Marvel comics 1 entry price? 0

[pemart1966]

8 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

This is just another say of saying "first print" and "second print".  

The fact that one has a later publication date will forever be the biggest stumbling block to anyone reasonably trying to call the November copies "first state" copies.  They are not.  

-J.

Exactly.  There were two separate and distinct printings.  Both versions are rare and coveted, the first one being more so.

[N e r V]

2 hours ago, Ameri said:

This is off topic, but I always wondered about the unused Submariner cover for Marvel 2. Is there any documentation that shows this cover was truly intended for Marvel 2? I know it shows DEC on it which could have been added later, but Bill Everett was the editor of Funnies Inc. so it would make sense that he would be in charge of the Marvel 1 project and that he would want his creation on the cover of the first issue, so he drew one, but was perhaps deemed unacceptable by Goodman as being too plain. I always thought it odd that Goodman opted to use one of his pulp artists to do the first cover instead of a Funnies Inc. staffer. If Goodman was not satisfied with Everett's treatment, it makes sense that he would use Paul, one of his popular artists, to do a Human Torch cover instead.        

I would say the logo on it and date are a giveaway.

 

Not at all unusual for Goodman to use Paul art on first issue either. He was a pulp publisher putting out his first comic using the Funnies group material to put it together. He and Paul had history and he was a premiere pulp artist at the time. I'm not sure when Goodman finally got together with Everett back then but they also would have a long history afterward with each other until Everetts death in 1973. Goodman maintained a soft spot for Everett until then.

 

This is cool as well:

 

We were denied collecting any Zephyr comics by Timely! 

 

Edited June 12, 2017 by N e r V

[Sqeggs]

14 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

There's also this one, which I think also comes in stamped and unstamped (10 cent) versions (as indicated by the label note).

Turns out I also have this copy.  So maybe there were three versions of this book:  10c, 10c with overstrike and 12c added, and 12c.  I don't know if any of the 10 cent (no overstrike) copies actually made it into circulation.

[MrBedrock]

12 hours ago, pemart1966 said:

I don't see Goodman making an 80,000 copy mistake.  I do see him making, what at the time was a short 80,000 copy run given that it was in effect the launch of what was essentially a new comic book endeavour.  

Anything I've read talks about the 80,000 copy run selling out.  If Goodman had made a mistake, why did he wait so long before "correcting" the mistake?  One would think that it would be "stop the presses, make the changes and continue printing".

Why are there so few October copies?  80,000 vs 800,000.  80,000 is not that big a run.  I would assume a survival ratio of 1 October copy for every 10 November copies all things being equal.

We all know what comics from the 40s in particular went through.  It's a miracle that any of them survived. 

You're correct.  None of us will know the truth but I do find it interesting to have fun discussion (well I thought it was a fun discussion as opposed to "theoretical hyperbole") regarding a very interesting book in comic history...

 

The reason it has been called a mistake is the theory that Marvel 1 went to press and 80,000 copies in they realized that the cover date was too close to release, thus assuring a shorter shelf life at the newstand. They made the decision to change the print (adding the black stamp) and continued the run with the overprint. In my opinion if this is the case they can certainly be called second state variants, but in no way are they reprints.

[MrBedrock]

4 hours ago, pemart1966 said:

12 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

This is just another say of saying "first print" and "second print".  

The fact that one has a later publication date will forever be the biggest stumbling block to anyone reasonably trying to call the November copies "first state" copies.  They are not.  

-J.

Exactly.  There were two separate and distinct printings.  Both versions are rare and coveted, the first one being more so.

But that is the crux of the debate. No one knows if there were two distinct print runs (Hey, we sold out! Let's go back to print!), or if the press was stopped (Hey, we need to change something! Let's fix it!), changes made, and then press continued.

[exitmusicblue]

No one has posted their Chamber of Chills 19 !  From my Haunted Horror HC:

[N e r V]

46 minutes ago, MrBedrock said:

But that is the crux of the debate. No one knows if there were two distinct print runs (Hey, we sold out! Let's go back to print!), or if the press was stopped (Hey, we need to change something! Let's fix it!), changes made, and then press continued.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but weren't D.C. Comics and others dating some of their comics only 1 month ahead in 1939 and it was Timely that started dating their books 2 months ahead from the beginning?

I seem to remember Goodman had the thought of the extra month would give his books extra time on the new stands over others. 

Edited June 12, 2017 by N e r V

[Randall Dowling]

27 minutes ago, MrBedrock said:

But that is the crux of the debate. No one knows if there were two distinct print runs (Hey, we sold out! Let's go back to print!), or if the press was stopped (Hey, we need to change something! Let's fix it!), changes made, and then press continued.

