SUPERMAN #1 different printings 7 7

[woowoo]

On 3/24/2024 at 8:07 PM, Professor K said:

On 3/24/2024 at 7:52 PM, woowoo said:

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

Expand  

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. 

My famous First Edition says June 2nd and its the 4th print, and I have 2 copy's. 

[Crowzilla]

On 3/24/2024 at 11:07 PM, Professor K said:

. 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. 

Not safe to say at all. We don't know if the 2nd prints were printed on May 22nd (after the weekend when newstands were all reporting being sold out) and still had carried the June 2nd date.

The only thing we can safely say is that copies that have the "On Sale June 2nd" ad are not 3rd prints, and that copies that have the "On Sale Now" ad are not first prints.  CGC just needs to note on the label which ad is inside, no need to try and declare what print number it is.

[sfcityduck]

On 3/24/2024 at 8:16 PM, woowoo said:

My famous First Edition says June 2nd and its the 4th print, and I have 2 copy's. 

 

Psst.  Your Famous First Edition is really a first print of the second edition. 

Edited March 25 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

It would be nice to know what the ad says in this one. The cover was excessively cleaned, but it sure like a "JUL" date stamp:

 

This one too:

 

 

 

Edited March 25 by sfcityduck

[jimbo_7071]

On 3/25/2024 at 12:22 AM, Crowzilla said:

Not safe to say at all. We don't know if the 2nd prints were printed on May 22nd (after the weekend when newstands were all reporting being sold out) and still had carried the June 2nd date.

The only thing we can safely say is that copies that have the "On Sale June 2nd" ad are not 3rd prints, and that copies that have the "On Sale Now" ad are not first prints.  CGC just needs to note on the label which ad is inside, no need to try and declare what print number it is.

It is true that we don't know know which version of the ad appeared in the second printing, but we could draw an inference by determining how common or uncommon the "Now on Sale" version is. If only about a sixth of the extant copies have that version, then it likely appeared only in the 3rd printing. If closer to half have it, then it almost certainly appeared in both the 2nd and 3rd printings. Dealers who have handled many copies of the book might already have a pretty good idea how common that version is.

[sfcityduck]

Here's my view on when the Superman printings came out.

• Action Comics #13 has a house ad for a "big complete Superman book" without calling it a No. 1 (and Superman 1 does not say No. 1 on its cover or indicia), and specifying its on-sale date as May 18, 1939 (before there was any thought of having a No. 2). I take this at face value. 
• The earlier version of the Superman comic has a house ad for Action Comics #14 stating it was coming out on June 2. The later version of the Superman Comic has a house ad stating that Action Comics #14 was "On sale now." This also supports that the first Superman comic came out before June 2 on May 18.
• Given the short time between May 18 and June 2, just two weeks, my belief is that the second and third printings both came out after June 2 and both carry the "On Sale Now" ad. Two weeks it just too quick to run through a 500,000 print run, figure out the demand is crazy, and get back to print. So it makes sense DC would have changed the ad knowing the 2nd printing was coming out after June 2.
• Further support for this is the multiple Superman 1s pictured above which have early July date stamps. Those are are likely 2nd and/or 3rd printings. Could have been either. Why? Because Action Comics #17 has a house ad for Superman #2 which states the "overwhelming" demand for the Superman book "prompted us to publish this second one..." (and Superman 2 does have a No. 2 on it). DC didn't plan on publishing Superman as a quarterly book. Instead, DC was caught off-guard by the demand and only rushed Superman 2 out by reprinting the newspaper strip. But, that was fully three to four months after the first Superman Comic came out. That suggests to me that it took longer for DC to figure out the "overwhelming demand" than some here think. The second print could have been mid- to late-June with the July books being the final printing or the early July could have been the second print with a later July third printing. Either would make sense. Given that DC probably figured out by sometime in July they would be rushing out a Superman 2 to create a quarterly schedule.
• What doesn't make sense to me is that DC rushed out a second print of Superman 1 within two weeks of the first printing and didn't change the Action 14 ad until the printing that came out early in July when Action 15 was about to hit the stands. 

