wpbooks

If there are any others I am unaware of their existence. Welcome aboard.

What about all the early Mad annuals that have records attached as inserts? Seems to fall into the same category. If the records aren't present, I'm not interested. If they are still attached I'm doubly interested. I pick them up wherever I can and have a complete run of all the annuals with ALL inserts attached....be they records, posters, stencils, mobiles, voodoo dolls, labels, records, flags, build your own zeppelins, etc. If they aren't present, I believe the mags are a waste of time being graded. They are once again, mutilated magazines. Call them 'qualified' or what have you, but to me it's just CGC collecting payment on a stiff.

I have no cell phone, only a scanner. Next time I have it cranked up, perhaps tomorrow, I will scan both and post them here.

What was really nice about the original art Mr. Burns handed out at his signing, was that he had taken each piece and mounted it on a board and then signed it right underneath the drawing and put a date on it as well. It was immediately suitable for framing. Don't know about the rest of you guys, since you seem to be preoccupied with pages that were actually published, but the detailed sketch I received is as delightful to look at as almost any page in Black Hole. He went above and beyond just about any artist appearance I've ever been privvy to. Only Joe Coleman left as much of an impression when at an appearance I attended, which was sparsely populated, he drew a detailed portrait of me on the first blank page of the book he was there promoting. Fine art, and a fine artist encounter (both), to be sure!!!

If it wasn't I'd want to know why. It's part of the original package. If the insert isn't present, I'm not interested. All my copies have them, as well as the booklets issued with the later squarebound issues. In fact when I had the run bound into two volumes (a second run) I had pockets made for the inside covers so the inserts could be laid in. They are essential to the collectibility of the mags. (Only issue without an insert is #7)

If you recall, the same question sort of came up in the underground thread in reference to the Mouse insert that sold at Heritage last month. When removed from RAW magazine, CGC treats the insert as a standalone comic; sometimes the label notes that it is an insert (as with the recent CGC 8.0 on Heritage), and sometimes it doesn't (as with the CGC 9.4 currently on ebay). As you mention, RAW is too big to have graded, but let's say someone submits a Surfer Vol. 12 #6 without the Tales from the Tube insert, or a December '76 issue of Cheri without the Carload O' Comics insert: Would CGC grade those magazines as complete with a mere notation on the label that the insert is missing? Probably not. It's an interesting question to consider how CGC might handle a complete copy of Surfer or Cheri with the comic still attached. Personally, I would like to see the label make mention of the fact that the magazine contains a comic, but, given that the comic is part of the magazine, it wouldn't really make sense to assign it a separate grade. Then again, in light of the policy regarding the Mouse insert, perhaps CGC would assign the insert a second grade. We all know that double covers receive two grades, but if the outside cover is removed and resubmitted for grading, it will obviously be deemed incomplete (the sticker on the label will simply read CVR). Presumably, copies of Surfer or Cheri without their respective inserts would also be deemed incomplete. At least there would appear to be some consistency here in that what is removed from the outside is always what's rendered incomplete in the act of removing; whether it is the second cover removed from a double covered comic, or the magazine from which the insert is removed. But magazines are not the covers of the comics that are contained within them, so any perceived consistency on the part of CGC gleaned from this analogy would appear to be ill-considered. But doesn't CGC also grade magazines now also, so doesn't the magazine get a grade and the removable but bound in comic would get a grade if submitted separately, so shouldn't one of these complete mags get a grade and then a second grade for the comic mentioned on the label? I should submit my copies to see how it would be handled. Still haven't remembered the other magazine title somewhere in my boxes behind other boxes. Also, wonder if the Cheri holiday wrapper would be included in the slab and if that would be noted on the label. Sorry to disagree but if the insert and the magazine the insert was attached to are separated, I don't even understand why it's under any consideration other than both are to be designated as 'mutilated'. As a collector, I won't even consider a magazine with missing elements as anything other than a reading copy. CGC can grade these items until the cows come home. I'll never buy one or even look for one if I know in advance there is a completeness issue. 1 + 1 does not equal 1 in this case, unless the 1 is made up of both halves attached in the right place. (That's collector math for those of you chomping at the bit for a 'conversation') Therefore I find this whole discussion of no use, but I'm also a bit of a masochist so this is why I care to interject. Sometimes I get off on wasting my time. Do let us know, though, 50, how it all turns out. I think they should fashion their poster slabs for RAW sized mags. EDIT: Not sure how I'd want the band for my copy of Cheri designated and displayed. I suppose I would be okay if it were removed and laid in at the back of the slab so it could be viewed when examining the reverse of the slabbed mag, but even then I'm not sure that somehow it wouldn't get lost in the transaction and I'd never see it again. It would cause me stress to trust it to a party that is probably not aware of it's importance.

