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

[sfcityduck]

On 6/25/2024 at 5:50 AM, stock_rotation said:

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.

M.C. Gaines wrote an interesting article about comic book printing for a 1943 or so issue of Print Journal. It goes into this in detail. So I know all that. What I got wrong is what I admitted above - I misremembered that the indicia was on the first interior page not, as it is, the inside cover. My mistake.

[Crowzilla]

On 6/25/2024 at 1:32 PM, sfcityduck said:

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."...

Except Moondog made the assertion with information from a DC exec. Why should we believe a DC exec over the brother of the publisher (who may or may not have been on hand at the time)? For the same reason we disbelieve a lot of 45 year old memories when stories are suddenly told for the first time; they can be wrong. Whether on purpose or just mis-remembered to fit the narrative. We already know that things like the oft-repeated episode of Goodman golfing with DC execs and then ordering Stan to create a superhero team is a complete fabrication, as are many of Stan's stories.

Given all the information we've gotten from people involved with publishing, and having the paper example shown above, it seems far more likely that Goodman saw the Oct date, didn't like it and had them correct it mid-run. It is only one plate correction. The fact that cover sheets are 8-up (meaning four complete covers per set) can easily account for the variations of the black dot and even the November placement (though Dice believes the Nov was stamped afterwards). So you correct indicia and put the dot, all on the same plate and continue the run.

From that, we have a 80,000 print run where maybe 8,000 were deemed damaged/useless with October dates, but the issue sold well and Goodman went ahead selling the spoiled/October portion and had them placed close by the printer so no time would be lost trucking them across the country. Years later instead of 10% damaged it became we did 10x the run to fit in with the Marvel was a huge instant success narrative that they were trying to push (in 1983).

If any part of the story is incorrect I think it is the 800,000 print run (again no book sold nearly that much, Goodman was cash strapped and probably couldn't even afford such a run, easier to be like Superman and order multiple printings if sales warranted it, etc). You correct the date while printing to ensure maximum time on the stands, you work the phones to get sales info, decide it's a success, sell the spoiled/October copies and decide to go ahead and make a second issue (still not confident enough to put an issue number on the front of the second one, but if it does well also let's redo the logo and tie it into our pulps).

Unfortunately at this point it's all speculation and doubtful we will ever know. But I do look forward to another thread on it in 15 years which references back to this one.

[sfcityduck]

On 6/25/2024 at 3:13 PM, Crowzilla said:

 

Unfortunately at this point it's all speculation and doubtful we will ever know. But I do look forward to another thread on it in 15 years which references back to this one.

Now that is funny and true. I just hope that CGC never deletes the old threads. I'd like to see them all archived.

[Crowzilla]

One other thing that I believe supports the single theory run that we haven't touched on (or forget if we did after so many years gap) is the position of the "Nov" on all the copies and the fact that it changes so much.

If you really order a separate run a week later and are taking time to correct the plates, the Nov should be in the same position relative to the black dot covering Oct everytime. The fact that it isn't suggests a more rushed job, as in correcting a run already being printed.

[sfcityduck]

On 6/25/2024 at 3:13 PM, Crowzilla said:

Except Moondog made the assertion with information from a DC exec. Why should we believe a DC exec over the brother of the publisher (who may or may not have been on hand at the time)? For the same reason we disbelieve a lot of 45 year old memories when stories are suddenly told for the first time; they can be wrong. Whether on purpose or just mis-remembered to fit the narrative. We already know that things like the oft-repeated episode of Goodman golfing with DC execs and then ordering Stan to create a superhero team is a complete fabrication, as are many of Stan's stories.

 

Definitely funny that we are back having this exchange since we had it 15 years ago or so and what I said then still causes me to believe Art Goodman was a more credible source than the unnamed DC exec:

>>>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.<<

To repeat, Art Goodman, who it is my understanding worked for Martin back in the relevant time period would have a reason to recall how Marvel Comics got started. The detailed on print runs, probably not. The test printing, happy sales feedback, and gamble on a bigger print run - that seems absolutely like the kind of details a businessman would remember about the founding of a comic book publishing empire. So Art Goodman's story rings true to me. 

I can't assess the credibility of the unnamed DC exec's story. And other objective evidence makes me feel that the test printing story makes the most sense. As I understand it there are October and November copies emerging from the same regions. We know for a certainty that Funnies Inc. got an October copy early (Compton) in the print run and also got November copies (Pay Copy) - which seems more consistent with two print runs than one to me. We also know that some of the timing assertions which were cited in old threads to support the one print run theory aren't supported (such as the "pay date" on the "Pay Copy" reflects the date the run went to the printer). So I don't really see any evidence that I can assess for credibility other than Art Goodman's recollection which seem credible to me.

