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

[Moondog]

The Windy City Marvel 1 was purchased at the Uniontown, PA bus station's newsstand.

 

It's a November copy.

[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.

 

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

 

Aw......now you're justing being testy!

 

But if I was Bill Gates.......I'd pay the $300,000.00 and get the first print. What's a couple hundred thousand either way.

[esquirecomics]

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.

 

Of course even one sale is not going to truly serve as an indicator because so much is dependent on who the bidders/buyers are at that particular instance. We will need to see multuple examples.

[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.

 

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

 

For us "working stiffs"......you could ask (if this were the scenerio): Would you prefer to pay $200.00 for a November or $300.00 for an October?

 

I'd pay the $300.00.

[Forbush-Man]

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.

 

Of course even one sale is not going to truly serve as an indicator because so much is dependent on who the bidders/buyers are at that particular instance. We will need to see multuple examples.

 

Good point, Mark. Given two books of equal grade, at the same auction, the October book would get the premium. Case closed, Counselor!

 

If the October book achieved 1/3% higher is another story though. 20% more is more likely (in today's market, without info on a second run).

[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.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

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

 

 

I'm sorry. I guess I was being a little dense.

 

I guess the lesson of the thread is that if anyone is looking to sell a MM 1 (Nov Issue) for a price higher than 2/3 of the Oct price then Metro might not be your best source.

[adamstrange]

Thanks for pulling up the old posts.

 

I'm comfortable there are two variations but not comfortable we have a definitive answer.

 

The reprint argument is that we have limited distribution, different cover dates, and recollection decades after the event from someone who would have been in the know.

 

The single print argument is based on typical printing lead times and expected behavior of an experienced publisher.

 

Based on what we've heard, the second argument seems to be the weaker. To show that the behavior on Marvel 1 is inconsistent we'd need to know how Goodman had handled launches of titles in his pulp and magazine world. Distributor/publishers were still operating on very tight budgets because the depression didn't really end until 1940. Could Goodman have started a title with a small run and authorized the creation of the content for the second issue? As long as he wasn't risking too much I would think this possible. Also, could Funnies, Inc do it on speculation, figuring that all went well with issue 1? After all, they were speculating by creating the art for Motion Picture Funnies Weekly before they brought those stories to Marvel.

 

Regarding the timelines with the printer, wouldn't an experienced publisher who gave lots of business to the printer be the best one to be able to get a rush job? Especially if the order is big enough?

 

I'd be interested for Beerbohm's thoughts on this as he has done research into Goodman 's publishing business.

[DCman]

How would Captain America 1 fit into this arguement? Wasn't there a printing error? Could that have been a 2nd printing that went wrong?

[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.

 

Of course even one sale is not going to truly serve as an indicator because so much is dependent on who the bidders/buyers are at that particular instance. We will need to see multuple examples.

 

What do you mean, it won't serve as an indicator? It may not be 100% conclusive on the issue, but it'd definitely serve as an indicator if an October copy sold for a nutty price that was significantly higher than the sales prices of the November copies sold recently.

[markseifert]

Thanks for pulling up the old posts.

 

I'm comfortable there are two variations but not comfortable we have a definitive answer.

 

The reprint argument is that we have limited distribution, different cover dates, and recollection decades after the event from someone who would have been in the know.

 

The single print argument is based on typical printing lead times and expected behavior of an experienced publisher.

 

Yeah, I agree we don't have the definitive answer. What we know and what we think we know could be made to fit both situations.

 

You bring up an interesting point about the Funnies Inc part of the equation also. There might be enough known about their operations that someone could think it through and come up with some reasonable conclusions re how they may have impacted Goodman's decision-making process regarding this book.

 

Looking at it some more, I'm not sure that even if we knew that the Oct was limited geographically, that it would completely nail down the reprint theory. If on the other hand it was just the cover printing that was interrupted to correct the date, the initial (Oct) part of the run might have still been bundled and stacked relatively together, thrown on the same truck(s) and ended up in mostly the same area. (brings up an interesting side note - how many 1939-era trucks does it take to move close to a million golden-age sized comics? That's a LOT of volume. Or was it largely done by train?)

 

I guess the most you could say is that under the "interrupted-printing/cover-correction" theory it's possible that a stray bundle of Octobers here and there got outside the East Coast - but we just don't have enough surviving Octobers to speculate whether that happened or not.

