The plutonium age of comics...

[DeliBebek]

I find the ages helpful only for chronological delineation of a particular issue's time period. I haven't seen any iteration of the ages which conveys a sense of historical analysis.

 

Some things are regularly ignored:

 

1. Dell's dominance of the newsstand until its price hike in 1961. The door opened for other publishers to gain dominance at 10 cents and later at 12 cents. This coincided with content changes, but the importance of the business decision had immediate and long lasting effects.

 

2. Richie Rich got four new separate ongoing series in a matter of five years, 1960-1964. The franchise continued to build until about 1978, a year in which the Big Two also did some restructuring of their lines.

 

3. Zap Comix demonstrated self-expression not seen in American comics. The associated distribution methods laid the groundwork for the direct market system and the creator-owned comics which would prosper because of it.

 

I'm not saying any of those are major landmarks, but they are non-adventure works whose influence and effect are largely ignored in the adventure-centric descriptions of the comic book ages. This is a classic case where history is written by the victors. The market chooses its own keys. The rest is a valiant attempt at retrofitting a paradigm which the majority can accept.

[Sqeggs]

 

Thanks Andy! I had my mind on Amazing Fantasy #15 and was rushing a bit not to be late for work. Though most of us kids didn't even realize that Spiderman #1 wasn't his first appearance.

 

I'm curious to know, of others growing up in the UK and USA at the dawn of the Marvel Age, which comics did you see? TOS #39 was readily available here, as was ST #101. But I never saw JIM #83, and didn't have a clue about TTA #27. Never saw Hulk #1 either.

 

I remember seeing them all but TTA 27. Not to reopen an old debate -- and I realize that TTA 35 has "The Return of the Ant Man" on the cover -- but for my friends and me, TTA 35 was the first Ant Man. I don't remember anyone having a copy of TTA 27 or, if they did, considering it to be significant. The prehero -- we called them "fantasy" -- issues weren't too popular. I know I bought AF 15 and TTA 35 off the stands because of the super heroes on the covers.

[rjpb]

I find the ages helpful only for chronological delineation of a particular issue's time period. I haven't seen any iteration of the ages which conveys a sense of historical analysis.

 

Some things are regularly ignored:

 

1. Dell's dominance of the newsstand until its price hike in 1961. The door opened for other publishers to gain dominance at 10 cents and later at 12 cents. This coincided with content changes, but the importance of the business decision had immediate and long lasting effects.

 

2. Richie Rich got four new separate ongoing series in a matter of five years, 1960-1964. The franchise continued to build until about 1978, a year in which the Big Two also did some restructuring of their lines.

 

3. Zap Comix demonstrated self-expression not seen in American comics. The associated distribution methods laid the groundwork for the direct market system and the creator-owned comics which would prosper because of it.

 

I'm not saying any of those are major landmarks, but they are non-adventure works whose influence and effect are largely ignored in the adventure-centric descriptions of the comic book ages. This is a classic case where history is written by the victors. The market chooses its own keys. The rest is a valiant attempt at retrofitting a paradigm which the majority can accept.

 

Well put. Superhero collectors were the most fervent, energetic and organized comic fans in the early-mid sixties, so it's understandable that their concept of comic "ages" would dominate, but it doesn't always fit well with other genres.

[rjpb]

 

Thanks Andy! I had my mind on Amazing Fantasy #15 and was rushing a bit not to be late for work. Though most of us kids didn't even realize that Spiderman #1 wasn't his first appearance.

 

I'm curious to know, of others growing up in the UK and USA at the dawn of the Marvel Age, which comics did you see? TOS #39 was readily available here, as was ST #101. But I never saw JIM #83, and didn't have a clue about TTA #27. Never saw Hulk #1 either.

 

I remember seeing them all but TTA 27. Not to reopen an old debate -- and I realize that TTA 35 has "The Return of the Ant Man" on the cover -- but for my friends and me, TTA 35 was the first Ant Man. I don't remember anyone having a copy of TTA 27 or, if they did, considering it to be significant. The prehero -- we called them "fantasy" -- issues weren't too popular. I know I bought AF 15 and TTA 35 off the stands because of the super heroes on the covers.

