N e r V Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 3 minutes ago, G.A.tor said: As mentioned, in areas closer to the printing facilities I’m sure on or even before dates can be found. But dates days are weeks after can also be found. We cant apply the current “street date” distribution model of today to what too place 50-80 years ago That’s very true but that’s usually a later date. Meaning if a book was listed on January 15th you might find a date of the 15th or 20th or so. You rarely see a date earlier, say January 10th in this example. If the argument is that in some areas Superman #4 hit newsstands a week later than its listed release you could easily counter than Action #23 also was a week later meaning fans still saw Superman #4 first. I got no dogs in this debate and seriously don’t expect a comics board to ever determine a outcome of it but I stick to the point that at this time period with DC they had Superman comics coming out first in the month and followed secondly by Action comics. That trend is backed up by their listed release dates and most (not all) arrival dates I’ve seen follow this trend. None of us were there but what evidence there is does point to the fact that Superman #4 “probably” was on the newsstands first over Action comics #23 even though like Sandman’s case the Action #23 was the intended first story for Luthor. Even if Superman #4 slipped a week and Action #23 was on schedule it still means a push for same release date. I have little doubt though in any changes of Action #23’s value either way. Crowzilla, porcupine48 and Joshua33 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.tor Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 2 minutes ago, N e r V said: That’s very true but that’s usually a later date. Meaning if a book was listed on January 15th you might find a date of the 15th or 20th or so. You rarely see a date earlier, say January 10th in this example. If the argument is that in some areas Superman #4 hit newsstands a week later than its listed release you could easily counter than Action #23 also was a week later meaning fans still saw Superman #4 first. I got no dogs in this debate and seriously don’t expect a comics board to ever determine a outcome of it but I stick to the point that at this time period with DC they had Superman comics coming out first in the month and followed secondly by Action comics. That trend is backed up by their listed release dates and most (not all) arrival dates I’ve seen follow this trend. None of us were there but what evidence there is does point to the fact that Superman #4 “probably” was on the newsstands first over Action comics #23 even though like Sandman’s case the Action #23 was the intended first story for Luthor. Even if Superman #4 slipped a week and Action #23 was on schedule it still means a push for same release date. I have little doubt though in any changes of Action #23’s value either way. I concur. I just found it interesting. Joshua33 and Crowzilla 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowzilla Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, Joshua33 said: Being that the copyrights were applied for and issued in 1940, wouldn't this be irrelevant? No. In fact, the Supreme Court specifically held in 1939 that the 1909 law requiring deposit did not require immediate deposit, or even deposit before infringement occurs, in order to bring a suit for infringement. (Washingtonian Pub. v. Pearson, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/306/30). US Copyright law wouldn't see any real revision for several more decades.https://www.copyright.gov/timeline/ Joshua33 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woowoo Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 7 hours ago, N e r V said: If you look at the original house ads for the Superman comic it was advertised as being released in the first half of the month with on sale dates actually being moved up even earlier in the month as the series progressed. I’m pretty sure Action comics was designed at that time to follow the Superman title later in the month in order to give them some space. It was a bit of a juggling act with both titles that varied over time. House adds are always right Joshua33 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 23 hours ago, Joshua33 said: And just for funsies... I love facts. Superman 4 from DC The publication date of January 23, 1940 was reported in the U. S. Copyright Office filing in the Catalog of Copyright Entries, Part 2, Periodicals, New Series, Volume 35, 1940, Number 2. Second class permit. Copyright number 452451. Action Comics 23 from DC The on-sale date (02/23/1940) is the publication date reported in the U. S. Copyright Office filing in the Catalog of Copyright Entries, Part 2, Periodicals, New Series, Volume 35, 1940, Number 2. Class B periodical. Copyright number B 449540. The filing states that Detective Comics, Inc. is the publisher and copyright holder. NOT SAYS ME... SAYS DC. By the way, do you actually have a reliable source for this info that is not copy and pasted from a notorious pump and dump spec site ? -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N e r V Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Just now, woowoo said: House adds are always right No but they aren’t always incorrect either especially if arrival dates can back them up so just back off woo wee. It’s early and I haven’t had my coffee yet... Joshua33 and Larryw7 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowzilla Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said: By the way, do you actually have a reliable source for this info that is not copy and pasted from a notorious pump and dump spec site ? -J. I kind of wondered that also. Records from that time period have to be examined in person and can't be searched through the Library's online archive, but a quick internet search shows both of those registration numbers belonging to periodicals from 1920 (not that they couldn't be reused 20 years later). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua33 Posted July 22, 2019 Author Share Posted July 22, 2019 12 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said: By the way, do you actually have a reliable source for this info that is not copy and pasted from a notorious pump and dump spec site ? -J. Works registered prior to 1978 may be found only in the Copyright Public Records Reading Room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woowoo Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 11 minutes ago, N e r V said: No but they aren’t always incorrect either especially if arrival dates can back them up so just back off woo wee. It’s early and I haven’t had my coffee yet... Did I hit a N e r V Joshua33 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 2 minutes ago, Joshua33 said: Works registered prior to 1978 may be found only in the Copyright Public Records Reading Room. Thanks. Now show me where in there that info you copy and pasted from the notorious pump and dump spec site can be found. -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua33 Posted July 22, 2019 Author Share Posted July 22, 2019 15 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said: By the way, do you actually have a reliable source for this info that is not copy and pasted from a notorious pump and dump spec site ? -J. And which site are you referring to as a pump and dump site, because this info can be found on multiple sites? Probably originally published by somebody who took the time. Would be kind of a strange thing to make up, wouldn't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N e r V Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 5 minutes ago, Joshua33 said: And