Comic Book Plus Forum
Help And Support => Suggestions => Topic started by: bchat on December 05, 2009, 01:54:51 PM
-
I don't know if this was ever brought-up before, and I know the main site is still having issues, but in the "Small Press & Unsorted Files" there's "Flying Models v1 n3" (it's actually volume 61 number 3) and "Model Fun 4". My feeling is that these two books should be moved to the "Centaur" folder, as they're from the same publishers (Hardie & Kelly) at the same address (215 Fourth Ave, New York NY) as the later Centaur books.
-
Ok bchat, if you are pretty sure of it.
I've moved them to Centaur. I can move them back if it's found incorrect down the road.
Moving scans around on GAC is pretty easy. Creating or correcting category listings is impossible until the login error is corrected.
-Yoc
-
My feeling is that these two books should be moved to the "Centaur" folder, as they're from the same publishers (Hardie & Kelly) at the same address (215 Fourth Ave, New York NY) as the later Centaur books.
I'm confused. Can you please elaborate on this information, bchat?
I am far from an expert on Centaur, but I don't see how it, H-K and Harle are the same company. Granted, it may be the same owners at the same address, but the intervening decade and wildly different content alone would make me hesitate as calling them the same company. Using that criteria, Max Gaines' All-American Comics company was the same as Entertaining Comics. Both had the same owner (or his son) and at the same 225 Lafayette Street address.
I'm not saying you're necessarily incorrect, I'm just asking for further details. Thanks!
--Ken Q
-
(I'm glad these are easy to move around!)
-
The Model Fun is mine. I do not see or feel any Centaur in it
-
OK, here's my thoughts on why these books belong in "Centaur" and not anywhere else:
When the books were sold by Ultem Publishing, the owners listed in "Funny Picture Stories v3 n1" (the earliest Statement of Ownership I've seen so far) were Centaur Publications, Harle Publications, Raymond J. Kelly and S.J. Fried. The address for all but Fried, including Harle, was 220 Fifth Ave, New York NY. Joseph J. Hardie was simply the publisher at this point.
In "Funny Pages v4 n1" (Jan 1940), the Statement of Ownership lists Centaur Publications, Raymond J. Kelly, S.J. Fried, Joseph J. Hardie and E.L. Angel as the owners. Again, all but Fried were at the 220 address. Sometime in 1940 (or even late '39) after that Statement was filed, Centaur moved to 215 Fourth Avenue, New York NY.
In "Stars and Stripes Comics 2" (May 1941), there's an ad for "Comet: Stories of Super Time and Space" which is published by H-K Publications. H-K has the same address as Comic Corporation of America (215 Fourth Avenue).
"Flying Models: Special Fun Issue" volume 61 number 3 (May 1954) was published by H-K Publications, editorial office at 215 Fourth Ave, New York NY.
"Model Fun # 4" (May/Spring 1955) was published by Harle Publications, with the editorial office located at 215 Fourth Avenue, New York NY (same as the later "Centaur Comics"). As luck would have it, the book includes a Statement of Ownership which lists Harle Publications, Joseph J. Hardie, Raymond J. Kelly and Clare S. Aichele. All but Clare Aichele have the 215 Fourth Avenue address.
Hardie & Kelly may have stopped publishing comic books in 1942, but they didn't stop publishing altogether. The duo simply switched gears and got more involved in magazines and other publications, which they produced from at least 1940 until 1960. To me, the "Flying Models" and "Model Fun" books are a "slight return" to publishing comics, or at least, they're the first hard evidence I've seen that they didn't fully abandon the industry. I would not doubt there are others, I just haven't found them yet. "Flying Models" and "Model Fun", are part of the publishing history of Hardie & Kelly, and to a certain extent, Centaur/CCA itself. I think it would be wrong to just push these books off to the side simply because their contents don't match what's found in Funny Pages, CMO Comics, Detective Picture Stories or Amazing-Man Comics.
kquattro - I understand what you're saying. It's been pointed-out elsewhere that Timely/Marvel is not the same company as Atlas/Seaboard simply because they have the same owner ... and that's a fair arguement. The difference I see here is that Hardie & Kelly didn't sell-off the Centaur/CCA books to someone else to continue publishing as both Gaines & Martin Goodman did, nor did they start-up a new company to produce some comics over a decade after CMO Comics or World Famous Heroes (whichever came out last). And let's be clear, I'm not saying that the Model Fun & Flying Models books are strictly "Centaur Comics", but I strongly feel that that's where they belong on this site since there is a direct link between those two books (possibly others ... time will tell) and everything that Centuar Publications/Comic Corporation of America published. Anyone looking to do a comprehensive history of the company that published "Centaur Comics" would be missing a piece of the puzzle if they were ignorant of what Hardie & Kelly did beyond the comics they published from 1938 to 1942.
-
Pretty good argument. And they would have evolved their next comic endeavor to meet the times.
-
And let's be clear, I'm not saying that the Model Fun & Flying Models books are strictly "Centaur Comics", but I strongly feel that that's where they belong on this site since there is a direct link between those two books (possibly others ... time will tell) and everything that Centuar Publications/Comic Corporation of America published.
I understand you're thought process, bchat, and to some extent, I agree--there is a tantalizing link. And I definitely agree if a comprehensive history of Hardie and Kelly's publishing ventures is ever written, then surely these comics should be included. But I'd stop short of putting them under the Centaur banner or labeling them as successors of that company. It's apparent that Hardie and Kelly had an ongoing publishing company and that it produced various types of publications. The fact that they made some attempt at a comic book format more than a decade later doesn't necessarily mean those should be seen as successors to Centaur. Other publishers have also wandered in and out of comic book publishing, Archer St. John was one I can name right off. He once had a comic (it started as a comic/magazine hybrid) and company named FLYING CADET. Several years after its demise he again reentered comic book publishing. While FLYING CADET was a direct antecedent to St. John Publishing, I wouldn't list it under that company and neither does anyone else. It was a separate publishing venture.
The problem I see is that invariably someone is going to misconstrue your cautious tethering of the two publishing ventures and they will state flatly that MODEL FUN and FLYING MODELS are Centaur comics. If this site places the two comics under the Centaur category it will give credence to what is yet an unproven theory.
I hope you will keep us apprised as to your research into these comics, bchat. If you can uncover more information regarding them or other possible comic ventures by Hardie and Kelly, I'd love to read it. Good luck and congratulations on what you've found out so far.
