RockMyAmadeus

Well, now that you mention it.........

Yes, if its a comic book (rather than promotional material.)

I don't remember the first shop I went in to...it was either Fact, Fiction, & Fantasy in Livermore, or The Land of Nevawuz, in Danville. I still remember those times quite sharply.

And people think *I'm* condescending. And, as I have said for the 10,000th time, you are misinterpreting the "Overstreet definitions", and trying to change long established conventions regarding these definitions. The OPG is a comic book price guide; it therefore follows that the definitions apply to comic books, not trade magazines, not previews, not promotional material. "A first appearance in no way requires an appearance within a story" - yes, it does, because these are comic books, which are sequential art....stories told in words and pictures. They are not photographs, posters, album sleeves, novels, paperback books, baseball cards, manuals, or anything else that ALSO comes in printed form. If it doesn't occur within a story...it's not an appearance. This isn't "preference", this is the way it has been since before I was alive, and the way it *should* be, because these are comic books. Well, that's rather petulant and contemptuous of you, isn't it? I did the work for YOUR benefit, and those reading it, to make it easier to read, and you posted that way out of spite? Now that I know that, I will refrain from engaging you further. I have no time for people who do not value it, and treat it with contempt. If you think it's acceptable to waste people's time out of petulance, you will quickly find no one here to talk to except those who don't know any better. Problem solved.

Well...it looks like you have your archives.

I don't think anyone has assumed that.

That said... Batman #368 is heating up on eBay.

Based on the "Coming Attractions" feature in Marvel Age #94, I strongly suspect that you are wrong about the release dates. Marvel Requirer #9 was scheduled to ship a week later than Marvel Age #95. It would follow that Marvel Requirer #11 went on sale a week later than Marvel Age #97. I know! Let's look at the US Copyright info! Sadly, #11 isn't recorded... But #10 is! v. 1, no. 10, Dec90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-12-11; Reg. 1990-12-31; TX0002976891 And here's Marvel Age #96 and #97: v. 1, no. 96, Jan91. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-11-20; Reg. 1990-12-26; TX0002966375 v. 1, no. 97, Feb91. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-12-25; Reg. 1991-03-05; TX0003025123 Since Marvel Requirer was ALSO a monthly title, it follows that.....drumroll please.... #11 came out AFTER Marvel Age #97!

No. That has nothing to do with anything I've been talking about. I wasn't just talking to you. Since you quoted me, and said "you", I naturally assumed you were, in fact, just talking to me. My mistake. You'll have to clarify that. It's a bit convoluted at the moment. Who is "Walking Dead", and why should anyone care about his/her/their first appearance...? (For those wondering, yes, that's gentle sarcasm to make my point. How can the first appearance of a CONCEPT, a TITLE. be considered in the same vein as a "flesh and blood" character?) Again: if the material is just a preview of material that is ultimately intended for its own book (that is, it's not original material in where it appears), then it's not an appearance at all. It's just the first few pages of #1. Because it's a first appearance, and it's a cameo? You seem smart. You must realize that many here elsewhere do not see it that way. I could site many arguments but you already know this and are arguing just to argue. No, I'm arguing for the same reason you are arguing: because I don't agree with your position. Despite the endless accusations to the contrary, I do not "argue just to argue." What a colossal heaping pile of wasted time that is. I'm not that stupid, thanks. According to whose definition? If we go by the traditional comic definition, a cameo is simply a short, small appearance by any character, at any time in their existence. If we go by the film/TV definition, it's a short appearance (usually unannounced) by a well known person. But these are comic books, so we should be using the comic book definition. See above. "Above" doesn't answer the question. This is what you don't seem to understand, so let me spell it out as plainly as I can: I don't care about the argument of "cameo" vs. "brief appearance" vs. "full appearance." It is interesting, but ultimately, I don't care. Did the character appear within the context of a story? Yes/no? That's all I care about in the context of THIS discussion. Can we please, then, drop that aspect of it in response to me? So what's the standard and who created it. Where is it defined. You are probably sitting on a stack of Hulk 181's. The standard is: "Does the character appear within the context of a story or not? That's it. It was created by the market over time. It is defined in the market, by common usage. I'm not sure how that last sentence isn't a non-sequitor. But no, I have zero Hulk #181s in my possession currently. No, because universal acceptance means that everyone has to accept it. Most people don't accept your definition, and you don't accept theirs. Universal acceptance, defeated. I agree that this is probably unattainable and it is why I suggest the first time we see it in print is then the first published appearance. If we do that then there's no need to discuss and we can go back to waiting for comics like Major Bummer to get optioned. In other words, if we chuck history and tradition, along with creator/publisher intent, and just capitulate to your opinion, everything will be fine. Why didn't I think of that? It's so obvious! He's on the cover and a full color preview of issue 1 is inside. If it's not a first appearance to you ok You're calling an issue of PREVIEWS...something no one has ever, in the entire history of the comics industry...has EVER recognized as ANY character's "first appearance." Previews is a RETAILER catalog, to entice retailers to order product. It's CALLED "PREVIEWS." The fact that we even HAVE this conversation just astonishes me. Just absolutely astonishes me. It is madness. You're trying to classify "ordering material", material designed to get retailers to order the first appearance, itself as the actual "first appearance." Complete. Madness. Yes, everyone, throw out your comic books! You've all been duped! They're not real! It's always been Previews, and all the other distributor magazines that predated it! Fools, all of you! (On another note, your format was very difficult to fix.)

Why are you making a public issue of this?

