Hake's comes up with a GA unrestored Key!

[markseifert]

and the new 6.0 on hakes offers the best evidence i've seen yet on the oct. v. nov. printing issue. look at the hakes book; the cut of the cover gave it alot of room at the bottom of the graphics [lots of pink below 'action, mystery, adventure'], but actually cut off the top of the logo so you don't even see the red outline on the top of the letters. that in turn brought the price circle way up toward the top edge of the book. whoever came in with what must have been a hand stamp with 'nov' carefully placed it in the little gap left between the circle and the top edge--it ends up where 'nov' and the circle are almost touching. on the cage book, as well as my copy posted elsewhere on these boards, there's a much larger space between 'nov' and the circle, as there was ample room b/w the circle and the top edge to place it. on hake's book there was very little room, so the gap is gone. quite obvious difference, which certainly would not have existed if the blackout and 'nov' had been part of a printing process; 'nov' would've suffered the same fate as the red outline at the top and essentially been cut in half. pretty clear october copies hand-manipulated to go out later; at least clear to me.

 

If the Nov and the Circle are indeed separate stamps, this actually makes more sense to me than it did before. Because a plausible explanation for that is that the printer already had some kind of equipment set up for times when it was necessary to change the date or price on a publication. A separate circle to black out what they needed to, and another stamp on which a date or perhaps a price could be set.

 

My original puzzlement with an after-printing stamp (though it was pretty well proven in that last thread that it wasn't part of the black plate) was that I felt that with hand stamping you'd maybe see copies that were stamped WAY off, and obviously crooked, etc.

 

But if this was a not-uncommon problem for the printer, then they likely had procedures and special equipment in place to deal with it, and make it possible to do with some degree of speed and accuracy.

 

This still leaves a bunch of questions about what the circumstances were, but maybe it's another piece of the puzzle. I wonder if there are other examples from this era of magazines with a similar date change?

[Theagenes]

markav, did you notice what Billy Parker pointed out earlier - that on the Hake's copy the "NOV" and the circle are in a different location with respect to each other than where they are on other copies? I noticed the Denver copy also has the NOV and circle "crammed" together like the Hake's one. I know your good at playing with photos, so you might want to verify this - but looking at a number of copies today and overlaying them, it looks to me like the circle was printed at the same time as the rest of the black on the cover, but that the NOV was added separately. It lined up well horizontally, but was all over the place vertically.

 

To me all of the information seems to indicate that we are looking at two printings - The first a smaller printing that was distributed locally in the New York area and a larger 2nd printing that was distibuted nationally. My guess is that for the second printing they added the black circle to the original black plate and then added a fifth (2nd black) plate with the NOV. I don't believe it was hand stamped. I can't prove any of this, but it is my gut feeling and it makes sense given all the evidence.

 

Rick, you asked whether it really makes any difference and I would say yes it should if you think a scarcer 1st printing should be worth more than more common 2nd printing (or 1st printing, 2nd state). I'm not sure the market has really completely caught on yet, however. Look at Superman 1 - There you have three different, much better documented printings, with the first printing easily identifiable and yet no one makes any distinction between them - I don't think CGC even notes it on the label. Yet if it were Zap #1 or TMNT #1 they would - that makes no sense to me.

[Theagenes]

If the Nov and the Circle are indeed separate stamps, this actually makes more sense to me than it did before. Because a plausible explanation for that is that the printer already had some kind of equipment set up for times when it was necessary to change the date or price on a publication. A separate circle to black out what they needed to, and another stamp on which a date or perhaps a price could be set.

 

My original puzzlement with an after-printing stamp (though it was pretty well proven in that last thread that it wasn't part of the black plate) was that I felt that with hand stamping you'd maybe see copies that were stamped WAY off, and obviously crooked, etc.

 

But if this was a not-uncommon problem for the printer, then they likely had procedures and special equipment in place to deal with it, and make it possible to do with some degree of speed and accuracy.

