Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[Comicdey]

BLB,

my question of "who got the better deal" was intended to get feedback from Golden Age collectors on this post...not to imply as to who is wiser between the 2 of us...we both did great!. Please don't take the question as offensive...the money aspect keeps coming up, so I'm prompting for some feedback of neutral parties.

we both know what this book is, and how fair the price was

 

For someone that thinks they got a great buy and now has "the" key book, questioning what you paid to third party individuals seems a bit curious.

 

I'd say the boards are fairly neutral on the issue as we don't really care which one of you has the money, or the item.

 

But, with that said, the neutral boards of GA collectors is pretty much saying to you that you paid a nosebleed price.

 

if you're happy with it, then go with it, if not.......too late.

 

the money aspect is extremely important with a $20,000 investment, and the input from other collectors is helpful for me as a Victrorian/Platinum age specialist. If someone pays $200,000 for an Action #1, it's ok. If I spend $20,000 on Obadiah Oldbuck, I'm foolish. There is nothing curious as to me seeking the answer as to "why?"

 

But why ask now.....you've already made the deal and are not planning on selling per all your posts. You know if you got a good deal or not. It's worth whatever you were willing to pay for it. You may not be able to get your money back, but it was worth 20K to you at the time you paid.

[*paull*]

Here's an analogy for you:

 

If you pay $100,000 for a house... That's market price.

 

If you pay $10,000 for a cup of coffee... That's stupid.

[BLBcomics-migration]

This is not quite a public apology, just apologize and this will all be over.

 

Robert Beerbohm

I would like to publicly apologize to everyone for Robert Beerbohm's snotty arrogance and childish name calling in this thread. Apparently, he's the kind of know-it-all who is physically incapable of ever admitting he's wrong on any subject, and instead prefers to counter with verbal attacks when challenged in any way. Again...my sincerest apologies to all regarding his behavior.

 

[showcase4]

BLB,

my question of "who got the better deal" was intended to get feedback from Golden Age collectors on this post...not to imply as to who is wiser between the 2 of us...we both did great!. Please don't take the question as offensive...the money aspect keeps coming up, so I'm prompting for some feedback of neutral parties.

we both know what this book is, and how fair the price was

 

For someone that thinks they got a great buy and now has "the" key book, questioning what you paid to third party individuals seems a bit curious.

 

I'd say the boards are fairly neutral on the issue as we don't really care which one of you has the money, or the item.

 

But, with that said, the neutral boards of GA collectors is pretty much saying to you that you paid a nosebleed price.

 

if you're happy with it, then go with it, if not.......too late.

 

the money aspect is extremely important with a $20,000 investment, and the input from other collectors is helpful for me as a Victrorian/Platinum age specialist. If someone pays $200,000 for an Action #1, it's ok. If I spend $20,000 on Obadiah Oldbuck, I'm foolish. There is nothing curious as to me seeking the answer as to "why?"

 

But why ask now.....you've already made the deal and are not planning on selling per all your posts. You know if you got a good deal or not. It's worth whatever you were willing to pay for it. You may not be able to get your money back, but it was worth 20K to you at the time you paid.

 

why ask now? the same reason there have been over 10,000 views to this post in a relatively short period of time.....the intrigue, and the thought provoking consequences. The victorian age sale with the golden age price tag....and the resistance to it by many on this post. "a victorian age comic book can't be worth $20,000" has been uttered by 99% of you.......I simply an looking to find out why. I am very satisfied with this transaction..the question is, why does it bother so many of you?

[Comicdey]

BLB,

my question of "who got the better deal" was intended to get feedback from Golden Age collectors on this post...not to imply as to who is wiser between the 2 of us...we both did great!. Please don't take the question as offensive...the money aspect keeps coming up, so I'm prompting for some feedback of neutral parties.

we both know what this book is, and how fair the price was

 

For someone that thinks they got a great buy and now has "the" key book, questioning what you paid to third party individuals seems a bit curious.

 

I'd say the boards are fairly neutral on the issue as we don't really care which one of you has the money, or the item.

 

But, with that said, the neutral boards of GA collectors is pretty much saying to you that you paid a nosebleed price.

 

if you're happy with it, then go with it, if not.......too late.

