MrWeen

I liked his site for a while but now it's less about speculative books and more about toys and other nonsense plus I wouldn't say he gets the news out any faster than quite a few blogs or certain reputable Google+ pages.

Speculators bring in money which creates interest. Readers create interest as well. Let`s enjoy this boom. It`s one of the few hobbies that actually is experiencing growth. Anybody want to talk stamps or Hummels? Comics is one of the few hobbies that still has a good collecting core. There is something new happening in the world of comics everyday. There cannot be many folks around this thread who know what a Hummel is!

Sandman, Preacher, Hellblazer and a slew of other Vertigo titles that attracted adult readers of every age and gender were weak? Yeah sure There were exceptions but the bulk of what was being released was garbage. Today even the big publishers are producing material that is generally well written and have been doing so for quite few years. If you lived through the 80's and 90's and collected comics there really wasn't much worth collecting or reading.

I think you mean New Mutants 25 I don't think so, or at least cgc has the full appearance as 26. First appearance 25, first full and first cover 26 Imagine if people actually opened the books to see for themselves what the "appearance" was. This one would be close and shut. I've always gone by #25, but whatever you have the most copies of is fine with me. I've never heard or seen anyone refer to 25 as being (more) significant. This is the same situation as Wolverine, so if we keep it consistent, then issue 26 should be the book to get. I have already put up my copies for sale and so far a majority of the folks are hitting me up on issue 25. That's what the wikia for him says is his first appearance. That's what most people go by I think. Wolverine's first is listed as 180 on his wikia....so...the market Here is the appearance in issue 25. He does not appear within the story but it's a clear image of the character and his origin is given. I would say that this is a first appearance and issue 26 is a first full appearance presented within the context of a sequential art story.

I think you mean New Mutants 25 I don't think so, or at least cgc has the full appearance as 26. First appearance 25, first full and first cover 26

Don't forget about Wolverina!

It's based off a Cartoon Network tv show that was created by an Adventure Time writer. IMDb Steven Universe I tried to watch this show. It's horrible. Go with Over the Garden Wall if you are looking for a killer new cartoon.

That's become clear. John Donne said 'no man is an island'. Clearly, he was wrong. He was replying to Mr. Ween. But I could say that in this case the "islands" are those who insist on this concept of "first apperance", and who wants to use words arbitrarily and out of context. Roy (Beastfeast) was just giving an uncalled for harsh reply, but what he means is clear. Why was it harsh? Was it true? Yes, Ween's attempt to make ads become actual appearances, contrary to long established comic collecting history and tradition, while certainly an interesting opinion, isn't going to gain traction (unless we lose all reason, which is certainly possible.) So, how he "sees" ads isn't relevant. Are we that wussified that plain spoken, unadorned truth is "uncalled for" and "harsh"...? Yes. I like how you only mention ads here and not previews. You know previews are just a specific type of ad, right? yes but there is a distinct difference between a sequential art preview of a book like say the Preacher preview and a pin up like the Gobbledygook book no?

That's become clear. John Donne said 'no man is an island'. Clearly, he was wrong. He was replying to Mr. Ween. But I could say that in this case the "islands" are those who insist on this concept of "first apperance", and who wants to use words arbitrarily and out of context. Roy (Beastfeast) was just giving an uncalled for harsh reply, but what he means is clear. Why was it harsh? Was it true? Yes, Ween's attempt to make ads become actual appearances, contrary to long established comic collecting history and tradition, while certainly an interesting opinion, isn't going to gain traction (unless we lose all reason, which is certainly possible.) So, how he "sees" ads isn't relevant. Are we that wussified that plain spoken, unadorned truth is "uncalled for" and "harsh"...? Yes. I like how you only mention ads here and not previews.

