Do you feel ASM #96-98 are underappreciated for their historical significance?

[vaillant]

Underappreciated I would not know. Very significant, in a word: yes.

 

And I am one which thinks the Comics Code should still be there, at least for those who want to subdue to it, but the insistence of Stan in doing them was motivated for good.

 

So: nothing controversial, but important issues for sure, especially for you americans.

[fmaz]

I don't know if you're looking to equate value with "appreciation" ... I think the story behind the issues is one of the most significant of its time, and really one of the leading stories from any era when you talk about comic books playing a role in the politics and culture of their day.

 

So yes, I think they are given their well-deserved due.

 

That being said, as time goes on, I think there are fewer and fewer people who see the covers and immediately and viscerally think of that story as there used to be. And for that reason, I don't think their monetary value is on par with their "significance" ... which might be what you're actually asking?

 

I just think the story holds more value than the books themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

[jason4]

It's not a first appearance so not much value in today's comic world. They are very under appreciated and undervalued. Great stories and art.

[kav]

Came out at the same time, more graphic, worse drug, has comics code

[Jaylam]

I remember when this book (Spider-Man #96) first came out in February 1971, Gene Shalit did a piece about it on the Today Show. Anyone remember that?

[jaeldubyoo]

Those issues were immediately broken out in Overstreet. They were a big deal for a while and gradually became less sought after. They are under-appreciated as reflected by the demand, despite their significance.

[loadstone]

I'm so out of it I just found out this past week that the code hasn't been on ASM issues since the early 2000's. I just checked and I think ASM v2 #32 (473) was the last issue that has the CCA code cert on the cover. Subsequent issues had a substitute rating on them and I just assumed the code was relocated to somewhere on the interior 1st page publisher notes or something.

 

The code has probably been irrelevant for a long time before then. My father used to go buy me comics in the 80's and 90's and I don't think he was ever aware of the code let alone checked to make sure the code was present on the comic certifying that the contents were appropriate for my age.

 

I appreciate the issues (96-98) for their significance at the time but it's not something I'd pay a premium for and it's now more of a footnote in the evolution of comics that all seems moot now that Marvel hasn't used the CC for more than a decade.

 

Chew on this, there are kids reading/collecting comics that have never have bought a new issue with the comics code on the cover and many may be oblivious to its significance on the back issues they may own.

 

 

[TheLiamSturgess]

I'm so out of it I just found out this past week that the code hasn't been on ASM issues since the early 2000's. I just checked and I think ASM v2 #32 (473) was the last issue that has the CCA code cert on the cover. Subsequent issues had a substitute rating on them and I just assumed the code was relocated to somewhere on the interior 1st page publisher notes or something.

 

The code has probably been irrelevant for a long time before then. My father used to go buy me comics in the 80's and 90's and I don't think he was ever aware of the code let alone checked to make sure the code was present on the comic certifying that the contents were appropriate for my age.

 

I appreciate the issues (96-98) for their significance at the time but it's not something I'd pay a premium for and it's now more of a footnote in the evolution of comics that all seems moot now that Marvel hasn't used the CC for more than a decade.

 

Chew on this, there are kids reading/collecting comics that have never have bought a new issue with the comics code on the cover and many may be oblivious to its significance on the back issues they may own.

 

 

It was still being printed when I was buying new Archie comics in the mid-late 2000's, but then as if by magic, it just disappeared, and it just plain never came up as an issue. I thought it was cool when I first got into comics, but I agree that it's an outdated standard and just limits the kind of stories youth are capable of taking in these days (not that they weren't able to back in the 70's - parents seem largely more accepting of more risque material these days).

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

It was still being printed when I was buying new Archie comics in the mid-late 2000's, but then as if by magic, it just disappeared, and it just plain never came up as an issue. I thought it was cool when I first got into comics, but I agree that it's an outdated standard and just limits the kind of stories youth are capable of taking in these days (not that they weren't able to back in the 70's - parents seem largely more accepting of more risque material these days).

 

Here's more info on the CCA...yeah, it's Wikipedia, but it looks pretty accurate:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority#1980s.E2.80.932010s

[TheLiamSturgess]

 

It was still being printed when I was buying new Archie comics in the mid-late 2000's, but then as if by magic, it just disappeared, and it just plain never came up as an issue. I thought it was cool when I first got into comics, but I agree that it's an outdated standard and just limits the kind of stories youth are capable of taking in these days (not that they weren't able to back in the 70's - parents seem largely more accepting of more risque material these days).

 

Here's more info on the CCA...yeah, it's Wikipedia, but it looks pretty accurate:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority#1980s.E2.80.932010s

 

Very interesting - 2011 sounds about right.

