This Month in My Magazine Collection, or "How I Got Most of the Warren Mags in a Month" 2 2

[The Lions Den]

On 5/22/2023 at 8:42 PM, Axe Elf said:

A manufacturing defect, I presume?  All other pages appear to be present, and I don't see any other extra pages--it's just like two sheets of the cover for BC1 got swept up into the binding process instead of just one.

Anybody else ever heard/seen of this?  I hope it doesn't kill the value...

It's a cool "defect" to have. If anything, it should enhance the desirability of the book.   

On 5/22/2023 at 8:42 PM, Axe Elf said:

So what do you all say, think it's safe to store that book in a bag without a board?  About the only other thing I could try would be to trim a board down by about 1/8th of an inch along one side, since the board is currently about 1/16th wider than the book on each side--that would probably give me enough slack to get it in the bag with a trimmed board.

Thoughts?

There should be no problem with using a little narrower board. IMO, it's certainly better than using no board at all...

[mstrange]

Picked these 2 up.  

 

[Axe Elf]

Been a minute since I upgraded anything, but I got a couple in this past week:

So from what was once "The Po'Boy EERIE Collection," I now have only 2 issues I still have graded under 4.0, and only 8 issues I have graded under 5.0.  It's becoming "The Entirely Acceptable EERIE Collection."

[Axe Elf]

Been a while since I posted updates, so I have a handful from the past couple of months...

Upgraded two Spacemen (#2 and #7); they don't look so much different in the scans, but my #2 had a spine split halfway up from the bottom, and my #7 was completely split and mostly detached (half the cover was hanging on at one staple).  The new #2 has a completely intact spine (but a date written in the title), and the seller TOLD me that the #7's spine was intact, too, but it turns out to be split about halfway up itself.  They were shipped poorly enough--and the envelope was in poor enough shape upon arrival--that I can't be sure the spine didn't get some help splitting in transit.  Still, it's an upgrade over what I had, so I'm keeping it.

I'll add some EERIEs later...

Edited September 27, 2023 by Axe Elf

[Axe Elf]

These first two were the last two of my EERIE collection that I had self-graded below 4.0 VG (at 3.5).

The 1972 Annual isn't a HUGE upgrade, but it was only $10, and it's at least a 5.0, so that's good enough for me.

The EERIE #41 was won in an auction for about $16.50, and it was a distinct upgrade--more like a 7.5 over the old 3.5.

And the same seller also had a few other EERIEs up for auction at the same time, so I THOUGHT I was combining shipping with a nifty little 4.5ish EERIE #17 that I won for a cool $12.50--but upon arrival, I found that its center wrap was detached at both staples--and the back cover looked like it had been soaked in coffee. Sigh.  I guess it looked that way in the listing, too, but I thought it was just all in shadow or something, it's so universally dirty.

So now I have like three copies of EERIE #17, each of them having their own shiny features, but each of them hampered by their own serious flaws which keep any of them from grading out in the top half of the scale when taken as a whole.

My first copy had a pretty gorgeous front cover, but ugly water damage on the back cover.  Looks great in a bag... until you take it out.

The second copy I got is cleaner overall, but the front cover is less appealing, with those tears at the staples, exposed by that ugly spine roll.  Still, I guess this is my "best" copy?  If you squint a little, you could probably call it a 5.0.

If I could marry the front cover of my first issue with the back cover of my second issue, I'd have a 7.0!  And then I'd keep my latest coffee-soaked "upgrade" for my reader undercopy.

[Axe Elf]

The last 2 EERIE upgrades...

[Axe Elf]

And finally, I found my own copy of The Warren Companion without having to spend triple digits on it!

 

 

[Axe Elf]

I was hoping to spend this year upgrading some of the key Warren issues, and I kind of feel like I missed one here.

LINK

I sat and watched as the timer ran out on the auction, expecting there to be a flurry of late bids--which is also why I didn't bother putting in a bid myself.  I probably would have paid $250 for it if I thought that would take it--but I kept expecting it to jump up another $200-$250 as the auction ended, and it just didn't.  Who knows what the max bid was, or if I would have gotten it for the $250-$275 that I probly would have been willing to pay--but it was kind of bittersweet to see it go for a price that I actually had a shot at winning.

Pretty nice-looking 6.0, too.

Oh well, on to the next...

(At least now I don't have to decide whether or not to crack the slab!) 

[Axe Elf]

Missed another one tonight... My max bid was $200. 

It would have been SO COOL to move my only other slab--a CGC 9.0 CREEPY #1--up to the top shelf (where the CREEPYs are actually located) to make room for hanging a CGC 9.0 EERIE #2 as the endcap on the second shelf (where the EERIEs are actually located) of my Warren bookcase!

But it was not to be...

[The Lions Den]

On 9/27/2023 at 9:45 PM, Axe Elf said:

These first two were the last two of my EERIE collection that I had self-graded below 4.0 VG (at 3.5).

The 1972 Annual isn't a HUGE upgrade, but it was only $10, and it's at least a 5.0, so that's good enough for me.

The EERIE #41 was won in an auction for about $16.50, and it was a distinct upgrade--more like a 7.5 over the old 3.5.

