Marvel comics 1 entry price? 0

[N e r V]

12 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

If that was printed and distributed at the same time it could be considered a "variant".  Is the cover date the same as the 10 cent version? I'm assuming so. 

If it was printed and distributed a month later, with its month of release altered to reflect its second printing date and release then it's a reprint like the November marvel 1. 

And no, the black slug would not have necessarily "obliterated" the October date on the plate.  Comic books have all kinds of shades and nuances and layering of colour.  Why can you see through some black slugs ?  Simple- the plate needed to be re-inked on some copies that made it out anyway.   I'm sure quality control was not more important to Goodman than speed at the time.  

-J.

Marvel comics #1 October and November copies have arrival dates as close as 2 weeks apart. I can't back that up because I don't have scans but I have seen copies that had dates that close. 

I've seen monthly Timelys with arrival dates as far as 3 weeks apart for the same issue and some quarterly titles more than a month.

 

[Ameri]

21 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

If that was printed and distributed at the same time it could be considered a "variant".  Is the cover date the same as the 10 cent version? I'm assuming so. 

If it was printed and distributed a month later, with its month of release altered to reflect its second printing date and release then it's a reprint like the November marvel 1. 

And no, the black slug would not have necessarily "obliterated" the October date on the plate.  Comic books have all kinds of shades and nuances and layering of colour.  Why can you see through some black slugs ?  Simple- the plate needed to be re-inked on some copies that made it out anyway.   I'm sure quality control was not more important to Goodman than speed at the time.  

-J.

First off, JIM and Love Romances were monthlies so fat chance that there were 2nd printings of the same issue a month later. Furthermore, CGC does not call Marvel 1, Love Romances 97 or JIM 76 "reprints" and they are the industry standard. If you really want to understand the reality of all this and stop with the conjectures, ASK STAN LEE.  

[sacentaur]

Frank(ly), I think we're at the point of  .

[N e r V]

23 minutes ago, Ameri said:

First off, JIM and Love Romances were monthlies so fat chance that there were 2nd printings of the same issue a month later. Furthermore, CGC does not call Marvel 1, Love Romances 97 or JIM 76 "reprints" and they are the industry standard. If you really want to understand the reality of all this and stop with the conjectures, ASK STAN LEE.  

[Primetime]

11 hours ago, N e r V said:

Pay, Mile High, Windy City, Larson, Billy Wright, Allentown, Kansas City, Chicago, Twilight and Denver collections are all reprint copies, uh, November copies.

 

That's not to say there aren't some beautiful raw October copies out there in private collections but just not usually available. 

 

 

folks paying BIG money bags for REPRINTS 

[pemart1966]

10 hours ago, MrBedrock said:

Again you can't be certain of any of your assertions. For instance you claim that the October copies sold out, while the general thought is that they were a mistake and the Novembers are the corrected version. If the Octobers sold so well why aren't there more surviving copies? I am sure you will counter me with a ton of theoretical hyperbole, but the truth is none of us know.

And the books are stamped.

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...

 

Edited June 12, 2017 by pemart1966

[Primetime]

11 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

Very interesting point.  Do we know with certainty how widely circulated the October version of Marvel Comics 1 actually was?  Is it possible that as with MPFW, it didn't actually circulate much? If the October issue were widely circulated, wouldn't Jaquet have used a copy as the pay copy?

Although for years Overstreet has claimed that MPFW was distributed to some theaters, I think that claim is now widely doubted.  But the failure of MPFW to receive much (any?) circulation is often used as an argument against considering it Subby's true first appearance.  By -- a somewhat strained! -- analogy, might you argue that if the October version had very limited circulation, it's the November version that represents the more important of the two "states" of the book?

Another strained analogy:  Advance review copies of books are not (I don't think!) considered the first printings of books and while interesting and collectible are not generally as valuable as the regular first printings.  Yet ARCs are the first circulated versions of books.

Just heckling from the bleachers on this one! 

