sfcityduck

Got it. Thanks for correcting me. I absolutely agree that the comic market and the stock market are not related.

It is not a new type of virus. It is just a more virulent form of this type of virus. Scientists have drawn conclusions based on what they know of analogous viruses. But, of course, there is no substitute for experience.

Focusing just on 2007-2008, tell that to the shareholders, counter-parties, and employee of New Century Financial, Indymac Bank, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual bank, etc, The stock market dropped over 50%. It did not recover until 2012. That's pretty devastating to folks counting on 401Ks for their retirement.

If what is happening is a panic, then the Fed just panicked and dropped interest rates. However, the Dow dropped in response and is (of this moment) down 3.34% on the day. A couple of corrections to misinformation on the posts above: Coronavirus is not a flu virus. There is a vaccine for various flu viruses, but none is expected for coronavirus for at least 1.5 years. Healthy people have been killed by the coronavirus (but it is far more dangerous to the weak and older folks, just like other infectious diseases). Coronavirus may be more contagious than flu because coronavirus is apparently airborne spread (which is why it is worrying - Flu infects 10s of millions in the U.S. each year and this could be bigger). There is no coronavirus season, you can get it year round - it is just that the conditions which encourage transmission (lots of people indoors together) are less likely in warmer weather.

Some colleges (NYU, Syracuse, etc.) cancelled their Italy programs at World Health Organisation threat rating of 2 (alert level) others, including Oregon where my niece is, waited until the WHO upped the threat level in Italy to 3 (warning level) which it did on Friday. Spain is a level 1 (watch level) right now, just like the U.S.

You may be changing your tune as this thing spreads. It's already having many real world impacts on the world economy. Hard to call it white noise when you can no longer catch a flight on a U.S. airline to China, and the entire West Coast has cases on the rise. Colleges are cancelling their study abroad programs in Italy (my niece just got aced out of a term in Sienna). For most, it will be "just a cold," but for a not insignificant amount - especially amongst the older set - it will take its toll. And that will cause a change in customer behaviour. Businesses which are amongst the most likely to feel the impact include the film companies (sorry Disney/Marvel/Warner comic book movies), the NBA, and other businesses that brings large groups of people together in doors (such as comic conventions). Good stock to buy now? How about Netflix, which brings entertainment into your home with no need to venture into a crowded theatre.

Whenever there is a stock market downturn, I always see posts asking how this will impact comics. And invariably there are posts suggesting that stock investors will put their money into comics as a "safe haven." And I just got to shake my head. There are no "comic book" hedge funds for a reason: There simply is not enough value and volume in the comic book market to make it a viable option for serious stock investors. In fact, the comic market is so thin that the entry or exit of even one big buyer can significantly inflate or deflate prices. Which is the exact opposite of what a stock investor seeking a safe haven would want. The folks buying comics are predominantly comic collectors or low level investors. And while some of them may decide to take some money out of stocks and put into comics, they aren't likely to loose their heads and start overpaying for comics in the hopes there will be a buyer when they want to sell. This is especially true for older buyers and, let's face it, the age buyers has been going up. So ... this is a long winded way of saying that I don't think the fortunes of the stock market are going to lead to a significant uptick in the comic market. Some might have pulled money and have cash on hand, others might have taken a hit in their retirement and feel its time to sell comics. There's probably no broad pattern. BUT, I THINK THE CORONAVIRUS COULD MAYBE HAVE AN IMPACT THE COMIC MARKET! Why? It could easily have an adverse impact on convention attendance and dealers. The focus should probably be on the cause of the stock market uncertainty, not on the market itself.

That is truly super cool!

Marty, Are you Saying you won this contest? Are you listed in the winners? (No need to reveal your real name)

Hibbs' Comic Experience is my LCS. It is not a "comic collector's store." He doesn't sell collectable back issues. He doesn't carry the price guide. He doesn't sell collectable toys, etc. It's a book store that specialises in selling graphic novels and comic related books, that also happens to carry a selection of new comic books. The staff are comic readers. It is the kind of store that is more concerned with promoting the comic art form than it is about promoting collecting comics. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Hey, he could of talked about the era of Obidiah Oldbucks or strip reprint books, but instead he used it to describe the era of the birth of superheros and their rapid proliferation in the comic rmarket. At the every least, shows great collecting minds think alike.

