• 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.

A second copy of CGC 9.0 Action Comics #1 on the census (7/22/14)

Started by valiantman,

1,507 posts in this topic

Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
I agree that it's nice for the hobby to have something that can generate this level of excitement.

 

The only downside I can see is that the media publicity (generally shallowly researched) and even much of the discussions here are likely to perpetuate even more deeply so many of the myths that have tended to eviscerate actual comics history.

 

Action #1 has become important over time due to both publisher's efforts and comic book fandom. But I doubt the book made any great splash when it hit the stands originally. It was just another splashy bright cover among many others, nearly all aimed strictly at kids (adults would barely have given it a glance). It took over a year before Superman caught on strongly enough that DC felt it made sense to put him on the cover of all later issues. (Action #1 would hardly have been seen as particularly eye-catching when compared to many of the pulp covers of the day).

 

Superman, also, isn't the first of anything. Popeye and Mandrake had super-powers, as did, to some extent, Doc Savage and The Shadow. The Phantom had a costume, The Shadow and Mandrake had capes. Many prior heroes had secret identities. There were lots of varieties of "supermen" in science-fiction literature of the day. Olga Mesmer, an orphan from another planet, had both super-strength and X-ray vision, and appeared a year before Superman from the same publisher that produced DC comics!

 

Also, unfortuantely, it is incorrect to assume that today's blockbuster movies prove that comics, and super-heroes in particular, have reached mass-market popularity.

Nearly every year going back to the silent days, the biggest ticket-selling movies have always been big lavish adventure epics. Comics are handy projects for studios, particulary since Time-Warner owns DC and Disney owns Marvel. Why pay for somebody else's heroic adventures when you already own a bunch?

 

The public simply loves a big splashy good time. Any well-written expensively produced and ultra-hyped action movie will do the same, whether it's the Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, Back to the Future, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Guns of Navarone, Gone With the Wind, Die Hard, Samson and Delilah, Jurassic Park, The Towering Inferno, etc., etc. The public, as a whole, never heard of Guardians of the Galaxy, and likely STILL doesn't know it's comic book based.

 

Superman didn't break any significant ground as a character per se, but broke ground as a merchandising and promotional juggernaut in the same way that Tarzan or The Lone Ranger of Mickey Mouse were. And that IS significant. But comics are too important a medioum to let mythology and excitement take away from their true, and fascinating, history.

 

Great points. I'm not so sure A1 didn't have some presence on the stands though. My friend's grandpa, when I talked to him about it back in the 80s (he's passed on now) distinctly remembers it really grabbing him. (He bought one off the stands). Of course, that's just one person's anecdote but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SilverSuper-migration

SilverSuper-migration

Posted
Posted
Action #1 has become important over time due to both publisher's efforts and comic book fandom. But I doubt the book made any great splash when it hit the stands originally. It was just another splashy bright cover among many others, nearly all aimed strictly at kids (adults would barely have given it a glance). It took over a year before Superman caught on strongly enough that DC felt it made sense to put him on the cover of all later issues. (Action #1 would hardly have been seen as particularly eye-catching when compared to many of the pulp covers of the day).

 

Well, there's this fun anecdote, which is probably not 100% true, but definitly has some truth to it:

 

"Harry Donenfeld's accountant, Victor Fox came in to work at 10:00 AM, saw the sales figures for Action Comics #1, he quit his job at 11:00 AM, spent the noon hour finding some office space to rent, and by 2 PM he was interviewing people to do superhero comics for him."

 

Also, the editor (or owner of Action Comics, forget which), reportedly hated Superman and thought he was the most stupid character ever and forbade putting him on the cover after #1. He relented eventually...

 

And also, you forget: there was really nothing like Superman before AC #1. A man throwing a car? Whoa! The Pulp covers used to compare... They were all ordinary for the time in sense of theme. AC #1 wasn't. It, really, was completely different, as seen with the eyes of someone in 1938. The pulp covers might have been more "advanced", but the subject matter was everyday pulp.

