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

[RockMyAmadeus]

As can be seen from the above, I said there was 6 months between them, you corrected me that it was 7 - " The devil's in the details" - and I provided information that it was 6, including the mistake from the cover that you apparently were using as your source. You might want to refer back to your previous statement about preserving credibility.

 

Yes, indeed, the devil's in the details. In this case, we were both wrong. It was neither 6 months, nor 7, but somewhere in between. You were wrong. I was wrong. But, in referring to the cover date, I am correct. Referring to the indicia, you are correct. Referring to the information at USCO, we are both wrong. Referring to a date stamp, the USCO is wrong. Nobody's right, and everyone's wrong.

 

Have we satisfyingly gotten down to the very nub of it? Since if offends you so greatly, my apologies that I used the cover dates to arrive at the 7 month figure. I'm sure that's a terrible crime, and utterly unforgiveable, that I would use cover dates...something that is recognized industry wide, and which CGC itself puts on their labels...as the source of my claim.

 

Is it....really...that important to make such a great issue of this non-trivial matter, when the real issue is your snide comment that "no one could possibly know sales data so soon!" was unnecessary, inaccurate, and mischaracterized what has been said?

 

That's the real issue, which you utterly refuse to acknowledge, at any point, choosing to focus on the "well, was it 6 months, or 7 months, or 14 months, or 57 years, or etc etc."

 

Especially in light of the far more inaccurate comment you made that "Batman and Superman don't even appear in Justice League until #6!" which you then tried to play off as a "typo"...?

 

 

Will you EVER acknowledge that FUNDAMENTAL point, around which you have artfully danced for several posts now...?

 

So, asking you to preserve the context of someone's statements is an unreasonable request...?

 

Really...?

 

It's a request, and a reasonable one, not a demand.

 

I wished to respond to the one point, so that's what I quoted. I do apologize for leaving in that last line, that was an error in deleting.

 

Which is all I asked for in the first place. Was that so hard...?

 

No, that is NOT what you asked for in the first place. You said:

 

PS. If you, ttfitz, specifically, are going to quote me, please quote everything, or nothing.

 

My error was in not removing enough, not in taking too much out.

 

I asked you to preserve context. Simple. If you want to slice and dice every single statement, hey, I'm more than willing, but the greater points are being completely ignored by you.

 

"I asked you to clean up your room."

 

"No you didn't! You said Pick up your things! That's DIFFERENT!"

 

Ok.

 

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

You are taking data and then making leaps in judgment to fit your argument.

 

Such as...? Be specific, if you can.

 

Once you move past the specific sales data quote, you move into an assumption. Something you created out of thin air.

 

Which is...?

 

You weren't there and your opinion on how things transpired is not a statement of fact, it is an interpretation of data.

 

What, exactly, is "my opinion on how things transpired"? Tell it in your own words.

 

Stan Lee, co-creator of the book was quoted (decades ago) that substantiates the opposite. Dismiss it all you want but it isn't inaccurate because you find sales data and say that it their recollection is incorrect. They are the experts with first hand experience directly with the creation of the comic, you are a nobody.

 

Whee! I'm a nobody! (Which begs the question...if I'm a nobody, why do you dedicate such time and energy to me? You must really believe I'm a somebody, not a nobody. I don't think YOU are a nobody.)

 

But no, Stan Lee repeated a quote from someone else decades ago, many years after the fact, and Stan Lee has been shown to have a less-than-reliable view of the facts.

 

So continue to make stuff up to fit your argument and feel superior because you are more eloquent and can clearly dedicate hours and hours of your time to post on an Internet chat forum.

 

What is it that you have been doing?

 

The rest of us have lives to go back to.

 

Not by your posts, you don't.

 

I insulted you directly multiple times, deal with it.

 

What a peach you are.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

This is you:

 

 

Argument By Prestigious Jargon:

using big complicated words so that you will seem to be an expert. Why do people use "utilize" when they could utilize "use" ?

