POLL: When did the Bronze Age begin?

[joe_collector]

Yeah I know, but I meant his mysterious appearance here.

 

If he's real, he must write for the Outer Limits in his spare time, concocting even more devious time-twisting tales of terror. Or maybe a relaunch of the What If line:

 

What If Dave Blanchard Made 1970-75 Disappear!

 

Read CBG for his latest attempt.

[dblanchard-migration]

Joe Collector wrote:

 

>> Dave I loved how you demonstrated your incredible comic knowledge with that last post. As anyone knows, and Stan has related many, many times, The Fantastic Four was a direct result of the success of Justice League and had absolutely nothing to do with Flash.

 

It's even on Stan's Mutants and Monsters DVD if you want to get a copy and bone up on some comic history. <<

 

 

Just as an FYI, I write my replies to you knowing that everybody else can probably see my points, even though you'll figure out a way to insult me by moving the goal posts to suit your latest idea.

 

To recap, you wrote:

 

>> It wasn't until the 1980's that DC brought out their actual response to new X-Men: New Teen Titans. If GS X-Men represented a quantum shift in 1975, you'd think that book would have made it out ahead of ALL the rest. <<

 

... and I responded:

 

NEW TEEN TITANS debuted in 1980, 5 years after GIANT-SIZE X-MEN # 1.

 

FANTASTIC FOUR debuted in 1961, 5 years after SHOWCASE # 4.

 

 

Maybe I presumed too much in assuming you knew that the Flash was a member of the Justice League of America, and that in fact the revival of the JLA followed in the wake of DC's revival of the Flash in SHOWCASE # 4 and later, Green Lantern in SHOWCASE # 22. This, in fact, is precisely why SHOWCASE # 4 is cited as the first Silver Age comic book, because of all the cool superhero comics that followed in its wake.

 

SHOWCASE # 4 - SHOWCASE # 22 - BRAVE & BOLD # 28 - JLA # 1 - FF # 1

 

Your point, as I took it, was that NEW TEEN TITANS couldn't possibly have been a reaction to G-SXM # 1 because it took a whole five years for DC to strike gold with a similar offering. My point -- which I *know* you understood, but I suspect you're just being ornery -- is that it similarly took Marvel a whole five years to react to DC's revival of superheroes in 1956.

 

>> I personally think you all invented this Blanchard character to irritate the heck out of me, as it's pretty hard to believe a person like this really exists. <<

 

Not only do I exist, but I use my actual name.

 

God bless you, Joe, but I think I've used up enough bandwidth on this fine board responding to you. The other folks here are actually responding to what I say, so I'll direct my responses to them from now on. But since we're all comic book fans here, I do wish you well.

 

Dave Blanchard

 

 

[joe_collector]

Gee thanks Dave, and just as an FYI, Stan Lee is also on our camp and has referred to the 1970-75 years as the Second Great Marvel Age, and potentially as important to comics as the Silver.

 

Seeing all the innovative and popular characters that emerged pre-GS X-Men 1, it would be hard to disagree with him. No one has to agree with his comments, but the guy was there, churning out the books, right at the helm of the best-sellng books on the market.

 

I'm also sure he'd have a good laugh at you stating MiracleMan, Love & Rockets, NEXUS and Dark Knight Returns are KEY Bronze Age books. Now that's comedy.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

And I edited it, add me onto the list!

[Zonker]

That one puzzles me...

 

I mean why would any of us really really care that much about when a completely imaginary "Bronze Age" began? It's all a convention, a common language we adopt or don't adopt for our convenience.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the debate is way fun (the majority of my posts are probably confined to one of the 3 or 4 threads here on the subject), but it's the discussion I'm invested in, moreso than any particular outcome.

 

And why am I invested in a discussion over which there can be no definitive answer? Well it's basically because I'm a comic nerd and the early 1970s books were the ones that set me on that path! Moreso, I got in at the tail-end of the great early-1970s period, so even though I've caught up on all the back-issues, I approach the 1970-1973 period the same way I used to feel about the 1st and 2nd season of the original Star Trek-- I watched the 3rd season first-run, just as I bought the 1974-76 books new off the newstand, but I was always aware that I just barely missed the really good stuff (at least as far as DCs were concerned)!

 

But that's just me; why would anyone else really really care?

 

Cheers,

Z.

