Aman619

Of course they are better! Cool your jets. From a cost basis comics publishers put quality production far down the list. I am questioning the solutions proposed from a printing standpoint.

Nothing for the buck. The difference in yellow is not that much is what I’m saying. Like ordering a higher weave for your sheets for an extra cost you feel,isn’t worth it. Some thing like that

Generally, the halftones of black are just stripped onto the same black plate as the solid areas/lines. Same for all the other inks. Adding black in light shades definitely achieved the gloomy shades on the DC horror covers. The printers may have been wary about these lighter shades plugging up while making sure a full solid black was being laid down. …but a pressman would best answer the why for paying for 2 different black plates

‘Another yellow plate”. Can you please explain further, or try to paste the actual quote? CMYK included yellow, so a duplicate yellow adds nothing. Having said that, a more sunflower tone (on the orange side) would be a better mix in many tints than the basic lemony neon yellow used in CMYK. But hard to believe DC would pay for 5 color printing! That an extra cost to every job and most designers stick to the gamut (total number of shades achievable from CMY and K inks) available in CMYK also most colors on covers are flat tones same as the interiors and stripped in the same method as interiors are (using 5s of each ink)… but allowing 10% tones of the inks would achieve these new colors too. On covers and interiors

Gpa breaks out Pedigree copies fro non pedigree. But I’m guessing you’re looking for a site that just tracks pedigree sales? Nobody Is doing that publicly I don’t think.

At this point I just want to see the Rolls Royce collection! Sheesh

Im beginning to think you really believe Stan was the mastermind in these dealings! Thats goes against your Stan did nothing shtick. I always say you cant have it both ways. A politician cant be a know-nothing dope and a shrewd mastermind in global conspiracies. Same for Stan here: the financial genius who cant create and manipulates his way to the top, while losing at every turn to Goodman, Ike, Peter Paul and to his latter days handlers. Stan did this and Stan did that. You realize that he went running to his lawyers and Peter Paul saying WHAT DO I DO NOW, and THEY say let me read your contracts, and then they come up with the threat of his ownership of the characters. It was a tenuous but plausible nuisance lawsuit that yielded his new deal including freedom to become Pauls NEW MEDIA pipedream Stan Lee Media. and, what would you have named the company whose only asset was Stan's involvement and the gimmick of Stan re inventing comics for the online age? Somehow Paul almost pulled it off until the online bust wiped them out after he had played fast and loose with the cash too. Peter Paul saying he was setup and would be vindicated is what the crooks always say "I didn't do it, they did this to me." I dont really recall, isn't he still in prison in Brazil? or was he sent back to stand trial? Finally you seem to be upset that Stan got 10M plus the 1M a year for his involvement in Marvels and the creation of the characters. But not that Jack got 50M years later using the same threat. Im sure you believe that Stan's "ownership" threat to Marvel was weaker than Kirby's. so your man won in the end. Financially. But I always felt he took home more than Stan in the 60s. Then again, you tell me Im sure you have their 1099s. (actually that woud be interesting, right?)

Look again at the dates on those court documents. This monumental deal involving Stan Lees ownership rights to all the Marvel Character was settled amicably and signed in a few months!? Peter Paul used Stan’s leverage with the characters. Not Stan. That’s the wording in the contract. Peter and Ike both got the deal they wanted. Ike secured a freedom from any future threat of litigation with Stan over the characters. Peter Paul got Stan to front his new company, free and clear to use Stan’s involvement with marvel characters in the marketing of Stan and SLM. Stan relinquished any ownership right that he MAY have had to the Marvel characters for a handful of beans: to go into business with Peter Paul.

somehow you missed the part about Peter Paul pulling Stan's strings during this time in this negotiation with Marvel. I may have forgotten the legal ins and outs that led to the deal they made, but the spirit of it was as I wrote it in a simplified way. Certainly it wasn't as cut and dried as I described it with all the lawyers involved and Ike and Avi seeking to ensure that Stan would never be a legal problem for them. Stan did not CREATE Stan Lee Media. It was all Peter Paul's doing. Stan was just the public face of it. trust me on this. You know lots about Stan Lee, so you know business acumen was not his forte. I dont say that Peter Paul was the mastermind with Stan as his puppet as a point in Stans favor. If you saw them together in these days you'd see it was obvious Stan was a sheep in Peter Paul's grasp and control. Stan was in his 70s and out at Marvel. The same instincts that used to trust his handlers 20 years later were there in his dealings with Peter Paul. Putty in his hands.

