OtherEric

One of the better Mad rip-offs to one of the better Mad rip-offs:

Oh, I didn't mean to run down your copy... a Gaines File Copy is a Gaines File Copy, and in some ways I find the copy from when it was still Max Gaines at AA even cooler than a "normal" Gaines File Copy. I was just commenting the publisher listed was wrong. It does raise the interesting point of how, in many ways, it makes sense to describe All American as having sold most of their assets to DC and then renamed themselves as EC, rather than thinking of EC as a totally new company. I know if I ever get any of the DC/AA Picture stories from the bible, I'll file them with my EC's, not my DC's. I actually do have the 1st print Old Testament complete, I maintain there's no way to tell who's the publisher of that other than "M. C. Gaines" if you look at the book itself. The publisher of record is J. R. Publishing, which was on several AA books as well.

The label is wrong... That's a DC or All American book, not an EC. Don't get me wrong, it certainly belongs in this thread... but the label is incorrect. I still want to get a copy some day, as I think "Death of Jesus" is hilarious as a CGC label notation.

I can pretty much agree with all of that. I wouldn't have bought my SSS 6 for the cover alone, that's for sure... but I could see myself buying the ISF for the cover alone, although of course there's plenty of reasons to want the issue itself! I've seen it suggested that the classic spacesuit look, with the fishbowl helmet, pretty much came from Wood's art. It may not have started there, but his version was so definitive it became the standard.

It's a classic cover, but other than the obvious "it's Wood EC" factor, I don't really see much to compare the two. It actually reminds me of Frazetta's Famous Funnies #213 cover; I could see calling this the budget FF #213 in the same way the SSS #6 is called the budget Suspense #3. Although SSS #6 is starting to get priced out of that naming...

Not quite as cheap pickup at the LCS... but still a great price given how nice the copy is

Super Heroes Annual 1984 is London Editions Magazines on the spine and indicia. Batman Annual 1985 is London Editions Magazines on the spine and London Editions Limited in the indicia. Superman Annual 1985 is London Editions Magazines on the spine and London Editions Limited in the indicia. Also, small correction to myself above, where I said they were Moore's first work for DC: The Super Heroes annual came out in 1983, and probably predated Saga of the Swamp Thing 20. So definitely Moore's first stories starring Superman and Batman, rather than a small guest appearance. I'm pretty sure he wrote at least the first story before his work for DC US, but the latter two don't predate his earliest DC US work. I was getting confused with the Morrison stories in the 86 annuals, which are his first work for DC.

They're pretty obscure, and they're just text stories. But they're some of Moore's first work for DC, so they definitely deserve more attention than they get, I think. As far as I know they've never been reprinted.

And the last of the trio with new text stories by Moore. I have the 1986 Batman & Superman Annuals as well, they have Morrison stories. In general, I think the trick on these is to find them at all; they're not necessarily bank breakers if you do:

This one is even signed; just not by Moore. I had Jose Luis Garcia Lopez sign the first page of his story (a reprint of Batman #353). He hadn't ever seen a copy:

Realized I had a trio of books I hadn't shared that you don't see very often at all:

I'm glad I got to meet him, at least once. It's hard to overstate just how influential he was. He had a story in the Joker 80th anniversary special, published this week. I like the idea that he was creating until the very last.

I think Penthouse comics went downhill pretty quickly, but the earliest issues just had a mind-blowing array of talent working on them. Had a very Heavy Metal meets Mad Magazine vibe.

I would have happily gone $25 for my copy... but that's still a lot less than what you're likely to find it for. If I ever come across another copy in that price range I'll let you have it at my cost if you want it. It's one of those books that you really do have a chance of stumbling across cheap at some point.

Oh, I love the Freas work on Astounding... and, honestly, most of the covers in general. I just recognize it's very much a different style than most SF pulps. I found my October 1953 issue at a con a few years ago, for the life of me I can't remember if it was Emerald City or Jet City. I do remember it was under $10 and I was showing it to anybody who would stand still as "look at what I found!" Easily second only to the May 1950 issue in terms of difficulty for the 50's Astoundings- and for a much better reason than the May '50 issue.

Cheap LCS pickup today. You don’t see the #3 very often compared to the 1 and 2 in my experience

Once Campbell took over as editor, Astounding/ Analog tended to very... shall we say, sedate covers, compared to most of the other SF magazines. They made up for it by having a pretty much uncontested reputation as having the best stories by a mile. Even their classic covers tend to be fairly quiet compared to most pulps. (Feel free to debate which ones you consider "classic", while I think some of these do qualify there's certainly nothing that's on the level of, say, the January 1950 Startling Stories).

Pretty sure they're both 2nd printings, then. Still nice to have, and were cheap for the pair.

Squa Tront 3 & 4; 4 does have the other two EC 3d stories from #3 in 2d. Does anybody know how to distinguish 1st and 2nd printings on these two issues?

I enjoyed it; but you need to be very familiar with H. P. Lovecraft's work for the book to work at all. It also winds up tying in with The Courtyard and Neonomicon, and the last couple issues or so don't stand on their own... which wasn't obvious for the first 9 or 10 issues. And, frankly, The Courtyard and Neonomicon have a well earned reputation as being nasty and unpleasant books. Not necessarily books that are nasty and unpleasant for the own sake, but to make creative points... but still nasty and unpleasant. So, yeah. If you're a hardcore Alan Moore fan who is also a fan of Lovecraft who nevertheless is fully aware of how ugly some of Lovecraft's views are and can work around that contradiction and don't mind tracking down some other books by Moore that you need to understand the series but aren't nearly as good or enjoyable as Providence itself, it's pretty great. With all those qualifiers, it's not something I can just recommend without reservation.

Having finally watched a few of these, I have to say I'm reasonably pleased. The ones I've seen aren't masterpieces, but they seem to be pretty close in spirit to the originals. With a touch of Ren & Stimpy mixed in that I'm not super happy with, but they could have done a heck of a lot worse, and on occasion have over the past few decades. I had hoped to have another book to post here a few days ago, but unfortunately the #14 with a detached cover I ordered had the guts to #11 inside... which I already have; otherwise I probably would have kept it for parts in case another copy showed up. It's getting harder and harder for me to find the issues I need at prices I'm willing to pay.

Which series is that from? The current run?

Today's book. Another one of those Kurtzman covers I never really "saw" until I had one in hand, as with so many of Kurtzman's war covers it's utterly brutal when you actually look at it. 6 issues to go to finish off the title, and the EC war books in general, and the Kurtzman edited books as a whole...

One of Asimov's more endearing traits was his modesty in regards to his own work. There are TWO reasons that issue gets flagged as the start of the Golden Age of SF... and Asimov's first story in Astounding is the other one. (Well, that and the 3-4 followup on Heinlein's first story in the next issue and Sturgeon's the month after.) Another example was when he did an introduction for the best of Stanley G. Weinbaum, and he called out the fact that, in the poll of best SF stories written before the Nebula awards began, Weinbaum actually came in 2nd place among all the writers, I believe with "A Martian Odyssey". But Asimov never mentions the story that came in first...

I really should track down a few issues of Tom Corbett some time, as far as I know it's the closest thing to a Golden Age Robert Heinlein comic we ever got, even if by most accounts all he did was take the check for the right to the name and run...