Top 50 Copper Books in Overstreet 7 7

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

1 hour ago, FlyingDonut said:

Death of Superman is without question the end of the Copper Age. Copper, like Bronze, has several places where you can say "hmm, that's it". The start of Valiant maybe, the end of the McFarlane Spider-Man run, etc. etc., but definitely Superman 75. The next summer's Marvel books are all not Copper - ASM 375, etc.

I question that. I don't see a huge difference in the books of the late-'80s/early-'90s, compared to the mid-'90s

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, FlyingDonut said:

Death of Superman is without question the end of the Copper Age. Copper, like Bronze, has several places where you can say "hmm, that's it". The start of Valiant maybe, the end of the McFarlane Spider-Man run, etc. etc., but definitely Superman 75. The next summer's Marvel books are all not Copper - ASM 375, etc.

I think that's a pretty fair summation.

[Martin Sinescu]

18 hours ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I question that. I don't see a huge difference in the books of the late-'80s/early-'90s, compared to the mid-'90s

This probably would've been better in the thread on when the CA ended, but Spidey seems kind of like a gradual transition between 1992-94, you can definitely still see the post-McFarlane influence for many, many years, but once the gimmick covers started coming, I think there's a definite change (the 30th anniversary hologram covers really stick out in my head from that time period, which would put it just after the intro of Carnage). Then there's the infamous return of the clone in 1994. I had mostly tapered off buying Spidey then (basically I'd just pick up the gimmick covers), but it seemed pretty terrible to me by that point. Thinking back, most of what I collected back then I had really soured on by '94-95 (Batman, X-Men being the main ones).

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

On 8/27/2018 at 10:04 AM, Martin Sinescu said:

This probably would've been better in the thread on when the CA ended, but Spidey seems kind of like a gradual transition between 1992-94, you can definitely still see the post-McFarlane influence for many, many years, but once the gimmick covers started coming, I think there's a definite change (the 30th anniversary hologram covers really stick out in my head from that time period, which would put it just after the intro of Carnage). Then there's the infamous return of the clone in 1994. I had mostly tapered off buying Spidey then (basically I'd just pick up the gimmick covers), but it seemed pretty terrible to me by that point. Thinking back, most of what I collected back then I had really soured on by '94-95 (Batman, X-Men being the main ones).

Michelinie wrote the book until 1994. That might be the reason you see for the change around then. I still think that the end of volume 1 is a good marker for the end of the Copper Age, but I also think that there's a difference between early Copper and late Copper. The Copper Age was an age of transitions, and I think the shift from beginning to end of those transitions is the umbrella that defines the age.

[ComicConnoisseur]

On 8/29/2018 at 7:27 PM, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Michelinie wrote the book until 1994. That might be the reason you see for the change around then. I still think that the end of volume 1 is a good marker for the end of the Copper Age, but I also think that there's a difference between early Copper and late Copper. The Copper Age was an age of transitions, and I think the shift from beginning to end of those transitions is the umbrella that defines the age.

Things would be so much simpler if they just called them

1980s comics,1990s comics,2000 comics,and 2010s comics.

Anyone else agree?

[divad]

53 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Things would be so much simpler if they just called them

1980s comics,1990s comics,2000 comics,and 2010s comics.

Anyone else agree?

Who's interested in simple? . . . Besides Simon.

[AGGIEZ]

On 8/31/2018 at 7:36 PM, divad said:

Who's interested in simple? . . . Besides Simon.

I like the "AGES" of this hobby. We just need a concensus on the AGE after COPPER but before MODERN/DIGITAL....I like CHROMIUM (1992/93 - 2007ish) best but there have been other suggestions. 

[Jeffro.]

On 8/18/2018 at 9:27 AM, Martin Sinescu said:

On 8/17/2018 at 10:25 PM, valiantman said:

Easy.

1980s comics

1990s comics

 

Those are the names.

Forget ages. They're over.

I get that you're a numbers guy, but Art and Literature are almost universally categorized by eras and genres, not decades. Try to put Ingres and Delacroix in the same room and tell them they're both 1820's artists. It'd be a brawl. Comics are both Art and Literature, so it's only natural that fans/scholars would categorize them the same way. As one of the most knowledgeable members of the boards, your time and input would be quite valuable by contributing to the discussion of which characteristics (beyond New Year's Day of 1980 and 1990) help define certain time periods rather than just stonewalling it with the same response. 

I think he has a point. I used to be a big "ages" guy but when you figure in that there is disagreement about ages in  many cases and the fact that certain genres don't even really fit into an age, then it makes more sense to just go by dates. Saying "1980s comics" or "1960s comics" has meaning. There is something there. That type of change is worth discussing. However, even going by decades is not without it's own issues. No method is going to be perfect

Edited September 26, 2018 by Jerkfro

[Jeffro.]

On 8/18/2018 at 9:27 AM, Martin Sinescu said:

Try to put Ingres and Delacroix in the same room and tell them they're both 1820's artists. It'd be a brawl.

Not to mention, you have bones flying everywhere. It'ed be a real mess

[valiantman]

On 8/31/2018 at 7:36 PM, divad said:

On 8/31/2018 at 6:42 PM, ComicConnoisseur said:

Things would be so much simpler if they just called them

1980s comics,1990s comics,2000 comics,and 2010s comics.

Anyone else agree?

Who's interested in simple? . . . Besides Simon.

“Everything must be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” - attributed to Einstein

[F For Fake]

1 hour ago, Jerkfro said:

I think he has a point. I used to be a big "ages" guy but when you figure in that there is disagreement about ages in  many cases and the fact that certain genres don't even really fit into an age, then it makes more sense to just go by dates. Saying "1980s comics" or "1960s comics" has meaning. There is something there. That type of change is worth discussing. However, even going by decades is not without it's own issues. No method is going to be perfect

I can deal with the fact that the established "ages" are a bit wonky and not really uniform...up until the point that I realize we've been in the "modern age" for nearly 30 years now. At some point, Overstreet/The Cabal/The Comics Illuminati or whoever it is that makes these decisions is going to have to officially break the 90's off into its own established age, and then start Modern at Walking Dead or Ultimate Spider-Man or whatever makes the most sense. (I'd pick WD just because the Ultimate line is no longer a going concern.) We've nearly been in the Modern Age longer than Silver, Bronze and Copper combined. So, yeah, once you get past Copper, I think you sorta HAVE to go with the decades (90', 00's) because nothing else makes any sense. 

[mrwoogieman]

ten-centers

twelve-centers

under-a-bucks

and all the rest

 

[BlowUpTheMoon]

On 9/26/2018 at 11:50 AM, Jerkfro said:

On 8/18/2018 at 9:27 AM, Martin Sinescu said:

Try to put Ingres and Delacroix in the same room and tell them they're both 1820's artists. It'd be a brawl.

Not to mention, you have bones flying everywhere. It'ed be a real mess

Roll the bones! 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 9/27/2018 at 3:37 PM, BlowUpTheMoon said:

On 9/26/2018 at 8:50 AM, Jerkfro said:

Not to mention, you have bones flying everywhere. It'ed be a real mess

Roll the bones! 

Ha! Fine art jokes!

 

[sfcityduck]

On 8/31/2018 at 4:42 PM, ComicConnoisseur said:

Things would be so much simpler if they just called them

1980s comics,1990s comics,2000 comics,and 2010s comics.

Anyone else agree?

Word.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/18/2018 at 6:27 AM, Martin Sinescu said:

I get that you're a numbers guy, but Art and Literature are almost universally categorized by eras and genres, not decades. Try to put Ingres and Delacroix in the same room and tell them they're both 1820's artists. It'd be a brawl.

I think you have this backwards.  Fine art is universally categorized by styles, not eras.  Ingres is a neoclassical painter.  Delacroix is a romantic artist.  If you told them in the 1820s that they were both 1820s painters you'd not get any argument.  If you told them they were both pre-Raphaelites, then you'd have argument.  

The advantage of referring to art and literature by style, not era, is that you can discuss it with more accuracy.  For example, in the 1910s you had impressionists (Monet), expressionists (Kandinsky), fauvists (Matisse), cubists (Picasso), etc. etc. etc. all painting at the same time.  

You might counter with "hey ... what about the Renaissance"?  The Renaisssance is a term denoting both a historical era and a style.  But, when used to describe an artistic style, it is actually many styles (Italian Renaissance, German Renaissance, etc.), which also overlap with earlier styles such as Gothic.  A Raphael and an El Greco are like Frazetta and Krigstein.  Same general era, different in kind.  

[sfcityduck]

On 9/26/2018 at 10:10 AM, F For Fake said:

I can deal with the fact that the established "ages" are a bit wonky and not really uniform...up until the point that I realize we've been in the "modern age" for nearly 30 years now. At some point, Overstreet/The Cabal/The Comics Illuminati or whoever it is that makes these decisions is going to have to officially break the 90's off into its own established age

Why?  Why do we need "ages"?  

The terms "Golden Age" and "Silver Age" were originally coined by early fans to denote the first era of superhero comics and the late 1950s revival of those superheros.  And, to be precise, those fans were talking about D.C. superheros.  It really hasn't served any real purpose in years.  It's not scholarly.  It's not relevant to most other genres.  It's a pretty lousy way to refer to comics because its so meaningless.  Which is why so many folks use other terms now, such as pre-Code for horror and crime genres, etc.

[sfcityduck]

Bringing this topic back to its heading: Personally, I'm more interested in charts of the "Top 50 Comics" by genre, than I am by "age."  We live in a world where the top superhero comics are a mishmash of 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s comics, and maybe even a 1970s comics would make the list.  That's an interesting list.

And when it comes to "Top 50" by time period, the time periods that would be more interesting to me would be the decades not the 1938-1955, 1956-1969, 1970-1982, 1982-1992, 1992-2018, or whatever the breakdowns are.  Comparing comics by decade gives you a more accurate picture of what is happening with supply, demand, and pricing.  It would be really interesting to me to know what the top 50 comics are for the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s.  I have no idea.  Are they mostly manufactured collectables (e.g. variants) or small print run alternatives or are there some big demand high supply books on the list?   Those lists would really show how comic collecting has or has not changed.

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by sfcityduck

[Ant-Man]

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

Bringing this topic back to its heading: Personally, I'm more interested in charts of the "Top 50 Comics" by genre, than I am by "age."  We live in a world where the top superhero comics are a mishmash of 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s comics, and maybe even a 1970s comics would make the list.  That's an interesting list.

And when it comes to "Top 50" by time period, the time periods that would be more interesting to me would be the decades not the 1938-1955, 1956-1969, 1970-1982, 1982-1992, 1992-2018, or whatever the breakdowns are.  Comparing comics by decade gives you a more accurate picture of what is happening with supply, demand, and pricing.  It would be really interesting to me to know what the top 50 comics are for the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s.  I have no idea.  Are they mostly manufactured collectables (e.g. variants) or small print run alternatives or are there some big demand high supply books on the list?   Those lists would really show how comic collecting has or has not changed.

 

After the last Overstreet was published, I sent a correction e-mail to them for their various lists. You really can see the increase in non-standard comics as the ages progress. Bronze has a few price variants, but Copper is where things pick up. 2nd (or later) printings, along with Gold, Blue, Platinum, Exclusive editions. Modern is arguably a 50/50 split between the big demand/standard books and the variant cover, retailer incentive, initial print/recalled books.

The presence of publishers outside of the Big Two is also on the increase as time moves on. Only three books in the Top 25 Bronze Age outside of DC or Marvel. In Copper, I believe DC and Marvel combine for six in the Top 25, Thanks to variants, I believe DC and Marvel are more of a 50/50 split with all other publishers in the Top 20 Modern.

Based on those lists alone, the hobby has definitely gone through some changes.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Ant-Man

[F For Fake]

21 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Why?  Why do we need "ages"?  

The terms "Golden Age" and "Silver Age" were originally coined by early fans to denote the first era of superhero comics and the late 1950s revival of those superheros.  And, to be precise, those fans were talking about D.C. superheros.  It really hasn't served any real purpose in years.  It's not scholarly.  It's not relevant to most other genres.  It's a pretty lousy way to refer to comics because its so meaningless.  Which is why so many folks use other terms now, such as pre-Code for horror and crime genres, etc.

I don't think we "need" ages, but we have them all the same. It wouldn't make any difference to me if they went away, but that genie isn't going back into the bottle, so if we are, as a hobby, going to bandy these terms about, it serves us to make them a little more accurate.