I have always read that the OCT copies were distributed in local regions and that's likely NYC (I am guessing NJ, NY boroughs, maybe Philly areas at the very least)..this would make sense because Goodman received feedback quickly (had to have been phone calls or letters) by the week's end that all the OCT copies were sold out already, prompting him to distribute more copies (NOV ed.) nationwide. Goodman's print shop for both OCT/NOV copies were in NJ. I've always though any OCT copies holed up still would be found in or around the 5 boroughs of NY and NJ. The mystique and history of Goodman and MC 1 never ceases to amaze me. 

Edited June 12, 2017 by Primetime

[Primetime]

9 hours ago, Ameri said:

Excellent point. Since the pay copy is the one that they used to pay the artists and it's a NOV copy, that makes NOV copies more "official" than OCT copies.  

OCT = test run

NOV = real, official print run

Edited June 12, 2017 by Primetime

[N e r V]

1 minute ago, Primetime said:

I have always read that the OCT copies were distributed locally to NYC (I am guessing NJ, NY boroughs, maybe Philly areas at the very least)..this would make sense because Goodman received feedback quickly (had to have been phone calls or letters) by the week's end that all the OCT copies were sold out already, prompting him to distribute more copies (NOV ed.) nationwide. I've always though any OCT copies holed up still would be found in or around the 5 boroughs of NY and NJ. 

And yet most copies by collectors I've seen are here in the left coast. 

I don't think GA books like cold weather. 

 

[pemart1966]

7 minutes ago, Primetime said:

I have always read that the OCT copies were distributed in local regions and that's likely NYC (I am guessing NJ, NY boroughs, maybe Philly areas at the very least)..this would make sense because Goodman received feedback quickly (had to have been phone calls or letters) by the week's end that all the OCT copies were sold out already, prompting him to distribute more copies (NOV ed.) nationwide. Goodman's print shop for both OCT/NOV copies were in NJ. I've always though any OCT copies holed up still would be found in or around the 5 boroughs of NY and NJ. The mystique and history of Goodman and MC 1 never ceases to amaze me. 

Makes sense to me and probably explains why none of the pedigrees is October dated.

[Primetime]

2 hours ago, G.A.tor said:

 whatever folks want to call it (second printing, reprint, extended print, altered printing etc) it really doesn't matter...we are trying to apply modern terms and preferences to an almost 80 year old "throw away"... they are what they are...they are highly coveted...and folks pay crazy money to get one!

 

I believe it was Geppi that told us the covers were run, then sent through a mechanical process that applied both the black out and the Nov date simultaneously... though I can't fully recall if this is accurate or not...

best post in this thread. 

[N e r V]

1 minute ago, Primetime said:

OCT = test run

NOV = real, official print run

I've asked a number of people over the years from Roy Thomas to Jim Steranko if they knew  the reason for Marvel Comics #1 extra time on the new stands with two cover dates was to maximize sales due to a unexpected success or if the extended time was needed to not being able to get issue #2 out with the other November dated comics of the time. We do know issue #2 had a title change and a unused cover sketch of Sub-Mariner for a Marvel Comics #2 that never happened. It was  Martin Goodmans first comic title using a Sub-Mariner story that was already around before Marvel #1 was published so who knows if #2 not being ready early enough wasn't a factor. Everyone I talked to thought that was a good theory but sadly no one knew.

[Jaydogrules]

9 hours ago, Primetime said:

OCT = test run

NOV = real, official print run

This is just another way 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.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[N e r V]

15 minutes 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.

A question for you.

Comics have gone back to press with no changes whatsoever. Fact. So if a publisher orders 10,000 copies and 5,000 are printed up on Monday and another 5,000 Friday are the Friday copies second printings? Or is there some special printing timeline rules. Kind of like dropping food on the ground and the 2 second rule?

