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

[Bronty]

I think what's going on is someone felt the need to do the outline on the torch in both color and the black plate. These don't line up, which is why the torch looks so bad. They didn't try to do the outline of the other guy in color, just black, so the misregistration is there but not so obvious.

 

exactly

[Ameri]

I think what's going on is someone felt the need to do the outline on the torch in both color and the black plate. These don't line up, which is why the torch looks so bad. They didn't try to do the outline of the other guy in color, just black, so the misregistration is there but not so obvious.

 

exactly

 

[50YrsCollctngCmcs]

What's guide on this book these days; or last know sale? Anyone think it will go for anything like that or is it so dead it won't hit that mark.

 

Off white to white pages is a nice plus.

 

[N e r V]

I think 36k for that copy at guide.

 

Worth it easily.

 

A great entry level copy despite it's flaws.

[rjpb]

Yes, that's it. Just zeroing in one part as an example, there are two long shadows on the left of the Torch head (under his ear)...one is a bluish/green and the other is black. There should only be one shadow so the plates slipped. Every copy has different "slips." Sometimes it's above the head, sometimes it's below, sometimes it's left, sometimes it's right and it distorts the Torch image differently from one copy to another. The guy with the gun never seems to be affected by these slips though.

Well we know this book had a more pulpy look to it because it was printed in process colors (magenta, yellow, cyan, and black) instead of the normal primary colors (red, yellow, blue, black) typically used for comic covers during the GA. This gave it a wider chromatic range. Perhaps this color process and plate slippage resulted in the common off registration on this book. As to why the Torch is typically blurry and not the gunman at the bottom--not sure Frank. It's another Goodman mystery. The printing problem drove Goodman nuts though and that's probably would prompted him to change the cover up starting with issue 2.

 

I'm pretty sure all color printed material uses CYMK (cyan, yellow, magenta, black), and certainly did during the Golden Age.

 

The ghosting image comes from the cyan being way out of registration with the black. It is most notable on the Torch figure, as the outline and facial features were done in cyan as well as black to increase contrast. The black also seems to line up a little off in relation to the magenta and yellow.

[Sqeggs]

What's guide on this book these days; or last know sale? Anyone think it will go for anything like that or is it so dead it won't hit that mark.

 

Off white to white pages is a nice plus.

 

Don't seem to be any sales of 3.0s on GPA. The most recent GPA sale in roughly that range is a 4.0 a year ago for $68,713. Guide for a 4.0 is $48,000.

[Silver Surfer]

My money is on Vern to be all over this copy.

[batman_fan]

A perfect low grade copy.

 

 

 

Even with the registration issue, first unrestored copy in lower grade to come around in quite some time. I think it will do pretty well.

[Chicago Boy]

Nice other than the registration but that would keep me from it. 2 Marvel 1's in a row at auction between CC and now HA Cap 1 still rules IMO

[atomised]

was curious if anyone had a perspective on how that Sub-Mariner origin relates to his first printed appearance in Motion Pictures Funnies #1 - or is the latter a bit of an outlier and the Marvel Comics #1 really is the book with the most significance in the Sub-Mariner canon?

 

 

[atomic1950s]

I don't collect superhero books, so I know very little about this area of comics. My question is this: for something so historic (beginning of Marvel universe) isn't this a cheap book even at the prices mentioned? Is it not just as significant as the first Superman or Batman books?

 

 

 

[pemart1966]

I took a look at HA archives for some registration perspective but I quickly got side tracked by the Jacquet Pay Copy.

 

The Pay Copy is the November version and I'm a bit curious as to why it wouldn't have been the earlier October version.

 

Does anyone have any ideas?

[Ameri]

I took a look at HA archives for some registration perspective but I quickly got side tracked by the Jacquet Pay Copy.

 

The Pay Copy is the November version and I'm a bit curious as to why it wouldn't have been the earlier October version.

 

Does anyone have any ideas?

 

That's a great question and I don't think there's a definitive answer, but the October issue had a small print run and was on the stands sometime in August '39 in some test markets and it's success prompted a 2nd larger printing with the November overprint. The Church copy is a November copy and shows an arrival date of September 15. The time between the two print runs seems extremely close so it's possible that they just gave one of the larger print run copies to the accountant to document artist fees.

[MrBedrock]

I took a look at HA archives for some registration perspective but I quickly got side tracked by the Jacquet Pay Copy.

 

The Pay Copy is the November version and I'm a bit curious as to why it wouldn't have been the earlier October version.

 

Does anyone have any ideas?

 

That's a great question and I don't think there's a definitive answer, but the October issue had a small print run and was on the stands sometime in August '39 in some test markets and it's success prompted a 2nd larger printing with the November overprint. The Church copy is a November copy and shows an arrival date of September 15. The time between the two print runs seems extremely close so it's possible that they just gave one of the larger print run copies to the accountant to document artist fees.

I don't think any of what you state here has been definitively proven. It is also probable that there was one printing with the black overprint added early on to correct the date mistake.

[pemart1966]

I took a look at HA archives for some registration perspective but I quickly got side tracked by the Jacquet Pay Copy.

 

The Pay Copy is the November version and I'm a bit curious as to why it wouldn't have been the earlier October version.

 

Does anyone have any ideas?

 

That's a great question and I don't think there's a definitive answer, but the October issue had a small print run and was on the stands sometime in August '39 in some test markets and it's success prompted a 2nd larger printing with the November overprint. The Church copy is a November copy and shows an arrival date of September 15. The time between the two print runs seems extremely close so it's possible that they just gave one of the larger print run copies to the accountant to document artist fees.

I don't think any of what you state here has been definitively proven. It is also probable that there was one printing with the black overprint added early on to correct the date mistake.

 

Was it a "mistake" or just the fact that the October run had done so well that they rushed out a November version? Now that I think about it was it possible to collect sales data so quickly back in 1939?

 

Were the November versions printed on top of existing October covers or were they brand new prints on existing October printing plates?

[N e r V]

The stamp was put over covers that already had the Oct. date of them.

 

It could have been a mistake or maybe Martin was trying to extend its shelflife with a more current date.

 

Whatever the reason it happened after covers already had Oct. on them otherwise why not just correct the cover art template before even printing them up?

[N e r V]

Actually a good compare for Marvel Comics #1 exists with record collectors and the Beatles "butcher block" album. You had the original album and then a second copy that was the original album with a new paste over cover.

[Bronty]

similar but in a superficial way right? What this pay copy question boils down to is was there one print run, or were they spaced out. As Bedrock stated, it could be a mid print run change.

 

That beatles butcher thing is well documented and I can't believe that even came out for the short time it came out !

[Ameri]

I just looked at the Marvel Omnibus. It says that Goodman printed 80,000 copies of the October print and it went to east coast newsstands. Sales results were phoned in to him quickly and they were positive and he decided to do 800,000 more with a November overprint because Marvel 1 was a monthly and the indicia was modified as well.

[pemart1966]

N e r V's reply above seems to read that Goodman must have printed 880,000 covers with the October date yet only initially distributed 80,000 of them to East coast markets.

 

Once sales data was phoned in as positive he took the remaining 800,000 October covers and either had them stamped with the November overprint or ran them through a printing process whereby the November overprint was applied.

 

Am I interpreting that correctly?