Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[gifflefunk]

Wow, so what color is the sky in your world?

 

Blue, but it is filled with word and thought balloons!

[BLBcomics-migration]

Giffle IS stating the rules as they existed before Bob's new research. It has been Bob's ten year journey that has unearthed new, much earlier examples that have satisfied him that they trylu are comicbooks. But Giffle and others are not yet convinced. And, lets face it, both camps paint themselves intp corners that , I feel, lead to explanations like the ones about GIJoe etc that are strained at best.

 

IMO, Bob has proven a progression to the comic book format we enjoy today. And dated it way further back than was thought 60 years ago when the GA surge of success led to questions and answers to explain the new comics phenomenon. And it is their (often self-serving) statements that were handed down unchallenged til now. But, I still see this as a missing link kind of situation. Im not convinced its OO. But it seems it may not ne Yellow Kid either since it doesnt look remarkably different from OO to me.

 

But, if we are talking first comic book as we see it NOW in 2006 Im leaning to somewhere or something in the 1930s when the physical product finally settled on the format that has lasted since then. Everything before in an ancestor of varying resemblance.

 

And, I came up with this opinion after doing absolutely no hands on research!!! aint I grand?

 

Have you had an opportunity to read the transcription on page 64 of this thread I made from American Notes & Queries 1941 thru 1950 I posted here last night which i re-found on an old CD i burned off some years ago which begins with August Derleth (Arkham House publisher and huge comics fan & historian, his collections were used for the 1970s Dover reprint series)?

 

There were parallel universes in motion then as now. Which planet are we on? Earth One or Earth Two? That longish post contains letters from learned scholars who were also exploring the origins of comic books & strips in America.

 

I took it upon myself to track down most all of what Gersham Legman and others in that transcription said were comic books published in America. The man was writing about comic books in America in several places back in the 1940s.

 

The "rules" Nick Pope keeps referencing as gospel, composed back in the mid 1960s by a small body of interested folk (most of whom i met and know) stipulates word balloons.

 

That same ad hoc self-appointed "rules committee" also stipulates recurring characters.

 

If one goes by that archaic set of rules, one must adhere to all of them

 

I categorically reject both concepts as silly.

 

A comic strip such as Prince Valiant will always be one I accept into the fold.

 

Every one here can make up their own minds as to what they think. I really do not care who i convince, I am comfortable to know I am right and history will out.

 

The format delivery system is not something i, or a great many other collectors, use to define what is a comicbook. If it is printed on paper and contains graphic sequential story telling, it is a comicbook. Pure and simple.

 

Mark Zaid began another thread here on GOLD which says POST YOUR PLAT BOOKS HERE - and i have been posting scans of a lot of old, truly old, comic books. And i have a lot more to upload yet

 

And, FFB, i would not categorize a strip such as McCay's Little Nemo as "primitive" lines on paper -

 

It's all just lines on paper, folks

[gifflefunk]

The "rules" I use don't come from some 1960's group. These rules predate that committee and were in use by the likes of Swinnerton and Gaines decades earlier... so I really wish you'd stop saying that I operate on some ad hoc mid-1960s decision. That group may have reiterated the "rules", but those "rules" existed prior to that meeting (and you damn well know this Bob, you've read the same material I have).

[Theagenes]

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I have a couple of points I would like to make. I have a problem with using an overly broad definition of a "comic book" and here's why:

 

In various posts in this thread, Bob, you have said that for you to consider something a comic strip, it does not have to have word balloons or dialogue, it does not need to have text, and it does not even have to have sequential panels - single panel is fine. Further, the only requirements for a comic book are that "it is printed on paper and contains graphic sequential story telling."

 

Under these definitions almost anything can be a "comic book." While it feels good to be all inclusive and consider all these books to be a part of one big happy comic book family, it is not a useful approach from the point of view of a historian or collector who is trying to acertain more information and acquire a better understanding of a particular book or group of books. There exists a classification nomenclature in the area of publications because it is useful to make distinctions between various items as a way of providing more information and to give a better sense of what the item actually is. Classification nomenclature is useful tool -- often arbitrary and artificial, and in the case of classifying historical artifacts sometimes anachronistic as well, but useful nonetheless.

