Spider Girl 1 (1998) Pink logo error? 0

[Neurosis138]

I came across this pink logo error in a collection yesterday and I was wondering if anyone else had seen or has one.  None of the copies on ebay have the pink logo.  It looks like the Cyan printing plate didn’t make it onto this cover.  The back cover also has no blue in it.  Probably not overly valuable but I thought it was cool.

 

[BishopT]

That does look pretty sweet, though.

[I like pie]

Just looks faded.

[valiantman]

I don't think it's faded.  It looks like it was printed without blue ink as @Neurosis138 described. 

That's a manufacturing error (usually gets a CGC green label).  Still cool, though.

Edited April 29, 2021 by valiantman

[Neurosis138]

13 minutes ago, valiantman said:

I don't think it's faded.  It looks like it was printed without blue ink as @Neurosis138 described. 

That's a manufacturing error (usually gets a CGC green label).  Still cool, though.

Yep, definitely not faded.  There is no Blue on this cover.  I may send it in just for fun.

[valiantman]

2 minutes ago, Neurosis138 said:

Yep, definitely not faded.  There is no Blue on this cover.  I may send it in just for fun.

It will be interesting whether that is a one-time error or if there are actually several of them.

Fantastic Four #110 is "somewhat famous" for having a similar problem often enough to be recognized as a variant (cyan and magenta got switched).

Edited April 29, 2021 by valiantman

[Neurosis138]

1 minute ago, valiantman said:

It will be interesting whether that is a one-time error or if there are actually several of them.

Fantastic Four #110 is "somewhat famous" for having a similar problem often enough to be recognized as a variant (cyan and magenta got switched).

Yep. that's one of my favorite errors.  Ive had several over the years but now only have 1 copy.  I wish I'd kept them all

[valiantman]

The "pink" error is neat because it (somewhat stereotypically) is Spider-GIRL, with girls traditionally associated with pink (or at least they were in 1998), and it's not a Pink Peter Parker (although alliteration always amuses and attracts attention).

[Get Marwood & I]

7 minutes ago, Neurosis138 said:

Yep, definitely not faded.  There is no Blue on this cover.  I may send it in just for fun.

Here's another:

https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/424042-printing-error-books/?do=findComment&comment=10974382

[valiantman]

4 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Here's another:

https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/424042-printing-error-books/?do=findComment&comment=10974382

Ooooh, nice.  If there are several it could (eventually) be recognized as a repeated manufacturing "happy accident".

[Neurosis138]

5 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Here's another:

https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/424042-printing-error-books/?do=findComment&comment=10974382

Awesome.  Thanks for this!

[Get Marwood & I]

Just now, valiantman said:

Ooooh, nice.  If there are several it could (eventually) be recognized as a repeated manufacturing "happy accident".

Serendipity doo dah...

[Neurosis138]

We can't know for sure, but I wonder if that's why these copies got the qualified label:

[Get Marwood & I]

Just now, Neurosis138 said:

We can't know for sure, but I wonder if that's why these copies got the qualified label:

I was just looking at posting the very same thing. Can't find a picture of any online though. 

[valiantman]

I would guess that since this is a 1998 book, most (all?) qualified labels are related to unwitnessed signatures... since CGC didn't exist, but autographed comics were already a thing.

[Get Marwood & I]

7 minutes ago, valiantman said:

I would guess that since this is a 1998 book, most (all?) qualified labels are related to unwitnessed signatures... since CGC didn't exist, but autographed comics were already a thing.

That makes sense. The error doesn't exactly jump out like some do, so both CGC and the owner / submitters might have missed it.

[valiantman]

5 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

12 minutes ago, valiantman said:

I would guess that since this is a 1998 book, most (all?) qualified labels are related to unwitnessed signatures... since CGC didn't exist, but autographed comics were already a thing.

That makes sense. The error doesn't exactly jump out like some do, so both CGC and the owner / submitters might have missed it.

I've spent a lot of time with CGC census data and watched the market a long time, and it's almost a guarantee that books from the 1980s and 1990s with green qualified CGC labels are unwitnessed signatures from the 1990s (pre-CGC). 

Unless the book also had a coupon or something, there just aren't many green labels assigned to 1980-2000 books that aren't related to signatures (signed before CGC was a thing).

[Qalyar]

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

I've spent a lot of time with CGC census data and watched the market a long time, and it's almost a guarantee that books from the 1980s and 1990s with green qualified CGC labels are unwitnessed signatures from the 1990s (pre-CGC). 

Unless the book also had a coupon or something, there just aren't many green labels assigned to 1980-2000 books that aren't related to signatures (signed before CGC was a thing).

That said, the pink copy in the other thread linked above was from a poster who only ever made those 2 comments, but who said they were going to submit the book. So I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of those 9.6Q or 9.8Q books is that one, green-labeled from the printing error.

And honestly, there's no telling how many of these there might be. It's not a valuable book by default, and the pink version doesn't look wrong the way the FF 110 swapped color plates does. I can't say with any certainty that I've never seen a copy like this. I don't think I would have recognized it as wrong in isolation. The best scenario, for owners of the books anyway, is that this is rare but not near-unique, because that gives the best odds that CGC and the community would eventually recognize it as specifically collectible (Venom: Lethal Protector black, I'm looking at you here). If it's just an oddity with one or two out there, it might be worth a premium, but it won't be nearly as hot a commodity.

[Vfactor1]

Really neat book.

Also appreciate everyone’s contribution of info in this thread. Some neat stuff. Thanks.

 

V.

[The Green Ghost]

I think it's one of those that could heat up, but only if Spider-Girl becomes really, really hot as a property. For example, there's a white error cover to Cable # 1, same defect as Venom #1, but it's not even listed anywhere to have a value ascribed to it.