Anyone watching the Eerie No.1 on Ebay tonight

[RedRaven]

This thread went all over the place. Can anyone give difinitive answers to these questions, just to clarify things?

 

1. Does CGC certify (or have they certified) ANY Warren Eerie 1s?

 

2. Is there any way to tell real Eerie 1s from fake Eerie 1s?

 

3. If not, where do those lines in Overstreet come from?

 

1. No.

2. Only by Provenance.

3. The printer.

[october]

This thread went all over the place. Can anyone give difinitive answers to these questions, just to clarify things?

 

1. Does CGC certify (or have they certified) ANY Warren Eerie 1s?

 

2. Is there any way to tell real Eerie 1s from fake Eerie 1s?

 

3. If not, where do those lines in Overstreet come from?

 

1. No.

2. Only by Provenance.

3. The printer.

 

What printer? Or were you trying to making some lame joke...

 

Were the second prints listed in Overstreet authorized by Warren, or are they counterfeit?

[RedRaven]

This thread went all over the place. Can anyone give difinitive answers to these questions, just to clarify things?

 

1. Does CGC certify (or have they certified) ANY Warren Eerie 1s?

 

2. Is there any way to tell real Eerie 1s from fake Eerie 1s?

 

3. If not, where do those lines in Overstreet come from?

 

1. No.

2. Only by Provenance.

3. The printer.

 

What printer? Or were you trying to making some lame joke...

 

Were the second prints listed in Overstreet authorized by Warren, or are they counterfeit?

 

Second prints were not authorized by Warren and were actually the subject of an FBI investigation. Remember Eerie #1 is a black and white copy job which makes it insanely easy to duplicate. The '2nd prints' have several distinctive differences from the first prints so they are easy to identify once you know these differences.

I think its a reasonable assumption that later counterfeits are truer to the original and probably indistinguishable. And, lighten up

[RedRaven]

There used to be a website that detailed the differences between the printings but I havent been able to locate it. Also, the 2nd printing was released onto the market in 1978 (I had thought it was around 1972 but after checking enjolrasworld.com it seems later. Not sure where I got the earleir date from .

 

So, if you have a seller you trust completely and he has provenance on the book prior to 1978 I'd say go for it. (Im assuming whoever counterfeited the first version fixed their errors and later counterfeits after 1978 were produced that are virtually identical to the ashcan.

[october]

 

Second prints were not authorized by Warren and were actually the subject of an FBI investigation. Remember Eerie #1 is a black and white copy job which makes it insanely easy to duplicate. The '2nd prints' have several distinctive differences from the first prints so they are easy to identify once you know these differences.

I think its a reasonable assumption that later counterfeits are truer to the original and probably indistinguishable.

 

Thanks

 

 

And, lighten up

 

I forgot the graemlin.

[RedRaven]

A little more detail on the story behind the 2nd print...

 

According to Jim Warren the FBI became involved because the counterfeit was being sold across state lines. The issue had been copyrighted in Washington D.C. so it became a federal matter.

Warren ran Wanted posters in their mags offering a $500 reward for information leading to the conviction of the counterfeiter but nothing ever came of it. Warren himself has said he had a hunch who was behind it and that it was someone close to the magazine but as far as I know he has never put a name to that hunch.

[RedRaven]

And a little more as I track down all my old sources and websites on Eerie #1.

 

There are two known unauthorized versions and some suspect that Warren was behind one of them.

 

The first unauthorized version had staples with a 1/4 inch blue stripe on them. The reason some suspect that this may be a Warren version is that on page 18 panel 5 there is content visible which is not visible (had been clipped) in the original version. This would seem to suggest that whoever made the first unauthorized version had access to the original pages. I think its wrong to refer to this as the Warren version as that tends to lead people to think that James Warren had something to do with this (no evidence he did). But, it was most likely someone close to the company, exactly as Warren told the FBI.

 

The second known unauthorized version has an obvious prinitng error on the first page, lower right hand panel. The house in the panel has broken lines on the roof.

 

src= http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/1940/warren.html