Edited March 25 by sfcityduck

[jimbo_7071]

On 3/25/2024 at 2:19 AM, sfcityduck said:

Here's my view on when the Superman printings came out.

• Action Comics #13 has a house ad for a "big complete Superman book" without calling it a No. 1 (and Superman 1 does not say No. 1 on its cover or indicia), and specifying its on-sale date as May 18, 1939 (before there was any thought of having a No. 2). I take this at face value. 
• The earlier version of the Superman comic has a house ad for Action Comics #14 stating it was coming out on June 2. The later version of the Superman Comic has a house ad stating that Action Comics #14 was "On sale now." This also supports that the first Superman comic came out before June 2 on May 18.
• Given the short time between May 18 and June 2, just two weeks, my guess is that the second and third versions both came out after June 2 and both carry the "On Sale Now" ad. Two weeks it just too quick to run through a 500,000 print run, figure out the demand is crazy, and get back to print. So it makes sense DC would have changed the ad knowing the 2nd printing was coming out after June 2.
• Further support for this is the multiple Superman 1s pictured above which have early July date stamps. Those are are likely 2nd and/or 3rd printings. Could have been either. Why? Because Action Comics #17 has a house ad for Superman #2 which states the "overwhelming" demand for the Superman book "prompted us to publish this second one..." (and Superman 2 does have a No. 2 on it). DC didn't plan on publishing Superman as a quarterly book. Instead, DC was caught off-guard by the demand and only rushed Superman 2 out by reprinting the newspaper strip. But, that was fully three to four months after the first Superman Comic came out. That suggests to me that it took longer for DC to figure out the "overwhelming demand" than some here think. The second print could have been mid- to late-June with the July books being the final printing or the early July could have been the second print with a later July third printing. Either would make sense. Given that DC probably figured out by sometime in July they would be rushing out a Superman 2. to create a quarterly schedule.
• What doesn't make sense to me is that DC rushed out a second print of Superman 1 within two weeks of the first printing. 

I agree with all of the above. I strongly suspect that only the first printing carries the "On Sale June 2nd" version of the ad. That means that the second and third printings may be indistinguishable from one another based on what we know now, but it's possible that examining enough copies side by side may lead to a discovery of some minor differences between those later printings.

[sfcityduck]

On 3/24/2024 at 11:24 PM, jimbo_7071 said:

I agree with all of the above. 

Mystery solved. Someone call Overstreet and CGC. LoL!

[Professor K]

On 3/25/2024 at 12:22 AM, Crowzilla said:

Not safe to say at all. We don't know if the 2nd prints were printed on May 22nd (after the weekend when newstands were all reporting being sold out) and still had carried the June 2nd date.

The only thing we can safely say is that copies that have the "On Sale June 2nd" ad are not 3rd prints, and that copies that have the "On Sale Now" ad are not first prints.  CGC just needs to note on the label which ad is inside, no need to try and declare what print number it is.

I'm glad you said this.I agree with your entire post.  'Safe" to assume was a poor choice of words. Jimbo is explaning it better than me and I'm pretty much seeing it his way.

 I really don't think there is a surefire way to ever find out with complete certainty what ad the 2nd printing has other than seeing something in print from DC at the time which tells us, and I doubt that exists. And if CGC has been keeping track over the years as to the 179 books they've graded have which ad, and I doubt they have been doing that, and even that wouldn't be 100% proof. So yeah you're right about that, just noting which ad it has on label it has would be the best we could hope for. 

[CGC Mike]

On 3/24/2024 at 8:02 PM, CGC Mike said:

@CGC Mike Mike, could you ask the team what the official CGC position is on this please?

It’s two different printings. We’ve been aware of it for a long time, but we have chosen not to break them out.

[jimbo_7071]

On 3/25/2024 at 8:50 AM, CGC Mike said:

It’s two different printings. We’ve been aware of it for a long time, but we have chosen not to break them out.