--Ken Q
-
I understand you're thought process, bchat, and to some extent, I agree--there is a tantalizing link. And I definitely agree if a comprehensive history of Hardie and Kelly's publishing ventures is ever written, then surely these comics should be included. But I'd stop short of putting them under the Centaur banner or labeling them as successors of that company. It's apparent that Hardie and Kelly had an ongoing publishing company and that it produced various types of publications. The fact that they made some attempt at a comic book format more than a decade later doesn't necessarily mean those should be seen as successors to Centaur. Other publishers have also wandered in and out of comic book publishing, Archer St. John was one I can name right off. He once had a comic (it started as a comic/magazine hybrid) and company named FLYING CADET. Several years after its demise he again reentered comic book publishing. While FLYING CADET was a direct antecedent to St. John Publishing, I wouldn't list it under that company and neither does anyone else. It was a separate publishing venture.
To me, that's the difference in this situation (Hardie & Kelly). It's NOT a seperate publishing venture, it's comic books coming from the exact same company. I see no good reason to keep the two books in question in the "Small Press" category based solely on a 12 year gap in the company (a company that continued publishing throughout that time period) producing comics when there is a better place for them to be.
The problem I see is that invariably someone is going to misconstrue your cautious tethering of the two publishing ventures and they will state flatly that MODEL FUN and FLYING MODELS are Centaur comics. If this site places the two comics under the Centaur category it will give credence to what is yet an unproven theory.
But it's a solid relationship between the books. I don't agree (obviously) that they should be kept seperate.
I hope you will keep us apprised as to your research into these comics, bchat. If you can uncover more information regarding them or other possible comic ventures by Hardie and Kelly, I'd love to read it. Good luck and congratulations on what you've found out so far.
--Ken Q
The history of "Centaur Comics", and by extension what Hardie & Kelly published during and after that period of time, is of great interest to me (no, I can't really explain why). When I saw "Flying Models" and "Model Fun" in the Small Press section, I was like "Awesome!", as I had just recently discovered that Hardie & Kelly published "Flying Models" magazine. I wasn't thrilled about what was inside those books, because I am, first and foremost, a superhero fan, and care very little about the hobby of model planes. Still, it was a cool discovery to see that the duo did publish more comics beyond what's traditionally attributed to them. That's part of the reason I feel so strongly about the books being in the "Centaur" section, since I learned about the magazines first and then discovered the comics afterwards ... it was like I just ran around in a circle to get back to where I started. Had the books been in what I personally consider "the proper category" earlier, I would have had something to work with when trying to answer the question "what else did they do after 1942?" I feel strongly that it's a benefit to other people in the future that are looking to do the same "research" I currently am doing to have everything they would want to look at in one area.
Certainly, as I learn more about what Hardie & Kelly published, I'ld be more than happy to share that information with whoever cares to read about it. It's a "pet project", to be sure, but it's something I have a strong interest in doing. I think all these little "pieces of the puzzle" helps to shed light on the subject. The company that published "Centaur Comics" didn't die and go away, they "went where the money was" but were not against publishing what I can only assume at the moment was the occasional comic book.
... they would have evolved their next comic endeavor to meet the times.
My thoughts exactly, although had they continued producing comics beyond 1942, I seriously doubt that comics about model planes would have been the end result. On the other hand, you never know, since the pair did seem interested in models & cars, based on what I've learned about the magazines they publlished.
-
Perhaps a detailed description for each magazine should be written of where it fits in the history of Centaur.
Bchat - could you write something for each. Nothing huge - just a few sentences so everyone is clear on these.
I think that would cover Ken's worries while being able to leave them in that category.
Sound good?
Just post them here if you would and I'll add them to the titles.
-Yoc
-
When the site is fully functional maybe we could change it to Centaur/Harle to indicate the continued publication
-
To me, that's the difference in this situation (Hardie & Kelly). It's NOT a seperate publishing venture, it's comic books coming from the exact same company. I see no good reason to keep the two books in question in the "Small Press" category based solely on a 12 year gap in the company (a company that continued publishing throughout that time period) producing comics when there is a better place for them to be.
I know you are striving mightily to make this connection, bchat, but there is little evidence to support what you are trying to do.
You assume that the Hardie and Kelly publishing company was one continuous, uninterrupted business. Unless you haven't yet revealed some details, then you have no idea if that is true. How do you know that H & K didn't leave the business at some point and reenter again? Max Gaines (whose example you readily discounted) sold MOST of the All-American company to DC, but he retained such properties as Fat and Slat and the Picture Stories comics that were published both by All-American and EC. He left the field of comics for approximately 6 weeks--a virtually continuous history of publishing comics from All-American through EC all at the same address. No one considers them the same company, yet you are attempting to lump MODEL FUN and FLYING MODELS with Centaur with far little knowledge of their publishing history. At best, these comics are a footnote to the Centaur story unless you can prove something more.
I applaud your enthusiasm and what you've determined so far, bchat. But I hope you put what you've learned in the proper perspective.
To Yoc: You can put MODEL FUN and FLYING MODELS under any category you choose--it's your site. But by doing so, you potentially contribute to further mangling the true history of comics. The Internet is fertile ground for rumors and half-truths and invariably, what appears here will be repeated elsewhere.
When it comes to comic history, in the past, often assumptions were made and through repetition, taken as fact. Consequently, it has taken years to unravel fact from fiction. It's an ongoing process and the work of such dedicated historians as Jim V, Mike Feldman, Doc V, Jim Amash and others that have brought some clarity to this murky past. Recently, here on this board we discussed whether Rural Home was connected to Croydon and the question was asked as to how this connection was ever made. Most likely it was made by someone making an assumption based upon scant evidence, leaving us with a confused history that is still being sorted out.
Stating what is known--letting the facts speak for themselves--is how the truth will be revealed. Making assumptions based upon a few facts makes finding the truth that much harder.
--Ken Q
-
Ok Ok, wow....
I've moved them back into Small Press and will add a note that there is a strong likelyhood that a connection to Centaur likely exists but is not 100% nailed down.
bchat - as Ken mentions our lumping it in with Centaur might be propagated as a 'fact' down the road that just might be wrong. I'd like to avoid the possibility for now.
-Yoc
-
Ok Ok, wow....
I've moved them back into Small Press and will add a note that there is a strong likelyhood that a connection to Centaur likely exists but is not 100% nailed down.
To Yoc and bchat: I apologize. My previous post comes across as strident and scolding and it wasn't intended to be. There is no excuse for that and I hope I didn't make either of you angry. You are good guys, this is a great list and this site is a wonderful resource.
