sfcityduck

On 4/23/2024 at 7:32 PM, Bigphatpaulie said:

I have a question.  Four Color #16 is considered the "First Mickey Mouse in Comics"

What about Donald Duck?  I never found a definitive answer:

 

The first animated cartoon appearance of Donald Duck, the character we all know and love, was in "The Wise Little Hen," a Silly Symphony, which supposedly debuted on June 9, 1934 (a date that Disney uses as Donald's Birthday) but really opened on June 7, 1934 with a benefit preview occurring on May 3, 1934. 

While there was a the 1931 book with a character called Donald Duck, that wasn't THE Donald Duck. Instead, the first appearance of Donald Duck, the character we love, in print was in the Good Housekeeping magazine Silly Symphonies cartoon page for "The Wise Little Hen" in the June 1934 issue which hit the stands even before the appearance of the cartoon.

Here's another:

On 4/30/2024 at 8:04 AM, Thomask. said:

Hi everyone

I got (and just received) the Supergear, the Bradman and the 2 Silly Putty Man from this auction, so I'm quite happy. That pretty much concludes my Gold, Silver and Bronze DC Promos with Superhero appearances.

Does anyone of you knowledgable people know why Silly Putty is considered a DC comic? There's absolutely no reference to DC (or National) in the comics themselves.

Cheers, Thomas

I'd love to see a list! Are you doing just comics in the OPG or everything anyone's ever heard of. That's got to be a frustrating quest. It took me a few years to find just the Aquateers Meet the Super Friends.

As for Silly Putty, I would not expect a reference to DC unless it had a DC character or copyright. If DC was just doing work for hire for some company, then they probably didn't own the copyright.

Supergear, as I'm sure you know, was unauthorized. So I guess technically you didn't need it for a DC collection. But a super cool comic to own. I failed to hit the BIN on that one when I saw it pop up eBay long ago. Another Boardie bought it and, I believe, sold it (or his undercopy) to Ian. Congrats!

Here's a pic of Ian and one of your books (upper left).

I'm not a dealer. So comics are not my life or livelihood. For me comics are a form of entertainment. And buying and selling comics is a game.

I usually buy what I like or what interests me. But sometimes I seek something out just to see if I can find it. An example: I've spent a few years trying to find a copy of the Aquateers Meet the Super Friends (1979) giveaway comic that was sold with a pair of swim goggle. I don't collect Super Friends. I'm not trying to own the rarest Bronze Age comics. But I do enjoy a nice hunt. So when I finally found a copy, I turned around and sold it here on the boards. The fun was finally finding one. The payoff, and it is in no way an "investment" was getting someone to buy it off of me who really wanted it. I get the satisfaction of money and making someone happy. Sure I made a 40x return.  But finding a good home for a rare item is probably more satisfying. 

I'd hate to have the stress of caring how much I make selling comics that i'd have if I were a dealer (but I'd probably have a much better collection). Even when I'm selling to fund an anticipated acquisition, I enjoy listing the items and seeing if anyone appreciates them as much or more than I do collecting the cash.

On 4/30/2024 at 2:28 PM, Hepcat said:

Yes, that's a large part of it. And I agree that DC shot the canon for Superman, Batman and their other heroes decades ago.

Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm an old curmudgeon, i.e. Silver Age DC fan.

 

Which means you came on board after DC shredded the canon and left it on floor with the reboots of the 1950s and 1960s, and loved it.

On 4/30/2024 at 7:28 AM, Badger said:

Is it text or art inside? Looks pretty cool!

It's illustrated text. Some Duck illustrations but other which are not. A couple grabs from a copy on eBay:

There were multiple WWII editions - 2 by the War Department, 3 by the American Historical Association, 1 by the Armed Forces Institute - and I have no idea what they all look like or which came when. Here's some examples of differences, but don't know what is what:

This one's brand new to my collection. Dates to 1944. It is the GI Roundtable Education Manual 2:

Back cover:

Anyone have one?  Been looking for a nice copy and snagged this off of eBay. There's a more expensive one in worse shape on eBay if anyone wants this esoteric but cool bit of Disney WWII work.

