Print

[bchat]

Here I'd guess that Centaur underwent a name change to Comic Corporation of America--can't say why--

Centaur Publications and CCA existed side-by-side as "publishers" from September 1939 until the end of 1940 when a bunch of titles were cancelled (everything from CP from what little I can gather) and all that was left was Amazing-Man Comics until Liberty Scouts and Stars and Stripes Comics came along.

[Yoc]

Wow, what a great conversation!  Bravo gang.  I've given +1 karma to everyone in this thread.
I think bchat has done a fantastic job on his research and is to be commended.  This is exactly the kind of conversation that is needed on a regular basis.  Fascinating stuff!

They may not be brothers but he's proven to me there is some kind of connection between the two companies.

bchat, IF and WHEN I can get back into the admin section I'll be happy to create an H-K folder.

-Yoc

[narfstar]

Long and interesting good arguments great work guys

[Yoc]

bchat - could you please add a summary of your H-K findings on these books to the comments sections under each of them?  Thanks!

-Yoc

[JVJ]

I WILL get back to this when time allows, guys,
but for the record, since I have the comic, the O.S. for Amazing Man #20 lists the following as Owners:
Comic Corporation of America
Joseph J. Hardie
Raymond J. Kelly
E. L. Angel

(all at 215 4th Ave. NY, NY)

and, bchat, you're right that the corporation listing must be followed by the owners of that corporation. However, you could read the O.S. from FPS V3:1 to indicate that Harle Publications, Kelly and Fried were all partial owners. Can we say with certainty that Kelly (AND Fried) were owners of Harle? Does it make sense that Kelly would own Harle? Or are we seeing the beginning of a collaborative publishing effort? I'll look harder at this when I get the time but I FINALLY got the quotes for the back cover of ImageS and must spend the weekend getting ready for the printer. I'll be BACK!

(|:{>

[Yoc]

Good luck on your latest issue Jim!

[fox_centaur]

as an aside: To my mind, CCA is NOT Centaur: it's a new company formed to continue publishing Centaur books. Same characters, one of the same titles, same artists and some of the same owners, different addresses, but my chances of rewriting comics history to separate the two are slim and none.

Amazing Man Comics was CCA from the start (it was the only CCA title overlapping with Centaur Publications output).  Centaur Pub. included Amazing Man in its advertisements for the "Centaur Group" which to me is ample justification for considering the two publishing companies part of a larger unit properly referred to as the Centaur Group.

As noted elsewhere, Ultem, Comics Magazine Co. and Chesler Publications were not part of this group, or otherwise grouped together.

I find bchat's arguments pretty convincing but would not lump the later issues into the Centaur Group unless that name was used in advertising for them.  Likewise depending on how the later CCA books were advertised (and I should go look because I have several but I'm too lazy) one could argue that the Centaur Group name was no longer relevant.  But for a while, at least, both companies were included in the brand.

[bchat]

You've PROVEN that Hardie, Kelly and Harle were owners of Centaur/CCA. That's it. To me, if anything all your research ... confirms that the comic company Centaur/CCA ended with the last comic published by that company circa 1942 

I wanted to get away from this for a while because I have other stuff I want to do and this "research" takes so much darn time and really starts getting boring after a while.  Still, I felt like poking around the 'net today, looking for more info and found that "Comic Corporation of America" did not go away with the last issues of Amazing-Man Comics, Man of War, etc, in 1942.

The CCA name continued to be used to publish magazines/books until at least 1944.  Titles Copyrighted to CCA include: Yoo Hoo, Smiles, Band Leaders, All-American Band Leaders, Khaki Humor, Khaki Wacky, What's Cookin', Keep 'em Laughing and Pocketful of Pepper.

[Yoc]

Cool!
Thanks for the update bchat.

[kquattro]

The CCA name continued to be used to publish magazines/books until at least 1944.

Glad to see you're following up on your research, bchat. I've had my say regarding the Centaur connection, but I do have some information to add to the publication of FLYING MODELS and MODEL FUN.

