SUPERMAN #1 different printings 7 7

[buttock]

On 3/24/2024 at 10:52 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

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?

I tend to lean toward the first printing, but there are a lot of assumptions leading to that which I would prefer more information on.  Fortunately, I have no need to make that choice.  Given the option with Marvel 1, I'm choosing the Oct copy every time.  

[shadroch]

On 3/24/2024 at 1:06 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? 

 

 

If the On Sale Now copies are anywhere near 40% of the 179 copies, I'd be convinced that only the first prints have the date.   If they represent 20% or less, I'd say only a third of prints have that ad.   If I owned a slabbed copy, I'd say it's a first print until shown otherwise.  It's not something that concerns me but I'll be curious if the various printings ever break out.   A new chapter in an eighty-year-old history.

[Crowzilla]

I think it is a very big leap to assume that copies from the three print runs have survived in anywhere near equal quantities.  Just too many reasons for that not to be true.

Submitters will need to start requesting for CGC to note which version it is on the label for there to be any change. And/Or willing and able buyers will have to hold firm saying I won't buy unless I know it to be X.

 

 

[circumstances]

I have had both versions, and been aware of this for decades.

In my mind, it is one press run of 900,000 copies that was released in three traunches, due to insane demand (with ad corrected based on where in the run they were).

At the stage of the game when we became aware that all 900,000 were not printed at the exact same time, Superman #1 was already Superman #1, and owning a copy (any copy) was rarified air.

There were much more created of the first traunch (nobody cared), less of the second (nobody cared), the least of the third (nobody cared).

There are sufficiently few of any surviving.

At best they're variants - collect all three!

I believe I've read that Superman #2 had two traunches as well, 850,000 then 150,000, though that might have been speculation at that time.

Edited March 24 by circumstances

[jimbo_7071]

On 3/24/2024 at 5:46 PM, circumstances said:

I have had both versions, and been aware of this for decades.

In my mind, it is one press run of 900,000 copies that was released in three traunches, due to insane demand (with ad corrected based on where in the run they were).

At the stage of the game when we became aware that all 900,000 were not printed at the exact same time, Superman #1 was already Superman #1, and owning a copy (any copy) was rarified air.

There were much more created of the first traunch (nobody cared), less of the second (nobody cared), the least of the third (nobody cared).

There are sufficiently few of any surviving.

At best they're variants - collect all three!

I believe I've read that Superman #2 had two traunches as well, 850,000 then 150,000, though that might have been speculation at that time.

That's one way to spin it, but the fact remains that on of the "traunches" is a first printing and the others are not.

Many collectors likely don't know about this issue; most would prefer to own the first printing if they did know, I'll warrant. An original is an original.

There is really no excuse for CGC's not noting which house ad a particular copy contains. If they want to steer clear of calling some copies first printings and other reprints, so be it. They can put the information about the house ad on the label and let a duly informed market decide if one "variant" is more valuable. There's no doubt in my mind how that would shake out.

[CGC Mike]

On 3/24/2024 at 12:32 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

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

 

Sure.  I'll send the e-mail right now.

[Aman619]

On 3/24/2024 at 7:15 PM, jimbo_7071 said:

That's one way to spin it, but the fact remains that on of the "traunches" is a first printing and the others are not.

Many collectors likely don't know about this issue; most would prefer to own the first printing if they did know, I'll warrant. An original is an original.

There is really no excuse for CGC's not noting which house ad a particular copy contains. If they want to steer clear of calling some copies first printings and other reprints, so be it. They can put the information about the house ad on the label and let a duly informed market decide if one "variant" is more valuable. There's no doubt in my mind how that would shake out.

Im not too sure the market will lean heavily one way or the other price-wise, although generally speaking, I agree they always do in other cases, with more modern books where reprints have been announced and marketed as such.  Usually -- the lowly 3rd printing is much cheaper. But often if it's also a much scarcer lower print run, the market raises it value.  For Superman 1, where for decades nobody cared which copy they bought so long as they secured a copy, the scarcer 3rd printings copies and the "first printing" copies may stay relatively the same value...  I have a copy and frankly dont really want a diversion in case Im inadvertently on the wrong side here... But overall, I feel I'll be okay either way the cookie crumbles if it comes to that..

[jimbo_7071]

I'll be curious to see what CGC has to say, but I won't be surprised if the response amounts to "plausible deniability," which would be something to the effect of, "Well, we can't tell for sure which printing is which, so we treat them all the same." 

