sfcityduck

Same character name, same character look, same creative team, same copyright, same publisher, etc. What changed was the story around the character. In other words, a re-boot of sorts to the story.And what we are talking about is the first appearance of a character, not the first appearance of a story arc. If what mattered was story arcs, then most of the popular characters would have multiple first appearances. Especially Batman, who goes from the Dark Knight, to guy with a kid tagging along, to scion of the Batman Family of Batwoman, Batgirl, Bathound, Batmite, etc., to new look Batman, to socially relevant Batman, to Dark Knight, to R-rated Batman, etc. But we all know the first appearance of Batman was D 27. And, of course, your position on TT is a minority position that is incorrect, but we can agree to disagree. No need to veer this thread off on that debate.

This is the very last cover appearance of Mickey on WDC&S during the time period it was published by Dell.

I don't think B&B 54 or HoS 92 fall into the well-established view collectors have of the term "prototype." Both are rightly viewed as first appearances. They are in continuity appearances that DC views as the Teen Titans and Swamp Thing's first appearances. A "prototype" is not an earlier appearance of a character that has a different look or feel because, after all, the look and personality of characters change all the time. NO, a "prototype" is more like when you see a creative team "trying out" a version of an idea that will later be manifested as a completely different character. The best example of this often hotly debated notion is Siegel & Shuster's Dr. Occult and Superman.

I really don't like this concept. What you are talking about is not an appearance of a character, but foreshadowing (meaning an indication of a future event). The classic example is when you have an upcoming villain pictured as being cloaked in shadows silently observing the heroes. Usually, the villain is unrecognisable, unidentified, and the whole point of the "appearance" is to foreshadow that something will be happening at a later date. Of course, if the title is cancelled, we'll never know what was going to happen or who the mystery person cloaked in shadows was. So it's not a real appearance. It's just foreshadowing. I really don't think a hand or shadowed outline warrants mention.

What you may not be realizing is that back in the late 70s and 80s there were magazines like the Comics Journal, Amazing Heroes, the Comic Reader, etc. that commonly published the publisher's promotional materials as "news" items. Those "news" items necessarily included images from time to time that would be of characters or developments that would not officially published until later. Any article about a new series would predate the new series first issue. This also occurred in publications designed to promote the solicitation or sell of comics like Marvel Age, Previews, etc. Those types of out of story and continuity marketing visuals have traditionally been viewed by collectors as having minimal significance. Unfortunately, some dealers are always searching for ways to maximise the price for their wares, have taken to labeling these out of story and continuity marketing visuals as "first appearances" in order to sucker folks into paying big bucks for things like Marvel Age 12. These days those marketing visuals are found all over the internet. I don't doubt that someday we'll see someone trying to sell a website print-out or jpeg as a "first appearance." Personally, I'd prefer to tell new collectors to stay away from such rip-offs instead of telling them they are of significance. But, I'm old school.

I donated a volume of the Fantagraphics Carl Barks Library of Donald Duck to my Kid's elementary school. You want kids to read comics? Start with the best. My kid's a H.S. Senior now. But, back then, the kids also loved the Avatar: The Last Airbender (best kid's adventure cartoon ever!). So I also donated the "Lost Adventures" book. Kids loved those stories.

I don't think Roy Thomas, Len Wein, John Romita, and Herb Trimpe gave any thought to Foom 2. It's called a coincidence, not a rip-off. Read this on the true creative process that led to Wolverine: http://hero-envy.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-uncanny-but-true-creation-of.html And this on Foom 2: https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-legends-revealed-456/ Key point not made in posts above:

I like plain and clear language. And if a character is appearing in an ad, why not just state that? Why fog up the picture by claiming the ad is a "First Preview Appearance"? The only reason I can think of is to hype a book with the ad by trying to conflate it with the book advertised in the ad. And if you go down this road, does this mean we're going to see "Second Preview Appearances" as well? The most obvious example to use is Action 1. Action is the First Appearance and First Cover Appearance of Superman. But, there were DC house ads that ran before Action 1 came out. An example from Detective Comics 15 (April 10, 1938): But, Detective 15 was not the first time an ad for Action 1 appeared in a house ad. That was More Fun Comics 31 (April 5, 1938): So Detective 15 is a "Second Preview Appearance"? That way lies madness. They are just house ads. And house ads are not an "appearance" of a character at all because they do not take place in a story context.

IF 13 is called a "house ad."

Andy Olson's "The Wolverine" was a robot. That's why the illustration on the right shows hatches open on his chest and arm and plugged in to recharge. Closer to the Vision or a SHIELD Simulcron than anything else. There is no adamantium, healing factor, or bonding of metal to bone. The sequence on top is showing skin over mechanics. There's no similarity to the character created later on called "Wolverine" other than the name. Most importantly, no creator of Wolverine has ever suggested this had any influence on their creation at all. This is not like Dr. Occult and Superman which had the same creators.

I agreed with the last three labels. I offered a contrasting view of the first three. I don't think the OP (or anyone else) is going to melt under the minimal heat of this discussion.

Yes. Some things are worthy of annoyance. The official name of the duck in my Avatar, though, is not "Donald" - it is "the Duck" - an officially licensed mascot of the University of Oregon.

