Unpopular Golden Age Opinions Thread! 9 9

[N e r V]

On 9/8/2022 at 4:48 PM, OtherEric said:

So, to pull out my standard unpopular GA opinion:

I would much rather have a Suspense 8 over a Suspense 3.  The 3 is the most overrated cover of the whole golden age.  If nothing else, explain to me where the hero’s legs are supposed to be.

I like #8 a lot too. One of my top favorites by Mr. Cole

[RareHighGrade]

On 9/8/2022 at 5:26 PM, szav said:

Guaranteed to be unpopular take:

  Hide contents

Fantastic Comics #3, hate it.  The musculature looks messed up, the pose is completely wrong for someone swinging a heavy morning star, there would be way more tension.  His left hand seems to be gently caressing the robot, with the left bicep bulging for some reason, all while he's about to hit himself in the back of his own head with that morning star.

 

Amen brother, that is not one of Lou Fine's best depictions of a human body.  And it is indeed an unpopular opinion based on the mystic cultivated by that book.

[Funnybooks]

On 9/8/2022 at 8:38 PM, RareHighGrade said:

Amen brother, that is not one of Lou Fine's best depictions of a human body.  And it is indeed an unpopular opinion based on the mystic cultivated by that book.

reported

[The-Collector]

On 9/9/2022 at 9:48 AM, OtherEric said:

So, to pull out my standard unpopular GA opinion:

I would much rather have a Suspense 8 over a Suspense 3.  The 3 is the most overrated cover of the whole golden age.  If nothing else, explain to me where the hero’s legs are supposed to be.

I wouldn't rather a Suspense 8 but I wholeheartedly agree that the anatomy on S3 is totally janky. 

[The-Collector]

I'm not sure how unpopular this will be but I've always disliked nearly all of Mac Raboy's art. He's terrible imo. 

[jimbo_7071]

On 9/8/2022 at 7:56 PM, D84 said:

Detective Comics 31 is not my favorite golden age Batman cover. I prefer 29, 33, 35 from the pre-Robin run alone.

I know he's supposed to be looking down, but it sure looks like he's scrunched his shoulders to his ears.

I like the fact that he's looming over the whole scene, but Bob Kane wasn't a very skilled artist. If you want pre-Robin Tecs, you're stuck with him, though. I probably do like 29 and 35 at least as well, but 33 is uninteresting as far as cover art goes. That one is sought for the origin story, not for the cover.

[jimbo_7071]

On 9/8/2022 at 8:38 PM, RareHighGrade said:

Amen brother, that is not one of Lou Fine's best depictions of a human body.  And it is indeed an unpopular opinion based on the mystic cultivated by that book.

That mystique has been cultivated by one hoarder, though, right? Most collectors are sheep. If one influential collector/dealer tells them what to like, they'll happily follow along, wagging their tails behind them.

I like the way the robot is drawn, but Lou should have spent a little time studying human anatomy before attempting that cover.

[Yorick]

On 9/7/2022 at 2:24 PM, Funnybooks said:

I never understood the beauty of Schomburg Timely until recently.

No no no.  Schomburg still sucks.  His airbrush work is the only good material he ever produced.

PS> There are maybe two or three VERY early covers of his that are great (Marvel Mystery 4, for example).  Don't be mad.  One less collector to compete with! 

Edited September 10, 2022 by Yorick
Less hurtful?

[10centcomics]

Oh I love this thread and we should do a better job of keeping this on the front page!

My unpopular opinion is that Phantom Lady 17 was absolutely not drawn by Matt Baker and there is no financial incentive for collectors and auction houses to investigate this. It's still an important and cool historically significant book of course!

[Ryan.]

On 9/9/2022 at 3:51 PM, 10centcomics said:

My unpopular opinion is that Phantom Lady 17 was absolutely not drawn by Matt Baker 

At this point, this should be the popular opinion. I'm not saying it is but it SHOULD be. 

[jimbo_7071]

On 9/9/2022 at 6:55 PM, Ryan. said:

At this point, this should be the popular opinion. I'm not saying it is but it SHOULD be. 

I think that it already is. I don't know anybody who thinks that Baker drew that cover. It could have been anybody from the Eisner/Iger group—or maybe not—but it wasn't Baker. (Many of the better-known artists had left Iger by the time PL17 was published; I don't even know who was there at that time.)

Sometimes the work of various Eisner/Iger artists looks similar to me, and maybe it's because they all learned from Eisner or from people who learned from Eisner, or maybe it's because their pencils were inked by the same person.

