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

[Jaydogrules]

I'm still looking for the "none of the above" option in this poll.

 

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

I responded directly to RMA on this, but thought it bears repeating - the quote in question was neither an "single, offhand remark" nor was it made 50+ years after the fact, the quote comes from Stan's version of events from Origins of Marvel Comics, which was published in 1974.

 

Not to say they are true or that Stan didn't misremember, but we at least need to be dealing with the facts of the circumstances of what was said.

 

And as I made clear in my posts, the comment itself is now 54 years old, not that Stan's repetition of it was.

 

I'm not sure, however, why you think it isn't a single, offhand remark. Do you have any further evidence?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

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...?

 

From the Wikipedia article on The Fantastic Four:

 

Michael Uslan, in a letter published in Alter Ego #43 (December 2004), pp. 4344, writes: "Irwin Donenfeld said he never played golf with Goodman, so the story is untrue. I heard this story more than a couple of times while sitting in the lunchroom at DC's 909 Third Avenue and 75 Rockefeller Plaza office as Sol Harrison and [production chief] Jack Adler were schmoozing with some of us... who worked for DC during our college summers.... [T]he way I heard the story from Sol was that Goodman was playing with one of the heads of Independent News, not DC Comics (though DC owned Independent News). ... As the distributor of DC Comics, this man certainly knew all the sales figures and was in the best position to tell this tidbit to Goodman. ... Of course, Goodman would want to be playing golf with this fellow and be in his good graces. ... Sol worked closely with Independent News' top management over the decades and would have gotten this story straight from the horse's mouth."

 

I see. So, it is Michael Uslan, repeating a story that Sol Harrison told him, repeating a story that either Goodman and/or one of the heads of IND.told him, that now is shoehorned into somehow demonstrating that Goodman now had access to sales information, for a book not yet four issues old, even though it is not explicitly stated that such information was, in fact, shared with Goodman, though he was in contact with someone who was "in the best position" to know.

 

 

Sure, that will stand up in court.

 

"I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who got it STRAIGHT from the horse's mouth, I swear!"

 

[ttfitz]

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.

 

I responded directly to RMA on this, but thought it bears repeating - the quote in question was neither an "single, offhand remark" nor was it made 50+ years after the fact, the quote comes from Stan's version of events from Origins of Marvel Comics, which was published in 1974.

 

Not to say they are true or that Stan didn't misremember, but we at least need to be dealing with the facts of the circumstances of what was said.

 

And as I made clear in my posts, the comment itself is now 54 years old, not that Stan's repetition of it was.

 

I feel that this statement...

 

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?"

 

...certainly implies that you are speaking of Stan's memory was of events long ago, but okay. Certainly others took your remarks in that way, given the way they have been repeated. It seems like a moving of the goalposts like your claim of talking about the golf story, but that's fine. As long as we all are clear these aren't statements made 50+ years after the fact.

 

I'm not sure, however, why you think it isn't a single, offhand remark. Do you have any further evidence?

 

I have no idea whether the remark itself - by Martin Goodman - is a single, offhand remark or not, I was referring to Stan's comment, which is all we have, which is clearly not a single, offhand remark. He was writing about the creation of the Fantastic Four, in a book published in 1974.

[ttfitz]

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...?

 

From the Wikipedia article on The Fantastic Four:

 

Michael Uslan, in a letter published in Alter Ego #43 (December 2004), pp. 4344, writes: "Irwin Donenfeld said he never played golf with Goodman, so the story is untrue. I heard this story more than a couple of times while sitting in the lunchroom at DC's 909 Third Avenue and 75 Rockefeller Plaza office as Sol Harrison and [production chief] Jack Adler were schmoozing with some of us... who worked for DC during our college summers.... [T]he way I heard the story from Sol was that Goodman was playing with one of the heads of Independent News, not DC Comics (though DC owned Independent News). ... As the distributor of DC Comics, this man certainly knew all the sales figures and was in the best position to tell this tidbit to Goodman. ... Of course, Goodman would want to be playing golf with this fellow and be in his good graces. ... Sol worked closely with Independent News' top management over the decades and would have gotten this story straight from the horse's mouth."

 

I see. So, it is Michael Uslan, repeating a story that Sol Harrison told him, repeating a story that either Goodman and/or one of the heads of IND.told him, that now is shoehorned into somehow demonstrating that Goodman now had access to sales information, for a book not yet four issues old, even though it is not explicitly stated that such information was, in fact, shared with Goodman, though he was in contact with someone who was "in the best position" to know.

 

 

Sure, that will stand up in court.

