• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Top 50 Copper Books in Overstreet
7 7

402 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, MYNAMEISLEGION said:

Citing data, sales, appearances, merchandizing, etc is a much better attempt at objectivity, that is still subject to interpretation, but we should ever at least try to establish some agreement on the basic facts and argue from there. It is from that perspective that I am most in agreement with RMA and FD and Smeagol, Geeks-Peeps and and CC. 

That is why it is IMPERATIVE to gather data from as many different contemporaneous sources as possible. Cap City numbers? A good start. But only a start. They don't paint the whole picture. It is only when you get information from disparate (especially competing) sources that pictures start to become reasonably clear. All of these events...when who became popular, when what was first noticed...all of them can be reasonably pinned down by examining the contemporary literature of the day. Cable? There's no mention of him or Liefeld in Market reports until the Fall of 1990. By the Spring of 1991, they dominate the reports. Batman? Impossible to read a report in 1989 without seeing him mentioned.

As you said...we have a delightfully nasty habit of retconning the pasts through our own memories, and must always square our memories with the recorded data...not the other way around.

As any accident lawyer will tell you, not even the near-instant recitation of an eye witness is completely reliable. How much less so our memories of specific information from years and decades in the past, especially those colored by the natural exaggerations of youth? 

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
insert eyeroll here for not being able to hide edits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That is why it is IMPERATIVE to gather data from as many different contemporaneous sources as possible. Cap City numbers? A good start. But only a start. They don't paint the whole picture. It is only when you get information from disparate (especially competing) sources that pictures start to <snip>

OR we could pretend this is a board for collectors and just share our faulty anecdotal childhood memories and skip the lectures and fact checking tutorials from someone who never bought comics as a kid  :baiting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, bababooey said:

OR we could pretend this is a board for collectors and just share our faulty anecdotal childhood memories and skip the lectures and fact checking tutorials from someone who never bought comics as a kid  :baiting:

OR we could just choose to ignore those who offend us, rather than lecturing them about how much they offend us, and making sure everyone else knows how much they offend us.

I know, crazy, right...? Wanting to be accurate and factual, rather than stew in our individual fantasylands...? INSANE!

:screwy:

And who said I never bought comics as a kid...? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:
1 hour ago, bababooey said:

OR we could pretend this is a board for collectors and just share our faulty anecdotal childhood memories and skip the lectures and fact checking tutorials from someone who never bought comics as a kid  :baiting:

OR we could just choose to ignore those who offend us, rather than lecturing them about how much they offend us, and making sure everyone else knows how much they offend us.

I know, crazy, right...? Wanting to be accurate and factual, rather than stew in our individual fantasylands...? INSANE!

:screwy:

And who said I never bought comics as a kid...? 

I think you could probably say 3+3=6 and someone on this board would give you grief about it, simply because it was you that said it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jeffro. said:

I think you could probably say 3+3=6 and someone on this board would give you grief about it, simply because it was you that said it.

Probably. No sense in worrying about it, though. We're all on equal footing, here; no one's got more...or less...right to say what they feel like saying, until it gets personal. Someone bothers you...? Ignore 'em. Problem solved. Unless they're trying to pick a fight with you, as some of the more vicious malcontents around here do, there's no need to interact. 

"Your comments bother me!" Ok. Don't read them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

As any accident lawyer will tell you, not even the near-instant recitation of an eye witness is completely reliable. How much less so our memories of specific information from years and decades in the past, especially those colored by the natural exaggerations of youth? 

I was, therefore I am . . . lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2019 at 10:51 AM, ComicConnoisseur said:

Interesting that some of these Image guys have connections to some of the last big characters introduced by Marvel.

McFarlane = Venom

Liefeld = Cable and Deadpool

Jim Lee = Gambit and Omega Red.

That`s a pretty nice portfolio of characters that have a huge potential in upcoming movies.

 

 

Omega Red is a big character?

(shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most likely if he appears in a upcoming Marvel/Disney movie.  All it takes is one cool movie appearance as we found out with Groot, Rocket Raccoon, and even Goose the cat.

The character is kind of visually appealing which would work in a movie. I get a Star Trek Khan vibe.

Image result for omega red jim lee          Image result for omega red jim lee

Plus his action figure back in the day was cool.

Image result for omega red action figure

Edited by ComicConnoisseur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2019 at 5:55 AM, MYNAMEISLEGION said:

a coupe of things:

1. Black Suit/Venom/Carnage/McFarlane/image/90's comic crash:  As these events unfold, and how they were perceived at the time, how they were perceived and recollected by fans and creators as they were unfolding, and what REALLY happened when looking back 25 years later in the fullness of time, and not subjective re-interpretation is a tricky thing to un-tangle. It's not dissimilar to the criticisms of Stan's recollection of the creation of the Marvel Universe, who was credited with what, and how conscious and deliberate those actions and intentions were at the time versus how they were consolidated and almost rewritten in the telling each time Stan was interviewed over the course of 40 years. Human's have a pesky habit of retconning their own past and recall and feelings about the past mostly unconsciously, and sometime deliberately when presenting them to others in the present. 

Citing data, sales, appearances, merchandizing, etc is a much better attempt at objectivity, that is still subject to interpretation, but we should ever at least try to establish some agreement on the basic facts and argue from there. It is from that perspective that I am most in agreement with RMA and FD and Smeagol, Geeks-Peeps and and CC. 

My take: Black Suit/Venom/Carnage/McFarlane/image/90's comic crash:  all these factors inform how Venom came to be, came to be modestly popular, only later overly collectible, and later over-saturated.  Secret Wars 8 started out as moderately collectible only for the change in costume,  Venom as a distinct character only later in Amazing Spider-man, and that initially was more driven by McFarlane's appearance more than Venom's origin. All this makes for a somewhat convoluted determination of Venom's true "first" appearance.  Not unlike Cable, and Uncanny #201 and maybe Gambit and the X-Men annual. My feeling is that Venom was the result, not the intent of the writers to resolve the Alien Costume story, and they did what is exceedingly rare these days: created a somewhat new character for the purpose of telling a story, and it just happened to catch on with fans, and later, much later, and even decades later exceed all expectations and become a break-out character.  With that they have retconned all sorts of aspects of the Venom character, made him a cardboard villain, an anti-hero, a hero, a virus, and well I really don't WTF he's supposed to be but he's sure stuck around.  If McFarlane hadn't lent a hand with the visuals, maybe he never would have caught on, who knows, but venom outlived his stumbling origins as a character. That's what some characters do, despite the best, and worst intentions of the writers and artists and editors that steer them along the way.

Contrast that with say, Cable and Gambit.  Both had some initial gravity, cool visuals, mysterious origins, lots of attitude, lots of appearances, toys, some cartoons, BUT, they kinda petered out.  Venom and Deadpool have both far exceed them, for having all been created around the same time.  They peaked early, Deadpool and Venom peaked 20 years after the fact.   I would posit that fans started to get Mutant cross-over fatigue in the late 90's and early 2000's and once Marvel kick-started the MCU and were acquired by Disney, they deliberately started sandbagging the Mutant books since Fox had the movie rights. Now that Disney has the Mutants back, who knows where the emphasis will be now on the comics side.  The Avengers have been the top tier of the comics and movies- as the 1st iteration of the Avengers team in the MCU cycle through due to age and contracts, will they introduce new "Avengers" or pivot to one of the other properties like FF or Mutants? Will the comic side dust off some of the characters that have lain fallow?

TMNT:  this is where I do part ways with RMA:  I would not consider TMNT the most important Copper age book. It's important only for the fact that it was licensed out for toys, cartoons and movies,  Most people have no idea it was ever a comic to start with, they didn't grow up reading it, drawing it on their school folders, no, they watched the cartoon after school and got the toys for xmas.  That's exactly how it played out for my 40 year old brother, and he collected comics, but never owned a single TMNT comic. His kids went through their Turtles phase, and it was 100% media and merchandizing driven.  People outside the hobby know who Stan and Jack are. Eastman?  Didn't he have something to do with Kodak? By that logic shouldn't Aircel's MIB one of the most important comics of the Copper age? Not in my estimation, but it made a gazillion dollar movie franchise.

I'm not sure what the single most important book of the Copper age is: single most important book in the Copper age TODAY? or what was the single post important book during the copper age? Those are 2 different questions to me. I'll have to think about that.

 

 

One big difference in the Cable/Gambit vs Venom/Deadpool scenario is that the latter pair started as antagonists. They couldn't really show up every month, as that would require their constant defeat, which would have lessened the characters. So they didn't get worn out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bababooey said:

OR we could pretend this is a board for collectors and just share our faulty anecdotal childhood memories and skip the lectures and fact checking tutorials from someone who never bought comics as a kid  :baiting:

I'll agree to that as long as everybody accepts that my memories trump theirs. Deal? Everybody react to this post if you agree.

But seriously, what good do fake memories do for anybody?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Omega Red is a big character?

(shrug)

Of course! Whenever I hear anybody talking about 90s characters, it always Deadpool this, Harley Quinn that, and Omega Red!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:roflmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

I'll agree to that as long as everybody accepts that my memories trump theirs. Deal? Everybody react to this post if you agree.

But seriously, what good do fake memories do for anybody?

Quotes from Dostoevsky - 

"Nothing in this world is harder than speaking the truth, nothing easier than flattery." 

"A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies, becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself and for others. When he has no respect for anyone, he can no longer love, and, in order to divert himself, having no love in him, he yields to his impulses, indulges in the lowest forms of pleasure, and behaves in the end like an animal. And it all comes from lying - lying to others and to yourself."

"The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it."

There is so, so much that may be gleaned from paying attention to who says what, and how. Motivations, worldviews (lifeviews?), and perspectives become crystal clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've thought it over for bit, and trying to decide from the official list what the single most important book on this list was. I argued against TMNT #1. But after going through the list, I settled on one that I don't think at first would have been my expected choice:  Sandman #1.  It kicked off Gaiman's career, Vertigo, a multitude of characters, some of the most acclaimed comics ever written, and literary recognition outside of comics with the World Fantasy Award. Endless (see what I did there?) reprints in HC, SC, Absolute, etc. It affected the comics industry, and DC in particular in more significant ways that many other books, even Watchmen.

Edited by MYNAMEISLEGION
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Quotes from Dostoevsky - 

"A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies, becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself and for others. When he has no respect for anyone, he can no longer love, and, in order to divert himself, having no love in him, he yields to his impulses, indulges in the lowest forms of pleasure, and behaves in the end like an animal. And it all comes from lying - lying to others and to yourself."

I thought there were no politics on the board

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MYNAMEISLEGION said:

I've thought it over for bit, and trying to decide from the official list what the single most important book on this list was. I argued against TMNT #1. But after going through the list, I settled on one that I don't think at first would have been my expected choice:  Sandman #1.  It kicked off Gaiman's career, Vertigo, a multitude of characters, some of the most acclaimed comics ever written, and literary recognition outside of comics with the World Fantasy Award. Endless (see what I did there?) reprints in HC, SC, Absolute, etc. It affected the comics industry, and DC in particular in more significant ways that many other books, even Watchmen.

Sandman wasn't initially a Vertigo book (the imprint didn't exist then), and if you're going to make an argument that the imprint exists because of the book, then the same argument could probably be made for Moore's Swamp Thing, which predates it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2019 at 10:29 AM, FlyingDonut said:

I'm not really going to get into this, but you are extremely wrong about your beliefs about Venom. Venom didn't become ZOMGVENOM until ASM 375, and even after that the pop for ASM 300 was much further down the line.

The trade paperback you put out earlier was a response directly to Todd McFarlane leaving to go to Image.

Wolverine, Ghost Rider, and Punisher made books sell. Nothing else.

Actually I believe you're referring to the tpb I posted, which came out a year prior to McFarlene leaving marvel, which can only mean one thing.

 

Marvel had a time machine :flipbait:

 

There is a lot of talk about numbers etc, but has anyone actually posted up guide book values from 91/92?  I see one guy posting that both 298 and 300 were $30 books as early as 91 (which is huge) and I'm more than a little skeptical that collectors were paying $30 for a book a few years after its release because it was the third book from at artist for that series.    I was able to find the 1990 oversheet, but not 91 and 92.  I can keep looking i guess If no one has them.

 

I'm also curious to see the price of new mutants 87 for those years. 

Edited by waaaghboss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, waaaghboss said:

I see one guy posting that both 298 and 300 were $30 books as early as 91 (which is huge)

:hi: One guy, here...

You'll find that information in this update, from May of 1990 (not 91):

624007.jpg

6 hours ago, waaaghboss said:

I'm more than a little skeptical that collectors were paying $30 for a book a few years after its release because it was the third book from at artist for that series. 

The above sentence, talking about Amazing Spiderman #300, is at complete odds with the historical record. June of 1990 was the absolute height of McFarlane-mania, as the new Spiderman comes out and sets sales records, driving collectors to a frenzy. It's similar to saying "I'm more than a little skeptical that collectors were paying $5-$10 for a book a few years after its release because it was the last one before the series was cancelled", referring to AF #15. It betrays a fundamental disconnect with the market as it existed at that time.

It's hard to appreciate or understand the demand for McFarlane, especially his Amazing Spiderman work, if you weren't there and didn't experience it firsthand. Suffice it to say, the kings of the recent back issue market, like Batman #426-429 the year before, were ASM #298 and #300. Not only were people gladly, happily paying $30 each to own a copy, they were paying $15 each for #299, #301-#305, $10 each for #306-319, and $5 or more the rest. Hulk #330 was a $25 book. #340 was a $25 book. Infinity, Incs were $5 books. Infinity, Incs! But, above all, people wanted #298 and #300. Nobody cared...if they even bothered to think about it...that #300 was "the third book for that series." It was the FIRST book in that series that McFarlane inked, and it is head and shoulders better than the muddled, buried mess that McLeod turned in for #298 and #299. It's a night and day difference, which certainly contributed to its demand. #298 was the first one...but if you wanted to see the first real McFarlane art on Spidey, that was #300.

And there was virtually no talk about Venom. It was All McFarlane, All The Time...emphasis on the "All."

The Overstreet Updates are for sale from many vendors, including Gemstone (which publishes the OPG.) They are chock full of fascinating information, and, for those who didn't live and work through the events described therein, they're an excellent snapshot in time of what was selling, what was not, and what collectors were focused on at the time. You don't need to take anyone's word for it...buy them and see for yourself. 

https://www.gemstonepub.com/en/overstreets-update

New Mutants #87 went from "new" to $5 by the end of 1990...then increased rapidly from there.

Lonestar has several issues available, too:

https://www.mycomicshop.com/search?TID=171811

Knowledge is power.

:popcorn:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Broke as a Joke said:

Hard to take your word on McFarlane with your anecdotal evidence when you believed that he did the cover to Hulk 333.  

But hey knowledge is power...

Oh, I think you've misused the word "anecdotal" here...it means "based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers" or "based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis", which is the opposite of what I've done throughout the discussion. 

Glad to help you understand words better. (thumbsu

That said: 

14 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You don't need to take anyone's word for it...buy them and see for yourself. 

(emphasis added)

That would be advocating a scientific approach to the subject, rather than an anecdotal one.

Again, glad to help. 

:cloud9:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Broke as a Joke said:

Hard to take your word on McFarlane with your anecdotal evidence when you believed that he did the cover to Hulk 333.  

Oh, one more thing...when I asked McFarlane about it? He's the artist who drew the interiors of Hulk at that time, if you recall...anyway, his response was "I don't remember, but Geiger was fond of taking panels and turning them into covers."

So, there you have it. Still unsettled. 

(thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
7 7