Ninja Turtles - Differences Between Printings?
13 13

356 posts in this topic

19,875 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

 

Nope - if someone paid $23k for a mis-labelled 3rd print, my crystal ball foresees a rather hefty lawsuit against CGC :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
969 posts

Yea.....this is bad. As mentioned a number of times already, the extra red splotches indicate a 3rd printing. That 23K book...well, something ain't right. Either the guts of a crappy legit copy of #1 were married to a pristine 3rd printing cover (witch CGC somehow missed) or they somehow missed printing annotation and the lack of Gobbledygook ad.

 

I will say this, though, the only "authoritative" way to be certain of a 1st printing, is to look inside. The red splotches is something of an outside observance and, to my knowledge, is not something that either Eastman or Laird has said is valid way to tell; they've alway's said to look inside (to looking at printing words, address, gobbledygooks, etc.). That said, I've only ever personally seen 3rd printings with blotches, and 1st & 2nd have never had them. Looking at my printings right in front of me, they all follow that same pattern as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,190 posts

Just checked out mine YES !!! I'm safe lol

 

IMG_0988.jpg

 

Dont know about the dude who spent 24K on his copy :shy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20,875 posts

Wow! This is huge. Someone just got ganked. I wonder if the consignor knew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79,719 posts

Wonder if this should be a serious episode on Comic Book Men.

 

:eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79,719 posts

So are any of the five 9.8's a first printing?

 

(shrug)

 

And how many of the other grades may be impacted across 378 books?

 

123287.jpg.a6b925b0f756fb8c3d60d99b7e82dd32.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,659 posts

Here's a question. If the "3rd Print" was inadvertently left off the label, if you call in the serial number will it come up as a 3rd print in their database?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,428 posts

No. The 23k 9.8 says it's a first print.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19,875 posts
Here's a question. If the "3rd Print" was inadvertently left off the label, if you call in the serial number will it come up as a 3rd print in their database?

 

If you look up the serial number, it'll give you the same info that's on the label.

 

The only instance where I've ever seen a discrepancy between the label & a certification lookup was with a Qualified book that had a blue label; when you looked up the serial number, it showed you that the book was supposed to have had a green label (all the info on the label would have been the same, though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,092 posts

The ones that we've seen are dated 1984. The 3rd printings came out in 1985 and typically they are denoted with the Month and Date of publication. 2nd printings are also typically denoted with the revised Month. So, I doubt these would show up as 3rd printings even if that info. was inadvertantly left off.

 

Here's a question. If the "3rd Print" was inadvertently left off the label, if you call in the serial number will it come up as a 3rd print in their database?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,659 posts

So what's the final verdict on this? Are those for sure misidentified 3rd prints?

 

I hope someone from CGC can weigh in on this, because I'm currently shopping for a 1st print and I'm putting a lot of trust in their slab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,599 posts

Let's look at the history. Eastman receives $500 from a tax refund I think and they borrow $700 from an Uncle to do the first printing of 3000. They only had enough money for TWO colors... so they went with Black and red.

 

The second printing is based on the first although it is denoted with the term Second Printing inside. (And the ads are different.)

 

The third printing has some cover artwork changes... notably the red addition to the Titling. This artwork change happens at least a year later?

 

SO what are the chances that they paid for TWO cover versions when they did an initial press run of 3000? Especially since the initial press run was sized incorrectly?

 

We need to just contact Eastman and Laird and ask who retouched the 3rd printing cover and when they did it.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,428 posts

I'll just sit here and wait on everyone to tell me I am right and that I am the man.

Foot kissing and groveling is accepted and encouraged.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,813 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.

 

(thumbs u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,406 posts

wait till this hits the Comics General section or Bleeding Cool.

 

Wear a helmet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,092 posts

Having been the one to have first "discovered" the Gobbledygook counterfeits back in the 90's, I can tell you for sure that the two books discussed (the $23k 9.8 book and restored 9.0 on eBay) are definitively not 1st printings from the scans that have been provided. I'd be willing bet a real first printing. They are one of the following:

 

1) Misidentified 3rd printings

2) Doctored 3rd printings (with the printing infomation erased)

3) Counterfeits with new a new cover that was shot off a 3rd printing

4) Cracked open cases - Someone cracked open the case for a 1st printing and replaced it with a 3rd printing

 

The only way may be to open one of the books in question to find out what it is. But, I can tell you I've known about the extra blood spot in the logo for years and it is an easy way to spot a 3rd printing at a distance.

 

The interiors of #1's are also slightly different. A lesser known fact is that each if the first three printings is a slightly different size (as are the 1st and 2nd printings of #2). I believe the 3rd printing is actually more narrow than a 1st printing. And, the interior grey tones on the 3rd printing are more washed out than the 1st and 2nd printings. These are some additional things to look for if you were to authenticate a 1st printing and didn't want to rely only on the cover.

 

I think that owners of these books should work with CGC to help solve this mystery. We're all speculating until someone can examine them in more detail. If someone has tampered with one of the CGC cases, CGC should be able to inspect it first hand and confirm this. If the owners crack open the cases themselves, we may never get to the bottom of things. But, I think it's important that the results be shared publicly so that people can be assured that they have a first printing inside books that are certified.

 

So what's the final verdict on this? Are those for sure misidentified 3rd prints?

 

I hope someone from CGC can weigh in on this, because I'm currently shopping for a 1st print and I'm putting a lot of trust in their slab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,599 posts
Weren't there 500 for a con or something? Or was that not a #1?

 

#3 NYCC Variant

 

 

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
13 13