So for the sake of argument if Marvel comics #1 had 2 or 3 printings but with no changes to the book because the publisher believed them to be part of the same run though obviously printed at different times (the publisher usually will insert a "second printing" in the indicia to denote that fact in some way) will you still consider the later printings second and third printings or reprints?

If you do, are they no longer second or third printings or reprints just because it's impossible now for you to distinguish?

I'm just trying to follow your logic. Also why didn't Martin Goodman put "2nd printing" or reprint somewhere on the November dates?

Edited June 12, 2017 by N e r V

[Jaydogrules]

20 minutes ago, N e r V said:

A question for you.

Comics have gone back to press with no changes whatsoever. Fact. So if a publisher orders 10,000 copies and 5,000 are printed up on Monday and another 5,000 Friday are the Friday copies second printings? Or is there some special printing timeline rules. Kind of like dropping food on the ground and the 2 second rule?

So for the sake of argument if Marvel comics #1 had 2 or 3 printings but with no changes to the book because the publisher believed them to be part of the same run though obviously printed at different times (the publisher usually will insert a "second printing" in the indicia to denote that fact in some way) will you still consider the later printings second and third printings or reprints?

If you do, are they no longer second or third printings or reprints just because it's impossible now for you to distinguish?

I'm just trying to follow your logic. Also why didn't Martin Goodman put "2nd printing" or reprint somewhere on the November dates?

Goodman didn't need to put "second printing" on there.  Changing the publication date on the front cover was sufficient.  Superman 1 reprints don't all say "reprint" either. Does the Batman 1?  I doubt that was a "thing" back then in the hobby's infancy.  Also, adding a different interior indicia would have required producing a different plate just for that.  Making a whole new one.  And Goodman was cheap , remember ?

As far as when comics going back to press, and there being no differences, so who could tell or no either way,  again, what does that have to do with this discussion?   Marvel 1 went back to press and it does have differences. It's second printing is easy to identify.  It doesn't matter if it was the next day or next week or next year.  It doesn't matter how or where the first printings were distributed compared to how the second printings were distributed.  Obviously the second printings of Marvel 1 were not designed to be construed as "part of the same print run".  Goodman changed them.  Again, the different publication dates kill you every time. Somebody changed (added) printing plates in between print runs, printed a second batch of copies and then distributed them after the first printings.  

-J.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[N e r V]

Ok, I understand now your point of view.

Why I can't agree with is how you are using the label of "second printing" because you are not being consistent with your own use of it.

You write off the use of the term "second printing" or "reprint"  by the publisher due to the hobby being in its infancy or Goodman being cheap when it is the publisher who makes the call as to what is a first or second printing or reprint. That's why in book publishing you have those numbers to provide you with that information. The publisher determines it. A first printing does not mean it's entire print run of say 500,000 copies was printed in a single day either. That doesn't turn it into a second or third printing when it's not done by end of day.

You are also saying if the same conditions apply with a book going back to press but you don't have physical differences in the book the rules of second or third printings don't apply only because you can't tell.

In publishing you can have books that are second, third or 10th printings at times with no differences whatsoever other than the publisher has marked them as later printings. Not all later printings have any physical differences. There are also first printings in books that have "variants" (I know you hate that term). In other words we have first printings of books that had some changes made (usually minor like price,etc.) where both versions are marked first printings.

So I do understand your point of view and I believe you are entitled to it.

What I think you need to understand is that your opinion is NOT some industry standard in printing or comics or book publishing and that everyone else is wrong for not following it. It is your opinion of how you view things and following a set of rules you believe in.

I understand them but find them inconsistent in how you pick and choose to apply them.

[N e r V]

Lastly here's another example for you. I'm a book collector as well. So several years ago I noticed one of my first printing pocketbooks had two different prices. 60 cents and 75 cents I believe. At first I thought the higher price was a later printing. Nope. Both listed as first printings. So I asked my "expert" at the used book store I got it from. He explained the publisher had suddenly raised the price of books in their line so late in the printing run though exactly the same and both marked first printings they had two different prices. The later run at 75 cents was actually rarer and it carried the premium in price (kind of reverse of the Marvel #1 pricing). There was no over stamp but I'm sure the pressing was delayed until the new price on the cover could be added but the publisher still viewed it as a first or initial printing of that book because there are also copies later marked second printings as well.