FLYING MODELS was a standard bi-monthly magazine with one exception. Between the April and June 1954 issues a promotional comic with a May cover date was published--volume 61 number 3--the same comic that started this discussion. I've located several copies online and from what I've seen, the box in the lower left corner was blank, with the intention, I'd suppose, that the hobby shop or toy store that was selling it could place their store name in it (as in the copy on this site). If you notice the top of the cover, it reads, "Special Model Fun Issue". I would hazard a guess that this is the real first issue of MODEL FUN, which is why that comic is numbered 2 through 5.

By the way, FLYING MODELS magazine was published by Fifty Crosswords, Inc., while the one comic issue was from H-K Publications. And the assumption (that old bugaboo) in Overstreet and elsewhere that H-K stood for Health Knowledge Publications comes from confusing H-K with an actual, unrelated publisher named Health Knowledge, best known for publishing horror digests such as THE MAGAZINE OF HORROR and the MAD imitator, PANIC, in the late Fifties.

Hope this info is helpful to you, bchat.

--Ken Q

[bchat]

Glad to see you're following up on your research, bchat.

I don't consider it "following-up" as the more the I look, the more I discover that I have more to look for.  As I said earlier, I want to see "The Big Picture", and I don't feel I've come close to exhausting all the avenues of exploration yet.  If I take a break, it's only to keep myself from getting burned-out on the topic.

I've had my say regarding the Centaur connection, ...

As have I.

but I do have some information to add to the publication of FLYING MODELS and MODEL FUN.

FLYING MODELS was a standard bi-monthly magazine with one exception.

I would say the publication of Flying Models magazine was adjusted to meet demand.  In 1958, for example, the frequency was monthly.  I still have a lot of information to sort through & organize into a nice, easy-to-read format, but it doesn't appear that "FM" was strictly bi-monthly or monthly for its entire run.

I would hazard a guess that this (Flying Models Special Fun Issue v63 n3) is the real first issue of MODEL FUN, which is why that comic is numbered 2 through 5.

That's possible, but that's something I really don't feel like speculating on as "issue numbers" have little meaning to me.  As far as I'm concerned, the "issue number" of comics from the 30s, 40s & 50s is slightly meaningless, since (as I'm sure you're aware) publishers would simply cancel one book and start another title while continuing the numbering from the first.  In today's comic world, Marvel has done a great job of making "issue numbers" meaningless with their constant cancellation/renumbering/renaming of long-running titles.

By the way, FLYING MODELS magazine was published by Fifty Crosswords, Inc., while the one comic issue was from H-K Publications.

Flying Models was published through Fifty Crosswords (the title of one of Harle's puzzle books), Harle Publications and H-K Publications.  It's possible other publishing names were used that I simply haven't come across yet, as all I've really looked at so far regarding this title that I consider "official" are the Copyright Renewals.

It's hard talk about the contents of the magazines since I don't physically have any, and I doubt I'ld spend the money to get something like Flying Models just to look at nothing I'm interested in.  Luckily, there are sellers on eBay & around the 'net who understand that potential buyers actually want to know what's inside a magazine before they buy it.  One seller on eBay states that copies of Flying Models from 1954 & 55 that he is selling have a feature called "Fixit Wright", which is, as he puts it, a "comic/informative ... section".

Edit: I had a point there ... can't figure-out what it was.

And the assumption (that old bugaboo) in Overstreet and elsewhere that H-K stood for Health Knowledge Publications comes from confusing H-K with an actual, unrelated publisher named Health Knowledge, best known for publishing horror digests such as THE MAGAZINE OF HORROR and the MAD imitator, PANIC, in the late Fifties.

I wouldn't call it an "assumption" by Overstreet, it's just a flat-out error, one of many that Overstreet has made over the years that they are slow to correct.  I would have a hard time believing that someone, somewhere along the line who had access to the book, hasn't sent Overstreet a message telling them they were wrong, but were probably ignored if they weren't an "advisor" or whatever title Overstreet gives to the comic shop owners and "experts".  The assumption I make from that & other errors is that Overstreet apparently cares nothing or very little about being accurate as long as they are viewed as the "Number One Price Guide" and can fill-up half their publication with advertising.

