The Distribution of US Published Comics in the UK (1959~1982) 15 15

[Malacoda]

On 2/23/2022 at 9:44 AM, Kevin.J said:

However lately I have a major urge to find and read my old Treasury Editions, I loved this format when I was a kid, @batmiesta just put up #4 Conan Treasury for sale, that is one of the best reads ever for me, I need to go digging 

That Conan Treasury is definitely how you want to read those stories.  Roy Thomas re-edited his dialogue and Barry Smith re-inked and coloured pages for all the stories. It is the re-mastered version. 

[Malacoda]

Something else that is odd about the Treasuries is in the indicas (that woke Marwood up, if nothing else).  I did some work unpicking Martin Goodman’s labyrinth of shell companies ( …..and that is really in the ‘don’t try this at home’ list). Now, obviously these things were created to be a smokescreen so Goodman could flip costs and profits around, keeping ahead of both his commitments to his creatives and the taxman, so you wouldn’t expect to get very far with it.

The strange thing is the labyrinth of shell companies goes right the way up to and beyond the sale to Perfect Film, leaving Perfect to unpick it all. So where your favourite Marvel titles were, of course, published by Marvel, in fact none of them were. Marvel was just a brand name.

Different titles flip between companies, as you’d expect, but generally whichever company (on paper) produced that title, it remains its owner.  So, for example, where FF were all published by Canam Publisher’s Sales Corp, when they are reprinted in Marvel’s Greatest Comics, the indica reads ‘reprints courtesy of Canam Publisher’s Sales Corp, copyright XXXX and then whatever year it was originally published.

Weirdly, the reprints in the Treasuries don’t do this.  They sometimes credit other Goodman shell companies. So, for instance, where  FF 49 is printed by Canam Publisher’s Sales Corp in 1965, it says so.  Then when it’s reprinted in MGC 36, in 1972, it’s re-copyrighted to Magazine Management in 1972, but lists the reprint as being courtesy of Canam Publisher’s Sales Corp, copyright 1965. All good.  However, when it’s reprinted in Treasury #2, it’s listed as ‘reprints courtesy of Non-Pareil Publications, copyright 1964, 1966, 1967’.

Non-Pareil is one of 17 (and counting) shell companies, which did publish ASM, Marvel Tales & Two Gun Kid at different times, but never published FF.

The Avengers Treasury 7 reprinted The Avengers #52, 57, 60, and 83.  Avengers was published by Vista Publications from 1963 to 1968, so it’s Vista  for cover dates May 1968 (#52) & Oct 1968 (#57).  Then Perfect take over and, in a two stage process, moves everything under Magazine Management.

#60 was published by Magazine Management in Jan 1969 and #83 by Magazine Management in December 1970.

The indica in the Treasury, says reprints courtesy of Vista Publications 1968, 1969 and 1970, and Magazine Management in 1970. so the years are correct, but Vista Publications ceased in November 1968, so why does it say 1969 and 1970? and Magazine Management should also say 1969 which is when no #60 was published and copyrighted.

The Thor Treasury 3 says reprints are courtesy of Non Pareil as well, but Thor was published by Atlas Magazines Inc. (as was JIM). You get the idea. 

In short, where the silver age Marvels were reprinted in comics, the indicas are correct, in both the original data and the updated copyrighting, but in the Treasuries that reprint the silver age Marvels, they are wrong about both the names and the dates.

Try to remain calm. That’s the important thing.  

[themagicrobot]

I didn't know about the stuff regarding the Treasuries above from @Malacoda. That is why this whole thread is building up to something quite important. Meanwhile, here is something unimportant.

When London Editions/Egmont had the DC franchise for UK reprints in the 80s/90s they produced some nice looking Batman and Superman monthlies. Magazine sized artwork looked good. In 1991 they decided to try a weekly comic but pulled the plug after only a few weeks. Heroes of 1991 came with"free gifts" in the first three issues of postcards reproducing old Adventure comics. As this was before the Interweb they borrowed the comics from 30th Century Comics. Yes, they were going that long ago. So you get postcards with Thorpe and Porter stamps proudly on display.

Edited February 25, 2022 by themagicrobot

[Malacoda]

On 2/25/2022 at 7:40 PM, themagicrobot said:

I didn't know about the stuff regarding the Treasuries above from @Malacoda. That is why this whole thread is building up to something quite important. Meanwhile, here is something unimportant.

When London Editions/Egmont had the DC franchise for UK reprints in the 80s/90s they produced some nice looking Batman and Superman monthlies. Magazine sized artwork looked good. In 1991 they decided to try a weekly comic but pulled the plug after only a few weeks. Heroes of 1991 came with"free gifts" in the first three issues of postcards reproducing old Adventure comics. As this was before the Interweb they borrowed the comics from 30th Century Comics. Yes, they were going that long ago. So you get postcards with Thorpe and Porter stamps proudly on display.

