Stan, Jack, and Steve - The 1960's (1964) The Slow Build 5 5

[namisgr]

If only there were census data that could provide evidence whether there were substantial differences between the numbers of particular titles in circulation during the times comparing sales of Kirby titles at Marvel and then a year or two later at DC, or between the two major publishers as a whole during any time period between the early 1960s through the mid 1970s....

[CGC Mike]

This thread has been cleaned up, and a user has been removed from the topic and penalized.  It is not ok to belittle others in various ways to win a debate and/or argument.  

[Savoyard23]

On 3/18/2024 at 7:10 AM, Prince Namor said:

We can see proof of it. I've posted it here. It was talked about even at the time. 

It doesn't matter. Marvel Zombie's have been programmed to ignore facts and stick to their programming no matter what.

Here the enormously respected Joe Brancatelli, talks about the market in an article from 1979 (you may have seen his editorial's in the Warren Magazine's of the day)... Joe Brancatelli spoke about affidavit fraud and stolen artwork decades before anyone else would, because the rest of the hobby was too busy making money off of it to give it any traction. They didn't want it talked about.

In the same way we today see people finding ways to bust open CGC slabs and switch the comics inside, people were finding unethical and illegal ways to make money off of comics back in the 70's as well.

Thank you for posting this interesting article.  There really is nothing new under the sun.  Big Tony may be gone, but his spirit lives.

[Prince Namor]

On 3/19/2024 at 4:41 PM, namisgr said:

If only there were census data that could provide evidence whether there were substantial differences between the numbers of particular titles in circulation during the times comparing sales of Kirby titles at Marvel and then a year or two later at DC, or between the two major publishers as a whole during any time period between the early 1960s through the mid 1970s....

There is.

New Gods #3 - 292 copies on Census

Fantastic Four #101 - 208 copies on Census

Green Lantern/Green Arrow #78 - 331 on Census

Conan the Barbarian #4  - 650 on Census

 

Out the same month as New Gods #3:

Iron Man #39 - only 129 copies on Census

Sub-Mariner #39 - only 84 copies on Census

 

The Census doesn't really PROVE anything, other than what we know already. There are plenty of copies of New Gods, GL/GA, Conan, etc out there and available. 

[namisgr]

On 3/19/2024 at 11:32 AM, Prince Namor said:

The Census doesn't really PROVE anything, other than what we know already. There are plenty of copies of New Gods, GL/GA, Conan, etc out there and available. 

The comparison between the numbers of certified books from Marvel and DC in a particular time period is informative, as they go beyond any sales figures that you believe may be corrupted by their recording practices.  And the fact is that from the 1965-1969 period when Stan and colleagues collaboratively made Marvel more appealing to older adolescents and teens there are more Marvels in the census than DCs.  It also holds true for the early to mid 1970s.  And finally, someone attending multiple conventions likely sees that among the dealers selling their vintage material, there are more boxes of back issue unslabbed Marvels than there are of DCs overall.

It strongly suggests that, in these particular time periods, Marvel sold more comics than DC.

Edited March 19 by namisgr

[Hepcat]

On 3/19/2024 at 11:46 AM, namisgr said:

And finally, someone attending multiple conventions likely sees that among the dealers selling their vintage material, there are more boxes of back issue unslabbed Marvels than there are of DCs overall.

Truth! It's something I've found very frustrating since I re-started collecting comics in the 1970's.

Edited March 19 by Hepcat

[jimjum12]

The question still remains, is it real, or is it Memorex?

Is it Affidavit fraud, or just some real stubborn Butt-hurt?

With so much of the subject being speculative, the topic does seem to venture mighty close to libel. Luckily for some of the accusers, they have YET to name names. I've yet to see a distributor admission to participating ... you know, "I Was A Teen age Affidavit Slime". GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Edited March 19 by jimjum12

[Prince Namor]

On 3/19/2024 at 10:46 PM, namisgr said:

The comparison between the numbers of certified books from Marvel and DC in a particular time period is informative, as they go beyond any sales figures that you believe may be corrupted by their recording practices.  And the fact is that from the 1965-1969 period when Stan and colleagues collaboratively made Marvel more appealing to older adolescents and teens there are more Marvels in the census than DCs.