For example, crackpots used to claim they had a Unified Field Theory (after Einstein). Then the word Quantum was popular. Lately it seems to be Zero Point Fields.

 

 

Ok.

 

[bronze johnny]

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.

 

Thanks for this excellent info. I stand corrected as to the Green Lantern's degree of SA popularity. While it is unknown in terms of data supporting the role Superman may have had in the JLA's success- do you think it was the Flash and/or Green Lantern that attracted readers to this book given where they placed in relative sales with their individual books?

 

Good question. Flash was obviously selling well enough that DC felt comfortable expanding their superhero titles beyond the Superman/Batman ones ( Wonder Women being kept in print to retain the rights to the character). 1960 figures for JLA are unavailable , apparently a full year of publishing had to go by before sales figures were reported, but it did start outselling the Flash pretty quickly. It's a mystery as to why Superman ( and Batman as well) was kept off the covers for the first few years, perhaps DC wanted to see how the title did without advertising them, especially as Superman was potentially over-exposed, appearing in 7 titles ( inc. as Superboy) already. My guess is that the combination of characters all appearing in an adventure together was a stronger appeal than just Flash and GL being featured, as individually their sales figures fell short of JLA's. One imagines a similar case with All-Star Comics in the GA, as the title outlived the various Flash and Green Lantern focused titles.

 

But the combination of characters included Superman and Batman. Adding a character that sells over 800,000 books an issue will deliver readers to just about any book. The success of the JLA throughout the SA may have depended on Superman and Batman having a key role on the team. We later see that Batman and Superman were given keys roles in the first JLA cartoon series- The Superfriends during the early 70s. The JLA would have gone the way of the Challengers had Superman and Batman not been a key part of the team.

[RockMyAmadeus]

To nobody in particular, re sources of historical info --

 

I guess if there's a single point I'd like to make in this thread, it's that we should all question anything we read in this area. I honestly assume something might not be true unless I can verify it myself (if I care enough about the particular subject to put that effort in).

 

The thing that's pushed me over the edge on this issue, more than anything else, is the high-profile court cases of recent years. Read those transcripts sometime. There's about 5 people in this thread who could have SHREDDED many many many points being testified to under oath in some of these cases.

 

Why does this happen? Because somebody wrote about a golf game [or insert other historical point here] years ago, it was a cute story so it stuck in people's minds and we all grew up believing it for 40 years so it became reality.

 

Then you've got DC trying to make a case for important iconic aspects of Superman being work for hire because the car on the cover of Action 1 looks like a slightly different model than the car on the interior story. WHAT THE WHAT?? IS THAT ALL YOU GOT?

 

Now, I'm old enough to know that a legal conflict is at best loosely coupled with the truth and blahblahblah.

 

Still. We're all going to be examining vintage photos of 30s-era cars for the next 50 years because DC pulled that argument out of their spoon.

 

And: To this day, there are comic history books being published which state that Victor Fox was a DC accountant who walked out the door with the ledger books to start his own company. Even Joe Simon is on the record supporting this idea.

 

It's a key point in the narrative of the creation of the American comic book industry.

 

And it's provably false.

 

****

 

There's no authority on comics history that I'd consider unimpeachable. If you study history in other areas you probably realize that Rock Stars in any historical field are crazy rare. People who can see time and understand what it means, just so rare. Mostly people think research skills are enough. But for example, if you are interested in the history of science fiction, read Bleiler's stuff. SUPER genius. We just don't have the equivalent of that in comics.

 

We can see lots of data and historical documentation for ourselves now, and more and more all the time. Always try to go to the source and decide for yourself, when you can.

 

I can jive with this statement and the intent. (thumbs u

 

He's contradicting everything you've said. He's just said "we can't just take people at their word, because it's too unreliable."

 

And you just said: "Stan Lee, co-creator of the book was quoted (decades ago) that substantiates the opposite. Dismiss it all you want but it isn't inaccurate because you find sales data and say that it their recollection is incorrect. They are the experts with first hand experience directly with the creation of the comic, you are a nobody."

