Print

[narfstar]

Thanks Eric for getting something for everyone. Nice selections. Thanks in advance for scanning Fanoman bchat.  Given the talent and early start Centaur should have been one of the most major of players. So many of their superheroes are just a little different compared to rest that I guess they did not have the appeal then that they do now. Amazing Man was meant to be their star but was never a breakaway hit. May have been his early lack of a costume and later not much of a costume that kept him out of the limelight. Maybe it was the editing or writing. At least we have the issues that we have now to enjoy.

[bchat]

Yoc - Yes, the 4 Most books are "Top Priority" in as much as I want to get them scanned at least before I finish working on Fantoman.  My hope is to get everything scanned and uploaded to the site within two weeks.  Weekends are never a good time to scan and I have to do other stuff that needs my attention early this week, but hopefully Fantoman will be up before the end of the month, with the other books following shortly after that.

narfstar -  Amazing Man was headlining two books at one point, so Centaur had at least one "star" ... maybe not at the same level as Superman or Captain America, but still.  My guess would be that a lack of available copies of the comics NOW affects the perception of how popular the characters may have actually been THEN.  I don't understand the decision to stop producing stories for Fantom, Masked Marvel and The Arrow at the end of 1940 (yes, Arrow # 3 was published in '41 but that was 10 months after issue 2 hit the stands so that barely counts as far as I'm concerned ... seems more like an after-thought that it got published at all).  All three characters were at least half-decently received by the readers or else they wouldn't have eventually been given their own books.  Maybe poor distribution or a lack of funds was a major factor in Centaur's demise, but it seems more likely that at some point, the guys in charge of Centaur just didn't know what they were doing.  I mean, why wouldn't you take Fantom, Arrow and Masked Marvel and throw them all into one book and see what happens?  There also seemed to be a lack of confidence in newer characters, with a lot of heroes towards the end only appearing once or just a handful of times, like Solarman, Sparkler, The Marksman or TNT (not "Todd", but the other one).  How did they guage the popularity of a character when they only give them, at best, three months to live or die?  That wasn't even long enough to get sales figures back for the first appearance.  I don't know, it just seems weird.

[narfstar]

I agree that AM was their star, which says something. He was not exactly mainstream. There is a unique quality about Centaur that I love. I think it is the same uniqueness that was not as well loved then. I may be way off but given the art talents that they had working for them they should still be around. The Arrow and Fantoman are more mainstream, and got books, but I do not thing they could carry them off in sales figures. They had a fantastic line-up of characters but I do not think they could find one that would really sale a book on his own merits alone. Anthologies were the way to go but they had to have an exceptional headliner. Marvel went through a rotating cast trying to find a headliner for some of its books. With covers prominently displayed, I believe it was the headliner that sold the book while the backups aided in its success.

[comicsnorth]

I've always heard that Centaur's biggest problem was bad distribution, and their books just didn't get the newsstand exposure that other publishers did.  There does also seem to be some really odd editorial choices going on, but the one that's always baffled me was the decision to make Stars And Stripes basically a clone of Amazing-Man Comics, instead of the more obvious option of an "All-Star" book featuring Aman, Masked Marvel, the Arrow, etc.  I can't really think of any other company that published two different titles with nearly the same line-up of features.

-comicsnorth

[bchat]

but the one that's always baffled me was the decision to make Stars And Stripes basically a clone of Amazing-Man Comics, instead of the more obvious option of an "All-Star" book featuring Aman, Masked Marvel, the Arrow, etc. 

If you look at the last issues of each book, you'll see that, aside from Amazing Man being in both, they didn't have the same line-up even though they did start-out that way.  Amazing Man Comics 26 had Aman, Blue Lady, King of Darkness, Nightshade and Electric Ray while Stars & Stripes 6 had Aman, Dr Synthe, Mighty Man & Super-Ann, Minimidget, Shark and Iron Skull.  Obviously S&S was given the proven features of "AMC", which kind of makes sense for a company that might not have been doing well financially, while AMC was introducing a new line-up.

I can't really think of any other company that published two different titles with nearly the same line-up of features.

At the time [mid-41], Centaur wasn't truly publishing any of their books on a monthly schedule, and only twice were S&S and AMC both published in the same month, so their sharing features is understandable [in a way] since together they essentially make-up one monthly book ... well, almost monthly.

With covers prominently displayed, I believe it was the headliner that sold the book while the backups aided in its success

That's a good point, narfstar, but I never really saw the covers of any of the Centuar books as being their strongest point.  Nedor, Timely, Fox and nearly everyone else seemed to get the idea that a great-looking cover could sell a mediocre book, and all DC had to do was slap Batman or Superman on a cover and they made money.  While the Centaur covers are ok to look at, they're not, for the most part, all that spectacular.

[comicsnorth]

While it's true that Amazing-Man and Stars & Stripes ending up with fairly different line-ups, in many cases, these features were created by the same artists, making it difficult to understand how putting out two roughly bimonthly titles with most of the same creators, some doing the same characters and some not, was a better business move than putting out one monthly.  I doubt any deadlines were saved by running Electric Ray in place of Mighty Man.  And if Centaur's distribution was as spotty as I've heard, it must have been aggravating for their readers when continued stories like Mighty Man's battle with the Witch had chapters that ran from one title back to the other, assuming that kids cared about stuff like that back then.

It still seems to me that filling a title like Stars & Stripes with the lead features of their other titles would have made more financial sense than cloning another title and then running a bunch of random tryout features thru both.  As much as I enjoy Mighty Man & the Shark, I have to assume that Masked Marvel and the Arrow had to have been better draws, since they did get their own titles, while the Shark only made two cover appearances (and one of those was just a giant version of his hand!), and Mighty Man only one.  Admittedly, that one was on Stars & Stripes #2, the first issue of that series, and as near as I can tell, the only "group shot cover" in the Centaur line (Fantoman & Speed Centaur shared a couple sort of split covers, but this was the only "All-Star" type cover I'm aware of here).

Of course, Centaur was rife with odd editorial choices, like sending Zona off to become a super-hero one issue, only to put her never before seen kid brother in that role in the next, and no mention ever made of why Zona's stay in Tibet never seemed to actually happen (most of the features in AMC had tighter continuity than much of what's being published now), or creating a rewritten and redrawn origin for Dash Dartwell for The Arrow #3 instead of merely reprinting the old one, given that Centaur was clearly not shy about running reprints.

At this point, I guess we'll never know what they were really thinking...

-Comicsnorth

[JonTheScanner]

I think the general rule was to only have a single issue of a given comic on the stands. So if you publish Astounding Man and the Advs of Astounding Man on overlapping bimonthly schedules you get two months of sales on each rather than one month on each.

[bchat]

While it's true that Amazing-Man and Stars & Stripes ending up with fairly different line-ups, in many cases, these features were created by the same artists, making it difficult to understand how putting out two roughly bimonthly titles with most of the same creators, some doing the same characters and some not, was a better business move than putting out one monthly.

If I had to guess (and that's all we really can do at this point), I would imagine that whoever was in-charge at that time (the books went from being published by "Centaur Publications" to "Comic Corporation of America" before S&S was published, so there may have been some sort of a change in ownership towards the end) was trying to rebuild the line by taking AMC's line-up and shifting it over to S&S.  I don't see where using the same creators on both titles could be interpreted as a bad decision, especially since, aside from Amazing Man, the two books ended-up with entirely different line-ups of characters.  At least going by cover dates, the last two issues of each were published monthly, so whatever the final nail in Centaur's coffin actually was, the books themselves had apparently proven that they could maintain a monthly schedule.  Throw-in the sort-of-bi-monthly Man of War/Liberty Scouts and the actually-bi-monthly World Famous Heroes and the company went from a one-book publisher at the start of 1941 to a company that looked like it might have been heading in the right direction with four titles.