 

the money aspect is extremely important with a $20,000 investment, and the input from other collectors is helpful for me as a Victrorian/Platinum age specialist. If someone pays $200,000 for an Action #1, it's ok. If I spend $20,000 on Obadiah Oldbuck, I'm foolish. There is nothing curious as to me seeking the answer as to "why?"

 

But why ask now.....you've already made the deal and are not planning on selling per all your posts. You know if you got a good deal or not. It's worth whatever you were willing to pay for it. You may not be able to get your money back, but it was worth 20K to you at the time you paid.

 

why ask now? the same reason there have been over 10,000 views to this post in a relatively short period of time.....the intrigue, and the thought provoking consequences. The victorian age sale with the golden age price tag....and the resistance to it by many on this post. "a victorian age comic book can't be worth $20,000" has been uttered by 99% of you.......I simply an looking to find out why. I am very satisfied with this transaction..the question is, why does it bother so many of you?

 

I'm fine with it.....good on you.

 

As I previously stated, I'd be first in line to sell you victorian or platinum age books as you are known to pay top dollar. Even if you lowballed me.....I'd likely be happy selling to you.

[BLBcomics-migration]

Here's an analogy for you:

 

If you pay $100,000 for a house... That's market price.

 

If you pay $10,000 for a cup of coffee... That's stupid.

 

for 99% of the world, what MOST comic books bring is pretty stupid

 

When we opened the first comic book store of teh Comics & Comix chain back in Augst 1972 on Telegraph Ave inBerkeley, the Berkeley Police wire tapped out phone convinced we HAD to be a drug smuggling operation - and we soon realized we were being tapped by some one

 

One day i started talking to some one on the phone about "the drop" beeing at 11 PM down by Spangler's Fish Grotto

 

Some years later i was talking with a Berkeley Police sgt who said they set up an elaborate sting and proceeded to wait -and wait -and wait

 

and they soon thereafter stopped the wire tap.

 

Prices for anything is in the internal perception

 

I personally wonder why More Fun 52 53 are so expensive

 

Or many of the other books which command such high prices

 

and there is a comics life outside of super heroes for many of us

 

Then there are the collectors who seem to think a 9.8 is somehow way more desirable than a 9.6 or a 9,4 or a nice 9.2 - when you cannot see the difference with your naked eye, what's the point?

[ShoNuff-migration]

- i am just saying i am not in this comics thing just for the money

 

[BLBcomics-migration]

sho nuff this flame war be over

 

you be a day late and a buck short, fool

[ShoNuff-migration]

Flame war?

 

You continuously telling us how smart you think you are and repeatedly calling someone that dares to disagree with you a "insufficiently_thoughtful_person" doesn't really qualify as a flame war.

[Theagenes]

sho nuff this flame war be over

 

you be a day late and a buck short, fool

 

I hope this is truly the case, as I've found this thread very interesting, but it does get a little old sifting through all the playground-level bickering.

 

I've enjoying hearing what others' opinions are on what they think constitutes a comic book, comic strip, etc. but I think what gets forgotten on occasion in this heated debate is that these are just opinions. What we are doing is trying to project anachronistic labels and criteria retroactively onto items for which they were not originally intended. It is fine to do this as an intellectal exercise or for the convenience which labels provide, but it should always be remembered that these labels are inherently subjective and artificial and there is little need to come to verbal blows over them.

[infinite_comics-migration]

I simply am looking to find out why. I am very satisfied with this transaction..the question is, why does it bother so many of you?

 

Because you and Bob are being such person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed bags about it?

[showcase4]

I simply am looking to find out why. I am very satisfied with this transaction..the question is, why does it bother so many of you?

 

Because you and Bob are being such person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed bags about it?

 

Thank you for letting the entire country know so much about you by your choice of words.

[infinite_comics-migration]

I simply am looking to find out why. I am very satisfied with this transaction..the question is, why does it bother so many of you?

 

Because you and Bob are being such person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed bags about it?

 

Thank you for letting the entire country know so much about you by your choice of words.

 

'S funny, I was thinking the same of about you. See, we're not so different...

[BLBcomics-migration]

sho nuff this flame war be over

 

you be a day late and a buck short, fool

 

I hope this is truly the case, as I've found this thread very interesting, but it does get a little old sifting through all the playground-level bickering.

 

I've enjoying hearing what others' opinions are on what they think constitutes a comic book, comic strip, etc. but I think what gets forgotten on occasion in this heated debate is that these are just opinions. What we are doing is trying to project anachronistic labels and criteria retroactively onto items for which they were not originally intended. It is fine to do this as an intellectal exercise or for the convenience which labels provide, but it should always be remembered that these labels are inherently subjective and artificial and there is little need to come to verbal blows over them.

 

Much of the words directed at Nick Pope the last couple weeks would not have been if his discourse had been civil during the approximately two months this thread was alive before it was brought ot my attention. I only responded to a few of his outrageous claims, made while i was in travel mode doing San Diego and Chicago Wizard, treks i have made for 35 years now, which he presented as fact concerning me personally, the subject matter he questioned, and his descriptions of my customer friends.

 

He apologized, end of that aspect of this discussion.

 

I would not use the term anachronistic to define what is being discussed here as to what constitutes a comic strip and/or a comic book other than 1800s comics seem by some to be out of its proper time in history.

 

Just seems to be

 

After decades of study, examining comics from all over the world, I very much subscribe to pantomime ie wordless comics. I also subscribe to the Prince Valiant-style of comic strips ie words below the panels

 

Hellmut Lehmann-Haupt, then curator of rare books at Georgetown University (I think), wrote a history of comic strips for the 1947 ILLUSTRATORS OF CHILDREN'S BOOKS 1744-145. This book came out the same year as Coulton Waugh's THE COMICS. The controversy of the American comic book had been raging for some time. Wertham was conducting seminars on the effects of comic books on American youth, but was still 7 years away from SOTI.

 

He makes a point to state : Comic srip = animated drawing, terms he uses inter-changably

 

H-L's definiton is as follows:

 

"The comic strip is an instument, a graphic medium of expression; the telling of a story by means of a sequence of pictures each of which represents a succcessive, progressive satge in the development of the story....a sort of motion picture technique, without photogrpahy, using direct drawing on paper...a minimum of situations recorded to convey convincingly and successfully the development of a story in pictures."

 

H-L discusses all kinds of early evolution of the comic strips and on page 205 he wrote:

 

"...Credit for this rehabilitation goes to a Geneva artist, Rodolphe Töpffer (1799-1846), the son of a copper-engraver and painter. He is scarcely remembered today, although his NOUVELLES GENEVOISES and VOTAGES EN ZIGZAG...were much admired in the 19th century. early in his life Töpffer came under the influence of Hogarth and Rowlandson.

 

"However, in the use of animated drawing. his development of "pictoral literature" - LITERATUR IM BILDE as he calle dit - Rodolphe Töpffer went far beyond them. In the 1830s and 1840s he produced a series of picture books - HISTORIAE DE M JABOT, Geneva 1833; HISTOIRE DE M CREPIN, Geneva 1937; HISTOIRE DE M VIEUX BOIS, 1837 [RB: from whence came Obadiah Oldbuck English translation]; LE DOCTEUR FESTUS, 1840 - which can be looked upon as the true beginnings of the modern comic book...."

 

He also debates himself re the "speech balloon" as he called it:

 

"...The trouble with the current attempts is they lack true animation. What we see is too often a mere series of still,s animated articially by inflated speech balloons. The speech balloon in its current elaboration interferes with the basic simplicity of animated drawing; it sidetracks attentionfrom the pictures which all too often becomes mere moorings for the balloons - empty stage decoration.

 

"One artist has actually said in print (in COMICS AND THEIR CREATORS by Martin Sheridan, 1942) that he cannot afford to draw as he likes, because it would encroach upon the space needed for the speech balloons."

 

Another good bok to acquire would be Ellen Weise's PhD dissertation ENTER: THE COMICS (Univ of Nebraska: Lincoln 1965), long out of print, containing the first english translation of Topffer's CREPIN comic book as well as disussing in depth Topffer's views on knowing he had created a new modern form of expression bringing words and pictures together via then brand new printing technology

 

Far from being "...anachronistic labels and criteria retroactively...", Topffer is discussed in a great many other books on and about comic books/comic strips and their evolutionary origins in book sand magazines in America stretching back to the 1860s.

