Marvel comics 1 entry price? 0

[MrBedrock]

6 minutes ago, G.A.tor said:

 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...

Jaydogrules has. Or are you implying that he isn't a person, or a collector, or relevant?

[Jaydogrules]

11 minutes ago, MrBedrock said:

Jaydogrules has. Or are you implying that he isn't a person, or a collector, or relevant?

By any and all accepted publishing standards and terms it's officially a second printing (regardless of whatever "narrative" you want to believe in).  

-J.

[MrBedrock]

6 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

By any and all accepted publishing standards and terms I am ignorant (regardless of whatever "narrative" you want to believe in).  

-J.

[woowoo]

6 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

By any and all accepted publishing standards and terms it's officially a second printing (regardless of whatever "narrative" you want to believe in).  

-J.

I really wish you had a second print to sell me as long as you don't try to sell it as an original

[woowoo]

MrBedrock  still waiting.

[MrBedrock]

4 minutes ago, woowoo said:

MrBedrock  still waiting.

Me too

[woowoo]

5 minutes ago, MrBedrock said:

11 minutes ago, woowoo said:

MrBedrock  still waiting.

Me too

I guess you will have to bring your own ride at this rate. I found one that's your size.

[Jaydogrules]

19 minutes ago, woowoo said:

I really wish you had a second print to sell me as long as you don't try to sell it as an original

 

-J.

[lpsunburst]

I have been following this topic for several days and there is actually a significant amount of knowledge being shared along with opinion and conjecture. I think jaydogrules explanation for adding a slug to the plate is mostly correct except it would have to have been a second and new black plate. If it was placed on the original black plate it would have covered the Oct and it would never have shown through as all the ink would be applied at once.

The biggest point of contention seems to be around the use of the word "reprint" or to a lesser degree "second printing". All of them are Oct copies, some have been overprinted with additional content. Let me use an example of another very famous collectable viewed almost exactly the same way, the Beatles' Yesterday and Today Butcher cover, the "first state" version is the published Butcher cover, production of the LP did not stop but due to public pressure a paste over cover was applied during production creating a "second state" version. The first state version is rarer and does carry a premium but both are equally desirable. Because we dont know that production was stopped and started or not and we dont know when in the process the slug was added terms like reprint or second printing cant be made with authority, first state and second state would seem to be the most accurate or you could just say October or November...I would be very happy with either.

[Sqeggs]

1 hour ago, MrBedrock said:

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.

Sounds like one of @edowens71 papers. 

[EC ed]

3 minutes ago, Sqeggs said:

Sounds like one of @edowens71 papers. 

I'd be willing to take the time to put all that stuff in there if I could get one in AER or QJE.  

[Sqeggs]

Just now, edowens71 said:

I'd be willing to take the time to put all that stuff in there if I could get one in AER or QJE.  

Just joshin'  You're the best!   

[Wayne-Tec]

In our hobby, the term "reprint" 1) has a negative connotation, depending on the situation, to which this would qualify and 2) is most often representative of copies printed well after the "first printing." Typically, this could be 1-year, 3-years, 50-years, etc. If by definition, the changing of a plate to account for the NOV stamp constitutes the label "reprint", then so be it. The wording isn't anywhere near as important as the context. Red sharpie on a red GA cover might be labeled "restoration", even if the book, both physically and visually, fails to match the definition: "the action of returning something to a former owner, place, or condition."

Were "NOV" copies printed 1-month after "OCT" copies? I believe the general consensus is yes. The addition of the NOV stamp, strictly in my opinion, does not make the book any less desirable than a copy of, say,  Action Comics #1 that was printed 30-days after the first copies hit the press (if there were a way to confirm this -- there likely isn't). The preference for an OCT copy, for me, wouldn't be any greater than it would be for a book printed in Week 3 vs. Week 5.

What you would be getting is a book that is 99.9% identical to one printed weeks earlier, using the same inks, same paper stock, and slightly modified cover plate, leaving the cover art 100% in-tact...changing only the month listed. Technically, the OCT is still there, just covered up by NOV, so you're getting 100% of the original "first printing" in a physical sense, printed within a window that matches many other books that happen to fall under the label "first printing."

Edited June 12, 2017 by Wayne-Tec

[N e r V]

Marvel comics #1 was on sale for roughly 1 1/2 months before issue #2 hit the newstands. That's only 2 extra weeks. I've already said I don't believe in a one month gap between October and November copies due to arrival dates being closer. If that was true the November editions with the much larger print run would have had a 2 week on sale period.

[Dark Knight]

16 hours ago, Primetime said:

OCT = test run

NOV = real, official print run

I'm thinking that as well too Ben

[MrBedrock]

1 hour ago, Wayne-Tec said:

Were "NOV" copies printed 1-month after "OCT" copies? I believe the general consensus is yes.

I don't believe this is the general consensus. It is actually the point of the most conjecture. The only person that has posed this with certainty is jaydogrules.

[pemart1966]

Here's a description that Heritage has used:

Marvel Comics #1 (Timely, 1939) CGC VG/FN 5.0 Cream to off-white pages. Marvel #1's first print run was a sellout, prompting a second printing that involved blacking out the October date and placing "NOV" above it. This copy is from the rarer first printing,...
 

[Comicdey]

I would be happy with any of the versions.   Just sayin.   

Oct

Invisible Oct overstamp black, Nov

Visible Oct overstamp black, Nov

If it's a book sent from a publisher back in 1939 to a store that my father could thumb through as a 9 year old, I'm golden   I'm pretty confident my father wouldn't have cared back in the day, especially since many of his comics were remaindered that his aunt would bring him from the local store she worked at.

it was fun having him read a superman 2 and him being able to recount the story endings before finishing reading.  Gerber books were great to peruse with him too.  You would be amazed how many covers he recognized. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ameri]

3rd state?

[N e r V]

For anyone interested or unaware although Marvel Comics #1 was Timelys first comic there was an ad for it you just had to look into Goodmans pulp line of October 1939.