sfcityduck

Looks like Bob Bolling. After 1949, "DC" was "National Comic Publications, Inc." "National Comic Publications, Inc." was wholly owned by "National Comics Publications." So your pamphlet would not be a true "D.C.", but the publication of a related company (in fact, the parent company). Sort of like how the publications of Goodman's other publishing branches ("Humorama" and "Magazine Management Company") aren't "Marvel" publications.

The residents of the camps were paid to work a variety of job functions (farming, making camo netting, teaching in the art school, etc. etc. etc.). They could then spend the money at the camp store. I have no idea who was responsible for stocking the store, but my guess is that it was the Camp Administrators because of security issues. I would not be surprised, however, if the residents of the Camp made requests as to what the store should carry.

Thanks, but mine won't be resold! I'm glad I got it as it fills a gap in my Obata collection.

Big Pow Wow Smith fan?

Nice historical item, I like it a lot. What are the painting's dimensions? Small, around 4x 6, basically Christmas card size. It is a neat historical item. I had been looking for an internment camp painting by Obata for close to 20 years. So I'm pretty happy I found this one! I know of about four or five other similar pieces. They are held by the Japanese American National Museum in LA or at the newly opened Topaz Camp Museum.

Great photo of the Suspense 3! I love those old pictures! Sorry I missed that when it was first posted. Great stuff! Here's a painting from my collection depicting Topaz internment camp which was painted by Chiura Obata, who did the forward for Four Immigrants graphic novel, while he was interned for use as a Christmas card to friends outside the camp:

or it could be Overstreet interjecting a copyright protecting bit of misinformation.

Hope BZ's doing well! Inspired by the discussion of books on this thread I picked up a very nice vintage Signet paperback spinner rack. Using it to put all my favorite pbs I've read and re-read over the past 30 plus years in my family room. Not as collectibles but as reading copies and a lending library.

Internet search suggests there are other copies kicking around. GCD has one pictured on their site. The DCM has scanned a copy. Etc.

6 to 10 issues is an incredibly small number of books. Worth remembering that there is a big difference between "never seen at all" and "never seen on the marketplace" or "never seen in nice shape." I suspect that most newsstand comics of the GA period survive in quantities greater than 10 issues. I just think that they may be "unknown" because they are buried in long time collector's collections that were compiled 30, 40, maybe even 50 years ago (Bangzoom would be a good example). My very uninformed guess is that the rarest U.S. comics, the one that really do only have 10 or fewer surving copies, are those that never made it to a newsstand or were only regionally distributed. Double Action 2, Motion Picture Funnies Weekly, The Nightingale, some of the health or anti-communist giveaways, etc. Obviously, some of the Canadian and foreign comics also fall into this category. But, I'd be surprised if any nationally distributed U.S. newsstand comics really do only have 10 or fewer surviving examples extant today. Of course, the only way to tell is to have an all-seeing crystal ball.

