The need to own the actual comic - or - fan vs. collector vs. combination

[rodan57]

Superb with characterization -- TOS 46.

 

 

[rodan57]

Had a delicacy of ink that reprints could not fully capture -- TOS54.

 

 

[rodan57]

And though he had to "work" his way through illness in the early 70s to keep food on the table for his family, one really shouldn't forget a master of the craft.

 

 

[catrick339]

And though he had to "work" his way through illness in the early 70s to keep food on the table for his family, one really shouldn't forget a master of the craft.

 

 

 

I don't umderstand the Heck Haters.

 

His women were gorgeous, and he was a damned good storyteller. Was he Kirby? No. Was he Ditko? No. Was he on a level with or a step above everyone else?

 

Damned right he was.

[Unca Ben]

And though he had to "work" his way through illness in the early 70s to keep food on the table for his family, one really shouldn't forget a master of the craft.

 

 

 

I don't umderstand the Heck Haters.

 

His women were gorgeous, and he was a damned good storyteller. Was he Kirby? No. Was he Ditko? No. Was he on a level with or a step above everyone else?

 

Damned right he was.

+1

 

[rjpb]

I like Heck, even though I'm not really a big fan of his Marvel work, I prefer his stuff for Comic Media when his inks showed more of a Caniff influence. In the 60s he had a style that did and would have looked fine in an Atlas book, but seemed at odds with the styles of Kirby, Buscema, Romita and Colan. He probably would have been better appreciated if he had been working for DC alongside guys like Infantino, Novic and Cardy.

[vaillant]

Don Heck's art is just awful. One of the worst artists of the Silver Age.

 

For those who can’t judge objectively, yes.

[vaillant]

In the 60s he had a style that did and would have looked fine in an Atlas book, but seemed at odds with the styles of Kirby, Buscema, Romita and Colan. He probably would have been better appreciated if he had been working for DC alongside guys like Infantino, Novic and Cardy.

 

Not every artist is interested to follow some trends and/or "modernize" his style, also because "modernization" is a very tricky concept.

The most remote things can look fresh and more original than current work, when they have not been seen for a long time, or are adequately brought to a new life.

 

What is often said about Heck could be said for many other artists – and it is undeniable – which gave life to the Marvel Age in its infancy and early years.

But take Colan: as "unique" his style was he hardly "fit" the classical Marvel standard we mostly recognize in Buscema.

 

George Tuska also had a peculiar style, with not much "fireworks", but I am reading right now the early Iron Man issues and when he is inked by Johnny Craig he is just wonderful. So is Johnny Craig alone on the Marvels, when he inks himself.

 

I think such notions of "modernity" and "freshness" should be left aside when they are not clearly what defined the Marvel Age of comics.

[vaillant]

This is just beautiful. And he knew how volume work, and where to place shadows.

A thing many fashionable "artists" of the 1990s have no clue about.

Also, how much it took to people like Jim Lee to figure out men and women have actual facial expressions?

 

Superb with characterization -- TOS 46.

 

[rjpb]

George Tuska also had a peculiar style, with not much "fireworks", but I am reading right now the early Iron Man issues and when he is inked by Johnny Craig he is just wonderful. So is Johnny Craig alone on the Marvels, when he inks himself.

 

I think such notions of "modernity" and "freshness" should be left aside when they are not clearly what defined the Marvel Age of comics.

 

Interesting that you mentioned Tuska and Craig, two other artists whose 50s work I'm far more fond of than their later material. In part this may be because they had styles that IMHO were less suited for superhero work, and possibly because, like Heck they worked on Iron Man, my least favorite SA Marvel character when I was young.

 

But even reviewing the work of all three artists as an adult, the differences ( mainly in inking) between their earlier and later work, still leaves me far more a fan of the earlier stuff. I have the opposite opinion of Colan and Romita. While their 50s stuff certainly above average, I'm far more fond of their 60s Marvel art.

 

 

 

[FineCollector]

Truthfully, I think most key collectors are just small people who want people to look at their collection and say, "wow, you're so lucky, I'm so jealous" in the same way many people buy a luxury car strictly for the status.

 

Flame on!

 

Well, let me get your opinion. I'm an X-Men fan. I have tons of X-Men books in Omnis, trades, Masterworks, and Essentials. I've read all of that stuff. The floppies I own are the Stan Lee run (1-19), a few "keys" after that until my early Claremont run (GSXM1; 94-143), and then the major keys after that. While there are a couple specific runs in there, a lot of what I have are keys (at least from an X-Men perspective). I just don't feel the need to own the whole Uncanny run (with some junk in it) when I have most of it in reprint for reading purposes anyway.