 

But...you can "jive" (I think the word you're looking for is "jibe") with his statement and intent...?

 

To quote a phrase, you say: "Stan Lee said it. I believe it. That settles it."

 

You're too much, r-foy.

 

[BarryAllen]

To nobody in particular, re sources of historical info --

 

I guess if there's a single point I'd like to make in this thread, it's that we should all question anything we read in this area. I honestly assume something might not be true unless I can verify it myself (if I care enough about the particular subject to put that effort in).

 

The thing that's pushed me over the edge on this issue, more than anything else, is the high-profile court cases of recent years. Read those transcripts sometime. There's about 5 people in this thread who could have SHREDDED many many many points being testified to under oath in some of these cases.

 

Why does this happen? Because somebody wrote about a golf game [or insert other historical point here] years ago, it was a cute story so it stuck in people's minds and we all grew up believing it for 40 years so it became reality.

 

Then you've got DC trying to make a case for important iconic aspects of Superman being work for hire because the car on the cover of Action 1 looks like a slightly different model than the car on the interior story. WHAT THE WHAT?? IS THAT ALL YOU GOT?

 

Now, I'm old enough to know that a legal conflict is at best loosely coupled with the truth and blahblahblah.

 

Still. We're all going to be examining vintage photos of 30s-era cars for the next 50 years because DC pulled that argument out of their spoon.

 

And: To this day, there are comic history books being published which state that Victor Fox was a DC accountant who walked out the door with the ledger books to start his own company. Even Joe Simon is on the record supporting this idea.

 

It's a key point in the narrative of the creation of the American comic book industry.

 

And it's provably false.

 

****

 

There's no authority on comics history that I'd consider unimpeachable. If you study history in other areas you probably realize that Rock Stars in any historical field are crazy rare. People who can see time and understand what it means, just so rare. Mostly people think research skills are enough. But for example, if you are interested in the history of science fiction, read Bleiler's stuff. SUPER genius. We just don't have the equivalent of that in comics.

 

We can see lots of data and historical documentation for ourselves now, and more and more all the time. Always try to go to the source and decide for yourself, when you can.

 

I can jive with this statement and the intent. (thumbs u

 

He's contradicting everything you've said. He's just said "we can't just take people at their word, because it's too unreliable."

 

And you just said: "Stan Lee, co-creator of the book was quoted (decades ago) that substantiates the opposite. Dismiss it all you want but it isn't inaccurate because you find sales data and say that it their recollection is incorrect. They are the experts with first hand experience directly with the creation of the comic, you are a nobody."

 

But...you can "jive" (I think the word you're looking for is "jibe") with his statement and intent...?

 

You're too much, r-foy.

 

 

Lonely people and their keyboards.

 

Enjoy.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Lonely people and their keyboards.

 

Enjoy.

 

I'm a "lonely person and my keyboard"

 

And you are......?

 

Will you ever be answering any of my questions directly, or will you continue to avoid them?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

Sure, that's what reasonable people do when they are wrong.

 

Yes, indeed they do. Although, of course, when one makes such an easily disproven statement, as your "Batman and Superman didn't appear until Justice League #6" statement was, it's really rather difficult to be stubborn about it without losing any shred of credibility one may have had.

 

You are right there - and something you might want to keep in mind.

 

Oh, I do, believe me. I do a crazy amount of outside research when having discussions like this, because as you well know, a single error that is so obvious a 5 year old could point it out can devastate credibility for an entire argument.

 

I've had my hat handed to me in the past for making boneheaded statements like yours. It's not pleasant, but it is a valuable learning experience, if one is willing and able to learn.

 

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

 

And as I said before, I have no quibbles with the actual facts in your timeline, just your interpretation of what they mean.

 

It's easy to be vague.

 

What specifically in a single sentence, are your "quibbles" with my "interpretation"? What parts of my "interpretation", summed up, do you take issue with? The chain of events? The fact that there was minimal sales information at the time this purported "conversation" (or "conversations") were to have happened?

