sfcityduck

Are you seriously equating Yellow Claw to Showase 4? Unbelievable. Yellow Claw kickstarted nothing relating to superhero’s. Atlas you will recall had already failed at a mid-50s superhero revival, and so had S&K. Contrary to what many think, superhero’s were a constant presence throughout the 50s and new ones were introduced throughout. The import of Showcase 4 is it set in motion a DC revival of mostly old characters (Martian Manhunter was new) which led to the JLA - which prompted Goodman to direct Stan to jump on the trend -which he did with FF. Marvel was late to the revivals but the formula they came up with won the day ultimately. Yellow Claw presaged nothing that went into that formula. Yellow Claw was just a retread of a non-superhero concept that first entered comics in the 1930s.

In my world that is an ugly page with the middle tier an example of what a comic page should not look like. Feldstein drowned out artists. It took the courage and vision of Krigstein to create a true masterpiece of artistic expression at EC with Feldstein as the writer (Kurtzman was a genius artist-writer).

You are really trying too hard and doing a disservice to the facts as a result. For example, EC was not targeted for destruction by other publishers. The demise of PCH was largely due to forces outside of the publishing side of the business. The publishers, including EC, fought hard against those forces both through direct responses to attacks such as Stan’s anti-Wertham editorials and a series of efforts at moderation and self-regulation. Gaines had a disastrous appearance before Congress and did not have the stomach to self-moderate. So he basically folded the tent out of principle. It did not help that EC never had effective kid, teen, romance or superhero titles to fall back on. But he did have Mad, and he went all in on that even after the forces of censorship weakened ceding EC’s former ground to other publishers. Feldstein wrote some great stories but it is fair to say he was no Kurtzman when it came to writing. Feldstein drowned his stories in words creating panels where the art had little space for expression. His style stands in stark contrast to Stan’s which used far fewer words. The notion that Feldstein could have ushered in the brilliance that was 60s Marvel is unsupportable. I get you hate Stan and love Kirby, but your black and white view has badly warped your perception of comic history. You lost me in your first two posts. Yellow Claw is neither a comic that is core to the EC style that many of us love (EC abandoned its feeble attempts at superhero’s and spies prior to its high period) nor a superhero revival (what put Stan and Jack on the map in the 60s). The mythology you are pushing is deep on zeal but not convincing to me.

Group of 70s Kids to group of Bible Kids Comics:

Awesome!

This is why I love these forums! I think you are right! A new comic to chase! Thanks!

That showed up for $1k for a vg after I first posted my copy on an earlier thread. Fortunately, I had already picked up other copies.

Rheem was 1972 and Mark Steels were around 1968. This is Adams very first comic book cover and first full comic (only census copy):

Joe Simon was a great promoter. That is why he was the senior partner. The legend of Kirby benefitted from his association with two great promoters. S&K did ten issues of CA, a Joe Simon creation that was a blatant Shield imitation. The book thrived after they left. The book sold, but many did in the GA. You need some perspective. The biggest selling superhero comics were probably Fawcett. Many comics have claimed million seller status, including Disney and Dennis the Menace The most successful property was probably Superman - a star of radio, live action film, newspaper strips, animated cartoons, books, and many licensed products. Certainly S&K’s creations at DC were not in that company’s top echelons. If Kirby had died in 1959 no one would believe Stan’s “Jack King Kirby” hype. I agree that, like Joe Simon, Stan was a great promoter and master of dialogue. Those are the two essential traits of a comic editor and writer and they are what made Marvel different in the 60s. Stan”s creation of the “Stan Lee” and “King Kirby” hype in the 60s was brilliant (albeit EC paved the way with that type of fan interaction). Stan’s quotes are some of the greatest in comic history. The 60s was both Stan and Jack’s heyday. Both of them in the GA are mainly notable for their work rate - which was astounding in quantity.

You lost me with your first sentence. Jack Kirby was the junior partner in Simon & Kirby, both financially and, in the case of Captain America, creatively. Having said that, CA was a classic example of Timely’s trend following as CA was a blatant rip-off of the Shield, so much so the character was redesigned in issue two. The legend of Kirby is way overblown when it comes to the GA. He did not hit his artistic peak as a pencilled until the 60s. And his DC creations were far from the company’s most successful. Also hard to take your evaluation of Lee’s efforts seriously. He was responsible for many Marvel titles in the 40s and 50s and Marvel survived and thrived when many publishers did not, including S&K’s Mainline which lasted only two or so years and Prize. Give them both their due.

Dover, Great Adams collection. Especially like the Gazette's as those would not have occurred to me. Have you found a copy of the giveaway with his first cover (and first complete comic) yet? Alec

