Keskustelujen arkisto

A few more details about Steve Geppi. He's a former mailman with a deep
love for comics. He became a comic book dealer and quickly a
distributor. He has a good rep. for dealing fairly but when things got
tough in the distribution business he came out on top. So he's
basically king of comics now.

He has an absolutely tremendous collection, some of which he sells from
time to time. I know he's a Ducks and Barks fan.

He's also minority owner in the Baltimore Orioles and I believe has been
named Man of the Year (or businessman of the year) in Baltimore.

Best of all, he's opening up a museum of pop culture in Baltimore with a
huge emphasis on comics!

Btw, I did take a look for you Tristan. Closest we had was Uncle
Scrooge 307 and 313. :(

Regards,
Marc Newman
www.HouseofComics.com
"Super-Selection of Silver and Bronze Age Comics"

Steven Rowe wrote:

> guess yall can see Im not a baseball fan (although it was Gene Autry who
> owned the Angels, right?)

Yes. He was the owner of the team when it began as the (original) Los Angeles Angels in 1961. Unfortunately, he didn't live to see the Angels win their first World Series in 2002.

Marc Newman said (regarding Steve Geppi):

> Best of all, he's opening up a museum of pop culture in Baltimore with a
> huge emphasis on comics!

In case you were unaware: This museum was originally supposed to open over the July 4th weekend. Now the opening has been pushed back to early September (not coincidentally, the weekend of the Baltimore Comic-Con at the nearby Baltimore Convention Center).

Chris Barat

On 6/25/06, kimba1962 at comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> Steven Rowe wrote:
>
> > guess yall can see Im not a baseball fan (although it was Gene Autry who
> > owned the Angels, right?)
>
> Yes. He was the owner of the team when it began as the (original) Los
> Angeles Angels in 1961. Unfortunately, he didn't live to see the Angels win
> their first World Series in 2002.
>

OK. This is a bit complex, but in the interests of accurate information,
the team Autry owned was not, technically, the "original" Los Angeles
Angels. Here's the deal.

The "original" Los Angeles Angels were a minor league baseball team that was
ACTUALLY based in Los Angeles. They played from 1903-1957, as part of the
"Pacific Coast League." (Actually, this may not even be true, as Wikipedia
suggests that the name has origins in 1892, but I can find evidence of that
team).

The team that Gene Autry founded did indeed start in Los Angeles in 1961,
and did use the name "Los Angeles Angels" for a few years, but moved to
Anaheim in 1966 to the stadium they use today, and changed their name to the
"California Angels." (One assumes that they didn't think the name of
Anaheim was well-known enough in these early days of Disneyland.)

The team became the "Anaheim Angels" in 1996, which actually caused a lot of
outcry among fans at the time who STILL didn't think that the name "Anaheim"
represented anything important (although Disneyland would have LONG been
connected to the name by this time).

Finally, in 2005, the team changed its name to the current "Los Angeles
Angels of Anaheim," arguing both that the name reflects the team's original
roots and that the name of Los Angeles held greater marketing power. This
move infuriated Anaheim city officials (who had signed a contract with the
team owners a few years previously stipulating that the name Anaheim would
remain a part of the team's name, and were not mollified by its inclusion as
the inferior end of a "two-city" team name) as well as many local fans, who
by this time had the team's success in the 2002 World Series to add to
Anaheim local pride. The city sued the owners of the team to try to get the
name changed back, but the court found that the owners had technically
upheld the terms of their contract by including Anaheim at the end of the
name, despite the fact that the team no longer has any technical connection
to Los Angeles (being neither in the city nor in the county of that name),
which already has a team of their own (The Dodgers).

Anyway, my apologies for taking this off-topic....

Mark Baker-Wright
--
Assistant to the Faculty and Dean's Office, SOT: Fuller Theological Seminary
Transforming Seminarian (my blog):
http://transformingseminarian.blogspot.com

Ask me about singer/songwriter David LaMotte!

Hi,
Anyone from this list will be going there? Please drop me an email if you
do, thank you very much. fyi one of the planned featured guests is Don Rosa.

Keep On Quacking,
Arie Fachrisal

Gee,
Don Rosa back here in Germany!!! - Not really beliavable yet. But it seems true as some
websites say
http://www.donrosa.de/?Specials:Deutschland-Tour_2006

Seems he will to be here for Frankfurt Book fair and doing some traveling to German Comic
Shops too (see noted link).

Remebers me to Don's first visits here in Germany to Comic exhibition in Erlangen back in 1994
and 1996. So I am looking forward to see Don again and, maybe, got the chance to talk a little
bit. But as ever, his timeschedule would be crowded. But nevertheless, it will be very nice to see
Don doing some drawings live.

So, Don, happy to able to see you again here in good old Germany even if there would no
occaission to talk a little bit. Is there hiking planned for this visit?

Even yet I wish "Gute Reise"

happily
joachim butz

LARS WRITES:

I'm going off on a tangent here, but... Many times, the phrase "if it ain't
broke, don't fix it" has been used to excuse doing absolutely nothing. If
you don't continuously freshen up the creative property you're working
on, it will stagnate and eventually fall apart.

AND I RESPOND:

If something is stagnating then it is "broke". If a format is functioning
just fine and pleasing its readers I see no reason to fiddle with it.
That's not being lazy; it's simply sticking to a proven method. I get your
point, though, Lars. It is always important to keep things fresh, but
that's not the same as the intrusive tinkering that Disney used to destroy
its own product.

I guess I would describe Gladstone's efforts as resuscitation more
than anything else. We really were trying to see what life the ol'
dog still had in her. Disney's mistake was thinking we'd found Ol'
Yeller's pups.

Gary

> On May 17th, Jonathan H. Gray wrote:
>
>> Disney sees this success, says "Hey, we can do this ourselves and get
>> more of a cut on this revenue!" takes it, and tries to change the
>> formula entirely (going back to "if it aint broke don't fix it")
>
> I'm going off on a tangent here, but... Many times, the phrase "if
> it ain't
> broke, don't fix it" has been used to excuse doing absolutely
> nothing. If
> you don't continuously freshen up the creative property you're working
> on, it will stagnate and eventually fall apart.
>
> That said, overall I preferred Gladstone's method of "fixing" the
> earlier Whitman editorial standard to Disney's method of "fixing"
> the Gladstone editorial standard (which I don't feel was as
> necessary).
>
> Lars