 

It's hard to "quibble" about a basic timeline, with very little interpretation in it.

 

 

Really? I thought it was pretty clear what those things might be, and didn't feel the need for endless rehashing. But okay, this is as good a summary as any:

 

I said he couldn't know from DC directly, and such information would be minimal, simply because of the timing. He "couldn't possibly know" because A. he wasn't privy to DC's circulation dept. (hypothetical "golf story" notwithstanding) and B. even DC didn't have that much information to work with. There simply wasn't enough time.

 

I disagree.

 

So, I'll ask again: why and how do you disagree? Like I said...it's easy to just say "I disagree." A lot more is required to explain why.

 

Got anything...?

[oakman29]

I don't even care anymore....

[ttfitz]

 

If I heard any compelling evidence, I might change my mind. As for hearsay, sure. But most of the history of anything we have is hearsay in one way or another. Except for the "playing golf with X" part, I haven't come across anyone who seems to take exception to Stan's statement about what Goodman told him, and many who believe it to be true. Mark Evanier - someone who I DO know and trust, particularly in something like this which involves Jack Kirby in some way, said in his testimony in the Kirby lawsuit:

 

Q: Go back. Do you agree with Mr. Lee’s statements that the Fantastic Four, at least in part, came about as a result of discussions that Mr. Lee had with Mr. Goodman in connection with the idea of coming up with a group of superheroes?

 

MARK EVANIER: My understanding is that Mr. Goodman said to Mr. Lee, “I see DC Comics has some very decent sales on what is called the Justice League of America. We should try a comic like that.”

 

Mr. Lee, in many interviews, said as I related, that Mr. Goodman had played golf with Jack Leibowitz, who was the head of DC Comics at the time, and that Leibowitz had bragged about the sales of Justice League, and that that prompted Mr. Goodman to come back from the golf game and say, “We should – we should create a comic like that.”

 

Mr. Lee has told this story on many occasions. Mr. Leibowitz, when he was interviewed, said he never played golf with Goodman in his entire life. So based on that, I tend to disbelieve at least that part of Mr. Lee’s story.

 

Q: So you think Lee is just lying about it?

 

MARK EVANIER: No, I think he just is being casual about the record.

 

I am a bit surprised that you can say you find no problems with Stan's statement, and then present this Evanier quote to what, support it? If Evanier wouldn't be a historian with a knowledge of these events, who would qualify? If he doesn't believe this version of events, one that we already know doesn't really fit at all well with the timeline or sales data, how solid is this quote to base a case upon?

 

Evanier relates what "his understanding" of the events were, which is Goodman's statement to Lee. Because of the direct testimony of Leibowitz in regards to the playing golf story, he says "I tend to disbelieve at least that part of the story." He makes no such statement about whether Goodman made such a statement (about the Justice League) to Lee, and goes as far to say he doesn't think Lee is lying. Given Evanier's closeness to Jack Kirby, I would assume if he had a problem with the entire statement, he would have said so in Kirby's case.

[ttfitz]

No matter what my opinion of you might include, I don't think you are stupid, so I am sure you know that the "someone" from my statement wasn't some general person on this board, but you in particular. An anonymous person on a message board. Don't try to make this out like I am calling out everyone posting here.

 

You don't need to state the obvious; as you said, I am not stupid. You defensive posturing aside, I am not "an anonymous person." That I choose to not have my name publicly on this board does not make me "anonymous."

 

 

A minor quibble, but okay - a person hiding behind a pseudonym with no way to judge his qualifications or reliability. Better?

 

Nope. I am not "hiding" behind a "pseudonym" any more than you are. Is "ttfitz" your legal name? Clearly not, as the first name you gave in the private message is not "ttfitz."

 

I have no way to judge your qualifications or reliability, either, but I don't dismiss you as "some random person hiding behind a pseudonym on a comic collecting forum", because that would be presumptuous and arrogant.

