Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[BLBcomics-migration]

 

So...then you endorse Bob's attempts to revise history by calling Obadiah Oldbuck a comic in order to make some big bucks? I must say, this has caused me to reconsider my last post regarding your standing in the comic collecting community.

 

 

attempts?

 

fait accompli

 

finis

 

on to other projects

[Aman619]

if history is any guide, your conclusions will probably stand and accrue acceptance going forward, similar to Gaines proclamations 60 years ago. Just by seeing the Overstreet Platinum section year after year, your work will come to BE the final word by default....until someone comes after you to mix it up again with new info etc. So Congratulations! Case closed.

 

I and others wont agree 100% with you, however, but in all likelihood, we will be the shrinking minority holdouts against your conclusions as the 'answers'. As for the $$$ values of OO etc going forward? As in all things, who knows? We shall see ho many collectors come out chasing the few copies available, and how many others are content to still only go after "comics magazines" with superheroes etc published after 1933. (either in plastic or raw!)

[showcase4]

. As for the $$$ values of OO ?

 

That's easy....$20,000. It's listed right in the OPG

[esquirecomics]

I purchased this copy of Historie de Mr. Jabot tonight on ebay. It is also by Rodolphe Topffer who created Obadiah Oldbuck. The seller described it as being from the 1840s. However, according to Bob B, it is actually a French reprint from the 1860s. No matter. Apparently still in great shape for a 150 year old book!

 

 

Received the book today. Very sweet! Smaller than I thought. I will bring it to the Balt Con for anyone to see.

[ShoNuff-migration]

So...then you endorse Bob's attempts to revise history by calling Obadiah Oldbuck a comic in order to make some big bucks? I must say, this has caused me to reconsider my last post regarding your standing in the comic collecting community.

attempts?

 

fait accompli

 

finis

 

on to other projects

At least you finally admit you did it for the money. How sad.

 

Luckily, it's clear that most collectors seem to know that Obadiah Oldbuck is not a comic book, regardless of how many copies you have to sell and how many times you insist it is.

[BLBcomics-migration]

At least you finally admit you did it for the money. How sad.

 

Luckily, it's clear that most collectors seem to know that Obadiah Oldbuck is not a comic book, regardless of how many copies you have to sell and how many times you insist it is.

 

yes, it is so sad you keep intruding into other people's conversations - i do feel sorry for you.

 

Yes, i am only in this hobby now for 40 years solely completely only for the money.

 

You have Sherlock Holmes'd my secret - how astute of you

 

- have you gone to college to be able to accomplish such deep thinking?

[ShoNuff-migration]

yes, it is so sad you keep intruding into other people's conversations - i do feel sorry for you.

 

Sir....this tone you are taking with the first American comic collector is unacceptable. I'll thank you to cease and desist with it.

 

 

Yes, i am only in this hobby now for 40 years solely completely only for the money.

 

I think this was fairly obvious after you "revised" universally accepted findings and then dumped two of your $3,000 books for $40,000.

 

 

[BLBcomics-migration]

did your mother drop yo on your head?

[esquirecomics]

Ignore him Bob.

[ShoNuff-migration]

did your mother drop yo on your head?

Why do you ask? Are you trying to sell yours?

[ShoNuff-migration]

Ignore him Bob.

One thing you can't ignore is the fact that Obadiah Oldbuck is not a comic book.

[Shield]

Ignore him Bob.

One thing you can't ignore is the fact that Obadiah Oldbuck is not a comic book.

 

[BLBcomics-migration]

 

 

You fellas are ignoring the tidal tsunami waves of history lapping at your heineez

 

- if it bothers you, well, tough, get over it, as you are

[BLBcomics-migration]

if history is any guide, your conclusions will probably stand and accrue acceptance going forward, similar to Gaines proclamations 60 years ago. Just by seeing the Overstreet Platinum section year after year, your work will come to BE the final word by default....until someone comes after you to mix it up again with new info etc. So Congratulations! Case closed.

 

I and others wont agree 100% with you, however, but in all likelihood, we will be the shrinking minority holdouts against your conclusions as the 'answers'. As for the $$$ values of OO etc going forward? As in all things, who knows? We shall see ho many collectors come out chasing the few copies available, and how many others are content to still only go after "comics magazines" with superheroes etc published after 1933. (either in plastic or raw!)

 

Oh, i have no doubt that a younger generation will come along and mix it all up

 

but the info on the 1842 Obadiah Oldbuck will stand the test of time as there is no stand alone comic book printed in America which came before it.

 

there are comic books which predate it over in Euro-Asia, that is a fact - just go get the two David Kunzle books i posted cover info on a couple pages back

 

As far as value goes, that is not my concern - the marketplace will dictate that force of nature

 

Super heroes run a lot of wagons here on the CGC psycho-babble threads. That is OK, i like many of them also - but there is sooooo much more to the comics world than spandex fantasies

 

And i thank you for intelligent thought patterns - i respect most of the objections thrown out here as honest from the heart - but i have now read way too many 1800s comic strips and wish i could show you all what i have seen, and maybe a couple reprint projects i have in the works will help that along so the rest of you can one day bask in the True Light

[Aman619]

thanx Bob. I still think you see them as comics because you WANT them to be "comics, " I admit to seeing the connection and parallels you have researched and drawn.. But I think you came out the other side of the wormhole in time (or something like that) and proved merely an evolutionary DNA-like connection between our 20th century "comics magazines" (that we all call comicbooks), and its earlier ancestors. But in reality, these Platinum publications you unearthed are an entirely different species of comics, and no more "comicbooks/magazines" than early ape-like mammals are "[embarrassing lack of self control] sapiens." Related, but different

 

Thats not a bad thing, and shouldnt tarnish your research at all. That all stands high and mighty and valorous. I just cant totally subscribe to your conclusions of INclusion. The Platinum Age might as well be the Jurassic Age to collectors of "comicbooks" today. Totally alien and far removed. Totally cool too...I too love old paper, and graphics, and many of these are very intriguing. But two different beasts.

 

Im being closed-minded, from your vantagepoint, certainly. Relying on surface detail like available technology and subject matter, too in suggesting that the Platinum pieces are not the same as current 20th century stuff. But why do they need to be the same? You seem to need them to be as if the research itself must include an ending, a single point of departure, or beginning. I say its not that simple. And that therein lies the resistence to universal agreement with you.

 

that and all the money you made off it. (Sho nuff added that part! : ) Keep up the good work!

 

Oh, in addition, I still cant get beyond the fact that OO is a reprint of a French creation. That will always diminish IMO OOs relevance to that of a footnote, as opposed to an earthquake in publishing. If the "first American comicbook" is a reprint, it's not an invention at all. We comicbook collectors value first appearances, and origins. You went searching for the "Origin and First Appearance of The Comicbook"...the American phenomenon we all know and love... and in the end settled on a piece that is only "technically" valid: the first piece printed in America (maybe...) Do collectors in other fields celebrate and value corresponding pieces? Is the first book publshed in America heralded similarly?? The first desk? The first painting?? Or, does the fact that books had been printed and assembled for centuries overseas preclude any special significance to the first locally printed books??

 

The format already existed in book form. Location of production shouldnt count for all that much more than curiousity in my mind. Hadn't illustrated stories also existed for centuries before Topfler and OO? Was OO the first of anything besides location of publication? WHILE I STILL BELIEVED COMICS WERE A UNIQUELY AMERICAN ART FORM, I placed great stock in the FIRST AMERICAN COMICBOOK! I went out and bought one remember? But I believed the myth begun by Gaines et al. But you have dispelled that 70 year old myth with your research.

 

But that effort, IMO also devalued the prize of the FIRST because it turned out to be such a minor accomplishment. That one day in 1842 some American businessman thought he could make some money reprinting a French story here. You have only replaced faulty history with far mor in depth research with a denouement, a letdown, because the answer is far less meaningful than we thought.

 

So, now that I think about it, have you found the first COMICBOOK produced anywhere?? Was it in France, Italy, Japan?? THAT BOOK should be where your journey should end, shouldnt it? Lets take off our infantile Ugly American glasses and face facts that we didnt invent the comicbook... and as comics collectors and afficionados, now, finally ascertain just what WAS the FIRST.. anywhere!

 

Guess I got carried away. Fascinating stuff.

[showcase4]

thanx Bob. I still think you see them as comics because you WANT them to be "comics, " I admit to seeing the connection and parallels you have researched and drawn.. But I think you came out the other side of the wormhole in time (or something like that) and proved merely an evolutionary DNA-like connection between our 20th century "comics magazines" (that we all call comicbooks), and its earlier ancestors. But in reality, these Platinum publications you unearthed are an entirely different species of comics, and no more "comicbooks/magazines" than early ape-like mammals are "[embarrassing lack of self control] sapiens." Related, but different

 

Thats not a bad thing, and shouldnt tarnish your research at all. That all stands high and mighty and valorous. I just cant totally subscribe to your conclusions of INclusion. The Platinum Age might as well be the Jurassic Age to collectors of "comicbooks" today. Totally alien and far removed. Totally cool too...I too love old paper, and graphics, and many of these are very intriguing. But two different beasts.

 

Im being closed-minded, from your vantagepoint, certainly. Relying on surface detail like available technology and subject matter, too in suggesting that the Platinum pieces are not the same as current 20th century stuff. But why do they need to be the same? You seem to need them to be as if the research itself must include an ending, a single point of departure, or beginning. I say its not that simple. And that therein lies the resistence to universal agreement with you.

 

that and all the money you made off it. (Sho nuff added that part! : ) Keep up the good work!

 

Oh, in addition, I still cant get beyond the fact that OO is a reprint of a French creation. That will always diminish IMO OOs relevance to that of a footnote, as opposed to an earthquake in publishing. If the "first American comicbook" is a reprint, it's not an invention at all. We comicbook collectors value first appearances, and origins. You went searching for the "Origin and First Appearance of The Comicbook"...the American phenomenon we all know and love... and in the end settled on a piece that is only "technically" valid: the first piece printed in America (maybe...) Do collectors in other fields celebrate and value corresponding pieces? Is the first book publshed in America heralded similarly?? The first desk? The first painting?? Or, does the fact that books had been printed and assembled for centuries overseas preclude any special significance to the first locally printed books??

 

The format already existed in book form. Location of production shouldnt count for all that much more than curiousity in my mind. Hadn't illustrated stories also existed for centuries before Topfler and OO? Was OO the first of anything besides location of publication? WHILE I STILL BELIEVED COMICS WERE A UNIQUELY AMERICAN ART FORM, I placed great stock in the FIRST AMERICAN COMICBOOK! I went out and bought one remember? But I believed the myth begun by Gaines et al. But you have dispelled that 70 year old myth with your research.

 

But that effort, IMO also devalued the prize of the FIRST because it turned out to be such a minor accomplishment. That one day in 1842 some American businessman thought he could make some money reprinting a French story here. You have only replaced faulty history with far mor in depth research with a denouement, a letdown, because the answer is far less meaningful than we thought.

 

So, now that I think about it, have you found the first COMICBOOK produced anywhere?? Was it in France, Italy, Japan?? THAT BOOK should be where your journey should end, shouldnt it? Lets take off our infantile Ugly American glasses and face facts that we didnt invent the comicbook... and as comics collectors and afficionados, now, finally ascertain just what WAS the FIRST.. anywhere!

 

Guess I got carried away. Fascinating stuff.

 

Hey Aman,

I think this is the single best post of this entire 100+ page thread. Nicely done!

[Theagenes]

Excellent points Aman. There have been a number of great posts the last few days (despite some attempts from the peanut gallery to hijack the thread) and I finally have the time to jump back in and add some comments of my own.

 

Mark, Scrooge and others have pointed out, quite rightly, that no one really has a problem recognizing OO's influence and place in the comic evolutionary tree - the issue is really one of nomenclature. That was what I was trying to get at in some of my earlier posts. The term "comic book" obviously means very different things to different people. I, myself, am guilty of carelessly using it in different ways - sometimes to refer specifically to modern comic magazines; sometimes in it's broader sense to include things like Platinum comics and graphic novels. I would love to see a concensus reached on comic nomenclature, but I'm afraid that isn't very likely, due to fact that the terms we most often use like "comic book" and "comic magazine" have meant very different things in different periods. Probably the only way to avoid confusion is for anyone writing an article on early comics to define their terms and how they will be using them in every article. Obviously this would be an inconvenience to both writer and reader, but it is often done in other fields where terminology is vague.

 

Bob's suggestion to use "comic book" as a more general term and "comic magazine" to refer specifically to the stapled, paper-cover, post-1920s comics makes a lot of sense as it is techinally the most accurate and literal use of the terms. The problem, as several have pointed out, is that the common usage of these terms is completely different today. Most people use the term "comic magazine" to refer to the oversize comics like MAD, the Warren titles, SSOC, et al. These works have important differences, other than size, that should set them from their smaller counterparts and they do deserve a distinguishing label of their own. For one thing, the reason they came into being, starting with MAD's format change and later with the more adult-oriented mags of the 60's and 70's, was to be able to offer more sophisticated material by circumventing the CCA. How's that for irony? What most people call "comic magazines" today came into being specifically because they would not have to be governed by the code established by the Comic Magazine Association of America. To me this suggests that the use of the term "comic magazine" to refer to the regular smaller size comics had already fallen out of common use by the mid-50s when MAD made it's change, except perhaps by the old school executives in the industry like those responsible for the creation of the CMAA and CCA. Certainly there seems to have been a clear distinction between larger size non-Code comic magazines and the smaller Code-approved comic books (here I'm using the terms in their more common usage). My point is that using the term "comic magazine" for typical modern "comic books," while technically more accurate, can be just as problematic as using "comic book" for Victorian and Platinum books.

 

Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to the nomenclature issue. Perhaps the best thing to do for now, as I suggest above, is for writers and scholars to define their own terminology usage at the beginning of each book or article. That is cumbersome, yes, but it is done all time in other fields, specifically to avoid the type of confusion and consternation that we've seen in this thread.

[showcase4]

Well then....if we were to just use the term "comic book" as you know it to be, and not further categorize it such as: comic magazine, using word balloons, can't be a one-shot, meeting the Gaines deifintion, stapled spine, strip reprint content, etc etc.......

 

If you were simply asked which of these is the 1st comic book with no further qualifiers, what would be your choice? (I tihnk everyone would agree these are the obvious candidates)

 

1. Obadiah Oldbuck 1842

2. Yellow Kid in McFadden's Flats 1897

3. Comic Monthly #1 1922

4. Funnies on Parade 1933

5. Famous Funnies #1 1934

[Shield]

Comic Monthly #1

[ciorac]

Well then....if we were to just use the term "comic book" as you know it to be, and not further categorize it such as: comic magazine, using word balloons, can't be a one-shot, meeting the Gaines deifintion, stapled spine, strip reprint content, etc etc.......

 

If you were simply asked which of these is the 1st comic book with no further qualifiers, what would be your choice? (I tihnk everyone would agree these are the obvious candidates)

 

1. Obadiah Oldbuck 1842

2. Yellow Kid in McFadden's Flats 1897

3. Comic Monthly #1 1922

4. Funnies on Parade 1933

5. Famous Funnies #1 1934

 

4. Funnies on Parade