Bigger SA Key: Flash 105 or Justice League of America 1?

[mysterio]

 

Is Spider-woman and Spider-man the same super-hero?

 

Of course not. The name is not even the same. If only parts of the name could be the same then Spider-MAN, superMAN, and batMAN is the same - obviously not.

 

Hey, I'm not the one arguing that Showcase #4 isn't a first appearance.

 

And picking off the "man" part rather that the rest is a little silly - and it would have been silly to name a female version of Superman as SuperMAN.

 

Flash and..... Flash.... same basic super power......The SA version is different because the GA version would have been too old by now (not until later did DC come up with the idea of having the GA version on a different earth).

 

Given that Superman in 1938 was essentially the same age as Superman in 1956, I doubt that the "age" of Jay Garrick played much of a role in this.

 

It's not rocket science... another idea is to google search for the Flash:

 

The Silver Age - Penn State University

www.psu.edu/dept/inart10_110/.../cmbk6silver.html

Oversæt denne side

This Flash was a revamped version of the Golden Age Flash, he was created ... After a few appearances in Showcase comics, The Flash received his own title.

 

Silver Age of Comic Books - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Age_of_Comic_Books

Oversæt denne side

Following the Golden Age of Comic Books and an interregnum in the early to ... of a new version of DC Comics's The Flash in Showcase #4 (Oct. 1956).

 

Baby Boomer Comics: The Wild, Wacky, Wonderful Comic Books ...

https://books.google.dk/books?isbn=1440225133 - Oversæt denne side

Craig Shutt - 2011 - ‎Antiques & Collectibles

Sadly, though, Silver Age comics were mostly produced by people old enough ... Schwartz began his revival of Golden Age characters with a revamped Flash in ....

 

And so on and on and on...

 

Sure, nobody is disputing that the SA Flash was based in part on the GA one, just whether you can logically call the Barry Allen Flash "the same character", and thus Showcase #4 wasn't a first appearance.

 

 

No-one is arguing that Supergirl is really Superman, or that Batgirl is really Batman...That just doesn't make sense. Then everyone in the Incredibles would also be the same super-hero? No, of course not.

 

Of course it doesn't make sense, they are two separate characters, who share the same name (with the necessary modification for gender), with the same powers - in the first instance with the same origin. You know, like Barry Allen and Jay Garrick.

 

You seem rather selective in how you apply your logic on this one.

 

Everyone seems to agree that Flash was pepped up a bit and re-introduced - so it's pretty strange to begin to argue it is suddenly a completely independent super-hero.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that is a "completely independent super-hero", just that they are two different character, with two different "first appearances".

 

They are different people being the super-hero The Flash. That is of course true. So each is the first appearance of each of these people. But the first appearance of the super-hero is Flash Comics 1.

 

The origin is different. The characters are different. The costume is different. The rogues are different. But it is the same hero. Makes sense.

 

They are versions. Versions are per definition not the same. A GA version and a SA version.

 

Just like Phantoms are versions. Those versions also had updated customes over time, updated weapons, different origin stories because they became the Phantom at different times under different circumstances, they have different villains they are fighting etc. Still, they are versions of the Phantom. Not independents super-heroes. The true first appearance of the basic super-hero the Phantom happened once.

 

Forgive my ignorance on all things Phantom, but I honestly don't know this answer. Could two different people be the Phantom simultaneously? If not, that is clearly not the same thing as two different characters simultaneously being the Flash with different origins and costumes. Even if the answer is yes I still see a lot of tortured logic being applied to this example.

[AlexanderM]

 

Is Spider-woman and Spider-man the same super-hero?

 

Of course not. The name is not even the same. If only parts of the name could be the same then Spider-MAN, superMAN, and batMAN is the same - obviously not.

 

Hey, I'm not the one arguing that Showcase #4 isn't a first appearance.

 

And picking off the "man" part rather that the rest is a little silly - and it would have been silly to name a female version of Superman as SuperMAN.

