Ask Gator 13 13

[adamstrange]

Does the sf aa16 have a coupon clipped?

Yes. It's a beauty other than that.

[Cat-Man_America]

Both Action 1 and Detective 27 are bad covers... the only reason they are liked are because they are Action 1 and Detective 27... Bob Kane couldn't draw for beans and Action 1 is a sad composition and poorly drawn as well... too bad the better illustrators of the day didn't draw for comics....

 

Some of us like them because of their crudeness and simplicity. This was a nascent art form and they were blazing a trail.

 

Most of the early SA Marvel superhero books aren't exactly fine art, either, but most fans love them because of that quaint and campy melodrama they capture.

 

My point is that comic book illustration unfortunately was believed to be a poor mans or should I say a poor boy's art form. Illustrators who went into the field were "often" not the more skilled artists of the day. We like those covers for their iconic and nostalgic appeal as I do.

 

I agree with this POV completely. Coming at this from an artist's perspective I can clearly see that the publisher's standards had to be flexible to meet the demands of a growing audience in a highly competitive market. The crudeness of Bob Kane's work in Detective and Joe Shuster's work in Action Comics while charming or quaint by today's standards was typically par for the course in the early GA.

 

There are amazing exceptions. Ambitious illustrators such as Lou Fine, Reed Crandall, Will Eisner and Mac Raboy come immediately to mind, but there are many artists who developed their competence and style through work in comics. These were artists who aspired to be the best in their field given the limitations of the medium and under the pressure of rapid turn around times demanded by publisher's deadlines.

[Sqeggs]

Both Action 1 and Detective 27 are bad covers... the only reason they are liked are because they are Action 1 and Detective 27... Bob Kane couldn't draw for beans and Action 1 is a sad composition and poorly drawn as well... too bad the better illustrators of the day didn't draw for comics....

 

Some of us like them because of their crudeness and simplicity. This was a nascent art form and they were blazing a trail.

 

Most of the early SA Marvel superhero books aren't exactly fine art, either, but most fans love them because of that quaint and campy melodrama they capture.

 

My point is that comic book illustration unfortunately was believed to be a poor mans or should I say a poor boy's art form. Illustrators who went into the field were "often" not the more skilled artists of the day. We like those covers for their iconic and nostalgic appeal as I do.

 

I agree with this POV completely. Coming at this from an artist's perspective I can clearly see that the publisher's standards had to be flexible to meet the demands of a growing audience in a highly competitive market. The crudeness of Bob Kane's work in Detective and Joe Shuster's work in Action Comics while charming or quaint by today's standards was typically par for the course in the early GA.

 

There are amazing exceptions. Ambitious illustrators such as Lou Fine, Reed Crandall, Will Eisner and Mac Raboy come immediately to mind, but there are many artists who developed their competence and style through work in comics. These were artists who aspired to be the best in their field given the limitations of the medium and under the pressure of rapid turn around times demanded by publisher's deadlines.

 

Perhaps add Walt Kelly and Carl Barks to this list?

[Cat-Man_America]

Also, in the 30's and 40's women's magazine illustration and advertising paid illustrators much more than pulp or comic art. Don't get me wrong I think Will Eisner, Jack Kirby, Alex Raymond, Mac Rayboy, were amazing ... Its just most of the DC art that's most disappointing in my book.

 

Ah, all good points. That last one is generally true from my POV, too. The exceptions for DC are artists like Flessel, Burnley, Moldoff, and Purcell, maybe one or two others. Snagging Joe Simon and Jack Kirby was a huge coup for DC, in my estimation. DC's problem was too much editorial control that limited where artist's could take the work. It had to be a pretty stifling environment and the pay wasn't that good either.

[sfcityduck]

Also, in the 30's and 40's women's magazine illustration and advertising paid illustrators much more than pulp or comic art. Don't get me wrong I think Will Eisner, Jack Kirby, Alex Raymond, Mac Rayboy, were amazing ... Its just most of the DC art that's most disappointing in my book.

 

Frankly, when you read the stories, I tend to think that DC's 40s Superman and Batman (Jerry Robinson, et al.) content has really stood the test of time better than many other superhero stories of the same time period. The art is well executed, very slick and professional, and serves the stories incredibly well. You mention Kirby, but I'm not as big a fan of his 40s work (including his large volume of DC work) as I am of the guys who drew Superman and Batman in the same time period. And DC also had some incredibly talented people working the backups: Jimmy Thompson on Robotman springs immediately to mind as does Dan Barry on Vigilante (and Meskin wasn't so bad either) and Fred Ray's Tomahawk.

 

[Cat-Man_America]

 

Perhaps add Walt Kelly and Carl Barks to this list?

 

My main focus was GA superhero comic books, but certainly those artists would apply in their accomplishments in the funny animal genre.

[Cat-Man_America]

Also, in the 30's and 40's women's magazine illustration and advertising paid illustrators much more than pulp or comic art. Don't get me wrong I think Will Eisner, Jack Kirby, Alex Raymond, Mac Rayboy, were amazing ... Its just most of the DC art that's most disappointing in my book.

