Marvel #1 at Heritage -- Nov. isssue. Is Oct. a more desirable 1st printing?

[showcase4]

But so far we've identified books which are/possibly are second printings:

 

Marvel Comics # 1

All-Star # 3

Superman # 1

Batman # 1

 

This may be hard to imagine now in 2006, but just as attitudes about restoration have changed greatly over the past 20 years, it could be the 1st or 2nd, 3rd etc. printing of a key book becomes an issue in the future. It is an issue right now with rare antiquarian books, and with Victorian and Platinum Age comics with multiple print runs.

 

Just think if in 2026, the October issue of Marvel #1 is worth 10+ times as much as the November issue in a similar grade. This is not too far fetched, as I'm sure many things happening in our hobby right now (ebay, CGC, attitudes towards restoration and current prices) would be unimaginable in 1986.

[Forbush-Man]

But so far we've identified books which are/possibly are second printings:

 

Marvel Comics # 1

All-Star # 3

Superman # 1

Batman # 1

 

This may be hard to imagine now in 2006, but just as attitudes about restoration have changed greatly over the past 20 years, it could be the 1st or 2nd, 3rd etc. printing of a key book becomes an issue in the future.

 

It's not hard to imagine for me at all. The information we gather here will effect a few buying patterns in and of itself.......at least for me.

 

First printings are always more disirable.

[Forbush-Man]

Just think if in 2026, the October issue of Marvel #1 is worth 10+ times as much as the November issue in a similar grade. This is not too far fetched, as I'm sure many things happening in our hobby right now (ebay, CGC, attitudes towards restoration and current prices) would be unimaginable in 1986.

 

According to Steve, there were 10 times as many November printings orederd of Marvel Comics # 1 as there were of the October printing. This would certainly make an October issue worth more, IMHO.

[esquirecomics]

 

I'd think if there is little price difference between known 1st printings and later printings, it would be because the general collecting population is, for the most part, unaware of this.

 

No doubt about this.

[Forbush-Man]

 

I'd think if there is little price difference between known 1st printings and later printings, it would be because the general collecting population is, for the most part, unaware of this.

 

No doubt about this.

 

 

Worship the FUELMAN!!!

 

 

 

[tth2]

Pretty nice for one of those November reprint copies.

 

S

Gee, I wonder if Metropolis has an October copy.

[adamstrange]

 

I'd think if there is little price difference between known 1st printings and later printings, it would be because the general collecting population is, for the most part, unaware of this.

 

No doubt about this.

 

 

Worship the FUELMAN!!!

 

 

 

 

We've created a monster!

[tth2]

Pretty nice for one of those November reprint copies.

 

S

Gee, I wonder if Metropolis has an October copy.

Notwithstanding my trying to be a smart-aleck because I like to give Steve a hard time, this has been a great thread!

[ciorac]

What a real-world price difference be for comparable copies?

 

In my opinion, a November copy should be priced at 2/3 the price of an October copy.

 

S

 

 

Do you have any available at 2/3's guide?

[action1kid]

Its just his opinion.

[ciorac]

Its just his opinion.

 

I know, but a guy can hope!

 

[Forbush-Man]

Its just his opinion.

 

I know, but a guy can hope!

 

 

 

[jkrk]

Do you have any available at 2/3's guide?

 

Steve didn't indicate 2/3 of guide. He indicated that he would pay a premium (1/3 more) for the Oct copy relative to the Nov copy.

[ciorac]

Do you have any available at 2/3's guide?

 

Steve didn't indicate 2/3 of guide. He indicated that he would pay a premium (1/3 more) for the Oct copy relative to the Nov copy.

 

I know! I know! I was being ironic...

 

[Forbush-Man]

Do you have any available at 2/3's guide?

 

Steve didn't indicate 2/3 of guide. He indicated that he would pay a premium (1/3 more) for the Oct copy relative to the Nov copy.

 

I'm pretty sure we all know Stephen meant a November copy should be valued at 2/3rd's the value of an October printing.

 

[markseifert]

Below is an informative exchange here on the boards between zillatoy and a poster named scoobly about Marvel #1 October from several years ago.

 

Since stumbling across that old thread some time ago, I've wondered if a NY-area (and East Coast dist would also fit) distribution explains some of the key problems of some of the theory - the quick turnaround of the 2nd print and the vastly larger size of the 2nd print.

 

The facts could fit together nicely if the small initial print run was indeed a "test" run AND limited to a small geographic distribution. With a small geographic area to cover, that might have made it possible for them to get sales data very quickly. They could have simply sent someone to spend a few days calling or driving around NY area newsstands after the Oct book hit to get a feel for how it was going.

 

That doesn't explain zillatoy's point (3), but creative costs could have been much smaller than print costs for the run sizes we're discussing. Goodman may have felt that the risk of having material in the pike was small compared to the ability to take advantage of a potentially hot market right away if things worked out.

 

As for point (5) about the timeline, it is tight, but if he really was motivated by the success of a "test" to strike while the iron was hot, it might have been just doable. There's a 6 week window between having the material in hand and getting the Nov edition on the stands. It all boils down to when the Oct hit the stands and how soon he knew what sales were like.

 

The other big question about point (5) in my mind is would they and could they have stopped the presses mid-run to change the cover date, or decided shortly before the book hit the press that they were going to do a short first run and then go back and finish it up. Changing mid-run seems somewhat unlikely to me. It would seem to require someone at the plant to check the uncut, unbound covers as they were coming off the press, realizing that this was a potential distribution problem, and having the authority to stop the run. And on the other hand, if you decided going in that you were going to split the run anyway, it seems plausable that you would wait and see how your initial sales were before going back to press.

