Platinum Comics are not Comic Books

[Earl Davis]

I was thouroughly bored with the overstreet article on the platinum, and now Victorian comics. Can I state for the record that New Fun Comics is the first comic book and Funnies on Parade can raise a flag as first comic book.

 

Ultimately Action Comics #1 represents the first real comic book.

 

Anything prior to that are all lead ups to the comic book genre. I don't care if there are word balloons, art, staples, whatever. The stuff is interesting and valuable but they aren't comic books any more than orignial art is a comic book.

 

A huge part of collecting is sorting and compartmentalizing whats being collected. You could almost say that is one of the reasons comics are so successful when other collectibles, both related to comics and not, fail to have as large a following. To start to drift the genre is not good for the hobby. Cross over to orignal art, toys, posters, or BLBooks is the same as the GA comic collector also collecting platinum age.

 

I say keep it out of the guide and what started this rant was a post by Tom G in answer to the Rarest comic book. All 20 of his books were either not comic books or promotional/giveaways. Here is the definition of a real comic book

 

1. Must be folded paper and stapled, not bound

2. Must have been sold or potentially old to the public

3. More artwork than stories

4. Standard comic size for the era (Insert dimensions, I don't intend this to be a circular argument)

 

 

And here are leading indicators its a comic but not required

 

1. Cover paper is glossy and different stock than the interior paper.

2. Artwork and words are intermingled

3. It immediately passes the "I know it when I see it test" so that when you show the item to your grandmother and ask her what it is. She says "a comic book"

 

A word on promotional comic books. That is exactly what they are - promotional comic books.

 

So annoying to look up the value of Action Comics #1 and I have to surf through all this extraneous "Yellow Kid" BS.

 

?

 

That's like a kid saying the first comic book was by Toykopop because all those old fashioned comic pamphlets from the 20th Century are not the modern Tokyopop format.

[Earl Davis]

2. Must have been sold or potentially old to the public

 

So the copy of Justice League Adventures I have is a Comic, but the amost identical copy I have with the Free Comic Book Logo on the cover is not a Comic?

[Earl Davis]

1. Must be folded paper and stapled, not bound

 

Bummer boys - your DC 100 Page Giants are not comic books after all!

[otherworldsj33]

To each his own. I personally don't care much for Plat. and Vic.age comics. I think I own two Plat. age books, and more as investment, because I got them fairly cheap quite a while ago. They are a nice (for me) novelty item. I certainly can appreciate the historical value of them. I think it is admirable that Overstreet and the gang are trying to broaden our horizons. But as many in this thread have said, hardly anyone collects them. Aside from their history, and age, I don't think they excite most people, the way a Action 1, or a Marvel Mystery 9, Spider-man 1, etc., would cause the heart to skip a beat. I consider them comics, but to me they are as far away so different to what we would call a modern day comic as a 1919

Ford Model T is to a 2006 Ford Crown Victoria 500 series.

[adamstrange]

1. Must be folded paper and stapled, not bound

 

Bummer boys - your DC 100 Page Giants are not comic books after all!

 

100 pagers are stapled -- then glue is applied on the spine to attach the cover.

[Earl Davis]

1. Must be folded paper and stapled, not bound

 

Bummer boys - your DC 100 Page Giants are not comic books after all!

 

100 pagers are stapled -- then glue is applied on the spine to attach the cover.

 

Thank You

[Earl Davis]

To each his own. I personally don't care much for Plat. and Vic.age comics. I think I own two Plat. age books, and more as investment, because I got them fairly cheap quite a while ago. They are a nice (for me) novelty item. I certainly can appreciate the historical value of them. I think it is admirable that Overstreet and the gang are trying to broaden our horizons. But as many in this thread have said, hardly anyone collects them. Aside from their history, and age, I don't think they excite most people, the way a Action 1, or a Marvel Mystery 9, Spider-man 1, etc., would cause the heart to skip a beat. I consider them comics, but to me they are as far away so different to what we would call a modern day comic as a 1919

Ford Model T is to a 2006 Ford Crown Victoria 500 series.

 

Some good points.