 

And hello, I just registered, because I've decided to start collecting seriously, though mainly SA Super stuff. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
01TheDude

01TheDude

Posted
Posted
Action #1 has become important over time due to both publisher's efforts and comic book fandom. But I doubt the book made any great splash when it hit the stands originally. It was just another splashy bright cover among many others, nearly all aimed strictly at kids (adults would barely have given it a glance). It took over a year before Superman caught on strongly enough that DC felt it made sense to put him on the cover of all later issues. (Action #1 would hardly have been seen as particularly eye-catching when compared to many of the pulp covers of the day).

 

Well, there's this fun anecdote, which is probably not 100% true, but definitly has some truth to it:

 

"Harry Donenfeld's accountant, Victor Fox came in to work at 10:00 AM, saw the sales figures for Action Comics #1, he quit his job at 11:00 AM, spent the noon hour finding some office space to rent, and by 2 PM he was interviewing people to do superhero comics for him."

 

Also, the editor (or owner of Action Comics, forget which), reportedly hated Superman and thought he was the most stupid character ever and forbade putting him on the cover after #1. He relented eventually...

 

And also, you forget: there was really nothing like Superman before AC #1. A man throwing a car? Whoa! The Pulp covers used to compare... They were all ordinary for the time in sense of theme. AC #1 wasn't. It, really, was completely different, as seen with the eyes of someone in 1938. The pulp covers might have been more "advanced", but the subject matter was everyday pulp.

 

And hello, I just registered, because I've decided to start collecting seriously, though mainly SA Super stuff. :P

 

 

NOOOOOOOOB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SilverSuper-migration

SilverSuper-migration

Posted
Posted
Action #1 has become important over time due to both publisher's efforts and comic book fandom. But I doubt the book made any great splash when it hit the stands originally. It was just another splashy bright cover among many others, nearly all aimed strictly at kids (adults would barely have given it a glance). It took over a year before Superman caught on strongly enough that DC felt it made sense to put him on the cover of all later issues. (Action #1 would hardly have been seen as particularly eye-catching when compared to many of the pulp covers of the day).

 

Well, there's this fun anecdote, which is probably not 100% true, but definitly has some truth to it:

 

"Harry Donenfeld's accountant, Victor Fox came in to work at 10:00 AM, saw the sales figures for Action Comics #1, he quit his job at 11:00 AM, spent the noon hour finding some office space to rent, and by 2 PM he was interviewing people to do superhero comics for him."

 

Also, the editor (or owner of Action Comics, forget which), reportedly hated Superman and thought he was the most stupid character ever and forbade putting him on the cover after #1. He relented eventually...

 

And also, you forget: there was really nothing like Superman before AC #1. A man throwing a car? Whoa! The Pulp covers used to compare... They were all ordinary for the time in sense of theme. AC #1 wasn't. It, really, was completely different, as seen with the eyes of someone in 1938. The pulp covers might have been more "advanced", but the subject matter was everyday pulp.

 

And hello, I just registered, because I've decided to start collecting seriously, though mainly SA Super stuff. :P

 

 

NOOOOOOOOB

 

Indeed. 25 years ago I sold my X:EN comics (Swedish translations of JB/CC X-Men), for about $1.50 each. Now, they are worth about 15-30 times that, or more. Regrets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
01TheDude

01TheDude

Posted
Posted
Action #1 has become important over time due to both publisher's efforts and comic book fandom. But I doubt the book made any great splash when it hit the stands originally. It was just another splashy bright cover among many others, nearly all aimed strictly at kids (adults would barely have given it a glance). It took over a year before Superman caught on strongly enough that DC felt it made sense to put him on the cover of all later issues. (Action #1 would hardly have been seen as particularly eye-catching when compared to many of the pulp covers of the day).

