Stan, Jack, and Steve - The 1960's. (1960) Showing Signs of Life! 2 2

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1960

In January of 1957, just as Jack Kirby began his Challengers of the Unknown series in Showcase for DC, the publisher had little to no representation of Aliens, Monsters, Giant Robots or even Dinosaurs on their covers. Look it up, it's a FACT.

Jack of course, gave it representation on early covers he did for Challengers, in their own title as well as in Showcase. He couldn't bring 'heroes' to Marvel, but he brought the Aliens, Monsters, Giant Robots and Dinosaurs. And he had success with it. Enough so that Marvel kept giving him more work. It's all there for you to see, it's FACT.

13 of DC's 26 titles in January of 1960 had either Aliens, Monsters, Giant Robots or Dinosaurs... coincidence?

Edited October 7, 2022 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1960

Even without Jack Kirby or Joe Simon, The Adventures of the Fly continued, as another example of a continuous superhero comic published before the Marvel Universe began. Robert Bernstein (who was also doing Superman stories for DC at the time) would take over the book and continue it for the next 4 years (Unfortunately Bill Vigoda only does the art for this one issue). From there Jerry Siegel took it over and it became 'Fly-Man' for 2 years. 

At that point it became the Mighty Comics series, featuring all of the Archie superheroes (except their best one, Superteen). Siegel continued writing this with artist Paul Reinman until it ended in 1967. I haven't read those issues in years, but I did enjoy them as a kid - puzzled by them when I originally discovered them - but these Berstein issues of the Fly aren't bad, especially if you like 60's DC superhero stuff.

Archie Comics really wanted to build that Universe... what if Kirby had stayed there instead?

[John Jackson Miller]

On 10/6/2022 at 9:51 PM, N e r V said:

Those published sales figures aren’t really accurate. That’s been discussed and known for years. The first time I had that pointed out to me was from Archie Goodwin in the very early 1980’s when I first inquired about them. Any number of pros since have dismissed them.

From Mark Evaniers website:

 

”The sales figures published in the little Statement of Ownership boxes that ran in some comics were sometimes rough approximations and occasionally pure fiction.”

 

There is absolutely no way to tell how close or really far off they were then or now.

Respectfully, this is untrue. I've collected all of them, have compared them with internal numbers from several publishers, including Marvel and National/DC — and I've compared them as well with the Audit Bureau of Circulation's audits. Not the publishers' assertions to the ABC, but rather the actual audits where the auditors visited the companies involved. And in the later Diamond Exclusive era, they're definitely accurate, because I have records on everything that shipped in North America.

The vast majority of figures are valid and reliable — and internally consistent across time, without the randomness you'd see if they were fabricated by what was, in reality, an ever-changing group of people who had no record of what they'd reported before.

My detailed research into this matter in the 1960-64 period found that the Statement numbers were on average a little high — less than 5% — because they didn't have returns yet on some of the issues being reported on. Again, consistent with what you'd expect.

The "pure fiction"  remark, I expect, relates to a Giordano interview where he said during his tenure at Charlton "we just made them up." I looked into that for my site years ago and determined that the years before his time were more reliable. It's also worth noting the paperwork on these things came from the business offices, so the editors tended not to do anything more than send them to be typeset. That was certainly the case with the ones I ran as a magazine editor.

I'd agree there were definitely some approximations — and simple errors — but the more reliable publishers were a lot more solid. (The forms were also, of course, a federal filing, which the better publishers took seriously because postal permits were so expensive and dear and worth keeping. In the early years, the Statement forms actually had to go to a notary public!)

I've done the work on this, and I expect to show it in a lot more detail in the future. But I have online an FAQ on postal statements, which touches on a lot of this.

Edited October 7, 2022 by John Jackson Miller

[N e r V]

On 10/7/2022 at 10:00 AM, John Jackson Miller said:

Respectfully, this is untrue. I've collected all of them, have compared them with internal numbers from several publishers, including Marvel and National/DC — and I've compared them as well with the Audit Bureau of Circulation's audits. Not the publishers' assertions to the ABC, but rather the actual audits where the auditors visited the companies involved. And in the later Diamond Exclusive era, they're definitely accurate, because I have records on everything that shipped in North America.