 

"I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who got it STRAIGHT from the horse's mouth, I swear!"

 

I would take such a bit of research by a historian who looked into the question over the suppositions made by someone on a comic collecting forum, sure.

 

You asked how Goodman could possibly know; I responded with some evidence of just that. Which is correct I will leave to others to decide.

[markseifert]

Hard to keep up with everything in the thread, but re any knowledge that Goodman may or may not possibly have had of Justice League sales...

 

1) All available info indicates that the title was a very good but not game-changing seller (particularly considering the context of point 2). It certainly wasn't some monster seller that towered over the rest of the DC line.

 

We could quibble over this, but -- in 1961, Archie sold way better. Turok sold better. Blackhawk sold almost as well. Eight other DC titles sold better.

 

2) It had both Superman and Batman in it, which makes it very difficult to draw conclusions over why it sold well.

 

EIGHT of the top 10 titles of 1961 were Superman or Batman related, and that's not including Justice League. (incidentally, I think this explains Lois Lane's quick green-light more than any other factor)

 

I can imagine that golf game going something like this:

 

Independent News Exec: "Hey guess what Martin? We launched Justice League and it's already our 9th best selling title! Isn't that amazing? Turns out if you put the two most famous superheroes on the planet on a team with a bunch of our other characters, it does ok!"

 

Goodman thinks: "If a team including the two characters who own the industry can sell well, then a team of complete unknowns will also sell well!"

 

The rest -- history.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Hard to keep up with everything in the thread, but re any knowledge that Goodman may or may not possibly have had of Justice League sales...

 

1) All available info indicates that the title was a very good but not game-changing seller (particularly considering the context of point 2). It certainly wasn't some monster seller that towered over the rest of the DC line.

 

We could quibble over this, but -- in 1961, Archie sold way better. Turok sold better. Blackhawk sold almost as well. Eight other DC titles sold better.

 

Even Disney sold better....

 

2) It had both Superman and Batman in it, which makes it very difficult to draw conclusions over why it sold well.

 

EIGHT of the top 10 titles of 1961 were Superman or Batman related, and that's not including Justice League. (incidentally, I think this explains Lois Lane's quick green-light more than any other factor)

 

Agreed. They had success with Superboy, and Jimmy Olsen...why not Superman for girls?

 

I can imagine that golf game going something like this:

 

Independent News Exec: "Hey guess what Martin? We launched Justice League and it's already our 9th best selling title! Isn't that amazing? Turns out if you put the two most famous superheroes on the planet on a team with a bunch of our other characters, it does ok!"

 

Goodman thinks: "If a team including the two characters who own the industry can sell well, then a team of complete unknowns will also sell well!"

 

The rest -- history.

 

Now THAT is a much more plausible scenario!

[RockMyAmadeus]

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...?

 

From the Wikipedia article on The Fantastic Four:

 

Michael Uslan, in a letter published in Alter Ego #43 (December 2004), pp. 4344, writes: "Irwin Donenfeld said he never played golf with Goodman, so the story is untrue. I heard this story more than a couple of times while sitting in the lunchroom at DC's 909 Third Avenue and 75 Rockefeller Plaza office as Sol Harrison and [production chief] Jack Adler were schmoozing with some of us... who worked for DC during our college summers.... [T]he way I heard the story from Sol was that Goodman was playing with one of the heads of Independent News, not DC Comics (though DC owned Independent News). ... As the distributor of DC Comics, this man certainly knew all the sales figures and was in the best position to tell this tidbit to Goodman. ... Of course, Goodman would want to be playing golf with this fellow and be in his good graces. ... Sol worked closely with Independent News' top management over the decades and would have gotten this story straight from the horse's mouth."

 

I see. So, it is Michael Uslan, repeating a story that Sol Harrison told him, repeating a story that either Goodman and/or one of the heads of IND.told him, that now is shoehorned into somehow demonstrating that Goodman now had access to sales information, for a book not yet four issues old, even though it is not explicitly stated that such information was, in fact, shared with Goodman, though he was in contact with someone who was "in the best position" to know.

 

 

Sure, that will stand up in court.

 

"I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who got it STRAIGHT from the horse's mouth, I swear!"

 

I would take such a bit of research by a historian who looked into the question over the suppositions made by someone on a comic collecting forum, sure.

 

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

 

I'm going to point it out again, because it bears repeating: Michael Uslan repeating a story he heard from Sol Harrison repeating a story he heard from either Goodman and/or a head of IND. is the very definition of hearsay. It hardly qualifies as "research."

