Thanks for the response to my Fantastic Four post, which, I have to admit, was a last-minute thing that I wrote with little to no planning. I do plan on returning to the topic, probably next week, with a little more thought to what I’m doing, I hope!
But for today, since I have a very early morning doctor’s appointment, I’m going to just point out that DC Comics is releasing 1972’s Action Comics #419 in a facsimile reprint edition this week.
Now, DC is releasing it because it’s the first appearance of the Human Target, who gets the occasional series and once had a TV show. But the big reason to pick up this comic is for its connection to the Hubble space telescope!
Bluesky pal Paul Cornish had an article in Scientific American a while back explaining the connection, and now seems like a good time to link to it!
In other news, the new Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide is out, and you may notice a slight physical difference from the previous year’edition:
Don’t get too excited, the new Guide is actually about 100 pages shorter in length. It’s printed on thicker, and much lighter, paper, so it no longer feels like the solid brick it paper that it used to. It’s slight and airy, despite its bulky appearance.
The comic book price listings are still in the same print size, with about 40 additional pages. Also, the strips of three mini cover reproductions across the tops of pages have been reduced to just one scan in the page corners.
In this day of “Hot Comic Apps” and such, the Guide may seem archaic, but it’s still a useful base for pricing, so long as you, y’know, do your research on that small percentage of books that may be seeing current price fluctuations. But stuff like Captain Savage, you probably don’t need to worry about the Guide being too far off the mark.
It’s still frustrating that the Guide devotes pages in every volume to “Pioneer” and “Victorian” comics, while ignoring undergrounds, which are more likely to be encountered in the wild. And, are more in need of current, consistent pricing. And, frankly, every time I’ve tried to buy a “Victorian-age” comic someone brought into the shop, given that the comic in question is in worse-for-wear condition, going by Guide prices always results in a rejection of my offer. “It’s old, therefore it’s expensive,” of course. Nobody wants to know their century-old item is worth only about $20.
Also, Yummy Fur still isn’t listed. C’mon, guys.
I’m sure I’ll have more to say. Oh, should note my copy of House of Secrets #92 is now valued at about $3500.
I think I owned that issue. Either that, or I’ve seen the cover reproduced online a lot.
Wait, so does Gemstone Publishing still exist? I thought they were caught up in the Diamond bankruptcy thing. Or did someone else publish this?
It is Gemstone. Gemstone is a distinct legal entity.
This is literally the first mention of “pioneer” & “Victorian” comics that I’ve ever seen. Time to do some cursory research…
(After 30 seconds of googling): come on, really? I’m not saying they’re not sequential art, but woodcuts and penny dreadful are their own things. I don’t think newspaper comics sections of the 1920s are the same as comic books, either. They should all have their own price guides, not be mixed in with comic books post-Famous Funnies 1. It’s similar art forms but different media, akin to including 18th Century pamphlets in a price guide of 1st edition bound books.
Overstreet will likely never cover Undergrounds if Bob is still running it.
The closest he ever got was when Gary (last name forgotten) hired me to review current comics back in the 90’s for the monthly mag.
There were a few of those I just call them photograph covers. One street level with Terra-Man?
OK, business time:
Mike: How much does Man-Thing’s first appearance (I guess Man-Thing#1?) go for? And how many kids from Camarillo come in jonesing for the Swamp Thing chalk? Or, um, pogs.
Did anybody else just used to get the new Overstreet and just read it like a book? Check out the new prices, new series listed, all the new old covers picture, etc… ? Just me???
Man-Thing’s first appearance was in the Marvel magazine Savage Tales #1, which seems to currently be worth about $300, ungraded.
If you did want Man-Thing (vol. 1) #1, which would have been quite late in the Man-Thing’s comic career (as he was in Adventures into Fear after the Savage Tales debut), ungraded it seems to be valued between roughly $8-$14. It’s not really a key issue though.
The real question: does Overstreet list old Overstreet Guides?
Mike, here’s a question for you. You mentioned “Pioneer” or “Victorian-age” comics, but how often, if at all, does someone come to your shop with “Flapper Age” –a term I might have just coined?– vintage pulps (Weird Takes, Black Book Detective, The Shadow, Doc Savage, etc.) or American popular culture magazines from the 1920s, and/or “Platinum Age” pre-superhero comics published in the 1930s prior to Action Comics no. 1? I seem to recall you bought some Big Little Books a few years ago featuring Tarzan and other characters which might have been published in the ’30s.
That does seem odd that the Overstreet Guide doesn’t list at least some of the better known underground comix such as Zap Comix or other titles by R. Crumb, Gilbert Shelton, “Spain” Rodriguez, S. Clay Wilson, etc.
Also, have you ever done a posting featuring as many collage comic book covers as you can locate featuring line art mixed with photography?
Beyond that Action Comics cover, at least one Shazam cover, a Flash cover, a New Gods cover, and a Jimmy Olsen cover come to mind. And at least one Treasury Edition cover featuring Superman.
I guess the Bronze Age ’70s covers aesthetic at DC–presumably under Carmine Infantino’s management–was being influenced by the Pop Art of artists (such as Peter Blake) who incorporated photographs into their works.
“and you may notice a slight physical difference from the previous year’edition”
THICC
“It’s still frustrating that the Guide devotes pages in every volume to “Pioneer” and “Victorian” comics, while ignoring undergrounds, which are more likely to be encountered in the wild”
I gotta agree!