IronMan wrote:Aren't you the connoisseur!??
I like to think so!
I can't help that I have higher standards than your average Marvel zombie, who will allow someone like Humberto Ramos to become "THE" Spider-Man artist. I had the same problems in the 90s when artist like Joe Mad, Chris Bachalo, and J. Scott Campbell were considered great artists (they suck). It's not just Golden Age artists
The publisher's figured out from day 1 that a better cover made for better sales. I own lots of books just for the cover. But then, I enjoy stories that are entertaining crapola as well. Mind you, great covers AND great stories make for REALLY GREAT comics, but I'm often OK with just one.
I don't mind a good story/art under a bad cover, but the other way around? Pass.
I'll submit a few examples
Me too! How about Batman # 227? Awesome Neal Adams cover - any Neal art inside? Nope, just really crappy Irv Novick art. Same with Batman # 222. How about JLA # 138? Awesome Neal Adams cover, super crappy Dick Dillin art inside. These are what I call the old bait-and-switch comics, where you think you're getting something great and then you're really disappointed when you open the book.
In my neighborhood we had older kids who would sell you copies of Penthouse and Oui so we didn't have to whack off to comic books
Actually, the Simpson books were often fun reads and this is a nice cover swipe
I agree, I have issues # 1 - 200 (20 years worth). And as an EC fan, the flip book on that Simpsons # 1 is awesome! "The Collector accidentally locks himself in his comic vault when the butler goes away for the weekend, and must burn his precious comic collection to avoid freezing to death."