Greater Demand - 1938 Amazing Fantasy 15 or 1962 Action 1 ?

[mmm_donuts-migration]

So if Superman hadn't been first, then his inherent appeal couldn't carry him.

 

Imagine how much cooler comic collecting would be if Batman had been published before Superman...

[EastEnd]

^^^ and if superman had come out in 1962 after dozens and dozens of similar characters had already debuted, he'd be about as important as Black Goliath. Obviously there is an unspoken assumption that had character popularity would not change. Changing the dates is merely an attempt to equate eras, and supply.

 

 

Can't say I understand what that sort of analysis accomplishes... it's an irrelevant hypothetical. The characters are what they are and are viewed how they're viewed. I suppose Mickey Mouse wouldn't have meant much either had he come out after Topo Gigio. So what? At the end of the day, none of those hundreds and hundreds of characters you allude to would have existed if Superman hadn't preceded them... that is his greatest contribution to Americana and pop culture... that is why he's so iconic. What relevance is it to evaluate Superman stripped of his greatest asset?

 

So if Superman hadn't been first, then his inherent appeal couldn't carry him. Is that what you are implying? OR JUST MAYBE that was what the OP was essentially asking, but of course his question was inane so he had to be straightened out.

 

I wasn't "straightening anyone out"... just trying to discuss civily.

 

What I'm saying is that Spiderman would not have existed without Superman... and the only reason he was endowed with the angst that made him popular was the very fact that Superman DIDN'T have any. All Lee and Ditko did with the character was put a new twist on what had preceded them... but Spiderman himself owes quite a bit to the Man of Steel that inspired him. Even Lee and Ditko recognized that... they gave his costume the same color scheme as Supes!

 

Re: this issue of "appeal," I've never said that Superman is more popular today than Spiderman (I'd agree he's not among the under-40 crowd; over-40 is more debatable)... but Supes is clearly more important.

 

actually, I wasn't referring to you. But...

 

"Can't say I understand what that sort of analysis accomplishes... it's an irrelevant hypothetical."

 

sure sounds like you're trying to straighten him out. And what exactly is an "irrelevant hypothetical"?

 

 

Well if it was taken that way, it wasn't meant that way. I said "I" didn't understand... which meant it was my view... not everyone else's.

 

Some hypotheticals impart useful information... an irrelevant one doesn't. I don't think it's useful to compare Superman stripped of his meaningful history to Spiderman at "full strength." I view it as the same thing as comparing a "full-strength" Superman to a Spiderman without angst. Not a fair comparison in either instance really.

[Bronty]

Since that was a reasoned response let me reciprocate. The whole point of this entire nonsense on three threads was to discuss one thing - which book is in greater demand - AF15 or A1.

 

It doesn't take a genius to understand that the supply of A1 is extremely limited and the price/desirability totally reflective of that. The poll is hypothetical because in answering which book is in greater demand, yes in the economic sense, we have to hold supply and other factors constant for it to be a meaningful comparison.

 

So that's where we get into all of this. My view is that pure (yes, economic) demand is greater for AF15 than A1. The rest is just fluff to get rid of what is blatantly obvious - that A1's PRICE is not the DEMAND and that its hugely EFFECTED by SUPPLY, etc.

 

You seem like a reasonable guy - what's your take in the context of the above.

[fantastic_four]

I thought I'd post in this thread to express my utter shock at how the other one is going.

 

SHOCKED, AM I!

[Snake Eyes]

I am not sure I buy the argument that if there was no Action 1, there would be no subsequent comic book heroes. We certainly saw prototypes of comic book superheroes in pulps/movies/radio. Further back we see heroes woven throughout mythological tales. I think it is quite plausible that there would be a Spider-Man with or without Superman. No way to know for sure, but I suspect some other idea would have germinated in four-color form had Superman never have been (since comics were already an ongoing medium)

[Bronty]

 

Absolutely.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Since that was a reasoned response let me reciprocate. The whole point of this entire nonsense on three threads was to discuss one thing - which book is in greater demand - AF15 or A1.

