Comics, Pulps, and Paperbacks: Why such a discrepancy in values? 25 25

[jlee]

This is one of my all-time favorites.

 

Here are a couple more paperbacks you might like.

 

Marihuana (Dell 10¢ edition) by William Irish

 

 

 

 

The French printing.

 

 

 

Very cool. I have the US edition of the book, but not the French one. Thanks for sharing!

[detective35]

Hi Cat,

 

When slabbing pulps with overhangs upright, even with an inner sleeve, the overhangs will bend and eventually crease. If they are stored flat, they might be OK.

 

If for some reason, you have to temporarily stand a pulp with an overhang upright, you must use a backing board that is at least one inch larger on the top and bottom of the pulp, put it it in a mylight 2, and then you can place it in a magazine mylar with or without a second backing board to further help out. The backing board takes the pressure off the overhang if it is much larger than the pulp.

 

In order to protect the overhang in a slab, they would have to develop that inner liner that you mentioned along with a backing board larger than the pulp.

 

I remember asking Steve Borock about it and at the time he said "no chance" because besides the overhang problem, he said that page count would be an nightmare, (the number of pages, the fact the the quality control on pulp paper is not great, so you end up having one page cut shorter than the next, some stick together and are diffuclult to separate etc). Add to this, pulps in different years of the 30's etc., changed sizes, even within the same titles, and it would be a nightmare in having to create various slab sizes. Yes it would be easier to slab pulps that are cut flush from the factory (like the 1940's pulps and the Amazing Stories bedsheets), but the amount of time it would take to grade pulps would just be too time consuming, for CGC and would be too cost prohibative, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

Dwight

 

 

 

Hi,

 

Careful about the sales of 6th street books, as that is mainly with Spicy's. The other thing to watch is the fact that the one Spicy that sold for $5600 was re-listed by six street books and just sold for around $800.

 

Spicy's have always been great sellers, but believe it or not, their market has been higher and hotter in the past decade, and other than in this single owner collection which has gathered hype, the Spicy sales are not where they once were.

 

The reason that these Spicy's have sold so well is that it was a single owner collection and nearly a complete Spicy collection. One guy re-listed a couple of sixth street books on his own after purchasing some, and realized only half the value that he originally paid. Nevertheless, the collection is great, and the books are very nice, and the dealer selling them is very forthright and honest.

 

I have been following pulps the pulp market very carefully, and have been buying and selling high end pulps and collections over carefully over the past 15 years. Right now the market is in a slump, and other than the Ultra rare issues, high grade early hero titles (first or second year if the title), Spicys, and some Weird tales, pulp prices are much lower than they were six to ten years ago. I have an ultra high grade Shadow run, and I can tell you that the prices on hero pulps are down at least 50% from what they were from 2000-2008.

 

 

The pulps certainly have room to grow, but a number of factors inhibit this.

 

1). Availability, especially in grade

 

2). An aging collector base that grew up on the pulps and the pulp Hero's.

 

3). In order to create a frenzy, there has to be a fervour created, and to do that you need continuous sales, especially of the rare issues and high grade issues and there just is not enough supply to create this.

 

4) no slabbing (thank goodness) to create the investor market. You could slab the 1940's pulps, but not the 20's and 30's pulps with the large overhangs, without damaging the overhangs themselves.

 

5). The heavy hitters in the market, especially the silver age, have not grown up on the pulps, and maybe other than the Shadow, this generation and especially the previous generation have no affiation with the characters or pulps themselves.

 

6). Pulp collectors tend to collect for authors, and stories etc., and in general are not as demanding for the grade, therefore less competition.

 

7). A number of comic dealers jumped on board and then quickly got off the pulp bandwagon around 2000-2005, and a number of the heavy hitters that once collected the pulps (especially hero) are no longer collecting. I bought out 7 hard core Shadow collectors that would pay high prices, and now there are less collectors, and less demand.

 

8). Only a handful of all pulp collectors will spend some serious cash. Frank Robinson's lifetime collection of high grade pulps sold primarily to two people, with one person buying nearly 75% of the entire collection.

