Brave & Bold #28: Speculation on future pricing

4 4

I wouldn't necessarily say 31K is now the "new price value" for that book. These big books like that rise and fall all the time, it's really what matters how it does over the course of the long term, I highly doubt this book with fall any further 20-25 years from now. The problem is that some people get impatient and sell far too early. People use the excuse "Well the last one sold for XXXXX.00 last month" as leverage to get a cheaper price. I wouldn't worry about the price of this book one bit.

I think the extra gloss on late 60s marvels refers to when they switched printers in 1968. There was a noticeable change in appearance, paper and gloss after all the years of Marvels cheap approach to comics production. They were number one by then, or dam close, and stepped up once their distribution limitations were freed up.

 

Only slightly correct, when customers switch printing plants (usually cause they got a better price) the new plant will want to impress the new customer with a higher quality product so they'll beef up the color to make a good impression.

 

all that is true, but the visual difference has less to do with any extra efforts with inks or printing quality assurance than to the paper stock used on the covers that changed. The new paper handled gloss better. Hold a Captain Marvel against any earlier 60s Marvel and the difference is clear.

 

I think that once Marvel came out of their restrictive 11 books a month restriction imposed in the late fifties when they moved to DCs distributor, (I forget what exactly happened there) and they started adding vigorously to their list of titles, they made a better deal with the new printer to handle the load and get a better deal with their new clout in the industry.

 

Yup. 1950's and early DC's were very different than Marvels from the same era.

 

It's possible that the DC paper didn't age as gracefully as Marvels (I think White page Marvels from 1962 in particular are not uncommon) but white page DCs seem to be tougher.

 

But the DC paper stock seemed much stronger than Marvel's 'newsprint' interiors and thin cover stock.

 

Marvel inks also seemed inferior during this era.

 

I think the above reasons are why Marvels and DC's from the same era are graded slightly differently.

 

At the end of the day, it's all useless information.

A recent storage locker find. Sometimes they pay of...

A recent storage locker find. Sometimes they pay of...

 

It was an amazing two boxes of SA Jimmers! Best collection of SA I've ever gotton. Every once in a while those storage lockers pay off I guess.

It was an amazing two boxes of SA Jimmers! Best collection of SA I've ever gotton. Every once in a while those storage lockers pay off I guess.

One of my friends buys storage lockers on a regular basis. When there are "collectibles" he gives me a call. I've gotton lots of stuff from him but this is the first load of significant comics other than about 20 EC's one time.

I wouldn't necessarily say 31K is now the "new price value" for that book. These big books like that rise and fall all the time, it's really what matters how it does over the course of the long term, I highly doubt this book with fall any further 20-25 years from now. The problem is that some people get impatient and sell far too early. People use the excuse "Well the last one sold for XXXXX.00 last month" as leverage to get a cheaper price. I wouldn't worry about the price of this book one bit.

Someone got an absolute steal on that book...

Trust me, I wouldn't have sold it if I had a choice.

I think the extra gloss on late 60s marvels refers to when they switched printers in 1968. There was a noticeable change in appearance, paper and gloss after all the years of Marvels cheap approach to comics production. They were number one by then, or dam close, and stepped up once their distribution limitations were freed up.

 

Only slightly correct, when customers switch printing plants (usually cause they got a better price) the new plant will want to impress the new customer with a higher quality product so they'll beef up the color to make a good impression.

 

all that is true, but the visual difference has less to do with any extra efforts with inks or printing quality assurance than to the paper stock used on the covers that changed. The new paper handled gloss better. Hold a Captain Marvel against any earlier 60s Marvel and the difference is clear.

 

I think that once Marvel came out of their restrictive 11 books a month restriction imposed in the late fifties when they moved to DCs distributor, (I forget what exactly happened there) and they started adding vigorously to their list of titles, they made a better deal with the new printer to handle the load and get a better deal with their new clout in the industry.

