Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2023 0:18:17 GMT -8
As clearly stated above, Zod speaks in part of the variations and defects you've noted only in Silver Age Marvels, but which are present at times in nearly all publisher output of the period, and spilling into other ages as well. Do you only deal in Silver Age Marvels and are thus not aware of that which Zod speaks? If so, why would you presume it only affected Marvels? Quite strange... I'm aware of the variations in all books. I simply used SA Marvels as an example because they are the most prominent example of comics to discuss overhang. I was asking YOU for examples to clarify what YOU'RE talking about since YOU brought up non Marvel books. I'm pretty experienced at handling books of ALL eras and have a pretty solid grasp on the overhang (or lack thereof) in all eras and I can say that overhang is not very common outside of SA Marvels (this would include pre-hero Atlas going back into the 50s) and BA books (I'd include many CA books in this as well since they are similar to BA books). Outside of these books the overhang defect is much less common. So I was asking you which books you were specifically talking about and what variations cause these differences...since you mentioned them first. I'm aware of the variations in all books. Then why did you take issue with Zod's comments pertaining to the defects/variations noted in your OP as occurring in numerous books from numerous SA publishers?I simply used SA Marvels as an example because they are the most prominent example of comics to discuss overhang. They're not, but how do you explain this comment in your OP asking why these variations/defects are so rarely seen in SA DC books when in fact they're quite common?
From your OP:
6) Even more confounding: Why does almost NONE of the above happen to the same degree on DC's from the Silver Age? 
I was asking YOU for examples to clarify what YOU'RE talking about since YOU brought up non Marvel books. See above.
If you knew these defects/variations existed, why were you questioning me about it rather than simply agreeing?
I'm pretty experienced at handling books of ALL eras Perhaps you've handled them, but you don't seem to have observed their characteristics very carefully.and have a pretty solid grasp on the overhang (or lack thereof) in all eras and I can say that overhang is not very common outside of SA Marvels (this would include pre-hero Atlas going back into the 50s) and BA books (I'd include many CA books in this as well since they are similar to BA books). Wildly incorrect, and you're now disputing what you've said directly above.
Zod finds this bizarre.Outside of these books the overhang defect is much less common. See above.
These peculiarities are incredibly common in numerous SA books not published by Marvel or its related companies.So I was asking you which books you were specifically talking about and what variations cause these differences...since you mentioned them first. See above.
Nearly all SA publishers produced numerous books which exhibit these peculiarities, and for numerous reasons.
How you're not aware of this is astonishing, but you say you ARE aware, yet you need to know which publishers?
Bizarre. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 25, 2023 15:39:42 GMT -8
As usual, you'll have to show some examples or proofs with your disagreements.
Something you're never able to show in any discussion on any topic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2023 21:53:52 GMT -8
As usual, you'll have to show some examples or proofs with your disagreements. Something you're never able to show in any discussion on any topic. Why would you need proof of something you've said (in this very thread) you're already aware of? It simply makes no sense to Zod. But Zod is more than happy to explore the topic of overhang as it afflicted the output of nearly all SA (and other era) publishers. Standing by, Vin!  |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 26, 2023 18:30:37 GMT -8
As usual, you'll have to show some examples or proofs with your disagreements. Something you're never able to show in any discussion on any topic. Why would you need proof of something you've said (in this very thread) you're already aware of? It simply makes no sense to Zod. But Zod is more than happy to explore the topic of overhang as it afflicted the output of nearly all SA (and other era) publishers. Standing by, Vin! Because that is how discourse and human progress work. If you disagree with someone, you need to show proof. Standing by... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2023 20:16:53 GMT -8
Why would you need proof of something you've said (in this very thread) you're already aware of? It simply makes no sense to Zod. But Zod is more than happy to explore the topic of overhang as it afflicted the output of nearly all SA (and other era) publishers. Standing by, Vin! Because that is how discourse and human progress work. If you disagree with someone, you need to show proof. Standing by... Hey Vin.  This is actually a very interesting larger topic - how comics were printed in the mid-50s to late 60s - and a good one to explore; thank you for posting it. The initial problem was that you made some claims that just don't line up with what little is known about the process, and didn't note that overhang was a nearly universal phenomenon across publishers at various times. It might be helpful if we had a larger discussion about how logical discussions best proceed, but that's beyond the scope of this thread. So that leaves us with your initial question as freed from subsequent expressed concerns. Regardless of the publisher whose books were affected, what do YOU feel explains overhang? Thanks again for posting about an interesting topic.  |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 26, 2023 21:09:06 GMT -8
