Can we all agree that Marvel Whitmans are not a thing? 4 4

[bellrules]

14 hours ago, Warlord said:

  Awesome find of that little piece of history.  Thanks for the post.  

Paging Wally Green!  That's someone who could provide some fascinating info and stories I would bet.

 

17 hours ago, Brock said:

What an amazing wealth of information... thanks for posting!

And my mind boggles at the notion of a Thundarr the Barbarian comic. That series was always one of my favourites. interesting that of everything listed, I think only it and Astral Frontier were never published.

 

I would have also liked to see their Clash of the Titans adaptation that's listed at the bottom. Some of the Astral Frontier art has popped up.

 

[Number 6]

4 hours ago, bellrules said:

 

I would have also liked to see their Clash of the Titans adaptation that's listed at the bottom.

 

The mention on a Clash of the Titans is mentioned under the heading More $2.50 Comics Published which cites the success of the Fox and the Hound adaptation in this format as impetus to continue the line. I think that’s a reference to this book:

And it mentions the Clash adaptation in conjunction with a Flash Gordon adaptation in the same format, which I’m guessing is this book:

In that case, we did get the Clash adaptation in this book (I think there’s two different covers):

Granted, I think the Flash Gordon and Fox and the Hound books reprint material from the regular comic size adaptations, so it would have been cool to have regular comic versions of the Clash adaptation as well. But I don’t see anything in the article that they were planning on doing that. 

[bellrules]

27 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

The mention on a Clash of the Titans is mentioned under the heading More $2.50 Comics Published which cites the success of the Fox and the Hound adaptation in this format as impetus to continue the line. I think that’s a reference to this book:

And it mentions the Clash adaptation in conjunction with a Flash Gordon adaptation in the same format, which I’m guessing is this book:

In that case, we did get the Clash adaptation in this book (I think there’s two different covers):

Granted, I think the Flash Gordon and Fox and the Hound books reprint material from the regular comic size adaptations, so it would have been cool to have regular comic versions of the Clash adaptation as well. But I don’t see anything in the article that they were planning on doing that. 

Neat,  I've never seen those before

[Number 6]

Yeah, there’s one for the Black Hole too. 
 

There might be others, but I’m not aware of them. Condorman was around the same time but I don’t think there’s one for that movie. 

[bellrules]

1 minute ago, Number 6 said:

Yeah, there’s one for the Black Hole too. 
 

There might be others, but I’m not aware of them. Condorman was around the same time but I don’t think there’s one for that movie. 

That one I have

 

[OtherEric]

As long as we're somehow talking Western movie adaptations...

Did anybody ever figure out how or why Marvel was involved with the Buck Rogers treasury?  It's not a Marvel Whitman, it's a Whitman Marvel... (Not my copy, image snagged from the GCD:)

[EC Star&Bar]

For The Fox and the Hound, I don't think we can state conclusively whether the Western one-shot shown in this thread (mag size, cardstock cover, nice paper) was reprinted from the 2-issue WD F & H series (standard, newsprint).  The story seems to have been published in the 2 formats more-or-less simultaneously.  (If I had to, I would say the standard comics were split from the one-shot.)

A rep of Marvel once stated that movie stories were printed in various formats partly to recoup the licensing fees.  You would routinely see mag, standard comic, treasury, and mass-market PBK all in fairly short order.  Different formats for the same story/art didn't always allow for a clear case of one "reprinted" from another.  That may be the case as well for some of the Western stuff (under Golden, Whitman, etc. imprints).

This is a wild guess regarding Buck Rogers, but it's possible that Marvel's involvement had to do with licensing costs for the movie adaptation -- maybe Western was not in position to take that expense on.

 

 

[OtherEric]

5 hours ago, EC Star&Bar said:

For The Fox and the Hound, I don't think we can state conclusively whether the Western one-shot shown in this thread (mag size, cardstock cover, nice paper) was reprinted from the 2-issue WD F & H series (standard, newsprint).  The story seems to have been published in the 2 formats more-or-less simultaneously.  (If I had to, I would say the standard comics were split from the one-shot.)

I suspect in many cases both formats were printed before either hit the shelves. It's also far from impossible that on sale dates were spread out such that the first issue of the comic version appeared, then the collection, then the second issue.  Picking one or the other as the true first is in some ways down to personal choice.

[EC Star&Bar]

 I should correct my earlier statement -- the standard Walt Disney Fox & Hound comics ran 3 issues, not 2.

Anyway, by that time Western (under the Whitman imprint, 1981) was no longer having their comics distributed as returnable newsstand issues. So, as bagged non-returnables for these, we likely will not be able to establish a true on-sale date (despite cover dates being known from the issue code or otherwise).  I do remember solicits as late as 1984 for some Whitman issues going to LCSs as Direct.

