sfcityduck

Over exuberance.

[UPDATED TO ADD:] Manga Yonin Shoshei aka the Four Immigrants Manga is, I am pleased to report, SOLD! Purchase price was $35,000 inclusive of $5,000 of conservation by one of the world's leading conservators of Japanese art on paper. Reversible conservation was a condition of the sale imposed by me. You can read below if you want to know why. For me, personally, it was an honor to own and a great satisfaction to pass on to a new owner who recognizes the historical import, cherishes the book, and wants to ensure it is preserved for future generations. I am pleased that the book is leaving my custody in better shape than when I gained it. I am also very very pleased that this book remains in private hands (there are sufficient copies in institutional collections) so there remains the hope and opportunity of collectors to have at least a glimmer of a chance to someday acquire this item (the buyer is not a flipper so don't seek contact info from me) which is the crux of several neat collecting interests (original graphic novels, English language manga, platinum or early Gold era comics, etc.). [END OF UPDATE]

Also because it has no subscription fold. For a subscription variant to top census is a true unicorn. You win the momentary admiration of your peers!

Subscription stamp!

That’s one great reason, a right answer for me, but I was thinking more generically.

Off-white, and down 40% in the market. But even down 40% it is still $50K for a mid-run DC. This unicorn which tops out Census over file copies impresses me more (bonus point if you can guess why) although that Batbook is a total gem (no dis from me of that book):

My GA collection was commenced by my dad giving me his childhood collection of later 40s to mid 50s books in the late 70s. Overstreet around that time had hyped Barks, EC and LB Cole. SOTI always seemed big. I always thought there were a lot of folks focused on that time period. I also always viewed Barks and ECs as two of the most heavily collected groups of books with Barks being more popular because they were easier to get. The Barks and EC reprint HCs put out by Cochran did not hurt that perception. I have always viewed Barks ducks as one of the pillars of the hobby.

I like the GA being 1933 to Aug 1945 and Atomic Age Sept. 1945 to Mar. 1955 better than the timeline you were floating up thread. But, why does the Atomic Age end March 1955?

I love that book. Jerry Robinson cover shows that the post-war GA had attempts to create more superheroes. At the other end, Powell's 1955 Avenger for ME has a similar but even more modern look.

I always have an interest. We all have only limited time. DC pioneered 100% original comics in 1934. By 1935, Siegel & Shuster were already doing Doctor Occult (pre-Superman) at DC and started Federal Men in 1936. Other artists working at DC prior to 1/37 included Creig Flessel and Leo O'Mealia. As of January 1936, 30% of the titles on the stands were published by DC (3 of 10 titles). It was a small industry and it was a significant player. But, then again, they all were at that time. DC was a quality participant. DC wasn't the outlier on superheroes, it was the standard bearer and biggest publisher. Timely is out of superheros by January 1950 (except Venus which is really now a genre title), but Fawcett, Quality, and Harvey still are putting out superheroes. DC had, of course, started Superboy in 1949 and keeps the core titles. Timely is back in August 1950 with Marvel Boy who runs into 1951, and then back again in 1953 with Cap. America, Human Torch, and Subby, who run until Oct. 1955. DC adds Superman's Pal in 1954. Other companies are also testing out superheroes at various points prior to Showcase 4. But it is no longer the dominant genre. I agree the CCA contributes to the revival of superheroes as a major genre, but that really doesn't happen in any significant way until 1958-1959 when Lois Lane and Flash graduate to their own titles, so it was a very slow burn that cannot really be seen as entirely caused by the CCA given the delay from its 1954 implementation to Showcase 4 to Flash 105. I love the terms "pre-Code", "post-Code", and "PCH" to explain the 1950s, but the "Atomic Age" concept does nothing for me. It doesn't explain anything important in the comic industry. A-Bomb covers and communist menace material survived after the CCA was implemented. If we're talking superheros, the original conceptions of GA and SA really make the most sense. If we're talking the broader comic market with all of its genres, then the "ages" really don't help much. They end up becoming very very short and irrelevant. Your GA is only six to eight years long and ignores all other genres. Your atomic age is only eight years long and starts the SA on a date that has nothing to do with second age of superhero comics (its in the mid-point of the failed Atlas revival).

There was high quality DC material prior to Action 1. The quantity was small because the comic industry was young, there were few publishers, and they were undoubtedly figuring out format, printing, distribution, marketing, and how to scale up a business dependent upon artists and writers. It was a new industry in area where the potential participants were risk adverse and were trend followers. Looking just at DC, they went from 1 title in 1/35, to 4 titles (1 w/ superhero story) in 1/39, to 5 titles in 1/40 (all w/ a superhero story), to 10 titles in 1943 (all with superheroes). But in 1/44 DC again had a title with no superheroes, 2 non-superhero titles in 1/45, 5 non-superhero titles as of 1/46, and by 1/47 of 19 titles there were no superhero stories in 7. The thing is though, 1/47 was the highpoint of DC superhero titles for the 1935-1950 era with 12 titles with superhero stories. January 1948 held steady with 7 titles with non-superheroes but only 10 titles with superheroes. January 1949 featured 18 titles 9 without superhero stories and 9 with. January 1950 featured 20 titles with 12 non-superhero titles and 8 with superheroes. In 1/56, after the CCA was adopted but before Showcase 4, DC had 32 titles of which 8 still had superhero stories. Don't think these numbers match up with your Atomic Age concept.

"Golden Age" and "Silver Age" do add a certain shine when dealing comics.

