sfcityduck

Oct. copies vs. Nov. copies is basically first print vs. second print and, yes, I think a lot of folks prefer first prints. But, I'd drop Action 7 and D 31 out of the top 10 unless the point of the list is heavily weighted to FMV (which you seem to weigh twice by also using the amorphous "desirability" as a criteria) as neither tick as many boxes in your criteria as books below them. Heck, I'd rank D33 over D31, but both out of the top 10. Action 10 and 13 are likewise far too highly ranked given your stated criteria, and should not be above books like AS 8, Flash 1, D 33, MF 52. In short, I think you are giving short shrift to the following criteria you cite: * historical significance * nostalgia * how books were viewed during different periods of time * connections to both past and present * interior content

You got what you paid for - great eye appeal.

Where, when, WOW!

Is that yours!?!

Huh? There are incredibly long threads on the Golden Age boards dedicated to Four Color collectors, and that's setting aside the many great series that started as Four Colors (Donald Duck, Uncle Scrooge, etc.) which are still hotly collected.

Lots of people collect Groo! And many others are waiting for the long delayed Groo Omnibus reprinting his adventures.

Plentiful in low grade. Black cover makes it harder to find in a decent grade, and it is not a popular book. I was the under bidder on this copy, would have gone up another $100 but, even though it is no. 3 on the Census (which makes it the lowest rated of the three on the Census), I am convinced there are some decent non-CGC'd copies out there which I can get. We'll see.

Ditko is a controversial guy with a lot of "out there" opinion. But, I tend to agree with this quote from the Chicago Tribune article posted above: Very little of the Ditko and Kirby original art traded by collectors who profess to love those artists was returned to Ditko and Kirby, as it should have been by Marvel, and then sold by Ditko and Kirby into the collector market. It came from a different source. I think it is fair to say that the market for early Marvel Kirby and Ditko original art can fairly be described, as Ditko did, as a "thieves market." Which is why this art market was essentially underground for so many years, and why the covers to all of the early Marvel comics are still in "hiding." I applaud whoever it was who found their moral compass and offered to Ditko to return the AF 15 interior art back to him or to the LoC, and then carried through with the donation to the LoC. I hope that is not an isolated incident to band-aid that person's conscience. Sadly, other seminal Marvel stories are reported to have been broken up, like FF 1, as they traversed the underground OA market.

Actually, numerous folks here have made that accusation. The AF 15 art was stolen from Marvel. It should have been returned to Ditko and never was. Folks here are claiming that MS sold the art to a collector to fund her retirement. If you can't connect the dots that the people telling that story are leaving out, I can't help you. Personally, I don't believe the "MS did it" version of events. Mandel wasn't talking about AF 15. He never owned AF 15 (he does own a lot of other great art he has publicly put on display in places like the UO art museum). His Marie Severin story appears to concern an entirely different issue and I'd never heard it before. Instead, I've heard two other version of how all the early Marvel art was stolen, which I've relayed above. So, no, I'm not accusing Marie Severin of anything.

Nah. You should be more careful. I was posting against the notion that Marie Severin stole the art, which is the theory that some here have pushed.

It's a fine theory. And a far far better theory than Marie Severin stole the art and sold it to a collector. But, it runs counter to many years of collectors knowing that a lot of early Marvel art was stolen. There's no reason to believe that Ditko had the original art to AF 15. Here's why: And, it was reported that the anonymous donor asked Ditko's permission before donating the art. This is an article where Ditko was quoted about the donation: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-09-02/features/0809010104_1_artwork-comic-book-steve-ditko It states: Translation: That sure looks like a curator for the LoC admitting the artwork was stolen and then sold into the collecting community. You can run the searches on this website, but there are threads here stating that a specific original art dealer has much of the early Ditko Spiderman art, and has auctioned some off on Heritage. Perhaps he was the donor.

I think you are wrong. I thought the AF 15 artwork was part of the batch that had been stolen from Marvel along with other early Marvel art, like the X-Men art that occasionally pops up on Heritage, and which has been filtering through the "underground" original art market for years. I don't know if I read it at the time, but I thought someone who'd bought the stolen artwork had found their moral compass and decided to send it to an institution for posterity. I've heard several versions of the art theft story. One version has the art being sold by the thief to a comic shop only a few blocks from Marvel's NYC offices. Another is this: The big mystery continues to be: Who is the scum who is sitting on the covers of Amazing Adventures #1-6, Amazing Fantasy #15, Avengers #1-15, Fantastic Four #1-39, Hulk #1-6, Journey into Mystery #52-115, Rawhide Kid #17-47, Sgt. Fury #1-20, Strange Tales #68-135, Tales of Suspense #4-67, Tales to Astonish #1-66 and X-Men #1-12. Interior art for all of these issues is known to have survived (and popped up at Heritage, etc.), covers were no destroyed by the printers but mailed back to Marvel with the interiors, yet these covers are all still being hidden by the scumbag who stole them or the scumbag who bought the stolen goods.

