Randall Dowling

Member
  • Content Count

    2,782
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Randall Dowling

  1. Forgive my ignorance on this subject but I have a question for the pulp collectors here in regard to trimming. Obviously on comics it's considered verboten. Is it the same with pulps? Would you rather have a copy that has ragged overhang edges with pieces chipping off or a trimmed copy? Any thoughts on what the price reduction for trimming is (ballpark)? Appreciate your thoughts in advance.
  2. Apparently you're not a fan of substantial water staining on the bottom of a book...
  3. Mail Call! I'm having some success buying larger lots of books but the net effect is similar to that Star Trek episode "The Trouble with Tribbles"! I've got many, many, many books that are not in my collecting focus. May have to donate a bunch to half price books or something. First off, a couple of cool covers, one by the great Mort Kunstler. And I'm particularly fond of this period of Avons And last, my continuing junkie-like addiction to all things Robert Maguire needed satisfying so... At first I thought that some guy named Robert Christie thought he'd put his name under the authors but it turns out Alexander Bolton is a pseudonym.
  4. Congratulations and kudos for keeping that copy in such nice shape! I've been looking for a high grade copy forever but I'm afraid it's going to run away on price. Really impressive copy!
  5. Yeah, Analog, Fantastic, If, and many other digests have rough cover periods and then there are really cool cover periods. I've always loved the Jeff Jones covers of that time (not my copy, taken from internet although I own a few copies, just too lazy to dig them out and scan ).
  6. This is an incredible thread filled with pieces I've never seen before. However, it feels like poor George Herriman is severely underrepresented. Especially given the value of his contribution. Or perhaps I'm just a big fan of Ignatz Mouse?
  7. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but it doesn't explain this (apologies, I just copied this from a previous thread). If you blow up the image to read the first paragraph, Warren refers to "This issue measured 5 1/4" wide by 7 1/4" high and was printed on special paper, using special staples". I've already mentioned that I've seen 2 different types of blue staples. It seems reasonable that one (or both) of those books meets the criteria described in this ad. I think it's at least a possibility that: a) Warren did not recall the sequence of events clearly years later when he was interviewed (I really don't want to get into a conversation about memory but it's pretty widely known that even eye witness testimony in court can be sketchy). or b) Warren, as a marketing ploy, declared that someone had "counterfeited" Eerie 1 and to his surprise, got a visit by the FBI and has been in damage control ever since or c) During one of Jim Warren's absences, somebody at the company legitimately produced a version of the book as a promotion. All I'm saying, is that there are other possibilities than what you feel certain of. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that, for me, none of what you're putting forth closes the book on this subject. I think it's very possible that Bob Overstreet knows something you don't. That's all.
  8. Vampirella 42 was just sold via PM. For the rest I'm closing this thread. If you see something that's left and you're interested, pm me and we can work something out. Thanks to all that looked and to all that purchased. You guys are always great to work with.
  9. Very well said. Thanks for your candor, sir. Everything I know about the topic leads me to similar conclusions. I understand @N e r V's frustrations about wanting this clarified. I would like so also. But, man, I've seen some very impressive counterfeiting in other collectibles that has given me a great deal of skepticism. That included with the inconsistency of Warren's own recollection and the lack of clarity about the actual details of the first printing just leaves me cold when it comes to this book.
  10. You know as much or more about this than anyone (although you've always been very humble about it). I'm curious- what's the most you would pay for any copy of Eerie 1? More specifically, would you pay $1500 for a copy? I know I wouldn't for the reasons I've stated before- there is just too much unknown and counterfeiters are very good at what they do. If you're not comfortable answering, I understand. Just thought I'd ask.
  11. I think this statement is very debatable. There are many indications that Jim Warren knew about and promoted a "special printing". Your statement ignores this fact. Was there also an unauthorized version produced by someone at Warren? Yes, I believe there was. But you speak with certainty on things you could not be certain about unless you were working at the Warren offices or have direct information from someone who was. I'm just saying, I think you have to be careful about what you state as being known vs. what is supposition. No matter how good the supposition is, it still has some uncertainty.
