Hi team,
I have a few picky updates to request to some keys. I made these changes on my end, but of course the next time I updated keys it undid them all.
- Astonishing X-Men, Vol. 3, #43A - we should either consider dropping this key, or update the description to ‘Classic cover art by Art Adams’, as a cover by Artgerm isn’t really a key
- Batgirl, Vol. 3 #9A - update description to ‘Classic cover art by Artgerm’
- Star Wars: Doctor Aphra Annual’ #1A - update category to ‘Origin’
- Amazing Spider-Man, Vol. 2, #607A - update description to ‘Classic cover art by J. Scott Campbell’
- Amazing Spider-Man, Vol. 4, #15 (and it’s variants) - update category to ‘1st appearance’
- Uncanny X-Men, Vol. 1, #207A - update description to ‘Classic cover art by John Romita Jr.’
- Uncanny X-Men, Vol. 1, #248 (and it’s variants) - add another category ‘Artwork/Writing’
- Uncanny X-Men, Vol. 1, #251A - update description to ‘Classic cover art by Marc Silvestri’
- Uncanny X-Men, Vol. 1, #350A - we should either consider dropping this key, or update the description to ‘Classic cover art by Joe Madureira’
- Wolverine, Vol. 2, #24A - update description to ‘Classic cover art by Jim Lee’
- X-Men, Vol. 1, #11A - update description to ‘Classic cover art by Jim Lee’
I know these are really picky - thank you for humouring me!
Fran
-
Astonishing X-Men, Vol. 3, #43A: Removed
-
Batgirl, Vol. 3 #9A - update description to ‘Classic cover art by Artgerm’: You think so? I feel like the only note-worthy cover in this run is #12
-
Star Wars: Doctor Aphra Annual’ #1A: Fixed
-
Amazing Spider-Man, Vol. 2, #607A - update description to ‘Classic cover art by J. Scott Campbell’: Fixed. BTW I have slowly been working on correcting this series with cvr artists, ratio numbering and our naming convention so feel free to do an update from Core with this series if you want to 
. I’m almost finished with it
-
Amazing Spider-Man, Vol. 4, #15 (and it’s variants) - update category to ‘1st appearance’: Fixed
-
Uncanny X-Men, Vol. 1, #207A - update description to ‘Classic cover art by John Romita Jr.’: Removed this one
-
Uncanny X-Men, Vol. 1, #248 (and it’s variants) - add another category ‘Artwork/Writing’: Corrected
-
Uncanny X-Men, Vol. 1, #251A - update description to ‘Classic cover art by Marc Silvestri’: Just thought I’d ask: Why would you say this should be Classic instead of Iconic? IMO you’re right as it’s still a recognisable cover but I wouldn’t call it Iconic. I want to be more strict with Iconic and have the lower tier of Iconic be Classic.
-
Uncanny X-Men, Vol. 1, #350A - we should either consider dropping this key, or update the description to ‘Classic cover art by Joe Madureira’: Removed
-
Wolverine, Vol. 2, #24A - update description to ‘Classic cover art by Jim Lee’: Removed
-
X-Men, Vol. 1, #11A - update description to ‘Classic cover art by Jim Lee’: Corrected
Great list! Thank you for posting 
1 Like
Hey @CLZ_Justin,
Thanks again for having a look at these!
For Batgirl, Vol. 3 #9A - personally I would pull the key for this one. I was just trying to get some consistency in some of my key descriptions 
Which is interesting what you said around tiering for cover art keys. I didn’t even realise the difference between ‘classic’ and ‘iconic’. Now that you mention it, it does make sense. So there are only a few rare ‘iconic’ covers out there - art that even randoms on the street will have seen. I guess another way to approach it is with major and minor keying as well.
So Todd’s Spider-man is iconic - and Jim Lee’s Wolverine 27 is a classic.
For Uncanny X-Men, Vol. 1, #251, you are right it’s ‘classic’ and not ‘iconic’ if you go by the tiering. My girlfriend wouldn’t recognise that cover
Can I make a few other description change requests then, based on iconic/classic tiering?
-
Amazing Spider-Man, Vol. 5 #55 - A, F, G, I - the Gleason variants. These are lovely covers and kicked off a whole series in that style, but they shouldn’t be ‘iconic’.
-
Amazing Spider-Man, Vol. 1, 601 - should this one be ‘iconic’? Given the number of homages and use in wider media? I may be biased as a J. Scott fan, but he’s arguably the world’s biggest cover artist, and this is his signature and most recognised piece.
-
Avengers, vol. 1 #189 - this should be ‘classic’ and not ‘iconic’
-
Avengers, vol. 1 #223 - this should be ‘iconic’ - even reused in the MCU!
-
Danger Girl #2B, D, E - ‘Classic cover art by J. Scott Campbell’
-
Power Girl, Vol. 2 #27 - ‘Classic cover art by Warren Louw’
-
Fantastic Four, Vol. 1 #348 - ‘Classic cover art by Art Adams’
Thanks Justin!
Fran
I’d say classic although it’s debatable. I still see people grabbing this one when at a con or when they find them in shops/lots. Especially 11C
1 Like
Did you see the note above that @CLZ_Justin?
1 Like
Batgirl, Vol. 3 #9A: Fixed
Thanks! Yeh that’s the plan. I’m working on setting rules for all of the key categories, naming conventions and minor/major keys. I’m very much aware that this can’t always be leading and that some characters or key reasons might fall into a grey area. But it’s all to keep it consistent
- Amazing Spider-Man, Vol. 5 #55: Think it too early for this one? They’re still selling well, don’t get me wrong but to call this Iconic? Not so much. Think it’s a very good contender for Classic.
