Marvel Comics #1 Voldy slabbed copy on Metro Question
4 4

156 posts in this topic

1,306 posts
Posted (edited)
On 5/9/2019 at 6:52 PM, sfcityduck said:

Metro says: "Proof cover cut band attached to interior by Lloyd Jacquet. Interior covers are blank."

I would interpret "cut band" to imply that there's a back cover, and based on that statement I now agree with Badger that the front and back are all one piece (but with weird ink loss on spine).  

BUT the label says "interior cover blank" - singular.  So, I ask again, is this only the front cover or both front and back?

Edited by pemart1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58,143 posts
9 minutes ago, pemart1966 said:

BUT the label says "interior cover blank" - singular.  So, I ask again, is this only the front cover or both front and back?

I missed the part about attached by jacquet...if that’s the case, it could very well have been the first issue “completed” versus someone just stapling a cover found after release. I suspect that confirmation would be difficult to obtain , so unless someone can definitely say one way or another, hard to say ow?

also, a proof cover is a single piece , so interior cover would represent what we call front and back. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,306 posts
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, G.A.tor said:

I missed the part about attached by jacquet...if that’s the case, it could very well have been the first issue “completed” versus someone just stapling a cover found after release. I suspect that confirmation would be difficult to obtain , so unless someone can definitely say one way or another, hard to say ow?

also, a proof cover is a single piece , so interior cover would represent what we call front and back. 

 

 

Just so that I'm clear, I take "Interior cover" to mean the portion of the cover that touches the actual comic book.  So in this case the "exterior cover" is the painting of the Torch burning through the safe.  The "interior cover" is what's on the other side of the Torch image - the side that touches the actual comic.  Same definition for the back cover if it's part of this book...

Edited by pemart1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,310 posts
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, G.A.tor said:

I missed the part about attached by jacquet...if that’s the case, it could very well have been the first issue “completed” versus someone just stapling a cover found after release. I suspect that confirmation would be difficult to obtain , so unless someone can definitely say one way or another, hard to say ow?

also, a proof cover is a single piece , so interior cover would represent what we call front and back. 

 

 

Interesting thoughts there. So the "back" cover on this book is blank and the interior front cover is the "back" cover? Whew! Tough to type! I was completely wrong! See below.

...

Barring another hurricane, this book should go deep into your personal collection only to see the light of day when it is transported to your coffin.

 

Edited by Badger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,104 posts

From what I remember, it is 1 complete front and back cover with a blank front and back interior cover.

Historically, it's about as important a book as you can own, kind of like owning the court copy of Action Comics #1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,306 posts
2 minutes ago, Timely said:

From what I remember, it is 1 complete front and back cover with a blank front and back interior cover.

Historically, it's about as important a book as you can own, kind of like owning the court copy of Action Comics #1.

I'll ask this question again:  the label says that Jacquet himself attached the cover himself.  How do we know that?

Was this book found in the Jacquet estate that yielded the Marvel Comics 1 pay copy and the MPFW stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331 posts
Posted (edited)

Better pics ...

https://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=494000 

This Marvel 1 is a Lloyd Jacquet Publisher's Proof Copy. The interiors of the front and back cover are completely blank which denote it as being from a hand-cut pre-publication proof sheet and making this comic truly unique. 

Adding to the value and rarity of this Publisher Proof Copy of Marvel Comics 1 is the fact that it is also the extremely rare 1st printing October version. When Marvel Comics 1 was originally printed there were approximately 90,000 October copies made. They sold out rather quickly and a 2nd print run was ordered. Instead of making a new cover, a black circle was placed over Oct. and Nov. was printed above it. There were approximately 800,000 copies of the 2nd printing November version made.. 

We first viewed this book over 15 years ago right after it was removed from a Lloyd Jacquet Publisher's bound volume. We were blown away by it then and we are still blown away by it now. We are extremely proud to offer this copy of Marvel Comics 1. This Proof Copy has in pencil an X" at the top of the page of the Sub-Mariner and Angel stories. 

 

Edited by Pickie
quotation added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,310 posts
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Pickie said:

Inserted here for posterity's sake. :) 

"The image you are looking at is a rare piece of comic book history. This Marvel 1 is a Lloyd Jacquet Publisher's Proof Copy. The interiors of the front and back cover are completely blank which denote it as being from a hand-cut pre-publication proof sheet and making this comic truly unique. 

Adding to the value and rarity of this Publisher Proof Copy of Marvel Comics 1 is the fact that it is also the extremely rare 1st printing October version. When Marvel Comics 1 was originally printed there were approximately 90,000 October copies made. They sold out rather quickly and a 2nd print run was ordered. Instead of making a new cover, a black circle was placed over Oct. and Nov. was printed above it. There were approximately 800,000 copies of the 2nd printing November version made.. 

We first viewed this book over 15 years ago right after it was removed from a Lloyd Jacquet Publisher's bound volume. We were blown away by it then and we are still blown away by it now. We are extremely proud to offer this copy of Marvel Comics 1. This Proof Copy has in pencil an X" at the top of the page of the Sub-Mariner and Angel stories. 

It should be noted that the highest graded copy of Marvel Comics 1, the Pay Copy, also originating from Jacquet's offices, was a November copy. "

mar1.20b.jpg

Edited by Badger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,306 posts
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Timely said:

From what I remember, it is 1 complete front and back cover with a blank front and back interior cover.

Historically, it's about as important a book as you can own, kind of like owning the court copy of Action Comics #1.

Now that I've seen the stuff above I couldn't agree more.  The person who owns the Pay Copy should be all over this...

Edited by pemart1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,518 posts
2 hours ago, pemart1966 said:

Was this book found in the Jacquet estate that yielded the Marvel Comics 1 pay copy and the MPFW stuff? 

