MasterChief

Thanks for the props, Steve! More acquired earlier this year...

A few more recent additions...

Thanks for the note, Barton. I've lost some spectacular collectibles by pussyfooting around with price. Lots of regret there. On the other hand, some books are just priced unreasonably for the market. There's no justification or legitimacy to the price. This book happened to be one of those cases. So, when the seller adjusted the price recently, I figured I'd better take my shot before losing out again. Seems I got lucky. That helps to ease the pain in the old wallet, that's for sure.

Thx, Peter. I'll see what I can do...

Yup. Same book. You have a good memory. It sat on eBay for months – sky high price and all. Finally took a stab at an offer. Hope to forget the final cost soon. Here's another recent pick-up. Had a heck of a time scanning it. Darn reflections always seem to appear on square bounds I've scanned. (If anyone has a solution I'd appreciate hearing it.)

And speaking of monster books... A recent achievement. Been eyeing this book for months, if not years. It now joins 11 other MOTP family members from the Rosa collection.

Dig this cover. Eerie monster work by J Severin. Reminds me of the Night Gallery for some reason. Book is particularly elusive in high-grade. Not too many survived the ravages of time unscathed. Yours is a looker. Here's the best I have. Plucked from the Suscha News backroom...

It's interesting how often Stan or whoever had an artist replace the face or head drawn by another artist in this era. Marie Severin replaced Drac's face on this cover. The Dracula cover isn't too terrible, even though I wish they had left it alone. But here's another one with Romita over Colan. It looks like it's Frankensteined together. Interesting observation, GT. I see GCD gives the following credits for DD#92... Pencils: Gene Colan; John Romita (alterations) Inks: Tom Palmer; John Romita (alterations) Yet the CGC label simply states "Gene Colan and Tom Palmer cover and art". I often wonder who's got it right. Seems like a lot of conflicting information out there. (By the way, great looking DD book. )

To amend the comment above by Mark Evanier concerning picture frame production length, which was actually 15 months not 10, the below table is posted for clarification.

Words and phrases evolve over time. The use of the term "picture fame" in the last several years has gained traction and acceptance, in my view. As sellers, buyers, interest groups (e.g., chat boards), and industry types continue hearing and using the term, standardization will occur. It's just a matter of time. Interestingly, other phrases and terms have come and gone. I've encountered things like "3-D boxed image", "boxed image covers", and "boxed-in cover scene". I haven't heard or seen them used recently. Doesn't mean they're not out there, though. Here's an early example of the term "boxed image" from April 2004. Ran across this guy's website through eBay back in the day. One of the first on the web discussing the books. https://web.archive.org/web/20040407020558/http://www.agraphicstateofmind.com/boxed_image_covers.html And here's another from 2006 using "box cover format". You might recognize the author. Although he has the production duration wrong, he pretty much corroborates other known particulars such as the reason for doing the design and who was involved. Mark Evanier on Marvel's Eary '70s Box Cover Format posted February 20, 2006 http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/briefings/letters/4300/ As I recall, the switch to the boxed cover format came about at the point when Marvel pulled ahead of DC in sales. When a paper/printing increase forced both companies to raise prices from 15 cents, DC went to a 25-cent format offering 48-page comics, about a third of which were reprints. Marvel went that way for a month or two, then switched back to 32-page comics for 20 cents and they darn near put DC out of business. Readers hated the 25-cent package. I don't think anyone has ever had any success with a format that mixed new stories with reprints, nor did readers of the time ever favor a more expensive comic over a cheaper, regardless of how many pages you got for your money. When you add to that the fact that the 20-cent package allowed Marvel to kick a little more money towards the retailers and wholesalers, you have Marvel pretty much controlling the newsstands. Someone at Marvel -- Charles Goodman, I suspect -- decided it was therefore a good time to try and make their comics more distinct from the DC product. It was the same way DC had tried those Godawful "go-go checks" to make sure consumers didn't mistake the competition's books for theirs, and it was equally successful. Marvel started the box format with the issues cover dated November, 1971 (or thereabouts) and dropped the idea ten months later. The other factor then was that Stan Lee was then getting busier with concerns other than the day-to-day comic book output and with Marvel adding new titles, he was spending an awful lot of his time supervising covers. So he warmed to the border idea as a way of simplifying cover design. To further expedite the process, Marvel also made a deal with Gil Kane to draw most of them. (You or I might think that if you're afraid of readers confusing your books with DC product, you shouldn't have all the covers done by a guy who'd recently done so much work for DC and still had stuff coming out from them. But Marvel editorial policies have rarely been all that logical.) As I said, the format lasted ten months, which suggests to me that they dumped out of it as soon as they got in some solid sales figures on the second month of those books. This might interest you. Back in '96, someone over at DC or MAD got the idea that MAD might sell better if its covers revived the old border format that had been used on the early magazine issues. To test it, a number of issues were printed two ways. Part of the press run had a yellow decorative border around the cover; the rest of the press run used the same cover art but without the border. The "no border" versions sold better and that settled that.

