Aman619

wow!  this really took off!  bravo!

The Rusty Staples.  

Maybe this will jumpstart some love for Superman Annual !  I bought the lone 9.0 decades ago only to suffer the sad fate of being surpassed by more and better copies.  It’s been a dead book for years for me. Such a cool comic that blew me away when I was a kid.  And the cover is a classic of early 60s DC goodness and clean Swan line work of the entire Superman family. Was it the first box design cover? I guess Secret Origins may have come out earlier.  

On 4/5/2024 at 1:39 AM, tth2 said:

Did the 9.2 Cap 1 go for too little, the 3.0 Cap 1 for too much, or both, or do people think they both went for about the right price?

Both!

very few of the scans however are high res, most look blurrier than they'd be with a magnifying glass in hand. So judgements on the blurriness are pixels trying to show an image with too few pixels to work with.  The splotchiness shows up okay though.  The Spring issue above is one of the cleaned, sharpest in both sets of screen grabs. 

On 3/31/2024 at 11:24 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

OK. The reason I ask is that those 8 snips are all from "No-Dot" copies.

Any thoughts, @The Lions Den?

The copies with the dot all have much cleaner lines around the letters. (A couple of them have a tiny bit of red below the G, but less than what's seen on the "No-Dot" copies.) These snips are from the first 8 blue-label "Dot" copies that I found on HA. You can see how much cleaner the lines are. The last image is one that's closest to the "No-Dot" copies; I suspect that one was printed around the time in the print run when the plate changed.

Looking the new second set from with dot copies, the red is more fully inked. Printing solid where the no dot copes look muddled red, like a weaker transfer of ink. 
 

if we have decided that the dot was printed for awhile and the presses stopped to file away the dot, then they ran off the rest of the run…. 
 

then the rough edges might be attributed to the plates sitting around for a “while” allowing the inks to dry a bit on the “mountaintops” then the presses start up again and new ink overlays on them, not clean metal with fresh ink, causing the edges to have extra outside the letter shapes AND cause the poor transfer making the exc text mottled red. But the red all over the covers would have the same roughness so we’d have to look over their entire covers 

so basically, who knows as Lions den says b

Sorry to disappoint, but no.  I thought you were gonna ask an easy one, like why there is yellow around the black letters!  Lions Den worked on presses and has more direct experience as to how ink behaves when transferred from the plates to the “blankets” to the paper.

Probably a consignment 

earlier I posted this in the wrong thread... posting it here with the Superman 1 discussion...

while we are at it and having fun, here's another similar situation.  Same comic but some copies have the star, others dont.  Unless that star was some kids collection marker stamp, there must have been 2 printings.  Did this publisher license out the comic to someone else and they used a star to track them?  thoughts?

What you state makes me think that perhaps they started printing with no dot. And when noticed, early on in the run, decided to add the dot. But, it was added in the wrong place!  So they said f it. Finish the run. That would explain that more for copies exist. 
 

but, if the no dot version was the proof that DC approved, I doubt they’d stop the presses on their own accord. They’d have to check with DC first.  So I find it harder to believe that with the no dot covers piling up (presses are fast and the covers are 8-up on a sheet) by the time they got DC on the line, the run could be almost finished. At that point with 75% finished, I think DC says “it’s fine, just finish the run”.
 

or, if they DID STOP THE PRESS and theyd probably get a quick answer such as  “might as well fix it since you stopped the print run…”. 

of course, covers were printed 8-up, or maybe 4-up. With a combination of different comic covers on each sheet. This complicates the idea of stopping the presses, or maybe not. It just delayed it a few hours or a day. Since all the other covers print runs also needed to get back on press. 
 

im rambling on mostly guessing based on how the printing works, trying to take the evidence before us (the comics)  and work backward without any real certainty. Or knowledge of how they did it in 1940 versus how they’ve done it in my lifetime. 

while we are at it and having fun, here's another similar situation.  Same comic but some copies have the star, others dont.  Unless that star was some kids collection marker stamp, there must have been 2 printings.  Did this publisher license out the comic to someone else and they used a star to track them?  thoughts?

