tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post4497287238589513986..comments2024-03-01T14:01:34.480-08:00Comments on Marvel in the Silver Age: Exposed: Myths of Marvel's Silver Age - Part 1AirPiratePresshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13136561512898563240noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-69991678427620038992021-09-26T05:42:47.686-07:002021-09-26T05:42:47.686-07:00I can easily believe it was Stan. He was pretty ho...I can easily believe it was Stan. He was pretty honest about having a terrible memory and being unable to keep track of all the character names, hence the alliteration. Even when he had Banner's name changed to Robert Bruce Banner to cover the repeated 'Bob Banner' gaffe, he admitted it was an error pretty quickly. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07987939902453387342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-26033207893451312462020-05-11T11:16:10.484-07:002020-05-11T11:16:10.484-07:00When Marvel began publishing more magazines in 196...When Marvel began publishing more magazines in 1968 they totally went downhill. Stan's writing became repetitive and Roy Thomas at his best was nowhere near Stan. The artwork suffered terribly, I really liked Sal Buscema's work, though. When I first saw Johnny Severin on Sgt. Fury I was amazed! Such powerful drawing. I couldn't stand Iron Man anymore. Kirby had a terrible inker on Captain America & Joe Sinnot was turning Kirby's artwork on the Fantastic Four into cartoon caricatures with balloon muscles. Dick Ayers was always a better inker than artist, just compare Joe Kuberts WWII DC comics to Ayer's on Sgt. Fury - no comparison! John Buscema blew me away when he took over the Sub Mariner for a while, too. But I went into High School in 1970 & lost interest in comic books, also.5697 Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04720870094624782813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-74483230513914426862020-03-09T13:18:40.116-07:002020-03-09T13:18:40.116-07:00I suspect it's more likely to have been a lett...I suspect it's more likely to have been a lettering mistake with 'Superman', Al. If Stan had scripted it that way, the letterer would most likely have corrected it. Guess we'll never know for sure though.Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07224781868125924337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-14829293555261666212020-03-09T08:21:16.880-07:002020-03-09T08:21:16.880-07:00Interesting points, Chuck ... but your theory abou...Interesting points, Chuck ... but your theory about the ten-pagers being intended for AF 16 & 17 seems unlikely. Because if Stan had two ten-page inventory stories, he could have fitted them in ASM 1, which Goodman (who hated inventory) would certainly have preferred. He couldn't do that with two 14-pages, hence the ten-pagers are the fillers, not the 14-pagers. Also, Stan's mistakes aren't a yardstick of his familiarity with the character. After all, he called Spidey "Superman"in ASM 3. We may just have to agree to disagree on this one ...AirPiratePresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13136561512898563240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-47080693378935467092020-02-25T04:04:49.917-08:002020-02-25T04:04:49.917-08:00Depending on what sales figures one goes by it wou...Depending on what sales figures one goes by it would seem, and there appears to be a difference of opinion on which ones (if any) are more accurate. I'll wait to see how Al develops his theme before I make up my mind, as he's not usually one for making rash statements. Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07224781868125924337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-15401794855945857372020-02-24T19:19:36.627-08:002020-02-24T19:19:36.627-08:00I'm saying that DC published twice as many tit...I'm saying that DC published twice as many titles per month as Marvel during the 1966-67 period, and a number of DC's titles had much higher average sales than Marvel's top seller, Spider-Man. Those two facts indicate that DC was still outselling Marvel by a considerable margin, although Marvel's sales were gradually rising and eventually passed DC around the beginning of 1972.The Old Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11084790683033919407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-69510665425219187482020-02-24T17:12:41.472-08:002020-02-24T17:12:41.472-08:00Thank you for the link. I agree with your main pre...Thank you for the link. I agree with your main premise about the intended continuation of Amazing Fantasy but not on which stories were originally intended for Amazing Fantasy. The Chameleon story in Amazing Spider-man #1 contains the Peter Palmer error, and because of that, I think it was intended for Amazing Fantasy. Stan often mentioned his poor memory, but I think when writing the main feature for Marvel's first true #1 costumed super-hero comic book in the 1960's, he would have gotten the Alter ego name right. (I don't count Fantastic Four #1 and #2 as super-hero books as they have a mixture of Challengers of the Unknown and Marvel Monster Comics attributes but no real super-hero feel. The Human Torch and Thing are monsters for the most part) I think Amazing Spider-man #1 was a major experiment for them, dipping their toes in a regular no-monster costumed super-hero book for once. I suspect the Peter Palmer error happened because Stan neglected to proofread the inventory story.Chuck Fialahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00444887811468109765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-13475359294408075312020-02-24T10:58:41.207-08:002020-02-24T10:58:41.207-08:00A quick question to assist in my understanding. Ar...A quick question to assist in my understanding. Are you saying that the number of mags DC published is the same as the numbers sold?Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07224781868125924337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-48769568843247058462020-02-24T07:58:59.502-08:002020-02-24T07:58:59.502-08:00I'm not just relying on Les Daniels. It's ...I'm not just relying on Les Daniels. It's been widely reported that Martin Goodman took his staff out to celebrate at a restaurant across from DC's offices. If Goodman understood anything, it was how to read sales reports.The Old Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11084790683033919407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-20388636791358534142020-02-24T04:19:18.545-08:002020-02-24T04:19:18.545-08:00To be honest, when it comes to numbers, I get lost...To be honest, when it comes to numbers, I get lost when I hear someone chant "2-4-6-8, who do we appreciate...?" It's the numerical equivalent of giving me a slip of paper with 'P.T.O.' written on both sides - I'm confused for hours.<br /><br />I'm confident that Al will have a reason for seeing things as he does and I'll leave it to him to address the issue in either a comment or his next blog post. For my own part, however, I've seen it claimed that no sales charts from the period are accurate and they were just made up as required, so, if true, I don't think any such figures are totally reliable.<br /><br />Incidentally, I don't think Les Daniel's book can be thoroughly relied on for accuracy, as it repeats the demonstrable myth that Spidey was put in Amazing Fantasy #15 because it was the last issue.<br /><br />Right, I'm off to lie down in a darkened room for a few hours. "2-4-6-8..." Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07224781868125924337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-36927880691715201022020-02-23T20:51:44.682-08:002020-02-23T20:51:44.682-08:00Continued from preceding reply ...
There are othe...Continued from preceding reply ...<br /><br />There are other clues that the aforementioned chart is misstating the data. For 1965, the chart says Marvel was selling 7 million copies per month, which annualizes to 84 million copies a year. However, the same post reproduces “a house ad for retailers,” prepared by Marvel, that states 1963 sales to be 22,530,000 copies, 1964 sales to be 27,709,000 copies, and estimates 1965 sales to be 32 million, which is about what happened. Marvel’s sales were increasing year by year, I don’t dispute that.<br /><br />The chart at the top of that page appears to be a graphical representation of sales figures provided by an unnamed reader at the bottom of the page, set forth in a table that purports to state monthly sales for both DC and Marvel from 1950 to 1987. The table claims Marvel’s monthly sales were 3,755,184 in 1963, 4,612,986 in 1964, and 5,404,393 in 1965, which annualizes to 45 million in 1963, 55 million in 1964, and 64 million in 1965. That’s DOUBLING the sales figures claimed by Marvel in a contemporaneous representation to its retailers. I’ll go with Marvel’s own figures over the numbers claimed in that table.<br /><br />I’ll also go with what Les Daniels wrote in Marvel: Five Fabulous Decades of the World’s Greatest Comics, a 1991 book that was written with lots of cooperation from everyone at Marvel. On page 154, he writes: “As 1971 drew to a close, publisher Martin Goodman initiated an ingenious sales strategy ... that gave Marvel a commanding lead in overall circulation. Marvel had been growing steadily for a decade, but Goodman’s new maneuvers finally put it over the top.” Also, if you look at Mike’s Amazing World site, cited above, and set the Way Back Machine for April 1972, you’ll see that Marvel by then was matching, and soon surpassing, DC on the number of titles published.<br /><br />In short, this blog is making an honest mistake, relying on bad data posted elsewhere. This doesn't detract from the many interesting and original insights published on this blog.The Old Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11084790683033919407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-38448833660831038462020-02-23T20:39:15.188-08:002020-02-23T20:39:15.188-08:00I think, from prior posts, that this blog is relyi...I think, from prior posts, that this blog is relying on a chart posted on http://zak-site.com/Great-American-Novel/comic_sales.html, which I took a look at. The chart purports to graph comic sales for Marvel and DC from 1950 to 1987. The chart shows Marvel selling about 7 million copies per month in 1966 and 7.5 million copies per month in 1967, passing DC by about 1 million copies per month. 7.5 million copies per month translates to about 93 million copies per year – by Marvel, in 1967.<br /><br />The first clue that the something is off with the graph is that “the spikes are because I chose just a single issue in the summer and one in the winter,” creating the possibility of a sampling error. The second clue comes from the table that appears right below the graph. It purports to list the 12 best selling superhero titles in 1966. The top 11 are by DC. Batman tops the list at 898,000 per month, which reflects the popularity of the Batman TV series, but Superman is number 2 with 719,000 copies, followed by Superboy with 608,000, and so on. The highest Marvel seller was Spider-Man, at number 12 with 340,000 copies. The 11 DC titles that topped Spider-Man totalled 5,971,000 copies. This doesn’t equate to sales per month, because most of those titles were published 6 or 8 times a year; only 3 titles (Action, Adventure, Detective) were monthlies. Still, the best selling titles gave DC a big lead over Marvel in 1966, before the sales of titles not in the top 12 are factored in.<br /><br />Is it possible that the lower selling titles not on the chart permitted Marvel to edge out DC once all the titles are added in? Not really. Take a look at http://www.mikesamazingworld.com/mikes/features/newsstand.php, which can be used to display the output of each comic book publisher for any particular month. Sorting by date of publication, Marvel published 188 comics in 1966 and the same number in 1967. DC published 373 comics in 1966 and 362 in 1967. In other words, DC’s output in both years nearly doubled Marvel’s.<br /><br />In theory, if Marvel published half as many comics as DC in 1966, it could match DC’s sales if the average Marvel title sold twice as many copies as the average DC title. If so, Marvel would be dominating the Top 12 chart for that year. But it didn’t – Spider-Man was the only title to crack the Top 12, and both Superman and Batman more than doubled Spider-Man’s sales. So things don’t add up.<br /><br />To be continued ...The Old Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11084790683033919407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-65521049764033276372020-02-23T14:27:38.381-08:002020-02-23T14:27:38.381-08:00Well, I wouldn't presume to speak for Al, but ...Well, I wouldn't presume to speak for Al, but he usually checks his facts pretty thoroughly and isn't given to making unsubstantiated claims - though nobody's infallible when it comes to interpreting all the conflicting pieces of information flying around out there. Just out of interest, TOC, on what do you base your conclusions, and can we be assured that the sources you rely on are any more reliable than the ones you discount? I'm not saying they're not, you understand, but I'd just like to know what they are and why you put such great faith in them. Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07224781868125924337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-81511158469760561172020-02-22T12:42:51.816-08:002020-02-22T12:42:51.816-08:00Interesting post! Perhaps someday you could carry ...Interesting post! Perhaps someday you could carry forward the monthly roster of Marvel titles into 1969, 1970, and 1971. The superhero titles were cut back and replaced with a few good titles, like Conan and Kull, but also with quite a few others that signaled an overall decline in quality.<br /><br />One minor correction. Playboy was distributed by Independent News, not by Curtis. Another point worth mentioning is that Perfect Film wasn't just buying Marvel but all of Magazine Management, including the men's sweat magazines like Stag and Male, most of which fizzled out over the next ten years as they tried to compete with Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler. For a while those magazines were converted from spicy adventure mags to color slicks with nude pictorials and overtly sexual material. By then Stan was publisher, presiding over both a comic book line and a line of third rate sex magazines. He managed to keep his association with nude slicks under wraps. <br /><br />Since you're trying to dispel myths, I urge caution about your assertion that Marvel overtook DC in 1967 or 1968 rather than in 1971 or 1972. You've been saying this in several posts and I checked the source you cited in an earlier post. It's an unreliable source that misinterpreted the data and contains some glaring internal inconsistencies. Marvel didn't overtake DC until 71 or 72 -- that's fact, not myth. If you really want to take a run at that one, I recommend you not just rely on that one source.The Old Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11084790683033919407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-2153106754830095382020-02-18T10:07:02.593-08:002020-02-18T10:07:02.593-08:00You're welcome ... I hope you get a chance to ...You're welcome ... I hope you get a chance to have look through some of the other articles here ...<br />AirPiratePresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13136561512898563240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-26483376058925663712020-02-18T10:06:22.373-08:002020-02-18T10:06:22.373-08:00Me too! I cover that idea in this earlier blog ent...Me too! I cover that idea in this earlier blog entry - https://marvelsilverage.blogspot.com/2015/08/catches-thieves-just-like-flies.htmlAirPiratePresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13136561512898563240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-72323186155646461532020-02-15T21:13:45.416-08:002020-02-15T21:13:45.416-08:00Great post! Thanks!Great post! Thanks!SMRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15422003936214682801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-53899634033107595022020-02-15T13:57:01.422-08:002020-02-15T13:57:01.422-08:00As Amazing Spider-Man #1 and #2 had shorter storie...As Amazing Spider-Man #1 and #2 had shorter stories probably intended for AF #16 and #17, I suspect Amazing Fantasy was cancelled suddenly.Chuck Fialahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00444887811468109765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-49981656227998888672020-02-11T09:28:06.683-08:002020-02-11T09:28:06.683-08:00Yes, I'm going to be looking at the reasons fo...Yes, I'm going to be looking at the reasons for the similarities between the Amazing Fantasy and Fantastic Four logos, among other things, next time ...AirPiratePresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13136561512898563240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-64274889099896741632020-02-10T10:44:21.917-08:002020-02-10T10:44:21.917-08:00Yeah, now I understand. We're both on the same...Yeah, now I understand. We're both on the same page as to whether Stan knew AF #15 was the final ish when he put Spidey in it - he didn't. I also agree that FF went monthly when AF was cancelled (interesting that they both had the same logo style for several issues), but what I was trying to suggest was that (obviously) had AF been a better seller, it would probably have been another mag that got cancelled. So FF took AF's place, but that was as a result of AF's poor sales, not primarily or solely to allow FF to go monthly. All of which I think you were saying, but I sort of got lost in it. (However, in my defence, I AM a Grade A, triple-strength thicko.)Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07224781868125924337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-5443627356659872352020-02-10T09:28:35.824-08:002020-02-10T09:28:35.824-08:00I've edited the text a little above to try to ...I've edited the text a little above to try to make it clearer. My contention was that Stan has always said he only put Spidey in Amazing Fantasy because he knew Goodman was cancelling it. That seems unlikely, as Stan trailed future issues of AF right after the Spider-Man story, indicating that he had no idea Goodman planned to cancel it. Looking at the point where AF stopped and FF went monthly, the two appear to be related. Check out my comics database here for a clearer picture - http://www.thestoryworks.com/comics/default.aspAirPiratePresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13136561512898563240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8419605150672201683.post-24084567473347042562020-02-09T18:07:46.365-08:002020-02-09T18:07:46.365-08:00You've been doing your research, Al, haven'...You've been doing your research, Al, haven't you? A fascinating read. One point I'm not clear on (hey, it's nearly 2 a.m.) is what you're saying about Stan's conflicting accounts over AF #15 being intended as the final issue, while at the same time touting Spidey as an ongoing series in the mag. It's clear that Stan didn't know that AF would be cancelled when he put Spidey in it, but I'm not sure whether you agree with this or not. "Much has been made..." seems to suggest "...but it's not true", which I don't think you mean, but I'm not sure. Goodman cancelled AF purely because it wasn't selling, so the fact that FF then went monthly was really a side-benefit, not the main reason that AF was cancelled. That's probably what you meant, but I found it a little ambiguous. Probably just me though, 'cos I'm tired. Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07224781868125924337noreply@blogger.com