 

If your definition of "comic book" is so broad as to include anything from the Egyptian Book of the Dead to Medieval illuminated manuscripts to 18th century political cartoon pamphlets to Cupples and Leon books to Tokyopop manga, then the phrase "comic book" loses any significance and effectiveness that it had as a term of classification.

 

You make a distinction between OO and the Dog Peddler Lady when you point out that OO is stand-alone book, while the Dog Lady is a comic strip contained within a publication that is otherwise non-comic related. That is an important and useful distinction and it makes sense. At first I was somewhat confused as to why you did not consider it a comic book under your definition, but now I understand that the Dog Lady strip is more like the comic section in the Out of this World pulp than the Out of This World comic book.

 

My point is that it is equally as important to make a distinction between, say, modern comic books (or comic magazines), graphic novels, trade paperbacks, illustrated narratives, comic tabloids, cartoon books, etc. because making those distinctions gives us more information about the various books themselves. While it's humorous to picture the Comicbook Guy from the Simpsons saying, "It's not a comic book -- it's a graphic novel" that really is an important distinction to make for collectors, dealers, comics scholars and others in the field. By using more specific terms, you are giving more information about the item in question. I notice that in the webpage you referenced above, the author uses the term "graphic novel" instead of "comic book." While it is equally as anachronistic as "comic book," "graphic novel" does give a better description (to most readers) of what we are actually talking about with these Victorian Age hardback books.

 

Now with the 1st US of printing of OO, you have something very interesting as its format is very similar to what most people use the the term "comic book" today to describe - i.e. a comic magazine. Would it not, however, be more accurate and provide a better understanding of what the book actually is if you were to call it, say, a "comic chapbook" or "cartoon chapbook"? Would this not give someone who has never seen the actual book a better sense of what that 1st US OO really is? But of course the "1st US Cartoon Chapbook from 1842" is not nearly so sexy and exciting as the "1st US Comic Book from 1842." If all you are interested in is scholarship and not sensationalism, then I would think it would make more sense to use more specific (and therefore more informative) terms, even if you have to invent new ones, rather than paint everything with such a broad brush. Otherwise you run the risk of unintentially misleading an unitiated reader rather than informing him.

 

[edited for typos]

[BLBcomics-migration]

Pressed for time right now as i am working,

 

The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck first printing from 1842 is not a hard cover.

 

It has a separate cover stock, 40 pages of wrap around paper, folded over and side stitched, all like Action Comics #1 which was printed up 96 years later.

 

COMIC BOOK =

 

1) comics magazines

2) comics hard covers

3) comics soft covers ie trades, paperbacks, etc

4) etc

 

I am not after sensationalism. I have better things to accomplish with my time

 

The evolution of the origins of comic books/strips in America history essay series in the last decade worth of Overstreets grew over time as I learned more and as many other comics scholars gave their input

 

Nick Pope continually has given out just one lone example of the Dog Peddler Lady from Andy Konkykru's wonderful web site of 100s of examples of early comic strip evolution.

 

What he kept bringing up is not a stand alone comic book such as the 1842 Obadiah.

 

This Obadiah Oldbuck from 1842 is merely the first comic book in America. Period.

 

It is not the first comic strip in America - not by a long shot.

 

and no claim to that concept has ever been put forth in the history articles I compile.

 

Comics archeology has taken a quantum leap forward in the last decade solely due to the advent of internet "real" time give & take with comics scholars all over the world, each with a piece of the jig saw puzzle, which a dedicated forum, such as this one even, makes it easier to communicate what each individual has unearthed -and then shares with the other interested parties on the list.

 

I am not sure i have ever said single panel cartoons qualify always as comic strips. That is a reasonable supposition on your part, but is false.

 

Something like Dennis the Menace daily strips co-mingle their energy with Sunday sequential tales, so one could make the argument that a single panel version becomes part & parcel with the greater whole.

 

The same argument would apply to say Yellow Kid, which is 99% of YK output is single panel cartoons, yet is considered by some as "first" comic strip. The jury will always be out on that one, methinks, and i will continue to plug away at my research as i do it for myself and was asked to share some of that research in the pages of Overstreet.

 

Are all single panel cartoons comic strips? heck no.

 

never said or implied that - typing away on a thread such as this take sup time, so sometimes complete thoughts are not transmitted.

 

Back in the 1940s, what we call comicbooks were in fact called comics magazines by the publishers, the distributors, by the general public. Russ Cochran waxed on in the pages of his Comic Book Marketplace run about this same misnomer.

