Why do vintage comics have numbers?

[shaxper]

In the ages before the back issue market took off and before comics adhered to any kind of continuity, what was the point of numbering comics? Granted, any magazine has to have a volume and number on the inside, but why have a number on the cover? Dell/Gold Key never used them. What would have been the point of companies like Marvel and DC clearly numbering their issues?

[Shellhead]

In the ages before the back issue market took off and before comics adhered to any kind of continuity, what was the point of numbering comics? Granted, any magazine has to have a volume and number on the inside, but why have a number on the cover? Dell/Gold Key never used them. What would have been the point of companies like Marvel and DC clearly numbering their issues?

Practically from day one, it was useful for Marvel superhero comics to be numbered, as Stan Lee delighted in having his characters operate in a shared setting, with footnote references to previous issue numbers whenever a character said something relevant to a previous situation. DC certainly noticed this and started doing it as well, but that doesn't explain why they were using issue numbers before Marvel showed up.

[Jolly Mon]

Why they were on the cover may have been the same reason the month was on the cover, to tell the retailer which was the older one when a new one came out. If he saw #12, he knew for sure that he should probably send back #10. Just a guess, though.

[shaxper]

Why they were on the cover may have been the same reason the month was on the cover, to tell the retailer which was the older one when a new one came out. If he saw #12, he knew for sure that he should probably send back #10. Just a guess, though.

That had occured to me, except that Magazines don't do this. They just use the month and (sometimes) the year. Why should comics be any different?

As for the Marvel theory, Marvel numbered its Golden Age comics too.

[scratchie]

That had occured to me, except that Magazines don't do this. They just use the month and (sometimes) the year. Why should comics be any different?Good question. I wonder if they were tailored to regular readers (if not collectors as such).

[Reptisaurus!]

On the question in the title: No clue. Guess we're waiting for Scott Shaw! or Cei-u or someone.


Practically from day one, it was useful for Marvel superhero comics to be numbered, as Stan Lee delighted in having his characters operate in a shared setting, with footnote references to previous issue numbers whenever a character said something relevant to a previous situation. DC certainly noticed this and started doing it as well, but that doesn't explain why they were using issue numbers before Marvel showed up.

The shared universe thing made it vital...

But what really made numbers useful was a kind of serial continuity.

And I'm not sure when THAT started. Most of the Golden Age books I've read were pretty much done-in-one, designed completely to appeal to the new reader.

But I've got some early sixties Charltons (Even Reptisaurus!) that have a plot that develops from issue to issue, more so than the first Fantastic Four or Spider-Man strips.

[shaxper]

I was just reconsidering this question again and still have no answer. Two years later, is anyone willing to share some insight?

[Cei-U!]

Whatever the reason (and I don't know what that would be), it has nothing to do with Stan Lee or shared universes as the custom dates back at least as far as Famous Funnies #2 (September 1934).

Cei-U!
I summon the enigma!

[Hintermann]

Dell & Gold key had some kind of different numbering sequence on the outside cover, usually under the logo. Other vintage comic publishers like Harvey Comics, Archie Series etc used the on-cover numbering system regularly.

[MDG]

It is an interesting question, since most pulp covers had the month, but not an issue number.

MDG

[K'Nort]

That had occurred to me, except that Magazines don't do this. They just use the month and (sometimes) the year. Why should comics be any different?

Actually, many (probably most) magazines have enumeration in addition to chronology. It's just not as prominently displayed. At work, I regularly have to hunt down those fine-print volume and issue numbers. They're usually there; they're just not a reference point for the general public.

[shaxper]

Interesting.

And, in looking back now, I can't find an example of a comic book pre-Silver Age Marvel that prominantly featured the issue number on the cover. The number is usually there (always for DC), but attention is not drawn to it.

Another thing I've always wondered is when comic books stopped being seen as magazines. Initially, they were roughly the same size and later started advertising the interior content on the cover, just as magazines did. They also contained a variety of content, sometimes even containing written articles of one kind or another. Perhaps it was Silver Age Marvel that first clearly distinguished comics apart from magazines, and clear numbering on the cover was just one facet of that.

Anyway, it's just a hastily constructed theory.

[Captain Jim]

They also contained a variety of content, sometimes even containing written articles of one kind or another.

It was always my understanding that this had something to do with mailing regulations at the time.

[Captain Jim]

The number is usually there (always for DC), but attention is not drawn to it.

Well, not always for DC. For a long time, they had the habit of not puting the number on the cover of a first issue. The thought was that if people didn't think the book had a history, they wouldn't pick it up. Hard to believe in light of fandom's later infatuation with first issues.

[Captain Jim]

Another thing I've always wondered is when comic books stopped being seen as magazines. Initially, they were roughly the same size and later started advertising the interior content on the cover, just as magazines did... Perhaps it was Silver Age Marvel that first clearly distinguished comics apart from magazines, and clear numbering on the cover was just one facet of that.