Question: When would you call a new book a classic? Like as in how long does it have to take before you call a new recognisable cover a classic?
-
Amazing Spider-Man, Vol. 1, 601: I agree, corrected
-
Avengers, vol. 1 #223: You think so? IMO this should stay as Classic, yes it’s recognisable but still a niche within the comic collecting world
-
Danger Girl #2B, D, E: Agreed, added!
-
Power Girl, Vol. 2 #27: Added
-
Fantastic Four, Vol. 1 #348: Sorry don’t agree with this one
A few other questions :
With new comics going up in price (X-23, Vol. 3 #1C / Miles Morales: The Ultimate Spider-Man #1B / Amazing Spider-Man #667F), could you call these classic or even iconic or are they just expensive because they are scarce?
With major keys (AF15 / AC1 / TEC27), would you call these iconic because of the cover (at first yes) or are these covers iconic because of the character?
On Amazing Spider-Man, Vol. 5 #55 - completely agree, sorry, I had said ‘shouldn’t be iconic’.
It’s a really good question around when a cover becomes a ‘classic’. I think for most there is a time element. In two years time is it still a coveted cover or was it just a blip? Have other artists started to do homages? Did it start a new style trend?
It’s hard when they first come out to distinguish between ‘a really cool cover’ and a ‘classic’ that warrants a key.
I also feel a lot of covers become ‘iconic’ or ‘classic’ because of the importance of the contents of the book and maybe not necessarily the cover art. Maybe this is why you disagreed with FF 348? Over time it’s almost impossible to call out is AF15 or AC1 are iconic covers, or have we’ve just had it burned into our minds because we’ve seen it so much ASM 601 is the reverse, I couldn’t tell you anything about what happens in that issue, the cover is the talking point.
At the end of the day, a lot of this is subjective, and that’s art in a nutshell.
What about Avengers, vol. 1 #189 - Classic right?
1 Like
Can I ask, when you update the descriptions on these, are you also adding a category tag? I don’t see one for the power girl issue for example.
1 Like
I did…we’re looking into this one!
1 Like
- “On Amazing Spider-Man, Vol. 5 #55 - completely agree, sorry, I had said ‘shouldn’t be iconic’.”
Oh no worries, it was more so a written out thought process
- “It’s a really good question around when a cover becomes a ‘classic’. I think for most there is a time element. In two years time is it still a coveted cover or was it just a blip? Have other artists started to do homages? Did it start a new style trend?”
Absolutely, you don’t want to be the first one to call a new book a classic It has been 4 years since the Gleason cover has been released btw, time flies! Just opened #55 and seeing we have it has iconic, do you think we should keep it like that or have it as classic?
- “I also feel a lot of covers become ‘iconic’ or ‘classic’ because of the importance of the contents of the book and maybe not necessarily the cover art. Maybe this is why you disagreed with FF 348? Over time it’s almost impossible to call out is AF15 or AC1 are iconic covers, or have we’ve just had it burned into our minds because we’ve seen it so much ASM 601 is the reverse, I couldn’t tell you anything about what happens in that issue, the cover is the talking point.”
What I’m noticing is that a few of the covers that have been reported as iconic or classic is that I’m seeing them for the first time. That wasn’t case for FF348 but I don’t feel like it deserves that classic title. Just to echo what you said: it’s all subjective.
I think Longshot #1 deserves a cover key reason but that might be because it’s an issue 1 with a 1st appearance (it’s what he is most known for?). Young Allies is a contender, this also feels like this is because of it being scarce.
Avengers, vol. 1 #189: yes, classic. But comparing this to 223 I’d say 223 is minor iconic. So decided to change this.
I thinking setting the following standards:
-
Iconic cover:
Major: Well known by everyone (example: Batman 251, Iron Man 128, SS4)
Minor: Less known but still very much known within the comic collecting world (example ASM 33, Batman 423, GL vol 3 49)
-
Classic cover:
Major: Well known within their title, not worthy of the name Iconic (Hulk Annual 1, Strange Tales 107, TEC69)
Minor: Less known but still very much known within the comic collecting world, not worthy of the name Iconic, newer well known cover should fall in this category first and the test of time should dictate if it’s pushed up (UXM 268, ASM 346, Catwoman 51)
1 Like
You got me thinking about key covers and if they are effected by other major keys. I was looking at ASM 300 and 361, neither of which have keys for ‘classic’ or ‘iconic’ covers, but are major books.
What are your thoughts? Surly 300 should be at least ‘classic’, if not maybe ‘iconic’ given the VAST amount of homages (even by Todd).
1 Like
Love the standards! Makes sense and gives some clarity to the tiers.
1 Like
You’re totally right I will add this one as Iconic but wouldn’t this fall back to AF15, AC1 and TEC27?
Going back to ASM 55, we have it as iconic now but actually should be classic. You mentioned it spun off other artist doing the same but ultimately it’s a gimmick or an art style that is easily applied to other characters. If you were make this one a classic cover you’d have to the the same with the JTC action figure variants, negative space, MMPR helmet variants. Should gimmicks like this be a key?
I’m not sure I would call it a gimmick - Gleason tried out a new artistic technique with that cover and it landed really well. So well that he used a similar style to do covers for Venom, Carnage, Green Goblin, Hobgoblin, and so on. I don’t think that makes ASM 55 any less of a ‘classic’ than ASM 300 with the infinite homages that have been done over the years.
Foil covers - now there’s a gimmick! and yet I still buy them!
1 Like
