Have the variant covers to Action #1000 been shown yet?

[Patrick Gerard]

Cho and Allred really went the extra mile by designing their covers with mockups of period referenced trade dresses with the clear intent of those trade dresses being used.

Cho's design with trade dress can be found here:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BfcFmGng1Vs/

[SanityOrMadness]

The 90s and 60s covers will be 100% period authentic. The 2000s cover will be post-Infinite Crisis style most likely but may use either the swoosh or the bullet depending on whether legal is paying attention. The 70s and 80s versions use the made up retro style for DC's Retroactive special one shots which were reused for Unchained.

"Made up's" a bit strong - the "70s" trade dress is based on the one used from Superman #271-289 and Action #430-448 (not withstanding the "Still only 20c!" issues that presaged a price rise and 100 page giants), even if it's been changed in several ways (the top-right circle is inaccurate, sure - issue number/price have been swapped, month/code dropped, and the fonts changed - but it's still derivative.), and the 80s one is a similar case, but closer: cf Action #528 and Superman RetroActive 80s

Cho and Allred really went the extra mile by designing their covers with mockups of period referenced trade dresses with the clear intent of those trade dresses being used.

Cho's design with trade dress can be found here:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BfcFmGng1Vs/

Huh, he is intending for the explosion to go behind the logo. It's much better as a homage, but I really don't like the thing it's homaging...

The 30s cover dress is likely based on a mix of Superman #1 and Superman #2. Based on the art, it will likely be a non-period floating Action Comics logo. They seem to be going for more of a dime store novel look with these.

Maybe. I did reconsider afterward - the AC #1 trade dress wasn't *quite* as tall as the slightly later versions, and modern comics are proportionally taller than AC #1 as well. It just about works, although it does cut off some art. (see attached)

The costume is still kinda unforgivable for a specifically 30s-homage cover though. It's not as if other artists haven't done AC #1 Superman for homage covers (e.g. https://www.comics.org/issue/1248227/cover/4/ )

[SanityOrMadness]

Actually, thinking about it - while I accept what PG said regarding which one is probable - know which logo/trade dress I would like to see for the 2000s? The 2002-2004 one. Always thought those were striking...

[Patrick Gerard]

Actually, thinking about it - while I accept what PG said regarding which one is probable - know which logo/trade dress I would like to see for the 2000s? The 2002-2004 one. Always thought those were striking...

I DO like that. The upside is that they (probably) have the files for that somewhere.

Thing is, the 60s design they're using (and have used) was only ever used for around a year. But it's iconic. I assume the Gibbons one will either be the slanted header or the Action #252 straight header. I have a FEELING that they might prefer overall to replicate the trade used for iconic issues. The most iconic issue of the 2000s was ALMOST certainly Action #775 which introduced the Elite. The other would be the Donner/Johns/Kubert run.

So I guess the question is: Do you try to use the trade dress most associated with iconic covers (in which case the Action 775 or Johns/Donner one gets used), the most used dress of the era (the Chuck Austen through Flashpoint logo, with or without the Jim Lee Superman in chains element and with or without the swoosh logo), or the most distinctive trade dress of the era (which is what they were doing with 60s homages and which would almost certainly be the one you linked).

Unpacking the thinking...

The 90s is an easy call. Every time, they've pretty much flawless done not just the common 90s style but specifically replicated the Superman #75/Knightfall dress.

80s is trickier but they seem to have settled on a pastiche of several styles, most prominently the one seen circa Man of Steel #2 and beyond with some rounded corners that look a bit early 80s.

70s, they have a pretty darned well established pastiche that was never used in the 70s exactly but which is a combination of several 1970s designs.

60s, they use the 66-67 trade dress.

50s is a bit uncharted territory. I don't think we've seen explicit 50s homages. I THINK that decade got skipped for Superman Unchained variants and DC Retroactive. I think the last time anything "new" was done with the era was a collection of specially package Australian reprints in the late 1980s. And they used the 80s trade dress with 50s cover art. Ian Churchill did a recreation of Action #252 for the 3rd printing of the 2000s Supergirl #1, modern trade dress. New 52 Catwoman #38 used the 1947 Detective Comics dress, which was the same as the slanted masthead action dress.