[joe_collector]

Keep up the great editing work Arnold.

 

P.S. I have a theory that Dark Knight Returns actually started the Platinum Age; can I have a shot at an article? Should be about as compelling as your past contributions.

[joe_collector]

>>But that's just me; why would anyone else really really care?

 

That's a great point, and I think it's because Blanchard posts his theories, we shoot them down (such as his hot-selling 70's X-men ) and then he gets amnesia and starts on a whole new tangent.

 

Repeat as desired.

 

It's quite an irritating character trait, and I guess I just let his "hit-and-run-and-forget about it" tactics get to me.

 

You're correct though, the vast (and I mean VAST) percentage of collectors and dealers would have nothing to do with Blanchard's theories, so they are of no consequence in the greater scheme.

 

Kinda like that old comical guy with a "The World Will End" placard, but no pants on. People should just pass right on by, and not engage him in debate.

[dblanchard-migration]

Zonker asked:

 

>> I mean why would any of us really really care that much about when a completely imaginary "Bronze Age" began? It's all a convention, a common language we adopt or don't adopt for our convenience. <<

 

There's the theory that by setting certain previously ignored comics from the 1970s into a "Bronze Age," dealers/collectors were able to goose up the perceived value of those comics. NIGHT NURSE # 1 was pure bargain-box fodder until it became part of "the Bronze Age." Same thing for numerous other esoteric comics that folks had pretty much forgotten about or ignored.

 

Calling something a "Bronze Age" comic in effect bestows upon it a pedigree and collectibility it did not previously have.

 

If you track the high-grade values of NIGHT NURSE through Overstreet down through the years, you can pretty much nail down when the "Bronze Age" label became a path to commercial gain -- not that every 1970s comic has seen a similar jump in price, of course.

 

Like I said, though, it's just a theory. Your mileage may vary.

 

Dave Blanchard

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

Wow, that was a totally unprovoked insult. Did I accidentally kill your dog recently?

[dblanchard-migration]

FlyingDonut wrote:

 

>> The first I can remember "Bronze Age" being called that was in the mid-80s. And, by the way, THEN there was no question that the Bronze Age started in 1970 or so. In fact, THEN, we didn't think X-Men were Bronze Age books AT ALL, we thought they were "current" books. <<

 

The first hint I could find that Overstreet was *beginning* to consider a post-Silver Age era as a tangible entity was in the 1992 Price Guide. In the "Silver Age" section of the 1991 Market Report, Overstreet writes:

 

"It became more obvious this year that 15 cent to 20 cent cover comics from the early 1970s are definitely starting to mature. There is a strong pickup in demand for these books. After all, they are now 20 years old. Most TV titles such as STAR TREK, DARK SHADOWS, etc. sold well."

 

The words "Bronze Age" do not appear anywhere in the Guide, not even in the ads. Interestingly, CEREBUS, a comic book that debuted in 1977, is listed as one of the 40 Most Valuable Silver Age Titles.

 

Selected 1992 NM prices of some early 1970s comics:

 

DARK MANSION OF FORBIDDEN LOVE # 1 - $3.50

DC 100-PAGE SUPER SPECTACULAR #s 4 and 5 - $3.00 each

GHOST(S) # 1 - $4.00

LI'L PALS # 1 - $2.00

NIGHT NURSE # 1 - $1.50

WEIRD WAR TALES # 1 - $3.00

 

Another curiosity-- in the 2000 Overstreet edition, VAMPIRELLA # 113 is ranked as one of the Top 10 Bronze Age Books. Why is this curious? VAMPY # 113 came out in 1988.

 

Yet one more curiosity -- in that same 2000 Overstreet edition, in the "Buying and Selling" section, Overstreet refers to the Modern Age as "post-1970." In the Glossary, Overstreet refers to the Bronze Age as being a "non-specific term not in general acceptance by collectors."

 

Clearly, the coinage and application of "Bronze Age" has yet to be agreed upon even by the industry's chief arbiter of all things age-y. Which helps to explain why there's been so much interest in various comic book magazines and on boards like this one in trying to come up with some clear-cut reasons as to *why* a certain time period should be called "Bronze." The precise application of the term, as Arnold T. has noted elsewhere, is still pretty much up for grabs.