 

It doesn't take a genius to understand that the supply of A1 is extremely limited and the price/desirability totally reflective of that.

 

It also doesn't take a genius to understand that supply is but one factor...and a relatively insignificant one, as Hulk #181 demonstrates...that determines price/desirability.

 

To say it is "totally reflective of that" is a disconnect with reality.

 

In fact, price AND desirability are demonstrably lessened in many examples because of the unavailability of supply.

 

The poll is hypothetical because in answering which book is in greater demand, yes in the economic sense, we have to hold supply and other factors constant for it to be a meaningful comparison.

 

So that's where we get into all of this. My view is that pure (yes, economic) demand is greater for AF15 than A1. The rest is just fluff to get rid of what is blatantly obvious - that A1's PRICE is not the DEMAND and that its hugely EFFECTED by SUPPLY, etc.

 

Affected. And no, it is not "hugely" affected by supply. If that were true, Suspense #3 would be worth $10 million. It's not. The main, overwhelming quality that affects the value of Action #1 is that it is the first appearance of Superman.

 

Detective Comics #1, which is far rarer than BOTH Action #1 AND Detective #27, is much less than both of those. I wonder why.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I am not sure I buy the argument that if there was no Action 1, there would be no subsequent comic book heroes. We certainly saw prototypes of comic book superheroes in pulps/movies/radio. Further back we see heroes woven throughout mythological tales. I think it is quite plausible that there would be a Spider-Man with or without Superman. No way to know for sure, but I suspect some other idea would have germinated in four-color form had Superman never have been (since comics were already an ongoing medium)

 

Hence, the "may."

 

But one thing cannot be denied.

 

Without Superman, there may not have been a Spiderman.

 

Without Spiderman, Superman is utterly unaffected.

[RockMyAmadeus]

^^^ and if superman had come out in 1962 after dozens and dozens of similar characters had already debuted, he'd be about as important as Black Goliath. Obviously there is an unspoken assumption that had character popularity would not change. Changing the dates is merely an attempt to equate eras, and supply.

 

 

Can't say I understand what that sort of analysis accomplishes... it's an irrelevant hypothetical. The characters are what they are and are viewed how they're viewed. I suppose Mickey Mouse wouldn't have meant much either had he come out after Topo Gigio. So what? At the end of the day, none of those hundreds and hundreds of characters you allude to would have existed if Superman hadn't preceded them... that is his greatest contribution to Americana and pop culture... that is why he's so iconic. What relevance is it to evaluate Superman stripped of his greatest asset?

 

So if Superman hadn't been first, then his inherent appeal couldn't carry him. Is that what you are implying? OR JUST MAYBE that was what the OP was essentially asking, but of course his question was inane so he had to be straightened out.

 

I wasn't "straightening anyone out"... just trying to discuss civily.

 

What I'm saying is that Spiderman would not have existed without Superman... and the only reason he was endowed with the angst that made him popular was the very fact that Superman DIDN'T have any. All Lee and Ditko did with the character was put a new twist on what had preceded them... but Spiderman himself owes quite a bit to the Man of Steel that inspired him. Even Lee and Ditko recognized that... they gave his costume the same color scheme as Supes!

 

Re: this issue of "appeal," I've never said that Superman is more popular today than Spiderman (I'd agree he's not among the under-40 crowd; over-40 is more debatable)... but Supes is clearly more important.

 

actually, I wasn't referring to you. But...

 

"Can't say I understand what that sort of analysis accomplishes... it's an irrelevant hypothetical."

 

sure sounds like you're trying to straighten him out. And what exactly is an "irrelevant hypothetical"?

 

 

Calm down, Stompy, and learn to have a debate without letting your emotions get all riled up....

