sfcityduck

No worries. Again, I'm not calling for a moderation review. It's your call to make. I'm glad it's fine to debate with other forum members. I love debating other forum members. From the clash of viewpoints comes a lot of great ideas, often not mine. Still, I certainly hope you would not ban me for a thread correcting some myths that have appeared on this site regarding Joe Simon, Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko and others, if I (1) don't identify other posters and (2) temper my rhetoric. I just think that facts do matter and are worth noting. I'm not sure why this forum would benefit from only having one inaccurate viewpoint permitted.

I think the light has been shed. Now that I know its likely not a technical issue, I can take it up on the moderating board or just create my own thread to discuss the subject and debunk the misinformation being bandied about.

I now cannot post on a single thread. Which is a shame because a number of creators are being unfairly defamed in a misguided attempt to embellish the reputation of another creator. Apparently, that is acceptable but some gently contentious remarks regarding that effort are not. Fair enough. I served my two-day timeout. But a lifetime ban from a thread that badly needs a more balanced viewpoint? I didn't even know the mods could do that. They failed to tell me that was part of the punishment. Thanks for clarifying what happened. .

Poster have posted in the past that CGC sustains significant slowdowns in grading times during "convention season." CGC turnaround time estimates are given in "working days" but it's my recollection that CGC has, at least in the past, deemed convention days as NOT "working days."

And if so, what's the criteria?

I know you were the winner! DA 1 and 2 - Great get!

She was probably afraid he’d pick it up. Her comics are in nice shape despite the lack of boards like Bangzooms. I wonder if they knew each other. She is probably around his age but he likely was deeper into fandom earlier than she was.

Here's a link to that old local tv video which includes a visit/interview with Christine Farrell. Seems like a very nice person with some very nice looking books being stored old school (Bangzoom would be proud). Check out the LB Cole paintings also. The local tv guy touching the comics makes me cringe, as do his questions, but she has a great demeanor. Her part starts around 19:08 mark. If you want to see the rest of the episode it concerns Sid Couchey (Richie Rich artist), Ray McCarthy (Batman inker), and Pierre Rioux (DC Comics printing plant manager). It apparently dates back to 1995. https://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-113-021c5fmk

Thanks! I once saw a video of her being interviewed about her collection, and she professed to have no intent to ever sell her comics. She had .non-DC stuff, romance, art, etc. I think the hard part would be keeping up a "complete" DC collection with all of the junk that comes out (variants, dealer incentive, etc.), but since she owns a comic store that may not be a problem for her. I'd heard she had no need to be concerned about money.

What’s the name of the woman who beat Ian out to the first whole DC collection and is she still maintaining it?

Neal was 19 when he did both I am the Guard and Adventure in Leather. But unlike Adventure in Leather, I am the Guard was not solely Neal Adams art. The cover does not look like the Adams art in the interior, it looks like the non-Adams artist. So I think it is a misattribution to say I am the Guard is an Adams cover. I am the Guard is significant because its his first art in his own style (not MLJ style). Important book. Just not the first cover or entirely by Neal.

You cannot reconcile this: KIRBY: "I created Spider-Man. We decided to give it to Steve Ditko. I drew the first Spider-Mancover. I created the character. I created the costume. I created all those books, but I couldn’t do them all. We decided to give the book to Steve Ditko who was the right man for the job. He did a wonderful job on that." With this: DITKO: "What if I never said anything about the Simon Fly and Kirby had completed pencilling that magic ring-teenager-into-an-adult-SM-legend story? I would just be inking Jack's pencilled and Stan's dialogued pages. SM would have Jack's adult SM in a costume resembling Captain America's costume with the same type open-face mask and a belt with a holster for a web gun (like the Tarantula). There would be lots of nots: Not my web-designed costume, not a full mask, web-shooters, no spider-senses, no spider-like action, poses, fighting style and page breakdowns, etc." Or this: YOU: "I'm just looking for the truth."

The list of artists who swiped Raymond and Foster is endless. This is petty.

