sfcityduck

But, if you asked is there a team of superhero sidekicks or junior Justice Leaguers or teen superheros, after BB 54 you would have said yes. More importantly, BB 60 itself points back to BB 54 as the origin of the team. Once again, no one disagrees that the name TT appeared first in BB 60. But, the first appearance of the team was BB 54. Just like with TTA 27. I know this confuses some people, but for those of us who read the stories, what matters is the first appearance of the character/team not the trademarked name, and the flow of the story not the financial hype of the book. If all you cared about was the first appearance of the trademarked name, you'd view Strange Tales 114 as the "first SA appearance" of "Captain America" because it is the first SA appearance of the name/costume/trademark. But, if you care about the story of Steve Rogers, it's not important at all.

Good points. But I believe that Blazing and I both recognize that the market can be irrational and inconsistent. IH 180 valued much lower than IH 181. Some say its not a first appearance. And, frankly, for me the issue is not value (for blazing it is), it is story continuity and completion. If you want to be a Teen Titans completest, you have to own BB 54 as that's the origin and first appearance of the team. BB 60 is the second appearance of the team, first appearance of the name and Wonder Girl, and a great and desirable comic. The only reason why I think anyone would want to talk down BB 54 as the Teen Titans first appearance (and exclude it from the canon of Teen Titans stories) is to boost the value of BB 60, and blazing readily admits that is what he's trying to do as he expands his hoard of BB 60s.

All you have proven is that DC has not been consistent over the years. Twice editors in the 1973-1978 time period stated that BB 54 was not the first Teen Titans appearance. But, both before those statements were made, in 1972, and after, every reference since 1978, other editors and DC corporate have stated that BB 54 was the first appearance. And the definitive 50th Anniversary compilation is coming out in less than a month. Soon we'll get to see what position DC takes right now and in honoring the Teen Titans on their most significant anniversary. Will you agree with me that whatever position DC takes in its 50th Anniversary compilation is the final word?

Now you are being disingenuous. DC has designated 2014 as the 50th Anniversary of the Teen Titans. That is 1964-2014. The ONLY Teen Titans story to appear in 1964 was BB 54. The publication date of the anniversary compilation is not the "anniversary date," it is that 2014 is the 50th anniversary year. Arguments like the above make you look mercenary, not interested in truth. The COVER of DC 100 Page No. 21 contradicts the notion that BB 54 is not a Teen Titans adventure. That cover depicts Robin, Kid Flash, and Aqualad under the heading "Teen Titans" in reference to their adventure in BB 54 which is reprinted therein. No one can seriously deny that the very first time DC reprinted BB 54, it identified that story as a Teen Titans story. Again, you dodge the question: If the new $75 Teen Titans compilation coming out next month contradicts your position, are you going to ignore that also (as you ignore the first BB 54 reprint, Archive, and Showcase reprints) and claim DC is wrong?

The only emotion in this argument is, apparently, derived from your investment wishes. Let's cut through the fog: You asked for "one specific example" where DC has endorsed BB 54 as the first Teen Titans appearance. I gave you many: * DC's official 50th Anniversary of the first appearance of the Teen Titans keys off of BB 54. This is the elephant in the room you keep ignoring. * DC's two most recent compilations of all Teen Titans stories, the 2003 DC Archives and the 2006 Showcase, both start with BB 54 as the first appearance. Again, you ignore this. * DC's Official New Teen Titans index identifies BB 54 as the first appearance. And that was vetted by DC staff and include notable fan/scholars like Dr. Jerry Bails and George Olshevsky. Obviously, none of the above have "panels" to post. But, what does have "panels" is the cover to the very first reprinting of BB 54 in DC 100 Page No. 21, and it identifies BB 54 as a "Teen Titans" story on its cover! Again, you ignore this. You can dodge, duck and weave, but coming down the pike is DC's official 50th Anniversary compilation of Teen Titans stories. We'll find out on November 25 what position DC takes. Are you going to ignore that too if it doesn't go your way?

So, yes, I agree Teen Titans concept originated in BB54...Teen Titans itself had its first appearance in BB60. I don't think you agreeing with what Aman said.

The first reprinting of the story, the Official Teen Titans Index, the Silver Age Teen Titans Archive, the Teen Titans Showcase, and we're all waiting on the new 50th Anniversary (1964-2014) book (note BB 60 was 1965). Are you not reading the above posts? I mean, what could be clearer than that DC has picked 2014 as the 50th Anniversary of the Teen Titans (being honored with graphic novel and new 50th anniversary compilation)? 1964-2014. Get it?

Zonker, that's a great find and another bit of info that I didn't know. DC clearly has not been perfectly consistent in its position. But I think the bulk of the time it has viewed BB 54 as the first appearance. I'm now really curious to see what position they'll take in the 50th anniversary book, as that will probably put the nail in the coffin of one of the two views expressed in this thread. Aman, I obviously agree with your views. But, don't think that when I get into these kind of debates I won't change my mind. The way I test a position is I argue it out, but, in the end, if I like the opposing arguments better, I'll agree with that position. Having said that, though, I think you're right that blazing and I aren't going to reach consensus in this debate. But, that doesn't make it pointless ... until we run out of things to say and no new information comes to light.