And I have no idea why Stan Lee is being dragged into this debate - he wasn't working for Goodman when Marvel Comics 1 came out. And he's never said anything that I know of about what happened back when it did.

 

[sfcityduck]

On 6/25/2024 at 3:47 PM, Crowzilla said:

One other thing that I believe supports the single theory run that we haven't touched on (or forget if we did after so many years gap) is the position of the "Nov" on all the copies and the fact that it changes so much.

If you really order a separate run a week later and are taking time to correct the plates, the Nov should be in the same position relative to the black dot covering Oct everytime. The fact that it isn't suggests a more rushed job, as in correcting a run already being printed.

Back in the day, the supposed "floating" blackout and "Nov." were cited to support the existence of three print runs because it seemed like the majority of blackouts and "Nov.'s" were in the same position, and a small percentage were is a second position, suggesting that there may have been two print runs of Nov. copies. What's also obvious is that for the Oct. copies themselves, the plates moved because the registration varies on the Oct. copies which would have been before any "rush." Examples:

Registration also varies on Nov. copies. My conclusion: The plates move during the print run. I'd imagine that for the bigger the run (e.g. Nov.), the more movement you'd see.

[sfcityduck]

Finally, I do want to emphasize that I don't see the bonus Oct. copies can bring as hurting Nov. values. There are two few Oct. copies for Nov. copies to be materially impacted. Some folks may be willing to pay extra for Oct. copies, but I'm not sure I've seen two equivalent copies come up for sale to prove that, but that's not hurting the huge demand that also exists for Nov. copies.

[Crowzilla]

On 6/25/2024 at 6:47 PM, sfcityduck said:

Definitely funny that we are back having this exchange since we had it 15 years ago or so and what I said then still causes me to believe Art Goodman was a more credible source than the unnamed DC exec:

To repeat, Art Goodman, who it is my understanding worked for Martin back in the relevant time period would have a reason to recall how Marvel Comics got started. The detailed on print runs, probably not. The test printing, happy sales feedback, and gamble on a bigger print run - that seems absolutely like the kind of details a businessman would remember about the founding of a comic book publishing empire. So Art Goodman's story rings true to me. 

I can't assess the credibility of the unnamed DC exec's story. And other objective evidence makes me feel that the test printing story makes the most sense. As I understand it there are October and November copies emerging from the same regions. We know for a certainty that Funnies Inc. got an October copy early (Compton) in the print run and also got November copies (Pay Copy) - which seems more consistent with two print runs than one to me. We also know that some of the timing assertions which were cited in old threads to support the one print run theory aren't supported (such as the "pay date" on the "Pay Copy" reflects the date the run went to the printer). So I don't really see any evidence that I can assess for credibility other than Art Goodman's recollection which seem credible to me.

 

This is what makes jury trials so much fun, people can look at the same set of evidence and come up with two entirely different reasons that a sequence of events happened.

To paraphrase Dr. Zaius, I can offer alternate reasons for every one of those scenarios which are just ingenious as your imaginative ones. 

Funnies Inc got October and November copies? Of course they did - they came from the same batch and were sent over at the same time, because they were printed at the same time. Art was a businessman and was there at the beginning? Is this true? I thought we've always been told Simon was Timely's first employee, and that Art didn't come along until the 40s as a colorist. Never knew anything about him being a businessman. Why would he have any particular reason to remember what happened with this one book as opposed to any other his brother produced? The company was almost out of business 15 years later, and it wasn't until 25+ years later that the importance of Marvel #1 started to be realized. It's only natural that when bragging about his brother 45 years later he's going to embellish the story a little. Registration varies on October and November copies? Hello - same print run. If registration was off on October copies, they would fix it when they went back to press a week+ later (they would also make the "Nov" part of the plate for a second run, which they obviously didn't do). Went back to press for a second run? Yes - because they stopped the presses to correct the "Oct" mistake and ended up printing 10x as many "Nov" copies as they did October. Found out it was a hit and ordered more? Yes, ordered more comics to be made which resulted in Marvel #2, heck Goodman even told his only employee Simon to start working on a second title as soon as possible. I know one thing - if I released a book that was the biggest hit the market had ever seen, I'd make sure the guy on the cover was featured on the next issue and the issue after that also.

But absent finding any new records or facts which would sway the argument one way or another, we just aren't going to know.

[sfcityduck]

On 6/25/2024 at 9:32 PM, Crowzilla said:

This is what makes jury trials so much fun, people can look at the same set of evidence and come up with two entirely different reasons that a sequence of events happened.

 

But absent finding any new records or facts which would sway the argument one way or another, we just aren't going to know.

Completely agree. We just don't have enough evidence for any definitive conclusions.