On 3/27/2024 at 8:33 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

There's a Batman 1 first printing (aka "no dot" copy) in HA's current auction.  

In rare book parlance, they might actually call this not a first printing but, more specifically, a "first printing, first state" due to an "errata" -- because there are so few "no dot" copies that it's virtually certain it was a mistake caught early in the printing process and corrected before too many copies had been printed.   But whatever you call them, the dotless copies are clearly the first ones off the press.

well, the covers are printed separately from the interiors, then shipped and added to the interior newsprint sections... so WHEN they discovered the error on the cover determined the amount of each cover (with period and without.  This would have happened BEFORE they shipped the covers AND, assuming they sent a proof to DC before running the presses, everyone missed the error.  This is a complication because no-one would catch the error while being printed because the covers would MATCH the client approved proofs!  And a missing period is just not worth reprinting for a cheap thing like funny books in 1940.

Therefore, Id be leaning on a second printing of Batman 1 was ordered. And, while they were at it, they instructed the printers to add or remove a period.

It could be many theories why we have 2 covers: with and without a period.  I think the cheapest sequence would be that the first print run HAD the period, but it was in the wrong place. At that point it's cheaper (not by much though) to delete the black period from the black plate.  Either by filing it down so it doesn't impart any ink, (cheapest - no new film, no new black plate) or they fixed the film to mask out the period and replaced the black plate from the film.  But frustratingly as in all these scenarios, we just dont know what happened with any certainty.

also, another idea.  IF as you suggest they caught the error while printing the covers, they would have fixed the plate and kept printing.  Then ship ALL the covers (with and without) to be bound with the interiors. This way the entire print run ordered arrives at same time. Some comics got the period an 8th mothers gt the other covers.

On 3/27/2024 at 6:36 PM, grendel013 said:

I'm still getting used to your new Avatar... but that's the same ole wit.

its that nicotine stained guy!

On 3/27/2024 at 3:40 PM, shadroch said:

Having insurance is important, but remember the insurance company isn't your friend and will try not to make payouts.   If you applied for insurance and said you were a non-smoker, don't be showing up on the internet with a cigarette in your hands.

  Your insurance needs will change throughout your life, and you should make adjustments. If you are 55 and your kids are grown, you may not need as much as when they were young. Insurance is to provide for your family if you can't. Insurance is no longer necessary when your assets are enough to do that. It might be a luxury you can afford, but it isn't necessary.

On the other hand, it is possible to build wealth by buying incredible amounts of life insurance and borrowing against it. It's not something I understand, and don't endorse it, but I've seen a few people do it successfully.

 "Insurance company is not your friend" ... Amen to that

How many here with comics insurance realize that your theft coverage is only about 20% of your policy insurance limit?  You can get (argue for) full coverage loss due to destruction, fire, flooding (depending on your location), but burglary or theft?  only a slice of what you "think" you have paid for.  Kinda implies that a sold steel safe for say 5K in a safe place under a water proof tarp is money better spent.

I finally watched episode one last night… then binged the next three! Amazing so far… I keep editing where I think we are headed, from fear to hopeful to apocalypse. To… ?  Very clever slow reveal.  

I’m not a Marvel Comics 1 scholar, but I believe all were printed with October date, but the Later release|printing all have a black overprinted circle that says Nov over the Oct underneath as opposed to a cleaner but more expensive plate change.

there's a fabulous tribute section to Ed in the current Heritage Auction catalog.  Very classy.

but there's so few high grade copies, so would a buyer choose a first printing 6.0 over an 8.5 later printing?  I think there may be a difference the same grade for one or the other, but condition should rule the day in sales pricing.  Lets say the 8.5 is a Now On Sale/3rd print, and the 8.0 and 7.5 are June 2nd.  Wouldn't everyone want the 8.5?  Or, what is in this scenario, a 7.0 is first print... and the 8.0 and 7.5 are Now On Sale copies -  would a 7.0 sell for more than the 7.5 and 8.0??   With so few copies in the top range, Id be surprised at a lower graded copy surpassing a higher graded copy.  Probably a 2.0 June 2 might fetch a bit less than a Now on Sale copy.

