500Club

The analogy being that the market will determine what value is assigned. There may be times where savvy collectors can take advantage and buy, or sell before price moves.

Yup. This is an ultimate truth, no matter how passionate people's individual views are. (thumbs u

Yeah, I'd agree with that. It's a supply side skew that plays a role in MOS 17/18 as well.

There are so many variables. It makes it pretty much impossible to develop a formulaic approach to these things.

Oh. My. God.

 

 

Guess I'll check back in this thread in a couple of days when the dong swinging is over.

 

Yup.

As worthless as a discussion may be to some folks, comments like that are worth less than nothing.

Like I said to the doofus who wanted to control the parameters of the thread, feel free to contribute something of worth.

So if a character is on the cover of a comic book, but not inside at all, could that still be considered a first appearance?

 

 

I would consider that a 1st appearance, but you are going to receive all kinds of votes on this.

I'd lean to yes as well, but, sooner or later, there'll be an example to make us gnash our teeth. I'm envisioning a throw away background image like the Spider-Gwen cosplayers in Ms Marvel 14.

The market 'votes' in strange ways. JO is valued as a full first; XMen Ann 14 as a cameo.

At work, wow like 10 new pages today??? What's going on?? Someone text me updates .

First appearance debate. Examples discussed. No new hot books. Cap 275 sale by divad at a fairly impressive price.

My best guess is that Marvel hashed out a rough plan for releases 6-12 months ahead, with the releases in proper order. Given the way he was scattergunning concepts and subplots at the time, Claremont probably got sidetracked on a storyline, and ended up having Gambit appear in UXM 2-3 months later than the original blueprint.

 

And there's no need to assume there's some sort of "messup" involved. I feel this needs to be said again: creators don't care about the aftermarket.

 

Their only concern is "is this a good story, yes/no, and will it sell copies, yes/no?"

 

I doubt the scheduling of Gambit's appearances even entered Claremont's...or anyone's...mind. He and the Simonsons plotted out DOFP, included Gambit because the story takes place after the story in 265-267, and that was that.

 

No error, no screwup. Nothing "came out too early", there was no "mixup at the distributor", etc. This isn't the first time such an "out of chronology" story has happened...in fact, it happened all the time ("The events in this story take place BEFORE/AFTER thus and such")...it just happened that THIS time involved the debut of one of the more popular characters created in the time period.

 

I have to wonder why we were told to pull them off the shelves, then.

Were you told anything more? Because that IS odd. It's very tough for these books to end up shipping early by mistake, because the print and distribution schedule is pretty tight. That's doubly true for this book, which was part of a sequential story across the Annuals of several titles. I don't recall anything at the time about the parts of DoFP shipping out of order.

Can we please start a different Copper discussion thread and leave this one strictly to it's current heading. It's excellent topics and conversation guys but it should not be here. Thanks

No.

 

But thanks for asking.

 

Or, better yet, why don't YOU step up and contribute what you feel is appropriate.

 

I just did. COPPER COMICS THAT ARE HEATING UP ON EBAY. Maybe the thread heading isn't clear enough for you.

You contributed nothing.

Can we please start a different Copper discussion thread and leave this one strictly to it's current heading. It's excellent topics and conversation guys but it should not be here. Thanks

No.

But thanks for asking.

Or, better yet, why don't YOU step up and contribute what you feel is appropriate.

In the case of Gambit's 1st appearance and supposed cameo (we all agree X-Men Annual #14 is far from a cameo), Marvel and its production team are not going to waste time publishing a letter entitled SO SORRY WE MESSED YOU ALL UP - HERE's WHAT HAPPENED.... They don't care if the story was slightly out of synch. In the end, everything it needed to get out to the market was accomplished.

 

Its the fans and collectors left sorting out the details later. But it is just a strange publishing approach to have a later story become a 1st appearance when it references an earlier story. Something got out of whack there with distribution and storytelling.

My best guess is that Marvel hashed out a rough plan for releases 6-12 months ahead, with the releases in proper order. Given the way he was scattergunning concepts and subplots at the time, Claremont probably got sidetracked on a storyline, and ended up having Gambit appear in UXM 2-3 months later than the original blueprint.

As people that know me in the real world will attest, I never met a dead horse I didn't enjoy beating.

 

But, hasn't everyone written enough about what their interpretation of a first appearance is?

 

There are some people on here who are persuasive with facts, and well constructed arguments, and yet, other's have their heels dug in as if this was as important as 5x or 10x powdered sugar when baking.