I spend an insane amount of time researching various aspects of comic book history. Too often I've wandered down long roads that ended in a cul de sac because the starting point was wrong to begin with. This has made me very careful and my conclusions, measured. Folks like Jim V have set an example for me of how it is better to err on the side of caution rather than jump to a conclusion too rapidly. I've found that to be great advice.
Again, I'm sorry bchat and Yoc if I offended you.
--Ken Q
-
Folks like Jim V have set an example for me of how it is better to err on the side of caution rather than jump to a conclusion too rapidly. I've found that to be great advice.
The ONE thing I know for certain is just how much I DON'T know. Hames Ware and I come up with hundreds of theories and notions and ideas and speculations every year about publishers and artist and shops. Very few of them will EVER be verified, simply because there's scant source material or primary sources still alive. So, it's great to talk about these things, but it's best to think twice or three times before recording the theories from your observations as fact. I once speculated that a particular Harvey story from 1960 was done by Howard Nostrand. Big QUESTION MARK in the published data - lots of qualifications and doubt in my mind, but someone asked me to take my best guess, so I did. Only guess what disappeared when that published data was transferred to the GCD? Right, the ?. And 25 years later I know that my guess was wrong and I'll NEVER be able to retract it. Think before you insist of recording the extrapolations from your observations.
DO record those observations! The information about H&K provided here is good, solid research, and should definitely be kept with the H&K books. But what happens if we take the discussion out of publishing.
What if Hardie and Kelly had a Macdonald's franchise in 1942 (Centaur, CCA) and then gave it up, tore down the building and put up a Burger King (H&K) on the same lot in 1946? We'd have a continuity of ownership AND address, but it wouldn't make Burger King into Macdonalds, or vice versa. So, YES, there is a continuation of an H&K publishing business at that address. IF Centaur or CCA was published by H&K Publishing, then we would have a continuation of Centaur. Since I don't know of any such indicia listing, I tend to think the evidence shows that Harlie and Kelly folded one company (CCA) and started another (H&K).
If you've got any more data (or if I have missed some), please fill me in. I love these obscure historical connections, bchat, and I love to add to the history of comics. Keep digging and keep sharing.
ps. For the record, JVJ scanners, I now have my Centaur comics back in my possession and available.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Hi Ken,
Don't worry, I know I wasn't offended by any posts here. I'm just trying to keep everyone happy on the topic and I can see someone will disagree with where they are put no matter what. So I've decided to error on the side of caution for now.
I certainly applaud bchat on his determined research on the company and I hope he continues to update us on anything he finds. After a while I need flowcharts on all these things. It's like a messy family tree. 'Are we cousins or siblings?' ;)
Jim, thanks for your input. A nicer group of guys can't be found.
-Yoc
-
Glad the site's working again. The internet is so boring without this place.
Regarding H-K & Harle Publications: It's not a new business, and that' where I'm failing to understand why there is such a strong desire to keep the books seperate. It's one single entity that produced comics, albeit not on a regular, continuous basis ... but why should the number of years between producing comics be such an issue? That's really what I'm not getting here, and the examples given (All-American/EC Comics, McDonalds/Burger King, etc) simply don't apply because they're not the same situation. We're not talking about two people who occasionally did business together or constantly started-up new companies, but two partners who worked together for at least 20 years, using the same "tricks of the trade" when it came to publishing names, one of which (Harle) was listed as part of the ownership group of Centaur Publications. To me, what we have here is basically the same situation as Martin Goodman/Timely/Atlas/Marvel Comics, except that Goodman was constantly producing comics while Hardie & Kelly were more focused on magazines.
If part of the purpose of this site is to help anyone investigate the history of comics & the companies involved in publishing those comics, then why would these two books be placed anywhere else? It should be obvious by now that I'm interested in the "Big Picture" of the companies & people involved in the books commonly (and perhaps misleadingly) referred to as "Centaur Comics", but I basically tripped over the Flying Models & Model Fun comics while searching for something totally unrelated (my coloring book project). I used search engines looking for info on Flying Models and was never led here. I didn't know before-hand that those titles existed as comics, I only knew of "Flying Models" as being a magazine, so I was never going to check the "Small Press" section to find something I didn't know was there.
At the end of the day, though, this isn't my site so it's not my decision. I don't really know what other information I could provide to change anyone's mind on the situation. If the fact that H&K were producing magazines & puzzle books from at least 1940 to 1960 isn't going to do it, I'm not sure what will. On my computer, the books are located in the same folder as the rest of the comics H&K produced, and there's no good reason for them to be anywhere else.
-
bchat's argument makes the most sense to me. Just because the "normal" comic fan base does not recognize the parent company as having existed continously does not make it any less so
-
*sigh*
You know, in a perfect world we admins would be able to go into the site and ADD a new category within Centaur called 'H&K' and post bchats observations. Give them a separate folder but explain the possible, perhaps likely, connection to Centaur.
BUT... we can't get into the site to change or add new categories to GAC.
So for now, I think leave them as is with a plan to one day give them a folder of their own in Centaur.
Sound like a compromise?
-
Glad the site's working again. The internet is so boring without this place.
Regarding H-K & Harle Publications: It's not a new business,
Can you explain how you KNOW that it's not a new business, bchat? It's not "Centaur Comics" and it's not "Comic Corporation of America" and it's not "Comic Magazine Company". If you've got a case that extends beyond the confluence of the address and some of the owners, then make that case. Just saying that it's the same people doesn't convince me. Nor does the Martin Goodman argument. Goodman's multiple companies existed simultaneously and were used to minimize the size of each "company". From what I can tell, there's a definite SEQUENCE with the various Harle companies: Comic Magazine Company was followed by Centaur Comics was followed by Comic Corporation of America - and the owners varied slightly with each. The owners varied in Goodman's companies, too, but it's obvious that it was a shell game Goodman was playing - wife, sons, cousins, whatever, were shoehorned into "ownership" positions and statements just to fill out the incorporation forms. The mix Harle, Hardie, Kelly and the various Angels change slightly over the various corporations (like Goodman, I agree), but they change over TIME and with new company names.
and that' where I'm failing to understand why there is such a strong desire to keep the books seperate. It's one single entity that produced comics, albeit not on a regular, continuous basis ... but why should the number of years between producing comics be such an issue?
You're right, the number of years doesn't mean much of anything, bchat. It's the "one single entity" that poses questions. What other facts do you have that indicate that H&K was a continuation of Comics Corporation of America? That's what we need to ascertain if we're going to include these books with 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.
