Super Mario Bros. True First Print

[BreaKBeatZ | 136]

I came across this on eBay:

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Super-Mario-Bros-VGA-90-1985-Famicom-Nintendo-NES-Mega-Rare-True-First-Print/114385567064

 

It got me thinking about whether there is a way to determine the first print of Super Mario Bros. on Famicom. We have all seen the hype train of the NES print being (Matte sticker) but I was wondering if anyone had thought about this for Famicom. I don't collect for the system, but I'm think this auction is not the first print release, and probably not for a release prior to the NES Matte sticker one. I have also seen some copies with different box art in the past - it seems more uncommon and the picture is in more of a "cute style".

 

Anyway, does anyone know how to identify the first print of this game? I would be cool to keep an eye out for the true first release.

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,104]

8 minutes ago, BreaKBeatZ said:

I came across this on eBay:

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Super-Mario-Bros-VGA-90-1985-Famicom-Nintendo-NES-Mega-Rare-True-First-Print/114385567064

 

It got me thinking about whether there is a way to determine the first print of Super Mario Bros. on Famicom. We have all seen the hype train of the NES print being (Matte sticker) but I was wondering if anyone had thought about this for Famicom. I don't collect for the system, but I'm think this auction is not the first print release, and probably not for a release prior to the NES Matte sticker one. I have also seen some copies with different box art in the past - it seems more uncommon and the picture is in more of a "cute style".

 

Anyway, does anyone know how to identify the first print of this game? I would be cool to keep an eye out for the true first release.

Good question. I know the matte sticker is the first NES release, but I haven't seen any real info on the Famicom version. I've got one of those wooden Nintendo storage chests that has that same artwork on it. 

 

[fcgamer | 4,722]

The auction seller is an ignorant buffoon trying to cash in on the nonsense. The Famicom Super Mario Bros. can never truly be a first print of the Nintendo NES Super Mario Bros., as the two pieces of software are for different gaming machines, which both just happen to be somewhat compatible, but only with modifications. No need to bring this sort of collecting shark into Famicom collecting, period. 

Now, regarding the first print of Super Mario on Famicom, it's quite easy to determine. The box is piss-yellow, and features a Mario with Jeff's head on it, a Bowser with Denis's head on it, etc.

[BreaKBeatZ | 136]

This is the "cute" box art I was thinking of. 

 

[img]https://i.imgur.com/6yGTlYZ.jpg[/img]

Edited September 7, 2020 by BreaKBeatZ

[DefaultGen | 5,401]

I have a few copies from lots and the only major difference I can see on the boxes is how sun faded they are and one variant has a UPC, the other variant has no UPC. Might have to look at PCB dates to find the true, true, true, real, actual, true first print.

Edited September 7, 2020 by DefaultGen

[Dr. Morbis | 2,088]

What's funny about this auction is that it is so ridiculously obvious that it is NOT the first print.  The first print has no UPC and does NOT have the writing on the back at the top that says "For sale and use in Japan only."

That being said, the fact that SMB was released on the Famicom in Japan BEFORE it was released on the NES in the US, means that the true first print of this title is the first run of the Famicom version.  The fact that test market US copies are selling for a ton because they're the "first print" is an absolute travesty.  In no other hobby would you disregard a first print solely on the grounds that it was released outside of the US.  Like the first Harry Potter in the US (Sorceror's Stone) should somehow supercede the true first print of the Philosopher's Stone because the former was the first print in the US?!?!?  Leave it to GoCollect and WATA to bamboozle the American public...

[fcgamer | 4,722]

28 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

That being said, the fact that SMB was released on the Famicom in Japan BEFORE it was released on the NES in the US, means that the true first print of this title is the first run of the Famicom version.  The fact that test market US copies are selling for a ton because they're the "first print" is an absolute travesty.  In no other hobby would you disregard a first print solely on the grounds that it was released outside of the US.  Like the first Harry Potter in the US (Sorceror's Stone) should somehow supercede the true first print of the Philosopher's Stone because the former was the first print in the US?!?!?  Leave it to GoCollect and WATA to bamboozle the American public...

To me this just shows why comparing video games to comics just doesn't "work" very well.

 

[fcgamer | 4,722]

6 hours ago, BreaKBeatZ said:

This is the "cute" box art I was thinking of. 

 

[img]https://i.imgur.com/6yGTlYZ.jpg[/img]

That's for regular Mario Bros

[BreaKBeatZ | 136]

5 hours ago, fcgamer said:

That's for regular Mario Bros

Ah, OK, makes sense

[DefaultGen | 5,401]

On 9/7/2020 at 3:05 AM, Dr. Morbis said:

What's funny about this auction is that it is so ridiculously obvious that it is NOT the first print.  The first print has no UPC and does NOT have the writing on the back at the top that says "For sale and use in Japan only."

Oh neat, I don't have that last one (For sale in use in Japan on back) also has a little Famicom logo on the bottom right of the front? I gotta get one.

 

On 9/7/2020 at 3:05 AM, Dr. Morbis said:

The fact that test market US copies are selling for a ton because they're the "first print" is an absolute travesty. 

Do you think it's perhaps possible that people flipping video games for $10,000s are just maybe making the historical argument in bad faith in pursuit of unlimited profits rather than actually caring about the history of the game or character?

Edited September 11, 2020 by DefaultGen

[RH | 4,903]

You know, about two weeks on another thread, I joked we should find someone I Japan to round up about 500 of these and as a group investment, we get them slowly graded, pump this thing up and slowly dump them over the years.

[Dr. Morbis | 2,088]

1 hour ago, DefaultGen said:

Do you think it's perhaps possible that people flipping video games for $10,000s are just maybe making the historical argument in bad faith in pursuit of unlimited profits rather than actually caring about the history of the game or character?

Obviously, yeah, but as someone who does care about the character, game, medium, history, etc, it really hits a nerve...

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,012]

On 9/7/2020 at 3:05 AM, Dr. Morbis said:

The fact that test market US copies are selling for a ton because they're the "first print" is an absolute travesty. 

Japanese Pokemon cards came first but the prints of US and JPN cards are considered distinct because of the different quality of each market. The US market got better quality cards and that is one reason why they're more desired and more expensive than JPN cards even though they continually came out after their JPN counterpart. Even today, JPN cards get printed before US runs and in smaller sets.

Could you make an argument that US NES games are better quality than JPN FC games?

[Dr. Morbis | 2,088]

15 hours ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

Could you make an argument that US NES games are better quality than JPN FC games?

Absolutely, for three reasons: End labels, more space for bigger circuit boards, and screws instead of snap cases so you can more easily open the cartridges without risk of damaging them.

As for your Pokemon argument, I'd guess that the primary reason that the US ones sell for more is because they are US ones; the fact that they may be better quality probably has far less to do with their value as collectables...