ASM #33 Cover Different Colors? 2 2

[James J Johnson]

3 hours ago, JollyComics said:

Perfect examples here:

The CGC designates the purple ones as a "purple cover variant".

[JollyComics]

1 hour ago, James J Johnson said:

The CGC designates the purple ones as a "purple cover variant".

Yep!  It's odd while all other books are NOT!  So far, I know other ones like Fantastic Four #110 Error Green Variant, Avengers #10, Edge of Spider-Verse #2 Black Error Printing and Venom Lethal Protectors #1 Black and White error printing.  Maybe more.

[James J Johnson]

12 minutes ago, JollyComics said:

Yep!  It's odd while all other books are NOT!  So far, I know other ones like Fantastic Four #110 Error Green Variant, Avengers #10, Edge of Spider-Verse #2 Black Error Printing and Venom Lethal Protectors #1 Black and White error printing.  Maybe more.

There's also a designated "variant", that one aside from the purple variant designation. And that version, only the word, "variant", is on the ones that look more blue than purple! That one, I've yet to figure out.

[Bomber-Bob]

Here's a pretty cool example................

[Aman619]

9 hours ago, namisgr said:

Thanks for confirming, this was mentioned earlier on the page: There are numerous examples of SA issues with marked differences in color palette owing not to any problem with fading or major changes in circulation numbers, but rather variations in the ink blends used to make certain colors and their changes over the course of the printing process.  

The differences in color palette in many cases occur across a given print run, and not between separate printings as claimed earlier.  You agree?

yes I agree.  Aside from the overseas pence copies Im not sure ANY DCs or Marvels ever went back on press except for a rare high demand instance.  But in the 60s, it took DC etc MONTHS to find out whether a comic book had experienced sellouts or high demand.  The disturbs had to report back to them on sell through results.  Therefore 2nd printings were rare.

[Aman619]

20 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

Here's a pretty cool example................

 

this ones clearly a printing error, but I don't have a specific explanation.  the black plate printed only in a few random areas... so something on press cause the ink to not adhere to the plate in most of the cover image.  closest I can come is that if the plate was partially wet (with water) the oil based ink would not stick to the plate in those areas... but thats all I got here!

[namisgr]

X-Men #94 is another classic example.  Some have dark green dominant backgrounds, others nearly black, and still others shades in between.

Again, same scanner.

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by namisgr

[JollyComics]

50 minutes ago, Aman619 said:

this ones clearly a printing error, but I don't have a specific explanation.  the black plate printed only in a few random areas... so something on press cause the ink to not adhere to the plate in most of the cover image.  closest I can come is that if the plate was partially wet (with water) the oil based ink would not stick to the plate in those areas... but thats all I got here!

Recalledcomics,com doesn't list Captain Marvel #26 as error.

Edited July 11, 2018 by JollyComics

[James J Johnson]

2 hours ago, Aman619 said:

yes I agree.  Aside from the overseas pence copies Im not sure ANY DCs or Marvels ever went back on press except for a rare high demand instance.  But in the 60s, it took DC etc MONTHS to find out whether a comic book had experienced sellouts or high demand.  The disturbs had to report back to them on sell through results.  Therefore 2nd printings were rare.

I don't believe that's the case as well. Where in the 60s Marvel ever went back later, after publication date, to run off more copies. Any additional copies needed to meet advertising circulation agreements, like there being two to three times as many AS 45s than AS 46s produced, were run off in close time proximity. I never heard anything about a later printing to supply demand for selling out during the 60s.

[The Lions Den]

2 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

I don't believe that's the case as well. Where in the 60s Marvel ever went back later, after publication date, to run off more copies. Any additional copies needed to meet advertising circulation agreements, like there being two to three times as many AS 45s than AS 46s produced, were run off in close time proximity. I never heard anything about a later printing to supply demand for selling out during the 60s.

Sounds similar to the second printing of Famous Monsters #1. Once Warren realized he had a hit on his hands, he quickly rushed a second printing of the book because he knew the demand was there. Strike while the iron is hot, so to speak...

[The Lions Den]

2 hours ago, Aman619 said:

this ones clearly a printing error, but I don't have a specific explanation.  the black plate printed only in a few random areas... so something on press cause the ink to not adhere to the plate in most of the cover image.  closest I can come is that if the plate was partially wet (with water) the oil based ink would not stick to the plate in those areas... but thats all I got here!

And this is just too cool. Just like you said, variations at the beginning and end of a print run...or maybe someone washed the plate off for some reason and it was still wet...

[Aman619]

The key to all these questions of variations in the printed comics I always go back to that comics were nearly the lowest of the low quality printed jobs around. Probably just above supermarket handouts.  The printers did a professional job only as much as the clients cared about.  Print em And ship em to the kids.  Lots of sloppy product was produced and sent out, and nobody noticed or cared... until collectors and grading started to look closely many years later.

and this casual attitude is nearly always to blame for what we find, and try to figure out “wha happened?”