That's really what I'm not getting here, and the examples given (All-American/EC Comics, McDonalds/Burger King, etc) simply don't apply because they're not the same situation. We're not talking about two people who occasionally did business together or constantly started-up new companies,
This is where I think your argument fails. How do you KNOW they weren't constantly starting up new companies? Seems to me, every time they changed the name of the company, they WERE starting up a new one - by DEFINITION. If they incorporated, they were making a new company. And even if the new company published the same thing as the previous company, it doesn't alter the fact that IT'S A DIFFERENT COMPANY. If they had kept the name of the company and changed the output from comic books to train magazines, THEN I would buy into your argument wholesale. Changing the name of the company, reincorporating the new name, changing the output to models and then eventually moving it back to comic books is a scenario that pretty much defines a lack of connection between the first company's comics and the second company's comics.
but two partners who worked together for at least 20 years, using the same "tricks of the trade" when it came to publishing names, one of which (Harle) was listed as part of the ownership group of Centaur Publications. To me, what we have here is basically the same situation as Martin Goodman/Timely/Atlas/Marvel Comics, except that Goodman was constantly producing comics while Hardie & Kelly were more focused on magazines.
Goodman started up a LOT of companies and published comics, pulps, men's magazines, MAD imitations and whatever under various banners. When he started making men's magazines, he didn't start a new company, he simply picked one of the ones he already had and released it under that company's name. Same with Snafu and his other comic magazines - he didn't create a new "brand" (I call them sub-publishers). Goodman's subpublishers, as I said before, existed continuously and simultaneously and were allocated new titles as Goodman needed them. This is substantially different from folding, say, Red Circle Publications, and then starting up Chipiden Publications for a new title.
If part of the purpose of this site is to help anyone investigate the history of comics & the companies involved in publishing those comics, then why would these two books be placed anywhere else?
If I didn't agree with you on this purpose, bchat, I simply wouldn't be here. Folks like you are what attracted me to the site. You WANT to know and you ASK good questions and come up with new ideas. I can't tell you how interesting that make GACUK for me. And I want to add to what you know, not to discredit your thoughts.
It should be obvious by now that I'm interested in the "Big Picture" of the companies & people involved in the books commonly (and perhaps misleadingly) referred to as "Centaur Comics", but I basically tripped over the Flying Models & Model Fun comics while searching for something totally unrelated (my coloring book project). I used search engines looking for info on Flying Models and was never led here. I didn't know before-hand that those titles existed as comics, I only knew of "Flying Models" as being a magazine, so I was never going to check the "Small Press" section to find something I didn't know was there.
You're right, and this site should NEVER be the only source of information. No site should be - it's too restrictive. There is EVERY reason to include Harle, Kelly and Centaur in the comments section of the Flying Models scans so that they should turn up when someone searches for Centaur on the GACUK site. That's what the search engine on the site should do for researchers. And you're to be commended for initially making the connection and for insisting that your data be somehow incorporated into the site. It will probably be more accurate to keep the information in the notes than to move the scans to section that would imply a greater connection than is PROVABLE. You can connection the principals easily enough, but we can't seem to equate the corporations.
At the end of the day, though, this isn't my site so it's not my decision. I don't really know what other information I could provide to change anyone's mind on the situation. If the fact that H&K were producing magazines & puzzle books from at least 1940 to 1960 isn't going to do it, I'm not sure what will. On my computer, the books are located in the same folder as the rest of the comics H&K produced, and there's no good reason for them to be anywhere else.
And there's no reason for you not to put your scans wherever you want them. I don't consider this discussion as being trying to convince anyone of anything. It's about a strict interpretation of the facts in a way that will neither hide any meaningful connections nor imply a greater connection than actually exists. I wage this "war" with Hames all the time. He's creative and imaginative and insightful and intuitive and comes up with some really fascinating theories of how things were. Part of my "job" on the team is to boil down those insights into facts that can be proven without losing sight of the ideas that Hames put forth. BOTH of these aspects are valuable.
I'm not trying to say that you're wrong, bchat, just that you haven't yet proven your case. As I said in my first post on this subject, there are LOTS of cases that will NEVER be proven (right or wrong). We just have to live with that, I guess.
(|:{>
-
This is where I think your argument fails. How do you KNOW they weren't constantly starting up new companies? Seems to me, every time they changed the name of the company, they WERE starting up a new one - by DEFINITION.
You've hit the nail on the head, Jim. Centaur Comics as an entity died with the last publication under that imprint. It has occurred to me that perhaps Centaur was a separate "division" of a larger publisher, one devoted strictly to comics while the other put out the magazines. But even so, the COMIC company ended when their publication of the comics did. Hardie and Kelly didn't retain the Centaur name for a reason. Unless further research reveals (go, bchat, go!) something different, then I can't see the Harle/H-K comics being anything other than a postscript to the Centaur comics--to use Yoc's phrase, "cousins instead of siblings". It doesn't lessen them historically and kudos again to bchat for uncovering the connection in the first place.
I'm not trying to say that you're wrong, bchat, just that you haven't yet proven your case.
Ibid. There's obviously much more to this story and hopefully bchat or someone else can fill in the blanks. I can't wait!
--Ken Q
-
Regarding H-K & Harle Publications: It's not a new business,
Can you explain how you KNOW that it's not a new business, bchat? It's not "Centaur Comics" and it's not "Comic Corporation of America" and it's not "Comic Magazine Company". If you've got a case that extends beyond the confluence of the address and some of the owners, then make that case.
I made no claim that Hardie & Kelly had anything to do with Comics Magazine Company, because they didn't. "CMC" owned Funny Pages & Funny Picture Stories before they were purchased by Ultem Publications. "CMC's" affiliation with what's commonly referred to as "Centaur" is, in my mind, a "traditional" one, and is not something I wish to contest or dispute.
Here's all the information I have (magazine & other non-comic info taken from various internet sources). I've tried hard not to speculate on anything beyond what I have to look at, and I've done my best to draw logical conclusions. The information regarding the publication of magazines and other periodicals is spotty at best, probably because magazines in general aren't treated in the same way that comics are (people don't collect them or care very little for their publishing history, although there are exceptions such as "Life" or "TV Guide").
January 1939 - Funny Picture Stories v3 n1 "Statement of Ownership": Owners: Centaur Publications, Harle Publications, Raymond J. Kelly & S.J. Fried. Based on my interpretation of the wording on a "Statement of Ownership", the "owners" are listed by the company that own the comic in question, followed immediately by the owners of that company. In this case, it appears to me that Harle (owned by Kelly) owns Centaur Publications, which owns Funny Picture Stories.