And the same seller also had a few other EERIEs up for auction at the same time, so I THOUGHT I was combining shipping with a nifty little 4.5ish EERIE #17 that I won for a cool $12.50--but upon arrival, I found that its center wrap was detached at both staples--and the back cover looked like it had been soaked in coffee. Sigh.  I guess it looked that way in the listing, too, but I thought it was just all in shadow or something, it's so universally dirty.

So now I have like three copies of EERIE #17, each of them having their own shiny features, but each of them hampered by their own serious flaws which keep any of them from grading out in the top half of the scale when taken as a whole.

My first copy had a pretty gorgeous front cover, but ugly water damage on the back cover.  Looks great in a bag... until you take it out.

The second copy I got is cleaner overall, but the front cover is less appealing, with those tears at the staples, exposed by that ugly spine roll.  Still, I guess this is my "best" copy?  If you squint a little, you could probably call it a 5.0.

If I could marry the front cover of my first issue with the back cover of my second issue, I'd have a 7.0!  And then I'd keep my latest coffee-soaked "upgrade" for my reader undercopy.

[The Lions Den]

On 9/29/2023 at 8:12 PM, Axe Elf said:

And finally, I found my own copy of The Warren Companion without having to spend triple digits on it!

 

 

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there are at least two different editions of this book. They're both fantastic, but the hardcover edition includes an entire section devoted to the Spanish artists...  

[Jayman]

On 9/29/2023 at 8:12 PM, Axe Elf said:

And finally, I found my own copy of The Warren Companion without having to spend triple digits on it!

 

 

I wonder why the cover artist (Alex Horley?) chose not to use Vampirella’s original red costume and go with the strapped black knock off version? 

[Axe Elf]

On 10/21/2023 at 12:31 PM, The Lions Den said:

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there are at least two different editions of this book. They're both fantastic, but the hardcover edition includes an entire section devoted to the Spanish artists...  

Hardcovers are usually more expensive anyway, but that's probably why there was such a price difference.  As a "budget" collector, I was ok with the paperback version--but I assumed it would be the same thing!  On the other hand, the Spanish artists don't necessarily interest me any more than any of the other artists, so I'm probably ok without the extra spotlight.

Good information to know, though!

Just when I think I know all there is to know about Warren, something else pops up...

...like that Dracula Book 1 special edition...  still trying to find a decent affordable copy of that...

...and I just recently learned there was a variant cover for the first Dark Horse issue of CREEPY too...  so I have one of those en route...

...and it's almost time to catch up on the 2023 issues of SHUDDER and VAMPIRESS CARMILLA...

...it just never ends!

[The Lions Den]

On 10/21/2023 at 1:49 PM, Jayman said:

I wonder why the cover artist (Alex Horley?) chose not to use Vampirella’s original red costume and go with the strapped black knock off version? 

These are the things that keep me awake at night...  

[OtherEric]

On 10/21/2023 at 10:49 AM, Jayman said:

I wonder why the cover artist (Alex Horley?) chose not to use Vampirella’s original red costume and go with the strapped black knock off version? 

Guess #1:  Because the cover started as a riff on the Creepy #1 cover, and on that the chair was red.  When the artist went to add Vampirella in front of the chair, they realized the red costume didn't stand out against the red chair, so they changed colors.

Guess #2:  Due to rights issues, they couldn't get permission to use Vampirella on the cover.  I know Roy Thomas has said that Alter Ego can't use Marvel and DC characters on the same Alter Ego cover, for example.  So the artist did a character who is clearly intended to suggest Vampirella, but with enough differences that should anybody complain they can claim it wasn't really her.

[Axe Elf]

On 10/21/2023 at 3:38 PM, OtherEric said:

Guess #2:  Due to rights issues, they couldn't get permission to use Vampirella on the cover.  I know Roy Thomas has said that Alter Ego can't use Marvel and DC characters on the same Alter Ego cover, for example.  So the artist did a character who is clearly intended to suggest Vampirella, but with enough differences that should anybody complain they can claim it wasn't really her.

Maybe it's Evily...

[Jayman]

On 10/21/2023 at 3:58 PM, The Lions Den said:

These are the things that keep me awake at night...  

👍

[Jayman]

On 10/21/2023 at 4:38 PM, OtherEric said:

Guess #2:  Due to rights issues, they couldn't get permission to use Vampirella on the cover.  I know Roy Thomas has said that Alter Ego can't use Marvel and DC characters on the same Alter Ego cover, for example.  So the artist did a character who is clearly intended to suggest Vampirella, but with enough differences that should anybody complain they can claim it wasn't really her.

Bingo! I’m thinking this. 

[Axe Elf]

The 2023 crop of Warrants is in!

Here are the Shudders...

Love those skeleton horses about to run you down!

Always good to see a Frazetta, but they heightened the contrast so much as to dull all the interesting colors in the background, so I'm not sure I like it as much as the original.

Beautiful cover!

[Axe Elf]

And here are the Vampiress Carmillas...

This Sanjulian is kind of reminiscent of the Prezio cover to CREEPY #29, except that was "Summer House" and this is "Horror House."

This is a Frazetta I hadn't seen before.

Love the Sanjulian homage to the Hughes cover of VAMPIRELLA #2!

All the books are in great shape, but that 2024 Vampiress Carmilla Annual is about as close to perfect as I have ever seen.