That’s the Peter Paul era. Do you know much about him? Besides the financial crimes with SLM that caused him to flee the country to Brazil? he was a guy in LA political and business circles. Stan’s office at Saban had pics of him with with famous pols. These photo op meetings were set up PPaul. He latched onto Stan and saw potential in Stan for himself. After the marvel bankruptcy with Ike and Avi getting Marvel, PP got his chance when Ike said “what do we need you for Stan?” (They wanted to cut him off from his deal) PP got Stan to go into business with him as Stan Lee Media to create an online (the hot new thing in town) comics universe. Stan went to Ike and said okay, I’ll go, but I have a new gig and I want to be allowed to use Marvel characters in my promotion with this company. Ike said sure — happy to not have to pay Stan all that dough. Funny thing though — SLM worked! It was a public company and pretty quickly, with Stan onboard as Creative figurehead, the stock was worth more than Marvel! Press pieces said they could buy Marvel at one point (Marvel was still a penny stock re-emerging from bankruptcy…) …and they probably should have bought Marvel because SLM soon imploded along with many many Web 1.0 startups. Plus PP was playing financial games with the stock running afoul of the SEC after it crashed. Like Bankman Fried and others since then. Stan had no part in all that - given his poor business sense - he was along for the ride as PP looked like a genius at first. They never created any characters of any notoriety. But in fairness, very few hit long lasting comics characters were created around then. Or all that often ever, really. So the SLM mess has no bearing on Stan as success or failure. It was a pump and dump by PP that succeeded briefly due to the internet connection and Stan’s rep as a comic genius. All fluff. At this stage of Stan’s career, he was all marketing front man for characters created by committee. That description may sound just like his stint at Marvel on the surface. But Stan was infinitely more involved creatively building Marvel than he was cashing in on “Stan Lee” being used as a piece in Peter Paul’s shenanigans.

I was explaining all this to a non comic literate friend. It required so much detail and he did this and they did that, that I finally just summed it up like in Liberty Vallance.

Statements by Jack supporters like yours above always -- at some point -- reverse course and allow a little praise for Stan. As you no doubt are aware know, the struggle by fans to get justice for Jack and Steve has been heavily negative against Stan. It's been such a hopeless journey to get any traction for so long its always colored by attacks on Stans contributions. Even asking Stan fans to admit that Stan lied or changed his tune about it is couched as a gotcha! Too many Jack acolytes take his angry Comics Journal interview as gospel, that Stan did "nothing!" You dont have to attack Stan to win your case, or belittle his contributions or his creativity or storytelling skills. These guys scrounged together the early stories... they caught on... soon later the Herald Tribune came a calling for an interview. Jack's a head down worker, not a salesman like Stan... the they turned from Stan to question Jack, he stumbled inarticulately.) From then on it the media knew who to turn to, It was the Stan show any time anybody wanted to ask Marvel "how do you do it"? Thats why its Stan in all these media clips from the 60s. And I hope you agree he did a great job at it!? Having a sole creator running things was the story, and it caught on. etc etc. This happens all the time in all industries. Ideas happen and the good ones take a life of their own and those in the room grab ahold and ride it as best they can. Jack and Steve did a lot more of the creating than the credits showed or was talked about. Stan should have taken a Dialogue By credit not a Written By credit on all the stories. How about Packaged By? Produced by? Just dont try to push Stan out of the room. He held the reins that put it all together, by utilizing his artists talents and creativity and as the face to the fans. And NONE OF THEM ended up owning ANY of it! Stans later wealth came from his relationship to the fans etc, he was deemed necessary to maintain Marvel in the public's eye to the tune of a mil a year. It was money well spent. Avi and Ike initially wanted to let Stan go but soon relented with his 1M deal. Sure they could have spread it around more to Jack and Steve.. dont big multi national corporations do that for employees (let alone freelancers) that have no contracts or legal rights? Nope. And tiny Goodman sized businesses dont either. So, how about a little concern for poor Stans reputation going forward. It can only go down and Jack and to a lesser degree Steve rise

But your discussion isn’t strictly about the doc. The Disney doc brought this up again. Disney obviously has a vested interest in framing Stan as a Walt Disney of comics. It’s what they do. The discussion here is about the larger ongoing discussion about who deserved the credit for marvel characters. As others have said, there’s little new in the doc other than home movies, and clever elaborate diorama setups of the bullpen etc. (anyone know how big they are? The detail is amazing). which are repeated a few times as there are clearly not a lot existing.. stan changed his story to fit the needs of corporate above. I believe he started out from a marketing perspective. Later on, the need to prolong the sole genius story was too good to dismantle. And he was “required” to keep it up. And Stan was more than willing to oblige his corporate masters knowing how much he had worked to achieve the Marvel success. The artists were tasked with more than they were being paid for as artists… but they did it willingly and knew it was work for hire, cause as we all face in our lives and careers, they had little choice in order to earn a living. (Jack especially who had run his own publishing enterprises knew full well he had to take the piecemeal freelance work). …and who knew it would be worth something let alone billions, decades later. If my dad were one of these guys I’d be pisted too. Kirby and Ditko have regained creatorship titles to their work, and the word is spreading. At some point it will reach a tipping point maybe, and all three will be known for their collaborative achievements. ’if only Marvel had failed after a few years! No one would give a damn who did what. But collaboratively, they did their jobs too well.

