Crimebuster

I pretty much agree. I actually think it drops once they squeeze the extra stuff into the right, 20 cent bullet - like the month and issue number and stuff. I like the early design, where it's just DC in the left and 20¢ in the right.

I think the hooded one is Reyna. There was an interview on the Entertainment Weekly site with the creators about this poster and I'm pretty sure they at least suggested it was Reyna, and maybe outright stated it.

You know we've gone off topic when we're debating hobo anthems.

Still trying to wrap my head around how they came up with this one. What they are saying is that this counts as a "first appearance" for the sake of their label notations: But 9 pages, plus being identified by name and actually participating in the story, is just a "cameo." How do they determine these things, anyway? Is it really just whoever asks first gets to put whatever they believe on the label? It seems like there should be some kind of consistent policy for this sort of thing.

Don't get out much? Nope. I'm too busy reading Groo to go out.

I couldn't care less about the market, especially since I loathe Gambit and think the whole X-franchise is borderline idiotic at this point. But Annual #14 is the character's first appearance. Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of good reasons why #266 is in higher demand, commands more money, and is more sought after by fans. All of that is fine. And I don't see this ever changing. But a few people seem to be trying to use market popularity to justify rewriting history. I find some of the arguments here in favor of calling #266 his first appearance to be downright bizarre. It's not.

X-Men continuity is confusing enough without bringing CGC labels into it.

Wow, that design for Lotus might be the worst thing I have ever seen.

Oh yeah. Groo is a mile better than most of the junk discussed in this thread. Your mistake is thinking that these guys actually read comics. If it isn't worth money, it's just "drek" to a lot of the people posting in threads like this. Reading and enjoying the contents of comic books is nerd stuff.

But Lee didn't draw #266 either. Mike Collins did. No he didn't, but it was Jim Lee's character based on his earlier original sketches. Sure. But it was also Jim Lee's design in Annual #14. Not trying to be difficult here, I just don't understand what you mean.

But Lee didn't draw #266 either. Mike Collins did.

source? Source? Actually, I'm pretty sure you provided the source yourself when you posted a link to an interview with the artist for #266 where he said the issue was a last minute rush job that he had to do in just 8 days to meet deadline. Given that a) #266 was published 2 weeks after Annual #14, b) the Annual is twice as long as #266 and c) Art Adams is legendarily slow with his pencils, there's no possible way that Annual #14 was drawn after #266. Not that it matters, because this entire concept is preposterous. Proof has been shown in this thread that Annual #14 came out before X-Men #266. Annual #14 has Gambit in it. I cannot see any possible way someone can claim with a straight face that #266 is Gambit's first appearance. If you want to claim that #266 is more important, that's cool, but this is just weird. The only "proof" in this thread that it was published before X-men 266. Everything else you said is an assumption. Provide a source where it says Chris gave the notes on how to draw Gambit. Two sources are saying x-men 266 was suppose to be published first but due to delays it wasn't. I literally don't even know what you are talking about at this point. Or why. You're right when you say that the only proof in this thread is that X-men Annual #14 was published before X-Men #266. Given that you acknowledge this fact, why we are even having an argument at all defies all logic and reason. What's weird is that at the same time you are dismissing my arguments as being unsourced and unverified, you somehow manage to make this assertion multiple times: Even though the article you're claiming as a source says no such thing and doesn't even mention Annual #14 except in a picture caption. Of all the arguments I've had about first appearances on these forums, this one is turning out to maybe be the silliest. Therefore I am going to unilaterally declare this argument to be over, and with the power vested in me as an internet commenter, I am also going to declare myself the winner. The end, I hope to god.

