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

[SpideyFein]

Great letter. So so cool. It's so ironic that it spoke about Action Comics and Superman like that and 75 years later the early actions and #1 are still paving the way.

[adamstrange]

Here's what the comics newsstand looked like for the June 1938 issues.

 

Note: this is a photoshop put together by another boardie whose name I have forgotten.

[CycleGirl]

 

I'm going to copy and paste a couple of the PMs I traded back & forth with Joe (otherworldsj33) that address some of this comparison:

 

Let me clarify my statements a bit. It's like you said yourself - the story contained within Action #1 of Superman is art. Just like the movie "Casablanca" is art. Art made for commercial purposes, to be sure, but still art I agree. The physical Action #1 comic book itself or an old 1940s reel-to-reel print of Casablanca, though? That's just a collectible, IMO, a physical manifestation of art that is experiential (e.g., reading the comic book, viewing the film). It's a subtle, but important, distinction.

 

So no, I don't consider the Action #1 physical comic book to be art, though that has nothing to do about the medium of comics as a whole, which I wholeheartedly agree is art (well, some of it anyway). As for Superman the character...I respect the character and his influence, but I'm just not passionate about him the way I am about other comic book titles and characters. Action #1 was simply never my Holy Grail of comic books and I feel that it's a lot of peoples' simply because of its rarity, importance and status as opposed to people actually being so passionate about the character, art and story contained within. I mean, how many people think Action #1 features the best art and/or story ever told in comics? It's really the 1885 Karl Benz prototype of automobiles (or Model T if you prefer) and is far from the peak expression of the medium, IMO.

 

As for the Action #1 9.0, let's face it - it's a multi-million dollar book because of its condition and rarity; its historic importance and whatever artistic merit it has are largely only the background story of this particular copy. To me, art should stand on its own; it doesn't need a third-party grading service's imprimatur to give it value. I would agree that the original art used to create the book is art in and of itself; the commercial, derivative output of that art, a periodical marketed at kids for 10 cents in 1938...that isn't art in and of itself to me.

 

Furthermore, I've always said that it makes zero sense to justify another asset's valuation by comparing it to high-end fine art, which is in a league of its own as the most egregiously priced material on the entire planet.

 

I'll just make a couple of points here.

 

You write "the commercial, derivative output of that art, a periodical marketed at kids for 10 cents in 1938...that isn't art in and of itself to me."

 

What's the problem with it being commercial?

 

Consider Rembrandt's "Night Watch" It's a portrait of what was basically the police working the night shift. Rembrandt, like most of the painters of his day, paid the rent by doing portraits. Most of the paintings of this era are simply portraits of merchants done for commissions. The motivation for many artists through history has been to make a living.

 

What's the problem with it being marketed to kids?

 

Are you saying that if the art is targeted to children then the product can't be art? How about Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker, Peter and the Wolf, or Alice in Wonderland?

 

I could write a lot more, but I think I'll just add one more point.

 

Superman may not be your favorite but you must admit that Superman is the superhero by which all other superheroes are measured. He's also the archtype. Even when my favorite character, Betty Cooper in Archie comics dons a superhero costume in 1966, her costume clearly resembles Superman's (blue, red cape and pants, red insigna).

 

If you want to tell the reader "I'm a superhero" the fastest way is to make your character look like Superman, because he's standard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bronty]

I think what Gene is trying to say is that a movie might be art but the physical movie reel is not.

 

A comic story might be art but the physical comic book, not.

 

A piece of literature art but the bound book itself, not. etc.

 

A great song art but the handwritten manuscript upon which the lyrics were drafted, not.

 

Etc. etc. etc.

 

Its a line more fine than I care to worry myself with, but he's not saying quite what you think he's saying.

[kav]

The word artist for fine arts was first use in 1767.

Da Vinci for example was known as a painter. A craftsmen held in no higher regard than carpenter or potter.

[CycleGirl]

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.

 

 

These historical sales figures and the letter from 1939. This has made this thread one of the best ever for me.

 

 

 

[CycleGirl]

I think what Gene is trying to say is that a movie might be art but the physical movie reel is not.

 

A comic story might be art but the physical comic book, not.

 

A piece of literature art but the bound book itself, not. etc.

 

A great song art but the handwritten manuscript upon which the lyrics were drafted, not.

 

Etc. etc. etc.

 

Its a line more fine than I care to worry myself with, but he's not saying quite what you think he's saying.

 

Yes. Well, then the painting of a woman hanging in the Louvre is only paint and canvas, the image itself is the art we know as the Mona Lisa. I get that point, but it's still a pretty valuable painting.

[Rip]

I think what Gene is trying to say is that a movie might be art but the physical movie reel is not.

 

A comic story might be art but the physical comic book, not.

 

A piece of literature art but the bound book itself, not. etc.

 

A great song art but the handwritten manuscript upon which the lyrics were drafted, not.

 

Etc. etc. etc.

 

Its a line more fine than I care to worry myself with, but he's not saying quite what you think he's saying.

 

Yes. Well, then the painting of a woman hanging in the Louvre is only paint and canvas, the image itself is the art we know as the Mona Lisa. I get that point, but it's still a pretty valuable painting.