Agree. +1 I don't recall that, so I can't agree to it. If Robin says they formed BECAUSE of Hatton Corners, rather than AFTER, then, yes, there's causality. But I don't recall seeing that. Robin says: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crimefighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!* *See Brave and the Bold 54." How can you not the causation? Robin specifically ties the Teen Titans to helping the kids of Hatton Corners. There would be no mention of Hatton Corners (or cite to BB 54) if the Teen Titans was unrelated to that adventure. So do you now agree or not? Agree. +2 You cite something, you don't cite to something. But, no, here we disagree. I think 60 cites 54 when establishing the chronology of events, NOT specifically in reference to the formation. Again, Robin says: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crimefighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!* *See Brave and the Bold 54." The citation to BB 54 and the reference to "setting up" the Teen Titans is made in the very same sentence as the mention of "helping the kids of Hatton Corners." And note this: Robin does not say the TT were formed "after we left Hatton Corners." He merely says "after [we] helped the kids of Hatton Corners!" Do you now agree that BB 60 specifically cites to BB 54 when it states that the TT were formed off-camera? I don't see how disagreement is possible. It's the same sentence. Agree and disagree. They use those words, but the meaning of those words was different at the time than we use and understand them now. I'll give you a +3 for this one. Yes: They use those words. Exactly! The exact meaning of those words as used in BB 54 is a question of interpretation and intent. And given that the editorial intent behind BB was to tell a junior JLA story, the meaning your proffer is debatable at the very least. Don't recall, but happy to stipulate to this. +4 That sounds right, but I don't recall off-hand. +5 Disagree. And you were doing so well and being so civil up until then. What a shame. I've given you a second chance to get to +7. Can you do it? Well, first of all, DC never says that's the case. Secondly, when exactly do you postulate this happens? It ends in Hatton Corners and Robin says TT formed "after" the adventure in Hatton Corners. Finally, I appreciate that you're agreeing the Teen Titans don't appear on-camera in BB54. Which would make BB60 the first appearance of the Teen Titans. First, DC does state that the group of Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad that appeared in BB 54 are the Teen Titans. I believe DC does so (1) in BB 60 when Robin references back to BB 54 to explain when the Teen Titans were formed, (2) in TT 1 when DC starts the "brief history of the Teen Titans" with BB 54, (3) in TT 1 when DC specifically acknowledges that Wonder Girl was an "addition" to the "new team" and notes that BB 60 is when they got the name, (4) in the first reprinting of BB 54 in the early 70s when it was called a TT adventure, (5) in the Teen Titans archives, and, most definitively, (6) in the 50th anniversary DC collected edition which starts with BB 54 and which DC used as the first appearance for purposes of the 50th anniversary. Second, Robin NEVER says "the TT formed 'after' the adventure in Hatton Corners" as you keep asserting. That's a flat out misstatement. And you are making it repeatedly. He also never says the TT were formed "after we left Hatton Corners." What Robin says is: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crimefighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!* *See Brave and the Bold 54." Of course, the TT were done helping the kids of Hatton Corners by the end of BB 54. So would it be impossible for Kid Flash, Aqualad, and Robin to have said "Hey, let's form a group" while in Hatton Corners off-camera during the events told in BB 54? Of course not. Do you really disagree? Third, I'm NOT agreeing the Teen Titans don't appear on camera in BB 54. They appear on camera throughout BB 54. That story tells the origin of the TT, and it is therefore their first appearance. They just aren't called the TT. The name came later. Just like Ant Man. And, like Ant Man, it matters not that we wouldn't have viewed BB 54 as the first appearance of the "Teen Titans" had BB 60 not occurred, because it did -- just as we rightly view TTA 27 as the first appearance of "Ant Man" even though he didn't don a costume or adopt that name until his next appearance and wouldn't be viewed as "Ant Man" had that next appearance not occurred.

The battle against Loki is what led to the formation of the Avengers. The battle against the Space Phantom is the first time the Avengers fight. We know the Hulk left the team almost immediately. What if he had refused to join in the first place? Would it still be the Avengers fighting Loki in your opinion? What if another original member had refused? Nothing left to discuss. If you don't think that Avengers 1 tells the first Avengers adventure, then we have no common ground. If Hulk had refused to join the Avengers, Avengers 1 would still have told the first Avengers adventure of the fight against Loki. Hulk just wouldn't have been one of the Avengers. GS X-Men 1 is the first New X-Men adventure even though characters refused to join the team. Or do you also believe that GS X-Men 1 is NOT the first appearance of the New X-Men? ! I don't recall a "team" being "officially" formed in GS X-Men 1. I do recall the issue ending with a real question as to who, if anyone, was going to be an X-Man. And in the next issue, we found out that certain characters in the initial adventure would not be joining the team. Yet, it is still the first appearance of the New X-Men. We can at least agree on that, Right? [And if you can, then you should also agree Avengers 1 is the first adventure of the Avengers.] There are no New X-Men, only X-Men. Eventually, there were so many members that they split into two teams, but that was in the 90s. Do people call Avengers 16 the first appearance of the New Avengers? Your evasions are revealing the thinness of your arguments. From X-Men 94: So was GS X-Men the first new X-Men or not? I think there's a reason why the issue sells for so much. Yeah, obviously because it's the first appearance of Thunderbird. Duh! Back to reality... It's the first appearance of Storm, Nightcrawler and Colossus and the second full Wolverine appearance. Also, the prelude to the restart of new adventures in the main title rather than the reprints it had been featuring. So you're saying that all of us who have viewed Giant Size X-Men 1 as the first appearance of the new X-Men since it came out in 1975 have got it wrong? Better tell CGC. And the Price Guide. And the eBay dealers. You are just highlighting the absurdity and fringe nature of your views of these books. GS X-Men no. 1 is the first appearance of the new X-Men just as BB 54 is the first appearance of the Teen Titans and Avengers 1 tells the first Avengers adventure. Your contrary assertions are credibility destroying. Do you think DC Comics Presents 26 and/or new Teen Titans 1 are not the first appearance of the new Teen Titans?