 

9). There have not been a string if successful movies created from pulp characters, just a couple of flops.

 

Dwight

 

 

 

Excellent post, Dwight.

 

I would only differ on a couple of minor points. I think slabbing of pulps with overhangs is possible, but it may require a redesigned inner well. Also, oversized pulps without overhangs, such as early Amazing Stories wouldn't be a problem if the slab itself were large enough to hold it.

 

Pulp readers/collectors (like comic collectors) can obtain most if not all the stories, including interior art through other formats (digital copies, reprint collections, etc.), but something needs to be done to conserve the fragile pulp paper and stabilize values while encouraging interest in the pulp market.

 

While readers collect pulps for specific authors and stories, the magnificent cover art has always been the doorway to pulp appreciation. This plays right into the idea that grading and slabbing of high grade examples of these books is the ultimate key to establishing a sustainable high end market for pulps.

 

Thinking outside the box, in order to grow the collector base a flexible grading and encapsulation system has to be employed that takes into account best surviving examples. Due to differences in design, size and PQ, high grade for a pulp isn't necessarily the same as high grade for a comic book of equivalent age and wear.

 

Of course, this is all just speculation on my part and I'm sure that there would be resistance by some in the pulp collecting community to any type of encapsulation system.

[Scrooge]

I was a kid at the time, but I dimly remember this being a big deal, with sic-fi/fantasy fans organizing a boycott of Ace. I may be misremembering, but wasn't Ace, in fact, not paying Tolkien a royalty on these unauthorized editions? Perhaps an agreement was reached later, or maybe I have the story wrong. Wouldn't be the first time!

 

I don't remember all of the specifics either, but I'm guessing Tolkien didn't get paid by Ace until the court ordered them to do so, which came about some years later. Wollheim was probably accurate in that the copyright had not been properly secured... but the court ruled against Ace anyway. And by that time Ace had made lots of money and publicity off of the matter, and likely still came out ahead.

 

Frustrated that he couldn't keep his books out of that disgusting paperback format, Tolkien relented and sold the authorized rights to Ballantine, who made a fortune off of endless reprintings. Of course, Tolkien and his estate made a fortune as well... something that would likely never have happened if the books remained in hardback only, and likely out of print for long periods of time.

 

I'm a bit surprised about Tolkien's initial attitude, however, and as an Ivory Tower type professor, I'm guessing he didn't really understand much about affordable mass-market paperback books. He felt they were beneath him, which means he must have considered himself at a loftier level than the likes of John Steinbeck, William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway, Harper Lee, and just about every Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winner up to that time!

 

 

Thanks for whomever pointed out the info about Wolffheim and Tolkien's conversation. Reading from the letters published in Humphrey Carpenter's The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, the main reason, obviously, that Tolkien was incensed by the publication in ppb by Ace is the lost income from this "unauthorized" edition. Recall that at the time, Tolkien was already semi-retired so his academic income was half-pay or as he calls it also quarter-pay and without his literary income, he would be less at ease income-wise. Plus, in a letter to one of his sons, he complains that literary income is counted as income and therefore highly taxed which did not allow him to move out of Oxford to closer to the sea at that time. The Ace debacle also forced him to push back work on the Silmarillion so he could write an edited version of the LoR for Ballantine to publish with rights secured to him. To that end, he revised the introduction, modified the appendices and included an index.

 

Btw, in that same letter to his son, Tolkien acknowledges the help Ace in fact provided his work: ""[..] I am getting such an advt. from the rumpus that I expect my 'authorized' paper-back will in fact sell more copies than it would, if there had been no trouble or competition"

 

Eventually as per another Tolkien letter, "[..] I signed an 'amicable agreement' with them to accept their voluntary offer under no legal obligation: to pay royalty of 4 per cent. on all copies of their edition sold, and not to reprint it when it is exhausted (without my consent). The half of this which I shall retain after taxation will be welcome, but not yet great riches ..."