 

(thumbs u

[Bronty]

when you really hardline to a position and dig yourself into a "logic trench" you are kind of impossible to speak to I still luv ya but it doesn't make you right. That post above wasn't worth your hitting the keys my friend.

 

Demand IS NOT desirability. As someone else eloquently pointed out they are two VASTLY DIFFERENT concepts.

 

Of course you can't see that from your logic trench, so I will continue with the...

 

Oh noez!

[COI]

Affected. And no, it is not "hugely" affected by supply. If that were true, Suspense #3 would be worth $10 million. It's not. The main, overwhelming quality that affects the value of Action #1 is that it is the first appearance of Superman.

 

Detective Comics #1, which is far rarer than BOTH Action #1 AND Detective #27, is much less than both of those. I wonder why.

 

Oh come on!!

 

That's too simple. WAAAAAY too simple.

 

You cannot quantify exactly why Action 1 is worth what it's worth, which means that you don't know to what extent its value is affected by its supply. You just don't know. You can speculate, but your reasons are no more compelling than those who choose to speculate that its supply has a huge impact on demand. Arguments can be made for both sides that are logically sound, and there's no conclusive answer.

[Snake Eyes]

I am not sure I buy the argument that if there was no Action 1, there would be no subsequent comic book heroes. We certainly saw prototypes of comic book superheroes in pulps/movies/radio. Further back we see heroes woven throughout mythological tales. I think it is quite plausible that there would be a Spider-Man with or without Superman. No way to know for sure, but I suspect some other idea would have germinated in four-color form had Superman never have been (since comics were already an ongoing medium)

 

Hence, the "may."

 

But one thing cannot be denied.

 

Without Superman, there may not have been a Spiderman.

 

Without Spiderman, Superman is utterly unaffected.

 

Absolutely agree with that statement. (thumbs u

 

Posted my response, because my reading of some of the posts (by a different poster than you..tax guy I believe :shrug: ) seemed to be treading pretty close to implying some sort of causal relationship between the two.

[RockMyAmadeus]

when you really hardline to a position and dig yourself into a "logic trench" you are kind of impossible to speak to I still luv ya but it doesn't make you right. That post above wasn't worth your hitting the keys my friend.

 

You are taking precisely the same hardline stance, are you not....?

 

The answer to that, of course, is absolutely, without a doubt.

 

So, who's more entrenched? Me, you, or "the same"...?

 

Demand IS NOT desirability. As someone else eloquently pointed out they are two VASTLY DIFFERENT concepts.

 

As someone also pointed out, they are two slightly different concepts.

 

As I defined it in my thread, they are the same concept, in the context of how I used them.

 

Not all words have one definition. Trying to shoehorn definitions so that they only support your point is being far, far more entrenched that I am.

 

Of course you can't see that from your logic trench, so I will continue with the...

 

Oh noez!

 

100% as emphatically as it is possible to be, pot, kettle, right back atcha.

 

(thumbs u

 

Now, let's have a debate on the merit of the issue, rather than on HOW someone presents that issue. Ad hominem is so unattractive.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Affected. And no, it is not "hugely" affected by supply. If that were true, Suspense #3 would be worth $10 million. It's not. The main, overwhelming quality that affects the value of Action #1 is that it is the first appearance of Superman.

 

Detective Comics #1, which is far rarer than BOTH Action #1 AND Detective #27, is much less than both of those. I wonder why.

 

Oh come on!!

 

That's too simple. WAAAAAY too simple.

 

You cannot quantify exactly why Action 1 is worth what it's worth, which means that you don't know to what extent its value is affected by its supply. You just don't know. You can speculate, but your reasons are no more compelling than those who choose to speculate that its supply has a huge impact on demand. Arguments can be made for both sides that are logically sound, and there's no conclusive answer.

 

As I stated before....

 

If one cannot quantify what affects the price on any given item...and you're absolutely right, no one can...what remains, then, is to observe how those qualities affect other items.