January 1940 - Funny Pages v4 n1 "Statement of Ownership": Owners: Centaur Publications, Raymond J. Kelly, S.J. Fried, Joseph J. Hardie, K.L. Angel. Harle is dropped from the list of owners? Why? How should I know?
Febraury 1941 - The Statement of Ownership for Amazing-Man Comics 20 is incredibly hard to read since it's fiche, but it looks like it might say that the owners are Comic Corporation of America, Joseph Hardie, Raymond Kelly and E.L. Angel. This open to debate since the Statement is so hard for me to read.
May 1941 - Stars & Stripes Comics 2 - Ads for "Dime Crosswords" and "Comet: Stories of Super Time and Space", both published by H-K Publications, 215 Fourth Avenue, New York NY. That is the same address as Comic Corporation of America which published SNS #2. Comic Corporation of America (CCA) was the publisher of all of the "Amazing-Man Comics" that I've seen an indicia for.
October 1942 - Smiles # 3 (magazine) - Earliest issue of this title I could find information on. Based on what little I've seen of the covers and the occasional interior shot, my assumption is that "Smiles" was a "comic magazine" with a possible mix of artwork & text. Not having access to any copies first-hand, an assumption is all I have.
Winter 1945 - Smiles # 13 - Joseph J. Hardie & Raymond Kelly: publishers. George Weaver: art director. This info is from a copy listed for sale online. Based on the issue number, Smiles was probably published on a quarterly-or-less-frequent schedule.
1945 - Cheers 9 & 10 - published by Rockley Publications inc, the company that also published Motorsport (keep reading).
Summer 1948 - Smiles: A Magazine Gone Mad # 26 - Published by Band Leaders Publishing Company.
1948 - Flying Models is published. I ran across a Renewal but for the moment can't find additional information to go along with this.
1948 - Flying Models Including Clying Aces is first published (info from Renewals). This title is treated as a seperate magazine by the Copyright Office. "Consult Copyright Office" attatched to the entry. This is the same note all of Marvel's GA books contain.
January 1949 - Smiles # 28
1950 - Motorsport - Published by H-K Publications according to info I gathered from Google. Earliest year I can find info for this magazine. There was a period in 1953 where the publisher is listed as "Rockley Publications" but changes back to "H-K Publications" in '54.
October 1951 - Melodyland # 1 - Published by H-K Publications according to info I gathered from Google. - Earliest year I can find info for this magazine.
January 1952 - Melodyland # 2 - Published by H-K Publications according to info I gathered from Google. Only other issue I currently have information for.
November 1952 - Motorsport v3 n11 published by Rockley Publications, Joseph J. Hardie & Raymond J. Kelly: publishers.
May 1954 - Flying Models "Special Fun Issue" volume 61 number3 (whole number 254). "Published monthly by H-K Publications", 215 Fourth Ave, New York NY. I've seen nothing to indicate that "Flying Models" was a regular comic book title, but then again, I've never had my hands on a copy of "Flying Models", I've only seen pictures on eBay. Up to the point of seeing the scans on this site, I was under the impression that "FM" was a normal magazine-sized publication. The "Standard Guide to Golden Age Comics" only lists "Flying Models # 1: Health-Knowledge Publications: 1954". No clue where they get "Health-Knowledge" from or why they list the issue as "# 1".
1954 - Boat Sport - Info from Copyright Office website suggests that this was published by H-K Publications. Earliest year I can find info for this magazine. Oops! Should have copied that page ... then again, I don't care about boating. If I recall correctly, I believe Cadence Industries Corporation was filing the Renewals for this book in 1978.
Spring 1955 - Model Fun # 4 - Published by Harle Publications, 215 Fourth Avenue, New York NY. Joseph J. Hardie & Raymond Kelly, publishers. Walter H. Holze, managing editor. Bob Buragas, editor. George Weaver, art director.
Includes Statement of Ownership: Owners: Harle Publications, Joseph J. Hardie, Raymond J. Kelly, Clare S. Aichele (411 West Main St, Huntington NY).
Apparently a bi-monthly publication, Model Fun (at least this issue) included comic art. The "Standard Guide to Golden Age Comics" lists issues 2-5 as being published.
October 1955 - Smiles (issue unknown). Oops again. Forget where I got this info from. I think it was an eBay listing that didn't state the issue number. Nice artwork on the cover, though.
1955 - Flying Models - Published by H-K Publications - Earliest year I can find info.
February 1956 - Last issue of "Smiles" I can find info for. Another magazine entitled "Smiles" was published a significant amount of time later (70s, 80s?... who cares?), but this was a magazine associated with dentistry, not humor.
Fall 1956 - Rock N Roll Jamboree # 1 is published by Joseph J. Hardie & Raymond Kelly. The cover features Elvis and is exported to Australia. I ran across this magazine on a "bookseller" site first, then found something on eBay. In fact, it's THIS magazine that got the ball rolling for me, as it was the first clear piece of evidence that went beyond the usual, vaguely phrased "Hardie published magazines after comics" that I had typically run across.
1956 - Motorsport v8 n2 - Published by H-K Publications - Last year I can find info for this magazine.
1958 - Boat Sport - Published by H-K Publications. - Last year I can find info for this magazine.
1959 - Flying Models # 300 - Published by Harle Publications - Last year I can find info. "FM" was also published by H-K Publications up to 1958.
February 1960 - Foreign Car Guide: Featuring the Volkswagen v5 n2. This info is from a "Bookseller" site and included in the listing is "Joseph J. Hardie & Raymond Kelly". I'm assuming that the seller was implying that Hardie & Kelly were the publishers.
Additional Info that has nothing to do with anything ....
1978 - Cadence Industries Corporation was filing the Renewals for Flying Models, Melodyland, Boat Sport and Motorsport. By the early 80's, the Copyright Claimant becomes "Magazine Management Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Cadence Industries Corporation". By 1986, the Claimant on the Renewals is "Marvel Comics Group, a division of Cadence Industries Corporation". Smiles, Cheers and Model Fun have no record of renewals as far as I can tell.
-
You've hit the nail on the head, Jim. Centaur Comics as an entity died with the last publication under that imprint.
Again, I'm NOT saying that Flying Models & Model Fun are "Centaur Comics" and I wish everybody could get away from that train of thought for a minute (technically speaking, "Centaur Comics" was Centaur Publications & Comic Corporation of America, there was, in reality, no "Centaur Comics" in terms of publishing entities) . Western Picture Stories shouldn't be viewed as a "Centaur Comic" either, and yet it's in the same publishing category as Amazing-Man Comics and Keen Detective Funnies. People wouldn't argue against WPS being included with the "Centaur" books, and yet if anyone did, they would probably be met with "that's where they traditionally belong", even though they'ld be talking about different owners, different adresses, different content, different everything in regards to WPS.
