Sunday, 12 June 2022

WHEN THE FIRST ISSUE IS NOT NECESSARILY NUMBER ONE (AND VICE VERSA)...

Copyright DC COMICS

I recently acquired the above 1964 80 Page Giant Superman Annual Issue #1, which raises an interesting question.  You see, there was an earlier Giant Superman Annual in 1960 which is nowadays retroactively referred to as #1, though I don't know if that was stated in the indicia at the time.  What I do know is that it's listed that way in the indicia of the 1998 Replica Edition, but that may or may not have been its intended status in 1960 - it certainly wasn't numbered that way on the cover.

So the 1960 Giant is definitely the first Superman Annual, but until I can discover what it says in the indicia, it might not be '#1' and could well have been produced as a one-shot.  The 1964 Annual was obviously conceived as the first in an occasional series, hence it being numbered on the cover, but another possibility is that it was only #1 of the 80 Page Giant series, the featured star of which could be any hero, not solely Superman.  In other words, #2 could've been Batman or The Flash, for example.

The latter scenario is made the more likely when one considers that the indicia lists it as '80 Page Giant No. 1', with no mention of Superman.  It also says it's published 8 times a year, so it's unlikely that every issue would be described as an Annual, probably just an 80 Page Giant.  So what's the actual explanation?  Don't know, to be honest, so if anyone who owns the 1960 Annual would take a look at the indicia and let me know what it says, I'd be much obliged.

In the meantime, enjoy the piccies.


The Replica Edition has omitted the original 25c price, and, just like the original,
isn't numbered on the cover.  The Replica is thrice referred to as #1 inside though


Blowing My Own Trumpet Department: Below is the seller's own photo of my recent acquisition.  Far from pristine, but I did a little remedial work on the actual mag to enhance its condition before scanning.  Look again at first pic to see how it looked at the 'after' stage.  (Tears repaired, creases less obvious, cover now far more secure.)


Oh, go on then - I'll make it easier for you.  Below, the 'before' and 'after', side-by-side.  Click on image to enlarge for a better comparison.

18 comments:

  1. 1960 was Supernan annual #1. DC had a tendency of putting #1s on the cover. Originally 80-Page Giant was going to be Supernan annual #9 until they started the 80-Page Giant series instead of doing annuals. That's why it says Annual on the cover of 80-Page Giant #1.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1960 was definitely the first Superman Annual, DK, but is it listed as #1 in the indicia of the original, as opposed to just the Facsimile Edition?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The 1960 first annual doesn't have the number 1 on the cover ( my cousin has an old copy) . There was a 2nd Giant in 1960 and that is numbered on the cover

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, I said in the post that there's no number on the cover, McS, but I want to know if there's a number in the indicia (of the original). As I suggested (and as DK said), the number on the 1964 ish must refer to it being the first of that particular 80 Page Giant series, not the Superman Annuals.

    ReplyDelete
  5. OK, I have no idea what the indicia is what is it an I'll check.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The indicia is the little block of publisher's text under the splash page. On older comics it's sometimes at the foot of the inside cover.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nice to see The Popular Book Centre stamped on the cover.

    Back in the 50's a small chain of stores opened in London buying and selling comocs and magazines plus some paperbacks.

    This was a major help in collecting comics as there were few places, a couple of market stalls come to mind where comics could be found and sold.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'd have preferred it not to be stamped on the cover, T47 - until you pointed out its historical significance. Now I don't mind it so much.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kid, am I correct that you are approaching the 50th anniversary of moving into your current house or am I completely confused about your various "flittings"?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Today is 50 years to the day since I first moved here, though the 14th was a Wednesday back then. On August the 1st, it will be 35 years since I moved back. The 'official' tenancy commencement dates are slightly different to when we actually took up residence though. Should have moved on 12th June, and moved back on 4th August, so I assume we flitted when we could procure removal vans.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kid, you should have done a special post to celebrate this important anniversary - happy 50 years anyway!

    I asked the question because this coming Friday (June 17th) will be exactly 20 years since I moved into my current house and I remember reading on one of your posts that you moved into your house almost exactly 30 years earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I was planning on doing a celebratory post, CJ, but it doesn't matter if it's a belated one as not too many people appear to be interested in such posts anyway (apart from me and you, that is). And happy 20th anniversary on the 17th.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A nice bit of restoration on that cover, Kid. I can't say that I ever had that particular DC giant, although I was a great fan of them in the late sixties.

    I think I collected most, if not all, of the facsimile editions that DC published back around 2003-2004. I loved the idea that DC also started creating brand-new giants in that series, but pretending they were re-printing old comics. The Plastic Man giant is a good example. Wish they were still doing them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The restoration actually looks better 'in the flesh', B, as the light from the scanner seems to make the touch-ups slightly more obvious.

    I think I got all (or most) of those DC facsimile editions as well - great, weren't they?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kid, have you heard that Kate Bush's 'Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God)' has reached No.1 in the UK singles chart 37 years after it was originally released in 1985? Quite a blast from the past!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Funnily enough, I have, CJ - I read it in a newspaper a few hours back. I'm not familiar with the title - is it any good?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes, I liked it when it first came out. 'Running Up That Hill' originally reached No.3 and was Kate Bush's second-biggest hit (after 'Wuthering Heights' in 1978). In 1987 I bought Kate Bush's greatest hits album 'The Whole Story' which obviously included 'Running Up That Hill' on it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'll listen to it on YouTube, CJ, and see if I like it. I remember Wuthering Heights, of course, though I don't think I ever bought it (not sure). I may have the track on a compilation LP or CD though, but if so I don't know where it'll be.

    ReplyDelete

ALL ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED UNREAD unless accompanied by a regularly-used and recognized
name. For those without a Google account, use the 'Name/URL' option. All comments are subject to moderation and will
appear only if approved. Remember - no guts, no glory.

I reserve the right to edit comments to remove swearing or blasphemy, and in instances where I consider certain words or
phraseology may cause offence or upset to other commenters.