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

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 8/9/2023 at 6:51 PM, Mike Oliver said:

Sorry my bad yes it  was antique store I go to bunch of both they are free to go to lol. I canceled that sell after every one said it was it was most likely a fake. And yes taking pictures while driving was the best idea but I was I trying to figure out what I had and I excited to find out 

 

  glad now it's all in good fun! Since you canceled the sale

 hope you can get some feedback! I think it is funny that you typed the was the best! 

 

[Mike Oliver]

On 8/9/2023 at 7:02 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

  glad now it's all in good fun! Since you canceled the sale

 hope you can get some feedback! I think it is funny that you typed the was the best! 

 

 

Yea never seeing a turtles #1 I had no idea what it was and I’ve  read stories about people finding scores at yard sales, flee markets, antique stores so I just thought I became one of them people  

[rich_TMNT]

Hi everyone. Sorry I'm late to the game here. I was in talks with @Mike Oliver (the OP buyer) on my FB page about this book and just now saw that @SpideyFein had tagged me here (thanks, btw!).  All this can get SO confusing and there's so much to discuss - I'll try to clearly lay out a few things.  However, bottom line here is that this is 100% not a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Printing of TMNT #1 and isn't an official reprinting of #1 that's ever been made for retail sale by Mirage, IDW, or any other publisher.  But, I hesitate anymore to use the "counterfeit" label / term on these copies that aren't official but have interior pages on newsprint (although for the sake of labeling them for clarity, I'll use the term "counterfeit" in parenthesis here).  I say that because, as @Dr. Balls mentioned previously, printing on newsprint paper (unless there's something I'm unaware of) requires offset / web press printing that is very logistically involved and really isn't something cost-effective for something you only see a few copies of surface every once in a while. There are also very weird / unique interior page characteristics with the counterfeits I've seen to date that makes me wonder where the heck these ever came from - things that don't completely mesh with using full scans of actual copies. Let me lay out some things here about TMNT #1 that hopefully provides some good insights (and I've linked to pics and info. in order to save space).  There's also a wealth of info. about TMNT #1 (specifically related to the TMNT #1 Negatives) in the articles I wrote about the authentication work I did on them.

Page 29 - in the lower right corner of Page 29 on the 1st & 2nd printings, a line missing from the artwork, which is directly tied to the way the TMNT #1 Negatives used to make the 1st & 2nd printings were prepared (stripped).  The 1st & 2nd printings are the ONLY printings of TMNT #1 I've ever found to be missing this line (which makes sense since the 3rd printing used a different printer and thus, a different set of negatives, plus subsequent printings -including IDWs- likely used original artwork scans or digital files made from the original artwork or master files).  My personal "counterfeit" copy of TMNT #1 (which isn't just a 2nd or 3rd printing with the printing designation removed) ALSO does not have this line present in the Page 29 artwork. However, the "counterfeit" copy in question in this thread DOES have this line present.  So, that would seem to indicate that 1) the TMNT #1 1st & 2nd printing negatives could have been used to produce some of these newsprint "counterfeits" and 2) scans of 1st & 2nd printings couldn't have been used for the "counterfeit" in discussion here.  A 3rd Printing could have been used for this "counterfeit" being discussed (or even the negatives for the 3rd printing, which don't exist anymore) - the quality of the 3rd printing was sub-par and the page images are smaller than 1st & 2nd printings (just like in this "counterfeit" - although I find the print quality on this "counterfeit" to be better than a 3rd printing).

Page 33 - this page has a bunch of stuff that's interesting between the 3rd printing and the 1st/2nd printings.  But, the thing about this page that is really unique when it comes to the "counterfeits" is Shredder's left fist in the lower left panel. The first three printings (1st, 2nd, & 3rd) of TMNT #1 don't print the entirety of this fist - the knuckle of Shredder's little finger is cut off.  However, in the newsprint "counterfeits" I've seen (one of which I own - the other is the one from this thread), the entire fist is printed / visible.  That's a real oddity for a couple reasons - 1) "counterfeits" I'm aware of couldn't have used scans of the first three printings since they don't show the full knuckle - 2) the negative used to print the 1st & 2nd printings actually has the full fist visible and unmasked so it SHOULD have printed completely on the 1st & 2nd printings but didn't - likely because that fist extends far outside the printable page boundary that was burned to plate by the printers. So, we already know from Page 29 that the TMNT #1 negatives COULD have only been used for one version of the "counterfeit" but not the one here since the line is present.  But now with Page 33 from both "counterfeits" having the full fist visible AS WELL AS the negative having the full fist visible - it's kind of a mystery.  

