Eerie #1 Expert Needed 4 4

[N e r V]

1 hour ago, oakman29 said:

You keep teasing me with that I'm gonna have to give you an offer you cant refuse.🤔

 

1 hour ago, eccomic said:

 Like the Godfather said...

[CDNComix]

I am glad that this thread has gone on with fresh activity. I am mainly an underground collector but the Eerie ashcan is one one of my all time wants. I love the subject and its history but I would never buy a copy (if I could afford it) unless it was it had an ironclad provenance like the one one posted by eccomic (beautiful BTW). I have seen copies sell with the blessing from the "experts" from ComicConnect, Heritage, dealers and CGC consultants. But I would assume that what these groups are doing is just running through the Over Street checks - size, print quality, bald man, roof etc. I do not believe that these checks (even if affirmative) are adequate protection against later date high quality photo reproductions.

When evaluating copies, past discussions in the collecting community sometimes focus on the "print gloss". The premise is that a real printing has a slightly shiny sheen of a litho print, while photo reproductions are more matte. Within my collection of undergrounds I have many examples that run in different directions: matte litho, shiny litho, matte photocopy and shiny photocopy. I believe that there is no useable rule here, except that an "unknown" copy should have the same print sheen as a known first printing (which I have never held). There's still debate whether if Warren actually "litho printed" the ashcan or used some other means available to publishers backs in the mid-60s. Some assume that the ashcan was produced through some other means and draw the conclusion that is the main why the CGC will not certify a copy - even though they certify other photo copied books from around the same era. Many of which were just bought to Kinko's for the "print" run.

Edited May 23, 2021 by CDNComix

[oakman29]

48 minutes ago, CDNComix said:

I am glad that this thread has gone on with fresh activity. I am mainly an underground collector but the Eerie ashcan is one one of my all time wants. I love the subject and its history but I would never buy a copy (if I could afford it) unless it was it had an ironclad provenance like the one one posted by eccomic (beautiful BTW). I have seen copies sell with the blessing from the "experts" from ComicConnect, Heritage, dealers and CGC consultants. But I would assume that what these groups are doing is just running through the Over Street checks - size, print quality, bald man, roof etc. I do not believe that these checks (even if affirmative) are adequate protection against later date high quality photo reproductions.

When evaluating copies, past discussions in the collecting community sometimes focus on the "print gloss". The premise is that a real printing has a slightly shiny sheen of a litho print, while photo reproductions are more matte. Within my collection of undergrounds I have many examples that run in different directions: matte litho, shiny litho, matte photocopy and shiny photocopy. I believe that there is no useable rule here, except that an "unknown" copy should have the same print sheen as a known first printing (which I have never held). There's still debate whether if Warren actually "litho printed" the ashcan or used some other means available to publishers backs in the mid-60s. Some assume that the ashcan was produced through some other means and draw the conclusion that is the main why the CGC will not certify a copy - even though they certify other photo copied books from around the same era. Many of which were just bought to Kinko's for the "print" run.

Some would say the "2nd print" or counterfeit copies with a blue stripe on the staples were actually produced by an employee of Warren who used the same exact printing process as the originals. There's quite a bit of meat to chew on the bone , but once you get down to provenance it's a great book to have if you are a Warren collector.

[wombat]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/magazine/265169379870?_mwBanner=1&ul_ref=https%3A%2F%2Frover.ebay.com%2Frover%2F2%2Fe112362.m1951.l1120%2F8%3Fbu%3D43200319615%26segname%3DTE10001_T_NORMAL_CT1%26crd%3D20210527090000%26mpre%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F265169379870%26ch%3Dosgood%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F265169379870%26osub%3D592f88fc1f0739de0dd518d4dde9ce8c%7ETE10001_T_NORMAL_CT1%7E10001%26sojTags%3Demid%3Dbu%2Cut%3Dut%2Csegname%3Dsegname%2Ccrd%3Dcrd%2Curl%3Durl%2Cch%3Dch%2Cosub%3Dosub%26srcrot%3De112362.m1951.l1120%26rvr_id%3D0%26rvr_ts%3Daee84dbc1790a7650b92b942ffea0a20&ul_noapp=true&pageci=7e7c04b9-7cb5-473a-8ff8-5d3a6842157e&fbclid=IwAR0fxi0mFiqhLD1k3dCev4ABG4i21ps4fi8nCsYmgRfk4LT1k0L3LWoLB8k

From the listing: 

EERIE #1, the tiny first issue of Jim Warren's magazine (5 inches by 7 inches), in like new condition.  Three small dots on the cover, which should be visible on the scan. 

