Unpopular Golden Age Opinions Thread! 9 9

[Comicdey]

On 9/9/2017 at 12:07 PM, tricolorbrian said:

Them's fightin' words right there...here, stare at this until you LIKE it...  It is beautiful in its simplicity...and i think you're just jealous because you don't own one...

 

Looks like street art from spray cans.    Like what you like but this is boring like Wayne.

[piper]

17 minutes ago, Comicdey said:

Looks like street art from spray cans.    Like what you like but this is boring like Wayne.

Contact 12 is one of my favourite covers of all time.

[Comicdey]

1 hour ago, piper said:

Contact 12 is one of my favourite covers of all time.

Lucky for you I'm not chasing one or hoarding them.

[comicjack]

1 hour ago, piper said:

Contact 12 is one of my favourite covers of all time.

That's what makes us all different as collectors 

[Comicdey]

55 minutes ago, comicjack said:

That's what makes us all different as collectors 

Agreed ?

[Randall Ries]

On 9/9/2017 at 4:48 PM, tricolorbrian said:

I think you are confusing the Wayne Boring rendition of Supes with the earlier Jack Burnley artwork.  Boring was the worst Superman artist of all time...

Wayne Boring sucked. Big bloated Superman drawings and WHATS THE DEAL WITH DRAWING CLARK KENT'S GLASSES ENTIRELY ON ONE SIDE OF HIS FACE???

[Randall Ries]

On 8/29/2016 at 7:04 PM, rjpb said:

 

 

Sometimes the restoration is part of the history of the comic.

No it isn't.

[Randall Ries]

On 8/29/2016 at 5:18 PM, catman76 said:

Most of my opinions are very unpopular I am sure.

 

I don't get the obsession with grades, to me it's just people trying to feel better than each other by having some stupid competition with made up grading scales.

 

I think mint, perfect comics are boring. I like loved, used, beat up comics. I love names and stamps on covers and seeing it was used and seeing the history of the comic. I just got a comic that's got lipstick on the pages like some girl was using it to get excess lipstick off, like "biting" down on the pages. I just find the history of an object fascinating and interesting and with a mint comic its nothing and pretty boring, it probably was just sitting in a closet for decades unloved and not used like it was supposed to be.

 

I hate restoration on comics, or anything for that matter, it erases the history of the object and it's all for money or wanting some perfect comic to feel better about themselves having it in better condition than someone else.

 

 

I had a Batman #9 that I was pretty happy with and grateful someone "ignored" it.

I want my books in great original shape because I am a perfectionist, not because I want to feel superior to another collector. I could argue that someone who likes their books ratty has low self esteem. A 70 year old book that is nm-m is a survivor IMO. It's amazing that it remained that way for so long.

I hate resto as well. Maybe not slight ct or some sealing, but a book that is extensively restoed is no longer that book. I want before/after pictures. Any ext r book should come with those. Know what you are getting.

[jimbo_7071]

On 9/10/2017 at 5:05 AM, The-Collector said:

Captain America Comics 74 - not nearly as rare as everyone thinks and the cover is lame. I don't get the appeal.

 

On 9/10/2017 at 10:06 AM, Sqeggs said:

Yeah, the rarity thing is a holdover from what people thought in the pre-eBay, pre-CGC days.

I like that cover, but I agree with you, Collector, about that book being overvalued. Like Sqeggs indicated, back in the 80s and 90s many of us thought it was rare. We know now that it isn't rare at all, but many collectors still have the idea that it's rare stuck in their heads, so it still fetches rare-issue prices.

[jimbo_7071]

On 9/10/2017 at 5:05 AM, The-Collector said:

Captain America Comics 74 - not nearly as rare as everyone thinks and the cover is lame. I don't get the appeal.

 

On 9/10/2017 at 10:06 AM, Sqeggs said:

Yeah, the rarity thing is a holdover from what people thought in the pre-eBay, pre-CGC days.

I like that cover, but I agree with you, Collector, about that book being overvalued. Like Sqeggs indicated, back in the 80s and 90s many of us thought it was rare. We know now that it isn't rare at all, but many collectors still have the idea that it's rare stuck in their heads, so it still fetches rare-issue prices.

[RareHighGrade]

39 minutes ago, jimbo_7071 said:

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 2:05 AM, The-Collector said:

Captain America Comics 74 - not nearly as rare as everyone thinks and the cover is lame. I don't get the appeal.

 

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 7:06 AM, Sqeggs said:

Yeah, the rarity thing is a holdover from what people thought in the pre-eBay, pre-CGC days.

I like that cover, but I agree with you, Collector, about that book being overvalued. Like Sqeggs indicated, back in the 80s and 90s many of us thought it was rare. We know now that it isn't rare at all, but many collectors still have the idea that it's rare stuck in their heads, so it still fetches rare-issue prices.

You can say that again.