 

Flash and..... Flash.... same basic super power......The SA version is different because the GA version would have been too old by now (not until later did DC come up with the idea of having the GA version on a different earth).

 

Given that Superman in 1938 was essentially the same age as Superman in 1956, I doubt that the "age" of Jay Garrick played much of a role in this.

 

It's not rocket science... another idea is to google search for the Flash:

 

The Silver Age - Penn State University

www.psu.edu/dept/inart10_110/.../cmbk6silver.html

Oversæt denne side

This Flash was a revamped version of the Golden Age Flash, he was created ... After a few appearances in Showcase comics, The Flash received his own title.

 

Silver Age of Comic Books - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Age_of_Comic_Books

Oversæt denne side

Following the Golden Age of Comic Books and an interregnum in the early to ... of a new version of DC Comics's The Flash in Showcase #4 (Oct. 1956).

 

Baby Boomer Comics: The Wild, Wacky, Wonderful Comic Books ...

https://books.google.dk/books?isbn=1440225133 - Oversæt denne side

Craig Shutt - 2011 - ‎Antiques & Collectibles

Sadly, though, Silver Age comics were mostly produced by people old enough ... Schwartz began his revival of Golden Age characters with a revamped Flash in ....

 

And so on and on and on...

 

Sure, nobody is disputing that the SA Flash was based in part on the GA one, just whether you can logically call the Barry Allen Flash "the same character", and thus Showcase #4 wasn't a first appearance.

 

 

No-one is arguing that Supergirl is really Superman, or that Batgirl is really Batman...That just doesn't make sense. Then everyone in the Incredibles would also be the same super-hero? No, of course not.

 

Of course it doesn't make sense, they are two separate characters, who share the same name (with the necessary modification for gender), with the same powers - in the first instance with the same origin. You know, like Barry Allen and Jay Garrick.

 

You seem rather selective in how you apply your logic on this one.

 

Everyone seems to agree that Flash was pepped up a bit and re-introduced - so it's pretty strange to begin to argue it is suddenly a completely independent super-hero.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that is a "completely independent super-hero", just that they are two different character, with two different "first appearances".

 

They are different people being the super-hero The Flash. That is of course true. So each is the first appearance of each of these people. But the first appearance of the super-hero is Flash Comics 1.

 

The origin is different. The characters are different. The costume is different. The rogues are different. But it is the same hero. Makes sense.

 

They are versions. Versions are per definition not the same. A GA version and a SA version.

 

Just like Phantoms are versions. Those versions also had updated customes over time, updated weapons, different origin stories because they became the Phantom at different times under different circumstances, they have different villains they are fighting etc. Still, they are versions of the Phantom. Not independents super-heroes. The true first appearance of the basic super-hero the Phantom happened once.

 

Forgive my ignorance on all things Phantom, but I honestly don't know this answer. Could two different people be the Phantom simultaneously? If not, that is clearly not the same thing as two different characters simultaneously being the Flash with different origins and costumes. Even if the answer is yes I still see a lot of tortured logic being applied to this example.

 

Yes, it has happened. But it isn't the norm in the issues. Usually there is one at the time being the Phantom.

[rjpb]

Semantically speaking the Barry Allen Flash is not a "new" superhero, but DC's decision to give the character a new identity, origin and costume, even going as far as to reference the GA Flash as a fictional character in Allen's world, is what defines The Flash as the first SA superhero. It's DC's acknowledgement that if the genre is to find a renaissance beyond the big three, characters must be reinvented, not merely revived in the way Atlas had just a few years earlier.

 

To compare it to the handing off of an identity in the fashion of The Phantom, or for that matter the Wally West Flash, is to miss the whole point of the SA, that it is a second era of comic book heroes, not just the return of the first. Whatever later retconning brought the eras closer together isn't really relevant, the Flash of 1956 was meant to be seen as something new and apart from the 1940s version.

