|
|
Post by The Captain on Jan 19, 2017 13:31:46 GMT -5
Good idea The Razormaid Cautionary Clause
Warning: When using Wikia as a source for posting pictures-The original size of the pic is reduced considerably when it's reposted. This is wikia's way of saying don't tag our bandwidth.
Personally I use Lone Star's site and left click "copy image address" and post it with the image tags and have never had an issue doing it that way. Plus their images are usually always large and of good quality. I use Comic Book Database (www.comicbookdb.com) for my images. Search by title, find issue #, double-click cover image, copy URL, plug into Insert Image box here, voila. Plus, their images are usually nicely-sized and clear. Since it's a community effort, I love some of the older books where the cover shows obvious love and wear-and-tear. |
|
|
|
Post by DubipR on Jan 19, 2017 13:41:31 GMT -5
Personally I use Lone Star's site and left click "copy image address" and post it with the image tags and have never had an issue doing it that way. Plus their images are usually always large and of good quality. I use Comic Book Database (www.comicbookdb.com) for my images. Search by title, find issue #, double-click cover image, copy URL, plug into Insert Image box here, voila. Plus, their images are usually nicely-sized and clear. Since it's a community effort, I love some of the older books where the cover shows obvious love and wear-and-tear. Along with comicbookdb.com , I also use ComicVine (www.comicvine.com) as well for issues. I agree, Captain. I like the wear & tear scans myself. |
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Jan 19, 2017 14:08:24 GMT -5
I can't think of any better ones, so I'm going to make a blatant display of poor sportsmanship by posting this: (Sorry, Prince Hal!) no apologies necessary,MW; this was the first cover I thought of. When I went looking for it, I also saw the other one. It was a total toss-up. Excellent choice! This pair of covers has long intrigued me. Why would two consecutive covers illustrate essentially the same scene? Given the turmoil involved in that final issue, with Ditko leaving abruptly, and part of the issue drawn by Jack Sparling, I guess that both of these covers were originally intended for the same issue. Maybe Kane's cover was commissioned for #5 because the editor didn't like Ditko's, or wasn't sure if Ditko was going to turn one in at all. Or perhaps Kane's cover was done first, hoping it would improve sales, but then Ditko objected and insisted on doing his own. Whatever the scenario, I postulate that given the cancellation, DC didn't think it was worth buying a new cover for #6, and instead used the alternate (or original) cover from #5. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jan 19, 2017 15:27:43 GMT -5
no apologies necessary,MW; this was the first cover I thought of. When I went looking for it, I also saw the other one. It was a total toss-up. Excellent choice! This pair of covers has long intrigued me. Why would two consecutive covers illustrate essentially the same scene? Given the turmoil involved in that final issue, with Ditko leaving abruptly, and part of the issue drawn by Jack Sparling, I guess that both of these covers were originally intended for the same issue. Maybe Kane's cover was commissioned for #5 because the editor didn't like Ditko's, or wasn't sure if Ditko was going to turn one in at all. Or perhaps Kane's cover was done first, hoping it would improve sales, but then Ditko objected and insisted on doing his own. Whatever the scenario, I postulate that given the cancellation, DC didn't think it was worth buying a new cover for #6, and instead used the alternate (or original) cover from #5. Well, now that you mention it... I didn't notice that, and I'd forgotten that Jack Sparling (of all the Dikoesque artists!) had drawn part of that last issue. Wasn't aware of all that behind-the-scenes stuff, and what you're saying makes mucho sense. That final cover sure makes you wonder how great Gil Kane could have been on the Creeper. That first few months of 1969 was like an earlier version of the DC Implosion, with the loss of a bunch of promising titles. I think the Creeper may have been the first to get the hook. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 18:46:01 GMT -5
 I love this issue! 😸❤ |
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Jan 21, 2017 11:03:51 GMT -5
For some reason, I always thought this cover depicted them battling in a well Introducing Spidey's new sidekick, Lassie?  |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jan 23, 2017 3:33:50 GMT -5
The sewer dwelling Manhole Man, a regular mmember of Cheeky's supporting cast.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 3:09:18 GMT -5
1. DubipR 😻
2. The Captain 😸
3. bert 😺
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jan 24, 2017 3:10:54 GMT -5
MDG
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 3:15:55 GMT -5
Somnolent Sorceress 🌙
Farrar and pakehafulla are Honorable Mention(s)
|
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Jan 24, 2017 3:39:47 GMT -5
Juggernaut
closely followed by MDG
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 24, 2017 5:50:56 GMT -5
brianf
|
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Jan 24, 2017 6:37:04 GMT -5
MDG
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jan 24, 2017 6:48:23 GMT -5
Prince Hal
DubipR a very close second
|
|
|
|
Post by DubipR on Jan 24, 2017 6:54:53 GMT -5
Everyone brings their A-Game each week with these contests, but when it comes to voting I'm going with Farrar this week...
|
|