[Reno McCoy]

Anyone care to share their thoughts (or even better, share their images) on spine rolls? I have an opportunity to buy a copy of Lawrence Block's MONA, and it's got sharp corners, nice color, etc., but there's a spine roll in effect. I'd consider it VG+, but I'm not sure if that spine rolling drops it to a VG or possibly even worse.

 

I understand reading creases just fine, but with spine roll, I'm not sure what constitutes minor vs. substantial spine rolling. If anyone cares to chime it, I'd appreciate it.

 

EDIT TO ADD:

 

Actually, here's a snapshot of the book. How severe is this spine roll? My instinct is to say that it's too much, but the more I look at it, the less severe it looks.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Reno McCoy

[OtherEric]

John D. MacDonald – Went on to fame and fortune, but for me the hard edge of his mid-‘50s stuff (‘April Evil’ –Dell, a prime example) very sharp indeed.

 

I'm actually trying to put together a complete run of John D. MacDonald's science-fiction stories. He did a total of 53, a handful of which are under the pseudonyms of John Wade Farrell and Peter Reed; all but one of those are because he did more than one story in the issue so there's only about 45 issues to actually get. (Plus, in theory, the first editions of 2 of his 3 SF novels; one appeared in a pulp originally, one was later reprinted in a pulp, and the 3rd was from the 60's and never had a magazine appearance that I know of.) 4 to go, not counting first edition non-magazine versions of the novels.

 

His SF work has a distinctive voice; the best way I can describe it is hard-boiled. It brings a sensibility I normally associate with detective stories to Science Fiction; much more character driven than the normal Hard Science or Science Fantasy stuff you see. It doesn't really feel like what happened in the 80's when people tried it and called it Cyberpunk, though. Fun stuff.

[comicjack]

Wish I had a nicer copy, but who wouldn't love this cover!

Who cares about the condition that's a great cover in any shape!

[Timely]

Anyone care to share their thoughts (or even better, share their images) on spine rolls? I have an opportunity to buy a copy of Lawrence Block's MONA, and it's got sharp corners, nice color, etc., but there's a spine roll in effect. I'd consider it VG+, but I'm not sure if that spine rolling drops it to a VG or possibly even worse.

 

I understand reading creases just fine, but with spine roll, I'm not sure what constitutes minor vs. substantial spine rolling. If anyone cares to chime it, I'd appreciate it.

 

EDIT TO ADD:

 

Actually, here's a snapshot of the book. How severe is this spine roll? My instinct is to say that it's too much, but the more I look at it, the less severe it looks.

 

That is not a spine roll, by definition. Lay the book on a flat surface. A spine roll is when the spine is either higher or lower than the rest of the comic. Often times for more severe spine rolls, the paper that was on the spine edge has physically shifted to the front (or to the back) of the cover.

[Reno McCoy]

Anyone care to share their thoughts (or even better, share their images) on spine rolls? I have an opportunity to buy a copy of Lawrence Block's MONA, and it's got sharp corners, nice color, etc., but there's a spine roll in effect. I'd consider it VG+, but I'm not sure if that spine rolling drops it to a VG or possibly even worse.

 

I understand reading creases just fine, but with spine roll, I'm not sure what constitutes minor vs. substantial spine rolling. If anyone cares to chime it, I'd appreciate it.

 

EDIT TO ADD:

 

Actually, here's a snapshot of the book. How severe is this spine roll? My instinct is to say that it's too much, but the more I look at it, the less severe it looks.

 

That is not a spine roll, by definition. Lay the book on a flat surface. A spine roll is when the spine is either higher or lower than the rest of the comic. Often times for more severe spine rolls, the paper that was on the spine edge has physically shifted to the front (or to the back) of the cover.

 

That's not a comic though, but a paperback book. For some reason, I assumed that the term was used differently between comics and books, and that with paperbacks, the roll comes from reading the book, which bends/rounds the spine...a sort of exaggerated spine crease.

[*paull*]

The bookcase I showed earlier has sat static for decades except for the 9 mushroom jungle (post-WWII UK PB scene with a plethora of small publishers providing lurid product) books I’ve put in there recently. The other 29 are on another shelf, as I have bought 36 in the last 6-8 months (started with 2). It’s been a wild wonderful ride, and as I was lamenting the lack of early-‘50s US SF PBs has truly fed me where I’m hungriest.