The focus on Kirby and Lee is a bit myopic when it comes to Marvel. The ONLY reason the FF were created is because Goodman wanted a superhero team book like the JLA. Stan and Jack undoubtedly had to scramble. So in true Timely/Atlas/Marvel trend-following fashion, the FF featured the return of one of Timely's Big Three, the Human Torch, in a new incarnation (just like DC had done years earlier with JLA stalwart the Flash). Reed Richards was an imitation of Plastic Man. The Invisible Girl was basically the Invisible Scarlett O'Neil. And the Thing could have come out of any Atlas/Marvel Monster Book. And, yes, the FF origin was a partial retread of issue three of DC's Challengers on which Kirby had worked (but not as the writer). A few issues in we got another Timely revival in Subby. Overall, the origin, powers of the characters, and general plotlines in FF were not profound or innovative at all. What was innovative, was the everyday stuff - the way the FF thought, talked, and interacted. That was not typical super-hero at all. And that was, at the very least, a collaboration between Lee & Kirby. It was a joint effort that showed a lot of influence of their respective time on non-superhero books. The folks above denigrating Stan (or Jack) for working on those non-superhero books are completely missing that Marvel in the 60s was basically putting out books featuring costumed superhero characters that followed a mash-up of the conventions of romance/teen humor/gag/war/monster comics. That was the innovation of Marvel. When DC was still doing straight up superhero books, Marvel was blending genres and utilizing a writing style not then in the marketplace. Marvel also marketed to fans with a level of hype and engagement that was not then in the marketplace (but maybe harkened back to tactics previously used by publishers in the GA and by EC). Most every major Marvel character was a re-tread or ripoff of prior superheroes. Marvel's gift in the 60s was that they just did them better. I just find the Kirby v. Lee debate a bit boring. They both had their roles. Did either do anything great without the other or an equivalent collaborator? My answer is pretty much "No." Stan couldn't draw and Jack was a not a great writer. But together they were like peanut butter and jelly in the 60s.

There have been topics on prop comics on this site. There are some cool ones. Can't recall if this one has been discussed previously.

Clearly the Marvel DC crossover was the more significant book and was recognized as such at the time. There were articles about it. The Ali book was not any kind of first, any kind trailblazer, and didn’t have any lasting impact. It’s also not as good read.

Or maybe there is less discretionary money in the marketplace right now.

There are several major logic flaws in this analysis. First, Bitcoin is now down 70% from its high in November. It is an 18 month low. And it is bottoming out due, in part, to inflation fears - which does not bode well for an "investment" that was marketed as a hedge against inflation. So it is highly unlikely that Bitcoin owners are cashing out now to re-invest in other assets. Instead, they are liquidating in order to cut their losses, fund their lives, and pay their debts. Other crypto currencies are much worse off. Terra and Luna are worthless. Owners of those are losing their houses. There have been single days where crypto owners have lost over $200 Billion - in a single day! Second, the only way anyone accepts crypto today is through intermediaries who immediately sell the asset upon receipt. The way it works is Metro says the price on a comic is $100K. The buyer sends Bitcoin, for example, to an exchange who immediately sell it to get a cash dollar amount. The exchange then sends $100K to Metro and any excess amount back to the payee. Problem is, crypto exchanges aren't letting investors cash out. Celsius is the current poster child. It has frozen $11.8 billion in customer assets. Celsius customers can't buy comics even if they wanted. Third, the other reason no one accepts crypto except through intermediaries is that crypto is too erratic. Metro could accept the equivalent of $100K in Bitcoin on Monday and if they held on Tuesday that Bitcoin could only be worth $80K. And if Metro is using an exchange, they may accept crypto, but they will likely build into their price structure a premium to cover the exchange's percentage. So crypto is the opposite of a cash discount. So I really don't see a crypto CRASH enhancing the value of comics. It's sort of ridiculous to claim a crypto boom increases comic demand AND a crypto crash increases comic demand. The logic of the first assertion is that a crypto boom increases cash flow, the logic of the second assertion is that a crypto crash ... increases cash flow? Really does not make sense.

Unless its your money.

Well, I thought the CM Jr. 5 and 7 at least were retreads, and assumed some of the others were, but now I see they just skipped those two in earlier auctions.

I just bought my first Cosmic Aeroplane. It would take a lot of scrubbing for that pedigree.

A lot of Promise Collection books coming up for auction ... a second time.

It would make more sense if Bette and George left them in the Camp with the mom. And maybe mom bought comics every once in a while.

For me, what's interesting about the Whiz 58 is that it is cover dated 9/44, but has what is likely a "store receipt date" of 4/22/44 (a full five month lead time - longer than the standard three months). That handwritten date is after Bette left the camp and before George left the camp. It has no "Okajima" on it. It does say "Camp I". My conclusion: It is a camp book. Moreover, because it has the #./letter code (here a "4T"), that code could not have been added by Bette if it was a camp book as she'd already left the camp. So one reasonable inference is that all books with #./alpha codes are camp books coded by someone other than Bette, not Chicago books coded by Bette. For me, the controversial argument in the 50 Objects article is this: This argument does not convince me. It's not based on any direct information, just an inference based on how she kept her house clean. Which begs two questions: (1) Are there any #/letter coded books which post-date 10/44 (five months after George left the camp)? If not, it strongly suggests that at least the later #/letter coded books were camp books collected by George. (I suppose that after George left, they could have been bought by the mom). I'd love to see a chronological chart of the books and their markings. (2) What was the last #/letter and "signature" coded book? The Whiz above has no "signature" (or name) on it.

<cough cough> BUT those comments look a lot smarter now that 50 Objects dug up info on her camp departure date that none of us knew until they published their article. Again, kudos to them.

It is, and I think he's a good guy. 50 Objects is a legit organization who do great work. They found a lot of info that I don't think any of us had ever seen. I give them full kudos. Sometimes great research may not be enough to get the story right - as I can attest to based on my own experience. I really hope that a swing and a miss doesn't destroy all credibility because if it does, then I've got none left. I'd prefer to see folks recognize that no one's perfect and we should weigh the good with full measure. I'd hate to think I'm the least credible and respected commentator on this site, but maybe I should be if the standard for speculation is 100% success.

FYI: I'm not Tom.