And, meanwhile, you are ignoring what fans, scholars, the price guide, and dealers have thought for at least 40 years. Comics Feature, Amazing Heroes, creator interviews, OSPG, DC reprints, etc., all of these are ignored.

That mid-70s retcon is contrary to DC's official position a few year earlier: And in every subsequent publication reprinting the story from the DC Archives, to the Showcase, and probably through to the 50th Anniversary (1964-2014) compilation BB 54 is identified as a Teen Titans story. And that sets aside the Official Index. But, hey, someone who agrees with you is manipulating some of the wikis!

This. What do you think that picture proves? Nothing. It sure doesn't disprove that at the end of the Hatton Corner adventure in BB 54, DC announces "Once again, a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!" That BB featured some team-ups, around the same time as it featured the debut of the new team, proves nothing relevant. Kashdan and Haney have made clear that they were creating a "junior Justice League" team, not a mere team-up. You know how dumb the argument that BB was only for team-ups is because you are claiming that BB 60 debuted a team!

This. That panel doesn't say what you are claiming. It supports that BB 54 is the origin of the Teen Titans. Why? There is no mention of Wonder Girl as a "charter member." The panel makes clear the formation of the team, whose name is revealed in the last panel on p. 4 prompting Batman's question, was formed prior to BB 60. And as to that formation, Robin corresponds it to the adventure told in BB 54. Which, when coupled with the last panel in BB 54 announcing a new team, makes clear that BB 60 is merely the second appearance of the team (albeit the first appearance of the team name ala TTA 27).

Don't know who you are, but I do know you aren't adding anything to this thread other than fluff and . I respect Blazing and his arguments, even though I think he's demonstrably wrong. But, your accusations have no support, and I'm not going to miss your "contributions."

And the Avengers aren't either during their adventure in Avengers 1. It is not unusual for comic teams to "formally constitute" after their first adventure together. In Avengers 1 they chose a team name in the last panels. In BB 54, they just announced a "new team." It's a distinction that only matters if you care more about trademarks than substance, and as the views towards TTA 27 and BB 54 show, most folks care about the substance.

Again so much wrong. First, the team is complete with its original members in BB 54. A new member, Wonder Girl is added in BB 60. More new members, Speedy etc., are added in later adventures. You are engaging in tautological reasoning when you assert the team is not "complete" until BB 60. Second, the Teen Titans origin is almost exactly like the origin of the Avengers. Events bring a group of heroes together, they have an adventure without declaring themselves a team, and after that adventure they form the team. The only difference is that in the last panels of Avengers 1 the team picks a name and in the last panel of BB 54, although DC announces "a new team," no name is picked. But the issue is not when a character or team first gets its name (remember TTA 27?), it is when does the team/character first appear. Third, Submariner 34 isn't even close. S34 features different characters than MP 1. S34 is not referenced in MP 1. MP1 is not a continuation of the story in S34. It's not even close to the relationship between BB 54 and BB 60. I do agree that the team gets its name in BB 60. It also gets a new member. But, like with TTA 27, the issue is the first appearance of the team not the trademark. Finally, you continue to misrepresent what Robin says in BB 60. Robin never says that the team "was formed after the events in 54." What he says is that the team was formed after the adventure. And in the last panel of BB 54, after the adventure is over, DC announces the creation of a "new team." I'm glad you have given up trying to equate this last panel announcement of "a new team" with a mere "team-up," but you do your credibility no favors by ignoring what Robin actually said and the last panel of BB 54. Your investment wishes are not consistent with DC's position or many years of fan/scholar/dealer opinion. The market long ago rejected your interpretation of BB 54 and 60. Fans/scholars/dealers and DC are sophisticated enough to recognize the difference between the first appearance of a character/team and the first appearance of a name/trademark.

I agree. And as long as incorrect statements continue to be made by you and others, I will correct them. So many things wrong with this statement. Nowhere in BB 60 does it say there are only "four charter members" of the group. Robin doesn't reference four charter members. Instead, he strongly implies that there are only three members by stating: "Teen Titans is a group I set up, after Kid Flash, Aqualad, and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners." The strong implication, consistent with the last panel of BB 54, is that the "new group" started with Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad. Robin doesn't even mention Wonder Girl, let alone as a "charter member." Your assumption of four original members is contrary to the continuity, where the first adventure and origin of the group in BB 54 features three members. Fans/scholars have long recognized, as the quotes I posted in the above posts evidence, that BB 60 featured the addition of a new member to the team.