I was going through the Heritage archives just today looking for a good clean picture frame date stamp, but came up empty. So thanks for posting that!

Show us the slabbed copy, please! You have a 9.8, right? Yep. Still have the 9.8. My scanner can't handle slabs, though.. I can post the same crappy pic? There's no such thing as crappy pic of a 9.8 Picture Frame. Especially when it's one of the tougher titles. I have no 9.8 picture frames The 9.8 square bound Ringo Kid that Barton owns used to be mine. And it's a beauty. The spine on that book is amazing. The cover appears perfectly centered and squarely bound. Is it even real?

Now that is an exemplar of production perfection! That book haunted me for months. It owned my attention many a late night as I wrestled with pulling the acquisition trigger. The Suscha 9.6 copy is beauty to behold, too.

Earlier this year I acquired the preliminary cover to Kid Colt Outlaw #162. I was intrigued by the rough cover layout design by Marie Severin, who worked in the production department doing artwork touch ups, corrections, house ads and drawing or designing covers for Marvel titles during the late 60s and early 70s. Marie's cover concept for #162 is really quite interesting. It's bold and the action is fierce. The action lines (bullet trajectories) aid in depicting motion and the supporting character elements add to the violent scenery. The Kid figure, however, is somewhat small, unimpressive and doesn't have enough punch. Moreover, the overall scene lacks the power of perspective (sorry, Marie). Enter Gil Kane, whose final production cover explodes with action and dynamic motion. Kane utilizes Marie's concept but amps up the visual strategy by using a larger body size for the Kid, a leaning posture, exaggerated arm and leg positions, a modified relationship to the ground plane, a startled horse movement, and the overall pictorial perspective trimmed by the picture frame creates a sense of aggressive action and forward moving motion. The cover now has dramatic impact and the Kid appears to be literally running off it! Anyway, you get the picture (frame). Now who do I give my 20¢ to for a copy?

Great looking book. That cover is another example of why the cover is perhaps the single most important page in a comic book. Hope you don't mind if I use it as a study in composition...

Great Kane Frame, Bob. IMO, that cover doesn't get the recognition it's due. Perhaps because it was a fill-in job for a disgruntled artist who left one of the greatest storylines before its climax. Or maybe because the issue is sandwiched between two enigmatic, fan-favorite artists and their short lived Avengers work. Whatever the case, it's a creative masterpiece of 3-D action flying from a framed cover composition that brilliantly captures the illusion of dramatic, heroic movement. Powerful and captivating. The perfect newsstand eye-candy. And to think Kane threw that cover together at the last-minute request of Roy Thomas so as to avoid missing a production deadline. Simply amazing! It's a great cover but was has always bothered me is the red strip in the top of the cover. Looks odd, and there aren't too many others like that. If it was an all black PF, it might be a top fiver. Anyone with any photoshop skills willing to make the cover all black and show us what might have been? Jim Here you go. I tried to do it myself and gave up after about 20 minutes. Then I asked my nephew for help and 3 minutes later he sent me this... Barton: That's awesome...thanks so much. My new screen saver Jim Ditto. Nicely done, Barton. Your nephew is hired!