On 3/24/2024 at 10:21 PM, pemart1966 said:

According to GCD, Superman #1 went on sale May 18, 1939.  This would have been the 500,000 run I assume.

Superman #2 went on sale August 19, 1939 (no mention of a second print run that I could see).  That's almost 3 months to the day.

So during that 3 months:

1.  Superman #1 first print was released.  Sales data was collected and it was determined that it was a runaway hit.  

2.  A second shorter run was issued with slight changes  Sales data was collected and It too was a sell out or close to it.

3.  An even shorter third print run was issued with slight changes.  Sales data was collected...and by that time nearly 1 million copies had been printed and it was time for Superman #2 to be printed and distributed.

I would have loved to see how that communication chain ran considering it was 1939.

1.  Superman #1 first print was released.  Sales data was collected and it was determined that it was a runaway hit.  

not sure we can count on this step because its been widely accepted that the sales reports took at least 2-3 months to be collected and reported to publishers.  We've all accepted the stories that thats why Superman wasn't on the cover of Action again until issue #7, right?  And even 20 years later DC waits months to see if their premieres in Showcase did well enough to get their own books.  However, It can also be true that just by visiting newsstands in NYC and asking a few questions, that the DC execs could learn that the copies sold out quickly and then get on the phone and call other cities perhaps.  Then they could gamble on getting more copies out there.

So I think Im agreeing with you while quibbling about saying "sales reports" in their traditional sense being a reason for reprinting Superman 1.  They weren't fast enough back then.

On 3/24/2024 at 7:15 PM, jimbo_7071 said:

That's one way to spin it, but the fact remains that on of the "traunches" is a first printing and the others are not.

Many collectors likely don't know about this issue; most would prefer to own the first printing if they did know, I'll warrant. An original is an original.

There is really no excuse for CGC's not noting which house ad a particular copy contains. If they want to steer clear of calling some copies first printings and other reprints, so be it. They can put the information about the house ad on the label and let a duly informed market decide if one "variant" is more valuable. There's no doubt in my mind how that would shake out.

Im not too sure the market will lean heavily one way or the other price-wise, although generally speaking, I agree they always do in other cases, with more modern books where reprints have been announced and marketed as such.  Usually -- the lowly 3rd printing is much cheaper. But often if it's also a much scarcer lower print run, the market raises it value.  For Superman 1, where for decades nobody cared which copy they bought so long as they secured a copy, the scarcer 3rd printings copies and the "first printing" copies may stay relatively the same value...  I have a copy and frankly dont really want a diversion in case Im inadvertently on the wrong side here... But overall, I feel I'll be okay either way the cookie crumbles if it comes to that..

Disappeared? Or came to their senses!  They dodged a bullet and became a bit more aware of the dangers of chasing highest graded copies. 

who owns the 9.0s?  Metropolis?  wow!

I dunno.  first question:  why are the dimensions of the book taller than the comics they reprint?  there's 2-3" of dead WHITE SPACE ON EACH PAGE.  Is this part of a series of books that started with the taller dimension Modern comics reprints, so these are forced to live on pages that are too tall for the squarer dimensions 50-60s pages?  lame

Also, not much in the way of greatness in these stories.  A collector would be better off getting reading copies of these issues. Yeah it would cost a lot more, but it's not as if these PCs will increase in value.  They go down in time.  Like all the HC we have all bought al these years cause they are so cool when new..  just IMO.

OK I looked at a different set and yes, the HC page size was designed for newer taller comics which fit well on the pages.  SO they preferred that each book line up on shelves better than how the stories themselves read on page.  clever.

6.5 is a pretty high grade for it, but just shy of a must have for million dollar buyers. So price wouldn't necessarily march upward on every opportunity if a few eligible buyers arent willing to go all out on a copy in a particular auction.  I guess.  I mean 1.8 is probably record price, or equal to prior sales (cant recall)  and 6 times what 6's sold for a decade ago.