Hope this info is helpful to you, bchat.
--Ken Q

ALL info is helpful & appreciated, as it helps to fill-in the gaps of "The Big Picture".  At the moment, all I have to look at is what's available on the internet, which is Copyright entries & renewals, and whatever information people attach to items they sell.  Once I exhaust those resources, I'm stuck, unless I begin acquiring the publications themselves, which might happen depending on the cost.  There are some things I'm interested in reading since I started learning more about them, like Smiles, Yoo Hoo and Comet (which was apparently a pulp magazine).  Motorsport & Flying Models, for example, aren't books I want to deal with on a personal level because I have no interest in reading them, so why waste my money?  The magazines & puzzle books don't seem to have the same type of diehard fans that comic books in general have, so it's not like there's a "fan site" out there that I've seen where someone is saying "I love these books, here's all the information anyone could ever need about them".

[kquattro]

I would say the publication of Flying Models magazine was adjusted to meet demand.  In 1958, for example, the frequency was monthly.  I still have a lot of information to sort through & organize into a nice, easy-to-read format, but it doesn't appear that "FM" was strictly bi-monthly or monthly for its entire run.

Sorry I wasn't clear here, bchat. I was just trying to place the comic issue of FLYING MODELS into the context of the magazine publication. I have no idea as to the publication info of the entire run.

That's possible, but that's something I really don't feel like speculating on as "issue numbers" have little meaning to me.

The reason why I mentioned it, bchat, is, as we are "comic book guys", trying to understand the numbering of a comic does have some historical significance. Why did the publisher begin the numbering at #2? Was there another issue #1 that has yet to be found? I would think you'd be interested in finding another comic if it exists. My speculation (and of course, that's all it is) offers a POSSIBLE answer, not a definitive one.

Flying Models was published through Fifty Crosswords (the title of one of Harle's puzzle books), Harle Publications and H-K Publications.  It's possible other publishing names were used that I simply haven't come across yet, as all I've really looked at so far regarding this title that I consider "official" are the Copyright Renewals.

The reason why I mentioned that the magazine and the comic were published under two different imprints is to point out that the parent company seemed to keep the two formats separate. Keep in mind that the numbering of MODEL FUN seems to be a continuation of the one comic issue of FLYING MODELS. Why? I've no clue why they did so, but it is interesting.

It's hard talk about the contents of the magazines since I don't physically have any, and I doubt I'ld spend the money to get something like Flying Models just to look at nothing I'm interested in.

Depending upon your level of interest in understanding "the big picture" of Harle, it may be worth investing in some issues of their various magazines. When I was researching St. John, I found many of these tangential publications to be a treasure trove of insight into Archer St. John himself and the overall direction of his company. I can't say for sure that you'd derive the same insight from the Harle publications, but it may be worth the investment.

I wouldn't call it an "assumption" by Overstreet, it's just a flat-out error, one of many that Overstreet has made over the years that they are slow to correct.  I would have a hard time believing that someone, somewhere along the line who had access to the book, hasn't sent Overstreet a message telling them they were wrong...

I have several comments here:
The "flat-out error" by Overstreet has to be based upon something, and that was an assumption. As Health Knowledge was a known publisher of comic magazines such as PANIC and NUTS, it wasn't as wild a speculation as you might think. It was wrong, but kind of understandable (even Jerry Bails' WHO'S WHO lists FLYING MODELS under Health Knowledge Publications). That's why it's important to document everything, to correct the old assumptions with facts.

As for why hadn't "someone, somewhere" hadn't contacted Overstreet yet and corrected them about this...it probably hasn't been noticed by anyone. The majority of comic book fandom has been fairly myopic about the history of the industry. If it didn't pertain to superheroes or other favored collecting interests, than it didn't matter much. A comic devoted to model airplanes doesn't have the same fan base and the details of its publication didn't matter to most collectors. By what you've told us, even you just stumbled upon the true publishing bloodline of these comics. You deserve all the credit for this, bchat.

And as for correcting Overstreet: write them. I have made several corrections to it over the years and I'm not an "advisor". They will ask for details and documentation, such as scans of indicia. Without people making the effort, the mistakes will linger and the history will never be correct.

At the moment, all I have to look at is what's available on the internet, which is Copyright entries & renewals, and whatever information people attach to items they sell.

It's your choice, but as Jim V and others will attest, there is no better source than seeing the publications themselves. I'm sure this isn't news to you, but the Internet is rife with wrong information. Copyright data is helpful, but may not tell the entire story. And information taken from eBay auctions and such? I'd be VERY wary. People misread indicia, mastheads and owner's statements. Sometimes they have no idea what you are asking if you make an inquiry. Nothing beats getting your hands dirty from handling old pulp, in my opinion.

--Ken Q

[bchat]

I would say the publication of Flying Models magazine was adjusted to meet demand.  In 1958, for example, the frequency was monthly.  I still have a lot of information to sort through & organize into a nice, easy-to-read format, but it doesn't appear that "FM" was strictly bi-monthly or monthly for its entire run.

Sorry I wasn't clear here, bchat. I was just trying to place the comic issue of FLYING MODELS into the context of the magazine publication. I have no idea as to the publication info of the entire run.

I wasn't assuming you did, I just wanted to clarify the frequency of publication for anyone who happened to be reading along.

That's possible, but that's something I really don't feel like speculating on as "issue numbers" have little meaning to me.

The reason why I mentioned it, bchat, is, as we are "comic book guys", trying to understand the numbering of a comic does have some historical significance. Why did the publisher begin the numbering at #2? Was there another issue #1 that has yet to be found? I would think you'd be interested in finding another comic if it exists. My speculation (and of course, that's all it is) offers a POSSIBLE answer, not a definitive one.

Sorry if it seemed I was dismissing your speculation out-of-hand, but I've seen enough GA comics with issue #'s that can't be explained that something starting with "# 2" doesn't mean all that much to me.  It's something to keep in the back of my mind but not worth focusing on right now.

Flying Models was published through Fifty Crosswords (the title of one of Harle's puzzle books), Harle Publications and H-K Publications.  It's possible other publishing names were used that I simply haven't come across yet, as all I've really looked at so far regarding this title that I consider "official" are the Copyright Renewals.

The reason why I mentioned that the magazine and the comic were published under two different imprints is to point out that the parent company seemed to keep the two formats separate. Keep in mind that they numbering of MODEL FUN seems to be a continuation of the one comic issue of FLYING MODELS. Why? I've no clue why they did so, but it is interesting.

Flying models. Vol. 61, no. 2, Apr. 1954. By H-K Publications, Inc.
Flying models. Vol. 61, no. 3, May 1954. By H-K Publications, Inc.
Flying models. Vol. 61, no. 4, June 1954. By H-K Publications, Inc.
Flying models. Vol. 61, no. 5, Aug. 1954. By H-K Publications, Inc.

Fifty Crosswords seemed to be the publishing name used during 1951-53 (earlier than that?  I don't know yet).  H-K was used from 1954 to 1957, and Harle for 1958-59.

It's hard talk about the contents of the magazines since I don't physically have any, and I doubt I'ld spend the money to get something like Flying Models just to look at nothing I'm interested in.

Depending upon your level of interest in understanding "the big picture" of Harle, it may be worth investing in some issues of their various magazines. When I was researching St. John, I found many of these tangential publications to be a treasure trove of insight into Archer St. John himself and the overall direction of his company. I can't say for sure that you'd derive the same insight from the Harle publications, but it may be worth the investment.