Because that's the only rule that makes any sense. So you are saying previews count? If you are the sole artist/writer and created a new character finished the work on your own book, however your book was delayed. At the same time, a book that was suppose to feature your created character drawn by a different artist was on time. Do you feel the book drawn by a different artist should take credit for your created character? The other artist should not - and certainly would not - get credit for creating the character. But it would still be the first appearance of the character, because it would be the first time the character appeared. Unless you have a time machine, you can't alter reality to claim otherwise. And no, I am not saying previews count, because this is a storytelling medium, not an advertising medium. If people want to collect advertisements instead of comic books, that's their prerogative, but I'm not sure why it would impact anything comic collectors are doing. Anyway, this discussion is moot. Even if you want to claim that whatever was drawn first is the real first appearance - which I think is an utterly bizarre idea - SEE Noble Causes Secrets 3b Variant AND Invincible #1 source? Source? Actually, I'm pretty sure you provided the source yourself when you posted a link to an interview with the artist for #266 where he said the issue was a last minute rush job that he had to do in just 8 days to meet deadline. Given that a) #266 was published 2 weeks after Annual #14, b) the Annual is twice as long as #266 and c) Art Adams is legendarily slow with his pencils, there's no possible way that Annual #14 was drawn after #266. Not that it matters, because this entire concept is preposterous. Proof has been shown in this thread that Annual #14 came out before X-Men #266. Annual #14 has Gambit in it. I cannot see any possible way someone can claim with a straight face that #266 is Gambit's first appearance. If you want to claim that #266 is more important, that's cool, but this is just weird.

Because that's the only rule that makes any sense. So you are saying previews count? If you are the sole artist/writer and created a new character finished the work on your own book, however your book was delayed. At the same time, a book that was suppose to feature your created character drawn by a different artist was on time. Do you feel the book drawn by a different artist should take credit for your created character? The other artist should not - and certainly would not - get credit for creating the character. But it would still be the first appearance of the character, because it would be the first time the character appeared. Unless you have a time machine, you can't alter reality to claim otherwise. And no, I am not saying previews count, because this is a storytelling medium, not an advertising medium. If people want to collect advertisements instead of comic books, that's their prerogative, but I'm not sure why it would impact anything comic collectors are doing. Anyway, this discussion is moot. Even if you want to claim that whatever was drawn first is the real first appearance - which I think is an utterly bizarre idea - that would almost certainly still be X-Men Annual #14. Given that Art Adams did the interior, he was probably drawing pages with Gambit months before #266 was done.

Spider-Man unmasking himself to the public was a major part of Civil War. I'd argue it's the only real reason you'd even need him in the movie.

Because that's the only rule that makes any sense.

The place to talk about pressing is in the "Comic Book Grading and Restoration" subforum. (thumbs u

You ain't kidding! 22 sales of Avengers #316 just today on Ebay, and before that just 6 in the past 3-months! Man, hard to believe there's someone out there that owns 22 bird cages! Seriously, he joins half way through #316 and leaves the team at the end of that same mission, in #318. Who cares? It's almost the exact same thing that happens in #236-237, except at the end of 237 - after accepting an offer to become an official Avengers "trainee" member - he leaves because the government won't give him security clearance.

I don't have any of these variants yet, but I do appreciate your dedication to Cricket O'Dell!

He also officially gets kicked off the team in #318, if anyone wants to start scooping up those hot mamas.