The vast majority of figures are valid and reliable — and internally consistent across time, without the randomness you'd see if they were fabricated by what was, in reality, an ever-changing group of people who had no record of what they'd reported before.

My detailed research into this matter in the 1960-64 period found that the Statement numbers were on average a little high — less than 5% — because they didn't have returns yet on some of the issues being reported on. Again, consistent with what you'd expect.

The "pure fiction"  remark, I expect, relates to a Giordano interview where he said during his tenure at Charlton "we just made them up." I looked into that for my site years ago and determined that the years before his time were more reliable. It's also worth noting the paperwork on these things came from the business offices, so the editors tended not to do anything more than send them to be typeset. That was certainly the case with the ones I ran as a magazine editor.

I'd agree there were definitely some approximations — and simple errors — but the more reliable publishers were a lot more solid. (The forms were also, of course, a federal filing, which the better publishers took seriously because postal permits were so expensive and dear and worth keeping. In the early years, the Statement forms actually had to go to a notary public!)

I've done the work on this, and I expect to show it in a lot more detail in the future. But I have online an FAQ on postal statements, which touches on a lot of this.

I’ve seen your site but I’ll respectfully disagree with you on it simply on the grounds it wasn’t just some Giordano remark but from others who actually worked at Marvel I had heard this from. As a kid growing up in the Bronze Age I was fascinated with those numbers too and long before I saw others like Mark Evanier posting on his site about their accuracy being questioned as I posted earlier it was Archie Goodwin who worked for Marvel, DC and Warren who was the first to burst my bubble on their accuracy way back in the 1980’s. When I was helping with material on the Marvel Masterworks program with several different Marvel employees i struck up a conversation about them with one of them and they had the same response on their accuracy. I have no doubt many of them are accurate or close numbers but if you give me 10 glasses of water and only 2 or 3 are poisoned am I going to try all 10? I just don’t see the point of trying to come up with some kind of legit system to hang your hat on when in the same breath some of the numbers could be errors or approximations or if you believe some of the old employees, “fiction”? 
 

Anyway the people who actually knew now are dead or mostly dead so people can believe what they want. I only commented on what I’ve been told by others closer to the source. I have no doubt the publishers never fudged the numbers and that those audits on the thousands and thousands of comics and magazines published were thoroughly performed by high level audits….

Edited October 7, 2022 by N e r V
Spelling

[N e r V]

On 10/7/2022 at 7:32 AM, shadroch said:

Are you suggesting that numbers from mobbed up distributors to mobbed up publishers shouldn't be considered as accurate? 

I, personally, think they are just as accurate as the rest of the "facts" here, but everyone is welcome to their opinion. 

If I had a dollar for every time I thought that.

 

I’ve been cancelled so many times for having a different opinion it hurts …..

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2022 by N e r V
Spelling

[John Jackson Miller]

On 10/7/2022 at 2:40 PM, N e r V said:

I’ve seen your site but I’ll respectfully disagree with you on it simply on the grounds it wasn’t just some Giordano remark but from others who actually worked at Marvel I had heard this from. As a kid growing up in the Bronze Age I was fascinated with those numbers too and long before I saw others like Mark Evanier posting on his site about their accuracy being questioned as I posted earlier it was Archie Goodwin who worked for Marvel, DC and Warren who was the first to burst my bubble on their accuracy way back in the 1980’s. When I was helping with material on the Marvel Masterworks program with several different Marvel employees i struck up a conversation about them with one of them and they had the same response on their accuracy. I have no doubt many of them are accurate or close numbers but if you give me 10 glasses of water and only 2 or 3 are poisoned am I going to try all 10? I just don’t see the point of trying to come up with some kind of legit system to hang your hat on when in the same breath some of the numbers could be errors or approximations or if you believe some of the old employees, “fiction”? 
 

Anyway the people who actually knew now are dead or mostly dead so people can believe what they want. I only commented on what I’ve been told by others closer to the source. I have no doubt the publishers never fudged the numbers and that those audits on the thousands and thousands of comics and magazines published were thoroughly performed by high level audits….