 

My name is Timothy Thomas Fitzpatrick, I have lived in Virginia my entire life, and I have no qualifications whatsoever.

 

Except for the "playing golf with X" part, I haven't come across anyone who seems to take exception to Stan's statement about what Goodman told him, and many who believe it to be true. Mark Evanier - someone who I DO know and trust, particularly in something like this which involves Jack Kirby in some way, said in his testimony in the Kirby lawsuit:

 

Q: Go back. Do you agree with Mr. Lees statements that the Fantastic Four, at least in part, came about as a result of discussions that Mr. Lee had with Mr. Goodman in connection with the idea of coming up with a group of superheroes?

 

MARK EVANIER: My understanding is that Mr. Goodman said to Mr. Lee, I see DC Comics has some very decent sales on what is called the Justice League of America. We should try a comic like that.

 

Mr. Lee, in many interviews, said as I related, that Mr. Goodman had played golf with Jack Leibowitz, who was the head of DC Comics at the time, and that Leibowitz had bragged about the sales of Justice League, and that that prompted Mr. Goodman to come back from the golf game and say, We should we should create a comic like that.

 

Mr. Lee has told this story on many occasions. Mr. Leibowitz, when he was interviewed, said he never played golf with Goodman in his entire life. So based on that, I tend to disbelieve at least that part of Mr. Lees story.

 

Q: So you think Lee is just lying about it?

 

MARK EVANIER: No, I think he just is being casual about the record.

 

Yes, and Mark Evanier isn't helping your case. Notice his language: "My understanding"...which means, that's what he HEARD from Stan.

 

And "I tend to disbelieve at least that part of Mr. Lee's story."

 

If he can disbelieve "at least that part", then it opens the door to disbelieving all of it.

 

Evanier: "I think he just is being casual about the record."

 

That really sums it up, does it not?

 

I covered that in another response, so I don't feel the need to repeat it here.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

If I heard any compelling evidence, I might change my mind. As for hearsay, sure. But most of the history of anything we have is hearsay in one way or another. Except for the "playing golf with X" part, I haven't come across anyone who seems to take exception to Stan's statement about what Goodman told him, and many who believe it to be true. Mark Evanier - someone who I DO know and trust, particularly in something like this which involves Jack Kirby in some way, said in his testimony in the Kirby lawsuit:

 

Q: Go back. Do you agree with Mr. Lees statements that the Fantastic Four, at least in part, came about as a result of discussions that Mr. Lee had with Mr. Goodman in connection with the idea of coming up with a group of superheroes?

 

MARK EVANIER: My understanding is that Mr. Goodman said to Mr. Lee, I see DC Comics has some very decent sales on what is called the Justice League of America. We should try a comic like that.

 

Mr. Lee, in many interviews, said as I related, that Mr. Goodman had played golf with Jack Leibowitz, who was the head of DC Comics at the time, and that Leibowitz had bragged about the sales of Justice League, and that that prompted Mr. Goodman to come back from the golf game and say, We should we should create a comic like that.

 

Mr. Lee has told this story on many occasions. Mr. Leibowitz, when he was interviewed, said he never played golf with Goodman in his entire life. So based on that, I tend to disbelieve at least that part of Mr. Lees story.

 

Q: So you think Lee is just lying about it?

 

MARK EVANIER: No, I think he just is being casual about the record.

 

I am a bit surprised that you can say you find no problems with Stan's statement, and then present this Evanier quote to what, support it? If Evanier wouldn't be a historian with a knowledge of these events, who would qualify? If he doesn't believe this version of events, one that we already know doesn't really fit at all well with the timeline or sales data, how solid is this quote to base a case upon?

 

Evanier relates what "his understanding" of the events were, which is Goodman's statement to Lee. Because of the direct testimony of Leibowitz in regards to the playing golf story, he says "I tend to disbelieve at least that part of the story." He makes no such statement about whether Goodman made such a statement (about the Justice League) to Lee, and goes as far to say he doesn't think Lee is lying. Given Evanier's closeness to Jack Kirby, I would assume if he had a problem with the entire statement, he would have said so in Kirby's case.