Never mind the fact that the collecting community cares about the issue enough that it's been a topic of discussion on the boards for fifteen years and counting.

Never mind the fact that CGC could have confirmed the percent distribution of the different versions by now if they had chosen to collect and analyze the data.

Never mind that they could note which version of the house ad a copy contains without committing to endorsing that copy as a first edition or reprint.

[plady69]

I say crack them all out and see what happens!

Kidding.  Let them stay in their tombs…

[sfcityduck]

On 3/24/2024 at 1:20 PM, shadroch said:

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

If they submitted the book and read it before they did so. If you bought it entombed, then your only choice would be to crack it out.  Which might well be worth it.

[sfcityduck]

On 3/24/2024 at 2:12 PM, buttock said:

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)

I don't know how it would impact value. Book collectors really want first editions / first printings and are less concerned with getting all the variants. Comic collectors chase variants and a rare variant might garner a strong price. On the other hand, I do think the market values MC 1 Oct. copies more than Nov. copies in the same grade/appeal. But, the best graded copy, regardless of Oct. vs. Nov. will likely get the highest price. It would be really interesting if there was an Oct. copy one graded increment below the top Nov. copy. What would matter more?  Grade or edition/print? Pure speculation right now.

As for rarity, I assume with early GA comics that earlier is generally rarer. But, if the print run numbers are accurate, that might well be wrong.

[sfcityduck]

On 3/24/2024 at 5:30 PM, jimbo_7071 said:

I'll be curious to see what CGC has to say, but I won't be surprised if the response amounts to "plausible deniability," which would be something to the effect of, "Well, we can't tell for sure which printing is which, so we treat them all the same." 

 

What they would notate is "'On Sale June 2' ad version" or "'On Sale Now' ad version." I don't like the terms printings or reprintings in these scenarios. It's really the earlier version and the later version (unless you figure out how to identify which version #2 is).  In a perfect world, you'd find copies with distributor dates and look inside and see where the cookies crumbled.

[pemart1966]

According to GCD, Superman #1 went on sale May 18, 1939.  This would have been the 500,000 run I assume.

Superman #2 went on sale August 19, 1939 (no mention of a second print run that I could see).  That's almost 3 months to the day.

So during that 3 months:

1.  Superman #1 first print was released.  Sales data was collected and it was determined that it was a runaway hit.  

2.  A second shorter run was issued with slight changes  Sales data was collected and It too was a sell out or close to it.

3.  An even shorter third print run was issued with slight changes.  Sales data was collected...and by that time nearly 1 million copies had been printed and it was time for Superman #2 to be printed and distributed.

I would have loved to see how that communication chain ran considering it was 1939.

[jimbo_7071]

On 3/24/2024 at 9:53 PM, sfcityduck said:

What they would notate is "'On Sale June 2' ad version" or "'On Sale Now' ad version." I don't like the terms printings or reprintings in these scenarios. It's really the earlier version and the later version (unless you figure out how to identify which version #2 is).  In a perfect world, you'd find copies with distributor dates and look inside and see where the cookies crumbled.

I agree with you; I'm just predicting how CGC will try to spin it in order to justify doing what they want to do.

[Aman619]

On 3/24/2024 at 10:21 PM, pemart1966 said:

According to GCD, Superman #1 went on sale May 18, 1939.  This would have been the 500,000 run I assume.

Superman #2 went on sale August 19, 1939 (no mention of a second print run that I could see).  That's almost 3 months to the day.

So during that 3 months:

1.  Superman #1 first print was released.  Sales data was collected and it was determined that it was a runaway hit.  

2.  A second shorter run was issued with slight changes  Sales data was collected and It too was a sell out or close to it.

3.  An even shorter third print run was issued with slight changes.  Sales data was collected...and by that time nearly 1 million copies had been printed and it was time for Superman #2 to be printed and distributed.

I would have loved to see how that communication chain ran considering it was 1939.

1.  Superman #1 first print was released.  Sales data was collected and it was determined that it was a runaway hit.  

not sure we can count on this step because its been widely accepted that the sales reports took at least 2-3 months to be collected and reported to publishers.  We've all accepted the stories that thats why Superman wasn't on the cover of Action again until issue #7, right?  And even 20 years later DC waits months to see if their premieres in Showcase did well enough to get their own books.  However, It can also be true that just by visiting newsstands in NYC and asking a few questions, that the DC execs could learn that the copies sold out quickly and then get on the phone and call other cities perhaps.  Then they could gamble on getting more copies out there.

