Action Comics #96 9.8 or Action #4 8.0, which is a better investment?

[Rip]

What is the grade on the MH Action 1. I have heard it was 9.6

I have also heard it was a little less

[Aman619]

The Mile High Superman had a piece added to the centerfold which replaced a missing piece. I believe that "replaced" piece has been removed leaving the original piece out. The book has some color touch and an erasure on the cover. The Mile High Superman #1 is a second hand Mile High. It does not have the codes.

 

Superman #1 was made up of several printing but there are no printing differences. Batman #1 had 2 printings. The difference is the # on the cover. One printing says No. 1 and the other printing says No 1.

 

The Action #1 Mile High does not have color touch. The Batman #1 Mile High has minor color touch.

 

Nice to have the "Authority" himself on board with us tonight! (icon of bowing and scraping in respect).

 

Do you agree Bechara paid far too much for the book ?

 

Have you seen the MH Action#1? Apparently only a handful ever have. Glad you agree its clean.

 

Thats cool about the Batman#1 numbering.

 

What do you think of the MH Adventure 40 and 61 currently in Heritage's auctions? Which has more work? Seems like the 61 has more color touch. I could live with one small color touch-but not a huge Snyder coloring book! And glue bothers me.

 

[metropoliscomics]

The Action #1 would get a 9.2 if it was in a CGC holder

[Rip]

Thanks for the answer. Last question regarding the MH Action. Is it true the Jay P. offered a large sum of money, (well over 2 million for the copy) and was turned down?

[metropoliscomics]

I have seen the Mile High Action #1. It's nice but not perfect.

 

Bechara paid too much for the Superman #1. The book is not worth what he thinks it is worth.

 

I have sold both the MH Adventure #40 and the Adventure #61. The Adv #40 is much nicer and has much less work. I think sold the #61 to the current owner about 17 years ago for about $1500. I graded the book at VF with color touch. The Adventure #40 have been owned in the past by all the major players and never been considered "restored". The major problem with the book is the puple holder. That book is a killer.

[Aman619]

The Action #1 would get a 9.2 if it was in a CGC holder

 

there was a thread here a few months ago asking which are the top five copies of Action #1, Detective #27 and Marvel #1. Since you have probably owned 12 or 13 of these 15 books over the years. How would you rank them in order.....if you would please!

[tb]

Whoa! - since we are batting 100% on all the toughball questions tonight, let's

raise the bar another notch:

 

How does the Crescent City copy of WDC&S #1 compare to the Denver copy?

Have any Crescent City copies been certified so far? Who bought the Crescent

City collection?

[Aman619]

I thought of another question: the one that started this thread.

 

What would you advise Mr Glass to do? Which would you buy?

The MH Action #96 or the Action #4 8.0 ?

[lou_fine]

Steve;

 

It's nice to have you on board and providing us with some invaluable information. Based upon your professional opinion, does the MH Adventure #40 have less work done to it as compared to the MH More Fun #52? From reading the descriptions of the two books, it sounds to me as though the blue label should have been given to the ADV #4 and the purple label should have been given to the MF #52.

 

I believe that Nic Cage may have been given the short end of the stick since from the sounds of it, all of his books may have been graded quite tightly. The More Fun may have been given the benefit of the doubt due to a conflict of interest.

 

Either way, this indicates to me that all books should be given a blue label with a CGC condition ALONG with a restoration rating. A totally unrestored book would then be given a restoration rating of zero (R-0). I believe this indiscriminate use of colour labels will result in the Adventure #40 going for somewhere in the $60,000 - $80,000 range while the More Fun #52 has already sold for over $200,000 a few years ago.

