Superman Through the Ages! Forum

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/books/4747333/Spider-Man-debut-sells-for-1-49m (http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/books/4747333/Spider-Man-debut-sells-for-1-49m)



You know, all things considered, if someone gave me a million bucks or so and said you can buy either Action #1 or Amazing Fantasy #15, I wouldn't even hesitate: I'd buy AF #15.

I'd say, "Wow, thanks, I'll get right on that."  Then I'd spend the money on other things entirely.

It's interesting to see this price threshold crossed for a SA book, but honestly anyone who spends this kind of money on comics has more dollars than sense.  On my last trip to an LCS I thumbed through a longbox full of SA books with prices in the 30 to 90 dollar range and decided I'd much rather buy any of the many reprint collections out there than spend my money on back issues, even cheap ones. 

I think we may have already entered an era where back issue sales are limited to big-money collectors buying pristine books on slabs, and everyone else sticking with cheap reprints.  What's the logic in spending 70 bucks on a Batman comic that wasn't good enough to send off to CGC to have appraised and slabbed?  It's too expensive to qualify as a "reading copy" and not in good enough shape to be an "investment."  It's just a ridiculously expensive 32-page pamphlet on pulp paper.

I wouldn't spend $10,000, let alone $1,000,000 on a comic if I had any say in it (or even money to burn), but if I had to, I would definitely and unhesitatingly go for Action Comics #1.

Apart from Action Comics #1 being such an historic, iconic comic, if there is one thing I dislike more than Spider-Man (and virtually every Marvel character) it would have to be Steve Ditko's art, which I utterly loathe.

Sorry, I have to disagree with you, Aldous.

If I had to make a choice, it would be Amazing Fantasy No. 15.  More the type of style I was used to in comics.

I never knew there were so many Spider-Man fans on the Superman Through the Ages site.

Gun to my head, I would choose Action no. 1. Not that the choice would be difficult between the two comics. The real hard choice would be putting so much money into a comic book rather than the hundreds of other worthy things I could do with that kind of money.

I could only see such a situation arising if I were a billionaire and I needed to find a place to park my money. So then I might opt for a slab of this comic or a slab of that comic.

But buying back issues for me is all about the tactile experience of reading a genuine comic book. I have scans of Action no. 1 and I have the Famous First Edition--but if money were no object I would love the opportunity to leaf through a real copy of Action no. 1.

Spider-Man? For me Superman is way up there and Spidey is way down there. I don't see that the webslinger comes anywhere near to approaching the greatness of Superman--not even just a little bit.

But that's why I'm writing this on a Superman board and not a Spider-Man board.

No argument there, really. Superman is Elvis Presley, the original, the biggest and also the prototype for everything that came after.

I came at this from the angle of which one would I read and re-read? I have the Famous 1st of Action No. 1, but I never read it. I re-read the Spider-Man comics, though, starting with AF #15. It is still so readable, still such a great little story, with that quirky (and totally fitting) artwork that Lee hates.

As an investment, which is not what I was thinking of, it would have to be Action, hands down. Action is the most important comic book, historically.

The only thing crazier than spending a million dollars on a comic book would be breaking open the slab and *reading* it afterwards.

Buy the Spider-Man Masterworks and leave AF #15 to the lunatic billionaires.

Better yet, put your million in the bank for a year, then buy all the other comics you ever wanted with the interest you've earned.

No the craziest thing is taking perfectly good comic books, that were meant to be enjoyed and read, having some shyster "appraise" them, attaching a ridiculous price to them, and sealing them off in plastic never to be read again.

And the real crazy thing about this is that so many people accept this as normal and willingly buy into the craziness.

This "slab" & "sealed" business would concern me.

How do you know page 8 isn't missing, or that Bill, Jr. didn't scribble across page 9 with a crayon?

Did some sort of "expert" classify the comic as perfect? Yeah, so what? How would you KNOW??

I would insist on the seal being broken before I bought it.

You know, even the most valuable, most fragile books in the world can be read, while wearing gloves, in atmospherically controlled environments. I agree that to never look through the comic is a waste -- to you and me. But to an investor? If it makes money, it's a legitimate investment. Same with a stamp that never saw service on an envelope.

Puting my Superman fanboy bias aside, Amazing Fantasy No.15 is the better read, it has better art and the Spidey's origin apart from certain details remains unchanged, when Linkara of Atop The 4th Wall did the first secret origins month and reviewed the debut comics of Superman, Spiderman, Batman and Uncanny X-Men and quite frankly Spidey's debut was the best one.

Even if it didn't lead to an ongoing series, this pilot would've served as a good one-shot that displays that a well written message that with Great Power Comes Great Responsibility.

This just proves how subjective everything is. Although I suppose a lot of our opinions are informed by objective realities.