Because that is how discourse and human progress work. If you disagree with someone, you need to show proof. Standing by... Hey Vin. This is actually a very interesting larger topic - how comics were printed in the mid-50s to late 60s - and a good one to explore; thank you for posting it. The initial problem was that you made some claims that just don't line up with what little is known about the process, and didn't note that overhang was a nearly universal phenomenon across publishers at various times. It might be helpful if we had a larger discussion about how logical discussions best proceed, but that's beyond the scope of this thread. So that leaves us with your initial question as freed from subsequent expressed concerns. Regardless of the publisher whose books were affected, what do YOU feel explains overhang? Thanks again for posting about an interesting topic. First, I'm going to reassert that overhang is NOT common outside of SA / BA books and especially outside of Marvels for the SA (BA is a different story and it is found commonly on MOST BA books of many publishers. Gold GA "fatty" books, the smaller GA books, right into the atomic era (pre SA) it was not common to my knowledge. It's also ont common after the CA when the market went to special paper. And comics have been printed the same way for 100 years. They are trimmed after they are folded and stapled. The reason overhang exists on SA Marvels and BA for most publishers is because of the type of paper they used. Marvels used different cover stock than DCs in the SA and by the BA they started sharing similar paper stock. Over time, the cover stock changes shape differently than the newsprint of the interior pages. Covers get "taller" and "narrower". I'm sure it has something to do with the grain of the paper, as well as the clay content (sizing) htat creates the gloss we all love. And I think it varies because of the storage conditions of the book. Some books from the same run / issue / era have more overhang than others even though they're the exact same book from the exact same press. -------------------------- The interior pages also shrink but to a much less degree. That's the fanning you see at the top of the pages but less so at the bottom and I think that's because the pages dry to varying degrees and the further into the book you go, the more protected they are from the atmosphere. I think that most comics are also stored right way up, so the tops are more exposed than the bottoms of the books allowing more shrink on the top, exposed pages than the bottom ones. I got all of this from some fascinating discussions I've had with some old school comic guys. Fascinating stuff. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2023 19:50:10 GMT -8
Hey Vin. This is actually a very interesting larger topic - how comics were printed in the mid-50s to late 60s - and a good one to explore; thank you for posting it. The initial problem was that you made some claims that just don't line up with what little is known about the process, and didn't note that overhang was a nearly universal phenomenon across publishers at various times. It might be helpful if we had a larger discussion about how logical discussions best proceed, but that's beyond the scope of this thread. So that leaves us with your initial question as freed from subsequent expressed concerns. Regardless of the publisher whose books were affected, what do YOU feel explains overhang? Thanks again for posting about an interesting topic. First, I'm going to reassert that overhang is NOT common outside of SA / BA books and especially outside of Marvels for the SA (BA is a different story and it is found commonly on MOST BA books of many publishers. Gold GA "fatty" books, the smaller GA books, right into the atomic era (pre SA) it was not common to my knowledge. It's also ont common after the CA when the market went to special paper. And comics have been printed the same way for 100 years. They are trimmed after they are folded and stapled. The reason overhang exists on SA Marvels and BA for most publishers is because of the type of paper they used. Marvels used different cover stock than DCs in the SA and by the BA they started sharing similar paper stock. Over time, the cover stock changes shape differently than the newsprint of the interior pages. Covers get "taller" and "narrower". I'm sure it has something to do with the grain of the paper, as well as the clay content (sizing) htat creates the gloss we all love. And I think it varies because of the storage conditions of the book. Some books from the same run / issue / era have more overhang than others even though they're the exact same book from the exact same press. -------------------------- The interior pages also shrink but to a much less degree. That's the fanning you see at the top of the pages but less so at the bottom and I think that's because the pages dry to varying degrees and the further into the book you go, the more protected they are from the atmosphere. I think that most comics are also stored right way up, so the tops are more exposed than the bottoms of the books allowing more shrink on the top, exposed pages than the bottom ones. I got all of this from some fascinating discussions I've had with some old school comic guys. Fascinating stuff. Some good comments, and I'm glad we agree that BA books widely exhibit these peculiarities. (Numerous Pre-Code books do as well of course.) But we have two stumbling blocks: 1) Cover overhang is WIDELY seen outside of Marvel books of the SA, including on DC books. You've initially asserted otherwise (in your OP), and continue to do so, and thus are logically required to present proof in support of your claim. (I'm not logically required to support my counter-assertion for a number of reasons - again beyond the intended scope of this thread.) Can you thus cite any study which supports your claim that Marvels especially represent this phenomenon? For instance, a truly random sampling/comparison of 1000+ books per year including each publisher active between 1956 and 1969? 2) Despite your claim to the contrary above, comics have NOT been printed the same way for 100 years (actually 90 or so to be a bit more precise), but rather practices have varied widely. Very little is known about comic book printing for the first 40+ years of their existence, and your claim (for instance) that comic books have always been trimmed on 3 sides after folding/stapling/cover placement is not supported by any known evidence. However, if you can share sources for your claims about printing practices from the 30s through 70s, I'm not the only one who would love to see this information, and presenting these sources to us will no doubt create huge traffic to this site as well, so a win for all hobbyists! As a result of these 2 concerns, I can't agree with your interesting but ultimately unfounded conclusion that overhang appears on SA Marvel books due to the paper type used. I hope we can continue this exchange in the positive, informative and amicable manner I know you intended. Best, GZ |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 30, 2023 20:43:28 GMT -8
I'll get back at you.
