catman76

Who cares what anyone else thinks, do what you want. Though personally I don't get the point of an autograph period and don't care about anyone's scribble of their name. Now a drawing by an artist, or anyone, yeah.

Fawcett funny animal comics are great, all full of great Chad Grothkopf art.

None. Comic books are meant to be looked at and read and enjoyed, not sealed up in vaults.

They are some of my favorites of all time. So many great animators of the time did comic work on the side in so many 40s funny animal comics.

That is pretty freakin' weird. The background to this back cover is a drawing by Alfred Crowquill from 1870. It shows his characters from his 1849 comic book Pantomime, including the costumed hero Harlequin. Check out the thread about this really early comic book with a costumed hero and Joker precursor here. I knew the drawings looked 19th century and had to be from something, but I didn't know what. Too cool.

What's taking so long? I am just curious about what Ditko actually wrote. Just show the part of the letter where he said whatever he said about this stuff

None. There are tons of artists I don't like, but none are garbage, unless you are some snob.

This. I don't know, I've never heard anyone say much bad about Adams or Wrightson. I've heard people say... things... about Steranko, but never heard anyone say he sucked. No artist sucks. It's just completely impossible for there be an artist or just anything at all that everyone likes. Nothing in the world is like that.

There's no such thing

Who cares about some different size letters and ? I guarantee you Steve Ditko doesn't in the least and that's what the letter is going to say.

For me, the back cover of Silver Streak Comics #5 would be up there as one of the greatest. Sadly I don't own a copy.

Yes! Those Amazing Stories back covers Paul did are some of my favorite things, I got to get some of those someday.

I always wondered why so many early romance comics have photo covers. I guess publishers thought that females would be more likely buy a comic because it had a photo cover that looked more like a magazine and not be embarrassed buying a silly comic? Or maybe it was just a coincidence that romance comics were really popular at the time photo covers were a more common thing? Seems there was a small window of time where photo covers were all over, but it didn't last very long. Just generic photo covers anyway, not counting tv or movie related comics that came around in the later 50s.

I always liked this cover and how serious it is, it's so unlike every other Archie comic which are always gags and done for laughs, this entire comic is totally serious. I have later issues and they go back to the humor stories and gags. This is the only early issue I have had for 25 years, I always wanted to get some more of these early Little Archie issues.

The back cover of a 50s Sniffy the Pup comic. I always wondered what the rationale was of putting these kinds of ads on any comic, let alone a funny animal comic. A romance comic I can see, they were aimed at females and are full of ads like this, but every other comic was almost solely bought by preteen boys, yet these kinds of ads are in them all the time. Did advertisers do it with the idea that mom would be picking up juniors comics around the house and see the ad?