Crimebuster

This doesn't really count since it was an actual comic book store and not a flea market or garage sale, but I found a couple solid lower grade Dan DeCarlo issues of Millie the Model from 1955 in a "kid's box" of comics at a comic shop I was visiting out of state. So I'm pretty happy about that.

I thought it was excellent. I have no idea if you'd enjoy it though. Just because something is good doesn't mean it's enjoyable.

Just finished making a belated Chanukah card for someone I know. An homage to Wally Wood's cover for Incredible Science-Fiction #33:

We saw Angel turning into Jubilee?! What the...

CBR has an interview with the new writers where they specifically discuss the fingers. Sounds like one of them really wanted him to have fingers, the other didn't, but in the end they went with fingers: CBR: A character like Rom has a very clear and specific design. Will he get any visual upgrades for the new series? Ryall: Nothing that will make you look at the character and wonder who he is. But you can see one big upgrade on Zach Howard and Nelson Daniel's amazing cover for the #0 issue: actual fingers! Those mitten hands always drove me a little nuts -- I know they were toy-derived, and the toy had a much easier time doing molded hands rather than independent figures (or whatever the reason was for those hands back when), but I wanted him to have digits, dammit. There are some other minor tweaks that hew closer to the original toy design, but like I say, just look at that cover -- it's unmistakably Rom. Gage: I play the role of the crotchety old man who looks at any variation on the original design with a very jaundiced eye. I feel that if you're going to change something, there'd better be a good reason -- like having actual fingers. But I signed on to write Rom, not "hipster robot who vaguely resembles Rom." So, yeah, he'll look like Rom. http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/exclusive-rom-the-spaceknight-shoots-for-the-stars-with-ryall-gage

Rom is awesome. Hard to believe it's getting hot, though. I think I put together my entire run without spending more than a dollar for any issue except maybe #17 and #31. Still, it should be hot, because it's awesome.

I thought it was great. Better than Daredevil. One of the best things Marvel has done. I do think it was stretched out too much to fill Netflix's 13 episode requirement, though. It really should have been 9 or maybe 10 episodes tops. And trying to fit in a bunch of Marvel stuff to set up future series/storylines watered down the pacing as well. This is one where it might have been better without being tied into the rest of the MCU so much, so it could have just focused on its own story. Really good, though.

Which pages are you seeing glued in? My copy has 60 pages, and they match up with the ones on DBCS. So it seems like it was manufactured this way. But I didn't notice the gluing thing. I did notice that some pages were apparently pre-trimmed out before the book was put together. Specifically, at the centerfold, the Daredevil text page has the remnants of a page that was cut off or folded under or something. But everything seemed stapled in?

If something doesn't match up between your copy and the pages in ComicBookPlus, let me know and I'll dig out my copy of #13 to see if I can figure out the discrepancy. I'm not sure that every issue on that site includes all the ads.

Gino was nice enough to trade me one of my grail books. Transaction was fast, smooth, and a pleasure. Thanks!

I'm very excited today, as gino2paulus2 was generous enough to part with one of my grail books. It arrived in my greedy hands just now. This leaves me just two issues short of a complete run of Boy Comics, as I now have #5-119. Hurray! Thanks again, gino!

Just returned from Copenhagen with the Danish reprint of Green Arrow #1, which appeared in their Superman #391:

Boy Comics #82, October, 1952:

Wait, previews can be first appearances? If the story is original, yes. If not, no. The nature of a "preview" almost universally means that it's material intended to be printed elsewhere. I'm pretty sure that the Damage Control preview in Marvel Age Annual #4 is not excerpts from the book, but it's been a while since I read it. I do remember that the Wolverine preview is sort of a recap of what had been happening with the character in X-Men, so it's not exactly a story, although the art is original. A good example of a legit first appearance in a preview is Lazarus. I just read the story in Marvel Age Annual #4. It's a 4 page, original story that predates Damage Control's other appearances. Even at only 4 pages, it's actually a frame story - the first page has a guy from Damage Control approaching the Joe Fixit version of Hulk and handing him a brochure about Damage Control. Pages 2-3 are basically an ad for Damage Control (which Hulk is reading) explaining what the series is. And page 4 is Hulk kicking the guy's butt and tossing him out of the casino. So it is an original story, not an excerpt of a later published issue. It's not much of a first appearance - in terms of these sorts of things, it's not as strong as something like Rat Queens in Image What's Next - but I think it is their first appearance.

Settle down, Beavis. Amethyst is a cool character with potential. I don't have any faith in DC as far as actually developing that potential, but it's there. If she does become popular, I expect the rare price variant for Amethyst #1 will be the hottest ticket item. But there's no reason not to get her first appearance now while it's cheap.

Oh, it's possible, sure. Just like it's equally possible that Art Rooney formed the Pittsburgh Steelers between panels in BB #54.