Sometimes he gives it away. I went to a signing he did for Black Hole and at the end of his presentation he gave every attendee a wonderful preliminary sketch that he had done of the various characters found in the book. He just brought them with him in a sort of pile. Really nice guy and very approachable, as well. I cherish mine.

December 1976 if I recall correctly.

Thanks for the correction, yes it was Cheri (does your copies have the Holiday wrapper around it?). Yes

It is indeed Cheri that had the Crumb Carload excerpt bound in. My favorites, though, are the 8 Mad Specials that came out from around 1972-80 that had issues of The Nostalgic Mad bound in. I recently bought beater copies that still had the inserts intact and then ripped out the comics and had them bound into hardcover, because they were my first taste of EC in what looked like their original comic book form. Also, I think just about every issue of National Lampoon qualifies, but probably not for the same reasons this thread means.....

Promethean may be my favorite 'fanzine' of all time. really wish there were more than just five issues. For me it's up there with Squa Tront and Witzend!!!

Let me recommend "Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead" a recently released documentary on the history of the early and best years of National Lampoon magazine. It's a pretty standard and straightforward film. structure-wise, but I've been a fan of the mag since buying my first copy off the stand in June 1972. Probably my favorite documentary of the year and there is material in it about the art and artists, even though they could do a sequel just on that aspect of the magazine. Great stuff!!!

I believe you're right about it being his first professional gig. Had no idea it was listed in Overstreet in the 80's, how odd that they would take it out. Help used to be listed in Overstreet and then at some point they took it out as well. Haven't looked at a price guide in a few years so I'm unsure whether or not it's been reinstated. Always wondered why they removed it. That's so weird. I haven't looked at a new Overstreet guide in years either, but it doesn't really make any sense to exclude titles like this, even if it's to honor Mr. Overstreet's dictum that adult-oriented materials be excluded from his guide. Judging by today's standards, there's nothing particularly subversive about Help, and Powermowerman is (and always has been) utterly benign. Since Creepy, Eerie, Vampirella and a couple other Warren titles are in Overstreet and Famous Monsters Of Filmland and it's ilk are not, I assumed Help was considered in the latter category by some committee at some later point. Does anybody know if Overstreet lists Warren's 1984/94? It resembles the comic titles like Creepy, but the content is pretty 'adult' by comparison....and even that label can be argued by those who would just call it "out and out tawdry smut". I figure if Mad and Cracked are listed, well...why not Help? I always thought that it was due to the amount of hand drawn comic art inside the book which prevented Help and others like it to be in Overstreet. Also since MAD started as a comic it was always grandfathered in. Kurtzman stuff is always good to read and enjoy. Help also contained some very early Terry Gilliam work, maybe his first professionally published work outside of college. Do you mean Help didn't make the cut because of the lack of hand drawn comic art and preponderance of photographic material? If so, perhaps you are right, and maybe, like wpbooks suggested, the Overstreet editorial board deemed Help Magazine of the Monsters of Filmland ilk. Still strange that they would at first include it and then decide to cut it. And what about Powermowerman? Was there a decision to remove early promotional work by underground cartoonists? I took a look at my 2008 Overstreet and they do list Warren's 1984/94 (and even Comix International!). Comix Book is also listed. Crumb is mentioned three times in the market report section and is even praised as the most unique artist of the 1960's, but the only artist credit he has is for Harvey Kurtzman's Strange Adventures. Bode's credits are more or less limited to the contributions he made to Creepy, Eerie, and Vampirella. So, by and large, I'd say the editorial board was pretty exacting in avoiding the tawdry smut. Not if they included 1984/94. Have you ever read a copy of that illustrious periodical? In general it looks like they were going for the Heavy Metal market, in reality, it is pretty unparalleled in the depths it reaches in content in all sorts of ways. I happen to love the magazine precisely because it's so hard to believe that not only did it last 29 issues, but that it seemed to bask in how insanely depraved it could get. The writing is atrocious and panders to the 12 year old boy's basest instincts in all of us and it has some of my favorite artwork in all of Warren-dom. In other words I can't believe it passed muster for the Overstreet Overlords and things like Zap, Skull, Bijou and even Felch did not.....basically 1984/94 is the newsstand equivalent of that last title in so many ways....check it out. I have all my copies lovingly bound in hardcover in 3 volumes, as the odds of ever seeing the title reprinted or given Archive editions like it's fellow Warren mags are pretty slim for all the best reasons!!!