Fascinating.  I never think about UK reprints of DC.  Marvel so totally eclipsed them for this.  Ah, and good old 30th Century Comics. Still can't believe I will never walk through those doors again. 

[Malacoda]

Must read article: 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Photos-of-S-F-s-first-comic-book-store-16945786.php

Amazing how many months he has on (what I take to be) the current rack at the same time: Conan 12 (Dec 71), Am Adv 10 (Jan 71), ASM 105, MTA 1 & Xmen 74 (Feb 72), MGC 34 (Mar 72) TOD 1 (Apr 72). 

[themagicrobot]

This is my favourite photo from the link above. Gary obviously loved comics but kept things in perspective. Lean your ladder against the comics you have nailed to the wall. Stack them on shelves like last weeks newspapers. Chuck them in any old cardboard box you have to hand. Coincidently I was only reading my Marvel Super-Heroes 16 (and the previous Fantasy Masterpieces) a few weeks ago when looking for my London Editions/Egmont Batmans. They all came out of an old cardboard box very much like Gary's!?!

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by themagicrobot

[Malacoda]

On 2/27/2022 at 7:00 PM, themagicrobot said:

Gary obviously loved comics but kept things in perspective. Lean your ladder against the comics you have nailed to the wall. 

 

 

 

I know.  That's a Golden Age EC comic he's knackering with a step ladder there and that Terry Toons could even be wartime.  Surely it would have paid to invest in one of those inverted V shape ladders that don't need a 30 year old comic to rest against. 

[Get Marwood & I]

This is a nice dual sticker:

I suppose I should have posted it on Twosday, though.

[Malacoda]

On 2/28/2022 at 11:00 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

This is a nice dual sticker:

I suppose I should have posted it on Twosday, though.

Are T&P still distributing Dell at this point? It's almost a moot point as T&P has folded into Warner's and relocated to London and Dell has lost all its Western titles and is only a couple of years from shutting down altogether. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/2/2022 at 6:45 AM, Malacoda said:

Are T&P still distributing Dell at this point? It's almost a moot point as T&P has folded into Warner's and relocated to London and Dell has lost all its Western titles and is only a couple of years from shutting down altogether. 

Hmm, lets' see. Room 222 is a January 1970 book and the T&P stamps stop on Dells around 1966 if the examples saved in my folder are any indication. So I would say the sticker is nothing to do with them. Just a random shop stamp I would say. 

[rakehell]

On 2/27/2022 at 4:05 PM, Malacoda said:

Must read article: 

Cheers for that link. Great read. I actually lived in San Jose (just around the corner, really) when those pictures were taken. Of course, I was 2 years old at the time, so I can't really say I missed out on anything. 

Who let this kid in?

 Has anyone checked that he's washed his hands? 

And what about this?

  Could he have maybe found a better way to use the ladder? 

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by rakehell

[Prince Namor]

On 1/24/2022 at 1:20 PM, themagicrobot said:

I was reading an old issue of Alter Ego magazine over the weekend. Half the magazine was a massive article about the life (and death) of Joe Maneely. He had been Stan's go-to artist for almost a decade but died before the Marvel Age of Comics even began. He drew Horror, Funny Animals and Westerns but not much in the way of Super Heroes because, apart from a few experiments reviving Captain America and the Sub-Mariner, Atlas weren't really doing that genre in tthe 1950s. If he hadn't died young in a tragic accident, being as prolific as Kirby but also always doing his own inking too he would probably have been offered Spider-man or the FF or some others and Marvel would have looked quite different. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Maneely  

Couple of things...

According to the research done by comics historian Dr. Michael J Vassallo, it's easy to go through and see a great deal of who wrote what and who drew what during this time period (as Stan was signing his name to anything he did, including pinup pages and covers by Dan DeCarlo, and... Maneely actually did very little work with Stan Lee. Not sure where this notion of them being tied at the waist comes from, but... it's like a very small percentage when you go through and look at it.

Secondly... and I'l quote myself from elsewhere on this forum:

"...it always puzzles me to hear people say, "What would the Marvel Silver Age have been like if Maneely would've did it instead of Kirby?"

Well.. it probably wouldn't have happened.

Maneely brought more detail to the page than Kirby did at the time, and both were equally fast - but everything about Jack's career adds up to the success he had in the Silver Age. He had been a hugely successful artist in comics, creating some of the biggest selling titles ever (Captain America, Boy Commandos, Young Romance - all selling over a million copies each), he'd had great success with superheroes, and he was already a story driven artist that needed little to no input from an editor or a writer to create his own work. 

