• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Has anyone ever seen a spider-man 2099 #1 foil error comic?
0

Started by rckstr1253,

25 posts in this topic

Gatsby77

Gatsby77

Posted
Posted

Wow - there was a 2nd printing of this book?

 

I did not know that.

 

I remember the initial print run being ginormous. Maybe not by 1993 standards, but it was definitely the # 1 Diamond book of the month & my LCS ordered hundreds since we had Rick Leonardi there for a signing.

 

The Philly-area is still littered with signed (pre-CGC) copies of the first print.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
awakeintheashes

awakeintheashes

Posted
Posted
Wow - there was a 2nd printing of this book?

 

I did not know that.

 

I remember the initial print run being ginormous. Maybe not by 1993 standards, but it was definitely the # 1 Diamond book of the month & my LCS ordered hundreds since we had Rick Leonardi there for a signing.

 

The Philly-area is still littered with signed (pre-CGC) copies of the first print.

It was an insert that was packaged with a SM2099 Action Figure. Because the only way to remove the comic was to open the entire packaging, it's somewhat tough tracking down a NM copy. Same with the Web of Spider-Man 118 second printing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rckstr1253

rckstr1253

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yea I know there is a 2nd printing but I was wondering if anyone has seen a regular 1st printing with the red border minus the chrome? I just got lucky and found a ghost rider 2099 without the chrome so I know a few errors do exist as seen with the black venom lethal potector and so forth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
awakeintheashes

awakeintheashes

Posted
Posted
Yea I know there is a 2nd printing but I was wondering if anyone has seen a regular 1st printing with the red border minus the chrome? I just got lucky and found a ghost rider 2099 without the chrome so I know a few errors do exist as seen with the black venom lethal potector and so forth.

It does sound familiar, but I can't remember where I saw it. I'll go down that rabbit hole tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rckstr1253

rckstr1253

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Yea I know there is a 2nd printing but I was wondering if anyone has seen a regular 1st printing with the red border minus the chrome? I just got lucky and found a ghost rider 2099 without the chrome so I know a few errors do exist as seen with the black venom lethal potector and so forth.

It does sound familiar, but I can't remember where I saw it. I'll go down that rabbit hole tomorrow.

 

 

Thanks, I am curious to see what it looks like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
the blob

the blob

Posted
Posted

The Philly-area is still littered with signed (pre-CGC) copies of the first print.

 

I have a couple of these as well, signed in Austin before CGC existed. I laugh (but cry inside) when I see signature CoAs now...

 

Never understood how CGC could magically appear and dictate to the hobby that no signature from before 2000 or whatever could possibly be valid.

 

And, frankly, many collectors view these non-SS books as legit, they just won't necessarily pay a huge premium for them (and heck, don't necessarily for SS either) and, of course, forget about slabbing them, but then again, there are probably 50,000 SM 2099 #1s 9.8s in the wild, so why bother?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
valiantman

valiantman

Posted
Posted

The Philly-area is still littered with signed (pre-CGC) copies of the first print.

 

I have a couple of these as well, signed in Austin before CGC existed. I laugh (but cry inside) when I see signature CoAs now...

 

Never understood how CGC could magically appear and dictate to the hobby that no signature from before 2000 or whatever could possibly be valid.

hm I'm not sure that's what CGC is saying. They witness a signature and it gets a yellow label. They don't witness a signature and it gets a green label that says there's unwitnessed writing on the book. I wouldn't want CGC to accept pre-2002 certificates of authenticity as proof of anything. They might be fake. We know the pre-2002 sportscard market has been hit with fake signatures by the literal ton. If CGC was going to give unwitnessed signatures a different label regardless, who cares whether it's green or puce. It still wouldn't be yellow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StuporMan

StuporMan

Posted
Posted

The Philly-area is still littered with signed (pre-CGC) copies of the first print.

 

I have a couple of these as well, signed in Austin before CGC existed. I laugh (but cry inside) when I see signature CoAs now...

 

Never understood how CGC could magically appear and dictate to the hobby that no signature from before 2000 or whatever could possibly be valid.

hm I'm not sure that's what CGC is saying. They witness a signature and it gets a yellow label. They don't witness a signature and it gets a green label that says there's unwitnessed writing on the book. I wouldn't want CGC to accept pre-2002 certificates of authenticity as proof of anything. They might be fake. We know the pre-2002 sportscard market has been hit with fake signatures by the literal ton. If CGC was going to give unwitnessed signatures a different label regardless, who cares whether it's green or puce. It still wouldn't be yellow.

 

I think it's good that they don't go by CoA or signature matching because those could easily be faked. But what would it take for a CGC witness at a con submit a bunch of fake sigs for a buddy or payoff? I wonder if CGC takes precautions against that? hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
the blob

the blob

Posted
Posted

The Philly-area is still littered with signed (pre-CGC) copies of the first print.

 

I have a couple of these as well, signed in Austin before CGC existed. I laugh (but cry inside) when I see signature CoAs now...

 

Never understood how CGC could magically appear and dictate to the hobby that no signature from before 2000 or whatever could possibly be valid.

hm I'm not sure that's what CGC is saying. They witness a signature and it gets a yellow label. They don't witness a signature and it gets a green label that says there's unwitnessed writing on the book. I wouldn't want CGC to accept pre-2002 certificates of authenticity as proof of anything. They might be fake. We know the pre-2002 sportscard market has been hit with fake signatures by the literal ton. If CGC was going to give unwitnessed signatures a different label regardless, who cares whether it's green or puce. It still wouldn't be yellow.

 

It's that many in the market have decided this. A signed dynamics forces book with a COA, etc etc. is real. Particularly when we are talking about a $20 book. I'm talking about this sort of thing:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/X-MEN-2-Signed-by-Jim-Lee-w-COA-Comix-X-press-Limitied-Edition-539-or-3000-/291622015900?hash=item43e606d39c:g:sjAAAOSwv-NWUSIg

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/X-Men-1-Signed-By-Jim-Lee-Chris-Claremont-Magneto-Cover-1991-/111890247719?hash=item1a0d2db027%3Ag%3Ap1AAAOSwXshWrI7S&nma=true&si=r7XtBBwTcf%252BEXa3%252B7WPwul1lSMc%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

 

This is basically what it cost in 1992.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
the blob

the blob

Posted
Posted

If CGC was going to give unwitnessed signatures a different label regardless, who cares whether it's green or puce.

 

--

 

well, they could have some expertise in figuring out which COAs are real and/or slab the COA in the green label book. that i would have less of a problem with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
the blob

the blob

Posted
Posted (edited)

In particular I am thinking of dynamic forces, which did a more professional job. if you get something from them it is pretty likely what it says it is. admittedly some of the COAs from the early 90s from other companies/stores are sketchy and often homemade looking.

 

i don't have a horse in the race. none of my autographs cost me more than a buck as I got them out of the bargain box. a few i got live.

Edited by the blob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
valiantman

valiantman

Posted
Posted
In particular I am thinking of dynamic forces, which did a more professional job. if you get something from them it is pretty likely what it says it is. admittedly some of the COAs from the early 90s from other companies/stores are sketchy and often homemade looking.

 

i don't have a horse in the race. none of my autographs cost me more than a buck as I got them out of the bargain box. a few i got live.

Valiant actually produced its own Validated Signature Series with its own COA and the books are embossed on the cover or first page.

 

If CGC does ever authenticate "third party" signatures like Dynamic Forces, they should start with "first party" signatures like Valiant's own signature series.

 

0720898031_1200.jpg

 

0720898031b_1200.jpg

Link to comment
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
0
Go to topic listing