Less than a day away, and I come back to 4-5 pages of pure drivel . . . Anything heating up? No kidding, complete nerdy sunken chest thumpin' battle. Why do internet people feel the need to do this publicly. What a silly waste of time. Did sell a DC Comics Presents #41 in 9.8 for $133 USD a while ago. 1st new look Wonder Woman. There, I've contributed to this thread in it's true context. Not sure it's heating up, but it's a sleeper book. Listen I'll be the first to apologize but I also haven't seen anyone post any copper heaters to derail my partially tongue-in-cheek diatribe.

Mr. Ween, aside from all this ongoing discussion, this is either an unintelligent remark or you have to explain what you mean by "dated". It’s not that because I start calling a thing differently than it is, that it changes reality. That’s also the illusion behind a good deal of false reasoning today. RMA may be occasionally "exasperating" in his argumentations, but he is absolutely right here. Precisely. (thumbs u The point is that RMA dismisses a book like Gwenpool's first appearance because it doesn't suit his argument and then claims ignorance because he doesn't deal in new comics. I realize this is a copper thread but damn, some of you guys can't actually admit that even Overstreet describes a first appearance as one that occurs anywhere. ANYWHERE. RMA asked for an example, I gave him a clear one. I'm not sure what more some of you Copperheads need to see. By the way, John Donne is dated too. How do I know this? Because when I'm banging the GF and the throes of passion inspire me to spout the erotic verse of Donne she tells me to shut the fk up and c*m on her face, something infinity sexier and absolutely more modern.

Because history is not "ever changing", except to those trying to revise it. I deal in the comic collectible market every day, and have for many years...I don't deal in new comics. There's a substantial difference. One does not need to deal in new comics to be completely informed about the comic collectible market, which deals solely with back issues. That is, of course, unless we've gone completely round the bend and now consider new comics to be nothing but collectibles, produced, marketed, and consumed solely as collectibles. I hope we haven't gotten to that point, yet. I don't need to know what came out this week to know that the definition of a "first appearance" in the context of comic books is based on reason, and has been around since the beginning of comics fandom. "My" definition of a first appearance isn't dated, it's just accurate, and based on context. Are you going to provide more information, as requested...? Cool. Are you going to provide more information, as requested...? Does it have to be peer reviewed? Wait I have a better idea. I'll use OPG's defintion: Hmmmmm so a first appearance is when a character appears for the first time ANYWHERE. I see nothing in that definition that says anything about context, story or that the inclusion of the character in sequential art as a requirement. Here is your quote again: " And you continuing to say it "doesn't represent the truth" or some other form of that idea, while being unable or unwilling to provide anything from historical literature to refute it, doesn't make it so."-RMA I think now I have provided you one example.