 

Frankly, when you read the stories, I tend to think that DC's 40s Superman and Batman (Jerry Robinson, et al.) content has really stood the test of time better than many other superhero stories of the same time period. The art is well executed, very slick and professional, and serves the stories incredibly well. You mention Kirby, but I'm not as big a fan of his 40s work (including his large volume of DC work) as I am of the guys who drew Superman and Batman in the same time period. And DC also had some incredibly talented people working the backups: Jimmy Thompson on Robotman springs immediately to mind as does Dan Barry on Vigilante (and Meskin wasn't so bad either) and Fred Ray's Tomahawk.

 

Jerry Robinson kinda makes sartre's point. As I understand it Robinson, who was a far more competent illustrator, was initially brought in to help out on Bat-Man because of Bob Kane's limited artistic abilities.

 

As for Kirby, everyone's mileage varies I guess. Personally, I prefer his early 40's work, the lithe dynamic figures, the experimental panel designs, the fluid action. I'm seeing this from the POV of being a fan of GA art and as a contemporary artist who wasn't even around at the time these comics were created. My

[sacentaur]

 

Mile High action 1 (raw)

Allentown tec 27 (raw)

9.2 w page tec 27 (cgc)

9.0 w page action 1 (cgc)

9.0 c/ow page action 1 (cgc)

 

 

To expand my thoughts

The mile high supes 1 would sell for more (#6 on my list)

The 9.8 cap 1 would sell for more

The 9.8 marvel 1 might sell for more

The 8.5 action 1 would sell for more

Etc

 

 

Good list. But, I think you are leaving out Dave Anderson's Superman 1, which he apparently picked over the MH Superman 1. There's also the MH D27 too consider. Finally, anyone know what the SF All American 16 looks like? It is supposedly high grade.

 

I've seen the Church Detective 27 in person and it is a second-hand copy (pre-manipulation 6.5/7.0 range).

 

The Church Superman 1 reportedly had some resto (later removed), so it's easy to see it being bypassed by a high-grade collector.

 

The San Francisco All-American 16 has a coupon clipped.

 

Learn to trust the G.A.tor...

[Straw-Man]

 

Mile High action 1 (raw)

Allentown tec 27 (raw)

9.2 w page tec 27 (cgc)

9.0 w page action 1 (cgc)

9.0 c/ow page action 1 (cgc)

 

 

To expand my thoughts

The mile high supes 1 would sell for more (#6 on my list)

The 9.8 cap 1 would sell for more

The 9.8 marvel 1 might sell for more

The 8.5 action 1 would sell for more

Etc

 

 

Good list. But, I think you are leaving out Dave Anderson's Superman 1, which he apparently picked over the MH Superman 1. There's also the MH D27 too consider. Finally, anyone know what the SF All American 16 looks like? It is supposedly high grade.

 

I've seen the Church Detective 27 in person and it is a second-hand copy (pre-manipulation 6.5/7.0 range).

 

The Church Superman 1 reportedly had some resto (later removed), so it's easy to see it being bypassed by a high-grade collector.

 

The San Francisco All-American 16 has a coupon clipped.

 

Learn to trust the G.A.tor...

 

do NOT trust him in a small, enclosed, area.

[Cat-Man_America]

 

Mile High action 1 (raw)

Allentown tec 27 (raw)

9.2 w page tec 27 (cgc)

9.0 w page action 1 (cgc)

9.0 c/ow page action 1 (cgc)

 

 

To expand my thoughts

The mile high supes 1 would sell for more (#6 on my list)

The 9.8 cap 1 would sell for more

The 9.8 marvel 1 might sell for more

The 8.5 action 1 would sell for more

Etc

 

 

Good list. But, I think you are leaving out Dave Anderson's Superman 1, which he apparently picked over the MH Superman 1. There's also the MH D27 too consider. Finally, anyone know what the SF All American 16 looks like? It is supposedly high grade.

 

I've seen the Church Detective 27 in person and it is a second-hand copy (pre-manipulation 6.5/7.0 range).

 

The Church Superman 1 reportedly had some resto (later removed), so it's easy to see it being bypassed by a high-grade collector.

 

The San Francisco All-American 16 has a coupon clipped.

 

Learn to trust the G.A.tor...

 

do NOT trust him in a small, enclosed, area.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

[G.A.tor]

something tells me I might have to alter my behavior this weekend

[MrBedrock]

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[Flex Mentallo]

something tells me I might have to alter my behavior this weekend

 

Nah - why change the habits of a lunchtime?

[G.A.tor]

something tells me I might have to alter my behavior this weekend

 

Nah - why change the habits of a lunchtime?

i think it's only fair folks get a chance to acclamate first

[ciorac]

Also, in the 30's and 40's women's magazine illustration and advertising paid illustrators much more than pulp or comic art. Don't get me wrong I think Will Eisner, Jack Kirby, Alex Raymond, Mac Rayboy, were amazing ... Its just most of the DC art that's most disappointing in my book.

