Detective # 27 on rack photo- EBay. Photo shopped 1 1

[IngelsFan]

8 hours ago, GomerPyleUSMC said:

Just for grins I tried identifying the row of comics on the same rack as the 'Tec 27 looking for any anachronism.  From what I can see: (l to r)

Star Comics #20, Jumbo Comics #8 (in back), All-American Comics #3, Detective Comics #27, Feature Funnies #20, Feature Book #17 (Gang Busters), Super Comics #12, ??

The only book that may have a question about its history is the Feature Book #17. The other surrounding issues seem to check out historically in the same newsstand timeframe as the 'Tec 27.

Feature Book 17 seems odd, since issue 21 of that run was on the newsstand in January of 1939, months before Tec 27. Issue 22 was October, 1939. Either would be more logical than 17, which was out at the same time as Detective 20.

[Wayne-Tec]

I don’t have much background in vintage photography, but it would be interesting to find out how this photo could be proven to be a “Type-1.”

At the very least, my guess is that it isn’t photoshopped.

If it is a Type-1 photo, it should be pretty valuable.

[GomerPyleUSMC]

16 hours ago, IngelsFan said:

Feature Book 17 seems odd, since issue 21 of that run was on the newsstand in January of 1939, months before Tec 27. Issue 22 was October, 1939. Either would be more logical than 17, which was out at the same time as Detective 20.

This book is a real puzzler.  Would the Feature Book 17 be similar to a "big little book"?  I've never seen one of these.  If so it might have been treated on a rotational distribution schedule to use up unsold inventory. 

Edited August 12, 2019 by GomerPyleUSMC

[action1kid]

On 8/10/2019 at 11:38 PM, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

Look at those gorgeous, fat and unpressed spines

Good point. Even a Cgc holder would press those spines.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

I sent an email to the seller about this picture. You’d think if he wanted serious coin he would do a better job with the pictures he posted. Either the original photo is blurry af, or the Ebay pic was taken by a drunk monkey. So I’m asking for a clearer shot. I’ll post any response, or lack thereof 

[telerites]

2 hours ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

drunk monkey

I saw that movie

[vheflin]

Seller should get it slabbed gem mint detective 27 x 3

[Cat-Man_America]

My honest opinion ...and that of Captain Obvious: I suspect the photograph is real, but less convinced of it’s rarity.  Having ‘Tec #27 in the image is cool timing-wise, but is it really unique? It looks like a genuine salesman’s photo from 1939, including catalog replacement number on the lower right.  The point is that there may be a bunch of these floating around; perhaps duplicates from the same binder or shots taken from different angles.  The slightly hazy image in the listing just lends credibility to the “attic find” presentation by the seller.

For comparison’s sake look at a recent post of a 1939 rack catalog in the GA comic rack thread with the prominently displayed ‘Tec #18, early Action, et al., covers on display and you’ll get the idea.  I suspect the rack catalog is much rarer than a single removed binder photo.  In fact, it’s entirely possible the seller has other display photos squirreled away (that’s just good marketing strategy) and is testing the water with this $4000 listing.  I’m not trying to rain on anyone’s parade here, just making a common sense observation.

Now you have my two cents, I’d rather spend the other $3999.98 on something else.

[sfcityduck]

The ebay listing started at $5,000 some time ago I think.  So if he's trying to make a market he's doing a bad job.

I suspect that its a very rare item.  But, would you rather have a $4,000 photo of a comic or $4,000 worth of comics?  

[telerites]

3 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

$4,000 worth of comics

my vote and if I had $4K goes here