500Club

HG - What do you make of this considering the 10th and 12th editions? I think they unilaterally decided to establish prices based on feedback about the appearance in 180, and subsequently got further feedback from market advisors that 181 was the book being more sought after. The fact they list 181 there as a cameo speaks to a pretty poor effort at actually looking at the books. In fact, they did it again just recently with Batman 655 and 656. Two years ago they listed 656 at a higher price, and last year corrected that, almost certainly based on market feedback.

Sheldon Cooper? Is that you?

Wrong forum. MTU 67 is bronze.

Yeah, that's because we haven't had your drama to distract us...

 Yes. Because it was falsely labelled as his 1st appearance for years, became a classic Key, and now everyone is retroactively rationalizing why. Your explanation is one of several. It used to be “first Full vs First cameo” etc. Rules that were literally invented to explain the 180 vs 181 discrepancy. Anyone who had collected for more than five minutes in the late seventies onward knew the structure of Wolverine’s introduction. It isn’t some 21st century discovery that Wolverine shows up at the end of IH 180. The market has had forever and a day to change its focus to 180, if it so chose.

Which is based entirely on the historical nonsense that it was his first overall appearance, and kept that value up due to momentum, mostly. It's an historical anomaly. No, it's not. This hobby arose on the back of interest in reading about these characters, so it's no surprise, that, pre internet and tpb, collectors chose to buy a full issue of Wolverine being introduced, rather than a single panel end of issue appearance. The anomalies are the occasional brief appearances that have been anointed 'most important and collectible' for that character. There's never been any illusion that Wolverine didn't appear in 180, or hobby ignorance of the fact.

The market hasn't decided IH 180 isn't Wolverine's first appearance. It has decided the most important and collectible issue of Wolverine's introduction is 181.

Buzz??? Chunky stew

Elon Musk has done a more elegant job running Tesla over the past three months than FanExpo has done running the Calgary and Edmonton Expos.

Who had the ASM 208 cover? What was the ask?

Have we reached the threshold where a competitor could come in with a business model identical to eBay circa 2000, and take their business? I tend to think so.

It's because, as a hobby, we bastardized the term 'first appearance' to mean 'most significant and collected introductory issue' of a character. But, yeah, literally, there's no debating Hulk 180.

The market has been pretty deaf to any attempts to impose some sort of order. X-Men 266/Annual 14 is a situation that has been known and understood for years, and there has been zero shift in sentiment. We are, as a group, pretty resistant to change.

Unfortunately, no. This hobby is based on cover art. That's why Hulk #181 wins. Cover focused collecting has certainly come into vogue the last ten years or so. It certainly wasn't what established 181 as the key book for the first 30 years, though. How much of a factor was it in the rejection of the '180 first' movement? I'm not sure. The other idea I've seen put forward that has merit is 'whatever book leaves the spec station first is the winner'.

The market had plenty of opportunity to do that three years ago, when this argument was all the rage. What happened? That revisionist line of thinking was rejected, and it was 181 that exploded in value. Seems in this hobby that is based on collecting a literary medium, we value a full story introduction over a single panel, for the most part. On the flip side, it's probably a good time to buy 180, as it should draft along in value.

I remember when a 9.0 would only cost a grand a few years ago. Yep Hulk #181 is following the same path as AF#15 The amazing part is when you consider the supply side of the equation. It almost makes you wonder if you can ever argue ‘but there’s x number of copies out there!, aside from Lee X-Men 1, X-Force 1, and McSpidey 1.

Yeah, but as with many threads, it’s organically evolved in a couple of different directions.

This is a middle I’ll gladly meet you at, Chuck. The ‘Marvel style’ was essentially Stan working out bare bones plot framework (or less), letting the artists have at the story, and then polishing it off with -script. You won’t catch me shorting Jack and Steve (and others) credit due.

Has he been charged yet for trying to shoot the Queen?

I’d be more inclined to say both men were essential to what Marvel became. I think if either one were subtracted from the equation, you wouldn’t have Marvel. Ditko less so, but all three were giants in the genesis of Marvel.

And then, when Goodman said no to Spider-Man because no one likes spiders, but Stan snuck the origin story into a title slated for cancellation.

 Did you really think I was interested in getting into a "here's what I read, now show me what you have?" I know what your position is regarding Kirby and Ditko. Also know that you've reiterated your position and will probably continue to do so. Disagree based on what I know and have read about Kirby and Ditko. And my response is "akin" to knowing that much more empirical evidence is required since there probably haven't been any specific studies on the labor - management dynamics that existed in comic book publications during the '50s & 60s (at least I'm not aware of any). This would help us in getting more information. These thread discussions aren't always about "I'm right and you're wrong."  Yes, actually. That’s how I learn, and, in fact, based on the information, may be inclined to alter my position. I’d be really interested to read about any views Kirby and Ditko put forth while dealing with Marvel in the early 60s, in the vein of ‘I want more because I feel these characters and stories I’m creating will be hugely finiancially successful in the future.’ Plus, I just love reading about the history of comics.

That’s a very concise post. I can’t believe Chuck called you wordy.

I’d be hard pressed to call Claremont’s work trash. I am willing to dock him a few points for dialogue and hanging plot threads, though...

Yes. Ditko's whole point was that HE was the real writer of Spider-man, and thus should get credit AND compensation for such. Eventually, Stan caved in and gave him the co-writer credit, but NOT the financial compensation, which he pushed off on Goodman. This was a major point of contention between Stan and Steve. Stan even said in a Bullpen Bulletin about Doctor Strange that it was Steve's idea completely - yet right there on the published page - written by Stan Lee - which meant that HE got paid as the writer - despite not writing it - and Ditko did NOT. Ditko tried to get Kirby to leave when he did - but Kirby had a family to support and didn't want to take the risk - his time at DC had been marked by a bad relationship with... was it Weisinger? And he feared having to go back there - nobody else paid enough... Kirby had just finished the Galactus trilogy (another storyline written by the artist - where Stan has openly admitted to just telling Jack "the FF meet God" and Kirby did the rest) and created the Black Panther, and instead stayed and treaded ground for a few years before he'd finally leave. But they felt they deserved to be paid more because they contributed more... You’ve misinterpreted my post above. It’s a post to bronzejohnny responding to his assertion that Kirby and Ditko, in the early 60s, sought different forms of recompense from Marvel, over and above work-for-hire, based on their view of future success of their creations. My supposition is, in 1963, these guys had no possible inkling as to the worldwide iconic status these creations would ascend to over the coming decades. I agree with your post, that the work-for-hire payments weren’t divided properly, based on the work that was being done, but that’s a side point, off on a tangent from the initial points about selling your creative process in the work-for-hire setting, and then expecting a bigger slice when the sold creation succeeds beyond all expectation. Interestingly, you’ve circled right back to the points I made in my very first post on page 3 - the ‘derisking’ of the creative process by accepting a fixed payment in the work-for-hire setting, rather than the high risk associated with going it alone.