This post was originally published on July 7, 2009
Doug: Almost from the very beginning of the Marvel Age, Marvel Comics began to reprint their Golden and Silver Age material for the benefit of not only a buck, but hopefully with an altruistic eye toward filling in the newer enthusiast. For books like Marvel Tales and Marvel Collector's Item Classics, covers were done with several panes, each showcasing a character or story within. However, as the Marvel line began to expand in the late 1960's, new titles were created for the purpose of keeping material from the seminal days of the Fantastic Four, the Avengers, et al. on the stands. Hence, we saw the rise of titles such as Marvel's Greatest Comics and Marvel Triple Action, respectively.
Doug: Below are some examples of covers that were used on the original titles and on the reprint mags. You'll notice that in some cases the following scenarios were applied (NOTE -- unless otherwise stated, all cover images are from http://www.coverbrowser.com/, and all creator information was obtained from the Grand Comic Book Database, available at http://www.comics.org/) --
- the cover was reproduced faithfully in form and color
- the cover was reproduced in form but not in color
- the cover was redrawn
- the cover was completely different, but somewhat faithful to the topic within
Doug: The covers above hold a special place in my heart, particularly the Marvel Triple Action on the right. This was the first issue of the Avengers I ever owned -- it was given to me by a girl whose family was friends with our family. I can almost recall the day she gave it to me; prior to that, I believe I had a copy of a JLA/JSA crossover and a couple of funny animal comics (Mickey Mouse or the Looney Tunes, maybe?).
Doug: As you can see, these covers are basically the same with a few very minor exceptions: the coloring of the floor, color has been added to the floating heads circles, the Cap head in the corner box is larger and a different rendering, there has been a removal of some text from the call-out, and the lowering of the artwork to make room for the larger masthead. In this case, it's my opinion that each of these changes actually improves the look of the cover -- score one for the revamp-guys!
Karen: The reprint does look sharper, but is some of that due to aging on the part of the older comic? In any case, very minimal adjustments were made to that cover.
Karen: The reprint does look sharper, but is some of that due to aging on the part of the older comic? In any case, very minimal adjustments were made to that cover.
Doug: Similarly, the two covers above show only a difference in coloring (with slight size alterations to the call-out graphics), which for me is better on the updated version. Keep in mind, however, that the royal blue uniforms are what the FF was currently wearing when this issue of Marvel's Greatest Comics hit the newsstands.
Doug: I've always had a slight problem with the John Buscema/George Roussos cover from Avengers #42. Certainly it's not the art -- that is splendid, indeed. It's more the white cover. I know my copy, which isn't in the greatest shape, is yellowed pretty badly. Let's face it, the publishers never intended that the materials would hold up over a 40-year period of love. But overall, Avengers #42 sports one of the many spectacular efforts Big John dispensed throughout his Silver Age tenure on the title. The reprint, however, has some problems.
Doug: We can start with the color scheme. I'd take dingy-white over this black/lavender/purple trainwreck any day. Beyond the color choices, the incredibly large masthead near-necessitated that Buscema's pencils be altered; had the book been allowed to maintain the original artwork, it would either have had to have been shrunken or permitted to obscure the title. It's been documented (specifically in regard to a Neal Adams draft effort of X-Men #56) that Marvel wanted no monkeying around with the titles/logos to their books -- Martin Goodman felt that the book wouldn't sell if people couldn't read the title. So I'm guessing that the only viable option was to redo the Goliath figure. The cover art on the right is a combination of the Buscema/Roussos pencils from Avengers #42, with touch-ups by Ron Wilson (http://www.samcci.com/). It looks to me like the Hawkeye figure was repeated, although tilted to the right with the left leg and chest redone. Whether due to space or style, Wilson drew Goliath's head larger in proportion to the rest of his body than Buscema had -- the result is a much less menacing Hank Pym, in my opinion. Wanda's cape has also been elongated. I'll take the original effort on these two.