Not true. Not only do Robin, Kid Flash, and Aqualad come together and act as a team in BB 54, the last panel of BB 54 concludes with DC touting a "new team of DC Superheroes." And in the very next appearance of these heroes together (BB 60), it is revealed that prior to that story they adopted the name "Teen Titans." The story continuity is clear. The team was formed in BB 54 (essentially in the same manner as the Avengers), but the name was not revealed until BB 60. And this is consistent with the backstory, that Kashdan tasked Haney with creating a "junior Justice League" for BB 54. As a matter of Teen Titans continuity and canon, fan/scholar opinion, dealer listing, OSPG, and DC's official position, BB 54 is the first appearance of the team. Wishful investment thinking isn't changing that. BB 54 is clearly not a "prototype" such as Dr. Occult wearing a cape and being called a Superman "prototype." Nor is it a "try out" like having an acrobat wear a Capt. America costume. Nor is Sgt. Rock analogous. BB 54 is, instead, a first appearance like many B&B and Showcase issues which introduced new heroes and teams. What you guys appear to be hung up on is that the team created in BB 54 doesn't use the "Teen Titans" name until BB 60. And if I was collecting trademarks I'd agree that BB 60 was the key issue because that is where the trademark first appears. But, I collect characters and stories. And just as you can't have a complete Antman collection without TTA 27, you can't have a complete Teen Titans collection without BB 54.

New Teen Titans came out in 1980. This led to some re-examination of the original Teen Titans by the scholars/fan press back then. I think it is telling to see what the prevailing view was back then: * Tom Burkett in Amazing Heroes #2 (1981): "Created by writer Bob Haney and editor George Kashdan for The Brave and the Bold #54 (July, 1964), the concept behind the Teen Titans has proved its worth many times since." * David Kirk in Comics Feature #19 (1982): "The Teen Titans is often referred to as a ‘Junior Justice League,' and with good reason, since that’s precisely what the team started out as. Robin, Kid Flash, and Aqualad, all sidekicks of Justice League members, teamed up for the first time in THE BRAVE AND THE BOLD #54, and they adopted the name Teen Titans (and added fourth charter member Wonder Girl) in their second appearance in B&B#60." Also worth noting that, like the Silver Age Teen Titans Archives (2003), Teen Titans Showcase v. 1 (2006) also starts with BB 54. I don't think there has ever really been a time when fandom didn't view BB 54 as the first Teen Titans appearance or DC has not reprinted it as such.

I think I fully understand the back story. As I've heard it, Kashdan went to Haney and told him wanted him to create a "junior Justice League." The result was BB 54, a story focused upon "teen-age troubles" and the generation gap. .

You are trying too hard. First, you are misquoting Robin from BB 60 and you are ignoring the last panel of BB 54. Enough said above about that. Second, Marvel Premiere 1 is nothing like BB 60. MP 1 touts itself as the "origin" of a new team comprising Dr. Strange, Hulk, and Submariner. BB 60 does not identify itself as the origin of any team. Instead, BB 60 points backwards to BB 54 as the origin of the new team and BB 54 touts the creation of a "new team" in its final panel. Does MP 1 does cite back to Subby 34 as the origin of the team? No. Further, while the heroes in BB 54 are all in BB 60, the same is not true for MP 1 and Subby 34.

Probably the biggest difference is that BB 54 concludes by celebrating the creation of a "new team of DC heroes" and Subby doesn't. Probably the second biggest difference is the next issue of Subby doesn't refer back to the prior issue as the origin of that new team. Just like B&B 60 doesn't refer to B&B 54 as the origin of the Teen Titans. It explicitly says the Teen Titans were formed "after" B&B 54. No. What Robin says is: "Teen Titans is a group junior crime-fighters I set up, after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the teen-agers of Hatton Corners.* *Brave and Bold 54." Of course, at the end of B&B 54, after the adventure is concluded, it states: "Once again, a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!" Taken together, you can easily conclude that the team was formed in BB 54 as a direct result of the Hatton Corners adventure told and concluded therein. This is like instant replay, unless you got clear evidence that the original call was wrong you don't get it over turned. If anything, the evidence supports the view that has been predominant for the last 50 years.

I hope blazing is having fun, because I've sure enjoyed the discussion. And I've learned a fair bit about the TT I didn't know.

Probably the biggest difference is that BB 54 concludes by celebrating the creation of a "new team of DC heroes" and Subby doesn't. Probably the second biggest difference is the next issue of Subby doesn't refer back to the prior issue as the origin of that new team.

Blazing, Did you know that DC is promoting 2014 as the 50th Anniversary of the Teen Titans? Get it, 50 years after BB 54 (1964) not BB 60 (1965). See here, but be sure to read the update: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/08/13/why-dont-dc-comics-give-a-damn-about-the-teen-titans-50th-anniversary/

The value of in demand volume beats out the value of rarity all the time. That's why, for example, high end wine makers don't bank as much as jug wine companies. And there's another factor you aren't considering: Price point. Far far far more people can afford a 181 than can afford a Batman 1. So there is a lot more money available to buy 181s than to buy Batman 1s.