Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[ciorac]

PS. I'm not going to stop contributing to my own post so you can try to prove a point

 

How about money then? Did you miss my offer above?

 

Oh yeah...the money. How about this--I'll become inactive on this post for 10 days to see if it winds down or not, and if I win, you send me $20,000. That way I can get my money back for that worthless 1842 "cartoon book" I bought last year

 

[comicdonna]

You stated, that you are willing to pay $25,000 for an OO in VG condition. If I find one, are you giong to give me a $5,000 finders fee?

[Comicdey]

You stated, that you are willing to pay $25,000 for an OO in VG condition. If I find one, are you giong to give me a $5,000 finders fee?

 

[mica]

..... ask YOU, what do you think of the thoughts encapsulated in my post right above yours. I have posted this 3 times, and each time distracting posts appear

 

I was bringing the OO vs Supes name of this thread back on topic - and wondering if there is any one who can refute what Post #1362852 - Tue Aug 22 2006 04:39 PM has to say

I assume you are referring to me. Haven't responded each time you've posted this because it's never quite clear as to who it's addressed to.

I remember the days back in the 1980s when Marvel ruled supreme - and Marvel (Mystery) Comics #1 was considered the most valuable of all comic books - and the debates raged over whether the Oct or Nov 1939 issue was scarcer than the other.

I often wondered if that 50th Anniversary of Superman and the 1988 Overstreet (the one with Superman bursting those chains) followed by the 1989 Batman 1990 Justice League covers had a value change towards Superman and Action. I also think the Batman movie had a slight trickle down effect as many collectors put down their X-men books for a few minutes to remember DC.

Times changed, DC with Action #1 was of late anointed supreme comic book, the value keeps climbing, and lately, the mythos has moved the time line to have Action #1 as the beginning of the "Golden" Age of comicbooks.

 

Not that long ago, it just wasn't so, Joe.

 

Famous Funnies #1 news stand edition was considered the beginning of the "Golden" Age

Collectors do gravitate to Key issues rather than timelines. Like Showcase#4. Are the first 3 issues shoddy?

But I'm not one of those guys that calls Detective Comics # 1 Platinum Age simply because it's before Superman.

Maybe that would be a good compromise if we called everything before the 1950 as the Golden Age. That's the way I always viewed it growing up.

But people already label era's and this is one of the problems you are running into.

 

For me, the "Golden" Age of comics begins with the likes of Little Nemo, Krazy Kat, and a host of other classic strips - as i do not limit myself to the narrow delivery venue of comics magazines. One could toss in Yellow Kid, Katzenjammer Kids, Buster Brown, Mutt & Jeff, Bringing Up Father, Gumps, and 100s of other comic strips.

Perhaps we're similar, I'd place Thimble Theater ahead of some of those.

The "Golden" Age of heroes in comics begins with Buck Rogers, Tarzan, Popeye, Flash Gordon, Phantom, Prince valiant - all before Superman

To me, Mickey Mouse should be here as well Tracy.

 

And comics ruled supreme with those heroes in the eyes and soul of America before Superman came along on the set - read and enjoyed by millions upon millions more Americans than any single comicbook(magazine) ever published.

Agreed, but here is where you are losing some people. Superman has maintained the comic where a lot of your examples have only dabbled in the traditional comic book format. Tarzan might be the closest runner up as far having a CBook lasting through various decades (and numerous publishers). You are (in my opinion) basing your idea that Superman took advantage of the already popular Comic reading populace.

Many collectors will distinguish the Newspaper strip popularity from the Comic Book (traditional)

 

You might do better concentrating on the upswing of Superman thanks to his radio and TV show.

 

I have been dealing with the re-education of American comicbook collectors for a decade now. What has transpired on this CGC thread is nothing new. There are always a few who will not budge no matter what is shown to them.

But even if you are accurate and or correct. The 99% of forum members here that believe Superman started the Golden Age aren't exactly in any danger for believing the way they do.

 

Maybe the terms are all out of whack and maybe they should think in terms of HEROIC age instead of GoldenAge, but at the end of the day.....what's the harm? . It's not that Comic readers are unreachable but they/we don't see any reason to adopt your views.

 

I wouldn't assume that the 99% here are unlearned, nor would I think them lazy in doing research.

I've known for years that Donald Duck's middle name is fauntleroy but what good is that piece of trivia?

Had this thread been able to leave out the money spent for the Obadiah book the discussions would have been better.

But even if you could be more convincing about Obadiah place in history you'll have an even tougher time convincing MANY about the monetary value.

So, could some one respond the above data rather than deflect attention spans away from what i wrote above

Hopefully my repsonses will spark for you.