Very true. Of course, I didn't answer "no, no, no." I specifically denied your specific statements. There's a subtle but important distinction there. What makes someone correct is the accuracy of their information, not saying "no" or "yes." So...whose information is accurate? I don't have any knowledge of "Green Wake 7", am not familiar with the preview in House of Mystery Annual 1, and I don't know who first appears in Agents 1. Do you mean Agents 6? And if you can't see as you say, I'll explain it again: if I take a handful of pages....like Image has done for the better part of 20 years...that are pages out of the upcoming Comic Book X #Y, and put them in a current publication as a "preview", that is not a first appearance...it is a preview. Common sense, reason, and the definitions of words tells us that a "preview" of something is NOT the thing itself, which is what you're attempting to redefine. It is literally a PRE-view, that is, a glimpse, a look, a taste of something BEFORE it officially debuts. Is it cool that the first few pages of Walking Dead #1 appear in Agents #6 and Capes #1? Yes, definitely. Does that increase interest in (and usually the value of) these particular issues? Absolutely. Is it literally the first appearance of these characters in published form? Yes, and no one's arguing against that. But the phrase "first appearance" has a slightly different meaning than "first time this character ever appeared in/on a product intended for public consumption", because comic books are a storytelling artform. If it doesn't tell a story, it's NOT sequential art. That is the defining characteristic of sequential art - it's art that's sequential, meaning, "it tells a story", regardless of what that story is. In THAT context, it doesn't matter if characters appear in ads, in previews (also ads), on Pop-Tart boxes, in TV shows, on billboards, articles of clothing, lunchboxes, or anywhere else outside of the context of a STORY. As has been mentioned many times, the first appearance of Harley Quinn isn't in a comic book...it's in a TV show. But that's not a form that is readily collectable, so what have people turned to? Her first comic book appearance, which has tremendous value. Context, context, context. Context is critical, and defines what "first appearance" really means...and this understanding goes back decades. No one calls the first appearance of Batman "Action Comics #12", even though it is literally true that Batman's likeness first appears in print prior to Detective Comics #27. The hobby has known this for decades, and still doesn't care, because it's just an ad. Does that make Action #12 more important than #11? Not really. And certainly not more than #13, which is the 4th Supes cover. In the comic book world "first appearance" has a specific meaning that doesn't necessarily coincide with the first time a character appears in print. Not relevant to this discussion, because we're not discussing such misunderstandings. One more time: it's not my definition. I didn't invent it; it's been around since the beginning of comics fandom. Obviously, the definition serves my argument, because my argument is based on standard definitions, context, and history. And you continuing to say it "doesn't represent the truth" or some other form of that idea, while being unable or unwilling to provide anything from historical literature to refute it, doesn't make it so. That is just terrible reasoning. "We can't agree because I reject standard definitions, history, and context, so let's just go with my definition which ignores all of those things." How is that statement not entirely self-serving...? It is silliness on a grand scale. True. Of course it was directed at you. I said "you", in response to you. But it wasn't solely directed at you. You are hardly the only person who has argued for "ads" and the like to be considered "true" first appearances, which is why the phrase was plural. And I know nothing about you...? On the contrary, I know much about you, because of what you say on these boards, just as anyone can know much about me, because of the same. But that's a philosophical tangent not related to this discussion. Technically correct. Contextually wrong. Maybe. Maybe not. There are people who have been collecting comics for 50 years who know very little about the hobby. Those people, when discussing the hobby, will be "Johnny-come-latelies" because they are uninformed...not because of their length of time collecting comics. I have no idea. I rarely deal in new material. You're going to have to provide some more information. I'm not trying to be rude but you might be stuck in the past a bit. If you don't deal in new material than how can you be informed about the ever changing comic collectible market? Maybe your definition of a first appearance is simply....um...dated. I do apologize for the Agents 1 typo though and my response to the other guy's post in your format was only done in jest.

No one is arguing that an ad cannot create demand and value. But it's NOT the Crow's first appearance. That is Caliber Presents #1. So, Hulk 180 ISN'T the first appearance of Wolverine? Is that last panel an advertisement of sorts for the next issue? I will always believe 180 is his first appearance, and that will never change, but I'm with you on the gobbledygook's of the world. Not 1st appearances, but ads. I don't know how to respond to this. Here I'll help: Yes, it is. No. Yes 180 is his first but because Wolverine wasn't on the cover until 181 the majority of dealers and collectors erroneously gave the distinction of first appearance to the wrong comic. There are more than one example of this from this era and I suspect it would not have happened if there were forums and other internet resources available back then. Here's how I see it: Foom 2 - First appearance of Wolverine prototype where elements and design were basically stolen by Marvel and used to create one of the most iconic comic characters ever. Hulk 180 - First appearance/full appearance of Wolverine. Daredevil 115, Marvel Premiere 119, Thor 229 - First appearance of Wolverine on the cover for Hulk 181 in an advertisement Hulk 181 - Third appearance of Wolverine, first appearance on a cover

You're right, the market has changed a lot since we were kids. Can you imagine 2nd prints bringing more than 1st prints when we were young ? Look at what is happening with Man of Steel/ Doomsday later printings on Captain Marvel #17. In the past, I wouldn't have thought about buying a 2nd print other than a TPB, and still wouldn't for me. That doesn't mean they won't be picked up for someone else who will appreciate them. A few Batman:TDKR 2nd and 3rd prints were just picked up due to other's buying preferences. I'm a 1st print guy all the way but I'm open minded too. I remember 2nd prints being looked at with disdain among collectors and for good reason.

