What's the skinny?

I mena, he could be, but what makes him so much more "DC" than Marvel anyway?

I have no idea what people mean when they say that. I guess that he is missing the "Tragic Flaw" that was so prevalent in early marvel?
Except that isn't true. He is (well was, I guess) haunted by the death of Bucky just like Spider-Man and Uncle Ben.

He looks good standing beside Superman and Wonder Woman.

Yes, but unlike Ben's death, Bucky's death wasn't an integral part of his character; he was Cap before he died and he still was when he returned.

But since Cap kinda died out after the Golden Age, wouldn't the new Cap be the successful, Marvel one? The man out of time angle is his whole deal now.

He shops at the same buccaneer bootmaker as the Martian Manhunter.

I tend to view it all as part of the same character, from the Golden Age to today. Was the man out of time concept really played up a lot? I've read few of the early Cap stories.

But I was commenting about the role of Bucky, specifically, which is indeed part of what made Cap a Marvel character, but it always felt forced to me, unlike Spider Man, Cap never needed tragedy to be a hero. He was a hero because he felt the need to do the right thing, and he was intrinsically courageous and brave; which is how I tend to view DC heroes, though another view would be that he is too plain and cornbread of a character, also like some see DC heroes.

Probably if my first exposure to the character had been those early stories I would view it differently, though.

He has Flash wings on his head.

I've never heard that stated before until just now. But if I were to hazard a guess, it's that he is more of an archetypal character and is more science-based than, say, Thor.

Bucky's death was never a motivating factor for Cap's heroism.

No tragedy? Like the destruction of Kypton? The murder of the Waynes? The death of Mars?

Bucky's "death" was not a part of the character until he was resurrected 20 years later. So, I dunno. Maybe that was the part that "Marvel-ized" him.

The A on his head actually stands for Action Comics.

I didn't say they didn't have tragedy in their stories, I said they didn't need it to become heroes. With exception of Batman of course.

The star on his chest makes him the second Starman.

Didn't Cap appear before Adventure Comics #61?

We need a new mini-series explaining how Cap was the real first Starman.

Jeff Bridges' grandfather was the first one.

He needs a cape first.

The World's Finest letter column would be named, "Cape and Cap Comments".

Hitler.

There, I said it.

Yeah, the man out of time was a driving force of most of Cap's stories in the late 60s and 70s.

I suppose the rationale is that Marvel heroes are either freaks/monsters/mutants or godlike figures from other planets/cultures/pantheons or morally ambiguous anti-heroes. Or if they aren't any of the above, Marvel heroes are at least flawed in some way, whether it's Spider-Man's insecurity/self doubt, Iron Man's heart, or Daredevil's blindness. Meanwhile DC heroes are just normal Americans who act heroically because it's the right thing to do. In that sense, one could say Captain America fits in more with the DC heroes.

It's kind of a superficial distinction though, since it's not hard to superimpose Marvelish flaws onto any character. Certainly Batman has been Marvelized extensively over the past 20-30 years, with the addition of all the psychological tics and obsessive traits that have been added to his character.