Well, as far as the size goes, they first started shrinking in dimensions and pages during the WW2 paper shortage, when they moved (I think) from 64 pages to 52 pages. Then, sometime in the 1950's, they shrunk again from 52 pages to 36 pages. Comics never saw a price increase until the early 1960's, so instead of raising the price, they lowered the page count.

I think comics were seen as distinct from magazines well before Silver Age Marvel, as many places displayed them in spinner racks in the 1950's. I think that pretty well distinguished them from other periodicals.

[Aaron Kashtan]

It was always my understanding that this had something to do with mailing regulations at the time.

I've heard this too. Apparently, for some reason, a publication only qualified for lower mailing rates if it contained either one page or two pages of text. Hence why older comics often included a one-page-long short story.

[Captain Jim]

I've heard this too. Apparently, for some reason, a publication only qualified for lower mailing rates if it contained either one page or two pages of text. Hence why older comics often included a one-page-long short story.

...and in later years, they were replaced by letter columns.

[Chad]

Shot in the dark here, but I know that when a comic book ended, it was sometimes replaced with another series that while continuing the numbering, had nothing to do with what it was taking the place of. All Star Comics featuring the Justice Society became All Star Western and picked up at issue 58. At EC, their western title Gunfighter became Haunt of Fear and picked up their numbering at 15. I do know that when Barry Allen took over the Flash role he also took over Jay Garrick's numbering, picking up at 105 and I'm sure that I heard it was because as Captain Jim said, it used the "if there's already been 104 issues of this title then the comic must be good!" mentality.

I heard that there was more to it than this though. If a comic company wanted to add a new title to the schedule, they had to pay a fee. So, to avoid this charge, they would simply cancel one title and let the new one pick up the old numbering. Now, this doesn't directly answer why numbers were ever there in the first place, but since postage rates and tricky little practices designed to keep fees down have been brought up in this thread, I thought I'd add this detail to the mix. Could it be that while a month and a year meant nothing in terms of proving the history of a comic, that number was designed as evidence that a title had been around for awhile? Of course this would mean that publishers were using a bit of foresight when they decided to put numbers on their comics, but it's not impossible.

[Captain Jim]

Yeah, I think continuing the numbering into another title had something to do with postal permits too. Sorry I can't be more specific. Something about saving a few bucks, I believe.

[InfoBroker]

Second class postage requirements required a certain amount of text material to qualify as a magazine.

The problem with number 1 issues prior to the 70s, were the distributors who were doubtful of new, untested material.

The reason publishers liked to continue the numbering of a comic even when the title, content, and/or format changed was two fold.

#1) To ease or trick the distributor that this was an established title.

#2) To avoid paying a fee with the post office to register a new title.

The most obvious example was EC being noticed by the post office and had to register and restart several of their titles in the 50s.

... and all that changed once collecting and first issue hording become common place.

-jb the (pleads guilty) ib -

[MWGallaher]

My completely speculative theory:
1) The only question you have to answer is: Why did ACTION COMICS have its issues numbered? Given that ACTION did number its issues prominently, a simple explanation for all the others is: "follow the leader".
2) ACTION might have numbered its covers to make it clear, in those early days, that this was not a one-shot. Back in the late 30's, there may have been little reason to presume that these comic-strip magazines were going to be releasing another installment in the following month. ACTION's predecessor, NEW COMICS, didn't put numbers on its covers in the early issues, and each issue, despite the cover dates, might have seemed to a first-time buyer, to be something of a random drop. Cover numbering was a way of promising "There are going to be more of these! Be on the lookout!" Contrast with Dell's FOUR-COLOR. They dropped the numbering; they weren't promising that there would be another installment of "this" comic next month, because next month, "this" was going to be an entirely different comic book. ACTION's hooking the regular reader, FOUR COLOR's trying to maintain shelf-life for out-of-date comics. Two strategies with their own unique benefits and drawbacks.

[MichikoS]

shax's question has been rolling around at the back of my head for a few weeks now, and I still don't know that it's been answered in any definitive way. Whenever I run across any reference to comic numbering now, an alert bell goes off in my head. So I thought I'd share this informative tidbit from the ever-knowledgeable GEORGE SUAREZ, writing in Tales Too Terrible To Tell #1:

Ajax never numbered its comics on the cover. No one seems to know exactly why. It is true that with the massive glut of comics on the racks in the early 1950's, it could be difficult to get rack space for new titles. By not putting #1 on the cover, this problem could be avoided. For this reason, Standard started all their titles with #5. This marketing dilemma persisted well into the 1960's. Even DC, the foremost comics publisher of that era, left issue numbers off the covers of first issues like Justice League and Green Lantern. Given today's fan addiction to #1's, it's hard to believe that this ever was considered a detriment to sales.

Michi