 

Well, there's this fun anecdote, which is probably not 100% true, but definitly has some truth to it:

 

"Harry Donenfeld's accountant, Victor Fox came in to work at 10:00 AM, saw the sales figures for Action Comics #1, he quit his job at 11:00 AM, spent the noon hour finding some office space to rent, and by 2 PM he was interviewing people to do superhero comics for him."

 

Also, the editor (or owner of Action Comics, forget which), reportedly hated Superman and thought he was the most stupid character ever and forbade putting him on the cover after #1. He relented eventually...

 

And also, you forget: there was really nothing like Superman before AC #1. A man throwing a car? Whoa! The Pulp covers used to compare... They were all ordinary for the time in sense of theme. AC #1 wasn't. It, really, was completely different, as seen with the eyes of someone in 1938. The pulp covers might have been more "advanced", but the subject matter was everyday pulp.

 

And hello, I just registered, because I've decided to start collecting seriously, though mainly SA Super stuff. :P

 

 

NOOOOOOOOB

 

Indeed. 25 years ago I sold my X:EN comics (Swedish translations of JB/CC X-Men), for about $1.50 each. Now, they are worth about 15-30 times that, or more. Regrets.

 

just kidding with you- it's a board thing

 

and regrets-- we all have them

Link to comment
Share on other sites
markseifert

markseifert

Posted
Posted

Well, there's this fun anecdote, which is probably not 100% true, but definitly has some truth to it:

 

"Harry Donenfeld's accountant, Victor Fox came in to work at 10:00 AM, saw the sales figures for Action Comics #1, he quit his job at 11:00 AM, spent the noon hour finding some office space to rent, and by 2 PM he was interviewing people to do superhero comics for him."

 

Fwiw, that has been proven to be a myth.

 

What DID happen is interesting though: Fox was going into his distributor, Independent News, to check on raw sales figures coming in on his other magazines. Apparently newsdealers were returning cards that indicated their sales on them. These cards were seemingly just in a big pile or box before they were sorted and tabulated. And so he was able to see that Action was doing very well.

 

Given the timing of the release of Wonder Comics #1 in mid March '39, given that we have documented evidence that Lloyd Jacquet instructed Bill Everett to come up with a character like Superman in early March '39, and given this rather fascinating distributor letter that just appeared on ebay re sales of Action Comics #13 in late Feb '39, it would all seem to paint a picture of Superman really blowing up to the point that it was obvious to people who were paying attention around the time of the release of Action #13.

149561.jpg.557064e9900622fe45501cc25da82a0f.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted

Well, there's this fun anecdote, which is probably not 100% true, but definitly has some truth to it:

 

"Harry Donenfeld's accountant, Victor Fox came in to work at 10:00 AM, saw the sales figures for Action Comics #1, he quit his job at 11:00 AM, spent the noon hour finding some office space to rent, and by 2 PM he was interviewing people to do superhero comics for him."

 

Fwiw, that has been proven to be a myth.

 

What DID happen is interesting though: Fox was going into his distributor, Independent News, to check on raw sales figures coming in on his other magazines. Apparently newsdealers were returning cards that indicated their sales on them. These cards were seemingly just in a big pile or box before they were sorted and tabulated. And so he was able to see that Action was doing very well.

 

Given the timing of the release of Wonder Comics #1 in mid March '39, given that we have documented evidence that Lloyd Jacquet instructed Bill Everett to come up with a character like Superman in early March '39, and given this rather fascinating distributor letter that just appeared on ebay re sales of Action Comics #13 in late Feb '39, it would all seem to paint a picture of Superman really blowing up to the point that it was obvious to people who were paying attention around the time of the release of Action #13.

 

With all due respect to Bookery, there is just no way Superman didn't make a splash and change the market. Everyone was imitating him shortly after, only in those days it took a few months to get feedback on what was selling well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted

In fairness Bookery spoke only of Action 1 not of Superman. You are making a different statement.

 

Of course superman made a splash, but, to mix metaphors, was it a lightning bolt or a locomotive that gained steam every month?

