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

[oakman29]

Ttfitz and rfoiii there's really no reason to argue over something so trivial.

RMA I have nothing but deep respect for you man,but don't you think you're beating a dead horse here?

Personally I'm in the JLA is more important camp,but who cares,I want both for my collection.

End of my preaching.

[BarryAllen]

Ttfitz and rfoiii there's really no reason to argue over something so trivial.

RMA I have nothing but deep respect for you man,but don't you think you're beating a dead horse here?

Personally I'm in the JLA is more important camp,but who cares,I want both for my collection.

End of my preaching.

 

It is definitely trivial!

 

I agree on JLA over Flash and I have owned both books. I sold them though to upgrade my Showcase 4 and Brave and the Bold 28 (2 of my favorite books).

[RockMyAmadeus]

Ttfitz and rfoiii there's really no reason to argue over something so trivial.

 

Indeed.

 

RMA I have nothing but deep respect for you man,but don't you think you're beating a dead horse here?

 

That depends on which conversation you're talking about.

 

Remember....sometimes, in conversations that seem to be "beaten to death", a new bit of information that sets the whole topic on its head comes in that wouldn't have if the topic was not still "alive" to be beaten.

 

Maybe that will be the case...probably not...but as long as there's interest...as opposed to silly, juvenile personal attacks...there's no harm in continuing the discussion.

[oakman29]

Ttfitz and rfoiii there's really no reason to argue over something so trivial.

 

Indeed.

 

RMA I have nothing but deep respect for you man,but don't you think you're beating a dead horse here?

 

That depends on which conversation you're talking about.

 

Remember....sometimes, in conversations that seem to be "beaten to death", a new bit of information that sets the whole topic on its head comes in that wouldn't have if the topic was not still "alive" to be beaten.

 

Maybe that will be the case...probably not...but as long as there's interest...as opposed to silly, juvenile personal attacks...there's no harm in continuing the discussion.

 

More power to you brother. (thumbs u

If you ask me Showcase #4 more important,Flash #1(GA) more important, Flash 105 more important than JLoA #1? Don't think so,but then again I own a JLA#1.I hope I'm not being biased,but I do want to own a Flash 105! Someday.

[ttfitz]

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).

 

You and I differ on the meaning of Evanier's full statement on the matter, but that's fine.

 

As for the "evidence from the timeline and sales figures", I don't disregard them, I just don't find them persuasive. On the timeline, it is my understanding that even RMA concedes that there is enough time for someone in-the-know to decide how well a book is selling,

 

Based on three issues...? You can make this conclusion based on three issues...? And then that hypothetical "person in the know" is going to say "hey, this new title, JLA, is selling about on par with some of our other titles, like Flash, Blackhawk, and others...it's only three issues in, but those are pretty good"...and then Goodman is going to, in turn, tell Stan "Hey, there's a new title that's got fairly moderate sales at National...it's only three issues in, but hey, it looks good so far...we should do a superhero team!"...?

 

Who decides how well a book is selling based on three issues...?

 

And who then goes and tells an unrelated party about it, when we discover later that those sales were good, but not stellar?

 

What motive does this unnamed "in the know" person have to go tell a competitor, "hey, by the way...we're three issues in to this new series, and sales are decent" which would then inspire that person to go tell his employee "hey, there's this book that has moderate sales! Let's copy that!"

 

You think that is reasonable?

 

You almost make me wonder if you have real conversations with real people; the kind of conversations where people talk about things that are happening with them, talk about common interests both personal and professional, sometimes exaggerate about their accomplishments, poke gentle fun at their friend about some aspect of their lives, talk about how good (well?) - or bad - things are at work; you know, conversations. To answer your question, no, I don't think that is reasonable, since people don't really talk like that.

 

As for the rest, I've shared my opinion, and don't really have anything to add, so I'll leave it at that.

 

I won't offer you the last word, because I AM like you in one respect, there's always the possibility that you'd say something I just couldn't resist responding to.

[ttfitz]

Ttfitz and rfoiii there's really no reason to argue over something so trivial.

RMA I have nothing but deep respect for you man,but don't you think you're beating a dead horse here?

Personally I'm in the JLA is more important camp,but who cares,I want both for my collection.

End of my preaching.

 

If we didn't argue about trivial stuff, what would we have to talk about around here?

[ttfitz]

If you ask me Showcase #4 more important,Flash #1(GA) more important, Flash 105 more important than JLoA #1? Don't think so,but then again I own a JLA#1.I hope I'm not being biased,but I do want to own a Flash 105! Someday.

 

Hmm, you do have a point there. I also own a JLA #1 but not a Flash #105, and would hope to own one some day. And if Flash #105 is more important, that would likely make it more expensive....

 

Finally a reason to vote in the poll!

 

[Lazyboy]

You custom create evidence on the spot and then argue to the death it is true. However it isn't, it is your opinion.

Such as?

 

Maybe you can revisit your hilarious strike-through post from earlier in the thread. You know, the one where you claimed a ton of simple facts were "interpretation" and opinion?

[BarryAllen]

You custom create evidence on the spot and then argue to the death it is true. However it isn't, it is your opinion.

Such as?

 

Maybe you can revisit your hilarious strike-through post from earlier in the thread. You know, the one where you claimed a ton of simple facts were "interpretation" and opinion?

 

You mean this one:

 

 

 

The timeline looks something like this:

 

June-Aug 1956: Jack Kirby and Dave Wood are commissioned to create Showcase #6, which is the first appearance of Challengers of the Unknown, featuring four characters dressed in the same outfit having "superheroic" adventures. One of the characters is named "Lester 'Rocky' Davis."

Sept-Oct 1956: Showcase #6 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov-Dec 1956: Showcase #7 appears on the newsstands.

 

July-Aug 1957: Jack Kirby and Dave Wood are commissioned and begin work on Showcase #11.

 

Sept 1957: Showcase #11 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov 1957: Showcase #12 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov-Dec 1957: Jack Kirby creates Challengers of the Unknown #1.

 

Jan 1958: Challengers of the Unknown, the first "superhero/adventurer" "tryout" to win their own title. This occurs almost a full year prior to Flash #105. Yes, Lois Lane appears a month or so before Challengers, but Lois isn't a "superhero/adventurer" title; it's a humor title aimed at girls.

 

This is critical. Sales on Showcase #6 and #7 were so good, it convinced Julius Schwartz and Jack Schiff that the characters could sustain their own title. Remember, starting a new title in the 50's was anything but a sure bet, and, as we know, there were Second Class Postage considerations that influenced these decisions.

 

And...because of the way the distribution system worked, DC wouldn't have gotten a good handle on actual sales for Showcase #6 and #7 until well into 1957, many months after they hit the stands. If one considers that Showcase #6 would be removed from the stands around February, 1957, and #7 around April of 1957, returns would have been finalized around April and June respectively, the fact that they commissioned Kirby to create two more "tryout" issues within 1-3 months after finalized sales from Showcase #6 and #7, and then they gave Kirby the go ahead to begin creating a new title 2-3 months after that, attests to the sell-through of those particular issues.

 

They were obviously quite successful. And the title itself lasted throughout the entire Silver Age, 77 issues, all the way until 1971, before being cancelled.

 

Showcase #4, on the other hand, which appeared 4-5 months before Showcase #6, wasn't enough to convince Schwartz to give Flash his own title again....that would require no less than three MORE tryouts (double what it took Challengers) and even then, they took the opportunity to resurrect the old title numbering, rather than giving Flash a #1.

 

YES, the Challengers DID appear two more times in Showcase, but those were published in Sept and Nov of 1957, while Kirby was given the commission to work on what would become Challengers #1. (Published Jan-Feb 1958.) Those two additional "tryouts" would not be in a position to influence the decision to publish Challengers #1....there simply wasn't enough time.

 

(Lois Lane is even more astonishing. From tryout to her own title in the 8 month interval. The response must have been overwhelming.)

 

Dec 1958: Flash #105 is published.

 

1958-1959: DC continues to roll out new tryout series, some of which work (Flash, Green Lantern), some of which don't (Suicide Squad.)

 

July 1959: Showcase #22, featuring the second "GA name revival", Green Lantern, is published.

 

Nov-Dec 1959: A full three years after Showcase #6, and almost two years after Challengers #1, The "Justice" superhero team idea is resurrected from the ashes of the Justice Society, which had last been seen 8 years earlier (a lifetime in comics terms in those days.)

 

May 1960: DC publishes Green Lantern #1, after the last tryout issue, Showcase #24, is published six months earlier. At this point, with Challengers #1, Lois Lane #1, Flash #105, Rip, and were proving to be successful. The time between "tryout" and "title" is getting shorter and shorter, as DC was willing to take more and more risks. They were firing on all cylinders at this point.

 

August 1960: Justice League of America #1 is published, after a 3 issue tryout in B&B. The interval between tryout and new title was now only 4 months, but I suspect Schwartz wasn't taking that big a risk with JLA and knew it.

 

Oct 1960: JLA #2 is published.

 

Dec 1960: JLA #3 is published

 

Feb 1961: JLA #4 is published.

 

April 1961: JLA #5 is published.

 

April-May: DC gets finalized sales results for JLA #3.

 

June 1961: JLA #6 is published.

 

June-July: DC gets finalized sales results for JL #4.

 

June-July 1961: Stan and Jack create FF #1.

 

(Early) August 1961: FF #1 is published.

 

Now...as the timeline makes clear, DC was having a tremendous amount of success, and what would be called "the Silver Age" was well on its way for DC. But, as mentioned before, because of the way the distribution system worked...long before the internet, long before trade papers, long before anyone really had any idea how to gauge sales fairly quickly...DC wouldn't have had sales results for #1 until around Jan of 1961. They certainly wouldn't have had sales results back for even issue #4 before Stan and Jack begin work on FF #1.

 

So....the question becomes this: if we accept Stan Lee's quote of Martin Goodman's quote at face value....repeated here:

 

Martin mentioned that he had noticed one of the titles published by National Comics seemed to be selling better than most. It was a book called The Justice League of America and it was composed of a team of superheroes. ... 'If the Justice League is selling', spoke he, 'why don't we put out a comic book that features a team of superheroes?'

 

...the question of how could Goodman possibly have known this, when even DC ITSELF didn't? At the time FF #1 was created, DC had sales information for, at best, 3 issues of this new title. And, even if you consider B&B #28-30, that's SIX issues, total, over a span of a year. And DC has never been in the habit of sharing sales results with the public.

 

 

Do you think Goodman polled a reasonable sample of newsstands? Do you think he did any research to find out how well JLA was selling compared to other titles? How did Goodman manage to pick out JLA, out of all the other books DC was publishing at the time, including a TEAM of "superheroes" by the name of "Challengers of the Unknown" which, by the time FF #1 was created, had TWENTY issues published...?

 

 

None of which, by the way, even considers BLACKHAWK.

 

Considering all of this...how, then, is it possible for Martin Goodman to have told Stan: "Hey, Natonal's publishing a title that looks like it's selling better than others, this Justice League. We should create a team of superheroes.'

 

When you lay everything out, you see that, even if Goodman made such a statement, in the context of what was being published at the time, it becomes much less likely, and is, at best, a substantial guess on the part of Goodman.

 

To then say "well, yes, that comment is what led Stan and Jack to create FF #1!"....you see what a shaky foundation the whole concept rests on.

 

It doesn't need to be a question of "well, STAN said it, and who are YOU to question STAN?"...the facts, laid out, don't support such a statement, if it was even made.

 

These things are forgotten, or not considered in the first place, and then people are quoting Stan Lee quoting Martin Goodman (which, of course, is hearsay), on a situation that Goodman couldn't *really* have known, and now JLA becomes the direct reason why FF exists.

 

The prosecution rests.

 

 

Everything with a strike-through is your opinion or interpretation of events between factual known dates.

 

The actual timeline looks like this:

 

Sept-Oct 1956: Showcase #6 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov-Dec 1956: Showcase #7 appears on the newsstands.

 

Sept 1957: Showcase #11 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov 1957: Showcase #12 appears on the newsstands.

 

Jan 1958: Challengers of the Unknown is published

 

Dec 1958: Flash #105 is published.

 

July 1959: Showcase #22 is published.

 

May 1960: DC publishes Green Lantern #1

 

August 1960: Justice League of America #1 is published

 

Oct 1960: JLA #2 is published.

 

Dec 1960: JLA #3 is published

 

Feb 1961: JLA #4 is published.

 

April 1961: JLA #5 is published.

 

June 1961: JLA #6 is published.

 

August 1961: FF #1 is published.

 

:shrug:

 

 

Sure, the stuff that I used the strikethrough on is speculation, guesses at what might have transpired or a personal interpretation of the situation. Everything that does not have a strike-through is a date out of a data base.

 

For example: guessing when people were commissioned to do work isn't a matter of record, it is a guess based on a publication date. Or, when anyone got finalized sales results. Then there is plenty of positioning and conjecture that I did strike-throughs as well where RMA was continuing to build an argument around the assumptions he created.

 

These are not records of fact. If they are, please show me the specific source.

 

:shrug:

 

My entire point is that while these published dates are accurate, the conclusions drawn from the dates aren't a matter of historical accuracy but a well crafted interpretation. Anyone with time on their hands could look up this data, add additional data and take a different perspective.

[oakman29]

Ttfitz and rfoiii there's really no reason to argue over something so trivial.

RMA I have nothing but deep respect for you man,but don't you think you're beating a dead horse here?

Personally I'm in the JLA is more important camp,but who cares,I want both for my collection.

End of my preaching.

 

If we didn't argue about trivial stuff, what would we have to talk about around here?

 

I'm just trying to bring a little levity to an otherwise unfunny,and somewhat boring thread.

 

 

 

I'm a lover not a fighter!

[Lazyboy]

Then why do you accept things like "Sept-Oct 1956: Showcase #6 appears on the newsstands." to be fact when the cover date on the comic is February?

 

If you don't know anything about history, please don't argue about historical events.

[BarryAllen]

Then why do you accept things like "Sept-Oct 1956: Showcase #6 appears on the newsstands." to be fact when the cover date on the comic is February?

 

If you don't know anything about history, please don't argue about historical events.

 

Come on.

 

You know very well that my point of view on this subject isn't inaccurate. You can believe RMA's version, but it is still his version.

 

You are just looking for me to make a mistake to dismiss everything I said versus accepting the argument as a whole.

 

Forgetting to fact check a few of the data points doesn't change the reality that much of what he wrote there is his interpretation. I don't have the kind of time to filter through the thousands of lines of details he throws up in every argument. However, you don't need a history degree to see that he is clearly taking a position and interpreting events to make an argument. This is not rocket science and irrefutable.

 

I really don't want to argue this with another person, can we just be done?

[BarryAllen]

I am going to bed, it's late and I have to work tomorrow.

 

I am really not looking to get deep into this again with anyone. I have my beef with RMA and we can leave it at that.

 

Lazyboy: I have no idea what your motivation is but I am really not interested in rehashing any of this with someone else. If it's because you disagree, then great we can agree to disagree. If it is because you are pals with RMA, great I wish you a long friendship. If it is because you don't like me, I accept that. Whatever it is, I wish you no ill will.

 

Have a good night.

[ttfitz]

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).

 

You and I differ on the meaning of Evanier's full statement on the matter, but that's fine.

 

As for the "evidence from the timeline and sales figures", I don't disregard them, I just don't find them persuasive. On the timeline, it is my understanding that even RMA concedes that there is enough time for someone in-the-know to decide how well a book is selling,

 

Based on three issues...? You can make this conclusion based on three issues...? And then that hypothetical "person in the know" is going to say "hey, this new title, JLA, is selling about on par with some of our other titles, like Flash, Blackhawk, and others...it's only three issues in, but those are pretty good"...and then Goodman is going to, in turn, tell Stan "Hey, there's a new title that's got fairly moderate sales at National...it's only three issues in, but hey, it looks good so far...we should do a superhero team!"...?

 

Who decides how well a book is selling based on three issues...?

 

And who then goes and tells an unrelated party about it, when we discover later that those sales were good, but not stellar?

 

What motive does this unnamed "in the know" person have to go tell a competitor, "hey, by the way...we're three issues in to this new series, and sales are decent" which would then inspire that person to go tell his employee "hey, there's this book that has moderate sales! Let's copy that!"

 

You think that is reasonable?

 

You almost make me wonder if you have real conversations with real people; the kind of conversations where people talk about things that are happening with them, talk about common interests both personal and professional, sometimes exaggerate about their accomplishments, poke gentle fun at their friend about some aspect of their lives, talk about how good (well?) - or bad - things are at work; you know, conversations. To answer your question, no, I don't think that is reasonable, since people don't really talk like that.

 

As for the rest, I've shared my opinion, and don't really have anything to add, so I'll leave it at that.

 

I won't offer you the last word, because I AM like you in one respect, there's always the possibility that you'd say something I just couldn't resist responding to.

 

This went a bit too far, and I apologize for that. I just couldn't believe that such a ridiculous characterization would be put forth as to how such a conversation must go.

[AlexanderM]

From what I am seeing going on here, there is a fundamental difference in the way two sets of people are trying to "prove a case". One set (rfoiii, Alexander, ttfitz) are relying on direct testimony (of Stan Lee). The other (RMA, Mysterio, Mark) are relying on circumstantial evidence (timelines, etc which they believe "suggests" something else).

 

A common lawyer tactic is to attempt to refute direct witness testimony by challenging their recollection, uncovering potential biases, etc. Nonetheless, juries tend to favor direct witness testimony over circumstantial evidence. Hence why you will often hear defense attorneys in a criminal prosecution of a weak case point out that "this is just a circumstantial case".

 

Direct evidence is indicative of a stronger case. Nothing has been introduced that would or should cause anyone to doubt or question Stan Lee's direct statement on the matter. In this case it would seem easiest and most sensible to simply take the man at his word.

 

-J.

 

That would be the reasonable conclusion.

 

But alas... it seem like a good guess that if 'winning' by simply exhausting the other party has proven successful in the past, it's likely the same strategy will continue regardless of facts, or your or anyone's else's opinion.

 

Anyway... let's move on to discussing other matters

[RockMyAmadeus]

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).

 

You and I differ on the meaning of Evanier's full statement on the matter, but that's fine.

 

As for the "evidence from the timeline and sales figures", I don't disregard them, I just don't find them persuasive. On the timeline, it is my understanding that even RMA concedes that there is enough time for someone in-the-know to decide how well a book is selling,

 

Based on three issues...? You can make this conclusion based on three issues...? And then that hypothetical "person in the know" is going to say "hey, this new title, JLA, is selling about on par with some of our other titles, like Flash, Blackhawk, and others...it's only three issues in, but those are pretty good"...and then Goodman is going to, in turn, tell Stan "Hey, there's a new title that's got fairly moderate sales at National...it's only three issues in, but hey, it looks good so far...we should do a superhero team!"...?

 

Who decides how well a book is selling based on three issues...?

 

And who then goes and tells an unrelated party about it, when we discover later that those sales were good, but not stellar?

 

What motive does this unnamed "in the know" person have to go tell a competitor, "hey, by the way...we're three issues in to this new series, and sales are decent" which would then inspire that person to go tell his employee "hey, there's this book that has moderate sales! Let's copy that!"

 

You think that is reasonable?

 

You almost make me wonder if you have real conversations with real people; the kind of conversations where people talk about things that are happening with them, talk about common interests both personal and professional, sometimes exaggerate about their accomplishments, poke gentle fun at their friend about some aspect of their lives, talk about how good (well?) - or bad - things are at work; you know, conversations.

 

You. Have Got. To Be Kidding.

 

 

Your comments deserve no answer.

 

To answer your question, no, I don't think that is reasonable, since people don't really talk like that.

 

Yes...you're correct. They don't. Therefore, it's not likely to have happened.

 

As for the rest, I've shared my opinion, and don't really have anything to add, so I'll leave it at that.

 

I won't offer you the last word, because I AM like you in one respect, there's always the possibility that you'd say something I just couldn't resist responding to.

 

I can hardly wait.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

You custom create evidence on the spot and then argue to the death it is true. However it isn't, it is your opinion.

Such as?

 

Maybe you can revisit your hilarious strike-through post from earlier in the thread. You know, the one where you claimed a ton of simple facts were "interpretation" and opinion?

 

You mean this one:

 

 

 

The timeline looks something like this:

 

June-Aug 1956: Jack Kirby and Dave Wood are commissioned to create Showcase #6, which is the first appearance of Challengers of the Unknown, featuring four characters dressed in the same outfit having "superheroic" adventures. One of the characters is named "Lester 'Rocky' Davis."

Sept-Oct 1956: Showcase #6 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov-Dec 1956: Showcase #7 appears on the newsstands.

 

July-Aug 1957: Jack Kirby and Dave Wood are commissioned and begin work on Showcase #11.

 

Sept 1957: Showcase #11 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov 1957: Showcase #12 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov-Dec 1957: Jack Kirby creates Challengers of the Unknown #1.

 

Jan 1958: Challengers of the Unknown, the first "superhero/adventurer" "tryout" to win their own title. This occurs almost a full year prior to Flash #105. Yes, Lois Lane appears a month or so before Challengers, but Lois isn't a "superhero/adventurer" title; it's a humor title aimed at girls.

 

This is critical. Sales on Showcase #6 and #7 were so good, it convinced Julius Schwartz and Jack Schiff that the characters could sustain their own title. Remember, starting a new title in the 50's was anything but a sure bet, and, as we know, there were Second Class Postage considerations that influenced these decisions.

 

And...because of the way the distribution system worked, DC wouldn't have gotten a good handle on actual sales for Showcase #6 and #7 until well into 1957, many months after they hit the stands. If one considers that Showcase #6 would be removed from the stands around February, 1957, and #7 around April of 1957, returns would have been finalized around April and June respectively, the fact that they commissioned Kirby to create two more "tryout" issues within 1-3 months after finalized sales from Showcase #6 and #7, and then they gave Kirby the go ahead to begin creating a new title 2-3 months after that, attests to the sell-through of those particular issues.

 

They were obviously quite successful. And the title itself lasted throughout the entire Silver Age, 77 issues, all the way until 1971, before being cancelled.

 

Showcase #4, on the other hand, which appeared 4-5 months before Showcase #6, wasn't enough to convince Schwartz to give Flash his own title again....that would require no less than three MORE tryouts (double what it took Challengers) and even then, they took the opportunity to resurrect the old title numbering, rather than giving Flash a #1.

 

YES, the Challengers DID appear two more times in Showcase, but those were published in Sept and Nov of 1957, while Kirby was given the commission to work on what would become Challengers #1. (Published Jan-Feb 1958.) Those two additional "tryouts" would not be in a position to influence the decision to publish Challengers #1....there simply wasn't enough time.

 

(Lois Lane is even more astonishing. From tryout to her own title in the 8 month interval. The response must have been overwhelming.)

 

Dec 1958: Flash #105 is published.

 

1958-1959: DC continues to roll out new tryout series, some of which work (Flash, Green Lantern), some of which don't (Suicide Squad.)

 

July 1959: Showcase #22, featuring the second "GA name revival", Green Lantern, is published.

 

Nov-Dec 1959: A full three years after Showcase #6, and almost two years after Challengers #1, The "Justice" superhero team idea is resurrected from the ashes of the Justice Society, which had last been seen 8 years earlier (a lifetime in comics terms in those days.)

 

May 1960: DC publishes Green Lantern #1, after the last tryout issue, Showcase #24, is published six months earlier. At this point, with Challengers #1, Lois Lane #1, Flash #105, Rip, and were proving to be successful. The time between "tryout" and "title" is getting shorter and shorter, as DC was willing to take more and more risks. They were firing on all cylinders at this point.

 

August 1960: Justice League of America #1 is published, after a 3 issue tryout in B&B. The interval between tryout and new title was now only 4 months, but I suspect Schwartz wasn't taking that big a risk with JLA and knew it.

 

Oct 1960: JLA #2 is published.

 

Dec 1960: JLA #3 is published

 

Feb 1961: JLA #4 is published.

 

April 1961: JLA #5 is published.

 

April-May: DC gets finalized sales results for JLA #3.

 

June 1961: JLA #6 is published.

 

June-July: DC gets finalized sales results for JL #4.

 

June-July 1961: Stan and Jack create FF #1.

 

(Early) August 1961: FF #1 is published.

 

Now...as the timeline makes clear, DC was having a tremendous amount of success, and what would be called "the Silver Age" was well on its way for DC. But, as mentioned before, because of the way the distribution system worked...long before the internet, long before trade papers, long before anyone really had any idea how to gauge sales fairly quickly...DC wouldn't have had sales results for #1 until around Jan of 1961. They certainly wouldn't have had sales results back for even issue #4 before Stan and Jack begin work on FF #1.

 

So....the question becomes this: if we accept Stan Lee's quote of Martin Goodman's quote at face value....repeated here:

 

Martin mentioned that he had noticed one of the titles published by National Comics seemed to be selling better than most. It was a book called The Justice League of America and it was composed of a team of superheroes. ... 'If the Justice League is selling', spoke he, 'why don't we put out a comic book that features a team of superheroes?'

 

...the question of how could Goodman possibly have known this, when even DC ITSELF didn't? At the time FF #1 was created, DC had sales information for, at best, 3 issues of this new title. And, even if you consider B&B #28-30, that's SIX issues, total, over a span of a year. And DC has never been in the habit of sharing sales results with the public.

 

 

Do you think Goodman polled a reasonable sample of newsstands? Do you think he did any research to find out how well JLA was selling compared to other titles? How did Goodman manage to pick out JLA, out of all the other books DC was publishing at the time, including a TEAM of "superheroes" by the name of "Challengers of the Unknown" which, by the time FF #1 was created, had TWENTY issues published...?

 

 

None of which, by the way, even considers BLACKHAWK.

 

Considering all of this...how, then, is it possible for Martin Goodman to have told Stan: "Hey, Natonal's publishing a title that looks like it's selling better than others, this Justice League. We should create a team of superheroes.'

 

When you lay everything out, you see that, even if Goodman made such a statement, in the context of what was being published at the time, it becomes much less likely, and is, at best, a substantial guess on the part of Goodman.

 

To then say "well, yes, that comment is what led Stan and Jack to create FF #1!"....you see what a shaky foundation the whole concept rests on.

 

It doesn't need to be a question of "well, STAN said it, and who are YOU to question STAN?"...the facts, laid out, don't support such a statement, if it was even made.

 

These things are forgotten, or not considered in the first place, and then people are quoting Stan Lee quoting Martin Goodman (which, of course, is hearsay), on a situation that Goodman couldn't *really* have known, and now JLA becomes the direct reason why FF exists.

 

The prosecution rests.

 

 

Everything with a strike-through is your opinion or interpretation of events between factual known dates.

 

The actual timeline looks like this:

 

Sept-Oct 1956: Showcase #6 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov-Dec 1956: Showcase #7 appears on the newsstands.

 

Sept 1957: Showcase #11 appears on the newsstands.

 

Nov 1957: Showcase #12 appears on the newsstands.

 

Jan 1958: Challengers of the Unknown is published

 

Dec 1958: Flash #105 is published.

 

July 1959: Showcase #22 is published.

 

May 1960: DC publishes Green Lantern #1

 

August 1960: Justice League of America #1 is published

 

Oct 1960: JLA #2 is published.

 

Dec 1960: JLA #3 is published

 

Feb 1961: JLA #4 is published.

 

April 1961: JLA #5 is published.

 

June 1961: JLA #6 is published.

 

August 1961: FF #1 is published.

 

:shrug:

 

 

Sure, the stuff that I used the strikethrough on is speculation, guesses at what might have transpired or a personal interpretation of the situation. Everything that does not have a strike-through is a date out of a data base.

 

For example: guessing when people were commissioned to do work isn't a matter of record, it is a guess based on a publication date. Or, when anyone got finalized sales results. Then there is plenty of positioning and conjecture that I did strike-throughs as well where RMA was continuing to build an argument around the assumptions he created.

 

These are not records of fact. If they are, please show me the specific source.

 

:shrug:

 

My entire point is that while these published dates are accurate, the conclusions drawn from the dates aren't a matter of historical accuracy but a well crafted interpretation. Anyone with time on their hands could look up this data, add additional data and take a different perspective.

 

Have you completely lost your ever-loving mind?

 

Seriously?

 

I can't believe I missed the original gem of a post when it was first posted. Too much noise.

 

You cannot be serious. You're pulling everyone's legs, aren't you? Aren't you?

 

You think this:

 

"July-Aug 1957: Jack Kirby and Dave Wood are commissioned and begin work on Showcase #11."

 

...is SPECULATION??

 

When do you think that event occurred? 1993? Who do you think was commissioned to work on Showcase #11? Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble?

 

Words fail.

 

They completely fail to describe the madness of the things you post.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Then why do you accept things like "Sept-Oct 1956: Showcase #6 appears on the newsstands." to be fact when the cover date on the comic is February?

 

If you don't know anything about history, please don't argue about historical events.

 

Come on.

 

You know very well that my point of view on this subject isn't inaccurate. You can believe RMA's version, but it is still his version.

 

You are just looking for me to make a mistake to dismiss everything I said versus accepting the argument as a whole.

 

Forgetting to fact check a few of the data points doesn't change the reality that much of what he wrote there is his interpretation. I don't have the kind of time to filter through the thousands of lines of details he throws up in every argument. However, you don't need a history degree to see that he is clearly taking a position and interpreting events to make an argument. This is not rocket science and irrefutable.

 

I really don't want to argue this with another person, can we just be done?

 

You are mad. You are completely mad. You have gone completely off the rails.

 

That is the only thing that can explain why you call simple facts "opinions" and "interpretations."

 

When and to whom was Showcase #11 commissioned?

 

Do you have any knowledge of comics history? Do you have any knowledge of comics production?

 

If you don't know these things, you have no business being in this discussion. None at all.

[RockMyAmadeus]

From what I am seeing going on here, there is a fundamental difference in the way two sets of people are trying to "prove a case". One set (rfoiii, Alexander, ttfitz) are relying on direct testimony (of Stan Lee). The other (RMA, Mysterio, Mark) are relying on circumstantial evidence (timelines, etc which they believe "suggests" something else).

 

A common lawyer tactic is to attempt to refute direct witness testimony by challenging their recollection, uncovering potential biases, etc. Nonetheless, juries tend to favor direct witness testimony over circumstantial evidence. Hence why you will often hear defense attorneys in a criminal prosecution of a weak case point out that "this is just a circumstantial case".

 

Direct evidence is indicative of a stronger case. Nothing has been introduced that would or should cause anyone to doubt or question Stan Lee's direct statement on the matter. In this case it would seem easiest and most sensible to simply take the man at his word.

 

-J.

 

That would be the reasonable conclusion.

 

As I replied to Jay's post before, no, that is not the reasonable conclusion, because it's not based on fact or reason or logic.

 

Hearsay is not "direct evidence." It is hearsay.

 

It's only reasonable to you because it supports your irrational conclusions.

 

But alas... it seem like a good guess that if 'winning' by simply exhausting the other party has proven successful in the past, it's likely the same strategy will continue regardless of facts, or your or anyone's else's opinion.

 

Again with the insulting, dismissive comments. You and rfoiii and Jay have no regard for the facts, or logic, or reason. None whatsoever.

 

Anyway... let's move on to discussing other matters

 

Then move on, already, and stop discussing it.

 

Reasonable.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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).

 

You and I differ on the meaning of Evanier's full statement on the matter, but that's fine.

 

As for the "evidence from the timeline and sales figures", I don't disregard them, I just don't find them persuasive. On the timeline, it is my understanding that even RMA concedes that there is enough time for someone in-the-know to decide how well a book is selling,

 

Based on three issues...? You can make this conclusion based on three issues...? And then that hypothetical "person in the know" is going to say "hey, this new title, JLA, is selling about on par with some of our other titles, like Flash, Blackhawk, and others...it's only three issues in, but those are pretty good"...and then Goodman is going to, in turn, tell Stan "Hey, there's a new title that's got fairly moderate sales at National...it's only three issues in, but hey, it looks good so far...we should do a superhero team!"...?

 

Who decides how well a book is selling based on three issues...?

 

And who then goes and tells an unrelated party about it, when we discover later that those sales were good, but not stellar?

 

What motive does this unnamed "in the know" person have to go tell a competitor, "hey, by the way...we're three issues in to this new series, and sales are decent" which would then inspire that person to go tell his employee "hey, there's this book that has moderate sales! Let's copy that!"

 

You think that is reasonable?

 

You almost make me wonder if you have real conversations with real people; the kind of conversations where people talk about things that are happening with them, talk about common interests both personal and professional, sometimes exaggerate about their accomplishments, poke gentle fun at their friend about some aspect of their lives, talk about how good (well?) - or bad - things are at work; you know, conversations. To answer your question, no, I don't think that is reasonable, since people don't really talk like that.

 

As for the rest, I've shared my opinion, and don't really have anything to add, so I'll leave it at that.

 

I won't offer you the last word, because I AM like you in one respect, there's always the possibility that you'd say something I just couldn't resist responding to.

 

This went a bit too far, and I apologize for that. I just couldn't believe that such a ridiculous characterization would be put forth as to how such a conversation must go.

 

A "bit"...?

 

Do you understand sarcasm?

 

I think maybe Lazyboy has hit the nail on the head: you may not be able to tell when people are being sarcastic to make a point.

 

If that is the case, then I shall have to remember to always be literal with you, or you will come to strange conclusions such as the one above, where you completely missed the sarcasm that illustrated the point....because those ridiculous conversations were ridiculous to illustrate the point.