 

Action #1 is a "rare" (Dear God, please don't let them get into a "that depends on what your definition of the word 'rare' means" tangent) book.

 

If you observe similarly rare or rarer books, of the same relative age, and the same relative condition, sell for a fraction of the Action #1, what is the logical conclusion?

 

Answer: Action #1 has some quality which these other books do not have that makes it much more desirable than those other books.

 

What then, is that quality?

 

Ah yes, first appearance of Superman.

 

It really is that simple.

 

Detective Comics #1 is substantially rarer than Action #1, despite only being a year older. Suspense Comics #3 is substantially rarer than Action #1, despite being 6 years younger. Both books sell for substantially less...though much more rare...because of the quality they do not possess: the first appearance of Superman.

[EastEnd]

Since that was a reasoned response let me reciprocate. The whole point of this entire nonsense on three threads was to discuss one thing - which book is in greater demand - AF15 or A1.

 

It doesn't take a genius to understand that the supply of A1 is extremely limited and the price/desirability totally reflective of that. The poll is hypothetical because in answering which book is in greater demand, yes in the economic sense, we have to hold supply and other factors constant for it to be a meaningful comparison.

 

So that's where we get into all of this. My view is that pure (yes, economic) demand is greater for AF15 than A1. The rest is just fluff to get rid of what is blatantly obvious - that A1's PRICE is not the DEMAND and that its hugely EFFECTED by SUPPLY, etc.

 

You seem like a reasonable guy - what's your take in the context of the above.

 

Thanks for the reasonable response Bronty.

 

I think stripped of supply disparities, Action #1 will always be the more in-demand book because it has far more historical signficance than AF#15 (not that AF#15 isn't also a very important book... just not at the same level). One book created something brand new; the other put a new twist on what already been created. It's kind of like comparing the first jet fighter to the Wright Brothers... both really really cool and the jet is certainly more relevant today... but that Wright Brothers plane is so much more important.

 

Also, I don't think we should be cutting Superman's popularity short, even over the last thirty years. He actually compares pretty favorably I think... circulation today seems to be about even and on average probably has been since the early-1990s. The Superman I and II movies were at least as popular in relative terms (if not moreso) as Spiderman I and II (doesn't Chris Reeve stand out just a bit more in your mind as an iconic portrayal than Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker... though both were admittedly terrific). Now I know the last Superman movie wasn't so hot but let's give Mr. Snyder a chance to do something interesting with the character (and please no more Lex Luthor!!!).

 

Superman has spawned what three or four live action tv series in the last thirty years (two of which have been highly successful) to Spiderman's zero. And in tv animation, Superman has been as much a presence as Spiderman. I can also say that as someone that is trying to put together a high grade run of Supermans from #100 to #300, they don't come cheap!

 

So let's be careful before generalizing that the Man of Steel is dead on arrival... there's actually a lot of life in the old coot still!

 

 

 

[Bronty]

We were having a somewhat reasonable discussion in the first thread until you decided to go off and make a poll about it with wording completely biased to your viewpoint and definitions. So, whatever. There's really no point in discussing it with you. I am not so entrenched that I cannot see that A1 is vastly more DESIRABLE than AF15. But I have my doubts about whether or not you are able to get out from that trench to see that AF15 is more in DEMAND the way I define it.

[Bronty]

Since that was a reasoned response let me reciprocate. The whole point of this entire nonsense on three threads was to discuss one thing - which book is in greater demand - AF15 or A1.

 

It doesn't take a genius to understand that the supply of A1 is extremely limited and the price/desirability totally reflective of that. The poll is hypothetical because in answering which book is in greater demand, yes in the economic sense, we have to hold supply and other factors constant for it to be a meaningful comparison.

 

So that's where we get into all of this. My view is that pure (yes, economic) demand is greater for AF15 than A1. The rest is just fluff to get rid of what is blatantly obvious - that A1's PRICE is not the DEMAND and that its hugely EFFECTED by SUPPLY, etc.