 

This indiscriminate use of colour labels places too much power in the hands of CGC to determine the final price. The marketplace should be allowed to determine the acceptability and price of an R-2 or R-4 book just like how they are now able to determine the acceptability and final price of an 9.2 or 9.6 book. IMHO

[PovertyRow]

This indiscriminate use of colour labels places too much power in the hands of CGC to determine the final price. The marketplace should be allowed to determine the acceptability and price of an R-2 or R-4 book just like how they are now able to determine the acceptability and final price of an 9.2 or 9.6 book. IMHO

 

Absolutely no question. The use of different color labels is ultimately 180 degrees from what CGC claims to be doing - that is, not influencing the marketplace. All slabbed books should be one color. Make the notes determine the specificity of each book. We are not so dumb we need color flash cards!

[tb]

Couldn't agree more - that Tinky-Winky holder is an insult to a book

that should be in the Golden Age Hall of Fame.

 

[ultimatevenom]

Which would you buy?

The MH Action #96 or the Action #4 8.0 ?

 

Lets see i would rather have the Mile High

[PovertyRow]

Yeah - sounds kinda dipsy to me!

[Aman619]

Couldn't agree more - that Tinky-Winky holder is an insult to a book

that should be in the Golden Age Hall of Fame.

 

I suppose...but why do I get the feeling that the proposed "R-" ratings to replace the purple label would then become the kiss of death?? The purple label and any other kind of notation anyone can propose noting the presense of restoration will kill the books value. Th epuple label is hated not because its different from Blue; or obvious from a distance - - - Its the kiss of death because of what it represents!!

 

Its the presense of RESTORATION that kills the book...not the method CGC adopts to convey that information.

[lou_fine]

The colour of the label is the final determining factor in the eventual price of the book. Just go back and check some of the Heritage auction results. Blue labelled books WITH RESTORATION still goes for a relatively high price (ie. Mile High ore Fun #52) whereas purple label books with relatively the same amount of restoration (ie. MH Adventure #40) gets the kiss of death from CGC.

 

There are many more examples of blue labelled books with restoration mentioned only in the notes and they have had only minor impact on the prices. IT IS the colour of the label which represents the kiss of death for a book. All books should have the same colour label and have a restoration rating level attached to it INCLUDING the unrestored books. To put it another way, should we have another colour label for all books which fall below the 9.0 condition grade. I believe we should leave it up to the marketplace to determine both the acceptability and final price of a book based upon both condition AND degree of restoration.

 

We should be able to read well enough that we do not need CGC to use colour flash cards on all of our books. IMHO

[Timely]

Lou Fine.

 

The More Fun #52 has less repair than the Adv. #40. You cannot even see it through the CGC holder.

 

I do believe the Adv #40 is a bit rarer in all grades though.

 

Timely

[PedigreeMan]

1) How do you distinguish the 3 different printings of Superman #1 and #2?

 

hkp,

 

Have you read David Bachman's article "Superman #1.1?" printed in APA-I #63 and Interlac #103? He talks about the differences in the house ad for Action #14. I can post a copy of it if you're interested.

 

Haven't heard any definitive way to tell subsequent printings on Superman #2, though ....

 

Alan

[tb]

Alan,

 

I would love to see that article!! Posting it would be super.

Am sure many other people here would be very interested as

well.

 

[PedigreeMan]

The following article was written by David Bachman and appeared in the apa mailings APA-I #63 and Interlac #103. It is reproduced here without permission!

 

 

"Superman #1.1?

"When, in recent years, DC Comics went back to press for second printings of the better-selling issues of its top titles, the move was perceived by some as a departure from a supposedly iron-clad policy of producing only original editions of its newsstand comic books. However, I have recently discovered evidence suggesting that DC's practice of producing second printings of specific issues dates back much further than, I think, most readers had previously suspected. Indeed, the practice appears to date back at least as far as the 1939 version of Superman #1.

 

"I have recently been spending time with my microfiche copies of Golden Age comics and my microfiche viewer, all from MicroColor International. I have in mind a number of objectives as I read these old comics, not the least of which is the simple enjoyment of the stories and art. Another objective has been to get some sense of the publishing schedule of the early DC, and more specifically to determine the publishing month in which DC's early quarterly comics were published. (DC's monthly comics clearly present no problem in this regard. I recall from my earliest days of comic-book collecting that DC's bimonthly titles always listed two months in the indicia, and were scheduled by the former month; I assume that this practice was also followed in DC's earliest days. Since DC's earliest quarterly comics were dated by season, rather than month, I have always been slightly curious about the publishing month in which those comics were scheduled.) It was this second objective which led me to my discovery.

