RockMyAmadeus

It's perfect!

You should have an Oscar-style "in memoriam" sad song auto-play for this post.... Here you go:

Should I regard all of your posts in that light, too? Have we become so cynical that we must assume that everybody always has an agenda, all the time? I think it says something about how Ween himself is viewing the issue. I agree completely. There's something to be said for coming at an issue a certain way, and assuming (consciously or subconsciously) that everyone is coming at it the same way. For Ween: I have argued counter to my interests...which is usually the strongest testimony of all...on many occasions on this board, and so have others. It's just intellectual honesty.

How big is this "growing segment"? How do you know it is growing, rather than shrinking? Where did this segment start? How did it start? Of whom is it comprised?

Should I regard all of your posts in that light, too? Have we become so cynical that we must assume that everybody always has an agenda, all the time?

You do realize that that is a comic book price guide that you're quoting from, correct? That this comic book price guide is concerned with comic books, and while there may be other material within, they are ancillary to comic books, and therefore the definitions contained therein refer to comic books?

Orrrrrr....some understand the use of the language, and don't see any need to change the language to accommodate people who want to change meanings for no valid reason, and the worst reason of all: personal gain. Nothing is "changing." There are simply people who don't understand what the term "first appearance" means, and/or want the definition of a "first appearance" to change so they can make money. There's no great sea change to redefine what "first appearance" means. Honest. And, if on the extremely remote chance that the idea of a "first appearance" being a PREVIEW gains ANY traction in the comics market, there will be a grand backlash by thinking, rational people. "What's that?" "Marvel Age #97. It's the first appearance of Darkhawk!" "Oh, really? Huh. I didn't know that. Cool, I'll pick it up." (time passes) "Hey, this isn't his first appearance. This is just a PREVIEW!" "Right, the first appearance!" "Um...no, Darkhawk #1 is his first appearance. He isn't even IN this book, it's a book with interviews and ! You lied to me. This is just a PREVIEW. Do you know what a PREVIEW is...?" Marvel Requirer 11 is the first appearance and cover for Darkhawk. Also I dare anyone to produce a published definition from overstreet etc. that states that a first appearance has to exist inside a story or be meaningful in any way. Even the term Cameo simply means debut and a debut in comic terms and the literal definition simply states that it is the first time a character appears. Appears. Not appears in a story or on a cover or in a shadowy, dim lit cave. While I understand the frustrations concerning this by some of you older dealers ( I say dealers because I find it hard to believe that many of you in a thread like this are simply collectors ) time makes corrections and in this case it's long overdue. I do understand that some of you hate the idea of a magazine as a first ( see Rocket Raccoon ) or an insert ( see Preacher Preview ) or a paperback ( see The Empire Strikes Back PB, first Bobba Fett ) but they are firsts even if the majority of collectors and the marketplace wish something else to be true or cannot let go of long standing incorrect traditions. If you want to say that Hulk 271 is RR's first comic appearance then you would be correct. If you want to say that Darkhawk #1 is his third appearance, third cover and first story then you would be correct. The fact is a first appearance does not need to be valuable. As a collector I expect the hobby i love to be factually accurate. If the facts are reflected in value then great but the market is based on money not truth so it's not a requirement. I'm on your side with this Ween, you can't dispute a first appearance, it is what it is. I constantly hear the Warlock argument, and sorry but FF 67 is his first appearance. FF66 is the first Cocoon. So many keep saying oh the Thor issue blah blah blah. Do you really think comic book collectors care about a functionally non-collectable appearance of Harley Quinn, that just happens to be her first? Or, do you think BA #12 is what matters to them? And I'm not sure you understand Ween's argument. Warlock appears in the context of the story in FF #67. You are quite correct, FF #67 is the first appearance of Warlock...it is a brief appearance, it is a cameo appearance, but it is an appearance in the context of a story. Ween is talking about ANY appearance, even if that appearance was printed on a napkin, if that's the first time the character appeared to the public, that's the "first appearance."

What does "meaningful" mean? I don't use adjective qualifiers, because those words have different shades of meaning to just about everyone. And you know that any "published definition" is also just someone's opinion? Here's the crux: you'll be hard pressed to find a "published definition" because it's been self-evident for decades. No one bothered to publish a definition, because no one disputed it. If you had said "well, the first appearance of this character is really on this bookmark promo", that would have been dismissed, and rightfully so. So, no need to dare...it doesn't exist, nor should it. And there's your problem right there: You have redefined "appears" as it applies to the context of comic books. Marvel Age IS NOT a "comic book" in the traditional sense. YES, it is in comic book form, and YES, it sometimes contains comic book elements, but it is NOT a comic book like Avengers #237 is a comic book. It is a promotional magazine, highlighting and showcasing the upcoming publications of Marvel Comics. Same with Marvel Requirer, and all the rest. You want to redefine the word "appears" as to mean "any time the character shows up anywhere." And that's not correct, in the context of comic books. I'm not a dealer. I am also not "simply a collector." And what is "older"? Is one's ability to learn and reason determined by age? Can one who is 85 agree with you? Can one who is 19 disagree? Age has nothing to do with this. And the "frustration" has to do with people coming along and trying to redefine terms according to THEIR perceptions, rather than learning and accepting what already is perfectly workable. We don't need a revolution every generation. Who has said this? And why must you couch things in emotionally laden terms like "hate"? This isn't about "hate" or "love", it's about what is reasonable. It's not an original story, so no, it's not the first appearance. There's nothing wrong with people liking a paperback novel as a first appearance. But this is a comic board, not a book board. The discussion is within the context of comic books, that is, sequential art. No, they are always qualified firsts. Always. That's why Hulk #271, BA #12 and Star Wars #42 have to have asterisks, and rightly so:: that is, the first comic book appearances of these characters, which is an acknowledgement that these characters appeared elsewhere in story contexts. Those are the exceptions, and they are perfectly valid exceptions. No, they are "firsts" because *you* have decided they are "firsts", and are trying to convince the marketplace that *your* opinion, rather than tradition, history, and creator/publisher intent, is what should be. "Incorrect traditions"...? According to who...? Yes, for decades and decades, the marketplace has regarded Detective Comics #27 as the real, genuine, honest-to-God first appearance of Batman, despite the fact that he appeared PRIOR TO Detective Comics #27 in at least two house ads. According to you, that is an "incorrect tradition." That I even need to qualify the first appearance of Batman as "the real, genuine, honest-to-God first appearance" demonstrates how far down the rabbit hole this discussion is. No, you would be wrong, and worse, you would confuse others into thinking that previews and other promotional material "counts" as appearances, when they have never done so, and shouldn't do so. "First story appearance"...doesn't have much ring to it, in a storytelling medium, does it? No disagreement there, except that what YOU mean by "first appearance" and what the market, as a whole, means, are completely different things. No, you expect the hobby to cater to your interpretations, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless your interpretations run counter to everything that has gone before you. The market is based on perception. That said, perception should, as much as possible, be based on fact, not opinion.

Wouldn't the first depiction of Luke Skywalker be on the cover of the novel which pre-dates the Star Wars #1 comic book? Yes, if that's the case. The first appearance of Luke Skywalker would be whatever non-promotional medium he appeared in first...whether novel, comic book, or film.

The market is ALWAYS deceived by people with capital gains and monopolistic sentiments towards achieving those, whether its joe schmoe who bought 10 copies of hottopic star wars and posted on a blog raving about them or a record label executive who bought all his artist's records to elevate him/her through the nielsen charts.. While it is true that there are always people willing to cheat to gain, that's not true of all people, all the time.

Yeah, that whole beach scene was quite a trip.

Poor dogs.

It's been 25 years. I don't think it's going to change any time soon. Of course, I would LOVE to have Annual #14 be more sought after...I've got probably 40 copies. Maybe 3 copies left of #266.

The question isn't "why is this valuable?" The answer is "because people want them and are willing to pay for them." There's no issue with that. The question is "why are people trying to redefine ads and previews as "first appearances"?"