 

This still leaves a bunch of questions about what the circumstances were, but maybe it's another piece of the puzzle. I wonder if there are other examples from this era of magazines with a similar date change?

 

I wrote my last post before I saw this one.

[markseifert]

markav, did you notice what Billy Parker pointed out earlier - that on the Hake's copy the "NOV" and the circle are in a different location with respect to each other than where they are on other copies? I noticed the Denver copy also has the NOV and circle "crammed" together like the Hake's one. I know your good at playing with photos, so you might want to verify this - but looking at a number of copies today and overlaying them, it looks to me like the circle was printed at the same time as the rest of the black on the cover, but that the NOV was added separately. It lined up well horizontally, but was all over the place vertically.

 

To me all of the information seems to indicate that we are looking at two printings - The first a smaller printing that was distributed locally in the New York area and a larger 2nd printing that was distibuted nationally. My guess is that for the second printing they added the black circle to the original black plate and then added a fifth (2nd black) plate with the NOV. I don't believe it was hand stamped. I can't prove any of this, but it is my gut feeling and it makes sense given all the evidence.

 

I was just wondering about that, whether we were trying to align the circles or the "novs" in our last discussion on this. I'll have to look at it again at some point keeping in mind that they could be separate elements.

 

Your explanation about a fifth plate might fit the facts too - my question on that would be whether the equipment they were using would have been able to accommodate that. I don't know. One of the things I wondered about after our last discussion was whether the circle/nov could have been afixed to the black plate somehow and shifted during the run. I'm not sure if that makes any sense or not.

 

Are there any copies that have the Nov clipped at the top? If not, that might be another thing that makes an "after-initial-printing" stamp a plausible explanation in light of this "new" info.

 

Definitely still many questions to be answered.

[BangZoom]

...Look at Superman 1 - There you have three different, much better documented printings, with the first printing easily identifiable and yet no one makes any distinction between them - I don't think CGC even notes it on the label. Yet if it were Zap #1 or TMNT #1 they would - that makes no sense to me.

 

I didn't know that Superman #1 had three different printings.

 

What is the distinguishing feature of the 1st printing?

[Theagenes]

...Look at Superman 1 - There you have three different, much better documented printings, with the first printing easily identifiable and yet no one makes any distinction between them - I don't think CGC even notes it on the label. Yet if it were Zap #1 or TMNT #1 they would - that makes no sense to me.

 

I didn't know that Superman #1 had three different printings.

 

What is the distinguishing feature of the 1st printing?

 

The 1st printing has a house ad for another book (Action 13? someone refresh my memory) and lists it as "On Sale (X date)." The 2nd and 3rd printings have the same ad with "On sale now!"

[BangZoom]

...Look at Superman 1 - There you have three different, much better documented printings, with the first printing easily identifiable and yet no one makes any distinction between them - I don't think CGC even notes it on the label. Yet if it were Zap #1 or TMNT #1 they would - that makes no sense to me.

 

I didn't know that Superman #1 had three different printings.

 

What is the distinguishing feature of the 1st printing?

 

The 1st printing has a house ad for another book (Action 13? someone refresh my memory) and lists it as "On Sale (X date)." The 2nd and 3rd printings have the same ad with "On sale now!"

 

Thanks. That's fascinating.

 

I just took a look.

 

The last page is a full page ad for Action 14.

[BangZoom]

I didn't know that Superman #1 had three different printings.

 

What is the distinguishing feature of the 1st printing?

 

The 1st printing has a house ad for another book (Action 13? someone refresh my memory) and lists it as "On Sale (X date)." The 2nd and 3rd printings have the same ad with "On sale now!"

 

Are the print runs known for the 3 printings?

[october]

...Look at Superman 1 - There you have three different, much better documented printings, with the first printing easily identifiable and yet no one makes any distinction between them - I don't think CGC even notes it on the label. Yet if it were Zap #1 or TMNT #1 they would - that makes no sense to me.