 

My own take is that it was something in between.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eman13

eman13

Posted
Posted
In fairness Bookery spoke only of Action 1 not of Superman. You are making a different statement.

 

Of course superman made a splash, but, to mix metaphors, was it a lightning bolt or a locomotive that gained steam every month?

 

My own take is that it was something in between.

An electric train? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
markseifert

markseifert

Posted
Posted

Well, there's this fun anecdote, which is probably not 100% true, but definitly has some truth to it:

 

"Harry Donenfeld's accountant, Victor Fox came in to work at 10:00 AM, saw the sales figures for Action Comics #1, he quit his job at 11:00 AM, spent the noon hour finding some office space to rent, and by 2 PM he was interviewing people to do superhero comics for him."

 

Fwiw, that has been proven to be a myth.

 

What DID happen is interesting though: Fox was going into his distributor, Independent News, to check on raw sales figures coming in on his other magazines. Apparently newsdealers were returning cards that indicated their sales on them. These cards were seemingly just in a big pile or box before they were sorted and tabulated. And so he was able to see that Action was doing very well.

 

Given the timing of the release of Wonder Comics #1 in mid March '39, given that we have documented evidence that Lloyd Jacquet instructed Bill Everett to come up with a character like Superman in early March '39, and given this rather fascinating distributor letter that just appeared on ebay re sales of Action Comics #13 in late Feb '39, it would all seem to paint a picture of Superman really blowing up to the point that it was obvious to people who were paying attention around the time of the release of Action #13.

 

With all due respect to Bookery, there is just no way Superman didn't make a splash and change the market. Everyone was imitating him shortly after, only in those days it took a few months to get feedback on what was selling well.

 

Well, playing devil's advocate... it was relatively fast, but it was really not until the second half of '39 that competitors were entering the market in numbers. That's basically a year to realize what was happening and 2-3 extra months to get your own plans in motion (aside from Victor Fox, who definitely did get the jump by sneaking a peek at the actual numbers).

 

And one of the interesting aspects of this is that DC themselves moved forward with an ABUNDANCE of caution. Throughout most of '39 they were alternating Superman and Batman covers from month to month in Action and 'Tec (in the month Action would have a Supes cover, Detective would not have a Batman cover and vice versa). Then at the very end of '39, they unleashed hell on the superhero market.

 

***

 

As I understand it, the idea that they needed to wait for months to get sales indicators is also largely a myth. DC v Bruns tells us that it was even possible to get a mid-month status check from newsdealers. There were standard procedures in place to do that.

 

The initial caution as I understand it is that they didn't actually have an iron-clad idea of what was driving sales on Action Comics. #1 sold 130,000 out of a 202,000 print run. #2 sold 136,000 out of a 211,000 print run. Solid, but not a blow-the-doors-off overnight success.

 

Harry Donenfeld gave an interview in 1941 which lays out some facts that can largely be corroborated by the events of the time and by testimony in DC v Bruns. Around the time of #3 and #4 seems to have been a turning point, internally. There is a contest in Action #4 which asks readers to list what their favorite characters of Action were -- that is what they used to confirm that Superman was driving sales (this according to court testimony and Donenfeld's interview). They got those results and were able to put them in effect in time for the Action #7 cover.

 

Still, even after that, they were pretty cautious moving forward, obviously.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sqeggs

Sqeggs

Posted
Posted

Well, there's this fun anecdote, which is probably not 100% true, but definitly has some truth to it:

 

"Harry Donenfeld's accountant, Victor Fox came in to work at 10:00 AM, saw the sales figures for Action Comics #1, he quit his job at 11:00 AM, spent the noon hour finding some office space to rent, and by 2 PM he was interviewing people to do superhero comics for him."

 

Fwiw, that has been proven to be a myth.