 

EDIT: It occurs to me that in the case that the book was stopped on the press mid-run because the date was noticed to be a problem, it could very well be that they decided to stop printing covers and correct the problem, BUT print the entire run of the interior pages. Covers and interiors would have been printed separately anyway, and if you knew you were going to soon need them, there would be no reason to not print the entire run for the interiors. Then they could correct the cover, print what they needed, and bind the book.

 

So, if you believe the theory that this was a last minute problem noticed and not a planned event, then it's possible that the November edition is a cover variant, and not a second print, because all the interiors might have been printed in the same run.

 

But obviously, that's all speculation.

 

Thanks to everybody who has posted what they know about the book. There has been some very good theory posted on the boards about this issue, and I think the emerging theory of the Oct run being limited geographically may be another important part of the puzzle.

 

Anyway, here's the previous posts (from 2002, I believe):

 

Scoobly:

In 1983, I went to the office of Marvel Comics to have lunch with Art Goodman, the brother of Martin Goodman. Art worked at Timely in 1939 and gave me the story behind the October/November Marvel #1 printings. In 1939, Goodman had mixed feelings about getting into the comic business. They decided to publish Marvel #1 with a total print run of just under 90,000 copies. That 1st printing had a date of October. They hoped the book would sell well but their expectations were not that great. They were shocked when the book sold out within a few days. A immediate decision was made to go back to press with an additional print run of 800,000 copies. That print run had the November cover date. Nuff Said!

 

 

zillatoy's response:

This seems to be a pretty direct contradiction to the information that has been relayed by Greg Theakston (a Superb comic historian who, when working at Marvel had access and permission to search through their records) and others.

I'm not saying it isn't true mind you, but it still seems unlikely.

Consider the following:

 

1) Goodman was already an experienced publisher with pulps, and certainly had some inside knowledge about how strong the sales of comics were: Superman #1 had already come out, the Fox/National lawsuit had started. New publishers Harvey, MLJ, Quality and McKay had all started with some success.

 

2) Frank Torpey (sales manager for Funnies, Inc) was the person who talked Goodman into having the Jacquet studio make up the book for him and probably would have insisted on a higher print run. But 800,000 for a second print is a crazy high number. None of Funnies, Inc. books had print runs that high, and only Action and Superman approached those numbers at that time. It seems strange to go from a "test" of 90,000 to a print run of 800,000 for an experienced publisher.

 

3) It is still very hard to fit a second print in the timeframe. We know that #2 had a December cover date and had arrived at stores by early-mid October. That means it was at the printers by early-mid September and was being worked on in August. If Goodman was so unsure of the project, why would he have the studio be working on a second issue before getting numbers in for the first?

 

4) We know that the first issue hit the stands in Colorado in mid September (9-15 arrival date on the Mile High copy), yet it didn't go to the printer's until early-mid August. So Goodman got the book printed, got back sales numbers, ordered a second printing and had it distributed in less than 30 days? That's something that rarely happens today with direct distribution and instant sales data from Diamond.

If somehow he got back incredibly quick numbers on the first issue (very hard to do right away in the late 30s), why would you go back to press with a run nearly 10x greater than what you had just done and not change the date to at least December to give all those copies a chance to sell through (not to mention possibly hurting sales on the #2 which was getting ready to go to print)?

 

5) The book wasn't finished until the first of August (July 31st), so of course it was going to have a November cover date, you don't print a book up to give it a shelf life of just a few days. The book was running late, so a last minute change was needed on the cover date to make sure it got exposure on the shelf.

 

It seems much more likely and probable that because of the dealy in starting up the new book, that the original intended date (October) need to be changed because of the lateness of the issue to insure that it would receive adequate exposure on the newstands. If it was reaching the Western states in mid-September some distributors might not distribute it at all if it had an October date because they would be picking it up for returns within two weeks. Wasn't worth the hassle for the low profit margin. It HAD to be available on the stands for at least 30 days to make it a worthwhile carry (I wouldn't be surprised if the Distributors didn't make him change the date).

[Aman619]

thats a 50% premium,,,, 50K for Nov; 75K for Oct = 2/3rds

[FFB]

that's exactly my point as to why I wouldn't care too much about a reprint vs non-reprint Marvel 1 if I were in the market for one. Lots of other GA keys one might buy that might in fact technically be unidentified "reprints." I can understand where you're coming from though.

 

All one need to do is to look at the rare book market for guidance. The difference between a first printing and a 2nd printing is at the very core of that market. In many cases, physical differences between the printings can be somewhat minor.

 

What you have at work here are numerous collectors with $$ tied up in November printings that you end up with a clear agenda that attempts to blur the difference between the 1st printing and the 2nd printing both in terms of value and scarcity.

 

Stephen

 

I don't think you can say that with certainty until a high grade October copy fails to sell for significantly more than a high grade November copy. Because if a high grade October blows away the prices of high grade November copies, then that would seem to indicate that November copies are fairly valued.

[Forbush-Man]

Interesting post. Makes you stop & go

 

Kudos!

 

I'd still prefer an October copy, regardless.......but that's just me. It would still imply that it was the first run of the books before a marketing decision had been made.

[Timely]

Interesting post. Makes you stop & go

 

Kudos!

 

I'd still prefer an October copy, regardless.......but that's just me. It would still imply that it was the first run of the books before a marketing decision had been made.

 

Sure I guess we all would prefer the Oct copy if priced the same, why not! But would you prefer to pay $200,000 for a November copy or $300,000 for an Oct copy in the same grade? I'd take the Nov copy and with my extra 100 large buy #2-10.

 

West