which site are you referring to as a pump and dump site, because this info can be found on multiple sites? Probably originally published by somebody who took the time. Would be kind of a strange thing to make up, wouldn't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, Joshua33 said: And which site are you referring to as a pump and dump site, because this info can be found on multiple sites? Probably originally published by somebody who took the time. Would be kind of a strange thing to make up, wouldn't you agree? You originally referenced "CBSI" as your primary source and rationale for your question. CBSI- Comic Book Speculation and Investment. A notorious (at least in some parts of these boards) pump and dump spec site. Other than the copy and paste you took form that site regrading the alleged copyright info for these books, do you have any reliable source for the info? -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua33 Posted July 22, 2019 Author Share Posted July 22, 2019 15 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said: You originally referenced "CBSI" as your primary source and rationale for your question. CBSI- Comic Book Speculation and Investment. A notorious (at least in some parts of these boards) pump and dump spec site. Other than the copy and paste you took form that site regrading the alleged copyright info for these books, do you have any reliable source for the info? -J. I believe the original post, that was used by CBSI (meaning where they copy and pasted in the information from) resides at Grand Comics Database. Short of going to the public records reading room, would be impossible to validate, but again, seems like a silly thing to make up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazyboy Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 59 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said: By the way, do you actually have a reliable source for this info that is not copy and pasted from a notorious pump and dump spec site ? -J. http://www.mikesamazingworld.com/mikes/features/newsstand.php?type=calendar&month=2&year=1940&publisher=dc&sort=alpha&checklist=null Oh, by the way, you still haven't responded to my post that pointed out the claimed Action 23 date from DC's website. Just a helpful reminder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 7 minutes ago, Joshua33 said: I believe the original post, that was used by CBSI (meaning where they copy and pasted in the information from) resides at Grand Comics Database. Short of going to the public records reading room, would be impossible to validate, but again, seems like a silly thing to make up? And how reliable is that?- given that it's a peer editable site like Wikipedia (which isn't reliable for anything). Made up or not, if the info is not reliable or from any reliable source, then it is worthless. -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua33 Posted July 22, 2019 Author Share Posted July 22, 2019 12 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said: And how reliable is that?- given that it's a peer editable site like Wikipedia (which isn't reliable for anything). Made up or not, if the info is not reliable or from any reliable source, then it is worthless. -J. How bout the date stamp on the Action 23, that you specifically asked for, backing up that exact date in that "unreliable source"? I believe you said "time honored tradition..." See, it's obvious to anybody looking in on this thread, that you are seeking only to discredit, and not the truth. I could go through the trouble of verifying those copyright numbers for you, but then you would have some other excuse. It's clear to me that there is a sizable amount of evidence demonstrating that Superman 4 was on sale prior to Action 23, that you are choosing to ignore. There is a Proverb from another famous book that goes something like this... If a wise man and a fool argue long enough, the gathering crowd starts to wonder, which is which? I think I'll focus on people with solid information to contribute, instead of a guy that is trying to distort every comment that doesn't support his argument. Its OBVIOUS, you have an outcome in your head that you want to see happen here, and that won't be changed by logic or evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazyboy Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 4 minutes ago, Joshua33 said: How bout the date stamp on the Action 23, that you specifically asked for, backing up that exact date in that "unreliable source"? I believe you said "time honored tradition..." No, that was the other guy posting irrelevant nonsense. 4 minutes ago, Joshua33 said: See, it's obvious to anybody looking in on this thread, that you are seeking only to discredit, and not the truth. I could go through the trouble of verifying those copyright numbers for you, but then you would have some other excuse. That is Jaydogrules in a nutshell. You'll notice that he still hasn't responded to my posts that trash his position. Joshua33 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Captain Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Crowzilla said: That was Fox. Your original post said Fawcett. Here's a question. Action #23 notes also say first mention of The Daily Planet. Superman #4 also has Clark telling one of Luthor's henchmen that he is a reporter from the Planet. What is the context of The Daily Planet mention in Action #23? Crowzilla, to answer your question, the Daily Planet is mentioned twice in Action #23. Here are the two pages. Larryw7 and Crowzilla 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 7 minutes ago, Joshua33 said: How bout the date stamp on the Action 23, that you specifically asked for, backing up that exact date in that "unreliable source"? I believe you said "time honored tradition..." See, it's obvious to anybody looking in on this thread, that you are seeking only to discredit, and not the truth. I could go through the trouble of verifying those copyright numbers for you, but then you would have some other excuse. It's clear to me that there is a sizable amount of evidence demonstrating that Superman 4 was on sale prior to Action 23, that you are choosing to ignore. There is a Proverb from another famous book that goes something like this... If a wise man and a fool argue long enough, the gathering crowd starts to wonder, which is which? I think I'll focus on people with solid information to contribute, instead of a guy that is trying to distort every comment that doesn't support his argument. Its OBVIOUS, you have an outcome in your head that you want to see happen here, and that won't be changed by logic or evidence. What you are attempting to do is advance a narrative. Right now, the ONLY thing you actually have to support anything you have said is that one book might have been delivered to newsstands exactly one week before. "Might" being the operative word, because, as Gator has politely and repeatedly attempted to explain to you, those dates were very much moving targets back then. After that, you have nothing. And I mean... nothing. 1) The story continuity tells you Action 23 is the first appearance. 2) Overstreet tells you Action 23 is the first appearance. 3) CGC/Voldy tell you Action 23 is the first appearance. 4) Even the unverified copyright number info that you copy and pasted from a notorious pump and dump spec site tells you Action 23 is the first appearance. 5) DC's own official website tells you Action 23 is the first appearance. So... beyond a weak semantical argument based on information that is not reliable or verifiable from 80 years ago, you have nothing. Nothing but a failed narrative. Good day sir. -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
