Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[*paull*]

I'd like to ask a question.

 

I will first state (if it's not obvious already) that I don't believe the Obadiah book to be a comic book.

 

But let me ask a question regarding your claim that it is a comic book. What makes the book so special considering that it's a reprint of European material by a a European creator that was printed much earlier? Wouldn't you be much more interested in "the first American PRODUCED comic book by an American"? It boggles my mind why you would even care about the Obadiah book at all.

[Theagenes]

(Much like Gi Joe 21 and Alpha Flight 5)

 

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

 

Thanks! I was pulling that out from memory. Haven't read it since it came out.

 

BTW, the quote re: Foster's Tarzan that I referred to above was from Bob Harvey's piece in CBM 89, p. 61:

 

"An advertising operative, Neebe had founded Famous Books & Plays, an enterprise for producing illustrated serialized literature for syndication to newspapers. In form, the product looked much like a comic strip albeit without speech balloons -- a 'strip' of individual illustrations beneath which ran narrative typeset text abridging the book or play.... Neebe made a deal with Burroughs to adapt Tarzan of the Apes and when Burroughs' cover artist, Allen St. John, was not interested, Neebe approached Foster, whom he knew through a mutual engagement in advertising."

[showcase4]

I'd like to ask a question.

 

I will first state (if it's not obvious already) that I don't believe the Obadiah book to be a comic book.

 

But let me ask a question regarding your claim that it is a comic book. What makes the book so special considering that it's a reprint of European material by a a European creator that was printed much earlier? Wouldn't you be much more interested in "the first American PRODUCED comic book by an American"? It boggles my mind why you would even care about the Obadiah book at all.

 

Paul, you are putting me in a bad situation here....you have pretty much been a disrespectful jerk, yet you have asked a great question. For the benefit of others, I will answer, even though this has been addressed numerous times in this thread.

 

A Victorian and Platinum Age collector does not focus on superheros, or often not even key characters, as they didn't even exist until 1883 with The Brownies-1st mainstream, big time key character(s). The focus is on what came 1st, what happened 1st , what key change happened in the comic book developement stage, etc etc. As an example --- Comic Monthly #1 by Embee.....big deal not because of a key character, but because it's the 1st monthly 10 cent newsstand comic book----key event in comic book developement that helped contribute to what we have today.

 

 

go way way way back using this train of thought and you have an event that you mentioned above...the first american PRODUCED (written, drawn, created, printed in the US) comic book--this occurred in 1849 with the now extremely rare and desirable "Journey to the Gold Diggins by Jeremiah Saddlebags" by the Read brothers of New York. But it doesn't end there.....where did the Read brothers get the idea for the format, concept, and art/word story telling in a sequence from? The answer is Topffer. Topffer started it all with his European produced "comic books" dating back to the early/mid 1800's. And how did Topffer's work get in front of the Read Brothers and other early American comic book creators like them? Because one of his works was printed here, and then another, etc etc. And which of Topffer's works was the 1st work printed here, and subsuquently became the 1st comic book published in the entire United States for the 1st time in history?: The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck dated Sept. 14th, 1842.....the "MEGA-KEY" of the entire Victorian Age of US comic books, which was roughly from 1842 - 1896.....a 54 year time period.

 

for the 800th time in this thread, the fact that Obadiah Oldbuck was originally printed in Europe is not relevant to its distinction as THE key US Victorian Age comic....it was the 1st comic book PUBLISHED/PRINTED in the US, and that's all that matters.

[Comicdey]

So if superman was first published in the UK and then brought over to the US and published in the US a year later, would you consider the US version to be more important in historical context and therebye worth more as a U.S. version just because of where it was printed?

 

The more recent U.S. comic $ versions (vs) UK pence copy issues is somewhat similar in nature to your argument and yes collectors tend to pay more for US versions as we are somewhat provincial in our collecting habits.

 

The answer is likely buried somewhere in the 73 pages of this thread....but

 

When a "collectible" is as old as the OO, does it really matter when it was first printed in the U.S. and why would that issue be more valuable than an original first printing just because it was printed on a press in the U.S. What are the "significant" differences between earlier versions and the U.S. version?

 

Was the person that printed it in the U.S. a citizen? If not, does it still count.

 

Again....great item, fun to have and rare without a doubt, but extremely important to the American "comic" collector.....I don't think so.

 

Just my opinion on this as usual.

[showcase4]

would that issue be more valuable than an original first printing just because it was printed on a press in the U.S. ?

.

 

yes...we live in the US

[Comicdey]

I think I'd be buying up all those 1st print UK superman #1's waiting for the tide to turn.

[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

 

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.

 

Töpffer's comic book stories do indeed tell a cohesive integrated story -have you read it yet?

 

I mean all 40 pages. It is one long story, You leave me with the impression you have not yet read the entire story. It is actually quite funny and holds up even after 160+ years, not something which can be said for most of the 1940s comic book output some many people get so hung up as somehow "better" than anything else.

 

And i invite people to really check out pages XXVIII and XXIX (pages 28 and 29) on the SCOOP postings:

 

 

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=2721&si=124

 

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=2766&si=124

 

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=2808&si=124

 

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=2858&si=124

 

Hope these help! If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

 

Töpffer actually introduces a cinematic "split screen" concept on pages 28 and 29 which was how many decades before the advent of film? The action splits between two different people - can you see this?

 

And, having read ALL of Töpffer's comic book stories, and as printing techniques improved, Töpffer's comic strip story telling improved drastically.

 

Kind of like comparing Frazetta's Snow man story from Tally Ho #1 and a few years later readiing the fun stuff in say a Happy 33, one of my all-time favorite comic books.

 

Töpffer died when he was 47, cut down in his prime, so to speak. He left an unfinished comic strip story on the drawing board - he would have gone on to do even more of these comic strip books as they had begun selling very well and spreading to other countries. There is a Töpffer museum in Geneva - he is quite famous there to this day. Most of his original art is there.

 

One has to keep in mind the NYC version is magazine size, wrap-around binding like an Action #1, with a colored paper cover different in paper stock than the interior, was mass printed, mass distributed in the days before rail roads crossing the country.

 

The text in OO is integrated to each panel, not in the art.

 

I have a near complete full page tear sheet run of Prince Valiant, one of my long time favorites since i can remember, (as well as 99.5% of all his full page tarzans) and i have never viewed the words Foster placed in the panels as being integrated that much different ultimately than how the text ran in 1800s comic strips.

 

What i mean by that is Foster's text, to my memory, always runs at the bottom of the art, not that much of a differrence.

 

Word balloons have bene known about and used for centuries. There have been quite a few times when standards were such that word balloons in the art were felt to be low class and vulgar to some, that they took away from the asthetic beauty of the art

 

I do not agree with that sentiment, but it existed.

 

A classic example of word balloon use inside the panels predating YK can be found in my Overstreet article on page 353, the four panels of a 1861 strip about Abe Lincoln - i only wish the book was larger and i had more room to show such an example larger so you could read it.

 

Or check out last year's guide Vict essay where i run a panel about the Repub-lican party from 1856 - all the people in this are talking in word balloons.

 

Some creators used them, some did not

 

It is all comics to me: single panel like a Dennis the Menace daily, sequential panels, word balloons, text below the panels - etc etc etc

 

RC "Bob" Harvey is a good friend of mine, we have roommated a couple times for the San Diego comicon - and his articles are always a joy to read. I do wonder why the conscious decesion to place the words down below for Tarzan makes a difference in that OO is done in the format

 

And in the Comic Art #3 article, we show a panel by Topffer using word balloons - he knew of them, they were no mystery and yet he chose not to use them. He used word balloons in most of his single panel cartoons, but chose not to use them in his long sequential comic strips.

 

Robert Beerbohm

[BLBcomics-migration]

Re UK Superman vs USA superman scenario

 

So why are you not concerned that famous Funnies, King, Popular, Super, Ace, Magic, etc are all reprints - or does it matter that much the reprints are USA in origin

 

USA collectors tend to pay more for comic books printed in America

 

Brit collectors can go gah-gah over Beano #1 - and owuld not bring much in the USA

 

I have Canadian collector friends who have me hunting down Canuck comics

 

The collecotr in any given country is going to primarily tend to want the stuff printe din their own country - that is a natural, i would think

[Comicdey]

Very true that collectors collect from their region as a general rule and we as US citizens have one of the larger pools that collect provincially.

 

I enjoy the pence versions as much as the next guy, and I enjoy Canadian comics as well. I don't particularly like reprint comic just for the fact that I can find them in a more original format. I tend to collect first prints for that fact. It even seeps into the books that I have. I enjoy owning first prints over a 2nd or 3rd printing for the most part. Granted, each printing may have variances, but the first printing "always" is more significant to me personally, and from what I've seen in other collectible markets as well in terms of $$$$ achieved in sales.

[Theagenes]

Topffer's comic book stories do indeed tell a cohesive integrated story -have you read it yet? I mean all 40 pages. It is one long story, You leave me with the impression you have not yet read the entire story. It is actually quite funny and holds up even after 160+ years, not something which can be said for most of the 1940s comic book output some many people get so hung up as somehow "better" than anything else.

 

And i invite people to really check out pages XXVIII and XXIX (pages 28 and 29) on the SCOOP postings:

 

 

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=2721&si=124

 

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=2766&si=124

 

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=2808&si=124

 

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=2858&si=124

 

Hope these help! If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

 

Topffer actually introduces a cinematic "split screen" concept on pages 28 and 29 which was how many decades before the advent of film? The action splits between two different people - can you see this?

 

And, having read ALL of Topffer's comic book stories, and as printing techniques imporved, Topffer's comic strip story telling improved drastically.

 

Kind of like comparing Frazetta's Snow man story from Tally Ho #1 and a few years later readiine the fun stuff in Happy 33.

 

Topffer died when he was 47, cut down in his prime, so to speak. He left an unfinished comic strip story on the drawing board - he would have gone on to do even more of hese comic strip books as they had begun selling very well and spreading to other countries.

 

One has to keep in midn the NYC vesion is mag zine, wrap around binding like an Acrion #1, with a colored paper cover different in paper stock than the interior, was mass printed, mass distributed in the days before rail roads crossing the country.

 

The text in OO is integrated to each panel, not in the art.

 

I have a near complete full page tear sheet run of Prince Valiant, one of my long time favorites since i can remember, and i have never viewed the words Foster placed in the panels as being integrated that much different ultimately than how the text ran in 1800s comic strips.

 

What i mean by that is Foster's text, to my memory, always runs at the bottom of the art, not that much of a differrence.

 

Word balloons have bene known about and used for centuries. There have been quite a few times when standards were such that word balloons in the art were felt to be low class and vulgar to some, that they took away from the asthetic beauty of the art

 

I do not agree with that sentiment, but it existed.

 

A classi cexample of word balloon use inside the panels predating YK can be found in my Overstreet article on page 353, the fou rpanels of a 1861 strip about Abe Lincoln - i only wish the book was larger and i had more room to show such an example larger so you could read it.

 

Or check out last year's guid ewhere i run a panel about the [embarrassing lack of self control] party from 1856 - all the people in this are talking in word balloons.

 

Some creators used them, some did not

 

It is all comics to me: single panel like a Dennis the Menace daily, sequential panels, word balloons, text below the panels - etc etc etc

 

RC "Bob" Harvey is a good friend of mine, we have roommated a couple times for the San Diego comicon - and his articles are always a joy to read. I do wonder why the conscious decesion to place the words down below for Tarzan makes a difference in that OO is done in the format

 

And in the Comic Art #3 article, we show a panel by Topffer using word balloons - he knew of them, they were no mystery and yet he chose not to use them

 

Robert Beerbohm

 

Unfortunately, like I said, I've only seen the handful of out-of-context Scoop images. That's one major reason why I don't feel like I can pass judgement on it one way or another. Those few images alone, however, were not enough to convince me that this is a comic strip. If I could read the whole book I might feel differently. Maybe I'll pick up a reprint some day if I can find one cheap.

 

Tarzan often had the text at the bottom, especially early on, but not always:

 

 

Like I said though, my problem with OO isn't really the text placement; it's the fact that the text isn't a narrative so much as it is simply descriptive captions. My point about Tarzan is that your comparison between it and OO is weakened by the fact that is was a deliberately atypical strip. The publisher (not Foster) came up with this format in order to make it look like an illustrated novel rather than a comic strip. In other words, the closest modern comic strip that can be compared to OO is one which was deliberately designed to look as little like a comicstrip as possible.

 

Foster of course stuck to this illustrated novel-like format when did PV and quite frankly I can see Foster as being one of those people who saw word balloons and the like as being vulgar and taking away from the artwork. Looking at how beautifully done PV is, it's hard to argue that point.

 

Getting away from OO for a moment, are there any online images of Jeremiah Saddlebags? I've only see the small photos in the OPG articles and I would love to see some close up panels.

[showcase4]

 

are there any online images of Jeremiah Saddlebags? I've only see the small photos in the OPG articles and I would love to see some close up panels.

 

http://www.dsloan.com/Auctions/A16/lot_118.html

 

http://www.library.ca.gov/goldrush/images/book_illustrations01.jpg

 

http://www.lib.virginia.edu/harrison/exhibits/journeys/lg-html/NC1429_R4_1849_pg44.html

 

these particular images are of pages with only single art ( which does not make this book look like a comic book )...however, most pages of the book do contain 2-4 sequential panels per page.( then you see a comic book) The book is very, very rare, and images are few and far between...even on the internet. Page 350 of this years OPG has images of Saddlebags interior pages with sequential art/text.

 

Jeremiah Saddlebags is the 2nd most desirable/high demand/ valuable comic book of the Victorian Age. It is a major key of the time period...the 1st "all American" comic book you could say. It is also highly prized by collectors of Ca. gold rush memorabilia, so when a copy rarely gets offered on the auction block, you have comic book collectors and antiquarian gold rush collectors interested.

[Theagenes]

Very cool, thanks! I must have missed your post earlier. See, to me this book is far more interesting because of the historical significance of its content. I would love to read it.

[BLBcomics-migration]

There is a 1950 reprint of Saddlebags of 391 copies which comes up for sale from time to time, done by a Calif book dealer 56 years ago - that is what i have - plus it has some bio data on the Read Bros

 

Comparing Saddlebags to the two Töpffer Wilson & Co comic books, Obadiah Oldbuck and Bachelor Butterfly, one can easily see the influence, even where the Read Bros "swiped" panel poses, etc - stuff we covered in that Comic Art #3 2003 article on Topffer in America

 

There are other early American home grown comic books from back then which demonstrate direct influences of the birth of an American comic book industry. All duly noted in the Victorian history essay in the last few Overstreets - with each edition of OPG correcting errors we spot along the way

 

Robert Beerbohm

[BLBcomics-migration]

Could some one sum up WHY they are so anti the concept of the Victorian and Platinum sections being in the Overstreet? Most collectors who come to me at shows, or we talk on the phone when they order comics from me, think it is a neat additon to OPG.

 

Only here, on these CGC boards, does the resistance become so virulent

[infinite_comics-migration]

Only here, on these CGC boards, does the resistance become so virulent

 

No, it was pretty much the same on the Ebay Boards too.

At least these sections make a little more sense than having BLBs in Overstreet, but they all take up too much space. Maybe print them once in Overstreet every 5 years or something.

 

I can understand the Platinum Age. But c'mon, the Victorian and Pioneer Ages? That's like having a Baseball card price guide print 20 pages on the ancient history of Cricket and/or Rounders. Modern American baseball fans don't care about these games, their history, their influence on baseball, etc. It's nice to know the information is out there, but in this context would be irrelevant and a waste of space.

 

"Neat" doesn't equal necessary.

[Theagenes]

What pi$$ed me off the most in this years guide was not so much the Plat., Vict. and Pioneer sections -- it was that condescending comicstrip telling us we are all insufficiently_thoughtful_persons for not recognizing that OO is the first comicbook and not Funnies on Parade. Maybe most people think FoP is the first comic because that's what this same Price Guide has been telling us for 35 years!

[showcase4]

Maybe most people think FoP is the first comic because that's what this same Price Guide has been telling us for 35 years!

 

 

that is because only in the past decade has there been the completion of research that led to this:

 

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/news_images/1907_4898_1.jpg

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

Exactly. Just because something is repeated for years or decades doesn't mean new data can't be discovered that changes things. The trick is to keep an open mind and examine new information when it arises and be willing to reshape your view of history.

 

Look at how they're about to change the solar system from 9 planets to 12. Sometimes new stuff comes up.

[Silver Surfer]

Exactly. Just because something is repeated for years or decades doesn't mean new data can't be discovered that changes things. The trick is to keep an open mind and examine new information when it arises and be willing to reshape your view of history.

 

Look at how they're about to change the solar system from 9 planets to 12. Sometimes new stuff comes up.

 

Yeah that's only planets and the solar system, we are talking about some serious stuff here.

[Theagenes]

Exactly. Just because something is repeated for years or decades doesn't mean new data can't be discovered that changes things. The trick is to keep an open mind and examine new information when it arises and be willing to reshape your view of history.

 

Look at how they're about to change the solar system from 9 planets to 12. Sometimes new stuff comes up.

 

That's fine, and that's exactly what Bob has been doing with his feature, but his (and others) research should stand or fall on it's own merits. People can look at his arguments and evidence and make up their own minds as they see fit. He shouldn't need some cheesy, patronizing comic strip cheerleading for him. As though we collectors aren't intelligent enough understand anything unless it has panels and word balloons.

 

Quote from this comicstrip:

"Funnies on Parade, which is little more than an interesting footnote in comics history, was published in 1933..."

 

Do you really believe that? I can accept that FoP wasn't the first comic book, or even the first comic magazine/modern comic (Maybe not even the first in 1933), but was certainly the first comic magazine (the format most comic book collectors collect) produced by a major publisher, Eastern. It directly led to Famous Famous, the success of which led to the other big syndicates getting into the act in 1936 and in new independent publishers popping up. Then came Superman and suddenly you have a comic book industry. OO and the other books from that period are interesting historically and are very cool IMO, but truthfully it is they, not FoP, that are more deserving of the epithet "interesting footnote in comic's history."