RockMyAmadeus

Huh. Interesting.

I knew it was Bernie, but I was looking at the Pacific Comics stuff. Off by about 15 years.

Bernie Wrightson Eerie #9

I have passed countless copies of these two in cheapo boxes, and just don't have the heart to buy them. I have enough as it is. Really, the only one I really need is the #7 board project. Done and done. (You wanna get into an argument about flipping...? Man, was that a most disgusting time. "Yeah, I'm a REAL fan of Valiant, I would like a fan project!"....a week later, it's on eBay. Sickening. )

These scans initially came from me, and I have a bunch more issues scanned (pages about Valiant, the Top 100 and Top 10 back issues lists), and a bunch more to do. I have issues through 109, missing only 2-9, 25, 28, 29, 32, 46, 52, 54, 91, 98, 105 & 106. I'm putting them on eBay soon, so I'll scan those pages before selling them. So, are you someone from the Valiantfans board...?

The final issue of Transformers was listed as #80 in a 4 issue limited series --Phil You guys know those were jokes, right...?

Isn't it? It is! Liefeld just needs to chime in that it's actually #96, and I'm good to go.

Super Villain Team-Up #6 Jim Starlin

Denny O'neil You recognized that book immediately. I had that. Serves me right for going outside the house.

It's the circle of life....

On that we can agree that someone's assumptions or understanding of facts may be in error, or misinformed. Assuming someone is an insufficiently_thoughtful_person because they see things differently based on other facts seems very close-minded. Who is assuming someone is an insufficiently_thoughtful_person? Go back and read for yourself. I'm asking you who YOU thought was assuming someone is an insufficiently_thoughtful_person. I don't see anyone assuming that, myself, so maybe you saw something I didn't. If you don't want to answer, that's fine, just say so.

On that we can agree that someone's assumptions or understanding of facts may be in error, or misinformed. Assuming someone is an insufficiently_thoughtful_person because they see things differently based on other facts seems very close-minded. Who is assuming someone is an insufficiently_thoughtful_person?

Wanna see some golds...?

The funniest part of this page is the May 1991 list - X-Force #2 was the top book. Buying books now based on 20+ year old Wizard lists might not be a bad idea....... That's top 10 in print run. X-Force #2 had a print run nearing, if not surpassing, 1 million. The next month would be X-Men #1, and....well...you know.

It's not. There was a miscommunication among the the mods. The posts were removed and action had already been taken in the form of a private warning. The strike should not have been posted. Thank you for posting this.

I saw Batman at a theatre in Willits, CA in August of 1989. I was enthralled. Then, I went to a used book store (looking for regular books) and discovered comics. I never looked back. It was crazy, too! Just not comics crazy. Imagine being 5 years old and seeing Star Wars. Or 8 and seeing Empire. Or 11 and seeing Jedi.

This.

Almost trumped me on my Solar #3 and Harbinger #1 find for $11.00. (thumbs u Those of you getting these steals should be very appreciative. There are AT LEAST 20 people who would have whipped out their wallets as fast as they could if they stumbled upon those, for those prices. Ok, maybe not #3, but for Harby #1, and Solar #10 1st? You better believe it. What has made Valiant different is that there have ALWAYS been people willing to pay a premium for these books, no matter when, no matter how many. $10 for a Harby #1? Done. You say you have 100 copies? Done. That's not true of ANY other company after Marvel. Pre-Unity Valiant behaves, as back issues, much like Marvel and DC...there's never a lull in demand where *nobody* wanted them.

GACK! 2002 FLASHBACKS!!!!

It's true. Firsthand experience.

this seller is a notorious sheller with 5 accounts (last i checked). Ive reported him to ebay multiple times. just fyi guys. be careful I wonder who that is. I tried to bid on something, and I'm blocked. Obviously a problem seller.

I've heard the earlier Burton Batman craze was even nuttier. Is this true? No...the Batman craze was only for Batman. Don't get me wrong, it was madness...but it was only for Batman.

For those of you who missed it, there was NOTHING like 1990-1993. It was complete madness. Every book that came out was hot, every book was $10 within 2 months, every book was the next Action #1. Valiant was...there's just nothing to describe it if you weren't there. It was (let me see if I have this right) "banana shrimp."

No, you can't have an "opinion" that contradicts facts. Well, I guess you can, it just makes you an insufficiently_thoughtful_person. What an individual collector can do is decide which book they like better or think is more important.

