Marvel Comics #1, October or November 1939. How rare are the OCT dated copies? 2 2

[Silver Surfer]

I think the Cage 6.0 October copy is the highest unrestored copy I have ever seen. Did someone mention that this book may have been acquired by Marvel or someplace?

[Primetime]

On 6/21/2024 at 3:59 PM, pemart1966 said:

How rare is the October version?  None of the Pedigrees is dated October.

Since the window was only a week for the Octobers before they sold out, and Goodman’s initial test market was just locally (NYC boroughs/NJ?) it would have been a slimmer chance for any Oct books to get into a Pedigree collection like the Church (Denver never received them), Larson (probably none received but there’s a Nov), etc. 

Edited June 22 by Primetime

[Primetime]

On 6/21/2024 at 11:42 PM, Silver Surfer said:

I think the Cage 6.0 October copy is the highest unrestored copy I have ever seen. Did someone mention that this book may have been acquired by Marvel or someplace?

Here’s the Cage copy, Peter. I’m not sure if it’s been re-holdered, or upgraded, or who the current owner is..

 

Edited June 22 by Primetime

[Silver Surfer]

5.0 

[zen514]

On 6/22/2024 at 3:33 AM, Primetime said:

Here’s the Cage copy, Peter. I’m not sure if it’s been re-holdered, or upgraded, or who the current owner is..

 

Thanks for saring

 

I think this would be the highest graded October unrestored copy

[Frisco Larson]

On 6/22/2024 at 2:33 AM, Primetime said:

Here’s the Cage copy, Peter. I’m not sure if it’s been re-holdered, or upgraded, or who the current owner is..

 

This is very likely the copy Fishler was referring to. It's my understanding that he sold Cage a lot of comics, but I don't know about this comic specifically. 

[Primetime]

On 6/22/2024 at 9:22 AM, Frisco Larson said:

This is very likely the copy Fishler was referring to. It's my understanding that he sold Cage a lot of comics, but I don't know about this comic specifically. 

I know he sold him a pedigree Cap 1 at some point. 

[Frisco Larson]

On 6/22/2024 at 11:59 AM, Primetime said:

I know he sold him a pedigree Cap 1 at some point. 

I seem to recall that as well.  

[Silver Surfer]

If there was just one book I could own it would be this one. No pedigree October copies that I am aware of.a after all these years a mid grade unrestored copy is probably the highest we will see. There must be a few copies around somewhere but where?

[pemart1966]

On 6/21/2024 at 11:36 PM, Primetime said:

This has been common knowledge amongst many golden age timely collectors @Ameri@MrBedrock @VintageComics@Straw-Man@G.A.tor

for many years now sourced from the Overstreet, CBM, and many fanzines of the past. Goodman took a chance and printed 80,000 copies initially to see if the comic would sell locally. The Octobers were released on 8-31-39 and sold out in a week. He changed the indicia and used a black slug to blot out the OCT and added the NOV stamp for another 800k to be distributed nationwide.

Here are three NOV copies which have September arrival dates (9/8, 9/13, 9/22) which support the short period of time between the Oct and Nov copies. I have not seen any October copies with any arrival dates, but I don’t believe anyone would argue 8-31-39 not being the release date for the Octobers.  

I'm not understanding the 31/8/39 "On Sale" date for October versions.

Let's assume this "On Sale" date and that the October version sold out in a week give or take. This brings us to Sept 7/8.  But...

We have a November copy with a Sept 8 arrival date.  This would mean that Goodman's decision to do a second run; get it printed; and get it distributed would have had to have be done BEFORE the October versions even went on sale.

As mentioned, Goodman took a big risk in putting out the 80,000 October run.  I don't see him taking on 10X more risk by putting out an 800,000 copy run without first seeing the sales figures for the October run which may have been mid month. 

An "On Sale" date close to the beginning of August makes much more sense to me.  This would have allowed Goodman time to get the final sales figures and then make the decision to go ahead with the second print.  It would also align better with the Sept 8 arrival date on the November version.

In summary, I'm not seeing how the 31/8/39 date is correct and how the two versions could have been issued within a week of one another.

For info - according to CGC, 31/8/39 was submitted by Timely to the Gov't as the publishing date but we all know that what's submitted may not always reflect what really happened.  CGC shows no specific "On Sale" date for the November version.

 

 

Edited June 22 by pemart1966

[Silver Surfer]

On 6/21/2024 at 8:50 PM, Primetime said:

🔥😀🔥

Remember when that surfaced, was available for a song. 

[zen514]

On 6/22/2024 at 7:16 PM, pemart1966 said:

I'm not understanding the 31/8/39 "On Sale" date for October versions.

Let's assume this "On Sale" date and that the October version sold out in a week give or take. This brings us to Sept 7/8.  But...

We have a November copy with a Sept 8 arrival date.  This would mean that Goodman's decision to do a second run; get it printed; and get it distributed would have had to have be done BEFORE the October versions even went on sale.

As mentioned, Goodman took a big risk in putting out the 80,000 October run.  I don't see him taking on 10X more risk by putting out an 800,000 copy run without first seeing the sales figures for the October run which may have been mid month. 

An "On Sale" date close to the beginning of August makes much more sense to me.  This would have allowed Goodman time to get the final sales figures and then make the decision to go ahead with the second print.  It would also align better with the Sept 8 arrival date on the November version.

In summary, I'm not seeing how the 31/8/39 date is correct and how the two versions could have been issued within a week of one another.

For info - according to CGC, 31/8/39 was submitted by Timely to the Gov't as the publishing date but we all know that what's submitted may not always reflect what really happened.  CGC shows no specific "On Sale" date for the November version.

 

 

I agree. It would much later than a week.

[Sarg]

On 6/21/2024 at 10:36 PM, Primetime said:

This has been common knowledge amongst many golden age timely collectors @Ameri@MrBedrock @VintageComics@Straw-Man@G.A.tor

for many years now sourced from the Overstreet, CBM, and many fanzines of the past. Goodman took a chance and printed 80,000 copies initially to see if the comic would sell locally. The Octobers were released on 8-31-39 and sold out in a week. He changed the indicia and used a black slug to blot out the OCT and added the NOV stamp for another 800k to be distributed nationwide. 

I still don't understand why -- if they went back to press, printing new covers -- they didn't simply re-typeset the date to "NOV" instead of using the black circle to overprint "OCT."

My guess is that it was cheaper (and faster) to just overprint black on the old plates rather than have new plates made.  

[Primetime]

On 6/22/2024 at 4:16 PM, pemart1966 said:

I'm not understanding the 31/8/39 "On Sale" date for October versions.

Let's assume this "On Sale" date and that the October version sold out in a week give or take. This brings us to Sept 7/8.  But...

We have a November copy with a Sept 8 arrival date.  This would mean that Goodman's decision to do a second run; get it printed; and get it distributed would have had to have be done BEFORE the October versions even went on sale.

As mentioned, Goodman took a big risk in putting out the 80,000 October run.  I don't see him taking on 10X more risk by putting out an 800,000 copy run without first seeing the sales figures for the October run which may have been mid month. 

An "On Sale" date close to the beginning of August makes much more sense to me.  This would have allowed Goodman time to get the final sales figures and then make the decision to go ahead with the second print.  It would also align better with the Sept 8 arrival date on the November version.

In summary, I'm not seeing how the 31/8/39 date is correct and how the two versions could have been issued within a week of one another.

For info - according to CGC, 31/8/39 was submitted by Timely to the Gov't as the publishing date but we all know that what's submitted may not always reflect what really happened.  CGC shows no specific "On Sale" date for the November version.