 

I was too young to read at the dawn of the Marvel Age, but in the early 70s at cons around central Ohio, low-mid grade Marvel keys weren't too hard to find, but the toughest seemed to be AF 15 and TTA 27, the former probably because they got snapped up quickly, the latter probably because interest was far lower than with the others. Back then FF1 was still the most "valuable" Marvel key, but AF 15 was already the most coveted.

[markseifert]

Ah, man... great post indeed. One of the most fascinating things I have read here (and that's saying something). Thanks for a great bit of first-person history.

 

All history is revisionist.

 

Clearly collectors living through what we now call the various ages had no such concept at the time. Or did they?

 

The impact of Spiderman and the FF on my school was tremendous. Boys gave up collecting DC overnight. I remember trading a coverless FF#2 another lad was desperate to have for JLA #2-#30.

 

When someone turned up with a copy of Spidey #1 the news ran round the school playground like wildfire, causing a near riot. Comics were subsequently banned from school.

 

The earliest Marvel hero issues flew under the radar and were really tough if not impossible to find. Or not wanted, because the colors looked rather dim next to the more brightly colored DCs. I passed on FF#3 for that reason.

 

When I read FF#4, I got the first intimation of a previous era, but growing up in the UK, it made no sense to me. Who as this sub-mareener guy anyway? Over time, things came clear, but not quickly.

 

But we weren't living in the Silver Age, we were living in the Marvel Age, where heroes and heroines had feelings and personalities, and all lived in the same universe. So Marvel owned not only the age, but the multiverse itself! And then came Galactus, and really blew our tiny minds.

 

To us, there was no "age" previous. I could never figure out why Flash started at #105, or why Action, Superman, Batman and Detective all had such astronomically high issue numbers.

 

But Marvel - ah, Marvel titles began with #1, with the one obvious exception. So they could be collected as complete runs.

 

I suppose one could also argue that the progenitor of the Marvel Age was - ironically - the advent and huge popularity of the JLA. Stan Lee saw the numbers, Jack Kirby reiterated Challengers of the Unknown, FF #1 was the result.

 

The Marvel Age supplanted the DC Age, and we are still living in it.

 

 

 

[bronze johnny]

I love this post- especially mention of Kirby's Challengers as the predecessor to FF 1.

 

Thanks for sharing this Flex! Reminded me of my own childhood experiences with comic books.

 

John

[ComicConnoisseur]

@DeliBebek

I agree with most of what you say, and also think EC Comics and Bill Gaines get short-changed when it comes to starting a comic book movement with fandom. Everybody talks about how revolutionary Marvel was with creating fandom, and telling great comic book stories to an older audience, when just a decade earlier Bill Gaines had letter pages in his EC Comics, plus had writers and artists that put most Marvel Comics on a different level reading wise.

So let`s not ever forget the importance of Bill Gaines and EC Comics.

(thumbs u

[markseifert]

I've been wondering recently why DC did not capitalize on this far sooner than they did. Schwartz and Weisinger were part of organized SF fandom early on and had put out a zine together in the 1930s. They certainly knew how effective it could be.

 

@DeliBebek

I agree with most of what you say, and also think EC Comics and Bill Gaines get short-changed when it comes to starting a comic book movement with fandom. Everybody talks about how revolutionary Marvel was with creating fandom, and telling great comic book stories to an older audience, when just a decade earlier Bill Gaines had letter pages in his EC Comics, plus had writers and artists that put most Marvel Comics on a different level reading wise.

So let`s not ever forget the importance of Bill Gaines and EC Comics.

(thumbs u

[lambfan68]

I'm not saying any of those are major landmarks, but they are non-adventure works whose influence and effect are largely ignored in the adventure-centric descriptions of the comic book ages. This is a classic case where history is written by the victors. The market chooses its own keys. The rest is a valiant attempt at retrofitting a paradigm which the majority can accept.