40s is a wealth of options. Virtually every trade dress from the period has been digitally recreated. From the 90s JSA Returns event through the Mexican reprints of 40s books over the last few years through The Button's lenticular cover. All of Superman's logos have been recreated (and there were at least 4-5). Cho kind of staked out which one he wanted.

30s is hard. I'd like them to go with Action #1 but they've been going with a Superman #2 - meets - dime novel style. And you have to crop Rude's art weirdly to get the Action #1 dress in there. And it would look almost the same as Cho's cover trade dress then. We'll see.

[SanityOrMadness]

I DO like that. The upside is that they (probably) have the files for that somewhere.

Thing is, the 60s design they're using (and have used) was only ever used for around a year. But it's iconic. I assume the Gibbons one will either be the slanted header or the Action #252 straight header. I have a FEELING that they might prefer overall to replicate the trade used for iconic issues. The most iconic issue of the 2000s was ALMOST certainly Action #775 which introduced the Elite. The other would be the Donner/Johns/Kubert run.

So I guess the question is: Do you try to use the trade dress most associated with iconic covers (in which case the Action 775 or Johns/Donner one gets used), the most used dress of the era (the Chuck Austen through Flashpoint logo, with or without the Jim Lee Superman in chains element and with or without the swoosh logo), or the most distinctive trade dress of the era (which is what they were doing with 60s homages and which would almost certainly be the one you linked).

Well, if they were going to do the most distinctive logo/trade dress of every decade (excluding one-offs and suchlike), the 90s would be the Electric Superman version, no question. And we know we're not getting that!

Outside of the Electric Superman issues, the occasional issue where they dropped the logo entirely (like the "Face Month" cover) and the odd other exception (like the Supergirl post-Death thing), the combination of the 1983 Superman logo with a smaller "in Action Comics" subtitle drawn loosely after the original Action Comics logo was the basic logo from #667 (1991) to #785 (2002) - they did redraw the "in Action Comics" a couple of times, but you'd probably need the logos side-by-side to notice. Which means that if they went for Action #775 for the 2000s trade dress, they'd have two very similar logos side-by-side. Of course, if they went for the revised original seen on #814-904 (the end of the series), it still wouldn't be completely distinctive...

Still, the result would almost have to be better than the 2000s cover of Superman Unchained #1, whose differences basically amounted to "a slightly different #1" and the "DC Spin" rather than "DC Peel" logo - they didn't even change the fonts for "The New 52" or creator credits. The post-Rebirth "DC Universe" corner box is a much clearer difference.

Unpacking the thinking...

The 90s is an easy call. Every time, they've pretty much flawless done not just the common 90s style but specifically replicated the Superman #75/Knightfall dress.

Well, Action #684 was the Action Comics issue of the Death arc. [Note the flying Superman in the corner box, which was replaced with a straight S-shield starting with the "Funeral for a Friend" SuperGIRL in Action Comics issues and continued that way even after he was back]

Other than the "Big 'Superman', small 'in Action Comics'" logos, the only other "90s" option is the 1990-1991 curved logo. Which did get one iconic issue...

80s is trickier but they seem to have settled on a pastiche of several styles, most prominently the one seen circa Man of Steel #2 and beyond with some rounded corners that look a bit early 80s.

Logo-wise, there's basically two options. The one that would fit a post-Crisis time period is the Todd Klein ""Comics in the A's serif" version. The other alternative is the 1977-1986 John Workman one - but that latter one could end up on a 70s cover too, of course.

70s, they have a pretty darned well established pastiche that was never used in the 70s exactly but which is a combination of several 1970s designs.