 

Yup. 1950's and early DC's were very different than Marvels from the same era.

 

It's possible that the DC paper didn't age as gracefully as Marvels (I think White page Marvels from 1962 in particular are not uncommon) but white page DCs seem to be tougher.

 

But the DC paper stock seemed much stronger than Marvel's 'newsprint' interiors and thin cover stock.

 

Marvel inks also seemed inferior during this era.

 

I think the above reasons are why Marvels and DC's from the same era are graded slightly differently.

 

 

At the end of the day, it's all useless information.

If you say so. I'll disagree.

I think the extra gloss on late 60s marvels refers to when they switched printers in 1968. There was a noticeable change in appearance, paper and gloss after all the years of Marvels cheap approach to comics production. They were number one by then, or dam close, and stepped up once their distribution limitations were freed up.

 

Only slightly correct, when customers switch printing plants (usually cause they got a better price) the new plant will want to impress the new customer with a higher quality product so they'll beef up the color to make a good impression.

 

all that is true, but the visual difference has less to do with any extra efforts with inks or printing quality assurance than to the paper stock used on the covers that changed. The new paper handled gloss better. Hold a Captain Marvel against any earlier 60s Marvel and the difference is clear.

 

I think that once Marvel came out of their restrictive 11 books a month restriction imposed in the late fifties when they moved to DCs distributor, (I forget what exactly happened there) and they started adding vigorously to their list of titles, they made a better deal with the new printer to handle the load and get a better deal with their new clout in the industry.

 

Yup. 1950's and early DC's were very different than Marvels from the same era.

 

It's possible that the DC paper didn't age as gracefully as Marvels (I think White page Marvels from 1962 in particular are not uncommon) but white page DCs seem to be tougher.

 

But the DC paper stock seemed much stronger than Marvel's 'newsprint' interiors and thin cover stock.

 

Marvel inks also seemed inferior during this era.

 

I think the above reasons are why Marvels and DC's from the same era are graded slightly differently.

 

 

At the end of the day, it's all useless information.

 

If you say so. I'll disagree.

What's the point of knowing what ink and stock they used? Books were printed on cheap paper using cheap ink. Comics were never meant to be saved. DC and marvel most likely used different companies

[

What's the point of knowing what ink and stock they used? Books were printed on cheap paper using cheap ink. Comics were never meant to be saved. DC and marvel most likely used different companies

It's part of what helps me understand how CGC grades books and helps my learning process along.

If anything, I'd say it's very useful information.

[

What's the point of knowing what ink and stock they used? Books were printed on cheap paper using cheap ink. Comics were never meant to be saved. DC and marvel most likely used different companies

 

It's part of what helps me understand how CGC grades books and helps my learning process along.

 

If anything, I'd say it's very useful information.

Just so you know, No printing company can "add gloss" doesn't matter if it's postcards or comics, no such thing as "adding gloss" You can always call CGC and talk to a grader to understand what they are looking for.

[

What's the point of knowing what ink and stock they used? Books were printed on cheap paper using cheap ink. Comics were never meant to be saved. DC and marvel most likely used different companies

 

It's part of what helps me understand how CGC grades books and helps my learning process along.

 

If anything, I'd say it's very useful information.

 

Just so you know, No printing company can "add gloss" doesn't matter if it's postcards or comics, no such thing as "adding gloss" You can always call CGC and talk to a grader to understand what they are looking for.

I just read back several pages and didn't see anyone say they added gloss.

So I'll just accept your apology instead.

Actually you can add gloss after all the inks are down. Lots of packaging uses gloss finishes to coat the inks... For a more polished look, and or to prevent smudging etc.

But they spend big bucks and use all the tricks available on press for impressive looking packaging for their products.

Comics of course always used the cheapest materials. That said, there's "better" cheap cover stock, and lower quality cheap cover paper. The higher quality, glossier cover stock Marvel switched to in the late 60s is what is responsible for these books holding up better or differently than the early sixties books do.