 

I agree. All of the "age" delineations center around the superhero comics which were only part of the overall marketplace. The truth is that there were multiple genres that carried on through all the "ages" of comics; romance, funny animals, teen humor, science fiction, war, crime, etc.

 

 

[mrmyst]

The 'age' delineations were indeed retro-fitted. But they were done so by the collecting community, based on which books were most in demand/popular, and as a result the most expensive to buy, by that community. Perhaps it is appropriate this way, as in general the demand factor has stayed relatively consistent (for the most part) for the past 40 years. Yet, the 'ages' as such don't correlate, of course, with which genres were the most popular over the years with people buying them new off the stands. My dad is 71, and when I ask him which comics he read as a kid, he talks about Tarzan and western books in the early 1950s, and of course Archie! No horror or sci-fi or 'Good Girl'.

[markseifert]

The Golden and Silver Ages were originally meant specifically to denote Heroic Ages, no? No doubt that distinction has been lost in the meantime.

 

The 'age' delineations were indeed retro-fitted. But they were done so by the collecting community, based on which books were most in demand/popular, and as a result the most expensive to buy, by that community. Perhaps it is appropriate this way, as in general the demand factor has stayed relatively consistent (for the most part) for the past 40 years. Yet, the 'ages' as such don't correlate, of course, with which genres were the most popular over the years with people buying them new off the stands. My dad is 71, and when I ask him which comics he read as a kid, he talks about Tarzan and western books in the early 1950s, and of course Archie! No horror or sci-fi or 'Good Girl'.

[HRCostigan]

I'm a proponent of just saying 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s etc. It makes sense when explaining to non-collectors, and when talking amongst collectors we generally already have enough of an idea what was going on in each decade that it's good enough -- in fact it could be argued that it's actually more accurate, if vaguer, than describing "ages" whose edges get a little blurred

 

"I collect superhero books from the 30s and 40s, as well as jungle books from the late 40s."

 

"I collect golden age comics and the sub-genre of good girl art from the atomic age."

 

Which is better?

[mrmyst]

The Golden and Silver Ages were originally meant specifically to denote Heroic Ages, no? No doubt that distinction has been lost in the meantime.

 

The 'age' delineations were indeed retro-fitted. But they were done so by the collecting community, based on which books were most in demand/popular, and as a result the most expensive to buy, by that community. Perhaps it is appropriate this way, as in general the demand factor has stayed relatively consistent (for the most part) for the past 40 years. Yet, the 'ages' as such don't correlate, of course, with which genres were the most popular over the years with people buying them new off the stands. My dad is 71, and when I ask him which comics he read as a kid, he talks about Tarzan and western books in the early 1950s, and of course Archie! No horror or sci-fi or 'Good Girl'.

 

Valid point. Any collectors out there who remember when these terms were first used?

[Foxtrot70]

The Golden and Silver Ages were originally meant specifically to denote Heroic Ages, no? No doubt that distinction has been lost in the meantime.

 

The 'age' delineations were indeed retro-fitted. But they were done so by the collecting community, based on which books were most in demand/popular, and as a result the most expensive to buy, by that community. Perhaps it is appropriate this way, as in general the demand factor has stayed relatively consistent (for the most part) for the past 40 years. Yet, the 'ages' as such don't correlate, of course, with which genres were the most popular over the years with people buying them new off the stands. My dad is 71, and when I ask him which comics he read as a kid, he talks about Tarzan and western books in the early 1950s, and of course Archie! No horror or sci-fi or 'Good Girl'.

 

Valid point. Any collectors out there who remember when these terms were first used?

 

The value of google:

 

Extracted from Wikipedia - "Comics historian and movie producer Michael Uslan traces the origin of the "Silver Age" term to the letters column of Justice League of America #42 (Feb. 1966), which went on sale December 9, 1965.[2]