SUPERMAN #1 different printings 7 7

[Get Marwood & I]

I found this on YouTube which shows the Action #14 back page (on sale June 2nd):

 

 

I wonder if anyone has ever managed to do a page by page comparison of the two alleged inside back page copy versions (I say alleged because I've yet to see a picture showing the 'on sale now' version)? I do a lot of this kind of thing, comparing variations side by side, but generally on much cheaper books!

[Hoarder]

Here are two images from Heritage (not mine) of past sales.

 

[sfcityduck]

On 3/24/2024 at 2:29 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

 

I wonder if anyone has ever managed to do a page by page comparison of the two alleged inside back page copy versions (I say alleged because I've yet to see a picture showing the 'on sale now' version)? I do a lot of this kind of thing, comparing variations side by side, but generally on much cheaper books!

It is assumed DA side by sided the Mile High Supermen 1 with his non-pedigree copy and chose the Non-ped. Would he have looked at more than grade? Did the ad influence him? He is a savvy collector, so who knows.

What would be most interesting to me is side by side comics with the same ad and see if there were other differences that would allow you to identify a third variant.  As it is we’ve got an earlier version and a later version. Knowing the relative populations on each on the census would be helpful.

A few days ago on another thread I brought this issue up to cgc Mike. You can read it here:

 

Edited March 24 by sfcityduck

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/24/2024 at 3:32 PM, Hoarder said:

Here are two images from Heritage (not mine) of past sales.

 

Excellent, nice to see the two versions at last. 

[sfcityduck]

On 3/24/2024 at 9:07 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Excellent, nice to see the two versions at last. 

Not at all difficult for CGC to spot or notate.

If they started notating that a copy is the "On Sale June 2nd ad" version, it would likely force a lot of resubmissions. Folks would want to update their holders if they have that version, as any old holders without that notation might be assumed by the market to be the later version. A win for CGC. 

Edited March 24 by sfcityduck

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/24/2024 at 3:55 PM, sfcityduck said:

What would be most interesting to me is side by side comics with the same ad and see if there were other differences that would allow you to identify a third variant.  As it is we’ve got an earlier version and a later version. Knowing the relative populations on each on the census would be helpful.

Indeed. 

From what I've read so far we only have pictorial evidence of two different versions of the guts. The covers were printed separately of course, so it would be cool if there was an identifiable difference between them too. 

On 3/24/2024 at 4:09 PM, sfcityduck said:

Not at all difficult for CGC to spot or notate.

Indeed again. That may be for reasons other than general laxity though. This is one of the most important comics in the hobby, so salient differences should be noted. But if noting those differences effectively renders one version as a subsequent printing, I can see how that might ruffle a few feathers among the elite group that actually own a copy.

[sfcityduck]

On 3/24/2024 at 9:15 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Indeed again. That may be for reasons other than general laxity though. This is one of the most important comics in the hobby, so salient differences should be noted. But if noting those differences effectively renders one version a reprint, I can see how that might ruffle a few feathers among the elite group that actually own a copy.

If that's what drives CGC, then its a corrupt company. Full stop. 

What should drive them are profits, credibility, and across the board client service. 

Worth noting that Heritage has auctioned an unencapsulated Superman within the past 10 years without noting the version. So I guess they're not alone in their choice of business practices.

 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/24/2024 at 4:27 PM, sfcityduck said:

What should drive them are profits, credibility, and across the board client service.

Agreed.

@CGC Mike Mike, could you ask the team what the official CGC position is on this please? If Superman #1 is one of the most important comics in the hobby, and it is clear that there are different printings of the guts at least (with two versions identifiable by the advert for Action #14 - see below) should that difference not be noted on the label?

Maybe Matt would be the one to ask.

Cheers, Steve

 

[buttock]

On 3/24/2024 at 10:27 AM, sfcityduck said:

If that's what drives CGC, then its a corrupt company. Full stop. 

What should drive them are profits, credibility, and across the board client service. 

Worth noting that Heritage has auctioned an unencapsulated Superman within the past 10 years without noting the version. So I guess they're not alone in their choice of business practices.

 

In my 30 years I don't know of a single person who has marketed a Superman 1 with the distinction noted.  I would say that they're following what the market has set.  

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/24/2024 at 4:44 PM, buttock said:

In my 30 years I don't know of a single person who has marketed a Superman 1 with the distinction noted.  I would say that they're following what the market has set.  

Understood, if I may respond, but things evolve buttock 

If you were presented with an opportunity to buy a copy for a rich client, and were shown two slabbed copies with broadly similar grade, eye appeal and pricing, but one was noted as a 'Now On Sale' copy, the other an 'On Sale June 2nd', which would you choose for your client? And why?

[jimbo_7071]

On 3/24/2024 at 12:27 PM, sfcityduck said:

If that's what drives CGC, then its a corrupt company. Full stop. 

If?

