sfcityduck

I am monumentally unimpressed by the treatment CGC has given this depressing non-pedigree collection. First, CGC says this: "This collection was awarded provenance status by the experts at CGC and named the FANTAST Collection in honor of Dale Watts’ online pseudonym." WTF? "Provenance status" is awarded? I assume it was purchased to be meaningless hoopla to aid Heritage in selling comics. Have any non-Heritage collections been "awarded provenance status"? Is there a list somewhere of the "provenance status" collections? And why is this collection worth that designation when other collections don't get that designation? And what happens if this Fantast guy bought a Cage book once owned by Berk, does it get triple provenance status? Total B.S. Second, CGC says: Now that's a back story that makes me want to buy a comic book! Might as well call this the "Sad Stereotypical Comic Book Loser Collection"! Is this really how we want the hobby promoted? Is this the story we want for the first "special label" non-pedigree collection? Totally stupid move by CGC. Third, my appreciation of CGC's intelligence is further unenhanced by this bone-head comment: "After Dale passed away in August 2020, Darren found what might be considered one of the greatest comic book collections of all time, certainly worth millions of dollars." Again WTF? "One of the greatest comic book collections of all time"? Large yes. Some enviable books yes. But not legendary in quality. Not a pedigree. Really, not as "greatest" as numerous collections that are well-known (DA, Bangzoom, Verzyl family, etc.) and even collections that I know of that are not so well-known. So what happened here? Again, I'm assuming that CGC decided to trade in credibility for cash. I'd be ok with that if we could all get personalized labels on our CGC books. That would be cool. This is not.

Thank you Fantagraphics! They are finally circling back to the early Barks volumes starting with vol. 4:

Great article about Wrexham's finances: https://theathletic.com/4372950/2023/04/04/wrexham-accounts-2021-2022-reynolds/ Worth noting it does factor into the equation the earnings the owners make from the documentary (unknown but increasing) or the two owners net worth (Rob $50M+ and Ryan $250M+ easily).

Worth also noting that Caniff was employed by the govt. to do govt. publications and posters during WWII including this rare poster that recently sold: His own cartoon for military newspapers, Male Call, I believe he did in his spare time for free.

It is historic fact that FDR’s Administration engaged in a strong lobbying and propaganda effort aimed at the American people to support entry into to WWII over the isolationism then pushed by a strong faction in the US. The truth is the US had effectively entered WWII before Pearl Harbor or even Cap hitting Hitler. That’s not politics it is just the truth. But we will have to disagree as to why FDR the great progressive wanted the US to support the Brits against the Fascist regimes in Europe. I don’t think it was to promote the interests of banks or munitions companies. But probably not a proper topic here. Whatever the motivations of FDR, WWII is a war I am glad we fought. Including because it led to some incredible comic covers. But you are 100% right that many of those lacked realism. One reason I am a huge fan of cartoons like Up Front which gave a more realistic view of the war in their own quirky subject to military censorship way:

That cover was certainly unusual. More so because unllke Timely I have read that DC had largely stopped doing WWII before the end of the war because they felt it hurt their sales (they apparently felt kids wanted escapism from the stress of the war). I am aware that the govt. supported propaganda for employment of the disabled into the 60s as this poster by Caniff shows:

I think most of his inventory sold on ebay are copious amounts of Harvey or other "warehouse" books that were not ideally stored. High volumes, unread, not great page quality or state of preservation. He is accurate in his descriptions too. But man is he cashing in 189,000 sales with a 100% ebay rating and 3,600 followers. DA can be proud that Adam may objectively be the most well-regarded dealer in comic history. I know that the books I've bought from him, some on special requests, have made me happy. I can only guess what the cash value of his sales are. If he's selling off DA's cast aways, DA was hoovering up books at a rate that was record setting. If not, Adam's got an incredible network and, if so, frankly he deserves it.

My guess is it probably depends on where you lived. Having lived my life on the West Coast, my view is that you'd probably more likely get people wondering why you wanted to know the religion of a funny book character. I've seen comic fans debate many things, but never the religious views of Spiderman. I will say this to support you: Comic publishers love the way folks shell out for Christmas comics. So I'm pretty sure most Marvel, DC, and Fawcett comic characters (and probably many others as well) can be found to have had a Christmas cover or story at one time or another, including those controlled and owned by Jewish creators. But, that's not a matter of theology, that's a matter of money. And I suspect a fair number of folks in certain denominations hate Santa Clause as a non-Christian and Christian subverting gateway drug towards atheism. They think its a small step from learning Santa is a myth to concluding God is a myth as well. They may well be right. Comics may also serve the same function. You definitely are taking us in a new direction. Not a topic I've given any thought to.

Stan showed some editorial courage at a key time in the history of the comics industry, writing and running an editorial many publishers were afraid to emulate:

Fair enough. By the mid-70s Marvel had interracial relationships. I view the core Avengers movies are about a GA hero and a bunch of SA heroes.

I didn't give any thought to what the religion was of any superhero as I was growing up. Why would you? Aside from Spire Christian Comics none of the publishers had a religious agenda. The only characters who I can think of built on a religious orientation were pagans of some sort.

To be clear, I'm talking about GA through to about the mid-1960s. Brown v. Bd. of Education which declared segregation as unconstitutional came down in the mid-1950s, but the battles to de-segregate the nation were front and center into the mid-1960s. Around 1965 or so, a lot of victories had been won by the Civil Rights Movement, important Acts were implemented in the 1964 and 1965, and Governors were no longer standing at the school house doors trying to bar black kids from going to school. But, all major Marvel characters were created when segregation was very much a thing that could impact comic sales. Stan was courageous to start taking it on in the mid-1960s.