 

Dave Blanchard

[PovertyRow]

The first I can remember the term "Platinum Age" was a few years ago when Overstreet decided to waste 100 pages on books that nobody buys

 

FD - I tend to agree with what you say as far as the historical useage of GA etc. Now I don't consider those 100 pages a waste (doubt you do either - do you?) They ARE useful to, and I'm sure, very appreciated by those who DO collect them. Not unlike our lack of a a current Underground Comics guide (if there IS one someone please point me to it).

 

What I find silly is this idea of how a metal age is something that really torques some shoulders. Honestly - why do people give a poople if 1970 is the start of the bronze age vs 1975? What we label these things don't alter what they are. They don't alter history. They are anthropomorphisms of a very strange order.

 

When I first arrived here I asked if anyone thought an Atom Age folder would be a good idea. I was told probably not - Gold Age would suffice and more folks would view it. I consider Atom Age a sub-set of Golden Age. Now I even more freely mix the two when talking about the pre-code horror books. My electing to call them Atom Age or Gold Age doesn't alter them or their impact on comic history. If some folks will pay more because a certain book is touted as being the start of an age or an early-age book, well I feel that is exactly like "buying the label and not the grade".

 

Hope this makes some sense.

[Aman619]

Hope this makes some sense.

 

It makes a lot of sense. I wrote days ago asking if anyone had read the CBG article about GSXmen/Bronze age. I said I was intrigued by it and met strong resistance. Ive read everything since, and it has led me to a clarification.

 

What I liked about the theory, as I stated, was the 60-year perspective. That is, to me, GSXmen (or some other book but it may have been this one) might have begun began the 'Third Wave' of the comics industry. This Third Wave followed the second near-death experience of the business and introduced characters that later on (5 years later, just like in Silver) hit their stride and helped rejuvenate the industry. Where the problem lies (in the Mr Silver Age theory) is that he chose to call this Third Wave a name that had already been accepted by most of us for a certain period, 1970 - 1975.

 

But isnt THAT what really upsets so many posters here? And impels them to offer reasons why GSXMen was not immediately important etc? If he had it called anything else, if he hadn't appropriated a title you have grown up with, one that merely stressed the rejuvenation of the industry we experienced in the 80s until it flopped again in the 90s, mightn't many of you naysayers agree that SOMETHING significant happened in the late 70s that propelled the business again, a' la the beginning of the Silver age from the ashes of the golden? Mr Silver Age moved the date of the third WAVE and then used the third AGE word instead.

 

Let Bronze be Bronze...

 

Hows that for a middle ground wherein everyone gets a piece of cake, and evrybody's right, huh???

[Kevin Boyd]

It does make sense.

 

I think you are absolutely right about this being another "tastes great" vs. "less filling" argument. Doesn't make it not fun though, except when CI, um JC, starts the insults...

 

I think Conan1 & GL/GA 76 "taste great", Superboy 174/GSXM1 I find "less filling" when discussing a bronze age start.

 

Kev

 

*urp*

[PovertyRow]

might have begun began the 'Third Wave' of the comics industry

 

While I appreciate what you are saying, 1975 was not a third wavve. And forgive the allusions - just in an allusionsary mood!

 

Age 1 - I don't care if you want to call it the Platinum Age, Hardbound Age, Reprint News Strip Age, Yellow Kid Age or the Mutt and Jeff Age or whatever) - no one can deny that the beginnings of comic BOOKS began here for us. So now we have Age 1.

 

Age 2 - the appearance of a most memorable Kryptonian. who gave rise to a most memorable Millionaire Flying Mammal. And many more most memorable characters.

 

Age 3 - Where have all the heroes gone? World War II is over. Things limp along with no real foe to bind the nation. Suddenly, for the next several years, crime, romance, science fiction, adventures/jungle type stuff from Age 2 (growing stronger now) and horror (note I listed horror last so as not to toot my own preferences) are in the forefront. A Senate hearing put things to rest.

 

Age 4 - Some Golden Age superheroe is redone for the day. Yet, the major competitor continues successfully with its previous titles and several new titles until four people take a ride in a rocket and end up all befuddled. And a wimpy kid gets chomped by an arachnid.

