• 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.

The NEW Overstreet 2019 w/TOP Golden Age Horror/Romance/Sci-Fi is Here
4 4

86 posts in this topic

On 7/22/2019 at 12:12 PM, Zolnerowich said:

Yes, the Planet "try-out" books!! Top-of-the-long-box books!

Based on scarcity, coolness, and historical, I'd put Jumbo 10 just after Planet 15, and Jumbo 11 just after Planet 6. But that's just one Planet completist's opinion!

 

Do Jumbo #10 and #11 Have all sci-fi stories inside? or a mix with jungle stories?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2019 at 11:40 AM, sfcityduck said:

Where would you put Jumbo 10 on a list of such FH sci-fi covers of that period?  After all, it's basically a Planet try out cover (Oct-Nov. 1939) as (correct me if I'm wrong) it was the first FH sci-fi cover.  Jumbo 11 was also sort of a sci-fi cover, and Jumbo never had any more - presumably because Planet came on the scene.

 

On 7/22/2019 at 12:12 PM, Zolnerowich said:

Yes, the Planet "try-out" books!! Top-of-the-long-box books!

Based on scarcity, coolness, and historical, I'd put Jumbo 10 just after Planet 15, and Jumbo 11 just after Planet 6. But that's just one Planet completist's opinion!

 

Oh wowza, definitely good to know as I never realized that Jumbo 10 and 11 could be deemed as Planet try-out cover books.  :whatthe:  (thumbsu

Being the contrarian as per usual, I've always preferred the bright pinkish red colored Jumbo 11 cover over the more muted yellow colored Jumbo 10 cover:

Golden Age (1938-1955):Adventure, Jumbo Comics #11 Mile High Pedigree (Fiction House, 1940) CGC NM+9.6 White pages....

Also much more in the classic Fine artwork in terms of the details in the back ground similar to some of his other classic covers such as National 7, Hit 1, etc.  :cloud9:

What I've never been able to figure out is why Overstreet has never gotten around to breaking out this particular issue and simply has it lumped in with the other not as well crafted Eisner cover issues that came after this one.  Especially since I still remember Fishler having one way back in the day about 25 years ago and charging a huge premium for it at the time, given the apparent scarcity of this particular issue in grade along with the classic Fine cover artwork.  Looking back now, definitely another missed opportunity.  doh!  :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My initial thought would be to confirm with Overstreet what criteria they use to come up with these lists.  There are any number of reasons why their lists are way off.  Any subjective list will have room for criticism.  But in this case, people look to them as a trusted guide.  Certainly a list produced from the aggregated opinion of top dealers in brick and mortar stores had a heck of a lot more value in 1989 than 2019.   A list equal part GPA and polls voted on on this site would produce far more accurate results.  Books are bought and sold online and recorded on GPA, online and not recorded on GPA, in private sales, and at conventions way way way more than in stores.  When Overstreet established their relevance, there was no internet, conventions were far less popular, and private sales took place much less as we were less connected.  On top of that, there was no CGC.  No one can take away the positive impact the guide had on the hobby, nor should they view it without that context.  Brick and mortars utility of the guide and that  trusted resource filtering through the hobby from readers and collectors at their lcs helped make the hobby what it would become.  But they're old news.  Yesterday's story.  And they haven't kept up with the times.  They are a relic.  They haven't been remotely relevant for at least 20 years, and in my opinion they were only marginally relevant 30 years ago.  Certainly Gerber's Guide is of more consequence today, even if the overall impact of Overstreet was greater, it's very much past tense.  The hobby was messy circa 1990, but there's a reason that even then, a Wizard, more flash than substance, was more relevant when it came to the pulse of anything.  

They could also just come up with a committee to discuss once a year or vote once a year to come up with a list.   It's easy enough to come up with good people for that.  Just top of mind,  Gator Rick, Bedrock Richard, Harley Yee, RicksNeatStuff, FilterAdam, Metro Vincent, Guru Jeff, Heritage Jim, a handful of others on this board.

One thing is certain, the list they came out with this year is completely bunk.  There's zero argument for it having any validity at all.  Two reasons.  First off, where is Planet Comics 1 on the list?  Did they come up with a new explanation that somehow Planet Comics are not sci-fi?  If so, I'd love to hear an explanation on that one.  How did Planet Comics #1 go from being #1 on their own list years ago to no longer in the top 10 in the same year that the loudest sci-fi sales were the Church Planet copies?   Planet Comics #1 has to be on the Sci-Fi list, and really, it has to be #1.  The fact that Startling Comics #49 isn't there is also absurd.   It should probably be #2.

The other is Cinderella Love #25.  There are likely more fans, collectors, sales, and "experts" of the Romance genre on this forum than anywhere.  Any vote would have Cinderella Love 25 #1, and in fact among Baker books in a poll with scores of voters it finished #1 without a close second.  To boot, removing private sales, just public sales reflect as much.  Whether it's #1 or not is not the issue.  One could make an argument for a couple of others.  But for it to be left off the top 10 is as egregious as leaving Planet 1 off of the sci-fi list.  Giant Comics Edition #9 and #13, Negro Romance #2 and #3?  Then with Sci-Fi Showcase #17 is ranked ahead of Starling #49 and Planet #15?  In what universe?  Then you have the horror list which may be the worst of all of them.  No LB Cole, or Suspense 3, or Punch 12, Mask 1, Startling 11.  Even just ranking EC books, their list isn't remotely accurate.  It's almost like they were intentionally trying to produce a list with no merit whatsoever.    

 

 

Edited by eschnit
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
4 4