 

Great early 50s paperbacks! Love the covers!

[Doohickamabob]

Here are a couple of recent favorite acquisitions (from the last year or so). It's fun to find covers that were re-used for different titles.

[BangZoom]

Here are a couple of recent favorite acquisitions (from the last year or so). It's fun to find covers that were re-used for different titles.

 

 

I'm not sure what the connection is between Venus Books and Carnival Books but Carnival also published Reckless.

 

Note that they mention that the alternate title of the book is Pleasure Bound.

 

 

[Doohickamabob]

Here are a couple of recent favorite acquisitions (from the last year or so). It's fun to find covers that were re-used for different titles.

I'm not sure what the connection is between Venus Books and Carnival Books but Carnival also published Reckless.

Note that they mention that the alternate title of the book is Pleasure Bound.

Interesting.... Now I need to get the Carnival book to complete the set...

 

Does this mean Kermit Welles and James Clayford are the same writer?

[BangZoom]

Here are a couple of recent favorite acquisitions (from the last year or so). It's fun to find covers that were re-used for different titles.

I'm not sure what the connection is between Venus Books and Carnival Books but Carnival also published Reckless.

Note that they mention that the alternate title of the book is Pleasure Bound.

Interesting.... Now I need to get the Carnival book to complete the set...

 

Does this mean Kermit Welles and James Clayford are the same writer?

 

Presumably.

 

The confusing part of this question is that I know James Clayford was a pseudonym used by Peggy Gaddis.

 

And in doing a little bit of Googling I've learned that Kermit Welles was a pseudonym of Manning Lee Stokes.

 

So... I dunno. Was the book a collaboration?

 

[Arkadin]

This thread needs to come back to life - I was enjoying seeing all those cool vintage paperbacks.

 

Here's a few to get the ball rolling again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sarg]

But mostly it's just a traditional (and somewhat elitist) thing... book people have always promoted the value of the book... and that means a hardback, with a dust-jacket if it came with one. My father is a book collector, and owns thousands of 1st editions. But he won't own, or even read, a paperback. He would love to own any Raymond Chandler 1st edition, but probably wouldn't care about the previous pulp appearances. This is simply the way it's always been. It goes back to the days, now sadly dying out, where it was prestigious to have a home library... and in most cases these book lovers did indeed read what they collected. Pulps and paperbacks really didn't meld well with stately leather-bound books or literary first editions, and would look awkward on the shelves beside them.

 

Now, at least in America, reading, or at least physical book reading, is becoming so rare that you really can't even buy any decent pre-made bookshelves anymore. The bookshelves that are manufactured are designed to hold dishes and little ceramic knick-knacks... not weighty volumes.

 

A few years ago I went to one of those open houses where they showcase brand new million-dollar homes (and that's million-dollar in Ohio... think 4-5 million in more upscale cities). These places were massive... up to 20,000 sq.ft., had all the extras... walkaround decks, whirlpools, media rooms with 80" televisions, high-tech kitchens, glass indoor elevators... and almost no bookshelves, save for maybe one or two shelves behind a massive oak desk in an office, usually holding photos or, yep, ceramic knick-knacks.

 

Then visit mansions of 50 or 100 years ago... whole rooms devoted to libraries... sometimes 2-story libraries with rolling ladders or circular staircases.

 

Those places were designed for books with a capital "B"... to which magazines (pulps) and paperbacks did not belong. And to be fair, to begin with, paperbacks were indeed just cheap reprint editions of hardbacks. There wasn't much in the way of original paperback publishings until the '50s... and soon, some houses like Gold Medal, began to even specialize in them.

 

Great observations. The sprawling book shelves of yesteryear have been replaced by wide screen TVs and computers. People still read books, but it's increasingly on a tablet. Most people don't have room for shelves and shelves of books.

 

I'm the only person I know who has an entire wall of shelves, in which I keep hardcovers, comics, paperbacks, and pulps (though not on the same shelves).