 

Age 5 - Hmmmm - reflections of Age 3. That upstart that was doing all the horrorish/sci-fi/fantasy suddenly added even more teeth and began printing tales of a major pulp barbaric hero, an unwilling lycanthrope, a well known vampire, a motorcycle riding nightmare and even began reprinting their old monster stories and creating some new stories along the way. The other side also created some intriquing "heroes" or, better, "anti-heores". Mucky swampish things from both camps, an East Coast dead man, a kid with a telephone.

 

Age 6 - hmmmm - I kind of stopped collecing new books around then. Liked Dazzler (razz me if you must but until the whole Roman thing she was fun). Liked New Mutants for a bit. Loved Moon Knight. But a year or two after that my memory kind of fades cause I got my first Hulk 102 and Doc 169 in real NM for about 8-12 each.

 

[Kevin Boyd]

I didn't read the article, as I don't read the CBG. Not much point to it really... except for hokey theories about the start of the bronze age.... and Peter David's column, I suppose.

 

Actually, I find fault with this statement:

 

This Third Wave followed the second near-death experience of the business and introduced characters that later on (5 years later, just like in Silver) hit their stride and helped rejuvenate the industry.

 

Um, what second near-death experience? What was the first? Are we talking superheroes or comics?

 

'Cause comics weren't what were near-death in the Atom age. They were quite healthy. Super-heroes were near death, definitely with Supes/Bats and a couple of others holding the torch.

 

But who told you that super-heroes were near-death in 1970-75? Superheroes were the only titles selling strongly during those years, which is why DC's forays into other genres didn't last long and they (I hesitate to say "went back" because they never stopped with the super-heroes) refocused on their better selling super-heroes in the late 1970's.

 

If anything, comics in general were in trouble between 1972 and 1978 as the traditional outlets were dropping comics like hot potatoes and the direct market arose. I tend to feel that the direct market had more to do with what most of us feel are the key bronze age books - Conan 1 and GL/GA 76 as those books were heavily shepherded by the early comics distributors (as discussed in other threads) and paved the way for those same distributors to become the saviours of the industry when Marvel and DC began to turn to the direct market in 1978.

 

(Here's where I'm not responding to you directly, but more in general:)

 

BTW the first direct distribution or alternative titles were knock-offs of Conan and other popular fantasy titles - Elfquest, the First Kingdom, Cerebus - the first direct-only mainstream titles were anti-heroes in the traditional bronze age mold: Moon Knight a Conan-ized Ka-Zar and the Star Wars-knock off Micronauts. The first alternative publishers like Eclipse, Pacific, First et al. all launched with titles that were either (a) science fiction (b) fantasy or © loner anti-hero type characters all staples of what most of us feel are the bronze age.

 

Aside from the New Teen Titans in 1980, ARGUABLY an X-Men-like title (and the only one of it's kind from DC - where are the dozens of knock-offs at DC you guys seem to think must be there?) I still don't see this X-Men world domination you GSXM1 proponants seem to love to tout until 1982 when the X-Men helped launch Marvel Fanfare (with Spider-Man!) and the Frank Miller Wolverine mini-series.

 

That's 7 years after GSXM1.

 

The obvious success of the X-Men only issues of MF 3&4, the fact that Uncanny was taking the top spots on the sales figures, and that every kid between 8 and 18 had to have a copy of the Wolverine solo-series led Marvel to think they had something worth repeating and spinning off of.

 

So if you look at it our way - 1970 to 1984/85 is an "age" unto itself, dominated by super-heroes, as was the silver age, but with a strong undercurrent of fantasy, science-fiction and loner anti-heroes. Most of which ends up being distilled into the X-Men anyway.

 

If I were to look at the Mr. Silver Age way - you have X-Men in 1975 growing in popularity but pretty much on it's own until New Teen Titans arrives in 1980, then those two titles are on their own until Marvel spins off a couple of more X-titles to see if there is demand. Then by 1984 Marvel's set to unleash an endless spate of X-related material on us for the next 20 years, DC lets the Titans team launch an origins mini-series that does ok then lets that same team officially put the nail in the coffin of the DC multiverse (a silver age concept) in Crisis.

 

 

Kev

 

[Zonker]

Aside from the New Teen Titans in 1980, ARGUABLY an X-Men-like title (and the only one of it's kind from DC - where are the dozens of knock-offs at DC you guys seem to think must be there?)

 

Sorry Kev, that discussion (by Dave Blanchard) was buried on one of the two other threads covering this same ground.

