Warren Magazine Reading Club! 6 6

[The Lions Den]

On 5/22/2022 at 7:57 PM, Axe Elf said:

I didn't write it, I was just quoting the Warren Magazine Index, but yeah, I'm sure competition is always a factor.  It sounds like some of the factors that allowed Warren to withstand the competition for as long as they did were somewhat frayed and dissipating and therefore less effective toward the end of the Warren era, and so the competition overtook them.

Jim Warren's prolonged absence (allegedly due to medical issues) also contributed to the problems the company was experiencing in their later years...  

[Axe Elf]

So I've had this on my Watchlist on da'Bay ever since I started looking into Warrens in February--28 watchers but no movement in asking price; it just gets relisted every month.

WAY out of my price range, but what do you all think--legit 1st printing?  Legit signature?

EDIT:  I just noticed the listing says "1966 warren magazine"!  We here at the Warren Magazine Reading Club know it to have been published in September 1965!  Not a good start toward legitimacy...

LINK

Edited May 29, 2022 by Axe Elf

[Taylor G]

On 5/29/2022 at 3:05 PM, The Lions Den said:

Jim Warren's prolonged absence (allegedly due to medical issues) also contributed to the problems the company was experiencing in their later years...  

Well he wasn't paying taxes owed by the company.  At all.  The IRS wanted its money, so they forced the company into liquidation. 

[Axe Elf]

On 5/29/2022 at 2:19 PM, Taylor G said:

Well he wasn't paying taxes owed by the company.  At all.  The IRS wanted its money, so they forced the company into liquidation. 

Seems like bad policy on the part of the government to drive tax payers out of business--now you KNOW they won't pay any taxes in the future.

[Taylor G]

No creditor ever closed on a non-paying debtor ever. 

[oakman29]

On 5/29/2022 at 12:03 PM, Axe Elf said:

This is more along the lines I was hoping for--thank you @oakman29!

So the bald-headed man DOES appear in the 2nd print, but DOES NOT appear in the 1st print.

Now, I don't know if this pic is from a 1st print or a 2nd print, so can you take that pic and circle the bald-headed man--or where the bald-headed man would be, if this is a 1st print?

This pic is from a 1st print. The big black spot in the corner of the 5th panel on page 18 is where the bald man is on the 2nd print. 

[Axe Elf]

On 5/29/2022 at 4:40 PM, oakman29 said:

This pic is from a 1st print. The big black spot in the corner of the 5th panel on page 18 is where the bald man is on the 2nd print. 

Ok, but I keep hearing that "THIS THREAD IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT PICS!!!" chant going through my head...

To me it looks like there are TWO corners full of big black spots (the red rectangles) in what I would consider to be the 5th panel on page 18 (the blue rectangle).

Which corner contains a bald-headed man in the 2nd print?

The electronic copy I have must have also been scanned from a 1st print.  Does anyone have a picture or scan of a 2nd print so we could compare the appearance of the bald-headed man to one of the black corners in panel 5 page 18?

 

...And what about the broken/unbroken lines on the house?

Edited May 29, 2022 by Axe Elf

[oakman29]

On 5/29/2022 at 3:44 PM, Axe Elf said:

Ok, but I keep hearing that "THIS THREAD IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT PICS!!!" chant going through my head...

To me it looks like there are TWO corners full of big black spots (the red rectangles) in what I would consider to be the 5th panel on page 18 (the blue rectangle).

Which corner contains a bald-headed man in the 2nd print?

The electronic copy I have must have also been scanned from a 1st print.  Does anyone have a picture or scan of a 2nd print so we could compare the appearance of the bald-headed man to one of the black corners in panel 5 page 18?

 

...And what about the broken/unbroken lines on the house?

Dude, you are killing me. I'm sorry I wasnt so exact.

Page 18 , panel 5  blacked out upper left corner removing the bald headed man from the panel.

[Axe Elf]

On 5/29/2022 at 6:11 PM, oakman29 said:

Dude, you are killing me. I'm sorry I wasnt so exact.

Page 18 , panel 5  blacked out upper left corner removing the bald headed man from the panel.

Ok, one step closer... at least now we know where to look for him!