No, the pay copies were discovered many years apart from the bound volume. 

Still not sure what proof there is that Jacquet himself (as opposed to anyone else in the office) bound this, but it is cool.  The photos of the inside though, if accurate, show the worst trim to an interior of a Marvel #1 that I've seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,306 posts
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Crowzilla said:

No, the pay copies were discovered many years apart from the bound volume. 

Still not sure what proof there is that Jacquet himself (as opposed to anyone else in the office) bound this, but it is cool.  The photos of the inside though, if accurate, show the worst trim to an interior of a Marvel #1 that I've seen.

Does Dupchak own a time machine?  

 

I suspect that it was someone else the did the actual binding and that Jacquet or the office just retained the volume.

Keep in mind that it was 1939 and these were just 10 cent books at the time so no trimming or binding considerations were observed...

Edited by pemart1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,342 posts
3 hours ago, Crowzilla said:

No, the pay copies were discovered many years apart from the bound volume. 

Still not sure what proof there is that Jacquet himself (as opposed to anyone else in the office) bound this, but it is cool. The photos of the inside though, if accurate, show the worst trim to an interior of a Marvel #1 that I've seen.

...and now that I know this is in fact from a bound edition (and obviously trimmed), and was stapled together after it was pulled from it's original bindings, I am even more shocked and appalled by the joke grade and label that CBCS gave this book.

But then again, that is basically why people use Voldy for books like this at this point.  

-J.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,165 posts
8 hours ago, G.A.tor said:

I missed the part about attached by jacquet...if that’s the case, it could very well have been the first issue “completed” versus someone just stapling a cover found after release. I suspect that confirmation would be difficult to obtain , so unless someone can definitely say one way or another, hard to say ow?

also, a proof cover is a single piece , so interior cover would represent what we call front and back. 

 

 

I first heard about this decades ago and that was what I originally surmised.   I would probably have purchased it then if I thought there'd be a way to authenticate that  (such as the encapsulation with label it has now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58,143 posts
5 hours ago, Crowzilla said:

No, the pay copies were discovered many years apart from the bound volume. 

Still not sure what proof there is that Jacquet himself (as opposed to anyone else in the office) bound this, but it is cool.  The photos of the inside though, if accurate, show the worst trim to an interior of a Marvel #1 that I've seen.

Ive seen quite a few badly Miscut marvel 1s. Are we sure this one was trimmed. Other former bound volume jacquet books that have been graded by cgc were not notated as trimmed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,165 posts
2 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

...and now that I know this is in fact from a bound edition (and obviously trimmed), and was stapled together after it was pulled from it's original bindings, I am even more shocked and appalled by the joke grade and label that CBCS gave this book.

But then again, that is basically why people use Voldy for books like this at this point.  

-J.

 

The fact that it's from a bound volume should make you believe it's more likely that it was in fact assembled prior to publication and not afterward, as you painstakingly have tried to establish in earlier posts.  It makes perfect sense that Jacquet assembled it and then it ended up in a bound volume.  But since you're starting with the premise that this is an abomination and open to nothing except conclusions that it's an abomination you've simply switched arguments to complaining that this makes the grade more suspect.  Everything must build backwards to your conclusion that it should not be worth as much as you think other people believe it is. They must be made to lower their estimates of its value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58,143 posts
7 minutes ago, bluechip said:

The fact that it's from a bound volume should make you believe it's more likely that it was in fact assembled prior to publication and not afterward, as you painstakingly have tried to establish in earlier posts.  It makes perfect sense that Jacquet assembled it and then it ended up in a bound volume.  But since you're starting with the premise that this is an abomination and open to nothing except conclusions that it's an abomination you've simply switched arguments to complaining that this makes the grade more suspect.  Everything must build backwards to your conclusion that it should not be worth as much as you think other people believe it is. They must be made to lower their estimates of its value.

The spine of the cover would certainly suggest it was from a bound volume. It’s the potential for trimming im curious about 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,306 posts

What issues were in this bound volume?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,165 posts
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, G.A.tor said:

The spine of the cover would certainly suggest it was from a bound volume. It’s the potential for trimming im curious about 

could be hand-trimmed.  I've seen proof copies from that era which were untrimmed and ones that were trimmed using paper cutters around the office.   I'd guess that may be what happened with this piece.   I wish I'd bought this before and would love to get it cheap now only to see it realized for what it is later.   But in the interests of fairness I have to say it has all the indications of being hand-made from proofs so that Jacquet could see what it was gonna look like, prior to any comics actually coming off the press, which would mean it's essentially the first  "Marvel comic" ever made.    Sure, people will scream at that and say it's a "fake" or that even if I am right it's a meaningless (or "valueless") distinction, but some people would continue to say that even if Jacquet's personal records appeared describing it in exactly those terms.

Edited by bluechip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,342 posts
1 hour ago, bluechip said:

The fact that it's from a bound volume should make you believe it's more likely that it was in fact assembled prior to publication and not afterward, as you painstakingly have tried to establish in earlier posts.  It makes perfect sense that Jacquet assembled it and then it ended up in a bound volume.  But since you're starting with the premise that this is an abomination and open to nothing except conclusions that it's an abomination you've simply switched arguments to complaining that this makes the grade more suspect.  Everything must build backwards to your conclusion that it should not be worth as much as you think other people believe it is. They must be made to lower their estimates of its value.

As I said before- the book is what it is and it's "value" is whatever somebody ultimately decides to pay for it.

It is the slab that it sits in that's shameful and effectively worthless.

-J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,943 posts
1 hour ago, Jaydogrules said:

As I said before- the book is what it is and it's "value" is whatever somebody ultimately decides to pay for it.

It is the slab that it sits in that's shameful and effectively worthless.

-J.

 

justice.jpg

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
4 4