I agree and disagree. Little Nemo in Slumberland's jungle imps are pretty embarrassing even though the art is spectacular. Even Flip is a bit problematic because he looks like a racist caricature when he's not. When I consider a Winsor McCay piece I always first look to see if it has racist content. Political content doesn't bother me (he was pro prohibition and I'm certainly not but I'd love his anti-drinking art), but racist content is different. It makes people feel uncomfortable.. Negro Romances arguably reflects an emerging black culture that inspires pride. No stigma there. Likewise with the black sports hero comic covers. No shame in my mind in displaying those comics. Comics reflect the best and worst of society. They are history and owning them for that reason is no shame. But you are right that I would not want racist content on my wall that needed an explanation to make it seem ok. Why make my guests feel uncomfortable?

Take my words literally: Why should anyone feel nostalgia for a white segregated society portrayed in a comic (or movie)? Does it really ruin the experience for Gwen to be black? Not for me. Not sure why Gwen needs to be white just because she was portrayed as white in a time when interracial relationships were literally illegal in portions of our country. That is exactly why she was white. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby fought against this attitude and so did Star Trek when it had the first interracial kiss on major tv. As a comic and Star Trek fan, those are the moments I'm nostalgic about because they make me proud of these industries:

GCD views the Charlton issue as a continuation of the Charlton run as I guess Charlton picked up parts of Fawcett. The attribution get mentioned on these boards every time one comes up for sale. I can't say it is true. GCD is silent. Sellers are making out well.

Many things wrong here. First, the comic industry was not segregated. Being based in the North, in worldly NYC, it had prominent black (Matt Baker), asian (Bob Fuji), female (Lily Renee), Jewish (Siegel), etc. artists and writers. Second, most comic heroes were of an unidentified religion. Was Superman Jewish? He had Jewish influences. But who knew? He was from Krypton! I don't think religion was a thing for many comic characters. Hawkman being an exception. Third, but vast portions of the U.S. were segregated. If you don't know what that means I'd suggest you look it up. Racism was prevalent in comics with many racist caricatures - an easy thing to fall into in a profession where caricature is a big part of the art form. Blacks were generally characters in all Black comics or minor or supporting characters. There are some pretty good books on this topic if you're interested. That was the time. But we don't need to feel strait jacketed by that now. Plenty of room to be creative and have a black Gwen and Spiderman in an interracial relationship in today's world.

Apparently you think the run is shorter than it really is. This copy sold for around $7,000. Hard to find a copy. Baker art? I hear it said that it is a self-portrait. Verified? I don't think so. Leap of faith but decent prices paid.

All true. Make a great comic book. But irrelevant to whether there is something wrong with portraying a historically white character, like Gwen, as black. Or a historically black character like Storm as white. I'd be ok with either because their ethnicity is not material to their story.

Yeah? I think not. Comics were generally segregated. Baker did get to draw Negro Romances. (And S&S did create a Jewish superhero book.) But most white publishers were afraid to offend readers in the South. EC's "Judgment Day" is one of the few stories to buck that trend. Not sure why folks want to feel nostalgia for a segregated society. It is certainly not a reason to perpetuate a racist past.

There is some irony in the notion of Wakanda as society of blacks who segregated themselves. But, the key is that they "self segregated." There is no story about Wakanda mistreating whites. It is a more of a "hidden kingdom" story like Lothlorien. I believe Wakanda was inspired by Liberia - which was founded by freed black slaves transported from America by folks in the 1820s who believed blacks would face a better chance for freedom and prosperity in Africa than in the U.S. A very sad comment on the U.S. that Americans had that attitude about their own country. Of course, they were probably right at that point in time. Liberia is the oldest Republic in Africa, the national language is English, it was never colonized, and its capital is named Monrovia after U.S. President Monroe. The first Liberian President was from Virginia. Things started to go South for Liberia a few decades back. But, in the 1960s, it was probably a good inspiration for Wakanda.

If the creators are ok with the reinvention, why should you care? Moreover, a lot of Marvel characters were created white because they are a product of the era of segregation. Why stay "true" to that?

No. Your argument is falling very flat. Therealsilvermane says exactly what needs to be said about that. There are very very few Marvel characters that are truly defined by their ethnicity. But Black Panther is one of those few. He's a product of his times and was very intentionally made a black man. Maybe Black Goliath also is one of those characters? I don't know. Most of the Marvel characters are only white because when they were created when segregation was still in full effect. If they'd been created in the present day, they might be anything because their ethnicity is immaterial to their characters real essence. It is hard to come up with Marvel characters other than Black Panther who are defined by their ethnicity. I don't think even Storm is based on the way she was portrayed in X-Men. Her race was never really an issue. Could she be white and still be Storm the X-Man? I think so. I'm ok with black Nick Fury. Heck, Nick Fury was crusading for civil rights in the 1960s so I'm sure Stan and Jack were or would be too. Does that really bother you?

I saw it as it came out. It was not as entertaining as Wonder Woman or Six Million Dollar Man IMHO. But I acknowledge people liked it as it lasted a few years.

Yep.

In that example, there is no point. But that is hardly analogous to casting a black woman, Zendaya, as Gwen despite that Gwen is white in the comics. The reason for casting Zendaya might include her talent, her beauty, her chemistry with her co-star, and even to make a point about the difference between our society today and our society way back when Gwen was cast as white in the comics and segregation was still a thing. Do you really think any of those reasons are illegit as a reason to cast Gwen as black?