Platinum Comics are not Comic Books

[esquirecomics]

I am a big fan of Platinum comic books. I applaud Bob B's work in the Guide on these and even earlier books.

 

As Jon B said these books are all about history, and I love history. I find it fascinating to understand how the modern comic book came about. True, I do think there is room for disagreement as to whether some Victorian and even Platinum comics are "comic books", at least in the fashion we understand them. I clearly see them as comics (though the humor has of course changed dramatically), but not as "comic books".

 

For example, I really don't view the Brownies (pictured below) as a comic book. Palmer Cox was an amazing marketeer and without a doubt is the father of merchandising in the comic field. But the book, to me, is far more a children's book with comic illustrations than a comic book.

 

 

Certainly by the early part of the 20th Century we transitioned closer to the comic strip format (or even political cartoon format) we understand today.

 

 

I really don't see any distinction between a comic book being "promotional" and given away rather than purchased for a dime as making any difference with respect as to whether a book is a "comic book" or not. This is clearly a comic book as we know it today.

 

 

As far as I am concerned the collectability of these books is worth cherishing and I am all for others rejecting the feelings I and others share b/c that means the purchasing prices don't increase in the short term!

[Forbush-Man]

Nice post, Mark!

 

 

I'm now going to buy up all the platinum books I can get a hold of.....thereby driving up the prices.

 

 

[Aman619]

Bob, I agree with all you say about sequential comics etc.... and I applaud your efforts to root out every step of the evolutionary path they have undergone, and especially the Yellow Kid mythbusting.

 

but, all of your research is only tangentially related and of little interest to the buyers of the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide. Sorry. It caters to a dozen of us (okay, maybe a few dozen) and is already a large enough chunk of history and data to be broken off into its own category of collecting etc. Im all for it except at the point that it impinges negatively on our "comics" world, as silly and inbred as it is.... its two different worlds. Since comic collectors are overwhelmingly only marginally interested, why associate it with the rest of the usual comics stuff?

[Aman619]

btw, I have a Yellow Kid piece I bought when Geppi et al was promoting it as THE first comics....which now seems to have been a shortsighted purchase...? and I have the first Famous Funnies issue. SHould I sell it now before it too gets devalued as the firts comic book? (serious question....)

[adamstrange]

btw, I have a Yellow Kid piece I bought when Geppi et al was promoting it as THE first comics....which now seems to have been a shortsighted purchase...? and I have the first Famous Funnies issue. SHould I sell it now before it too gets devalued as the firts comic book? (serious question....)

 

Nice books!!!!

[Aman619]

Im not trying to be argumentattive, but in a sense, doesnt pushing back the origins of sequentail comics actually hurt the cause ?? suppose the first comics turn out to have been created in the sixteenth century. Seems to me that at that point, the "First comic book concept" gets very devalued. If theyve been around forever, then they never started... just an idea......

[Forbush-Man]

If nothing else, I'd keep that Famous Funnies.

[FourthWorld]

kinda' stunned how they kept insisting something so FEW people collect (folks NOBODY collects these) was really the first comics...

I collect Platinum comics. Guess I'm few or nobody.

 

However, I agree they shouldn't be in Overstreet, but not because they aren't comics or so few people collect them. I would simply rather people continue to believe that these platinum books are NOT rare, collectible and valuable.

Have you ever paid "guide" price, or close to it, for any of these items.

[otherworldsj33]

So we agree they are comics. We agree they have historical importance . We agree that they are collectible. We agree they are rare. We agree some of them have significant monetary value. Probably most of us feel that guys like Beerbohm should continue their research, as the results of it can be at times interesting and a time capsule into our American past. And I am certainly an advocate that everyone should collect what they like, and others should be respectful of such. They just don't do anything for me on the "oh" and "ahh" and "wow" scale. Maybe it is an acquired taste?

[jbcomicbox]

btw, I have a Yellow Kid piece I bought when Geppi et al was promoting it as THE first comics....which now seems to have been a shortsighted purchase...? and I have the first Famous Funnies issue. SHould I sell it now before it too gets devalued as the firts comic book? (serious question....)