 

It's an assumption that cannot be made. Just because he tends to disbelieve part of the story, it doesn't mean he's endorsing the Goodman/Lee comment. He could simply not know, and decline to comment on its veracity either way. Assuming he is endorsing the statement by silence is an error.

 

I don't think anyone thinks Lee is lying.

 

But as I said before....eye witness testimony to an event, taken minutes after the event happened, can and does often conflict.

 

Why, then, should any credibility be given to a statement printed 13-14 years after it was claimed to have been made, from a person who is known for not having a completely accurate view of events, when the chain of events that we know doesn't support that statement?

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

No matter what my opinion of you might include, I don't think you are stupid, so I am sure you know that the "someone" from my statement wasn't some general person on this board, but you in particular. An anonymous person on a message board. Don't try to make this out like I am calling out everyone posting here.

 

You don't need to state the obvious; as you said, I am not stupid. You defensive posturing aside, I am not "an anonymous person." That I choose to not have my name publicly on this board does not make me "anonymous."

 

 

A minor quibble, but okay - a person hiding behind a pseudonym with no way to judge his qualifications or reliability. Better?

 

Nope. I am not "hiding" behind a "pseudonym" any more than you are. Is "ttfitz" your legal name? Clearly not, as the first name you gave in the private message is not "ttfitz."

 

I have no way to judge your qualifications or reliability, either, but I don't dismiss you as "some random person hiding behind a pseudonym on a comic collecting forum", because that would be presumptuous and arrogant.

 

My name is Timothy Thomas Fitzpatrick, I have lived in Virginia my entire life, and I have no qualifications whatsoever.

 

Good for you, son of Patrick. I'm glad you feel comfortable sharing that information so openly on the world wide web, accessible to anyone and everyone.

 

However...your willingness to share such information does not therefore mitigate your presumption.

 

[ttfitz]

To nobody in particular, re sources of historical info --

 

I guess if there's a single point I'd like to make in this thread, it's that we should all question anything we read in this area. I honestly assume something might not be true unless I can verify it myself (if I care enough about the particular subject to put that effort in).

 

I have no problem with anything in your statement, I just kept this part of the (minor) (possible) place I differ. I also assume something might not be true unless I can verify it myself, but I also take things at face value unless I have some good reason to doubt them.

[ttfitz]

As can be seen from the above, I said there was 6 months between them, you corrected me that it was 7 - " The devil's in the details" - and I provided information that it was 6, including the mistake from the cover that you apparently were using as your source. You might want to refer back to your previous statement about preserving credibility.

 

Yes, indeed, the devil's in the details. In this case, we were both wrong. It was neither 6 months, nor 7, but somewhere in between. You were wrong. I was wrong. But, in referring to the cover date, I am correct. Referring to the indicia, you are correct. Referring to the information at USCO, we are both wrong. Referring to a date stamp, the USCO is wrong. Nobody's right, and everyone's wrong.

 

Have we satisfyingly gotten down to the very nub of it? Since if offends you so greatly, my apologies that I used the cover dates to arrive at the 7 month figure. I'm sure that's a terrible crime, and utterly unforgiveable, that I would use cover dates...something that is recognized industry wide, and which CGC itself puts on their labels...as the source of my claim.

 

Is it....really...that important to make such a great issue of this non-trivial matter, when the real issue is your snide comment that "no one could possibly know sales data so soon!" was unnecessary, inaccurate, and mischaracterized what has been said?

 

That's the real issue, which you utterly refuse to acknowledge, at any point, choosing to focus on the "well, was it 6 months, or 7 months, or 14 months, or 57 years, or etc etc."

 

You are the one who began this quest, stating that I was wrong about the timeframe, I just refuted that. And your reluctance to admit you got things wrong does not offend me, nor do I find it important, I just find it amusing. Just as I find amusing your notion that being off by a few days makes my statement "wrong." I particularly liked the date-stamp pic to give you a few extra days towards your viewpoint. Pictures are fun!

 

 

Apparently, in the early 60s, not every newsstand received their books on the exact same date. And I would imagine that the Copyright Office probably wasn't interested in a range of dates, but that's just conjecture.

 

Especially in light of the far more inaccurate comment you made that "Batman and Superman don't even appear in Justice League until #6!" which you then tried to play off as a "typo"...?

 

 

In the interest of accuracy in quotations - which I know you hold dear - I made no use of exclamation marks in my statement. Also, my original error was indeed a typo, putting "6" when I meant "5". And I have acknowledged without hedging of any kind that the corrected statement was inaccurate, after going back to my source when challenged, and discovering my error.

 

Will you EVER acknowledge that FUNDAMENTAL point, around which you have artfully danced for several posts now...?

 

 

I haven't danced around anything, I have ignored it as I felt my position was clear. But since you won't let go of this bone, here you are:

 

The example of the timing of the release of Amazing Fantasy #15 and Amazing Spider-Man #1 shows that indications of how well a title has been received could be known in a matter of months. The only question, therefore, is whether someone like Goodman could have known that information in such a period (well, longer than that, by your timeline, but let's go with it). You maintain that he couldn't, I disagree.

[ttfitz]

I've had my hat handed to me in the past for making boneheaded statements like yours. It's not pleasant, but it is a valuable learning experience, if one is willing and able to learn.

 

I didn't find it unpleasant, I was wrong, people make mistakes. I misread a webpage, it happens.

[ttfitz]

 

Good for you, son of Patrick. I'm glad you feel comfortable sharing that information so openly on the world wide web, accessible to anyone and everyone.

 

However...your willingness to share such information does not therefore mitigate your presumption.

 

What would I have to hide?

 

And no presumption involved, you could be the foremost accepted comic book scholar and historian on the planet. But with nothing else to go on, you are just some guy who calls himself RockMyAmadeus who posts things on a comic book discussion forum.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Good for you, son of Patrick. I'm glad you feel comfortable sharing that information so openly on the world wide web, accessible to anyone and everyone.

 

However...your willingness to share such information does not therefore mitigate your presumption.

 

What would I have to hide?

 

I don't know. What would you? Are you aware that information posted on the internet publicly is accessible by anyone with an internet connection?

 

Don't you think it prudent to be cautious about what information you post there?

 

I do.

 

And no presumption involved, you could be the foremost accepted comic book scholar and historian on the planet. But with nothing else to go on, you are just some guy who calls himself RockMyAmadeus who posts things on a comic book discussion forum.

 

You either truly don't understand the problem, or you are being purposely obtuse. Which is it? The issue isn't "with nothing else to go on, how can you know?" That's the point: YOU DON'T KNOW, and yet you still dismissed the entire board anyways, myself included. That is presumption.

 

You don't get that, right? Everything else is just the dance for the sake of the dance.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I've had my hat handed to me in the past for making boneheaded statements like yours. It's not pleasant, but it is a valuable learning experience, if one is willing and able to learn.

 

I didn't find it unpleasant, I was wrong, people make mistakes. I misread a webpage, it happens.

 

And, as I said, it's good that you owned up to your mistake, rather than entrenching and trying to backpedal.

 

Where's the problem...?

[mysterio]

 

If I heard any compelling evidence, I might change my mind. As for hearsay, sure. But most of the history of anything we have is hearsay in one way or another. Except for the "playing golf with X" part, I haven't come across anyone who seems to take exception to Stan's statement about what Goodman told him, and many who believe it to be true. Mark Evanier - someone who I DO know and trust, particularly in something like this which involves Jack Kirby in some way, said in his testimony in the Kirby lawsuit:

 

Q: Go back. Do you agree with Mr. Lees statements that the Fantastic Four, at least in part, came about as a result of discussions that Mr. Lee had with Mr. Goodman in connection with the idea of coming up with a group of superheroes?

 

MARK EVANIER: My understanding is that Mr. Goodman said to Mr. Lee, I see DC Comics has some very decent sales on what is called the Justice League of America. We should try a comic like that.

 

Mr. Lee, in many interviews, said as I related, that Mr. Goodman had played golf with Jack Leibowitz, who was the head of DC Comics at the time, and that Leibowitz had bragged about the sales of Justice League, and that that prompted Mr. Goodman to come back from the golf game and say, We should we should create a comic like that.

 

Mr. Lee has told this story on many occasions. Mr. Leibowitz, when he was interviewed, said he never played golf with Goodman in his entire life. So based on that, I tend to disbelieve at least that part of Mr. Lees story.

 

Q: So you think Lee is just lying about it?

 

MARK EVANIER: No, I think he just is being casual about the record.

 

I am a bit surprised that you can say you find no problems with Stan's statement, and then present this Evanier quote to what, support it? If Evanier wouldn't be a historian with a knowledge of these events, who would qualify? If he doesn't believe this version of events, one that we already know doesn't really fit at all well with the timeline or sales data, how solid is this quote to base a case upon?

 

Evanier relates what "his understanding" of the events were, which is Goodman's statement to Lee. Because of the direct testimony of Leibowitz in regards to the playing golf story, he says "I tend to disbelieve at least that part of the story." He makes no such statement about whether Goodman made such a statement (about the Justice League) to Lee, and goes as far to say he doesn't think Lee is lying. Given Evanier's closeness to Jack Kirby, I would assume if he had a problem with the entire statement, he would have said so in Kirby's case.

 

It's an assumption that cannot be made. Just because he tends to disbelieve part of the story, it doesn't mean he's endorsing the Goodman/Lee comment. He could simply not know, and decline to comment on its veracity either way. Assuming he is endorsing the statement by silence is an error.

 

I don't think anyone thinks Lee is lying.

 

But as I said before....eye witness testimony to an event, taken minutes after the event happened, can and does often conflict.

 

Why, then, should any credibility be given to a statement printed 13-14 years after it was claimed to have been made, from a person who is known for not having a completely accurate view of events, when the chain of events that we know doesn't support that statement?

 

 

I agree, I don't think that anyone thinks that Lee is lying. I do think it is quite possible he firmly believes he remembers events a certain way, and that that way could be wrong.

 

It is very difficult to prove something is not true, and the more complex the series of moving parts, the more difficult it becomes. I'm reminded of the old example of claiming that a room is full of 1000 tiny and invisible unicorns. It is very difficult to go about proving that this isn't true. But the burden, in that case, is on those who think that the room does in fact have 1000 tiny and invisible unicorns to demonstrate that their case is true, or at least more likely than unlikely.

 

In this case, in my opinion, the lack of similarities between the JLA and FF, the timeline of the release of those publications (and the delay in retrieving the necessary data on sales in the late 1950s, and if/when those data would have been available to someone who felt like sharing them with the competition), and the unremarkable sales of the JLA book, make it unlikely that the story that Lee relayed, as he remembered it, is likely to be accurate. Add to this Evanier's testimony (under oath) that the events could not have transpired the way Lee said they did, and you have a further hole in that (already thin and anecdotal) chain of events.

 

I find it more plausible that the similarities between the COTU and the FF, coupled with the fact that Lee's collaborator actually worked on the COTU, coupled with the demonstrated sales figures on the COTU solo book (again, the first solo title launched off one of those try-outs in Showcase), and the longer timeline for COTU stories and sales to influence the direction of Marvel, make a stronger case for COTU as being the much more significant influence on the development of the FF.

 

YMMV, but if you find the Lee story more plausible then to me that demonstrates a willingness to disregard the evidence from the timeline and sales figures (which are researched facts, not opinions) to put all your stock in a single statement from Lee that has been called into question by sworn testimony from a well-known historian of comics. And while Evanier did not call Lee a liar, his statement does take Lee's "memory" that much further away from being a piece of solid and eyewitness testimony (which it never was to begin with).