sfcityduck

In the U.S. in the the early 40s, to use KKK imagery (and there's no doubt that's what it is) in such a prominent negative light was a very strong political act of condemning the KKK. Equating the KKK and Nazi's in that time period, when the South was still segregated and the KKK still prominent, was a bold action that I don't think he would have done unless he felt strongly that the KKK should be condemned.

Given the strong revival of the KKK in the 20s and 30s, I view it as a pretty strong social statement for Schomburg to have repeatedly clothed his villains, especially Nazi villains, in KKK robes. And I don't think there's any doubt, given the symbols he frequently put on those robes, that they were KKK robes: I'm not at all shocked that this didn't catch on with other artists. The publishers were terrified of offending whites in the South. (Maybe if I'm more generous, I should say that the publishers were terrified of offending potential customers. After all, Fawcett did dump a racist character when the NAACP threatened a boycott.) It was a very political act on Schomburg's part to use this imagery. As a person of hispanic and Jewish ancestry, though, it is understandable why he did so.

I assumed Schomburg was Jewish because he was featured in the Jewish Museum's "Superheroes: Good and Evil in American Comics" exhibit. After some quick research in response to the above posts, I've now read that Schomburg is sometimes a German-Jewish surname and I've read some assertions by various sources that Schomburg was Jewish -- but I do not know what those assertions are based on. The fact he was raised in Puerto Rico is not determinative of anything because Jews immigrated everywhere (my college girlfriend was Jewish and her family was from Oaxaca). The best way to find out would be to ask his kids.

I don't recall seeing that in the 80s. I'm thinking 90s to 00s.

Suspense 3, MMC 28, MMC 29, MMC 51, MMC 52, MMC 56, All New 8, etc. etc. They have two things in common (1) Alex Schomburg and (2) bad guys, usually but not always Nazi's, wearing KKK robes. As far as I know, Nazis never wore anything like the KKK robes. Yet, Schomburg used that motif again and again. It makes sense, he's a Jewish kid and the KKK were fellow travelers with the Nazis. But, I'm a bit shocked he got away with making the KKK/Nazi equation back in the 1940s when publishers were leery of offending the racist South. I personally view it as a bit of a profiles in courage moment for the publishers who used the motif. Which brings me to my questions: (1) Anyone got a list of all of Schomburg's KKK robe covers? (2) Anyone know of any cover artist other than Schomburg using that motif? (No, the Crime Suspenstories cover doesn't count as that's of the KKK itself).

From an "investment perspective," in today's market, I don't think it matters if someone has read the interior of the comic or not. To the extent that a comic book can properly be called an "investment," as opposed to a "speculation," the value is not derived from the contents or the quality of the book. It is derived from the perceived desirability and rarity of the book, and increasingly really of the cover, and you don't need to read the contents of Fantastic 3 or Suspense 3 to get a sense of the "hype" which is driving the reputation of the book. In fact, you are better off ignoring the book and reading this board. "Collectors" can be very irrational and changeable, which is "investing" in comics is a speculative enterprise.

Do you know any "average, big time spenders" who are as you describe?

For me its the cover to No. 10 (Schomburg), but all of the covers from 4 to 11 are pretty cool.

I don't get it. Are you asking folks to speculate on what would earn the best rate of return - a 2.0 Action 1 or Marvel SA keys in 7.0+? My advice to the guy would be twofold: (1) collect what you love the most and (2) invest in a market you understand in accord with your risk profile.

I love Miller's Batman. I was a collector in the 70s and 80s and have vivid recollections of that period. He certainly helped the development of the character, although he didn't invent the gritty Batman. But, I'd never argue or accept the argument that the proliferation of Batman titles (or X-Men titles) in the 80s is evidence of a popularity increase. I think it is really evidence of a change in the way publishers marketed comics with the advent of the direct market as they tried to squeeze every dollar out of collectors. That proliferation of titles drove me out of collecting new comics by the end of the 80s. It is also worth noting that the proliferation of titles started before DKR. I fondly remember "The Untold Legend of the Baman" and unfondly remember such junk as Batman and the Outsiders. Viewed more broadly, I think Batman & Robin anchored four titles in the GA, more in the SA, and the Bronze Age explosion started in 1980. Dark Knight was the fourth new Batman title of the 80s. It was part of the new publishing trend, not the cause of it. It's popularity certainly sped the process along for Batman though. DC lagged Marvel a bit on this front.

Frankly, to my mind, they were far less crazy than collectors today. Encapsulation had not turned comic books into baseball cards yet, so content meant more to them "back then" than covers. Which is a pretty rational way to view a collectible that is a book with interior contents, not a two dimensional card or poster, and which really can't stand up to being put on display the way equivalently valued fine art is. Of course, the type of content that mattered to them was not just first appearances, but also origins of characters, significant story lines, stories of special artistic merit, content important to comic history, etc. In short, what drove the value of books back then seems, to me, to have been a broader array of factors and a more intellectual and historically driven view of the hobby. The Gerber book and encapsulation havn't eliminated those considerations for collectors, but it sure has made them less of a factor for many collectors who appear to focus on covers and financial factors. From my weird perspective of being a collector in the 70s and 80s, parking the hobby, and only really re-discovering it 10 years ago after encapsulation had changed the hobby (sort of like being Buck Rogers in going from one era to another without seeing the evolution), a lot of the modern attitudes are simply inexplicable. Which of course, doesn't change supply or demand. It just makes me scratch my head at how demand has changed.