well, as someone who read all the marvels and DCs as they came out back then (maybe you did too) I read Jacks art and concepts with Stans words and it was much better comics than Jacks DC concepts and art and HIS words. "Clunky" was the exact word we used back then. "Stiff" was another. So the conclusion has been that Kirby's art and concepts fall flat when the words dont live up to them, like when Stan was editing and writing them. We all used to say back then we loved comics for the art! But we READ the stories and some moved us, and others didnt. In some, the words added to the whole, in others they did not, and even took away from the art and concepts. This was our Opinion yes. But this was way before Jacks slights became well known by us readers/collectors. Based on the comics themselves, the Fourth World DCs were underwhelming. (Royer's inking was cool, but also lacked the tightness and seriousness of the Marvel inkers like Sinnott etc It looked too slick and loose. anyway...

haha I noticed it too. took a few screenshots. Looks like a solid BL -- "blurry"

I’m Happy but not sad … upgrades on books I’ve got nice copies of at 40K apiece? Pass

Yes of course it’s hard to fathom a rich newbie chasing those books. That where I lean into the massive hype factor. New big money relies on advisors in the know to point out the stuff to chase. (The Parrino effect). There had to be some of that at plat to chase Phantom Lady . But Saddle Justice? Prob not.

Well, sure some of the purchases were collector upgrades or paying whatever it took to secure a scarcer garage for a run peehaps. But the only copies resold would be due to financial setbacks. Or maybe a result of “oooh. Now I want that!” Buy it- sell it to buy a newer toy” collecting. Longtime comic collectors wouldn’t be selling/flipping. as for new money in the hobby, dealers haven’t shared any lists of names with me , but I’m confident our hobby has attracted other collectors to try our wares. And a 25% loss is consistent with fallout in many investment areas in and after Covid you and I kept out of the frenzy (right?). So I hate to think these losses were taken by our usual fellow collectors who just couldn’t resist the bidding wars we witnessed.

Yeah. In our little comics world where we bought stuff decades ago, breaking even when selling is a massive fail. But aren’t we pretty comfortable assuming that these prices were bought by others? By New people attracted by rising prices, as an alternate (sure thing?) investment? I was writing in that sense…. that taking a flyer on hot or rare GA high grade copies was akin to loading up on other sure things 2 years ago, like more bitcoin at 50-60K each? Rose colored glasses and Bad timing !

Call me an outlier, but a total 25% loss isn’t that bad. Is it? There are many stocks and investments that were down, or still at 25% down in recent years. Bottom line for me is that these buyers sold too soon after buying too high. Of course 25% is in the aggregate, for all books resold in public auctions tracked in the list. It’s probably true that some buyers took most of the losses, and coughed up a much higher %. anyone care to recalculate the numbers based on purchase price not date? Say the % loss for books over 100K, and 50-100K etc?

I was on my phone and saw what looked like the usual asterisk after the “(with BP)” text. Sorry guys.

That’s the reserve. Not a bid.

Yes you are right. Adams tweaked the interiors ! A brain freeze, covers have always been created/stripped to higher standards given the better paper etc.

Neal Adam’s claimed to have introduced and educated DC about expanding the color stripping to increase the number of tones on covers. Basically from the early days, bring cheap, publishers made deals with the color strippers who cut out each color plates’ percentage of cyan, magenta, yellow and black so they would mix into the final colors on press. That limited the available colors to a minimum to keep costs down. in short, they limited the combinations to just a few specific combos of the inks: 40%, 60% and 100% etc . (Though I’m not sure which %s it was without looking it up.) So if 4 inks could each use 4 %s, plus 0 and 100%, the math = 6x5x4x3x2 (?). — that’s hundreds of tones i recall Adams — with his extensive advertising experience — demanding that DC add the 20% of each ink. Yielding the subtler hues that you are talking about. Neal was hot and had his way. But not a surprise that they reverted back to simpler pallette later on after his most active period. Especially as the economics of the comics industry tightened in the mid 70s!

Great discussion! Just to come back to the Superman debacle sale… my theory is that it’s 2.6M purchase was inspired by the 5.4M sale a few years ago. And by a newish collector not well versed in comics and their sales history trends. Basicallly a 5M sales and all the other amazing sales that occurred ignited interest from moneyed collectors in cards etc. comics were hot and had arrived. Superman 1 in high grade is scarcer than other BIG special comics out there. I get the feeling that the buyer felt safe paying/bidding half the 5.4m for the third highest graded copy. Not bad odds if you don’t really understand that the buyer who paid 5.4M was also a new collector who overpaid. Had to have it. But the MH copy as an 8.5 is still a more attractive copy even at that price. And, of course now isn’t a great time to be selling big books. You don’t know what the hammer price is going to be. Unless it was a forced sale to raise the cash.