... what is it with me hitting "\" instead of "/" today?
-
"CMC's" affiliation with what's commonly referred to as "Centaur" is, in my mind, a "traditional" one, and is not something I wish to contest or dispute.
Before I get to the body of your post, let me say: you've done a wonderful job of research here, bchat!
And your above statement is correct. The linking of CMC/Ultem/Centaur is one of those long established "facts" that I was talking about in an earlier post. While in fact they are not the same company, in appearance they seem to be. Titles carried from one publisher to the next and that's why they are linked, but in truth, they are separate companies.
January 1939 - Funny Picture Stories v3 n1 "Statement of Ownership": Owners: Centaur Publications, Harle Publications, Raymond J. Kelly & S.J. Fried. Based on my interpretation of the wording on a "Statement of Ownership", the "owners" are listed by the company that own the comic in question, followed immediately by the owners of that company. In this case, it appears to me that Harle (owned by Kelly) owns Centaur Publications, which owns Funny Picture Stories.
Or that Harle, Kelly and Fried formed a new company known as Centaur. There is some reason (what I don't know) that Harle isn't just named as the publisher. Likely Centaur was a separate entity, with separate business records, from Harle for tax reasons. Centaur could (and did) fold while Harle could (and from your research, apparently did) keep publishing.
January 1940 - Funny Pages v4 n1 "Statement of Ownership": Owners: Centaur Publications, Raymond J. Kelly, S.J. Fried, Joseph J. Hardie, K.L. Angel. Harle is dropped from the list of owners? Why? How should I know?
Because Centaur is a separate company from Harle. Again, it may seem like nit-picking, but Centaur still seems to be a separate business that the owners of Harle had an interest in.
Febraury 1941 - The Statement of Ownership for Amazing-Man Comics 20 is incredibly hard to read since it's fiche, but it looks like it might say that the owners are Comic Corporation of America, Joseph Hardie, Raymond Kelly and E.L. Angel. This open to debate since the Statement is so hard for me to read.
Here I'd guess that Centaur underwent a name change to Comic Corporation of America--can't say why--but in any case, Harle still isn't listed as the publisher. CCA is still kept separate from Harle.
May 1941 - Stars & Stripes Comics 2 - Ads for "Dime Crosswords" and "Comet: Stories of Super Time and Space", both published by H-K Publications, 215 Fourth Avenue, New York NY. That is the same address as Comic Corporation of America which published SNS #2. Comic Corporation of America (CCA) was the publisher of all of the "Amazing-Man Comics" that I've seen an indicia for.
I think you've established that CCA and Harle/H-K are related, bchat. But this still doesn't make Harle/H-K the same company as Centaur/CCA. Advertising in a related publication is to be expected.
October 1942 - Smiles # 3 (magazine)...Not having access to any copies first-hand, an assumption is all I have.
and
Winter 1945 - Smiles # 13 - Joseph J. Hardie & Raymond Kelly: publishers. George Weaver: art director.
OK.
1945 - Cheers 9 & 10 - published by Rockley Publications inc, the company that also published Motorsport...etc.
There's no reason for me to address each of your entries separately since all they show is that Hardie and Kelly (presumably) formed different companies to publish various publications. No Centaur/CCA, no comics.
May 1954 - Flying Models "Special Fun Issue" volume 61 number3 (whole number 254). "Published monthly by H-K Publications", 215 Fourth Ave, New York NY...Spring 1955 - Model Fun # 4 - Published by Harle Publications, 215 Fourth Avenue, New York NY. Joseph J. Hardie & Raymond Kelly, publishers. Walter H. Holze, managing editor. Bob Buragas, editor. George Weaver, art director.
Includes Statement of Ownership: Owners: Harle Publications, Joseph J. Hardie, Raymond J. Kelly, Clare S. Aichele (411 West Main St, Huntington NY)
This is the last significant entry if you are trying to establish your comic connection, I believe. You've PROVEN that Hardie, Kelly and Harle were owners of Centaur/CCA. That's it. To me, if anything all your research (and it is a fine bit of detective work!) confirms that the comic company Centaur/CCA ended with the last comic published by that company circa 1942 and Mssrs. Hardie and Kelly (and various partners) went on to other publishing ventures. The fact that at some point later they published comics is interesting, but it doesn't make those later comics Centaur/CCA comics. Related, yes, the same, no.
You've found a connection that to my knowledge no one else has found, bchat. Congratulations, that's great! I've spoken my piece and expressed my reservations about your conclusions, so I'll leave it at that.
--Ken Q
-
Again, I'm NOT saying that Flying Models & Model Fun are "Centaur Comics" and I wish everybody could get away from that train of thought for a minute
You posted this as I was making my last post, bchat. The reason why people are following the "FLYING MODELS & MODEL FUN are Centaur comics" train of thought is because YOU are the one who suggested that they be listed under that category. Without that suggestion, there is no disagreement.
--Ken Q
-
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.
-
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
-
Long and interesting good arguments great work guys
-
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
-
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!
(|:{>
-
Good luck on your latest issue Jim!
:)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Cool!
Thanks for the update bchat.
:)
-
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
-
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".
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (|:{>
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
You think I was "bossy", "patronizing" and "insulting" to bchat.
That's very much not what I said. I said "can be interpreted" that way, and specifically said that I knew better as to your intent. Multiple times. In the very same sentences in which those words appear.
I won't apologize for being critical, here, though I do certainly apologize for singling you out. I knew you were trying to help and how, as I said, but what you said can be (and was) easily read as "you're not doing this well enough." I point it out because I believe it was NOT your intention and assumed you might not want to be read that way. If you don't care, then I apologize for getting involved and wasting your time.
-
My personal rule is to wait at least a day before responding to anyone who triggers some emotion in me. I have found that it makes ME a better and wiser correspondent and lowers the overall emotional level of the discussion. This is a GOOD thing, otherwise we end up with a premature (and emotional) termination of what WAS a very interesting thread. At this point no one is going to want to touch this topic, and that makes me sad - especially since I just unearthed my sole copy of Model Fun comics and was going to share it. Now, I think not.
Peace, Jim (|:{(>
-
My personal rule is to wait at least a day before responding to anyone who triggers some emotion in me. I have found that it makes ME a better and wiser correspondent and lowers the overall emotional level of the discussion. This is a GOOD thing, otherwise we end up with a premature (and emotional) termination of what WAS a very interesting thread. At this point no one is going to want to touch this topic, and that makes me sad - especially since I just unearthed my sole copy of Model Fun comics and was going to share it. Now, I think not.