 

why must "value/how much can i get" always come into a discussion of historical perspective and overview of the art form of sequential story telling....? From my view ( that is from my perspective, but perhaps not from others ) it "cheapens" the discussion.....jon

[jbcomicbox]

kinda' stunned how they kept insisting something so FEW people collect (folks NOBODY collects these) was really the first comics...

I collect Platinum comics. Guess I'm few or nobody.

 

However, I agree they shouldn't be in Overstreet, but not because they aren't comics or so few people collect them. I would simply rather people continue to believe that these platinum books are NOT rare, collectible and valuable.

Have you ever paid "guide" price, or close to it, for any of these items.

 

Yes, over Guide if and when i can find a copy of "The Funnies" from 1929/30 My interest is far more limited than others who are interested in the broader range of platinum or victorian items. (Yes I do have the first issue of Comic Monthly, yes i have Skippy's.....) History, History

 

 

The big problem here is that Bud Fisher did not put a cape on Mutt or a mask on Jeff......jon

[Aman619]

btw, I have a Yellow Kid piece I bought when Geppi et al was promoting it as THE first comics....which now seems to have been a shortsighted purchase...? and I have the first Famous Funnies issue. SHould I sell it now before it too gets devalued as the firts comic book? (serious question....)

 

why must "value/how much can i get" always come into a discussion of historical perspective and overview of the art form of sequential story telling....? From my view ( that is from my perspective, but perhaps not from others ) it "cheapens" the discussion.....jon

 

thats true enough, depending on ones point of view. I bought it because it was cool but moreso because it WAS or still IS considered the first comic book. Bob's post earlier was the first indication (from the lead authority on the subject no less!) Ive read that that distinction may be in error and in jeopardy... so I was merely asking if he felt it was going the way the Yellow Kid (or, of Detective 225!). Ive taken great pleasure in owning it for years ---but perhaps nows a good time to think about sharing that joy with someone, especially before the parade passes it by. : )

[Aman619]

furthermore, Its my only Platinum book (cept for a few Cupples+Leons) and while I had wanted to buy them all (Skippy, FF#2, Carnival, Big Book, etc) due to their historical stature, and coolness, and because there appeared to only BE just that handful of important early comics, I gotta admit that all the subsequent research really put me off continuing to collect them. Ive been happy enough to sit back and watch and admire the archeological process you guys are embarking on. But the sheer numbers of items you have (already) found clearly tell me its a whole new/different animal from "comics" and one I feel Id have a stone's throw in heck of making a dent in due to their scarcity and breadth.

 

I guess I keep saying the same thing. Perhaps the venerable Don Corleone summed it up best when saying no to Sollozzo: "I wish you luck in your new venture, as your new business has no business with mine."

[jbcomicbox]

furthermore, Its my only Platinum book (cept for a few Cupples+Leons) and while I had wanted to buy them all (Skippy, FF#2, Carnival, Big Book, etc) due to their historical stature, and coolness, and because there appeared to only BE just that handful of important early comics, I gotta admit that all the subsequent research really put me off continuing to collect them. Ive been happy enough to sit back and watch and admire the archeological process you guys are embarking on. But the sheer numbers of items you have (already) found clearly tell me its a whole new/different animal from "comics" and one I feel Id have a stone's throw in heck of making a dent in due to their scarcity and breadth.

 

I"

 

I do not disagree at all.....The way I got into the pre-hero books (pre-Action 1) was thru the Centaurs and Comic Magazine Company books and into pre-hero DCs then to the Famous Funnies and their single shot precursors.....As to the other stuff, it is material that I have picked up thru the last twenty years when I see it....as opposed "I gotta have it, gotta find it or my life is not complete" What I am a fan of is the historical context.....Are the books great "investments"....no way....but they are "neat". In fact all the books you mention above i have been fortunate to find (years ago)

 

Heck, my quest for GA has greatly lessened as i have migrated to original art....As a collector, one knows you never can have it all....(and thankfully so since i don't have the room)

 

jon

[BLBcomics-migration]

Yes, I have been an advocate of the pure & Simple truth for some time now that Funnies On parade/Famous Funnies and the other 1933-34-35 output of Eastern Color is misbegotten comics history. My original data on THE FUNNIES tabloid comicbooks from 1929-30 comes from a late 1960s RB-CC - and for years i owned a #5 from 1929, hence, able to analyze what it was.

