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

[Crowzilla]

So what you're saying is that the interior cover was printed on more than just one printing occasion: once for the October 1939 copy , once for the November copy with the indicia error burned into the type plate and once for the November copy with the error in the type plate corrected?

 

So the prepress person corrected the typeset problem by fixing the moved indicia but a separate stamp was still used for the blackout line?

 

 

This seems the most logical scenario now. November indicia covers were being run off when the split plate was noted and corrected. The stamp with the Nov/circle and black line in the indicia was run separately and not corrected to account for the split in indicia in some number of copies.

The question is, do all the split indicia copies have the close Nov/circle stamp or wide Nov/circle stamp (or is it a combination)?

Meaning if you have a close Nov/circle stamp could you know without opening if you have a split indicia or not?

 

[VintageComics]

The question is, do all the split indicia copies have the close Nov/circle stamp or wide Nov/circle stamp (or is it a combination)?

Meaning if you have a close Nov/circle stamp could you know without opening if you have a split indicia or not?

 

You read my mind.

 

That was my next question and line of thought.

 

It may be more than just co-incidence that we have 3 patterns (so far) for front cover markings and 3 patterns (so far) for interior cover markings.

 

On a side note, I'm just amazed that it took this many years to have such a detailed discussion on the topic. Great work, all!

 

 

[MrBedrock]

....or It could just be a minor printing irregularity that occurred on a 1930's printing press when they were running off a second printing (on which a concerted effort was made to differentiate from the first printing)

That doesn't even make sense.

 

Most people (seasoned posters) who have dealt with Jaydogrules learn to ignore him eventually.

 

Yes, and while you are busy taking your usual personal jabs, you've evidently failed to realize that virtually every other participant in this thread has also either openly doubted or outright disagreed with your speculative musings on the matter (not counting the other "seasoned poster " who has all of 200 posts in 6 years, of course) with a couple boardies even producing visual aids for you, which of course your promptly dimissed once you realized they also did not support your speculative musings, going so far as to call one of them a "cartoon".

 

Classy guy.

 

-J.

Virtually every other participant has not openly doubted or disagreed with Roy.

[Crowzilla]

On a side note, I'm just amazed that it took this many years to have such a detailed discussion on the topic. Great work, all!

 

Both amazed and not, it takes the internet to be able to bring all this knowledge together. Plus the fact that for a long time, copies of Marvel #1 just weren't that common. When Olshevsky got his Marvel #1 (which i think is one of the 6.0 copies), it was generally believed to be one of the 2 or 3 nicest copies. This is why Snyder paid such a premium for the Church copy. There was no Denver, Windy City, Carson City, Allentown, Larson, Twilight, Pay Copy, or Billy Wright copy (yet).

 

Much easier to compare information about Marvel #1 now than it was back then.

I'm curious when the first October copy was found and if it was the file copy.

 

 

[Crowzilla]

Another quick side note, even though the six scans we have been discussing (thank you Aman and Stock_Rotation) show 3 each of the close/distant Nov/Circle variants, it is interesting that of the 10 pedigree scans at comicpedigress, only one (Denver) is a close Nov/Circle version.

 

[jimjum12]

How many known October copies are there ? GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Jaydogrules]

You just seem to be interested in pushing your own points and whenever someone disagrees you become dogmatic about your position without offering any real evidence.

 

Odd. This actually perfectly describes what "you" just did with another one of your typically condescending personal swipes.

 

Healer, heal thyself.

 

-J.

 

Sorry J, I currently don't have a position so I have nothing to be dogmatic about.

 

While in previous years I used believe (based on what I was told by others) that they were all one print with a cover change part way through, at this point I'm just curious to learn more about it. As I said in one of the older threads, I don't care either way. Just the facts, ma'am.

 

It also may help shed information on why Superman #1 and Batman #1 have print differences.

 

Have a good one!

 

Fair enough.