What does that prove? That original sales of those books were higher? I don't think so.

The original print run of Hulk 181 has no bearing on its census popularity 40+ years later. 

All it shows is that Stan convinced a lot of people those books were collectible. A practice that Marvel continued for 60 years on. 

On 3/19/2024 at 10:46 PM, namisgr said:

It also holds true for the early to mid 1970s.  

I'll wait to see the proof.

On 3/19/2024 at 10:46 PM, namisgr said:

And finally, someone attending multiple conventions likely sees that among the dealers selling their vintage material, there are more boxes of back issue unslabbed Marvels than there are of DCs overall.

It strongly suggests that, in these particular time periods, Marvel sold more comics than DC.

You're free to believe what you like - based on anecdotal evidence and census numbers that make up slabbed copies of comics representing... less than 10% of any print run. Stan Lee hasn't convinced me.

[Prince Namor]

 

I'm not sure what anyone's background here is, but a scientist would look at this differently. A scientist would pursue hard data, and ignore speculation, hyperbole, and guessing. And certainly any kind of anecdotal data.

The census has only a WHISPER, a SHADOW of relation to how many books were printed, much less went on sale, much less returned, much less survived, much less submitted 40, 50, 60 years later.

To suggest, in any substantial way, that census numbers have anything whatsoever to do with how many copies of a comic were printed in 1964 or 1970 or 1985 is... at the least, irresponsible and something that a long time forum member would only do when it related to 'Stan says so'.

In any other debate, the idea would be seen as ludicrous to anyone who has been a part of this hobby for 20+ years. 

[namisgr]

On 3/19/2024 at 9:04 PM, Prince Namor said:

You're free to believe what you like - based on anecdotal evidence and census numbers that make up slabbed copies of comics representing... less than 10% of any print run.

If you've attended any comic convention and observed more raw post-1964 SA and BA DC for sale than Marvels of the same time period, let everybody know.  The prevalence of Marvel slabs in the census for that time period, even for books of comparable market value, is merely independent evidence supportive of the incontrovertible from comic show after comic show and dealer after dealer.  Simply put, there are many more Marvel comics than DCs in circulation this millennium from that time period.  It was true as early as the mid-1970s, when I began attending comic shows.

The rest of your blather about 'science' (which this matter is most assuredly not) and being 'irresponsible' and demanding 'proof' and the like miss the mark, which the multiple layers of evidence provide.  Your argument doesn't meet any of what you've demanded of others.

I was 11 years old in 1965, and by then all the kids I knew who read comics were no longer buying Archie and Harvey and only getting the occasional DC, with Marvel comics transcendent.  The characters were more human, the stories built a universe rather than being erased at the end of an issue as an imaginary tale, the art was more dynamic, and the vibe of the bullpen and letters pages more fun.  A lot of that was Stan's doing, and explains some of the love those of my generation who became regular Marvel buyers and readers feel for the man's work then and there.

Edited March 20 by namisgr

[Zonker]

On 3/15/2024 at 6:02 PM, Zonker said:

There is of course the theory-- promoted perhaps not surprisingly by Neal Adams himself-- that fan-favorite titles, like supposedly the Adams/Thomas X-Men, were victims of affidavit fraud.  Copies would fall off the truck before ever reaching the newsstand and be sold through a back door to aspiring comic book dealers.  Often used as a partial explanation for the commercial failure of the original X-Men, Deadman, GL/GA, Kirby's Fourth World, and the near-cancellation of the BWS Conan run.  

Since I was the one who de-railed us by bringing up affidavit fraud, let me point out I did so in the context of discussing the cancellation of a Marvel title (Adams X-Men) that neither Stan nor Jack had anything to do with!  

Lots of fallacies I think in the subsequent arguments-

• Some cite cancellation of the various more experimental titles in the 1968-1974 period as evidence that readers of the time rejected them, and that they must not have been very good.  Affidavit fraud is brought up just to point out that official sales figures of that time might not always correspond to the actual popularity of a title.  Not as proof of any kind of conspiracy against Kirby (or Adams or Barry Smith).
   
• The slabbed comics census from 50 years later probably tells us more about the relative value of Silver/Bronze Age Marvels versus DC.  Overstreet, eBay, GPA, comics conventions I think all bear out that Marvels command higher prices than their DC counterparts.  There simply are more collectors of Stan Lee era Marvels than DCs, so prices are driven up, and so it is more cost-effective now to slab those Marvel comics.  Even the harshest criticisms of Stan (starting with the original Funky Flashman parody) acknowledge his genius in promoting Marvel Comics.  
   
• And particularly, the high-grade census numbers tell us more about number of collectors or speculators during the period of original publication, rather than the number of actual readers picking each issue up off the spinner racks every month.  What I think is impossible to know is how many of those speculators bought their pristine copies through official channels (therefore recorded as a sale) versus through backdoor operations (therefore lost as a sale by the publisher).  

[namisgr]

On 3/20/2024 at 8:40 AM, Zonker said:

And particularly, the high-grade census numbers tell us more about number of collectors or speculators during the period of original publication, rather than the number of actual readers picking each issue up off the spinner racks every month.  

I thought the discussion revolved around product sales.

A proper comparison of indirect relevance to product sales would be for copies of non-key ordinary run comics from titles of each publisher, include both multiple issues per title and multiple titles per publisher, and span multiple years post-1964.

Another would be to compare dealer's stock numbers of raw comics between the two publishers for that same 1965-1975 time period, as one indication of what is still in circulation.

 

Edited March 20 by namisgr

[Prince Namor]

On 3/20/2024 at 8:15 PM, namisgr said:

I thought the discussion revolved around product sales.

A proper comparison of indirect relevance to product sales would be for copies of non-key ordinary run comics from titles of each publisher, include both multiple issues per title and multiple titles per publisher, and span multiple years post-1964.

Another would be to compare dealer's stock numbers of raw comics the two publishers for that same 1965-1975 time period, as one indication of what is still in circulation.

To suggest, in any substantial way, that census numbers have anything whatsoever to do with how many copies of a comic were printed in 1964 or 1970 or 1985 is... at the least, misguided and something that a long time forum member would only do when it is related to 'Stan says so'.
 

One has ZERO to do with the other. 
 

They didn't print more copies of Superman #233 than they did of #234, so that fans someday would have more copies to slab of it. There's 2376 copies on census of #233 and only 152 of #234. 
 

And incidentally, #233's number of slabbed copies is GREATER than any ASM printed around the same time - between #83 and #99, including the 'drug issues' (1338, 2148, and 2003), and almost triple most of the non-key ASM's of the time. 
 

Is there more Superman #233's in dealer stock at shows than those ASM issues? No. Because the demand is greater for the ASM's, these days.  
 

Which goes to show again, that none of this has to do with how many copies of any of these books was printed in 1970. 

No matter what Stan Lee said. 

Your proof isn't proof, no matter how much you want it to be. It's just not. 

[Hepcat]

On 3/20/2024 at 8:40 AM, Zonker said:

And particularly, the high-grade census numbers tell us more about number of collectors or speculators during the period of original publication, rather than the number of actual readers picking each issue up off the spinner racks every month.  

Truth! What Stan Lee did by building a Universe with interwoven storylines was not just make Marvel comics more collectible, but actually force Marvel readers/buyers to be collectors! Not only could you not just buy one, you had to frequently refer to back issues of even other titles. DC made it easy to buy just the one comic with almost entirely standalone stories; Marvel made it nigh impossible.

For that Stan Lee must be credited. And present day Marvel collectors should credit Stan Lee for the increased availability of Silver Age Marvel comics in comparison to those of other companies. Plus curse Stan Lee for their continued greater popularity and much higher prices! As primarily a DC collector, I benefit from and am cursed by neither.