I have to assume that Masked Marvel and the Arrow had to have been better draws, since they did get their own titles

I agree that taking those two, throwing Fantoman in as well and creating a new book (as I've already said) would have been a good idea and seems to me to be a no-brainer, but maybe the sales of their books weren't all that great and that's why they disappeared.  Maybe none of the creators Centaur had working for them at the end wanted to work on those three characters.  Who knows?  Whatever the case, taking the features from AMC and essentially turning one decent-selling book into two decent-selling books is just a smart idea (not that I know what the sales figures were, but you get my point, right?).  It's not that far removed from what DC and Marvel do with their top stars today.  And you never know:  If Centaur had not folded when it did, maybe Fantoman, Masked Marvel and Arrow would have been given another shot at some point.

Of course, Centaur was rife with odd editorial choices, like sending Zona off to become a super-hero one issue, only to put her never before seen kid brother in that role in the next

Stuff like that seems more like the fault of the creators working on the stories and not so much the fault of the editor, who may not have even bothered to read the stories before they were published.  I look at what happened with Zona as evidence that the writer/artist didn't care about the work they were doing or had very little respect for their readers. "What did we do last issue?"  "Who cares? Let's do this!"

most of the features in AMC had tighter continuity than much of what's being published now

That's true, but that seems more of a by-product of having, for the most part, only one talented guy working on a character for years, unlike today where you have Spider-Man, Superman or Batman being handled by a dozen or so people, and some of those creators may not even stick around for six months.

[comicsnorth]

I hadn't really considered the matter of shelf life, but that makes a lot of sense--any given issue of either title would get twice as much potential exposure if they alternated.  I had only been thinking about the company either not being able to physically assemble an issue every month (thus making the use of the same staff on both seem odd), or being unable to afford to publish every month, which makes alternating bimonthlies unlikely.  Certainly, I have no complaints about the use of these particular creators, as I find it amazing that the same guy could come up with such unique characters as Mighty Man, Super Ann, Fire-Man, and Electric Ray.

I also didn't mean to slight Fantoman, as my "ideal" line-up for a "Best of Centaur" series would be Aman, Fantoman, Masked Marvel, Arrow, & Man of War, with Shark & Mighty Man as back-ups, and whatever else happened to turn up.  Heck, maybe the Mighty Man feature and Fire-Man could alternate!

-comicsnorth

[narfstar]

As far as cover features go I would go with Arrow and Fantoman as the most visually appealing. I think Amazing Man is one of the most interesting of their characters but does not have the look. Filchock's Mighty Man is a neat interesting feature and Iron Skull is pretty cool.

[Yoc]

There are a few histories of Centaur online here guys that might answer some of your questions.

http://www.mightycrusaders.net/mp_yocitrus.htm

[narfstar]

Great history. I had read it before. Still not definitve why they never gained more popularity

[darkmark]

Maybe 'cause their stuff wasn't good enough?  Or because they didn't publish consistently enough?  Or because...ah, what the heck.

[bchat]

my "ideal" line-up for a "Best of Centaur" series would be Aman, Fantoman, Masked Marvel, Arrow, & Man of War, with Shark & Mighty Man as back-ups, and whatever else happened to turn up.  Heck, maybe the Mighty Man feature and Fire-Man could alternate!

Man, I could play "What If" with Centaur all day long!  Yeah, it would have been great to see the characters you mention appear in the same book.  It also would have been nice if Centaur had given some other characters more of a chance to prove themselves, such as Air Man, Solarman, Jungle Prince, etc.  And I'm a little surprised that Centaur didn't try branching-out into other genres.  I may be a superhero fan first and foremost, but even I'm willng to admit that sometimes funny animals and cowboys can outsell my favorite characters.

As far as cover features go I would go with Arrow and Fantoman as the most visually appealing. I think Amazing Man is one of the most interesting of their characters but does not have the look.