 

Many of these i discussed in the COMIC ART #3 2003 article on Topffer i have previously referred interested parties to acquire. Many other earlier references were also left out due to space constraints Todd Hignite imposed at the last second. His mag,not mine.

 

There are many other earlier references which for the most part remain out side the "popular" scope of many listers here. I did not come to my conclusions lightly

[Theagenes]

 

I would not use the term anachronistic to define what is being discussed here as to what constitutes a comic strip and/or a comic book other than 1800s comics seem by some to be out of its proper time in history.

 

Just seems to be

 

After decades of study, examining comics from all over the world, I very much subscribe to pantomime ie wordless comics. I also subscribe to the Prince Valiant-style of comic strips ie words below the panels

 

Hellmut Lehmann-Haupt, then curator of rare books at Georgetown University (I think), wrote a history of comic strips for the 1947 ILLUSTRATORS OF CHILDREN'S BOOKS 1744-145. This book came out the same year as Coulton Waugh's THE COMICS. The controversy of the American comic book had been raging for some time. Wertham was conducting seminars on the effects of comic books on American youth, but was still 7 years away from SOTI.

 

He makes a point to state : Comic srip = animated drawing, terms he uses inter-changably

 

H-L's definiton is as follows:

 

"The comic strip is an instument, a graphic medium of expression; the telling of a story by means of a sequence of pictures each of which represents a succcessive, progressive satge in the development of the story....a sort of motion picture technique, without photogrpahy, using direct drawing on paper...a minimum of situations recorded to convey convincingly and successfully the development of a story in pictures."

 

H-L discusses all kinds of early evolution of the comic strips and on page 205 he wrote:

 

"...Credit for this rehabilitation goes to a Geneva artist, Rodolphe Töpffer (1799-1846), the son of a copper-engraver and painter. He is scarcely remembered today, although his NOUVELLES GENEVOISES and VOTAGES EN ZIGZAG...were much admired in the 19th century. early in his life Töpffer came under the influence of Hogarth and Rowlandson.

 

"However, in the use of animated drawing. his development of "pictoral literature" - LITERATUR IM BILDE as he calle dit - Rodolphe Töpffer went far beyond them. In the 1830s and 1840s he produced a series of picture books - HISTORIAE DE M JABOT, Geneva 1833; HISTOIRE DE M CREPIN, Geneva 1937; HISTOIRE DE M VIEUX BOIS, 1837 [RB: from whence came Obadiah Oldbuck English translation]; LE DOCTEUR FESTUS, 1840 - which can be looked upon as the true beginnings of the modern comic book...."

 

He also debates himself re the "speech balloon" as he called it:

 

"...The trouble with the current attempts is they lack true animation. What we see is too often a mere series of still,s animated articially by inflated speech balloons. The speech balloon in its current elaboration interferes with the basic simplicity of animated drawing; it sidetracks attentionfrom the pictures which all too often becomes mere moorings for the balloons - empty stage decoration.

 

"One artist has actually said in print (in COMICS AND THEIR CREATORS by Martin Sheridan, 1942) that he cannot afford to draw as he likes, because it would encroach upon the space needed for the speech balloons."

 

Another good bok to acquire would be Ellen Weise's PhD dissertation ENTER: THE COMICS (Univ of Nebraska: Lincoln 1965), long out of print, containing the first english translation of Topffer's CREPIN comic book as well as disussing in depth Topffer's views on knowing he had created a new modern form of expression bringing words and pictures together via then brand new printing technology

 

Far from being "...anachronistic labels and criteria retroactively...", Topffer is discussed in a great many other books on and about comic books/comic strips and their evolutionary origins in book sand magazines in America stretching back to the 1860s.

 

Many of these i discussed in the COMIC ART #3 2003 article on Topffer i have previously referred interested parties to acquire. Many other earlier references were also left out due to space constraints Todd Hignite imposed at the last second. His mag,not mine.

 

There are many other earlier references which for the most part remain out side the "popular" scope of many listers here. I did not come to my conclusions lightly

 

Bob, would Topffer or his contemporaries have referred to his work as a "comic strip"? I was under the impression that the term did not come into use until much later. If someone 50 or 75 or 100 years after Topffer looks back on his work and says "Hey, that's a comic strip!" then that is by definition an anachronistic description. That does not, however, necessarily mean that it is inaccurate. The term anachronistic has come to have a negative conotation, but I was using it in its literal sense. If, however, you have a book from the mid-1800s that refers to Topffer's work as a "comic strip" then I will stand corrected.

