What did I just buy TMNT #1?? 11 11

[Dr. Balls]

On 8/8/2023 at 5:14 PM, Mike Oliver said:

So this could be a counterfeit?

I dunno - my guess it's a different counterfeit, especially without a price on the back cover. But the inside is a newsprint/web-press type of paper, that's a lot of trouble to go through to make a counterfeit and miss a big detail like that on the back cover.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Dr. Balls

[Domo Arigato]

It's.......the ASHCAN ! ! ! 

 

[Dr. Balls]

On 8/8/2023 at 5:15 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

I'm at the theater to see a Prescreen heart of stone, a Netflix movie, and I've been smelling popcorn for an hour 😆

It'd be great to put up your thoughts in the movie area - I thought it looked pretty good, but I don't know anyone who's going to go see it.

[Beige]

On 8/9/2023 at 9:19 AM, Domo Arigato said:

It's.......the ASHCAN ! ! ! 

 

I'm assuming that's the jackpot?

[Comics4All]

@Ryan.

@SpideyFein

What are your thoughts?

[grendelbo]

[wiparker824]

This book has a long history of counterfeits being common as others have said. Normally the ones I’ve seen were more lazy, they just white out the 2nd print text on the inner cover but the ad page at the end would be different. This doesn’t look like that but counterfeit seems likely with the missing price.

[SpideyFein]

On 8/8/2023 at 8:02 PM, Comics4All said:

@Ryan.

@SpideyFein

What are your thoughts?

Hey, I believe this is a reprint, but I’m not sure what year it’s from. It’s not a counterfeit. You could tell by the color, cut and wrap, and yes, the back cover. Adam has nearly every reprint so he would no best. The counterfeits were meant to be exactly like the originals, but the color was off. Some were hard to recognize. Regarding the Gobbledlygooks, the color was yellow and usually more recognizable. The site that @Dr. Balls posted is a wealth of good knowledge about the different prints. 
 

To the op- I wish this was an original 1st for you. Either way it’s a nice reprint that looks great and you could read the awesome story! 

[Ryan.]

Man that's a weird one. I thought i knew all of the reprints but I'm not familiar with this one. No cover price. Very strange. 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 8/8/2023 at 6:22 PM, Dr. Balls said:

It'd be great to put up your thoughts in the movie area - I thought it looked pretty good, but I don't know anyone who's going to go see it.

So no tags answered yet? It'll come, they handed out cards!

[wiparker824]

On 8/8/2023 at 6:13 PM, Ryan. said:

Man that's a weird one. I thought i knew all of the reprints but I'm not familiar with this one. No cover price. Very strange. 

Same. If this is a reprint and not a counterfeit it’s a new one to me. It’s not a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th print. Also not any of the more modern reprints I’ve seen like the 2020 shattered ones, or the loot crate one, not the convention exclusives, GameStop promo… probably a few more I don’t remember off the top of my head. 

[OtherEric]

Not to get hopes up, but does it look like somebody put black marker over the price?  I can't tell from the picture, but it seems unlikely because I don't see bleed-through on the inside back cover.  But I've seen more than a few books at antique malls or thrift stores where they mark out the price like that, it's normally very visible but with white printing on black it could be less obvious.

[Ryan.]

On 8/9/2023 at 12:24 AM, OtherEric said:

Not to get hopes up, but does it look like somebody put black marker over the price?  I can't tell from the picture, but it seems unlikely because I don't see bleed-through on the inside back cover.  But I've seen more than a few books at antique malls or thrift stores where they mark out the price like that, it's normally very visible but with white printing on black it could be less obvious.

I had the same thought.

[SpideyFein]

On 8/9/2023 at 12:24 AM, OtherEric said:

Not to get hopes up, but does it look like somebody put black marker over the price?  I can't tell from the picture, but it seems unlikely because I don't see bleed-through on the inside back cover.  But I've seen more than a few books at antique malls or thrift stores where they mark out the price like that, it's normally very visible but with white printing on black it could be less obvious.

I just looked at this closely and compared to 1st printings. This book has a slightly thicker  font (1984 Mirage Comics) and the “C” for copyright is slightly different than the originals. 
 

I would love for this to be a first print but I don’t think it is. We just have to find out when this was printed. 

[rjpb]

On 8/9/2023 at 5:17 AM, SpideyFein said:

I just looked at this closely and compared to 1st printings. This book has a slightly thicker  font (1984 Mirage Comics) and the “C” for copyright is slightly different than the originals. 
 

I would love for this to be a first print but I don’t think it is. We just have to find out when this was printed. 

The focus on the photo is a little soft in that area, so it's tough to tell if really different. It also makes it harder to see if a price was blacked out, though one should be able to tell in hand. A black sharpie doesn't tend to bleed through slick paper.

[Bronty]

what are the dimensions of the book?

[Mike Oliver]

On 8/9/2023 at 11:40 AM, Bronty said:

what are the dimensions of the book?

I read up on what the size should be of the book and it’s right are super really close depending on my tape measure

[Mike Oliver]

On 8/9/2023 at 11:33 AM, rjpb said:

The focus on the photo is a little soft in that area, so it's tough to tell if really different. It also makes it harder to see if a price was blacked out, though one should be able to tell in hand. A black sharpie doesn't tend to bleed through slick paper.

As for the price it doesn’t appear to marked out. No bleeding on the inside of the cover as mentioned above 

[SpideyFein]

@rich_TMNT

[stock_rotation]

It's a modern photocopy. From the photos, it looks like the cover stock is very thin. And in the image on the inside front cover, it looks like the shadows behind the sign are made of blurry dots. This version's border line in the upper righthand corner of the sign doesn't seem to be broken.

Below is from a scan of a 2nd print