Aman isn't a bad-looking character, but I agree that The Arrow and Fantoman look cooler on a cover.  Still, it really boils-down to who's drawing the covers, and Centaur didn't really have a good cover artist like Nedor, Timely and a lot of the other companies did.  Anybody would look cool if they were drawn by, say, Simon & Kirby or Alex Schomburg.

Great history. I had read it before. Still not definitve why they never gained more popularity

I've read those articles before as well, and still feel that there's a lot of questions left unanswered, such as:  What are the details behind the name change from "Centaur Publications" to "Comic Corporation of America"?  Was this just a re-organization deal or was Centaur actually sold-off?  It seems odd that when that change was made, "Centaur" actually skipped a month of publishing comics (April '41), so I get the impression that there's more to it than meets the eye.

If Hardie had a successful line of crossword puzzle books & magazines, he obviously found a way to distribute those books better than the comics (IF distribution was a major factor in the failure of Centaur).  That begs the question of who was distributing the comics, puzzle books and magazines?  Was he using a different distributor than he did for the comics, or did the distributor drop the ball with the comic line?

And this is pure speculation on my part, but I have to wonder if dealing so closely with Funnies Inc (who also serviced Timely and Novelty, to name two off the top of my head) to provide the content for their books wasn't a really bad move on Centaur's part.  If Timely was throwing money at "FI" to produce more features, would the studio put forth the same effort towards a company that was apparently having financial troubles?

[kozmo]

I remember reading somewhere, at some time, that Centaur mainly distributed to rural locations, primarily grocery and drug stores in small population centers.  The convoluted history of Centaur and Ultem, etc. included the original Cook and Mahon publishers pre-Centaur, who had a connection to the Wheeler-Nicholson era DC Comics.  They left to form their own company, which was then sold several times before it became Centaur.

But, and this is purely speculation, what if the connection to Wheeler-Nicholson created a problem with Independent News, who eventually took over from Wheeler-Nicholson to create National?  This would lock them out (or make them wary of approaching) of one of the biggest comic book distributors to the big city newsstands. 

The Wikipedia article on Centaur repeats the claim that the original Cook-Mahon books included materials they got/took from Wheeler-Nicholson in lieu of payment.  As shady as early comic publishing was, I can easily imagine a vendetta (or at least the fear of one) when your company was founded on materials that were obtained under questionable circumstances.

and as for Hardy/Hardie -- Charlton made its money on song lyric and puzzle magazines and had their own distribution network.  And their comic books were notorious for their spotty distribution throughout the company's entire run.  So it's entirely possible that the demand areas for puzzle books and comic books do not intersect very well and the distribution channels that worked well for puzzle books didn't for comic books.

[bchat]

The problem I have with Wikipedia is that a lot of the information regarding the lesser-known companies & comics is spotty at best, just plain wrong at worst.  Case in point, I remember reading the entry Wiki had for Malibu Comics' Protectors series from 92-94 a few years ago, and it was just filled with all sorts of errors ... and that was a comic that was published not that long ago in an age when information was a little more readily available.  I'm not saying that what's there regarding Centaur is wrong, I'ld just need to read that same information somewhere else in order to believe it.

So it's entirely possible that the demand areas for puzzle books and comic books do not intersect very well and the distribution channels that worked well for puzzle books didn't for comic books

That's certainly a valid point to consider.

But, and this is purely speculation, what if the connection to Wheeler-Nicholson created a problem with Independent News, who eventually took over from Wheeler-Nicholson to create National?  This would lock them out (or make them wary of approaching) of one of the biggest comic book distributors to the big city newsstands.

Another good thought, but I remember reading (not on Wikipedia, mind you) that Independent News was not above getting involved with other comic companies in order to expand its distribution business, which at the end of the day, is probably where the company made most of its money.  Driving other comic publishers out of business by refusing to distribute their books wouldn't help National as much as it would hurt Independent.