 

Does this make me a "key collector" in your opinion? BTW, I've never had someone over to my house to show them my comics. Can someone want to own the keys without wanting to do so as a status symbol?

 

"Most" gives me an out.

 

The image I have of a key collector is the guy at a store or convention carrying a copy of Wizard magazine with all the first appearances highlighted. Appreciation for the work is not a factor, just the fact that the guide said it's worth more. You'll find guys like this blathering at a convention about books they say they own, even if no one is listening. They'll pick the Richard Dragon 5 out of a run, and have no idea who Richard Dragon or Bronze Tiger are. Their new favorite character is whoever's appearing in the next movie.

 

That's the kind of collector is dislike. You're fine.

[HeroX]

"Most" gives me an out.

 

The image I have of a key collector is the guy at a store or convention carrying a copy of Wizard magazine with all the first appearances highlighted. Appreciation for the work is not a factor, just the fact that the guide said it's worth more. You'll find guys like this blathering at a convention about books they say they own, even if no one is listening. They'll pick the Richard Dragon 5 out of a run, and have no idea who Richard Dragon or Bronze Tiger are. Their new favorite character is whoever's appearing in the next movie.

 

That's the kind of collector is dislike. You're fine.

 

I gotcha! Whew!

 

I'm not sure how I'd label someone like that. Not "investor" really. Certainly not a real "collector" or "fan." Maybe "speculator?" But even then, I'm sure there are fine folks here who have speculated on books before and profitted from it, but that doesn't carry with it the annoying quality you've described above. I get your meaning, though.

[dscythe]

"Most" gives me an out.

 

The image I have of a key collector is the guy at a store or convention carrying a copy of Wizard magazine with all the first appearances highlighted. Appreciation for the work is not a factor, just the fact that the guide said it's worth more. You'll find guys like this blathering at a convention about books they say they own, even if no one is listening. They'll pick the Richard Dragon 5 out of a run, and have no idea who Richard Dragon or Bronze Tiger are. Their new favorite character is whoever's appearing in the next movie.

 

That's the kind of collector is dislike. You're fine.

 

I gotcha! Whew!

 

I'm not sure how I'd label someone like that. Not "investor" really. Certainly not a real "collector" or "fan." Maybe "speculator?" But even then, I'm sure there are fine folks here who have speculated on books before and profitted from it, but that doesn't carry with it the annoying quality you've described above. I get your meaning, though.

 

Women's_hygeine_product-ers

[dupont2005]

I've never heard of Don Heck (not much of a Marvel reader) so I looked him up.

 

I saw one or two pages where proportions could have been better, I saw a handful of pages that suffer from what a lot of mainstream color comics suffer from, which is a complete lack of depth and background (and all the greats suffered from that). But I saw a lot I thought looked really good. I'd say I like it better than a lot of modern artists that have strong followings. I think I like his pre-Avengers stuff best.

[jimjum12]

I posted some of what I've written below as a reply in a thread in the Silver age section, but I thought I'd be interested in a more thorough discussion. Just for fun, of course...

 

I always used to feel like I needed to own a copy of the first appearance and/or key issues of characters/teams that I like. I guess I felt like it kind of "confirmed" my appreciation for those characters/teams.

 

Of course, the reality is a character can be your favorite and you don't actually have to own a single comic (all fan, not a collector). With the great quality trades, omnibuses, and digital comics out there nowadays, owning the original physical first print copy of the comic isn't necessary at all to be a fan.

 

Well, we do find ourselves on a comics discussion board, so we are most likely all collectors to varying degrees, and with that collector mindset, we will find ourselves wanting to own the real things. For most of us that can't be avoided because there's something about comics that appeal to collector type people. But collecting can be quite expensive.

 

For the longest time, I was an X-Men/Wolverine only fan and collector (combination of the two). But, eventually this can and did start to get old. I wanted to get into other great Marvel characters and teams that I'd been ignoring for so long. But I had to avoid letting this branching out as a fan send me into a shopping spree of picking up all sorts of other expensive key issues (collecting) for these new interests. I bought a lot of Marvel Masterworks lately (Spider-man, Avengers, Captain America, Daredevil, Dr. Strange, Fantastic Four, Hulk, Iron Man, Silver Surfer, Thor (already had all the X-Men)) and have been enjoying the hell out of reading them. (Of course, that does constitute a collection of Masterworks...) So far I've remained convinced (trying very hard) that I can love these characters and stories (being a fan) without buying all their key issues (being a collector, or a combination of collector and fan).

