• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

PopKulture

Member
  • Posts

    5,572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PopKulture

  1. Glad that trio was still there, as the Mrs. and I rolled in from our first outing of the year on the motorcycle. I would've felt left out otherwise!
  2. Yep. Some decent stuff at fair prices (at least I think so!) and way more books at nosebleed prices. There was a guy fall of 2019 who had a whole box of 50's Atlas that I was sad to see not set up.
  3. Are a few of those the Von Erichs? They were certainly pumped-up then...
  4. I get why Cole is on a pedestal - his covers "pop" like no others. His heavy brushwork, bold colors, reliance on negative space, and wonderful compositions left us with an amazing legacy of memorable and captivating images. That having been said, there are simultaneously awful examples of how not to draw on many of his famous covers. Take the above example - look closely at the girl's face: it's dreadful. The body works because it's a swipe, I'd wager. Rotate it 90 degrees CCW and you can easily imagine it in an Esquire. When he had to change her visage from cheesecake to terror, he fell somewhat short in its rendering. The detective in the background? He's cross-eyed for starters, and his eyes aren't even remotely on the same latitude on his face. I do think Cole got better as time went on, but without his swipe file, his draftsmanship is exposed. Like so many artists, I'm sure his art suffered with his workload. Still, compare and contrast these faces with the faces on the cover of the Bomber Comics 4 or either issue of the Saint that follow it in the thread. The faces depicted on the bowling pins on the Bomber cover are exaggerated caricatures, but the trio to the left are rendered efficiently and elegantly. So too for the issues of the Saint - quite stylized, especially in the case of number 20, but with good underpinnings. (In lieu of these considerations, I urge everybody not to bid on the above book...)
  5. It's strange seeing some of these golden age books with those gasp-inducing numbers in the upper left corners after reading all those threads in General about submitting moderns and variants that might have an imperceptible spine tick - is this a 9.6 or a 9.8? People roll the dice and submit a batch of fifty books and are happy when, what, maybe five come back as 9.8's? No way those moderns that come back as inferior 9.6's aren't structurally superior to their golden-age equivalents! And by equivalent I mean books with matching numbers in the corner. There shouldn't be separate standards for books from different eras. That's why you set standards, so that they can be applied even-handedly.
  6. Can a 9.8 really have a dust shadow? I remember when Overstreet grading definitions listed any tanning on the cover as no better than VG! I can see maybe tweaking the grading standards to inflate certain classes of books to VF, but NM/M?? Beautiful book, don't get me wrong, but is this the part where we're supposed to ignore our eyes?
  7. Nice snag! I saw that auction, and I almost never look at paperbacks. There was another one in there I wanted, although I can't recall it right now...
  8. Wow... Battle 1! Killer book to end for the evening, Rick!
  9. That War Battles is one of my favorite 50's war covers. If I didn't already have one... And I imagine by the time I post this, it may be gone...