Well, the "two circles" run had them, basically, go back to the original logo. Depending on how keen they are on recreations, they either do that or the Workman logo, I think. Before that is just further development of the 40s-70s look, so I'd probably fudge things and go Workman.

60s, they use the 66-67 trade dress.

And no need to guess here, since Allred already put the full trade dress, including DC logo, Action logo and even CCA insignia, on the original art!

50s is a bit uncharted territory. I don't think we've seen explicit 50s homages. I THINK that decade got skipped for Superman Unchained variants and DC Retroactive. I think the last time anything "new" was done with the era was a collection of specially package Australian reprints in the late 1980s. And they used the 80s trade dress with 50s cover art. Ian Churchill did a recreation of Action #252 for the 3rd printing of the 2000s Supergirl #1, modern trade dress. New 52 Catwoman #38 used the 1947 Detective Comics dress, which was the same as the slanted masthead action dress.

50s was pretty static. Slanted Action Comics logo in a box towards the top left (gradually, inconsistently getting straighter as the decade wore on), a blurb to the right of the logo (which varied in style most ) and insignias in the very top left and very top right.

Biggest change is that for most of the first half of the decade the DC logo was in the top right, and a corner box featuring Superman was in the top left (although sometimes there were two DC logos instead!); whereas in the latter half the Comics Code Authority came along and took the top right spot, and the DC logo went where the Superman headshot had previously been - here's Action #200 vs. Action #202 to show the difference.

IMO, the Action #195 (1954) layout would be a good template for a "50s" cover.

40s is a wealth of options. Virtually every trade dress from the period has been digitally recreated. From the 90s JSA Returns event through the Mexican reprints of 40s books over the last few years through The Button's lenticular cover. All of Superman's logos have been recreated (and there were at least 4-5). Cho kind of staked out which one he wanted.

Yeah, that's pretty clear.

30s is hard. I'd like them to go with Action #1 but they've been going with a Superman #2 - meets - dime novel style. And you have to crop Rude's art weirdly to get the Action #1 dress in there. And it would look almost the same as Cho's cover trade dress then. We'll see.

If you're going "pulp", the 1997 Annuals (e.g. Action Comics), did a better job of that than the "30s" Superman Unchained #1 cover. Although that had a leg up from the art - amongst other things, showing a 1939-ish Superman design with a triangular rather than pentagonal S-shield - which this one doesn't have!), it kinda takes a second or third glance to notice the differences apart from the price - they traced Joe Schuster's drawing of the logo from Superman #1, but the standard "UNCHAINED" kind of overrides that visually, and everything else is small or fades into the cover (the "75 years" and barcode don't help either, of course, TBF).

Of the covers we've seen, ultimately the 40s (Cho), 50s (Gibbons), 60s (Allred) and 2000s (Bermejo) ones absolutely nail their periods one way or another in the art. The 30s (Rude), 70s (Steranko) and 90s (Jurgens - although he's partially sabotaged by the colourist giving Lois black hair) are decent enough pieces, but they could all be average variants for any issue today (costume notwithstanding). If they work at all as "period", it's going to be thanks to the logo & trade dress.

[Patrick Gerard]

Well, if they were going to do the most distinctive logo/trade dress of every decade (excluding one-offs and suchlike), the 90s would be the Electric Superman version, no question. And we know we're not getting that!

Outside of the Electric Superman issues, the occasional issue where they dropped the logo entirely (like the "Face Month" cover) and the odd other exception (like the Supergirl post-Death thing), the combination of the 1983 Superman logo with a smaller "in Action Comics" subtitle drawn loosely after the original Action Comics logo was the basic logo from #667 (1991) to #785 (2002) - they did redraw the "in Action Comics" a couple of times, but you'd probably need the logos side-by-side to notice. Which means that if they went for Action #775 for the 2000s trade dress, they'd have two very similar logos side-by-side. Of course, if they went for the revised original seen on #814-904 (the end of the series), it still wouldn't be completely distinctive...

