Jaydogrules

Meh. Even BvS, as awful as it was, knew what was up. https://mobile.twitter.com/4eyedraven/status/750848669591621633 -J.

Actually, no. That's has not been shown by anyone, and as Gator has repeatedly stated, it likely cannot be known. And sorry, mikesamazingworld.com didn't help you with alleged publication dates. Maybe you should have read the disclaimers on the site. This isn't about what "some guy" wrote wrong 50 years ago. DC knows what they've published and they are the final word on the matter. Don't like it, take it up with them directly. You're just pizzing in the wind blubbering about it here. But I'm sure you'll keep doing what you like to do anyway, which is beating a dead and slaughtered horse. -J.

-J.

Agreed. And *hint The reason why DC has never nor will ever change their official site is because they would never allow a potential, trifling quirk in their delivery schedules 80 years ago to impact their canon in such a nonsensical, irrational manner. Lesson- Content trumps all. Rightfully so. And even more so, over something that cannot conclusively be proven either way from 80 years ago, even if it was true. -J.

Shouldn't you be drafting your grievance letter to DC on this matter right about now ? And, Lol, my "opinion" is fact until you at least get DC to change their own official website on the subject with your speculative information that has been floating around the hobby for decades. Have fun with that one buddy. -J.

So... in other words, the potential quirk in delivery schedules in the quarterly vs. monthly (which, no, can not and will never be actually fully provable even in a best case scenario) has been known by Overstreet for at least 20 years, DC, much longer, and CGC the entirety of its existence (i.e., no new information has been shared in this thread), and all have and continue to show Action 23 as the true and proper first appearance of the character. Nice to know that content and publisher intent are indeed still king in this hobby, and more important than trifling semantic jibber-jabber. -J.

Then why are you still wasting your time here ? Shouldn't you be reaching out to DC and presenting them with this vital info that they have surely never heard or known about until you and your friends at a notorious pump and dump spec site stumbled upon 75 years later ? Lol Get on it man! -J.

Classis straw man. We've already discussed how "release dates" are unreliable and inconsequential. That does not mean DC does not know when their own character first appeared. Furthermore, the character bio that I linked from DC's site says nothing of a release date for the issue (and interestingly, Superman 4 is not searchable at all in that secondary database, guess that tells us what DC thinks of its actual significance (or lack thereof)) And again, if you think that even DC is "wrong", let them know and get them to "fix" things the way you think they should be. Then Overstreet and CGC et al. would have no choice but to follow suit, right ? Good luck with that ! -J.

You're going in circles. It has already been explained to you why that isn't persuasive in and of itself. Get something more and come back. Or... Put your money where your mouth is and convince DC, with this already known info, to officially and correctly report something other than Action 23 on its own website. -J.

Touché my friend. Lol -J.

You haven't said anything "new". All you've done is copy and paste from a notorious pump and dump spec site. So put your money where your mouth is and see if you can get DC/Overstreet/CGC etc. to update their official records to support your position, with this already known information. I would suggest starting with DC directly however, since it is unlikely any other authority will change anything so long as DC officially and correctly lists Action 23 as the first. Otherwise it's all just jibber-jabber. -J.

Who knows. Which is why publisher intent and story continuity trump all in these discussions. The rest is unverifiable jibber-jabber from an era when things were more fast and loose. -J.

Then put your money where your mouth is and present and educate DC and Overstreet, etc, with this vital information that has already been known, so that they say what "you" think they should say and maybe your own claims (*read- fictions) might be worth paying attention to. Good luck with that! -J.

This is assuming vendors back then were not simply instructed to withhold the superman 4 for one week in lieu of the action 23 (also a possibility, given Action as a regular weekly and superman as a regular quarterly back then, and assuming that all vendors received all books all at once). As to Overstreet, who knows, I would presume it is because that's what DC has always called it. -J.

No one has posted anything in this thread that was not previously known. So either the decision had been made (by DC, Overstrert, etc.) that it is not enough, not persuasive, or that it is irrelevant. -J.

"On newsstand" dates aren't hard and fast from the era. So that's not enough. And if somebody really believes any of what you just said, they should put their money where there mouth is. If they seriously believed DC "made a mistake", then they should contact them and alert then to it so that they can update their own official site on the matter. They should contact Overstreet and make their case. They should alert CGC in writing (I have personally gotten a couple successful label updates in the past from them). Posting here isn't going to do anything. If somebody really believes that they should make their case directly to the official agencies that are responsible for reporting these datapoints. Because if you cannot get a single official source to agree with you, odds are, you're the one that's wrong. -J.

I would hazard a guess that the reason why no comic authority uses date stamps or "on newsstand" advertisements when determining such things as this is precisely for the reason that Gator said- it is inconsistent and unreliable for the era. Sometimes info is simply lost to time. So then we default to the more substantive data that we do have, ie story continuity and publisher intent, which frankly should then be the end of the conversation. -J.

You're always good for a laugh RMA. Tell you what, given that absolutely no new information has actually been revealed at any point during this thread, if you can get even one single authority to agree with you, we can have a conversation. Good luck with that! -J.

What you are attempting to do is advance a narrative. Right now, the ONLY thing you actually have to support anything you have said is that one book might have been delivered to newsstands exactly one week before. "Might" being the operative word, because, as Gator has politely and repeatedly attempted to explain to you, those dates were very much moving targets back then. After that, you have nothing. And I mean... nothing. 1) The story continuity tells you Action 23 is the first appearance. 2) Overstreet tells you Action 23 is the first appearance. 3) CGC/Voldy tell you Action 23 is the first appearance. 4) Even the unverified copyright number info that you copy and pasted from a notorious pump and dump spec site tells you Action 23 is the first appearance. 5) DC's own official website tells you Action 23 is the first appearance. So... beyond a weak semantical argument based on information that is not reliable or verifiable from 80 years ago, you have nothing. Nothing but a failed narrative. Good day sir. -J.

And how reliable is that?- given that it's a peer editable site like Wikipedia (which isn't reliable for anything). Made up or not, if the info is not reliable or from any reliable source, then it is worthless. -J.

You originally referenced "CBSI" as your primary source and rationale for your question. CBSI- Comic Book Speculation and Investment. A notorious (at least in some parts of these boards) pump and dump spec site. Other than the copy and paste you took form that site regrading the alleged copyright info for these books, do you have any reliable source for the info? -J.

Thanks. Now show me where in there that info you copy and pasted from the notorious pump and dump spec site can be found. -J.

By the way, do you actually have a reliable source for this info that is not copy and pasted from a notorious pump and dump spec site ? -J.

...and you're still ignoring the elephant in the room that renders all other superfluous curiosities meaningless; https://www.dccomics.com/characters/lex-luthor -J.

Or we could just go by what DC has stated on its own official site. Here it is again: https://www.dccomics.com/characters/lex-luthor Yeesh. What a waste of time this has all been. -J.