Then you just conceded the argument, because previews are ads for the comic. They're marketing content. I said for arguments sake. I still firmly believe that ads can represents a first appearance but I understand that many around here disagree. A preview like WD in Capes is another story. That's a first appearance of major characters. No. No. No. No. (Nor do I care. I do not own, and have never owned, and likely never will own, a Walking Dead #1, and have absolutely no interest, beyond scholarly curiosity, in its monetary value.) That's a specious argument. Nonsense. It's not "my" definition, and it's not "my" argument. This "argument" existed long before I was BORN, and it wasn't an argument...everyone simply accepted it as fact. I can point you to literally decades of literature, starting with the Overstreet Price Guide, and moving on to CBG, the Comics Journal, and countless fanzines going back to the early 60's. ADS are NOT "first appearances." They are advertisements for UPCOMING publications. Can you point to any publication, anywhere in the entire history of comics, that makes a serious argument that ads represent actual appearances? If you can...by all means, post it here. But if you cannot....then do NOT call these definitions "made up" and "arbitrary" when they have been in existence since literally the beginning of comics fandom. No one refers to Action Comics #12 (among others) as the first appearance of Batman. No one refers to Daredevil #115 (among others) as the first appearance of Wolverine. No one refers to Iron Fist #13 as the first appearance of Sabretooth. It's only you Johnny-come-latelies that are trying to redefine terms that have been accepted for literally decades that are "making up" "arbitrary" definitions. Let's stop being silly, now. Again for arguments sake, I'll drop the idea that an AD can represent a first appearance ( what about Annihilation Conquest 6 though ) whatever, anyways.... You can answer no, no,no all you want but that doesn't make you correct. If we are talking about a preview of a book like Green Wake 7, Agents 1, House of Mystery Annual 1 or a single image of a character like Gwenpool who does NOT appear in the book beyond the cover I just don't see how you can argue against those examples as first appearances. Again they not be worth more that what the market has incorrectly deemed to be the first appearance ( see X-Factor 24 as a example ) but an error by the large collecting community doesn't change facts. We can disagree RMA but your definition only serves your argument and does not represent the truth. If we can't decide on a universal definition they we should go with the literal definition. That doesn't mean that Hulk 181 cannot be worth more than 180. All it means is that 181 cannot be called a first appearance. "It's only you Johnny-come-latelies that are trying to redefine terms that have been accepted for literally decades that are "making up" "arbitrary" definitions." As far as this statement it's not wise to make assumptions when you know nothing about me. I'm the only one arguing against you so it is directed at me. First off my definition isn't arbitrary at all. In fact it is quite clear: Wherever a character first appears in a printed publication, then that's the first appearance. As for the rest of your laughable statement, I have been collecting comics for over 30 years. I don't think that qualifies me as a "Johnny-come-lately. Just curious though, what do you think about Gwenpool. Is Deadpool's Secret Secret Wars 2 variant her first appearance or are you going against the marketplace and sticking with your definition of what a first appearance is?

I have repeatedly stated that my argument has nothing to do with the value of the books. You shouldn't confuse desirability with value. I have a lot of things in my collection that are worth little to others but everything to me.