Great Kane Frame, Bob. IMO, that cover doesn't get the recognition it's due. Perhaps because it was a fill-in job for a disgruntled artist who left one of the greatest storylines before its climax. Or maybe because the issue is sandwiched between two enigmatic, fan-favorite artists and their short lived Avengers work. Whatever the case, it's a creative masterpiece of 3-D action flying from a framed cover composition that brilliantly captures the illusion of dramatic, heroic movement. Powerful and captivating. The perfect newsstand eye-candy. And to think Kane threw that cover together at the last-minute request of Roy Thomas so as to avoid missing a production deadline. Simply amazing!

Hi, Peter! Some amazing books you've posted lately.

I cannot believe it's been 7 years. I hope Nik checks in from above every once in a while and see's these amazing PF's he loved so much. Thanks everybody for giving this thread legs. Jim Thank you for starting this wonderful thread. It's been my nostalgic escape and continued motivation for collecting these fascinating timepieces of my youth.

Mind if I join in?

Amazing book, Shel. As far as any duplicates of the issue goes... I can say to a certain extent that the Suscha News collection does not contain multiple copies of MOTP#17 based on my examination. Below is a graph of MOTP books I've catalogued from the collection thus far. For the most part, the original owner bought several copies of every available Marvel Comic book from the distributor on a weekly basis – two at a minimum – after he struck the back-room deal in the early 70s. He admitted as much in the Metropolis article that marketed the collection. However, for some strange reason, a particular number of MOTP books only appear in the singular form, or they are missing altogether. Weird stuff to say the least. In any event, the below diagram is a thought-provoking visual, IMHO. It's a snapshot that gives an interesting peek into a certain segment of books within the remarkable collection that is Suscha News.

Would I be amiss if I said I'm not a fan of more early Bronze Age collections coming to market, especially those containing high-grade picture frame copies? IMO there is uniqueness to owning vintage Marvels from 1971-72. It's an exclusivity of ownership and collectors of the type are fortunate if they possess hard-to-find samples of same, especially those that do not fall into the traditional everybody-collects superhero genre. I enjoy having things others do not. I am attracted to uncommon objects – particularly those of my youth – that have survived the ravages of time in remarkable condition. I have a need for uniqueness and the perceived high-grade scarcity of picture-frame Marvel's enhances my target of desirability. Saturating the market with additional books from horded collections, particularly those containing copies that opportunists see as having up-grade potential, does nothing but lessen desirability and promote attitude change for me. Sorry if that's not PC in this day and age of the high-grade certified collector. But, IMHO, scarcity enhances desirability, and I prefer to have my high-grade picture frames limited in supply as age-made rather than oversupplied as ready-made. Just my

Good stuff, Barton. Looks like that baby took some time to compile. It would be pretty cool to see a scatter chart illustrating the data (or some other such visual that paints a scarcity picture). Thanks for putting the index together. Kudos to you. BTW... those darn red-head Chili's are fairly hard to come by. Picked this one up a few moons ago. Look familiar?

Another remarkable procurement, Peter -- one of only 3 copies certified 9.6! Not a single book at this point has cracked the 9.8 barrier. It is uncommon in high grade, no doubt. So much so the Suscha News collection contains only a single copy. It's an uncertified specimen which I was fortunate to obtain a few years back... I have a lowly 9.4 and the white mountain copy in 9.2. Your copies are nothing to scoff at, Joey. After reading your post I would have sworn I owned the Rosa Copy. But I carefully checked the MC collection manifest and found it wasn't there. Then I scoured every short and long box in my possession thinking I may have overlooked the book during collection cataloging. Regrettably, I came up empty. At that point I consulted my Don Rosa Collection database, which I've compiled over the course of the collection's 10-year existence, to see if Don bought the book way back when. No luck. Couldn't find it. So now I'm scratching my head wondering if the book was available on the newsstand when Don amassed his collection. If not, why not? Was it Distribution Supply-Side Scarcity? The old Affidavit Return Conspiracy? Or perhaps Reprint on the Spinner Rack Collector Rejection? After digging into this matter for some time, I am not exactly sure at this point.