[markseifert]

There is just one major issue with taking Challengers instead of JLA.... Challengers were not popular... It makes little business sense to imagine Marvel said "wow look at Challengers!! let's jump on that bandwagon!"..... there was no band-wagon!

 

It is far more logical that they looked at the success of JLA .. and then used a lot of the ideas from Challengers to actually carry it out.

 

The Challengers were the second DC SA title after Lois Lane and the first non-Superman related book to get a continuing series. DC didn't do this because the Challengers were unpopular at the time.

 

In 1960, Challengers was the most popular DC title that a) did not contain Superman or Batman, or b) was not a classic-DC hero title or reboot. [edit -- missed Mystery in Space being up there too]

 

In other words, not only was it a solid seller, but Goodman could use it to draw conclusions about what was possible with a band of unknown heroes.

[BarryAllen]

Just out of honest curiosity, is there a book that people are referencing this information from or personal experience (i.e. they were collecting as at least teenagers at the time), other?

 

So much claimed intimate and detailed knowledge that I am having a hard time confirming on the net. Not calling anyone out (other than who I already have), but can someone cite their source?

[thunsicker]

So the Silver Age Flash - Barry Allen - is the same character as Jay Garrick, but Impulse is a completely new character (he has a different name!) even though he is directly related (in more ways than one) to Barry's Flash?

 

Your "logic" is astounding.

 

Go google it... Most people agree the SA Flash is a revamped version of the GA Flash.

 

Or let me ask you something.... is the Phantom the same basic super-hero as another version of The Phantom despite being different people living maybe hundreds of years apart?

 

You're losing me here. You believe the SA Flash to be a revision of the GA Flash. But don't believe the JLA to be a revision of the JSA? Just because they changed the word Society to League?

[markseifert]

Just out of honest curiosity, is there a book that people are referencing this information from or personal experience (i.e. they were collecting as at least teenagers at the time), other?

 

So much claimed intimate and detailed knowledge that I am having a hard time confirming on the net. Not calling anyone out (other than who I already have), but can someone cite their source?

 

There are gaps, and it's a yearly average, but:

 

http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales/1960s/1960.html

 

1960 DC --

 

3) Superman DC 810,000

4) Superboy DC 635,000

6) Batman DC 502,000

7) Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen DC 498,000

8) World's Finest Comics DC 476,000

10) Action Comics DC 458,000

11) Superman's Girlfriend Lois Lane DC 458,000

12) Adventure Comics DC 438,000

16) Blackhawk DC 316,000

17) Detective Comics DC 314,000

18) Flash DC 298,000

20) Mystery in Space DC 248,000

21) Challengers of the Unknown DC 228,000

24) Showcase DC 213,000

25) Wonder Woman DC 213,000

 

 

1961 DC --

 

 

2) Superman DC 820,000

3) Superboy DC 655,000

4) Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen DC 520,000

5) Superman's Girlfriend Lois Lane DC 515,000

7) Batman DC 485,000

8) Action Comics DC 485,000

9) World's Finest Comics DC 480,000

10) Adventure Comics DC 460,000

13) Justice League of America DC 335,000

 

Begin fair, there's plenty of other ways to look at the stuff I'm talking about, certainly. But I guess my overall point is that JLA wasn't some monster seller by DC standards that would automatically make it the talk of the town, you know?

 

Particularly since everyone could see that Batman and Superman were absolutely dominant. You could just as plausibly wonder why JLA wasn't doing better, on that basis.

 

And if it was noteworthy enough to be the subject of industry gossip on some basis, as DC's #9 seller in 1961, then Challengers could have been (as DC's #13 seller in 1960) a few months earlier.

 

And again, you can make a decent case that Challengers performance is just as interesting, because they were new, unknown characters. That's a comparison that Goodman can make and think about whether it can work for him -- particularly since he knows he's got the industry star creator of Challengers working for him. He can look at that and think to himself that he can do a team book of unknowns like that, and have a shot at decent sales.

 

edit -- you know, I've got myself about 25% convinced that Stan could possibly have been simply trying to avoid making the obvious Challengers comparison here.