So I think Im agreeing with you while quibbling about saying "sales reports" in their traditional sense being a reason for reprinting Superman 1.  They weren't fast enough back then.

 

 

[Crowzilla]

On 3/24/2024 at 10:34 PM, Aman619 said:

1.  Superman #1 first print was released.  Sales data was collected and it was determined that it was a runaway hit.  

not sure we can count on this step because its been widely accepted that the sales reports took at least 2-3 months to be collected and reported to publishers.  We've all accepted the stories that thats why Superman wasn't on the cover of Action again until issue #7, right?  And even 20 years later DC waits months to see if their premieres in Showcase did well enough to get their own books.  However, It can also be true that just by visiting newsstands in NYC and asking a few questions, that the DC execs could learn that the copies sold out quickly and then get on the phone and call other cities perhaps.  Then they could gamble on getting more copies out there.

So I think Im agreeing with you while quibbling about saying "sales reports" in their traditional sense being a reason for reprinting Superman 1.  They weren't fast enough back then.

 

 

I used to argue that sales reports couldn't be fast enough back then, but we know that Goodman got sales reports back for Marvel #1 very quickly - and was so impressed he ordered a print run that was 10x the initial print run (which still sounds crazy - he ordered a print run of 800,000 copies, when Superman was the best selling/most recognizable character already and they did three printings over 8-10 weeks to reach a similar number).

There are also reports that Superman #1 was the first comic that people lined up at the newstand for when it was released. That would be a good and quick indication that maybe they needed more copies. Maybe a good research project for SFDuck if he can determine where that information was first published.

Wouldn't it be strange if we found out that the "On sale now" variation was printed for people who mailed .25¢ in for a copy of World's Fair 1939 so that they didn't get a book that looked stale by having an old ad in it.

[woowoo]

I did have this in my picture collection was interesting years ago that's why I kept. 

Edited March 25 by woowoo

[pemart1966]

On 3/24/2024 at 10:34 PM, Aman619 said:

1.  Superman #1 first print was released.  Sales data was collected and it was determined that it was a runaway hit.  

not sure we can count on this step because its been widely accepted that the sales reports took at least 2-3 months to be collected and reported to publishers.  We've all accepted the stories that thats why Superman wasn't on the cover of Action again until issue #7, right?  And even 20 years later DC waits months to see if their premieres in Showcase did well enough to get their own books.  However, It can also be true that just by visiting newsstands in NYC and asking a few questions, that the DC execs could learn that the copies sold out quickly and then get on the phone and call other cities perhaps.  Then they could gamble on getting more copies out there.

So I think Im agreeing with you while quibbling about saying "sales reports" in their traditional sense being a reason for reprinting Superman 1.  They weren't fast enough back then.

 

 

Some sort of sales information must have triggered the 2nd and 3rd printing.  They weren't just done on a whim...

[sfcityduck]

On 3/24/2024 at 11:39 AM, Mmehdy said:

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

Now we know what version Mitch may have! Or maybe his longtime buddy Theo about whom Scoop once wrote:

Quote

When it comes to comics, Theo loves Superman #1 from 1939, which he believes is the most undervalued comic book. When asked why, Holstein said, “It’s Superman’s first appearance in his own comic book, making it historic. I think it’s the first appearance of any superhero in his/her own comic. It’s like the Honus Wagner baseball card, it’s the ultimate, ultimate comic book.”

 

[Professor K]

On 3/24/2024 at 8:34 PM, plady69 said:

I say crack them all out and see what happens!

Kidding.  Let them stay in their tombs…

Attention owners of Superman 1 in CGC holders. Please send your copies in for a mandatory reholdering.......free of charge.

On 3/24/2024 at 10:52 PM, woowoo said:

I did have this in my picture collection was interesting years ago that's why I kept.

That's really good that you saved that. Thanks. Three runs within a month totalling 900,000 copies is really something. I think we can safely -u-me that only the 1st prints have AC 14 June 2nd. I don't even care if there is a difference between the 2nd and 3rd prints. They were all printed in such a short time frame. But it would be good to note the 1st printing copies mainly because of the different ad.