 

The interesting thing about that theory to me is the real possibility that that would make November copies cover variants rather than true 2nd prints (because under that scenario interiors could have been printed in the same run). That might not effect the value of Octobers vs Novembers, but it might give November owners a little hope that their books aren't actual second prints (and the somewhat reduced desirability that might imply to some).

 

Obviously again, that's all speculation.

[bluechip]

Since all magazines were sold predated back then (and still are), it is possible they did not reprint the October Marvel 1 but simply had the October copies stamped to change the date.

 

It's also possible they started out planning to predate it three months and then had a delay in getting the copies shipped, so they simply moved the date forward on as many copies as they could.

 

The reason for predating was to keep copies on the newsstands longer. Vendors were more inclined to keep books on the stands if there were not outdated. So it is quite possible that qall the Marvels went through the printers at essentially the same time and that goodman simply added the November date after wards in the cheapest manner possible to extend their shelf life.

[bluechip]

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.

 

 

Noticed this after my post. And it's an interesting notion that they may have run the covers through again. If you've seen many Marvel 1s you notice they are prone to being off-register and I had one once that looked as if the black ink plate had been run through twice, and didn't match up, leaving a ghost image.

 

That COULD have been caused by a mid-orint attempt to change the date by adding the November stamp to the existing black plate and running it rhgouth again. And perhaps once they saw that wasn't working out too well they tried a different approach and ran the covers through with a new plate that had only the November stamp on it. (you'll see the occasional marvel 1 in which the november stamps doesn't quite cover the october date.

[bluechip]

[quote

In the case of Marvel 1, we have information from the publisher concerning the second printing and it is consistent with the changed pull-date on the cover. These together make it reasonable to assume the Nov copies are a second printing.

 

Okay. There is obviously hard info about this I am not aware of, so no more guessing from me.

[esquirecomics]

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.

 

Of course even one sale is not going to truly serve as an indicator because so much is dependent on who the bidders/buyers are at that particular instance. We will need to see multuple examples.

 

What do you mean, it won't serve as an indicator? It may not be 100% conclusive on the issue, but it'd definitely serve as an indicator if an October copy sold for a nutty price that was significantly higher than the sales prices of the November copies sold recently.

 

It is certainly information/evidence to evaluate but the data would only be worth so much as a true example. There are multiple factors that would have to be identifiable and taken into consideration. For one thing, at the prices that either book would sell there is a finite number of collectors/investors who would actually compete for it. Who the bidders were on that very day would be relevant. We all know how simple it is to have a bidding war happen on a particular item that had never been seen before and never seen since simply because two head-strong (or wallet strong or both) bidders went at it. The next time the bidding comes up could be competely different especially if certain bidders who would otherwise bid heavy might not know of the sale. I've seen that happen multiple times (not on items of that value, but the premise is the same) on books I am interested in and they go for a lot less or lot more depending clearly on who knows of the auction.

 

Of course I am not arguing that the single sales example would not be important or used as a basis for future sales, just that alone it would not serve as THE answer to the question we are discussing.

[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.

 

Of course even one sale is not going to truly serve as an indicator because so much is dependent on who the bidders/buyers are at that particular instance. We will need to see multuple examples.

 

What do you mean, it won't serve as an indicator? It may not be 100% conclusive on the issue, but it'd definitely serve as an indicator if an October copy sold for a nutty price that was significantly higher than the sales prices of the November copies sold recently.

 

It is certainly information/evidence to evaluate but the data would only be worth so much as a true example. There are multiple factors that would have to be identifiable and taken into consideration. For one thing, at the prices that either book would sell there is a finite number of collectors/investors who would actually compete for it. Who the bidders were on that very day would be relevant. We all know how simple it is to have a bidding war happen on a particular item that had never been seen before and never seen since simply because two head-strong (or wallet strong or both) bidders went at it. The next time the bidding comes up could be competely different especially if certain bidders who would otherwise bid heavy might not know of the sale. I've seen that happen multiple times (not on items of that value, but the premise is the same) on books I am interested in and they go for a lot less or lot more depending clearly on who knows of the auction.

 

Of course I am not arguing that the single sales example would not be important or used as a basis for future sales, just that alone it would not serve as THE answer to the question we are discussing.

 

Congrats. You've just said in two paragraphs what I managed to say in two sentences.

