Marvel comics 1 entry price? 0

[batman_fan]

Personally I would love to buy a nice midgrade restored copy. 

[Sqeggs]

1 hour ago, N e r V said:

It's a nice looking 4.0 but that seems high since the last CGC 3.0 went for half that. I don't think a grade point in this case is worth double the cost. I'm not sure what the seller would accept though as a counter offer.

Having been the owner of a few of these in the past I do like copies where it's clearer with the October date showing. I never owned a October dated copy myself although I directed Marvel in the direction to get one for their Marvel Mystery Omnibus. A October dated copy is my "White Buffalo" in collecting.

 

I agree that the price seems high. Like with a lot of CLink exchange listings, he's probably fishing for offers rather than expecting anyone to pay his BIN price. 

[N e r V]

This is the $150,000.00 Clink copy.

 

Don't know if it's changed hands since but it was last sold on Heritage August 2015 for $68,000.00. Another thing it seems to have going for it is no "double image" issues like some copies have. Outside of its price there's a lot to like about how it presents. Without seeing the book in hand I like its look for a 4.0. You can see some of that "Oct." date too which is not always the case. 

 

[twmjr1]

55 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

Personally I would love to buy a nice midgrade restored copy. 

Me too!!

[Dark Knight]

Great colors and nice eye appeal on that 4.0.  I call the black dot copies where you can see the Oct. month a hybrid of the 1st and 2nd printing..  

Since we are talking about trading kidneys or what not, I am thinking if I should trade my boner for it 

[Ameri]

14 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

The one with black slug on it is a reprint (or "second issuing", if you prefer).

-J.

Do you consider copies of Batman 1 with the dot in "No .1," a reprint as well? The ones without the dot, original editions? Same with Superman 1. Some have an Action 14 ad showing "on sale June 2" but others show "on sale now." No matter since these printing anomalies do not affect pricing because neither of those books including NOV Marvel 1s are designated as reprints in Overstreet... and that's all that counts.    

[Jaydogrules]

3 hours ago, Ameri said:

Do you consider copies of Batman 1 with the dot in "No .1," a reprint as well? The ones without the dot, original editions? Same with Superman 1. Some have an Action 14 ad showing "on sale June 2" but others show "on sale now." No matter since these printing anomalies do not affect pricing because neither of those books including NOV Marvel 1s are designated as reprints in Overstreet... and that's all that counts.    

The November copies are reprints. Period.  It doesn't matter what Overstreet calls them or doesn't call them.  They're reprints (or, like I said, "second issuing" if it makes you feel better).  Hence the later month on the cover.  No matter what you want to call the black slug copies,  however, what they are definitely not "first state" editions.  There was already a lengthy discussion about this several months ago.  I'm sorry that bothers you.  But it is what it is. Many slabbed Superman 1's out there are reprints too that are only identified by an internal indicia and not on the covers.  Those don't seem to be valued differently either, and CGC doesn't distinguish on the label. Maybe they should.  Unless the person slabbed the book themselves they don't know which one they actually have.  I can't speak to the "dot" or "no dot" to Batman 1.  But if one or the other is a reprint, those should be noted by grading companies as well.  People should know what they're actually looking at and buying.  

-J.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[Ameri]

2 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

The November copies are reprints. Period.  It doesn't matter what Overstreet calls them or doesn't call them.  They're reprints (or, like I said, "second issuing" if it makes you feel better).  Hence the later month on the cover.  No matter what you want to call the black slug copies,  however, what they are definitely not are"first state" editions.  There was already a lengthy discussion about this several months ago.  I'm sorry that bothers you.  But it is what it is. Many slabbed Superman 1's out there are reprints too that are only identified by an internal indicia and not on the covers.  Those don't seem to be valued differently either, and CGC doesn't distinguish on the label. Maybe they should.  Unless the person slabbed the book themselves they don't know which one they actually have.  I can't speak to the "dot" or "no dot" to Batman 1.  But if one or the other is a reprint, those should be noted by grading companies as well.  People should know what they're actually looking at and buying.  

-J.

Nah, those are just assumptions unless, of course, you were at the print shop in 1939 to observe what was actually happening. In the situation of the three books, there are no price differences between the copies. If they were considered true reprints, the prices would plummet. October Marvel 1s do command a slight premium though, I'll give you that, but that's because there's some marked differences between the two copies.

[Primetime]

41 minutes ago, Ameri said:

Nah, those are just assumptions unless, of course, you were at the print shop in 1939 to observe what was actually happening. In the situation of the three books, there are no price differences between the copies. If they were considered true reprints, the prices would plummet. October Marvel 1s do command a slight premium though, I'll give you that, but that's because there's some marked differences between the two copies.