 

What DID happen is interesting though: Fox was going into his distributor, Independent News, to check on raw sales figures coming in on his other magazines. Apparently newsdealers were returning cards that indicated their sales on them. These cards were seemingly just in a big pile or box before they were sorted and tabulated. And so he was able to see that Action was doing very well.

 

Given the timing of the release of Wonder Comics #1 in mid March '39, given that we have documented evidence that Lloyd Jacquet instructed Bill Everett to come up with a character like Superman in early March '39, and given this rather fascinating distributor letter that just appeared on ebay re sales of Action Comics #13 in late Feb '39, it would all seem to paint a picture of Superman really blowing up to the point that it was obvious to people who were paying attention around the time of the release of Action #13.

 

With all due respect to Bookery, there is just no way Superman didn't make a splash and change the market. Everyone was imitating him shortly after, only in those days it took a few months to get feedback on what was selling well.

 

Well, playing devil's advocate... it was relatively fast, but it was really not until the second half of '39 that competitors were entering the market in numbers. That's basically a year to realize what was happening and 2-3 extra months to get your own plans in motion (aside from Victor Fox, who definitely did get the jump by sneaking a peek at the actual numbers).

 

And one of the interesting aspects of this is that DC themselves moved forward with an ABUNDANCE of caution. Throughout most of '39 they were alternating Superman and Batman covers from month to month in Action and 'Tec (in the month Action would have a Supes cover, Detective would not have a Batman cover and vice versa). Then at the very end of '39, they unleashed hell on the superhero market.

 

***

 

As I understand it, the idea that they needed to wait for months to get sales indicators is also largely a myth. DC v Bruns tells us that it was even possible to get a mid-month status check from newsdealers. There were standard procedures in place to do that.

 

The initial caution as I understand it is that they didn't actually have an iron-clad idea of what was driving sales on Action Comics. #1 sold 103,000 out of a 202,000 print run. #2 sold 136,000 out of a 211,000 print run. Solid, but not a blow-the-doors-off overnight success.

 

Harry Donenfeld gave an interview in 1941 which lays out some facts that can largely be corroborated by the events of the time and by testimony in DC v Bruns. Around the time of #3 and #4 seems to have been a turning point, internally. There is a contest in Action #4 which asks readers to list what their favorite characters of Action were -- that is what they used to confirm that Superman was driving sales (this according to court testimony and Donenfeld's interview). They got those results and were able to put them in effect in time for the Action #7 cover.

 

Still, even after that, they were pretty cautious moving forward, obviously.

 

 

You have some fascinating posts built on some excellent research. (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
In fairness Bookery spoke only of Action 1 not of Superman. You are making a different statement.

 

Of course superman made a splash, but, to mix metaphors, was it a lightning bolt or a locomotive that gained steam every month?

 

My own take is that it was something in between.

An electric train? lol

 

lol (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted

As I understand it, the idea that they needed to wait for months to get sales indicators is also largely a myth. DC v Bruns tells us that it was even possible to get a mid-month status check from newsdealers. There were standard procedures in place to do that.

 

The initial caution as I understand it is that they didn't actually have an iron-clad idea of what was driving sales on Action Comics. #1 sold 103,000 out of a 202,000 print run. #2 sold 136,000 out of a 211,000 print run. Solid, but not a blow-the-doors-off overnight success.

 

Harry Donenfeld gave an interview in 1941 which lays out some facts that can largely be corroborated by the events of the time and by testimony in DC v Bruns. Around the time of #3 and #4 seems to have been a turning point, internally. There is a contest in Action #4 which asks readers to list what their favorite characters of Action were -- that is what they used to confirm that Superman was driving sales (this according to court testimony and Donenfeld's interview). They got those results and were able to put them in effect in time for the Action #7 cover.

 

Still, even after that, they were pretty cautious moving forward, obviously.

 

 

Excellent points and having never read Action #4, I'd never have known that but I won't forget it.

 

I always wondered why they chose Action #7 as the 2nd cover. Now we know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing