Why were Charlton covers so washed out?

[RonnyG]

And if you have even more time, this docu goes into more detail...

[RonnyG]

I watched a documentary on Charlton comics about two years ago because I had purchased a bunch of their old cheesy romance comics at an antique mall, and I wanted to learn more about the company. According to the documentary, the founders were two ex-cons who met in prison. They were cheap and didn't care about their product. They just wanted to make a profit. They used lower quality paper, and they owned their own printing press that was once used to print cereal boxes.

The following quote is from https://comicvine.gamespot.com/charlton/4010-125/

"Charlton was a unique company in that unlike larger publishing concerns, Charlton's entire production process for its comic books (as well as its other published output) was entirely produced under its own auspices; every phase of production, from Editorial art creation to Printing to Distribution, came directly from the company's editorial headquarters/printing plant in Derby Connecticut. (in fact, that alone would make Charlton unique as a publisher. Photos exist of the offices of "Charlton Publications" which feature a massive building -- the printing plant--looking more like the factory it in fact was than a publishing concern)

While in one way this unique organizational structure gave the company singular control of its product, it also meant that if the company didn't particularly care about the quality of its output, it had to answer to no one (except of course it readers. More on that in a moment). Since the comic-book line was essentially created as a way to keep the company's massive printing facility up and running overnights, (since shutting down the gigantic industrial printers for the night and then starting them up again in the morning would be prohibitively expensive) they were decidedly less critical about the quality exhibited in their comics. Charlton was notorious for the low quality control they exerted over the comics they produced--the quality of their comic-book paper was often a much cheaper grade than higher-end publishers, there was less oversight of the registration of printing plates, so no matter the quality of the artwork, patches of color often floated far and wide from the lines that were meant to border them, and of course because they paid so little, their artists were often less careful about the quality of their artwork or so overworked (adding page count as a way to fill up a decent paycheck) that their books' artwork suffered in comparison to other publishers--- as well as for the extremely low page rates they paid to their artists and writers."


Here's the trailer to "Charlton Comics: The Movie"

[Brazoo]

The colour pallets are generally a bit weirder and duller on these too. Marvel and DC covers seem to just have bolder and more eye-catching designs and art direction overall.

[Brazoo]

That makes sense, and it's what I assumed, but since I can't sleep I just pulled out a few late 70s early 80s Charlton books I had nearby and I'm directly comparing them to Marvel and DC comics from the same era — the covers look look less glossy and the paper seems about the same weight (thickness) but less smooth on all of these examples.

The interiors are worse. Much much worse than the Marvel and DC books. Ink coverage is noticeably off and the paper seems thinner.

[YoungOnce]

I haven't been able to find anything that addresses this specifically.

Is it just me or did all the Charlton Comics back in the day seem to have washed out covers. That was always a bit of a turn-off for me, even though all those cool Ditko covers were well drawn. It just seemed like the color palette was muted or something compared to Marvel and DC.

Did it have something to do with the quality of the paper they were using. Was it different from Marvel and DC?