Another X-Men "variant"?

[grail_raider]

With the thread about #173's blue/black variant going, I just spotted another equally lame possible "variant".

 

CGC notes - "Dark and light versions of cover exists"

 

Whats the deal with this one? - Can someone post some pics of the 'light' and 'dark' covers for comparisons?

 

[MutantKeys]

Is this the first time youve heard of this??

 

 

Ive owned both. Here is the dark one

 

[KEY ISSUES Comics]

Well, now that we're on the topic I believe there are light and dark "variants" of UNCANNY X-MEN #140. I've had copies of it withbarely visible trees in the shaded background, while copies exhibit a clear contrast between the trees and the shadows.

 

I for one wouldn't consider any of these printing variations as true "variants" and I definitely wouldn't pay a penny more for one over the over. There are exceptions like that 1970s ASM issue (I forget the # off-hand) with the color error on the cover, where the Jackal and the Spidey logo are the wrong color. That's an acutal printing error, as opposed to printing variation.

 

Happy collecting!

[deathlok]

The dark version just looks like a darker scan. It doesn't appear to have a noticeable difference.

[MutantKeys]

"Ive owned both. Here is the dark one"

 

Sheesh people should stay shut when they do not know what they are talking about

[deathlok]

SLiver, until you see both side by side with the same contrast, you should be wary. Lots of so called experts will claim they know things, but sadly, they just don't. The blue/black X-men is a great example of someone who thinks they know what they are talking about.

[MutantKeys]

I know what im talking about especially if I owned both examples at the same time...sLivers being the lighter version since mine is very dark. I knew about the printing defect on the 173 and wanted to see an example since I had never seen it before .. this book is totally different.

 

 

Anyway... Moderator notified of trolling and harrasing.

[worldsbestcomics]

Here you go, Mike.

 

 

Light.............................................................................................................................Dark

[deathlok]

Here you go, Mike.

 

 

Light Dark

 

 

Looks the same. Although if you ask Calamerica, he'll tell you they are variants. It's just the hue is lighter on on ethan the other. I'm really surprised CGC would blunder on their label that one one of them. I'm sure glad they didn't make the same mistake on all their labels.

[MutantKeys]

 

Hey Steve mine is darker than your dark copy.. much darker actually. I am looking at it right now. Maybe I should send it to you

[deathlok]

Hey, look this guy has the red variant of this issues. Must be super rare.

 

[Lazyboy]

How about the ultra-rare Light/Dark variant?

 

 

Bidding starts at $10K!!

[grail_raider]

No, I've heard of it back in the 90s, but always thought it was lame that just because a run of the book was either low on brown ink or used a different shade of brown was considered a "variant".

 

Seems to me if you have 2 of the "dark" version and want a "light" version - just leave one in the sun for a couple of days - you'll get yourself the light variant.

[worldsbestcomics]

No, I've heard of it back in the 90s, but always thought it was lame that just because a run of the book was either low on brown ink or used a different shade of brown was considered a "variant".

 

Seems to me if you have 2 of the "dark" version and want a "light" version - just leave one in the sun for a couple of days - you'll get yourself the light variant.

 

Sun fading looks very different from a different shade of ink so that won't work. I agree that these ink differences don't really amount to variants. On the other hand, I've known collectors who paid a premium to get a copy of Giant-Size X-Men 1 from early in the print run when the red ink really jumped out at you rather than a book from later in the print run when the washed-out red ink looked almost orange. Of course, I also saw a guy sell a Spidey 299 with orange-looking red ink as a variant and get extra bucks for it so what are going to do

 

But, you can't call this a mistake by CGC Deathlok. These books were called "variants" by Overstreet and other publications long before CGC existed. The CGC label just says that light and dark cover versions exist. It doesn't call them variants or even say whether a particular book is the light or dark version.

 

The color difference in the two books I posted is pretty evident when you can hold them in your hands. The quality of scanner and the ability to adjust lightness/darkeness/hue using photoshop or a similar program would keep me from ever paying a premium to buy a so-called variant online.

[deathlok]

No, I've heard of it back in the 90s, but always thought it was lame that just because a run of the book was either low on brown ink or used a different shade of brown was considered a "variant".

 

Seems to me if you have 2 of the "dark" version and want a "light" version - just leave one in the sun for a couple of days - you'll get yourself the light variant.

 

Sun fading looks very different from a different shade of ink so that won't work. I agree that these ink differences don't really amount to variants. On the other hand, I've known collectors who paid a premium to get a copy of Giant-Size X-Men 1 from early in the print run when the red ink really jumped out at you rather than a book from later in the print run when the washed-out red ink looked almost orange. Of course, I also saw a guy sell a Spidey 299 with orange-looking red ink as a variant and get extra bucks for it so what are going to do

 

But, you can't call this a mistake by CGC Deathlok. These books were called "variants" by Overstreet and other publications long before CGC existed. The CGC label just says that light and dark cover versions exist. It doesn't call them variants or even say whether a particular book is the light or dark version.

 

The color difference in the two books I posted is pretty evident when you can hold them in your hands. The quality of scanner and the ability to adjust lightness/darkeness/hue using photoshop or a similar program would keep me from ever paying a premium to buy a so-called variant online.

 

My problem with CGC labeling it as such is that they make the distinction of a printing issue. Yet, the don't make the distinction for other comics. Calamerica can tell you plenty about how he has tons of the same thing on his IM/Subby books. The same as with that other X-men book. So why does this issue have such significance to get a label distinction? Lots of books have different hues on them. So what.

[BRNebraska]

I wouldn't call any printing difference a "variant". Variant collectors know what they want to collect, and these color differences usually aren't it! Now if someone wanted to collect color printing differences, have at it. There's tons of them out there. And CGC starting to label them is problematic for me. There are dark and light copies of X-Men #242 (deep blue cover). Are those labeled differently?

[BRNebraska]

I know what im talking about especially if I owned both examples at the same time...sLivers being the lighter version since mine is very dark. I knew about the printing defect on the 173 and wanted to see an example since I had never seen it before .. this book is totally different.

 

 

MK--how is this one different from the #173 from the other thread? They are both printing defects. Just because CGC labelled this one, it's a variant? I don't think either one should be considered a variant, nor labelled by CGC. They should be considered color hue variations, not variant covers. By the way, I'm certainly not trying to profit in any way from these color differences. If any book is considerably different from the others I've seen roll through our inventory, I pull it aside. It's not many, but I have a few.

[MutantKeys]

The 173 is either fading or the printer running out of ink where as the 241 is not. My copy of 241 is alot darker the Worldsbestcomics 241. Seems as if different ink was used to print this book

[BRNebraska]

Got ya. We're on the same page then!

 

Although if you held the #173 in your hand, you might say differently. It's not faded, but I can see that it is probably some of the ink changing composition on the more blue background. More of the blue used in the mix was left visible. Like it missed a final coat or something. Anyone know how the colors are mixed for the cover inks? Are they done all in 1 shot or multi-layered? Inquiring minds want to know.

[shiverbones]

the 173 may be a case where the black plate went down before the blue plate did, leaving the blue stronger on top of the black. You can notice it a lot on random covers, where the blacks have a blue edge around them. Black is supposed to be the final color printed in the process, it goes yellow, magenta, cyan, black. It would seem sometimes the black & blue plates get printed out of order. There is no "mixing" of inks, only layering, so I am not sure how to explain the inferno book, but maybe its a similar scenario of out of order printing plates.