SUPERMAN 4 VS ACTION COMICS 23 3 3

[Lazyboy]

17 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

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.

 

You're the one who has nothing, as evidenced by your total lack of response to my posts.

It doesn't matter what any "authority" says now. It only matters which book came first, and it's looking a lot like it was Superman 4.

[Jaydogrules]

9 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

You're the one who has nothing, as evidenced by your total lack of response to my posts.

It doesn't matter what any "authority" says now. It only matters which book came first, and it's looking a lot like it was Superman 4.

You're always good for a laugh RMA.

Tell you what, given that absolutely no new information has actually been revealed at any point during this thread, if you can get even one single authority to agree with you, we can have a conversation. 

Good luck with that!  

-J.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[Black Captain]

33 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

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.

 

Jaydogrules, All valid points which Crowzilla and Gator were kind enough to help clarify. The purpose of the request for a store date on Superman #4 was to make an attempt to narrow down the actual handling date for store stands to make a comparison with Action #23.

With all these questionable data points, that hands on date would have helped determine with more certainty where copies of Superman #4 were during the days in which Action #23 was on the stands. At least we have one date for that book. Without the date comparison I am forced to go with the current Action #23 narrative as well. I DEFINITELY think some people would be more inclined to change their minds if evidence of that nature was a little more available for analysis.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Black Captain

[Jaydogrules]

1 minute ago, Black Captain said:

Jaydogrules, All valid points which Crowzilla and Gator were kind enough to help clarify. The purpose of the request for a store date on Superman #4 was to make an attempt to narrow down the actual handling date for store stands to make a comparison with Action #23.

With all these questionable data points, that hands on date would have helped determine with more certainty where copies of Superman #4 were during the days in which Action #23 was on the stands. At least we have one date for that book. Without the date comparison I am forced to go with the current Action #23 narrative as well. I DEFINITELY think some people would be more inclined to change their minds if evidence of that nature was a little more available for analysis.

I would hazard a guess that the reason why no comic authority uses date stamps or "on newsstand" advertisements when determining such things as this is precisely for the reason that Gator said- it is inconsistent and unreliable for the era.  Sometimes info is simply lost to time.  So then we default to the more substantive data that we do have, ie story continuity and publisher intent, which frankly should then be the end of the conversation.  

-J.

[Randall Ries]

I still think someone goofed and swapped the stories around between books. Other than that, Superman 4 was the first app of Luthor. Which ever book that was printed first is the winner. You can talk flashbacks and zany appearance theories all you want but whichever book was on stands first overall is the one. I don't own either book so I don't have a stake in the ground but timing is everything.

Either that or you can apply Crisis logic to it and claim it was different Earths we were looking at but thats lame.

[N e r V]

I did not read every post in this thread but I will defend the poster for the topic having merit as to which book came out first (generally) on the newsstands. There does appear to be more evidence based on the stated release dates and arrival dates written on books that Superman #4 hit the newsstands first and even if it slipped later on some newsstands was at worst on sale at the exact same time as Action. I think if you want to argue that point supply some evidence in the opposite direction because it doesn’t exist to support that point.

Saying that Action had the first intended Luthor story though is a fact but we also have proof the first intended story appearance isn’t always the first on the newsstands (calling Sandman). So I think it’s a fair argument to have a request to change the wordage with Superman #4 as the first newsstand appearance and Action to have the first written/intended appearance. Having Superman #4 listed as the 2nd appearance when it was either out first or the same time (in some areas) is a bit crazy.

Now if you’re trying to change someone’s mind as to which should have a higher value, well good luck with that. The market determines its own values.

Edited July 22, 2019 by N e r V

[Lazyboy]

6 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

You're always good for a laugh RMA.

Tell you what, given that absolutely no new information has actually been revealed at any point during this thread, if you can get even one single authority to agree with you, we can have a conversation. 

Good luck with that!  

-J.

So you agree that Action Comics 23 was released on March 31, 1940, correct?

