Now you have to post a picture.



Agreed. The important part isn't the pulp, but what's on it.

I don't worry about any of those things, primarily because I am very careful about my storage methods as well as ensuring that I keep my comics in a low humidity, no moisture, no-direct-sunlight environment. While I know that all things degrade over time, I do my best to keep that from happening.

I picked this up in a show for 1 dollar. It was so bad that I stapled the ends to keep it together, but boy did I enjoy the story.

So what makes a comic real and original. I ask because it has been confirmed there were multiple printings of some of the key Golden Age books such as Superman #1. It went through 3 different printings (with some variations in the cover) in 1939.

For all those that adhere to only the original comics is the real format, does that mean all the Superman #1s out there formt he second and third printings are not real original Superman #1s?

You can hear/see someone discussing the Overstreet article on the multiple printings of Superman #! (1939) a few minutes into this episode of Lee-Kirby'Ditko comics (I linked to the time in the video.



According to audit documents for the publishing house that became DC that were floating around a couple of years back, it looks like the print runs for Superman broke down like this...



So those who discount later printings, editions, formats, etc. as not being real versions of the stories/books, does this mean there is only 500K real copies of Superman #1 and 400K fake copies or less valid copies floating out there in the marketplace. Currently no differentiation is made in the value of any of the printings, but would someone turn up their nose up at a second printing of Superman #1 because it's not the real original version of the comic. If not, how is it any different than any other later printing of the stories or the book in fascimile editions that contain all the same content?

I just curious at the logic and justifications behind the school of thought that one version is inherently superior to another and later versions are not worthy of consideration. Second and third printings of Superman #1 (and there seems to be multiple printings of Superman #2 as well) are not the original version then, so should they be shunned by those who hold the logic that only the original print run of the comic book is a valid version of the comic book worthy of consumption by readers. If it's true, I feel sorry for those who shelled out money for copies of Superman 1 and 2 thinking they had originals and come to find out they had 2nd or 3rd printings from the late 30s and not the "real thing" from the first print.


-M

archivists warn that digital may be a less stable long-term medium than print. it's a major controversy right now.


for popular works that are preserved in multiple formats, there's no problem, but the more obscure works that have been digitally archived yet never reprinted, that's a roll of the dice. as I understand it, the two largest threats to digital archiving are electromagnetic disruption and file formats that cease to be supported.

Same here, fascinating fact to know about.  I wonder if the same is true for Detective Comics #27 or similar Golden Age comics?

Detective #27 was reprinted twice, once as an Oreos giveaway (only the Batman story was reprinted, and the cover was made of the same material as the inside pages) and once as an over-sized Famous First Edition (which some have attempted to trim down in order to pass it off as the original).