On 4/28/2024 at 12:40 PM, Yorick said:

I'm a fan of Kurtzman/ Wood's Superduperman.  Was that printed in MAD?*

*looks it up and in two seconds sees it was Mad #4, ah the beauty of the internet

Yeah, but that's parody - a fair use. The only unauthorized straight up use of Superman that I'm aware of is Supergear. I'm sure that there might have been a Tijuana Bible or Underground porn type use, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

On 4/27/2024 at 8:31 PM, catman76 said:

 

also hepcats arguements make no sense. do you know how many batman and superman bootleg comics and things there are? tons. some of the best batman and superman comics I ever have read are bootlegs. 

Now you have me curious - examples I should check out? I can only think of one Superman bootleg.

On 4/26/2024 at 7:37 PM, Hepcat said:

I don't believe any of those are still in regular publication. Therefore they'd fit my definition of "abandoned properties".

Phantom, Duck Tracy and Prince Valiant are in constant reprints with PV on-going also.

On 4/26/2024 at 7:21 AM, BS Damutantman said:

 

I'm much more excited about everything else from DC's GA that will join Batman and Superman around the same time. DC seems content to let that material be lost to time; once it's public domain, somebody might actually make a good omnibus/collected set for runs like All-American, Comic Cavalcade, and Adventure.

 

I have pretty much all of the DC archives and other high quality GA era comic and newspaper strip offerings. So far, the best collections have come from the original publishers or with their cooperation (EC, Barks Library, Spirit Archives, DC Archives, Prince Valiant, Terry, Rip Kirby, LoAC, etc). The alternative is low quality scanned stuff like the PS scanned offerings, which sometimes are duplicating (and undercutting the market for) higher quality offerings. But Archives are not really what's at issue here. It's the characters and new media offerings.

On that point, I do agree that there's lots of room for creativity when it comes to the lesser characters that have dropped off their rights owner's map.

But here's the thing, Tarzan (1912) has been in the public domain for a long time. The expiration of the copyright in 2007 has not led to a plethora of high quality (or even low quality) Tarzan material. Not sure who is going to take up the flag of DC back-up features.

In any event, we are going to have a good idea how this goes long before we get to Superman and Batman. Next up are Buck Rogers and Popeye (created 1929 and both former movie properties). Other upcoming former adventure/hero media properties that will expire before Superman include: The Shadow (1930), Dick Tracy (1931), Conan (1932), Lone Ranger (1933), Doc Savage (1933), Flash Gordon (1934), Green Hornet (1936), Phantom (1936), and Prince Valiant (1937).

On 4/20/2024 at 7:15 AM, Marty Mann said:

 Favorite STAR SPANGLED.

 

The late 40s to early 50s issues of Star Spangled are some of the most enjoyable comics around. Adventure of the same period is also highly underrated. Really, all the anthologies. Folks just don't seem to care about the back-ups. Me, I love them also. Especially Vigilante, Shining Knight, Robot Man, Wildcat, so many!

On 4/15/2024 at 12:39 PM, Hepcat said:

 

I have some of the Random House "File" copies. But how were any of these outfits associated with Dell or Western Printing?

I think you now know this, but for everyone else per Wikipedia:

Dell was acquired by Doubleday in 1976.^[29] Doubleday was acquired by Bertelsmann in 1986, who formed Bantam Doubleday Dell as its US subsidiary.^[30] Bertelsmann acquired Random House in 1998 and renamed its US business after the acquisition.^[31] After the merger, Bantam was merged with Dell Publishing.^[32] In 2001, Random House purchased Golden Books' book publishing properties^[33] effectively reuniting the remnants of Dell and Western Publishing. Bantam Dell became part of the Random House publishing group in 2008.^[34] Ballantine Books was merged with Bantam Dell in 2010.^[35] In 2013, Random House merged with Penguin to form Penguin Random House.^[36]

Given the high quality of the two books, and their closeness in time (only a seven month gap in cover date - probably less for hitting the stands), my assumption is that the stamp was put there by the OO.  Be interesting to see if other copies emerge. 