[Silver Surfer]

I’m still of the camp that October comes before November.  Back then could they simply have kept printing extra November copies late into September to stock shelves and meet the unexpected demand. If resources were thin at the time would it be out of the question to think that they needed to wait to collect more cash to continue funding the demand, even if it meant encroaching into issue #2’s release time frame?

[jimjum12]

What if the NOV copies were remaindered OCT copies that were collected, NOT destroyed, and then stamped NOV and redistributed to areas that were outside of the original "test" market? Just between me and the fence post, it seems like something *ahem*, unorthodox, was afoot. As for the original question, I've seen less than half a dozen OCT copies and probably 5 times that with NOV ... then again, I'm not all seeing. My take?, a lot was riding on the success of OCT, it underwhelmed, and failure was not an option. Somewhere there may still be records of 2 different printings, or just one, for example  GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

... maybe Moms were uncomfortable buying a magazine, with a human being set on fire, for their 7 year olds?

Edited Wednesday at 12:13 PM by jimjum12

[CGC Mike]

On 6/25/2024 at 6:32 PM, sfcityduck said:

On 6/25/2024 at 6:13 PM, Crowzilla said:

 

Unfortunately at this point it's all speculation and doubtful we will ever know. But I do look forward to another thread on it in 15 years which references back to this one.

Now that is funny and true. I just hope that CGC never deletes the old threads. I'd like to see them all archived.

We don't delete old threads.  About 3 or 4 years ago, we started to see archived threads for the first time.  Dena and I looked into this during a meeting.  We found the settings.  Threads that saw no activity for a set amount of time (5 years) were archived.  We changed it to 12 years.  Threads can be unarchived by sending me a link to it.  Once unarchived, it will not be archived again. 

[Silver Surfer]

On 6/26/2024 at 5:11 AM, jimjum12 said:

What if the NOV copies were remaindered OCT copies that were collected, NOT destroyed, and then stamped NOV and redistributed to areas that were outside of the original "test" market? Just between me and the fence post, it seems like something *ahem*, unorthodox, was afoot. As for the original question, I've seen less than half a dozen OCT copies and probably 5 times that with NOV ... then again, I'm not all seeing. My take?, a lot was riding on the success of OCT, it underwhelmed, and failure was not an option. Somewhere there may still be records of 2 different printings, or just one, for example  GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

... maybe Moms were uncomfortable buying a magazine, with a human being set on fire, for their 7 year olds?

Interesting but then presumably also working on issue #2 at the same time? If it was a success then just printing more copies would make sense but I wouldn’t rule out your suggestion. 

[jimjum12]

On 6/26/2024 at 5:10 PM, Silver Surfer said:

Interesting but then presumably also working on issue #2 at the same time? If it was a success then just printing more copies would make sense but I wouldn’t rule out your suggestion. 

There are so many potentialities. It would have been a frugal way to get closer to total sell through, while granting yourself the time to increase frequency of publication. The NOV stamp could have been added in much the way that serial numbers are added to a raffle ticket. GOD BLESS ... 

jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Edited Thursday at 07:04 AM by jimjum12

[Ameri]

Here's an example of a slug or overprint on a 1937 Goodman pulp and the overprint on Mystic 4

[Ameri]

Someone brought up the indicia and how it changed. Here's several examples. Like the moving NOV slug, the black strikeout tended to move from copy to copy as well.

[G.A.tor]

On 6/21/2024 at 11:49 PM, Primetime said:

I have personally counted maybe a dozen in the last thirty years of collecting. I’m sure @G.A.tor can give a more accurate account since he has owned Octobers. 

I’ve only owned 3 Oct and more than 20 Nov 

There aren’t many out there I’d guess 

[Primetime]

On 6/26/2024 at 6:34 PM, G.A.tor said:

I’ve only owned 3 Oct and more than 20 Nov 

There aren’t many out there I’d guess 

👋🏾🐊

[stock_rotation]

On 6/26/2024 at 8:50 PM, Ameri said:

Someone brought up the indicia and how it changed. Here's several examples. Like the moving NOV slug, the black strikeout tended to move from copy to copy as well.

I think an explanation for the moving Nov and strikeout is that they were set up on a different plate that had no reference point in regards to the actual black plate. They probably eyeballed the positioning, and if they printed multiple up (which they most certainly did), there's 4 sets of new plates. I doubt there are enough extant examples, but I'd expect that with a large enough sample group, you'd find the NOV and the strikeout fall into several consistent positions.

The text addition to the indicia is no problem because that's likely lead type and just added to the existing black plate. 

[zen514]

On 6/26/2024 at 9:34 PM, G.A.tor said:

I’ve only owned 3 Oct and more than 20 Nov 

There aren’t many out there I’d guess 

How many were Unrestored for the October copies and Unrestored for November Copies