Ninja Turtles - Differences Between Printings?
14 14

366 posts in this topic

5,659 posts

Hello,

 

In the TMNT 1 thread another boardie said that this Ebay sale is actually a third print, and that he could tell by the color.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1984-TMNT-Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles-1-1st-Print-CGC-9-0-VF-NM-White-Pages-/360437669303?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item53ebc25db7#ht_1630wt_975

 

I was wondering if any knowledgeable turtle heads could spell out how to tell the differences between all of the different printings. In the auction above I can't see a difference in the color between 1st and 3rd print.

 

Is there a way to tell just by the cover the difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd? Are there ways people try to alter later printings to try to pass them off as first prints?

 

Pictures would be great, but any useful information would be greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,414 posts

It's buried in the turtles thread but I believe it has to do with the amt of blood on the blade that goes across the title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,428 posts

Look at the little splotch of blood on the sword in the middle T in "turTles."

This is a first print. The splotch is black.

 

tmnt%20002.jpg

 

Now look at the same area on a third print. It has extra splotches and they're red.

 

972157.jpg

 

First and second prints are the same. You can't tell one from the other by looking at the front cover. Third print has these extra splotches which are a tell. You can also tell by the amount of red in the building at the bottom, but this is the easiest sure fire way to tell it.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,428 posts

Yes. The book in the CGC case in that auction is a 3rd print. It's mislabeled by CGC.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,109 posts

So, in this case would CGC be libel for the mistake since the dealer who currently is offering the book appears to have purchased the book from someone else on eBay who listed it as a first printing based on CGC's label?

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles-Issue-1-First-Print-CGC-9-0-/140662122849?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item20c01da961

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,224 posts
So, in this case would CGC be libel for the mistake since the dealer who currently is offering the book appears to have purchased the book from someone else on eBay who listed it as a first printing based on CGC's label?

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles-Issue-1-First-Print-CGC-9-0-/140662122849?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item20c01da961

 

Oh boy it just got good in here :popcorn: Any time a lawyer word like "libel" gets used in a thread it typically gets epic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,659 posts

 

Oh boy it just got good in here :popcorn:Any time a lawyer word like "libel" gets used in a thread it typically gets epic.

 

Or in a PM. lol

 

Don't ask.

Edited by USArmyParatrooper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,428 posts

After doing a search on google images, I found more copies of what I've always though to be 3rd prints in cgc slabs without a printing notation.

I'm perplexed as to why I'm seeing this. Is it possible there is a variation in the first printing?

 

It has me questioning the method I explained in my prior post.

One of the TMNT experts needs to chime in on the topic.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19,908 posts
So, in this case would CGC be libel for the mistake since the dealer who currently is offering the book appears to have purchased the book from someone else on eBay who listed it as a first printing based on CGC's label?

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles-Issue-1-First-Print-CGC-9-0-/140662122849?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item20c01da961

 

Oh boy it just got good in here :popcorn: Any time a lawyer word like "libel" gets used in a thread it typically gets epic.

 

He meant "liable" :gossip:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,109 posts

It'd be interesting to crack one of them open and see what was on the back cover and inside front cover. The first printing has the Gobbledygook ad on the inside back cover which is a more unique identifier of a 1st printing. I remember reading a CBG article back in the day that mentioned reports of someone removing the "3rd Printing" delineation from the inside front cover of the Turtles #1's and selling them as 1st printings. It's possible CGC could have been fooled by that. It's also possible that they just overlooked the printing information.

 

I've also seen reprints of Albedo #0 and Albedo #1 being identified by CGC as 1st printings. So, mistakes do happen, but if you pay for the service of properly identfying books and mistakes are made... what is the buyer's recourse? A restored 3rd printing of Turtles #1 probably isn't worth what the original owner paid to have it graded.

 

And yes, "liable" was probably the correct word to use. I'm no lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,939 posts

Good observations.

 

I'd be inclined to think there was only one printing of 3000... so it's possible counterfeiting happened with the removal of the third printing notice.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,428 posts

It's not the only one. Just Google search "TMNT 1 CGC" and you'll get several.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,109 posts

Wow - That's definitely a 3rd printing or modfied one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42,265 posts

 

I had always heard, anecdotally, that each printing has a separate date in the indicia - some month in '84, later in '84 for 2nd print, '85 for 3rd print and yet another for 4th print. If that were true, it would be almost impossible to not be able to nail down the printing - before it gets slabbed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,224 posts

And yes, "liable" was probably the correct word to use. I'm no lawyer.

(thumbs u I'm not either. I'm poking fun at the fact that people get so uptight on this forum if their integrity is ever questioned.

 

Anyway, the whole gobbeldygook(sp?) ad has to be a dead giveaway for a first print, right? A grader shouldn't miss that, should they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,109 posts

Yes, the Gobbledygook ad is the definitive way to tell the first printing from the other two. The studio address in the indicia also changed from Dover, NH to Sharon, CT between the printings.

 

The denotation of the printing wasn't in the indicia, it was further up on the inside front cover located next to drawing of the Turtle with the dedication. The first printing didn't say first printing, but the 2nd and 3rd printing denoted the printing with the date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,847 posts

this might be the most interesting thread ive read in a while. ive never subbed before so i dont know, but are there any wavers or anything of the like you sign to disolve cgc of responsibility for things like this? thats a huge chunk o change for a potential 3rd print

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
14 14