sfcityduck

I think the relative popularity between Batman and Superman, in popular culture, is a lot closer than comic fans tend to think. Consider this: Until Gotham debuted this year, the only Batman related prime time live action tv show was the campy three season show that lasted from 1966 to 1968. In contrast, Superman has been a relative fixture of prime time live action tv with six season in the 1950s (1952-1958), four seasons of Superboy in the late 80s (1988-1992), four seasons of Lois and Clark in the 90s (1993-1997) and 10 seasons of Smallville (arguably the most popular live action superhero product of all time) in the 2000s (2001-2011). For those keeping count, that's 3 live action tv seasons of Batman (plus one of Gotham) to 24 live action tv seasons of Superman. To restate the obvious: From the late 1988 to 2011, there were only three years when Superman was not on live action tv, including an amazing 10 year run for Smallville. That's incredible. And it shows the popularity of the character. Superman also got the jump on Batman in theatre animation (Fleischer cartoons) and blew Batman away in the age of Radio, with 2046 episodes running from 1942-1952, to Batman's zero episodes. Superman was a constant weekly media (tv/radio) fixture in the 40s and 50s. Superman and Batman had roughly equal exposure in tv animation (Supes had the early edge), serials (equal), and feature films (Batman has recent edge). Long winded way of saying: Don't sell Superman short. People like the character, enjoy the non-comics media, and recognize his historic importance.

I agree about Tenn. They do have a quality out of conference ("OOC") schedule with home and aways, unlike many other SEC teams. Unfortunately for my Ducks, though, in 2010 and 2013 we were accused of having a "cupcake" schedule because our best OOC opponent was Tenn. (and Virginia in 2013). When the games were scheduled, though, no one could predict Tenn. would be having down years. This year, the Ducks play at Mich. St. finishing up the home and away.

I've got my Dad's childhood collection, my collection, and a son. But, he's only casually interested in comics. Still, my guess is that there are many potential "three generation OO collections" out there now. Just off the top of my head, there is the Dentist and his son sitting on probably the best collection ever amassed. Seems like it will be passed through the generations.

Which is why the long time (since the 60s) collectors I know with really extensive and marquee collections have already started liquidating their collections. The thinking is that they will (1) know better than their heirs how to maximize the value of the collection, (2) the extra income will enrich their retirement, and (3) they get the added fun of dealing the books, including making sure that some of their favorite books end up with the "right" owners. I think that's a really healthy attitude. You can't take it with you, and the process of liquidating can become as fun as the process of acquiring.

Brian, You missed some of those derogatory remarks. No need to repeat them.

If you're a good lawyer, everything someone says to you is suspect. When you are trying to discover the truth, what you look for is consistency and corroboration. The problem is that all witnesses have faulty memories, so almost every witness has some level of inconsistency. Documents are often used to refresh recollections. Unlike in the childishness of the political realm, a "flip flop" by a witness whose recollection has been refreshed is not credibility destroying. None of us have perfect recall. In short, if you are looking for the truth, you ask a lot of questions, sift the answers, and attempt to verify. Which is why there is no harm in asking questions and listening to answers. You take the leads and you investigate. BLB has given some pretty good leads. Now someone has to test their veracity. Ignoring the leads isn't going to help.

Sounds like you are talking about Chuck in the 70s. If it wasn't for guys being aggressive about making the market, a lot of folks on this board would be much poorer (at least on paper).

Actually, it is an issue but only if one is willing to see the forest from the trees. BLB has over decades carefully crafted a false image as a grandfatherly hobby historian (and professional victim) to shield his many misdeeds, similar to how Lance Armstrong used his charity and false reputation to deflect his critics. Portraying oneself as the proverbial 'big man on campus' - all the while reducing the contributions of others and manipulating the facts - serves to enhance that false image, duping and creating doubt. I have vast professional training and experience in dealing with such individuals, but please don't just take my word for it - our very own esteemed Yellow Kid is intimately familiar with BLB and yet he loathes him and won't speak to him anymore. Why is that? Send him a PM and find out for yourself. Look, I get it. I remember the Jerry Bails, pulp delivery, etc. threads. But, this is not a conversation where we are either (1) contending BLB is a good guy or (2) discussing his business practices. Instead, this is a thread where we are trying to assess what is known about the SF collection, and identify sources of additional information that might be discoverable to clarify a few mysteries. Me, I'm only interested because I live in SF, used to very occasionally shop at Comics & Comix in Berkeley in the late 70s, and it is a good story. To be clear, I don't want BLB to come back to this board so he can debate you. I would prefer to see the spat divorced from this issue. You think BLB's information is "Not worth reading in the slightest..." I disagree. I come at this Reilly story based on my own decades of experience examining witnesses, sifting fact from fiction (both intentional and unintentional). And my experience tells me that it is a mistake to believe that just because someone has been dishonest means that they will ALWAYS be dishonest. As a police officer, you know that, I'm sure. BLB's story about the discovery of the SF collection is not only generally consistent with what other witnesses recollect, but it is also not particularly self-serving. It is difficult to see what motivation BLB would have had for making up the Reilly story, long before "pedigrees" mattered, or for now making up the Arnheim story or the other types of details that people here are hoping can clarify the questions. So the notion that we should reject BLB's story and disregard everything he says, as a matter of principle, is foolish. Whether his recollection is good is another question. But, how can anyone know without giving his story the credence to check it out?