Good point Ameri. That is quite a strong statement to say that the NOV copies are reprints ---considering Goodman printed out a second run in a matter of one week because the book sold out in the test market areas. It's still 8-31-39 (OCT) and Sept 1939 (NOV). If Goodman had printed 80,000 copies of Cap 1 and released them on 12-20-40 and they all sold out in a week prompting him to run another 800k copies, would that be considered a reprint? I would say no. Would the veterans and other comic historians in this hobby who have collected Timelys or GA for 20+ years consider MC1, Supe 1, and Bat 1s all reprints? If so, the FMV value of all these books suggests otherwise. When I think reprint, I think of the Marvel GRR of 1966--- altered cover art, original ads omitted, original price label taken off,  new price, and published with a vinyl record 2-5 years later with purpose of connecting those that may have missed the originals. 

Edited June 9, 2017 by Primetime

[Ameri]

The only 1st edition copy of any book is the first one that runs off the printing press. One can say that the other 30,000 in the print run are reprints. All the way you want to look at it.

[rjpb]

1 hour ago, Ameri said:

Nah, those are just assumptions unless, of course, you were at the print shop in 1939 to observe what was actually happening. In the situation of the three books, there are no price differences between the copies. If they were considered true reprints, the prices would plummet. October Marvel 1s do command a slight premium though, I'll give you that, but that's because there's some marked differences between the two copies.

Unless differences in the cover text/artwork is deemed to be "second state", meaning it was changed in the middle of a print run, any subsequent printing, whether a week or a year later, is not a "first print".  The term "reprint" though, is generally understood to mean a substantially changed edition or material collected in a differently titled book, not just a second or subsequent printing. Of course, if there were no changes in the printing plates between a first and subsequent printing, then there is no way of knowing which printing a copy is, short of looking for tell-tale flaws/differences in the printing process itself. The GA collecting community appears to have decided that even when books (like Superman #1) clearly had a second printing, that if the runs are close enough in time, it is not that relative to value. There is a bit of irony in that Superman #1 consists mostly of reprinted material. 

[Jaydogrules]

13 minutes ago, rjpb said:

Unless differences in the cover text/artwork is deemed to be "second state", meaning it was changed in the middle of a print run, any subsequent printing, whether a week or a year later, is not a "first print".  The term "reprint" though, is generally understood to mean a substantially changed edition or material collected in a differently titled book, not just a second or subsequent printing. Of course, if there were no changes in the printing plates between a first and subsequent printing, then there is no way of knowing which printing a copy is, short of looking for tell-tale flaws/differences in the printing process itself. The GA collecting community appears to have decided that even when books (like Superman #1) clearly had a second printing, that if the runs are close enough in time, it is not that relative to value. There is a bit of irony in that Superman #1 consists mostly of reprinted material. 

+1

The November copies of Marvel 1 are absolutely reprints as well (or "second printings", or "second editions" or "second states", whatever).  Multiple boardies familiar with the printing process have repeatedly explained that the black slug put over the "oct" with the "nov" plate above it was done as a cost saving device by the publisher after the initial "oct" run, to give the second printing of the book a longer shelf life after the fact.  

And the fact that the black slug copies are  noticeably different than the first print copies and with a later date is prima facie, common sense evidence that the black slug copies are second printings, all wishful thinking aside.  The fact that the second printings are also highly prized is rather beside the point, and doesn't change what they are.  As for me personally, I wouldn't buy one of them, regardless of how old they are. If I'm spending that much money on a comic, a Batman 1,superman 1, etc. what have you, I would personally want to own the original ,true first printings. 

-J.

[N e r V]

1 hour ago, Ameri said:

Nah, those are just assumptions unless, of course, you were at the print shop in 1939 to observe what was actually happening. In the situation of the three books, there are no price differences between the copies. If they were considered true reprints, the prices would plummet. October Marvel 1s do command a slight premium though, I'll give you that, but that's because there's some marked differences between the two copies.

There are a number of things in comic history that shall remain a "mystery" (pardon the pun) without hard facts to back it up. Everyone can have an opinion  but without solid evidence it should remain that. An opinion, not a fact.

 

The general market has decided the values of Marvel Comics #1 with and without the over stamp marking. Just like it decided that Hulk #181 is more desirable than Hulk #180 for value or that ads for upcoming comics aren't really  first appearances with a higher value than a characters introduction fully in a book. With Marvel comics #1 I've met collectors who must own both versions or are happy with one. Same thing with Batman #1. A completist will own both dots and no dots copies if they must or I know others who prefer one over the other.

