MrWeen

too many story lines about female heroes / not enough storylines about Frankencastle or space Punisher.

Looks like I should have bought that Green Ranger cover for 40 and flipped right away. I'm shocked considering the terrible cover art.

This says it all. This specific thread is about value speculation. I think we can say that many books don't fall into the "I've read that" category. There are plenty of threads praising comics and stories that people like, gasp... just for the story. If you can spot quality, you may easily be able to pick up books cheaply while the fan base develops. Reading the books is an important part to any speculative approach. This is reason many people smart people were buying Saga #1 when it was $20 raw or $100 in CGC 9.8. Yes, and the same with We Can Never Go Home. How about Manifest Destiny, Rat Queens, etc... I guess I was thinking of this thread as more of a, "this is going to heat up in a week" type of speculation. As I said, there are plenty of great stories, but that doesn't mean they will hold value. Saga gained value because after a while it became more widely known that it was a great story AND supply outweighed demand. It doesn't hurt that the art is great as well, at least IMO, and she wasn't know nearly as well as she is now. So what I'm saying, is that it's easy to cherry pick Saga as a value increase due to only story, but what about something like We Stand on Guard, or Paper Girls, can't miss, right? but people say it coming and were hoping for another Saga. I still think the 2014 Ms. Marvel and Moon Knight series's were both classics for their own reasons. Not sure they will increase much at this point though. I miss Blackacre.

Again the big difference is in MOS 17, there's really no arguing that those were not Doomsday fists. However, in Web 18, those hands are just too ordinary looking and there's no other supporting evidence that they belong to Eddie Brock / Venom. I know what you mean that it would make sense that they should belong to Venom, but what's stopping a writer from making a new villain tomorrow that knows Spider-Man's secret identity and can evade his spider sense? If that writer decides to reference back to Web 18 stating that this character has always been stalking or trying to kill him, that will throw a wrench to all the folks that bought the book thinking it was Venom. I'm not saying its not Eddie's Brocks hands nor can anyone officially say it belongs to him. It's just too vague to be considered a key. Start listing to this at about 25:40: https://superiorspidertalk.com/spider-talk-and-their-amazing-friends-w-david-michelinie/ Thanks, so this podcast pretty much confirms that Eddie Brock / Venom was not even created yet when Web 18 was released. David Micheline was originally planning on creating a female villain which got nixed by the EIC. This literally goes back to what I have been saying all along, that hand is literally just a placeholder for a villain that has not materialized yet. This is my stance on why the book shouldn't be considered a key of any sort. So you're saying that Eddie is the important part of Venom? Okay... You know character designs get changed all the time, especially early in their existence (including before publication), right? Yes I understand that characters get changed all the time, but all we've been given in Web 18 is just a generic hand and "planning stages" behind the scenes by the creators. The character was still on the drawing board waiting to be designed. How is that supposed to be considered a key? So if I draw a random foot today in the latest issue of ASM kicking Spidey, but I don't refine and develop the character until four years later to tie it back to the foot, is this issue with the foot considered a key now? To me the concept seems a bit silly. To each its own, if folks are willing to spend good money on this book and call it a key, then by all means. To me, I will never consider it as one. are you overlooking 24 which shows clear character development?

It's kind of sad that death sparks interest like this, same thing happened with Captain EO.

Well the cover to 361 is published in 360. #359 Yea you might be right on that I was going by memory.

Again the big difference is in MOS 17, there's really no arguing that those were not Doomsday fists. However, in Web 18, those hands are just too ordinary looking and there's no other supporting evidence that they belong to Eddie Brock / Venom. I know what you mean that it would make sense that they should belong to Venom, but what's stopping a writer from making a new villain tomorrow that knows Spider-Man's secret identity and can evade his spider sense? If that writer decides to reference back to Web 18 stating that this character has always been stalking or trying to kill him, that will throw a wrench to all the folks that bought the book thinking it was Venom. I'm not saying its not Eddie's Brocks hands nor can anyone officially say it belongs to him. It's just too vague to be considered a key. Not even Marvel? Well....technically, they forgot his appearance in #298, but hey... That's more of a 1st app than Web 18. It's the equivalent of MOS 17. It's Venom. It's intended (by the writer & artist) to be Venom. Web 18 is a ret-con, and a lame one at that. Something to push a worthless book from a worthless title to some level of collectability. Again do we know this is a retcon? If it is I'm with you but If it's not and it was intended ( didn't Marvel do the same thing with Ben Reilly years later? ) then I don't see how it's not a key book.

Well the cover to 361 is published in 360.

If the character was only in shadow and not Venom then Peter's foot ( which is under Venom's arm ) would also be black. It isn't. The arm is clearly sticking way out of the window grabbing Peter's ankle. Peter's shoe is still brown. The other post should finish the argument anyway. When Marvel publishes a comic stating that Web 18 is Venom's first appearance I'm still not sure how it can now be argued against. Unless Marvel were to admit that the 1989 Update issue was a retcon I see nothing that disproves the claims about these books.

. To prove that's it was planned and not a retcon wouldn't we have to speak to Marvel? That black arm sure looks like Venom so I'm not sure if we can say the 1989 Update issue is a retcon at all. I'm pretty sure the TRUE answer depends on whether or I not I own one or more copies of WEB 18. If so, then it is in absolute certainty the first true app of venom. Personally I own no copies of this book I just dig Spider-Man. You should have underlined TRUE and maybe added a bold font or something to really make that word stand out.

. To prove that's it was planned and not a retcon wouldn't we have to speak to Marvel? That black arm sure looks like Venom so I'm not sure if we can say the 1989 Update issue is a retcon at all.

