Ziff-Davis GI Joe - numbering question

[churnworks]

In looking at the numbering for ZD's GI Joe, I'm confused by the following and haven't found a clear answer.

(1) v1, according to multiple sources, is the 1950 series. This isn't the copyright date, as some are (c) 1950, and some are 1951. Can anyone confirm or refute that this designates the actual date of publication, meaning that v1 was published/distributed in 1950. (This seems unlikely, as I recall that the 6+ month lead dates didn't begin until a few years later, but I'm not certain.)

(2) The numbering appears to go from v1 #14 to #6, which is the actual number of the comic, and not a version. I am guessing that someone at ZD decided that with the second monthly issue (according to the indicia), the comic should be numbered as of its actual number, rather than confirming with the previous version numbering (i.e., v1 # 15 OR v2 #1). v2 #6 is given in Overstreet, but I cannot confirm this anywhere else.

(3) v1 #14 (October 1951) is the first issue to state that it is monthly, and GI Joe 6 (December 1951) also states that the comic is issued monthly. Any guesses/information as to why there is a two month gap on a monthly comic?

I'm assuming that the numbering from then on, including the change of volume numbers to v3 with whole number 19, is consistent with the plan adopted with # 6, including the change back to bimonthly with v2 #18 ("Winter 1952"), making #19 the February-March 1953 issue, and all numbering consistent from then on. But for my own sanity (and for the integrity of my database) I'd like to nail this down!

[JonTheScanner]

a) No issues of vol 1 actually say vol 1 in them anyplace that I can see.

b) GCD started using the beginning year of a series (in this case 1950) to distinguish it form other series of the same name.  Calling them vol 1 vol 2, etc. was too confusing as the comics sometimes did this themselves in ways that conflicted with actual count.

c) I've heard that some comic companies in those days didn't like to start numbering their comics with #1. They wanted a higher number to convince possible readers they'd been around a while and were therefore good or maybe it was to convince the distributor/dealer to actually put them on the racks.  Better/Standard did this a lot. Ziff Davis also did it some as you can see.

d) Since Ziff Davis applied for second class mailing as indicated in their indicias. It is possible that the Post Office required them to go back and number correctly. It is known that they did this to EC and DC when they changed the names of some series and continued the numbering.

e) The numbering from then on is consistent though I don't know if they followed an exact bi-monthly schedule.  GCD has these comics indexed so you can check.  http://www.comics.org/series/848/

[Yoc]

We try to follow GCD's lead on these issues with some exceptions.
In this case we included the volume numbers as well as the dates on most of them.

Jon's GCD link tells you a lot.  Thanks for your reply Jon.

[churnworks]

Thank you both for the information. Jon, you are correct that "Vol. 1" is not listed in the comics themselves, but IS referenced wherever I have seen the comic listed. This is likely a back-formation from Vol. 3, where the volume numbering begins, and thus is extended backwards to Vol. 2 (where the "correct" numbering begins) and Vol. 1 (to capture the first year or so of numbers other than the actual issue number).

I don't know if the first Ziff-Davis GI Joe issue carries on from a previous series, but since I haven't done any research on that yet, I'll see if I can nail this down myself.

Again, many thanks. I am most grateful to those with deep knowledge of the field, and the generosity to share that information.

[Yoc]

The Dan DeCarlo 'Yardbirds' back-up feature in them is great stuff.  Check them out!

[darkmark (RIP)]

Does it feature Clapton, Beck, or Page?

[JonTheScanner]

No the volume numbering begins in volume 2 not vol 3.  Issue 7 is the first to bear a volume number. And I'm pretty sure the series did not continue from anything. Ziff-Davis just started some series at #10. The did it with Cinderella Love which they renumbered correctly starting with #4, Little Al of the FBI (which only lasted two issues), Little Al of the Secret Service which renumbered to #2 with the second issue), and Wild Boy (which renumbered with #4)

[crashryan]

I have no information regarding this particular comic, but having run into similar questions before I know that second-class mailing privileges seem to lie at the heart of most of them. One story I've heard is that obtaining a second-class mailing permit required not only time but money, and many Title-X formerly Title-Y instances were attempts to save both by publishing a different comic using the original title's permit. A scam, in other words.

What puzzles me is how Charlton, surely the champ of "formerly-known-as" comics, seems to have done it almost to the end, without any apparent problems.