 

Although I am sure you would agree that there is a substantive difference between a missing dot on a cover versus a completely different (and later) cover date (and indicia) between printings.

 

And as an interesting side note, even Heritage refers to the "Nov." copies as "second printings" in their listing for one of the "Oct." copies they auctioned a while back.

 

https://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/marvel-comics-1-timely-1939-cgc-vg-fn-50-cream-to-off-white-pages-marvel-1-s-first-print-run-was-a-sellout-prompting/a/804-5175.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

 

No matter how you slice it, whether the "Nov." copies were printed along with the original "Oct." copies, and then run back through the presses again to change the cover date and indicia, or whether they were just outright "second printed" as the Heritage listing states (along with other materials other boardies have linked in this thread), the "Nov" copies cannot be considered original first printing (or first state, if you like) copies, because they are not, under any interpretation.

 

-J.

[VintageComics]

Another quick side note, even though the six scans we have been discussing (thank you Aman and Stock_Rotation) show 3 each of the close/distant Nov/Circle variants, it is interesting that of the 10 pedigree scans at comicpedigress, only one (Denver) is a close Nov/Circle version.

 

Are you possibly stating that it was purchased further from the East coast than the others and so either later or earlier in the print run?

[bluechip]

What you're looking at in that second photo is a prepress error that required an entire new plate to be burned for the interior. Notice that it's not just the first line that's off-- there's a gap running thrugh the center of the text, splitting some words in half. The reason there is a gap is due to how type was set at the time. You could photoset type, but you couldn't do a line of text wider than about 4 inches. So if you wanted a 6 inch indica, you had to do it in two pieces. The prepress person would assemble the two pieces before burning the plate. It's L shaped because you couldn't rely on the prepress person reading the text to determine which side went on the left and which went on the right-- so you would make the text in blocks that could only be assembled in one way, like a puzzle or Tetris.

 

OK, I was so focused on the indicia line with the blackout that I didn't realize that the entire indicia was split with a gap in it down the middle in the second example.

 

 

 

 

So what you're saying is that the typeset for the indicia was done in two halves (left and right) and the left half moved. Is that correct?

 

Funny! I was going to write something about this; it's why I was asking for photos of indicias. It's about as close to proof as you're likely to get that DiceX's stamp theory is correct. I know there was discussion back in '09 that it looked like a stamp due to being able to read through the overprint, but this really kind of proves it.

 

I may still be misunderstanding part of this.

 

It looks like the typeset moved but the blackout line didn't.

 

I understood Dice as saying that there was an additional stamp during production (one on the front cover - the Nov/ Circle, and one on the interior indicia (the blackout line and the new November 1939 date).

 

In your explanation you wrote this:

 

The prepress person screwed up when they burned the plate, and they must have discovered the error while on the press. They needed to pull the plate and burn a new one. If they had to burn a new plate, they would have burned the blackout line and the new text on the new plate. That they didn't is extremely strong circumstantial evidence that the blackout line and new text was added after the covers were already printed.

 

So what you're saying is that the interior cover was printed on more than just one printing occasion: once for the October 1939 copy , once for the November copy with the indicia error burned into the type plate and once for the November copy with the error in the type plate corrected?

 

So the prepress person corrected the typeset problem by fixing the moved indicia but a separate stamp was still used for the blackout line?

 

Based on what I know about printing (I was in the industry for almost 25 years, 5 as a pressman and the next 20 in prepress), the interiors would have been printed first. 4-color process printing is difficult, so you wouldn't want to print a 4-color cover and then risk destroying some of those press sheets while running black on the interior. You'd run the easiest side first and run plenty of extras.

 

That makes sense. And from what I understand about the 4-color printing, it was basically done the same way for decades.

 

 

I once owned a Lloyd Jacquet file copy of Marvel 1 front cover only (Oct) with the indicia cut off. Always thought it had something to do with the changes to the second printing caused I'd seen November copies with the changed indicia. Unfortunately, I sold the cover long ago when people were adamant that there wasn't a substantial premium applied to first prints and that "nobody cares" whether anything has provenance or played a part in the production.