 

It seems to me that nobody is changing their opinion on this, and that to continue to post away just illustrates the steadfastness of those hell bent to bend the malleable to their p.o.v. Problem is, nobody's malleable.

 

 

Although some of these discussions get emotional and heated due to beliefs, opinions and experience, for the most part there are great discussions about comic book history (assumed or otherwise). I wouldn't say because someone posted an extensive amount of research this means you then cut everyone else off from providing their opinion on a topic.

 

So let a good conversation take place. But better to read and listen to everyone's contributions, versus cutting contributors off from sharing their thoughts. Then at least all those sources of information helps build a more thorough picture.

 

Just a suggestion.

 

I agree. Let the discussions flow. They often spin off into useful side topics. They also allow everyone a chance to chime in on their views on the topic at hand. (thumbs u

Anyone ever happen across the forum dedicated to Gambit?

 

The Gambit Guild

 

When we were discussing these two books, I happened across this. A very cool little site about an odd yet interesting character. It mentions the confusion between the two books as well, and the scheduling mishap that made it slightly confusing.

 

But I like the level of research they put into being fans of the character. Worth a read!

Interesting website for sure.

 

Not much on the possible shipping error, though.

 

Yeah, they also have the same challenge of determining why Marvel would publish a crossover story out of order, other than noting 'different release dates'.

 

But I didn't post that to prove anything. If we are going to discuss an interesting character like Gambit, it's also fun to happen across a site like that. We all know there are fanatics for most of these characters. But that site definitely shows a level of fan love for sure.

It worked. I went in there thinking they had some info on the release dates, and ended up bookmarking the site to read later.

If that is the case (need to read these two again), how could Annual 14 be the 1st appearance of Gambit?

 

It came out in stores/on the newstand first. Thus, the first time the public saw Gambit...right?

 

Correct - due to a print scheduling error. X-Men 266 ' s story comes first before X-Men Annual 14.

A) You missed RMAs rather compelling argument that the book came out when it was supposed to. It even had the footnote referencing X-Men 265-267, which would have been placed IN PRODUCTION. Either Marvel knew the Annual was coming out first, or someone at Marvel had a crystal ball and foresaw a 'shipping error'.

 

B) The above is moot. The Annual came out first.

 

It would be a quest in error to try and pitch UXM 266 was published first. Reality says otherwise.

 

But when you follow the story flow, UXM 266 comes before X-Men Annual 14. There is no debating that either. Even that early conversation between Ororo and Gambit in Annual 14 is talking about their meeting in UXM 266. Gambit even wishes she would go back to a speechless child - but in jest.

 

Is there really any debate over the flow of the story?

None at all. Story flow and release dates are flip flopped. BUT, it's been seen before, with ASM 252, SW 8.

I suspect Marvel realized they were locked into a release schedule with the sequential Annuals, and put the footnote in, though.

On an unrelated note, as an 11 year old newsstand buyer, those footnotes were like a sniff of highly addictive comic book crack.

Anyone ever happen across the forum dedicated to Gambit?

 

The Gambit Guild

 

When we were discussing these two books, I happened across this. A very cool little site about an odd yet interesting character. It mentions the confusion between the two books as well, and the scheduling mishap that made it slightly confusing.

 

But I like the level of research they put into being fans of the character. Worth a read!

Interesting website for sure.

Not much on the possible shipping error, though.

If that is the case (need to read these two again), how could Annual 14 be the 1st appearance of Gambit?

 

It came out in stores/on the newstand first. Thus, the first time the public saw Gambit...right?

 

Correct - due to a print scheduling error. X-Men 266 ' s story comes first before X-Men Annual 14.

A) You missed RMAs rather compelling argument that the book came out when it was supposed to. It even had the footnote referencing X-Men 265-267, which would have been placed IN PRODUCTION. Either Marvel knew the Annual was coming out first, or someone at Marvel had a crystal ball and foresaw a 'shipping error'.

B) The above is moot. The Annual came out first.

Edit: now that I think about A, I'm not as sure, as Marvel footnotes were so common back then...

Archangel is shown in shadow in a couple of issues before 23 too.

Cap 359/360.

If Gambit had been on the cover, even in the background, it would be no question.

 

But he's definitely there, in the story, multiple panels.

 

Add X-Factor 24 to this list.

 

seriously, just read x factor 23 again last night, and archangel is in more than one panel, he does stuff, and he talks. You see most if not all of his body. I think it the most aggressive use of the "If the 1st app has him on one page only and the second app has him in the story and the cover then its the real 1st appearance rule."

