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

[bb8]

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.

 

The voice of one crying in the wilderness amidst the clamor of noise! I like it! The ongoing discussion is resembling more and more of a mosquito circumcision; this post sums it up nicely.

 

Put me in the camp of those who think JLA 1 is a pretty cool key.

 

Edit: I think Flash 105 is cool, too. Don't care which is 'bigger'.

[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.

 

How does it being a response change what it is?

 

A comment about another's posting style.

 

:shrug:

 

(Why am I wasting my valuable time on this?)

 

Very easy.

 

You make a personal comment about me, like "RMA doesn't ever think he's wrong about anything." This is unprovoked (though I suspect you believe me just posting is provocation enough), is a personal comment that has nothing whatsoever with the discussion, and is designed only to provoke a fight.

 

It has nothing to do with anyone's "posting style."

 

However...when ttfitz says "I'll take the word of a historian over someone who posts on a comic collecting forum", in one fell swoop dismissing not just me, but everyone else who posts on this comic forum, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION, and I RESPOND by saying "that's more than a tad condescending, isn't it?"

 

That isn't a personal comment about ttfitz.

 

Do you understand the difference?

 

Will you understand the difference?

 

You think to lay a "clever" trap, but it doesn't exist. You see inconsistency that doesn't exist.

 

If you want to talk about me, that gives me the freedom and right to respond.

 

If you don't want me to respond, the answer is simple: don't talk about me.

 

How is this beyond you? This is basic, secondary education critical thinking!

 

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

 

No, you don't make "comments about my posting style." Saying things like "RMA is never wrong. Ask him." Isn't a "comment about my posting style." It's a personal attack that has nothing to do with the conversation, and you bloody well know it. Your disingenuousness is quite astonishing.

 

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

 

More undefined double speak that makes no sense and which you have steadfastly refused to identify, even though directly asked about it. You can't even define what you're saying, much less provide examples.

 

Seriously and you think I have a problem.

 

Yes, you have a very, very serious problem, and it isn't me.

 

MY problem is that I can't let this claptrap go unanswered. THAT is my problem, here.

[Lazyboy]

This whole argument is ridiculous. Even if you believe the JLA did directly inspire the creation of the FF, FF1 and JLA 1 both just stem from the introduction of the JLA in BB 28. There's nothing that special about JLA 1 by itself (Despero? )

[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?

 

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

 

There is none so blind. Truly.

[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:

 

(Why am I wasting my valuable time on this?)

 

Very easy.

 

You make a personal comment about me, like "RMA doesn't ever think he's wrong about anything." This is unprovoked (though I suspect you believe me just posting is provocation enough), is a personal comment that has nothing whatsoever with the discussion, and is designed only to provoke a fight.

 

It has nothing to do with anyone's "posting style."

 

However...when ttfitz says "I'll take the word of a historian over someone who posts on a comic collecting forum", in one fell swoop dismissing not just me, but everyone else who posts on this comic forum, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION, and I RESPOND by saying "that's more than a tad condescending, isn't it?"

 

That isn't a personal comment about ttfitz.

 

Do you understand the difference?

 

Will you understand the difference?

 

You think to lay a "clever" trap, but it doesn't exist. You see inconsistency that doesn't exist.

 

If you want to talk about me, that gives me the freedom and right to respond.

 

If you don't want me to respond, the answer is simple: don't talk about me.

 

How is this beyond you? This is basic, secondary education critical thinking!

 

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

 

No, you don't make "comments about my posting style." Saying things like "RMA is never wrong. Ask him." Isn't a "comment about my posting style." It's a personal attack that has nothing to do with the conversation, and you bloody well know it. Your disingenuousness is quite astonishing.

 

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

 

More undefined double speak that makes no sense and which you have steadfastly refused to identify, even though directly asked about it.

 

Seriously and you think I have a problem.

 

Yes, you have a very, very serious problem, and it isn't me.

 

MY problem is that I can't let this claptrap go unanswered. THAT is my problem, here.

 

 

:yawn:

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Someone please help me stop trying to reason with a teenager.

 

[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.

 

There is none so blind. Truly.

 

What's it like on top of the world, sitting there and judging everyone? Constantly having to correct everyone?

 

Are you lonely up there? Seems like it would be lonely.

[BarryAllen]

Someone please help me stop trying to reason with a teenager.

 

 

Feel free to stop posting at anytime.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

 

:yawn:

 

Yes, that's you response: contempt and disrespect, because you don't have a reasonable answer. Contempt and disrespect for others, because you have contempt and disrespect for yourself.

 

That's your problem.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Someone please help me stop trying to reason with a teenager.

 

 

Feel free to stop posting at anytime.

 

 

I do already, but thanks for telling me.

[BarryAllen]

 

 

:yawn:

 

Yes, that's you response: contempt and disrespect, because you don't have a reasonable response. Contempt and disrespect for others, because you have contempt and disrespect for yourself.

 

That's your problem.

 

 

Good to know what is wrong with me.

 

What is wrong with you? Anything?

[bb8]

This whole argument is ridiculous. Even if you believe the JLA did directly inspire the creation of the FF, FF1 and JLA 1 both just stem from the introduction of the JLA in BB 28. There's nothing that special about JLA 1 by itself (Despero? )

 

I'd put it with ASM 1. The tryout phase was successful so they're launching it as its own title. Same as Flash 105, really. A lot of the importance of these DC 'number ones' comes from the relative dearth of true first appearances vs Marvel. But I still think they're cool.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

 

:yawn:

 

Yes, that's you response: contempt and disrespect, because you don't have a reasonable response. Contempt and disrespect for others, because you have contempt and disrespect for yourself.