You entirely lost me with this one. I like Simon's art in the first example, but it is hurt by the bad registration. The second example looks like a Greg Threakston special. The lines look too thin, the color is not dots or is an oversaturated scan. Where's it from? Why not do apples to apples and give me an actual page from Blue Bolt 2.

I'm very familiar with S&K GA work. I think I have everything that's been collected so far, including the two volumes of romance. No one is saying S&K work isn't quality GA work. Is the writing amazingly original? Not really. Is Kirby's art as good as it would become in the SA? Not IMHO. Is it profoundly better than other GA artists? That's a matter of taste, but not in my book. I love Eisner, Fine, Crandall, Cole, Frazetta, Baker, Williamson, Shuster, Kurtzman, Barry, so many others as much and more than I enjoy GA Kirby. Frankly, I enjoy GA Superman and Batman quite a bit more than anything S&K did for DC (a fair bit of which seems rushed). For me, Kirby SA is light years better that Kirby GA DC and most other GA work he did. Joe Simon was a very talented guy who was a skilled artist with his own style and who could also pass for Fine or Kirby. He was a solid GA writer. He had a great head for business. If anyone gets slighted in these Kirby debates it is him.

Dude, we're talking about comic books. Nothing Kirby did was particularly "literary." At best it was great soap opera. Marvel was and still is entertainment for the masses. No need to go all Frasier (think Kelsey Grammer). Archie and Millie are also great entertainment.

And yet, the FIRST time that Jack was called the "King" was by Stan Lee in FF 63. The reverence for Jack grew immensely because of his 1960s work.

Boy Commandos was not even close to DC's top seller. Batman and Robin, Superman, Flash, Wonder Woman, etc. all eclipsed that series. Robin and Tomahawk both ran longer in Star Spangled than Newsboy Legion. DC used the S&K name on the cover of a very few comics and dropped it pretty quickly - presumably because it didn't boost sales. Simon, a master marketer, probably convinced DC to do it and DC dropped it because did not prove out to have value. The decision to enter romance was a Joe Simon decision. He admits it wasn't a creative decision, it was just astute marketing in deciding to go after the housewife audience. Kirby's work on romance comics is not that notable. He's no Matt Baker. Your continuing attempt to justify Kirby's significance with sales figures leads you astray. Based on your analysis, we can pretty much stop the analysis of the hierarchy of comic creators with S&S's creation of Superman since the sales figure on superheros are going to blow away romance or with the inventor the teen genre (whoever that was) because that too blows away romance, etc. It's just sloppy thinking. S&K hit the lottery in following the romance trend from magazines and importing it into comics, but if someone else had had the idea first we wouldn't be calling that person the "King" for winning that lottery, just as we don't for western, crime (Biro), horrror, jungle, etc. If comics had ended in the 1950s, S&K would have been viewed as notable creators like many others who have ended up in the Hall of Fame (Beck, Biro, Binder, Burgos, Cole, Crandall, Eisner, Everett, Fine, Fox, etc. - do I really need to go on to make the point about the number of great GA creators with incredible resumes prior to 1950?) but Kirby wouldn't be on the Mt. Rushmore as of 1950. Just like Simon isn't on the Mt. Rushmore as we look at it today. Because Kirby earned his place in the SA, not the 1940s. In the 1940s, S&K's accomplishments do not stand head and shoulders above others. After the SA, Kirby's did. Do you really disagree? If so, where's the Joe "King" Simon argument?

