CGC graded Pulps - my first experience and results. 3 3

[PopKulture]

On 5/21/2024 at 6:35 PM, comicjack said:

I think they’re going to the well too often with the “classic cover” designation. If every cover that has a skull on it, or a woman in bondage, gets the “classic” designation, collecting a subset of pulps CGC doesn’t consider classic will eventually be more challenging! 

A nice group of submissions, by the way! 

[Robot Man]

On 5/22/2024 at 8:08 AM, PopKulture said:

I think they’re going to the well too often with the “classic cover” designation. If every cover that has a skull on it, or a woman in bondage, gets the “classic” designation, collecting a subset of pulps CGC doesn’t consider classic will eventually be more challenging! 

A nice group of submissions, by the way! 

Yeah, to a point I would agree. But there seem to be titles and genres that are comprised of outstanding covers. Many of which make comic books look like “kiddie fodder” in many cases.

But in comics, it takes a lot of folks and the market to make them considered “classic”. Pulps are the new frontier to many, including myself even after searching for them for decades. I am constantly suprised at them. Like this Thrilling Mystery which I have never seen before here.

I am having a new renued interest is collecting due to the amount of amazing covers I am just discovering for the first time. 

[PopKulture]

On 5/22/2024 at 10:21 AM, Robot Man said:

Yeah, to a point I would agree. But there seem to be titles and genres that are comprised of outstanding covers. Many of which make comic books look like “kiddie fodder” in many cases.

But in comics, it takes a lot of folks and the market to make them considered “classic”. Pulps are the new frontier to many, including myself even after searching for them for decades. I am constantly suprised at them. Like this Thrilling Mystery which I have never seen before here.

I am having a new renued interest is collecting due to the amount of amazing covers I am just discovering for the first time. 

For me, it’s a little like the baseball hall of fame. Even the folks at CGC are seeing some covers for the first time and being too impressed. These are like the Harold Baines of pulp covers - really solid, but not HoF nor “classic.” 

Like your example, I’ve dabbled in pulps for almost fifty years. I’ve read almost all the old school books and reference on the subject, and yet, many of these recently designated “classic” covers were never even given a second glance by pulp collectors or broken out for consideration. How did they hide all these classic covers from the Goodstones, Sterankos, and Robinsons of the world??

Granted, in the good old days, the contents mattered way more than the covers, and that’s the opposite of what is fueling the current resurgence in pulps. However, if you designate every cover a “classic,” then the designation really begins to lose its gravity. 

[tth2]

On 5/22/2024 at 11:37 PM, PopKulture said:

For me, it’s a little like the baseball hall of fame. Even the folks at CGC are seeing some covers for the first time and being too impressed. These are like the Harold Baines of pulp covers - really solid, but not HoF nor “classic.” 

+1

[Darwination]

Classics are tough to determine, but it's neat to see the debate.  That said, I'm not willing to grant Steranko, Robinson, etc. or even the consensus circa 1980 the call on what's classic, either.   Some of the picks in the old pulp reference/art books are to a certain taste and frame of reference, and over time the fame of some artists rises while it falls for others.  The status of Frank Paul and early SF may be an example.  I suppose that means you shouldn't give too much credence to current tastes, either, but that may be hard to do.

One thing for sure, the term classic gets thrown around a lot when it comes to selling a book

That Thrilling Mystery is totally new to me, by the way, very cool. I'd never have pegged it for a Ward (and honestly still don't see it).

[comicjack]

On 5/22/2024 at 3:35 PM, Darwination said:

Classics are tough to determine, but it's neat to see the debate.  That said, I'm not willing to grant Steranko, Robinson, etc. or even the consensus circa 1980 the call on what's classic, either.   Some of the picks in the old pulp reference/art books are to a certain taste and frame of reference, and over time the fame of some artists rises while it falls for others.  The status of Frank Paul and early SF may be an example.  I suppose that means you shouldn't give too much credence to current tastes, either, but that may be hard to do.

One thing for sure, the term classic gets thrown around a lot when it comes to selling a book

That Thrilling Mystery is totally new to me, by the way, very cool. I'd never have pegged it for a Ward (and honestly still don't see it).

I agree with you i am going with Belarski looks to much like his work to me.The fact we all make mistakes but no graded copies out there and one is coming to Metro auction raw soon 

[PopKulture]

On 5/22/2024 at 2:35 PM, Darwination said:

Classics are tough to determine, but it's neat to see the debate.  That said, I'm not willing to grant Steranko, Robinson, etc. or even the consensus circa 1980 the call on what's classic, either.   Some of the picks in the old pulp reference/art books are to a certain taste and frame of reference, and over time the fame of some artists rises while it falls for others.  The status of Frank Paul and early SF may be an example.  I suppose that means you shouldn't give too much credence to current tastes, either, but that may be hard to do.