Sure thing. I'll keep it straightforward for you. I see how it confused you. Well, to be frankly honest, I think what you wrote would have confused most of the people on this board. Still not correct. Your "twins analogy" was not one of the (multiple) tangents I was referring to. "You called something a tangent because it did not fit your flow of thought when it wasn't." Nope, still not getting it. There seems to be some parts of that sentence that are missing. Right...except that the analogy stopped making sense. And...."I was adding more of the details what goes into multiples birth that helped clarify the opposite point of you that was something you were not agreeing to." ....huh? :shrug: Actually, UXM #266 has been considered the 1st appearance of Gambit since it was published. So to use the word 'considered' as if this was a new concept, I think it doesn't fit the situation. As I said...I understand that you think X-Men #266 should be considered first, on a philosophical basis, but it didn't come out first. There wasn't anything in that statement that might lead someone into thinking this was a new concept. Since, of course, that's how the hobby has defined "first appearance" since the beginning of comics, for literally every single character that has ever existed, it seems within reason to apply that same standard to Gambit. I mean, as novel as it is to consider books that came out SECOND as FIRST appearances, I don't know that you're going to be able to overcome basic reason and common sense. You can imagine the scenarios: "So, what issue did Gambit first appear in?" "That depends, do you mean the book he first appeared in, or what most of the market thought was his first appearance, but really wasn't, but some people think still is?" "Um." PS. Personally, since I bought both of those books brand spankin' new, and knew that Annual #14 came out first, though the mists of time obscured my being able to prove it, I have always considered #14 to be the actual first appearance. There's nothing new about that. Oh, granted, I have no doubt there was confusion because of the way the story was presented, and the footnote that referred to it. But anyone with a brain would have realized that X-Men #267 clearly came out after Annual #14, so the footnote was clearly not to be understood as referring to a story that had already been published, at least not in its entirety. See, the REAL thinking in the hobby (and I can add my direct experience to this) is that "hey..we understand that the Annual came out first, but it's really more of a cameo appearance, and he's not even on the cover, and hey, look at #266, he's right there, gorgeous Kubert cover and all, and really, this should be THE book, and we'll make up a story about there being some "error in distribution" or somesuch if anyone questions how the Annual came out first, so that it looks like #266 really WAS supposed to be out first...I mean, who's ever going to find out, right...?" And, because there was no internet to challenge them, it stuck. That's what REALLY happened. Nope. No hard time experiencing on this end. You? Well of course. How can you provide documentation for an event that never occurred? :shrug: It only "opens that door" if you're willing to suspend disbelief and believe things *might* have happened, or *could* have happened, that clearly belong in the realm of fiction. And, considering what we're discussing, such a response isn't surprising. The good news, of course, is that, rationally, the books and the footnote is not evidence that "proves" a mixup. It actually proves the opposite: that Marvel was completely aware of the continuity issue, and added the note to make sure readers understood. We have the publication dates from the US Copyright office. We have the "coming soon" flyer from Marvel that gives the same exact dates for all the issues in contention (which, by the way, are all Tuesdays...isn't THAT interesting?), and we have an unbroken record of publication for many years from Marvel production. Unless we're talking about the actual first appearance of Gambit, which is not in dispute. It's Annual #14. Like I said before, people are free to believe whatever they wish...but believing something doesn't make it true. Tortured? Not really. You just want to keep this conversation going concerning the analogy when by now it is very clear what the meaning was. No, not at all. It's a bad analogy; hopefully it's done. It's not clear at all. Now THAT I am agreeing with, as earlier you had stated an individual collector can't have the flexibility to determine for themselves which book is Gambit's 1st appearance. Nope, not what I said. I wouldn't say someone can't "determine for themselves which book is Gambit's first appearance." They clearly can. If they determine that it's not Annual #14, they'll be wrong, but like I said...they're free to believe anything they want, including wrong things. I have been logically consistent this conversation. Scratch my previous statement. Now you are saying something different. So an individual collector can't have their own opinion which book is the 1st appearance of Gambit? Of course they can. As I have said many, many times on this board, all opinions are not created equal. I can be of the opinion that the earth is a flat square, around which the sun, moon, and stars rotate. I'd be wrong, but I can still have that opinion. I'd expect others to correct me, but that doesn't mean I can't still believe things that are wrong. I'm free to do that. There is no inconsistency here. I am not saying anything different, at any time. I understand why you think this (as in, I comprehend the reasons you think this way, that I agree with you.) It is consistent with many other things you've said on this board. You are playing with the language. "Fully appeared 1st" is not the same thing as "first appearance." "First appearance" has a specific, defined meaning. "Fully appeared 1st" does not. If you want to fiddle with the language, that's fine, but you can't fiddle with it, and then claim that's what I say or advocate. If someone wants to call the Annual a cameo, and #266 1st full appearance, what's the problem? The FIRST APPEARANCE, however, is the Annual. And if someone is going After all...who are we to tell anyone that the earth ISN'T a flat square, around which the sun, moon, and stars revolve...? Don't disagree with any of that.