 I wrote the first story in this magazine, and will sign it if wanted (on the splash page of the story, not the cover) or not sign it, whichever you prefer.

 Archie Goodwin asked me if I wanted a second copy when he gave me this one, and I wish I'd said yes because it's become a true rarity. 

 But it's time to pass it on.  I've put a high price as the minimum bid.

I have received two questions, and requested eBay to print both the questions and answers on this listing, but they didn't do it.  So I'm going to try to remember the questions, one of which came from Todd.  He wants to know if this is a first edition.  It is.  He says the lines on the roof on page one shouldn't be broken.  I can't see any broken lines on the roof.  He says that in page 18, the 5th panel, there's a man in the upper left that you can't see.  I can't find a man in the upper left that you can't see.

Another question is Am I Bill Pearson?  Yes, I am Bill Pearson.  I also wrote the first story in the first issue of Creepy.

 

[oakman29]

2 hours ago, wombat said:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/magazine/265169379870?_mwBanner=1&ul_ref=https%3A%2F%2Frover.ebay.com%2Frover%2F2%2Fe112362.m1951.l1120%2F8%3Fbu%3D43200319615%26segname%3DTE10001_T_NORMAL_CT1%26crd%3D20210527090000%26mpre%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F265169379870%26ch%3Dosgood%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F265169379870%26osub%3D592f88fc1f0739de0dd518d4dde9ce8c%7ETE10001_T_NORMAL_CT1%7E10001%26sojTags%3Demid%3Dbu%2Cut%3Dut%2Csegname%3Dsegname%2Ccrd%3Dcrd%2Curl%3Durl%2Cch%3Dch%2Cosub%3Dosub%26srcrot%3De112362.m1951.l1120%26rvr_id%3D0%26rvr_ts%3Daee84dbc1790a7650b92b942ffea0a20&ul_noapp=true&pageci=7e7c04b9-7cb5-473a-8ff8-5d3a6842157e&fbclid=IwAR0fxi0mFiqhLD1k3dCev4ABG4i21ps4fi8nCsYmgRfk4LT1k0L3LWoLB8k

From the listing: 

EERIE #1, the tiny first issue of Jim Warren's magazine (5 inches by 7 inches), in like new condition.  Three small dots on the cover, which should be visible on the scan. 

 I wrote the first story in this magazine, and will sign it if wanted (on the splash page of the story, not the cover) or not sign it, whichever you prefer.

 Archie Goodwin asked me if I wanted a second copy when he gave me this one, and I wish I'd said yes because it's become a true rarity. 

 But it's time to pass it on.  I've put a high price as the minimum bid.

I have received two questions, and requested eBay to print both the questions and answers on this listing, but they didn't do it.  So I'm going to try to remember the questions, one of which came from Todd.  He wants to know if this is a first edition.  It is.  He says the lines on the roof on page one shouldn't be broken.  I can't see any broken lines on the roof.  He says that in page 18, the 5th panel, there's a man in the upper left that you can't see.  I can't find a man in the upper left that you can't see.

Another question is Am I Bill Pearson?  Yes, I am Bill Pearson.  I also wrote the first story in the first issue of Creepy.

 

I saw that too. If only the scans were better, or better yet Bill Pearson actually holding the book in a photo.

[wombat]

17 minutes ago, oakman29 said:

I saw that too. If only the scans were better, or better yet Bill Pearson actually holding the book in a photo.

I'm pretty certain this is legit (as far as it being Bill Person). J Spurlock (from Vanguard publishing who put out the new Frazetta art book) actually posted the ebay link on Facebook and he is friends with Bill. 

[oakman29]

47 minutes ago, wombat said:

I'm pretty certain this is legit (as far as it being Bill Person). J Spurlock (from Vanguard publishing who put out the new Frazetta art book) actually posted the ebay link on Facebook and he is friends with Bill. 

Then it's got great provenance.  Are you gonna grab it? 👍

[wombat]

8 minutes ago, oakman29 said:

Then it's got great provenance.  Are you gonna grab it? 👍

I would not have posted it if I was going to bid on it. 

 

Its cool, but not $900 cool. At least not at this point in time. 

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

22 minutes ago, wombat said:

I would not have posted it if I was going to bid on it. 

 

Its cool, but not $900 cool. At least not at this point in time. 

But if you could get him to talk with CGC and verify it provenance and also fill out a creator's form and get it CGC and Signature Series ( like the way they do with the TMNT #1 ) then would it be $900 + shipping & grading fees cool?