 

A couple years ago i came across USA versions of COMIC CUTS 8 and 9 from 1934, i picture one in my "Origin of the Modern Comic Book" article which has been in the last bunch of Overstreets. It is uncanny to compare this title of British reprint comics to Wheeler-Nicholson's NEW FUN tabloids, a lot of the features (non comics) are near-identical. Ther eis just a few months gap between COMIC CUTS #9 and NEW FUN #1. The printer and distributor are identical. Only thing truly different is dropping out Brit comics for original USA homegrown.

 

Yellow Kid in McFadden's Flats is important as a collection of re-drawn Outcault appearances of YK in book form. But YK is not the "first" of anything. Not even the first recurring character in a news paper.

 

What it is important for is teaching the major newspaper publishers such as Pulitzer, Hearst, Bennett, et al, that customers would pay just to get the color comics. it took a decade for the daily recurring newspaper feature to take hold and another decade into post 1910 for it to become a dialy mainstream page feature.

 

Are the sequential comic strips from the 1800s exciting and fun to read? Well, yes & no.

 

I do not find most of them all that exciting compared to enjoying the likes of a Jack Cole, Will Eisner, Carl Barks, John Stanley, Jack Kirby, Basil Wolverton, Wally Wood, Robert Crumb, Gilbert Shelton, etc et al

 

I have now read many hundreds of strips from the 1800s, found mainly in various historical societies, Library of Congress, New York Public Library, various university librray holdings.

 

What cannot be denied is there were 1000s of strips in 100s of publicaitons back in the 1800s. I have a Wilson & Co Brother Jonathan catalog I uncovered from circa 1855 which has seven comic books for sale. Key words desribing them: "...story told in pictures/cuts..."

 

As in wood cuts

 

What we see today is the result of technological evolution, and to think that Famous Funnies arose from some sort of vacuum intelligent design without building on almost a 100 years of techno-advance is plain silly.

 

The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck is not the "first" comicbook. It is the presently eearliest known American comicbook, none has ever been found earlier, and i have examined history books on comics and cartoons in the USA dating back to Parton's CARICATURE AND OTHER COMIC ART 1877 collected from a series in Harper's Weekly.

 

The first print USA Oldbuck is a 'reprint" of the 1841 Tilt & Bogue first print, which in turn is the first English translation of the 1833 Paris France first printing, which in turn is a reprint of the 1828 Geneva Swiss first print Rodolphe Töpffer produced for his students of what is called physiogramy, the study of facial expressions as it relates to supposed intelligence. There is a long open Töpffer museum in Geneva anyone can go to - check it out. His original art lives there for the seven comicbooks he produced in his lifetime 1799-1846.

 

three were translated and published in England, two of those made it over to the USA. My research proves the two USA titles, Obadiah Oldbuc 1842 and Bachelor Butterfly 1845, were in print and for sale in New York City as lat eas 1904, according to The New York Times Review of Books.

 

How they got sold back then was also a function of the evolution of distribution in this country. The "modern" concept of integrated distribution areas did not come together until the advent of The American News Company during the tail end of our Civil War.

 

The few scant pics of visual aid i am able to present in the Overstreet articles does not even come close to begin to skim the huge surface of the comic strips produced in the 1800s. If all of you could have seen and read what i have seen and read so far........

 

I did not name the Eras in Overstreet Platinum or Victorian.

 

John Snyder came up with Platinum as i was asked by him to research and present findings each year. That invite has now stretched to a decade's worth of updates. This year marks ten years since i imbarked on a path i had noi idea where it would lead to.

 

The first few years of the spun-off Victorian section, named by Doug Wheeler amidst objections from many other collectors of this stuff, but we had a deadline to meet that year, which at first witnessed explosive growth in comics archeology in growing the listings, i fought to maintain the concept that no prices be attached to anything below 1870 - there were too many collectors of this stuff who wnated to keep it all secret so they could collect for substantially cheaper prices.

 

plus i did not want to be labeled the "market maker" of this earlier era of comicbooks and zines with comic strips - i wanted the market to float to its own level.

