Was there a second printing of Flash Comics # 1 ? 1 1

[quicksilver]

Yesterday I came across this 0.5 restored copy of Flash # 1 due in an upcoming CC auction - it's noted as Wrong back cover, which got me thinking 'That looks like the correct full colour back cover to me...hmm'...so I looked up past sales on HA, and found a 6.5 unrestored copy with a back cover that has a mostly green illustration. That explains it then, I thought, unitl I found a 4.5 unrestored copy with a back cover that has a full colour illustration. Upon closer inspection, it can be seen that the line of text 'RECORDS PLAY 3 FULL MINUTES FOR BOTH SIDES' is on both of the unrestored back covers, about 3/4 of the way down, but not on the 0.5 copy. This leads me to think that the 'Wrong back cover' may be from an Action Comics # 21, and, not unsurprisingly, that the Flash # 1 back covers never appeared on any other book.

But, as I am no expert on the history of GA books, does any of our more learned colleagues know if there was indeed a second printing of Flash Comics # 1 ?

[Stevemmg]

I also notice that on the two unrestored examples above that they are not exactly the same either. Without diving too deep, I see the box on the lower left, and the picture at the top right are both in different positions. The color variations on the back are particularly interesting, as they aren’t consistent to the front covers in the case of the 4.5 and 6.5. 

[quicksilver]

Yes, you're right, they definitely are in different positions.

It certainly looks to me like DC went out of their way to distinguish between the two versions.

[Timely]

There may be regional variants on some books. For example, if you are a store in NYC and you place an ad in DC Comics, you may not want to pay for an ad in comics that are being distributed in California. 
 

Mainly when differences are spotted, it’s on the quarterly books that are on the stands for 3 months, and when they sell out the venders reorder. If DC is out of stock, they would have to print more copies to fill demand. During that 3 month time span some advertisers would cease advertising and a new ad would be made.

On many of the back covers you can see a specific department number that is associated to that comic book and that coupon ad. That was done so advertisers could see what comics were actually producing sales when those coupons were cut out of the comics and sent in.

[quicksilver]

That's very interesting, thank you.

[Terry JSA]

Could the back cover be an error with the ink, making it green? 

Edited July 25, 2021 by Terry_JSA

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 7/25/2021 at 6:12 PM, quicksilver said:

That's very interesting, thank you.

'sup Rich?    

[quicksilver]

On 7/25/2021 at 7:49 PM, Terry_JSA said:

Could the back cover be an error with the ink, making it green? 

It's not just that it's green - if you look closely at the two genuine back covers (as pointed out by stevemmg), some things are in slightly different positions - the picture itself for one.

They definitely have been put together in a slightly different layout.

[quicksilver]

On 7/25/2021 at 8:07 PM, G G ® ™ said:

'sup Rich?    

Hey Grant - your horror collection looks to be coming on nicely ?

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 7/26/2021 at 7:41 AM, quicksilver said:

Hey Grant - your horror collection looks to be coming on nicely ?

doin' me best. 

[Yorick]

Could be that the inside of the back cover is different.  I have a DC with a matching back cover exterior to other DC's of the same month/year, but the inside ad is different.  No way to tell without photos of the inside.

[Aman619]

On 7/25/2021 at 9:41 AM, quicksilver said:

Yes, you're right, they definitely are in different positions.

It certainly looks to me like DC went out of their way to distinguish between the two versions.

not really... Looks to me like the advertiser added that line "Records play 3 Full Minutes...".  This cause them to reduce al the rest of the text.  Tats why the little images in lower no longer line up with the text.  And adding the 3 minutes line meant raising all the text above it higher, so it bumps the big image at top right now..

also As was pointed out, the boxed text at bottom were reduced in one version, but left as is on the other. So these are three different printings!  And that doesn't include the green version. which again, as pointed out, ins' an inking issue as the front cover of the green one isn't affected at all.

 

 

Whats really cool though is the product name:  HOME RECORDO!  Sounds like a latin movie star of the 40s!  And that this new product is amazing --- a radio phonograph that RECORDS from radio AND speaking into it!  2.98 sound cheap even for 1940 for this advanced technology!

[Chicago Boy]

On 7/26/2021 at 8:36 PM, Aman619 said:

not really... Looks to me like the advertiser added that line "Records play 3 Full Minutes...".  This cause them to reduce al the rest of the text.  Tats why the little images in lower no longer line up with the text.  And adding the 3 minutes line meant raising all the text above it higher, so it bumps the big image at top right now..

also As was pointed out, the boxed text at bottom were reduced in one version, but left as is on the other. So these are three different printings!  And that doesn't include the green version. which again, as pointed out, ins' an inking issue as the front cover of the green one isn't affected at all.

 

 

Whats really cool though is the product name:  HOME RECORDO!  Sounds like a latin movie star of the 40s!  And that this new product is amazing --- a radio phonograph that RECORDS from radio AND speaking into it!  2.98 sound cheap even for 1940 for this advanced technology!

excellent sleuthing !  The census for Flash 1 has blown up over the last 5 Yeats.  Which was once behind the big two is now well ahead