[Jaydogrules]

1 minute ago, Randall Ries said:

I still think someone goofed and swapped the stories around between books. Other than that, Superman 4 was the first app of Luthor. Which ever book that was printed first is the winner. You can talk flashbacks and zany appearance theories all you want but whichever book was on stands first overall is the one. I don't own either book so I don't have a stake in the ground but timing is everything.

Either that or you can apply Crisis logic to it and claim it was different Earths we were looking at but thats lame.

"On newsstand" dates aren't hard and fast from the era.  So that's not enough. 

And if somebody really believes any of what you just said, they should put their money where there mouth is.  If they seriously believed DC "made a mistake", then they should contact them and alert then to it so that they can update their own official site on the matter.  They should contact Overstreet and make their case.  They should alert CGC in writing (I have personally gotten a couple successful label updates in the past from them). Posting here isn't going to do anything.  If somebody really believes that they should make their case directly to the official agencies that are responsible for reporting these datapoints.  Because if you cannot get a single official source to agree with you, odds are, you're the one that's wrong.  

-J.

[Black Captain]

2 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

I would hazard a guess that the reason why no comic authority uses date stamps or "on newsstand" advertisements when determining such things as this is precisely for the reason that Gator said- it is inconsistent and unreliable for the era.  Sometimes info is simply lost to time.  So then we default to the more substantive data that we do have, ie story continuity and publisher intent, which frankly should then be the end of the conversation.  

-J.

Which brings us back to Content is King. And I have to also agree, the powers that be and the market will ultimately make the decisions of first appearance and value. Knowing the history of the guide I truly doubt that a change of the magnitude that we are discussing will change anything once this thread is reviewed by the authorities and normies alike in the future. Just to many questions have been put fourth.

[Lazyboy]

9 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

I would hazard a guess that the reason why no comic authority uses date stamps or "on newsstand" advertisements when determining such things as this is precisely for the reason that Gator said- it is inconsistent and unreliable for the era.  Sometimes info is simply lost to time.  So then we default to the more substantive data that we do have, ie story continuity and publisher intent, which frankly should then be the end of the conversation.  

-J.

Date stamps are unreliable. Advertisement dates are only really unreliable in that some areas may have received the books later than that.

[Joshua33]

2 minutes ago, N e r V said:

I did not read every post in this thread but I will defend the poster for the topic having merit as to which book came out first (generally) on the newsstands. There does appear to be more evidence based on the stated release dates and arrival dates written on books that Superman #4 hit the newsstands first and even if it slipped later on some newsstands was at worst on sale at the exact same time as Action. I think if you want to argue that point supply some evidence in the opposite direction because it doesn’t exist to support that point.

Saying that Action had the first intended Luthor story though is a fact but we also have proof the first intended story appearance isn’t always the first on the newsstands (calling Sandman). So I think it’s a fair argument to have a request to change the wordage with Superman #4 as the first newsstand appearance and Action to have the first written/intended appearance.

Now if you’re trying to change someone’s mind as to which should have a higher value, well good luck with that. The market determines its own values.

Well said. It appears as though a certain poster in this thread wants to deny the "on sale date" of Superman 4, when a lot of circumstantial evidence points to it being available, right when DC Comics said it would be. The On sale date for Action 23 was 2/23. Amazingly, BAM! A copy pops up with the EXACT date stamp. The on sale date for Superman 4 was 2/15, but DC would have nailed it on Action, but not released Superman 4 on time because of what, especially when those dates are 8 days apart? Pass. I'm looking in my crystal ball... I see somebody posting a Superman 4 with a 2/15/40 date stamp in our future. I also see that poster changing gears to something else as soon as that happens. 

[Joshua33]

4 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

So you agree that Action Comics 23 was released on March 31, 1940, correct?

[Jaydogrules]

6 minutes ago, N e r V said:

I did not read every post in this thread but I will defend the poster for the topic having merit as to which book came out first (generally) on the newsstands. There does appear to be more evidence based on the stated release dates and arrival dates written on books that Superman #4 hit the newsstands first and even if it slipped later on some newsstands was at worst on sale at the exact same time as Action. I think if you want to argue that point supply some evidence in the opposite direction because it doesn’t exist to support that point.

Saying that Action had the first intended Luthor story though is a fact but we also have proof the first intended story appearance isn’t always the first on the newsstands (calling Sandman). So I think it’s a fair argument to have a request to change the wordage with Superman #4 as the first newsstand appearance and Action to have the first written/intended appearance. Having Superman #4 listed as the 2nd appearance when it was either out first or the same time (in some areas) is a bit crazy.

Now if you’re trying to change someone’s mind as to which should have a higher value, well good luck with that. The market determines its own values.

No one has posted anything in this thread that was not previously known. 

So either the decision had been made (by DC, Overstrert, etc.) that it is not enough, not persuasive, or that it is irrelevant.  

-J.

[Randall Ries]

10 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

No one has posted anything in this thread that was not previously known. 

So either the decision had been made (by DC, Overstrert, etc.) that it is not enough, not persuasive, or that it is irrelevant.  

-J.

Does anyone know how or why Overstreet came to his decision about Action #23? Also, I think my theory about story fumbling between issues, given the closeness of the releases, is just as valid as anyone elses. Anyone reading Supes 4 would be scratching their heads wondering who the spoon "Luthor" is. And later in the month going "Ah".

But I am curious as to why Overstreet came to the conclusion he did. He isn't God. I'm sure there have been myriad mistakes in the price guide over the years.

[Jaydogrules]

2 minutes ago, Randall Ries said:

Does anyone know how or why Overstreet came to his decision about Action #23? Also, I think my theory about story fumbling between issues, given the closeness of the releases, is just as valid as anyone elses. Anyone reading Supes 4 would be scratching their heads wondering who the spoon "Luthor" is. And later in the month going "Ah".

But I am curious as to why Overstreet came to the conclusion he did. He isn't God. I'm sure there have been myriad mistakes in the price guide over the years.

This is assuming vendors back then were not simply instructed to withhold the superman 4 for one week in lieu of the action 23 (also a possibility, given Action as a regular weekly and superman as a regular quarterly back then, and assuming that all vendors received all books all at once).

As to Overstreet, who knows, I would presume it is because that's what DC has always called it.

-J.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[Lazyboy]

19 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

If somebody really believes that they should make their case directly to the official agencies that are responsible for reporting these datapoints.

There are no official agencies. Overstreet saying Action 23 is the first appearance of Luthor is not a data point, it is merely a claim... which appears to be incorrect. The publisher is the closest thing to an official agency, but they have a long history of errors and I doubt they put that much research into most bio details.

[Comicdey]

This thread needs more pictures. Sadly it looks like any arrival date information looks to be obscured erased on just not present here 😱 

[Jaydogrules]

2 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

There are no official agencies. Overstreet saying Action 23 is the first appearance of Luthor is not a data point, it is merely a claim... which appears to be incorrect. The publisher is the closest thing to an official agency, but they have a long history of errors and I doubt they put that much research into most bio details.

Then put your money where your mouth is and present and educate DC and Overstreet, etc, with this vital information that has already been known, so that they say what "you" think they should say and maybe your own claims (*read- fictions) might be worth paying attention to.

Good luck with that! 

-J.

[woowoo]

55 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

You're the one who has nothing, as evidenced by your total lack of response to my posts.

It doesn't matter what any "authority" says now. It only matters which book came first, and it's looking a lot like it was Superman 4.

I read the 2 pages and it does seem that he new Lex L in Action 23. I would like to see the whole story where Superman gets Lex name ? I read  Superman 4 he says we see each other again ? Lets see both stores than  I will say it looks like Action 23 was to hit the newsstand first but that did not happen. 

[Randall Ries]

8 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

This is assuming vendors back then were not simply instructed to withhold the superman 4 for one week in lieu of the action 23 (also a possibility, given Action as a regular weekly and superman as a regular quarterly back then, and assuming that all vendors received all books all at once).

As to Overstreet, who knows, I would presume it is because that's what DC has always called it.

-J.

Was it like that back then? Would the publisher instruct all the newsstands and shops etc to withhold until further notice? Or did the vendors just order and when the things came in, they put them out to be sold? The withholding thing seems more like a latter day ploy to me.