Marvel Legacy: The difference that trade dress can make

In January 2023, I began trying to fill the holes in my Captain America comic book collection.  I had stopped buying the series in 2013, having only bought four random issues since then: the 2016 Free Comic Book Day issue (which was free); Sam Wilson: Captain America #7 (May 2016) and two semi-recent Cap issues (#696 & 698) in March 2018 when a local comics shop had them on sale.  (See the screencap of my Facebook post below, which shows these Cap issues.)

These two 2018 Cap issues were part of the "Marvel Legacy" initiative, where many series returned to their higher "legacy numbering."  A banner across the top of the comics, and the headshot in a box in the top left corner, gave them an appealing retro look.  Later, in September 2018, I wrote the following post on Facebook about a Marvel Legacy series from earlier that year: a revival of Tales of Suspense, picking up where the classic series had left off in 1968!

In 2023, I started filling holes in my Cap collection and picking up some of these issues from the "Marvel Legacy" era (2017 & 2018) that I had missed out on before.  I wrote a post about them on Facebook in March 2023, and showed examples of some of the Marvel Legacy covers and interior pages.

And here's the Marvel Value Stamp that I mentioned in my Facebook post:

Looks like fun, right?  It's too bad that I didn't know about the Marvel Legacy initiative at the time, I thought.  I probably would have been tempted to buy some of them when they were new, instead of getting them years later in the cheap bins.

Out of curiosity, I did a search of my old Facebook posts to see if I actually did know about them back then.  Even though I wasn't buying new comics during that time, I would occasionally looks at the solicitations of upcoming comics posted on news sites like CBR (ComicBookResources) and sometimes comment about them on my Facebook wall.  

So, funnily enough, it turns out that I had indeed posted a link to CBR's Marvel solicitations for October 2017 (with Dec. 2017 cover-dates), just as "Marvel Legacy" was beginning.  (You can view the original CBR article here.)  Here is what I wrote on my Facebook wall on July 26, 2017:

The interesting thing to me now is that I hadn't remarked on the way that the regular Marvel Legacy issues had a retro look; I only referenced the variant covers.  The reason has to do with what has prompted me to write this blog post, and why I have titled it "The difference that trade dress can make."  

The CBR solicitations that I had looked at -- and indeed most comics solicitations to this day -- do not show exactly what the published covers will look like when they arrive on the shelf.  The solicitations offer previews of the cover artwork for the upcoming issues, but the trade dress (the cover logo, price tag, barcode, publisher branding, etc.) is absent.  In many cases, even all of the variant covers that will be published for an issue are not yet available to view until closer to the publication date.  So, even though the solicitations are an excellent way to find out what a comic book's front cover will look like, small cosmetic changes that are made afterwards can change one's perception of the cover.

And that's what happened in this case.  I looked at those upcoming Marvel Legacy covers and was not impressed by the regular covers, because the retro trade dress elements had not yet been added to them.  Instead I was interested only in the variant covers that were shown, since their retro logo elements had been included.  

So, let us run through the CBR solicitations that I looked at in July 2017, and compare what was shown with what was actually published.  

First up we have Amazing Spider-Man #789 (Dec. 2017).  This was the first "Marvel Legacy" issue of the series, returning the title to its legacy numbering.  The previous issue had been #32 (Nov. 2017).  Shown below is how the regular (main) cover looked in the CBR solicitation, and (on the right) how the published cover looked (image taken from the Grand Comics Database).  

As you can see, the published cover has much more of a fun, retro look to it.  Since I didn't see the published cover, I was more interested in the retro looking variant, which used a Steve Ditko drawing of Spider-Man taken from ASM Annual #1 (1964) that had later been used on a t-shirt.  You can see here that the final version used the classic ASM logo, unlike the preview which used the logo from the t-shirt.

Also during this time Marvel was releasing lenticular variant covers.  These had two images on one cover, which changed depending on how you held the cover.  Move the cover one way and one image would be shown.  Turn the cover slightly and the second image would be revealed.  However the CBR solicitation was only able to show the Alex Ross image, without the John Romita one underneath, as on the published cover.  (The Alex Ross image on its own was used for the 2nd printing of this issue.)

The CBR solicitation listed in the text that there were two other variant covers for this issue: a "headshot" variant by Mike McKone, and a blank variant cover.  Neither one was shown, however, so here is what they looked like when published, as taken from the GCD entry:

Let's move on to FALCON #1 (Dec. 2017).  Sam Wilson had recently ceased being Captain America, giving the shield back to Steve Rogers, and resumed his previous identity as The Falcon.  I like the character, but for some reason I didn't check out this series when it came out.  (In fact, I didn't buy a copy of the series until last month.)  So far this has been the only Falcon solo series, apart from the 4-issue mini-series that he had in 1983-1984.  

CBR's solicitation page showed three covers of the issue: the main cover and two variants.  Here's a comparison between how they looked in advance and then how they looked when they were published:

Although the preview cover is a bit more striking due to being less cluttered, the published cover has the retro trappings that make it more appealing to me.  If I had seen the version on the right in July 2017, would I have been more tempted to buy the comic?  (As it happens, I don't recall ever seeing the comic on the shelves back then.  Which is not unusual actually -- I will occasionally see comics that are in solicitations that never make it onto the shelves of my local comics shops.)

Once again, the CBR solicitation was unable to convey what the published lenticular variant cover would actually look like.  I was impressed in 2017 by the retro look of this variant in the CBR preview below, but the published version is not so clearly visible.

The CBR solicit showed a "virgin" version (i.e., no writing on it) of Joshua Cassara's variant cover of the issue.  The GCD didn't have a scan of the published version, so I am showing one that I saw on eBay.  The trade dress doesn't add much in the way of retro appeal to this cover, though, since it lacks the banner/strip across the top and the corner box headshot  

The CBR page mentioned but did not show the Mike McKone "legacy headshot variant" edition, so here's what the published cover of that one looks like.  (The issue had other variant covers, but I won't be showing them here.)

Next on the CBR solicitation page is Invincible Iron Man #593 (Dec. 2017). As with ASM above, this was the first issue of the series in the Marvel Legacy initiative.  The previous issue was #11 (Nov. 2017).  As you can see, there is a dramatic difference in the impact of the preview version compared to the published cover.  The latter has much more nostalgic appeal, bringing back the 1970s logo in addition to the Marvel Legacy banner at the top and the corner headshot box.  I think if I had seen the published version of this issue in the solicits, I would have been talking about its retro quality, rather than about the variants.

I posted the above image on my Facebook wall in July 2023, when I began writing this blog post, asking which image people preferred.  Some commenters were confused, thinking that the artwork itself had been altered due to the slight coloring differences between them. Marvel Executive Editor Tom Brevoort clarified: "That is exactly the same piece in both instances. The difference just comes down to how the file printed on different paper stacks and at different points in the print cycle. The one on the left is from the Marvel Previews catalog so there wasn’t any deliberate set-up done for it."  (Marvel Previews is a booklet that is available for free each month from your local comic book shop, showing the cover images and descriptions of the upcoming Marvel comics, and from which sites like CBR obtain their solicitation info.)

Below is what the lenticular variant cover looked like in the CBR preview of Iron Man #593, compared to the published version (which has the cover of Iron Man #150 overlaid it):

And here's the vintage t-shirt variant cover:

Once again, the Mike McKone headshot variant cover was not included in the solicitations shown at CBR, so here's what the published cover of that one looked like:

Next we have Spirits of Vengeance #1 (Dec. 2017).  The published version of the cover with the trade dress gives it more of a 1990s look than the preview does.

Below is what the lenticular variant cover looked like in the CBR preview compared to the published version (which has the cover of Giant-Size X-Men #1 overlaid it):

And once again, the Mike McKone headshot variant cover was not included in the solicitations shown at CBR, so here's what the published cover of that one looked like.  Not that great really, but I can imagine someone trying to collect all of the headshot variants (like collecting the Marvel Value Stamps).  And they would draw attention to themselves as a uniform comicbook line if stacked together on the new releases shelf.

Next we have Incredible Hulk #709 (Dec. 2017).  According to the GCD, the previous issue was Totally Awesome Hulk #23 (Nov. 2017); the series changed its title and resumed the legacy numbering with this issue.  Personally I don't think there is that much appealing about either version of this cover, and I doubt that seeing the published version would have made me more interested in it.

And here's what the vintage T-shirt variant cover looks like:

And the headshot variant cover:

Okay, on to the next one: Black Panther #166 (Dec. 2017).  The previous issue had been #18 (Nov. 2017) but the legacy numbering includes all the previous Panther series that Marvel had published through the decades, getting him up to #166.  The published version of the regular cover doesn't particularly have much retro appeal, despite the Marvel Legacy trappings.  