I believe you're right about it being his first professional gig. Had no idea it was listed in Overstreet in the 80's, how odd that they would take it out. Help used to be listed in Overstreet and then at some point they took it out as well. Haven't looked at a price guide in a few years so I'm unsure whether or not it's been reinstated. Always wondered why they removed it. That's so weird. I haven't looked at a new Overstreet guide in years either, but it doesn't really make any sense to exclude titles like this, even if it's to honor Mr. Overstreet's dictum that adult-oriented materials be excluded from his guide. Judging by today's standards, there's nothing particularly subversive about Help, and Powermowerman is (and always has been) utterly benign. Since Creepy, Eerie, Vampirella and a couple other Warren titles are in Overstreet and Famous Monsters Of Filmland and it's ilk are not, I assumed Help was considered in the latter category by some committee at some later point. Does anybody know if Overstreet lists Warren's 1984/94? It resembles the comic titles like Creepy, but the content is pretty 'adult' by comparison....and even that label can be argued by those who would just call it "out and out tawdry smut". I figure if Mad and Cracked are listed, well...why not Help?

I believe you're right about it being his first professional gig. Had no idea it was listed in Overstreet in the 80's, how odd that they would take it out. Help used to be listed in Overstreet and then at some point they took it out as well. Haven't looked at a price guide in a few years so I'm unsure whether or not it's been reinstated. Always wondered why they removed it.

Why not 1938 and 10 Action #1's?

Scott, no one is saying that Gil Kane > Neal Adams. No one is saying that Herb Trimpe > John Byrne either, but the Hulk #181 cover is infinitely better-looking than the FF #269 cover that just sold at Heritage. Which also highlights that it's not irrational in the least to prefer a lesser artist working on a more popular character to a better artist working on a less popular one. But that wasn't the argument. In this case, the argument you made was that the this Gil Kane Spidey cover was better/looks better than the Adams GL 76 cover. I disagree with that assessment. I'm addressing this pair of covers specifically, which is what we were talking about. Not looking for agreement. Just my measly which must be boring everyone else to tears by now. For what it's worth, I can think of numerous Gil Kane covers I would prefer over numerous Neal Adams covers even though Adams is the vastly superior artist in general, so we're not as far apart as you might have thought. But that is a different conversation. Scott OK, last post from me on this topic. Sorry, was in a hurry to get to dinner earlier and focused more on your punchline of "Gil Kane = Neal Adams? Please." statement in responding. But, let's go back to the crux of what you said - " looks better than the Spidey 98. Period. Better drawing. Better inking. Better layout. Bigger impact. Not even close". First, let's state the obvious - most of that is totally subjective. And, that, of course we agree that Adams is the vastly superior artist in general. Second, I don't think on the technical merits that it's as clear-cut as you say. I think the layout of the ASM 98 cover is very strong - it's an extremely interesting perspective Kane has chosen. Adams' inks may be more technically adept, but, if I'm standing across a room, the Kane/Giacoia cover delivers far more of a punch - more engaging characters, more interesting/exciting premise, equally interesting angles/perspective, more ink splashed on the page with less blank space. Better drawn? At least there are no alien hands or wonky waists on Spidey as there are on Green Lantern! But, even if we acknowledge Adams' superior technical merits, we're judging comic book art, not engineering schematics. I look at the Spidey cover and I see Marvel's most popular superhero fighting his arch-nemesis high above the streets of New York, as a suddenly grip-less Spidey scrapes into the concrete side of a building by his fingernails to cling to life as he's being mercilessly taunted. All the space on the board is used, with buildings rising at a slanted angle and Spidey impossibly contorted as he clings for dear life - you can feel his helplessness and panic. And, you can feel his motion and weight as gravity is pulling him towards death. I think some people are giving this cover far too short shrift. Look at the cover as a fan - as your kid self, even - not through the lens of an art critic or art professional. It is superb - I really think it's one of the very best Spidey covers in the entire run. Adams is the superior artist to Romita as well - but, so what? I'd still prefer any number of Romita Spidey covers over this Adams cover as well and would argue the same that they would look nicer on a wall. I think a lot of people are hung up on the fact that this is Kane. But, who cares - it's an interesting, appealing cover that evokes all the right responses: nostalgia, joy, appreciation, interest, excitement, engagement. That's not to say that the GL cover isn't interesting, exciting and nostalgic as well. But, to compare the two and say that it's "not even close" based on technical merit with a dollop of relevance I would strongly argue is subjective and largely ignores much of why people love comics and comic art - their engagement with the characters and stories and how they make/made you feel both now and through the power of nostalgia. In that respect, the Spidey cover packs just as much, if not more, of a punch. I can agree to disagree on this. But, I cannot agree that it is "not even close" in terms of comparing how the two present themselves. And, anyway, in the weeks/months leading up to the auction, many people I spoke to about the GL cover thought the OA was a bit underwhelming, while nearly everyone was impressed by the Spidey #98. Not that they thought the latter was better, more important or more valuable, but I think the prevailing opinion was that the latter presented better in scans and in person. And I was really just agreeing with that. I held both pieces in my hands at the preview in SF last week, and not knowing anything about the prices or general value of each, if I had been able to choose one to just up and run out of the gallery with, it would have been ASM #98 hands down. A much more dynamic piece on it's own, by comparison, just from an overall aesthetic POV. I have no preference for Adams or Kane in this little contest....to me the Spidey cover was the one that kept stealing my glance and lustful desire!!!! And I loved that it had the CCA seal when the issue I bought as an 11 year old did not. (Also bought the GL/GA #76 from the local spin rack.....in color that cover may be the more appealing, but just looking at the pen and ink art...still going with ASM #96).

