to be most active poster promoting the "same print run" theory, which, to me, just doesn't seem to fit the available evidence. Reasonable people can disagree. No offense intended.

 

I'm really into comic history, which is why I'd much rather have an MC 1 than a CA 1 because it is the much more historically important book. My opinions on the book are just that, only as good as the evidence which supports them and the quality of their reasoning.

[Timely]

I've also seen All Star Comics #3 with different ads. I'm not sure if that was done as regional differences, but I speculate since the book is quarterly, if the book was sold out in 1 months time DC would go back & print more. That would explain why books like Batman #1, All Star Comics #3 & other quarterly DC's have subtle print differences.

[VintageComics]

 

Do you own any of the top 10 GA keys?

 

Nope. Do I need to have to comment?

 

 

No, I was just curious.

 

Please understand I wasn't implying you were trying to talk up Nov. copies, my recollection was that you had owned an MC 1 (and an MPFW 1), but thought you may have sold the MC 1 to fund a Whiz 2 (1). I addressed my comments to you only because you appeared to be most active poster promoting the "same print run" theory, which, to me, just doesn't seem to fit the available evidence. Reasonable people can disagree. No offense intended.

 

I'm just very curious about anything to do with the book. It did feel like you pointing your entire discussion at me. I sold off most of my Timely books when I starting becoming a comic book dealer full time.

 

I sold my Whiz #1 to try to raise money to by an unrestored copy, but unfortunately they've risen out of my reach now.

 

 

[Hepcat]

People's tastes change as dollar values change and movie hype increases but Marvel #1 is by far my favorite book of all time and has been since the early 1980's.

 

It's not even in the same league as my favourites, and if I found one I'd put it up for sale immediately.

 

But I'd still hold out for a higher price than the ten cent cover price at which it first hit the stands.

 

 

 

[N e r V]

 

I sold my Whiz #1 to try to raise money to by an unrestored copy, but unfortunately they've risen out of my reach now.

 

 

 

"From my cold, dead hands"