And here's the headshot variant (which doesn't look like T'Challa to me -- more like Wolverine wearing the Panther's mask!):

Next is Captain Marvel #125 (Dec. 2017).  The previous issue had been Mighty Captain Marvel #9 (Nov. 2017).  By combining all of Carol Danvers' previous series, they came up with legacy numbering #125.  Both the preview version and the published version are fine covers, although I think I prefer the published one.  

Here's the lenticular variant cover, which has The Incredible Hulk #1 (1962) as its second (overlaid) image.  But of course the CBR preview just shows the one image, a new illustration by Dan Mora that was used on its own for the issue's 2nd printing (although eliminating the words "The Mighty" from the cover logo). 

And here's the headshot variant.  Again, not that great IMHO.

Now let's take a look at Iron Fist #73 (Dec. 2017).  The previous issue was #7 (Nov. 2017).  The preview image at left retains the logo that #7 had, but the published version of #73 has the classic 1970s logo.  And once again that little difference makes the cover of the published issue much more appealing to me.

There was also a headshot variant and lenticular cover for this issue, but let's skip past those.  Instead, I thought that I would share here the letters page that appeared in the following issue, #74 (Jan. 2018).  As noted earlier, I happened to get this issue from a dollar bin a few months ago, which prompted me to wonder why I was unaware of the Marvel Legacy initiative at the time that it originally came out. For many longtime fans, the combination of the classic logos, legacy numbering and lettercols would seem to be an irresistible package.  And yet, many of us apparently resisted -- or never knew about the changes in the first place. 

Next we have Avengers #672 (Dec. 2017).  The previous issue was #11 (Nov. 2017). 

Below is the lenticular variant cover, which features a new Mike Allred illustration superimposed with the cover for Avengers #53.  The Allred cover was published by itself for the cover of the 2nd printing of this issue.

Here's the vintage t-shirt variant cover:

And here are two other variant covers, including the headshot variant, as they appeared when published (taken from the GCD entry for the issue):

The Mighty Thor #700 (Dec. 2017) had a similar high-number jump.  The previous issue had been #23 (Nov. 2017).  CBR's preview showed the entire wraparound cover image which is more eye-catching here than the published cover, especially with the large "#700" lettering.  However the textbox-burst at the bottom right, listing the names of the issue's contributors, may have enticed some readers to buy the issue when they saw it on the shelf.  (There were more variants for this comic and the issues that are listed below, but I have decided to skip past them.  You can check out the differences for yourself on GCD and the CBR link provided earlier.)

Next we have Champions #13 (Dec. 2017).  For some reason, this series didn't have an issue-number increase, absorbing the numbering from the 1970s Champions series -- probably because it would have made little sense to do so!  Although more cluttered, the published version has a more classic and appealing design to my eyes.

Then there is Uncanny Avengers #28 (Dec. 2017):  

Monsters Unleashed #7 (Dec. 2017) also didn't have a numbering jump.  The difference of the visual impact between the preview and the published cover is minor. The traditional trade dress of the published version does make it slightly more appealing to the nostalgic fan, however.

The variant covers on this issue look pretty cool, too. (These ones are from the published issues.)

Jessica Jones #13 (Dec. 2017) is an example of how the retro trade dress can clash with a more modern art style.  The retro trappings signal "fun" to the reader, while the realistic illustration sends a more serious and adult feeling (reinforced by the large parental advisory box).  So, I'm not really sure which version looks best for this cover.

Anyway, you get the point.  I'm not going to show the rest of the solicitations for December 2017 issues and compare them to the final published versions -- otherwise this post (which I began writing a month ago) will take a lot longer for me to complete.  And in some cases the cover differences for that month on titles such as Luke Cage, Cable, Deadpool, etc. are not really significant enough to be worth highlighting here.  

Nonetheless, I do think it's interesting to see how the addition or alteration of a cover's trade dress can impact a potential reader's opinion of it.  The solicitations are necessarily incomplete when offered to the public, as the final camera-ready version of the published issue has not yet been prepared.  And yet, when fans are deciding what to pre-order, their judgement about the upcoming comic may be partly determined by this not-final cover image.  The only solution then is for fans to recognize that what they see on the shelf may look a little different than the preview they saw months earlier, and that it may be worth taking another look at them when they are released.  You may want to pick up the issue after all!