Then you just conceded the argument, because previews are ads for the comic. They're marketing content. I said for arguments sake. I still firmly believe that ads can represents a first appearance but I understand that many around here disagree. A preview like WD in Capes is another story. That's a first appearance of major characters. The problem is that when we are talking about making money off the WD. The market jumped on issue 1 because collectors were not knowledgeable of the preview. As we all know markets can take a long time to make the proper corrections. I believe RMA thinks I am trying to change the monetary value of a book like WD 1 in the marketplace and that is not true. Besides at this point it's probably impossible for many valid reasons RMA states. I know it's hard for people who see comics as mostly a source of income to realize the importance of say a Rust 1 which prints Spawn in black and white for the first time or Superman Adv 4 which prints the cover to 5 but in black and white one month earlier or the plethora of others...Omega Men 2, ASM 359 and on an on. In a lot of these cases I even agree that a first comic book appearance should be should be WORTH more. Just don't tell me for decades a bunch of collectors and dealers use some arbitrary definition that RMA made up to suit his argument. If that's the case the Gwenpool's first appearance hasn't even happened yet and both the market and myself know otherwise.

That's not what I said. I said "The appearance has to be in sequential art (that is, TELLS A STORY), that is not intended to be "officially printed" in another publication. " It looks like you stopped at "officially printed" and didn't read the following three words, which radically changes the meaning of what I said. And no, I did not just "make this fact up." (Don't read that as "snarky"; it's not.) This has been established comics history going back decades. No one has ever considered non-story appearances (that is, ADS) to be "first appearances". or Action Comics #12 and the others would be worth more than Detective Comics #27. Nope I quoted you in full, hence the quotation marks. Then why did you leave those three words off when you repeated it? You DO understand that those three words left off completely changed the meaning of what I said, right? Regardless, you CAN find such a definition of "real" first appearances, right here, on this very board, multiple times. Definitions are based on common usage; the dictionary didn't descend from on high, fully formed and complete. How do you think definitions come to be? The definition of a first appearance: in a story, NOT including a "preview"...is one that has been accepted as standard since the beginning of comic fandom, otherwise...Action #12 would be worth more than Detective Comics #27. When I say "worth more", I don't mean (just) money. I mean "value to the collector community, all things considered." I can list countless examples. Malibu Sun #13 isn't the first appearance of Spawn. Spawn #1 is the first appearance of Spawn. In fact, these things are so silly, it has now been "discovered" that it is "actually" Rust #1 that is the "real" first appearance. Which is it? You know what IS the first appearance of the New Teen Titans? DC Comics Presents #26. Yup, it's a preview. And yup, it's an original story. You know what is NOT the first appearance of the Walking Dead? Capes #1, which only prints a few of the first pages from Walking Dead #1. I still don't see how a preview that's intended to be in another publication or not matters. If Rick Grimes appears in Capes 1 then that's the first Rick Grimes no matter what it sells for. You really need to forget the monetary value of the thing and trust your eyes. For arguments sake I'm willing to discount all ADs for a second and just look at excerpts of sequential art. Do we not see Rick Grimes in a sequential story for the first time in Capes/Agents 1? Just answer that question for me. When you are forced to answer yes then realize that there are countless examples of this. Saga 1 may be worth more and in higher demand but issue one was previewed sequentially in color and in an earlier publication. That's not me making up some arbitrary definition. It's a fact. As far as ADs go, I'm not trying to change the marketplace and Spawn 1 can sell for a dime while Malibu Sun sells for 50 a pop. But there's a reason why people want Malibu Sun 13 and it's because it predates Spawn 1. Spawn is on the cover of a lot of publications that aren't worth squat because they came out after Malibu Sun 13. And you are right Rust 1 has proven to have an earlier image of Spawn but it too sells for less than Malibu Sun 13. Why? Both versions do not have dynamic covers, They feature Rust and no one cares as much as a result. The collectible here appears to be Malibu Sun 13 because it's rare and has a striking cover. The point is...take value out of it. If Spawn's first appearance is in Rust 1 so what? The market can decide what's worth more. It just can't be used to determine facts. You and I can go around and around disproving and proving each other's small points but at the end of the day you can't just create a definition like this: "The appearance has to be in sequential art (that is, TELLS A STORY), that is not intended to be "officially printed" in another publication. "

