Peter Palmer

[seredynskib]

I finally got around to reading my copy of ASM1 for the first time and thought I would share this interesting panel from it:

 

 

We know him as Peter Palmer.

[porcupine48]

I believe there is a boardie named Peter Palmer.

[nmtg9]

I think in ASM 3 (?) He is referred to as Superman.

[Stryfe1000]

I think in ASM 3 (?) He is referred to as Superman.

 

 

[Warren Oates]

check the Marvel No Prize book if you like these. Many of these mistakes. Circa 84

 

 

[porcupine48]

I've always wanted one of those!

[Spider-Variant]

There is a theory that goes like this:

 

Suppose that the two stories in Amazing Spider-Man #1 were written several months apart. If you look at the art differences, it is possible that a slightly different style was used, especially the inking, between the lead story and the second one. Let's say for sake of argument, that the lead story in ASM #1 had been meant for Amazing Fantasy #16 (remember Stan did promise more Spider-Man stories in that AF#15 letter). AF #16 would have been cover dated Sept. 1962 while ASM #1 didn't make it out until March, 1963.

 

As the theory goes, in the lead story Stan got Peter Parker's name right because AF#15 was just a month old when he wrote it, but after a several month layoff, he had forgotten Peter Parker's name and called him "Peter Palmer." Note that this wasn't just a one-time error, as a few panels later on the same page posted above, he used Peter Palmer again.

 

It's a compelling theory and adds a little more glamor (IMHO, of course) to the Peter Palmer issue.

 

 

[pemart1966]

There is a theory that goes like this:

 

Suppose that the two stories in Amazing Spider-Man #1 were written several months apart. If you look at the art differences, it is possible that a slightly different style was used, especially the inking, between the lead story and the second one. Let's say for sake of argument, that the lead story in ASM #1 had been meant for Amazing Fantasy #16 (remember Stan did promise more Spider-Man stories in that AF#15 letter). AF #16 would have been cover dated Sept. 1962 while ASM #1 didn't make it out until March, 1963.

 

As the theory goes, in the lead story Stan got Peter Parker's name right because AF#15 was just a month old when he wrote it, but after a several month layoff, he had forgotten Peter Parker's name and called him "Peter Palmer." Note that this wasn't just a one-time error, as a few panels later on the same page posted above, he used Peter Palmer again.

 

It's a compelling theory and adds a little more glamor (IMHO, of course) to the Peter Palmer issue.

 

 

Makes sense. Funny though that no one picked up on those errors - letterer; proof reader(s) etc etc.

 

I notice that my hard copy first edition Marvel Masterworks has all of the errors mentioned on this thread "corrected". In this Masterworks, they also took out Spidey's black eyeballs on the last page of the AF 15 story (panel where Spidey looks at the face of Uncle Ben's killer).

 

I know that the current TPB Masterworks (AF 15 and Spider-Man 1-10) has restored Spidey's black eyeballs. Does it also "restore" the Peter Palmer mentions AND the "Super-Man" reference by Doc Ock in Spider-Man # 3?

 

 

[seredynskib]

There is a theory that goes like this:

 

Suppose that the two stories in Amazing Spider-Man #1 were written several months apart. If you look at the art differences, it is possible that a slightly different style was used, especially the inking, between the lead story and the second one. Let's say for sake of argument, that the lead story in ASM #1 had been meant for Amazing Fantasy #16 (remember Stan did promise more Spider-Man stories in that AF#15 letter). AF #16 would have been cover dated Sept. 1962 while ASM #1 didn't make it out until March, 1963.

 

As the theory goes, in the lead story Stan got Peter Parker's name right because AF#15 was just a month old when he wrote it, but after a several month layoff, he had forgotten Peter Parker's name and called him "Peter Palmer." Note that this wasn't just a one-time error, as a few panels later on the same page posted above, he used Peter Palmer again.

 

It's a compelling theory and adds a little more glamor (IMHO, of course) to the Peter Palmer issue.