 

I know the reality is that most likely all of us are a combination of fan and collector to a certain degree or another. I'm sure there are some on here that may be more investors than anything else, which is another category completely.

 

1. What determines which key issues you buy?

2. Are you a fan of books/characters/teams of which you don't actually collect any key issues? (Put another way, are there books you love to read but feel no need to own?)

3. Do you collect any key issues of which you are not a fan of the characters/teams/subject matter, just because they're keys? Why, resale, collector-itus (just to have it), other?

 

..... I'm kind of the opposite ..... I keep reprints of the expensive keys and like to have a few nice copies of my very favorite issues in a run..... because, yes, I DO like having the vintage article. Collecting comics is more fun with as few rules as possible..... for me, anyway. Keeping the actual Key is a lot better if you ever need to liquidate, however....... much better. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[vaillant]

But even reviewing the work of all three artists as an adult, the differences ( mainly in inking) between their earlier and later work, still leaves me far more a fan of the earlier stuff. I have the opposite opinion of Colan and Romita. While their 50s stuff certainly above average, I'm far more fond of their 60s Marvel art.

 

I did not suggested that Colan and Romita were better in the 1950s, I just said that their own style (especially Colan) was pretty peculiar, and thus – following your impression – possibly "less suited" to Marvel stories. They were all working with a very personal approach, but if we look close, and not every one inker was suitable on all artists, it was the teamwork that made the Marvel Age.

 

I share your experience with Iron Man: although I started later (around 1978 in Italy) I wasn’t much affectioned to the character, but I am realizing now how good the late 1960s stories (and onwards) are.

 

I've never heard of Don Heck (not much of a Marvel reader) so I looked him up.

 

I saw one or two pages where proportions could have been better, I saw a handful of pages that suffer from what a lot of mainstream color comics suffer from, which is a complete lack of depth and background (and all the greats suffered from that). But I saw a lot I thought looked really good. I'd say I like it better than a lot of modern artists that have strong followings. I think I like his pre-Avengers stuff best.

That’s great – but keep in mind that early Marvel (and the comics industry in general in the early 1960s) had an "impossible" timing. What do you mean by "all the greats suffered from that"? Anyway, you are right: the pre-Avengers stories are better, there is often more care put in the details. I have the impression many early Avengers stories were pretty rushed up and produced by various hands (see #14, which I love but it’s a prime example of that).

Coloring in those was awesome, anyway (especially the covers).

[the blob]

Superb with characterization -- TOS 46.

 

 

 

that's a good example of good proportions and perspective. he has some difficult panels in there (overhead shots) and it sure could have been easier if he had pictured the conversation from straight on.

 

would rob liefield have been able to do this page?

 

would late 70s frank miller?

[the blob]

for me it comes and goes. lately financial stresses make it hard to be a "true" collector...heck, I even sold off my x-men 3 when i was strapped for cash one month. but i do understand that if you have a limited budget as a collector there is something to be said about going after the "key" issues first.

 

problem is, the "key" issues always seem to revolve around some "first", whereas some of the "best" story arcs do not necessarily and those should be important too.

 

case in point, NTT fans think "the judas contract" is stuff at a higher level of existence, but the collectors market only seems to care about the "first" [nightwing] in the 4 books, right now at least.

 

the byrne/claremont x-men run and the miller DD run (and mcfarlane spidey run I guess) seem to be the few areas where you have a run of books where the non-keys are collected heavily too, but even nowadays the "non-key" books in those runs garner less interest than they did 15-20 years ago vs. the "key" issues.

 

byrne had a tremendous run on FF, but collectors just don't care about those books.

[vaillant]

problem is, the "key" issues always seem to revolve around some "first", whereas some of the "best" story arcs do not necessarily and those should be important too.

 

You have perfectly centered the problem. I know of at least a first apperance which is totally meaningless (and I DO love the character): it’s the Devil Slayer, thrown in in a late Deathlok story.

 

There are also issues where there is a partial coincidence of the two elements. FF #5 or Avengers #4 are surely good examples.

 

Dang, I would like to have your readiness to sell books in case of need… I don’t.

[HeroX]

...heck, I even sold off my x-men 3 when i was strapped for cash one month.

 

the blob sold his first appearance of The Blob?!?!?