Actually you can add gloss after all the inks are down. Lots of packaging uses gloss finishes to coat the inks... For a more polished look, and or to prevent smudging etc.

 

But they spend big bucks and use all the tricks available on press for impressive looking packaging for their products.

 

Comics of course always used the cheapest materials. That said, there's "better" cheap cover stock, and lower quality cheap cover paper. The higher quality, glossier cover stock Marvel switched to in the late 60s is what is responsible for these books holding up better or differently than the early sixties books do.

The press operator doesn't say " we need more gloss on the book" want a brighter looking cover? Add more yellow. What Printing experience do you have? You have to remember, printing technology back in the 60s was terrible.

Actually you can add gloss after all the inks are down. Lots of packaging uses gloss finishes to coat the inks... For a more polished look, and or to prevent smudging etc.

 

But they spend big bucks and use all the tricks available on press for impressive looking packaging for their products.

 

Comics of course always used the cheapest materials. That said, there's "better" cheap cover stock, and lower quality cheap cover paper. The higher quality, glossier cover stock Marvel switched to in the late 60s is what is responsible for these books holding up better or differently than the early sixties books do.

 

The press operator doesn't say " we need more gloss on the book" want a brighter looking cover? Add more yellow. What Printing experience do you have? You have to remember, printing technology back in the 60s was terrible.

Actually you can add gloss after all the inks are down. Lots of packaging uses gloss finishes to coat the inks... For a more polished look, and or to prevent smudging etc.

 

But they spend big bucks and use all the tricks available on press for impressive looking packaging for their products.

 

Comics of course always used the cheapest materials. That said, there's "better" cheap cover stock, and lower quality cheap cover paper. The higher quality, glossier cover stock Marvel switched to in the late 60s is what is responsible for these books holding up better or differently than the early sixties books do.

 

The press operator doesn't say " we need more gloss on the book" want a brighter looking cover? Add more yellow. What Printing experience do you have? You have to remember, printing technology back in the 60s was terrible.

I happen to own an HP 5760 X printer, so there!

The "printer operator" only does what the client has paid his company to do. The client makes the decisions, gets a price, and places the order. Whether to add extra gloss (which is laid on just like a fifth color ink) goes last.

But, as I tried to inform you, "gloss" can be achieved via selection of paper stock. The inks are not opaque, and the paper texture and attributes combine with the inks to achieve the effect the client wants.

In the late 60s, Marvel switched printers and moved up to a higher quality i.e. Glossier cover stock.

And they printed them all on my HP 5760 printer. So don't tell me I have no printing experience! Sonny!

And, printing technology in the sixties wasn't "terrible". It was better than it had ever been in history at that point. Digital is better, but don't think the craftsmen back then couldn't achieve many very nicely printed products. And comics, where they merely had to Print the simplest solid ink %s left little room for color variance, and nearly all the colors were trapped to nice black lines, minimizing registration issues. Even on crappy newsprint.

What sucked most compared to today was color separation technology! (Digital color separation has allowed for much cleaner and richer color control...and creativity to be achieved.). And NOT the presses or pressmen running them. 4-color printing had been in use for almost a century by then, and was as advanced as it could be given its electro mechanical limitations compared to digital.... Which, of course came out of the existing printing standards and capabilities.

And color separation limitations back then affected photographs reproduction most. Compare even the most profitable mainstream magazine of 1966 to one on the newsstand today (say Sports Illlustrated) and you see the difference. But comics don't quite facial tones, or subtle photographic tones . So they are practically printed the same way now, just fast presses, cheaper plates, etc etc.

Even comics, printed almost as cheaply as possible are mostly very well printed items. What they lack, and why we think of them as shoddy, is there was no budget for quality control. They set the presses, got up to ink strength, and let them run... And only a major Fukkup that would require a reprint by an angry client would stop the presses.

Good info. I learned alot reading this stuff.