To make it easier on everyone, here's the first page of the letter with the quote I mention above. It is fascinating and remarkable for comic collecting in 1948. Dave Wigransky's story is one that anyone interested in the history of comics and our hobby should learn:

According to the great comic fandom historian Bill Schelly, the first written use of the words "golden age" pertaining to the comics of the 1940s was by Richard A. (won't let me use the D word) Lupoff in an article called'"Re-Birth' in Comic Art #1 (April 1960). There's no doubt, no dispute, and general consensus that Lupoff's use of the term "golden age" to describe the comics of the first era of superhero comics was hugely influential. He is the one we can rightly blame for the whole "ages" thing. BUT, it turns out that Richard A. (won't let me use the D word) Lupoff was not the first collector to use that term. Instead, the term was used twelve years earlier by the person I view as the "first great comic collector." You can read about that comic collector here: In continuing my research into the history of this very early and prominent comic collector, I was amazed to read the following passage in a 1948 exchange of correspondence between that collector, Dave Wigransky, and comic legend Basil Wolverton: So even back in 1948, serious comic collectors were viewing the key era of the birth of superhero comics as a "golden age." Now the use of that term is not particularly original, so maybe this isn't all that profound, but it caught me by surprise. Especially because Dave Wigransky was in contact with prominent comic collectors back in the early 1960s, in fact was used as a resource by them due to his great depth of comic knowledge, and it makes me wonder if he ever used the term in discussions with them and had any influence on its use by Lupoff. I don't think we'll ever know. But, interesting for those who are into comic history. If you want to read the page of the letter I quote above, click on the thread link above. If you want to know a LOT more about Basil Wolverton and his correspondence with Dave Wigransky, go buy Greg Sadowski's Brain Bats of Venus book - one of the best comic creator bios ever (and filled with incredible Wolverton comics!).

Frankly, its learning new stuff like this that keeps the wonder of collecting alive for me. Learning history that's new to me, about old comics I'd never heard of before, stuff like that make comic collecting a joyous onion with new layers of discovery always available. Ok, maybe "joyous onion" is a stupid phrase, but its the best I got right now. Bonus points for whoever can identify the comics those panels are cut from.

Work has been very hectic, so I've fallen a bit behind on my Dave Wigransky research. But, he is too interesting a character and too important a topic to comic history to lose sight of. Here's an example of why: Below is the first page of a letter Dave sent Basil Wolverton. Check it out. What you'll see is that Dave's critique of how GA comics evolved in the 1940s back when this letter was written in 1948 is essentially the same critique of the evolution of GA comics in the 1940s that we see made by some of the most advanced collectors on this site: The superhero comics of 1939-42 are superior to the superhero comics of the late 1940s because in the 1939-1942 time period the superhero comics were serious and dark, whereas by the late 1940s Superman is cavorting with Mr. Mxyztplk. And here's the kicker: Dave was using the term "golden age" (or as he mistyped it "golden aga") to describe the 1939-1942 period back in 1948. Makes you wonder if he used that term when talking to fans in the early 1960s, when the term came into vogue. The more I read about Dave, the more I realize that he was not only the first "great comic collector," but really the first modern collector as well. This letter presages the comic criticism and fan-pro relationships that were to come into full flower in the early 1960s. It's a remarkable document. If you want to read more about Dave and his relationship with Wolverton, and also read one of the best comic book biographies of all time, then RUN don't walk and pick up Greg Sadowski's book "Brain Bats of Venus"! Here's the first page of a very remarkable letter: Key points revealed by this letter about Dave: * He had duplicate comics in his collection (and apparently was only willing to destroy the duplicates to use as graphics in his letter); * He had a very high level relationship with a comic pro (Wolverton), that included sharing critiques and opinions on comics; * He was engaging in the kind of comic analysis that Scott McCloud views as serious comic criticism; * He has an extensive knowledge of the evolution of comics from the late 1930s to late 1940s, including the storylines of a diverse array of books from Superman to the Shadow to Powerhouse Pepper to Mighty Mouse. * He was using the term "golden age" to describe the 1939-1942 time period; * His knowledge of Wolverton's output is incredibly impressive, showing familiarity not just with Powerhouse Pepper and Spacehawk, but also obscure works like Dauntless Dawson and FlipFlap. He even knew how many times those obscure features appeared, as well as the publishing history of Powerhouse Pepper. * He visited Timely in the Summer of 1948 and spoke to Timely personnel about the comic business in some amount of detail; and * He was not a fan of Timely's teen output. It's amazing that so much information is revealed by this one page.