Stan didn't create the foundation of the Marvel Universe, Jack did. It was created from the ideas of the Atomic Age, with monsters and aliens and science fiction themes. Jack did those books for Marvel early on in his return and when you mix that with a Challengers of the Unknown - you get a... Fantastic Four vs the Mole Man/Skrulls and eventually a Galactus. You get an Ant-Man, and a Hulk.  

As great as Maneely's art was... and he was GREAT, I just don't see where he showed the type of creative process for characters that Kirby did. Everything about Kirby's career led him to what he did in the Silver Age. Marvel didn't rise from the ashes on the strength of the Western or the War Books (both Maneely's specialty), but from Atomic Age themes (which Kirby had already done) mixed with off-beat Superheroes - also something that Kirby had already experimented with (Fighting American). I just don't see that from Maneely.

Don't get me wrong. I think the Silver Age could've been a lot cooler with Jack doing what he did and then Wally Wood staying on Daredevil and Joe Maneely doing the Avengers and Iron Man... that would've been awesome!

But without Kirby, the Marvel Silver Age would've never happened."

Edited March 2, 2022 by Prince Namor

[Albert Tatlock]

Another couple of specimens lurking in the undergrowth of the Emerald Isle, but whether with or without the involvement of O'Thorpe & O'Porter I am not sure.

[Malacoda]

On 3/2/2022 at 9:19 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Hmm, lets' see. Room 222 is a January 1970 book and the T&P stamps stop on Dells around 1966 if the examples saved in my folder are any indication. So I would say the sticker is nothing to do with them. Just a random shop stamp I would say. 

Do they perchance fizzle out some time in Q3 (cover date) of 1966? 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/3/2022 at 3:11 AM, Malacoda said:

Do they perchance fizzle out some time in Q3 (cover date) of 1966? 

March 1966 is the latest cover date I have so far, but I have about 20 issues saved that I've yet to date - I'll let you know if any go beyond that.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/3/2022 at 8:45 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

- I'll let you know if any go beyond that.

Nukla #3 (June 1966)

I only gather these examples in passing, so there may well be a later dated book out there.

[Malacoda]

On 3/3/2022 at 9:04 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Nukla #3 (June 1966)

I only gather these examples in passing, so there may well be a later dated book out there.

Quite probably. I think T&P went bankrupt in July 1966. There was no impact to DC because (a) they were only sending distressed inventory and (b) I suspect they contemplated a bailout, but then let T&P collapse and bought them out of receivership. I think a nice cheap bit of expansion may have suited them as they were fixing to sell the company (National). This is the point where Marvel selectively reduce the amount of PV's being created, probably due to unpaid & outstanding invoices as T&P fell (which causes the 2nd hiatus in Q4)  so my money would be on July or August 1966 being the last month of Dell distributed by T&P. Having said that, there was a massive lead time at Dell between release dates and cover dates (up to 6 months), so even if the bankruptcy did end Dell's relationship with T&P, you could still see Dell comics cover dated all the way to December or Jan 67. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 3/4/2022 at 8:57 PM, Malacoda said:

Quite probably. I think T&P went bankrupt in July 1966. There was no impact to DC because (a) they were only sending distressed inventory and (b) I suspect they contemplated a bailout, but then let T&P collapse and bought them out of receivership. I think a nice cheap bit of expansion may have suited them as they were fixing to sell the company (National). This is the point where Marvel selectively reduce the amount of PV's being created, probably due to unpaid & outstanding invoices as T&P fell (which causes the 2nd hiatus in Q4)  so my money would be on July or August 1966 being the last month of Dell distributed by T&P. Having said that, there was a massive lead time at Dell between release dates and cover dates (up to 6 months), so even if the bankruptcy did end Dell's relationship with T&P, you could still see Dell comics cover dated all the way to December or Jan 67. 

I'll do a Shaw Taylor on them. 

[Malacoda]

On 3/4/2022 at 8:59 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

I'll do a Shaw Taylor on them. 

Ta.  You can probably call off the search from release date October 1966, cover date March 1967.  After that, an old friend of ours starts appearing on Dell covers. 

 

[Albert Tatlock]

On 3/4/2022 at 9:34 PM, Malacoda said:

Ta.  You can probably call off the search from release date October 1966, cover date March 1967.  After that, an old friend of ours starts appearing on Dell covers. 

 

Note how these stamps lack the expertise of the T & P staff, who almost always had nice clear stamps in the upper portion, where they were visible in the racks.

Top one 8/10, middle one 4/10, bottom one 2/10. See me after class, third stamper.