I get that. Kudos for warning about potential pitfalls buyers might encounter. Far better than looking the other way. But, no one on this thread is talking about doing business with Beerbhom. Some of the posts here criticizing everything Beerbohm has ever said are a bit overzealous. On this topic, he's got useful information and it doesn't help one bit to claim that everything the guy has ever said in his entire life is a lie and a plot when all people are trying to do is locate clues to the OO's identity. It just creates needless distraction and confusion. There's no reason to think that the Reilly story is that much different than as its been told. Every aspect of the story has checked out so far. I appreciate efforts to protect buyers. But, that's not really an issue here, is it?

Mitch also said he was allowed to exceed the limit. So the guys Bob liked got special access. Presumably Bob could answer the question of who bought the bulk of the collection -- but my guess would be Mitch's old mate Theo. Here's a story Mitch once told:

Robert Beerbohm and Steven Carey are clearly in a match. I'd rather see them carry it on in private. I don't doubt that Bob is providing his best recollection of the story of the collection because nothing that Bob has said has been contradicted by any of the other witnesses (Mehdy, Plant, etc.), and my guess is that there are other witnesses out there that might be able to comment (what about long time Berkeley comic guys like James Friel?). But, recollections are fraught with inaccuracies -- especially when we're talking about details dating back to the early 70s (a very long time ago and that decade was hard on many). Still, Bob has given some good leads for someone who wants to pursue them. Moraga is not a big town. A property record search of Moraga would probably be helpful. Perhaps a Cal medical licensing search might also be good. Piedmont is not a big town. A property record search might put to rest whether there even was a Reilly family in Piedmont back then.

I sort of hate this thread. Too much emotion. I know that there is animosity towards BLB on this site, but it is hard to see much justification for that on this thread. The guy has been very forthcoming with information. Apparently, it lines up with what others have said. And it's not like there was any incentive to make up a "pedigree story" back in 1973. So the suspicion seems out of whack. Far more likely that some of the details are a little off. Like that the soldier in question resided in Piedmont. Not a big town. Probably could search property records and find out if there was a Reilly living there in WWII. Probably could search other records and see if a Reilly died during WWII. But, my guess that the books originated elsewhere and the California connection was just the location of one of the three groups of relatives who ended up with the books.

Super cool. Dibs on that one!

Did you mean "see"? Because if your books are for sale, I would love to own a comic from "the collection of Marty Mann" after reading your interesting posts through the years.

I wouldn't expect DC to have paid a "staff artist" anything other than his normal salary to draw a cover. Thus, I don't think DC would logically or legally have any burden to produce such evidence. The better evidence of who drew the cover is artistic analysis. I think your analysis makes a very telling point about the style and the left handedness of the artist. Coupled with Mark's comparison to the mid-30s style sheet, I find the case for attribution to Shuster to be strong.

I was in the Vancouver international airport a month ago and was surprised to see a massive display of Disney figures. Probably a couple hundred each of Mickey, Donald, Goofy, etc. They belonged to a local (B.C.) collector named Ken Stephens. I don't think he had anything as old or cool as those Mickey figures.

Great stuff BZ!

I'm already intimidated by the early entries.

Very very nifty! Thanks very much! Can't believe I missed these posts (guess I was distracted). Great stuff!

Nice rack!

Love the Space toys and Pop-Up! More please. Can't wait to see your comic racks! (hint, hint).

I love that rack! I've seen one being used as a display in an antique mall. The owner has no interest in selling. That's not you, is it?

Marge's Little Lulu sure looks different from John Stanley's.

I hope "one of these days" is really really soon.