[rjpb]

4 hours ago, jimbo_7071 said:

 

I like that cover, but I agree with you, Collector, about that book being overvalued. Like Sqeggs indicated, back in the 80s and 90s many of us thought it was rare. We know now that it isn't rare at all, but many collectors still have the idea that it's rare stuck in their heads, so it still fetches rare-issue prices.

It popped in value like a lot of classic covers in the last few years. It's my favorite Cap cover and one of the great villain covers of the GA. Red Skull books are always popular, so that keeps the demand up as well. It's initial jump in the 90s was probably due to assumptions about its rarity, it was close to $500 a point in the mid 90s for 2.0 to 4.0 copies. But then copies (at least lower grade ones) started showing up, and it's value stagnated for a while. Even 4 or 5 years ago you could find a GD copy for $1200-1500 with a little patience. So I don't think it's higher prices today have that much to do with a long since dismissed reputation for scarcity, but with demand for classic covers. Look at some of the Detectives with Joker covers. Some of the most common GA out there, but the better covers get crazy prices these days.

[Cimm]

Hmm... most of my unpopular opinions have to do with the Silver Age.

My interest pretty much jumps directly over the 60s in its entirety. Goofy to boring to just plain bad pretty much sums up the Silver Age art for me... there are exceptions, of course, but anything Kirby or Ditko ain't one of them.

[batman_fan]

22 hours ago, Randall Ries said:

Wayne Boring sucked. Big bloated Superman drawings and WHATS THE DEAL WITH DRAWING CLARK KENT'S GLASSES ENTIRELY ON ONE SIDE OF HIS FACE???

  I love his work on Batman and Detective 

[Randall Ries]

5 hours ago, batman_fan said:

  I love his work on Batman and Detective 

No. I'm sorry. He was horrible. See?:

http://kumarx.com/2010/09/review-wayne-boring/

[skypinkblu]

On 9/29/2017 at 5:29 PM, Randall Ries said:

 

On 8/29/2016 at 7:04 PM, rjpb said:

 

 

 

On 9/29/2017 at 5:29 PM, Randall Ries said:

No it isn't.

I think when the restoration was amateur, just a kid playing with his/her toy, not intending to hide anything, or even an adult playing, it certainly can be historical.  So I respectfully disagree. 

When I was a kid and had comics I played with tape, scissors, nail polish, etc, with no intention of selling the comic any more than I'd intend to sell a stuffed animal (and you should have seen some of those;) 

That doesn't  mean that you should want a book with any kind of resto, we all like different things, or are bothered by different things.

I like Boring's Superman more than I do Alex Ross. I think Ross is a good artist, but he's not cartoony enough for my taste.

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by skypinkblu

[MusterMark]

4 hours ago, skypinkblu said:

 

I think when the restoration was amateur, just a kid playing with his/her toy, not intending to hide anything, or even an adult playing, it certainly can be historical.  So I respectfully disagree. 

When I was a kid and had comics I played with tape, scissors, nail polish, etc, with no intention of selling the comic any more than I'd intend to sell a stuffed animal (and you should have seen some of those;) 

That doesn't  mean that you should want a book with any kind of resto, we all like different things, or are bothered by different things.

I like Boring's Superman more than I do Alex Ross. I think Ross is a good artist, but he's not cartoony enough for my taste.

 

I agree, Sharon.  Wayne Boring's work is the complete opposite of his last name.

[Randall Ries]

10 hours ago, MusterMark said:

I agree, Sharon.  Wayne Boring's work is the complete opposite of his last name.

That's cool. I wasn't trying to reprogram anyone's taste. My taste runs more toward realism (Ross) than Boring (surrealism). Those giant trunks supported by baby legs. I wasn't a fan of Plastino, either. Although both Boring and Plastino had some great golden age covers and artwork. Borings style changed dramatically as well as Plastino's. Whoever was writing the stories also had to insert the word whisper "uh" in every sentence Superman uttered as well. I still don't get that. Check out Supergirl's (Kara Zor-El) 1st appearance: "Great Guns! A girl, FLYING! It -- uh -- must be an illusion!" Plus, there shouldn't be a comma after "a girl". An exclamation point or a period would have been correct.

Why were sales slumping? Who can say? I thought I was supposed to be taking these comic books seriously.

Superman was turned into Torgo mentally in the fifties. I believe that's why Neal Adams was so widely accepted as a Batman artist and to a lesser degree a Superman artist. The times were a changin' and cartoony almost killed the Batman character. I, for one, reveled in Detective #395, then Batman #232 when a good story coupled with awesome artwork graced the "funny" paper. Then we had Jim Aparo, who was the heir apparent for Adams. He did some really fine work, I thought. His drawings actually SEEMED to move! Then, his style changed and got really heavy.