Still would love to see anyone's scan of a 2nd print, showing the bald-headed man!

And of course, any information anyone might have about the broken/unbroken lines on the building is still highly sought-after.

[Axe Elf]

Found this image online--it's very small image that I've enlarged quite a bit--but that corner doesn't look completely blacked out like the scans posted before.  I still can't see exactly WHAT it looks like, but I can see that it does look different.

[Randall Dowling]

@Axe Elf I don't think you're picking up what some of us are putting down.  Identifying a copy of Eerie 1 is so questionable that even some of the most experienced dealers that were actually buying and selling comics shortly after the book came out, won't say with confidence that a copy is genuine.  

Yes, there are the well-documented hallmarks between the "first printing" and another printing that was apparently made from the original source material.  But in this day and age, the quality of the original was so poor that it could be (conceivably) reproduced on some old used equipment.  Like certain photocopiers.  And if all you were looking for was the blackened in portion of the guy's head and the lines in the roof of the house, etc. most of us think you're setting yourself up for getting scammed.  There are a lot of copies out there, claiming to be genuine but the majority of them are not.

There are a couple copies that some board members have shown that have a complete provenance and as such, are almost certainly genuine.  But buying a copy in the wild, is asking to be taken advantage of.  As stated in the threads I linked for you, most experienced collectors would have difficulty feeling good buying a copy in person let alone via mail order.  Unless you have substantial access to both a verified original and some of the many knock-offs (and to date, only a couple board members have), it's nearly impossible to state authenticity definitively.  

As I and several others have stated, I will not pursue a copy as the only thing I feel comfortable identifying is the "second printings" or counterfeits.  Particularly the bad ones.  Having said that, feel free to roll the dice.  The rest of us are just trying to help you out.  

[Axe Elf]

On 5/29/2022 at 9:38 PM, Randall Dowling said:

@Axe Elf I don't think you're picking up what some of us are putting down.  Identifying a copy of Eerie 1 is so questionable that even some of the most experienced dealers that were actually buying and selling comics shortly after the book came out, won't say with confidence that a copy is genuine.  

Yes, there are the well-documented hallmarks between the "first printing" and another printing that was apparently made from the original source material.  But in this day and age, the quality of the original was so poor that it could be (conceivably) reproduced on some old used equipment.  Like certain photocopiers.  And if all you were looking for was the blackened in portion of the guy's head and the lines in the roof of the house, etc. most of us think you're setting yourself up for getting scammed.  There are a lot of copies out there, claiming to be genuine but the majority of them are not.

There are a couple copies that some board members have shown that have a complete provenance and as such, are almost certainly genuine.  But buying a copy in the wild, is asking to be taken advantage of.  As stated in the threads I linked for you, most experienced collectors would have difficulty feeling good buying a copy in person let alone via mail order.  Unless you have substantial access to both a verified original and some of the many knock-offs (and to date, only a couple board members have), it's nearly impossible to state authenticity definitively.  

As I and several others have stated, I will not pursue a copy as the only thing I feel comfortable identifying is the "second printings" or counterfeits.  Particularly the bad ones.  Having said that, feel free to roll the dice.  The rest of us are just trying to help you out.  

Fair enough, but you may be misunderstanding my intent as well.

I don't expect that I will ever actually be BUYING an EERIE #1 of ANY kind--authentic, bootleg, 1st print, 2nd print--it's just out of my price range to even think about.  Oakman recently asked me if I would ever consider getting one, and I said, "sure, if I can find one for $50."  Obviously, that's not happening.  I guess I did maybe hint in that direction when I said I'd like to come out of this week knowing an authentic EERIE #1 if I ever came across one--but I really meant I'd just like to have the knowledge; I don't think I will ever be in the position of authenticating one for myself.

If the knowledge is imperfect, or incomplete, I'm fine with that, especially when it is acknowledged as such.  I'm just hoping this thread will be a magnet for all information Warren, and so I'm asking anyone who has any information about the various printings and editions of EERIE #1 to step forward this week and add their information to the pool, that's all.

I'm not holding anyone to anything--I just want to know what is known.