[wombat]

3 minutes ago, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

But if you could get him to talk with CGC and verify it provenance and also fill out a creator's form and get it CGC and Signature Series ( like the way they do with the TMNT #1 ) then would it be $900 + shipping & grading fees cool?

I highly doubt CGC would ever grade this no matter who said what. And I would rather poke out my own eyes than try and even have this discussion with CGC and then probably wait a few years before they were done grading it. 

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

2 minutes ago, wombat said:

I highly doubt CGC would ever grade this no matter who said what. And I would rather poke out my own eyes than try and even have this discussion with CGC and then probably wait a few years before they were done grading it. 

I completely understand.  Just saying that if they did decide that they would allow these only to be graded after verification by one of the original creators ( like they do with the TMNT #1 ) then that may be one of the best reasons for this to sell. As well as make the value of others increase as they would then have a path to have they verified and graded.  Would also mean some business for Bill Pearson or Warren for verification.

[wombat]

Looks like someone is going to be happy. There is a bid on it. 

[oakman29]

1 hour ago, wombat said:

Looks like someone is going to be happy. There is a bid on it. 

Provenance is great if that is Bill Pearsons ebay account. In fact if I were the buyer I would request Mr. Pearson to throw in some kind of letter explaining provenance of the book.

[wombat]

10 minutes ago, oakman29 said:

Provenance is great if that is Bill Pearsons ebay account. In fact if I were the buyer I would request Mr. Pearson to throw in some kind of letter explaining provenance of the book.

Totally agree. With a picture of him holding the letter. 

[oakman29]

2 hours ago, wombat said:

Totally agree. With a picture of him holding the letter. 

Yep. That would settle all doubts. 👍

[jimjum12]

11 minutes ago, oakman29 said:

Yep. That would settle all doubts. 👍

He sounds willing to do what it takes... I guess I'll have to toss in a few bids. GOD BLESS....

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[wombat]

If you guys have questions on it I could try and get answers directly. 

[jimjum12]

16 hours ago, oakman29 said:

18 hours ago, wombat said:

Totally agree. With a picture of him holding the letter. 

Yep. That would settle all doubts. 👍

... a thumbprint on the letter in a mixture of ink and saliva may also help to "seal" the deal. GOD BLESS....

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[wombat]

Final price $2,024. Hoping it was you @jimjum12

Edited May 30, 2021 by wombat

[CDNComix]

On 5/29/2021 at 8:25 PM, wombat said:

Final price $2,024.

There were only two bidders on what potentially could be an original creator (Bill Pearson) copy of an actual ashcan. I was surprised by the lack bidding activity (there were 34 watchers) and the final price when the listing ended. The explanation is easy the posting suffered from: a lack detail including its one posted washed out image; not making it clear to most who's copy was being offered and the fact that another ashcan example closed one day later which may have drawn potential bidders away because of its low starting bid ($10 opposed to $900 for Bill's copy) and detailed images.

That second copy sold yesterday for just over $1300 which is in the range of past realized copies. Which is surprising to me, because it looks like if it could have the same "issues of concern" that I have seen on other examples. I am not saying that the copy is not real but there was enough there to give me pause and decide not to bid.

It looks to be nearly identical to the copy I had returned about 4 years ago to a seller who had a copy as part of original owner Warren collection (sound familiar), including:

• thin black lines at the bottom and sides of the front and back covers (possibly page edges on a second generation photocopy or litho plate marks?);
• black speckles on the topside of the page in areas where darker solid art appears on the opposite page - noticeable in the back cover around the titles (could be explained by someone turning up the contrast to achieve darker "darks", which would cause some of the speckling);
• more pronounced breaking in the lettering of the  paste-up typological info.

I find that potential buyers focus too much on the Overstreet checks which only really serves to distinguish a real copy from the specific unauthorized "blue staple" edition. This copy of concern (for me) passes all of the Overstreet checks. Someone was good enough to post a "gold standard" example of the ashcan signed off by Jim Warren (and Kirby) a few pages back. Beyond being an amazing book, I also view it as a handy exemplar that can be used to compare copies for the presence of other characteristics beyond Overstreet.

The "gold standard"  has none of those extra characteristics featured on yesterday's example. This should have been an issue for someone who paid $1300 for yesterday's "passed the Overstreet checks" copy. My real concern these days is not potentially buying a "blue staple" copy as a first, but those countless unauthorized copies that came afterward. Imagine what a professionally trained individual with modern professional equipment can effectively reproduce nowadays - degrees, currency. Reproducing a blacked out bald man or some roof lines would definitely not be not a challenge as long as they had access to one real example to start with.

Edited August 20, 2021 by CDNComix