 

The Comics Code which began in 1954 is administered by The Comics Magazine Association of America - where do we get "comic book"from these days?

 

The evolution of the term "comic book" is an interesting concept which some one could do a PhD dss on all by itself, in all actuality

 

You wrote, "If your definition of "comic book" is so broad as to include anything from the Egyptian Book of the Dead to Medieval illuminated manuscripts to 18th century political cartoon pamphlets to Cupples and Leon books to Tokyopop manga, then the phrase "comic book" loses any significance and effectiveness that it had as a term of classification."

 

I have not written in the Overstreet about that much before Obadiah, other than to show a tidbit that comic strips existed before Obadiah Oldbuck in 1842 - the space there is much to precious to deviate from the concept of "comic books"

 

That said, i will repeat myself, The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck, Sept 14 1842 published by Wilson & Co in New York City is the first comic book in America.

 

I hope i covered most of what you brought up. Please feel free to point me at something i might have inadvertently not addressed.

[BLBcomics-migration]

The "rules" I use don't come from some 1960's group. These rules predate that committee and were in use by the likes of Swinnerton and Gaines decades earlier... so I really wish you'd stop saying that I operate on some ad hoc mid-1960s decision. That group may have reiterated the "rules", but those "rules" existed prior to that meeting (and you damn well know this Bob, you've read the same material I have).

 

Nick, read the Legman transcription on page 64 of this thread. I think Gersham Legman to be a much more consummate comics historian than Gaines.

 

The Jimmy Swinnerton quotes from a 1933 Editor & Publisher Gaines implanted a little bit in his 1942 PRINT article NARRATIVE ILLUSTRATION, later collected in a stand alone giveaway for an art exhibition which he was involved with in NYC, are much too brief to ascertain for positive what he truly meant. What most collectors do not know is there is a 2nd portion in a 1943 PRINT magazine which did not make it into the pamphlet.

 

I have read way more than you or any one else here on the history of comic strips in America.

 

No boast, simple fact. And that makes me feel old.

 

have you read Gombrich's massive ART AND ILLUSION (1960) yet?

 

there is a whole chapter on Töpffer contained therein you should check out - this book is a collection of speeches he gave at the Smithsonian in 1956 - and the chapter on the origin of the comic book is well worth reading.

[mica]

Thanks for all of the recent scans gentlemen.

[Theagenes]

Pressed for time right now as i am working,

 

The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck first printing from 1842 is not a hard cover.

 

It has a separate cover stock, 40 pages of wrap around paper, folded over and side stitched, all like Action Comics #1 which was printed up 96 years later.

 

Apparently so pressed for time that you missed the first sentence in my last paragraph:

 

Now with the 1st US of printing of OO, you have something very interesting as its format is very similar to what most people use the the term "comic book" today to describe - i.e. a comic magazine.

 

The main point I was trying to make is that for purposes of scholarship it is more accurate and informative to use all of these terms:

 

1) comics magazines

2) comics hard covers

3) comics soft covers ie trades, paperbacks, etc

4) etc

 

rather than just this one:

 

COMIC BOOK =

 

If you want to call Cupples & Leon books "comic books" when you're posting pics in the Platinum thread - fine, no problem. We all know what your talking about (and I've been enjoying those a great deal BTW). But in published articles it would be more informative, not to mention more academically responsible, to use more specific terminology. That's all I'm saying.

 

I am not after sensationalism. I have better things to accomplish with my time

 

I don't really think that you are, but the perception is clearly there. You've seen all the posters who suggest that you and/or OPG have an agenda to push these books for whatever reason.

 

The evolution of the origins of comic books/strips in America history essay series in the last decade worth of Overstreets grew over time as I learned more and as many other comics scholars gave their input

 

Nick Pope continually has given out just one lone example of the Dog Peddler Lady from Andy Konkykru's wonderful web site of 100s of examples of early comic strip evolution.

 

What he kept bringing up is not a stand alone comic book such as the 1842 Obadiah.

 

I really think that when you have the time you ahould actually read my post instead of just skimming it. *sigh*

 

This Obadiah Oldbuck from 1842 is merely the first comic book in America. Period.

 

It is not the first comic strip in America - not by a long shot.

 

and no claim to that concept has ever been put forth in the history articles I compile.

 

Comics archeology has taken a quantum leap forward in the last decade solely due to the advent of internet "real" time give & take with comics scholars all over the world, each with a piece of the jig saw puzzle, which a dedicated forum, such as this one even, makes it easier to communicate what each individual has unearthed -and then shares with the other interested parties on the list.

 

I know you like to call your research "comic archaeology", but in archaeology what we do is unearth artifacts, record their context, analyze them, measure them, note any differences or similarities between them, create typologies based on those differences for purposes of classification, and then draw conclusions based on the data we accumulate. Can you imagine if we just took all the potsherds we find and lumped them all together as "Pottery" without noting any differences in decoration, technique, composition, vessel shape, or point of origin? How useful would our data then be to other scholars? Searching out every piece of "graphic art story telling on paper" so you can throw it in the same "comic book" rubric with everything else is not "archaeology"; it's more like "treasure hunting."

 

I am not sure i have ever said single panel cartoons qualify always as comic strips. That is a reasonable supposition on your part, but is false.

 

Something like Dennis the Menace daily strips co-mingle their energy with Sunday sequential tales, so one could make the argument that a single panel version becomes part & parcel with the greater whole.

 

The same argument would apply to say Yellow Kid, which is 99% of YK output is single panel cartoons, yet is considered by some as "first" comic strip. The jury will always be out on that one, methinks, and i will continue to plug away at my research as i do it for myself and was asked to share some of that research in the pages of Overstreet.

 

Are all single panel cartoons comic strips? heck no.

 

never said or implied that - typing away on a thread such as this take sup time, so sometimes complete thoughts are not transmitted.

 

I was basing it on the following comments.

From p. 73 of this thread:

 

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

 

This stuck out in my mind because I thought it was an odd thing to say, but looking over your comment again now, I see you were referring to "comics" in general, not a comic strip, which would imply sequential panels. My misunderstanding. See how important specific terminology can be?

 

Back in the 1940s, what we call comicbooks were in fact called comics magazines by the publishers, the distributors, by the general public. Russ Cochran waxed on in the pages of his Comic Book Marketplace run about this same misnomer.

 

The Comics Code which began in 1954 is administered by The Comics Magazine Association of America - where do we get "comic book"from these days?

 

The evolution of the term "comic book" is an interesting concept which some one could do a PhD dss on all by itself, in all actuality

 

You wrote, "If your definition of "comic book" is so broad as to include anything from the Egyptian Book of the Dead to Medieval illuminated manuscripts to 18th century political cartoon pamphlets to Cupples and Leon books to Tokyopop manga, then the phrase "comic book" loses any significance and effectiveness that it had as a term of classification."

 

I have not written in the Overstreet about that much before Obadiah, other than to show a tidbit that comic strips existed before Obadiah Oldbuck in 1842 - the space there is much to precious to deviate from the concept of "comic books"

 

You may not have written about these earlier examples, but they could all be called comic books by your definition. All are examples of "graphic storytelling on paper."

 

That said, i will repeat myself, The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck, Sept 14 1842 published by Wilson & Co in New York City is the first comic book in America.

 

I hope i covered most of what you brought up. Please feel free to point me at something i might have inadvertently not addressed.

 

You mean besides seeming to miss the main point of my entire post? See above.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

Wow, so what color is the sky in your world?

 

Blue, but it is filled with word and thought balloons!

 

Hehe, OK.

[BLBcomics-migration]

Ok, i do not know yet how to use the quote function, sowill have my comments buried isndei your text. Please do not shoot the messenger - ::

 

Pressed for time right now as i am working,

 

The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck first printing from 1842 is not a hard cover.

 

It has a separate cover stock, 40 pages of wrap around paper, folded over and side stitched, all like Action Comics #1 which was printed up 96 years later.

 

Apparently so pressed for time that you missed the first sentence in my last paragraph:

 

Now with the 1st US of printing of OO, you have something very interesting as its format is very similar to what most people use the the term "comic book" today to describe - i.e. a comic magazine.

 

The main point I was trying to make is that for purposes of scholarship it is more accurate and informative to use all of these terms:

 

1) comics magazines

2) comics hard covers

3) comics soft covers ie trades, paperbacks, etc

4) etc

 

rather than just this one:

 

COMIC BOOK =

 

If you want to call Cupples & Leon books "comic books" when you're posting pics in the Platinum thread - fine, no problem. We all know what your talking about (and I've been enjoying those a great deal BTW). But in published articles it would be more informative, not to mention more academically responsible, to use more specific terminology. That's all I'm saying.

 

RB: I read all of your post, did not skim any of it, and was upfront that i might miss some of your points in my response as i had to go out and ran out of time - not quite the same as you seem to imply, but, oh, well, we do what we can do in the time allotted by life

 

RB: Every term you have listed so far means something different to most every body reading this now - one could make a list of terms, then watch as the differing interpretations are issued.

 

RB: I thought i was making a stab at "comicbook" by bringing up 1940s versions of those whom invented the saddle stitched pamphlets calling the same pot/kettle "comic magazines" and how the terms have evolved since the 1960s but i guess that was not good enough for you.

 

 

I am not after sensationalism. I have better things to accomplish with my time

 

I don't really think that you are, but the perception is clearly there. You've seen all the posters who suggest that you and/or OPG have an agenda to push these books for whatever reason.

 

RB: no offense, but so what? i know who i am, i am what i am and i have no agenda to try to force prices up on anything in the comics world.

 

RB: That is a mind set function of CGC slabbers mentality, as that is how slabbers seem to choose to think. I would never begin to try to upset that apple cart,

 

RB: I will continue with my comics research and sharing same within the pages of Overstreet until such a time if they decide to pull the plug. I do not see that happening but you never know.

 

RB: I am not writing for academia, and to make up a scientific list of narrowly defined terms to be used is something you can do, or some one else can under take. I teach PhD candidates about comics history.

 

The evolution of the origins of comic books/strips in America history essay series in the last decade worth of Overstreets grew over time as I learned more and as many other comics scholars gave their input

 

Nick Pope continually has given out just one lone example of the Dog Peddler Lady from Andy Konkykru's wonderful web site of 100s of examples of early comic strip evolution.

 

What he kept bringing up is not a stand alone comic book such as the 1842 Obadiah.

 

I really think that when you have the time you ahould actually read my post instead of just skimming it. *sigh*

 

RB: You brought up Nick's Dog & Pony show example, he has popped on this thread once again, more power to him, BTW, as i present how i feel it all unfolded, and every one here is quite welcome by me to see things how they want to see things.

 

I do not get your point, however, so please enlighten me

 

This Obadiah Oldbuck from 1842 is merely the first comic book in America. Period.

 

It is not the first comic strip in America - not by a long shot.

 

and no claim to that concept has ever been put forth in the history articles I compile.

 

Comics archeology has taken a quantum leap forward in the last decade solely due to the advent of internet "real" time give & take with comics scholars all over the world, each with a piece of the jig saw puzzle, which a dedicated forum, such as this one even, makes it easier to communicate what each individual has unearthed -and then shares with the other interested parties on the list.

 

I know you like to call your research "comic archaeology", but in archaeology what we do is unearth artifacts, record their context, analyze them, measure them, note any differences or similarities between them, create typologies based on those differences for purposes of classification, and then draw conclusions based on the data we accumulate. Can you imagine if we just took all the potsherds we find and lumped them all together as "Pottery" without noting any differences in decoration, technique, composition, vessel shape, or point of origin? How useful would our data then be to other scholars? Searching out every piece of "graphic art story telling on paper" so you can throw it in the same "comic book" rubric with everything else is not "archaeology"; it's more like "treasure hunting."

 

RB: Yes, i have unearthed artifacts, recorded their content, analyzed them, measured them, noting similarities/differences along the way as best as possible, tried classifying them into categories, and have been drawing and revising conclusions ever since i got started down this path. The Victorian and Platinum price indexes were created out of whole cloth.

 

RB: Compiling a history of the comics business in America since the mid 1800s when so little has been done before, coupled with this is just a chat forum and i do not have all the time I would like to analyze every little pen stroke before hitting SEND, one can easily not expand on "graphic art story telling on paper" as comic strips do not necessarily have to be on paper for starters, so you got me there, I will wager there have been comic strips placed on media besides paper.

 

RB: I prefer the term prospecting to treasure hunting, with some archeology thrown in for good measure, as no one person knew what was out there. And i think you are off base saying i am trying to throw everything into the mix (including the Kitchen Sink).

 

RB: The focus is on sequential graphic story telling = picture stories = comic strips

 

And one can have pantomime comic strips as well as text at the bottom of the sequential panels of story telling art - it is the story telling art which drives the critter into being a comic strip -

 

I am not sure i have ever said single panel cartoons qualify always as comic strips. That is a reasonable supposition on your part, but is false.

 

Something like Dennis the Menace daily strips co-mingle their energy with Sunday sequential tales, so one could make the argument that a single panel version becomes part & parcel with the greater whole.

 

The same argument would apply to say Yellow Kid, which is 99% of YK output is single panel cartoons, yet is considered by some as "first" comic strip. The jury will always be out on that one, methinks, and i will continue to plug away at my research as i do it for myself and was asked to share some of that research in the pages of Overstreet.

 

Are all single panel cartoons comic strips? heck no.

 

never said or implied that - typing away on a thread such as this take sup time, so sometimes complete thoughts are not transmitted.

 

I was basing it on the following comments.

From p. 73 of this thread:

 

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

 

This stuck out in my mind because I thought it was an odd thing to say, but looking over your comment again now, I see you were referring to "comics" in general, not a comic strip, which would imply sequential panels. My misunderstanding. See how important specific terminology can be?

 

RB: so go out and create the specific terminology so it is all neat and tidy for you. I have been busy uncovering the artifacts and trying to interpret what i have found. So have a lot of other people. If they cannot even agree on what a planet is, kicking out poor Pluto yesterday........

 

Back in the 1940s, what we call comicbooks were in fact called comics magazines by the publishers, the distributors, by the general public. Russ Cochran waxed on in the pages of his Comic Book Marketplace run about this same misnomer.

 

The Comics Code which began in 1954 is administered by The Comics Magazine Association of America - where do we get "comic book"from these days?

 

The evolution of the term "comic book" is an interesting concept which some one could do a PhD dss on all by itself, in all actuality

 

You wrote, "If your definition of "comic book" is so broad as to include anything from the Egyptian Book of the Dead to Medieval illuminated manuscripts to 18th century political cartoon pamphlets to Cupples and Leon books to Tokyopop manga, then the phrase "comic book" loses any significance and effectiveness that it had as a term of classification."

 

I have not written in the Overstreet about that much before Obadiah, other than to show a tidbit that comic strips existed before Obadiah Oldbuck in 1842 - the space there is much to precious to deviate from the concept of "comic books"

 

You may not have written about these earlier examples, but they could all be called comic books by your definition. All are examples of "graphic storytelling on paper."

 

RB: i did not write out a formal definition. But maybe i should - there are plenty of other ones already out there, one more wouldn't hurt adding it to the mix.

 

That said, i will repeat myself, The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck, Sept 14 1842 published by Wilson & Co in New York City is the first comic book in America.

 

I hope i covered most of what you brought up. Please feel free to point me at something i might have inadvertently not addressed.

 

You mean besides seeming to miss the main point of my entire post? See above.

I understood what you wrote there, and there are so many terms already under "comic book" so i addressed just a few of the concepts you raised. Like i said, am pressed for time, still am, and also feel this important enough to communicate about RB: I read all of your post, did not skim any of it, and was upfront that i might miss some of your points in my response as i had to go out and ran out of time - not quite the same as you seem to imply, but, oh, well, we do what we can do in the time allotted by life

[Theagenes]

That's cool, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. To tell you the truth this debate has gone around in circles for so long on so many topics, I'm not even sure if I know anymore what my point was. Good luck with your research and I look forward to reading your book when it comes out.

 

P.S. How much are those Italian OO reprints you're selling?

[selegue]

That's cool, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. To tell you the truth this debate has gone around in circles for so long on so many topics, I'm not even sure if I know anymore what my point was. Good luck with your research and I look forward to reading your book when it comes out.

 

I'm not Bob, but I chuckled when I realized that you just started page 100 of this thread (the way I have the page length set). Is a party in order?

I wonder whether anyone is interested in this topic.

 

P.S. How much are those Italian OO reprints you're selling?

 

Since I have the floor and as a satisfied customer, I'll help out Busy Bob.

Here's the info:

 

http://www.blbcomics.com/comics/oldbuck.php

a mere $15.00 post paid

 

Jack

[Theagenes]

I'm not Bob, but I chuckled when I realized that you just started page 100 of this thread (the way I have the page length set). Is a party in order?

I wonder whether anyone is interested in this topic.

 

I think this thread has been in it's death throes for the last dozen or so pages. I probably shouldn't have jumped back in and just let it die, but I do find this stuff very interesting.

 

 

Since I have the floor and as a satisfied customer, I'll help out Busy Bob.

Here's the info:

 

http://www.blbcomics.com/comics/oldbuck.php

a mere $15.00 post paid

 

Jack

 

Sending a PM to Bob now. Hope he's got some copies left.

[BLBcomics-migration]

 

 

http://www.blbcomics.com/comics/oldbuck.php

a mere $25.00 post paid

 

Jack

 

Hi jack,'

It is out of print - I have just a few copies left and the price is $30 in my newest color catalog, but for CGC listers here i would left one go per person for $20 post paid

 

I guess i have to get my daughter kati to update that part of the web site

 

PayPal at Orders@BLBcomics,com gets it out quickest

 

and this just proves i am only in this for the money -

 

I do not know if this thread will die any time soon, i do know i twas running for a couple months before i was informed i was being talked about on this here thread\

 

So, agenda?, say what?

 

Say, me worry?

 

I know history will out, i know i do this comics thing as a way of life, i talk comic book all day long with my customers - this is what i do now for several decades.

[selegue]

I'm not Bob, but I chuckled when I realized that you just started page 100 of this thread (the way I have the page length set). Is a party in order?

I wonder whether anyone is interested in this topic.

 

I think this thread has been in it's death throes for the last dozen or so pages.

 

Really? I was joking about the lack of interest.

I thought it was barely twitching when it was merely a few people shouting "The Truth" (i.e., their opinion) progressively more loudly plus a few hecklers in the cheap seats, but all the new information and visuals on the last few pages have revived it.

 

 

I probably shouldn't have jumped back in and just let it die, but I do find this stuff very interesting.

 

 

....

 

http://www.blbcomics.com/comics/oldbuck.php

a mere $15.00 post paid

...

 

Sending a PM to Bob now. Hope he's got some copies left.

 

Ooops. Leave it to me to find an out-of-date price list.

 

Jack

gets most info from 30th edition Overstreet

[BLBcomics-migration]

I have more 1800s comic strips i could be posting here - do readers want to see more?

 

If people do not have the newest Overstreet #36 2006 edition and want to learn a quantum leap more on this subject, i suggest you acquire a copy as we have made huge strides in the story of the origins of the American comic book industry.

 

I am damn proud of those 66 pages in Overstreet - and the jury will be "out" for a long time yet as long held views are debated on forums such as this one.

 

I think it amazing this thread is closing in on 14,000 views - some one is reading this stuff

 

and hopefully learning

[mica]

I have more 1800s comic strips i could be posting here - do readers want to see more?

Sure.

 

If people do not have the newest Overstreet #36 2006 edition and want to learn a quantum leap more on this subject, i suggest you acquire a copy as we have made huge strides in the story of the origins of the American comic book industry.

 

I am damn proud of those 66 pages in Overstreet - and the jury will be "out" for a long time yet as long held views are debated on forums such as this one.

I just wish it had the grading definitions. Not for me so much as I probably have a lot of it committed to memory, but for the new person entering the hobby.

[BLBcomics-migration]

I have more 1800s comic strips i could be posting here - do readers want to see more?

Sure.

 

If people do not have the newest Overstreet #36 2006 edition and want to learn a quantum leap more on this subject, i suggest you acquire a copy as we have made huge strides in the story of the origins of the American comic book industry.

 

I am damn proud of those 66 pages in Overstreet - and the jury will be "out" for a long time yet as long held views are debated on forums such as this one.

I just wish it had the grading definitions. Not for me so much as I probably have a lot of it committed to memory, but for the new person entering the hobby.

 

The publishers wish people to buy the Grading Guide they are issuing shortly.

That is the reason as i see it you do not see it in this year's guide

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

The publishers wish people to buy the Grading Guide they are issuing shortly.

That is the reason as i see it you do not see it in this year's guide

 

That's a cynical opinion expressed by some other posters, but the folks at Gemstone have already explained the situation and indeed the grading definitions will be back where they belong next year.

[BLBcomics-migration]

I read that here on some thread, thought it sounded logical to promote sales of a definitive grading guide, probably the last one to be done for some time, and no harm was meant. sure hope it didn't come off as mean spirited