• 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.

What's your go to Jim Lee key?
5 5

137 posts in this topic

On 8/29/2020 at 7:52 PM, William-James88 said:
On 8/29/2020 at 7:48 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

X-men 266 is an early one

He is one of the creators of Gambit :foryou:

Really? I didn't know that. He isn't even mentioned on the CGC label. I always saw that more as a Kubert key.

That's because although he's credited as one of the creators of Gambit, as indicated in Overstreet for years now, he didn't actually do any of the artwork at all on X-Men 266.  :gossip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, StreetPreacher said:

Well he is like the DC CEO or something now right?  Is he still drawing anything?  Compared to guys like Liefeld and McFarlane who seem to genuinely ENJOY drawing, is Jim Lee more of a business guy?  Does Jim still draw anything other than the odd sketch for charity, or is he more of a behind the scenes business guy?

He's been doing lots of art ever since he became high ranking at DC. Like interiors in Suicide Squad. And he does quite a few covers, like one for each of the DKR III issues and the recent Batman wedding issue, to name a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, StreetPreacher said:

Well he is like the DC CEO or something now right?  Is he still drawing anything?  Compared to guys like Liefeld and McFarlane who seem to genuinely ENJOY drawing, is Jim Lee more of a business guy?  Does Jim still draw anything other than the odd sketch for charity, or is he more of a behind the scenes business guy?

Although he is now the sole publisher of DC Comics after his co-publisher (i.e. Dan Didio) got the boot earlier this year, he's also got another title as the Chief Creative Officer for DC Comics which makes me wonder how he has time to do all this including the artwork which he still continues to do?  Especially when he also apparently has a whopping total of 9 children to look after at the same time.  :whatthe:

The guy that really seems to be much more of a business guy from my POV would be McFarlance with the various business enterprises and companies which he has started and is still involved in.  If you look at it from a net worth point of view, McFarlane's net worth is absolute multiples of what Lee's is, while Liefeld's net worth is probably down where the rest of the upper middle class would be.  hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

This thread hurts my heart a little, if only because people seem to be equating "key" with "valuable" and/or "first appearance" and or "first appearance with a movie appearance imminent."

Back when I was collecting in the 1990s, "key" meant "important" - and/or "more valuable than surrounding issues" - and included a lot of books that weren't first appearances.

Just because Lee's output doesn't have a first Venom or first Deadpool in his run doesn't mean his vast body of work is devoid of keys.

And - as has been noted, one of the things that inhibits the value of most of his books is that they were so popular, the print runs were sky high.

That out of the way, my short-list follows:

1) X-Men 248 - first X-Men book, the team that made him a superstar. A bit of a nostalgic cheat, as it was also the first issue of X-Men I ever bought off the stands, but it was a $20 key for years - and deservedly so, the equivalent of ASM 298, Daredevil 158, X-Men 108, etc.

2) Punisher War Journal 1 - the highest-print run modern book prior to Legends of the Dark Knight # 1, first (non-magazine) origin of the Punisher, and the book (and run) that made Punisher a superstar.

3) X-Men 266 - Yes - he didn't pencil the issue, but he did co-create Gambit, designing his look.

4) Punisher War Journal 6-7 -- one of the most hyped meetings of the '80s, and lived up to it. Dinosaurs and iconic covers. 30+ years later, I see the cover to # 7 and still remember the dialogue from inside that went with it, Frank saying "Runt gave me a sawed-off shotgun"

5) X-Men # 1 - Highest print-run comic book ever, and mostly due to his art. 'nuff said. It may never be valuable, but it's a god-damn key issue if ever there was one.

6) Batman Black & White # 1 (1996) - His first Batman art. Lee's on record as saying "You can't really have a career without drawing Batman" and not only is his Hush run iconic (one of the best Batman stories of the last 40 years) but this presaged his eventually selling Wildstorm to DC, signing exclusively with DC and rising to eventually become the editorial head / publisher of DC Comics.

7) WildCATS # 1 - again - will *never* be valuable due to its then-record print run, but it's the first appearance of a major Image team that went on to have a cartoon and action figure line.

8) X-Men # 256/257 -- First new Psylocke. I'd argue that (like Hush), this is the most significant "first appearance" penciled by Lee - sure, Psylocke had been around before since her Captain Britain days but she was never popular until turned into a hot Asian assassin with a psy-knife. Essentially a totally new character.

 

For the sake of definition, I don't think X-Men 266 should be included in the list.  If the basis for it being a "Jim Lee key" is that "Jim designed the look of Gambit", then it's just as much Stan's book because "he created the X-Men."  The 2nd argument doesn't float, nor should the 1st.

I am rather shocked that your list did not include Batman #608 given the popularity of the Hush storyline and the fact that it marked Lee's first ongoing work for DC.

One problem I have with the modern day definition of "key" is the number of low print run variants in which there is nothing special about the plot.  I think that makes the books "collectable", but I don't think they necessarily resonate with everyday readers.  It's much easier to explain a book is "key" because of the relevance of what occurs within it's pages.  It's harder to accept a book is key because it's "1 of 3000" or "1:100".

I realize each persons definition will differ and I'm sure someone will post an example that rips my definition to shreds, but at least that's my 2c.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ExNihilo said:

For the sake of definition, I don't think X-Men 266 should be included in the list.  If the basis for it being a "Jim Lee key" is that "Jim designed the look of Gambit", then it's just as much Stan's book because "he created the X-Men."  The 2nd argument doesn't float, nor should the 1st.

