Yeah there are artists that I loved, and others that I disliked greatly. Jack Kirby, Neal Adams, and Gene Colon are some of my favorites, but then there are some artists I really can't stand, like Gil Kane and Ross Andru. Just something about their styles feels lower in quality.

Wow, this surprises me. I would never rate a comic on story alone; story alone is called A BOOK.

I feel comics are a balance. Something that differentiates comics from other art forms is THE INKING. Ground-breaking is also important. Rekindling my emotions plus showing me a bit of what is to come in the future also has weight in my rankings.

The coloring & scripting is the main difference between the old & the new eras. Computer coloring cannot be compared to pantone & really should always be considered to give "ethical" ratings . Some people, especially artists I know, really do not like modern computerized, realistic coloring. I am cool with either. BUT style...that is another kettle of fish altogether. I love great INKING style & many modern comics suffer from some poor inking. Leni Yu's work on some x-men (& avengers) I read a few years ago was so awful, I rated those books a 1s; the story wasn't too good anyway. Modern comics are also about balance, but unfortunately computer coloring is a double-edged sword that puts greater onus upon the story re: ratings. I don't care for manga, so that also has a negative effect on my rankings.

In my silver age rankings I doubt there is a single 1 rating, there are lots of 3s & 4s.

The 5-star rating system is not fine enough resolution to rate properly IMO. My system is a 5 star + or - which is 15 notches: 1-, 1, 1+, 2-, 2, 2+, 3-, 3, 3+, 4-, 4, 4+, 5-, 5, 5+. If the book rates a number plus or minus, that's my rating I input (to MCDU) [5- is a 5; a 3+ is a 3, etc]. I am not reading the "Order" persay, so I haven't ranked any books on the site.

I rate on the balance: if art is bad but story fantastic, then rating takes a hit. If art is phenomenal, but story awful, rating takes a hit. If the combination is all good then rating is more straightforward. I also consider at my reading from the beginning like going to comic store & buying the books when they are/were released, so, to some degree, I attempt to view them "for the first time" & base my decisions on the era...BUT, it is true: I do have knowledge of the future & does influence my ratings.

The chances of a comic drawn by Gene Colan or Steve Ditko is highly unlikely to ever get a 5 from me...Colan books I rate around 3. Joel Sinnot inking Steranko is going get a 5 pretty much every time. Dale Keown is going to rate high, especially with Peter David writing the book. John Romita Snr almost always gets 5; but John Romita jnr is gonna get 2-s. Guys like Billy Tan drawing THE SAME NOSE ON EVERYBODY is going to drop my ratings (altho, some of the X-Men stories were very good). John Romita Snr= 5....JR jnr is gonna get 2-s.

So if I start reading THE ORDER & rating, maybe some guidelines should be laid out so ART CRITICS don't muck up the #s.

No 1s in the 60s. I give art a lot of weight when I rate comics, but there are times when the story is so bad it gives negative points to passable art. Some of the DD stories from the 60s are so bad as to be unreadable.

I agree that Stranko is an amazing artists, and his run on Fury was amazing, but some of those stories were just dogs. Those comics still deserved a 5?

_________________

I gave Strange Tales #166 (1967), a 5+ when I read it;
Captain America #110, #111, #113 (1969) all 5-.
FF #49 was off the charts: I have a 10 in my spreadsheet
TtA #90 (Namor half) I gave 1+ ( & that is probably too high for that drivel)

Something I forgot in my dissertation about rankings in my post is LAYOUT. Steranko was THE INNOVATOR on LAYOUTS in this era. NO ONE else comes close to compare to the ground-breaking panel layout of the Steranko works during the Silver Age to my recollection. This is not about Gene Colan or Tales of Suspense's "crazy panels" [as few right-angle rectangles as possible]; This is about adding dramatic effect with panel layout & Steranko was light years ahead of his peers. An absolute revelation & so worthy of accolade that the story is practically incidental to my view.

To further clarify about my rundown in my post about the artists & or combos influence on the way I have been ranking: that is what THE ARTIST influence is on the BALANCE of the book. A whacked out Roy Thomas script can easily knock a point (or two!) off great art (what was that guy partaking of!). Clearly, regarding ASM: Stan's writing is his best, combined with J.Romita Snr & Jim Moody's inking & there is a winning combination.

I put the dates (years) on the books above in this post to also say that, in 1969, practically all of Marvel is hitting on all cylinders IMO. FF, ASM are so consistently well executed that I'm giving out a lot of 5s in 1969.

Like I say, I haven't rated any of "The Order" on this site, just MDCU. If I start on "The Order" I will keep this thread's influence in mind & not let my gushing over Silver Age artwork get the better of me & tip the starring in a way contrary to CMRO culture.

...looking over my readers log rankings, I can see that, if I ranked all 5- comics as "4" that might align my rankings closer to the majority...actually all minus numbers knocked down would certainly handle the discrepancy.

For someone in the silver age comparable with Steranko on layouts, look at Adams run near the end of X-Men before it went reprint. Those were very modern looking comics, layout wise.

_________________

Whoa, who is up early? me or you? Thanks for being accepting of new pontificators to your forum!

You told me last week that The Neal Adams run on X-Men is short which was a little bit of a spoiler:/
I have read 3 books from the run X-Men #56, #57, #58 which have eschewed a splattering of 5 rankings from me...altho 56 & 57 are 16pg/5pg double story books.

I was just reading the milestones thread (titled "Boom") in the order section, wow, churning away & that is extremely impressive...but kind of a spoiler too because I didn't do much collecting the 70s & 80s...& there are big holes in the MDCU coming up for me...I outta get off this forum & read some more 1969!

Now you have me looking forward to 1969.

_________________
'The soul knows no greater anguish than to take a breath that begins with love and ends with grief.'- Steven Erikson

sorry if I am spoiling, not my intent...so far, 1969 is da bomb IMO

I am NOT saying DD gets any better! & it is an absolute shame that Doctor Strange is only scanned through #178 on the MDCU...just when it was getting good, too...

We should all send MDCU Support some encouragement to fill in the "great unscanned"...they are sooooo concentrated on digitizing new books for cash...but I have witnessed them responding (with scanning) to urging if enough people ask/request....It's Disney, what do you expect?

(....well, lots of meetings with suits looking over P&L, towing a tight line to political correctness & lots of anacronyms to explain things quickly in all those meetings which keep "cast members" from taking any risks...at least Disney ARE masters of brand guardianship, tho)

Not really spoiling much. I know a lot of Marvel history, so major plot points are already spoiled for me. I read because it's fun to see how they get to each point.

_________________
'The soul knows no greater anguish than to take a breath that begins with love and ends with grief.'- Steven Erikson

The Order must be just about the perfect example of the journey being much more important than the destination.

_________________
"My senses are so ultra-keen that I can do anything a man with eyesight can...and do it better!!"