 

I suspect even Michael Uslan would take issue with your categorizing his statement as "research." He said, himself: " [T]he way I heard the story from Sol...", which means it is, at best, anecdotal, and fourth hand hearsay.

 

The timeline I posted? That is research.

 

You asked how Goodman could possibly know; I responded with some evidence of just that. Which is correct I will leave to others to decide.

 

And I counter that this evidence is fourth hand hearsay, and doesn't answer the question at all. Instead of relying on Uslan, via Harrison, via Goodman and/or an unnamed head of IND, why don't we ask the people who actually had the conversation?

 

Except, of course, we can't, because they're dead, which is why it wouldn't hold up in court. It is impossible to impeach either Goodman or the "head of IND." on the validity of any of these statements.

 

Got anything else?

[BarryAllen]

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...?

 

From the Wikipedia article on The Fantastic Four:

 

Michael Uslan, in a letter published in Alter Ego #43 (December 2004), pp. 4344, writes: "Irwin Donenfeld said he never played golf with Goodman, so the story is untrue. I heard this story more than a couple of times while sitting in the lunchroom at DC's 909 Third Avenue and 75 Rockefeller Plaza office as Sol Harrison and [production chief] Jack Adler were schmoozing with some of us... who worked for DC during our college summers.... [T]he way I heard the story from Sol was that Goodman was playing with one of the heads of Independent News, not DC Comics (though DC owned Independent News). ... As the distributor of DC Comics, this man certainly knew all the sales figures and was in the best position to tell this tidbit to Goodman. ... Of course, Goodman would want to be playing golf with this fellow and be in his good graces. ... Sol worked closely with Independent News' top management over the decades and would have gotten this story straight from the horse's mouth."

 

I see. So, it is Michael Uslan, repeating a story that Sol Harrison told him, repeating a story that either Goodman and/or one of the heads of IND.told him, that now is shoehorned into somehow demonstrating that Goodman now had access to sales information, for a book not yet four issues old, even though it is not explicitly stated that such information was, in fact, shared with Goodman, though he was in contact with someone who was "in the best position" to know.

 

 

Sure, that will stand up in court.

 

"I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who got it STRAIGHT from the horse's mouth, I swear!"

 

I would take such a bit of research by a historian who looked into the question over the suppositions made by someone on a comic collecting forum, sure.

 

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

 

I'm going to point it out again, because it bears repeating: Michael Uslan repeating a story he heard from Sol Harrison repeating a story he heard from either Goodman and/or a head of IND. is the very definition of hearsay. It hardly qualifies as "research."

 

I suspect even Michael Uslan would take issue with your categorizing his statement as "research." He said, himself: " [T]he way I heard the story from Sol...", which means it is, at best, anecdotal, and fourth hand hearsay.

 

The timeline I posted? That is research.

 

You asked how Goodman could possibly know; I responded with some evidence of just that. Which is correct I will leave to others to decide.

 

And I counter that this evidence is fourth hand hearsay, and doesn't answer the question at all. Instead of relying on Uslan, via Harrison, via Goodman and/or an unnamed head of IND, why don't we ask the people who actually had the conversation?

 

Except, of course, we can't, because they're dead, which is why it wouldn't hold up in court. It is impossible to impeach either Goodman or the "head of IND." on the validity of any of these statements.

 

Got anything else?

 

 

You are consistently condescending in ALL of your posts on a regular basis. Then when I or someone else points it out, you throw a fit about how someone's posting style is "not up for debate." Then when you feel someone else is doing the same thing to you, you point it out multiple times.

 

You are seriously ridiculous.

 

[rjpb]

Goodman was rarely reluctant to jump on a trend, and had been around long enough to know that genres wax and wane in popularity. It wouldn't have gone unnoticed that DC was expanding their superhero titles with or without JLA. Lee's memory is notoriously selective, but there is no reason that it couldn't have happened more or less the way he recalls it in 1974 ( it is worth noting that apparently Lee couldn't even recall the Atlas hero revival even happening when asked about it years later, so I wouldn't count on his memory being perfect). Maybe it was enough that DC was confident enough to launch a mult-hero book without featuring Batman & Superman on the cover that sparked the idea for a team book, and actual sales figures weren't even discussed. I doubt we'll ever know exactly.

 

None of it really makes JLA a more or less important book. If it's only real claim to fame is that it sparked the idea for the FF, it's not really much of a key.

[markseifert]

Now THAT is a much more plausible scenario!

 

You know, being fair, and keeping your timeline + the sales data in mind, the golf game might have gone more like this:

 

Independent News Exec: "You know Martin, we just launched Justice League and that's doing pretty well. The Challengers of the Unknown series has solid sales. Blackhawk is doing great. These team books are doing decently and so are the superhero revival books."