I am rather shocked that your list did not include Batman #608 given the popularity of the Hush storyline and the fact that it marked Lee's first ongoing work for DC.

One problem I have with the modern day definition of "key" is the number of low print run variants in which there is nothing special about the plot.  I think that makes the books "collectable", but I don't think they necessarily resonate with everyday readers.  It's much easier to explain a book is "key" because of the relevance of what occurs within it's pages.  It's harder to accept a book is key because it's "1 of 3000" or "1:100".

I realize each persons definition will differ and I'm sure someone will post an example that rips my definition to shreds, but at least that's my 2c.

How can that be? Stan didn't create all X-men, but Jim Lee specifically is credited with helping design and create Gambit............ ??? 

Kubert didn't yet would you credit him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

How can that be? Stan didn't create all X-men, but Jim Lee specifically is credited with helping design and create Gambit............ ??? 

Kubert didn't yet would you credit him?

We're talking about who should be credited for an individual issue, not for a character.  Jim may have created the look of Gambit, but should that be enough to associate #266 with him?  All I'm saying is that doing so would be like associating Stan with ASM #300 because he established the character elements for Spider-Man.  I'm of the impression that Jim needs to be credited in the issue for his artwork to really label it a Jim Lee key.  (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExNihilo said:

We're talking about who should be credited for an individual issue, not for a character.  Jim may have created the look of Gambit, but should that be enough to associate #266 with him?  All I'm saying is that doing so would be like associating Stan with ASM #300 because he established the character elements for Spider-Man.  I'm of the impression that Jim needs to be credited in the issue for his artwork to really label it a Jim Lee key.  (shrug)

Thanks for clarification 

It wouldn't look like the current cover of x-men 266 without Jim Lee saying what gambit even looks like, so I disagree with the correlation of stan with spider-man 

But that may be semantics, still Jim said what Gambit should look like as we know it, but then there is the whole x-men annual thing. So I guess I get the correlation but wouldn't have thought of it myself....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExNihilo said:
11 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

Ya I dont know how I forgot about the xmen annual lol

That does sum up nicely

You mean to tell me that I spent $75 on UXM266 and it's not even the first appearance of Gambit?!?  :tonofbricks:

Lol and you know what's worse? I have a #14 in cgc 7.0 I bought early on :roflmao:

With a note in my excel spreadsheet that it's the 2nd gen label and is missing the top label sticker that they put on the top of the slab hahaha:ohnoez:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ExNihilo said:

Looks like someone was ahead of the curve.  I better pick up a raw copy before the book explodes like IH180.  :insane:

I'll tag you if I get one! I seriously looked it up doh!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExNihilo said:

For the sake of definition, I don't think X-Men 266 should be included in the list.  If the basis for it being a "Jim Lee key" is that "Jim designed the look of Gambit", then it's just as much Stan's book because "he created the X-Men."  The 2nd argument doesn't float, nor should the 1st.

I am rather shocked that your list did not include Batman #608 given the popularity of the Hush storyline and the fact that it marked Lee's first ongoing work for DC.

One problem I have with the modern day definition of "key" is the number of low print run variants in which there is nothing special about the plot.  I think that makes the books "collectable", but I don't think they necessarily resonate with everyday readers.  It's much easier to explain a book is "key" because of the relevance of what occurs within it's pages.  It's harder to accept a book is key because it's "1 of 3000" or "1:100".

I realize each persons definition will differ and I'm sure someone will post an example that rips my definition to shreds, but at least that's my 2c.

I think this all comes to show that Jim Lee doesn't really have an obvious key compared to most other famous comic artists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2020 at 9:24 PM, 500Club said:

Go with Batman 609.  It’s most likely that Tommy Elliot/Hush becomes a key Batman villain over time.

That said, Lee, as purely an artist, as opposed to a writer/artist, has been at the mercy of the creative whims of the writers he’s worked with, in terms of establishing a key book/character/first app over his career. 2c

 

41 minutes ago, William-James88 said:

I think this all comes to show that Jim Lee doesn't really have an obvious key compared to most other famous comic artists.

I think @500Club hit the nail on the head when he says that this is largely attributed to none of the characters created by the writers really taking off.  How much of this is a result of Lee being a big name and tied to low risk/established projects?  Batman, Superman, All Star Batman and Robin, Superman Unchained, etc.  Compare this against modern day keys.  NYX #3, Ultimate Fallout #4, Edge of Spider-verse #2, Teen Titans #12, etc.  The latter all being smaller titles with less well known creators who might possibly have more freedom for creativity whereas Lee has worked on AAA titles that generally maintains the status quo.

Edited by ExNihilo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fink said:

:roflmao:

I’m dead serious - it’s an important book, just like Spider-Man (1990) # 1 is. 

The book sold 8 million+ copies, introduced new costumes that carried through to the cartoon (and - arguably) the X-Men films and set up the Blue Team / Gold Team split that carried through the next few years.

It may never be valuable because of its print run but it is one of the must-have X-Men books - and arguably, comic books, period - of the decade.

It was also the book that gave Lee the power to leave the title in less than a year to co-found Image.

Finally, value doesn’t equate to “key” but I find it incredible that 9.8s sell for $60-$90 shipped, given its 8 million+ copies.

If it had sold just 500,000 copies, it’d be a $300-$400 book today.

Edited by Gatsby77
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
5 5