On 4/15/2024 at 12:39 PM, Hepcat said:

Who are "them"? The file copies or certain individuals connected to Dell?

 

I remember a lot of discussion of the Poughkeepsie file copies back in the late 70s early 80s. Especially in the Barks Collector and the dealer who published that fanzine's own sales lists. The story was that they were owned by a former employee. I think it was presumed he just took the issues home as they published them or stole them out of the offices. Supposedly they were sold to various dealers. Another story is he died in 1980, and his wife and daughter sold the last 1,600 he had to Fishler who brought them to market in 2003 as Poughkeepsie copies. Presumably, Fishler knew who the original source was to have pulled that deal off.

The Random House archive was sold by Heritage in 2005. They were warehoused for many years. Whether you want to call those "file copies" or "warehouse copies" - they were uncirculated copies that never left the publisher. This contrasts with copies held by someone like Crowley which were gathered for his personal records or enjoyment and not retained by the publisher at all. To me, a "file copy" should have been saved by the publisher - whether warehoused or "filed" (whatever that means) - things like the Gaines copies and the Random House archives and a number of books called Harvey file copies were were clearly kept by the publisher I think.  The copies that were used in the production process, like the Racine and some of the Poughkeepsie, were also clearly kept by the publisher given the "file" stamps. The copies kept by employees may be a different thing. But we call them all file copies - and I'm ok with that as long as we attach the name of the employee to them. 

On 4/24/2024 at 9:35 PM, BOOT said:

More from Pearl Buck:

 

 

 

 

 

On 4/21/2024 at 12:26 PM, adamstrange said:

Thanks for doing this additional research, which adds to the consensus that the given origin story has too many holes in it to give it any credibility.

And yet CGC says:  "He [Tom Reilly] was reportedly killed in a kamikaze attack near the end of the war, at which point the collection stops." Reported by who?

On 4/21/2024 at 12:06 PM, Professor K said:

Yeah it was a pretty fun. After I found his niece and was sure I had the right guy in Bill Holt Jr I decided to look into the San Francisco books (I know many people have over the years). I read the official account and started searching, even buying a month prescription to a major genealogy site and a newspaper archive site. I found nothing of a Tom Rielly or Riley that matched. Found no record of his parents. I even contacted the Veterans building in Peidmont, CA and posted my query on a FB page of the history of Peidmont and nothing. I includede a pic of the markings on the Cap 1. It was said the books were handled or inititially sold by a Doctor Arnheim at the Berkelycon in 1973 so I dug into finding a record of him and found nothing. I did find some people in the area living today with that last name which is not a common name. They were educated, Doctors, one was a big scientist. I found one of their email addresses at I believe UC Berkeley and wrote them but got no response. I figured if they are related to the Dr. Arnheim from the story maybe they may know something. I think that would be the only angle left but I think we aren't going tyo ever find out more. 

A lot of people have researched that one. There's never been any confirmation of Beerbohm's backstory on the collection. I would not be surprised if (1) the names were changed to protect the comics source (they got the comics in three batches and maybe thought there was more?) and are now lost to time, and (2) the how "Tom Reilly" died part as told by RB is exaggerated. None of that matters because the books are beautiful. But I wouldn't be paying a premium because of the backstory.

On 4/18/2024 at 8:11 PM, Professor K said:

 

To answer your question I asked her if her Uncle was an art teacher and she said no. I told her the books have check marks and lines written on many of the pages but she knew nothing about that. I read somewhere that there was tracing paper between the pages of the books at the time they were sold to the bookstore but I didn't think to ask her about that. 