 

 

Interesting theory. Thank you for sharing!

[Spider-Variant]

There is a theory that goes like this:

 

Suppose that the two stories in Amazing Spider-Man #1 were written several months apart. If you look at the art differences, it is possible that a slightly different style was used, especially the inking, between the lead story and the second one. Let's say for sake of argument, that the lead story in ASM #1 had been meant for Amazing Fantasy #16 (remember Stan did promise more Spider-Man stories in that AF#15 letter). AF #16 would have been cover dated Sept. 1962 while ASM #1 didn't make it out until March, 1963.

 

As the theory goes, in the lead story Stan got Peter Parker's name right because AF#15 was just a month old when he wrote it, but after a several month layoff, he had forgotten Peter Parker's name and called him "Peter Palmer." Note that this wasn't just a one-time error, as a few panels later on the same page posted above, he used Peter Palmer again.

 

It's a compelling theory and adds a little more glamor (IMHO, of course) to the Peter Palmer issue.

 

 

Makes sense. Funny though that no one picked up on those errors - letterer; proof reader(s) etc etc.

 

I notice that my hard copy first edition Marvel Masterworks has all of the errors mentioned on this thread "corrected". In this Masterworks, they also took out Spidey's black eyeballs on the last page of the AF 15 story (panel where Spidey looks at the face of Uncle Ben's killer).

 

I know that the current TPB Masterworks (AF 15 and Spider-Man 1-10) has restored Spidey's black eyeballs. Does it also "restore" the Peter Palmer mentions AND the "Super-Man" reference by Doc Ock in Spider-Man # 3?

 

 

I had always noticed the Peter Palmer error when I first read a reprint of ASM #1. When I was looking for it to look at it for this thread, everything I picked up had been corrected. Marvel Masterworks HC, Milestone edition, even the Golden Record reprint. I must have read it in Marvel Tales, but not sure I had the issue that reprinted #1. So, more likely it was the Pocketbook.

 

 

[pemart1966]

There is a theory that goes like this:

 

Suppose that the two stories in Amazing Spider-Man #1 were written several months apart. If you look at the art differences, it is possible that a slightly different style was used, especially the inking, between the lead story and the second one. Let's say for sake of argument, that the lead story in ASM #1 had been meant for Amazing Fantasy #16 (remember Stan did promise more Spider-Man stories in that AF#15 letter). AF #16 would have been cover dated Sept. 1962 while ASM #1 didn't make it out until March, 1963.

 

As the theory goes, in the lead story Stan got Peter Parker's name right because AF#15 was just a month old when he wrote it, but after a several month layoff, he had forgotten Peter Parker's name and called him "Peter Palmer." Note that this wasn't just a one-time error, as a few panels later on the same page posted above, he used Peter Palmer again.

 

It's a compelling theory and adds a little more glamor (IMHO, of course) to the Peter Palmer issue.

 

 

Makes sense. Funny though that no one picked up on those errors - letterer; proof reader(s) etc etc.

 

I notice that my hard copy first edition Marvel Masterworks has all of the errors mentioned on this thread "corrected". In this Masterworks, they also took out Spidey's black eyeballs on the last page of the AF 15 story (panel where Spidey looks at the face of Uncle Ben's killer).

 

I know that the current TPB Masterworks (AF 15 and Spider-Man 1-10) has restored Spidey's black eyeballs. Does it also "restore" the Peter Palmer mentions AND the "Super-Man" reference by Doc Ock in Spider-Man # 3?

 

 

I had always noticed the Peter Palmer error when I first read a reprint of ASM #1. When I was looking for it to look at it for this thread, everything I picked up had been corrected. Marvel Masterworks HC, Milestone edition, even the Golden Record reprint. I must have read it in Marvel Tales, but not sure I had the issue that reprinted #1. So, more likely it was the Pocketbook.