 

Edited March 20 by Hepcat

[Hepcat]

On 3/20/2024 at 7:39 AM, namisgr said:

The characters were more human, the stories built a universe rather than being erased at the end of an issue as an imaginary tale, the art was more dynamic, and the vibe of the bullpen and letters pages more fun.  

I agree that Stan's building of a Universe was a key to making Marvel comics more popular. And I agree that the vibe of Marvel comics was simply more fun!

Where I disagree is that the characters were more "human". They were more human only if you define being juvenile as being more human! Consider. Marvel heroes were constantly squabbling with each other and actually getting into frequent punch-ups! That's not adult behaviour. Adult behaviour is the way the Justice League members over at DC got together and treated each other in a civil friendly manner.

I also strongly disagree that the artwork at Marvel was "better". Yes, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were consummate pros at telling stories in pictorial form, but sadly their drawings left a lot to be desired. Kirby's anatomy was horrible. Rather than looking sleek and sexy, his women looked like fire-plugs. Meanwhile Ditko's faces all too often looked harsh and ugly even when they should have been attractive or even gorgeous. The artwork of Curt Swan, Murphy Anderson, Carmine Infantino, Russ Heath, Joe Kubert, Di ck Dillin, Gil Kane (at least pre-1966) and later Neal Adams and others over at DC was much more attractive and thus appealing (certainly to me).

In fact it was the artwork more than anything else that put me off from actually buying Marvel comics in 1963-64. They looked junky low-end-of-the-market to me especially in comparison to the slick DC house look.

 

Edited March 20 by Hepcat

[Prince Namor]

On 3/20/2024 at 11:50 PM, Hepcat said:

I agree that Stan's building of a Universe was a key to making Marvel comics more popular.

DC had a Universe. All of those characters interacted in each other's books. If anything, the continuity at Marvel didn't really get organized until Jim Shooter took over. As an example: Galactus' 3 part storyline - sending the entirety of NY and the world into panic somehow was completely missed by everyone else's storyline.

On 3/20/2024 at 11:50 PM, Hepcat said:

And I agree that the vibe of Marvel comics was simply more fun!

Agreed. Stan talked to the fans in way that hadn't been seen since the days of EC Comics.

On 3/20/2024 at 11:50 PM, Hepcat said:

Where I disagree is that the characters were more "human". They were more human only if you define being juvenile as being more human! Consider. Marvel heroes were constantly squabbling with each other and actually getting into frequent punch-ups!

Kirby had been doing that as far back as Boy Commandos and as late as Challengers of the Unknown. Stanley certainly amplified it though and brought his smarty pants dialogue from the 'dumb blonde' books he'd spent a decade dialoguing. 

On 3/20/2024 at 11:50 PM, Hepcat said:

That's not adult behaviour. Adult behaviour is the way the Justice League members over at DC got together and treated each other in a civil friendly manner.

I remember how big of a deal it was when Batman punched Guy Gardner in Justice League #5 in 1987!!! (It took DC 26 years to catch up with that childish behavior...)

On 3/20/2024 at 11:50 PM, Hepcat said:

I also strongly disagree that the artwork at Marvel was "better". Yes, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were consummate pros at telling stories in pictorial form, but sadly their drawings left a lot to be desired. Kirby's anatomy was horrible. Rather than looking sleek and sexy, his women looked like fire-plugs. Meanwhile Ditko's faces all too often looked harsh and ugly even when they should have been attractive or even gorgeous. The artwork of Curt Swan, Murphy Anderson, Carmine Infantino, Russ Heath, Joe Kubert, Di ck Dillin, Gil Kane (at least pre-1966) and later Neal Adams and others over at DC was much more attractive and thus appealing (certainly to me).

It's all subjective of course, but as far as attractive women... I say John Romita tops them all!

On 3/20/2024 at 11:50 PM, Hepcat said:

In fact it was the artwork more than anything else that put me off from actually buying Marvel comics in 1963-64. They looked junky low-end-of-the-market to me especially in comparison to the slick DC house look.