I'm already pretty happy nailing down this thing with the bald-headed man and where he appears--and being able to see the difference in scans of the two editions.  Could someone still pass a counterfeit first or second print by me?  Sure, but I would at least know if it was a counterfeit of a first printing or a second printing now. 

I'd like it if anyone who has similar comparisons/information regarding the broken/unbroken lines on the house would add it to the pool as well.  I'm just curious, and that's why I suggested this Reading Club; to pool our collective opinions and knowledge.  I want to know all there is to know about these books that I love.

[The Lions Den]

On 5/29/2022 at 7:11 PM, oakman29 said:

Dude, you are killing me. I'm sorry I wasnt so exact.

Page 18 , panel 5  blacked out upper left corner removing the bald headed man from the panel.

That bald guy sure causes some problems...  

[OtherEric]

On 5/30/2022 at 4:05 AM, The Lions Den said:

That bald guy sure causes some problems...  

I resemble that remark…

[Axe Elf]

On 5/30/2022 at 11:39 AM, Stevemmg said:

Perhaps time to return to the main subject of the thread, reading Warren mags and sharing thoughts on such.

That's what we were doing before you interrupted us with an off-topic post returning us to the main subject of the thread.

[Randall Dowling]

On 5/30/2022 at 12:07 PM, OtherEric said:

I resemble that remark…

And you've always been trouble!  

[Axe Elf]

Ok, before I get into my review of EERIE #1, I just want to try to lay out what we know so far about the various versions out there.  I found a few Heritage Auction listings that augmented some of what we already knew:

• The first print of EERIE #1 was trimmed to 5 1/4" x 7 1/4".  (I believe 2nd prints were larger?)
• The first print of EERIE #1 shows distinct lines on the roof of the house on page 1; broken lines appear in some bootleg copies.  (Don't know about second printing?)
• The second print of EERIE #1 shows a bald-headed man in the upper left corner of panel 5 on page 18; in the first print, he is blacked out.
• The staples have a blue stripe on second prints of EERIE #1.

"This copy has the distinct lines on the roof of the house on page 1, and the bald headed man on page 18 panel 5 disappears into solid black (both of which are mentioned in Overstreet as indicators of a true first printing)."

LINK

"The bald-headed man on page 18, panel 5 is not visible in the solid black area (an indication that this is a first printing). The lines on the roof of the house on page 1 are distinct (these lines are broken on one well-known counterfeit of the issue)."

LINK

"Has the clear bald-headed man and the blue stripe on the staples that characterize the second printing."

LINK

This all pretty much matches up to the other information provided by others in this thread, so I guess I'll consider the matter to be as settled as it's going to be for now.  To summarize, if you have broken lines on the house or a bald-headed man on page 18 or a blue stripe on the staples or if the book isn't 5 1/4" x 7 1/4", you probably don't have an authentic first print.  If the lines on the house are broken, you may even have a bootleg.

The electronic copy I have appears to have been scanned from a 1st print (because there's no bald-headed man on page 18), but it also appears to be kind of a faulty scan, because the lines on the roof of the house hardly appear at all:

Anyway, on with the review...

"Image of Bluebeard" was about as good as anything that we've read so far.  I'm really enjoying Joe Orlando's art, and the way so much of this story is illustrated in stark contrasts of shadow and glare.

I also liked the story because it didn't rely on monsters or the supernatural, just the horror of a mistaken identity taken to fatal extremes.

I wasn't as impressed with "Death Plane," as it was more like some of the CREEPY head-scratchers when it came to explaining why there was a death plane in the first place, why (or how) each person shot down by the ghost plane suddenly becomes the pilot of the ghost plane--and why the ghost plane would ever disappear at all if its continuously new pilot needs to shoot down another plane to pass it along to the next victim.  There was just too much left unexplained (or at least unjustified; I don't usually expect much from supernatural "explanations").

"The Invitation" kind of broke the tie in favor of the good stories; the only real quibble I have is with why Baron von Redfield concealed his true identity when the doctor first arrived at the castle--just so he could tell him the story?  Seems like the vampires would have just fell on him the moment he arrived--except that then we wouldn't have the story that he told.  The twist at the end of the Baron's tale also kind of parallels the one from "Swamped" in CREEPY #3--where the guy feeding the vampires forgets that the victims of vampires become vampires themselves.