Again the big difference is in MOS 17, there's really no arguing that those were not Doomsday fists. However, in Web 18, those hands are just too ordinary looking and there's no other supporting evidence that they belong to Eddie Brock / Venom. I know what you mean that it would make sense that they should belong to Venom, but what's stopping a writer from making a new villain tomorrow that knows Spider-Man's secret identity and can evade his spider sense? If that writer decides to reference back to Web 18 stating that this character has always been stalking or trying to kill him, that will throw a wrench to all the folks that bought the book thinking it was Venom. I'm not saying its not Eddie's Brocks hands nor can anyone officially say it belongs to him. It's just too vague to be considered a key. Not even Marvel? WOW. That's some direct evidence if I have ever seen it. The only reason the market won't relfect this is because the knowledge isn't well known. Here is some more: In this image Peter's leg is grabbed by what appears to be venom. and then Pete connects the events from issue 18 to 24. So if the argument for MOS 17 over Web 18 is simply that the hand isn't Venom then issue 24 appears to take care of that.

Most of those "keys" were flash in the pan villains that appeared in one episode of Flash, like Plastique. Obviously Felicity has proven to have more legs (pun fully intended). just seems likes another reason not to put her in a wheelchair.

It can get a little silly at times, with what is actually a first appearance, but I have to ask... Who would you then say it was that pushed Peter Parker in front of the subway train, that wouldn't have set off his spider sense? Aside from the Venom symbiote, aren't there some other things that do not trigger the spider sense? There's been a gas created, and they've written inconsistent ideas for certain villains that didn't set it off, but... what I'm asking is, WHO was it that did that and didn't set it off? Was it ever written, that it was someone else? Spider-Man's foot is grabbed in issue 24 and no spider-sense is triggered. Who did that? I think it is safe to assume that the person responsible also knows Spider-Man identity ( which Venom does ) as there are two incidents within a 5 issue span.

My point is there needs to be a fine line drawn on what's considered as a cameo / first appearance. I know what you're saying but Web 18 is only a "placeholder" for a villain to be announced soon. I just can't consider that book as a first appearance when the character has not been designed or named yet. It's like somebody saying oh remember this issue ## that came out in 1964 on page so and so where you only see part of somebody's pinky toe.....oh that's Carol Danvers.....*rolls eyes* It appears they had a clear idea of what the character was going to be capable of. Remember, web18 is not the only appearance of Venom prior to 298. The Web 18 issue is important because it is the first time Venom uses his power against his foe. That is pretty important and should make the book a significant spidey key.

I've grabbing copies whenever I can find them, but never ever paying that much. Maybe he or she knows something we don't know. Really not even the right book to speculate on ? #53 would be the KEY. Why not pick up both? I been plucking both of these books in bargain bins for years whenever I see them. I have a strong feeling this will end up the same as Man of Steel 17/18 where X-Man #15 may get a stronger price boost simply because the print run is far lower than X-Men #53. Booth are good. but x-man #15 is just a shadow cameo. It's the same with MOS#17 where you only see Doomsday's fists, yet it commands a much higher price than MOS#18. Yes but Web 18 does not. Can we all just agree that people want what they want? Only if we can all agree that the market for comics isn't a reliable source for determining what is and is not a first appearance.

Hey a modern that's heating up! http://www.ebay.com/itm/MALIBU-SUN-13-GREEN-NEGATIVE-ERROR-VERSION-NO-RESERVE-AUCTION-/141866462950?hash=item2107e66ee6:g:EaQAAOSwJkJWhv8V

Anyone know the print run of the 2nd printing? Distribution was 4,099. Thanks.

Anyone know the print run of the 2nd printing?

Guys, I keep reading how second, third, etc. prints have low print runs and therefore would be good buys but they are reprints. Why would anyone invest money in reprints? IMO they will have very little value 5-10 years from now. I guess if people are buying them to flip that makes sense but if anyone out there is actually buying these to keep as a future investment I would really like to hear the reasoning. I honestly don't understand the pricing on reprints. Most are worth very little which makes sense but there are some issues that are worth a good chunk of change. There is no consistency behind the pricing and I would stay far away from all of them. IMO a lot of people are going to be burned big time and stuck with a bunch of worthless reprints. Sadly like most things concerning the value placed on comics it's about rarity not quality. Try finding a DC Universe 5th printing of MOS 18. Good luck and if you do I say sell it. Should a set of WE3 be worth as much? Yes but it never will be. Second I do not recommend buying any comic with the thinking that in 5-10 years it will be worth something unless it's worth something to you. Personally I buy the second printing of Resurrection Man 1 every time I see it. Why? Because it's rare, I hoard mess, I like the way Roman numerals look on a cover and I because I actually like Abnett's work. My advise: keep what you deem valuable not what the market tells you is valuable and sell everything else at the right time so that you can buy more of what you love.

Ya might want to go with this one too. http://www.ebay.com/itm/CAPTAIN-AMERICA-34-DF-ALEX-ROSS-SIGNATURE-COA-9-8-CGC-Qualified-1864-2500-/181957844621?hash=item2a5d885e8d:g:w-kAAOSw37tV-FR1

It jumped two years ago. Why does it matter who owns the rights now? Might want to check 194 though. With rights reverting back to Marvel I would think there's a greater chance a popular character will be used in a film or show or at least a much larger chance than say if the property stayed with Fox. I mention 195 because that is generally considered to be his first appearance as far as the market is concerned. If he appears in 194 then I'm with you.

It looks like the rights to Taskmaster have reverted back to Marvel. Avengers 195?