So although you might find any physical change to a book however minor automatically makes it a later printing publishers are not following your perceived rules.

Edited June 12, 2017 by N e r V

[rjpb]

6 minutes ago, N e r V said:

Lastly here's another example for you. I'm a book collector as well. So several years ago I noticed one of my first printing pocketbooks had two different prices. 60 cents and 75 cents I believe. At first I thought the higher price was a later printing. Nope. Both listed as first printings. So I asked my "expert" at the used book store I got it from. He explained the publisher had suddenly raised the price of books in their line so late in the printing run though exactly the same and both marked first printings they had two different prices. The later run at 75 cents was actually rarer and it carried the premium in price (kind of reverse of the Marvel #1 pricing). There was no over stamp but I'm sure the pressing was delayed until the new price on the cover could be added but the publisher still viewed it as a first or initial printing of that book because there are also copies later marked second printings as well.

That is what is known as first state and second state of a print run.  Both are considered to be the same printing. It is quite possible this was the case with MC #1, with Goodman realizing belatedly that he would have longer shelf life with a Nov. cover date. We will probably never know the answer definitively. As you note, the rarer state carries a premium, which may be the case with Oct. copies of MC #1, but with overall scarcity, auction price volatility, as well as mitigating factors such as provenance,  eye-appeal, registration, color strike and PQ effecting price, it would be difficult to say for certain, even if a copy of each in the same grade were to sell at the same time.

[roulette44]

7 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

If that was printed and distributed at the same time it could be considered a "variant".  Is the cover date the same as the 10 cent version? I'm assuming so. 

If it was printed and distributed a month later, with its month of release altered to reflect its second printing date and release then it's a reprint like the November marvel 1. 

And no, the black slug would not have necessarily "obliterated" the October date on the plate.  Comic books have all kinds of shades and nuances and layering of colour.  Why can you see through some black slugs ?  Simple- the plate needed to be re-inked on some copies that made it out anyway.   I'm sure quality control was not more important to Goodman than speed at the time.  

-J.

We have these same arguments with JayGod (self applied Subconcious slip) in thread after thread.  Almost everywhere he posts.

he goes from thread A asserting he knows everything, everyone else is wrong, (and stupid), to thread B asserting the same.  Then rinse, repeat.

NERV, I appreciate your patience through this thread, you have taken this with a lot more restraint than the 5-6 dozen or more others (myself included) who are fed up.   A debate is fine, but debating with the self-annoited king of all things comics, JayGod, is like arguing with a smart, stubborn 7-year old.

The more people that put him on ignore, the less we'll have to deal with it.  I for one would like to get back to the fun of debating issues and seeing both sides treat the other with respect, and the associated fun of taking books.

My opinion on this subject is that the Nov copy is a 2nd state of a first edition.   I think there are many 2nd,3th,4th states of books that we never knew about because the look wasn't changed in the interim.     Hence the value differences are generally deemed small, inconsequential to some. 

Joey 

[Ameri]

7 hours ago, N e r V said:

I've asked a number of people over the years from Roy Thomas to Jim Steranko if they knew  the reason for Marvel Comics #1 extra time on the new stands with two cover dates was to maximize sales due to a unexpected success or if the extended time was needed to not being able to get issue #2 out with the other November dated comics of the time. We do know issue #2 had a title change and a unused cover sketch of Sub-Mariner for a Marvel Comics #2 that never happened. It was  Martin Goodmans first comic title using a Sub-Mariner story that was already around before Marvel #1 was published so who knows if #2 not being ready early enough wasn't a factor. Everyone I talked to thought that was a good theory but sadly no one knew.

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.        

Edited June 12, 2017 by Ameri