[markseifert]

Noticed this after my post. And it's an interesting notion that they may have run the covers through again. If you've seen many Marvel 1s you notice they are prone to being off-register and I had one once that looked as if the black ink plate had been run through twice, and didn't match up, leaving a ghost image.

 

That COULD have been caused by a mid-orint attempt to change the date by adding the November stamp to the existing black plate and running it rhgouth again. And perhaps once they saw that wasn't working out too well they tried a different approach and ran the covers through with a new plate that had only the November stamp on it. (you'll see the occasional marvel 1 in which the november stamps doesn't quite cover the october date.

 

After reading your first post, I was going to reply that I disagreed, and headed to the Heritage archives to attempt to show that all of the Nov copies have the Nov & Circle in the same place in relation to the rest of the black linework.

 

That's the key part, because we know registration was often horrible then and so it has never bothered me much if different copies don't quite cover the "Oct." in exactly the same way, or are not in exactly the same position as comared to the "L" in Marvel. But if the correction was made on the cover's black plate itself like I've always assumed, then the Nov & Circle would be in exactly the same place in relation to nearby black linework.

 

I tried to superimpose a few different copies from the Heritage archives over each other, but it seems that the combination of (possibly) different scanners over the years, subtle visual distortion as seen through the cgc holder/well, and whether or not the cover is laying absolutely, positively 100% flat at that corner makes it impossible to tell for sure whether the difference you're seeing is due to Nov/circle placement or some other visual factor. I think you'd have to scan a few raw copies with the same scanner to be sure about it either way.

 

I still think it was more likely a correction to the black plate itself. Any after-printing correction would have been awfully cumbersome and probably expensive, if it was even possible. But there was just enough uncertainty in comparing the various scans that I wouldn't say it flat-out couldn't have happened (or perhaps more likely as you suggest, a mid-run correction if they were unhappy with how well the circle was covering Oct.)

[showcase4]

I have changed the title of this thread to reflect the road its gone down, and hopefully it will attract others with knowledge on this subject to give input. I find this very interesting and informative, and hope we all benefit from everyones opinions.

I can also tell you, for what it's worth, that if I were in the market for a Marvel 1, I would hold out for an October issue......it's the safest route to go on this book long term ( IMO ), due to the possible future focus on print run, which like Stephen from Metro pointed out, is at the core of the rare book market now, and always has been ( for as long as I can remember, at least ). Our "comic books" and their "books" are not that different at all.

 

with antiquarian rare books, you have the issue and the print run as key factors in a books demand and value. i.e.

a 1st issue, 1st print is MUCH more in demand/valuable than a 1st issue , 3rd print. Don't know if our hobby will one day be headed down this path, but if so, the October Marvel 1 would be the big prize

[Timely]

As I mentioned earlier there are at least 2 different versions of All Star #3. I do not know which one was printed first or which issue is scarcer but the interior back cover has 2 versions.

Version 1 ad: Berkley dept c4

Version 2 ad: Wilson Chem Dept 60-25

 

Both versions have the same back cover ad which is: American Specialty Dept 608

 

 

West

[metropoliscomics]

I have seen 2 cover variations on All-Star #3. One version that reads"15¢ in Canada" under the 10¢ price and one version with a blank box under the 10¢ price.

 

S

[buttock]

Since all magazines were sold predated back then (and still are), it is possible they did not reprint the October Marvel 1 but simply had the October copies stamped to change the date.

 

It's also possible they started out planning to predate it three months and then had a delay in getting the copies shipped, so they simply moved the date forward on as many copies as they could.

 

The reason for predating was to keep copies on the newsstands longer. Vendors were more inclined to keep books on the stands if there were not outdated. So it is quite possible that qall the Marvels went through the printers at essentially the same time and that goodman simply added the November date after wards in the cheapest manner possible to extend their shelf life.

 

Based on zillatoy's old argument and the above post, what if all copies were printed at the same time (to fulfill a criteria that we could speculate on, but never get to a real answer), and a preliminary lot was distributed on the east coast, with the remainder to distribute out west (higher costs) pending the sales locally. If local sales were mediocre, the remainder could go through a cheaper distributor elsewhere.

 

Or...the time to get copies out West was long enough to require a revision in the newsstand date to ensure they'd be on the rack long enough to sell (and thereby minimize the cost of refunding for returns). i.e. if it took an extra week to get to LA and you were a week late to press...