Edited July 12, 2018 by Aman619

[Aman619]

4 hours ago, James J Johnson said:

I don't believe that's the case as well. Where in the 60s Marvel ever went back later, after publication date, to run off more copies. Any additional copies needed to meet advertising circulation agreements, like there being two to three times as many AS 45s than AS 46s produced, were run off in close time proximity. I never heard anything about a later printing to supply demand for selling out during the 60s.

JJ. I remember Spidey #46 (Shocker cover) was given away as an insert in local newspapers when it came out.  So I’d think that 46 would be in much greater supply than other issues.  Maybe 46 was given away in MY area and 45 was in other parts of the country?  Have you ever heard about this giveaway promotion? 

[James J Johnson]

1 hour ago, Aman619 said:

JJ. I remember Spidey #46 (Shocker cover) was given away as an insert in local newspapers when it came out.  So I’d think that 46 would be in much greater supply than other issues.  Maybe 46 was given away in MY area and 45 was in other parts of the country?  Have you ever heard about this giveaway promotion? 

1st time I'm hearing about the 46 as a newspaper insert. Same book as manufactured for general distribution? Same # of pages? Same 12 cent price on the cover?

[Aman619]

Can’t remember... I was a wee lad then. Just that it was a pretty big step for little Marvel, who was still a big underdog to DC at that point

[jaeldubyoo]

I think you have to consider that printing was more of a manual process back then. A lot of the variations were simply human error.

[Get Marwood & I]

13 hours ago, James J Johnson said:

1st time I'm hearing about the 46 as a newspaper insert. Same book as manufactured for general distribution? Same # of pages? Same 12 cent price on the cover?

 

12 hours ago, Aman619 said:

Can’t remember... I was a wee lad then. Just that it was a pretty big step for little Marvel, who was still a big underdog to DC at that point

Interesting thread 

I think the ASM #46 insert you're remembering is this one Aman:

  

It was only in Eye magazine as far as I'm aware and not in 'Esquire' as indicated in Overstreet and certainly not in any newspapers.

 

Back to the colour variations and printing history, @James J Johnson, if you get a chance to read my thread here I'd be interested in your thoughts:

I've been plotting all 20 titles Marvel produced between the dates of June 1960 and Feb 1961 and there are a lot of issues with multiple price fonts. There are some interesting correlations when you line them up side by side and I'm convinced that the differences in US fonts is connected to the presence of pence issues as the pence gaps (issues where no pence copy exists) largely match the pattern of the issues without US font variations.

 

Difficult to put into words really, but have a look anyway.  One day, someone will come forward with an explanation I hope 

[Lazyboy]

On 7/11/2018 at 12:21 AM, Aman619 said:

As for the Avengers covers, the black spot on some copies but not others really just looked like a piece of something that got on the black plate, took on black ink, and dropped a mark for as long as it stayed there until it fell off (stuck to) onto one of the covers. Once it was gone — no more black marks!

Exactly. All these "variations from different press runs" are just random events that affected parts of the single run.

Quote

also James Jameson to my ears knows what he’s talking about.

Quote

Printing comics and distributing them wasn’t rocket science... these sold for a dime! Who cared how they printed.

The publishers who paid for the printing. They aren't going to pay for double the print run just to sell the same number of copies.

Of course they didn't care about quality beyond a certain threshold. Perfection wasn't even a dream, because nobody cared enough to dream about it.

Quote

Many were over printed for various reasons back then,

They were all "overprinted" simply because that's how the newsstand system works.

Quote

and when they were returned to the distribs, or never ordered by stores and newsstands they piled up crating what we now know as warehouse finds. ( though I believe it was more like since comics were returnable, the sellers did not actually order or decide how many they received because they were selling them but only charged for how many sold!   Newsstands didn’t buy the magazines they sold. They were taken back when the trucks brought the new books... taken to storage and forgotten, but rarely tossed into the garbage.  This was way before recycling too.

Yes. Warehouse finds consist of copies that weren't sold to consumers and that were likely never even distributed to retailers. That doesn't validate the idea that some issues had double or triple prints runs because of advertising circulation agreements.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Lazyboy

[Aman619]

Marwood...  maybe thats the reprint I remember.  But I wasn't "hip" to EYE magazine at all back then, and I recall it as a full size comic insert.   And 46 was dated March 1967 and the EYE mag is dated 1969, so maybe Stan just loved the Shocker!  As some of the artists and writers who worked with/for Stan have speculated, since Stan created so few heroes and villains ON HIS OWN, he was partial to the ones he DID create!

[Aman619]

1 hour ago, Lazyboy said:

Exactly. All these "variations from different press runs" are just random events that affected parts of the single run.

The publishers who paid for the printing. They aren't going to pay for double the print run just to sell the same number of copies.

Of course they didn't care about quality beyond a certain threshold. Perfection wasn't even a dream, because nobody cared enough to dream about it.

They were all "overprinted" simply because that's how the newsstand system works.

Yes. Warehouse finds consist of copies that weren't sold to consumers and that were likely never even distributed to retailers. That doesn't validate the idea that some issues had double or triple prints runs because of advertising circulation agreements.

haha   I got 5 out of 6 correct so thats pretty good!