 

I think a better representation of the comments would be, the painting hanging behind the bullet proof glass is art. The poster you bought of the Mona Lisa after seeing it at the Louvre is not.

 

(Unless of course you put a mustache and a goatee on her and wrote L.H..Q.)

[Phill the Governor]

I think what Gene is trying to say is that a movie might be art but the physical movie reel is not.

 

A comic story might be art but the physical comic book, not.

 

A piece of literature art but the bound book itself, not. etc.

 

A great song art but the handwritten manuscript upon which the lyrics were drafted, not.

 

Etc. etc. etc.

 

Its a line more fine than I care to worry myself with, but he's not saying quite what you think he's saying.

 

Yes. Well, then the painting of a woman hanging in the Louvre is only paint and canvas, the image itself is the art we know as the Mona Lisa. I get that point, but it's still a pretty valuable painting.

 

I think a better representation of the comments would be, the painting hanging behind the bullet proof glass is art. The poster you bought of the Mona Lisa after seeing it at the Louvre is not.

 

It's a commodity: a poster of a piece of art.

[Phill the Governor]

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.

 

 

What a copious amount of information in one post!

 

I know that Detective alternated Batman covers until #36, but I never realized that it coincided with Action Covers..

 

Awesome history lesson! (thumbs u

[Bronty]

 

I think a better representation of the comments would be, the painting hanging behind the bullet proof glass is art. The poster you bought of the Mona Lisa after seeing it at the Louvre is not.

 

(Unless of course you put a mustache and a goatee on her and wrote L.H..Q.)

 

[r100comics]

Here's what the comics newsstand looked like for the June 1938 issues.

 

Note: this is a photoshop put together by another boardie whose name I have forgotten.

 

The AC #1 and the Popeye would have been most eye-catching for me if I was a kid then.

 

That would have been 20c well spent....

[ComicConnoisseur]

Here's what the comics newsstand looked like for the June 1938 issues.

 

Note: this is a photoshop put together by another boardie whose name I have forgotten.

 

The AC #1 and the Popeye would have been most eye-catching for me if I was a kid then.

 

That would have been 20c well spent....

Superman and Popeye even way back then had some of that Hollywood influence.The Fleischer Studios Superman and Popeye cartoons were introducing Popeye and Superman to new audiences beyond the comic book rack. People complain about the Hollywood movie hype today,but it`s been around along time.

[Bookery]

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.

 

 

Thanks, markseifert, for the great insights! This is really the only point I've been making... the actual history of comics publishing is quite fascinating in itself... it would be a shame if it were lost due to oversimplification and mythification. To answer Roy, I never said Superman didn't have a huge impact (that would be absurd)... and though his popularity grew very fast, it wasn't overnight. And he didn't appear in a vacuum... the character expanded on plenty of prior precedents.

 

[Bookery]

And I will amend my one comment...

 

Though Action #1 wouldn't necessarily stand out amongst the pulp covers of the day, it wouldn't have been racked with them either. However, seeing that previously posted mock-up of a June 1938 comic rack, I have to admit it does seem striking when compared to the other mostly strip-adapted art of the day. So I stand corrected.

[Bookery]

I have no idea when this photo came out (pre or post 1938)... somebody more adept at identifying vintage autos might be able to date it...

 

 

 

[Bookery]

 

This is an original 1893 poster I acquired recently, specifically for its super-hero type vibe...

 

 

 

[markseifert]

That is awesome.

 

Had to google... some kind of strong man traveling show, looks like?

 

This is an original 1893 poster I acquired recently, specifically for its super-hero type vibe...

 

 

[delekkerste]

I think what Gene is trying to say is that a movie might be art but the physical movie reel is not.

 

A comic story might be art but the physical comic book, not.

 

A piece of literature art but the bound book itself, not. etc.

 

A great song art but the handwritten manuscript upon which the lyrics were drafted, not.

 

Etc. etc. etc.

 

Yes, that's the distinction I was going for (not commercial vs. non-commercial); a better example than the above is that a great song might be art, but the rare record that it appears on is just a collectible.

 

The original art to Action #1 you might call commercial art or illustration, but you could call it art. The physical comic book itself, though, is just a collectible, with most of its value derived from its scarcity in grade with the imprimatur of a third party grading service (the book's historical importance is taken as a given to establish a base value, but most of the incremental value is based solely on condition). You wouldn't necessarily care that much about the slightest imperfections on the Mona Lisa or the Action #1 original art (if it existed, of course), because it's the original and one of a kind - i.e., it's art. Not so with the physical Action #1 the comic book, because it's not art, it's a collectible, and scarcity in grade is what drives most of the value (just look at the difference in price between a 2.0 and a 9.0 copy - both had the same cultural impact and yet one is worth multiples of the other).

[Bookery]

That is awesome.

 

Had to google... some kind of strong man traveling show, looks like?

 

It was sold as a theatrical poster, but I'm assuming some sort of outdoor show in a scaled down vein of the Buffalo Bill variety. I can't find anything about the man, the poster, or the lithographer. The downside is the white border originally around the poster has been trimmed off... the upside... I'm guessing the poster is probably one-of-a-kind.