 

One of the many tangents of this discussion that interests me is speculating on why the heck DC did what they did throughout the 70s (starting with luring Jack Kirby away from Marvel and then not following through with his idea about building a west coast studio around him to support the Fourth World books). And Dave has nicely illustrated that somebody threw a switch at DC in 1975: Before '75 DC had a ton of failed series that were non-superheroes; after '75 DC had a ton of failed series that were not only superheroes, but super-teams.

 

the first direct-only mainstream titles were anti-heroes in the traditional bronze age mold: Moon Knight a Conan-ized Ka-Zar and the Star Wars-knock off Micronauts.

 

Isn't Moon Knight generally agreed to be a knock-off of the O'Neil/Adams Batman of the early 1970s, or is that just my DC bias?

 

Cheers,

Z.

 

PS, oh and Dave's case can be strengthened if you accept as I do, that of the 11 pre-1975 brand-new DC super-hero launches Dave mentions-- NEW GODS, FOREVER PEOPLE, MR MIRACLE, THE DEMON, SUPERGIRL, THE SHADOW, SHAZAM!, OMAC, SANDMAN, SUPERMAN FAMILY, THE JOKER-- at least 6 were not really traditional spandex super-heroes: New Gods, FP, Mr. Miracle, Demon, Omac by Kirby and The Shadow by O'Neil & Kaluta.

[Zonker]

You're absolutely right -- the O'Neil/Adams Batman was a whole 'nother take on the character from the Silver Age Batman, but how long did that Adams Batman really last on the spinner racks? Look at all those ho-hum David V. Reed/Ernie Chua Batman comics that defined the character by the mid-1970s.

 

In general, I agree with you, and for me the fun was pretty much over by the time Archie Goodwin left Detective Comics at the end of 1974. So my Whachamacallit Age ran from January 1970 to December 1974. By that point Neal Adams, Bernie Wrightson, Barry Smith, Mike Kaluta had moved on, Kirby's Fourth World was over, etc.

 

Until the arrival of Steve Englehart and Marshall Rogers, there were very few highlights of the David Reed/Vern and Ernie Chua/Chan Batman era. But in 1975 DC didn't just bring Robin and the Batmobile back in every issue and return to the Day-Glo Detective era. Indeed, the early 70's Batman work of O'Neil/Adams/Novick/Giordano remained influential on up through the Dark Knight era.

 

Cheers,

Z.

 

 

[Kevin Boyd]

I read that post weeks ago. I still want to reiterate that while DC did launch more hero titles in the late 1970's, aside from the New Teen Titans none of those series listed in the other thread were even remotely like the X-Men. And Marvel did have success with team books prior to the New X-Men. For example, the Defenders was launched years before the X-Men revival.

 

Most of those post-1975 DC titles, however, resemble a lot of the early 70's Marvel titles. Anti-heroes, science fiction heroes. Fantasy heroes and so on. So where's the imitation? I would say that DC in 1975 was actively reacting to Marvel's 1970-75 successes rather than to the X-Men relaunch. When DC imploded in the late 1970's X-Men was barely hitting it's stride as a fan favorite.

 

The other problem with DC in the 1970's is that they couldn't muster any interest in anything other than Superman/Batman/Justice League. There were the occasional blips - Swamp Thing sucked as soon as Wrightson left. The Shadow sucked as soon as Kaluta left, and so on. Shazam got a lot of hype but they couldn't figure out what to do with it. Almost all of those titles launched between 1970 and 1978 were cancelled in the implosion because they were not selling.

 

Legion and Warlord were probably their only real successes. Even Roy Thomas' revival of All Star was not that successful. Huntress was somewhat successful with the fans but they never knew what to do with her.

 

By the late 1970's DC was the serviced by two groups (1) the silver age fans who were devoted to their characters and (2) entry level comics fans who liked Superman and Batman. Neither of those groups had much use for any of the DC books that launched in the 1970's. If DC HAD been able to keep their talent on books like the Shadow and Swamp Thing (and if Neal Adams hadn't left DC to form Continuity) they might have had better luck.