Orrrrrr....some understand the use of the language, and don't see any need to change the language to accommodate people who want to change meanings for no valid reason, and the worst reason of all: personal gain. Nothing is "changing." There are simply people who don't understand what the term "first appearance" means, and/or want the definition of a "first appearance" to change so they can make money. There's no great sea change to redefine what "first appearance" means. Honest. And, if on the extremely remote chance that the idea of a "first appearance" being a PREVIEW gains ANY traction in the comics market, there will be a grand backlash by thinking, rational people... I doubt that. Remember the frenzy (chronicled in this very thread) over Superman Adventures #5? Was that not started over Livewire appearing in a single panel of a New 52 comic? She hasn't even appeared since Yet SA #5 is still a $30+ book on eBay. Maybe you'd get a clamor. I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

No. That's not it at all. You're missing the forest to pick the bark off a few trees. The point isn't about "story driven media", the point is appearances in the context of a story within a comic book. As an aside, the first appearance of Luke Skywalker in a NON-PREVIEW was IN A COMIC BOOK. Yes, that's right...the first appearance of Luke Skywalker is Star Wars #1, which came out many weeks before the movie. But that's not the point. I'm not referring to CROSS MEDIA appearances. We're talking about comic books. We've already been down the BA #12 road. BA #12 is the first COMIC BOOK appearance of Harley Quinn. Why do you think that Harley Quinn's appearance in comic books "wasn't intended"? Do you have any evidence for such a claim? Batman Adventures was produced concurrently with B:TAS, and, in fact, the first issue came out BEFORE the animated series debuted...so I'm not quite sure where you would have gotten that information, but please share, by all means.

Just like the game was Green Bay's to lose...so was this game Seattle's to lose...and they did.

I'm glad Seattle lost.

Who are you talking to?

Orrrrrr....some understand the use of the language, and don't see any need to change the language to accommodate people who want to change meanings for no valid reason, and the worst reason of all: personal gain. Nothing is "changing." There are simply people who don't understand what the term "first appearance" means, and/or want the definition of a "first appearance" to change so they can make money. There's no great sea change to redefine what "first appearance" means. Honest. And, if on the extremely remote chance that the idea of a "first appearance" being a PREVIEW gains ANY traction in the comics market, there will be a grand backlash by thinking, rational people. "What's that?" "Marvel Age #97. It's the first appearance of Darkhawk!" "Oh, really? Huh. I didn't know that. Cool, I'll pick it up." (time passes) "Hey, this isn't his first appearance. This is just a PREVIEW!" "Right, the first appearance!" "Um...no, Darkhawk #1 is his first appearance. He isn't even IN this book, it's a book with interviews and ! You lied to me. This is just a PREVIEW. Do you know what a PREVIEW is...?"

Plus, it's got killer Art Adams art.

Yes. But what about Agents #6? I thought I answered that.

Ok, now THAT was funny.

It's silly to me as well, but paying a premium for a newsstand copy of a comic or a Whitman logo DC is also equally silly. However, collector preferences do and will change from time to time. Nothing wrong with paying a premium for it...just the marketing of it as "first appearance!" with the intent to deceive, or at least confuse, prospective buyers, and ignoring historical context for money. the definition of first appearance says nothing about historical context. You would be incorrect. The first appearance of Batman is Detective Comics #27. It is not Action Comics #12, unless you redefine the historical understanding of the term "first appearance", which you are trying to do. The first appearance of Preacher was Preacher #1. Both the preview and Absolute Vertigo #1 only contained some pages from that first issue. It is a faulty assumption to say that everyone thinks the first appearance of Preacher is in the preview. It is not. Orrrr....the personal agendas of those who want to redefine long-established terms to make money are the ones getting in the way...? So, the first time Luke Skywalker appeared in a trailer, that was the "first appearance of Luke Skywalker"...? Except...clearly...there is. These are comic books, not posters, photographs, paintings, ads, or other forms of "print." The reason these characters matter is because of their stories. When you need to qualify, as you do, what the appearance is..."this is the first printed appearance" or this is the "first time the character appears in print", then you're already making it unnecessarily complex. The first appearance of Batman is NOT Action Comics #12.

they absoutlely are first appearances. i do not see how that is or will ever be disputable. Because your definition of "first appearance" is simply not in concert with traditional and historical understanding of that term, or creator intent. That's how. If you change the meanings of terms, you're not going to find much common ground.