But it's certainly weird to me that you never provide any proof of your assertions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2023 21:39:25 GMT -8
I'll get back at you. But it's certainly weird to me that you never provide any proof of your assertions. I'll get back at you. Thank you!
I've actually been exploring this for many years, and have never found anything beyond assumptions & best guesses, and even those quite scant.
I don't think you'll find anything beyond such minimal hearsay, but would LOVE to be wrong!
And you can certainly be forgiven for thinking that this issue was peculiar to SA Marvels, as so much of collector focus has been on the output of that company from the origins of fandom, and thus their overhang over-focused upon.But it's certainly weird to me that you never provide any proof of your assertions. It's situational.
Zod tries not to feed trolls or waste time with similar bad faith individuals.
In the case of Prater, the proof is being held privately by Hamline in the event Prater sues, so Zod presented well-informed opinion (and provided an example of how such situations are handled & proof withheld when litigation may be in the offing), but opinion so overwhelmingly likely to be accurate that none here were willing to put even $50 on the line (with no requirement to demonstrate they had complied) to help needy children.
In the case of baby bias, Kav almost immediately supplied the necessary info., and as I'd known would be the case, the person who requested it first refused to spend 15 seconds Googling, and then incompetently dismissed the information when a link was provided.
In this case, the burden is upon you, and I appreciate you're taking that burden on, and hope it bears fruit for all!
If you can think of other instances in which Zod has not been forthcoming, the general would be happy to explore those with you as well, but perhaps a new general thread would be the best place to so so?
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 10, 2023 16:24:57 GMT -8
This is a well known book. Conan #1. the reason I'm showing this picture is to show how the rough cut edge shows the same pattern across all wraps, including cover AND interior. This should conclusively prove to everyone that comics were trimmed AFTER they were bound and folded. If the comic was trimmed on each open end separated (before folding) the markings wouldn't match across all wraps this way. There would be two distinct sets of markings with one set on the front 9 wraps and a different set of markings on the last 9 wraps. And yes, to my knowledge ALL comics were printed the same way. EDIT: MOST COMICS. I will add an addendum below. Folded / stapled and THEN trimmed on 3 edges. LMK if you need more proof.  |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 10, 2023 17:00:23 GMT -8
In SOME rare cases a comic is printed incorrectly. In this case, the interior went through the printing process and was stapled and trimmed on 3 sides but a cover was not attached. The cover stock ran out. In a case like this the interior is sent through the presses a 2nd time and a cover is attached - WITH A 2ND SET OF STAPLES. I forgot to take a picture of the cover, but THIS cover extends well past the interior pages proving that the cover was trimmed AFTER the interior was trimmed. But the top and bottoms line up perfectly. This leads me to believe that the interior was folded, stapled, trimmed at the outer edge...and then caught. Then the interior was send back through the machine, and then the TOP and BOTTOM (interior and coveR) were trimmed and ONLY the outer edge of the cover trimmed on the 2nd go round...because the interior was already trimmed on the outer edge. But this is a very, VERY rare exception. Two issues that come to mind that this is common on is Daredevil #169 (I think) and this issue - X-men #101.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2023 17:14:01 GMT -8
This is a well known book. Conan #1. the reason I'm showing this picture is to show how the rough cut edge shows the same pattern across all wraps, including cover AND interior. This should conclusively prove to everyone that comics were trimmed AFTER they were bound and folded. If the comic was trimmed on each open end separated (before folding) the markings wouldn't match across all wraps this way. There would be two distinct sets of markings with one set on the front 9 wraps and a different set of markings on the last 9 wraps. And yes, to my knowledge ALL comics were printed the same way. EDIT: MOST COMICS. I will add an addendum below. Folded / stapled and THEN trimmed on 3 edges. LMK if you need more proof. This is a well known book. Conan #1. the reason I'm showing this picture is to show how the rough cut edge shows the same pattern across all wraps, including cover AND interior. Interesting - thanks for sharing. This should conclusively prove to everyone that comics were trimmed AFTER they were bound and folded. Not at all.
Not even close.
It MAY demonstrate that this particular book was.If the comic was trimmed on each open end separated (before folding) the markings wouldn't match across all wraps this way. There would be two distinct sets of markings with one set on the front 9 wraps and a different set of markings on the last 9 wraps. See above.