WTF? Foom 2 has nothing to do with Wolverine. It's not a prototype of anything. In contrast, GI Combat 68 ("The Rock" by Kanigher and Kubert), OAaW 81 ("The Rock of Easy Company" by Haney and Andru), and OAaW 82 ("Sgt. Rock" by Haney and Andr0) are all clearly prototypes which led up to OAaW 83 ("The Rock and the Wall" by Kanigher and Kubert) and DC recognizes that fact, putting all of those prototypes in Sgt. Rock Archives vol. 1.

You lost me at hello. I don't think you are using clear or simple language. Instead, your labels appear to be a heightened form of dealer puffery. To illustrate a "First Prototype Appearance" you cite Foom 2 and Marvel Age 12. Neither is a prototype. Foom 2 has nothing to do with Wolverine. It's just a bit of fan art. No reason to believe that the actual creators of Wolverine even saw Foom 2, let alone were influenced by it. Call it what it is: fan art for a superhero idea called "Wolverine" which bears no relation or influence on the subsequent character Wolverine. And Marvel Age is a house ad. Call it that. To illustrate a "Preview Appearance" you cite ads. They are ads. Not preview appearances. Why not just call it what it is: An ad. It may be cool that a comic has an ad for Action 1, but it is in no way a "preview appearance." "First Unknown Appearance" is oxymoronic. A character does not appear until they appear. The rest is just foreshadowing. I do agree with you on First Appearance, First Full Appearance, and First Cover Appearance.

A matter of taste. I can't fault anyone for picking CA 1 over Batman 1, but to me Batman 1 is one of the most distinctive, timeless, and iconic comic covers of them all. Just look at it: Iconic pose by the heroes, they really pop against the flat yellow background, and the silhouette of the city in red give the book a movie poster feel that really sets it apart from its brethren. CA 1, in contrast, for me is not as good a composition. It's busy, the figures are a bit stiff (especially in background), it's a busy composition (Bucky obscures CA), and the color scheme just doesn't pop as much. I get that people love the Hitler getting hit bit, but personally I like Alex S. covers latter in the run a lot more than CA 1. But its all taste and there are no wrong opinions.

Batman 1 is both a first issue of Batman's own comic, but also the introduction of two other characters that are pop culture icons that have starred in their own movies (Joker and Catwoman). And in a world where portraying the Joker seems a strong path to getting Oscar attention (Ledger won posthumously, Phoenix appears poised to get a nomination at least) and the Catwoman has been portrayed by so many of the most inconic acting beauties of the past 50 years that debates ensue as to wore the look best (Julie Newmar, Lee Meriwether, Eartha Kitt, Michelle Pfeiffer, Halle Berry, Ann Hathaway), the fact that Batman 1 features the first appearance of Joker and Catwoman arguably makes it more socially relevant and cool than CA 1. IMHO it is much more historically significant to comic history than CA 1.

That may be what current collectors think, but I think that amongst GA collectors it is still a hotly debated topic with no clear winner when debated here. Personally, I think MC 1 is the much cooler, more historically important, rarer, and desirable book.

Apples to Apples: A 7.0 Batman 1 sold for $334K in February 2018 and over a year later a 7.0 CA 1s sold on CC for $234K in March of this year and even less on Heritage in May for $228K. That's a +$100K to the Batman 1. No 8.0 CA 1 has sold for more than $288K at auction (in 2016 on CC) and that same year a 8.0 Batman 1 sold for $390K also on CC. That was +$112K to the Batman 1 back in 2016, and now that margin has grown to +$210K to Batman. I'm sure the CA 1 would go for a higher price now, but I see no reason to think it makes up any ground.

Sure looks like Batman 1 is putting CA 1 firmly in the rear view mirror.

Personally, I would not give money to a Foundation unless I knew what they do with the money. But, here we are talking about buying a comic book. I'm not a tax accountant or lawyer, and I don't know how buying a comic on eBay or Heritage can legitimately be claimed as a charitable contribution. So I'm not sure how the status of the seller impacts the buyer on that front.

From the Nevada DB site: https://nevadadb.com/company/E0626592014-5/berkbridge-foundation.html

IRS site has info on it: https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/allSearch.do?ein1=472554006&names=&resultsPerPage=25&indexOfFirstRow=0&dispatchMethod=searchAll&city=&state=NV&country=US&postDateFrom=&postDateTo=&exemptTypeCode=al&deductibility=all&sortColumn=orgName&isDescending=false&submitName=Search Including a Final Determination Letter dated 8/29/2017 stating it has qualified as exempt under 501(c)(3). This letter POST-DATES and auto revocation for failing to file its Form 990 in May 2017. Auto revocations are not the same as permanent revocations and are curable. But, this does not tell you anything about how the organisation uses the money it receives etc.

They state on eBay ( https://charity.ebay.com/charity/BERKBRIDGE-FOUNDATION/1814988 ): Charity Finder states on its site ( https://charity.ebay.com/charity/BERKBRIDGE-FOUNDATION/1814988 ): EIN 47-2554006 Name in IRS Master File BERKBRIDGE FOUNDATION Address 401 RYLAND ST STE 200-A RENO, NV 89502-1643 NTEE Code T50 NTEE Classification Philanthropy, Charity, Voluntarism Promotion, General NTEE Type Philanthropy, Voluntarism and Grantmaking Foundations Classification Charitable Organization I have not found a Form 990. That's not necessarily unusual as it can take a while for 990s to be filed and become available.

One of the hard to find Cole space covers. Goes hand in glove with the Blue Bolt space covers:

Does this mean you'll throw in a free slabbing for books you sell raw?