The battle against Loki is what led to the formation of the Avengers. The battle against the Space Phantom is the first time the Avengers fight. We know the Hulk left the team almost immediately. What if he had refused to join in the first place? Would it still be the Avengers fighting Loki in your opinion? What if another original member had refused? Nothing left to discuss. If you don't think that Avengers 1 tells the first Avengers adventure, then we have no common ground. If Hulk had refused to join the Avengers, Avengers 1 would still have told the first Avengers adventure of the fight against Loki. Hulk just wouldn't have been one of the Avengers. GS X-Men 1 is the first New X-Men adventure even though characters refused to join the team. Or do you also believe that GS X-Men 1 is NOT the first appearance of the New X-Men? ! I don't recall a "team" being "officially" formed in GS X-Men 1. I do recall the issue ending with a real question as to who, if anyone, was going to be an X-Man. And in the next issue, we found out that certain characters in the initial adventure would not be joining the team. Yet, it is still the first appearance of the New X-Men. We can at least agree on that, Right? [And if you can, then you should also agree Avengers 1 is the first adventure of the Avengers.] There are no New X-Men, only X-Men. Eventually, there were so many members that they split into two teams, but that was in the 90s. Do people call Avengers 16 the first appearance of the New Avengers? Your evasions are revealing the thinness of your arguments. From X-Men 94: So was GS X-Men the first new X-Men or not? I think there's a reason why the issue sells for so much.

Seriously? No, really... seriously? Are you jaydogrules' shill account? I'm quoting the comic. Do you really disagree? I'm not asking for your interpretation of the words. I'm asking for your agreement to the fact that at the end of the issue DC touted a "new team." If you are honest, you have to agree to that fact. The "buts" are all your opinion and argument.

The battle against Loki is what led to the formation of the Avengers. The battle against the Space Phantom is the first time the Avengers fight. We know the Hulk left the team almost immediately. What if he had refused to join in the first place? Would it still be the Avengers fighting Loki in your opinion? What if another original member had refused? Nothing left to discuss. If you don't think that Avengers 1 tells the first Avengers adventure, then we have no common ground. If Hulk had refused to join the Avengers, Avengers 1 would still have told the first Avengers adventure of the fight against Loki. Hulk just wouldn't have been one of the Avengers. GS X-Men 1 is the first New X-Men adventure even though characters refused to join the team. Or do you also believe that GS X-Men 1 is NOT the first appearance of the New X-Men? ! I don't recall a "team" being "officially" formed in GS X-Men 1. I do recall the issue ending with a real question as to who, if anyone, was going to be an X-Man. And in the next issue, we found out that certain characters in the initial adventure would not be joining the team. Yet, it is still the first appearance of the New X-Men. We can at least agree on that, Right? [And if you can, then you should also agree Avengers 1 is the first adventure of the Avengers.]