As far as resto, yeah I used to restore some of my books as a kid as well with no expectations. But, when I am expected to shell out tens of thousands for a Frankenbook, I draw the line. That is why I would like before and after pictures. So I would know what I'm getting into beforehand. There is/was a Batman #1 9.0 on Heritage Auctions site. Restored. Sold for $50k or something like that. I'm too lazy to go look. The only resto it had was "cover cleaned". Really? I would have bought that for $50k in a heartbeat. Whoever owns that is a lucky SOB. I still don't consider "cover cleaned" as resto and conversely believe that tape added IS resto. How can it be anything but? But, I wouldn't pay $75k for an extensively restored book. It's one thing if I'm restoring mine with no thought of resale. It's another when I can't see what went into a book to turn it from a .5 to a 9.2.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Randall Ries
wording choice

[skypinkblu]

5 minutes ago, Randall Ries said:

That's cool. I wasn't trying to reprogram anyone's taste. My taste runs more toward realism (Ross) than Boring (surrealism). Those giant trunks supported by baby legs. I wasn't a fan of Plastino, either. Although both Boring an Plastino had some great golden age covers and artwork. Borings style changed dramatically. Whoever was writing the stories also had to insert the word whisper "uh" in every sentence Superman uttered as well. I still don't get that. Check out Supergirl's (Kara Zor-El) 1st appearance: Great Guns! A girl, FLYING! It -- uh -- must be an illusion!" Plus, there shouldn't be a comma after "a girl". An exclamation point or a period would have been correct.

Why were sales slumping? Who can say? I thought I was supposed to be taking these comic books seriously.

Superman was turned into Torgo mentally in the fifties. I believe that's why Neal Adams was so widely accepted as a Batman artist and to a lesser degree a Superman artist. The times were a changin' and cartoony almost killed the Batman character. I, for one, reveled in Detective #395, then Batman #232 when a good story coupled with awesome artwork graced the "funny" paper. Then we had Jim Aparo, who was the heir apparent for Adams. He did some really fine work, I thought. His drawings actually SEEMED to move! Then, his style changed and got really heavy.

 

As far as resto, yeah I used to restore some of my books as a kid as well with no expectations. But, when I am expected to shell out tens of thousands for a Frankenbook, I draw the line. That is why I would like before and after pictures. So I would know what I'm getting into beforehand. There is/was a Batman #1 9.0 on Heritage Auctions site. Restored. Sold for $50k or something like that. I'm too lazy to go look. The only resto it had was "cover cleaned". Really? I would have bought that for $50k in a heartbeat. Whoever owns that is a lucky SOB. I still don't consider "cover cleaned" as resto and conversely believe that tape added IS resto. How can it be anything but? But, I wouldn't pay $75k for an extensively restored book. It's one thing if I'm restoring mine with no thought of resale. It's another when I can't see what went into a book to turn it from a .5 to a 9.2.

I can understand your viewpoint about not buying expensive GA that is restored. I've never considered buying a book for $50k. I don't think I would even if I won the lottery, so I'm in a different mindset. However, when I had the choice of buying a Wonder Woman 1 years ago, I chose to buy a restored 5.0 rather than a brittle 1.0 missing pieces. 

Just a matter of taste (and budget;)  I just bought a lottery ticket, I rarely buy them, if I win, we'll see if I change my mind;)

I love Batman, but really didn't like the ones with the checkerboard covers, the POW years.  I think the TV show ruined Batman for me, for years. Batman was serious!;)

I can't see the tape kids used as resto, but I agree about all the tape that was used to reattach covers after CGC was formed (so they could get a higher grade).

and pressing is restoration;);) ssssshhhh;)

 

[Randall Ries]

1 hour ago, skypinkblu said:

I can understand your viewpoint about not buying expensive GA that is restored. I've never considered buying a book for $50k. I don't think I would even if I won the lottery, so I'm in a different mindset. However, when I had the choice of buying a Wonder Woman 1 years ago, I chose to buy a restored 5.0 rather than a brittle 1.0 missing pieces. 

Just a matter of taste (and budget;)  I just bought a lottery ticket, I rarely buy them, if I win, we'll see if I change my mind;)

I love Batman, but really didn't like the ones with the checkerboard covers, the POW years.  I think the TV show ruined Batman for me, for years. Batman was serious!;)

I can't see the tape kids used as resto, but I agree about all the tape that was used to reattach covers after CGC was formed (so they could get a higher grade).

and pressing is restoration;);) ssssshhhh;)

 

Yes. The tv show was a blight on humanity. Why Adam West was never brought to justice and prosecuted for post war crimes is beyond me. I remember the tale a comic book store regaled me with. Back when Clayton Moore started suing people over the use of the Lone Ranger mask, Adam West started petitioning Tim Burton for the lead in the dreadful "Batman" movie. After West finished making a lot of noise, Burton finally conceded and offered him the part of Thomas Wayne. How...how WONDERFUL that would have been!