My "level of interest" is to learn as much as I can about what Hardie & Kelly published, but I don't feel that it's necessary to have magazines where the subject matter is of little-to-no interest to me.  It would be a waste of time, money & space to have books cluttering-up my house that have no personal value.  As I said, there are publications that I'm interested in getting (hopefully, one of them is heading towards my house as we speak) because the content is of interest.  The only way I'ld ever humor the idea of acquiring something like Flying Models magazine is if I picked it up dirt cheap, which doesn't seem likely at the moment.

As for why hadn't "someone, somewhere" hadn't contacted Overstreet yet and corrected them about this...it probably hasn't been noticed by anyone. The majority of comic book fandom has been fairly myopic about the history of the industry. If it didn't pertain to superheroes or other favored collecting interests, than it didn't matter much. A comic devoted to model airplanes doesn't have the same fan base and the details of its publication didn't matter to most collectors.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of "it didn't matter much" to someone, but I would agree that most comic collectors don't care about it.  It probably did/does matter to someone, but they possibly aren't "vocal enough" to say anything, or if they are vocal, they're vocal amongst fellow collectors & enthusiasts.

By what you've told us, even you just stumbled upon the true publishing bloodline of these comics. You deserve all the credit for this, bchat.

I'ld love to take that credit, but I'm not really doing anything right now that other people can't do with the resources (the internet) at my disposable.

At the moment, all I have to look at is what's available on the internet, which is Copyright entries & renewals, and whatever information people attach to items they sell.

It's your choice, but as Jim V and others will attest, there is no better source than seeing the publications themselves. I'm sure this isn't news to you, but the Internet is rife with wrong information. Copyright data is helpful, but may not tell the entire story. And information taken from eBay auctions and such? I'd be VERY wary. People misread indicia, mastheads and owner's statements. Sometimes they have no idea what you are asking if you make an inquiry. Nothing beats getting your hands dirty from handling old pulp, in my opinion.

--Ken Q

I'm skeptical of what I read in the online auctions, etc, but it's information I didn't have before that I can confirm or dismiss later-on down the line.  At some point, yes, I'll be curious to look at an issue or two of some of the less interesting magazines (to me, anyway) to see what, if any, information I can pull from them.  At this point, though, it's simply not a priority or something I'm going to devote money to when I'm still gathering a list of what was published & when, or focused on acquiring the publications from Hardie & Kelly that do interest me (the pulps & humor magazines) to see what comic book artists may have contributed work to them.

[kquattro]

Sorry if it seemed I was dismissing your speculation out-of-hand, but I've seen enough GA comics with issue #'s that can't be explained that something starting with "# 2" doesn't mean all that much to me.  It's something to keep in the back of my mind but not worth focusing on right now.

I'm sorry. I thought that the prospect of another possible comic coming from this publisher would be of interest to you.

Flying models. Vol. 61, no. 2, Apr. 1954. By H-K Publications, Inc.
Flying models. Vol. 61, no. 3, May 1954. By H-K Publications, Inc.
Flying models. Vol. 61, no. 4, June 1954. By H-K Publications, Inc.
Flying models. Vol. 61, no. 5, Aug. 1954. By H-K Publications, Inc.

Fifty Crosswords seemed to be the publishing name used during 1951-53 (earlier than that?  I don't know yet).  H-K was used from 1954 to 1957, and Harle for 1958-59.

Interesting. I saw the same info you have here on the Copyright Renewal database, but the indicia of the magazines indicate that Fifty Crosswords was the publisher for the April, June and August issues. All the more reason to acquire copies of these issues if your research is to be accurate.

My "level of interest" is to learn as much as I can about what Hardie & Kelly published, but I don't feel that it's necessary to have magazines where the subject matter is of little-to-no interest to me.

So be it. We all have our own researching styles.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of "it didn't matter much" to someone, but I would agree that most comic collectors don't care about it.  It probably did/does matter to someone, but they possibly aren't "vocal enough" to say anything, or if they are vocal, they're vocal amongst fellow collectors & enthusiasts.

And I'm not sure I see the difference between "it didn't matter much" and "don't care about it". 

In the overall scheme of comic book collecting, FLYING MODELS and MODEL FUN barely registered a blip--that is, until you pointed out the connection to Hardie and Kelly. Until that point, the vast majority of comic book fandom and historians wouldn't even have a reason to speculate on the true publication history of those comics.

I'ld love to take that credit, but I'm not really doing anything right now that other people can't do with the resources (the internet) at my disposable.

True, but in my book at least, you deserve credit for discovering a tributary of comic history that hasn't yet been explored. Rest assured, though, there are definitely other historians who will employ a lot more resources than just the Internet if they think this may lead to something.

I'm skeptical of what I read in the online auctions, etc, but it's information I didn't have before that I can confirm or dismiss later-on down the line.

Skepticism is good. Proof is better.

...focused on acquiring the publications from Hardie & Kelly that do interest me (the pulps & humor magazines) to see what comic book artists may have contributed work to them.

It's your call. Good luck.

--Ken Q

[bchat]

I'm sorry. I thought that the prospect of another possible comic coming from this publisher would be of interest to you.
All the more reason to acquire copies of these issues if your research is to be accurate.
So be it. We all have our own researching styles.
Rest assured, though, there are definitely other historians who will employ a lot more resources than just the Internet if they think this may lead to something.
Skepticism is good. Proof is better.

From the perspective of a guy who can count on one hand the number of days I've put into this avenue of exploration that I started not even a month ago, these comments are sitting with me the wrong way.  I get the impression that I'm not moving fast enough for you, or more to the point, I'm probably not doing things the way you would. 

If you feel it's vital that magazines, which I have no personal interest in acquiring, be paged through ... have fun, because I have other responsibilities that are more important to me and two kids I'ld rather spend my money on.  If you want me to jump all over some tidbit of information about a comic that probably doesn't exist and has nothing to do with what I'm currently exploring, you're just going to have to wait until I get around to it or else do it yourself.

I'm not doing this because I'm writing a book or creating a website or seeking to be labelled a "historian" (whatever that's worth) ... I'm doing it because I want to and sharing the results.  If someone else can do it better and more thoroughly, more power to 'em.

Sorry to be so blunt with you, but I've run out of patience with the nit-picking.

[Yoc]

Hey let's not turn this wonderful thread sour bchat.
I didn't get that impression from ken at all.  He's only discussing the different ways things can be done.  There is no 'right or wrong' here
Nobody has demanded anything from you.  We've been enjoying the new facts you've unearthed and encouraging you to continue when and if you have time and inclination.
Trying to nail down facts might be nitpicking to some but as we've all seen assumptions and guesses can easily turn into 'facts' down the road so being specific is a good thing especially when you might be the only person to ever explore this avenue of H-K.
I hope we can continue the topic in a pleasant way without anyone become annoyed or upset.  I've been reading along and enjoying the process immensely and would hate to see it turn ugly for any reason.

Take care gang,
-Yoc

[narfstar]

I too have been enjoying all points of view. I think all the research has been appreciated. We all feel more and first hand is the best but it may be for someone else to come in later to supply more or some things will forever remain a mystery. Bchat did it on a whim of personal interest which is the fun way. There are others who dig in like a bulldog. We all have our own level of interest and all added info is welcome.
I do not thing Ken was trying to nit pick but I think you lit a fire under him that made him overly anxious for all he could get. We do tend to get excited about our funny books 'round here.

[kquattro]

Hey let's not turn this wonderful thread sour bchat.
I didn't get that impression from ken at all.  He's only discussing the different ways things can be done.

Thanks for jumping in here, Yoc. I just got back to my computer and I was a taken aback by bchat's last post. I didn't expect to find that kind of reaction and I feel I should respond to him personally.

To bchat: Sorry if you feel pressured by me. I've been impressed by what you had found and when you brought it up again, I thought it was open for discussion. I guess I was wrong.