In your opinion, Mike, is it odd that CGC would choose not to differentiate between two different versions of one of the most significant books in the hobby?

[sfcityduck]

On 3/25/2024 at 5:50 AM, CGC Mike said:

It’s two different printings. We’ve been aware of it for a long time, but we have chosen not to break them out.

Does CGC have a “why?”  
 

Thanks for the effort and time in getting us the answer so far!

 

[jimbo_7071]

On 3/25/2024 at 10:25 AM, sfcityduck said:

Does CGC have a “why?”  
 

Thanks for the effort and time in getting us the answer so far!

 

I feel certain that the "why" will be forthcoming. The CGC leadership couldn't possibly be arrogant enough to adopt such a bizarre position without providing a logical rationale that reflects the best interests of the collecting community.

Edited March 25 by jimbo_7071

[shadroch]

The Great and Powerful SeaGeeCee has spoken. 

[Yorick]

On 3/24/2024 at 11:19 PM, sfcityduck said:

didn't change the Action 14 ad until the printing that came out early in July when Action 15 was about to hit the stands

Probably just easier to change that small block of text on the printing plate than create a whole new plate...

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/25/2024 at 2:25 PM, sfcityduck said:

On 3/25/2024 at 12:50 PM, CGC Mike said:

It’s two different printings. We’ve been aware of it for a long time, but we have chosen not to break them out.

Does CGC have a “why?”  
 

Thanks for the effort and time in getting us the answer so far!

Thanks Mike. @CGC Mike

The Duck beat me to it but, as he says, it's pretty clear we're looking for the 'why' here. Could you get us the why?

[MrBedrock]

On 3/24/2024 at 11:27 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.

 

I've sold 5 or 6 copies in the last twenty years. I never noted the ad page either. Please ad me to the corrupt list.

[MrBedrock]

On 3/25/2024 at 9:45 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

I feel certain that the "why" will be forthcoming. The CGC leadership couldn't possibly be arrogant enough to adopt such a bizarre position without providing a logical rationale that reflects the best interests of the collecting community.

The CGC leadership doesn't appear remotely as arrogant as the posters who swear they know what "reflects the best interests of the collecting community".

[Mmehdy]

This is why Superman #1 will never be as valuable as Action 1 or Det 27....the second or thrid or whatever you call it.....is a reprint...plain and simple...a nice one....BUYERS BEWARE !

[sfcityduck]

On 3/25/2024 at 12:26 PM, MrBedrock said:

I've sold 5 or 6 copies in the last twenty years. I never noted the ad page either. Please ad me to the corrupt list.

Context is everything. I wasn't accusing CGC of being corrupt. I was reacting to Marwood's comment that: 

 

Quote

 

   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.

 

 

 

I would be surprised to learn that you'd suppress information that might inflate the value of a comic you are selling for yourself or a consignor because you don't want to hurt the feeling of some existing Superman 1 owners who might get upset at information about two versions being disseminated (are their really any?). Just as I'd guess that you'd have no problem suggesting that an October copy you were marketing might be a bit cooler than a November copy of MC 1 all other things being equal. Because, after all, you make your money selling comics. But, hey, I can be surprised.

My experience is that Heritage had no problem hyping a variant GA book for me, even though CGC didn't note it on the label, and it did as a result garner a higher price than an equivalent non-variant. I'd expect savvy dealers to act that way - which you obviously are - and I look forward to seeing what happens when a seller asks Heritage to hype an "on sale June 2" ad version.

I suspect for CGC the real problem is that they spend too much time letting themselves be limited by Overstreet.  Which may be smart, because one of the few times I've seen them get out in front of OPG on a cutting edge notation they got it, I believe, wrong (e.g. as to what is Neal Adams' first comic cover).  So maybe CGC is wise to draft in OPG's wake. But my guess is that OPG will split out Superman someday just because they need to come up with new substantive content to keep people buying it as no one cares about their pricing anymore.

 

Edited March 25 by sfcityduck