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

[Silver Surfer]

Good point but most of the material was already created, paid for.

[zen514]

All very interesting point of vues. Getting back to today’s rarity factor. 2 known OCT copies sold in the last 20 years. Nic Cage  5.0 and a 1.0.

and 2 unrestored copies  

cgc 7.0 moderate  228k  june 2024

cbcs  2.5  moderate extensive 144k

december 2023

 

Public sales

 

 

 

 

 

[zen514]

20:1  existing copies of October compared to November according to Heritage in there june 2024 auction

[pemart1966]

All of this release date and timing discussion has me now questioning the source/validity of the 80,000 + 800,000 copies ratio.

CGC sites their source as "Rip" on CGC boards for these numbers.

So the question is - can these numbers be substantiated or is this just another urban legend surrounding these 2 books?

[Silver Surfer]

Didn’t Fishler get this info from Goodman or someone related to him?

[sfcityduck]

On 6/24/2024 at 5:00 AM, zen514 said:

All very interesting point of vues. Getting back to today’s rarity factor. 2 known OCT copies sold in the last 20 years. Nic Cage  5.0 and a 1.0.

and 2 unrestored copies  

cgc 7.0 moderate  228k  june 2024

cbcs  2.5  moderate extensive 144k

december 2023

 

Public sales

 

 

 

 

 

The CGC 8.0 MP sold on CLINK in 2011.

That same year, G.A.tor sold a CGC 6.0 ext. and also stated he'd owned a raw 2.0, CGC 5.0 ext., and CGC 4.5 ext..  Not too far earlier Metro sold a CGC 7.0 slight. A lot of the Octobers seem to be restored.

Edited Monday at 05:37 PM by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 6/24/2024 at 5:09 AM, pemart1966 said:

All of this release date and timing discussion has me now questioning the source/validity of the 80,000 + 800,000 copies ratio.

CGC sites their source as "Rip" on CGC boards for these numbers.

So the question is - can these numbers be substantiated or is this just another urban legend surrounding these 2 books?

This has been discussed extensively over the years on these boards. The 80K/800K figures were published in a Marvel Comics omnibus 15 or so years ago. Supposedly, those numbers were sourced from or confirmed by Art Goodman, Martin Goodman's brother, as being a test run that sold out instantly and then led to a big nationwide run. It might have been a regional test run as some say the Oct. copies were all from the East Coast. 

 

[pemart1966]

On 6/24/2024 at 1:29 PM, sfcityduck said:

This has been discussed extensively over the years on these boards. The 80K/800K figures were published in a Marvel Comics omnibus 15 or so years ago. Supposedly, those numbers were sourced from or confirmed by Art Goodman, Martin Goodman's brother, as being a test run that sold out instantly and then led to a big nationwide run. It might have been a regional test run as some say the Oct. copies were all from the East Coast. 

 

I only have the Masterworks version...

[sfcityduck]

On 6/24/2024 at 11:12 AM, pemart1966 said:

I only have the Masterworks version...

This a helpful thread that goes into detail:

 

[pemart1966]

On 6/24/2024 at 2:15 PM, sfcityduck said:

This a helpful thread that goes into detail:

 

Thanks for this!  

Funny that you asked the same question in 2011 that I just asked.

My "out" in not having previously read or remembered this thread is that I joined these boards after it had ended. 

Edited Monday at 07:08 PM by pemart1966

[sfcityduck]

On 6/24/2024 at 11:58 AM, pemart1966 said:

Thanks for this!  

Funny that you asked the same question in 2011 that I just asked.

 

Great minds think alike. 

After reading a lot of debate on this subject, it seems clear to me that the Oct. copies are a first print and the Nov. copies are a second print using two additional plates (one for the change to the indicia that they all have and one for the blackout slug and "Nov." on the cover). It also seems that the highest graded Nov. copy will always be worth more than the highest graded Oct. copy because no one has ever claimed to have seen a high grade unrestored "Oct." copy -- but you never know what's buried in one of the secretive collections out there. However, grade for grade, all things being equal, my guess is a buyer would pick the Oct. copy.

The size of the print runs doesn't matter to me. All that matters is the number that survived. These were pre-WWII comics which may have gotten swept up in paper drives. I'd tend to agree that the Oct. copies are one of the rarest big books, maybe the rarest, in high grade universal condition. The rarest in high grade universal condition might well be Captain Marvel nn (#1) (highest graded are two universal CGC 5.0s with a raw Mile High held by the Dentist I think) - but since CGC doesn't break out Oct. from Nov., which is crazy favoritism of some collectors over others, we don't know now and may never know what the highest graded universal Oct. copy is. 

[Silver Surfer]

Almost 15 years ago, wow.

[Crowzilla]

On 6/24/2024 at 3:47 PM, Silver Surfer said:

Almost 15 years ago, wow.