[VintageComics]

Although I am sure you would agree that there is a substantive difference between a missing dot on a cover versus a completely different (and later) cover date (and indicia) between printings.

 

As we've found out in this thread, there are differences in Marvel #1 that we did not know about. The different spacing in the indicias, the color of Torch's hair, the different NOV/Circle slugs with different spacings.

 

So since we don't have a stack of Superman #1, Batman #1 and Marvel #1 comics to compare, we're in a state of learning as we decode how these books were actually printed.

 

It seems that Goodman was in the habit of changing publication dates (Marvel #1 and Mystic #4 being two obvious examples) and if so, I'd like to know exactly why if possible.

 

And as an interesting side note, even Heritage refers to the "Nov." copies as "second printings" in their listing for one of the "Oct." copies they auctioned a while back.

 

Hobby designations change as new information comes to light. Overstreet, Heritage and CGC have all made corrections over the years so what Heritage says right now carries about as much weight as what you or I say until we have some evidence. Up until now, we were just going on stories and rumours.

 

No matter how you slice it, whether the "Nov." copies were printed along with the original "Oct." copies, and then run back through the presses again to change the cover date and indicia, or whether they were just outright "second printed" as the Heritage listing states (along with other materials other boardies have linked in this thread), the "Nov" copies cannot be considered original first printing (or first state, if you like) copies, because they are not, under any interpretation.

 

The big difference for most collectors is knowing whether there was a 2nd order for a 2nd print. If it was just a change mid way through the printing process, to me I consider it the same as what you consider a 1st print.

 

No different IMO than UK price variants or Canadian price variants, of which neither is considered a 2nd print (although UK price variants up until now did fetch less on the open market simply because of the pricing slug and possibly a misunderstanding of how they were printed). They were just the same books with a small change added during production to accomodate for a different market (not to be confused with actual Canadian or UK versions which whose content was changed, did not bear exact resemblance with their US counterparts and wereprinted exclusively for the other markets)

 

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

I once owned a Lloyd Jacquet file copy of Marvel 1 front cover only (Oct) with the indicia cut off. Always thought it had something to do with the changes to the second printing caused I'd seen November copies with the changed indicia. Unfortunately, I sold the cover long ago when people were adamant that there wasn't a substantial premium applied to first prints and that "nobody cares" whether anything has provenance or played a part in the production.

 

Do you happen to have any images left of the cover?

[Silver Surfer]

I once owned a Lloyd Jacquet file copy of Marvel 1 front cover only (Oct) with the indicia cut off. Always thought it had something to do with the changes to the second printing caused I'd seen November copies with the changed indicia. Unfortunately, I sold the cover long ago when people were adamant that there wasn't a substantial premium applied to first prints and that "nobody cares" whether anything has provenance or played a part in the production.

 

Do you happen to have any images left of the cover?

 

An where can I buy it?

[Jaydogrules]

Although I am sure you would agree that there is a substantive difference between a missing dot on a cover versus a completely different (and later) cover date (and indicia) between printings.

 

As we've found out in this thread, there are differences in Marvel #1 that we did not know about. The different spacing in the indicias, the color of Torch's hair, the different NOV/Circle slugs with different spacings.

 

So since we don't have a stack of Superman #1, Batman #1 and Marvel #1 comics to compare, we're in a state of learning as we decode how these books were actually printed.

 

It seems that Goodman was in the habit of changing publication dates (Marvel #1 and Mystic #4 being two obvious examples) and if so, I'd like to know exactly why if possible.

 

And as an interesting side note, even Heritage refers to the "Nov." copies as "second printings" in their listing for one of the "Oct." copies they auctioned a while back.

 

Hobby designations change as new information comes to light. Overstreet, Heritage and CGC have all made corrections over the years so what Heritage says right now carries about as much weight as what you or I say until we have some evidence. Up until now, we were just going on stories and rumours.