... repeats the claim that the original Cook-Mahon books included materials they got/took from Wheeler-Nicholson in lieu of payment.  As shady as early comic publishing was, I can easily imagine a vendetta (or at least the fear of one) when your company was founded on materials that were obtained under questionable circumstances.

I don't see it as "questionable circumstances" because William Cook & John Mahon were more than likely owed money they were never going to receive.  And since information about "Centaur Comics" in general is so spotty, who knows at what point in time that distribution became a problem.  It could very well be that Cook & Mahon had no such problems but merely sold "Comics Magazine Company Inc" a little over a year after they started to get some cash to do other things.  If the "bailsproject" is accurate, Mahon became a partner in Funnies Inc and established Elliot Publishing, plus started the idea for "Classics Comics", so the man obviously had a brain in his head.

If I was going to point to a rival publisher that had any part in Centaur's demise, I'ld look no further than Martin Goodman & Timely Comics, who was using Funnies Inc, too.  I seem to remember reading in a book or article (again, not Wikipedia) that Goodman would find ways to tie-up FI's artists with trivial corrections to keep them from working on features for competing publishers.  Since Centaur relied so heavily on FI to supply the contents of their books, even slight delays could seriously throw things out of whack for a company that could have been getting-by by the skin of their teeth (wow, that's an old expression I never thought I'ld use).  Sure I'm just speculating, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

[John C]

If I was going to point to a rival publisher that had any part in Centaur's demise, I'ld look no further than Martin Goodman & Timely Comics, who was using Funnies Inc, too.  I seem to remember reading in a book or article (again, not Wikipedia) that Goodman would find ways to tie-up FI's artists with trivial corrections to keep them from working on features for competing publishers.

Not that I doubt your version of the story at all, but the version I had read suggested that Goodman was running Funnies ragged in hopes that they would sell or otherwise give up ownership to the successful characters Timely published.  Either makes just as much sense, really, unless someone has a copy of Timely's contract sitting around (to see if there's an abandonment clause, I mean).

[bchat]

the version I had read suggested that Goodman was running Funnies ragged in hopes that they would sell or otherwise give up ownership to the successful characters Timely published

Oh yeah, I've read that, too, but I'm sure that Goodman was smart enough to realize that one action could have multiple consequences.  In this case, putting pressure on FI would have the potential result of the shop giving-up ownership of the characters to Timely, and possibly cut into the amount of time FI could focus on features for other publishers or at the very least, tie-up FI's better talent on Timely's characters, leaving the competing publishers with the less-popular artists.

Again, this is just my theory, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

[JVJ]

the version I had read suggested that Goodman was running Funnies ragged in hopes that they would sell or otherwise give up ownership to the successful characters Timely published

Oh yeah, I've read that, too, but I'm sure that Goodman was smart enough to realize that one action could have multiple consequences.  In this case, putting pressure on FI would have the potential result of the shop giving-up ownership of the characters to Timely, and possibly cut into the amount of time FI could focus on features for other publishers or at the very least, tie-up FI's better talent on Timely's characters, leaving the competing publishers with the less-popular artists.

History doesn't really support this theory, guys. Simply because: Jacquet continued to provide work for Timely LONG AFTER Everett and Burgos has left the shop and "defected" to Goodman. What seems to make MUCH more sense to Hames and me is that Goodman and Jacquet came to an agreement that Goodman got to own the characters and take Everett and Burgos, BUT Goodman had to agree to a) not raid the Funnies staff any further (no other Funnies, Inc. artist ever went to Timely on staff) AND b) purchase some set amount of work from Funnies for some set time (Jacquet shop work continues throughout WWII at Timely).

Through 1940, Goodman had published only 24 comic books. But, by the end of 1941, that number was over 60 and WWII had just begun. Timely was growing fast and both men were looking at their staffs being called into the war. The last thing either of them wanted was to make their lives even MORE difficult.