As always, Jim, you are a wise man.
I'll ignore the temptation to respond to the last post directed at me and ask: PLEASE share your copy of MODEL FUN. That's why I am here.
--Ken Q
-
Hey everybody ...
I'm going to ignore what irritated me ... it's time to let it go and move forward, and I don't want to see other people arguing because I took offense to something.
I am tackling this project in a way that makes sense to me, which begins with exhausting one resource (the internet) until there is nothing left to learn or gain from it. To do it any other way is, to me, simply non-productive. Why not learn everything I can from one source before moving to the next step? Why start a search beyond the internet for the various publications when I'm not even sure if I know of all the magazines involved? You wouldn't try baking a cake without knowing all the ingredients you needed, why start looking for something if you don't know what you're looking for?
As long as it doesn't cost a fortune, I'll probably take the next step and begin acquiring a few of the publications that interest me. Some of the magazines, etc. that I've become aware of are quite pricey, so when I say "I'm not going to buy this or that", that should end that aspect of the discussion right then & there, not lead to a debate about the "right way" serious researchers do things. When I spend money, it's on things I or my family can enjoy, not something that satifies the curiosity of others. I'm not looking to gain anything more out of this other than knowledge, so the less I spend out-of-pocket, the better. If someone wants to dispute or contradict the facts & information I bring forward, I expect them to at least say where they are getting their information so that I (and everybody else) can compare & double-check to see what the reality is. I've been quite straight-forward with where I've been getting my information from and I don't think it's too much to ask that others do the same.
I'm well aware of how serious researchers conduct themselves while gathering & documenting facts (there is more to me than just being a guy who reads comics). I'm doing my best to document where exactly I get information from. I HAVE TO because I want the end product to be as accurate as possible for myself. There will be a point where I will throw-up everything I have in a detailed format AND state where that information came from so that anyone else can double-check my findings if they desire and correct any wrong information.
To get things back on-track:
January 1937 - Detective Digest 1 -
-
I'm going to ignore what irritated me ... it's time to let it go and move forward, and I don't want to see other people arguing because I took offense to something.
You're a good man, bchat. I apologize if I did offend you. It certainly wasn't my intention and I hope you understand that.
To get back on this fascinating topic, I have found a few things that may be of interest.
Keeping to things that can be found online, here was an image of a 1967 crossword puzzle book on the Mile High Comics site:
http://comicartville.com/harlepublications.gif
(the image is no longer on the MH site, which means that someone probably bought it)
You'll notice the Harle logo indicates that it has been around since 1936.
another, much smaller image of that logo is also seen here:
http://muradgumen.com/Hpublished.htm
Note that the date on this issue of Top-Notch Fill-In is 1983, so that company was around until then at least.
Hope that's helpful.
--Ken Q
-
I'm going to ignore what irritated me ... it's time to let it go and move forward, and I don't want to see other people arguing because I took offense to something.
You're a good man, bchat. I apologize if I did offend you. It certainly wasn't my intention and I hope you understand that.
It's water under the bridge.
To get back on this fascinating topic, I have found a few things that may be of interest.
Keeping to things that can be found online, here was an image of a 1967 crossword puzzle book on the Mile High Comics site:
http://comicartville.com/harlepublications.gif
(the image is no longer on the MH site, which means that someone probably bought it)
You'll notice the Harle logo indicates that it has been around since 1936.
I just ran across that yesterday on MH's site, so I guess someone JUST bought it.
I've been "collecting" any of the covers I've run across because for the most part, it's artwork and not photographs. Motorsport has photo covers & I haven't run across any decent quality Flying Models images yet, but magazines like Smiles and Comet at least have some decent looking artwork. If people want, I can add some of those images to my posts. One Smiles cover was suggested by the seller to be by "Kelly" but I coudn't say one way or the other who it's by. It might have been just a name he threw-in there to get people to look at the item.
another, much smaller image of that logo is also seen here:
http://muradgumen.com/Hpublished.htm
Note that the date on this issue of Top-Notch Fill-In is 1983, so that company was around until then at least.
Hope that's helpful.
--Ken Q
I miss the days when search engines didn't give you three results (or more) that took you to the same page. It made looking for information easier.
Yes, this is helpful. Up until I saw the other Top-Notch yesterday, the furthest I could possibly place any of Hardie & Kelly's ... or their company's production (trying not to assume that these guys are immortal) was 1960. One search result I kept getting for "Harle Publications" takes me to the "Kappa Publishing Group" website. There's no company history available that I see, so at this point, I don't know what the connection is, if there even is any.
And I was just poking around the 'net while I was typing this and ran across an article regarding the history of Crossword Puzzle Magazines which talks about Harle, Dell & Charlton http://www.trivia-library.com/a/history-of-the-crossword-puzzle-part-1.htm (http://www.trivia-library.com/a/history-of-the-crossword-puzzle-part-1.htm). I haven't read it yet because I'm HERE, but I've copied it to read in a bit.
Use of the "Harle" name seems to be sporadic. It all but disappeared when they began publishing the comics in 1938. I've seen nothing yet under the "Harle" name from 1938 to 1941, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to be found. It gets put back into use by at least 1942 when they start producing the puzzle magazines, but by 1944 they started switching the publishing names to whatever the magazine was called (it's when "Fifty Crosswords Inc" comes into being, along with others ... once I get a little more info plugged-into my "Big List of Stuff" I'll post it here and everyone can see what happened). I'm not exactly sure when it would have popped-up again as I haven't gone through any Copyright entries past 1945 yet. Obviously, "Harle" was used for Model Fun in 1954 and slapped on the cover of the Top-Notch Fill-In Puzzles in 1967 & '83, but that leaves a lot of gaps to "fill-in" (absolutely NO pun intended).
Here's something that I just ran across (again, while typing this) from https://www.usps.com/judicial/1960deci/1-183.htm (https://www.usps.com/judicial/1960deci/1-183.htm):
In the Matter of the Petition by
SPECIALIZED PERIODICALS, INC.
merged with HARLE PUBLICATIONS, INC.,
215 Fourth Avenue,
New York 3, New York
for a hearing on the applications for second-class re-entry of cross-word puzzle magazines.
P.O.D. Docket No. 1/183
May 9, 1960
That's going to take some time and patience for me to read through, but it lists seven puzzle magazine titles ... more stuff to weed through.
