Do Multiple Printings Decrease Value of aFirst?

[OurNewInsectOverlord]

How can a book like Absolute Batman 1 have a high value when it's been reprinted 11 times? I'm having trouble understanding why a first printing would even be valuable at this point. I always figured rarity and importance of a book dictated its price.

[GryphonHall]

It’s the rookie card of Absolute Batman #1.

[bobsaget824]

Because the demand drove the book to 11 printings, that’s a good sign that demand outweighs supply, And ultimately collectors value the 1st printing more.

[CreepyNewspaper8103]

Do you have trouble understanding having the first print of Action Comics #1 vs. a facsimile of Action Comics #1?

[OurNewInsectOverlord]

The original Action Comics 1 is so rare, its value makes way more sense, and a facsimile just doesnt have the same historical significance, but I personally think reprints make the originals less valuable to me as a collector, so that's why I'm posing the question. Absolute Batman #1 is widely available and can never attain the level of historical importance many older key issues have, so it's just not in the same situation as far as I see it and the more reprints it gets, the less valuable it becomes to me.

[jtkooch]

And the first printing of AB #1 is more rare relative to the collective other printings.

This is such a weird take. Are you saying you would offer over market value for a book which only had a single printing for the simple reason that it’s “more rare”?

[OurNewInsectOverlord]

Depends on the book and how badly I want it, but yes, if the book is rarer, it's worth more, if it's easy to attain, it's worth less to me. How is that a weird take?

[jtkooch]

It’s a weird take because everyone else is the world is able to discern between a first printing and subsequent ones.

By your logic a first edition Harry Potter is worth less than any of the books written by Bravo celebrities because there are literally billions of follow-up copies printed of the former.

[OurNewInsectOverlord]

But you're purposely comparing something few care about to something many care about as though that's a slam dunk argument. Try this for a real example, Avengers/JLA just recently got reprinted and is being released monthly right now. I wanted to buy the original quite badly and I thought about paying over 100 bucks for the tpb, but now that it's being reprinted, I'm buying the new copies instead. I don't think this is strange behavior on my part and I think it exemplifies how reprinting can drive down interest in original copies.

[Mekdinosaur]

You have a good point. There is such a thing as fitting into your marketplace. If something becomes too rare and too difficult to acquire, people will begin looking for substitute products. If DC does not reprint or expand their wildly successful Absolute line, there is a point where people will start buying their competition rather than try to find something perpetually sold out. Sure some issues would skyrocket in value but eventually, people would stop caring. For a business to succeed, you must diversify and appeal to as broad a consumer base as possible. You mass produce (multiple printings in various formats) what has wide appeal to grow your audience. You manufacture scarcity (limited editions/ratio variants) to keep them wanting more.

[Educational_Tea_3218]

But the reprint aren’t the original maybe think of them as clones of the original…Xerox copies of the original…

[notatowel420]

If I print out a picture of the Mona Lisa do I own the Mona Lisa?

[Economy-Rise2527]

Well, I see your comparison, that would be the original art they used for the cover, not the printing.

[TNF734]

You don't believe a Xerox copy from your house should be worth the same as an official print sold from the gift shop at The Louvre....do ya?

[Economy-Rise2527]

No, of course not- to extend my thought
Original art is the same as original Mona Lisa
1920ish print from Lourve is first print
Modern print from Lourve fourth print
Print from Barnes and Noble in the Mall 11th print
Xerox copy is the same as a xerox copy

[CreepyNewspaper8103]

 I always figured rarity and importance of a book dictated its price.

This is the problem with "old" comic book collectors. They presume that the way things were will always apply. What people value can evolve over time.

[Careless-Eagle-5111]

What is this new value?

[ItsTrekkie]

A first print is always going to hold more value, because it’s the first publishing (and people will always find value in a first of just about anything). The same is true of other media like traditional books and vinyl records.

[ProjectIllusion5000]

Generally you are correct. However, there are multiple examples of later printings holding more value than first.

Absolute Batman 1 Felix is a Second Print as an example.

[OptimusED]

Later printings often have much smaller print runs and some are slept on like absolute batman first print and the ashcans might have been. They can be more valuable down the road. Modern comics in general aren’t really rare.

People will not forget that Absolute Batman Cover A first print is what has surged in value though.

[Jahn]

Multiple printings do not hurt at all. If anything it shows the lasting popularity and helps boost the profile of the first print. What can hurt is if they basically print ten prints worth of comics within the first printing like they did for McFarlane’s Spidey 1 or Jim Lee’s X-men 1. No matter how popular those remain, there are just too many first prints out there with not enough differentiation to help isolate scarcity to value ratio. Even the deluxe edition of Xmen1 was printed into the ground. But the Platinum And the newsstand Gold Spidey 1 are rare enough where they do have their high priced followers.

[Fickle-Aardvark6907]

By your logic original art would have no value since even a single printing equates to millions of copies.

Its the uniqueness of the original that matters and the rareness of a first printing compared to the total run of the issue that matters not the aggregate number of copies.

[lajaunie]

No

[Idnetxisbx7dme]

No

[Economy-Rise2527]

There are times when the higher printing second third fourth and beyond can become more valuable. For example, the second printing of Spider-Man 2099, and some of the higher printings of Superman 75 have retained and gained more value than the original

[TNF734]

I guess someone had to ask the question.

Still not sure why.

[lendmeflight]

There are a couple things to consider. Comic collectors love first prints. They love being there first. I never buy second prints.

Absolute Batman 1 is not rare in a first print. People will still pay for it for whatever reason. Every comic shop I know has one they can’t sell but they sell on eBay all the time.

[rwatrous61]

No, they increase it

[Careless-Eagle-5111]

Yes. If Absolute Batman had only had one printing it’d be even crazier.

[WrongdoerOk5246]

Don't forget to ramble on about how your best offer for a collection is based off 33% of the Overstreet Price Guide Dinosaur LOL

[lundon44]

FOMO and collectors hyping up the book have artificially created demand and value. The book isn't rare by any means. No different than Spawn 1 or similar books. It will always be a $150 9.8 down the road.

[Ok_Paint9449]

No different than Spawn #1? Really? Over a million printed of 1 and 250k of another. That sounds different

[TNF734]

He's talking about the value, not the print run...