Gatsby77

Exactly, which is why I will always hold that New Mutants 98 is the first appearance of Domino. It said as much on the cover, she was integral to recruiting for and founding X-Force, and her first appearance, not that of Deadpool, is why New Mutants 98 became an $8 book almost instantly. The book became valuable as Deadpool's first appearance much later. That - more than a year later, Nicieza goes "just kidding" - here's the *real* Domino - with the same look, feel and powers, is revisionist history, aka BS. I felt the same way in the massive Ben Reilly clone storyline in the '90s, which suddenly tried to maintain that Peter Parker hadn't actually been Spider-Man since ASM 150. Nope, sorry. Not buying it.

Exactly! I was thinking of that too - but couldn't remember the issue.

No. Wolverine's first full appearance is Hulk 181, not Wolverine 10 or Origin 1.

"Heavily implied to be" is what screws you here. If it's not obvious -- as in, if an average reader can read the issue and not go "Oh cool - that's Old Man Logan," then it's BS. And literally two people have piped up in this thread alone to state exactly that -- one even bought the issue, read it, and couldn't figure where or if the character appears. If a character named Clark appears in More Fun # 6 and 10 years later Siegel and Shuster are like "Oh yeah - little known fact - that was Clark Kent" - it doesn't make More Fun # 6 the first appearance of Superman. Why is this relevant? We already know -- from Spawn # 10, no less -- that the primary trademark for Superman involves the "S" on his chest. If he doesn't have that part of the costume on, it's not Superman, so it's not trademark infringement. Period. Likewise, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the relevant character designs and trademarks for "Old Man Logan" refer to how he looks in Wolverine 66, not the "younger-timeline-version undercover-in-a-cloak-during-an-alternate-time" FF version.

This. I don't have the FF issues in front of me, but from what's been written here: 1) He's never identified as Logan, let alone Old Man Logan in the FF issue itself, and 2) It's a different version of the character anyway, in a different timeline - hence what SeanFingh says above. I am interested, however, if someone could verify whether the FF issue indeed came out first. I don't doubt it, since CGC says as much, but the FF issue and Wolverine 66 were released the same month. I'd like verification that the FF issue *actually* preceded it by at least a week. Not that it matters - we all know that X-Men 266 was supposed to be the first appearance of Gambit but scheduling delays meant that X-Men Annual 14 happened to come out a few weeks earlier - which is why no one in that issue is like "Wait - who the F are you?"

Exactly. If anything, by MIllar's own admission, he was simultaneously writing about three different incarnations of Old Man Logan in three different timelines. The one people care about first appeared in Wolverine # 66 - and this was only solidified when the storyline that began in Wolverine # 66 was adapted for the film Logan. While I'm a huge Wolverine fan, I own neither of these issues, so I have no financial stake in the matter. But I also don't like BS revisionist history, like: Web of 18 is the first appearance of Eddie Brock. It's not. X-Force 11 is the first appearance of Domino. It's not. Werewolf by Night 37 is Moon Knight's third appearance. It's not. X-Men 201 is the first appearance of Cable. It's not. Our Army at War 83 is the first appearance of Sgt. Rock. It's not.

And still don't.

Still smacks of BS - hence my Web of Spider-Man 18 analogy, as it's the "first appearance of Venom because that's Eddie Brock's arm in two panels." That statement that Venom's arm appears in both Web of Spider-Man 18 and and Web of Spider-Man 24 -- a full year and a half before the release of ASM 300 -- came from David Michelinie, who wrote those issues, along with ASM 298-300. He co-created the character. Sure - it's cool to think he was building a storyline over multiple titles, and years, that would culminate in the first full appearance of a great new villain in ASM 300. But, like Millar, the appearances are anything but obvious to the readers of those issues, AND he only made the statement connecting the books years later. Also, superhero comic books aren't exactly the place for subtlety: If you have to explain even to close readers that the arm is *actually* Venom or that the hooded character is *actually* Old Man Logan, you've failed.

Huh. I'm still confused. As a collector, it doesn't matter to me - I value legit, named concrete full appearances over cameos (hence, X-Men 266 for Gambit over X-Men Annual 14, although I own/bought/read both off the shelves). But this also smacks of weird revisionist history, a la Web of Spider-Man being the first cameo of Venom. Why? Because collectors (and speculators) aren't generally stupid. It strains credulity that no one would have pinpointed (and hyped) FF # 558 in its first decade+ after release, *particularly* given that we had a major movie based on the character and storyline come out in 2017. The CGC Census shows 980 slabbed copies of Wolverine # 66 (first prints alone, excluding special covers or reprints). The CGC Census shows 8 slabbed copies of FF # 558. Total. And yet *no one* figured out FF # 558's significance prior to 2017, even enough to buy up and slab a dozen copies and hype this book, X-Men # 201 first-true-appearance-of-Cable-style? I call BS.

How much before Wolverine 66 did these issues come out? And...if this is these are the true first (even cameo) appearances, how did folks not know this in the run-up to the film Logan (that was loosely based on the first/primary storyline)?

This. Here's an example: Secret Hearts, a DC romance title that ran from 1949 - 1971, with more than 150 issues total. Half of the first 50 issues haven't been slabbed at all. Granted, that's mostly Golden Age (1949-1958), but still. But then only 21 of the the next 50 issues have any slabs -- that's issues 51-100, running Dec. 1958 - Dec. 1964. And more than half just aren't on the census. The census shows 12 copies total above CGC 8.0 from that six-year period, spread over just 10 of the 50 issues. The run's not hard to put together in 4.0, but in 6.0, it's fairly difficult. Legit 8.0+ (even raw)? Good luck. But I still wouldn't wager the books aren't out there -- there's just so little demand for a 50+ year-old romance titles, that why would you bother slabbing them?

Wondering if anyone has a copy of Inside Comics # 1 fanzine from 1993 - with Youngblood on the cover. Specifically, I'm looking for the article "Not Mint," that was an account of the rise and fall of the one of the major comics dealers in the late '70s/early '80s that imploded after one of the partners embezzled funds to fund his cocaine habit. I could be mis-remembering, but I think the article appeared in Inside Comics # 1. I'd like to re-read it. Hoping someone could verify that the issue indeed has that article. Or, if not, maybe recalls where it appeared.

To be clear, I thought the Ant-Man films were fine. And Doctor Strange was done about as well as any Doctor Strange film could be done on film -- if anything, it was a better film than it had any right to be. But I still thought Captain Marvel was overall better movie than any of those -- and more re-watchable. Which is particularly impressive because she's a C-list character. I didn't even know she existed growing up, with my frames of reference only the 1970s Captain Marvel series and the Monica Rambeau appearances in West Coast Avengers. The only issues appearances of Carol Danvers I'd even read prior to the movie were 17-18 -- the initial Mystique appearances. That they managed to craft such a compelling film out of such a C-list character was amazing.

I'm confused. What's the current status of Captain Marvel 2 and/or the plan to have Brie lead the next iteration of the Avengers? IMDB's says the film's on-track for a 2022 release, but doesn't note a writer. And it's hard to find any reliable news among all the haters who are trying to foment backlash against the character. I thought the film -- and Brie's portrayal in it -- was fine. While not top-tier MCU fare, I thought the first film was above average, and definitely better than: Both Hulk films Thor: The Dark World Iron Man 2 Both Ant-Man films Doctor Strange

Great books! And these are your undercopies...

I posted the above a bit over two months ago. Last night, I put my money where my mouth is and bought my first-ever copy of Marvel Team-Up # 1, the second CGC 9.4 copy in this week's Comiclink auction. Not as pretty as Namisgr's copy that sold earlier this week (and with downright ugly centering and miswrap), but it has white pages. I feel like 10 years from now, I'll be really glad I bought it.

Yeah - no way this even opens in August. I just can't see Americans going to the theaters next month, or theater chains opening themselves to the potential litigation risk.

Aesthetically, it was always the silver cover to me. Then - and now. Today, having owned a platinum, I lust only after the Gold UPC version. And Greg's right, above, when he says nobody wanted it for years. I remember a small convention in Philly in the mid-90s -- right when I walked in, the first dealer by the door had two books I wanted -- Spider-Man 1 (gold UPC) and New Teen Titans 2. Both were $20. At a time when nobody was collecting Marvel second prints, he told me how this one was actually rare, special & worth the money. I bought neither book.

BTW - congrats on picking up that CGC 9.4 copy of Doctor Solar # 5!! Your set's now officially *ridiculous.*

That would be *amazing.* But per Wikipedia, Bork's full name is Carl Andrew Bork, not Steve. Maybe Steve's his nickname? Honestly, I think Batman's greatest villain was Joel Schumacher (RIP).

Nah. As I posted in this very thread *more than two years ago* a lot of people (like me) think this won't ever hit the screens because DuVernay's A Wrinkle in Time lost Disney ~$100 million at the box office. I mean, we're 2.5 years post-announcement and it's just now beginning to be written? Might as well just re-title this "The Flash."

I only started collecting in 1989, but I put those books in slightly different categories. I could (somehow) see She-Hulk # 1 becoming valuable -- but I will *never* feel the same way about Dazzler # 1. That book was garbage then; is garbage now; and will still be garbage 20 years from now. Of course, times change. About 15 years ago I actually bought 15+ copies of the 1980 Moon Knight # 1 ... as (cough!) an investment -- the same book I laughed at as a kid.

If there's still going with the Flashpoint-based "multiverse" concept, Bruce Wayne only appears in a cameo at the end. Which would make sense if played by Keaton in "Nick Fury elder statesman" role - and have him able to continue with additional appearances in other films. For the bulk of Flashpoint, tho, the multiverse Batman is Thomas Wayne.

Def. the Batman keys. Denny O'Neil (along w/ Neal Adams - but mostly O'Neil) single-handedly brought the DC heroes into the Bronze Age. Including: Batman (Detective 395) Robin (Batman 217) Superman (Superman 233) Wonder Woman (Wonder Woman 178) Joker (Batman 251) Green Arrow (Brave & Bold 85) Green Lantern (Green Lantern 76) John Stewart (Green Lantern 87) Two-Face (Batman 234) Ra's Al-Ghul (Batman 232) Separately, you've got a few non-O'Neil books that are more minor keys -- the second appearances of Deadshot (Detective 474) and Black Adam (Shazam 28).