-
I had a high school math teacher who probably had a large collection of Flying Model but he passed away. Do not know them well enough to ask the wife.
-
FWIW...
Model Fun, July 1955, Number 5. Published bi-monthly (every other month) by Harle Publications, Inc. 1250 Camden Ave., S.W., Canton 6, Ohio. Editorial and Executive offices: 215 Fourth Ave, New York 3, NY. Entered as Second Class matter at the Post Office at Canton, Ohio. Annual (6-issue) subcription: 60
-
Great update guys!
Nice to see things going forward on this.
And yes, please do include links or add scans to your messages if you like.
-Yoc
-
Cover and interior art by George O'Connor. Interior art by Gil Evans. Centerspread by Martin Filchock!
And with Filchock you have a Centaur connection! Not only did he draw for the Centaur comics, if you check his Who's Who entry, he also drew for Harle's YOO HOO! He is at least one constant throughout.
So it is Gil and not George Evans, Jim? Considering George's airplane illustrations, he seemed to be a good fit. And do you know who the "Scap" is that drew much of the FLYING MODELS comic and a story in the MODEL FUN on this site?
Cover blurb touts "with Bobby Benson and B-B Riders"
I have a feeling that the Bobby Benson tie-in was important to this comic's existence. Coincidentally, I've been doing some research into the Bobby Benson program for another project and I know that the radio show ended in June 1955. The cover date on issue #5 of MODEL FUN is July '55. I think there's the possibility that MODEL FUN was commissioned by the BB show as a promotional comic. He was in all issues 2 through 5, ads for his show and club ran in each issue and the comic ended when the show did. Why the tie-in with airplane modeling I have no idea, but I thought I'd toss it out for consideration.
--Ken Q
-
FWIW...
Model Fun, July 1955, Number 5. ....
Thank you, I appreciate that you took the time to post this information.
... Centerspread by Martin Filchock!
And with Filchock you have a Centaur connection! Not only did he draw for the Centaur comics, if you check his Who's Who entry, he also drew for Harle's YOO HOO! He is at least one constant throughout.
Only going by the "Who's Who", the impression I had was that Filchock didn't do a lot of comic book work beyond what everybody calls "Centaur". His work beyond comics seems to be pretty well-covered (Highlights For Children, etc), including mentions of covers he drew for Hardie & Kelly's puzzle books. The GCD is a little more enlightening with work he did in the 1960s & 70s for Charlton, but here's something that apparently people missed or simply weren't concerned with.
That's kind of one of the side-effects that I hope results from my search ... that work from comic book artists, who are mostly over-looked, may be "hidden away" in these publications (Yoo Hoo, Smiles and the like) that most comic fans aren't aware of, and new light can be shed on their careers for anyone interested in the careers of those individuals. An eBay listing stated that "Mirando" did some interior artwork for the May 1941 issue of H-K's "Comet" (the same issue has a story by "Eando" Binder listed on the cover). I'm not saying Michael Mirando is the greatest artist in the world, but it always seemed odd that he's only credited with a handful of stories, so I've wondered occasionally "Didn't he do anything else?". If the listing was anywhere near accurate and "Mirando" IS, in fact, Michael Mirando, well, now there's something new that people weren't aware of before.
-
Oops! I wanted to post an image or two in my last post. Some fairly nice artwork on all.
Here's the Dec 1940 issue of Comet (image from Heritage Auctions):
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_kZwgYcSrHR8/SyqKh86pQxI/AAAAAAAAA3w/8YJg-wrByms/s400/comet%20dec%201940.jpg)
Here's the cover the eBay seller said was by "Kelly":
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_kZwgYcSrHR8/SyqKhi3b8TI/AAAAAAAAA3o/v7fb_uKxB94/s800/smiles%203%20oct%201942.jpg)
The front cover of the Feb 1956 issue of Smiles (from ebay, obviously):
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_kZwgYcSrHR8/SyqN9NZ7IeI/AAAAAAAAA4Y/aSl_juqLMRg/s400/smiles%20feb%201956.jpg)
Here's the back cover to the Feb 1956 issue of Smiles (eBay):
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_kZwgYcSrHR8/SyqKhXFSHFI/AAAAAAAAA3g/-m0NOEzR6cc/s400/smiles%20feb%201956%20a.jpg)
Here's the May 1941 issue of Comet (from Heritage Auctions):
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_kZwgYcSrHR8/SyqKhD6XwaI/AAAAAAAAA3Y/qSv_yOb7RJA/s400/comet%20may%201941a.jpg)
The January 1946 cover to Band Leaders (from magazineart.org):
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_kZwgYcSrHR8/SyqN9TWEA-I/AAAAAAAAA4g/rgL9umK2thI/s400/band%20leaders%201946%20january.jpg)
-
I Smile :-* when I see women who look like women. Back when they appreciated a woman with a figure not just boobs on a stick.
-
The front cover of the Feb 1956 issue of Smiles
The 1956 SMILES digest covers are obviously by Bill Wenzel (whose "cheesecake" work I always found way more appealing than the more popular Bill Ward's). Wenzel did a ton of similar work for these sort of books.
--Ken Q
-
... that work from comic book artists, who are mostly over-looked, may be "hidden away" in these publications (Yoo Hoo, Smiles and the like)
A lot of comic book artists did work for these sort of publications. Goodman put out a bunch of them and you'll find work by such guys as Dave ("Davy") Berg and Dan DeCarlo in many issues. The artist could churn out a pile of the single-panel strips in the time it took to illustrate a comic book story. It probably was a fairly steady and easy income.
--Ken Q
-
Thanks for the covers bchat!
-
I liked Ward's comic book work better than his too well endowed gag girls. I find Wenzel's to actually be sexier.
-
... that work from comic book artists, who are mostly over-looked, may be "hidden away" in these publications (Yoo Hoo, Smiles and the like)
A lot of comic book artists did work for these sort of publications. Goodman put out a bunch of them and you'll find work by such guys as Dave ("Davy") Berg and Dan DeCarlo in many issues. The artist could churn out a pile of the single-panel strips in the time it took to illustrate a comic book story. It probably was a fairly steady and easy income.
--Ken Q
I was rereading the interview with Martin Filchock from AC Comics' "Men of Mystery 23" last night where he mentioned how thrilled he was to get paid the same for a single-panel gag page as he would for a 5 or 6-panel comic book page ($5 each, back when $5 could actually get you stuff). He also quickly mentioned "Yoo Hoo" in the interview, but when I first read it about 9 years ago, it didn't mean anything to me at the time.