 

You seem like a reasonable guy - what's your take in the context of the above.

 

Thanks for the reasonable response Bronty.

 

I think stripped of supply disparities, Action #1 will always be the more in-demand book because it has far more historical signficance than AF#15 (not that AF#15 isn't also a very important book... just not at the same level). One book created something brand new; the other put a new twist on what already been created. It's kind of like comparing the first jet fighter to the Wright Brothers... both really really cool and the jet is certainly more relevant today... but that Wright Brothers plane is so much more important.

 

Also, I don't think we should be cutting Superman's popularity short, even over the last thirty years. He actually compares pretty favorably I think... circulation today seems to be about even and on average probably has been since the early-1990s. The Superman I and II movies were at least as popular in relative terms (if not moreso) as Spiderman I and II (doesn't Chris Reeve stand out just a bit more in your mind as an iconic portrayal than Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker... though both were admittedly terrific). Now I know the last Superman movie wasn't so hot but let's give Mr. Snyder a chance to do something interesting with the character (and please no more Lex Luthor!!!).

 

Superman has spawned what three or four live action tv series in the last thirty years (two of which have been highly successful) to Spiderman's zero. And in tv animation, Superman has been as much a presence as Spiderman. I can also say that as someone that is trying to put together a high grade run of Supermans from #100 to #300, they don't come cheap!

 

So let's be careful before generalizing that the Man of Steel is dead on arrival... there's actually a lot of life in the old coot still!

 

 

 

I can respect that viewpoint. Certainly a popular character still.

 

I would quibble slightly with you in that, in my view, Spider-man is the world's #1 most popular comic character and stripped of supply disparities I think it would be a more valuable book. But I get where you are coming from (thumbs u

[RockMyAmadeus]

We were having a somewhat reasonable discussion in the first thread until you decided to go off and make a poll about it with wording completely biased to your viewpoint and definitions. So, whatever. There's really no point in discussing it with you. I am not so entrenched that I cannot see that A1 is more DESIRABLE than AF15. But I have my doubts about whether or not you are able to get out from that trench to see that AF15 is more in DEMAND the way I define it.

 

There had been perhaps 8 posts total in that thread on the subject before I made the poll. Maybe less. My poll itself was not biased, but the wording of my OP certainly was, which I have no problem with....and then you went and did the exact same thing.

 

You can't reasonably complain about my actions if you turn around and do the exact same thing.

 

But I'm glad you're at least partially conceding that Action #1 is more desirable than AF #15....which was my sole and only point, "economic definitions of demand" aside.

 

And no, I do not agree that the "economic demand" for AF #15 is more than Action #1, in any realistic scenario, because Action #1 "started it all." It holds a special place that moves it even beyond the bounds of Detective #27.

 

The way you define things has to have a grounding in reality if it is to have merit. Putting Action #1 in 1962 or AF #15 in 1938 isn't a grounding in reality.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Since that was a reasoned response let me reciprocate. The whole point of this entire nonsense on three threads was to discuss one thing - which book is in greater demand - AF15 or A1.

 

It doesn't take a genius to understand that the supply of A1 is extremely limited and the price/desirability totally reflective of that. The poll is hypothetical because in answering which book is in greater demand, yes in the economic sense, we have to hold supply and other factors constant for it to be a meaningful comparison.

 

So that's where we get into all of this. My view is that pure (yes, economic) demand is greater for AF15 than A1. The rest is just fluff to get rid of what is blatantly obvious - that A1's PRICE is not the DEMAND and that its hugely EFFECTED by SUPPLY, etc.

 

You seem like a reasonable guy - what's your take in the context of the above.

 

Thanks for the reasonable response Bronty.

 

I think stripped of supply disparities, Action #1 will always be the more in-demand book because it has far more historical signficance than AF#15 (not that AF#15 isn't also a very important book... just not at the same level). One book created something brand new; the other put a new twist on what already been created. It's kind of like comparing the first jet fighter to the Wright Brothers... both really really cool and the jet is certainly more relevant today... but that Wright Brothers plane is so much more important.