 

 

Good points. Yes, the Sept 8 arrival date on that one copy lends itself to a very tight window which raises speculation. The other thoughts that I have pondered over the years is that it’s possible Goodman ran out of time. Frank R. Paul had the cover already done and the OCT indicia was ready to go. Everett was asked to add four more pages to the Sub-Mariner story. An Oct cover date in the golden age typically meant 1-2 months earlier arrival date in the stands. Unlike some quarterly DC books, Marvel/MM was slated to be a monthly issue. It’s quite possible that Goodman had released the Oct books locally to test the market and get a faster sales count. The indicia had to be changed due to copyright rules and deadlines as it was now into September (like the morning vs evening editions of newspapers which undoubtedly has numbered editions and dates to track sales). He may have already had some of the 800k batch printed concurrently (or at least in a very tight window) already printed due to the indicia problem.  This would explain the Sept 8 copy hitting the newsstand so quick.  
Regarding the black slugs, Goodman was known to do this (looking back) as he did a similar thing with Mystic 4 (August 1940) as well as blacking out some 10 cent prices on early Atlas books transitioning into the 12 centers. 

Edited June 23 by Primetime

[Primetime]

On 6/23/2024 at 7:39 AM, Sarg said:

I still don't understand why -- if they went back to press, printing new covers -- they didn't simply re-typeset the date to "NOV" instead of using the black circle to overprint "OCT."

My guess is that it was cheaper (and faster) to just overprint black on the old plates rather than have new plates made.  

@VintageComics had a nice discussion about the slugs and plates awhile back on another thread..will have to dig it up. 

[Ameri]

On 6/22/2024 at 7:16 PM, pemart1966 said:

I'm not understanding the 31/8/39 "On Sale" date for October versions.

Let's assume this "On Sale" date and that the October version sold out in a week give or take. This brings us to Sept 7/8.  But...

We have a November copy with a Sept 8 arrival date.  This would mean that Goodman's decision to do a second run; get it printed; and get it distributed would have had to have be done BEFORE the October versions even went on sale.

As mentioned, Goodman took a big risk in putting out the 80,000 October run.  I don't see him taking on 10X more risk by putting out an 800,000 copy run without first seeing the sales figures for the October run which may have been mid month. 

An "On Sale" date close to the beginning of August makes much more sense to me.  This would have allowed Goodman time to get the final sales figures and then make the decision to go ahead with the second print.  It would also align better with the Sept 8 arrival date on the November version.

In summary, I'm not seeing how the 31/8/39 date is correct and how the two versions could have been issued within a week of one another.

For info - according to CGC, 31/8/39 was submitted by Timely to the Gov't as the publishing date but we all know that what's submitted may not always reflect what really happened.  CGC shows no specific "On Sale" date for the November version.

 

 

I agree, the arrival dates prove it was just one print run and some of the earlier ones without the slug went out before the mistake was detected. I don't know of any instance where Goodman did multiple print runs of any title, but he sure has a history of doing different slugs in single print runs. He did a different slug two times after the Marvel 1 and it had nothing to do with demand and nether one is rarer than the other and these variants do not command higher prices. First for Mystic 4 in 1940 and then later when his books went from 10c to 12c. Who knows why he had to change October to November midstream during the printing process and whether October copies are earlier than the ones with the slug. Maybe his accountant made him change Oct to Nov for accounting reasons during the one and only print run. No one is alive to ask. Yes, some October slipped through to NYC newsstands before the change occurred but they were the same print run as the Nov. Both books are exactly the same, no ads like Superman 1 that would point to a different print run. If one tries to argue that extra copies happened because of demand, there is nothing concrete to support that. The dates do not support the "demand" argument since Nov copies are showing a week after 8/31/39 which is allegedly the earliest date of the Oct copies. The old information about demand prompting another print run appears to be another urban myth perpetuated throughout the years to glamorize a book. Given all that it would appear that the only reason to want an October copy is that it's a variant which is pretty cool, I give you that.   