[sfcityduck]

 

On 3/24/2024 at 9:44 AM, buttock said:

In my 30 years I don't know of a single person who has marketed a Superman 1 with the distinction noted.  I would say that they're following what the market has set.  

I don’t know when the distinction was first noticed but I would not be surprised if it was in the last 30 years. I suspect the early version is rare on the market. And we have entered a period where GA variants are now recognized and desired. So my guess is that will change, if it truly hasn’t happened yet (I vaguely think it has because it has been discussed enough over the years) the next time a copy of the early version comes on the market. It is, after all an obvious selling point and a seller would be foolish to ignore it.

Edited March 24 by sfcityduck

[Mmehdy]

3d printed copies are clearly less valuable than 1/2....and that should be NOTED on the label....It is a REPRINT! Buyer Beware!

[Dark Knight]

Yeah I think it would be a great idea if CGC does notate golden age books with multiple printings as first print, second, etc. They do this for modern books, why not for golden age books?

WATA, the video game grading company, does this when they grade sealed video games (at times they would also state early or later prints). First print, I'd say most of the time, is usually worth the most so serious collectors would definitely benefit by having that notation on the label.

[Yorick]

If I win the billion dollar lottery in the next few days, I'd seek out the "June 2nd" copy.  I don't know how I'd do that without either finding a raw copy or...  a raw copy.  This is like the stamp cut-out IH181 masquerading in blue labels. 

[Yorick]

178 copies on the census! 

[Professor K]

On 3/24/2024 at 4:43 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

It's reasonable to conclude that the three printings exist in roughly the same proportions as their print runs. If only the first printing carried the "On Sale June 2nd" verbiage, then roughly 56% of existing copies should have it. If both the first and second printings have that verbiage, then roughly 84% of existing copies would have it—that's a big difference. Likewise, the percentage of copies with the "On Sale Now" verbiage would be 44% or 16%.

CGC could know by now if they wanted to. If they've been recording data on that information, they haven't shared it.

Yes, so we are told there were 500,000, 250,000, and 150,000 in each printing. 

Well that's good math you did there.  I see there are 179 total copies graded by CGC, assumimg none are unrecorded re-subs. I guess the big ?? is has CGC been recording that data. I doubt they have and I don't fault them for that. 

So your skill in figuring percentages tells us this: 

56%  >Only 1st prints say June 2nd

84% > 1st and 2nd prints say June 2nd

44% > 2nd and 3rd prints say On Sale Now

14% > Only 3rd prints say On Sale Now.

Is that correct? Or do I understand correctly? 

 

 

[shadroch]

On 3/24/2024 at 9:09 AM, sfcityduck said:

Not at all difficult for CGC to spot or notate.

If they started notating that a copy is the "On Sale June 2nd ad" version, it would likely force a lot of resubmissions. Folks would want to update their holders if they have that version, as any old holders without that notation might be assumed by the market to be the later version. A win for CGC. 

How would they know which version they have if it's an interior ad? 

[jimbo_7071]

On 3/24/2024 at 4:06 PM, Professor K said:

Yes, so we are told there were 500,000, 250,000, and 150,000 in each printing. 

Well that's good math you did there.  I see there are 179 total copies graded by CGC, assumimg none are unrecorded re-subs. I guess the big ?? is has CGC been recording that data. I doubt they have and I don't fault them for that. 

So your skill in figuring percentages tells us this: 

56%  >Only 1st prints say June 2nd

84% > 1st and 2nd prints say June 2nd

44% > 2nd and 3rd prints say On Sale Now

14% > Only 3rd prints say On Sale Now.

Is that correct? Or do I understand correctly? 

Roughly. If only the 3rd printing has the "On Sale Now" verbiage, those would only be 1/6 of the total printed, or about 16.7%.

The 178 slabbed copies constitute a big enough sample size to see if it's really that scarce.

If both the 2nd and 3rd printings have that language, which is what I suspect, then that would be 4/9 of the total, or about 44.4%.

[buttock]

On 3/24/2024 at 11:01 AM, sfcityduck said:

 

I don’t know when the distinction was first noticed but I would not be surprised if it was in the last 30 years. I suspect the early version is rare on the market. And we have entered a period where GA variants are now recognized and desired. So my guess is that will change, if it truly hasn’t happened yet (I vaguely think it has because it has been discussed enough over the years) the next time a copy of the early version comes on the market. It is, after all an obvious selling point and a seller would be foolish to ignore it.

I wouldn't be surprised to see it change.  But it would take a lot of crack/resubs to get the data, and my guess is at 4% FMV with the potential for a big loss there aren't a whole lot of people willing to do it.  It's not like the Marvel 1 Oct/Nov discrepancy where it's visible through the slab.  Do you think the early version is rare because people are holding it?  From the print runs it should be more common.  That might also affect any discrepancy in value if the 2nd or 3rd printings are less common.  It's the opposite of Marvel 1.  Overall, I don't think it's quite as clear cut as we see with moderns where 1st printings are typically more valuable (but even that is changing as people look for scarcer printings)