 

I do wonder if some kids would consider 20th century comics to be a modern format. They probably see Archie digests or the Tokyopop format as modern comic books as that's what they see in the mass market. 'The comic pamphlet is so last century'

 

 

Earl.

[jbcomicbox]

To each his own. I personally don't care much for Plat. and Vic.age comics. I think I own two Plat. age books, and more as investment, because I got them fairly cheap quite a while ago. They are a nice (for me) novelty item. I certainly can appreciate the historical value of them. I think it is admirable that Overstreet and the gang are trying to broaden our horizons. But as many in this thread have said, hardly anyone collects them. Aside from their history, and age, I don't think they excite most people, the way a Action 1, or a Marvel Mystery 9, Spider-man 1, etc., would cause the heart to skip a beat. I consider them comics, but to me they are as far away so different to what we would call a modern day comic as a 1919

Ford Model T is to a 2006 Ford Crown Victoria 500 series.

 

Action 1? Marvel Mystery 9? Spider-Man 1? mm. Imagine that! Platimum books don't stack up to those books....Few books do. I would think those in the GA forum with diverse tastes such as Miracle Comics to Amazing Mystery Funnies to Our Flag might concede that the world before 1949 is diverse. Take Funnny Picture Stories 1. Does it stack up to the three you mentioned? To 99% of collectors out there (if they even knew it was the first single theme comic along with Detective Picture Funnies ?) probably not. They simply might recoginize that it is "old" and might have "historical value". But "they" want that Batman 11. Fine. "Comics" are a spectrum. Differnet folks collect different items. How many Tip top collectors are out there?

 

I have focused on the few platinum comics that I have listed. Ace King is definitely not fully appreciated due to the legends that become "Facts". If they don't pass your "tingle test", I understand. However, this thread started out as to whether they are "comicbooks".

 

Frankly, as I read many of the threads on the GA boards, there is just so many times I can read about Action 1 and 7, and other Superman covers or black Batman covers. Great books all! But there is a larger world out there to explore and appreciate.

 

Imagine there are many SA collectors who "don't understand" what all the fuss about GA is when he is searching for a 9.2 as opposed to a 9.0 Amazing Spider-Man 14.

 

jon

[Earl Davis]

An example page from a 1917 Comic...

 

[Earl Davis]

[Aman619]

cave paintings, boys. get ready for cave paintings!

 

Well, that would be going a bit too far since cave paintings aren't really sequential. Now Egyptian heiroglyphs on the other hand....

 

 

 

 

ooh thats a classic! Ive got a copy in I dunno, 8.5 maybe, but CGC wouldnt slab it!

[Aman619]

1. Must be folded paper and stapled, not bound

 

Bummer boys - your DC 100 Page Giants are not comic books after all!

 

Dont 100 pagers HAVE staples?? the staples hold all the signitures together, and the whole batch is then glued to the covers. You often see the staple tearing through the covers.

[Aman619]

I heard that comment twice in reading thru, so I replied. too little too late I see now that Ive read all the way thru. sorry.

 

as for the whole debate, Im in the middle. I recognize all these early comics forms that are only recently being unearthed and catalogued, and yes much of them are only tangentially related to what we as comicbook fans consider "comicbooks" in our lifetimes. But at the root of it is that literature and art belched up a crude form of storytelling using sequential pictures and thought balloons. THIS to me is the essence of "comics" and therefore Platinum Era stuff and Modern books ARE related by birth.

 

However as to the secondary question, or subject of this thread, do I think they belong in the Overstreet Comicbook Price Guide? Yes, but to a far lesser exxtent than the recent trends indicate they will. I see little reason for it to be an expanding section going forward. Its interesting to a degree (readershipwise) and scholarly and necessary to be sure... but printed in the Guide where 95% of the eyes that see it ignore it???

 

Gemstone should move it to the web. Since it serves far more as an informational resource, it will be far better to be accessible by researchers with Google. Perhaps only then will academics be able to stumble upon the trove of knowledge already unearthed, and expand upon it.

 

Theres no question that these are valuable collectibles with an interesting history! But we here (99% of us) all know fully well why we buy the Guide each year, and its not to read up on this stuff. We'd be happy to have a truncated history lesson plus 25 pages or so of listings of the highlights and lots of suggestions to follow up online for the rest of the story.

[Aman619]

one more thing. Up til now, we've been getting all this Platinum stuff for free, so why not include it. But as you all read, Gemstone now faces decisions on what to eliminate because of rising prices. This year they made some questionable calls in the WRONG direction. So, lets help them make the RIGHT decision going forward.

 

THose of you ardently in favor of a published Guide to pre-1930 comics ought to really campaign with Geppi/Gemstone for a Guide of your own. I m sure its a hard sell since nothing Gemstone produces really rises to the level of a "moneymaker" and the last thing Steve wants to take a meeting on is another well-meaning historically-"necessary" book to produce at a loss.

[gifflefunk]

I would definitely classify them as comicbooks. In fact I would go so far as to call the Comic Monthly (1922) the first comicbook based on my own critieria.

 

So by your criteria are " The Funnies" which were SOLD on the newsstand in 1929 and 1930 AND had ORIGINAL material "comicbooks" (note the "VEP" artist on many of the Funny covers is the same VEP that did covers and features for Famous funnies

 

Are the Gulf and Standard Oil which were giveaways with ORIGINAL materal "comicbooks"?

[Aman619]

In a comic book sense, The Platinum section is becomeing like poor SA Hawkman. He showed up with abang in B&B34, 35 and 36. Then another three issue series, but STILL no "Book of His Own!" like everybody else got. He even endured a third try-out series in Mystery in Space before FINALLY making the cut.

[Theagenes]

If I determined the critieria I think I would go with the following as the major defining characteristics:

 

1) Contains a series of cartoon panels in a sequence to tell a story.

2) Periodicals that are "entered as second-class matter"

 

This basically covers everything sold at newsstands that have a cover price... so tabloids, digests, newsspaper insert sections (such as the Spirit), treasury-size, pocket-size, and the standard format (and any other oddball formats that meet 1 and 2 above).

 

And I would have the following exception:

 

3) Promotional comics that are of the same format (tabloid, digets, etc.)

 

 

I would not include the books that contain cartoon strips. To my way of thinking these are not comic magazines (aka comicbooks) they are books that contain comic strips... Foxy Grandpa, Buster Brown, etc. are not much different than the Bloom County books I have sitting on my shelf:

 

 

 

The books containing strip material may have preceeded the comic magazine, but the true children of the so-called Platinum Age "books" can still be found in bookstores to this day... they are trade paperbacks of strip material... still sold as books in bookstores. These are not comic magazines (aka comicbooks).

 

 

 

 

As for the criteria necessary to be considered a comic book, that is probably debatable. To say that a book has to have been "sold" to the public should probably be changed to "sold or distributed" otherwise you would eliminate all the promotional comics going up the present, many of which are in every way true comicbooks.

 

So by your criteria are " The Funnies" which were SOLD on the newsstand in 1929 and 1930 AND had ORIGINAL material "comicbooks" (note the "VEP" artist on many of the Funny covers is the same VEP that did covers and features for Famous funnies

 

Are the Gulf and Standard Oil which were giveaways with ORIGINAL materal "comicbooks"?

 

Those would seem to fit gifflefink's criteria. Personally, I think this is where the term comic "magazine" comes into play. The first comic "magazine" (i.e. stapled binding with slick covers) was Funnies on Parade and it so it gets my vote for the first true modern comicbook. Without the staples and slick cover what you have is more akin to a newspaper tabloid (i.e. folded newsprint sheets). There is no question, however, that at the very least, The Funnies and the Oil Co. give-aways are the immediate and direct antecedents of the modern comicbook. They are certainly comicbook prototypes.

 

Now the Humor books are a little murkier since they were stapled. Except for not having magazine-style slick covers they meet all the criteria for a true comicbook. Of course there have since been many comicbooks published with newsprint covers (mostly promotional) so it's tough call for me as to whether or not to consider the Humor titles true modern comicbooks. I could certainly not come up with a very strong argument against them.

 

This is great thread BTW.

[Aman619]

Comics early development parallels many other fields. Like cars. Ford's Model T gets most of the attention, along with other noteworthy advancements before the assembly line. But there were hundreds if not thousands of other carmakers all striving to perfect the "first car".

 

Its not as clearcut as airplanes where the Wright Bros were the first to actually "fly".... although, you can argue just how long you had to stay aloft in order to actually be "flying".

 

Im very unknowledgable on both fields so pardon a simplistic analogy here.

[jbcomicbox]

If I determined the critieria I think I would go with the following as the major defining characteristics:

 

1) Contains a series of cartoon panels in a sequence to tell a story.

2) Periodicals that are "entered as second-class matter"

 

This basically covers everything sold at newsstands that have a cover price... so tabloids, digests, newsspaper insert sections (such as the Spirit), treasury-size, pocket-size, and the standard format (and any other oddball formats that meet 1 and 2 above).

 

And I would have the following exception:

 

3) Promotional comics that are of the same format (tabloid, digets, etc.)

 

 

I would not include the books that contain cartoon strips. To my way of thinking these are not comic magazines (aka comicbooks) they are books that contain comic strips... Foxy Grandpa, Buster Brown, etc. are not much different than the Bloom County books I have sitting on my shelf:

 

 

 

The books containing strip material may have preceeded the comic magazine, but the true children of the so-called Platinum Age "books" can still be found in bookstores to this day... they are trade paperbacks of strip material... still sold as books in bookstores. These are not comic magazines (aka comicbooks).

 

 

 

 

As for the criteria necessary to be considered a comic book, that is probably debatable. To say that a book has to have been "sold" to the public should probably be changed to "sold or distributed" otherwise you would eliminate all the promotional comics going up the present, many of which are in every way true comicbooks.

 

So by your criteria are " The Funnies" which were SOLD on the newsstand in 1929 and 1930 AND had ORIGINAL material "comicbooks" (note the "VEP" artist on many of the Funny covers is the same VEP that did covers and features for Famous funnies

 

Are the Gulf and Standard Oil which were giveaways with ORIGINAL materal "comicbooks"?

 

Those would seem to fit gifflefink's criteria. Personally, I think this is where the term comic "magazine" comes into play. The first comic "magazine" (i.e. stapled binding with slick covers) was Funnies on Parade and it so it gets my vote for the first true modern comicbook. Without the staples and slick cover what you have is more akin to a newspaper tabloid (i.e. folded newsprint sheets). There is no question, however, that at the very least, The Funnies and the Oil Co. give-aways are the immediate and direct antecedents of the modern comicbook. They are certainly comicbook prototypes.

 

Now the Humor books are a little murkier since they were stapled. Except for not having magazine-style slick covers they meet all the criteria for a true comicbook. Of course there have since been many comicbooks published with newsprint covers (mostly promotional) so it's tough call for me as to whether or not to consider the Humor titles true modern comicbooks. I could certainly not come up with a very strong argument against them.

 

This is great thread BTW.

 

 

..and what do you do with Ace King and his bretheren....certainly not slick covers BUT original material .........and the Funnies are significant because they were doing original material and SELLING it .......that is why the area has interest..

[BLBcomics-migration]

Ok, been away for a while, read thru this thread, and am still flabbergasted that there are some, a minority to be sure, who insist on stating that comicbooks before Action #1, Detective #1, Famous Funnies #1, Funnies On Parade, where ever you want to start in what I consider the Modern Format Period of wraparound sidestapled magazines cannot be considered in the same breath as what is contained in my Victorian and Platinum Era sections of the Overstreet Price Guide

 

Me, i define a comicbook or comicstrip as gaving a sequential story telling format

 

Most Anything you wish to talk about re Famous Funnies #1 criteria is fit with The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck Sept 1842, Wilson & Co, NYC.

 

Except for color printing, which wasn't invented yet, but one could buy hand colred versions for a bit more

 

It is side-stitched, but not yet with staples, as they too had not been invented yet -string.

 

It is wraparound, 40 pages long, about mad magazine size, one long sequential story combining words and pictures, just no word balloons

 

I was asked by John Snyder back in Oct 1996 to contribute comics history archeology into Overstreet #27 1997. John had asked me to read something in Diamond Dialog, and i pointed out there were errors in some of teh concepts presented in the piece.