I won't go into other pages here but there's more about other pages in the articles I wrote. All to say, I've come to a feasible hypothesis on newsprint "counterfeits" which is essentially that I do think there is a good possibility that these newsprint copies that don't match 1st, 2nd, or 3rd printings and get labeled as "counterfeits" might actually be some type of proof copies or something akin to that. I continue to study all the printings of TMNT #1 as much as possible and I've just not found a good reason why there are very few newsprint "counterfeits" that actually exist (or, at least that have surfaced).  With newsprint page printing requiring so much effort, if these "counterfeits" were intentional to pass as authentic copies, why aren't there hundreds or even thousands out there? 

Regarding the covers on "counterfeits," mine doesn't have the detailed cross-hatching on the cover in the mainly dark areas and the red isn't as vibrant (almost more pink) - that's a pretty obvious giveaway that doesn't match the 1st printing cover. But, is that because the cover used for it was a proof of some sort that got rejected for mass production due to poor quality with the color and cross-hatching?  For the cover used on the "counterfeit" in question here, there's the obvious omission of the price on the back cover below the copyright info. It would seem that's a pretty glaringly obvious thing that shouldn't have been omitted by a counterfeiter (especially when you think about how in the world that cover could have been scanned from an original copy and NOT have that price on there - that's bizarre to me since every 1st, 2nd, & 3rd printing has that price on the back cover).  So, is that price missing on this "counterfeit" because it was a proof of some sort that got rejected due to the missing price?  But, if so, why does the cover of this "counterfeit" more closely match the 1st/2nd printings that it does a 3rd printing yet the interiors more closely resemble the 3rd printing in terms of artwork size and page spacing?  

So much to think about and it all just adds to the mysterious and awesome history of TMNT #1.  I hope to someday get to the bottom of all of this but, until then, it sure makes for an awesome thread. 

[stock_rotation]

On 8/9/2023 at 10:10 PM, rich_TMNT said:

But, I hesitate anymore to use the "counterfeit" label / term on these copies that aren't official but have interior pages on newsprint (although for the sake of labeling them for clarity, I'll use the term "counterfeit" in parenthesis here).  I say that because, as @Dr. Balls mentioned previously, printing on newsprint paper (unless there's something I'm unaware of) requires offset / web press printing that is very logistically involved and really isn't something cost-effective for something you only see a few copies of surface every once in a while.

This is not true. You can buy 11x17 newsprint that will run in any modern digital copier.

https://paperworks.com/store/products/newsprint-white-11x17-30lb-5lbbox

Ebay is full of repro SA comics that use this paper.

Quote

Page 33 - this page has a bunch of stuff that's interesting between the 3rd printing and the 1st/2nd printings.  But, the thing about this page that is really unique when it comes to the "counterfeits" is Shredder's left fist in the lower left panel. The first three printings (1st, 2nd, & 3rd) of TMNT #1 don't print the entirety of this fist - the knuckle of Shredder's little finger is cut off. 

This is also not true. I personally scanned my TMNT 2nd print which I bought when it was released. I recently sold this book on eBay, so I'm no longer in possession of it, but I have full 600DPI scans of every page. This is a crop of the bottom of the page in question.

And since you'll probably ask, yes, it has the mark at the top of the left hand side of the page.

Edited August 10, 2023 by stock_rotation

[stock_rotation]

Also, for anyone assuming good faith, honest mistake, etc. You should actually look at the auction in question. Seller included a picture of the interior that has @rich_TMNT watermarks all over it. How does that happen accidentally?

Edited August 10, 2023 by stock_rotation

[wiparker824]

This is the thread that keeps on giving. 

[godzilla43]

I would have first find out what it is that I am selling before listing it to Ebay.

[Mystafo]

I am one confused guy...wtf is going on lol?

[wiparker824]

On 8/9/2023 at 9:22 PM, godzilla43 said:

I would have first find out what it is that I am selling before listing it to Ebay.

That’s asking a lot from a guy who was doing 80mph driving home from the flea market antique shop while taking pictures of the interior pages to post for the eBay listing. 

