Bookery

Here is an idea of the prevailing attitude toward paperbacks up at least through the 1960s. The Wikipedia entry on Donald A. Wollheim (Ace paperbacks editor and later founder of DAW books) includes this story from Wollheim's daughter... "He (Wollheim) called (J.R.R.) Tolkien in 1964 and asked if he could publish Lord of the Rings as Ace paperbacks. Tolkien said he would never allow Lord of the Rings, his great work, to appear in 'so degenerate a form’ as the paperback book. Don was one of the fathers of the entire paperback industry. He'd spearheaded the Ace line, he was the originating editor-in-chief of the Avon paperback list in 1945, and I think he was hurt and took it personally. He did a little research and discovered a loophole in the copyright. Houghton Mifflin, Tolkien’s American hardcover publisher, had neglected to protect the work in the United States. So, incensed by Tolkien’s response, he realized that he could legally publish the trilogy and did. This brash act (which ultimately benefited his primary competitors as well as Tolkien) was really the Big Bang that founded the modern fantasy field, and only someone like my father could have done that. He paid Tolkien, and he was responsible for making not only Tolkien extremely wealthy but Ballantine Books as well. And if he hadn’t done it, who knows when — or if — those books would ever have been published in paperback."

Actually, you would think that would be true, but right now in terms of value anyway, the 1st hardback usually trumps everything. Most famous science-fiction stories and novels started out in the pulps, or later, in digests. Yet the first hardback printings of these tales... sometimes coming years later... are often far more valuable. Of course, some of that has to do with print runs. A pulp might have had a 100,000+ copy print run, whereas a 1st edition hardback... especially if it's from a specialty house like Arkham or Gnome, might have a print run of 1000 to 5000 copies. But mostly it's just a traditional (and somewhat elitist) thing... book people have always promoted the value of the book... and that means a hardback, with a dust-jacket if it came with one. My father is a book collector, and owns thousands of 1st editions. But he won't own, or even read, a paperback. He would love to own any Raymond Chandler 1st edition, but probably wouldn't care about the previous pulp appearances. This is simply the way it's always been. It goes back to the days, now sadly dying out, where it was prestigious to have a home library... and in most cases these book lovers did indeed read what they collected. Pulps and paperbacks really didn't meld well with stately leather-bound books or literary first editions, and would look awkward on the shelves beside them. Now, at least in America, reading, or at least physical book reading, is becoming so rare that you really can't even buy any decent pre-made bookshelves anymore. The bookshelves that are manufactured are designed to hold dishes and little ceramic knick-knacks... not weighty volumes. A few years ago I went to one of those open houses where they showcase brand new million-dollar homes (and that's million-dollar in Ohio... think 4-5 million in more upscale cities). These places were massive... up to 20,000 sq.ft., had all the extras... walkaround decks, whirlpools, media rooms with 80" televisions, high-tech kitchens, glass indoor elevators... and almost no bookshelves, save for maybe one or two shelves behind a massive oak desk in an office, usually holding photos or, yep, ceramic knick-knacks. Then visit mansions of 50 or 100 years ago... whole rooms devoted to libraries... sometimes 2-story libraries with rolling ladders or circular staircases. Those places were designed for books with a capital "B"... to which magazines (pulps) and paperbacks did not belong. And to be fair, to begin with, paperbacks were indeed just cheap reprint editions of hardbacks. There wasn't much in the way of original paperback publishings until the '50s... and soon, some houses like Gold Medal, began to even specialize in them.