And we still don't know any more than we did back then. I still find it hard to believe that a small, financially-strapped publisher like Goodman ordered what at that time was the largest ever print run for a comic (remember it took Superman three printings to each that number), but as SFcityduck says; that part kind of doesn't matter - but it sure would be nice to know.

[sfcityduck]

On 6/24/2024 at 2:03 PM, Crowzilla said:

And we still don't know any more than we did back then. 

I know less because I didn't remember some of the points made on the old threads - even when I made them. Here's another October copy stamped Property of Funnies Inc. by its writer John Compton.

And here's another early thread on this debate:

 

 

[plady69]

On 6/24/2024 at 6:56 PM, sfcityduck said:

I know less because I didn't remember some of the points made on the old threads - even when I made them. Here's another October copy stamped Property of Funnies Inc. by its writer John Compton.

And here's another early thread on this debate:

 

 

Awesome information as usual Mr. Duck…

[stock_rotation]

On 6/24/2024 at 3:19 PM, sfcityduck said:

After reading a lot of debate on this subject, it seems clear to me that the Oct. copies are a first print and the Nov. copies are a second print using two additional plates (one for the change to the indicia that they all have and one for the blackout slug and "Nov." on the cover).

Second print implies the first print finished and a second was started. More likely the whole interior of the book was printed in one shot, and the cover was changed mid-run, as I said above. Moondog had the same idea back in 2011:

 

[sfcityduck]

On 6/24/2024 at 8:52 PM, stock_rotation said:

Second print implies the first print finished and a second was started. More likely the whole interior of the book was printed in one shot, and the cover was changed mid-run, as I said above. Moondog had the same idea back in 2011:

 

Except the indicia on the first page of the interiors was changed as well. Moondog, who I respect immensely and brought the Windy City copy to market (really from Pennsylvania), I think, got this wrong. There were two changes (1) the addition of the black circle and "Nov." to the cover and (2) the black out of a line in the indicia and addition of a new line to delete the Oct. date and change it to a Nov. date. This was either done by an extra fifth metal plate (normally used for special inks like silver) for both the interior run and the cover run or by including rubber stamps for the interior run and the cover run. The "test print" theory of two printings has a lot of objective support discussed in the threads, plus the only witness to talk on this supports it. Is it a definitive answer? No. There is room for doubt. But it is the better of the two options in my view.

Edited Tuesday at 04:10 AM by sfcityduck

[pemart1966]

On 6/25/2024 at 12:09 AM, sfcityduck said:

Except the indicia on the first page of the interiors was changed as well. Moondog, who I respect immensely and brought the Windy City copy to market (really from Pennsylvania), I think, got this wrong. There were two changes (1) the addition of the black circle and "Nov." to the cover and (2) the black out of a line in the indicia and addition of a new line to delete the Oct. date and change it to a Nov. date. This was either done by an extra fifth metal plate (normally used for special inks like silver) for both the interior run and the cover run or by including rubber stamps for the interior run and the cover run. The "test print" theory of two printings has a lot of objective support discussed in the threads, plus the only witness to talk on this supports it. Is it a definitive answer? No. There is room for doubt. But it is the better of the two options in my view.

When I look at coverless copies I don't see any indicia on the first page of the interiors.  Did you mean "inside front cover"?

Edited Tuesday at 12:06 PM by pemart1966

[stock_rotation]

On 6/25/2024 at 12:09 AM, sfcityduck said:

Except the indicia on the first page of the interiors was changed as well. 

I know you meant inside front cover and not 1st page of interiors, but you may not understand how periodicals are generally printed. Individual pages are not printed separately, multiple pages are ganged up on a larger sheet. In the case of the cover, the sheet comes off the press similar to this:

That sheet is then flipped over (top to bottom) and run through the press again. This allows one setup that produces two completed "signatures". The bindery department will now take that sheet, trim it down to size, cut it in half horizontally, and fold it vertically.

So the print house created one more black plate that put both the circle and month on the front cover and the blackout line and additional text on the inside front cover in one shot. They could have added this plate without even taking the other 4 plates off the press.

Last edit: I've simplified this quite a bit. It's likely the covers were printed 8-up, so imagine that image with another side-by-side, and the feed edge now becomes the left side instead of the top. And instead of flipping top-to-bottom, they flip the page left to right for the second run through the press.

Edited Tuesday at 12:59 PM by stock_rotation
more info

[sfcityduck]

On 6/25/2024 at 4:29 AM, pemart1966 said:

When I look at coverless copies I don't see any indicia on the first page of the interiors.  Did you mean "inside front cover"?

That's not what I meant, but since that's the facts -- it is what I should have said. I misremembered that tidbit. Funny thing is looking back at one of the old threads I did the same thing back then.