 

According to some, that's how the staff at DC Comics saw it too. And in much the same way as parents scratched their heads at the fuzzy guitar sound of Rock n Roll or harsh language of Lenny Bruce, the raw power of that artwork somehow caught on...

[Prince Namor]

On 3/20/2024 at 11:27 PM, Hepcat said:

Truth! What Stan Lee did by building a Universe with interwoven storylines

What were the interwoven storylines?

On 3/20/2024 at 11:27 PM, Hepcat said:

was not just make Marvel comics more collectible, but actually force Marvel readers/buyers to be collectors! Not only could you not just buy one, you had to frequently refer to back issues of even other titles. DC made it easy to buy just the one comic with almost entirely standalone stories; Marvel made it nigh impossible.

When I think of all of the people who complain about the summer crossover annuals back in the day, and the variant covers that 'make' you buy more copies, and the 16 part Carnage Saga storylines, and.... and they DO complain about it... I always think, 'You have Stan Lee to thank for that."

Commerce > Art = Marvel Comics

On 3/20/2024 at 11:27 PM, Hepcat said:

For that Stan Lee must be credited. And present day Marvel collectors should credit Stan Lee for the increased availability of Silver Age Marvel comics in comparison to those of other companies. Plus curse Stan Lee for their continued greater popularity and much higher prices! As primarily a DC collector, I benefit from and am cursed by neither.

I think this gets confused. 

Stan built an army of zombies and he did so cleverly by a) hiring a fanzine boy to be his right hand who could help him rewrite history (and pick up his dry cleaning), b) constantly telling fans that they were smart to buy Marvel Comics instead of brand x and making them feel special (glad handing), and c) rewriting history to make himself the greatest creator of all time (despite not actually writing or creating anything).

Those FANS, still to this day, want those books. And thus, the dealers make sure they have more of them in stock.

That doesn't prove there are more of them that EXIST. Not by a long shot. That's just SILLY. No one has any way of knowing.

[Prince Namor]

I remember a couple of years ago (hell, I'm at that age it could've been a decade ago) there was a debate about how many copies of Amazing Fantasy #15 are actually out there... and some younger guy was using the Census as a way of estimating. The older collectors really took him to task for it because... well because it doesn't make SENSE.

Slab Collectors make up a SMALL fraction of the collecting community, and ESPECIALLY among many OLD collectors who see it as... gross. There are FAR more old time collectors who see the idea of slabbing their books as a NON-IDEA than there are ones who do it to buy, sell and trade.

And because of that we have no way of knowing how many AF #15's are out there based upon SLABBING.

For the couple of years I was in Terre Haute, Indiana, running my small comic book shop, I easily got in more people selling Silver Age DC's than I did Silver Age Marvel's, much to my dismay. Because I could always sell Marvel's, especially at shows. But I sold more NEW DC Comics than I did Marvel. I guess it was just the way that town was. I had my Marvel fans, but I just had more people there into DC than I did Marvel.

Despite that, never once did I think to myself, based upon that small slice of the world, that because of what I saw there, DC MUST be BIGGER than Marvel. The three blind men and the elephant story and all that.

Anecdotal evidence and Census reports are not enough. Not even close. 

Nothing anyone has said here has convinced me of anything. IF anything, I look at what happened in comics for the next  30 years and think, "Really? Marvel?"

Superman had 4 big budget live action movies made. Batman had 4 big budget live action movies made (and would get a REBOOT of movies made just as Marvel was finally getting going). (In fact, the self-proclaimed genius Stan Lee spent decades getting NOTHING done in Hollywood - and only after he stepped aside did Marvel become a success there). The most popular animated series of that time period ended up being Batman the Animated Series. Mego toys? They made just as many DC Characters as they did Marvel. (And DC's Kenner Super Powers were on the market before Marvel and Toy Biz).

The best WRITTEN (curse those publisher for making comics, maybe not JUST as collectibles, but actually with good stories) comics of the 80's and 90's primarily came from DC Comics, who went out and not only got writers like Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, and Neil Gaiman (and Vertigo Comics!), but gave former Marvel stars like Frank Miller the creative freedom to do the best selling book of the 80's. Three of the biggest selling reprint collections of the 80's are DC - Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, and Sandman. 