True... but if paperbacks were to be publicly seen as potential collectibles, as with comics, certain "bronze age" and even "modern" books would become hot and valuable as well, especially in near-mint grade. It's a big IF because so many things have to align perfectly to generate market growth (collector enthusiasm). These are my observations as a long-time collector of pulps, digests and art as well as comics. I'm sure that others have different perceptions that are just as relevant, but here is how I view the long-term market potential for PB books... Pros: 1. Size (see #7 below) 2. Cover art & styles (paintings to photographic, realist to abstract) 3. Variety (every genre imaginable) 4. History & crossover (pulps & digests) 5. Noteworthy authors & artists (with rarities & early printings driving values) 6. Rare examples (first editions, early printings, etc.) 7. Holdering potential (grading) Cons: 1. Lack of media interest in the format (few direct tie-ins) 2. Limited interior art (lack of storyboard iconography as with comics & film) 3. Number of reprints/reissues of PBs may diminish appeal to collectors seeking focus 4. Lack of event identification (pre-code, post-code, gold, silver, bronze, etc.) 5. No well-established (accepted) CGC style grading system for paperbacks 6. Less of a nostalgic experience to collectors than comics & pulps 7. Perception that PBs are less desirable than HC editions or earlier larger formatted pulps 8. Reading non-illustrated books seems more like a personal experience than a shared experience While not all of the CONS listed above are correctable, many can be alleviated to a greater or lesser degree. As I see it, the more collector friendly the PB market becomes the better for long term growth potential. I agree with your pros, and most of your cons. I don't think #4 is an issue... in fact, it will irritate many here, but these designations are silly in comics, and they would be silly anywhere else. Rare book collecting has been going on for 500 years, and they don't divide the eras with pretty non-sensical appellations. There's no reason why comics shouldn't have been designated as from the 30s, or 40s, or 60s, or WW2-era, or any other more descriptively apt term. Silver or golden-age means nothing to the uninitiated. I think #7 was definitely propageted by the rare book collectors... to many of them a paperback was never a "real" book, and they did (and still do) often pay premiums for a "1st hardback" edition that came out many years after the paperback original. #8 was probably a problem once, but I think paperback collecting is already focusing more on cover art than the reading material anyway... a lot of paperback collectors have no intention of reading any of them, or if they do, will seek out a later cheap edition for reading. #3 has definitely been a problem, not because there are reprints, but because many people have no idea what edition their copy is. My book, should it ever come to fruition, will completely remedy this. But it's a long way off, if ever. An additional Con: Many paperbacks, especially by popular authors, had such huge print runs it makes the odds of them becoming valuable unlikely. Except for the Bachman books, Stephen Kings are out there by the millions. Likewise with Pattersons, etc. But the same is true of 80s and 90s comics that have no premium value as well. An additional Pro: Paperbacks are relatively fragile, so high-grade copies of rarer items could escalate quickly in value were they to catch on. Yet they aren't as fragile as pulps, so it's not like high grades are virtually impossible either. More information on collecting them will be essential, however. There are actually quite a few books on the market that showcase paperback covers now... more than there are similar comics books, for that matter! But there is nothing out there that explains which books should have their original lamination, which books are likely never to be found with white pages, which early Avons are originals vs. reprints, and on and on. A proper grading company would help, but would have to be familiar with all of this. I work with vintage paperbacks all the time, and still have plenty to learn in these areas.

True... but if paperbacks were to be publicly seen as potential collectibles, as with comics, certain "bronze age" and even "modern" books would become hot and valuable as well, especially in near-mint grade.

I dunno-- I don't think I ever got as excited over any comic book as I did when I turned the drug store spinner rack around to find this item staring at me... I still recall the adrenaline rush.

In general your comments apply to pulps, but not paperbacks. Paperbacks are still being published (just check out your local Barnes & Noble). In fact, there are far far more potential paperbacks to be collected out there then there will ever be of comic books. Paperbacks have plenty of familiar characters... first, every famous hardback has also had a paperback edition, and many characters were created for paperbacks originally. Like Dark Shadows? There are a couple of dozen paperback originals out there. Star Trek? -- hundreds of paperbacks. Same with Star Wars. Or James Bond. Or Doc Savage. Or Tarzan. Travis McGee started in the paperbacks. Louis L'Amour's 1st books were paperback originals. Mickey Spillane. All of Philip K. 's early works were paperback originals. As were many from Marion Zimmer Bradley, Jim Thompson, Harry Whittington, Dean Koontz, Harlan Ellison, Robert Bloch, Richard Matheson, Jack Vance, and on and on. Nearly every major movie ever based on a book (which is most of them) has a paperback edition out there somewhere. The public is well aware of paperbacks... they just aren't aware of them as something collectible. Part of that is just the way things are marketed. Marvel makes sure that when you watch "Iron Man" you know it is a Marvel product. When they make (and re-make) "The Killer Inside Me", there's no financial motive to play up it's based on a 1950s Lion paperback. Newspapers and magazines make Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Frank Miller, and John Romita familiar names. We don't hear much about the giants in paperback art -- Rudolph Belarski, Robert Bonfils, James Avati, Robert Stanley, Rafael DeSoto, George Gross, Robert Maguire, Lou Marchetti, Robert McGinnis, Barye Phillips, etc., etc. (The exceptions that have moved into mainstream recognition are Frank Frazetta and Jeff Jones). Still... who knows? For all of the fuss about comic books, they are still very much a niche market... sold to about 1% of the population and available only in comic shops or on line. Paperbacks are still in every K-Mart, pharmacy, grocery store and Wal-Mart (for now... though the format is probably going to give way to the larger trade softbound). AIt will all depend on a breakout auction sale or two. If a paperback sells for $100,000, or the news makes a big deal out of someone discovering a collector horde hidden in their walls, than the floodgates may open. Otherwise... probably not.

A man who knows his paperbacks! Lots of good stuff... Day Keene, Charles Williams, Robert Bloch, the "Earthman on Venus", "The Dying Earth" of course, "Dunwich Horror"... Particularly impressive... the scarce "Mansion of Evil" (which should be of special interest to comics collectors), and a set of the John Russell Fearn Harlequins!

Offhand, I see... Think Fast Mr. Moto -- John P. Marquand Cave Girl -- Edgar Rice Burroughs (the Dell 1st edition) The Green Girl -- Jack Williamson Night Has a Thousand Eyes -- Cornell Woolrich (1967 Paperback Lib. ed.) Slan -- A. E. Van Vogt (Dell) False Night -- Algis Budrys (Lion) Bring the Jubilee -- Ward Moore (Ballantine) Dead Ringer -- James Hadley Chase Human? -- Judith Merril (Lion) Halo in Brass -- Howard Browne The Far Cry -- Fredric Brown First He Died -- Clifford D. Simak Fallen Sparrow -- Dorothy B. Hughes Cup of Gold -- John Steinbeck (1st paperback ed.) Too Many Women -- Rex Stout

While you are absolutely correct that super-heroes drive the comics market, I'm not sure the lack of super-heroes in pulps or paperbacks is particularly relevant. Sure, super-hero fans aren't going to be attracted to those other formats, but so what? Dashiell Hammett collectors aren't looking to comics either. Science-fiction fans drove the pulps and paperback markets for awhile. The problem is, sf folks kept everything... so the respective pulps and books from that genre are relatively common. Mystery, noir, and exploitation covers now are the key and most valuable collectibles in those formats, with a greater emphasis on title or publisher rarity than is found in comics. I don't think pulp prices are ever likely to explode beyond the pace they are already increasing, often as much due to inflation and frustration with availability as anything else. Paperbacks, which have been stagnant the longest, could have the potential for rapid growth if the public were made more aware of them, since unlike pulps, there are many names in paperback publishing that are familiar to everyday folks... Stephen King, Lawrence Block, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Harlan Ellison, Louis L'Amour, a lot of movie and TV tie-ins, famous and not-so-famous spy series and spoofs. Plus paperbacks have the potential for "signature series" items like comics in a way where pulps do not. Plus, also unlike pulps, existing paperback collectors are generally high-grade aficiandos, often desiring the equivalent of 9.0s or better. Pretty much anyone who wants to shell out 6 figures can own an Action #1, for instance. Several copies come up for sale every year. Paperback's most valuable book... the first edition of the 1st Pocket Book... probably exists in under two dozen copies, and rarely comes up for sale,regardless of one's ability to pay for it. This either makes paperbacks more interesting for the challenge-inspired, or more frustrating for the instant-gratification crowd. Another plus for paperback collectors is that rare and sought-after items can still turn up at garage sales and used bookstores, which happens now very rarely with the more publicized comics, and almost never due to the age and fragility of pulps. But should paperbacks break out as a collectible, it will be much more broad-based than the heroes-focused comics medium... I don't see any one genre completely dominating their collectibility.

With the comic market moving more and more toward cover-art being the dominant force in collectability, it is a bit odd that pulps and paperbacks, both with far superior and more varied art than comics, have comparatively little interest. Pulps even had a head start... with a plethora of fanzines beginning in the 1930s devoted to at least the sf side of it. But with pulps, a lot of the "problem" is that the format ended almost 60 years ago. It's the old out-of-sight out-of-mind thing. There are 2 major pulp conventins today vs. dozens of comic conventions. Newspapers and magazines do articles about comic books... but they don't have a clue what a real pulp is. Couple this with the fact that pulps are just too hard to obtain these days... putting together runs of anything beyond the most common titles is a true challenge. Most comic runs can be had for the asking just by laying out the cash. Paperback collecting has always suffered because there is very little information out there about them. The guides that came out in the past were publisher-fixated, which is no longer the way most people collect (like comics they now tend to look for vivid artwork and author "keys"). Paperbacks are interesting in that they more closely follow the history of comics (what we think of as a paperback format began in 1939), and like comics move into more lurid covers in the late 40s and 50s. Unlike comics, covers continued to be daring into the 60s and beyond, though the adult nature of many paperbacks and their publishers, both within and on the covers, may also hurt their broader-based collectability, as holding "mainstream" conventions of them and having a mainstream company "slab" them might prove problematic. I did what I could years back to shed some light and information on pulps, and am working, albeit slowly, on doing the same thing with paperbacks. Though in the era of eReaders, I suspect it's too little too late to generate any broad-based enthusiasm. (On the other hand, if a company like CGC did offer a grading service, paperback values would likely skyrocket, particularly with high-grade rarities. And there are even more paperbacks out there than comics, so if it took off, it would be a lucrative endeavor indeed for both the grading company and lucky collectors/dealers sitting on inventories of key items).