I don't care how you do things, but I do care about the overall history of comic books. You've presented a bunch of details, a jigsaw puzzle of information you've gleaned from the Internet, and dumped them on our collective table here on this discussion board. That's great, but like a jigsaw puzzle, the information should be put into some order to get a whole picture. My comments to you were intended to help with that. You are correct: I can just do it myself, but since it was your discovery that started this thread, I thought it only fair that you get the credit by finishing it.

I got the backhanded slap at me intended by this line:

I'm not doing this because I'm writing a book or creating a website or seeking to be labelled a "historian" (whatever that's worth)

I don't write and have a website for the glory that comes with being called a "historian" either (and surely not for the money!). I do this because I love the subject and I too want to share what I have learned with other fans. If I am nit-picky about details, it's because sloppiness and inaccuracy have hurt the chronicling the history of comics in the past. I am a serious guy and this is a serious subject to me.

Can "someone else can do it better and more thoroughly" than you? Without a doubt. There are a lot of dedicated "historians" in this hobby who relish a good mystery and who will go to any length to find answers. They won't limit themselves to the Internet.

I could take great offense at your tirade, bchat, but I don't. You are obviously free to do what you want; to expend as much or as little effort on this subject as you care to expend. Have fun with your two kids and have a good life.

--Ken Q

[bchat]

I thought it was open for discussion. I guess I was wrong.

The topic is open for everyone to discuss.

You've presented a bunch of details.

I present what I have when I have it.  I'm not holding anything back when I feel I have something of value to share with others.  When I'm done or reach a point where I feel I have something resembling some sort of "time table", I'll present that as well if someone else doesn't come along and beat me to it.

I got the backhanded slap at me intended by this line:

I'm not doing this because I'm writing a book or creating a website or seeking to be labelled a "historian" (whatever that's worth)

That comment wasn't aimed at you, but at the many people across the internet who proclaim themselves to be a "historian" or "expert" in any field deserving of attention, yet lack the ability to back-up anything they say with facts, make-up "history" as they see fit or merely repeat what they've read somewhere else.

[Captain Audio]

Gentlemen , theres a lot of misinformation on the net, and almost all of it comes from pre-net literary sources. Theres also a lot of poorly researched revisionism going on, with practically ever possible subject of discussion affected by it.

No long ago I found that a specific group of collectors had been attempting their own revisions on a subject which they may not realize could in some cases be a matter of life or death , or at the least disfigurement or serious injury.
They were basing their claims on two things, their own very limited experiances, and a lack of easily available records.
Having learned the facts half a century earlier, from sources far easier to find in print than they are these days by those who depend too much on the net, I knew enough about the subject to have an idea where to look for records of deaths and injuries that had resulted from ignorance of the very facts these fellows were insuring others to be a myth to be ignored.
Every possible misreading and misrepresentation of findings followed in their attempt to promote their preconceived notion.
Not long afterwards a prestigious organization published warnings related to the subject. The same group of collectors began a fresh round of denying the facts, even claiming that the warning must be based on an internet myth.
I then tracked down the source of the warning to a scientific study, which basically repeated the findings of generations earlier.
If not for a revival of interest in the object , and a tendency by some to push the limits, the rather large body of work devoted to investigating the facts surrounding failures, sometimes resulting in serious injury or death, would have been quietly lost to history, and in its place would be the dangerously unrealistic claims of a few self styled pundits.

Of course no one is likely to suffer worse than a papercut from collecting old books, the information on who published what and when is not a matter of life or death.

PS
I can remember reading the Flying models comic long ago, the story of flying the serum across the river is at least is very familar.
Some years ago RC aircraft were used to fly heroin across the Mexican border. When the DEA found out they stationed agents with shotguns along the route and shot down the model planes.

Its been a long time since I built a good wood and paper model, theres nothing much more pleasing than seeing something you've built taking flight.

I have a static display model of a Bell P-59 built from scratch, using blown up photo copies of a three view drawing to go by. All balsa construction, built up in layers and carved and sanded to shape.
I never got around to finishing it, I did finish the body and tail section and most of the cockpit. One day I'll finish it up.