Marvel's Secret Wars was 'get in - get out - sell as much as possible - who cares if it makes sense?' People seek those issues out because they've been TOLD they're collectible but... I'd take those three DC titles over that garbage any day.

It's weird that people mistake Stan's 'writing' as a positive. The artists wrote the stories. Stan's dialogue was what Marvel fans seem to cling to and his ability to talk to the fans. Lonely fan boys who squealed with delight because someone at the Marvel Comics was nice to them and didn't treat them like a pest.

Smart idea. But it has nothing to do with creativity. 

What Stan REALLY taught Marvel Comics was that it's NOT about the story or the artist or even if it all makes sense... it's about getting people to buy it no matter what. Secret Wars, YES! Frank Miller? Let him go to DC. 

I guess I never was interested in being brainwashed. I just wanted good comics.

[Hepcat]

On 3/20/2024 at 9:23 PM, Prince Namor said:

DC had a Universe. All of those characters interacted in each other's books. 

Not nearly to the same extent though because the Editors at DC all seemed so intent on protecting their own turf that they were reluctant to acknowledge characters that weren't their own. It wasn't until Action Comics 314 in mid-1964 that Mort Weisinger recognized a DC character other than Batman that was outside his own bailiwick.

Similarly Editor Jack Schiff never acknowledged the other Editors' characters except Superman in the "Batman" titles until he was removed from the titles in 1964. Editor Robert Kanigher absolutely ignored the rest of the DC Universe until he was removed from Wonder Woman in 1968. (Good riddance to both those hacks.) 

And Aquaman editor George Kashdan ignored the existence of all other heroes until Aquaman's wedding issue in late 1964:

Even Julius Schwartz was slow to cross pollinate his titles with other characters even if they were his own. I clearly remember it being a wildly exciting event when the Flash first x-over into Green Lantern 13:

Schwartz in fact had to be told by Irwin Donenfeld late in 1963 to give Superman and Batman bigger roles in the Justice League. Schwartz had been reluctant to do so because Superman and Batman were respectively in Weisinger and Schiff's bailiwicks. Donenfeld had to make it clear that DC and not those other Editors "owned" the characters. But why had Donenfeld not read the riot act to his Editors three to four years earlier? "God damn it this is one company so start working together!"

Meanwhile Stan Lee was doing it from the very start at Marvel. The Hulk had been around for only five issues before x-over into Fantastic Four 12. And the Fantastic Four x-over into the very first issue of Amazing Spider-Man! And then heroes and villains were x-over all over the place.

On 3/20/2024 at 10:07 PM, Prince Namor said:

What were the interwoven storylines?

 

See above for between titles! But Stan Lee also had one issue seguing into the next with dangling story lines right from the start. How soon did the Thing quit the Fantastic Four at the end of a story? Issue #3? The Hulk quit the Avengers at the end of issue #2 and they spent how many issues looking for him then? Was Aunt May sick for one issue or continuously? And what about next issue's villain peaking out and plotting the downfall of the hero on the last page or two of the current issue? This was a constant of Stan Lee's doing at Marvel but rare at DC. 

On 3/20/2024 at 9:23 PM, Prince Namor said:

According to some, that's how the staff at DC Comics saw it too.

 

Yes. It seems that the "brain trust" at DC didn't look beyond the covers of Marvel comics when they tried to determine why Marvel comics were starting to sell better than previously. They saw only the lousy cover art with all the messy blurbs promising "Action!" So beginning with the issues cover dated June 1965 they decided to undercut one of their own strengths that being DC's slick high quality house look covers with messy Marvel style cover blurbs:

What geniuses! Undercut one of your own strengths to imitate a competitor's weakness! Let's just say the move didn't exactly entice me to start feverishly buying DC comics again. I was more actively buying Drag Cartoons and Creepy magazines by then. 