 

Its going to continue to get more difficult to try and prove anything in comics history as time goes by without any new information surfacing so guess away but be ready to leave opinions at the doors of facts.

Really a lot of these debates are nothing new and go back decades with another set of older collectors covering the same ground. Martin Goodman and his Timely books and how he ran his company will only make your head spin if you spend to much time trying to figure out his logic. Stan worked for him for decades and he struggled often with Goodmans logic/motives on any number of things.

 

I like both Marvel #1's regardless (well not the "double vision" copies  ) and if I had a spare 100k or so would be all over getting one today. Great book to own!

[N e r V]

3 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

+1

The November copies of Marvel 1 are absolutely reprints as well (or "second printings", or "second editions" or "second states", whatever).  Multiple boardies familiar with the printing process have repeatedly explained that the black slug put over the "oct" with the "nov" plate above it was done as a cost saving device by the publisher after the initial "oct" run, to give the second printing of the book a longer shelf life after the fact.  

And the fact that the black slug copies are  noticeably different than the first print copies and with a later date is prima facie, common sense evidence that the black slug copies are second printings, all wishful thinking aside.  The fact that the second printings are also highly prized is rather beside the point, and doesn't change what they are.  As for me personally, I wouldn't buy one of them, regardless of how old they are. If I'm spending that much money on a comic, a Batman 1,superman 1, etc. what have you, I would personally want to own the original ,true first printings. 

-J.

So how do we feel about Motion Picture Funnies weekly #1?

 

[Jaydogrules]

1 hour ago, N e r V said:

So how do we feel about Motion Picture Funnies weekly #1?

 

First appearance of Subby.

-J.

[N e r V]

I believe CGC notes it as first "printed" appearance since MPF might never have seen public distribution the last I remember hearing. 

[Wayne-Tec]

Second printings that hit newsstands shortly after the first printing, or at least before the next issue in the series, are what they are. The differential, visually, between OCT and NOV copies is negligible, but still noticeable. For aesthetics and the desirability of an earlier printing, there has been a slight bump for the former, which makes sense.

Marvel #1 is nearly 80 years old, nearly 30,000 days old. If a copy of a book 30,000 days old was printed 30 days after the original, you get the kind of FMV differential we've seen between OCT/NOV copies.

[Jaydogrules]

29 minutes ago, Wayne-Tec said:

Second printings that hit newsstands shortly after the first printing, or at least before the next issue in the series, are what they are. The differential, visually, between OCT and NOV copies is negligible, but still noticeable. For aesthetics and the desirability of an earlier printing, there has been a slight bump for the former, which makes sense.

Marvel #1 is nearly 80 years old, nearly 30,000 days old. If a copy of a book 30,000 days old was printed 30 days after the original, you get the kind of FMV differential we've seen between OCT/NOV copies.

Your points are well taken and I agree with them for the most part.  

Let me throw something at you though and see what you think (and I made a similar point about second printings in the modern forum):

Okay so the vast majority of the appeal of Marvel Comics 1 is that it's the "first Marvel Comic".  That's what the "october" is.

But is the second printing of it also that ?  Regardless of how old it is now? My opinion is, no.

-J.

[Wayne-Tec]

16 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Your points are well taken and I agree with them for the most part.  

Let me throw something at you though and see what you think (and I made a similar point about second printings in the modern forum):

Okay so the vast majority of the appeal of Marvel Comics 1 is that it's the "first Marvel Comic".  That's what the "october" is.

But is the second printing of it also that ?  Regardless of how old it is now? My opinion is, no.

-J.

Because it's the same cover (sans month stamp), same interior stories, hitting newsstands prior to Marvel Mystery Comics #2, I'd say yes.

True, if we had a way to know that an OCT copy was the 322nd one off the press and a NOV copy was the 10,109th copy off the press, I'd definitely prefer the 322nd copy. But I'd also prefer the 20th copy over the 322nd copy and wouldn't put the 322nd copy in a different tier either.

It's place as the first issue of Marvel Comics remains, its order off the press is different, but not by a margin wide enough to make it feel like a different book IMO.

[Ameri]

Many collectors call that black "slug" an ink stamp. No 2nd printing. It's October copies with a stamp. Goodman had a squadron of staff stamping those October copies so don't believe everything you read about shifting plates and all that nonsense. There is no November "copy" because the word Oct is right underneath the black stamp that says Nov. If you want to call it Nov/Oct copy, I can dig that. Get in your time machine and prove me wrong.