GeeksAreMyPeeps

I've thought the same. I started collecting shortly after that

This has a UPC on the back though, right? I have a copy or two like this, as well as some with the price on the front. But I gather from an earlier comment that there are more variants?

Newsstand!

I didn't mention trades because of resale vale. I was referring to them in regards to how successful a series is. A lot of readers only buy books to read; more so with trades, I think.

I've found that mostly the boards here aren't good for discussing the stories themselves, but more focused on the hobby. Kinda makes sense considering it's the board of a company that makes reading your book impossible. Gotta search out those boards elsewhere

You're only considering floppy sales. Saga in trades is a monster, and can therefore still be said to outsell a lot of the books you mentioned. The latest Comichron sales available (for April) has all 8 Saga TPs in the top 24 of sales fro trades. That's huge. We're far past the point where companies look only at monthly sales to decide on the success of a book (unless, perhaps, it's a new book, with low sales, and no history of connected trades to determine how well it will sell in that format).

I noticed that. I posted a few myself.

There's been some movement on Bloodshot (Acclaim series) 2 & 3 (first cameo and full appearance of Chainsaw) on rumors that Chainsaw will be in the Bloodshot movie.

People keep buying them. That's why they've done it over and over again, and will continue to do so. That people buy them over and over again might be the place to look for insanity or stupidity.

Precisely why I decided to sell those now. I have no interest on holding onto my GI Joe books. Sold a lot of 21 books that included the origin in 26–27, two copies of #2 (first and second prints), a bunch of newsstands, and McFarlane's issue, for $10 plus shipping. To be fair the key issues weren't in top condition, but I think there's just not many people actively looking for them.

So, I sold one copy of Hungry Ghosts 1 (a 5-month old comic with probably little longterm value now) for $24 and another active auction at over $10, but my 21-issue lot of G.I. Joe that includes issue 2 and Snake Eyes's origin sits at less than $10. The comics market is non-sensical.

In most cases. But then you have special variants like the "Secret Variant" for Secret Weapons #1, which has the same barcode.

Yeah, came here to say that. First issue and full sets (1-4) are doing well. The lone CGC'd copy of #1 was available for a BIN. Bourdain had done a signing at NYCC last year to promote the book.

Sure, I'll play

More Marvel Age finds. Assuming you're of the school that previews are first appearances: 88 includes a Guardians of the Galaxy preview that includes Taserface, so that would be a first. 100 includes a Sleepwalker preview and article, published before the recognized first appearance in #1.

Preparing some auctions today, I think I may have identified Peter David's first credited professional comic work. He is the Assistant Editor and Designer of Marvel Age #1. (He was in Marvel's sales department when he was given a shot at writing by James Owsley – now known as Christopher Priest.)

I understood your point the first time. But I disagreed that people sought "everything, or virtually everything, a particular artist drew." If you'd like to prove me wrong, show me where McFarlane's Infinity Inc was as sought after as his Spider-man work.

I didn't say that it wasn't the particular way of portraying women that wasn't driving the demand, just that it wasn't quite as narrow a focus as you seem to be indicating. The limitation of focus on a subject matter is not in *addition* to limiting to a certain character, it's substituting for it. That's why I said it was a distinction without a difference.

I wasn't specifically calling the cover of X-Men 168 "iconic"; I was pointing out that the interior of a book need not be the only reason that the cover for said book is copied in an homage. There are at least a few swipes of that cover. I'm arguing that it's because the composition, which simple, is striking, and is easy to use to create the same effect elsewhere. And that's why I think we see so many swipes of ASM 300 and SM 1. Because they're not illustrating a story (at least, it's not obviously illustrative of the story), but presenting a pose. And *that* lends itself to copying quite easily.

This would have been funny if someone else did it

Word is they're licensing his likeness and Lenom is going to be the next big thing

I would say that a specific character is as specific as a sexy pose as a subject matter. So again, it's a distinction without a difference. Since it could tend to get expensive and require a lot of space to collect every work by a specific artist, people tend to focus on the art plus one other thing. You mentioned yourself in your earlier post that there are Hughes covers featuring other characters (Zatanna) that fetch a premium. It doesn't have to be specifically Catwoman, so it's not quite as specific as you're trying to make it out to be now. I guess you missed where I called out "While both of those things are included on the first two covers he worked on, it's the only thing on the cover of 300." The simplicity of 300's cover makes it easy to copy. And while you're correct to note that many covers are iconic because of the story inside, I'd say that you already conceded that that's not the only thing that makes a cover iconic while making your "sexy poses" argument. Another cover that I've seen copied many times is McFarlane's cover to the Adjectiveless Spider-man #1, and I imagine that we could all agree that the story inside is trash. I've seen a few homages to Uncanny X-men 168, but I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what happened inside the book. Sometimes a cover is iconic because of the events inside, and sometimes it's iconic for the cover art itself. Simple but striking covers lend themselves to homages, because you don't need to squeeze multiple elements into an existing composition.

I think that's a distinction without a difference. In both case, it's the artist *plus some other element*. I don't see that it matters whether that other element is a specific character, or a specific subject matter. I disagree with you on this. McFarlane's work on Spider-man introduced two new elements to the way Spidey is depicted that persisted after he left the character; those two things are the contorted shape he takes when swinging on his webs, and the style in which the webs are rendered. While both of those things are included on the first two covers he worked on, it's the only thing on the cover of 300. I think that's why the cover has been copied so many times. There's no reference at all to the story inside; no indication of Venom, on the cover of 300, that would link it to the story. First Bender?

Arguably something similar happened in the '80s and '90s. While people sought after some of Lee's and McFarlane's earlier work, it was Lee's X-men books and McFarlane's Hulk and Spider-man books that were important. I don't recall huge demand, after McFarlane exploded, for his Infinity Inc. books. Or Coyote. Or the odd issues of G.I. Joe, Daredevil, Alpha Flight, or New Universe books they worked on. A slight bump, maybe, but then again, how much of that was speculation by people thinking they *should* be worth more, rather than legitimate demand?

I just looked up the issue in the Marvel wiki, and it's apparently the first appearance of a character that had something like 5 appearances.