For instance, the shading looks just like Nick Cardy's shading to me, and the crude fingers remind me of Bob Powell's fingers. (Neither of them were still with Iger in '47; I think Eisner and his crew were working for Quality.)

It might even be that multiple artists worked on the cover. Maybe one artist did Phantom Lady's face and nothing else, for example.

Edited July 8, 2023 by jimbo_7071

[Funnybooks]

On 9/10/2022 at 12:16 PM, jimbo_7071 said:

I think that it already is. I don't know anybody who thinks that Baker drew that cover. It could have been anybody from the Eisner/Iger group—or maybe not—but it wasn't Baker. (Many of the better-known artists had left Iger by the time PL17 was published; I don't even know who was there at that time.)

Sometimes the work of various Eisner/Iger artists looks similar to me, and maybe it's because they all learned from Eisner or from people who learned from Eisner, or maybe it's because their pencils were inked by the same person.

For instance, the shading looks just like Nick Cardy's shading to me, and the crude fingers remind me of Bob Powell's fingers. (Neither of them were still with Iger in '47; I think Eisner and his crew were working for Quality.)

It might even be that multiple artists worked on the cover. Maybe one artist did Phantom Lady's face and noting else, for example.

You just met one 

[Funnybooks]

I do believe it was likely Baker and company had hands on this cover. How many, we will never know.

[jimbo_7071]

On 9/10/2022 at 12:18 PM, Funnybooks said:

I do believe it was likely Baker and company had hands on this cover. How many, we will never know.

So you don't think he did it by himself, correct? Some portions are way too crude to have been done by Baker, even on his worst day.

[Funnybooks]

On 9/10/2022 at 12:20 PM, jimbo_7071 said:

So you don't think he did it by himself, correct? Some portions are way too crude to have been done by Baker, even on his worst day.

Even as a die hard Baker fan, I don't believe he created the entire cover on his own. Likely a collaboration. I don't want to turn this into a PL17 thread as this topic has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam.

[buttock]

On 9/10/2022 at 10:16 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

I think that it already is. I don't know anybody who thinks that Baker drew that cover. It could have been anybody from the Eisner/Iger group—or maybe not—but it wasn't Baker. (Many of the better-known artists had left Iger by the time PL17 was published; I don't even know who was there at that time.)

Sometimes the work of various Eisner/Iger artists looks similar to me, and maybe it's because they all learned from Eisner or from people who learned from Eisner, or maybe it's because their pencils were inked by the same person.

For instance, the shading looks just like Nick Cardy's shading to me, and the crude fingers remind me of Bob Powell's fingers. (Neither of them were still with Iger in '47; I think Eisner and his crew were working for Quality.)

It might even be that multiple artists worked on the cover. Maybe one artist did Phantom Lady's face and noting else, for example.

"Crude" & "Bob Powell" don't go together.  He was an elite draftsman.  

[N e r V]

On 9/10/2022 at 9:20 AM, jimbo_7071 said:

So you don't think he did it by himself, correct? Some portions are way too crude to have been done by Baker, even on his worst day.

 

On 9/10/2022 at 9:50 AM, Funnybooks said:

Even as a die hard Baker fan, I don't believe he created the entire cover on his own. Likely a collaboration. I don't want to turn this into a PL17 thread as this topic has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam.

A number of years ago a group of 4 or 5 fans at SDCC approached an old time artist about some cover and asked if he had done it since one of them believed he had and the rest thought not. When the artist admitted he certainly had the rest of the group jumped all over that pretty much calling him a liar. The artist tried to defend his position by providing information on how it was done, when, etc. and was still mocked. After about 20 minutes into this there were several other artists in the guys booth defending him as the artist but the crowd apparently were experts and would have none of this.

I’m always reminded by that story and by a long talk I got to have with the late John Buscema about how many hands could be involved at Marvel with art from start to finish. The many hands involved in art goes all the way back to comics roots and even the artists weren’t always sure who did what sometimes.

We track the artists we like in comics but I’ve come to realize a great cover is still a great cover no matter who drew or how many helped draw it. PL #17 will always be a classic to many.

Edited September 10, 2022 by N e r V

[Joshua33]

On 9/10/2022 at 9:17 AM, Funnybooks said:

You just met one 

Yep, the hippy lady on mushrooms emoji is the only person whom believes Baker drew that cover.

[ageofsilver]

Pl 17 feels like Baker elements. Love the hair. I will say that wood posts shout Feldstein   

[ageofsilver]

Unpopular idea. Hmmm. How about this one? Excluding importance to the whole industry, how many wonderful covers were produced and whether or not we include atomic age within golden age, the greatest body of golden age work is New Trend EC. Just try to disagree.