You aren't reading my posts. I am explaining why "back then" MC 1 meant more to collectors than CA 1. It was not because back in the 70s and 80s the Human Torch and Subby were more popular than Captain America. They weren't. It was because collectors back then valued the very first Marvel comic (Oct. 1939) more than a comic issued a year and half later (March 1941), after Timely already had several new titles and a bunch of issues had been published. Today, character appearances mean more than comic history in driving value, as do covers. This mentality also explains why back then Detective 1 was ranked higher on the most valuable list "back then" than it is today. You might want to read the posts a bit more closely before you attempt to be patronizing.

People cared more about comic history than character popularity back then. MC 1 and FF 1 both have strong claims to being the most important comics to the publisher's history. CA 1 is about character introduction. MC 1 and FF 1 are about a bit more than that.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but I don't find the notion that CA 1 belongs in Tier 1 as "affirmative action" to achieve equality for Marvel zombies at all persuasive.

Denny O'Neil, Neal Adams, Stephen Englehart, Marshall Rogers, Giordano and many others would view your history of Batman, which basically skips from the Bill Finger days to Miller as grossly inaccurate. Although I will say that Englehart and Rogers did an excellent giant typewriter story! But Detective 457 probably is the real blueprint for Miller's version of Batman.

You actually are making a good argument for Whiz 2: 1st appearance of Captain Marvel, origin of Captain Marvel, 1st appearance of his arch-nemesis Dr. Silvana (is it also the first Fawcett comic?). And Captain Marvel was a much bigger pop culture sensation from 1940 to the mid-1950s than Captain America. CM was the most popular superhero of the GA and the fist to be put into a movie serial in 1941. So the historical import cannot be doubted. Especially when you factor in how the lawsuits impacted the industry. If not for the lawsuits putting CM out of business, he might well have had an uninterrupted run to the present. Aside from the 1941 serial, he was also on radio, the inspiration for a 1950 movie, and, after revival in 1972, was a 1973 tv show. (In contrast, CA's original run didn't make it to the 1950s, and the Atlas CA revival of 1954 flopped, as he didn't even have the popularity of Subby).

Spitting against the wind.

Great point. What makes him a great guy was his willingness to share information and his passion on sites like this. That can't be taken away, the best way to honor the guy is by passing on the stories, IMHO. I will say this, I'm more impressed by a Jon Berk association (or other passionate collector who shared information association such as Don & Maggie Thompson) than I am by a Nic Cage (or Jerry Buss or some other famous person) association. Nic Cage's ownership of a book didn't make it cool. It just showed he was cool. But, a Berk, D&MT, Gaines, Crowley, etc., is neat because they are associated with folks who helped grow the hobby in significant ways through efforts other than just collecting and then selling some comics.

Anyone compared the 8.0 Pep 22 to Bangzoom's? His has better color and centering, but a dust shadow (cleanable?), and I'm not sure if it there is a defect in the bottom right because it shows more image than the CC 8.0. The reason I ask is that it seem pretty clear that for many of the top GA mega keys, the best copy has not been encapsulated (includes Action 1, D27, CA 1, MC 1, Whiz 2, etc.). $1 million for an 8.0 Pep 22seems very high when there are probably better copies out there (Mile High, maybe Bangzoom's, etc.).

Tec 359 SC 55 & 60 BB 85 Strange Adventures 180 & 205 Silver Surfer 1 & 3 Cap America 100 & 117 Iron Man 1 Doctor Strange 169 Submariner 1 Hulk 102 Vampirella 1 House of Mystery 174 House of Secrets 81 GL 40 Strange Tales 135 Lois Lane 70 Batman 181 Avengers 57 Daredevil 7 ASM 33, 39, 40, & 50 TTA 70 Zap Comix 1 FF 45, 48, 51, 52, 67 Narrow list. All DC and Marvel (except the Zap). Anyone collect other publishers? How about: Star Trek 1 THUNDER Agents 1 Captain Atom 83 Astro Boy 1 Lobo 1 All of the above are important comics. There are others from the non-Big 2.

Church 9.6 sold at Heritage for $450K in 2010 (Hariri?). Might be two other books that could rival it (Reilly and KC). Comic Connect sold 9.2 in 2014 for $182K.

When it comes to $1 million comics, though, I think it is worth noting the following: Only six comic book have sold for over $1 million. Four of those are Action 1s. Of those, Ayman Hariri has bought at least two of the four Action 1s on the list. The other two books are D27 8.0 and AF 15 9.6. Who bought those? Eric Roberts was the seller of the AF 15. The deal was brokered by Comic Connect. Was Hariri the buyer of that one also? In any event, the number of individuals who have paid over $1 million for a comic is a single handful at most. Pretty exclusive club. And not growing very fast. In fact, no one new has been added to that club since 2011 at the latest.

How about the Church copies of Whiz 2 and All-Star 8? They both changed hands for a lot money 20+ years ago, and they may be far above the grade of the next highest copy.

DA's Superman 1 is likely a $1 million book.