No. But thanks for asking. Or, better yet, why don't YOU step up and contribute what you feel is appropriate. +1 If people want this to be a "hey, everyone, this book is selling well, go out and look for it cheap so you can make money!!" thread, while doing no contributing yourself, you're going to be very disappointed.

Now I'm curious, because I don't remember such a post...which one are you referring to?

And I will point out that there are multiple posts about multiple topics going on concurrently.

I wonder which is which, in your mind.... You've neglected the fundamental point of posting these discussions on a message board, rather than in private: The point isn't to change the minds of those debating with you. The point is to persuade the minds of those reading, whose minds may not already be made up. As always, the people silently reading are much, much greater in number than those actively participating. I have no interest in changing anyone's mind about anything. It's a fool's errand. My position is to persuade and/or educate those who are reading. In that sense, challenging information that sounds reasonable, but is fundamentally flawed for not-so-obvious reasons, is paramount.

Mmmmm....cheddar....

And there's no need to assume there's some sort of "messup" involved. I feel this needs to be said again: creators don't care about the aftermarket. Their only concern is "is this a good story, yes/no, and will it sell copies, yes/no?" I doubt the scheduling of Gambit's appearances even entered Claremont's...or anyone's...mind. He and the Simonsons plotted out DOFP, included Gambit because the story takes place after the story in 265-267, and that was that. No error, no screwup. Nothing "came out too early", there was no "mixup at the distributor", etc. This isn't the first time such an "out of chronology" story has happened...in fact, it happened all the time ("The events in this story take place BEFORE/AFTER thus and such")...it just happened that THIS time involved the debut of one of the more popular characters created in the time period.

These sort of posts always baffle me. You know that no one (and this goes for all reading this) just rattles off endlessly on any subject by themselves for very long, right...? You know that any topic that is discussed has AT LEAST 2 people involved, right...? Why is only one person (no matter who) mentioned? Why are the others (no matter who) not included in these types of comments? Why are people bothered about what other people want to talk about? "You have talked about subject A long enough, time to move on to subject B!" According to who...? Post what you want to post. Let other people post what they want to post. If two people want to discuss the cheese that the moon is made of for 10,000 posts, what does it matter to anyone else? If it bothers you that much, put those two people on ignore, and you don't have to see anything they say. All this desire to control people, it's very off-putting.

No. That has nothing to do with anything I've been talking about. It seems like we're having completely different conversations. No one is talking about in-story chronology, because in-story chronology doesn't matter. Because it's a first appearance, and it's a cameo? According to whose definition? If we go by the traditional comic definition, a cameo is simply a short, small appearance by any character, at any time in their existence. If we go by the film/TV definition, it's a short appearance (usually unannounced) by a well known person. But these are comic books, so we should be using the comic book definition. There is "too much ambiguity" precisely because of the attempts by you and others to redefine perfectly workable terms. No one is being "cheated" because there is "no standard." There IS a standard...you simply reject it. Your rejection does not negate its existence. No, because universal acceptance means that everyone has to accept it. Most people don't accept your definition, and you don't accept theirs. Universal acceptance, defeated.

I reported both of them to eBay, under the generic "search and browse manipulation." What a bunch of frauds.

The more I read these listings, the more disgusted I get. They are BLATANTLY violating eBay policy by NOT listing what the item actually for sale is, or including ACCURATE pictures of it. "Ooo, we don't want anyone to know our little secret!" Vomit-worthy. Hucksterism and fraud. Who is to say that Rust #1 is the only Malibu book with this ad? Who is to say ALL the books from this time period don't have this ad? It's blatantly fraudulent, but, unfortunately, you can't report these listings, because stupid, stupid eBay doesn't have an open option for reporting. Disgusting. These frauds should be ashamed of themselves.

lol That listing is hilarious. Look at the subtitle: "Discovery drastically devalues Malibu Sun 13 - WOW!" Yes, it's not enough to hype an ad, but we have to actively speak AGAINST other books! And...here's the real kicker, here....it might not even be accurate. In the early 1990's, things were very, very loosey-goosey. Dates for books NOT distributed via the newsstand had become anachronisms. They no longer served the purpose they once did (that is, to tell newsstand dealers that it was time to take a book OFF sale), and were printed as a matter of tradition, rather than practicality. That doesn't mean that these cover dates serve NO purpose, but they must always, especially during this period, be taken with a grain of salt. Does anyone remember Deathmate Red? The book is cover dated 11/93...but it came out AFTER Deathmate Epilogue, which is dated FOUR MONTHS LATER, 2/94. This is the extreme example, but it is not the only one. Now, does that mean that this book...which is very, very weirdly "hidden" by all these sellers (they don't want people to discover what it is!)...does NOT pre-date Malibu Sun #13? No, not necessarily. This is critical: just because it says "April 1992" does NOT (necessarily) mean it came out "one month before" both MS #13 and Spawn #1. Hucksters and shill-men, PT Barnum is alive and well, and selling on eBay!

If the sellers are Hot Topic employees, I hope they return the hell out of them.

Yeah, I think you're right. I have a feeling that most of the "destroyed" copies are at the apartment or in the car trunks of a lot of Hot Topic employees. Yeah, this was TOTALLY what was intended by Marvel...for Hot Topic employees to prevent the books from getting into the hands of consumers at their "official" price.

Already done. You just don't like it. That means you want the hobby to cater to your interpretation. You want the hobby "to correct itself"...to your opinion. For all the reasons I've already given, and other reasons not mentioned, I hope the redefinition of "first appearance" doesn't happen.

11?? You're just a kid!