 

Frankly, when you read the stories, I tend to think that DC's 40s Superman and Batman (Jerry Robinson, et al.) content has really stood the test of time better than many other superhero stories of the same time period. The art is well executed, very slick and professional, and serves the stories incredibly well. You mention Kirby, but I'm not as big a fan of his 40s work (including his large volume of DC work) as I am of the guys who drew Superman and Batman in the same time period. And DC also had some incredibly talented people working the backups: Jimmy Thompson on Robotman springs immediately to mind as does Dan Barry on Vigilante (and Meskin wasn't so bad either) and Fred Ray's Tomahawk.

 

great stuff indeed

[Flex Mentallo]

something tells me I might have to alter my behavior this weekend

 

Nah - why change the habits of a lunchtime?

i think it's only fair folks get a chance to acclamate first

 

I've been mentally preparing myself for this challenge for a number of years. On Everest they call it the 'death zone.'

[sartre]

Also, in the 30's and 40's women's magazine illustration and advertising paid illustrators much more than pulp or comic art. Don't get me wrong I think Will Eisner, Jack Kirby, Alex Raymond, Mac Rayboy, were amazing ... Its just most of the DC art that's most disappointing in my book.

 

Frankly, when you read the stories, I tend to think that DC's 40s Superman and Batman (Jerry Robinson, et al.) content has really stood the test of time better than many other superhero stories of the same time period. The art is well executed, very slick and professional, and serves the stories incredibly well. You mention Kirby, but I'm not as big a fan of his 40s work (including his large volume of DC work) as I am of the guys who drew Superman and Batman in the same time period. And DC also had some incredibly talented people working the backups: Jimmy Thompson on Robotman springs immediately to mind as does Dan Barry on Vigilante (and Meskin wasn't so bad either) and Fred Ray's Tomahawk.

 

great stuff indeed

 

in my opinion most DC art was stiff and visually dull... but I agree the characters and stories are iconic and will hold the test of time... for a long time to come...But I wonder what it would have looked like if an artist like Alex Raymond was brought in to draw Batman instead of Jerry Robinson...

[jimbo_707]

 

in my opinion most DC art was stiff and visually dull...

Stiff is one of the first terms that comes to mind for me as well when I think of most DC cover artwork. There are select covers I especially like, however, such as Detective 76 (by Robinson), Flash 14 (by Moldoff), and Adventure Comics 46 (by Flessel).

[ciorac]

Also, in the 30's and 40's women's magazine illustration and advertising paid illustrators much more than pulp or comic art. Don't get me wrong I think Will Eisner, Jack Kirby, Alex Raymond, Mac Rayboy, were amazing ... Its just most of the DC art that's most disappointing in my book.

 

Frankly, when you read the stories, I tend to think that DC's 40s Superman and Batman (Jerry Robinson, et al.) content has really stood the test of time better than many other superhero stories of the same time period. The art is well executed, very slick and professional, and serves the stories incredibly well. You mention Kirby, but I'm not as big a fan of his 40s work (including his large volume of DC work) as I am of the guys who drew Superman and Batman in the same time period. And DC also had some incredibly talented people working the backups: Jimmy Thompson on Robotman springs immediately to mind as does Dan Barry on Vigilante (and Meskin wasn't so bad either) and Fred Ray's Tomahawk.

 

great stuff indeed

 

in my opinion most DC art was stiff and visually dull... but I agree the characters and stories are iconic and will hold the test of time... for a long time to come...But I wonder what it would have looked like if an artist like Alex Raymond was brought in to draw Batman instead of Jerry Robinson...

 

It might have been stiffer and duller.... (If he drew it in the Flash Gordon style)

 

Beautiful line work and draftsmanship, but not much movement

 

If he drew it in the Tim Tyler style, he would have fit right in

[Cat-Man_America]

Also, in the 30's and 40's women's magazine illustration and advertising paid illustrators much more than pulp or comic art. Don't get me wrong I think Will Eisner, Jack Kirby, Alex Raymond, Mac Rayboy, were amazing ... Its just most of the DC art that's most disappointing in my book.

 

Frankly, when you read the stories, I tend to think that DC's 40s Superman and Batman (Jerry Robinson, et al.) content has really stood the test of time better than many other superhero stories of the same time period. The art is well executed, very slick and professional, and serves the stories incredibly well. You mention Kirby, but I'm not as big a fan of his 40s work (including his large volume of DC work) as I am of the guys who drew Superman and Batman in the same time period. And DC also had some incredibly talented people working the backups: Jimmy Thompson on Robotman springs immediately to mind as does Dan Barry on Vigilante (and Meskin wasn't so bad either) and Fred Ray's Tomahawk.

 

great stuff indeed

 

in my opinion most DC art was stiff and visually dull... but I agree the characters and stories are iconic and will hold the test of time... for a long time to come...But I wonder what it would have looked like if an artist like Alex Raymond was brought in to draw Batman instead of Jerry Robinson...

 

It might have been stiffer and duller.... (If he drew it in the Flash Gordon style)

 

Beautiful line work and draftsmanship, but not much movement

 

If he drew it in the Tim Tyler style, he would have fit right in

 

If the kid really wanted action for his dime he'd buy Timely.