Nice.

When I first saw that Maus booklet, it took a moment before it registered that what I was looking at was a detached Raw insert inside a CGC case. A strange sight indeed... I think the reason I was at first thrown-off was because--like you--I would think of the booklet as incomplete without the issue it came in... Due to its larger than life format, CGC doesn't grade Raw; but if it did, would a copy of Raw #2 grade as complete if it had the Maus booklet missing? Let's not get started on how CGC would grade the seventh issue of Raw with the deliberately torn cover. To answer your first question: How could it? The Maus booklet is part of the guts of the issue of Raw, if' it's not there it's the same to me as say a Mad Annual missing it's insert, or let's go with UG and compare it to say a Deep 3D without the attached glasses. Now look at the reverse...would you want the glasses without the book or the inserts without the magazines? If both elements are not together you don't have 2 different books, you have 2 different mutilated copies. As far as the second question goes, if you have the correct piece of Raw #7 that fits into the torn section, then you have a mutilated copy, too. AS and Ms. Mouly state in many places that the torn segment should NOT match the torn cover. Therefore, if the piece is incorrect and mounted in the right place, CGC should grade it accordingly like any other comic/magazine.....also since they grade posters now, why don't they use a variant of those containers to slab issues of Raw in? So much confusion and so much beauty....I weep.

That Maus sale is a real head scratcher to me. So it's signed....big deal, AS will sign pretty much everything. To me that book is a mutilation as it should be attached to the copy of Raw it came with. What a ridiculous and revolting development. I'm glad you're following the prices 50, as the report here is the only place I'm stumbling onto them. Don't really care much about how these kinds of things turn out, except that Maus makes me mental.....like the commercials used to say...not sold separately!

Yeah, I was there on Wednesday and looked at most of the same art. Great to see and hold what I suspect are treasures that will be disappearing into private collections for years to come. Also really enjoyed seeing those great slabbed undergrounds in the window.....perhaps more realistic to my budget overall.

Syndicated: Local:

I have all 3 of the FM pb's and got Forry J. to autograph them for me when he toured with his last book. I actually dig those pb's more than the magazine itself. I was much more of a Castle Of Frankenstein enthusiast, and one of my prizes is a complete run of that stellar periodical!!!!

You can see 2 copies of the instruction manual behind Dr. Deadly and The Hanging Cage. They were illustrated by Neal Adams!!!

They have, but I'm not sure if all of them are available. There are also some new ones added to the mix. Sold under the company name Moebius. There's also a truly terrific book on the Monster Scenes. their history and scandalous nature, written with the participation of the guy who originally designed them. You can find it probably on Amazon. Author's last name is Prince.