I'm really getting tired of this misinformation. Robin never says: "The Teen Titans were formed after BB 54." Instead, he says: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crime-fighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!*" See the "*"? Below that quote, the editorial box cites to "* See Brave and the Bold 54" A very reasonable interpretation of that text is that when Robin talks about the formation of the Teen Titans he is saying that they were set up immediately after and as a result of the Hatton Corners adventure set forth in B&B 54. And that is clearly DC's editorial position because to support Robin's comment about the setting up of the Teen Titans they tell readers to "See Brave and the Bold 54." DC, of course, reinforced this conclusion in Teen Titans 1 when they started the "brief history of the Teen Titans" with a discussion of B&B 54 and explained that B&B 60 was only the "next time" the group appeared with the "addition" of Wonder Girl. I honestly just don't get you, man. You characterize this as "misinformation," and then immediately follow it up with a long explanation that shows this "misinformation" to be completely correct, yet somehow you think you're rebutting it. I just don't follow your logic here at all. Again: Yes. That's precisely what we have been saying. After the story in #54, they formed the Teen Titans. It doesn't matter whether it happened immediately, as a result of their team-up, or not. I don't believe any of us have ever disputed that. What matters is that it happened after, which it clearly did, since it doesn't happen in the story in #54. There's no misinformation here. There's just information that is being interpreted differently. I simply don't understand your interpretation of it, though, because how a quote saying it happened after #54 somehow proves it happened in #54 is beyond me.

What did? I've been in agreement with SFCD's points all along. There is disagreement coming. Well, yes. Because this: "Most of the opposition" is not because the name wasn't there, it's because the team wasn't there. If there was editorial intent to create a new team in #54, they failed spectacularly to show it in the actual story. Any importance that #54 has was retroactively imbued on it by the introduction of the Teen Titans in #60. If #60 had not introduced the Teen Titans, #54 would just be another team-up like #53 or #55. There is nothing in #54 that sets it apart from the other team-up issues.

You constantly ascribe nefarious motives to everyone who disagrees with you. If people are changing resources online to reflect the fact that #60 is the Teen Titans' first appearance, it's likely because they believe that to be correct, not because of some sinister "market manipulation." I don't know if SFCD has ascribed nefarious motives in other discussions, so I can't say if he "constantly ascribes" them, but at the very least, he does allow that it is only a possibility, rather than a foregone conclusion, by saying "if that is what is happening." How do you know? How can you say that with any degree of certainty? Because it "seems reasonable"? History has proven, countless times, that what "seems reasonable" isn't the motive behind most human behavior. SFCD doesn't say beyond any doubt that that is what is happening, he only says that it looks like that is what is happening, and any reasonable person should be inclined to agree: if the choice of motives is between genuine belief and self-interest, self-interest wins (almost) every time. And....it doesn't even have to be one or the other, and can be a combination of both (and more!) No, you say, unequivocally, that SFCD is wrong, and others are right, despite SFCD's position having the weight of the very author of the original story and decades of tradition behind him, while these nouveau deconstructionists seek to change nearly every accepted definition in this hobby, for purposes one can only guess at. SFCD allows for the possibility that his view on those making changes may be just perception; you allow no such thing. And you're calling him screwy....? That doesn't seem very fair, does it? I almost took this seriously until I realized you are just doing an Onion-style parody of SFCD. Well done.

You constantly ascribe nefarious motives to everyone who disagrees with you. If people are changing resources online to reflect the fact that #60 is the Teen Titans' first appearance, it's likely because they believe that to be correct, not because of some sinister "market manipulation." You're probably seeing these changes happen a lot because you're wrong and they are right. It doesn't mean that there's some evil conspiracy by villainous grifters.

MTU #1 is a retcon. In the real world in which we live, it's MP #20.

No it isn't, as you well know, since we've gone over this before. Because Avengers #1 has a half page sequence where they actually form a team. I bolded that to make it easier for you to see.

Codswallop.

If there's one person who is an absolute authority on continuity, it's definitely Bob Haney.

Here's something I can definitely agree on! I don't really see what purpose this thread serves any more, especially since it's gotten so long now that new readers aren't even reviewing the previous discussion, leading to just more and more circular arguments that get nowhere. Me either, but the opposite direction. To reiterate my position on this: DC can retcon their own universe, but they can't retcon ours. I'm still not convinced that anything in DC continuity establishes #54 as the Teen Titans first appearance, but even if it did, that doesn't change the fact that the Teen Titans as a team, a concept, and a title, did not first appear until #60. If you were to time travel to January, 1965, before #60 came out, and ask a million comic book readers who the Teen Titans are, none of them would be able to answer, because the team did not exist yet. #54 might be the more important book. It might be worth more, and maybe it should be worth more. But it is not the first Teen Titans. It should be self-evident that the team's first appearance cannot be prior to when they first appeared, but that is what the other side is arguing. People are trying to apply comic book storytelling logic to real world publishing history. For me, this is akin to claiming that Avengers #71 is the first appearance of the Invaders, or that Our Army at War #168 is the first appearance of the Unknown Soldier. Those things may be true "in continuity," but they aren't true in reality. And basing anything on continuity, especially DC continuity, seems to me to be beyond futile, given that the entire DC universe has been completely or partially rebooted at least, what, four times in the last 30 years? I think the only thing this pointless argument has accomplished is to make me reconsider the relative importance of TTA #27 and TTA #35.