 

No matter how you slice it, whether the "Nov." copies were printed along with the original "Oct." copies, and then run back through the presses again to change the cover date and indicia, or whether they were just outright "second printed" as the Heritage listing states (along with other materials other boardies have linked in this thread), the "Nov" copies cannot be considered original first printing (or first state, if you like) copies, because they are not, under any interpretation.

 

The big difference for most collectors is knowing whether there was a 2nd order for a 2nd print. If it was just a change mid way through the printing process, to me I consider it the same as what you consider a 1st print.

 

No different IMO than UK price variants or Canadian price variants, of which neither is considered a 2nd print (although UK price variants up until now did fetch less on the open market simply because of the pricing slug and possibly a misunderstanding of how they were printed). They were just the same books with a small change added during production to accomodate for a different market (not to be confused with actual Canadian or UK versions which whose content was changed, did not bear exact resemblance with their US counterparts and wereprinted exclusively for the other markets)

 

 

 

Yes, like the UK editions of some books, the "only" difference may exist in the outside and interior covers.

 

But....

 

...those are still (and also) substantive differences from their original first print (or, again, first state , if you prefer) brethren, and they both require some sort of subsequent pass through or change to the presses to make the necessary alterations (regardless of the reasons for doing such).

 

And wheras UK editions might fetch 50-80% (on the high end) of the original American cents versions (depending on the book and venue of course) , it's hard to say how much the second print versions MC 1 realizes compared to the "Oct" copies since those first print copies seem to be rarely offered. And since it's plain that even the second printing of MC 1 still commands good money, I'm not entirely sure what the big deal is in the first place (unless there is a track record of the "Oct" print being more desirable and valuable that I am not personally aware of).

 

-J.

 

[VintageComics]

Uh, you're doing it again. You're calling NOV copies a 2nd print when it hasn't been definitively shown to be.

 

See what I mean?

 

And why do Canadian cent copies of US comic books fetch the same as or more money (when they are considered variants) than US counterparts while UK counterparts fetch less? It's probably because of misinformation spread early in the hobby that they were reprints or 2nd prints, which they were not...much like happens to other books, until you get all the facts.

 

 

 

 

[Crowzilla]

Another quick side note, even though the six scans we have been discussing (thank you Aman and Stock_Rotation) show 3 each of the close/distant Nov/Circle variants, it is interesting that of the 10 pedigree scans at comicpedigress, only one (Denver) is a close Nov/Circle version.

 

Are you possibly stating that it was purchased further from the East coast than the others and so either later or earlier in the print run?

 

Except I think the Denver collection, despite it's name, originally was put together in Pennsylvania (?).

 

[bluechip]

I once owned a Lloyd Jacquet file copy of Marvel 1 front cover only (Oct) with the indicia cut off. Always thought it had something to do with the changes to the second printing caused I'd seen November copies with the changed indicia. Unfortunately, I sold the cover long ago when people were adamant that there wasn't a substantial premium applied to first prints and that "nobody cares" whether anything has provenance or played a part in the production.

 

Do you happen to have any images left of the cover?

 

Not sure. Back in that day I made color xeroxes of all the most interesting books and still have stacks of them which turn up from time to time. Will let you know if I spot that one.

[bluechip]

I once owned a Lloyd Jacquet file copy of Marvel 1 front cover only (Oct) with the indicia cut off. Always thought it had something to do with the changes to the second printing caused I'd seen November copies with the changed indicia. Unfortunately, I sold the cover long ago when people were adamant that there wasn't a substantial premium applied to first prints and that "nobody cares" whether anything has provenance or played a part in the production.

 

Do you happen to have any images left of the cover?

 

An where can I buy it?

 

If I find it I will send you a scan no charge

[sfcityduck]

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.

 

 

 

 

[Ameri]

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.

[sfcityduck]

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.