[PovertyRow]

Came out at the same time, more graphic, worse drug, has comics code

 

4 months after 96. If those three ASMs hadn't come out without the code that GL/GR may not have been created.

[Prince Namor]

Amazing Spider-man #96 appeared on the Newsstand in May 1971

Green Lantern/Green Arrow appeared on the Newsstand in August 1971

[makeminemego]

I think the decision to go ahead with the issues in itself is noteworthy, but of the 3 books, I love on cover (97), and pretty strongly dislike the other two (96 and 98). That may or may not be the reason they don't get quite the credit they should.

[PovertyRow]

Was wondering what other boardies felt about the importance and historical significance of this classic Lee/Romita/Kane drug story arc beginning with Spidey #96. From my understanding, it was the first ever Marvel super-hero issue to depict drug abuse. They also preceded the famous Neal Adams GL drug stories. These non-approved Code issues were the impetus for the revision of the CCA which then soon allowed the introduction of well-known titles such as Tomb of Dracula, Ghost Rider, Monster of Frankenstein, Werewolf by Night, and too many more to list.

Do you feel this story arc and Stan Lee's refusal to submit to the Code was important to the history of Marvel Comics? Btw, they were some really cool covers:

 

 

From what I recall Marvel's intent to publish the drug series caused or greatly contributed to the 1971 revision that ultimately lightened up on the depiction of drug use and allowing werewolves, vampires, Frankenstein Monsters and ghouls to be used again. (No zombies or torture yet, though).

 

As mosconi pointed out, this would certainly have an impact on the BA with the introduction of many hitherto forbidden characters such as Tomb of Dracula, Ghost Rider, Monster of Frankenstein, Werewolf by Night etc.

 

Word is Stan/Marvel had submitted the storyline to the CCA and it was rejected. But that was the impetus for the CCA to start making revisions to its rules .Now the interesting thing is the original 1971 revision to the CCA occurred in late January 1971, well before the newsstand appearance of any of these books. But there were other revisions in 1971. One set of 1971 code revisions did allow for the depiction of drugs under a very extensive set guidelines not unlike the current PL/HOS Rules.

 

Since the code went through other revisions in 1971, it is unclear exactly what month in 1971 the drug usage guidelines were added. I'd love to see some very specific timelines with the dates each revision was published and exactly what changes were made with each revision.

[Wally's Comics]

 

I don't always do dope, but when I do I make sure I got my yellow gloves on and keep my arrows close by...

 

Stay Jones'n my friends!

 

 

[mosconi]

Was wondering what other boardies felt about the importance and historical significance of this classic Lee/Romita/Kane drug story arc beginning with Spidey #96. From my understanding, it was the first ever Marvel super-hero issue to depict drug abuse. They also preceded the famous Neal Adams GL drug stories. These non-approved Code issues were the impetus for the revision of the CCA which then soon allowed the introduction of well-known titles such as Tomb of Dracula, Ghost Rider, Monster of Frankenstein, Werewolf by Night, and too many more to list.

Do you feel this story arc and Stan Lee's refusal to submit to the Code was important to the history of Marvel Comics? Btw, they were some really cool covers:

 

 

From what I recall Marvel's intent to publish the drug series caused or greatly contributed to the 1971 revision that ultimately lightened up on the depiction of drug use and allowing werewolves, vampires, Frankenstein Monsters and ghouls to be used again. (No zombies or torture yet, though).

 

As mosconi pointed out, this would certainly have an impact on the BA with the introduction of many hitherto forbidden characters such as Tomb of Dracula, Ghost Rider, Monster of Frankenstein, Werewolf by Night etc.

 

Word is Stan/Marvel had submitted the storyline to the CCA and it was rejected. But that was the impetus for the CCA to start making revisions to its rules .Now the interesting thing is the original 1971 revision to the CCA occurred in late January 1971, well before the newsstand appearance of any of these books. But there were other revisions in 1971. One set of 1971 code revisions did allow for the depiction of drugs under a very extensive set guidelines not unlike the current PL/HOS Rules.

 

Since the code went through other revisions in 1971, it is unclear exactly what month in 1971 the drug usage guidelines were added. I'd love to see some very specific timelines with the dates each revision was published and exactly what changes were made with each revision.

That would be interesting

[dgillock]

Was wondering what other boardies felt about the importance and historical significance of this classic Lee/Romita/Kane drug story arc beginning with Spidey #96. From my understanding, it was the first ever Marvel super-hero issue to depict drug abuse. They also preceded the famous Neal Adams GL drug stories. These non-approved Code issues were the impetus for the revision of the CCA which then soon allowed the introduction of well-known titles such as Tomb of Dracula, Ghost Rider, Monster of Frankenstein, Werewolf by Night, and too many more to list.