I have a copy of one version of the mag-sized Fox & Hound one-shot (there are 3 versions known) and it has nice production values.

[Number 6]

23 hours ago, EC Star&Bar said:

For The Fox and the Hound, I don't think we can state conclusively whether the Western one-shot shown in this thread (mag size, cardstock cover, nice paper) was reprinted from the 2-issue WD F & H series (standard, newsprint).  The story seems to have been published in the 2 formats more-or-less simultaneously.  (If I had to, I would say the standard comics were split from the one-shot.)

A rep of Marvel once stated that movie stories were printed in various formats partly to recoup the licensing fees.  You would routinely see mag, standard comic, treasury, and mass-market PBK all in fairly short order.  Different formats for the same story/art didn't always allow for a clear case of one "reprinted" from another.  That may be the case as well for some of the Western stuff (under Golden, Whitman, etc. imprints).

This is a wild guess regarding Buck Rogers, but it's possible that Marvel's involvement had to do with licensing costs for the movie adaptation -- maybe Western was not in position to take that expense on.

 

 

My apologies. When I used the the “reprint” I forgot that term indicates priority. 
 

What I meant to say was they contain the same content. Thanks for the correction. I honestly have no idea which came first or if they were all simultaneous. 

[BCR]

On 2/12/2020 at 9:40 AM, androolx said:

Regarding the timing of the printing of the square diamond Marvels (not including Star Wars issues), there is a printing error in Marvel Two-In One #31 which indicates the square diamond Marvels were printed at the same time as newsstand issues.  There is a printing error which occurs in every copy of MTIO #31 which is not the standard 30¢ newsstand version - 35¢ price variant, MJ,UK and square diamond.  That error is on the front cover, and is a pink area which should be blue between the I and N of "THING".  Far fewer than half of the standard 30¢ newsstand copies have that error.  It is my understanding that for any particular issue, versions other than the standard newsstand version were printed first. Also, logic would have it that the MTIO #31 copies with the error were printed first, then the error was corrected shortly into the printing of the standard 30¢ newsstand copies. All this would mean the square diamond version of MTIO #31 was printed at the same time as the 35¢ price variant, MJ and UK versions, right before the standard 30¢ version was printed.

It's really bizarre that this conversation continued at all after this post (as it pertains to whether or not the '77 Whitman Variants were printed at the exact same time as the initial printing of the comic). 

Certainly some of the Whitman Variants might've ended up in the direct market, but it is unarguable fact that the '77 Whitman Variants are FIRST PRINTINGS.  

We have people who were actually working at these companies confirming it, and we even have PHYSICAL EVIDENCE as shown here that these are first printings. And the ONLY anecdotal disagreement has been people's memories from when they were kid seeing a pack of Whitman comics months after the issues had come out. 

Yeah, that's because the comics were still on the shelf in bags where they hadn't been purchased. 

The '77 Whitman Variants are first printings. And literally anyone can tell you that they are by leaps and bounds the hardest first printings to secure in a high grade. 

Hopefully this aspect of the discussion is closed and agreed on. 

 

[Lazyboy]

On 1/25/2023 at 4:40 PM, BCR said:

It's really bizarre that this conversation continued at all after this post (as it pertains to whether or not the '77 Whitman Variants were printed at the exact same time as the initial printing of the comic). 

Certainly some of the Whitman Variants might've ended up in the direct market, but it is unarguable fact that the '77 Whitman Variants are FIRST PRINTINGS.  

We have people who were actually working at these companies confirming it, and we even have PHYSICAL EVIDENCE as shown here that these are first printings. And the ONLY anecdotal disagreement has been people's memories from when they were kid seeing a pack of Whitman comics months after the issues had come out. 

Yeah, that's because the comics were still on the shelf in bags where they hadn't been purchased. 

The '77 Whitman Variants are first printings. And literally anyone can tell you that they are by leaps and bounds the hardest first printings to secure in a high grade. 

Hopefully this aspect of the discussion is closed and agreed on. 

 

That's nice, but you're ignoring the main point of the thread: THERE ARE (ALMOST) NO MARVEL WHITMANS!

[Brock]

On 1/25/2023 at 5:40 PM, BCR said:

It's really bizarre that this conversation continued at all after this post (as it pertains to whether or not the '77 Whitman Variants were printed at the exact same time as the initial printing of the comic). 

Certainly some of the Whitman Variants might've ended up in the direct market, but it is unarguable fact that the '77 Whitman Variants are FIRST PRINTINGS.  