[JVJ]

This is how research works, bchat.
No one is questioning or challenging YOU. Everyone is seriously examining the "facts" and they SHOULD do this. It's also how real science works. You propose a "theory" and your peers are supposed to test that theory. Your information is appreciated and it's being looked at in light of other information and we're all attempting to fit your data into the big picture. If the copyright renewals don't match the indicia in the published magazines, that's something we all want to know. Please don't consider any of this personal. I, too, don't want to see this fascinating subject/thread lessened by any acrimony. We're all blind men examining an elephant in the middle of the room and seeing different parts and assimilating different details. Enjoy the quest and revel in the fact that you've provoked an interesting thread and got us all looking at things a little differently.

Peace (sincerely meant), Jim (|:{>

[John C]

While I know it wasn't intentional, I do want to point out that a lot of comments here can easily be interpreted as telling bchat that he's not a serious enough researcher.  Most recently, note the "you're using the Internet?  Be skeptical.  You're skeptical?  Well you should have documented proof and buy magazines" exchange with Ken.

I understand the motivation there as trying to help, and I'm glad the more serious folks here welcome the dilletantes among us (including myself, for the most part) with such open arms.  However, hearing the same sort of criticism (in the technical sense) several times through the day and at every turn wears thin and starts to sound either patronizing or insulting.

It's just something to be aware of when phrasing things.  There's a difference in reading between "I hope we get to see XYZ to compare and confirm" and "serious researchers would spend money to acquire XYZ even if they don't want to read them" (even though they're equivalent sentiments), especially when someone doesn't have any interest in being a "serious researcher."  The latter sounds extremely bossy, which surely isn't the intention.

[Yoc]

I chalk it up to 'having a bad day' and let's move on with the discussion if possible.
I honestly think we've got the perfect forum for such topics and I sure hope we can continue 'examining an elephant' as Jim put it.  I gotta a tail! 

-Yoc

[John C]

I definitely didn't intend to place or argue blame, there (and even feel guilty for singling out Ken), but rather pointing out how these things happen with the best of intentions.  It's worthwhile keeping in mind how things will be read and the spirit which things were written.

[kquattro]

While I know it wasn't intentional, I do want to point out that a lot of comments here can easily be interpreted as telling bchat that he's not a serious enough researcher.  Most recently, note the "you're using the Internet?  Be skeptical.  You're skeptical?  Well you should have documented proof and buy magazines" exchange with Ken.

John, I'm not quite sure how I should respond to your post.

A part of me is incredulous. A part is ticked off.

What we do on this board, as with most of the others I frequent, is discuss various aspects of comic book history. At least the threads I participate in. While those conversations can become heated at times, they almost always result in someone learning something about comics. I love that. I love the exchange of information and the acquisition of knowledge. I love sharing what I have learned with others and learning what they know.

But I've also come to realize over the years that to be taken seriously in these discussions, you should do your homework. You're a teacher, you know that. I've been ground into the dust by folks who've been in this hobby far longer than me, who've spent much more time in research than me and frankly, who are smarter than me. To hang with them, I've become a better researcher. It's benefited me and hopefully, others who read my words.

You think I was "bossy", "patronizing" and "insulting" to bchat. I believe I was trying to be helpful. He brought some information to light on this board that, while incomplete, was extremely insightful. In our exchanges, I was hoping to show him how others (including me) have gone about researching comics. He doesn't have to listen to me. There's no consequence to him ignoring me. I'm not his boss or his father or his college professor. I won't fire him, send him to his room or give him a bad grade. Believe it or not, I was trying to help.

There's a bit of hypocrisy in your post that makes me smile. You frequently write these long, rambling posts--sometimes on subjects you obviously know little about--with a patronizing arrogance that is palpable. I'm sure you don't mean to be, but that's the way you come across sometimes. I guess that's the curse of writing. Cold text doesn't have the inflections of speech. Words and intentions are easily misunderstood.

I'm done with this topic unless you or others wish to beat it to death. This is supposed to be fun.

--Ken Q