It is our store policy to not purchase PGX books... no matter how big or tempting the book may be. I turned down a New Mutants 98 just yesterday, in fact.

Just picked this up -- my first in 30 years of business! Burroughs' first book-- 1st edition (scarce 3rd state-- only 2500 copies printed Dec. 1914 or Jan. 1915) Now I just need $30k or $40k to pick me up a dust-jacket

That's the famous Three Stooges cover. Moe and Curly are obvious, but they drew Larry funny.

Very professional. Superb packing. Thanks!

re: SHOW US YOUR DUCKS! We get mallards every day... But this fellow (northern shoveler) was in the small creek behind my backyard last evening! (no joke)... He made several quacks, but unfortunately no Barks.

I order a lot of stuff from Bags Unlimited, but I don't believe I've ordered plastic boxes from them. I assumed they were the same ones everyone is carrying (it seems there is only a single manufacturer of these, though different distributors call them different things). BU boxes have the same (similar?) oval hand-holes the other problem boxes have had. The old ones from Canada had more rectangular hand-holes, had rounded edges (not the sharp rough-cut edges along the top), and were a heavier plastic. But if BU has a new product, I'm willing to try it. Anybody with experience with their long boxes?

Years ago there was a company in Canada that produced excellent plastic boxes. We still have them throughout our shop after 20 years, and they are great, solid, with rounded edges that don't cut into your hands, and were available in multiple colors. I don't recall their name, but they are long gone now, unfortunately. All of the plastic boxes I've come across today are definitely inferior... the long boxes buckle after awhile and are actually dangerous for transporting comics, as they bow in the middle when carrying. I would pay decent money to have those old boxes available again, though.

For the sake of argument, let's just assume the issues sold at roughly the same numbers... that's sales of 800,000+ for each book. Then keep in mind the US population then was less than half of what it is today. In order for a contemporary comic issue to be as popular as "Bringing Up Father" was in the 1920s, a comic issue today would have to sell approx. 2 million copies! Pretty amazing.

It's a neat book, and I agree, historically significant. I have 3 copies at present... a solid 3.0 copy with white pages, and 2 other copies each missing a couple of pages IIRC. Of course, I've had them for years... unfortunately significance and saleability are two differet things! Show people Spider-man or Superman and they ooh and ahh... show them Buster Brown and they look at you like you're crazy!

[font:Times New Roman]What strikes me is this: If I had Mr. Peabody's Wayback machine and 50 cents in vintage coin, say, Mercury dimes to keep the continuum from jumping the rails, I wondered to myself "Which books would I buy?" Here's what I came up with (don't peak 'til you do it yourself): Ask yourself, thinking as either a dealer or as a collector, ...Which comics would YOU buy and bring back?[/font] I'm gonna have to go with that House Beautiful issue... but then I've made some questionable investments in the past, so...

Man, that is some seriously hideous art. Jesse Marsh, who drew the early Tarzan comics, produced similarly hideous art. You know, when you walk into the Annual Super-Heroes Reunion, and standing around the hall are Superman, Batman, The Human Torch, Wonder Woman, Iron Man, The Hulk, etc.... and you stroll up and announce "Hey, how's it going guys!? I'm The Ermine!", you're pretty much just demanding a butt-kicking.

He definitely was. That's why us kids, with our screaming punk music and discordant video games, laugh at the way the writer and Tim gel their blue hair and wear their pants buckled around their chest.

On the other hand, as much as I love Centaur comics... maybe the first book Waugh glanced at was this...

No way!

Now you're just being coy... is this an argument for Famous Funnies, Fantastic Four, Four Favorites, Famous Feature, Family Funnies, Fantastic Fears, Fightin' Five, Fearless Fagan, Foxy Fagan, Fast Fiction, Feature Funnies, Fighting Fronts, Film Funnies, Flippity & Flop, Frankie Fuddle, Freedom Fighters, Frisky Fables, Frontier Fighters, Funny Fables, Funny Films, Funny Folks, Funny Frolics, Funny Funnies or Fury of Firestorm? Slightly different arguments can be made depending upon the answer.... Someone has opened an Overstreet lately OR... I may be bizarrely obsessed with collecting only alliterative titles! (Though I was told by Colton Waugh they were all illiterative).