I had always heard (or read, I forget which as I'm getting older) that Goodman seriously underestimated how well it would sell and when reports came back that it was already sold out in a week, he realized he had a hit on his hands and went back and ordered another 800,000 copies (or whatever the number was).  This is, of course, completely heresay, rumor, and conjecture that MAY be true but isn't certain or fact. And shouldn't be treated as such.  Even if this is so, the fact that there are differences is more of a curiosity than a real tangible reason to devalue November copies.

I think also that everyone is viewing this through the same methods and practices in place today.  When Marvel or DC make a second printing today (and over the last 25 years), it is clearly marked or has a different cover artwork or other significant difference.  In the 30s, 40s, 50s, and even 60s, I'd be willing to bet that the "edition size" of a given comic was nowhere near as fixed, as people like to imagine it.  These were comic books, of no value than the cover price kids and GIs paid to read them.  If you sold a bunch, call the printer and have him print some more and ship 'em to the stands.  I'm sure this was more common than we'll ever know.  The books on this thread are probably the tip of the iceberg with most "second printing" events being indistinguishable from the rest.  And I agree, there's no way you can call November copies reprints.  That implies the same material being repackaged in a different way.  The black stamp over October (which does look to me like it was run through mechanically as Gator and Geppi suggest) doesn't come close to qualifying as a reprint to me.  

The Whitman Marvels in the 70s were reprints.  This ain't that.

[Jaydogrules]

6 hours ago, MrBedrock said:

But that is the crux of the debate. No one knows if there were two distinct print runs (Hey, we sold out! Let's go back to print!), or if the press was stopped (Hey, we need to change something! Let's fix it!), changes made, and then press continued.

This is contrary to the accepted narrative  (and the most likely scenario).  Plus, 80,000 printed copies which were then released and distributed are far too many to constitute a "mistake".  The fact that the date of release was what changed  (not a "minor" or non-substantive change by any stretch of the imagination in the world of publishing) to a month later kills your argument every single time.  It is literally the difference between a "first print" and a second print.  

-J.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[Jaydogrules]

6 minutes ago, Randall Dowling said:

I had always heard (or read, I forget which as I'm getting older) that Goodman seriously underestimated how well it would sell and when reports came back that it was already sold out in a week, he realized he had a hit on his hands and went back and ordered another 800,000 copies (or whatever the number was).  This is, of course, completely heresay, rumor, and conjecture that MAY be true but isn't certain or fact. And shouldn't be treated as such.  Even if this is so, the fact that there are differences is more of a curiosity than a real tangible reason to devalue November copies.

I think also that everyone is viewing this through the same methods and practices in place today.  When Marvel or DC make a second printing today (and over the last 25 years), it is clearly marked or has a different cover artwork or other significant difference.  In the 30s, 40s, 50s, and even 60s, I'd be willing to bet that the "edition size" of a given comic was nowhere near as fixed, as people like to imagine it.  These were comic books, of no value than the cover price kids and GIs paid to read them.  If you sold a bunch, call the printer and have him print some more and ship 'em to the stands.  I'm sure this was more common than we'll ever know.  The books on this thread are probably the tip of the iceberg with most "second printing" events being indistinguishable from the rest.  And I agree, there's no way you can call November copies reprints.  That implies the same material being repackaged in a different way.  The black stamp over October (which does look to me like it was run through mechanically as Gator and Geppi suggest) doesn't come close to qualifying as a reprint to me.  

The Whitman Marvels in the 70s were reprints.  This ain't that.

Exactly what "machine" would they have been re-run through ?

That's not how printing presses work. 

Sorry.

And even if they were re-run through some mysterious 1930s magical machine that specifically prints black stamps and changes the date of release to a later date, the November copies would still not be considered "first printings".

-J.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[woowoo]

Really. I find it hard to believe that anyone that loves Marvel 1 or not love it would think the Nov is a reprint.

[G.A.tor]

5 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Exactly what "machine" would they have been re-run through ?

That's not how printing presses work. 

Sorry.

And even if they were re-run through some mysterious 1930s magical machine that specifically prints black stamps and changes the date of release to a later date, the November copies would still not be considered "first printings".

-J.

I just sent geppi a message but haven't heard back yet. 

Because I'm curious and have no knowledge, I was Talking with a printer this morning (modern mind you ) he mentioned a potential scenario that could account for the black over/nov app is that the covers (apparently they are a continuous roll) would have been run back through the press with a different plate (that only had the "nov" and the round). He said it would have been easy and cheap, in the 30s, to do this. Again, he said this was one scenario that he speculated could explain. 