 

I didn't know that Superman #1 had three different printings.

 

What is the distinguishing feature of the 1st printing?

 

Batman 1 also had different printings that are easily identified, but nobody cares about that either. Strange.

[Theagenes]

...Look at Superman 1 - There you have three different, much better documented printings, with the first printing easily identifiable and yet no one makes any distinction between them - I don't think CGC even notes it on the label. Yet if it were Zap #1 or TMNT #1 they would - that makes no sense to me.

 

I didn't know that Superman #1 had three different printings.

 

What is the distinguishing feature of the 1st printing?

 

The 1st printing has a house ad for another book (Action 13? someone refresh my memory) and lists it as "On Sale (X date)." The 2nd and 3rd printings have the same ad with "On sale now!"

 

Thanks. That's fascinating.

 

I just took a look.

 

The last page is a full page ad for Action 14.

 

So is yours a 1st printing? If not and it's one of those worthless reprints you can always send it to me if you don't want it polluting your amazing collection.

 

The print runs are known and they've been posted here before but I can't remember off the top of my head. I'll see if I can find it.

[G.A.tor]

hello all..

it really comes down to "variant" hunting...on new/modern/copper books ,etc, it is somewhat "affordable" to hunt cover variants....however, there are likely very few folks that can or would try to hunt variants on GA key books (can you imagine having all 3 Supes 1 variants...would set you back $100K)...most folks are happy to just get to own one version of a GA key (I know I am)

rick

[BangZoom]

So is yours a 1st printing? If not and it's one of those worthless reprints you can always send it to me if you don't want it polluting your amazing collection.

 

The print runs are known and they've been posted here before but I can't remember off the top of my head. I'll see if I can find it.

 

Yes (Phew!), mine is a 1st printing.

 

The ad states that Action # 14 is, "On sale June 2nd at your favorite dealer."

 

Thank goodness, I'd hate to have to throw it out.

[Straw-Man]

So is yours a 1st printing? If not and it's one of those worthless reprints you can always send it to me if you don't want it polluting your amazing collection.

 

The print runs are known and they've been posted here before but I can't remember off the top of my head. I'll see if I can find it.

 

Yes (Phew!), mine is a 1st printing.

 

The ad states that Action # 14 is on sale, June 2nd at your favorite dealer.

 

Thank goodness, I'd hate to have to throw it out.

 

and your marvel 1? oct or nov?

[Straw-Man]

It may take 5 years. It may take 50 years. Eventually, the comic market will come to realize how much more valuable a Oct copy is when compared to the November copy.

 

S

 

Frankly I'm alittle stunned that it hasn't already and I'm not sure why either.

hello all...

as a new timely collector who has never owned a Marvel 1 (only seen the twilight copy up close!)....is there any difference other than the cut of the front cover and the black dot over Oct with NOv above?....I don't chase cover variants, so unless something is different about the comic content, what is the big deal (That said, if it makes the NOv copy cheaper, then I am all for it!)?

rick

 

 

In the November copy, the Sub-Mariner seems quite unsure of himself. In the October copy, he is much more confident.

 

S

 

steve has it backwards; he gains confidence from oct to nov. in fact, in the mpfw, he's absolutely snivelling.

[Theagenes]

Superman #1 print runs:

1st - 500,000

2nd - 250,000

3rd - 150,000

 

From an old post by rjpb, who in turn quotes a very interesting article on the subject:

 

Link

 

 

I can sort of understand why the Oct/Nov Marvel Comics and the period/no period Batman #1 are not acknowledged as multiple printings, as we still don't have enough information about what happened, just speculation; but the Superman printings are a different matter and should acknowledged by Overstreet and CGC.

[lou_fine]

So is yours a 1st printing? If not and it's one of those worthless reprints you can always send it to me if you don't want it polluting your amazing collection.