 

Since the term "comic book archaeology" has been tossed around a few times in this thread and I'm an archaeologist IRL, let me give you an example from my field. We use anachronistic labels and descriptions all the time in creating typologies for various artifacts such as pottery and usually these typologies are pretty accurate and useful. Invariably, however, we will come across an artifact that does not neatly fit into one of our standard definitions - e.g. "Hey! this this pot has Ocmulgee Fields incised decoration but it's on an excurvate vessel and Ocmulgee decoration is only supposed to be on incurved vessels!" Now does this mean that the Native American potter who made this vessel 400 years ago was an insufficiently_thoughtful_person and didn't know what he was doing? Of course not - he was just making a pot - it simply illustrates a problem with our modern anacronistic definitions of pottery types.

 

So how does one respond to such a artifact? One possibility would be to alter the definition of Ocmulgee Fields Incised to include both incurved and excurvate vessels. This is of course similar to what you are doing by trying to create a more inclusive definition of "comic book" and "comic strip." Another approach would be to leave the definition as it is and see this one pot as an exception to the general rule, which is accurate 99.9% of the time. Neither of these approaches is right or wrong, per se, because these definitions are all artificial creations that we use simply for convenience anyway. It is same for comic books and comic strips - these terms mean different things to different people and you have to be willing to accept that not everyone is going to accept your more inclusive definition of comic strip.

 

You seem to imply that you agree with H-L's definition, which suggests that no text is necessary for a comic strip. I can not agree with this as I believe that for a comic strip to be a comic strip it has to be some combination of text and illustration at the very least. I won't go quite as far as Gifflefink in saying that word balloons are necessary, but I do agree with him in that I think the art and text should be integrated and that both elements should be necessary in order to complete the narrative.

[BLBcomics-migration]

hello Theagenes

 

re anachronism

 

did not know which version in Websters new World Dictionary you were refering to 1) oe 2)

 

What you write is obviously 1) the representation of something as existing or occurring at other than its proper time especially earlier

 

it's other webster entry is 2) anything that is or seems to be out of its proper place in history

 

I thought you were behind dorr number two when it appers more like you were hanging out behind door number one

 

The term "comic strip" was not invented as early as Topffer and appears to begin to be used around the 1880s -as far as my comics archeology has taken me so far. Have not attempted a study as of yet to root out all the earlist uses.

 

I find that not important though.

 

The term "comic book" on the back of Yellow Kid in McFadden's Flats does not refer to any aspect of a sequential cartoon art book. The term as applied on that artifact deals strictly with text-only humor books. I pointed that out to the Gemstone people when they emalied me an advance scan of the comic strip bridging the Victorian and Plat sections of the newest Overstreet -

 

 

I brought up H-L's 1947 definition as one aspect from a proper authority i respect who made a definition back when the comic book controversy was just begining to hit its peak and culminated with the Comics Code for comics magazines seven years later in late 1954.

 

Obviously there ar emany more definitions out there, otherwise this debate would not have raged as it has - or gotten so emotional for somewho have chosen to attack me, and the collective researchi compile from a number of comics friends which resides in the last bunch of Overstreets.

 

I also do not have the time right now to dig out other types of definitions and re-type them onto this thread. I also have to work for a living as many of us have kids etc - and after composing a new 8 page "quick list" of new acquisitions i have picked up in the last couple months after my last color catalog came out, and having it printed yesterday, am stuffing hundreds of envelopes to mail order customers. In the next few days i will endeavor to trasncribe other earlier definitions of what other's thought to be a comic strip outside the narrow one some which to cling to

 

I do adhere to the concept that text is not necessarily a given in the comic strip definition equation - and that comes form 40 years of serious research.

 

Ernie Mcgee called them "pantomime" comic strips ie wordless - still conveying the same energy as a word balloon filled comic strips which takes its extremes with some of the Gumps by Sidney Smith or the later Skippy strips by Percy Crosby with some panels almost all word balloons and a tiny partial head sticking out from the bottom of the panels.