 

Goodman thinks: "Hm. We don't have any superheroes going right now, or team books..."

 

****

 

The big question would be, if the Ind News Exec teed off JUST on Justice League, so to speak, wouldn't Goodman's natural inclination be to try Cap/Torch/Subby again...? Famous hero revival team = Famous hero revival team?

 

He'd have had the recent Atlas-heroes failure, but you'd presume nobody thought too much of that 6 years later. The whole mid-50s era was horrible for the entire industry for obvious reasons.

 

But if the conversation was in the context of, you know, at least these team books are something that seems to be working for DC, along with the superheroes, and Marvel has no teams or superheroes, so...

 

I could see that making more sense, generally speaking.

[BarryAllen]

That's more than a tad condescending. Just who do you imagine posts on this "comic collecting forum"? Chopped liver?

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that there wasn't any contempt in your post 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.

 

What happened to this? :shrug:

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

It makes much more sense, but it removes the idea that "JLA #1 is a more important book than Flash #105, because it was the direct inspiration for FF #1. which led to the Marvel Age of Comics."

 

Without that, a lot of arguments here crumble.

 

But I think it has been shown that your scenario is much more likely, and it was the general idea of superheroes (which Goodman hadn't tried for 6 years) and superhero teams that inspired FF #1, rather than JLA or JLA #1 specifically.

 

The influence of Challengers on FF is, I think, fairly obvious, considering they both came from the mind of Kirby. Other than JLA being a team of superheroes book, there's nothing that really ties it into FF #1, Stan Lee's memory and Uslan's anecdote aside.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that the success DC was having is the direct inspiration for Goodman giving it a go again.

 

But JLA being the direct inspirational forebear to FF? There's just nothing there to support it, which means Flash #105 is the more important book, for the reasons already mentioned.

 

Seems a roundabout way, but we got there eventually.

[RockMyAmadeus]

That's more than a tad condescending. Just who do you imagine posts on this "comic collecting forum"? Chopped liver?

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that there wasn't any contempt in your post 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.

 

What happened to this? :shrug:

 

 

 

What part of those quotes has anything to do with ttfitz personally? What, exactly, in those quotes has anything whatsoever to do with ttfitz personally? Those quotes are responses to comments ttfitz made about myself and others. They weren't about ttfitz.

 

Do you really just have no idea what the difference is?

 

You really don't, do you? Not at all. You are amazing. Truly, truly amazing. It is mind blowing reading your posts. Mind blowing.

 

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

[BarryAllen]

That's more than a tad condescending. Just who do you imagine posts on this "comic collecting forum"? Chopped liver?

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that there wasn't any contempt in your post 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.

 

What happened to this? :shrug:

 

 

 

What part of those quotes has anything to do with ttfitz personally? What, exactly, in those quotes has anything whatsoever to do with ttfitz personally? Those quotes are responses about myself and others, not ttfitz.

 

Do you really just have no idea what the difference is?

 

You really don't, do you? Not at all. You are amazing. Truly, truly amazing.

 

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

 

Please, continue to make up stuff. Your timelines, your arguments, your positions - all creations of your mind.

 

Those are direct quotes in which you refer to another's posting style, which based on the third quote is exactly what you say shouldn't be happening.

 

You are a fraud.

[RockMyAmadeus]

That's more than a tad condescending. Just who do you imagine posts on this "comic collecting forum"? Chopped liver?

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that there wasn't any contempt in your post 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.

 

What happened to this? :shrug:

 

 

 

What part of those quotes has anything to do with ttfitz personally? What, exactly, in those quotes has anything whatsoever to do with ttfitz personally? Those quotes are responses about myself and others, not ttfitz.

 

Do you really just have no idea what the difference is?

 

You really don't, do you? Not at all. You are amazing. Truly, truly amazing.

 

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

 

Please, continue to make up stuff. Your timelines, your arguments, your positions - all creations of your mind.

 

Those are direct quotes in which you refer to another's posting style,

 

 

One...more...time: those are RESPONSES to comments ttfitz made about myself and others.

 

RESPONSES to comments ttfitz made.

 

RESPONSES.

 

RESPONSES.

 

 

which based on the third quote is exactly what you say shouldn't be happening.

 

You are a fraud.

 

You really, truly, have no idea, do you? Discernment is completely beyond you, isn't it?

 

It is madness.

 

Enough is enough.

[BarryAllen]

That's more than a tad condescending. Just who do you imagine posts on this "comic collecting forum"? Chopped liver?

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that there wasn't any contempt in your post 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.

