Hello, heroes!
I have a question about cataloguing comics and would like your opinions.
When one publisher uses the same series name more than once, volume numbers are easy. What about when multiple publishers use a series title over time? There are other examples but the one I'm currently looking at in updating my own database is DC's 1987 Captain Atom series. This was DC's first series of that name but there were three previous series from three other publishers (just in America). There was Nation-Wide Publishing in 1950, Charlton in 1965, and Modern in 1977.
So--is the 1987 series volume 1? Volume 4? Or, given that the 1950 series was a completely different character, is the '87 series volume 3?
My personal inclination is to call it volume 4 but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
Thanks for your input!
Replies
When in doubt, go with the indicia.The series in question is simply "Captain Atom." Beyond that, if further differentiation is needed, add "DC" and/or "1987" parenthetically.
As a retired librarian, I endorse this answer! It's exactly what I was going to say.
I think Jeff's suggestion is great. If you need more, I'd suggest finding a resource like GCD or another that you canrefer to and use their methodology, rather than making one out of whole cloth.
Not very relevant here, but it is my understanding that the 1965 series and the 1987 series also feature different characters (even if the later pretends to have a similar origin and nature to that of the earlier).
I checked The Standard Catalog of Comics and the Overstreet Price Guide.
STANDARD CATALOG:
OVERSTREET:
CAPTAIN ATOM
Nationwide Publishers: 1950 - No. 7, 1951 (5¢, 5x7-1/4", 53 pgs)
CAPTAIN ATOM (Formerly Strange Sus. Stories #77)(Also see Space Adv.)
Charlton Comics: V2#78, Dec, 1965 - V2#89, Dec, 1967
CAPTAIN ATOM (Also see Americomics & Crisis on Infinite Earths)
DC Comics: Mar, 1987 - No. 57, Sept, 1991 (Direct sales only #35 on)
Under the Charlton section, Overstreet notes "83-85(Modern Comics-1977)-reprints"; no mention of "Modern" is made in the Standard Catalog.
Also, if DC ever launches a new Captain Atom series, it will likely be "Volume 2."
Thanks for the input, all! I sure appreciate it.
I haven't chimed in, because I'm probably the least knowledgeable about this. But I did want to throw in a word of warning about volume numbers.
Academic magazines use them consistently to indicate a new year of publishing, starting each January issue with a new volume number. This is an extremely useful tool when applied consistently, especially for librarians and researchers. But comics, especially in the Golden Age, use volume numbers almost willy-nilly.
Most volume numbers in the Golden Age didn't mean anything to the reader, and seemed almost arbitrary. I'm sure they had meaning internal to the organization, but if used at all in the indicia they were a puzzler. Then there were publishers that used them as they were supposed to be used, but with a twist. Curtis/Novelty/Premium, for example, would run Blue Bolt for 12 issues and then re-start the numbering with a new volume number, like you're supposed to -- but in June, not January. Then there were publishers like Pines, who would re-start the numbering with a new volume number every three issues. I have no idea what that was about, and probably never will. But it sure taught me to not trust volume numbers.
Then there are the oddities of comic book publishing which are a challenge for even the most valiant effort at legitimate volume numbers. Take Blue Beetle, which starred Dan Garret, and ran at Fox for issues #1-10, jumped to Holyoke for issues #11-30, jumped back to Fox for issues #31-60, jumped to Charlton for issues #18-21, re-launched with issues #1-5 (as Dan Garrett), re-launched again with issues #50-54, re-launched again with another set of issues #1-5 (Ted Kord), was reprinted at Modern as Blue Beetle #1 and #3 (there was no #2), then jumped to DC for Blue Beetle #1-24 (1986-88), Blue Beetle #1-36 (Jaime Reyes, 2006-09), Blue Beetle #1-17 (2011-13) Blue Beetle #1-18 (2016-18) and Blue Beetle #1-11 (2023-24). I don't know what volume numbers were assigned to any of these, but I can't think of a simple volume system that would clearly convey the correct information.
At Comics Buyer's Guide (and to a lesser degree at Lone Star/mycomicshop), volume numbers were eschewed in favor of numbering the series. In that system, the fifth issue from Fox/Holyoke was rendered Blue Beetle (first series) #5, Charlton's first issue in 1955 was rendered Blue Beetle (second series) #1, and so forth. Years and/or publishers were included in the parenthesis if needed for clarity. (I don't know what the Modern reprints would have been volumed. This thread is the first I've heard of them.)
Meanwhile, GCD and Marvel use year of launch as the distinguishing criterion. So GCD would list, for example, Blue Beetle #5 (2006 series), and Marvel would list Avengers #5 (2018 series). Whle that system has its upsides, I always find it misleading on a quick read. If I'm hopping about on the internet and see Avengers #60 (2018), my brain absorbs that info as "an issue of Avengers that came out in 2018." But that issue came out in 2022, and unless I stop and think about the source of this information, and what volume system they use, I'll remember it wrong. That's why I've always preferred the CBG method, which would render that book Avengers (eighth series) #60. That doesn't tell me a lot, but what it does tell me is the critical distinction, and it further tells me I need to look up this issue to be sure I'm thinking of the right one.
All of which is to say you're probably safest to just do what Mark, Jeff and Rob advised at first. Whatever works for you. But if I can offer anything, it's "don't trust volume numbers from the publisher." They are inevitably more misleading than helpful.
I never really gave much thought to the "Modren Comics" reprints of Charlton material (and still haven't), but I always assumed it was some sort of distribution deal, like with Marvel's "Atlas" comics in the '50s. (Some of the Blue Beetle/Captain Atom reprints have both the Charlton and the Modern logos.) But when DC bought the right to those characters, they bought them from Charlton, not Modern. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever referring to 1950s Marvels as "Atlas Comics." Oddly, Marvel's 1970s b&w magazines all bear a "Curtis" logo (the distributor), yet I have never heard anyone refer to the magazines of "Curtis Comics."
Regarding the multiple series publishers are wont to release today, I personally have adopted a method I have used consistently for some years now. In order to avoid the mind of confusion Cap mentioned above, I place the parentheical year wherever it will make the most sense in context. For example, if I were to refer to J. Michael Straczynski's 9/11 tribute issue, I might say either Amazing Spider-Man (1999) #36, or Amazing Spider-Man #36 (2001). In either case I would be referring to the same issue.
The first issue of Justice League of America I bought new off the stands was one of those "100-Page Super-Spectaculars" (according to the indicia, Vol. 15, No. 110).
I bought a Captain Atom and a Blue Beetle by Modern Comics from Woolworth's as a kid and they put a price sticker on them. Later I found out that they were practically worthless, at least the last time I checked and that was over twenty years ago!