 

That's your problem.

 

 

Good to know what is wrong with me.

 

What is wrong with you? Anything?

 

Of course. I'm a human being, am I not?

 

Only the psychotic believe they are perfect.

 

Do you believe you are perfect?

[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?

 

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

 

There is none so blind. Truly.

 

What's it like on top of the world, sitting there and judging everyone? Constantly having to correct everyone?

 

Are you lonely up there? Seems like it would be lonely.

 

When you're done playing games and tossing your toys out the pram, and wish to have an adult conversation again, let everyone know. They would probably appreciate it. I can't speak for them, but I know I would.

[BarryAllen]

 

 

:yawn:

 

Yes, that's you response: contempt and disrespect, because you don't have a reasonable response. Contempt and disrespect for others, because you have contempt and disrespect for yourself.

 

That's your problem.

 

 

Good to know what is wrong with me.

 

What is wrong with you? Anything?

 

Of course. I'm a human being, am I not?

 

Only the psychotic believe they are perfect.

 

Do you believe you are perfect?

 

Nope, not at all. Not even close.

 

So, what is wrong with you? You tell me all the time what is wrong with with me, tell others how they are wrong or thinking incorrectly - what is wrong with you?

 

[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?

 

 

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.

 

 

There you go. You have just demonstrated the difference.

 

"YOU are condescending."

 

"THAT REMARK is condescending."

 

Do you see the difference yet?

 

The other inaccuracies in your post here will have to be set aside; this is the biggie, here, and I hope you understand it.

[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.

 

 

There you go. You have just demonstrated the difference.

 

"YOU are condescending."

 

"THAT REMARK is condescending."

 

Do you see the difference yet?

 

The other inaccuracies in your post here will have to be set aside; this is the biggie, here, and I hope you understand it.

 

That is condescending. I am condescending, I know this. I freely admit this.

 

You do not. That is my point.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

 

:yawn:

 

Yes, that's you response: contempt and disrespect, because you don't have a reasonable response. Contempt and disrespect for others, because you have contempt and disrespect for yourself.

 

That's your problem.

 

 

Good to know what is wrong with me.

 

What is wrong with you? Anything?

 

Of course. I'm a human being, am I not?

 

Only the psychotic believe they are perfect.

 

Do you believe you are perfect?

 

Nope, not at all. Not even close.

 

Then are you willing to be corrected?

 

Or, does correction only come from your approved sources?

 

So, what is wrong with you? You tell me all the time what is wrong with with me, tell others how they are wrong or thinking incorrectly - what is wrong with you?

 

As before, here is what you're missing: I don't tell you what's wrong with you unprovoked. I don't throw temper tantrums, as you did in this thread, because I don't like the way you post. If you want to throw a temper tantrum, and moan and complain about me and how I post, then yes, I am going to tell you what's wrong with you as it relates to your temper tantrums.

 

Otherwise, it's none of my business. What is wrong with you, except in the case where you feel the need to complain about me, is none of my business.

 

Likewise, what is wrong with me is none of your business.

 

See how that works? Yes, that is purposely condescending, because you are being incredibly obtuse.

 

 

[BarryAllen]

 

 

:yawn:

 

Yes, that's you response: contempt and disrespect, because you don't have a reasonable response. Contempt and disrespect for others, because you have contempt and disrespect for yourself.

 

That's your problem.

 

 

Good to know what is wrong with me.

 

What is wrong with you? Anything?

 

Of course. I'm a human being, am I not?

 

Only the psychotic believe they are perfect.

 

Do you believe you are perfect?

 

Nope, not at all. Not even close.

 

Then are you willing to be corrected?

 

Or, does correction only come from your approved sources?

 

So, what is wrong with you? You tell me all the time what is wrong with with me, tell others how they are wrong or thinking incorrectly - what is wrong with you?

 

As before, here is what you're missing: I don't tell you what's wrong with you unprovoked. I don't throw temper tantrums, as you did in this thread, because I don't like the way you post. If you want to throw a temper tantrum, and moan and complain about me and how I post, then yes, I am going to tell you what's wrong with you as it relates to your temper tantrums.

 

Otherwise, it's none of my business. What is wrong with you, except in the case where you feel the need to complain about me, is none of my business.

 

Likewise, what is wrong with me is none of your business.

 

See how that works? Yes, that is purposely condescending, because you are being incredibly obtuse.

 

 

So it is okay when you feel it is in response to another's actions?

 

So when I originally felt this way and responded, I was wrong because you disagreed with how I felt.

 

But it okay when you feel that way...?

[Lazyboy]

As before, here is what you're missing: I don't tell you what's wrong with you unprovoked. I don't throw temper tantrums, as you did in this thread, because I don't like the way you post. If you want to throw a temper tantrum, and moan and complain about me and how I post, then yes, I am going to tell you what's wrong with you as it relates to your temper tantrums.

 

Otherwise, it's none of my business. What is wrong with you, except in the case where you feel the need to complain about me, is none of my business.

 

Likewise, what is wrong with me is none of your business.

 

See how that works? Yes, that is purposely condescending, because you are being incredibly obtuse.

 

 

So it is okay when you feel it is in response to another's actions?

 

So when I originally felt this way and responded, I was wrong because you disagreed with how I felt.

 

But it okay when you feel that way...?

 

No, you don't like his posting style so you whine about it publicly even though it isn't about you. He doesn't like you whining about him, so he responds because it is about him.