We have people who were actually working at these companies confirming it, and we even have PHYSICAL EVIDENCE as shown here that these are first printings. And the ONLY anecdotal disagreement has been people's memories from when they were kid seeing a pack of Whitman comics months after the issues had come out. 

Yeah, that's because the comics were still on the shelf in bags where they hadn't been purchased. 

The '77 Whitman Variants are first printings. And literally anyone can tell you that they are by leaps and bounds the hardest first printings to secure in a high grade. 

Hopefully this aspect of the discussion is closed and agreed on. 

 

I think perhaps you're misreading some of the ideas being discussed here... There's pretty broad consensus that Whitman books (and the Marvel fat diamond books, if we acknowledge that they may or may not be Whitmans) are all "first prints".

I'm not sure there's evidence that they were perceived as reprints because "they were still on the shelf in bags where they hadn't been purchased." Turnover and dead stock were concerns for retailer even back in the 1970s. The more likely scenario is that Whitman books (and possibly the books of other repackagers in the case of the fat diamonds) were being warehoused, and released to retailers as the market demand dictated. In a sense, they didn't have to have a "shelf date" or "arrival date" the way other newsstand and direct comics did.

As for being hard to find, and hard to find in high grade, this is generally true, but - for some books - may be overstated. I have been doing a longitudinal study of DC Whitmans for some time now, and many of these books are relatively common, even in high grade. At the same time, books reputed to be rare are frequently found, while books overlooked by the market are actually quite scarce. The same is certainly true of fat diamond books, and I would imagine that there are (for example) cases where finding a high grade UK price variant is substantially harder than finding a high grade fat diamond variant. It's impossible to generalize.

 

[Brock]

On 1/26/2023 at 5:16 PM, Lazyboy said:

That's nice, but you're ignoring the main point of the thread: THERE ARE (ALMOST) NO MARVEL WHITMANS!

Quoted for truth!

The first of these is a Marvel Whitman, while the second is not:

 

[NP_Gresham]

Whitmans are reprints. I am old enough to remember and there is LCS owner this way who was in business and confirms the Whitmans are not direct market.

REPRINTS

[bellrules]

On 1/27/2023 at 5:52 PM, NP_Gresham said:

Whitmans are reprints. I am old enough to remember and there is LCS owner this way who was in business and confirms the Whitmans are not direct market.

REPRINTS

That has been proven to be false in this (and other threads)

[Morganmi]

On 1/27/2023 at 10:21 AM, Brock said:

Quoted for truth!

The first of these is a Marvel Whitman, while the second is not:

 

I agree but I would offer to say that most of these early black diamond books were indeed sold mostly in Whitman three packs as the number of direct sale comic stores at this time compared to supermarkets and varity stores carrying these had to have been quite small. 

That said I don't think they are that rare. They were everywhere when I was a kid.  I guess it could be said they are a little harder to find in high grade but not even sure about that as they were  in a bag at least and the middle comic had 2 others to protect it in there. Unlike the dreaded spinner rack of doom. 

[Lazyboy]

On 1/27/2023 at 6:52 PM, NP_Gresham said:

Whitmans are reprints. I am old enough to remember and there is LCS owner this way who was in business and confirms the Whitmans are not direct market.

REPRINTS

You can be wrong all you want, but you'll never be right about this. Because you're wrong.

[Brock]

On 1/27/2023 at 7:52 PM, NP_Gresham said:

Whitmans are reprints. I am old enough to remember and there is LCS owner this way who was in business and confirms the Whitmans are not direct market.

REPRINTS

One of the ways we know that this is not the case relates to evidence from the production process. In looking at Batman #307, for example (pictured below), we can see that the printing of Whitman editions appears to have taken place in the milddle of production, as books printed before and after the Whitmans exist as two distinct variants. In the spot where the Whitman logo was used to obscure the issue number of the regular edition, we can see that the removal of the logo has "damaged" or altered the colour on the printing plates in the latter part of the run. This is sometimes described as the "Blue Box" variant of this issue.

It's mostly a curiosity, but it does tell us a lot about how and when Whitmans were produced.

[rakehell]

On 2/1/2023 at 4:16 PM, Brock said:

In looking at Batman #307, for example (pictured below), we can see that the printing of Whitman editions appears to have taken place in the milddle of production, as books printed before and after the Whitmans exist as two distinct variants.

 

On 2/1/2023 at 4:16 PM, Brock said:

It's mostly a curiosity, but it does tell us a lot about how and when Whitmans were produced.

Just to further confuse the issue & no doubt irritate someone, there was a UK pence variant printed in the first run as well -

So three changes in the print run.