Karen: What's amazing to me is how much space the title takes up on the Marvel Triple Action book. That's easily a third of the cover! No wonder the art has a squished look to it. Hands down, the original is superior!
Doug: Here we have an example of a cover that is near-duplicated from original to reprint version. However, upon closer inspection there is one obvious difference and a few more-subtle changes. Randy Robertson gets the shaft for the UPC code in the corner, and for some inexplicable reason the call-out in the lower right corner is re-formatted. Now, if you look closely you'll notice that all three women on the cover are shown with some type of garment (Was this Code? None of the men are shown with collars, etc.) and the colors on each of them have been changed. Why? No clue, as the color scheme of each cover is virtually the same palette. About the only other difference, and it's even more subtle, is the shrinking of the artwork to accommodate the larger logo as well as the "Marvel's TV Sensation!" call-out.
Doug: In the above duo, the left side depicts the iconic image of Galactus (FF #49 is the first cover appearance for both Galactus and the Silver Surfer) by Jack Kirby and Joe Sinnott. On the right is the cover to the reprint of the same story -- this time around the cover is pencilled and inked by Our Pal Sal Buscema. I'm a Sal-fan, but at first glance I really couldn't understand why editorial chose to go away from what many Marvelites might consider to be one of the finest covers of the Silver Age. However, upon doing a little research I think I came to a pretty fundamental answer -- simple cross-marketing among titles. Take a look at the cover to Fantastic Four #122, which is cover dated May 1972; Marvel's Greatest Comics #36 is cover dated July 1972:
Doug: The cover above is by John Buscema and John Romita. The proximity of Galactus to the FF, the frame around the cover art (typical of the 20-cent period in Marvel history), and the general style of the pencils show that Marvel intentionally used Sal's artwork to piggy-back on John's 4-part epic from only a few months earlier. Again, while Kirby/Sinnott had unleashed a classic cover back in 1966, the follow-up effort certainly had its motivations from a dollars standpoint.
Karen: I think this is a good guess on your part Doug. I distinctly remember reading both of these titles when they came out, and it took me some time to understand that one was current and the other was "historical" - or at least that was the way I thought of it as a youngster.
Karen: I think this is a good guess on your part Doug. I distinctly remember reading both of these titles when they came out, and it took me some time to understand that one was current and the other was "historical" - or at least that was the way I thought of it as a youngster.
Doug: Here is another example of a reprint where the cover art used was strictly due to the "hotness" of the artist. On the left is the original Marvel Team-Up Annual (1976) with cover art by the original artist of the All-New, All-Different X-Men, Dave Cockrum. However, by the time the Marvel Tales on the right was published, Todd McFarlane was breaking all kinds of sales records with his rendition of Spidey. No wonder, then, that he also got the gig doing covers for Marvel Tales in addition to his work on Amazing Spider-Man in this era. Nevermind that there is absolutely no connection with the more recent cover to the story within. Hmmm... trend developing?
Karen: The Cockrum cover is vastly superior in my opinion. It has a nice clean layout which gives you an idea of what's in the book. As you point out, MacFarlane's cover is simply a pin-up of the characters. I don't know exactly when this trend started but I wish it would go away! The cover should give an idea of the story in the book - something to draw the reader in. X-Men and Spider-Man fighting a giant robot: OK, I'll check it out. X-Men and Spider-Man running: not really all that intriguing.
Doug: So what's the overall evaluation of reprint covers in general? I guess out of sentimentality I'll have to side with the originals. Despite the improved technology that allowed for a richer color palette on the reprints, and in spite of more modern marketing strategies that placed then-hot or -current artists reinterpreting the covers, those new covers sort of disconnected with the original stories. I think for long-time fans, there's that relationship between cover and story that perhaps today's younger readers don't understand. With so many "portrait" covers, a good ol' fashioned cover that makes the reader have that "can't wait!" feeling. Even on a Marvel Triple Action or a Marvel Tales, knowing that what was within was as good as what was on the outside was just a great sense of anticipation.