To put it another way, if, in B&B 60, a flashback to B&B 54 had occurred with Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad saying to each other while standing in Hatton's Corner: "Wow, what a great job we did together. Let's form a team!" Would you still be calling B&B 60 the first appearance of the Teen Titans even though they'd already had their origin adventure together. Stated differently, yet again, do you really think Avengers 2 is the first adventure of the Avengers? I don't. And therein lies the difference.

Robin doesn't say it happened "after the story in #54" or "after B&B 54" -- that's the misinformation. Let's what we can agree on: (1) The Teen Titans, as a group, were formed off camera. Agree or Disagree? (2) The stated reason why the Teen Titans became a group was "the adventure in Hatton Corners." Agree or Disagree? (3) B&B 60 states the group was formed off-camera prior to the events in that issue. Agree or disagree? (4) B&B 60 specifically cites to B&B 54 when it states that the TT were formed off-camera. Agree or disagree? (5) B&B 54 ends with DC touting a "new team". Agree or disagree? (6) TT 1 begins its history of the TT by starting with B&B 54 and only refers to B&B 60 as the "next time" the group had an adventure. Agree or disagree? (7) TT 1 states that Wonder Girl was an "addition" the "new team." Agree or disagree? If you are honest, you have to agree with (1) through (7). Now, explain to me why the "group" could not have been formed off-camera in B&B 54 as DC states is the case.

The DC wiki is not run by DC. It is run by wikia. Anyone can edit it. Here's what it actually says right now: DC Wiki thats new earth TT, original earth TT still says my quote http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Teen_Titans Proving how screwed up wikis are - they aren't even internally consistent. Or do you have a line on a "new earth" BB 54 I can buy?

Not mine. I've got a 1, from Dad's childhood collection, though.

Sgt. Rock is probably the best-known example. Other first appearances have been and are being debated, too, though. What did they think it was before OAAW83? They thought it was OAAW81. Which is what the imfamous DC wiki says is the first Sgt. Rock (as does the writer of that issue -- Bob Haney). DC Wiki

The DC wiki is not run by DC. It is run by wikia. Anyone can edit it. Here's what it actually says right now: DC Wiki

I'm really getting tired of this misinformation. Robin never says: "The Teen Titans were formed after BB 54." Instead, he says: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crime-fighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!*" See the "*"? Below that quote, the editorial box cites to "* See Brave and the Bold 54" A very reasonable interpretation of that text is that when Robin talks about the formation of the Teen Titans he is saying that they were set up immediately after and as a result of the Hatton Corners adventure set forth in B&B 54. And that is clearly DC's editorial position because to support Robin's comment about the setting up of the Teen Titans they tell readers to "See Brave and the Bold 54." DC, of course, reinforced this conclusion in Teen Titans 1 when they started the "brief history of the Teen Titans" with a discussion of B&B 54 and explained that B&B 60 was only the "next time" the group appeared with the "addition" of Wonder Girl.

Fair enough, it's your thread and I'll play by your rules. And I'm with you in placing Schomburg above Kirby. I'd put Cole, Raboy, and Fine, all mentioned above, before Kirby. Indeed, I'd say that titles like Star Spangled Comics never looked better than after Kirby stopped doing the covers. Kirby did a lot of classic covers in the SA, but in the GA? Not so much.

For me, Jack Kirby was NOT a great GOLDEN AGE cover artist. And I think the dearth of examples of Kirby covers in this thread makes the point. I view his DC covers as sub-par for the publisher. And I think Schomburg was a far better Timely cover artist than Kirby. Personally, I'd rate Bill Everett higher than Kirby for both early GOLDEN AGE material and late Golden Age material. I'm surprised no one has mentioned him.

That pretty much sums it up. Agree that that sums it up. And by the same argument and standards, Superman 76 is the first appearance of the Justice League. You can't get to BB 28 without Batman and Superman teaming up, which Superman 76 did first. This kind of "logic" shows the weakness of your argumentation.