 

For me, the Bronze age was also the era of the fan-favorite artist. From 1970 on you had Neal Adams, Wrightson, Kaluta, Barry Windsor-Smith, Jim Starlin, Mike Ploog, Walt Simonson, John Buscema's Conan, Mike Golden, P. Craig Russell, Howard Chaykin, Marshall Rogers, John Byrne, Frank Miller. It also meant the decline of Kirby. New Gods was a critical success and a commercial failure - it wouldn't be until the 1980's that Kirby began to be worshipped again. A true characteristic, at least for me, of the bronze age is that fans stopped worshipping the characters (a silver age trait) and began to worship the talent. They would follow these guys from book to book. They would cut their teeth on super-heroes (including the horror and barbarian heroes) and then move off to do their own thing.

 

Bronze age artists would leap from title to title. For example, if you liked Starlin's Captain Marvel - well now he's doing Strange Tales then Warlock (with the same villain) then wrapping the whole thing up in Avengers and Marvel Two-In-One. Now he's releasing limited edition prints, now he's releasing a graphic novel for Eclipse (The Price) now he's doing Metamorphosis Odyssey for Epic Magazine, now he's doing Dreadstar for Marvel's new Epic comics line. Ditto for guys like Byrne - Doomsday+1 to Rog-2000 to Iron Fist to Marvel Team-Up to the Champions to Uncanny X-Men to Fantastic Four and Alpha Flight.

 

The silver age artists were liked for what they did with the super-heroes but were not as forgiven when they left a fan-favorite strip. A la Ditko leaving Spidey to do Hawk and Dove and the Creeper for DC (and then back to do Rom for Marvel). Or Kirby leaving FF and Thor to do the New Gods line, and then returning to Marvel to do 2001 and Eternals. They were the Spider-Man, FF and Thor artists.

 

Re: Moon Knight. That's your DC bias, but yes there are similarities. But there are just as many to the Conan anti-hero model (he was a mercenary, was linked to ancient egypt and gods, etc.). He was like a cross between Batman, Conan, the Punisher, Doc Savage.

 

Re: PS. Sorry but although they had a sci-fi bent Kirby's New Gods/Mister Miracle/Demon/Forever People do fall into the superhero camp. Omac was very much superhero-like and Kamandi (which was not listed) was definitely science fiction - and then Superman showed up. All of those concepts were firmly rooted in the DC Universe. Only the Shadow was not a true DC super-hero comic, although the character was obviously an inspiration for Batman, so even that is debatable.

 

Kev

 

[Zonker]

In general, I can agree with most all of this...

 

Maybe what was actually going on in 1975 was both DC and Marvel simultaneously reacting to the same thing: the earlier success of team books including Legion, JLA, Avengers, Defenders, what-have-you, coupled with the limited success of non-traditional superhero books. So rather than causing DC's subsequent emphasis on super-teams, GSXM #1 was arguably a symptom of the same thing?

 

Though I still maintain the Kirby Fourth World books (up through New Gods 11) used some of the conventions of super-hero comics, but were hardly traditional spandex-clad crimefighters, and more of a science-fantasy series, an actual precursor to George Lucas' later Star Wars. After Conway got ahold of the New Gods, they became much more the traditional late-70s super-team.

 

Cheers,

Z.

[Aman619]

what second near-death experience? What was the first? Are we talking superheroes or comics?

 

Both really, since super-heroes have been the backbone of comics. But moreso the industry itself was threatened each time.

 

The 2 parallel near deaths were these: right after the height of the Atom Age (I dont collect here so Im talking about Pre-code horror, etc) came the Wertham hysteria and the Congressional hearings that led to mass cancellations of all horror titles and a crippling of the industry. Many creators were let go because there was very little work left.

 

If anything, comics in general were in trouble between 1972 and 1978 as the traditional outlets were dropping comics like hot potatoes and the direct market arose.

 

The second was just as you say. As the 70s progressed, comics were selling fewer and fewer copies. I'd say the nadir was the DC Implosion, in 1977 or 1978? The direct market was a direct result that saved the industry, or kept it going until sales picked up, by directing comics to the hard-core fans that were left.

 

Comics were still published regularly during both slow periods, but were revived in both occasions to full-strength.... only to lose steam again about 20 years later. As I said in my early post, this is the fascinating part for me. The 20 year cycle this industry has experienced 3 times now that is apparent now after 60 years of data to look at:

40s/up ...50s/down ...60s/up ...70s/down ... 80s/up ...90s/down ... 00s/up again