 

Comic strips can also include text, but are not limited to having to have words, whether inside the panels in word speech balloon "fumetti" or can be below the art ala Hal Foster style in his PV and Tarzan strips among many others.

 

I enjoy all manners of comic strips

 

The main long time definition also included the "must have" criteria of recurring characters, as well as the use of word balloons.

 

The above narrow definition aspects, in conjunction with the movement of time between the panels, is where one gets to Yellow Kid as "first" comic strip. One has to have recurring characters, use word balloons (even though YK talked with text on his yellow shirt) to fit the definition.

 

Nick Pope confused me with ex-co-writer Doug Wheeler in his conspiracy theory scenario he painted - and Doug has been in public many places expousing such a misguided theory that earlier comics scholars conspired to make YK "first" - i could not begin to cover all the misconceptions which got bandied about me in this thread before i had time begin to tackle just some of them. Some perceived this as flame war and choose to shoot dares across the bow of my little ship. Tis best just to ignore the uneducated ones. Life be too short.

 

There are many Krazy Kat Sundays, as just ONE example, which contain no words, just pantomime action with the story conveyed thru time between the panels - and i would call them comicstrips as much as the word balloon ones. One of my greatest personal honors is to have "stuff" inside five of the seven KK books Fantagraphics has issued to date - who here has been collecting these KK books? The ones Chris Ware is doing the layouts for - they are neat.

 

I hope some of this helps in clarifying my positions

 

Robert Beerbohm

[BLBcomics-migration]

PS

 

I should add then by your definition concept that words and pictures are both essential that The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck fits that to a tee which makes thsi 1842 Wilson & Co edition published in New York City, as far as i am concerned now and forever more, the first American comic book

 

Is it the first comic book world wide

 

no - not by a long shot

 

the comic strip was not invented in America

[Theagenes]

PS

 

I should add then by your definition concept that words and pictures are both essential that The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck fits that to a tee which makes thsi 1842 Wilson & Co edition published in New York City, as far as i am concerned now and forever more, the first American comic book

 

Is it the first comic book world wide

 

no - not by a long shot

 

the comic strip was not invented in America

 

Well, to be honest I'm still kind of on the fence with regard to OO. The text and art aren't really integrated and there isn't really much of a narrative. It's more like a series of vignettes or scenes of OO with captions describing the pictures.

 

But to be fair I do not really have much knowledge or experience in Platinum and Victorian Age books beyond your own articles and the first time I saw a OO interior page up close was when you posted those links a few weeks ago in this thread. But, I am probably representative of most average collectors and I tried to have an open mind as I looked at OO for the first time. My first impression was not "Hey this is a comicstrip" but likewise I did not dismiss immediately either. Certainly I could see how some people could call it a comic. My reaction was more along the lines of "Well...maybe." It kind of looked like a comic but something didn't feel quite right. But then you made the comparison with Foster's Tarzan and PV and that gave me a little more to chew on. If I was having trouble thinking of OO as a comic, I was having more trouble thinking of Single Series 20 and Feature Book 26 as not being comics. But there is a big difference between Foster's work and OO. Foster's text is inside the panels for one thing, but it's not really text placement that bothers me so much about OO. Foster's works are a real combination of text and illustration used to create a narrative. Now, you can call OO a narrative, but to me it seems more like taking a series of illustrations with captions from a children's book like Tenniel's drawings from Alice in Wonderland and stringing them together. Maybe that could fit into a broad definition of comic strip technically, but it just seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

Also, I seem to recall reading that the owner of the company that hired Foster to do Tarzan was consciously trying to do something different from typical comic strips in creating a illustrated adaptation of ERB's novel. In other words the use of text with no dialogue in Tarzan was a deliberate departure from the norm (Much like Gi Joe 21 and Alpha Flight 5). Later of course Foster stuck to this format for PV. Just something that should be kept in mind when making comparisons with these works. (I think it was in the Foster tribute issue of CBM. I'll look for it when I get home from work)

 

PS Your examples of silent comic strips have given me more to think about. A lone deliberate aberration like GI Joe 21 is easily dismissed, but numerous example are not.

[gifflefunk]

(Much like Gi Joe 21 and Alpha Flight 5)

 

That page came from Alpha Flight #6, the "Snowblind" issue.

[showcase4]

Hey Gifflefunk...just wanted to say hi