That's not what I said. I said "The appearance has to be in sequential art (that is, TELLS A STORY), that is not intended to be "officially printed" in another publication. " It looks like you stopped at "officially printed" and didn't read the following three words, which radically changes the meaning of what I said. And no, I did not just "make this fact up." (Don't read that as "snarky"; it's not.) This has been established comics history going back decades. No one has ever considered non-story appearances (that is, ADS) to be "first appearances". or Action Comics #12 and the others would be worth more than Detective Comics #27. Nope I quoted you in full, hence the quotation marks. And while you list one example ( Action 12 ) there are others more recent ( Malibu Sun 13 ) that are in opposition to what you state.

Wait I thought first appearances had to occur within a story? It is a story. http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6433136 So it's a preview! Nice. No. OK so is it an unpublished story? No. It is clearly published, as NEC Newsletter #14. Because it's an original story, written and drawn for NEC Newsletter #14. According to whom? No. That would be an odd criterion. And Ben Edlund didn't publish NEC Newsletter #14...NEC did. No. Not correct. The appearance has to be in sequential art (that is, TELLS A STORY), that is not intended to be "officially printed" in another publication. It doesn't matter if it was printed in a comic book, a newsletter, Previews, the back of a Pop-Tarts box, or a roll of toilet paper. It simply has to be sequential art that isn't intended to be printed somewhere else. If Previews contained an ORIGINAL STORY that had a first appearance that wasn't intended for, nor printed in, another publication as PART of a "preview", then that would be an official first appearance. That's why the first appearance of "The Walking Dead" is NOT Capes #1 or Agents #6, both of which only contain PREVIEW PAGES of The Walking Dead #1, but why NEC Newsletter #14 IS the first appearance of the Tick. If it was just pinups of the Tick, character studies, or somesuch, you'd have a valid point. But it's not. You're still trying to claim that ANY published depiction of a character, no matter where it appears, no matter HOW it appears, should be considered the "first appearance", which is contrary to the entire history of comics fandom. Well, clearly it's because anyone who says it's a story has a warehouse full and is trying to manipulate the market. Orrrr.... The FORMAT of the appearance doesn't matter, provided it's in sequential art form. Look at the thread that was linked. This is NOT a "preview" of a story that appeared, or even was intended to appear, elsewhere. It is an original story, written and drawn for this newsletter. It is not an "unpublished story", it was published in NEC Newsletter #14. NEC was and is a PUBLISHER of comic books (not that one needs to be a publisher, but still.) "Not correct. The appearance has to be in sequential art (that is, TELLS A STORY), that is not intended to be "officially printed" in another publication." I appreciate your excellent response format and always have but that is where my appreciation ends. The bulk of your response centers around your point above. The problem is, you just made this fact up. I can find no definition of first appearance that says the appearance has to tell a story sequentially that isn't intended to be officially printed.

Wait, previews can be first appearances? Gobbledygook 1? I think its pretty well established that 'gook is NOT the first app of the turtles. I always found it odd that people think it is. This is not because I don't think ads can be firsts. I'm not really sure what month Gobbledygook 1 was published in but the promotional add on the back says on sale now. Does that mean that Gobbledygook 1 came out in May of 1984, the same month as TMNT1? I'm going with this as the firsts Turtles appearance then...

Wait, previews can be first appearances?

Wait I thought first appearances had to occur within a story? It is a story. http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6433136 So it's a preview! Nice. No. OK so is it an unpublished story? I'm just not sure why this newsletter qualifies as a first appearance while others do not. I though newsletters can't be first appearances or does the artist/writer have to state that it is within his own newsletter for it to count? Does the newsletter have to be promoted a certain way for it to count as a first? I have read a lot of posts over the years where people claim that collecting newsletter, previews, pamphlets and other non-comic format material is frivolous because they shouldn't be considered first appearances and yet no one is complaining about this company newsletter as a first. I wonder why.

Please do not take any spec advice from Bleeding Cool.