Edited June 23 by Ameri

[Get Marwood & I]

On 6/23/2024 at 5:47 PM, Ameri said:

I agree, the arrival dates prove it was just one print run and some of the earlier ones without the slug went out before the mistake was detected. I don't know of any instance where Goodman did multiple print runs of any title, but he sure has a history of doing different slugs in single print runs. He did a different slug two times after the Marvel 1 and it had nothing to do with demand and nether one is rarer than the other and these variants do not command higher prices. First for Mystic 4 in 1940 and then later when his books went from 10c to 12c. Who knows why he had to change October to November midstream during the printing process and whether October copies are earlier than the ones with the slug. Maybe his accountant made him change Oct to Nov for accounting reasons during the one and only print run. No one is alive to ask. Yes, some October slipped through to NYC newsstands before the change occurred but they were the same print run as the Nov. Both books are exactly the same, no ads like Superman 1 that would point to a different print run. If one tries to argue that extra copies happened because of demand, there is nothing concrete to support that. The dates do not support the "demand" argument since Nov copies are showing a week after 8/31/39 which is allegedly the earliest date of the Oct copies. The old information about demand prompting another print run appears to be another urban myth perpetuated throughout the years to glamorize a book. Given all that it would appear that the only reason to want an October copy is that it's a variant which is pretty cool, I give you that.   

Can I play?

Ameri, if we look at the 1962 Marvel repriced editions, which have a comparable 'black circle overprint' scenario, the working theory is that the books began printing priced at 10c. It was spotted mid-run that they should have been 12c so the run was stopped and a 12c slug was added to continue the run. Those that were already printed at 10c were then overprinted with a black circle to obscure the wrong price and the correct 12c was added below it - see the JIM #76 examples below to illustrate:

 

The end result with those books is that all distributed copies end up priced at 12c - some 'properly', some overprinted.

In the case of Marvel Comics #1, if we assume that the book started being printed with an October month cover, and this was then spotted mid run, then why did they not correct the date as they did years later (with the price) by adding a new month slug? Further, if we are saying that they are all part of a single end to end run, then why do October versions exist at all? Why weren't they all run through and overprinted?

 

The fact that every Marvel Comics #1 has an October cover price - whether on show or obscured by a black circle - shows that the full run was completed before the date error was spotted (if error it was). A decision was then taken to overprint them but, somehow, some were missed and went out with the original October month.

I see only two reasonable explanations here - the one I've outlined above (all extant copies are part of one original print run, with a percentage being overprinted to correct the month error - the fact that not all were overprinted could be a second error) or that the October and November copies were printed separately. 

Have I got that right?

[Get Marwood & I]

One other point to throw into the mix, the overprint changes position from cover to cover which often indicates that it was applied after the event (albeit there's quite a bit of plate movement in evidence between these copies which makes it harder to tell):

  

The fact that you can see the original OCT under the overprint however is concrete evidence of course that the black circle was applied after the cover was printed. 

Covers are printed separately to the guts.

If we believe the second printing scenario, with an after the event overprint, it would have happened something like this:

1. 80,000 covers printed with an October cover month
2. That sells out, so a further 800,000 are requested and printed, also with an October cover month
3. Those 800,000 are then run through a separate overprint to correct the month to November

 

 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 6/23/2024 at 6:45 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

One other point to throw into the mix, the overprint changes position from cover to cover which often indicates that it was applied after the event (albeit there's quite a bit of plate movement in evidence between these copies which makes it harder to tell):

  

The fact that you can see the original OCT under the overprint however is concrete evidence of course that the black circle was applied after the cover was printed. 

Covers are printed separately to the guts.

If we believe the second printing scenario, with an after the event overprint, it would have happened something like this:

1. 80,000 covers printed with an October cover month
2. That sells out, so a further 800,000 are requested and printed, also with an October cover month
3. Those 800,000 are then run through a separate overprint to correct the month to November

 

 

Thinking further, the black elements of the cover seem to move in a similar way to the black circle, so I suppose they could've made a new K (black) plate? 

I had the scenario in the example below in mind, in my earlier posts:

[Yorick]

On 6/23/2024 at 11:36 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

the black elements of the cover seem to move in a similar way to the black circle

I see that differently, thanks to your lovely side-by-side image.  "NOV" appears to shift all over the place.  The slug also seems to move slightly.  The black ink lines behind and around the slug disappear in the third example (could just be a later worn-plate print).