 

Also, I don't think we should be cutting Superman's popularity short, even over the last thirty years. He actually compares pretty favorably I think... circulation today seems to be about even and on average probably has been since the early-1990s. The Superman I and II movies were at least as popular in relative terms (if not moreso) as Spiderman I and II (doesn't Chris Reeve stand out just a bit more in your mind as an iconic portrayal than Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker... though both were admittedly terrific). Now I know the last Superman movie wasn't so hot but let's give Mr. Snyder a chance to do something interesting with the character (and please no more Lex Luthor!!!).

 

Superman has spawned what three or four live action tv series in the last thirty years (two of which have been highly successful) to Spiderman's zero. And in tv animation, Superman has been as much a presence as Spiderman. I can also say that as someone that is trying to put together a high grade run of Supermans from #100 to #300, they don't come cheap!

 

So let's be careful before generalizing that the Man of Steel is dead on arrival... there's actually a lot of life in the old coot still!

 

 

 

I can respect that viewpoint. Certainly a popular character still.

 

I would quibble slightly with you in that, in my view, Spider-man is the world's #1 most popular comic character and stripped of supply disparities I think it would be a more valuable book. But I get where you are coming from (thumbs u

 

 

Taxguy and I are coming from the same position. How can you "get where he's coming from" but not me?

 

Don't let bias cloud your reason.

[EastEnd]

Since that was a reasoned response let me reciprocate. The whole point of this entire nonsense on three threads was to discuss one thing - which book is in greater demand - AF15 or A1.

 

It doesn't take a genius to understand that the supply of A1 is extremely limited and the price/desirability totally reflective of that. The poll is hypothetical because in answering which book is in greater demand, yes in the economic sense, we have to hold supply and other factors constant for it to be a meaningful comparison.

 

So that's where we get into all of this. My view is that pure (yes, economic) demand is greater for AF15 than A1. The rest is just fluff to get rid of what is blatantly obvious - that A1's PRICE is not the DEMAND and that its hugely EFFECTED by SUPPLY, etc.

 

You seem like a reasonable guy - what's your take in the context of the above.

 

Thanks for the reasonable response Bronty.

 

I think stripped of supply disparities, Action #1 will always be the more in-demand book because it has far more historical signficance than AF#15 (not that AF#15 isn't also a very important book... just not at the same level). One book created something brand new; the other put a new twist on what already been created. It's kind of like comparing the first jet fighter to the Wright Brothers... both really really cool and the jet is certainly more relevant today... but that Wright Brothers plane is so much more important.

 

Also, I don't think we should be cutting Superman's popularity short, even over the last thirty years. He actually compares pretty favorably I think... circulation today seems to be about even and on average probably has been since the early-1990s. The Superman I and II movies were at least as popular in relative terms (if not moreso) as Spiderman I and II (doesn't Chris Reeve stand out just a bit more in your mind as an iconic portrayal than Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker... though both were admittedly terrific). Now I know the last Superman movie wasn't so hot but let's give Mr. Snyder a chance to do something interesting with the character (and please no more Lex Luthor!!!).

 

Superman has spawned what three or four live action tv series in the last thirty years (two of which have been highly successful) to Spiderman's zero. And in tv animation, Superman has been as much a presence as Spiderman. I can also say that as someone that is trying to put together a high grade run of Supermans from #100 to #300, they don't come cheap!

 

So let's be careful before generalizing that the Man of Steel is dead on arrival... there's actually a lot of life in the old coot still!

 

 

 

I can respect that viewpoint. Certainly a popular character still.

 

I would quibble slightly with you in that, in my view, Spider-man is the world's #1 most popular comic character and stripped of supply disparities I think it would be a more valuable book. But I get where you are coming from (thumbs u

 

 

Cool!