I agree that if the indicia is on the inside front cover, then it would still have taken two plates (or stamps) but the corrections would have only been needed when they ran the cover.  That does leave open the possibility that print run of the covers was interrupted and the change made. However, there are no witnesses or documents which evidence that occurring. It's an unsupported theory.

To recap: There are two theories as to why there are October and November versions of Marvel Comics #1:

1) The presses were stopped and the date was adjusted when it was realized Oct would not allow enough time on the stands.

2) A first test printing sold quickly and a large second printing was then ordered immediately.

Moondog made the assertion with no supporting facts that: "November is not a second printing. The book was already being printed when Martin Goodman discovered the October cover date and had them immediately change the black plate to read November. He didn't want his first comic book to have a short on-sale period. Changing it to November gave him the partial October cycle and the entire November cycle."

Seifert countered: "Respectfully, I'll disagree. I think the theory set forth in the Marvel Comics Omnibus best fits the available info at this point: An initial 80,000 run was a limited test printing distributed on the East Coast. Goodman apparently had a rep for aggressively working the phones with his distro contacts to get a fast impression for current sales. The limited geographic area further allowed him to make a fast decision. The initial print run (according to the Omnibus info) sold out within 1 week of its Aug 31 on-sale date. He subsequently ordered the second printing of 800,000 copies. The Omnibus implies this number was chosen to be in line with Superman's sales. As we all know, this issue has been discussed extensively here, and there's loads of logistical detail that could be debated. But at this point, barring the unearthing of records or other new info, the above scenario is what I'm inclined to believe."

I agree with Seifert because (1) a witness actually supports this telling and (2) it makes sense in light of other points discussed on the old threads. 

Specifically, a poster relayed on an old board thread: "In 1983, I went to the office of Marvel Comics to have lunch with Art Goodman, the brother of Martin Goodman. Art worked at Timely in 1939 and gave me the story behind the October/November Marvel #1 printings. In 1939, Goodman had mixed feelings about getting into the comic business. They decided to publish Marvel #1 with a total print run of just under 90,000 copies. That 1st printing had a date of October. They hoped the book would sell well but their expectations were not that great. They were shocked when the book sold out within a few days. A immediate decision was made to go back to press with an additional print run of 800,000 copies. That print run had the November cover date."

It has been reported that Goodman told Fishler the same story. 

The contrary view is generally based on the opinions of Greg Theakston based on supposition that did not hold up to scrutiny on those earlier threads in my opinion. Moondog admitted on the old threads that his reasoning was essentially the same as Theakston's. I think that notion was pretty much rebutted in the old threads. My opinion back then on Theakston's theory hasn't changed, it was:

>>>[If Goodman] did want to minimize his risk, then it makes sense that he would have started with an initial print run for regional distribution. He could get an idea of the reception for the comic almost immediately if he had a good relationship with the Distributors in his region, which he probably did, just by asking for an informal sampling from newstand owners as to how sales were. It is not far-fetched to think that the Distributor could have found out very quickly if newstands were selling out just by having its delivery guys ask, and could have reported back to Goodman: "You've got a hit!" Goodman could have then rushed back to press, likely within a week, and with minor alterations to the plates to increase the shelf life on the new run of the comic for national distribution (which, of course, meant greater shipping times).

The fact that no "October" copies have been found outside of a relatively narrow region supports this view. If "November" copies were found in the same narrow region as "October" copies, I think, that would be further evidence of two print runs, as opposed to the scenario you outline.<<<

There are no docs or witnesses who support the one printing theory that I know of. At one point, it was asserted an unnamed Marvel Exec. might be able to support the story, but no name ever surfaced I think. So posters here started attacking the notion that Art Goodman was a credible witness. My response back then still resonates with me today:

>>>Based on my experience examining witnesses, I have to agree with Crowzilla. While I would expect a detail like the number of print runs for the first comic book ever published by Timely to stick in Goodman's mind because that was the key event in an anecdote about the birth of his brother's comic business, I wouldn't necessarily expect him to remember the exact totals forty or so years later. The fact they started with a small printing of their first comic, sold out, and rushed back to press with a much larger printing and the rest is history ... is the kind of memorable story that witnesses do tend to remember about key junctures in their businesses.

The actual details of the print runs is the kind of fact that is ancillary to the point of the story and I would expect to be much more likely to be forgotten or misremembered by a witness. 80 and 800 or 90 and 900 (I've read both in relation to this story) have nice aliterative sounds which are good for story telling, but the numbers may indicate that what really happened is that the second print run was around 10x the first (could have been 25 and 250 etc.). Goodman might have gotten this detail wrong because this detail is not central to the story. In any event, I don't think the amount of the actual print runs matters at this point, because the rarity of the comic is not based on the print runs then, but the extant copies now.<<