Updated status on books submitted at San Francisco Con: STANDARD Stated turnaround times when submit.: CCS = 15 b days; GCC = 15 b days (Total 30 b days or 6+ weeks or ETA of 7/27/2018) Date of Con Drop Off - 6/10/2018 CGC Received Date ("Rec-CCS Required") - 6/14/2018 (Bus. days since Con submission = 4) "At CCS" - 6/18/2018 (Bus. days since "Rec. CCS Required" = 2) "Received" - 7/9/2018 (Bus. days since "At CCS" = 14) "Verified" - 7/10/2018 (Bus. days since "Received" = 1) It's now been 11 business days since "Received" by CGC and 10 business days since "Verified." The estimated TAT is 7/27/2018. FAST TRACK VALUE Stated turnaround times when submit.: CCS = 20 b days; GCC = 32 b days (Total 52 b days or 10+ weeks or ETA of 8/24/2018) Date of Con Drop Off - 6/10/2018 CGC Received Date ("Rec-CCS Required") - 6/14/2018 (Bus. days since Con submission = 4) "At CCS" - 6/18/2018 (Bus. days since "Rec-CCS Required" = 2) "Received" - 7/3/2018 (Bus. days since "At CCS" = 11) MAGAZINE MODERN Stated turnaround times when submit.: CCS = 35 b days; GCC = 45 b days (Total 80 b days or 16+ weeks or ETA of 10/3/2018) Date of Con Drop Off - 6/10/2018 CGC Received Date ("Rec-CCS Required") - 6/14/2018 (Bus. days since Con submission = 4) "At CCS" - 7/3/2018 (Bus. days since "Rec-CCS Required" = 13) VALUE Stated turnaround times when submit.: CCS = 45 b days; GCC = 57 b days (Total 102 b days or 20+ weeks or ETA of 10/31/2018) Date of Con Drop Off - 6/10/2018 CGC Received Date ("Rec-CCS Required") - 6/14/2018 (Bus. days since Con submission = 4) "At CCS" - 7/3/2018 (Bus. days since "Rec-CCS Required" = 13) TOTAL BUSINESS DAYS ELAPSED SINCE CON DROP OFF AS OF THIS POST = 31 (or 6 weeks)

This HoF topic is really about fans not pros so Gaines and Lee really do not belong. The tougher case foe me is Gardner Fox, who introduced Bails and Thomas and really helped kickstart fandom in the late 50s early 60s. But, he probably does not belong on the list either.

A really good guess, but not the guy I'm thinking about. Similar time period. Pop Hollinger was clearly the first back issue comic dealer and deserves special consideration for any HoF.

A good pantheon. But, I think everyone is still failing to name a key figure. Really curious if anyone comes up with him.

All great choices, but still no one has mentioned a seminal figure from the earliest days of comic fandom. I'll keep waiting. I agree, of course, about Jerry Bails.

Just bumping this topic up so those who want to discuss the pro side of comics can do so without being confused by my very similar fan side topic. My apologies to James for causing confusion. I'm going to re-title my thread.

I'm trying to separate out the pros/creators from the fan side of collectors/dealers/advocates (by advocates I mean fanzines, scholars, etc.).

Nah, on this thread I'm looking for Fans/Dealers/Collectors/Advocates, not professional creators (artists, writers, etc.) or publishers of comics.

His name was Trump.

Hill and Weist started Squa Tront. Hill's gone on to author other books on comics (a Reed Crandall book came out recently and he did a Frank Paul book), did some work for Overstreet, and founded CFA-APA (comic and fantasy art). John Benson is another name worth mentioning when you start talking about EC fans.

I give Chuck credit for two major innovations in comic collecting/dealing: (1) After his discovery of the Church books, he (or his wife) recognized that they were a special collection which warranted multiples of guide, thereby ushering in the whole "pedigree" comic concept which led to astronomical prices; (2) after his discovery of the MH II collection, Chuck took comic book dealing to a new higher national profile by running full page ads in comic books offering back issues with prices. He did this for years, starting in the late 70s or early 80s. Those ads let kids like me know that comics had value (and reached more comic readers than OPG or publications like the Buyers Guide) and provided us an avenue for finding issues we otherwise would not have been able to find. I think those two innovations are a big reason why comic collecting boomed in the late 70s and early 80s, and they certainly changed the nature of the comic dealing world.

I love this thread!

All reasonable choices. However, to me, Edgar Church is a strange case. He bought comics to aid his occupation as an illustrator. In that sense, he was not a true comic collector obsessed with the characters or artists. To him, the books were source material (sort of like National Geographics for Barks). He never participated in comic fandom, never talked to other comic collectors to share knowledge, never visited a comic shop to buy or sell back issues, never contributed to fanzines or did anything to further comic collecting at all. All he did was buy a lot of comics, for his own non-collecting reasons, and kept them in immaculate condition. That makes him the greatest source of comics ever, but for me that's not nearly enough to make you a Mt. Rushmore figure for comic collectors/dealers/fans/advocates.