Do you feel this story arc and Stan Lee's refusal to submit to the Code was important to the history of Marvel Comics? Btw, they were some really cool covers:

 

 

From what I recall Marvel's intent to publish the drug series caused or greatly contributed to the 1971 revision that ultimately lightened up on the depiction of drug use and allowing werewolves, vampires, Frankenstein Monsters and ghouls to be used again. (No zombies or torture yet, though).

 

As mosconi pointed out, this would certainly have an impact on the BA with the introduction of many hitherto forbidden characters such as Tomb of Dracula, Ghost Rider, Monster of Frankenstein, Werewolf by Night etc.

 

Word is Stan/Marvel had submitted the storyline to the CCA and it was rejected. But that was the impetus for the CCA to start making revisions to its rules .Now the interesting thing is the original 1971 revision to the CCA occurred in late January 1971, well before the newsstand appearance of any of these books. But there were other revisions in 1971. One set of 1971 code revisions did allow for the depiction of drugs under a very extensive set guidelines not unlike the current PL/HOS Rules.

 

Since the code went through other revisions in 1971, it is unclear exactly what month in 1971 the drug usage guidelines were added. I'd love to see some very specific timelines with the dates each revision was published and exactly what changes were made with each revision.

That would be interesting

 

If you have a copy of Overstreet #34 around, check out the the article "Comic Book Ages: Defining Eras" and the section called "Codifying the Ages". I worked on this article with Arnold Blumberg and J.C. Vaughn and wrote the draft for that section of the article. It gives a pretty specific breakdown on the code revisions. The second revision allowing for drugs "understanding that narcotics addiction shall not be portrayed except as a vicious habit" was ratified on April 15th 1971.

 

I don't have a digital copy available, unfortunately, or I would just post the relevant text.

[PovertyRow]

Was wondering what other boardies felt about the importance and historical significance of this classic Lee/Romita/Kane drug story arc beginning with Spidey #96. From my understanding, it was the first ever Marvel super-hero issue to depict drug abuse. They also preceded the famous Neal Adams GL drug stories. These non-approved Code issues were the impetus for the revision of the CCA which then soon allowed the introduction of well-known titles such as Tomb of Dracula, Ghost Rider, Monster of Frankenstein, Werewolf by Night, and too many more to list.

Do you feel this story arc and Stan Lee's refusal to submit to the Code was important to the history of Marvel Comics? Btw, they were some really cool covers:

 

 

From what I recall Marvel's intent to publish the drug series caused or greatly contributed to the 1971 revision that ultimately lightened up on the depiction of drug use and allowing werewolves, vampires, Frankenstein Monsters and ghouls to be used again. (No zombies or torture yet, though).

 

As mosconi pointed out, this would certainly have an impact on the BA with the introduction of many hitherto forbidden characters such as Tomb of Dracula, Ghost Rider, Monster of Frankenstein, Werewolf by Night etc.

 

Word is Stan/Marvel had submitted the storyline to the CCA and it was rejected. But that was the impetus for the CCA to start making revisions to its rules .Now the interesting thing is the original 1971 revision to the CCA occurred in late January 1971, well before the newsstand appearance of any of these books. But there were other revisions in 1971. One set of 1971 code revisions did allow for the depiction of drugs under a very extensive set guidelines not unlike the current PL/HOS Rules.

 

Since the code went through other revisions in 1971, it is unclear exactly what month in 1971 the drug usage guidelines were added. I'd love to see some very specific timelines with the dates each revision was published and exactly what changes were made with each revision.

That would be interesting

 

If you have a copy of Overstreet #34 around, check out the the article "Comic Book Ages: Defining Eras" and the section called "Codifying the Ages". I worked on this article with Arnold Blumberg and J.C. Vaughn and wrote the draft for that section of the article. It gives a pretty specific breakdown on the code revisions. The second revision allowing for drugs "understanding that narcotics addiction shall not be portrayed except as a vicious habit" was ratified on April 15th 1971.

 

I don't have a digital copy available, unfortunately, or I would just post the relevant text.

 

Thanks very much for that info. I don't have a 34 but hopefully someone who has one can transcribe the code revision breakdowns. Seeing the April 15th ratification does lend more support to the impact of these ASMs.

[MusterMark]

OP: To answer your original question:

They have historical significance in several ways, and SHOULD be appreciated more.

 

 

 

[Bronty]

Haven't read the thread but to me the premise is flawed: There's no such as thing as an overlooked issue of ASM