While my first decade of collecting the filings was really about finding them, the last fifteen years, as the hunt for the rare ones slowed things down, have been more about forensic accounting. About developing other sources of data for comparison to determine the accuracy of any given publisher at any given time. And certainly it does vary — Marvel's reports range from bulletproof to messy in the editorial chaos of the late 1970s, and even clockwork Archie made blunders now and again.

And that's where statistical tools come in handy. We don't throw out all the baseball stats because players are on steroids; rather, the universe of statistics tells us who's probably on steroids, and where we should be putting our asterisks.

To be clear, I do include what editors have told me — and others — in what I look at. But it's just one more type of evidence that needs to be tested. When leaked material with other internal numbers mirror what the Statement cites, the question then becomes whether the editor knew the information, or just was passing on hearsay. What I've found generally is they just printed what they were sent, but I try to keep my eyes open.

Believe me, my final reporting of this material will make clear where all the hazards are, and how many grains of salt are required with each report!

 

[Prince Namor]

And as far as what we people say... much of the things people believe about the history of comics are simply things someone ONCE said that are then repeated over and over until it sounds like fact. Like it came from more than one source. When really it may have come from just one comment some made.

Another example of this is the 'DC limiting Marvel to 8 titles per month' rumor, which is unverified from ANY source of factual information I've ever seen. Even Tom Brevoort repeats it, as well as the excuse "They'd print 10 some months, but then 6 in another..." - All completely made up from what I can see. 

There's no evidence of its existence whatsoever. But some people 'swear it's true."

We know through RESEARCH though that Marvel had ONE YEAR out of Eleven, that they ever followed it and as early as 1961 were printing  10+ copies a month. 

1958 - 88 (7.3 per month)

1959 - 104 (8.6 per month)

1960 - 96 (8.0 per month)

1961 - 122 (10.16 per month)

1962 - 133 (11.08)

1963 - 143 (11.91)

1964 - 157 (13.08)

1965 - 167 (13.91)

1966 - 190 (15.83)

1967 - 184 (15.33)

1968 - 235 (19.58)

But it gets repeated and repeated and repeated...

I believe that Goodman was the one who put the cap on things - and as Kirby's books continued to sell better (as we've seen here) - he allowed Stan to add a title or two and open things up. Once Goodman realized he might be able to actually SELL the business as opposed to just shut it down...

The story isn't as favorable to STAN though, so... there are those who'll try and protect the lie. But the more research that comes out, the more we're able to see what's truth and what's fiction. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/7/2022 at 3:48 PM, N e r V said:

If I had a dollar for every time I thought that.

 

I’ve been cancelled so many times for having a different opinion it hurts …..

No one is 'cancelling' you. 

You stated your opinion based upon what you'd heard. I responded. That's how it works.

Just because I brought in an expert who's been doing research on it for 30 years, who has verified statistical information, hey, you can see it as learning moment, or you can hold on to your old beliefs.

Realistically he didn't dismiss what you said, but rather painted it as - there is WRONG information out there, but there's much MORE FACTUAL information as well. 

You're free to remain as misinformed as you'd like. 

[N e r V]

On 10/7/2022 at 2:30 PM, Prince Namor said:

No one is 'cancelling' you. 

You stated your opinion based upon what you'd heard. I responded. That's how it works.

Just because I brought in an expert who's been doing research on it for 30 years, who has verified statistical information, hey, you can see it as learning moment, or you can hold on to your old beliefs.

Realistically he didn't dismiss what you said, but rather painted it as - there is WRONG information out there, but there's much MORE FACTUAL information as well. 

You're free to remain as misinformed as you'd like. 

Well I at least found his response professional as to his stand.

Yours is pretty condescending.

Might want to practice more tact. Learning moment? Old beliefs? Misinformed? Those comments could easily be returned to your position vs some people who actually worked in the industry. Why not just say agree to disagree instead posting rude and trying to sound smarter. 
 

Ugh. Best wishes on your thread.
 

 

[John Jackson Miller]

Didn't intend to step into anyone else's dispute here — just a niche topic I try to add something to when it's raised. Have a nice weekend!

[Prince Namor]

On 10/7/2022 at 5:53 PM, N e r V said:

Well I at least found his response professional as to his stand.