 

edit 2 -- gonna have to see if I can dig up the 1958/59 Challengers numbers. If that was a stronger number in '58 with 8 issues of Kirby to launch the book... man, that would make a pretty compelling argument here.

 

[bronze johnny]

There is just one major issue with taking Challengers instead of JLA.... Challengers were not popular... It makes little business sense to imagine Marvel said "wow look at Challengers!! let's jump on that bandwagon!"..... there was no band-wagon!

 

It is far more logical that they looked at the success of JLA .. and then used a lot of the ideas from Challengers to actually carry it out.

 

The Challengers were the second DC SA title after Lois Lane and the first non-Superman related book to get a continuing series. DC didn't do this because the Challengers were unpopular at the time.

 

In 1960, Challengers was the most popular DC title that a) did not contain Superman or Batman, or b) was not a classic-DC hero title or reboot.

 

In other words, not only was it a solid seller, but Goodman could use it to draw conclusions about what was possible with a band of unknown heroes.

 

Thanks Mark- That band of unknown heroes was the first original creation of the SA and was followed by other DC Sci Fi new creations- Space Ranger, Adam Strange, Rip Hunter, (and later) Sea Devils, Doom Patrol, and the Metal Men. The original creations "did not contain Superman or Batman and were not a classic-DC hero title or reboot." And they would never be as successful as DC's superhero books but there is one thing to consider here about the conventional view of DC's SA that is overlooked: the most successful selling superhero titles were the Superman and Batman books and had been before 1956 (they had to have been successful since they survived the postwar decline of the heroic GA and Wertham's challenge). Lois Lane getting her own book before any other SA character is one reason why the Supes books were guaranteed sellers for DC. The success of the Justice League of America happens since it is "DC's World's Finest & Wonder Woman + a supporting cast." The DC SA saw a continuation of its big 3 superheroes (Supes, Bats, & WW) remaining at the core and having a centralized role initially surrounded by a group of supporting revamped superhero characters. The Green Lantern is the first of the supporting characters to successfully move beyond the Supes-Bats-WW focused books to later become one of the most popular revamped DC superhero creations (a primary reason why SC 22 is a very significant SA key- GL was much more popular than the Flash).

 

Unfortunately for DC, Kirby went over to Marvel where he and Lee would take what Jack started with the Challies and take the SA original concept to a whole new level. And it was the original concepts that made the SA the second great period in the history of the American Comic Book.

[Lazyboy]

Semantically speaking the Barry Allen Flash is not a "new" superhero, but DC's decision to give the character a new identity, origin and costume, even going as far as to reference the GA Flash as a fictional character in Allen's world, is what defines The Flash as the first SA superhero. It's DC's acknowledgement that if the genre is to find a renaissance beyond the big three, characters must be reinvented, not merely revived in the way Atlas had just a few years earlier.

 

To compare it to the handing off of an identity in the fashion of The Phantom, or for that matter the Wally West Flash, is to miss the whole point of the SA, that it is a second era of comic book heroes, not just the return of the first. Whatever later retconning brought the eras closer together isn't really relevant, the Flash of 1956 was meant to be seen as something new and apart from the 1940s version.

 

The Barry Allen Flash is a new character. He did not inherit the mantle of the Flash from Jay Garrick or directly replace him in some other way. Is he a completely original character? We are talking about superheroes here, right?

 

[Lazyboy]

The success of the Justice League of America happens since it is "DC's World's Finest & Wonder Woman + a supporting cast."

There's a reason DC didn't feature Superman and Batman on the early covers and generally had them play lesser parts in the stories.

 

The Green Lantern is the first of the supporting characters to successfully move beyond the Supes-Bats-WW focused books to later become one of the most popular revamped DC superhero creations (a primary reason why SC 22 is a very significant SA key- GL was much more popular than the Flash).

Was that before or after his title was reduced in frequency and then cancelled?