Goodman and Jacquet were first and foremost businessmen. Jacquet probably realized that he couldn't stop Everett and Burgos from leaving and Goodman probably realized that he could lay claim to the characters if he really wanted them. But it's likely that neither man wanted to antagonize the other and both knew that they could profit from a mutually acceptable tradeoff. Goodman needed Jacquet to fill his books and Jacquet wanted Goodman's long-term business. Hence, some behind the scenes agreement seems MUCH more fitting than butting heads. If they were adversaries, there is nothing in the books to indicate it. You probably don't have long-term, enduring business relations with your enemies. And Goodman got the same level of artistic talent on his books as did Funnies other clients, so Jacquet didn't appear to be treating Timely any differently than, say, Novelty.

Check the time frame. I always find it helpful.

My 2

[narfstar]

You two cents is like a trillion government dollars Jim

[bchat]

I wasn't trying to imply that Goodman and Jacquet were adversaries, rather I merely propose the possibilty that Goodman used his relationship with Funnies Inc to hurt Centaur, a rival company who also used FI to supply the content of their books.  I firmly believe that Competition only benefits the consumer, not competing companies.  While it may be "heartless & evil" to take advantage of a situation to hurt a competitor's business, it's also the smart thing to do if you want your company to be as successful as it can be.  Judging by the history of Timely/Atlas/Marvel Comics, being a "nice guy" was not on the top of Goodman's "to do" list.

Check the time frame. I always find it helpful.

I have done so, and as you state, by the end of '41, Timely's business was booming while Centaur's was on the verge of collapse.  I'm only suggesting that Goodman could have been partly responsible for the end of Centaur's books, although I realize that a lot of other factors probably come into play, as well.

[JVJ]

I wasn't trying to imply that Goodman and Jacquet were adversaries, rather I merely propose the possibilty that Goodman used his relationship with Funnies Inc to hurt Centaur, a rival company who also used FI to supply the content of their books.  I firmly believe that Competition only benefits the consumer, not competing companies.  While it may be "heartless & evil" to take advantage of a situation to hurt a competitor's business, it's also the smart thing to do if you want your company to be as successful as it can be.  Judging by the history of Timely/Atlas/Marvel Comics, being a "nice guy" was not on the top of Goodman's "to do" list.

You're dead right about Goodman, bchat.
Mr. Nice Guy he was NOT. As for whether Goodman considered Centaur more competition because Jacquet was also supplying his comics - who knows? It's possible that any agreement that the two made had an added bonus of strengthening Timely at the expense of Centaur. Goodman was certainly the kind of guy to think that was a big plus! Whether the rise of Timely was a significant factor in the fall of Centaur is an unanswerable question, though. It is more likely that the war, the rise of the patriotic heroes and the stronger business sense of people like Ned Pines, MLJ and Goodman were all contributing factors at one level or another. Beyond that, we're all blowing smoke.

Check the time frame. I always find it helpful.

I have done so, and as you state, by the end of '41, Timely's business was booming while Centaur's was on the verge of collapse.  I'm only suggesting that Goodman could have been partly responsible for the end of Centaur's books, although I realize that a lot of other factors probably come into play, as well.

My comment re the "time frame" was in reference to the presence of Jacquet artists at Timely well past the mythical (in my opinion) "feud" between Jacquet and Goodman. I hope someday that the story of Centaur will get fully told. I would sure like to read it!

(|:{>

[JVJ]

You two cents is like a trillion government dollars Jim

I think I have just been insulted...

(|:{>

[narfstar]

Meant as a joke that compliment or comment has yet to be determined hopefully the later for all our sakes.

[JVJ]

Meant as a joke that compliment or comment has yet to be determined hopefully the later for all our sakes.

I did get the joke, narf,
My response was meant to be ironically funny, but I'm worried enough to fear that it might come true. When you're living on your savings, this economy is pretty scary. The only difference between 2