One thing for sure, the term classic gets thrown around a lot when it comes to selling a book

That Thrilling Mystery is totally new to me, by the way, very cool. I'd never have pegged it for a Ward (and honestly still don't see it).

I give the Old Guard more credence I guess, just like I do in comics. When I was young, it was already decided that Detective 31, Target 7, Superman 14, More Fun 54,  Master 27, etc. were classics, and you know what? They got it right! At some point more recently every PCH and GGA cover was designated or, as you allude, hawked by sellers as classic. If everything’s classic, then nothing is classic. 

A “notable cover,” a “cool cover,” a “cover that I really like,” a “striking cover” - that’s subjective and to the point, but very different. A “classic cover” should connote consensus, in that most everyone that collects pulps is familiar with it and concedes that’s it's classic. In comics, if you mention Startling Comics 49, pretty much everybody with some sense of GA knows that cover. In pulps, when you mention the Weird Tales ‘Batwoman’ cover, most pulp collectors both know it and would likely concede it was a classic. They wouldn’t do that with issues of Wings or Planet Stories where there’s a girl in bondage, as so many of those covers feature a woman in some manner of distress. 

A similar caveat I’d make for both comics and pulps is that there exists an unavoidable paradox for books like Action 1 or Tarzan’s first appearance in All-Story. Everyone knows those covers and (damn straight) they’re iconic, but for some reason they don’t seem to be considered “classic.”  Batman 1, Detective 27, Marvel 1: those are as recognizable as can be, and every one a classic to me, but they don’t get denoted as such. 

[comicjack]

The word classic cover is given to freely in my opinion lately but if your selling one it doesn't hurt.The dealers are always calling a book a classic but do you really believe it yourself that is the question .

[PopKulture]

On 5/22/2024 at 2:57 PM, comicjack said:

I agree with you i am going with Belarski looks to much like his work to me.The fact we all make mistakes but no graded copies out there and one is coming to Metro auction raw soon 

John Gunnison has it as Belarski in his Pulp Art Masters book. In my corner of the world, his opinion carries substantial weight. 

[Surfing Alien]

On 5/23/2024 at 2:01 AM, PopKulture said:

John Gunnison has it as Belarski in his Pulp Art Masters book. In my corner of the world, his opinion carries substantial weight. 

Ward passed away in February 1945, so there's also that 

https://www.pulpartists.com/Ward.html

[comicjack]

Rolling along with the pulps that i just got back this is Belarski for sure

 

Edited May 23 by comicjack

[Bookery]

On 5/22/2024 at 3:35 PM, Darwination said:

That Thrilling Mystery is totally new to me, by the way, very cool. I'd never have pegged it for a Ward (and honestly still don't see it).

That would appear to be an error, probably taken from the Galactic Central site.  Belarski dominated the covers of that title during those years, and there is no listing for any other Ward cover in the entire run.

[tth2]

On 5/23/2024 at 5:46 AM, PopKulture said:

If everything’s classic, then nothing is classic. 

+1

[ThothAmon]

On 5/23/2024 at 11:50 AM, tth2 said:

+1

Classic. 

[jimjum12]

On 5/23/2024 at 12:06 PM, ThothAmon said:

On 5/23/2024 at 11:50 AM, tth2 said:

+1

Classic. 

Mods notified. 

GOD BLESS ....

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

[Sarg]

On 5/22/2024 at 10:08 AM, PopKulture said:

I think they’re going to the well too often with the “classic cover” designation. If every cover that has a skull on it, or a woman in bondage, gets the “classic” designation, collecting a subset of pulps CGC doesn’t consider classic will eventually be more challenging! 

A nice group of submissions, by the way! 

Yes. This cover is not a "classic." 

[Sarg]

Only about 10 to 20 pulp covers should be considered classic. Anything above that renders the term meaningless. 

[PopKulture]

On 5/23/2024 at 5:18 PM, Sarg said:

Only about 10 to 20 pulp covers should be considered classic. Anything above that renders the term meaningless. 

It could maybe be as many as fifty, but the upper limit should be sensibly low. They've shown a lack of restraint thus far. They might just designate fifty Phantom Detective covers alone as "classic." 

[Darwination]

I'll come right out and say it.  I hate the looming face in the background of Phantom Detective.  No matter how cool the foreground scene is, there's that faded dweeb in a mask and top hat playing voyeur in the background.

[comicjack]

Classic cover again maybe not but i like it had this for some years.I read the whole thing years ago so i guess i didn't screw it up to much.The bunch i had graded and coming home from vacation in Florida the family will be happy i did this!