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

That's more than a tad condescending. Just who do you imagine posts on this "comic collecting forum"? Chopped liver? Are you unaware that some of the best researchers, statisticians, and historians in the industry post here?

 

Sure. Have any of them posted here on this subject?

 

Yes.

 

 

Could you name them, please?

 

Yes, Mark Seifert for one.

 

Do I need to name more? Does it matter? Do you really need proof to refute the idea that making a comment like "I would take such a bit of research by a historian who looked into the question over the suppositions made by someone on a comic collecting forum, sure" is ill-advised at best, and presumptuous and dismissive at worst?

 

You don't really need someone to spell that out for you, do you...?

 

The truth is, you don't know who posts on a "comic collecting forum", and presuming that people posting are just shlubs who have no idea what they're talking about is a good way to stick your foot in your mouth.

[bronze johnny]

The success of the Justice League of America happens since it is "DC's World's Finest & Wonder Woman + a supporting cast."

There's a reason DC didn't feature Superman and Batman on the early covers and generally had them play lesser parts in the stories.

 

The Green Lantern is the first of the supporting characters to successfully move beyond the Supes-Bats-WW focused books to later become one of the most popular revamped DC superhero creations (a primary reason why SC 22 is a very significant SA key- GL was much more popular than the Flash).

Was that before or after his title was reduced in frequency and then cancelled?

 

- And where did sales place the Justice League during those early issues?

 

- What year was frequency reduced?

[RockMyAmadeus]

But ASM #1 was published a mere 6 months after Amazing Fantasy #15 hit the stands. I thought that was much too soon to have any idea how successful a book was?

 

Six months is too soon for those outside the company to know if a book is a success. It's not too soon for the company itself.

 

And, point of order, ASM #1 was published 7 months after AF #15, not 6. The devil's in the details.

 

If you're not going to be reasonable in the conversation, why waste everyone's time?

 

According to the Grand Comics Database, Amazing Fantasy #15 had an on-sale date of 1962-06-05 ("Both the 1962 initial copyright and the 1990 renewal list the publication date as June 5th 1962."); Amazing Spider-Man #1 1962-12-10 ("The on-sale date is the publication date reported in U. S. Copyright Office filings"), which is 6 months. I wasn't actually there, so I can't speak firsthand, so I had to go with what I found there.

 

And their cover dates are August, 1962, and March, 1963, respectively, which is 7 months.

 

Since the US Copyright online records search only covers records from 1978-present, we'll have to wait for confirmation by a direct search on the on-sale publication dates.

 

Whether it was 6 months and a week, 6.5 months, or 7 months, the point remains: it's plenty of time for the company itself to know sales results, which is consistent with what I've said all along, despite your snarky comment above.

 

PS. If you, ttfitz, specifically, are going to quote me, please quote everything, or nothing. Please don't pick out individual lines out of context. That last sentence you included in your response has nothing to do with the issue of the time of publication between AF #15 and ASM #1, but you have made it appear as if it does. Please avoid that. I have restored the correct thread of the conversation above. Thank you.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Sorry, a typo. I had looked it up on the Grand Comics database - still have the page open, in fact - and just typed the wrong number.

 

Please note, though, that it makes my point stronger, as that is even less time between the two dates. So thanks for pointing that out.

They're in EVERY ISSUE starting with BB 28! But they were intentionally left off the covers (and minimized on 5).

 

As I said, I looked on the Grand Comics Database (seemed easier than digging through my boxes for the books I own), and they didn't (appear) to list them as appearing in any issues. When I just went and looked at the issues I could find, I discovered you are (at least for the ones I have) correct.

 

I say "appear" above because in the main box for the book, it did not have Superman or Batman listed as characters, but if you scroll down, it does have them listed in the individual story credits. I guess the top part is only the characters on the cover?

 

But I misinterpreted that information, so I was mistaken. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

Thanks for owning up to the mistake. In conversations like these, the details, as you can see, are critical in establishing the truth of the matter.