"Action Comics #13 carried a house ad for Superman #1, specifying its on-sale date as May 18th [1939]. This did not tell me whether Superman #1 should be included in the June cover-date publishing schedule, or the July schedule, since I did not know the on-sale date of the June or July issue of Action Comics. Superman #1, on its last interior page (not the inside back cover), bore a house ad for Action Comics #14. MicroColor's microfiche copy of Superman #1 advertised Action Comics #14 as being 'Now on Sale'. For some reason, I decided to compare the page with its reprints in Famous First Edition #C-61, and in Superman Archives Vol. 1. Both of those reprints said that Action Comics #14 would be 'On Sale June 2nd'.

 

"I noted the inconsistency without assigning much meaning to it. I had (and have) no doubt regarding the authenticity of MicroColor's microfiche copy, since it was simply photographed from an genuine Superman #1. I initially assumed that DC had made an error in reprinting that issue. But as I reflected on the matter, I came to a different conclusion. I decided that Superman #1 must have gone through at least two printings, and reasoned that if I could find non-reprint evidence of a Superman #1 advertising an on-sale date of June 2nd for Action Comics #14, my hypothesis could be proven. This led me to call some of you APA-I members (past and present) in search of that comic. My thanks to Rich Morrissey, Howard Keltner, and Randy Scott for your assistance in my research. It was Randy who first confirmed for me by telephone that he had microfilm confirmation of the 'On Sale June 2nd' version, and Howard who first sent me evidence by mail of that version in the form of a pre-MicroColor microfiche copy of Superman #1. Copies of both versions appear in this zine (albeit in negative, since the only decent fiche printer I could find was stuck on negative).

 

"The order of publication of these two versions can be deduced intuitively. The version announcing that Action Comics #14 would go 'On Sale June 2nd' was obviously published prior to publication of Action #14, while the version stating that Action #14 was 'Now on Sale' was obviously published concurrently with, or subsequent to, Action #14. Hence (and assuming there were not more than two printings!), the 'On Sale June 2nd' version is the first printing, and the 'Now on Sale' version is the second printing.

 

"There are other anomalies surrounding this first Superman issue, although these may be widely known. Superman #1 was not, in fact, Superman #1. It bore no number and no date (except a copy-right date), either on the cover, or in the indicia. More significantly, it bore no notice of second-class mail permit in its indicia, an item that must be carried by any publication that will be published periodically and sent to subscribers via second-class mail. The house ad in Action Comics #13 referred to it as 'a big complete Superman book' rather than as a new title. And the house ad for Superman #2 in Action Comics #17 stated, 'Your overwhelming approval of the first magazine has prompted us to publish this second one....' Cumulatively, these items convince me that the publication we refer to as Superman #1 was actually intended to be a one-shot publication. Its 'overwhelming' success, then, apparently prompted two reactions by its publisher: (1) publication of a second printing, and (2) a decision to initiate a new quarterly title featuring only Superman stories.

 

"I am very interested in learning whether this has previously been known in fan circles. None of the people I talked with had ever heard that Superman #1 went through two printings. If this information is not new to any of you, please let me know."

 

 

Mr. Bachman also provides this tidbit of info:

 

Soon after I published this information in APA-I, I received a package from Robert Klein. The package contained photocopies of writings of [former DC attorney] Michael Uslan .... I learned from Mr. Klein's package that there were three, not merely two, printings of Superman #1. I never did find a way to determine whether any particular copy of #1 was a first, second, or third printing. I think the most supportable statement we can make is that a copy with "Now on Sale" is definitely NOT a first printing, and that a copy with "On Sale June 2nd" is definitely NOT a third printing.

 

Alan

 

[Rip]

5 stars for you. Wow!