Less than a year later they compounded the above blunder exponentially by having their entire comic line ape the silliness/campiness of the Batman TV show thus alienating their previous fan base. (To Mort Weisinger's credit, he was the Editor who stayed the course and refused to let his titles be infected by the silliness of the TV sjhow.) So of course when the Batman craze/fad ended in early 1968, DC was left with few fans/customers. They had to rebuild from scratch.

On 3/20/2024 at 10:15 PM, Prince Namor said:

Slab Collectors make up a SMALL fraction of the collecting community, and ESPECIALLY among many OLD collectors who see it as... gross. There are FAR more old time collectors who see the idea of slabbing their books as a NON-IDEA than there are ones who do it to buy, sell and trade.

 

I agree. After all I'm one of those "old" collectors who wants his comics like his women - raw!

Edited March 21 by Hepcat

[Prince Namor]

On 3/21/2024 at 12:06 PM, Hepcat said:

Not nearly to the same extent though because the Editors at DC all seemed so intent on protecting their own turf that they were reluctant to acknowledge characters that weren't their own. It wasn't until Action Comics 314 in mid-1964 that Mort Weisinger recognized a DC character other than Batman that was outside his own bailiwick.

Similarly Editor Jack Schiff never acknowledged the other Editors' characters except Superman in the "Batman" titles until he was removed from the titles in 1964. Editor Robert Kanigher absolutely ignored the rest of the DC Universe until he was removed from Wonder Woman in 1968. (Good riddance to both those hacks.) 

And Aquaman editor George Kashdan ignored the existence of all other heroes until Aquaman's wedding issue in late 1964:

Even Julius Schwartz was slow to cross pollinate his titles with other characters even if they were his own. I clearly remember it being a wildly exciting event when the Flash first x-over into Green Lantern 13:

 

Schwartz in fact had to be told by Irwin Donenfeld late in 1963 to give Superman and Batman bigger roles in the Justice League. Schwartz had been reluctant to do so because Superman and Batman were respectively in Weisinger and Schiff's bailiwicks. Donenfeld had to make it clear that DC and not those other Editors "owned" the characters. But why had Donenfeld not read the riot act to his Editors three to four years earlier? "God damn it this is one company so start working together!"

Meanwhile Stan Lee was doing it from the very start at Marvel. The Hulk had been around for only five issues before x-over into Fantastic Four 12. And the Fantastic Four x-over into the very first issue of Amazing Spider-Man! And then heroes and villains were x-over all over the place.

Some great info here... It's interesting to hear the DC side of things, as I'm not as familiar with the story there.

I will say though that, to be fair... the Justice League put most of those characters together in December of 1959 and World's Finest had Batman and Superman (with Robin) together for years before that.

Even teaming up characters at Marvel wasn't a Stan thing... it happened quite a bit in the Timely days... 

But the Silver Age Marvel's certainly ramped it up. I THINK...

By the end of 1963, Marvel had:

The Hulk in FF #12

Ant-Man in FF #16

Sgt Fury in FF #21

The FF in ASM #1

The Angel in TOS #48

Nothing in TTA for Ant-Man yet

and the Avengers bi-monthly to start

and Spidey with a guest appearance in Strange Tales... that's EIGHT team-up/crossover books...

 

At DC over just that same time period, you had...

Green Arrow and Martian Manhunter in Brave and the Bold #50

Aquaman and Hawkman in Brave and the Bold #51

Batman and Robin + the Legion of Super Heroes in Superman's story in Action Comics #309

Supergirl regularly appeared with Supes in those Action story, but I won't count that as she was a part of the Superman 'Family'...

Hawkman in the Atom #7

Green Lantern in Flash #131

Justice League of America featuring most of the main Superheroes 8 times a year

Adam Strange in JLA #24

Crisis on Earth-Two in JLA #21-22 featuring...a whole BUNCH of guest stars... is this not the very definition of an INTERWOVEN storyline?

(Speedy makes an appearance in JLS #12...)

World's Finest teaming up Batman and Superman every month

Flash in Green Lantern #13

Flash in Green Lantern #20

That's more than EIGHT for sure... 