 

As I said before, if you find any factual errors in the timeline I posted, please feel free to correct them.

[RockMyAmadeus]

It just doesn't give the impression of wanting to actually come to the truth about the events when repeating a statement he already said was a typing error.

 

Milking a typing error for all it's worth - gives the impression of wanting to 'win' the discussion - regardless of facts etc.

 

 

Ah jeez, It'd never be my intent to pile on. I simply didn't see his later comment.

 

That said... we're all just having fun here, yeah? Would anybody in this thread not sit down together over pizza and beer and have a good laugh about it? I'd hope we all would.

 

THAT said. History is fluid. I really do think it's important to keep examining how these things all fit together and questioning the conventional wisdom. If fans didn't do that in the 60s & 70s, we might still think Bob Kane was the only person who had anything to do with Batman in the early days.

 

Fair enough. Yeah, for sure - we might get into these issues over pizza and beer too

 

Surely history is fluid, and questioning conventional wisdom is always good. But not being 100% convinced about the conventional wisdom doesn't make it sensible to on the other hand believe less evidenced explanations without the same critical mind.

 

And with only some loose bits of sounds and broken branches... claiming the existence of big foot might not only be a bit hasty, it is not being being critical of established wisdom - in fact, it's not being critical at all (nor scientific for that matter).

 

Your characterization of Stan Lee's comment as "established wisdom" vs. challenging that idea by bringing up Challengers and the timeline of publication being on par with "the existence of big foot" is disingenuous and insulting.

 

It should go without saying that there is far, far more compelling evidence that casts serious doubt on Stan's recollection of conversations and the relative importance of JLA to FF #1, but here we are, comparing bringing out that evidence to "the search for bigfoot."

 

 

It may be less obvious than "you're an idjit!"...but it's no less insulting.

[rjpb]

According to the data on the comichron website, Superman related titles dominated DC sales in 1961: Superman, Superboy, Jimmy Olsen, Lois Lane, Batman, Action, World's Finest and Adventure ( in that order) all outsold any other DC title, all with an avg. monthly circulation of over 460,000 ( Superman at 853,000). Next is, JLA 335K, Tec at 325K, Flash and Blackhawk tied at 305K, and then GL at 255K.

 

Data for 1962 shows a similar order, though with an across the board drop in sales ( likely due to the new 12¢ cover price). The exception is JLA which goes up marginally to 340K. Flash still runs 30K ahead of GL.

 

Figures are scattered and incomplete until 1965. The order remains the same through JLA, with avg. circ up around 10% across the board. Next comes Metal Men(!) at 334K, then Tec, Flash at 298K and GL at 273K.

 

By 1966 Flash continues to pick up steam (325K), while GL falls behind B&B, GI Combat and Showcase at 243K.

 

Both titles decline rather rapidly in sales through 1969, the last year for which there is data. That year Flash avg. 211K and GL only 160K.

 

It's pretty clear that Flash always outsold GL, and while I don't have figures for 1970 or 71, the fact that GL got cancelled and Flash didn't would indicate that the Adams/O'Neil team failed to sufficiently revive the title. JLA continued to outsell both during the 1960s, though whether due to the concept or the Superman connection is unknown, as Superman titles continued to be DC's top sellers throughout the decade.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Surely history is fluid, and questioning conventional wisdom is always good. But not being 100% convinced about the conventional wisdom doesn't make it sensible to on the other hand believe less evidenced explanations without the same critical mind.

 

And with only some loose bits of sounds and broken branches... claiming the existence of big foot might not only be a bit hasty, it is not being being critical of established wisdom - in fact, it's not being critical at all (nor scientific for that matter).

 

It's a point, but... I've just seen too many really important things that need "revising" now. I would honestly listen to any theory no matter how unlikely it seems, just to examine if it challenges the way I think about these things (which is 99.9999 percent of what I'm doing in a thread like this anyway). It's not that I'd accept that theory at face value, but I'd let it challenge me to examine what I DO believe, or if there's some tiny hook there that'll lead me to something else.