Lots wrong here about significance of Captain America to Jack Kirby's legacy, including: Captain America was a Joe Simon creation - Simon created the look of the character without Kirby's input and Simon scripted the origin. Kirby was the penciller (Simon inked w/ some pencils). The first appearance of the Red Skull was scripted by Ed Herron. But having said that ... Captain America was a character entirely derivative of the Shield (the true first patriotic character). So much so, that the shape of CA's shield had to be changed with issue 2 (not the Sentinel of Liberty badge which was a lasting homage to MLJ's Shield); S&K left Captain America after issue 10 in February 1942 (less than a year after starting the title). So if the print runs on the title peaked after that date (which I believe they did during the Schomburg years), then Kirby deserves no credit for those sales figures. So when did the distribution numbers that you reference with the "best selling book Timely Comics ever had" peak? Worth noting that Bill Everett's Submariner was Timely's first superhero and its most enduring. Key facts: Created pre-Timely, Everett's Submariner appeared in Timely's very first comic book cover date Oct. 1939 almost a year and a half before Captain America 1 cover date March 1941; Sub-Mariner Comics lasted about the same length of time as Captain America's solo title in the 1940s (which was converted to horror), BUT Everett's Sub-Mariner 1950s revival far outdid Captain America in the Atlas revival lasting 10 issues to CA's 3; and Sub-Mariner was reintroduced in Marvel years earlier (FF 4) than Captain America (Avengers 4). To me, sales figures are not the be-all end-all. I'd say that Bill Everett was the "King" of Timely given his much much lengthier tenure with Timely/Atlas Golden Age superhero comics than Jack Kirby's. We are talking work from the 1930s to the into the mid-1950s compared to Kirby's few years in the early 1940s. Sub-Mariner, Human Torch and Captain America are a "Big Three" and its highly debatable which was the most important character of the GA to Timely. A strong case can be made for Human Torch also (after S&K's Red Raven failed, Human Torch's solo comic was very successful continuing on into 1949) who was featured in many back-up stories in Captain America Comics and was chosen to be the standard bearer of the early Atlas Revival (with Subby as the standard bearer at the tail end and CA a mere three issue cover feature). You're right that, outside of the Big Three, Timely had only a few notable short superhero runs (Blonde Phantom, Namora, Venus, Marvel Boy) but it did have non-superhero long running titles. Everett was arguably the greatest PCH cover artist based on his stellar work for Atlas. BUT Millie the Model ended up being Timely's longest running series running 207 issues starting in 1945 (and she appeared in a number of other spin-off titles and subsidiary titles). Who created Millie? Ruth Atkinson. She also co-created Patsy Walker. It may well be that the "King" of Timely was really a "Queen". Either way, it wasn't Kirby. His tenure was a flash in the pan. It's a crazy claim to make that Jack was "King" of Timely, especially if you appreciate Joe Simon's contributions to the partnership he led and pay attention to Everett (and Schomburg, etc.). It's a SA perspective.

Jack Kirby was the King of the Silver Age. No doubt. Deserves his spot on the Mt. Rushmore for comic artists because of his SA run. Prior to that? I'd say no. Despite what Stan said about Jack "King" Kirby. Frankly, I'd not say Jack was the "King" of Timely. (Simon blew that relationship up with the CA debacle). Nor was Jack the "King" of GA DC. (Simon proved his business and marketing/hype acumen with the deal he got from DC, but I don't think DC felt it was worth it). Simon & Kirby had high and low points to their partnership and it eventually split up. They just couldn't make it on their own.

It's all a matter of taste. And not an emotional issue for me. But I prefer the Stan and Jack combo to Jack with anyone else or on his own. It's not unusual for collaborations to be stronger than individuals. Jack benefitted from working with some good collaborators during the course of his career. So did Stan.

Wasn’t there another find of True Life Secrets 23 in the last month or so? Warehouse finds are also not necessarily from any sort of warehouse.

Classic stuff.

You need art and dialogue. I have read Kirby and Ditko written material and the dialogue universally sucks. The sum is greater than the parts. As for what ifs, I quite enjoyed Atlas era superhero art.

Stan was a plotter, a dialogue writer, and a marketing genius. And the thing that set Marvel apart in the SA was largely Stan's dialogue and his unceasing hype. The mythos of Jack "King" Kirby was a Stan Lee creation. One that slighted Joe Simon. Far from not giving Jack enough credit, he gave him an outsized reputation! At least he didn't say Jack created Spiderman - that was Jack himself slighting Ditko, right?