 

 

Prof. K did great work on tracking down the family. Not surprising they had no answers. This came up a year ago, which is when I think he started chasing the story hard back then. As for why the books have the checkmarks, a pretty good theory is that Holt was checking off females, and that maybe as painting references? My book supports the checking off females part. But it could be the subject matter being checked changed over time if he was trying to learn to draw. Here's a thread that was discussed:

As for W.C. Holt, Jr., he was also discussed a bit on this thread, which is incomplete, because it looks like Prof. K pulled some of his comments off from back then I assume to keep the niece from being bothered:

Again, Kudos for Prof. K, and Prof. K don't stop out of deference to CGC. It's your story to develop further.

On 4/18/2024 at 2:14 PM, Professor K said:

I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes by publically disclosing this information. Hopefully by now she given them more information than she gave me as I thought it best to instead of asking her many questions simply connect her with CGC.

Well ... I don't think you need to be concerned about stepping on CGC's toes. They are sitting on a lot of info that they don't put into their pedigree discussions - like that the Mesoperas are the source for the Promise Collection. And if CGC is waiting until "the Pedigree Book" is finally put out by Matt Nelson et al., it could be decades! Not sure why CGC gets to be the arbiter of what's a pedigree, on what they get to base the decision, and when that gets announced. It sort of has converted a status conveyed by the collecting community into a marketing ploy and way to control potential customers. For example, I sure view Bangzoom's core group of Gilchrist books as a pedigree, whether or not he goes to CGC to get them certified.

On 4/21/2024 at 8:04 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

They should have entered the public domain a long time ago. The 1998 Copyright Protection Act was yet another example of Congress placing corporate interests above public interest.

On the other side of the coin: What exactly is the public interest in letting the Harry Potter copyright expire 125 years from now?  Or Superman or Batman in 2034 and 2035? Or any literary property?

For me, the public is better served by forcing creators to imagine new vistas, like Marvel did in the 1960s. Prior to the 1976 Act, the term of protection was was 28 years with a possibility of a 28 year extension, for a total maximum term of 56 years. Imagine a world where Superman's copyright would expire 28 years after his creation. That would have been 1966. We may never have seen the many new characters that arose because the oldest most popular characters were still protected. I have no problem with the copyright protection afforded then or now from a public interest perspective. 

On 4/21/2024 at 9:14 AM, Hepcat said:

I believe in the concept of intellectual property rights. The publishing, music and filmmaking industries and the livelihood of the participants in those industries are founded on intellectual property rights. Removing intellectual property rights would almost completely remove anyone' sincentive to create such intellectual property.

 

Since the copyrights are good for post 1978 creations until 70 years after the creator dies, e.g., Harry Potter's clock has not even begun to click, it seems unlikely that there will be much of a deterrent to new creations. Someone like J.K. Rowling shows the incentive to create is to become a billionaire off of a zero investment story, and a constant stream of funds in a market with no competitors that has already run 27 years with another 70 years to go after she dies, which may not be for another 25 plus years (she's 58 now). If so, that would lead to copyright protection lasting 122 years. That should inure not only to her benefit but also her three kids who will all be dead under this scenario before the copyright expires (one born before the book came out and the other two in the early 2000s), and her grandkids (who will be born soon - next ten years or so - if she's going to have any) who might also die before the copyrights expire. 

So, no, I don't see existing copyright laws as a deterrent at all.

On 4/21/2024 at 6:25 AM, Chicago Boy said:

At least versions of them. Any thoughts? 

Your date is wrong. It will be 10 or 11 years.

The copyrights are good for 95 years. So Superman is up (hits the 96th year) in 2034 and Batman in 2035.

On 4/21/2024 at 3:53 AM, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

This whole string has brought me new appreciation of Milton Caniff 

Caniff’s great. Foster, Caniff, and Raymond are the pinnacle of GA adventure art. Surprised no one is tempted yet by this piece: