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

[AlexanderM]

We have oppinions. And the closest we have to evidence is that FF1 came out after the success of JLA. Just like when Apple announces a Tab, Samsung will work on a tab... and so on. It is standard that major competitors look at each other and learn what works.

 

We also know what Stan Lee tells us. We can then try to discredit his memory or other things - but really why would he want to give DC any credit for Marvel releasing a team title if it wasn't true? In that case it would be much more likely that he would say it was COTU... to at least give Kirby a bit of credit and himself for securing the talents of Kirby.

 

Either way, it is an uphill battle trying to argue that the success of JLA had nothing to do with FF1. Central people in the events have to be discredited and logical progression of things explained away.

 

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.

[mysterio]

Also -- the accepted narrative of the beginning of the Silver Age has a lot of problems, really. Go look at how many golden age super hero revivals or new superhero launches occurred from late 1953 up to the publication of Showcase 4. You will be very surprised.

 

Exactly. Atlas reintroduced its GA heroes in 1953-4, and look how far that got them. It'd be 8-10 years before they saw the light of day again, after DC blazed the trail for the SA. Super-hero books were dead in the 50s. Look how tough even Superman and Batman books from this era can be to locate.

[bronze johnny]

What's also significant here is the length of time it took for DC make the decision to give Flash his own title after his SA intro in Showcase 4. Approximately 3 years! Sure there were Flash appearances in between in the Showcase titles but there may have been an existing view based on the failure of prior GA re-intros during the mid 50s that Mark correctly points out. Did the preceding failures influence a major publisher like DC to take the course of planning the SC series with the goal of reviving GA characters in 1956? Doubtful given the existing historical evidence. Jimbo, is there any historical evidence that DC planned to re-introduce superhero characters prior to Flash 105? We don't see another GA superhero reintroduced until SC 22- at the end of 1959. My guess is that DC did have intentions of introducing new characters and expanding on the mainstay "Superman Family" titles with Lois Lane (Supergirl in Action Comics) and sci-fi & monster books like Challies, Adam Strange, Space Ranger, and Rip Hunter. Until I see historical evidence that DC had a plan to re-introduce GA superheroes, I don't buy it when we have the first 3 years of the DC SA lacking any - until after Flash 105. What follows Flash 105 is another story.

[mysterio]

What's also significant here is the length of time it took for DC make the decision to give Flash his own title after his SA intro in Showcase 4. Approximately 3 years! Sure there were Flash appearances in between in the Showcase titles but there may have been an existing view based on the failure of prior GA re-intros during the mid 50s that Mark correctly points out. Did the preceding failures influence a major publisher like DC to take the course of planning the SC series with the goal of reviving GA characters in 1956? Doubtful given the existing historical evidence. Jimbo, is there any historical evidence that DC planned to re-introduce superhero characters prior to Flash 105? We don't see another GA superhero reintroduced until SC 22- at the end of 1959. My guess is that DC did have intentions of introducing new characters and expanding on the mainstay "Superman Family" titles with Lois Lane and sci-fi & monster books like Challies, Adam Strange, Space Ranger, and Rip Hunter. Until I see historical evidence that DC had a plan to re-introduce GA superheroes, I don't buy it when we have the first 3 years of the DC SA lacking any - until after Flash 105. What follows Flash 105 is another story.

 

Great post! My one quibble would be that Flash and GL were GA reintroductions only in the loosest sense. Both were new characters with new costumes that had similar powers to the GA heroes, but were not the same. The true GA heroes wouldn't come back until yet another underappreciated historic key, Flash #123. Just one more example of Flash being called upon to blaze the trail.

[bronze johnny]

What's also significant here is the length of time it took for DC make the decision to give Flash his own title after his SA intro in Showcase 4. Approximately 3 years! Sure there were Flash appearances in between in the Showcase titles but there may have been an existing view based on the failure of prior GA re-intros during the mid 50s that Mark correctly points out. Did the preceding failures influence a major publisher like DC to take the course of planning the SC series with the goal of reviving GA characters in 1956? Doubtful given the existing historical evidence. Jimbo, is there any historical evidence that DC planned to re-introduce superhero characters prior to Flash 105? We don't see another GA superhero reintroduced until SC 22- at the end of 1959. My guess is that DC did have intentions of introducing new characters and expanding on the mainstay "Superman Family" titles with Lois Lane and sci-fi & monster books like Challies, Adam Strange, Space Ranger, and Rip Hunter. Until I see historical evidence that DC had a plan to re-introduce GA superheroes, I don't buy it when we have the first 3 years of the DC SA lacking any - until after Flash 105. What follows Flash 105 is another story.

 

Great post! My one quibble would be that Flash and GL were GA reintroductions only in the loosest sense. Both were new characters with new costumes that had similar powers to the GA heroes, but were not the same. The true GA heroes wouldn't come back until yet another underappreciated historic key, Flash #123. Just one more example of Flash being called upon to blaze the trail.

 

Thanks Mysterio- I agree with you - I'm calling them reintro GA characters but they Flash and GL are new as to costume and alter ego- thankfully!

[AlexanderM]

What's also significant here is the length of time it took for DC make the decision to give Flash his own title after his SA intro in Showcase 4. Approximately 3 years! Sure there were Flash appearances in between in the Showcase titles but there may have been an existing view based on the failure of prior GA re-intros during the mid 50s that Mark correctly points out. Did the preceding failures influence a major publisher like DC to take the course of planning the SC series with the goal of reviving GA characters in 1956? Doubtful given the existing historical evidence. Jimbo, is there any historical evidence that DC planned to re-introduce superhero characters prior to Flash 105? We don't see another GA superhero reintroduced until SC 22- at the end of 1959. My guess is that DC did have intentions of introducing new characters and expanding on the mainstay "Superman Family" titles with Lois Lane and sci-fi & monster books like Challies, Adam Strange, Space Ranger, and Rip Hunter. Until I see historical evidence that DC had a plan to re-introduce GA superheroes, I don't buy it when we have the first 3 years of the DC SA lacking any - until after Flash 105. What follows Flash 105 is another story.

 

Great post! My one quibble would be that Flash and GL were GA reintroductions only in the loosest sense. Both were new characters with new costumes that had similar powers to the GA heroes, but were not the same. The true GA heroes wouldn't come back until yet another underappreciated historic key, Flash #123. Just one more example of Flash being called upon to blaze the trail.

 

Thanks Mysterio- I agree with you - I'm calling them reintro GA characters but they Flash and GL are new as to costume and alter ego- thankfully!

 

So tough.... having the cake and eating it too...

 

Flash is the first time DC revamped a GA super-hero, and that started the silver age...

 

But wait.... "revamping" isn't quite what collectors look for, right? They mostly look for first appearances rather than comebacks or reintroductions/revampings....

 

So let's claim it's an entirely new super hero!!!

 

But wait - then it's not a reintroduction of a GA super-hero and isn't that the real claim to fame for SC4 and F105?

 

Tough one....

 

Imo.. SA Flash is a revamped version of the Flash (so not a first appearance) but it does have the historical significance of being the first SA reintroduction/revamping of a super-hero (SC4) and also in own title (F105) - which obviously make both books very important.

 

In comparison, JLA1 inspired FF1 and the Marvel age. It is also the first appearance in own title (which F105 is not) of JLA.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

You are mistaken. The "Goodman/Donenfeld golf" story that has been told many times over is to what my original comment referred, not the "Stan Lee quoting Goodman" story.

 

Hopefully, that clears up any misunderstanding you might have. Since you, yourself, acknowledged that that story was apocryphal, I'm surprised you misunderstood my comment.

 

....

 

Whether Goodman actually said that or not (and all we have is Stan's statement, and Stan is an old man, who is known for "misremembering" things that have happened in the past), to say that that comment is the direct causality for FF #1 is still a stretch based solely on that single comment.

 

Not sure where the discussion stands, but RMA is on the money on both of these points, imo.

 

I'd also add that in general, interviews about this stuff covering events that occurred decades prior should be viewed skeptically. For me, it always comes back to this: Motion Picture Funnies Weekly was not referenced in any form in the industry's collective narrative about its origins, until after copies were discovered.

 

That discovery changed people's recollections of events they lived through. If the Jacquet family had tossed those out rather than sell them, one of our most fundamental "birth of the industry" narratives would be wildly wrong. If you are interested in these sorts of debates, that should give you pause. You gotta let guys like RMA poke and prod at the conventional wisdom, and accept that as a net good thing.

 

Thanks Mark, I really apprecia....hey! Whaddaya you mean, "guys like RMA?"

 

 

The issue, of course, is context.

 

Let's assume the statement by Goodman actually happened. The problem is this: how could he possibly know?

 

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.

 

****

 

Also -- the accepted narrative of the beginning of the Silver Age has a lot of problems, really. Go look at how many golden age super hero revivals or new superhero launches occurred from late 1953 up to the publication of Showcase 4. You will be very surprised.

 

Atlas made some pretty heavy attempts to resurrect their super heroes in the mid-50's. Young Men #24-28, Captain America #76-78, Submariner #33-42, Men's Adventures #27-28....if those books had been successful, we might have a completely different understanding of the entire Silver Age. Did Sub-Mariner #40 inspire Julius Schwartz to "revive" superheroes?

 

Remember...superheroes had only been gone a few years from the scene when Showcase #4 came around. And, technically, they weren't gone at all, because DC was still publishing Supes, Bats, SuperBOY, and Wonder Woman, in various forms.

 

THANOS disappeared from publication far, far longer (1977-1990) than superheroes did from 1949/1951-1954/1955-1956.

 

Everyone was playing around to see what would stick. DC publishes Jimmy Olsen in 1954, Phantom Stranger in 1952, Captain Comet in 1951, Congo Bill in 1954, Robin Hood in 1957, Sugar and Spike in 1956, Charlie Chan in 1958, Sgt. Bilko, Pvt. Doberman, westerns, their formidable War lineup, Romance....Atlas publishes westerns, war, romance, humor, AND SUPERHEROES...everything they could to see what would stick.

 

All to compete with the massive twin juggernauts of Disney and EC.

 

The picture that's always been presented isn't always the most accurate one, and it's dangerous to A. take every comment retold decades after the fact at face value, and B. to be ignorant of the history of the era when discussing it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

You must understand it, or you are going to continue to be frustrated and annoyed by things that you shouldn't let frustrate and annoy you.

 

This is some good advice. I find myself quite often disagreeing with many things that RMA says, and the way he says them. But I don't get annoyed and frustrated by it - that would give him too much power over me. Truthfully, much of the time it just amuses me.

 

It's not about having "power" over anyone; it's about exercising self-control, and not letting your emotions rule your reason.

 

I have no problem with you disagreeing with what I say. But how someone says what they say isn't anyone else's business, unless they're violating board rules, and then it is the moderation team's business. You might want to ask yourself if the issue is really the way I say what I say, or how you read what I say. That's always an important question to ask.

 

Is there a reason for saying this, however? Seems unnecessarily condescending to tell someone they "just amuse" you.

 

And why do you quote me, and then refer to me in the third person? That's a bit dismissive, is it not? Is there a reason to make contemptuous personal comments about others? Is there a reason to be discussing personality issues in a thread like this...? First rfoiii, and now you...? Why must we continually talk about the people IN the discussion, rather than just the discussion?

 

 

Stan and Martin considered the viability of making a team because of how successful JLA proved to be.

 

In light of what I have posted, do you have any proof of this assertion?

 

Once the financial decision was made that a team of superheroes in their own title could be viable for Marvel, they went to figure out which super-heroes to put in. For this second stage, I think it might be true that Challengers of the Unknown played a part (probably still also JLA because they wanted to learn from DC what made them successful (if they did not try to figure this out they would be insufficiently_thoughtful_persons.. and I don't think they are). And the fact remains that the success of JLA was crucial to even make Marvel consider this.

 

Again, in light of what I have posted, do you have any proof of these assertions?

 

Now, this seems pretty objectively to be how history describes the events.

 

See the timeline I've laid out above.

[mysterio]

[RockMyAmadeus]

What's also significant here is the length of time it took for DC make the decision to give Flash his own title after his SA intro in Showcase 4. Approximately 3 years! Sure there were Flash appearances in between in the Showcase titles but there may have been an existing view based on the failure of prior GA re-intros during the mid 50s that Mark correctly points out. Did the preceding failures influence a major publisher like DC to take the course of planning the SC series with the goal of reviving GA characters in 1956? Doubtful given the existing historical evidence. Jimbo, is there any historical evidence that DC planned to re-introduce superhero characters prior to Flash 105? We don't see another GA superhero reintroduced until SC 22- at the end of 1959. My guess is that DC did have intentions of introducing new characters and expanding on the mainstay "Superman Family" titles with Lois Lane and sci-fi & monster books like Challies, Adam Strange, Space Ranger, and Rip Hunter. Until I see historical evidence that DC had a plan to re-introduce GA superheroes, I don't buy it when we have the first 3 years of the DC SA lacking any - until after Flash 105. What follows Flash 105 is another story.

 

Great post! My one quibble would be that Flash and GL were GA reintroductions only in the loosest sense. Both were new characters with new costumes that had similar powers to the GA heroes, but were not the same. The true GA heroes wouldn't come back until yet another underappreciated historic key, Flash #123. Just one more example of Flash being called upon to blaze the trail.

 

Thanks Mysterio- I agree with you - I'm calling them reintro GA characters but they Flash and GL are new as to costume and alter ego- thankfully!

 

So tough.... having the cake and eating it too...

 

Flash is the first time DC revamped a GA super-hero, and that started the silver age...

 

But wait.... "revamping" isn't quite what collectors look for, right? They mostly look for first appearances rather than comebacks or reintroductions/revampings....

 

So let's claim it's an entirely new super hero!!!

 

From the historical lens of 1956, it WAS an entirely new superhero. Far from the collection and continuity obsessiveness of the 21st century, at that time, there was no established fandom, no "collectors" per se. What had happened in the past was very literally the past, and unless you were diligent, you had no idea that there had ever been a "Jay Garrick" (because "Golden Age" was a term that didn't yet exist) Flash.

 

It was a tabula rasa.

 

(Yes, I understand that's not what you're saying, but it does bring up the interesting point.)

 

But wait - then it's not a reintroduction of a GA super-hero and isn't that the real claim to fame for SC4 and F105?

 

Tough one....

 

Imo.. SA Flash is a revamped version of the Flash (so not a first appearance) but it does have the historical significance of being the first SA reintroduction/revamping of a super-hero (SC4) and also in own title (F105) - which obviously make both books very important.

 

In comparison, JLA1 inspired FF1 and the Marvel age. It is also the first appearance in own title (which F105 is not) of JLA.

 

Unfortunately, "JLA1 inspired FF1" is not a claim you can substantiate.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Something to consider: because of the success of the X-Men in the 80's, 90's. and 00's, many people find it quite shocking to know that it was the very first "Silver Age Marvel" title to be cancelled, in 1970, and the only one of the initial wave of 1961-1964 to do so.

 

If it hadn't been for Claremont, Cockrum, and Wein, it's possible, and even probable, that the reprints would have, like Sgt Fury, Rawhide Kid, Two Gun Kid, been quietly cancelled sometime in the late 70's or early 80's.

 

It would be a mistake to look at the tremendous, tremendous success of the team from the 80's to now and apply any of that success to the 60's for the title.

[AlexanderM]

What's also significant here is the length of time it took for DC make the decision to give Flash his own title after his SA intro in Showcase 4. Approximately 3 years! Sure there were Flash appearances in between in the Showcase titles but there may have been an existing view based on the failure of prior GA re-intros during the mid 50s that Mark correctly points out. Did the preceding failures influence a major publisher like DC to take the course of planning the SC series with the goal of reviving GA characters in 1956? Doubtful given the existing historical evidence. Jimbo, is there any historical evidence that DC planned to re-introduce superhero characters prior to Flash 105? We don't see another GA superhero reintroduced until SC 22- at the end of 1959. My guess is that DC did have intentions of introducing new characters and expanding on the mainstay "Superman Family" titles with Lois Lane and sci-fi & monster books like Challies, Adam Strange, Space Ranger, and Rip Hunter. Until I see historical evidence that DC had a plan to re-introduce GA superheroes, I don't buy it when we have the first 3 years of the DC SA lacking any - until after Flash 105. What follows Flash 105 is another story.

 

Great post! My one quibble would be that Flash and GL were GA reintroductions only in the loosest sense. Both were new characters with new costumes that had similar powers to the GA heroes, but were not the same. The true GA heroes wouldn't come back until yet another underappreciated historic key, Flash #123. Just one more example of Flash being called upon to blaze the trail.

 

Thanks Mysterio- I agree with you - I'm calling them reintro GA characters but they Flash and GL are new as to costume and alter ego- thankfully!

 

So tough.... having the cake and eating it too...

 

Flash is the first time DC revamped a GA super-hero, and that started the silver age...

 

But wait.... "revamping" isn't quite what collectors look for, right? They mostly look for first appearances rather than comebacks or reintroductions/revampings....

 

So let's claim it's an entirely new super hero!!!

 

From the historical lens of 1956, it WAS an entirely new superhero. Far from the collection and continuity obsessiveness of the 21st century, at that time, there was no established fandom, no "collectors" per se. What had happened in the past was very literally the past, and unless you were diligent, you had no idea that there had ever been a "Jay Garrick" (because "Golden Age" was a term that didn't yet exist) Flash.

 

It was a tabula rasa.

 

(Yes, I understand that's not what you're saying, but it does bring up the interesting point.)

 

But wait - then it's not a reintroduction of a GA super-hero and isn't that the real claim to fame for SC4 and F105?

 

Tough one....

 

Imo.. SA Flash is a revamped version of the Flash (so not a first appearance) but it does have the historical significance of being the first SA reintroduction/revamping of a super-hero (SC4) and also in own title (F105) - which obviously make both books very important.

 

In comparison, JLA1 inspired FF1 and the Marvel age. It is also the first appearance in own title (which F105 is not) of JLA.

 

Unfortunately, "JLA1 inspired FF1" is not a claim you can substantiate.

 

RMA, you seem interested in debating-peacockery rather than what the truth of these events actually were.

 

With the time I am willing to spend on these debates, I don't think I can put these things forth much clearer than I and others have already done, so I will just assume you will stick to your story no matter what.

 

As for your last statement, my answer is: "true, unless one prefers Stan Lee's words over yours in this matter".

 

 

[mysterio]

What's also significant here is the length of time it took for DC make the decision to give Flash his own title after his SA intro in Showcase 4. Approximately 3 years! Sure there were Flash appearances in between in the Showcase titles but there may have been an existing view based on the failure of prior GA re-intros during the mid 50s that Mark correctly points out. Did the preceding failures influence a major publisher like DC to take the course of planning the SC series with the goal of reviving GA characters in 1956? Doubtful given the existing historical evidence. Jimbo, is there any historical evidence that DC planned to re-introduce superhero characters prior to Flash 105? We don't see another GA superhero reintroduced until SC 22- at the end of 1959. My guess is that DC did have intentions of introducing new characters and expanding on the mainstay "Superman Family" titles with Lois Lane and sci-fi & monster books like Challies, Adam Strange, Space Ranger, and Rip Hunter. Until I see historical evidence that DC had a plan to re-introduce GA superheroes, I don't buy it when we have the first 3 years of the DC SA lacking any - until after Flash 105. What follows Flash 105 is another story.

 

Great post! My one quibble would be that Flash and GL were GA reintroductions only in the loosest sense. Both were new characters with new costumes that had similar powers to the GA heroes, but were not the same. The true GA heroes wouldn't come back until yet another underappreciated historic key, Flash #123. Just one more example of Flash being called upon to blaze the trail.

 

Thanks Mysterio- I agree with you - I'm calling them reintro GA characters but they Flash and GL are new as to costume and alter ego- thankfully!

 

So tough.... having the cake and eating it too...

 

Flash is the first time DC revamped a GA super-hero, and that started the silver age...

 

But wait.... "revamping" isn't quite what collectors look for, right? They mostly look for first appearances rather than comebacks or reintroductions/revampings....

 

So let's claim it's an entirely new super hero!!!

 

From the historical lens of 1956, it WAS an entirely new superhero. Far from the collection and continuity obsessiveness of the 21st century, at that time, there was no established fandom, no "collectors" per se. What had happened in the past was very literally the past, and unless you were diligent, you had no idea that there had ever been a "Jay Garrick" (because "Golden Age" was a term that didn't yet exist) Flash.

 

It was a tabula rasa.

 

(Yes, I understand that's not what you're saying, but it does bring up the interesting point.)

 

But wait - then it's not a reintroduction of a GA super-hero and isn't that the real claim to fame for SC4 and F105?

 

Tough one....

 

Imo.. SA Flash is a revamped version of the Flash (so not a first appearance) but it does have the historical significance of being the first SA reintroduction/revamping of a super-hero (SC4) and also in own title (F105) - which obviously make both books very important.

 

In comparison, JLA1 inspired FF1 and the Marvel age. It is also the first appearance in own title (which F105 is not) of JLA.

 

Unfortunately, "JLA1 inspired FF1" is not a claim you can substantiate.

 

RMA, you seem interested in debating-peacockery rather than what the truth of these events actually were.

 

With the time I am willing to spend on these debates, I don't think I can put these things forth much clearer than I and others have already done, so I will just assume you will stick to your story no matter what.

 

As for your last statement, my answer is: "true, unless one prefers Stan Lee's words over yours in this matter".

 

 

I've never all capped before, but this seems to be an appropriate time to pop that cherry. DID YOU READ HIS TIMELINE?

[RockMyAmadeus]

We have oppinions. And the closest we have to evidence is that FF1 came out after the success of JLA. Just like when Apple announces a Tab, Samsung will work on a tab... and so on. It is standard that major competitors look at each other and learn what works.

 

You're trying to apply 21st century thinking to mid-20th century realities.

 

Comic book publishers were notoriously guarded and secretive, and still are.

 

We also know what Stan Lee tells us. We can then try to discredit his memory or other things

 

You're assuming that Stan's memory is accurate, and that his recall of what Martin said is accurate. There's no "discrediting" involved. When someone repeats hearsay....especially of a now 54 year old conversation...it doesn't "discredit their memory" to say "well, do we have any independent corroboration?"

 

- but really why would he want to give DC any credit for Marvel releasing a team title if it wasn't true?

 

Why wouldn't he? Who cares who gets credit for something that happened 50+ years ago?

 

In that case it would be much more likely that he would say it was COTU... to at least give Kirby a bit of credit and himself for securing the talents of Kirby.

 

Because that's all complete speculation, that isn't even based on what Stan Lee thinks, but rather, what *you* think Stan Lee thinks.

 

More likely that he would cite Challengers if that was the bigger influence? Why? Stan had nothing to do with Challengers.

 

Or give Kirby credit for creating Challengers? Why would such a thought even occur to Stan?

 

Or himself credit for securing Kirby? Kirby floated back and forth between DC and Atlas/Marvel throughout that time frame.

 

None of those reasons are even probable, much less likely.

 

Either way, it is an uphill battle trying to argue that the success of JLA had nothing to do with FF1. Central people in the events have to be discredited and logical progression of things explained away.

 

See the timeline I have posted above. And you say "people"...we only have Stan's account. That's just one person.

 

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.

 

Except when the facts don't support the "simplest explanation." No one has said that the success of JLA had nothing to do with FF1. But the link...if it does exist....is so tenuous, it cannot be relied on as "the simplest explanation" without further evidence...evidence which may no longer exist.

[AlexanderM]

What's also significant here is the length of time it took for DC make the decision to give Flash his own title after his SA intro in Showcase 4. Approximately 3 years! Sure there were Flash appearances in between in the Showcase titles but there may have been an existing view based on the failure of prior GA re-intros during the mid 50s that Mark correctly points out. Did the preceding failures influence a major publisher like DC to take the course of planning the SC series with the goal of reviving GA characters in 1956? Doubtful given the existing historical evidence. Jimbo, is there any historical evidence that DC planned to re-introduce superhero characters prior to Flash 105? We don't see another GA superhero reintroduced until SC 22- at the end of 1959. My guess is that DC did have intentions of introducing new characters and expanding on the mainstay "Superman Family" titles with Lois Lane and sci-fi & monster books like Challies, Adam Strange, Space Ranger, and Rip Hunter. Until I see historical evidence that DC had a plan to re-introduce GA superheroes, I don't buy it when we have the first 3 years of the DC SA lacking any - until after Flash 105. What follows Flash 105 is another story.

 

Great post! My one quibble would be that Flash and GL were GA reintroductions only in the loosest sense. Both were new characters with new costumes that had similar powers to the GA heroes, but were not the same. The true GA heroes wouldn't come back until yet another underappreciated historic key, Flash #123. Just one more example of Flash being called upon to blaze the trail.

 

Thanks Mysterio- I agree with you - I'm calling them reintro GA characters but they Flash and GL are new as to costume and alter ego- thankfully!

 

So tough.... having the cake and eating it too...

 

Flash is the first time DC revamped a GA super-hero, and that started the silver age...

 

But wait.... "revamping" isn't quite what collectors look for, right? They mostly look for first appearances rather than comebacks or reintroductions/revampings....

 

So let's claim it's an entirely new super hero!!!

 

From the historical lens of 1956, it WAS an entirely new superhero. Far from the collection and continuity obsessiveness of the 21st century, at that time, there was no established fandom, no "collectors" per se. What had happened in the past was very literally the past, and unless you were diligent, you had no idea that there had ever been a "Jay Garrick" (because "Golden Age" was a term that didn't yet exist) Flash.

 

It was a tabula rasa.

 

(Yes, I understand that's not what you're saying, but it does bring up the interesting point.)

 

But wait - then it's not a reintroduction of a GA super-hero and isn't that the real claim to fame for SC4 and F105?

 

Tough one....

 

Imo.. SA Flash is a revamped version of the Flash (so not a first appearance) but it does have the historical significance of being the first SA reintroduction/revamping of a super-hero (SC4) and also in own title (F105) - which obviously make both books very important.

 

In comparison, JLA1 inspired FF1 and the Marvel age. It is also the first appearance in own title (which F105 is not) of JLA.

 

Unfortunately, "JLA1 inspired FF1" is not a claim you can substantiate.

 

RMA, you seem interested in debating-peacockery rather than what the truth of these events actually were.

 

With the time I am willing to spend on these debates, I don't think I can put these things forth much clearer than I and others have already done, so I will just assume you will stick to your story no matter what.

 

As for your last statement, my answer is: "true, unless one prefers Stan Lee's words over yours in this matter".

 

 

I've never all capped before, but this seems to be an appropriate time to pop that cherry. DID YOU READ HIS TIMELINE?

 

 

Yes, so what? It is exactly that... HIS timeline. The point of it (the only point I can see RMA is trying to make) is that no-one in the industry could have known whether or not JLA was looking like a success or not because there were 3 issues out (or 6).

 

Of course people in the industry could have had a very very good idea. Publishers get notified whether each issue sells out .. and "several newsstands are reporting they could have sold twice as many" or whatever could have been said all would inform people in the industry... well, at the center of the industry. RMA is severely underestimating the industry and how things worked if he really thinks they had no idea how things were going after 3 (6) issues.

 

So that time line is a none issue as far as I am concerned.

 

The big (and only) evidence we have is that Stan Lee said he had a discussion with Martin in which they discussed that it looked like JLA's were flying off the newsstands like hot cakes...(paraphrasing here) and maybe they should consider a team too. I see no reason to discredit Stan Lee in this matter... nor do I find it very reasonable to trust the self-made conspiracy theory of another collector over the statements of one of the key people actually involved in these decisions.

[RockMyAmadeus]

RMA, you seem interested in debating-peacockery rather than what the truth of these events actually were.

 

What any individual "seems interested in debating" bears absolutely no relevance to the discussion whatsoever.

 

Several of you are utterly incapable of having a discussion without interjecting personal commentary about the individuals discussing. It is poor debate, and does absolutely nothing to advance the discussion. Please restrict your comments to the DISCUSSION, not the people HAVING the discussion.

 

With the time I am willing to spend on these debates, I don't think I can put these things forth much clearer than I and others have already done, so I will just assume you will stick to your story no matter what.

 

Please refer to the timeline I posted above.

 

As for your last statement, my answer is: "true, unless one prefers Stan Lee's words over yours in this matter".

 

 

Please refer to the timeline I posted above. If you find any issues with that, please don't hesitate to post them.

[mysterio]

What's also significant here is the length of time it took for DC make the decision to give Flash his own title after his SA intro in Showcase 4. Approximately 3 years! Sure there were Flash appearances in between in the Showcase titles but there may have been an existing view based on the failure of prior GA re-intros during the mid 50s that Mark correctly points out. Did the preceding failures influence a major publisher like DC to take the course of planning the SC series with the goal of reviving GA characters in 1956? Doubtful given the existing historical evidence. Jimbo, is there any historical evidence that DC planned to re-introduce superhero characters prior to Flash 105? We don't see another GA superhero reintroduced until SC 22- at the end of 1959. My guess is that DC did have intentions of introducing new characters and expanding on the mainstay "Superman Family" titles with Lois Lane and sci-fi & monster books like Challies, Adam Strange, Space Ranger, and Rip Hunter. Until I see historical evidence that DC had a plan to re-introduce GA superheroes, I don't buy it when we have the first 3 years of the DC SA lacking any - until after Flash 105. What follows Flash 105 is another story.

 

Great post! My one quibble would be that Flash and GL were GA reintroductions only in the loosest sense. Both were new characters with new costumes that had similar powers to the GA heroes, but were not the same. The true GA heroes wouldn't come back until yet another underappreciated historic key, Flash #123. Just one more example of Flash being called upon to blaze the trail.

 

Thanks Mysterio- I agree with you - I'm calling them reintro GA characters but they Flash and GL are new as to costume and alter ego- thankfully!

 

So tough.... having the cake and eating it too...

 

Flash is the first time DC revamped a GA super-hero, and that started the silver age...

 

But wait.... "revamping" isn't quite what collectors look for, right? They mostly look for first appearances rather than comebacks or reintroductions/revampings....

 

So let's claim it's an entirely new super hero!!!

 

From the historical lens of 1956, it WAS an entirely new superhero. Far from the collection and continuity obsessiveness of the 21st century, at that time, there was no established fandom, no "collectors" per se. What had happened in the past was very literally the past, and unless you were diligent, you had no idea that there had ever been a "Jay Garrick" (because "Golden Age" was a term that didn't yet exist) Flash.

 

It was a tabula rasa.

 

(Yes, I understand that's not what you're saying, but it does bring up the interesting point.)

 

But wait - then it's not a reintroduction of a GA super-hero and isn't that the real claim to fame for SC4 and F105?

 

Tough one....

 

Imo.. SA Flash is a revamped version of the Flash (so not a first appearance) but it does have the historical significance of being the first SA reintroduction/revamping of a super-hero (SC4) and also in own title (F105) - which obviously make both books very important.

 

In comparison, JLA1 inspired FF1 and the Marvel age. It is also the first appearance in own title (which F105 is not) of JLA.

 

Unfortunately, "JLA1 inspired FF1" is not a claim you can substantiate.

 

RMA, you seem interested in debating-peacockery rather than what the truth of these events actually were.

 

With the time I am willing to spend on these debates, I don't think I can put these things forth much clearer than I and others have already done, so I will just assume you will stick to your story no matter what.

 

As for your last statement, my answer is: "true, unless one prefers Stan Lee's words over yours in this matter".

 

 

I've never all capped before, but this seems to be an appropriate time to pop that cherry. DID YOU READ HIS TIMELINE?

 

 

Yes, so what? It is exactly that... HIS timeline. The point of it (the only point I can see RMA is trying to make) is that no-one in the industry could have known whether or not JLA was looking like a success or not because there were 3 issues out (or 6).

 

Of course people in the industry could have had a very very good idea. Publishers get notified whether each issue sells out .. and "several newsstands are reporting they could have sold twice as many" or whatever could have been said all would inform people in the industry... well, at the center of the industry. RMA is severely underestimating the industry and how things worked if he really things they had no idea how things were going after 3 (6) issues.

 

So that time line is a none issue as far as I am concerned.

 

The big (and only) evidence we have is that Stan Lee said he had a discussion with Martin in which they discussed that it looked like JLA's were flying off the newsstands like hot cakes... and maybe they should consider a team. I see no reason to discredit Stan Lee in this matter... nor do I find it very reasonable to trust the self-made conspiracy theory of another collector over the statements of one of the key people actually involved in these decisions.

 

Unless you're going to claim that he fabricated any or all of the known historical events on that timeline, you might do better to weigh that single offhand remark by Stan Lee against the order of events as we know they occurred. Historical, factual evidence of the relevant events as they actually transpired, or a remark Stan Lee remembers from 50+ years ago, which do you find more credible?

 

I'm guessing you'll still pick the single, offhand remark from a 50+ year old conversation that doesn't fit any of the other actual evidence that bears on the question.

[AlexanderM]

What's also significant here is the length of time it took for DC make the decision to give Flash his own title after his SA intro in Showcase 4. Approximately 3 years! Sure there were Flash appearances in between in the Showcase titles but there may have been an existing view based on the failure of prior GA re-intros during the mid 50s that Mark correctly points out. Did the preceding failures influence a major publisher like DC to take the course of planning the SC series with the goal of reviving GA characters in 1956? Doubtful given the existing historical evidence. Jimbo, is there any historical evidence that DC planned to re-introduce superhero characters prior to Flash 105? We don't see another GA superhero reintroduced until SC 22- at the end of 1959. My guess is that DC did have intentions of introducing new characters and expanding on the mainstay "Superman Family" titles with Lois Lane and sci-fi & monster books like Challies, Adam Strange, Space Ranger, and Rip Hunter. Until I see historical evidence that DC had a plan to re-introduce GA superheroes, I don't buy it when we have the first 3 years of the DC SA lacking any - until after Flash 105. What follows Flash 105 is another story.

 

Great post! My one quibble would be that Flash and GL were GA reintroductions only in the loosest sense. Both were new characters with new costumes that had similar powers to the GA heroes, but were not the same. The true GA heroes wouldn't come back until yet another underappreciated historic key, Flash #123. Just one more example of Flash being called upon to blaze the trail.

 

Thanks Mysterio- I agree with you - I'm calling them reintro GA characters but they Flash and GL are new as to costume and alter ego- thankfully!

 

So tough.... having the cake and eating it too...

 

Flash is the first time DC revamped a GA super-hero, and that started the silver age...

 

But wait.... "revamping" isn't quite what collectors look for, right? They mostly look for first appearances rather than comebacks or reintroductions/revampings....

 

So let's claim it's an entirely new super hero!!!

 

From the historical lens of 1956, it WAS an entirely new superhero. Far from the collection and continuity obsessiveness of the 21st century, at that time, there was no established fandom, no "collectors" per se. What had happened in the past was very literally the past, and unless you were diligent, you had no idea that there had ever been a "Jay Garrick" (because "Golden Age" was a term that didn't yet exist) Flash.

 

It was a tabula rasa.

 

(Yes, I understand that's not what you're saying, but it does bring up the interesting point.)

 

But wait - then it's not a reintroduction of a GA super-hero and isn't that the real claim to fame for SC4 and F105?

 

Tough one....

 

Imo.. SA Flash is a revamped version of the Flash (so not a first appearance) but it does have the historical significance of being the first SA reintroduction/revamping of a super-hero (SC4) and also in own title (F105) - which obviously make both books very important.

 

In comparison, JLA1 inspired FF1 and the Marvel age. It is also the first appearance in own title (which F105 is not) of JLA.

 

Unfortunately, "JLA1 inspired FF1" is not a claim you can substantiate.

 

RMA, you seem interested in debating-peacockery rather than what the truth of these events actually were.

 

With the time I am willing to spend on these debates, I don't think I can put these things forth much clearer than I and others have already done, so I will just assume you will stick to your story no matter what.

 

As for your last statement, my answer is: "true, unless one prefers Stan Lee's words over yours in this matter".

 

 

I've never all capped before, but this seems to be an appropriate time to pop that cherry. DID YOU READ HIS TIMELINE?

 

 

Yes, so what? It is exactly that... HIS timeline. The point of it (the only point I can see RMA is trying to make) is that no-one in the industry could have known whether or not JLA was looking like a success or not because there were 3 issues out (or 6).

 

Of course people in the industry could have had a very very good idea. Publishers get notified whether each issue sells out .. and "several newsstands are reporting they could have sold twice as many" or whatever could have been said all would inform people in the industry... well, at the center of the industry. RMA is severely underestimating the industry and how things worked if he really things they had no idea how things were going after 3 (6) issues.

 

So that time line is a none issue as far as I am concerned.

 

The big (and only) evidence we have is that Stan Lee said he had a discussion with Martin in which they discussed that it looked like JLA's were flying off the newsstands like hot cakes... and maybe they should consider a team. I see no reason to discredit Stan Lee in this matter... nor do I find it very reasonable to trust the self-made conspiracy theory of another collector over the statements of one of the key people actually involved in these decisions.

 

Unless you're going to claim that he fabricated any or all of the known historical events on that timeline, you might do better to weigh that single offhand remark by Stan Lee against the order of events as we know they occurred. Historical, factual evidence of the relevant events as they actually transpired, or a remark Stan Lee remembers from 50+ years ago, which do you find more credible?

 

I'm guessing you'll still pick the single, offhand remark from a 50+ year old conversation.

 

Noone is saying they did not happen. They just do not show what RMA wanted them to show.

 

Read my post again.

 

They do not prove in any way that people in the industry had no idea how JLA was doing.

 

So the conspiracy theory still has zero substance.

[RockMyAmadeus]

What's also significant here is the length of time it took for DC make the decision to give Flash his own title after his SA intro in Showcase 4. Approximately 3 years! Sure there were Flash appearances in between in the Showcase titles but there may have been an existing view based on the failure of prior GA re-intros during the mid 50s that Mark correctly points out. Did the preceding failures influence a major publisher like DC to take the course of planning the SC series with the goal of reviving GA characters in 1956? Doubtful given the existing historical evidence. Jimbo, is there any historical evidence that DC planned to re-introduce superhero characters prior to Flash 105? We don't see another GA superhero reintroduced until SC 22- at the end of 1959. My guess is that DC did have intentions of introducing new characters and expanding on the mainstay "Superman Family" titles with Lois Lane and sci-fi & monster books like Challies, Adam Strange, Space Ranger, and Rip Hunter. Until I see historical evidence that DC had a plan to re-introduce GA superheroes, I don't buy it when we have the first 3 years of the DC SA lacking any - until after Flash 105. What follows Flash 105 is another story.

 

Great post! My one quibble would be that Flash and GL were GA reintroductions only in the loosest sense. Both were new characters with new costumes that had similar powers to the GA heroes, but were not the same. The true GA heroes wouldn't come back until yet another underappreciated historic key, Flash #123. Just one more example of Flash being called upon to blaze the trail.

 

Thanks Mysterio- I agree with you - I'm calling them reintro GA characters but they Flash and GL are new as to costume and alter ego- thankfully!

 

So tough.... having the cake and eating it too...

 

Flash is the first time DC revamped a GA super-hero, and that started the silver age...

 

But wait.... "revamping" isn't quite what collectors look for, right? They mostly look for first appearances rather than comebacks or reintroductions/revampings....

 

So let's claim it's an entirely new super hero!!!

 

From the historical lens of 1956, it WAS an entirely new superhero. Far from the collection and continuity obsessiveness of the 21st century, at that time, there was no established fandom, no "collectors" per se. What had happened in the past was very literally the past, and unless you were diligent, you had no idea that there had ever been a "Jay Garrick" (because "Golden Age" was a term that didn't yet exist) Flash.

 

It was a tabula rasa.

 

(Yes, I understand that's not what you're saying, but it does bring up the interesting point.)

 

But wait - then it's not a reintroduction of a GA super-hero and isn't that the real claim to fame for SC4 and F105?

 

Tough one....

 

Imo.. SA Flash is a revamped version of the Flash (so not a first appearance) but it does have the historical significance of being the first SA reintroduction/revamping of a super-hero (SC4) and also in own title (F105) - which obviously make both books very important.

 

In comparison, JLA1 inspired FF1 and the Marvel age. It is also the first appearance in own title (which F105 is not) of JLA.

 

Unfortunately, "JLA1 inspired FF1" is not a claim you can substantiate.

 

RMA, you seem interested in debating-peacockery rather than what the truth of these events actually were.

 

With the time I am willing to spend on these debates, I don't think I can put these things forth much clearer than I and others have already done, so I will just assume you will stick to your story no matter what.

 

As for your last statement, my answer is: "true, unless one prefers Stan Lee's words over yours in this matter".

 

 

I've never all capped before, but this seems to be an appropriate time to pop that cherry. DID YOU READ HIS TIMELINE?

 

 

Yes, so what? It is exactly that... HIS timeline.

 

How do you expect your points to be taken seriously, when you disregard the chain of events that is the foundation of this discussion?

 

It's mind boggling.

 

The point of it (the only point I can see RMA is trying to make) is that no-one in the industry could have known whether or not JLA was looking like a success or not because there were 3 issues out (or 6).

 

Of course people in the industry could have had a very very good idea. Publishers get notified whether each issue sells out ..

 

Not in the 50's and 60's, they didn't. You betray an ignorance of the distribution system of the day. I would be very, VERY surprised if a single comic book published from 1945 to 1965 "sold out" across the nation. In fact, such a phenomenon was completely unheard of after the very early days of comics publishing (Action Comics #1, for example, sold out, as did Superman #1, before publishers had a handle on how many they should print.)

 

In fact, there was never a situation that required an immediate reprinting at the newsstand until 1992....Superman #75.

 

and "several newsstands are reporting they could have sold twice as many"

 

To whom? Who did they report this to? Did they call up DC and speak to...whom? Circulation? Why would they? If a particular issue sold out, why would a newsstand dealer take the time and energy to report it to anyone (even their distributor!) when they literally had hundreds of other publications to deal with on a weekly basis?

 

Your argument rests on wild assumptions.

 

or whatever could have been said all would inform people in the industry... well, at the center of the industry. RMA is severely underestimating the industry and how things worked if he really things they had no idea how things were going after 3 (6) issues.

 

You're wildly overestimating how the system worked, based on a lack of knowledge.

 

Did DC know "how things were going after 3 issues"? Of course they did!

 

But did GOODMAN know this information...?

 

Again...without further evidence, you cannot say this is true.

 

So that time line is a none issue as far as I am concerned.

 

Of course not, because it destroys your argument. That seems fairly straightforward to me.

 

The big (and only) evidence we have is that Stan Lee said he had a discussion with Martin in which they discussed that it looked like JLA's were flying off the newsstands like hot cakes

 

Really...?

 

So, now a casual comment that Stan Lee claims was made by Martin Goodman that, and I quote "seemed to be selling better than most" has now evolved into a discussion in which JLA was now "flying off the newsstands like hot cakes"...?

 

How wonderfully convenient a rewrite that is!

 

... and maybe they should consider a team. I see no reason to discredit Stan Lee in this matter... nor do I find it very reasonable to trust the self-made conspiracy theory of another collector over the statements of one of the key people actually involved in these decisions.

 

Well, I'm glad you've revised your statement from "people" to "one of the people." But again...there's no "discrediting" that needs to take place. There just needs to be corroboration, and that corroboration doesn't seem to be coming.

 

To therefore pin the entire Marvel Silver Age on a casual comment that Stan Lee claims Martin Goodman made...shaky foundation.

 

Provide more evidence. That's all that matters.

[mysterio]

What's also significant here is the length of time it took for DC make the decision to give Flash his own title after his SA intro in Showcase 4. Approximately 3 years! Sure there were Flash appearances in between in the Showcase titles but there may have been an existing view based on the failure of prior GA re-intros during the mid 50s that Mark correctly points out. Did the preceding failures influence a major publisher like DC to take the course of planning the SC series with the goal of reviving GA characters in 1956? Doubtful given the existing historical evidence. Jimbo, is there any historical evidence that DC planned to re-introduce superhero characters prior to Flash 105? We don't see another GA superhero reintroduced until SC 22- at the end of 1959. My guess is that DC did have intentions of introducing new characters and expanding on the mainstay "Superman Family" titles with Lois Lane and sci-fi & monster books like Challies, Adam Strange, Space Ranger, and Rip Hunter. Until I see historical evidence that DC had a plan to re-introduce GA superheroes, I don't buy it when we have the first 3 years of the DC SA lacking any - until after Flash 105. What follows Flash 105 is another story.

 

Great post! My one quibble would be that Flash and GL were GA reintroductions only in the loosest sense. Both were new characters with new costumes that had similar powers to the GA heroes, but were not the same. The true GA heroes wouldn't come back until yet another underappreciated historic key, Flash #123. Just one more example of Flash being called upon to blaze the trail.

 

Thanks Mysterio- I agree with you - I'm calling them reintro GA characters but they Flash and GL are new as to costume and alter ego- thankfully!

 

So tough.... having the cake and eating it too...

 

Flash is the first time DC revamped a GA super-hero, and that started the silver age...

 

But wait.... "revamping" isn't quite what collectors look for, right? They mostly look for first appearances rather than comebacks or reintroductions/revampings....

 

So let's claim it's an entirely new super hero!!!

 

From the historical lens of 1956, it WAS an entirely new superhero. Far from the collection and continuity obsessiveness of the 21st century, at that time, there was no established fandom, no "collectors" per se. What had happened in the past was very literally the past, and unless you were diligent, you had no idea that there had ever been a "Jay Garrick" (because "Golden Age" was a term that didn't yet exist) Flash.

 

It was a tabula rasa.

 

(Yes, I understand that's not what you're saying, but it does bring up the interesting point.)

 

But wait - then it's not a reintroduction of a GA super-hero and isn't that the real claim to fame for SC4 and F105?

 

Tough one....

 

Imo.. SA Flash is a revamped version of the Flash (so not a first appearance) but it does have the historical significance of being the first SA reintroduction/revamping of a super-hero (SC4) and also in own title (F105) - which obviously make both books very important.

 

In comparison, JLA1 inspired FF1 and the Marvel age. It is also the first appearance in own title (which F105 is not) of JLA.

 

Unfortunately, "JLA1 inspired FF1" is not a claim you can substantiate.

 

RMA, you seem interested in debating-peacockery rather than what the truth of these events actually were.

 

With the time I am willing to spend on these debates, I don't think I can put these things forth much clearer than I and others have already done, so I will just assume you will stick to your story no matter what.

 

As for your last statement, my answer is: "true, unless one prefers Stan Lee's words over yours in this matter".

 

 

I've never all capped before, but this seems to be an appropriate time to pop that cherry. DID YOU READ HIS TIMELINE?

 

 

Yes, so what? It is exactly that... HIS timeline. The point of it (the only point I can see RMA is trying to make) is that no-one in the industry could have known whether or not JLA was looking like a success or not because there were 3 issues out (or 6).

 

Of course people in the industry could have had a very very good idea. Publishers get notified whether each issue sells out .. and "several newsstands are reporting they could have sold twice as many" or whatever could have been said all would inform people in the industry... well, at the center of the industry. RMA is severely underestimating the industry and how things worked if he really things they had no idea how things were going after 3 (6) issues.

 

So that time line is a none issue as far as I am concerned.

 

The big (and only) evidence we have is that Stan Lee said he had a discussion with Martin in which they discussed that it looked like JLA's were flying off the newsstands like hot cakes... and maybe they should consider a team. I see no reason to discredit Stan Lee in this matter... nor do I find it very reasonable to trust the self-made conspiracy theory of another collector over the statements of one of the key people actually involved in these decisions.

 

Unless you're going to claim that he fabricated any or all of the known historical events on that timeline, you might do better to weigh that single offhand remark by Stan Lee against the order of events as we know they occurred. Historical, factual evidence of the relevant events as they actually transpired, or a remark Stan Lee remembers from 50+ years ago, which do you find more credible?

 

I'm guessing you'll still pick the single, offhand remark from a 50+ year old conversation.

 

Noone is saying they did not happen. They just do not show what RMA wanted them to show.

 

Read my post again.

 

They do not prove in any way that people in the industry had no idea how JLA was doing.

 

So the conspiracy theory still has zero substance.

 

Nor do your statements prove in any way that the publishers in the late 1950s and early 1960s had anywhere near the level of feedback you're claiming from newsstands or other outlets for their books. If this information was so good, certainly in this day and age, with nearly instantaneous access to a stupefying amount of information, you should be able to tell us the sales figures for those books. I'll take the aggregate data, no need to pull down the week by week numbers. As the publishers surely archived and made those data public you should have no trouble accessing them 60+ years later.