 

 

The 1977 pocket book does indeed contain the "black eyes", the "Peter Palmer" and the Doc Ock "Super-Man" references. Those pocket books state on the cover that they are "complete and unabridged" and it seems that they lived up to that promise.

 

NOW - what about the most recent Spider-Man Masterworks TPB Vol 1?? I know that it has the "eyeballs" but does it have the "Peter Palmer" and "Super-Man references???

[Spider-Variant]

There is a theory that goes like this:

 

Suppose that the two stories in Amazing Spider-Man #1 were written several months apart. If you look at the art differences, it is possible that a slightly different style was used, especially the inking, between the lead story and the second one. Let's say for sake of argument, that the lead story in ASM #1 had been meant for Amazing Fantasy #16 (remember Stan did promise more Spider-Man stories in that AF#15 letter). AF #16 would have been cover dated Sept. 1962 while ASM #1 didn't make it out until March, 1963.

 

As the theory goes, in the lead story Stan got Peter Parker's name right because AF#15 was just a month old when he wrote it, but after a several month layoff, he had forgotten Peter Parker's name and called him "Peter Palmer." Note that this wasn't just a one-time error, as a few panels later on the same page posted above, he used Peter Palmer again.

 

It's a compelling theory and adds a little more glamor (IMHO, of course) to the Peter Palmer issue.

 

 

Makes sense. Funny though that no one picked up on those errors - letterer; proof reader(s) etc etc.

 

I notice that my hard copy first edition Marvel Masterworks has all of the errors mentioned on this thread "corrected". In this Masterworks, they also took out Spidey's black eyeballs on the last page of the AF 15 story (panel where Spidey looks at the face of Uncle Ben's killer).

 

I know that the current TPB Masterworks (AF 15 and Spider-Man 1-10) has restored Spidey's black eyeballs. Does it also "restore" the Peter Palmer mentions AND the "Super-Man" reference by Doc Ock in Spider-Man # 3?

 

 

I had always noticed the Peter Palmer error when I first read a reprint of ASM #1. When I was looking for it to look at it for this thread, everything I picked up had been corrected. Marvel Masterworks HC, Milestone edition, even the Golden Record reprint. I must have read it in Marvel Tales, but not sure I had the issue that reprinted #1. So, more likely it was the Pocketbook.

 

 

The 1977 pocket book does indeed contain the "black eyes", the "Peter Palmer" and the Doc Ock "Super-Man" references. Those pocket books state on the cover that they are "complete and unabridged" and it seems that they lived up to that promise.

 

NOW - what about the most recent Spider-Man Masterworks TPB Vol 1?? I know that it has the "eyeballs" but does it have the "Peter Palmer" and "Super-Man references???

 

Not sure on the TPB, didn't buy that one.

 

Figured it had to be the Pocketbook. Loved those things.

[Hiro]

Knew about ASM3 Super-Man error, but not sure why I didn't know or never noticed the ASM1

Peter Palmer error. Interesting! How could Stan forget the name in between AF15 and ASM1??

Was he too lazy to look at AF15? After all they were launching a new character and title.

He must have had an AF15 in the office.

 

I had posted this in another thread: Memorable Comics Screw Ups

 

Has the ASM3 error, but not the ASM1. Worth checking out.

[rjpb]

Knew about ASM3 Super-Man error, but not sure why I didn't know or never noticed the ASM1

Peter Palmer error. Interesting! How could Stan forget the name in between AF15 and ASM1??

Was he too lazy to look at AF15? After all they were launching a new character and title.

He must have had an AF15 in the office.

 

 

Stan was editing 11 titles a month, and probably plotting most of the two dozen or so stories found therein. He'd been doing it for thirty years, and had given names to

hundreds if not thousands of characters. I imagine in 1962, he didn't see the lunch of a new superhero title as any more important than a new teen or western book.

 

He probably wasn't even aware he had forgotten or mistaken Parker's name at that point, so why would he double check it.