But yes, you are correct. Because if you actually did have a 1st print (or even thought there was a real chance you did) the last thing you’d want to do is hastily throw it up on eBay with an ambiguous listing that had 3 questions posed in the title - “1st? 2nd? 3rd? Print”. Especially since you’re estimating it at a 9.4 potential grade, which would land a value of around 35k. It’s almost as if the seller knew it wasn’t a 1st print but wanted to find a buyer (sucker) who might believe it is. 

Edited August 10, 2023 by wiparker824

[ExNihilo]

On 8/9/2023 at 9:46 PM, wiparker824 said:

That’s asking a lot from a guy who was doing 80mph driving home from the flea market antique shop while taking pictures of the interior pages to post for the eBay listing. 

But yes, you are correct. Because if you actually did have a 1st print (or even thought there was a real chance you did) the last thing you’d want to do is hastily throw it up on eBay with an ambiguous listing that had 3 questions posed in the title - “1st? 2nd? 3rd? Print”. Especially since you’re estimating it at a 9.4 potential grade, which would land a value of around 35k. It’s almost as if the seller knew it wasn’t a 1st print but wanted to find a buyer (sucker) who might believe it is. 

But it seems they did find a sucker.  So what's with the canceled screenshot?  For starters, I find it hard to believe that anyone would spend four figures on a book when the title doesn't make it clear as to what exactly they're buying.  And then beyond that, who cancels a four figure sale knowing the book isn't a 1st or 2nd printing and that they likely sold the book for way more than should have been reasonably expected.  I'm with Mystafo, this whole thing is really confusing.  

[wiparker824]

On 8/9/2023 at 10:31 PM, ExNihilo said:

But it seems they did find a sucker.  So what's with the canceled screenshot?  For starters, I find it hard to believe that anyone would spend four figures on a book when the title doesn't make it clear as to what exactly they're buying.  And then beyond that, who cancels a four figure sale knowing the book isn't a 1st or 2nd printing and that they likely sold the book for way more than should have been reasonably expected.  I'm with Mystafo, this whole thing is really confusing.  

I’ve seen it before. People list ambiguous facsimiles or later printings and people buy them inflated. Happens less now, but early days of facsimiles especially those that were of moderns like UF 4 where you’d expect the book to look brand new got a lot of people. I’m not surprised this TMNT got someone. That book doesn’t look like any of the later reprints, and the last page ad being for gobbledygook only appears in 1st print (not 2nd/3rd), so anyone who knows anything about what they’re buying knows it’s automatically not a 2nd or 3rd even though those are possible options from the listing title. So if you don’t see that price omission on the back cover, you may roll the dice it’s a 1st print. And with eBay’s policy of return money back guarantee for 30 days you can buy and figure it out when you get it. That all seems plausible.

Why cancel it? I don’t know, was being called out here and found a conscious to do the right thing? 

[rich_TMNT]

On 8/9/2023 at 8:36 PM, stock_rotation said:

This is not true. You can buy 11x17 newsprint that will run in any modern digital copier.

https://paperworks.com/store/products/newsprint-white-11x17-30lb-5lbbox

Ebay is full of repro SA comics that use this paper.

This is also not true. I personally scanned my TMNT 2nd print which I bought when it was released. I recently sold this book on eBay, so I'm no longer in possession of it, but I have full 600DPI scans of every page. This is a crop of the bottom of the page in question.

And since you'll probably ask, yes, it has the mark at the top of the left hand side of the page.

Thank you @stock_rotation for the response and feedback on this.

In regards to the sheets of newsprint paper, I've seen that paper before but it's my understanding that paper is for art / packing usage and is not suitable (at least not recommended) for use in copy machines since it absorbs too much ink and results in bleeding / runs on the page. There's a statement to that effect on the page you linked to.  During research for my articles, I went to a local FedEx Kinkos and asked them about the possibilities of newsprint paper and they said their machines wouldn't work with newsprint so they referred me to a local print shop. That shop didn't recommend using newsprint sheets (due to the bleeding) but instead recommended newsprint rolls through a different machine that ran the paper faster through than a normal sheet-fed machine would (similar to how an offset web press would work). That, of course, doesn't mean it couldn't be done on a copier so I suppose that it might be worth maybe doing a test in the future to see what's possible with that type of paper when used in a copier (and what it looks and feels like).  If it turns out that paper works in a copier and produces decent results, that might change my theory about "counterfeits" possibly being proofs.  I am meeting this fall with a major printer on the east coast and will definitely ask about the possibilities of newsprint paper printing (aside from web offset).

