• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Misnamed set?
1 1

5 posts in this topic

There's a registry set called "Marvel Silver Age 1st Issues (1956-1969)" that actually doesn't have any of the early Silver Age Marvel #1s (ASM #1, DD #1, FF #1, Hulk #1, X-Men #1, etc.).  At a quick glance, it seems to me that there's a typo in the set name and that it should really be 1966-1969.

Here's the list of what's in the set:

image.png.6fdcfa8b3b933d47aac283cb09302a23.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

@Sweet Lou 14 I'm a little perplexed by this set. It was built before I began working on the Registry. The date range is fine for Silver Age. But I cannot see any reason to exclude the major #1's from that era. Were you looking to add those books to that set? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2024 at 2:54 PM, jstam said:

@Sweet Lou 14 I'm a little perplexed by this set. It was built before I began working on the Registry. The date range is fine for Silver Age. But I cannot see any reason to exclude the major #1's from that era. Were you looking to add those books to that set? 

Thanks for the reply!

I don't have a strong feeling about this.  Without triple-checking, I think it's likely that changing the name of the set to "1966" instead of "1956" would make it an accurate list of Marvel first issues from 1966-1969.  On the other hand, if you decided to expand the set to encompass more of the Silver Age, 1956 would be an odd starting point for a Marvel set.  The obvious place to start would be 1961, with FF #1.  Going back before that, you could set the cutoff date at 1959 (to include Tales of Suspense, Tales to Astonish, and Amazing Adventures / Amazing Adult Fantasy) but it would probably make more sense to go all the way back to 1951 (Strange Tales) which nobody would call the Silver Age.

So my vote would be to simply change the name to 1966 or expand the list to start at 1961 with FF #1.  But that's just one collector's opinion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

@Sweet Lou 14 I think in this instance with so many participants with high completion rates titling it '66-'69 makes the most sense, particularly since adding the heavy hitters would be a pretty significant move. The name change has been done. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1