Yours is pretty condescending.

Might want to practice more tact. Learning moment? Old beliefs? Misinformed? Those comments could easily be returned to your position vs some people who actually worked in the industry. Why not just say agree to disagree instead posting rude and trying to sound smarter. 

Ugh. Best wishes on your thread.

Not sure what you took offense to, but I can't live my life gauging it on how easily or not people get offended by facts.

For me, there's no agree to disagree on it. I'll take the side of Federally Regulated Documents put together by Accountants who run the risk of Jail Time (That have then been verified through audit and statistical common sense*) vs Writers and Artists who don't put the numbers together themselves, and are possibly just talking out of there bhole. 

If you find that rude, I apologize. I too have repeated information in my life, by people I thought were qualified to give it ("Conan the Barbarian #3 is rare!), but I have a thirst for information on topics I like and I want the truth. To me, the truth is more important than my ego. This hobby has too many snake oil salesman in its history spewing BS just to make themselves sound more important than they are. I want the real history. 

 

* statistical common sense. If A is making up numbers and B is making up numbers and C is making up numbers and D is making up numbers, then how is it those numbers line up consistently? Yeah.

[Prince Namor]

When I first came to this forum 12 1/2 years ago, I made a comment on something I thought I remembered about when the first Batman movie came out. RMA corrected me. 

Rather than get butthurt, or offended, I realized that my memory or someone's recollection of something is NOT a good factual way to the truth. I researched it. And he was right. 

I LIKE when people can correct me. sfcityduck made me realize I had overlooked those JSA complete stories from the GA and I now can add that to my understanding of history. I went and looked and there it was.

I want MORE knowledge - more truth.

Everything about those numbers add up to me. If someone can prove me wrong, so be it. 

[Zonker]

On 10/7/2022 at 12:04 PM, Prince Namor said:

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1960

In January of 1957, just as Jack Kirby began his Challengers of the Unknown series in Showcase for DC, the publisher had little to no representation of Aliens, Monsters, Giant Robots or even Dinosaurs on their covers. Look it up, it's a FACT.

Jack of course, gave it representation on early covers he did for Challengers, in their own title as well as in Showcase. He couldn't bring 'heroes' to Marvel, but he brought the Aliens, Monsters, Giant Robots and Dinosaurs. And he had success with it. Enough so that Marvel kept giving him more work. It's all there for you to see, it's FACT.

13 of DC's 26 titles in January of 1960 had either Aliens, Monsters, Giant Robots or Dinosaurs... coincidence?

 

Don't you think the 1957 launch of Sputnik had a lot to do with the increase in pop culture interest in aliens and outer space themes?  And then the debut of the Twilight Zone (1959)-- also feeding off the space race fever created by Sputnik-- certainly spawned other imitators on TV and in the comics.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/7/2022 at 10:42 PM, Zonker said:

Don't you think the 1957 launch of Sputnik had a lot to do with the increase in pop culture interest in aliens and outer space themes?  And then the debut of the Twilight Zone (1959)-- also feeding off the space race fever created by Sputnik-- certainly spawned other imitators on TV and in the comics.

Without question. 

 There could’ve been all kinds of outside influences that contributed to it. Ditko was starting a cosmic hero at Charlton the same month. 
 

But it wasn’t just SPACE, it was aliens and giant robots and monsters and Kirby had success with those ideas as a comic book for DC. Challengers would lead to multiple team adventure series, it just makes sense it would also influence the content as well. 
 

And it took 3 years from Sputnik for DC to catch up? Twilight Zone premiered in October of 1959 - its impact certainly wasn’t felt THAT quickly… something influenced DC to make that radical a jump in January. That’s half their line of books for the month!
 

And it just so happened that Kirby’s monster books were starting to move at Marvel. It’s not a stretch. He did it before with Joe Simon - he opened up a genre in comics (Romance) that influenced the whole market. 
 

I have no doubt there may have been other influences from other media - I just think Kirby played a part as well. 

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS FEBRUARY 1960

For February, Marvel would release 8 titles to the newsstand.

Stan Lee would write 6 of the titles for the month.