 

What happened to this? :shrug:

 

 

 

What part of those quotes has anything to do with ttfitz personally? What, exactly, in those quotes has anything whatsoever to do with ttfitz personally? Those quotes are responses about myself and others, not ttfitz.

 

Do you really just have no idea what the difference is?

 

You really don't, do you? Not at all. You are amazing. Truly, truly amazing.

 

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

 

Please, continue to make up stuff. Your timelines, your arguments, your positions - all creations of your mind.

 

Those are direct quotes in which you refer to another's posting style, which based on the third quote is exactly what you say shouldn't be happening.

 

You are a fraud.

 

You really, truly, have no idea, do you? Discernment is completely beyond you, isn't it?

 

It is madness.

 

Enough is enough.

 

More big words and sardonic attitude. Zero responsibility for anything.

[RockMyAmadeus]

That's more than a tad condescending. Just who do you imagine posts on this "comic collecting forum"? Chopped liver?

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that there wasn't any contempt in your post 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.

 

What happened to this? :shrug:

 

 

 

What part of those quotes has anything to do with ttfitz personally? What, exactly, in those quotes has anything whatsoever to do with ttfitz personally? Those quotes are responses about myself and others, not ttfitz.

 

Do you really just have no idea what the difference is?

 

You really don't, do you? Not at all. You are amazing. Truly, truly amazing.

 

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

 

Please, continue to make up stuff. Your timelines, your arguments, your positions - all creations of your mind.

 

Those are direct quotes in which you refer to another's posting style, which based on the third quote is exactly what you say shouldn't be happening.

 

You are a fraud.

 

You really, truly, have no idea, do you? Discernment is completely beyond you, isn't it?

 

It is madness.

 

Enough is enough.

 

More big words and sardonic attitude. Zero responsibility for anything.

 

Twice, now, you have attempted to provoke a fight in this thread with me. Twice. And you have the audacity to tell someone else they take "zero responsibility for anything"?

 

What world do you live in?

[BarryAllen]

That's more than a tad condescending. Just who do you imagine posts on this "comic collecting forum"? Chopped liver?

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that there wasn't any contempt in your post 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.

 

What happened to this? :shrug:

 

 

 

What part of those quotes has anything to do with ttfitz personally? What, exactly, in those quotes has anything whatsoever to do with ttfitz personally? Those quotes are responses about myself and others, not ttfitz.

 

Do you really just have no idea what the difference is?

 

You really don't, do you? Not at all. You are amazing. Truly, truly amazing.

 

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

 

Please, continue to make up stuff. Your timelines, your arguments, your positions - all creations of your mind.

 

Those are direct quotes in which you refer to another's posting style,

 

 

One...more...time: those are RESPONSES to comments ttfitz made about myself and others.

 

RESPONSES to comments ttfitz made.

 

RESPONSES.

 

RESPONSES.

 

 

which based on the third quote is exactly what you say shouldn't be happening.

 

You are a fraud.

 

You really, truly, have no idea, do you? Discernment is completely beyond you, isn't it?

 

It is madness.

 

Enough is enough.

 

How does it being a response change what it is?

 

A comment about another's posting style.

 

:shrug:

 

I make comments about your positing style and you jump down my throat. How is this different? It isn't.

 

:shrug:

 

More talking around a point to pretend what you are doing is different that what others are doing.

 

Seriously and you think I have a problem.

[BarryAllen]

That's more than a tad condescending. Just who do you imagine posts on this "comic collecting forum"? Chopped liver?

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that there wasn't any contempt in your post 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.

 

What happened to this? :shrug:

 

 

 

What part of those quotes has anything to do with ttfitz personally? What, exactly, in those quotes has anything whatsoever to do with ttfitz personally? Those quotes are responses about myself and others, not ttfitz.

 

Do you really just have no idea what the difference is?

 

You really don't, do you? Not at all. You are amazing. Truly, truly amazing.

 

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

 

Please, continue to make up stuff. Your timelines, your arguments, your positions - all creations of your mind.

 

Those are direct quotes in which you refer to another's posting style, which based on the third quote is exactly what you say shouldn't be happening.

 

You are a fraud.

 

You really, truly, have no idea, do you? Discernment is completely beyond you, isn't it?

 

It is madness.

 

Enough is enough.

 

More big words and sardonic attitude. Zero responsibility for anything.

 

Twice, now, you have attempted to provoke a fight in this thread with me. Twice. And you have the audacity to tell someone else they take "zero responsibility for anything"?

 

What world do you live in?

 

No provocation here, just pointing out that you are a hypocrite. You don't need to respond.