Still, the result would almost have to be better than the 2000s cover of Superman Unchained #1, whose differences basically amounted to "a slightly different #1" and the "DC Spin" rather than "DC Peel" logo - they didn't even change the fonts for "The New 52" or creator credits. The post-Rebirth "DC Universe" corner box is a much clearer difference.


Well, Action #684 was the Action Comics issue of the Death arc. [Note the flying Superman in the corner box, which was replaced with a straight S-shield starting with the "Funeral for a Friend" SuperGIRL in Action Comics issues and continued that way even after he was back]

Other than the "Big 'Superman', small 'in Action Comics'" logos, the only other "90s" option is the 1990-1991 curved logo. Which did get one iconic issue...


Logo-wise, there's basically two options. The one that would fit a post-Crisis time period is the Todd Klein ""Comics in the A's serif" version. The other alternative is the 1977-1986 John Workman one - but that latter one could end up on a 70s cover too, of course.


Well, the "two circles" run had them, basically, go back to the original logo. Depending on how keen they are on recreations, they either do that or the Workman logo, I think. Before that is just further development of the 40s-70s look, so I'd probably fudge things and go Workman.


And no need to guess here, since Allred already put the full trade dress, including DC logo, Action logo and even CCA insignia, on the original art!


50s was pretty static. Slanted Action Comics logo in a box towards the top left (gradually, inconsistently getting straighter as the decade wore on), a blurb to the right of the logo (which varied in style most ) and insignias in the very top left and very top right.

Biggest change is that for most of the first half of the decade the DC logo was in the top right, and a corner box featuring Superman was in the top left (although sometimes there were two DC logos instead!); whereas in the latter half the Comics Code Authority came along and took the top right spot, and the DC logo went where the Superman headshot had previously been - here's Action #200 vs. Action #202 to show the difference.

IMO, the Action #195 (1954) layout would be a good template for a "50s" cover.


Yeah, that's pretty clear.


If you're going "pulp", the 1997 Annuals (e.g. Action Comics), did a better job of that than the "30s" Superman Unchained #1 cover. Although that had a leg up from the art - amongst other things, showing a 1939-ish Superman design with a triangular rather than pentagonal S-shield - which this one doesn't have!), it kinda takes a second or third glance to notice the differences apart from the price - they traced Joe Schuster's drawing of the logo from Superman #1, but the standard "UNCHAINED" kind of overrides that visually, and everything else is small or fades into the cover (the "75 years" and barcode don't help either, of course, TBF).

Of the covers we've seen, ultimately the 40s (Cho), 50s (Gibbons), 60s (Allred) and 2000s (Bermejo) ones absolutely nail their periods one way or another in the art. The 30s (Rude), 70s (Steranko) and 90s (Jurgens - although he's partially sabotaged by the colourist giving Lois black hair) are decent enough pieces, but they could all be average variants for any issue today (costume notwithstanding). If they work at all as "period", it's going to be thanks to the logo & trade dress.

Just for the record: Allred told me he submitted two versions of his cover. One with and one without trade dress. They may replace his aged dress with the cleaned up template they have.

The two legal caveats here are that DC was sued out of using the Infinite Crisis swoop (they did use it once) and CBLDF owns the rights to the CCA seal, which DC has generally replaced with an in-house lookalike. (But I think the code seal may have slipped in somewhere.)

The other mystery is if we’ll have cover UPCs. Shops like them... but this is an ad free prestige book like the Holiday specials and Johns’ Rebirth special. And those shifted the UPC to the back cover. I’d kind of like that here since it’s an alien element on over half the cover styles. And I’m assuming the back will be a huge celebratory piece with full creator credits on it. This isn’t a book where front creator credits work well. And a UPC works on a back cover like that.

[Patrick Gerard]

Rude and Allred are my favorites. Still hoping for a last minute special Alex Ross one they've been keeping as a surprise.

As a note: this is an issue where retailers could order store variants.

A Tony S. Daniel one has been announced.

Ross is a possibility.