 

Millie the Model #97 - with art by Stan Goldberg 

Date with Millie #5 - with art by Stan Goldberg.

Patsy Walker #89 -  with Al Hartley art 

Kathy #5 - with art by Stan Goldberg. 

Kid Colt Outlaw #91 - 3 stories with Jack Keller art and 1 with Don Heck.

Two Gun Kid #54 - 3 stories with John Severin art and 1 with... Jack Kirby. 

 

The other 2 were:

Tales of Suspense #10

Tales to Astonish #10

[Prince Namor]

 

ON NEWSSTANDS FEBRUARY 1960

It's been awhile since we've taken a look, so here's Millie the Model #97's cover and lead story - with art by Stan Goldberg. 

Stan G. has done a good job approximating Dan DeCarlo's style - it looks good, but he'd get better. The stories are shorter - the lead story here is a 3 pager - and there's a lot more fluff. Can't fault Stan G., he was mainly a colorist, and now he has to fill the shoes of Dan DeCarlo and come up with story ideas for Stanley. 

Which is a shame, because it appears that Stan Lee isn't allowing Stan G to sign his name anywhere in this comic... little girls from as far away as Taiwan are getting their dress designs and name printed in the comic, but the artist and plotter is nowhere to be found.

Edited October 8, 2022 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS FEBRUARY 1960

Millie the Model #97 - the Editor though continues to sign his name everywhere including coloring pages.

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS FEBRUARY 1960

Jack Kirby was already doing Western covers and because of his success with the monster books, it was probably dictated to Stan that Jack should also do some Westerns. It was Goodman's favorite genre. This must've seemed invasive to Stan as that was a genre that he handled and he had a couple of regular guys who drew those stories (Jack Keller and D. Ayers in particular. Some of the other guys seemed to be getting less work and sort of drifted away gradually.)

Stan knew that Jack didn't need a writer, but over the course of a few months, must have convinced him that Goodman needed Lee to have a part in it/have his name on it for whatever excuse he could come up with. In looking at the original art, even from 4 issues later (Two Gun Kid #58), Jack is turning in these stories with the dialogue written in - while Stan then writes the dialogue over top of it, either directly copying or adding his own embellishment. 

It's also interesting to see how Stan gradually inserts his name onto the stories... for this issue he adds it after the fact, above the 'Kirby & Ayers' signature. In his time at Marvel, Kirby has never signed his work. He was simply concentrating on trying to put together the best stories he could to SELL for Marvel. But behind the scenes, Stan would of course be jockeying for credit (and pay) and Ayers would annoy Stan with the 'Kirby & Ayers' signature. So much so that Stan would start to white it out in future issues as it got closer to FF #1 (examples of that coming later).

Either through Goodman (who had a habit of this - creative ownership) or his own ego, Lee didn't want the artist, in particular Kirby, to be seen as the writer. HE needed to be seen as the writer (and of course, eventually the creator). Many give him props for the work credits box that would eventually become a part of Marvel... but that box wasn't created to give others CREDIT as much as it was to give himself credit (and pay) for work he didn't really do. 

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS FEBRUARY 1960

Two Gun Kid #54 - Stan is credited as the writer, due to him signing his name, but I'll show a few tics of Jack's writing that give it away that he actually wrote it. D. Ayers inks. This isn't a Two Gun Kid story, which for now is reserved for Jack Keller. It's what they call a western filler. 

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS FEBRUARY 1960

Jack Kirby has an interesting way of highlighting words that other writers don't. It gives his dialogue a unique syntax that to those who recognize it is easily identifiable. As an example, in the first picture, most writers would simply highlight TRUE at the end of the statement - and maybe YAHOO! at the beginning, but Jack adds emphasis within, with GOOD as a regular tic in his style. It's not that it's in the middle of the sentence, it's the somewhat offbeat way in which the word is chosen.

It's not smooth... it's disjointed like real dialogue. It sounds strange to those who grew up mainly reading Stan Lee dialogue. To Kirby readers, it sounds more natural. 

Then you have the choreographed fight with dialogue added. This is something Kirby had been doing for years.

Stan may get credit for writing this story (and the pay), but it reads like Kirby.