[Primetime]

6 hours ago, Ameri said:

This is off topic, but I always wondered about the unused Submariner cover for Marvel 2. Is there any documentation that shows this cover was truly intended for Marvel 2? I know it shows DEC on it which could have been added later, but Bill Everett was the editor of Funnies Inc. so it would make sense that he would be in charge of the Marvel 1 project and that he would want his creation on the cover of the first issue, so he drew one, but was perhaps deemed unacceptable by Goodman as being too plain. I always thought it odd that Goodman opted to use one of his pulp artists to do the first cover instead of a Funnies Inc. staffer. If Goodman was not satisfied with Everett's treatment, it makes sense that he would use Paul, one of his popular artists, to do a Human Torch cover instead.        

yah, that's another mystery behind Goodman. I would have preferred the unused Subby cover to be used for Marvel 2 at the very least. We all know Goodman had a thing for the Angel and he expected him to be the star of the title. 

Edited June 12, 2017 by Primetime

[Primetime]

33 minutes ago, N e r V said:

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but weren't D.C. Comics and others dating some of their comics only 1 month ahead in 1939 and it was Timely that started dating their books 2 months ahead from the beginning?

I seem to remember Goodman had the thought of the extra month would give his books extra time on the new stands over others. 

I have seen Tec 31s (Sept 1939 cover date) with "Aug" date stamps on their covers if that helps to explain...Daring Mystery 1 (cover date JAN 1940) was released late OCT 1939....

Edited June 12, 2017 by Primetime

[Jaydogrules]

4 minutes ago, G.A.tor said:

I just sent geppi a message but haven't heard back yet. 

Because I'm curious and have no knowledge, I was Talking with a printer this morning (modern mind you ) he mentioned a potential scenario that could account for the black over/nov app is that the covers (apparently they are a continuous roll) would have been run back through the press with a different plate (that only had the "nov" and the round). He said it would have been easy and cheap, in the 30s, to do this. Again, he said this was one scenario that he speculated could explain. 

Yes you could add the plates if Goodman already had 800,000 covers printed  (I find that unlikely, since the narrative he was surprised by the quick sell outs of the first prints and it would be senseless to pre print a million copies of an untested book with "oct" on it to then only release a fraction of them "just to see what happens").

But changing the plates around  (the date of release, no less) and doing another printing still means you are doing a second printing.

See "#5" here for more info.  

 http://www.travelinlibrarian.info/writing/editions/

-J.

[pemart1966]

33 minutes ago, Randall Dowling said:

I had always heard (or read, I forget which as I'm getting older) that Goodman seriously underestimated how well it would sell and when reports came back that it was already sold out in a week, he realized he had a hit on his hands and went back and ordered another 800,000 copies (or whatever the number was).  This is, of course, completely heresay, rumor, and conjecture that MAY be true but isn't certain or fact. And shouldn't be treated as such.  Even if this is so, the fact that there are differences is more of a curiosity than a real tangible reason to devalue November copies.

I think also that everyone is viewing this through the same methods and practices in place today.  When Marvel or DC make a second printing today (and over the last 25 years), it is clearly marked or has a different cover artwork or other significant difference.  In the 30s, 40s, 50s, and even 60s, I'd be willing to bet that the "edition size" of a given comic was nowhere near as fixed, as people like to imagine it.  These were comic books, of no value than the cover price kids and GIs paid to read them.  If you sold a bunch, call the printer and have him print some more and ship 'em to the stands.  I'm sure this was more common than we'll ever know.  The books on this thread are probably the tip of the iceberg with most "second printing" events being indistinguishable from the rest.  And I agree, there's no way you can call November copies reprints.  That implies the same material being repackaged in a different way.  The black stamp over October (which does look to me like it was run through mechanically as Gator and Geppi suggest) doesn't come close to qualifying as a reprint to me.  

The Whitman Marvels in the 70s were reprints.  This ain't that.

You're making the assumption that there are people on this thread trying to devalue November copies.  That's not the case at all.  What it's supposed to be is a fun discussion as to possibly how and why there were two distinct versions of this book produced.  I've got my theories, you've got yours and still others have theirs.  Nothing short of a Martin Goodman letter detailing the events will change anyone's mind.

It's the market that will determine the ultimate value of these two different books not anything that's said on these boards.

Edited June 12, 2017 by pemart1966

[Randall Dowling]

54 minutes ago, pemart1966 said:

You're making the assumption that there are people on this thread trying to devalue November copies.  That's not the case at all.  What it's supposed to be is a fun discussion as to possibly how and why there were two distinct versions of this book produced.  I've got my theories, you've got yours and still others have theirs.  Nothing short of a Martin Goodman letter detailing the events will change anyone's mind.

