MrWeen

Some do really well especially the earlier books.

You sure about Armorines? I remember reading that 19 was not therm.

But that is my point, the Foom book is her first published image. These days there are plenty of people who want such books. Don't believe me? go check recent sales for Foom 15!

Cute but I think we are talking comics!

Convenient to eliminate people why buy comics. Aren't most of you sellers? You are making a lot of assumptions. Maybe the guy wants every book the character appears in or maybe she agrees with me because times have changed. You are assuming ALL buyers care about the first within the story. I am sorry but those days are gone. If we are talking selling the ncovers rule and there is nothing more nefarious than store variant sellers and other ways dealers and companies produce manufactured collectibles!

Yea times change man and they are right now. Look a "depiction " is really just another way to avoid saying appearance. They appear on the cover and inside that book.

Is Foom 15 a preview?

All good, never claimed to be! I don't need to be an authority, I just use my eyes!

CGC is not an authority, make errors all the time and even have labeled books as firsts where the character only appears on the cover.

I would never say such a thing!

Yea this seems like a nice way to explain nothing. If I were to agree that everyone's opinion counts then I can say an image is a first appearance and I am correct. You can say the opposite and you would be correct. But if we just go by what we see then there is no need to argue! No. You don't need a sequential work to define a first. There are many example where a character's first happens on a cover and they are not part of the narrative within. There are also many comics in existence that have no sequential art but are still technically comic books. What can I say times change. Without the internet we wouldn't even be having this conversation unless you like waiting for a letter. They actually define a first a a debut and a debut is defined as the first time a character appears anywhere. ANYWHERE!!! Just to let you know the most recent Overstreet has given some validity to previews, etc. Sorry but that panel with Sabretooth is easily missed and he's in shadow. We all miss things, look at Archangel. He appears in issue 23 and in 21 or 22. But because of the cover to 24 the market continues to be wrong. And no the market does not consider 180 Woilverine's first appearance thanks to that cover on 181. Times are changing on that too, thank god. I am not going to try and convince you but if CCG notes a first appearance on a cover where there is no appearance inside then it's really just a pinup no? The real problem is that because there is no real definition you and I can use all sorts of examples to justify our positions. What is needed more than ever is a definition!

Since that other thread is closed I figured I would post this. If people here who say that a first appearance requires a story ( where is that definition??? ) then how do you explain Foom 15? Danvers appears in pinup. That's not a preview of her comic at all. The cover is " previewed " but the art is just an original pinup. My point here is that you don't need a narrative to make a first appearance a first appearance. Someone said it's a visual medium and that is correct. Today people are concerned with cover art over story and it's not even close. Her first cover appearance as Cap was in the sampler. Avenging 9 took off because it has other things going for it such as it's an iconic cover and it's a Spidey cover. The sampler was some giveaway most people missed, Does the story really matter anymore? To speculators and those of us who deal in comics for profit the answer is probably no. Anyone have a list of valuable modern books that sell for big money because of the story? A great story is why we READ comics but these days it has little to do with making money off comics. I can name a hundred stories that should be worth a ton but unless there's a badass cover or it's a rare variant, 9/10 times it's going nowhere. There is no definition anywhere that says a first appearance can only occur in a story and just because an easily manipulate market says a book is first and that book sells for a large sum, it in no way means that it's actually a first. All it says is that the book is valued over others or a litany of reasons, many of which cannot be relied upon.

Well you are right there I sometimes come to

so you found 1 error and a possible error. Hmmmmm that's not that much man considering the length of the article. And the clown's comment does not do what you say it does. It in no way reminds anyone to give CGC credit! It's only a link. I don't see him " reminding" anyone to give credit. Hes just adding to the request of the writers and providing more infromation for collectors. See if you can find the grammer errors! I've add more for your investigatory pleasure ya Nazi, Correcting grammar is the last bastion of the desperate.

"your" pathetic.

You are assuming the writers took the list from here. I'm pretty sure there was nothing remarkable about that list. You want there to be but there just isn't. It's only a list compiled by many people. Saving the bullets for another time is not, as you say " bad scholarship " That is simply your opinion and at this point just a weak one. The list here is generic and again is only a list. You can plainly see the effort went way beyond what was offered here and elsewhere. Even so CGC and others were credited. I'm not sure what else you want? Go give yourself a Barry Horowitz style pat on the back after a loss. That's pretty much all I ever see from you. I'm pretty sure you are now a grammar nazi too! Look at the spelling of a lot a few words later. Is is correct? Answer: Yes. You know you are desperate when you have to go the typo route! Here I'll do it for you! "And yes being discussed in the comments does matter! Did you write the article? No. Do you presume to know the intent of the writer? You sure reach alot and make a lot of assumptions RMA."-Mr. Ween " It's like someone claiming they discovered something by making people more aware of it " Ummmmm the article never claims they discovered anything. In fact the authors encourage others to contribute for the benefit of the community. Even your trolling is getting old! The comment section is not different from the article when the writers are commenting! You just can't admit your didn't bother to read the comments. Have some courage to admit fault. I see no comment in that article that "reminded" CBSI to give any credit. Your lies and warped comments prove your intent is to smear a good article designed to help collectors. But because it happens in a place you loath your goal is to besmirch the webpage. That is just sad sir. And no CGC IS lucky to be mentioned at all by CBSI. Your assumptions are sad as your responses. Nice fake, erroneous quote. too! "oh, uh, yeah, totally, we got all our info from the CGC thread, so, uh...yeah."

Wrong. The bullets were not mentioned in the article on purpose and left for another article. Credit was given to online resources at the end of the article, before the comments were published. The research goes waaaayyyyy beyond CGC and the list here. As for your " problem " a list on these boards does not require CBSI to credit specific contributors to a list. Lists are everywhere! And yes being discussed in the comments does matter! Did you write the article? No. Do you presume to know the intent of the writer? You sure reach alot and make a lot of assumptions RMA. If CBSI wanted to steal credit from CGC they would have deleted any comments related. They did not. The bottom line is ya don't get named credit for compiling a list. CGC was lucky to get mentioned at all by name.

God I really despise posts like this. Did you read the article? Credit was given to many sources including online forums such as this. . The bullets were not " dismissed " and if you bothered to read the comments they are discussed there. Subsequent articles also mention bullets and the fact that another article would be written exclusivity about them. The info here amounts to a list which helps but in no way means that Revat and others deserve credit for the comprehensive article published at CBSI. Personally I have been collecting and researching DCUs since long before the threads at CGC. The point...credit WAS given and the bullets were discussed.

Zack Snyder is adapting Fountainhead. Time to look for that Illustrated Fountainhead 1998 collection?

Well there is a reason to buy this albeit a small one, first time a comic called the Joker Jack Napier.

I blame the CW.

Actually you are right about Ego. It appears she's going to pretty important in 3. Yes villain speculation is tough and yes Movie TV spec isn't what it was but all it takes is a well done villain, something comic films have a tough time pulling off. Maybe if they put her in a gold bikini this book will take off.

She's the primary villain for 1, possibly 2 films for a wildly successful franchise. I would say it's actually undervalued.

How is this book not a key? It's her first as Ayesha which is the name of the GOTG 2 character. Add to that she is going to be in the next film unlike Ego or Ronan. Try finding a high grade newsstand of this, I dare ya!