In relation to the Page 33 fist - thank you for providing that picture of your 2nd printing.  Would you believe that you're one of three people that have now provided me images of their 2nd printing having the full fist viewable on Page 33?  So...that means it may or may not be fully visible in the 2nd printing which also means that's likely true for the 1st printing as well (maybe even for the 3rd, too).  I'll keep trying to source more interior page images for further research.  But, one neat thing about knowing this fist may or may not be fully visible on Page 33 is that it helps with further authentication of the TMNT #1 Negatives.  That fist being fully visible on the negative but not being visible on the printed page really was a mystery to me since it seemed to be something that SHOULD have printed - but now I see that it's just a printing anomaly that affected some copies but not all.  AND, knowing your Page 33 has the mark in the upper left margin - that's definitely awesome! 

Edited August 10, 2023 by rich_TMNT

[Mutant Manatee]

On 8/9/2023 at 10:34 PM, stock_rotation said:

Also, for anyone assuming good faith, honest mistake, etc. You should actually look at the auction in question. Seller included a picture of the interior that has @rich_TMNT watermarks all over it. How does that happen accidentally?

 

I can actually see how that could happen accidentally.  Perhaps he had been researching the internet to verify what he had and saved that image to his phone for comparison, then when he listed the comic on eBay he accidentally included that photo.  This scenario is more likely if he created the listing while driving.  I'm not sure if he actually did that, but he definitely took some of the photos while driving.  (Illegal in many states but I'm not sure about Louisiana or Mississippi.)  Perhaps in his excitement over what he thought he (possibly) had, he created the listing in haste.

[lostboys]

Maybe its just a fake cover and the inside is real?

[rich_TMNT]

On 8/9/2023 at 9:34 PM, stock_rotation said:

Also, for anyone assuming good faith, honest mistake, etc. You should actually look at the auction in question. Seller included a picture of the interior that has @rich_TMNT watermarks all over it. How does that happen accidentally?

Yikes!  I hadn't noticed a picture on the listing was from my site. I don't understand why it's even included because there's also a picture of that full page spread from the actual book - which doesn't at all match with mine from a 1st printing.  Definitely concerning - something's amiss.  Starting to get a sense that maybe this wasn't found at a store after all and we're all being duped. Hope I'm wrong.

[Ride the Tiger]

If Bitcoinswami were still here he'd have this whole mystery solved. For sure entertainment at its best!

[rich_TMNT]

On 8/10/2023 at 7:16 AM, lostboys said:

Maybe its just a fake cover and the inside is real?

The cover (with exception of the missing price) actually looks pretty good for a non-authentic copy - colors are decent, cross-hatching seems there, and the blood on the sword seems accurate.  But the interior page art scaling doesn't at all match with a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd printing so the interiors are completely something else.

[Domo Arigato]

I think it's clear.

The only person on the planet that likes turles enough to solve this mystery is Jonathan.

 

 

 

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

[stock_rotation]

On 8/10/2023 at 8:46 AM, rich_TMNT said:

Thank you @stock_rotation for the response and feedback on this.

In regards to the sheets of newsprint paper, I've seen that paper before but it's my understanding that paper is for art / packing usage and is not suitable (at least not recommended) for use in copy machines since it absorbs too much ink and results in bleeding / runs on the page. There's a statement to that effect on the page you linked to. 

Copy machines don't use ink. They disperse colored powder (toner) on the surface which is then heated quickly and fuses the toner to the paper. There is no absorption. I suspect the caveat about not being suitable for printing is for consumer-level inkjet printers, where that would actually be a problem. That size of cut-sheet newsprint is meant for consumers; offset printers would either use roll newsprint, or if they were configured for sheetfed, it would be a larger page size like 28" x 40". If you walked into your local printshop with a ream of that paper they'd pass on the job because setting up a press to properly run that paper would likely use up half the ream.

Digital copiers are how current counterfeits (or replicas, as the kids are calling them now) are being produced. Nobody's inking up a press to run 1 or 5 or 10 copies of a comic. The cost would be astronomical. But you can get a single copy of a 36-page color comic printed, stapled and cut to size at your local copy shop for under $20. Cheaper if you get more than one copy.

Quote

That fist being fully visible on the negative but not being visible on the printed page really was a mystery to me since it seemed to be something that SHOULD have printed - but now I see that it's just a printing anomaly that affected some copies but not all

I can provide you with a technical explanation as to what likely happened. I won't bore everyone else with the details; I'll send you a PM.