 

Me, i do not see the purpose of much of the "Pioneer" Age article in Overstreet. If i had that 10 pages, you would see dozens more truly sequential comic strips publishe in America - much less the origins of the comic strip which go back into Europe 100s of years earlier.

 

But it ain't my book.

 

And to get to some one's query re the "value" of what was long held to be "first" in the USA, I think all that mid 1930s Eatsern Color stuff to be way over priced, as is much of the rest of the 1930s comics.

 

Me, i still enjoy early classics from the true "Golden Age of Comics, the years before World War One, when Little Nemo, Krazy Kat and others came into existence.

 

I am a firm subscriber toi Sturgeon's Law, that 90% of everything is [embarrassing lack of self control], that 10% of any given decade's output is worthwhile.

 

I find much of the output of what we reagrd as the "modern" comicbook era from the mid 1930s up to be unreadable. There are many nuggets from the 1800s, no different than choice nuggets from the 20th Century. Problem with collecting the earliest stuff is so much is truly rare, some of them could be an 11 on the Gerber scale.

 

Robert Beerbohm

[Aman619]

thanx Bob. as always, great stuff. and truly, Sturgeons law IS The Law especially pertaining to our beloved comicbooks. Its always been true. Out of every weeks pile of new books, 1 or 2 stand out from the rest, and then, looking back over a decades's worth that shortlist gets refined even shorter to a mere handful.

 

You said above that the first USA Oldbuc is a reprint of a reprint that was originally created in France? What is it about anyway? My sense was that he was an American Frontiersman, or at least that it was an American story. Does it take place in Paris?

 

As for "vacuum intelligent design" while i understand what you mean, no creation ever in ANY field has ever been that purely "divine" in origin. All technological and artistic invention has used what canme before. Comics are certianly just one more example.

 

As for Famous Funnies, it seems clearer every year that it was selected from a scant knoeledge of the medium's history with probably more than a little bias to it. By that I mean, that whoever was involved with selecting it as the Grail Number One of Comics was in the orbit of Gaines, Wheeler, Lebowitz etc etc and pooled only the reminiscences and stories THEY all were telling.... so its no surprise that the distinction fell to an object well within THEIR purvue and personal experiences.. You agree?

[agro23]

I'm now going to buy up all the platinum books I can get a hold of.....thereby driving up the prices.

There is a place in hell for you...

[agro23]

Have you ever paid "guide" price, or close to it, for any of these items.

For Segar Popeye stuff, yes.

[BLBcomics-migration]

Well, you got it mostly correct re The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck 1842 USA edition

 

it is a reprint of the 1841 Tilt & Bogue British edition

 

which is a reprint of the 1833 Paris edition

 

which is a reprint of the 1828 Swiss edition done in Geneva Switzerland by Rodolphe Töpffer, whom many many comics historians who study this stuff most all say invented the "modern" comicbook format - simply read the coveraeg on him in my Victorian article in the new Overstreet

 

Famous Funnies #1 being the "first" comicbook got its myth start in THE COMICS by Coulton Waugh 1947, who wrote what he knew, and there is a lot of errors in his comics history book. He dismisses most all of the Plat era with a slight nod at the Mutt & Jeff oblong from 1910, which, by the way, was also for sale on news stands back in the day - i have ads for it and the late rnumber, hwich will one day see print again in my forth coming comics history book

 

bob beerbohm

[ft88]

I'll admit my original intent for starting this discussion and using the language I did was to get folks ginned up and have a spirited conversation and not an Crossfire argument. I have enjoyed the folks who have huge amounts of knowledge on this area and appreciate both sides.

 

One comment about value. The guide on Victorian and Platinum is just and guide and doesn't make the market value. Might it help the unknowledgable? Yes but that could be said for any collectible. I just think it dilutes the genre of what I consider to be comic books. That the folks who control Overstreet have allowed this to be a focus is obviously out of my hands.

 

Catagorizing collectibles is fundamental to enjoying them. How tight the definition is will always be a blur but the line should be drawn somewhere.

 

BTW I retract what I said about Action 1 and promotional. Regarding the later, they should at least be mass produced meant for public reading. Thats where I'd draw the line anyway.

 

Ed