 

I've mentioned a couple famous revisions of history already, here's another really important one -- The DC v Bruns transcripts which emerged around 2010 or so, vs Eisner's published versions of those events.

 

I mean... if you can't believe Will Freaking Eisner's account of a vastly important historical event... then you can't believe anything. That leaves virtually anything in our history on the table for being wrong. Anything.

 

Anybody thinks they've got a viable theory on any aspect of our history, I'm all ears. Maybe it won't be right, but maybe it'll make me reexamine what I do think.

 

But truly -- always happy to admit I'm wrong, and cheerfully get back to some real work. I'm guessing many here feel the same when it comes down to it.

 

Excellent post.

 

The problem comes, of course, when people have bought into the "accepted stories", and don't like when what they've believed is true for perhaps years is challenged.

 

It takes a certain mindset to be able to accept that what one knows, what one has always known, may be, and is, in fact, wrong. It doesn't come easily, and it is tied up to ego, which is why all the ancillary squabbles break out.

 

But it is vital to constantly examine the evidence, and never be so entrenched in any particular idea, especially of events that happened in the distant past, without that compelling, concrete evidence.

 

Like your example...challenging Will Eisner's account of things would seem near-blasphemy in this industry....but the case doesn't jibe with what Eisner has said.

 

As is well documented elsewhere, you can have 10 eye witnesses to an event give you 10 completely different versions of that event....and they were there, and it just happened.

 

Something to consider.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

If there were things in the JLA influenced FF that sounded highly unlikely I would be the first to point out the uncertainties. I just really think it is both the most plausible explanation and also the one all the evidence we have points to.

 

As others have pointed out, for all the evidence that has been brought out in this discussion, it would be hard to stick to the idea that a hearsay comment is "the most plausible explanation."

 

Especially if we consider the alternative which relies on a bunch of rather far-fetched assumptions and denials (that Marvel had no idea how their great rivals were faring, that Stan Lee was either lying or had not only memory-loss, but chose to share a story noone prompted... while not remembering it (if someone has memory-loss wouldn't they just not talk about it?) and so on.

 

You keep characterizing the evidence as "far-fetched assumptions", which is unscientific and disingenuous...no one has said Stan was lying, or even had memory loss. As has been said before, DC was the king of the block during this time, the undisputed champion of the market. Marvel, in 1961, was a second-rate company, which was being outsold handily by DC, and even companies like Archie and Dell. It's more far-fetched to think Goodman WOULD not only 1. have access to this information, and 2. be able to make such a conclusion based on such limited information that existed at that time.

 

So, I have to ask again...based on the sales knowledge of three issues of JLA...which has been shown did NOT set the sales world on fire....how could Marvel and Goodman possibly have known enough to make that single comment...which Stan Lee repeats as hearsay...which then gave Stan and Jack the greenlight to create FF?

 

You want to rest the entire argument on a comment that Stan Lee said Martin Goodman said many years before, when it has been shown that it is unlikely....not impossible, but extremely unlikely...that Goodman would have been in a position to make such a comment from a position of knowledge.

 

Who, really, is chasing after Bigfoot, here....?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

I fail to see (although some story can always be made up to explain anything) the clear and obvious reason why Stan Lee in 1978 should give DC some of the credit for FF.

 

Well, being intentionally over-dramatic I can think of about 4 billion reasons...

 

The operative part of the narrative boils down to this (paraphrasing):

 

"My boss instructed me to do this, due to industry sales conditions."

 

In other words, textbook work-for-hire.

 

Consider, by that time:

Joe Simon had sued Marvel over Captain America.

Carl Burgos attempted legal action over the Human Torch.

Jack Kirby had made a high profile departure and subsequent return.

 

Stan CAN'T say, "well, you know, Jack had done something along these lines at DC, so we rolled with something similar here."

 

Now... I just made that up and don't believe it... much, but it's a pretty valid theory, off the cuff.