Which is why the most important hallmark of Spidey's personality, while in costume, was his dialogue. And that's why so many people feel that Stan Lee was integral to Marvel's success. Deadpool is a throwback to Spidey in that way. Me, I think that great comics are a marriage of art and pictures. Ditko's Spidey was visually unique, spider-like, and the perfect H.S. superhero. A Kirbyesque look would never have worked as well. But, Stan's dialogue breathed a lot of life into Ditko's pictures. I've never really thought the guy who drew a costume was the real creator of a character. After all, costumes change. To me, the real creator is the guy who gives a character personality. In comics, that usually takes both the artist and the writer. An obvious example, Wolverine did not become Wolverine until Claremont and Byrne started to breath real life into the character.

The only issue Jack penciled was Strange Tales 135, and it is by far the best origin story of Marvel's Silver Age in my humble opinion. From 136-on, all Kirby was doing was lay outs (maybe with an issue exception). So I'm basing my opinion on one issue. Plus, I love Steranko's covers, but his interior art leaves me less inspired than many others.

For the Marvel biggees: I'll take Kirby FF circa issues in the 40s to 60s over anyone, with Byrne second. I'll take Ditko Spider-man, especially the first 10 issues, over anyone with Romita second. Never liked the art on Hulk. Thor is not my favorite character, but Kirby and Smonson come close to a tie for me, with Kirby getting the nod. I'll take Layton Iron Man over anything, and don't have an opinion on second. I'll take Perez Avengers over anyone, with Adams second. I'll take Byrne X-Men over anyone, with Adams second. Miller DD, and Jansen second maybe. Kirby for Nick Fury by a mile, then Steranko. Captain America just has never been a character I've collected in the SA.

Miller did not create the Kingpin. Miller's inspiration was the presentation of the character in the 1960s:

Fair enough.

Which is sad, because Jack's entire work history essentially proves the value of collaborative creation in the comics industry. I also believe that Joe Simon was generous in granting Jack co-creator credit for Captain America, and it is unfortunate that Jack, and Stan, and others sometimes found this difficult to do. After all, Simon created the character design for Cap, picked the name, and wrote all the stories in the first issue, including providing Jack with penciled in lettering and suggested breakdowns. Simon wasn't even going to use Jack as the artist on all three stories in CA 1, but Jack convinced him to do so. Jack then penciled the stories in record time based on Joe's breakdowns. Some might argue that Joe gave Jack credit because it had no real financial impact on him to do that given the financial terms of their partnership agreement (Joe was the senior partner on a 3/2 split), but I think that probably not generous as Joe valued Kirby's artistic flair and fast production, and Joe had an expansive view of the creative process. But, its a legitimate question: Assuming that Joe's story is true (and I don't believe it is disputed), who created Captain America? Joe Simon or S&K.

What he actually said is this: Sounds to me like he's making a judgment call against collaborative work (like Stan's) and for one-man shows, with the collaborative work being denigrated.

U2 and Led Zeppelin and a number of other bands did that. I think it was largely a reaction to the Beatles' unfortunate way of assigning credit.

There are many great writers who never write anything great outside of their chosen medium. In fact, the number of book authors who write great movies is very very small. So too with tv writers. And there are a lot of great playwrites and -script writers who can't write a book. So this is not an argument that works for me. Comic book writing is its own art form. Being a great comic writer is cause for celebration. Comic writers do not need to cross-over before they can be celebrated.

The notion that Stan Lee sucks because he does not draw the stories he writes is absurd. The history of comics is full of great writers who work with artists. In fact, it is fair to say that comic’s most influential character, Superman, was largely created by a writer and many of the greatest comic stories were the product of writer-artist collaborations. Comics by writers like Gaiman, Moore, etc. are more than ample evidence to establish the import of writers and writing to the creation of great comics. So this line of attack on Stan is way over the top. I like Kirby, but his best work was in collaboration with others. Nothing wrong with that. So Too for Stan.