Unfortunately, I wasn't a big fan of the art for this story (Manny Stallman?).  It seemed kind of, I don't know, just "ugly" in places--especially the people/vampires.  Just my opinion.

"EERIE's Loathsome Lore" on vampires was a reprint from CREEPY #2, so I won't say much about it, other than how strange Cousin Eerie looked in his first incarnation!

Edited June 4, 2022 by Axe Elf

[Axe Elf]

CREEPY #5 - October 1965

According to the Warren Magazine Index...

5. cover: Frank Frazetta (Oct. 1965)

                1) Creepy’s Loathsome Lore: Zombies! [Archie Goodwin/Angelo Torres] 1p   [frontis]

                2) Family Reunion! [Archie Goodwin/Joe Orlando] 8p

                3) Blazing Combat Ad [John Severin] 1p  

                4) Untimely Tomb! [Archie Goodwin/Angelo Torres] 7p   [title is credited to Anne T. Murphy]

                5) Creepy Fan Club Ad [Frank Frazetta & Angelo Torres] 1p   [Torres art is a reprint, Frazetta’s art is a B&W repo of the Uncle Creepy portrait which was one of the fan club’s offerings.]

                6) Sand Doom [Archie Goodwin/Al Williamson] 6p

                7) The Judge’s House! [Archie Goodwin/Reed Crandall] 8p   from the story by Bram Stoker

                8) Grave Undertaking [Archie Goodwin/Alex Toth] 6p

                9) Revenge Of The Beast! [Archie Goodwin/Gray Morrow] 7p

 Notes: Frazetta’s vampire cover was ok, but not his best work.  The interior, however, was an absolute blast!  Williamson’s best art job for the early Warren issues, Toth’s debut and solid efforts from Orlando, Torres, Crandall & Morrow make this an art fan’s delight.  Shoot, even the ads had great art!  Severin’s Blazing Combat ad had the same art as Blazing Combat’s #1’s frontis.  All of the stories were by Goodwin and there wasn’t a clinker in the lot, with high points probably going to his Stoker adaptation.  Anne T. Murphy was Goodwin’s wife.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm definitely becoming an art fan, so I'm looking forward to it--especially the Orlando and Torres work!

Edited June 5, 2022 by Axe Elf

[OtherEric]

Creepy 5 thoughts:

A moody cover by Frazetta, although a bit static as well.  Neither his best or his worst for Warren, just somewhere in the middle.

Loathsome Lore:  Nice Torres art on Zombies, although I felt the dig at wild parties in the last panel was a bit odd.

Family Reunion:  This is not what I remember the few episodes of Bonanza I watched being like.

Untimely Tomb:  Of course it's untimely, it's much more Vault of Horror or Haunt of Fear than Strange Tales or Journey into Mystery!    Seriously, great art from Torres on a first-rate Goodwin -script.

Sand Doom:  Stunning Williamson art, and Goodwin is getting really good at this point, even if this is a bit more of a traditional twist.

The Judge's House:  Crandall and Goodwin adapt a lesser known (at least, I had never heard of it) Bram Stoker story.  It's a good choice that fits in quite well.

Grave Undertaking:  Alex Toth joins the Warren crew.  I believe he has the distinction of the longest run of any creator on the Warren books, from Creepy #5 and Blazing Combat #1 to Vampirella #110.  (OK, technically the story in Vampi #110 appeared a few months earlier overseas, but it was the first US appearance of the piece.)  Toth is an extraordinary artist, and it's great to see another of the EC alumni show up at Warren.  He's hard for me to discuss in some ways, though... I get so amazed looking at his design sense it can pull me out of the story.  Toth spans the eras at Warren like no other creator, and his work is always a highlight of an issue it appears in.

Revenge of the Beast:  Morrow, like Toth, is great at drawing for B&W rather than doing art that just happens not to be in color.

I would say this is the strongest issue yet, but it will be interesting to see how well things go when they're trying to do three magazines, not one.

 

[Axe Elf]

Great thoughts and information as usual, @OtherEric!