 

In Fact...

Even when Marvel ramped it up in the first 3 months of 1964 with

Captain America in Avengers #4

Hulk in FF #25-26

Avengers in FF #26

Ice Man in ST #120

Hulk in ASM #14

X-Men in FF #28

Spidey in TTA #57

 

... DC still had 

Green Lantern in Flash #143

Atom and Flash in Brave and the Bold #53

Kid Flash, Aqualad and Robin in Brave and the Bold #54

Metal Men and the Atom in Brave and the Bold #55

Martian Manhunter and Flash in Brave and the Bold #56

JSA in JLA #29-30

So it's not like DC wasn't teaming up and crossing over... it looks as though they did just as much as Marvel...

On 3/21/2024 at 12:06 PM, Hepcat said:

See above for between titles! But Stan Lee also had one issue seguing into the next with dangling story lines right from the start. How soon did the Thing quit the Fantastic Four at the end of a story? Issue #3? The Hulk quit the Avengers at the end of issue #2 and they spent how many issues looking for him then? Was Aunt May sick for one issue or continuously? And what about next issue's villain peaking out and plotting the downfall of the hero on the last page or two of the current issue? This was a constant of Stan Lee's doing at Marvel but rare at DC. 

Well... again to be fair, Stan wasn't writing those stories and many times gave us NO preview of what was coming next, because he didn't know. In the early 60's, what issues was he dangling next issue's villain? I know he hints at a return hero in FF #3 (Subby, who's actually a villain), and mentions the Impossible Man by name in FF #10... but most of his blurbs at the end of those books in the first three years are very generic. 

And as seen above... DC was doing continued storylines in JLA, especially with the JSA stuff.

I realize there was a difference with the way Marvel did it, especially in the Kirby stories in FF and the Avengers, but as those who've been following this thread as we've gone through those issues month by month... it doens't show up in books that Kirby doesn't work on... it's pretty easy to see that was Jack's doing, not Stan's.

On 3/21/2024 at 12:06 PM, Hepcat said:

Yes. It seems that the "brain trust" at DC didn't look beyond the covers of Marvel comics when they tried to determine why Marvel comics were starting to sell better than previously. They saw only the lousy cover art with all the messy blurbs promising "Action!" So beginning with the issues cover dated June 1965 they decided to undercut one of their own strengths that being DC's slick high quality house look covers with messy Marvel style cover blurbs:

To be fair, Metal Men sold 396,506 copies per month in 1966 to Amazing Spider-man's 340,155. And that was Marvel's best title. 

I never understood that checkerboard backing on some of the logo's though...

On 3/21/2024 at 12:06 PM, Hepcat said:

What geniuses! Undercut one of your own strengths to imitate a competitor's weakness! Let's just say the move didn't exactly entice me to start feverishly buying DC comics again. I was more actively buying Drag Cartoons and Creepy magazines by then. 

I wasn't old enough to experience that one (1961-68), but it's brother mag CARtoons ran from 1959 to 1981! People underestimate how popular these were...

 

On 3/21/2024 at 12:06 PM, Hepcat said:

Less than a year later they compounded the above plunder exponentially by having their entire comic line ape the silliness/campiness of the Batman TV show thus alienating their previous fan base.

It did double the Paid circulation, making it one of the best selling books of the 60's... but...

On 3/21/2024 at 12:06 PM, Hepcat said:

(To Mort Weisinger's credit, he was the Editor who stayed the course and refused to let his titles be infected by the silliness of the TV sjhow.) So of course when the Batman craze/fad ended in early 1968, DC was left with few fans/customers. They had to rebuild from scratch.

It fell off that plateau pretty far, going from a high of 898,000 copies a month in 1966 to 293,000 in 1970.

DC didn't do too badly overall until that price change to 25 cents in 1972 though. THat killed them more than anything...

On 3/21/2024 at 12:06 PM, Hepcat said:

I agree. After all I'm one of those "old" collectors who wants his comics like his women - raw!