And yes, to my knowledge ALL comics were printed the same way. "To my knowledge" is not remotely close to a standard of proof.
Little to nothing is known about comic book printing from the early 30s through the early 70s.EDIT: MOST COMICS. I will add an addendum below. See above; correction appreciated.Folded / stapled and THEN trimmed on 3 edges. See above.LMK if you need more proof. Your argument:
1) This dog MAY have three legs.
2) Therefore all/most dogs have three legs.
If you don't understand how wildly distant you are from providing proof or a logical argument...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2023 17:20:48 GMT -8
In SOME rare cases a comic is printed incorrectly. In this case, the interior went through the printing process and was stapled and trimmed on 3 sides but a cover was not attached. The cover stock ran out. In a case like this the interior is sent through the presses a 2nd time and a cover is attached - WITH A 2ND SET OF STAPLES. I forgot to take a picture of the cover, but THIS cover extends well past the interior pages proving that the cover was trimmed AFTER the interior was trimmed. But the top and bottoms line up perfectly. This leads me to believe that the interior was folded, stapled, trimmed at the outer edge...and then caught. Then the interior was send back through the machine, and then the TOP and BOTTOM (interior and coveR) were trimmed and ONLY the outer edge of the cover trimmed on the 2nd go round...because the interior was already trimmed on the outer edge. But this is a very, VERY rare exception. Two issues that come to mind that this is common on is Daredevil #169 (I think) and this issue - X-men #101. In SOME rare cases a comic is printed incorrectly. Actually, and as confirmed by the publisher's own printed data, spoilage in printing was widespread and common; it wasn't rare at all.
This is one of the few things we DO know for certain about the first 40 years of comic book printing.
In this case, the interior went through the printing process and was stapled and trimmed on 3 sides but a cover was not attached. The cover stock ran out. In a case like this the interior is sent through the presses a 2nd time and a cover is attached - WITH A 2ND SET OF STAPLES. I forgot to take a picture of the cover, but THIS cover extends well past the interior pages proving that the cover was trimmed AFTER the interior was trimmed. But the top and bottoms line up perfectly. This leads me to believe that the interior was folded, stapled, trimmed at the outer edge...and then caught. Then the interior was send back through the machine, and then the TOP and BOTTOM (interior and coveR) were trimmed and ONLY the outer edge of the cover trimmed on the 2nd go round...because the interior was already trimmed on the outer edge. But this is a very, VERY rare exception. Two issues that come to mind that this is common on is Daredevil #169 (I think) and this issue - X-men #101. Interesting, and thanks for sharing.
But it's not really germane to your topic, is full of presumptions, and constitutes no proof of process for the first 40 years of comic book printing.
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 10, 2023 17:24:45 GMT -8
This is a well known book. Conan #1.
And yes, to my knowledge ALL comics were printed the same way. "To my knowledge" is not remotely close to a standard of proof.
Little to nothing is known about comic book printing from the early 30s through the early 70s.
If you don't understand how wildly distant you are from providing proof or a logical argument...
DiceX worked at the printing plant in Sparta, Illinois. Sparta printed MOST of the comics coming to market in the late GA, Atomic and SA and BA eras. They were so proficient at printing that they nicknamed the town Magazineland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta,_Illinois He documented the printing process in detail from working there and he was very clear. They did not use one method at one plant while another press/ plant used another method. This would have been ridiculous. They had a standardized, efficient and most cost effective method that ALL plants used. The printing process DID NOT CHANGE. All comics and magazines, WITH RARE EXCEPTION (like the one I just posted above) were printed exactly the same way for decades. I've already offered one proof that contradicted my own claim but it was a rare, isolated case and not the norm but can't think of any others right now. So again, a few questions since the topic is getting muddled: 1) What exactly and specifically are you disagreeing with me on? 2) Do you have ANY examples or proofs that contradict my claims? |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 10, 2023 17:28:36 GMT -8
In SOME rare cases a comic is printed incorrectly. In SOME rare cases a comic is printed incorrectly. Actually, and as confirmed by the publisher's own printed data, spoilage in printing was widespread and common; it wasn't rare at all.
This is one of the few things we DO know for certain about the first 40 years of comic book printing.And yet you haven't offered any actual numbers. If it's confirmed by the publisher's own printed data, what is the actual spoilage rate? And what does spoilage rate mean? If it means that many were not printed properly, nobody will disagree with you on that. We all know that comics are FULL of errors because they are cheap children's mags. But you're conflating spoilage rate with a specific error I pointed out. The two are not the same.  For example, poor registration, miscuts, poor color strike and many other defects can all be included in the spoilage rate.  Finally, if this defect is so common and not rare, why don't we see so many of these examples? I probably see 10,000s of comics a year and I rarely see these. This is the 1st such example I've seen in probably 2 years. |
|