[ciorac]

Third time out for this post:

 

Quote:

 

Hi Steve

 

Nope, my post was more so directed at Bill P, i used the quick reply, which i guess leads one to seem like replying to whomever had the last previous post.

 

I would say the list you provided, gleaned from the beginning stuff in Overstreet, is predicated on value, not historical significance, the latter of which is my only criteria as i developed the history articles which front the Vict, Plat and "Modern" comic book price indexes.

 

Some fool keeps bandying about the term "arrogant" which is laughable at best. I am merely supremely confidant in the research i have conducted which has taken me far beyond the scope of what most have delved into re the archeology of all things comics. Anyone proves me wrong, and i will be the first to change the program.

 

There is decades of myth yet to undo which is still taken as gospel

 

I remember the days back in the 1980s when Marvel ruled supreme - and Marvel (Mystery) Comics #1 was considered the most valuable of all comic books - and the debates raged over whether the Oct or Nov 1939 issue was scarcer than the other.

 

Times changed, DC with Action #1 was of late anointed supreme comic book, the value keeps climbing, and lately, the mythos has moved the time line to have Action #1 as the beginning of the "Golden" Age of comicbooks.

 

Not that long ago, it just wasn't so, Joe.

 

Famous Funnies #1 news stand edition was considered the beginning of the "Golden" Age

 

For me, the "Golden" Age of comics begins with the likes of Little Nemo, Krazy Kat, and a host of other classic strips - as i do not limit myself to the narrow delivery venue of comics magazines. One could toss in Yellow Kid, Katzenjammer Kids, Buster Brown, Mutt & Jeff, Bringing Up Father, Gumps, and 100s of other comic strips.

 

The "Golden" Age of heroes in comics begins with Buck Rogers, Tarzan, Popeye, Flash Gordon, Phantom, Prince valiant - all before Superman

 

And comics ruled supreme with those heroes in the eyes and soul of America before Superman came along on the set - read and enjoyed by millions upon millions more Americans than any single comicbook(magazine) ever published.

 

I have been dealing with the re-education of American comicbook collectors for a decade now. What has transpired on this CGC thread is nothing new. There are always a few who will not budge no matter what is shown to them. So, could some one respond the above data rather than deflect attention spans away from what i wrote above

 

 

Bob...sigh...for the love of Pete...

 

You wrote "There are always a few who will not budge no matter what is shown to them. "

 

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

 

No truer words could be spoken about your position on this discussion. If I didn't know better I would swear you were a politician. You "answer" my posts with paragraphs that do not in any way address the central issue at hand.

 

My GOD man! Do you even bother to read what I write before citing your statistics on sales numbers, and yet AGAIN going down the VALUE OF THE BOOKS road. A road that I have repeatedly told you I am not going down, or using VALUE OF THE BOOKS in any way to support the assertion of the simple rudimentary, elementary FACT that NO OTHER COMIC BOOK IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD IS AN ACNE PIMPLE ON THE BUTTOCKS OF ACTION COMICS #1.

 

I don't care if Disney books sold ten trillion copies in the 40's or 50's, or Dippy Duck broke sales records in Demoine, Iowa one Sunday afternoon in 1955. It doesn't make one bit of difference.

 

At least Showcase has the decency, and honesty to admit what is so patently obvious.

 

You and John Snyder are the most respected comic historians in the hobby that I have ever met. I am astounded by the level of detail you both know about the beginnings of comics. It is truly amazing.

 

It is equally astounding and amazing that you are being so stubborn and pig-headed about something as simple as this debate.

 

Take superheroes out of the mix, they never existed. As I said a few posts back, then what the heck do you have? OO would be the most important then?...maybe who knows?

 

There would be no hobby, you would be doing something else for a living. Comic book stores would not have come into existence. There would be no large comic book conventions all summer long, there would be no new comics of any distribution size at all.

 

If there would be a comic industry at all, it would be so insignificant as to not even warrant attention.

 

So if Superheroes are what made the industry an industry and carrried it all the way to today, then is not the first Superhero comic the most important comic of all comic books to the industry? Remember, that and only that is the question at hand.

 

So for the love of God man, come to your senses. At long last Bob have you so sense of fairness?

 

Your continued protestations in this manner speak to something else other than educating those of us who are the poor uneducated ones in need of your teachings.

 

So if our education is clearly not the purpose of this craziness, then what is??? You can continue to educate us on all the wonderful pieces of information and missing links you find, and we will enjoy them. But, no amount of research can change what is. It can only help you understand why something is. And those of us who are not wearing the blinders Showcase referred to (thanks Showcase). already understand.

 

Time for the teacher to become the student.

 

You said "Anyone proves me wrong, and i will be the first to change the program."

 

Time to change the program Bob

 

[BLBcomics-migration]

If Superman had not come along, there would still have been a comic book industry. It was already "there" before the advent of Superman who facilitated a Big Bang, speeding up the process. Popular Heroes were still emerging before and after Superman.

 

As stated in a previous post, one could also add in Mickey Mouse, Tracy, while we're at it, Alley Oop, Brick Bradford, Red Barry, Felix the Cat, Donald Duck, and many many other comic strips which were being released. Once Popeye hit Thimble Theatre in 1929, he unleashed a wave of licensed products. No one alive today was around to take in the Buster Brown licensed product craze which swept America back in the oughts, teens and 20s.

 

Superman's popularity was driven by other media besides comicbooks, to wit TV, serials, radio show, news paper strip, and the plethora of licensed products. If not for the non-comicbook venues, Superman could have disappeared as well as the other super heroes which faded away.

 

I do not view the comics world thru the rose-primmed glasses of the super hero - that is where the comicbook collector falls down in taking in the full gamut of the history of comics in America

 

Do I enjoy most super heroes. You betcha

- but do they run my wagon exclusively? Heck no

 

Would i still have a strong interest in comics if there had been no Superman - emphatic yes

 

Would the rest of the country - it was already there.

 

To say there would have been no comics business in America without the advent of super heroes displays a galling lack of a proper comics history education. Comics in other countries do quite well without super heroes. Wake up and look around you.

 

I am not arguing about money either. Either from a publishing aspect or the after market in back issues. That is merely one part of the equation.

 

I agree that most comicbook collectors view the comics magazine as a be-all end-all in collectability. I did too for many years, fighting in the trenches of early 1970s comic book stores to gain a modicum of respect for the hobby as it turned into a business. I doubt anyone here comes before me with having comic book stores.

 

when we opened, super heroes were not our main sellers. not by a long shot

 

It wasn't until the X-men Byrne craze that super heroes began to occupy a major portion of the sales of new stuff. Smith's Conan and Wrightson's Swamp Thing among others (these were on the stands as new stuff when we opened that first Comics & Comix store). Back issue sales ran thru as many ECs and Barks Ducks as super heroes.

 

Sure, Superman is an icon - probably the most recognizable one on the planet these days, maybe Batman and Spiderman as well. But super heroes did not carry the comics industry all the way to today.

 

Think outside the box of DM comic book stores, where comic book sales are in the toilet compared to what they were like previous time eras. Calvin & Hobbes proved that a lot of people could still enjoy a well drawn, well plotted comic which was collected into a series of best selling books.

 

These days when a comic book store sells out of 50 copies of some super hero, they close down, order pizza and throw a party. I was ordering 10,000 per Byrne Xmen. Times and sales change.

 

The argument that comics in America would have gone no where without super heroes is silly at best.

[mica]

The argument that comics in America would have gone no where without super heroes is silly at best.

In some regards I feel that we had forms of superheroness (excuse the made up word) before Superman. Meaning what was going on in Funny Animal stories was "Super" in that it wasn't conforming to laws of gravity etc..etc..

A character would survive a stick of dynamite blowing up in his face meant as a gag. To some degree the actual animals talking and conversing with each other is a small form of a superhero that is defined as having an ability to do more than a mere mortal or laws of nature allow.

 

I feel that we would have had superheroes eventually had there not been a superman.

 

So in some areas I agree with you about the popularity of early forms of comics/strips and characters. However, Superman soon eclipsed those very popular characters. So it's hard to determine how popular something was if it shined like a bright star for a couple of years only to fade in spite of revival attempts.

I'm reminded of how in the past you couldn't shake a stick without hitting a refrence of Little Orphan Annie but now find someone on the street that knows of LOA other than the 20 year old movie.

I feel like I'm playing both sides against each other.

[selegue]

The argument that comics in America would have gone no where without super heroes is silly at best.

In some regards I feel that we had forms of superheroness (excuse the made up word) before Superman. Meaning what was going on in Funny Animal stories was "Super" in that it wasn't conforming to laws of gravity etc..etc..

A character would survive a stick of dynamite blowing up in his face meant as a gag. To some degree the actual animals talking and conversing with each other is a small form of a superhero that is defined as having an ability to do more than a mere mortal or laws of nature allow.

 

I feel that we would have had superheroes eventually had there not been a superman.

 

...

 

Sure! Superheroes had been part of popular stories for millennia. Thor, Zeus, Hercules, Mars, Shiva, mermaids, Five Chinese Brothers, Seven-League Boots, Paul Bunyan ... just a few off the top of my head without dipping too far into religious legends that might offend. The superheroes of the 20th century were to a large extent just a reimagining of those myths. Flash = Mercury, Aquaman = Sub-Mariner = Poseidon, Superman = only begotten son sent to earth to save mankind, Batman = Zorro + Scarlet Pimpernel, etc. Sure, Superman was the Big Kahuna and adding the circus strong-man costume was a stroke of genius, but superheroes would have developed, maybe in a slightly different form, without Action Comics #1. Not to lessen its importance -- it WAS the book that set off the craze.

 

Jack

[mica]

Sure! Superheroes had been part of popular stories for millennia. Thor, Zeus, Hercules, Mars, Shiva, mermaids, Five Chinese Brothers, Seven-League Boots, Paul Bunyan ... just a few off the top of my head

That's what I was getting at. Exactly

Sure, Superman was the Big Kahuna and adding the circus strong-man costume was a stroke of genius, but superheroes would have developed, maybe in a slightly different form, without Action Comics #1. Not to lessen its importance -- it WAS the book that set off the craze.

 

Jack

And numerous copycat characters with equally ridiculous color matching shorts and boots combinations.

[action1kid]

Like it or not Spiderman is a copycat to a very very real degree

[mica]

Like it or not Spiderman is a copycat to a very very real degree

Yeah I saw the similarities right away. I remember Clark getting bitten by a spider; having Pa Kent shot during a robbery; inventing a web fluid; deciding to stop wearing glasses; getting a job from a man that despises you; getting the flu and being unmasked by a guy with mechanical arms; etc..etc..

 

And on the flip side I liked how Peter Parker had a spider dog; numerous Peter Parker robots; underground entrance to the Parker house; and young teenage colleagues from the 30th century to hang out with.

 

I sort of get what you are saying, but I think that slight comparison gets mentioned too often.

 

Now if you said that Marvel's Black Cat was a copy of DC's Catwoman I'd be in total agreement.

[selegue]

Sure! Superheroes had been part of popular stories for millennia. Thor, Zeus, Hercules, Mars, Shiva, mermaids, Five Chinese Brothers, Seven-League Boots, Paul Bunyan ... just a few off the top of my head

That's what I was getting at. Exactly

Ooops. I shoved you off the soapbox without so much as a "'scuse me", didn't I?

 

Jack

[Theagenes]

I suppose the earliest known superhero would be Gilgamesh. He even had a sidekick, Enkidu, long before Tec 38. Would that make this the first comicstrip?:

 

 

That's Gilgamesh on the right, Enkidu on the left and their arch-nemesis, the super-villain known as the Bull of Heaven in the center.

[goldust40]

I suppose the earliest known superhero would be Gilgamesh. He even had a sidekick, Enkidu, long before Tec 38. Would that make this the first comicstrip?:

 

 

Is there a narrative inscription just below that engraving that relates to the image? If there is, then yes.

[selegue]

I suppose the earliest known superhero would be Gilgamesh. He even had a sidekick, Enkidu, long before Tec 38. Would that make this the first comicstrip?:

 

 

And it's already slabbed!

 

That's Gilgamesh on the right, Enkidu on the left and their arch-nemesis, the super-villain known as the Bull of Heaven in the center.

 

D'oh! I thought that was their faithful dog, Gilgahound.

 

Jack

sharp copy, Theagenes

[Theagenes]

Is there a narrative inscription just below that engraving that relates to the image? If there is, then yes.

 

Here is the accompanying text. Unfortunately it's not actually integrated into the artwork so I suppose it's just a "cartoon" strip.

 

 

Too bad this copy has such a bad rat chew, but it is Gerber 10 so I was just happy to find one.

[mica]

Is there a narrative inscription just below that engraving that relates to the image? If there is, then yes.

 

Here is the accompanying text. Unfortunately it's not actually integrated into the artwork so I suppose it's just a "cartoon" strip.

 

 

Too bad this copy has such a bad rat chew, but it is Gerber 10 so I was just happy to find one.

I hate to tell you this, but what you have is the 1977 reprint. But it's still cool. I think that's the one that Nic Cage had.

[topofthetotem]

Gilgahound! LMAO

[buttock]

Is there a narrative inscription just below that engraving that relates to the image? If there is, then yes.

 

Here is the accompanying text. Unfortunately it's not actually integrated into the artwork so I suppose it's just a "cartoon" strip.

 

 

Too bad this copy has such a bad rat chew, but it is Gerber 10 so I was just happy to find one.

 

That's the original babylonian version. It has little value. Now the 1842 3rd printing that was in the US is clearly more desirable...

[infinite_comics-migration]

When I owned the Bayeux Tapestry, I used to roll it up and stick it in my back pocket... after reading it with Cheeto fingers...