• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

What is the most reviled comic book era?

Started by miraclemet,

Most reviled era by quality (writing/art)  

519 members have voted

  1. 1. Most reviled era by quality (writing/art)

    • 37011
    • 37010
    • 37010
    • 37010
    • 37006
    • 37011

76 posts in this topic

miraclemet

miraclemet

Posted
Posted

So a side conversation occurred during the AF15 vs TMNT1 debate (which was all fun), and someone asserted that there's a majority of collectors who find the copper age to be the most reviled. It was later clarified that the poster meant that it was the most reviled from an investment potential, but that from a quality of content it was also very poor.

 

This assertion surprised me, but I figure rather than make an assumption one way or another, lets just do a poll!

 

Poll #1: Please vote for which comic book era (I used the eBay dates, which were as good as any other, and I didn't have my Overstreet on me to see what they said) had the WORST quality of content (i.e ideas/writing/art) from your perspective/opinion.

 

Poll #2 Please vote for which comic book era has the WORST investment quality (realized and/or potential) from your perspective/opinion.

 

Please vote, and feel free to discuss the thinking behind your voting in the thread...Examples are always appreciated, and remember its all opinion (and occasionally fact supported opinion) so there's no wrong answer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ashrael

ashrael

Posted
Posted

Post-Copper Age (1992-2001) for both, but mostly for the 1992-1997 era. When art was the only thing that mattered, the stories were just plain bad. And with gigantic print runs during the first half of that time period I see no investment potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
miraclemet

miraclemet

Posted
  • Author
Posted

not surprised to see a little bit of voting for the Silver Age on both counts. Between some of the stuff being dated (60s/70s stuff when Marvel was trying to be "hip") and from an investment perspective some might fight it to have already hit its investment high points...

 

though there does seem to be a run-away favorite for both catagories (vote and see!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
valiantman

valiantman

Posted
Posted
The Modern Age, which you strangely refer to as "Post-Copper"? :tonofbricks:

You replied to me, but I didn't say it.

 

If I made the polls, I would have referred to the ages by their actual ages... and leave the scrap metals at home.

1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeffro.

Jeffro.

Posted
Posted
Post-Copper Age (1992-2001) for both, but mostly for the 1992-1997 era. When art was the only thing that mattered, the stories were just plain bad. And with gigantic print runs during the first half of that time period I see no investment potential.

 

Yes, but from 1997-2000 could end up being a very good investment period. Time will tell, but there are already people scooping up books from this time period

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
On-the-spot question: Are you for or against naming more recent ages by their decades?

 

Not totally, but there does seem to be a pattern that has its roots within the decade changes. This is also a well-known phenomenon, and just as people set "New Year's Resolutions" to change something about themselves each January 1, every decade there is an even more significant push to "change things up", especially in creative fields.

 

So it's not just a coincidence that 1970 ushered in a host of new and influential titles, or that 1980-81 was the same, or 1990 with Valiant, mass speculation, artists as rock stars, and the crazy-selling Marvel #1's, or 2000 with the Ultimate Universe.

 

When the decades roll over, it does something to the human mind to say "It's a new decade and we need a change".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisco37

chrisco37

Posted
Posted

I've got no issue with the way the poll was broken down.

 

"Modern" is always going to be a placeholder term for the most current (duh) stuff. But it seems a little silly to call something that's as much as 20 years old "Modern". So post-Copper is appropriate enough for the poll to cover the Image Explosion timeframe (spec) books until a proper name is given to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
Copper and "post copper" should be one selection, ie copper/post copper.

 

No, these eras couldn't be more different. The CA was all about the writer and the stories as star, with Moore, Miller, Gaiman, et al teaming up with pretty any well artist and selling through the roof. CA was about quality over style.

 

The Modern (which has been referred to as Post-Copper) Age was all about the artist and art, with no thought to the story, which drove mass speculation/high print runs and helped almost kill the biz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisco37

chrisco37

Posted
Posted
Copper and "post copper" should be one selection, ie copper/post copper.

 

No, these eras couldn't be more different. The CA was all about the writer and the stories as star, with Moore, Miller, Gaiman, et al teaming up with pretty any well artist and selling through the roof. CA was about quality over style.

 

The Modern (which has been referred to as Post-Copper) was all about the artist and art, with no thought to the story, which drove mass speculation/high print runs and helped almost kill the biz.

 

Beat me to it. Right on every point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
Copper and "post copper" should be one selection, ie copper/post copper.

 

No, these eras couldn't be more different. The CA was all about the writer and the stories as star, with Moore, Miller, Gaiman, et al teaming up with pretty any well artist and selling through the roof. CA was about quality over style.

 

The Modern (which has been referred to as Post-Copper) was all about the artist and art, with no thought to the story, which drove mass speculation/high print runs and helped almost kill the biz.

 

Beat me to it. Right on every point.

 

Kids, eh? :makepoint:

 

I can remember walking into my LCS the day Spider-man #1 hit and there was no question that a new era was dawning. People I'd never seen were buying stacks/cases, specs were fighting over which versions/color would sell for the most in the future, people were asking if they should open up the polybag, and I knew right then that the CA was over and done with.

 

And I was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WalkinWillie

WalkinWillie

Posted
Posted

Obviously Post-Copper but I agree with Jefro in that books from 1997 to present could have some value because there was little to no speculation. Comic shops pretty much ordered what was subscribed plus maybe one or two for the rack (give or take) - so books from that era are a little more scarce.

 

However, if I get one more collection offered to me from the 1990 to 1996 era.... well, I will just tell them very politely "No thanks". Just look on eBay where folks are selling collections in 50 book lots - the vast majority of them are from the 1990 to 1996 era. Garbage...

 

One exception: I am a Vertigo fan and a LOT of quality material was printed by Vertigo in the 1990's

 

As far as a valuable book from 1994? Any mainstream 10.0 that you don't have much into like pressing. Any 10.0 superhero book from the Big Two is worth at least $100 and maybe more if it is Bats, Spidey or X-Men. Raw books? I agree - nothing to see there dollar wise.

 

My 2c anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing