Why is daredevil 1 so cheap? 1 1

[Chillax23]

For such a popular book it is hard to track one down  let’s see if my WTB has any luck. ?

[VintageComics]

On 7/9/2018 at 7:23 PM, KirbyJack said:

It is a bit of a mystery; all the other titles that Stan wrote exclusively are Marvel’s A-list, but DD has always been a step behind.

Stan did the first 50 plus issues. That should translate to nerd mania!

And the Everett, Wood, Romita art in the early issues is exceptionally good. The linework is just amazing.

I wasn't a huge Colon fan, though.

I think it's a combination of popularity (increasing), some poor sales years ago in the high grade range which spooked high end buyers, being a late book and being a white cover.

But if I had to choose one original art page to own from the Marvel SA it would be a hard toss up for me between Kirby FF #1 and Everett DD #1. The entire book is a work of art.

[VintageComics]

On 7/11/2018 at 7:21 AM, Not A Clone said:

What year did they finally break free of DC's distribution lock where they could only publish 8 titles?

1967-68 when the production quality of the books changed noticeably.

[Not A Clone]

2 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

1967-68 when the production quality of the books changed noticeably.

Yea taking a staff that squeezed out 8 titles and essentially doubling/tripling their work load is one way to ensure a quality loss, lol. Some of those old "bullpen" stories are pretty fascinating though.

[VintageComics]

5 minutes ago, Not A Clone said:

Yea taking a staff that squeezed out 8 titles and essentially doubling/tripling their work load is one way to ensure a quality loss, lol. Some of those old "bullpen" stories are pretty fascinating though.

My point about production quality was in regards to the actual materials used and not the story quality.

I don't think story quality suffered all that much and there were some great story lines (Marvel increasingly added creators as time went on) but the actual paper, inks and staples were marketdly different and this is apparent when you examine them side by side (pre 67-68 books and post 67-68  books).

[Not A Clone]

3 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

My point about production quality was in regards to the actual materials used and not the story quality.

I don't think story quality suffered all that much and there were some great story lines (Marvel increasingly added creators as time went on) but the actual paper, inks and staples were marketdly different and this is apparent when you examine them side by side (pre 67-68 books and post 67-68  books).

There is a perception though with a lot people that read Marvel from the beginning that the quality dropped by the early 70's. I personally love the stuff that I've read from that time period. Some of the ASM stories from that time are my favorite. To be honest, I don't know which books they are referring to. 

[VintageComics]

5 minutes ago, Not A Clone said:

There is a perception though with a lot people that read Marvel from the beginning that the quality dropped by the early 70's. I personally love the stuff that I've read from that time period. Some of the ASM stories from that time are my favorite. To be honest, I don't know which books they are referring to. 

It could be a 'the good old days were better' perception.

I too think the stories only got better as time went on. The late silver age and early bronze age gave us some pretty intricate story lines, some of which are still relevant to this day (death of Gwen Stacey, Conan, Wolverine, Punisher, Starlin's cosmic stuff which is still timeless, Hulk's meeting of Jarella which actually made me cry - and then you have all the horror titles which are highly regarded).

I don't know what they're talking about either.

 

[Not A Clone]

2 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

It could be a 'the good old days were better' perception.

I too think the stories only got better as time went on. The late silver age and early bronze age gave us some pretty intricate story lines, some of which are still relevant to this day (death of Gwen Stacey, Conan, Wolverine, Punisher, Starlin's cosmic stuff which is still timeless, Hulk's meeting of Jarella which actually made me cry - and then you have all the horror titles which are highly regarded).

I don't know what they're talking about either.

 

Yep, Gerry Conway's run on ASM is still one of my favorite's of any book ever. 

[VintageComics]

5 minutes ago, Not A Clone said:

Yep, Gerry Conway's run on ASM is still one of my favorite's of any book ever. 

I didn't even touch the ASM stuff but it was great.

Captain Stacey's death, the drug / code issues, Morbius.... so much great stuff there.

Also, IMO Ross Andru was perfectly suited to draw Spidey and he killed it.

I agree. Great stuff, and I wasn't even a Spidey guy.

Edited July 14, 2018 by VintageComics

[Not A Clone]

2 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

I didn't even touch the ASM stuff but it was great.

Captain Stacey's death, the drug / code issues, Morbius.... so much great stuff there.

Also, IMO Ross Andru was perfectly suited to draw Spidey and he killed it.

I agree. Great stuff, and I wasn't even a Spidey guy.

Andru belongs up there with the all-time greats. Soooo under-appeciated. Gil Kane was great too. 

[JohnH19]

Regardless of the value of his debut issue, DD is a personal favourite of mine.  I loved Gene Colan and Romita’s short run was magnificent. DD's rogues gallery was pretty inept but Stan wrote some great stories around them. The concept of Mike Murdock was ridiculous but, again, Stan made him an enjoyable lark.

I have a nostalgic collection of issues 1-60 plus Marvel Masterworks reprints extending to issue 132, the Frank Miller Omnibus, and the Born Again TPB.

Edited July 15, 2018 by JohnH19

[Von Cichlid]

Mike Murdock, Gene Colon...   Man, comic fans are getting older.   

[gregwynn]

Anyone know what the estimated print run was one DD1?

[MusterMark]

On 7/14/2018 at 2:38 AM, VintageComics said:

I wasn't a huge Colon fan, though.

You could invest in greater intestinal fortitude, Roy ....

 

[Unca Ben]

On 7/11/2018 at 3:37 PM, ComicConnoisseur said:

On 7/11/2018 at 4:21 AM, Not A Clone said:

What year did they finally break free of DC's distribution lock where they could only publish 8 titles?

1968

I've read this as well;  but the thing was Marvel regularly published more than 8 titles a month.  12 -14-16-18 tiles a month was not uncommon throughout the sixties.  Especially in the summer when they published their annuals.  Yeah, some books were reprints, but that was only 1 or 2  of the titles in any given month.  I don't know where this info came from, but a look at the Newstand in Mike's Amazing World of Comics counters the assertion that Marvel was limited to 8 titles.
Here's August '66 for one example.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Unca Ben

[Not A Clone]

7 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

I've read this as well;  but the thing is Marvel regularly published more than 8 titles a month.  12 -14-16-18 tiles a month was not uncommon throughout the sixties.  Yeah, some were reprints but that was only 1 or 2  of the titles in any given month.  I don't know where this info came from, but a look at the Newstand in Mike's Amazing World of Comics counters the assertion that Marvel was limited to 8 titles.
Here's August '66 for one example.

Found a good explanation on this link...

 

[Unca Ben]

Nice link!  Thanks!  
Not sure about the info though; one guy says about 9.5 titles a month. 
In 1962, using cover dates, Marvel published 12 books (all mainstream comics) in Jan, Mar, May, Jul, Sept & Nov. 10 books in Feb, Apr, Jun, Aug & Dec.   11 books in Oct. 
So 133 comic books in 1962 - a little over 11 a month.

But the concept of Marvel slowly increasing from 8 titles starting in 1957 seems correct...

Edited July 16, 2018 by Unca Ben

[Unca Ben]

In fact, Marvel (Atlas?) went from 42 books cover dated August '57 to 25 in September to 3 books in October!
- Pretty easy to tell when the deal with Independent News started.

[Not A Clone]

8 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

Nice link!  Thanks!  
Not sure about the info though; one guy says about 9.5 titles a month. 
In 1962, using cover dates, Marvel published 12 books (all mainstream comics) in Jan, Mar, May, Jul, Sept & Nov. 10 books in Feb, Apr, Jun, Aug & Dec.   11 books in Oct. 
So 133 comic books in 1962 - a little over 11 a month.

But the concept of Marvel slowly increasing from 8 titles starting in 1957 seems correct...

I wonder if they had to pay a fee to get those extras shipped.

[LDarkseid1]

I'd say the lack of exciting villains in the early issues didn't help the Daredevil brand, and this the 1st issue either. Sooo many good villains with ASM, FF, X-Men, ect.. Tough to get excited about the Matador, Owl and so on. I mean I guess that's more of an arguement as to why simply all early issues aren't as expensive in general, but I personally feel that has affected #1 as well.

 

As far as comparing DD1 to Avengers 1 and Avengers 4. I'd say it's in the middle between those two, at least based off sales I've seen. And then Avengers 1 just breaks away 10-fold once it gets to the 9.0 and up range.