Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[mica]

When some people say comic book then mean any publication containing comic strip material. When other people say comic book they mean a particular physical characteristic of publication concerning comics, namely the format dominant in the USA since the 1930’s. Most people agree that most Platinum and Victorian age publications containing comics are not in the same physical format as modern comic books.

Perhaps Mad Magazine is to blame for the shift in calling comic mags a comic book.

The very name "magazine" in the title helped define that the editors of Mad wanted us to know there was a perceived difference.

 

There's probably a lot of earlier examples, where a larger tabloid sized periodical was noted as a magazine rather than comic.

 

Maybe the final solution for the viewpoint of those that don't want to acknowledge Obadiah, is to start referring to their Golden and Silver age books as magazines.

 

Then Obadiah could be classified as a book.....as well as the Calvin & Hobbes editions, while the more "regular" (staples/wordballoons/Superman-era) crowd can refer to their books as Comic book magazines. The downside would be that MadMagazine and Savage Sword of Conan would be in the same category.

And at this point I'm not sure that that would be a down side.

 

Just throwing out ideas.... I'm still undecided... Nor am I saying we should adopt this ideology.

[showcase4]

When Bob says Obadiah is a Comic book is he right? Yes in my opinion, because Bob uses the word Comic Book to describe publications, which contain comic material.

 

When Shield says Obadiah is not a comic book is he right? Yes in my opinion, because Shield uses the word Comic Book to describe a physical format of a publication, which does not even have to contain comics (Marvel Handbooks).

 

So you are both right. Just using the same word to describe different things. Same type of content, differnt physical characteristics.

 

That’s why I prefer to say I collect ‘Comics’ as opposed to ‘Comics Books’. I collect publications which contain comic material irrespective of physical format.

 

great point Earl

we are all on this post due to one common bond....we are into our "comics". Comics, comic books, comic magazines, Platinum Age, Golden Age, Promotional, underground.......they are all under the same umbrella....it's chopping them up into little pieces that is causing all the fuss.

 

Obadiah Oldbuck is a comic book.....I don't collect anything else. More Fun 52 is a comic book.....you guys don't collect anything else...I get it. We are all in the same ball park - just sitting on different bleachers.

 

I can tell you this...it is absurd for the 1st comic book to be Funnies on Parade. That would imply that in 1932 there was nothing, and then all of sudden in 1933...boom! You have a modern comic book...staples, content , size , cover, price...it all suddenly appeared without any gradual changes and previous formats and ideas that it was built on......that is just amazing! You can't go from nothing to everything. You need a spark before you can have a raging fire.

[esquirecomics]

Does anyone know what prompted Overstreet to declare Funnies on Parade the "first" comic book?

 

I'll check my old Guides to see when that "distinction" first appeared.

[shiverbones]

did you not read my post? Of course funnies on parade is first, the rest, the sparks, are a different animal. Why is it so hard to see the birth of something new from the inspiration of the past? It happens all the time, and there is always on defining moment that creates something new. ALL semantics aside, the animal known as a comic book as set forth by funnies on parade is a different animal then all before, and its the animal that survived.

 

Read Men of tomorrow by Gerard Jones, it will helpspell out ll the elements that seperate this book from the rest, the time it was born, the people behind it, and whatthey came up with.

 

Previous books had comics, this is the start of the form of the modern comic book.

[BLBcomics-migration]

did you not read my post? Of course funnies on parade is first, the rest, the sparks, are a different animal. Why is it so hard to see the birth of something new from the inspiration of the past? It happens all the time, and there is always on defining moment that creates something new. ALL semantics aside, the animal known as a comic book as set forth by funnies on parade is a different animal then all before, and its the animal that survived.

 

Read Men of tomorrow by Gerard Jones, it will helpspell out ll the elements that seperate this book from the rest, the time it was born, the people behind it, and whatthey came up with.

 

Previous books had comics, this is the start of the form of the modern comic book.

 

Gerard Jones used a lot of my research that went into his book

- and took parts of it into levels i had not yet gotten to -

 

I still have my pre-pub advance copy, all marked up in the margins making correcting notes

 

he has most of "it" right - and i recommend the book as well

 

I agree, Eastern Color with their 1933/34 output created the modern format comic book

 

One simply has to read the 3rd history article there to figure out i trace out the origins of when Dell first became partners with Eastern Color in late 1928 and THE FUNNIES was issued, thru Humor, oil company giveaways, the 2nd time Dell & Eastern become partners in 1934, how COMIC CUTS evolved into NEW FUN beginning in 1934, and onwards to the super hero blip

 

The issue to me is there is more to what is a comic book than the modern format comics magazines which a large group of collectors want to have Action #1 as the most important comic book

 

more power to you

 

write your own history articles - prove me wrong

- (this be a challenge in there some where, sports fans)

 

I say that all these events are just that - events in a time line

 

and the time line for comic books in America begins with Obadiah Oldbuck in New York City in 1842 and builds from there, decade after decade, generation succeeding into the next generation

 

The format of FoP is the late modern Dime Novel format

 

To me it is nothing "new" -

 

It did prove to be a winning formula making comic books out of that same format

 

And Superman did prove to be a sales cow spawning all those super heroes who won World War Two and then died on the vine for a decade and a half except for less than half a dozen

 

Funny animal genre, hands down, was the most popular genre for many many years

 

The Buster Brown sales phenom of licensing into a francjised empire beginning in 1903 was just as powerful in its day as the super hero pheom was to a generation 35 years later

 

And there are others: Mutt & Jeff was another morphing into plays, music, animated cartoons beginning in 1916, (action) figures, and so on

 

and there are others

 

why, i think a couple mammals named Mickey and Donald each had their own franchised empires conquering the public's imagination before Superman came along much less Felix, and i grant that maybe, just maybe, Mighty Mouse owes a direct debt to that guy from Krypton

[BLBcomics-migration]

Does anyone know what prompted Overstreet to declare Funnies on Parade the "first" comic book?

 

I'll check my old Guides to see when that "distinction" first appeared.

 

Dr Sol Davidson, the first person in the world to get his PhD doing a dss on comic strips and books back in 1958 told me he went to Bob Overstreet back in 1971 to get the Plat books listed

 

All Bob was willing to put in were the Cupples & Leon comic books, saying they were too old, no one cared about them any more, etc

 

Making Funnies On Parade the first comic book in 1933 made it easy - methinks

 

But it ain't that easy

 

Reminds me in a side bar here that the first AntMan story has to be Tales To Astonish 27 because howard Rogofsjy coined it as such in an early price list of his - there are "other" Ant man/hill Marvel stories predating TtoA 35

 

The semantics of what is or is not a comicbook continually amazes me - if it is all comic strips therein, it is a comic book to me

 

However one chooses to define the breakdown terms from that one starting point is open to debate - and has been for decades - at least in my collecting circles who get outside the super hero confined box so many of you are wrapped up in, seemingly, anyway

[shiverbones]

Well Bob, I guess this is where the problem is with most collectors. Its in the meaning of the word comic book. To most, myself included, a comic book is a different animal then what came before. No one would doubt that OO is the 1st example of what it is, the beginning of a long line of publications that eventually became the modern comic book. I think many, myself included find it demeaning to the comic book to include all formats of printed cartoon/comic illustrations. I do not consider graphic novels, TPBs or Strip collection books comic books, because it is a different form, and they each deserve their own name and place. The insect family apidae contains carpenter bees, honey bees, bumble bees, etc, but they each get their own name, that is the point of classification. The reactions you are getting come from trying to trivialize the importance of the form that is a comic book.

[BLBcomics-migration]

Well Bob, I guess this is where the problem is with most collectors. Its in the meaning of the word comic book. To most, myself included, a comic book is a different animal then what came before. No one would doubt that OO is the 1st example of what it is, the beginning of a long line of publications that eventually became the modern comic book. I think many, myself included find it demeaning to the comic book to include all formats of printed cartoon/comic illustrations. I do not consider graphic novels, TPBs or Strip collection books comic books, because it is a different form, and they each deserve their own name and place. The insect family apidae contains carpenter bees, honey bees, bumble bees, etc, but they each get their own name, that is the point of classification. The reactions you are getting come from trying to trivialize the importance of the form that is a comic book.

 

That is what puzzles me

 

WHy does it have to be a different animal than what came before?

 

It was suggested a long time ago by some one i know that those who cling to the comics magazine format popularly known as comic books do so because that is what fits into a long box

 

if it does not fit there, it cannot be a comic book to many people

 

me, i call hard bound books which are all comics inside a comic book, cuz, well, that is what it is, a comic book

 

If one is on the outside looking into our little microcosm of the human world, there is just about nothing "comic" (ie funny, part of the origin of the term comic strip/book) about any of the comic books out for sale

 

I am not trying to trivialize what a comic book is, not by a long shot, and am puzzled why anyone would think so - if they knew me, that is - and not from just running into some one year after year at a comic book show or two every year

 

A few pages back at this juncture i posted a lot of other formats i call them all comic books

 

because that is what they are, have been, and hopefully always will be

[BLBcomics-migration]

Yes we were, which is OK, as it demonstrates that there is more than one person who thinks along similar lines besides me, and, just maybe, there might even be more than two

 

Bob--

 

We must have been typing at the same time. I didn't mean to repeat your points, which you made more effectively with the real sales data I was looking for, in the next post.

 

Jack

 

 

All the other genres except Super hero were in place before 1938 and were selling well. Super heroes did not create the comics market. It was already there.

 

Super heroes did have a Big Bang in 1938-1940, no doubt about it, but they individually were not the best sellers - who here thinks they were? If you think that way, you are wrong.

 

Walt Disney's Comics and Stories is the all time champ, leaving out the multi-cover X-men #1 by Jim Lee for a sec. WD C&S sold in excess of 4 million an issue for many years

 

LOONEY TUNES MERRY MELODIES sold over 3 million an issue for years

 

Show me a super hero who got close to those numbers issue in issue out

 

As much as i enjoy the Last Son of Krypton as any one else here, this fixation on Superman is unhealthy. Comic strips had been around for centuries before Superman, Comic strips other than Superman were enjoyed my many more millions before Superman, Comic books containing many of these earlier comic strips were selling quite well - that is a simple fact....

[BLBcomics-migration]

When Bob says Obadiah is a Comic book is he right? Yes in my opinion, because Bob uses the word Comic Book to describe publications, which contain comic material.

 

When Shield says Obadiah is not a comic book is he right? Yes in my opinion, because Shield uses the word Comic Book to describe a physical format of a publication, which does not even have to contain comics (Marvel Handbooks).

 

So you are both right. Just using the same word to describe different things. Same type of content, differnt physical characteristics.

 

That’s why I prefer to say I collect ‘Comics’ as opposed to ‘Comics Books’. I collect publications which contain comic material irrespective of physical format.

 

Eral, you succinctly summed up what the debate is all about

 

I have known all along where the "other side" in this dog and pony show have been coming from

 

My position, as such, is one of raising the consciousness of what a comic book truly is inall its myriad formats

 

the Famous Funnies format is just one aspect of what a comic book is to me, in that it is a floppy folded over, mostly stapled, not always, magazine others would call a pamphlet

 

as well as other formats if some sort of book format

 

I think i have read waaaaay too many comic books in the last 45 some odd years

[ciorac]

...

 

...

I don't consider my attempts to get Bob to admit to what is patently obvious to the rest of the world "trolling". But, I agree that he is resolute in his denials of fact, and there is not point in attempting to get him off center.

 

 

Interesting points in your message, ciorac (sorry, I forgot your real name), I'm sure no one is accusing you of trolling. That honor goes to the clowns who have lots to say but nothing to contribute. Certainly not the kind of people you want as allies when you're trying to make a point.

 

 

...And given the history of comics in their totality it is impossible to make a claim for any other comic book than Action #1 as being the most important. Regardless of whether or not Superman was a superhero. That was simply the device. It just so happened that the first superhero, Superman, launched a comic book industry that continues to this day, in print, media, merchandising and film.

 

Are you understating that claim with "Regardless of whether or not Superman was a superhero" and "It just so happened"? After all, Detective Comics 1 predated Action Comics 1 by a couple of years -- same company, same format, some of the same creators -- yet no one here is championing that as "most important comic book". Demi-gods in circus suits definitely resonated with the general public and attracted a fanatical audience that rates them above all other genres.

 

 

Everthing else that happened after that link back to its success. The fact that comics became profitable on that level allowed the superhero explosion to happen. Which paved the way for all of the other genres to appear.

 

 

I have to argue against that point. The other genres had already appeared (detective, funny animals, etc. ... western, adventure and occult shared space with Superman in Action Comics 1!) so Superman didn't pave the way for them.

 

 

Had he not, who knows what may have happened to comcis. But, that would be subjective. We do know what did in fact happen, and that closes the case on that argument for all time.

 

 

Comics probably would have kept on keepin' on with the genres that were already working -- both reprints and original material -- until someone else stumbled onto a formula as good as Superman. Mickey Mouse and his funny animal pals had already been doing fine in their comic MAGAZINE since 1935. Funny animals probably would have dominated the comic-book medium all the way up into the 1950s. (Come to think of it, that's what really happened anyway. Somebody pull out those Dell sales figures.)

 

 

As far as to what is and what isn't a comic book, I guess that will remain an opininion issue and I will leave it alone.

 

Somebody say, "Hallelujah!"

 

Jack

 

(deep sigh)

 

Jack, you have been drinking the kool-aid my friend. I don't know where to begin with you so I will just address one of your comments..

 

"Comics probably would have kept on keepin' on with the genres that were already working -- both reprints and original material -- until someone else stumbled onto a formula as good as Superman. Mickey Mouse and his funny animal pals had already been doing fine in their comic MAGAZINE since 1935. Funny animals probably would have dominated the comic-book medium all the way up into the 1950s. (Come to think of it, that's what really happened anyway. Somebody pull out those Dell sales figures.)"

 

 

And I'M the one being SUBJECTIVE???

 

Why can't you deal in facts? "Would have"? "Stumbled"? Funny animals dominated? Ok, that must be some strong kool-aid.

 

So, since you are being subjective..allow me..

 

Take Superman and all Superheroes out of the equation permanently, then what?Nutsy Squirrel takes us all the way to 2006? Becomes a movie franchise and a merchandising bonanza?

 

What would become of a comics industry devoid of Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Hulk, X-Men, etc?

 

Not very dadburned much. So, if the first superhero book, regardless of your love for funny animals and dear old Mickey, is not the most important comic book of all time, then what...pray tell....is?

 

New comic sales are at an all-time low, but how many of those are funny animal today? You and Bob love to spout sales figures from 60 years ago, follow the sales for them since that time.

 

Were you or are you a comic retailer? If so, you should know what pays the rent. Not Gladstone I assure you.

[ciorac]

 

My Obadiah Oldbuck arrived today and I have read it!!! Thanks Bob!

 

Bob indicated that the format of the reprint is identical to how it was released in 1842, except for the cover added.

 

But, on the inside back cover of the book and on a couple of the pictures Bob posted of the original it appears to be in landscape mode if you will. This book is in portrait, which makes it look much more like a comic book. That is misleading.

 

Here are my observations:

 

1. In the repackaged format it looks like a crudely drawn, semi-sequential, typically French boring magazine with comic illustrations.

 

2. In the original format it is the same except the landscape nature of the way it was printed makes it tough to classify.

 

Conclusion -- Obadiah Oldbuck is the earliest example of a Comic Magazine I have ever seen. But, it is clearly not a comic book, in how I define them.

 

But, nonetheless it is still remarkable.

[selegue]

 

(deep sigh)

 

Jack, you have been drinking the kool-aid my friend.

 

 

Never touch the stuff.

 

I don't know where to begin with you so I will just address one of your comments..

 

"Comics probably would have kept on keepin' on with the genres that were already working -- both reprints and original material -- until someone else stumbled onto a formula as good as Superman. Mickey Mouse and his funny animal pals had already been doing fine in their comic MAGAZINE since 1935. Funny animals probably would have dominated the comic-book medium all the way up into the 1950s. (Come to think of it, that's what really happened anyway. Somebody pull out those Dell sales figures.)"

 

 

And I'M the one being SUBJECTIVE???

 

Why can't you deal in facts? "Would have"? "Stumbled"?

 

 

Wait a minute! My comment followed up your who-knows-what question! Of course it's subjective. Here's what you wrote. That's not inviting speculation?

 

"Had he not, who knows what may have happened to comcis. But, that would be subjective. We do know what did in fact happen, and that closes the case on that argument for all time."

 

And why not "stumbled"? Look at the path Superman took from creation to publication. Rejection after rejection from publishers, Jerry S burning the originals of the 1933 version, Gaines intending to turn down the next version but rushing it off to Donenfeld to meet a tight deadline. That's not "stumbling"?

 

 

Funny animals dominated? Ok, that must be some strong kool-aid.

 

 

There's a point of real disagreement. Funny animals DID dominate the comic-book medium all the way up into the 1950s. That's not speculation -- sales figures back that statement up. You don't agree with the sales figures? We may REMEMBER the superhero (and horror) genres more fondly than funny animals, but they didn't dominate the medium at the time.

 

 

So, since you are being subjective..allow me..

 

Take Superman and all Superheroes out of the equation permanently, then what?Nutsy Squirrel takes us all the way to 2006? Becomes a movie franchise and a merchandising bonanza?

 

What would become of a comics industry devoid of Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Hulk, X-Men, etc?

 

 

It probably would have withered up and blown away, not become the booming, profitable industry we have today. Cripes, the comic shops around here are proliferating like Starbucks -- soon there'll be one on every street corner.

 

That, ah say, that's a joke, OK?

 

I can see that you switched from comic books themselves to movie franchise and merchandising. But seriously, we wouldn't have to rely on Nutsy Squirrel and Peter Panda. Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny and the gang are HUGE merchadising bonanzas. Disneyland, TV stations, beach towels, you name it. I don't know whether Disney + Warner Brothers (just Bugs Bunny and related) or superhero merchandise is more profitable overall. (Does anyone here know?)

 

Someone else probably would have come up with a similar superhero formula -- it seems like its time had arrived. Look how they gushed out after Supes opened the floodgates.

 

Or would we be living in the Watchmen world where pirate comics dominate the medium?

 

 

Not very dadburned much. So, if the first superhero book, regardless of your love for funny animals and dear old Mickey, is not the most important comic book of all time, then what...pray tell....is?

 

 

Don't choke on your kool-aid when I grudgingly admit that Action Comics 1 is. I was not disagreeing with that but rather with two other points in your message. Obviously I wasn't clear.

 

(1) You wrote "...And given the history of comics in their totality it is impossible to make a claim for any other comic book than Action #1 as being the most important. Regardless of whether or not Superman was a superhero,"

 

but it seemed like you meant "because Superman was a superhero." Otherwise why would Action Comics 1 be so much more important that Detective Comics 1? You don't see what I mean there?

 

(2) You wrote "Everthing else that happened after that link back to its success. The fact that comics became profitable on that level allowed the superhero explosion to happen. Which paved the way for all of the other genres to appear."

 

Superman didn't pave the way for all the other genres. Several were already there and doing fine when Superman arrived. Maybe Superman paved the way for horror and romance?

 

New comic sales are at an all-time low, but how many of those are funny animal today? You and Bob love to spout sales figures from 60 years ago, follow the sales for them since that time.

 

No thanks -- not unless I'm allowed to spike the kool-aid.

 

 

Were you or are you a comic retailer? If so, you should know what pays the rent. Not Gladstone I assure you.

 

No, I've never been in the business at all. Just a humble, low-grade collector/accumlator. Superheroes are probably at least 80% of the books in my collection, but I'm finding comics history and other genres increasingly more interesting.

 

ciorac, I think we agree more than we disagree, but it's fun to kick these ideas around.

 

Jack

(please don't deeply sigh at me)

[esquirecomics]

But, nonetheless it is still remarkable.

 

Great to hear! It is all about the enjoyment of the books regardless of being a comic book, magazine or apple sauce.

[selegue]

But, nonetheless it is still remarkable.

 

Great to hear! It is all about the enjoyment of the books regardless of being a comic book, magazine or apple sauce.

 

Now I regret that mine is stashed away in storage where I can't get at it conveniently. I'd like to be consulting it as this discussion rages.

 

Jack

[ciorac]

 

(deep sigh)

 

Jack, you have been drinking the kool-aid my friend.

 

 

Never touch the stuff.

 

I don't know where to begin with you so I will just address one of your comments..

 

"Comics probably would have kept on keepin' on with the genres that were already working -- both reprints and original material -- until someone else stumbled onto a formula as good as Superman. Mickey Mouse and his funny animal pals had already been doing fine in their comic MAGAZINE since 1935. Funny animals probably would have dominated the comic-book medium all the way up into the 1950s. (Come to think of it, that's what really happened anyway. Somebody pull out those Dell sales figures.)"

 

 

And I'M the one being SUBJECTIVE???

 

Why can't you deal in facts? "Would have"? "Stumbled"?

 

 

Wait a minute! My comment followed up your who-knows-what question! Of course it's subjective. Here's what you wrote. That's not inviting speculation?

 

"Had he not, who knows what may have happened to comcis. But, that would be subjective. We do know what did in fact happen, and that closes the case on that argument for all time."

 

And why not "stumbled"? Look at the path Superman took from creation to publication. Rejection after rejection from publishers, Jerry S burning the originals of the 1933 version, Gaines intending to turn down the next version but rushing it off to Donenfeld to meet a tight deadline. That's not "stumbling"?

 

 

Funny animals dominated? Ok, that must be some strong kool-aid.

 

 

There's a point of real disagreement. Funny animals DID dominate the comic-book medium all the way up into the 1950s. That's not speculation -- sales figures back that statement up. You don't agree with the sales figures? We may REMEMBER the superhero (and horror) genres more fondly than funny animals, but they didn't dominate the medium at the time.

 

 

So, since you are being subjective..allow me..

 

Take Superman and all Superheroes out of the equation permanently, then what?Nutsy Squirrel takes us all the way to 2006? Becomes a movie franchise and a merchandising bonanza?

 

What would become of a comics industry devoid of Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Hulk, X-Men, etc?

 

 

It probably would have withered up and blown away, not become the booming, profitable industry we have today. Cripes, the comic shops around here are proliferating like Starbucks -- soon there'll be one on every street corner.

 

That, ah say, that's a joke, OK?

 

I can see that you switched from comic books themselves to movie franchise and merchandising. But seriously, we wouldn't have to rely on Nutsy Squirrel and Peter Panda. Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny and the gang are HUGE merchadising bonanzas. Disneyland, TV stations, beach towels, you name it. I don't know whether Disney + Warner Brothers (just Bugs Bunny and related) or superhero merchandise is more profitable overall. (Does anyone here know?)

 

Someone else probably would have come up with a similar superhero formula -- it seems like its time had arrived. Look how they gushed out after Supes opened the floodgates.

 

Or would we be living in the Watchmen world where pirate comics dominate the medium?

 

 

Not very dadburned much. So, if the first superhero book, regardless of your love for funny animals and dear old Mickey, is not the most important comic book of all time, then what...pray tell....is?

 

 

Don't choke on your kool-aid when I grudgingly admit that Action Comics 1 is. I was not disagreeing with that but rather with two other points in your message. Obviously I wasn't clear.

 

(1) You wrote "...And given the history of comics in their totality it is impossible to make a claim for any other comic book than Action #1 as being the most important. Regardless of whether or not Superman was a superhero,"

 

but it seemed like you meant "because Superman was a superhero." Otherwise why would Action Comics 1 be so much more important that Detective Comics 1? You don't see what I mean there?

 

(2) You wrote "Everthing else that happened after that link back to its success. The fact that comics became profitable on that level allowed the superhero explosion to happen. Which paved the way for all of the other genres to appear."

 

Superman didn't pave the way for all the other genres. Several were already there and doing fine when Superman arrived. Maybe Superman paved the way for horror and romance?

 

New comic sales are at an all-time low, but how many of those are funny animal today? You and Bob love to spout sales figures from 60 years ago, follow the sales for them since that time.

 

No thanks -- not unless I'm allowed to spike the kool-aid.

 

 

Were you or are you a comic retailer? If so, you should know what pays the rent. Not Gladstone I assure you.

 

No, I've never been in the business at all. Just a humble, low-grade collector/accumlator. Superheroes are probably at least 80% of the books in my collection, but I'm finding comics history and other genres increasingly more interesting.

 

ciorac, I think we agree more than we disagree, but it's fun to kick these ideas around.

 

Jack

(please don't deeply sigh at me)

 

Much better Jack. I appreciate the humor as well, very much. Thanks for clarifying your position. Your right we do agree more than disagree, and it is quite fun. I look forward every evening when I come home to being fired up enough to post.

 

Bob, is quite a guy, but it just kills me that he is being so stubborn about this.

 

I mean for the love of Pete, OO the most important comic book ever published. If it wasn't so absurd it would be laughable.

 

But that is just Bob being Bob. He will always be that passionate about what he does, and more power to him. Heck, I've learned a ton from just reading his posts in this thread alone.

 

Yes, you are correct I should have said he paved the way for many new genres to come along. Several others were going strong already.

 

As for the superhero reference, that was related to everytime I would say superhero Bob would quote me as Superman and vice versa. What I meant was for whatever reason it happened, Superman launched the industry as we know it.

[showcase4]

 

My Obadiah Oldbuck arrived today and I have read it!!! Thanks Bob!

Obadiah Oldbuck is the earliest example of a Comic Magazine I have ever seen.

it is still remarkable.

 

Hey Bill,

the past 2 weeks have been full of progress for the 2 of us.....I said what I said about Action 1, and you said this! I am so glad you READ the reprint, as it is required to do so before passing judgement. If everyone on these Boards had a copy in hand, and dove in like you did, there may have been fewer spears thrown at me from the start.

 

The copy that I have on loan to The Geppi Museum would take your experience to the next level, should you ever get the opportunity to go. When you see Obadiah Oldbuck 4 inches in front of you...even though it's in a display case ( with the 3 HUMOR books ), you get those collector butterflies in your stomach like when you see a Detective 27 or other great and high profile key books in person....you sense greatness.

 

Thank you very much for sharing your experience with us.

[infinite_comics-migration]

If everyone on these Boards had a copy in hand, and dove in like you did, there may have been fewer spears thrown at me from the start.

 

No, if you hadn't immediately shown yourself to be a pompous jackazz, people would've thrown fewer spears. Seriously.

 

When you see Obadiah Oldbuck 4 inches in front of you...even though it's in a display case... you get those collector butterflies in your stomach... you sense greatness.

 

No, I sense desperation to justify a $20,000 purchase.

[showcase4]

If everyone on these Boards had a copy in hand, and dove in like you did, there may have been fewer spears thrown at me from the start.

 

No, if you hadn't immediately shown yourself to be a pompous jackazz, people would've thrown fewer spears. Seriously.

 

When you see Obadiah Oldbuck 4 inches in front of you...even though it's in a display case... you get those collector butterflies in your stomach... you sense greatness.

 

No, I sense desperation to justify a $20,000 purchase.

 

Hey Jr.,

why don't you run along now and go play outside with the other children......us grown-ups are trying to have a conversation here

[Aman619]

If everyone on these Boards had a copy in hand, and dove in like you did, there may have been fewer spears thrown at me from the start.

 

No, if you hadn't immediately shown yourself to be a pompous jackazz, people would've thrown fewer spears. Seriously.

 

When you see Obadiah Oldbuck 4 inches in front of you...even though it's in a display case... you get those collector butterflies in your stomach... you sense greatness.

 

No, I sense desperation to justify a $20,000 purchase.

 

Hey Jr.,

why don't you run along now and go play outside with the other children......us grown-ups are trying to have a conversation here

 

yeah but he's right! you showed up with a far more cheerleader with earplugs on attitude! Go back and reread who you were at the beginning. Youve since then backed off substantially, but the adversarial, ("you're wrong!") tone was set (by you) early on. Sorry.