  12. Agreed. I haven't read anything that indicates certainty that this copy is an original. @SOLAR BOY I'm not knocking your copy. It may indeed be an original. And your anecdote of your friend, while very nice and kind, it is not a complete provenance, and thus, not a provenance at all (at least what you've described so far doesn't). There are, potentially, the following possibilities: -an original that has all the hallmarks (which frankly, are the subject of some debate and not, I believe, completely understood). -a "2nd Print" which I believe, Oakman has a proper handle on, that it has blue stripes on the staples but I've personally seen at least 2 different kind of blue stripes on staples- one large and fuzzy looking and another with very precise multiple blue lines on staples. Warren in one of his house ads refers to sending people a copy with "special staples". It could be both of these, or one of them. I currently have no idea to identify what is what but I do trust Oakman's copy. -any number of counterfeits may also be possible. I've told people several times, I think it's foolishness to assume that there has only been one attempt to counterfeit back in the 70s. Given the valuation of this book, it is extremely lucrative to produce a bunch of copies and relatively easy to make given current access to various printing methods. What I can say with certainty is that even the most experienced dealers don't think they can identify an original with 100% certainty and thus won't present and sell copies as such. To quote Gary, the only copies that he feels certain he can identify are the unusually bad counterfeits. And if Gary can't identify an original, I'd feel silly claiming I could. I'm sure this feels like I'm pouring cold water on this, but I don't want overly much misinformation floating around on this book. It seems like a perfect setup for someone to unknowingly claim an original, sell it for huge money, and have the buyer find out later it's not legit. I personally would want no part of that equation. It's unfortunate, but I just don't see being able to identify a copy in person with certainty, let alone via pictures over the internet.
  13. Those Avon Murder Mystery Digests are really volatile to me. I've bought a few books from this seller. Pretty much what you see is what you get. And yes, that's a very strong price. The crazy thing is, it's like 5 people going strong on that book! Not just 2 guys slugging it out. On another note, I finally took the plunge on this little gem, on it's way to me! Tough book in decent shape...
  14. This is awesome stuff!! I've had a very difficult time getting access to French and Spanish editions of various books. Thanks for posting!
  15. My understanding is that when Steve Ditko was alive, he was more accessible than Jim Warren.
  16. @aardvark88 if you like Skywalds as a substitute for PCH, you'll love Eerie Publications and Stanley magazines! And both are incredibly tough in high grade (not that Skywalds aren't).
  17. LOL! I just read through this thread again. I must have only read the first 10 posts or so the first time around. Pretty funny stuff! Particularly the part where it's suggested that all the metrics for an original be established- exact weight, placement of staples, etc. That guy clearly doesn't have a clue about how these things (and comics and magazines for that matter) are produced. Staple placement within 1/8"...
  18. It's not directed at you. The topic of Eerie 1 has been a subject of great debate here in the magazine section over the many years (including very recently). There have been several threads trying to sort it out. Although there are some who believe they can accurately parse which is a first printing, a second printing, a counterfeit, etc., the broad consensus is that due to the way it was produced and the inconsistency of available information from Jim Warren, Bob Overstreet and others, it is not something that can be reliably identified. Oakman has a copy for which he has provenance that leads back to Warren. That's probably as good as it gets. All other copies- caveat emptor. This is one of the reasons that CGC doesn't certify it. But I would remind people that this is a subject of much debate and opinions vary widely. Still, I will not spend good money on one unless I had the provenance to it. Just not worth the risk. It's really not a magazine anyway.
  19. Especially this one! Anybody think the figure on the cover looks familiar?
  20. That's beautiful country, by the way. When I was a kid, my family hiked part of the appalachian trail through Cherokee National Forest. Just a wealth of natural beauty.
  21. This sounds a little slackey... like you've been leaning on your shovel. Jus' sayin'.