True. And one of the mistakes we should not repeat is the unhelpful "ages" concept, especially when that entails abandoning the shared concepts of the last 50 years by adoption of new end and start points. If you want to tie comic history to real world events, I find the terms "pre-war", "post-war," "pre-code," "direct market" etc. very helpful. Atomic Age as you use it just doesn't work because 1946 is not the year of the detonation of the Atomic Bomb and 1954, the date of the implementation of the CCA, is not the start of the DC superhero revival, let alone in earnest, and has nothing to do with the A-Bomb (culturally the Atomic Age kept going well after 1954).

I think you need to delve deeper into comic history. Comics were far from just newspaper strip compilations. While it is true that some comics were published by or licensed from the newspaper cartoon syndicates, other comic publishers were putting out original material - most notably DC (National Periodical Publications and All-American Publications) which started putting out comics of all-original comic material in 1934. (Earlier, the first comic page format (six panels and word balloons) all original material graphic novel (hardbound book) came out in 1930). DC went along at a decent pace with a large share of the comic market with non-superhero material for three or four years before Action 1. In addition, other publishers were also putting out original non-superhero material prior to Action 1 and all major publishers continued to do so after Action 1 even as they jumped on the superhero trend in earnest starting months to over a year after Superman debuted.

See this article: http://www.lostsoti.org/TheAntiComicsCrusade.htm On this site: http://www.lostsoti.org/NewsArchive.htm

Agree to disagree. There's a lot of history in those "ages" labels, but it makes more sense to use decades. Adding "ages" just confuses things, especially when they correllate to non-comic events like the Atomic Bomb which did not have that big an influence on comics. Dave Wigransky had the GA from 1938-1942 because that's when comics were born and when the dark content that appealed to him most was put out. He was a pre-Robin Detective type of guy. In contrast, when Lupoff first used the term in modern comic fandon, in the fanzine Comic-Art 1 (Spring 1961), he correlated it to the 1940s. I think Lupoff was right to focus on decades instead of arbitrary age demarcations. For those who haven't read his article "Re-Birth" in Comic-Art, it shows why his writing caused him to be regarded as one of the fathers of modern comic collecting:

It was Dave Wigransky.

As a matter of nomenclature the term “Golden Age” as used by fans at the birth of modern fandom around 1960 or so referred to the “Golden Age of super hero comics” (really DC) and the later term “Silver Age” referred to the reboot of GA heroes and a second flurry of superhero dominance. Terms like “Atomic Age” are not really useful because they bear no relationship too and contradict decades of the shared history and understanding by fandom of the term Golden Age. The reality also is that the decline of the market share of superhero comics also corresponded to the increase of adult comic readers, proliferation of other genres, and probably the biggest overall comic market. It was not until the backlash against comics hit full flower and the CCA was adopted that the superhero revival occurred. Superheroes never went away. New superheroes and revivals occurred throughout the 1950s before and after Showcase 4. PS The first documented use of the term “Golden Age” by a comic collector in writing was in 1948.

Comic collecting started as soon as there were comics. But it did not evolve into modern organized fandom until 1960. But there were comic collectors and dealers earlier.

Except that print appearances pre-dated film appearances of most major Disney Duck characters.

We all have real world experience. Mine is radically different than yours with dating apps as I've been married for almost 30 years. The women I interact with are never trying to impress me romantically. They are my colleagues, clients, friends, acquaintances, wives of friends, parents of my kids friends, etc. And while there is a diversity of social and political views and what is their most satisfying life path, I don't know any who disagree with the notion that its ok to have movies centered on strong female characters, including superhero movies.

The above is what we call an ad hominem logical fallacy. A personal attack not an argument. It's also wrong, unevidenced, and contrary to what you've read here. You are lauding at least one poster for being such a great source of information who keeps telling you that my recitals of corporate decision making are "exactly right."

That was no mischaracterization. Look up thread. You post too much for me to waste my time looking. Just look for the quotes where you relayed the supposed history of ESG, discussed Blackrock, and talked about the timelines of ESG's "peak." I'm sure your memory will be refreshed.

Was she good with Charlie Chan? Have you asked her how she feels about "Chop Chop" from Blackhawk? What about the "Dragon Lady" from Terry and the Pirates? Lots of other Chinese caricatures and stereotypes in US comics and movies from the start. So calling the stereotyping of minorities a "waken American usage," is just plain wrong. It's just the continued influence of our racist and bigoted past. Did she like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? But as a counter-anecdote, I know many Americans of Asian descent who are really happy to see folks who share their heritage being represented in movies, even ones titled "Crazy Rich Asians." The women I know who are raising families do not feel diminished by the fact that there are successful women made a different choice. I believe they are glad that the choices are available. I certainly know many feminists who are very unhappy with Hollywood's fixation on sexy women actresses and the reduction of women to sex objects. But I've never heard anyone who elected to be a stay at home mom complain it is slight on staying at home. The movies that start with a single woman unsatisfied with her love life usually end with a marriage proposal and a desire to raise family. Just watch Hallmark. I certainly am well aware of many "tough" female CEOs who wear their expensive clothing (including GASP! a pant suit). And sadly there are lots of underlings in corporate America who act timorous towards the CEO. Its called group think and too common. So I'm not sure why that's offensive. By definition, for a woman to make the journey from top to bottom in a male dominated world can lead to an attitude that some might find "tough" - look at Nancy Pelosi and Nicki Haley in politics - but most women I know find that inspirational. Again, the idea you have choices and can be who you want to be is powerfully positive.

Given the corporate fixation on profits, I believe we can safely assume that the data shows that they are more interested in those kind of movies. Anecdotally, Barbie certainly suggests they would be also. But we are not talking all women, so the anecdotes we all voice are not real helpful. There are always counter anecdotes.