Hall of Comics does a lot of store variants. They tend to be retro. They’ve done a Quitely Super Sons and several McGuinness ones at Marvel. I imagine McG is Marvel exclusive but it sure would be nice to get him on a store variant. Likewise Bruce Timm or Ty Templeton doing an animated cover or maybe a Smallville or media collage cover.

I think there are some left field possibilities where that goes. Stan Lee, J. Scott Campbell, and Aspen are all set up as retailers and have done retailer variants. Stan Lee’s Comic Box has done X-Files and Ghostbusters crossover variants with Stan. I wouldn’t object to a Superman vs. Spider-man homage with Stan Lee in Spidey’s place.

[SanityOrMadness]

Just for the record: Allred told me he submitted two versions of his cover. One with and one without trade dress. They may replace his aged dress with the cleaned up template they have.

Yeah, I figured they would, but I still expect it to look basically like that, even if they do things like "Approved by the Authority of DC Entertainment" rather than CCA.

The two legal caveats here are that DC was sued out of using the Infinite Crisis swoop (they did use it once)...

Thing is, I think that also applies to the "bullet" - it was the combination of "DC" and star(s) that got them sued [that, and a genuinely almighty series of cockups. I still don't understand how "prior use" didn't get them out of that whole fiasco - you don't need to register a trademark, it just makes things simpler!]

[CaptCleghorn]

I ordered the Steranko sight unseen, but that Allred 60s cover is looking mighty fine. Checkerboard rules.

[SanityOrMadness]

Further screwing around with the variant bases... it's Gibbons time!

[Patrick Gerard]

Further screwing around with the variant bases... it's Gibbons time!

Wow. I picked up the Cho and Allred on preorder. I kind of want to get the Gibbons if it looks like that and maybe the Rude.

A Steranko cover is a rare and precious treat but the digital colors take away something for me. The 90s cover, similarly, because Lois doesn't have period auburn hair.

I may end up getting them all. I'm glad I preordered the Cho and Allred.

[MajorHoy]

The other mystery is if we’ll have cover UPCs. Shops like them... but this is an ad free prestige book like the Holiday specials and Johns’ Rebirth special. And those shifted the UPC to the back cover. I’d kind of like that here since it’s an alien element on over half the cover styles. And I’m assuming the back will be a huge celebratory piece with full creator credits on it. This isn’t a book where front creator credits work well. And a UPC works on a back cover like that.

Or there's the compromise where the codes don't have to be in a white "box" but are still on the front cover in such away they could still be scanned.

[SiegePerilous02]

Allred's is all I want in life.

[Robotman]

The 1940s Michael Cho cover looks cool but man do I wish Darwyn Cooke was still alive to be a part of this.

[SanityOrMadness]

Wow. I picked up the Cho and Allred on preorder. I kind of want to get the Gibbons if it looks like that and maybe the Rude.

Well, that's basically the Action #195 dress I mentioned, which is a decent representative of the pre-Code covers (without a top border as many others had, since, well, it wouldn't fit!). Depends a bit on whether they have an available (restored) version of the Superman headshot, I suppose, since Gibbons didn't draw one (like Cho did with the equivalent from his period).

A Steranko cover is a rare and precious treat but the digital colors take away something for me. The 90s cover, similarly, because Lois doesn't have period auburn hair.

Actually, looking at it again... where the hell does Steranko intend for the logo to go, exactly? In a virtual layer between Superman's head & the US flag? That would obscure the logo a fair amount - while they did do that a *bit*, not to the extent that would imply. They certainly didn't do things like put it in the bottom-left corner... (even his signature is in a non-ideal spot).

EDIT: See attached. The upper option covers up far too much of the logo, the lower is very non-period for a "70s" cover...

Or there's the compromise where the codes don't have to be in a white "box" but are still on the front cover in such away they could still be scanned.

Well, if shops all use red laser guns, they could have it on red. But then it's less visible for the cashier, and if any use (e.g.) green laser guns, it wouldn't work for them. White's safer all round.