 

- and shortly thereafter i discoverred the existence of sequential comic strips from the 1800s

 

- and have since discovered thousands of strips in 100s of publications in the 1800s.

 

My long time held beliefs that Yellow Kid was the first comic strip and Funnies On Parade/famous Funnies being the first comicbooks were turned upside down. For decades i had taught these erroneous concepts to people beginning to collect.

 

The original poster reminds me of those erlier persons who clung to long held myths like the earth being flat, or, my more favorite one, that the sun revolved around the earth

 

Nay_sayers went at Galileo once upon a time

 

Bob Overstreet, Arnold B, and some of the others mentioned here have little to nothing to do with the Victorian and Platinum Era comics history articles or pirce indexes.

 

That work is all Robert Lee Beerbohm, me, and a group of collector friends who have been hunting this stuff down and i am proud of it.

 

What i do miss is Arnold Blumberg editing the sections as we figured out how to cram as much data into such a small space. Whenever i add in new unearthed data, i have to agonize on what to take out, as space is at a premium. He is now over at Geppi's museum

 

And it was John Snyder who allowed the space to grow. Some people are far-sighted once they understand the roots of what we call comic strips.

 

My initial Overstreet #27 piece ran 15 pages, incorporating mainly traditional comics history lessons we all grew up with

 

This latest effort runs some 68 pages with three history lessons and two pirce indexes.

 

the Plat price index section has most of the stuff re-discovered by now - very little gets added other than refining data on individual comicbooks contained therein, such as page counts, discoveries of heretofore unknown reprints, etc

 

the Victorian section continues to grow as we will spend the rest of our lives re-discovering long lost information on a comics industry which never made it intoi easrlier comics history books.

 

i have tracked down the origin of teh Yellow Kid "first comic strip" myth to Comics and Their Creators by Martin Sheridan 1942 with a short part about when comics began.

 

then THE COMICSs by Coulton Waugh 1947 took Sheridan's myth and expanded it into some [embarrassing lack of self control] about yellow color being tested

 

Then along somes COMIC ART IN AMERICA by Stephen Becker 1959 (actually written by his wife as Becker had become very ill and almost died, little known historical fact, but the family needed to get paid to live on) which quoted from Sheridan and Waugh, and voila, a Yellow Kid myth is born being the "first" comic strip

 

And to consider Famous Funnies #1 the first news stand comicbook is equally silly

 

THE FUNNIES ran from 1929-30 for quite a few dozen issues

 

both operations were co-owned by George Delacorte (Dell) and Eastern Color, BTW. Delacorte sold out with #7, but started up his wholly owned comics operation like a year later

 

But before all of them comes the "first" news stand comics pub called COMICS MONTHLY, which ran 12 consequitive issues in 1922

 

newspaper reprints like that purported "first" Famous Funnies

 

What i find boring in comics is concentrating on how few spine bends some of your CGC slabbed "treasures" contain - 9.8. 9.6. 9.4, 9.2, etc

 

If this aspect of the comics biz is so scuentifically accurate, then where is the 9.1, 9.3, 9.5, 9.7, and 9.9?

 

And reagarding that other highly important aspect of the comics world from whence the Direct Sales market originated, underground comix, not being in the Guide, well, Arnold and I conspired to fit in at least 3 covers in the Origin of the Modern Comic Book article i write and revise every year as new data emerges.

 

ZAP COMICS #1, Feds And Heads and Tales From the Tube are all we could fit in, and i give price updates on them every year. I have been a voval advocate for decades that the likes of Crumb, Shelton, Griffin, Corben, Sheridan, Schrier, Irons, Jaxon, Frank "Foolbert Sturgeon" Stack, Bode, O'Neill, London, and a host of others deserve to be recognized as "real" comic book creators and their publications are 'real" comicbooks.

 

Anyway, i applaud this subject matter being discussed on these boards, however, the naysayers are simply showing their ignorance of a sequential comics tradition in the USA which stretches back over 160 years.

 

Respectively

 

Robert Beerbohm