It's the market that will determine the ultimate value of these two different books not anything that's said on these boards.

I think there are at least a couple of people trying to redefine Marvel 1 November copies as reprints or second printings and presenting themselves as experts in this thread.  This would amplify any current perceived delta in value between the October copies and November copies that already exists.  Given the number of people on these boards that have owned or currently own a copy of Marvel 1, it seems disingenuous to suggest that these boards have no impact on or represent some portion of the high end comic market.  Value is based on perception, perception can be distorted by even the smallest of whispers.  Happens everyday on Wall Street.

[MrBedrock]

1 hour ago, Jaydogrules said:

2 hours ago, MrBedrock said:

But that is the crux of the debate. No one knows if there were two distinct print runs (Hey, we sold out! Let's go back to print!), or if the press was stopped (Hey, we need to change something! Let's fix it!), changes made, and then press continued.

This is contrary to the accepted narrative  (and the most likely scenario).  Plus, 80,000 printed copies which were then released and distributed are far too many to constitute a "mistake".  The fact that the date of release was what changed  (not a "minor" or non-substantive change by any stretch of the imagination in the world of publishing) to a month later kills your argument every single time.  It is liyerallt the difference between a "first print" and a second print.  

-J.

There is no "accepted narrative". Back in the seventies the version I am sharing was what was generally considered plausible. The version that the book had sold out and Goodman had to go back to press was first introduced in the foreward to one of the Marvel Archive editions of Marvel Mystery. The person that wrote that intro did not include any footnotes, any bibliographical corroboration of anything else to factually support it. It was hearsay.

So my opinion is still alive and well...and you are still ignorant.

[G.A.tor]

2 minutes ago, Randall Dowling said:

I think there are at least a couple of people trying to redefine Marvel 1 November copies as reprints or second printings and presenting themselves as experts in this thread.  This would amplify any current perceived delta in value between the October copies and November copies that already exists.  Given the number of people on these boards that have owned or currently own a copy of Marvel 1, it seems disingenuous to suggest that these boards have no impact on or represent some portion of the high end comic market.  Value is based on perception, perception can be distorted by even the smallest of whispers.  Happens everyday on Wall Street.

hopefully what doesn't get lost in the discussion is that the Oct and Nov copies have been known to the market since day 1 of collecting...there is nothing anyone will say on the boards that will affect the book...all that information is already built into the market and the valuation...has been for 70 years...and I've not heard one person in 40+ years of collecting, and in 10+ years of buying and selling double digit numbers of copies, ever refer to it as "reprint" etc...its is just not relevant and highly unlikely it will ever be relevant to the discussion, given the rarity of the book (regardless of date on cover)...demand so far outstrips supply, I believe the statue of the book is "safe", independent of what someone refers to it as...

[MrBedrock]

1 hour ago, Randall Dowling said:

I had always heard (or read, I forget which as I'm getting older) that Goodman seriously underestimated how well it would sell and when reports came back that it was already sold out in a week, he realized he had a hit on his hands and went back and ordered another 800,000 copies (or whatever the number was).  This is, of course, completely heresay, rumor, and conjecture that MAY be true but isn't certain or fact. And shouldn't be treated as such.  Even if this is so, the fact that there are differences is more of a curiosity than a real tangible reason to devalue November copies.

I think also that everyone is viewing this through the same methods and practices in place today.  When Marvel or DC make a second printing today (and over the last 25 years), it is clearly marked or has a different cover artwork or other significant difference.  In the 30s, 40s, 50s, and even 60s, I'd be willing to bet that the "edition size" of a given comic was nowhere near as fixed, as people like to imagine it.  These were comic books, of no value than the cover price kids and GIs paid to read them.  If you sold a bunch, call the printer and have him print some more and ship 'em to the stands.  I'm sure this was more common than we'll ever know.  The books on this thread are probably the tip of the iceberg with most "second printing" events being indistinguishable from the rest.  And I agree, there's no way you can call November copies reprints.  That implies the same material being repackaged in a different way.  The black stamp over October (which does look to me like it was run through mechanically as Gator and Geppi suggest) doesn't come close to qualifying as a reprint to me.  

The Whitman Marvels in the 70s were reprints.  This ain't that.

When DC or Marvel do additional printings today they first send solicitations to retailers. They have actually order amounts ready before they set the print runs. Retailers know ahead of time what, if any, changes are being made. The publishers then go and set up a completely new print run. Obviously in the 30s and 40s that type of system was not in place.