 

The print runs are known and they've been posted here before but I can't remember off the top of my head. I'll see if I can find it.

 

Yes (Phew!), mine is a 1st printing.

 

The ad states that Action # 14 is, "On sale June 2nd at your favorite dealer."

 

Thank goodness, I'd hate to have to throw it out.

 

BZ;

 

Now that the print runs are known, it's obvious that your 1st print is actually worthless as it's got far more copies than the other two print runs combined.

 

Since you are now going to have to throw it out, I would consider taking it off your hands and might even be willing to cover your cost of postage if you respond right away.

[BangZoom]

So is yours a 1st printing? If not and it's one of those worthless reprints you can always send it to me if you don't want it polluting your amazing collection.

 

The print runs are known and they've been posted here before but I can't remember off the top of my head. I'll see if I can find it.

 

Yes (Phew!), mine is a 1st printing.

 

The ad states that Action # 14 is, "On sale June 2nd at your favorite dealer."

 

Thank goodness, I'd hate to have to throw it out.

 

BZ;

 

Now that the print runs are known, it's obvious that your 1st print is actually worthless as it's got far more copies than the other two print runs combined....

 

That's true.

 

Maybe I can find some sucker that will trade me one of those rare 2nd or 3rd printings for it.

[lou_fine]

I'm not sure the market has really completely caught on yet, however. Look at Superman 1 - There you have three different, much better documented printings, with the first printing easily identifiable and yet no one makes any distinction between them - I don't think CGC even notes it on the label. Yet if it were Zap #1 or TMNT #1 they would - that makes no sense to me.

 

I guess the rationale behind this is that when it comes to the GA books, all of the printings are tough to find which makes them all expensive. With respect to the Modern reprints, there is a definite difference between the first print which is usually much tougher to find than the subsequent reprints and priced accordingly.

 

Without a doubt though, the first print for a GA book should still be worth more money. But then again, I also feel that OS certainly does not have enough breakouts for the GA books in general in comparison to the SA and BA listings.

[Arty]

Yes (Phew!), mine is a 1st printing.

 

The ad states that Action # 14 is, "On sale June 2nd at your favorite dealer."

 

Thank goodness, I'd hate to have to throw it out.

 

Since you have an unslabbed copy could you take a digital picture of that ad? you already have a thread where to post it.

[spoonerism]

I'm not sure the market has really completely caught on yet, however. Look at Superman 1 - There you have three different, much better documented printings, with the first printing easily identifiable and yet no one makes any distinction between them - I don't think CGC even notes it on the label. Yet if it were Zap #1 or TMNT #1 they would - that makes no sense to me.

 

I guess the rationale behind this is that when it comes to the GA books, all of the printings are tough to find which makes them all expensive. With respect to the Modern reprints, there is a definite difference between the first print which is usually much tougher to find than the subsequent reprints and priced accordingly.

 

Without a doubt though, the first print for a GA book should still be worth more money. But then again, I also feel that OS certainly does not have enough breakouts for the GA books in general in comparison to the SA and BA listings.

 

One that always gets me is the Batman #1 printings. The first, it seems, had "No 1" on the cover, and the second had "No .1" (space where it looks like it is on the cover)

 

One of my personal grails is a "No 1" Batman. Someone on here had a bound edition from Bob Kane's estate, which had Bats 1-5 or so in it. The #1 there was a "first printing" (what I'm calling it for lack of a better term).

 

Also, a shop in the UK had a "No 1" up for $15k BIN on eBay for a while a couple weeks ago when there were 5 Bats 1s on the bay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140114466056

 

And, the beat-to-hell copy in the May Heritage auction was also a "No 1":

http://comics.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=824&Lot_No=41072&src=pr#Photo

 

It'd be interesting to see numbers on which versions of these books are out there in what ratios.

 

For the record, my current Bats 1 (bought from Adam/Filter) is a "No .1":

http://flickr.com/photos/welborn/494531103/

 

--James