 

But think about that. Stan says Challengers instead of JLA, lots and lots of things potentially change as a result of that.

 

 

 

 

There is just one major issue with taking Challengers instead of JLA.... Challengers were not popular... It makes little business sense to imagine Marvel said "wow look at Challengers!! let's jump on that bandwagon!"..... there was no band-wagon!

 

As I posted in the timeline I shared, Challengers was the first book after Lois Lane ("Superman for girls") that was published.

 

Do you have the sales figures for Showcase #6, 7, 11, 12, and Challengers #1? I do not.

 

However, we can extrapolate based on the following:

 

It took 2.5 years for the Flash to get his own title after his first appearance.

 

It took Challengers a little more than a year to get their own title.

 

Challengers of the Unknown ranked 21st in sales (that we know of) in 1960, selling 228,000 copies.

 

It sold better than Brave and Bold (which, by the way, INCLUDES the three JLA appearances), Showcase, ALL of DC's Wars, and, if the information is accurate, every single title Marvel was currently publishing.

 

In fact, here's the list:

 

http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales/1960s/1960.html

 

1) Uncle Scrooge Dell 1,040,543

2) Walt Disney's Comics & Stories Dell 1,004,901

3) Superman DC 810,000

4) Superboy DC 635,000

5) Mickey Mouse Dell 568,803

6) Batman DC 502,000

7) Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen DC 498,000

8) World's Finest Comics DC 476,000

9) Looney Tunes Dell 459,344

10) Action Comics DC 458,000

 

11) Superman's Girlfriend Lois Lane DC 458,000

12) Adventure Comics DC 438,000

13) Lone Ranger Dell 408,711

14) Casper Harvey 399,985

15) Turok, Son of Stone Dell 359,013

16) Blackhawk DC 316,000

17) Detective Comics DC 314,000

18) Flash DC 298,000

19) Pep Comics Archie 269,504

20) Mystery in Space DC 248,000

 

21) Challengers of the Unknown DC 228,000

22) Blondie Harvey 218,344

23) Brave & Bold DC 214,000

24) Showcase DC 213,000

25) Wonder Woman DC 213,000

26) Little Archie Archie 210,089

27) Sugar & Spike DC 209,000

28) My Greatest Adventure DC 208,000

29) House of Mystery DC 208,000

30) Strange Adventures DC 207,000

 

31) House of Secrets DC 194,000

32) Fox & The Crow DC 193,000

33) Adventures into the Unknown ACG 192,500

34) Unknown Worlds ACG 192,000

35) Tales of the Unexpected DC 192,000

36) Dagwood Harvey 188,819

37) Forbidden Worlds ACG 187,200

38) Tomahawk DC 180,000

39) All-American Men of War DC 176,000

40) Our Fighting Forces DC 175,000

 

41) Our Army at War DC 172,000

42) Star-Spangled Comics DC 169,000

43) Tales to Astonish Marvel 163,156

44) All Star Western DC 154,000

45) Tales of Suspense Marvel 148,929

46) Kid Colt Outlaw Marvel 144,746

47) Felix the Cat Dell 138,191

48) Space Adventures Charlton 110,166

 

Based on this information....how does anyone, at any time, make the statement that "there was no band-wagon!" with regards to the popularity of Challengers of the Unknown?

 

How do you possibly make that statement...?

 

It is far more logical that they looked at the success of JLA .. and then used a lot of the ideas from Challengers to actually carry it out.

 

Not to mention that the statements we have support this.

 

Not only is it not "far more logical"...it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Not to mention, the SINGLE statement we have to "support" this.

 

 

Did the Challengers lose popularity? Of course.

 

But is it much more likely that you are making your statements based on a distorted view of history and the lens of time, rather than looking at the situation as it existed at the time...?

 

Yes.

[RockMyAmadeus]

.

. Not calling anyone out (other than who I already have), but can someone cite their source?

 

Many sources have been cited already. You may have missed them.

 

And, asides that are only designed to pick fights probably aren't necessary.