Yeah, that's another example of a pretty significant 'cameo'.

 

How is his appearance in 23 a cameo based on what the board member describes about the issue?

I thought I'd laid the sarcasm on pretty thick...

It looks pretty damn close to a full appearance to me.

If Gambit had been on the cover, even in the background, it would be no question.

 

But he's definitely there, in the story, multiple panels.

 

Add X-Factor 24 to this list.

 

seriously, just read x factor 23 again last night, and archangel is in more than one panel, he does stuff, and he talks. You see most if not all of his body. I think it the most aggressive use of the "If the 1st app has him on one page only and the second app has him in the story and the cover then its the real 1st appearance rule."

Yeah, that's another example of a pretty significant 'cameo'.

Because there is money involved we must assume that people will push their own agendas to make more money.

 

Should I regard all of your posts in that light, too?

 

Have we become so cynical that we must assume that everybody always has an agenda, all the time?

 

 

Yes Yes. i have an agenda too, creating a universally accepted definition of first appearance.

 

There already is one.

 

First appearance: the first time a character appears in a comic book story. Done.

Well done!

That's that! Now we can move on to other matters.

Truth is there is a growing segment of collectors that don't care about being within a story or what "counts".

 

 

How big is this "growing segment"? How do you know it is growing, rather than shrinking? Where did this segment start? How did it start? Of whom is it comprised?

We have a closeted view here on the boards. A couple of vocal tubthumpers can subconsciously make it seem the view is more prevalent than it is.

In the larger world, we don't get asked for these books at shows. No Previews requests. No Marvel Age requests. Nothing. And nothing on display at other booths, either.

In the LCSs, nothing... No retailers I talk to mention these books as being asked for or selling.

Because there is money involved we must assume that people will push their own agendas to make more money.

 

Should I regard all of your posts in that light, too?

 

Have we become so cynical that we must assume that everybody always has an agenda, all the time?

 

I think it says something about how Ween himself is viewing the issue.

Here are some overstreet definitions for how they have always defined Cameo,First Appearance and Debut:

Let's dispense with, once and for all, the idea that Overstreet is some sort of authority that speaks for the market and is always factually sound. Despite your list of definitions, Overstreet itself is inconsistent with the application, as the history of listings for X-Men 266/Ann 14 will show.

You can have your literal definition of a first appearance being a first printed image.

I, and the great majority of responders, will hold with the bastardized meaning. The literal meaning hasn't been in use in the hobby for a long time, if ever.

 

" The market decides" in general is true, but the market can also be uninformed, and or deceived.

Usually, in the long run, the market susses out the right book. We'll see how X-Men 266/Ann 14 plays out.

Some people don't seem to get that the use of the English language is fluid, has nuances, and changes over time. Terms are often co-opted, and diverge from their literal use.

 

In other words, you're not my brother, bro.

 

Who are you talking to?

 

The folks who think 'first appearance' is carved in stone as the literal meaning, and not the way it has become used in the comic collecting lexicon over 40 some years. In this hobby, first appearance correlates pretty poorly with the literal sense.

 

Not really. "first appearance" in regards to comics is widely recognized as being the time the character first appears in a panel of sequential art in the context of a story.

No, it's not, IMO. It's almost become a colloquialism. I can tell you that when we set up at shows, innumerable collectors want to look at our copies of the 'first Wolverine', Hulk 181. They verbally refer to it as that. It's a term that has been bastardized, and has almost become shorthand for 'book the market has decided is the character's first meaningful appearance.'

Some people don't seem to get that the use of the English language is fluid, has nuances, and changes over time. Terms are often co-opted, and diverge from their literal use.

 

In other words, you're not my brother, bro.

 

Who are you talking to?

 

The folks who think 'first appearance' is carved in stone as the literal meaning, and not the way it has become used in the comic collecting lexicon over 40 some years. In this hobby, first appearance correlates pretty poorly with the literal sense.

 

I think agents # 6 is undervalued. Is it a first appearance? No. It's a preview. The story is continued in WD # 1... on Page # 7. If the story in Agents 6 or Capes for that matter was a " lead-in" to # 1 it would be different. It's not however, its just the first few pages of #1 used to push sales. It's an Ad.

 

With such a huge following for Walking dead, being a WD# 1 preview, I don't understand why its not a $100 book. With all the money going around in comics these days, I see $100 being wasted all over the place. I wouldn't consider Agents 6 or Capes a bad purchase.

I agree. Not a first appearance, but still a cool item for WD collectors, of which there are many.

And, yeah, I agree with X-Men Annual 14, too.