[Marty Mann]

One of the first POCKET BOOKS I ever bought.

 

 

mm

[Bookery]

Here are a couple of recent favorite acquisitions (from the last year or so). It's fun to find covers that were re-used for different titles.

I'm not sure what the connection is between Venus Books and Carnival Books but Carnival also published Reckless.

Note that they mention that the alternate title of the book is Pleasure Bound.

Interesting.... Now I need to get the Carnival book to complete the set...

 

Does this mean Kermit Welles and James Clayford are the same writer?

 

Presumably.

 

The confusing part of this question is that I know James Clayford was a pseudonym used by Peggy Gaddis.

 

And in doing a little bit of Googling I've learned that Kermit Welles was a pseudonym of Manning Lee Stokes.

 

So... I dunno. Was the book a collaboration?

 

"James Clayford" was a house pseudonym used primarily by Peggy Gaddis, but Norman Daniels and Brett Halliday each had a title using the name as well. I'm not aware that Stokes did, however. It's diffficult to say without having the books in hand, but if I had to guess I'd say...

 

The Clayford and Welles books are different novels. The publisher (these are related subsidiary lines I believe) just cheaply re-used the same art. Then when the Welles book was reprinted, somebody saw the art again, only recalled or re-used the Clayford title. It could be three editions of one title... but just as likely is two different novels sharing the same title at one point, and all sharing the same artwork (models and artists are expensive, y'know).

 

 

Edited May 16, 2014 by Bookery

[Doohickamabob]

This thread needs to come back to life - I was enjoying seeing all those cool vintage paperbacks.

I agree! This thread needs to come back to life for sure. Thanks for posting those!

 

I am going to have to get more organized about sharing some of the images I've collected in my archives for vintage paperback books.

[Pat Calhoun]

[giantcheeto]

As a long-time paperback collector who has recently got back into collecting comics after a long dormant period, I wanted to give my perspective on the paperback collecting hobby.

 

The thing that’s cool about collecting vintage paperbacks is that it is ridiculously inexpensive when compared to collecting comics. Your collecting budget goes a whole lot further. The key books in paperback collecting rarely exceed a couple hundred dollars. And there are a lot of great books you can pick up for $25 or less. There are very, very few vintage paperbacks (probably less than a dozen or so) that regularly command more than $1,000. In paperback collecting, I’ve managed to accumulate most of my paperback holy grails and only once did I ever spend more than $500 for a single paperback (Reform School Girl vintage paperback digest). Unless I win the lotto, I’ll never be able to afford any of the major comic book grails. In pursuing vintage paperback, I never felt l was priced out of the marketplace. I could actually afford a lot of the key books in the hobby. Because there are so much fewer paperback collectors, competition and pricing for key books is much lower than for comic book collecting.

 

On the other side of the coin, I don’t particularly think that collecting vintage paperbacks is the way to go if your primary concern is investment. From my experience over the past 15 years or so, vintage paperback prices have been pretty flat. I haven’t seen any of the wild increases that you see in the comic book hobby. Demand and pricing for vintage paperbacks seems slightly lower than when I started collecting. EBay brought a lot more vintage paperbacks to the marketplace. At the same time, I think vintage paperback collecting as a hobby is on the decline. Most of the serious paperback collectors seem to be in their 40’s or older. Younger generations have little or no interest in vintage paperbacks. Unlike comic books, where you continue to see an infusion of new collectors, you don’t have the same in paperback collecting. And realistically, I don’t see that trend changing. Without the interest of younger collectors, paperback collecting will eventually die off or become an even smaller niche. (You could argue the same will happen to the comic book hobby a generation or two down the road, but that’s a topic for another thread.)

 

On the plus side, if your primary concern isn’t investment, collecting paperbacks is a great hobby. If you’re patient and know where to look, you can put together an amazing paperback collection for not a lot of money. That’s what’s cool about collecting paperbacks. It’s not about making money or chasing the next hot book. It’s about the love of collecting. Kind of what collecting baseball cards or comics used to be like.

 

[/img]