The market can decide that Avengers #71 is worth a million dollars - in fact, I highly encourage this - but it won't change reality. Although the book has been considered as such, I trust hands down Crimebuster on the Invaders. In fact, I still need a Giant-Size Invaders although I have a #71 so I must pick one. I am also not 100% sure I already have an Invaders #1 – too many things to remember! I reply on his behalf, since I am pretty much into the Defenders, say like I am crazy about them! Sub-Mariner #34-35 is not properly a pre-Defenders story, or it might be just that in part. The main story arc which can be considered a gathering of sorts is the one from which Thomas gets the idea for the series: Hulk #126 / Sub-Mariner #21 / Dr. Strange #183 – here we are introduced to the nether-demons Nameless Ones, because of which Barbara Norriss loses her mind (her and her husband Jack were dabbling with the demonic cult of the aforementioned) and it’s where Dr. Strange first meets with both Hulk and Namor. And all of this of course happens before Sub-Mariner #34-35. It‘s not by chance that Englehart, when starts the series in Defenders #1 ideally picks up once again the Nameless Ones as the enemy, and the Valkyrie of course gets in the body of Barbara Norriss, while Barbara’s insane mind is trapped in the Valkyrie's body. So Hulk #126 is the first Barbara, Hulk #142 is the first Valkyrie (in this first apperance she is in the body of Samantha Parrington), while Avengers #83 just shows the Enchantress disguised as the Valkyrie, and thus does not represent the first apperance of the Valkyrie even if it should have come out earlier, I believe. Avengers 83 is still the 1st time the Valkyrie name and costume was used, 9 months before Hulk 142, so Avengers is the one to chase IMO If we want to go in detail, all four (Avengers #83, Hulk #126 and #142 and Defenders #4) have the same importance, but strictly speaking in Avengers #83 we see the Valkyrie but in fact it’s just a spell of the Enchantress which appears in disguise. The Valkyrie was under a spell from the Enchantress, and thus we have: – Avengers #83: Enhantress appears disguised as the Valkyrie, forms the Lady Liberators deceiving the female members of Avengers, and they fight the male members; – Hulk #126: First apperance of Barbara Norriss (which becames insane at the end of the story arc, see Subby #21 and Doctor Strange #183); – Hulk #142: The Valkyrie incarnates in the body of Samantha Parrington and battles the Hulk, then Samantha gets back to herself; – Defenders #4: the Valkyrie acquires the body of Barbara Norriss, while the "absent" Barbara is trapped within the body of the Valkyrie in Asgard. – some Defenders issues in the #60s tell the origin of the Valkyrie in full. I hope Crimebuster can correct me if I am wrong, but Avengers #83, although showing her physical features for the first time, is not the first apperance of her. :shrug: You are correct. Essentially, Valkyrie was a fake identity created by the Enchantress as part of her scheme to divide and conquer the Avengers in Avengers #83. It's like Supernova turning out to be Booster Gold, or Eric the Red turning out to be Cyclops. After this issue came out, someone at Marvel said, "hey, that Valkyrie design is really good. The name and costume are too cool, we should use it again." So they created the new heroic Valkyrie - same exact look and name - and made up a backstory to explain why she looked exactly like the Enchantress's fake identity. (that story being that she is an actual valkyrie that Enchantress knew on Asgard was copying, so she already existed in the MU, but the readers just hadn't met her before) So this is kind of the opposite of a lot of other muddied first appearances where the civilian identity appears first - like Carol Danvers - and the costumed/superpowered identity appears later. In this case, the Valkyrie identity appears first, but there's no actual character associated with it until many months later.

Calling Sub-Mariner #34 1st Pre Defenders is basically a lie. Just curious why you feel that way? It has been thought of that way for at least the last 30 years. It is listed in Overstreet that way under Sub-Mariner 34 & also noted as a pre-appearance under Marvel Feature #1. I understand everyone has their own opinion, but this one seems pretty obvious. It also says it on the CGC label. Can't pin this on the seller, though if you want to call CGC liars, that's fine. sub-Mariner 34 features Subby, Hulk and Surfer. The Original Defenders are Subby, Hulk and Strange and Hulk leaves in the first issue according to the wikia. So two members appearing in the same book constitute the "team"? As an example, did Iron Man, Hulk and / or Thor ever meet before Avengers 1? I don't think they did. I'm also not sure why wiki says Hulk left the Defenders after #1, he's prominently featured on the majority of covers all the way up through #93. I mean, I'm mostly with you, I always thought this was a little iffy in terms of being a direct setup for Defenders. It's an interesting crossover that may have placed a seed in Roy Thomas's mind for later. That's more or less it though. But the seller for this auction didn't do anything wrong. He was just citing the CGC label.

Rat Queens has been a little off the radar recently because of the long delay between issues caused by Roc Upchurch's departure from the book. But with the series getting on a monthly schedule now, I expect the buzz to start building up again. Personally I thought the domestic abuse charge really hurt the book. Id like to see print runs over the next couple of months to see how bad. Its got a large female base. I could be wrong, but I think most fans are going to stick with it. Kurtis is really active with the Rat Queens fan community and I think that his quick action to address this and remove Roc from the book was appreciated by most. It wouldn't surprise me if the numbers were down a little because of the long delay. But I think it will pick back up once the second trade hits and momentum starts going again.

Graded? Ive been moving this book raw for $20-25 for over a year now.. Not often but still.. Not hard to believe that it would catch fire soon.. Zack's cover is just badass i feel like i have a dozen of these somewhere as my old LCS dumped them in the 25 cent box at some point in the late 90s...i'm sure i didn't put boards in them so they're all VGs now Consign them with Divad I never thought this book would hit that kind of number raw. Passed on it many times under $5. In other news, here is a good example of a horrible listing for the seller: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=281594316380&lgeo=1&vectorid=229466 I was iffy on buying this, but since they're throwing in 4 random 'NAM comics, I'm all in. I'd rather read Nam than anything with Venom. But I'm pretty sure I can get Nam cheaper than this, so I'll pass.