I would probably have a higher opinion of Amazing Fantasy 15, if it was the first appearance of a Silver Age hero--but it's not Showcase no. 4. Or at least, if it was the first appearance of a "Marvel" Silver Age hero--but it's not Fantastic Four no. 1. Or if there were a lot more great fantasy/science fiction stories in this anthology. But its other short stories can't compare to an average issue of Strange Adventures, with stories by the likes of Broome, Binder, Infantino, Anderson. Or if the origin of Spider-Man was truly original--but there it can't compare to Action Comics no. 1, or Whiz Comics no. 2, or Adventures of the Fly no. 1.

To be sure, Action Comics no. 1 is a hard issue to appreciate, all these years later--when judging it by the criteria of comics published years later. But it has a number of things going for it, if you appreciate it in context.

For one thing, you have to put yourself in the shoes of the kid reading this comic for the first time. You have NEVER seen anything like this before! This is truly original. In the history of super-hero comics, this is the most original comic there ever was!

And I have to say Siegel and Shuster are two great storytellers.

But on top of that, you have a whole anthology with a variety of stories, in the 64 pages between the covers. You've got the first stories of Zatara and Tex Thomson (later Mr. America). And there are just so many other little features from cover to cover in this comic book to appreciate.

This is only the fourth ongoing title that DC ever launched. With Detective Comics, it's the only one that has been in publication since then. The logo for Action Comics has been ripped off by almost every commercial enterprise under the sun. For the first several decades of this title, Superman was the primary feature in every issue (although Supergirl took the spotlight a few times when it had Giant issues).

This is the first appearance of Lois Lane. And what an appearance! In a few panels, Shuster establishes so much about Lois in her body language. This is the foundation of the character. Action Comics no. 1 is almost more important in defining the character of Lois than it is in setting up Superman or Clark Kent. But it does introduce the triangle--Clark wants Lois who doesn't want him and we can see that Lois is already interested in Superman.

Within the thirteen pages of this original story, there are at least four stories told. Superman's position as a champion of the oppressed (who beats up on wife beaters) is already established. The major points of Superman's origin are established. The newspaper setting is established as a primary location, as it will be for most of the classic stories.

Knowing what we know about Superman, how can one not look at this first issue and recognize the importance of it as one of the central texts of all comic book history to follow?

Me too!


Why do you hate Marvel characters? They are weird, frakish, strange and more varied than anything else, including DC characters. I always thought of Marvel as DC's conceptual counterpart; and DC VS MARVEL and JLA/AVENGERS proved me right. They are "the other half of super-herodom", without them we would have only sickingly optimistic tales without deepness.

Last Son, "hate" is perhaps too strong a word, but I have never really liked the Marvel characters (apart from a couple of the licensed ones), or had much empathy for them.

I guess I just find the DC characters much more interesting, and I can identify more with them than their Marvel counterparts. It probably also makes a difference that I prefer most of the DC artists of 30-70 years ago to most of their Marvel contemporaries. Also, I am not a Stan Lee fan - and he had written most of the Marvel comics at the time I started reading comics.

My experience with Marvel is kind of "upside down."  With a few exceptions (the Fantastic Four, Dr Strange and, intermittently, Nick Fury) I don't much care for Silver Age Marvel, which is generally held up as some sort of ideal.  I did, however, like a lot of Bronze Age material (which is comparatively looked down upon), from Master of Kung-Fu and Dracula in the early 70s to Starlin's Thanos stuff later on and especially the late 70s/early 80s high point (for me) of Claremont/Byrne X-Men, Micronauts, Simonson's Thor, Miller's Daredevil, Stern and Byrne's Captain America, etc.  Like Lee (Semmens) I think a lot of my feelings have to do with Smilin' Stan, who seemed to write *everything* in the Silver Age, and grows tiresome quickly.  Many who followed had more appeal for me (though by no means ALL who followed; too many aped Stan's hyperbole and overwrought melodrama, with none of the self-mocking humor that made it work for him; in short, they took themselves too seriously, which made for pompous and deadly dull comics).

I'm also with Lee as far as never much liking Spider-Man, or more accurately Peter Parker.  I think Spider-Man has one of the greatest costumes in comics, and I love the visuals when he's in battle, and his wise-guy attitude.  But when the mask comes off and he turns into sad sack Parker, the Charlie Brown of superhero comics, my interest goes straight out the window, which again seems to be inverse to the reaction of everyone else in fandom.

Can't agree about Ditko, though.  His art is an acquired taste, to be sure, but neither Dr Strange nor Spider-Man were ever worth much without him.  I'd argue he and Kirby were the high point of Silver Age Marvel, which frankly had some really lackluster and even goofy art except for those two.  With all respect to Tuska, Sparling, Severin, Adkins, etc I really don't think Marvel would have made it past 1964 without Jack and Steve.