RockMyAmadeus

My argument is that Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986-up. Was he very popular? Yes, of course. But...and this is a key that many want to diminish, but it speaks volumes: he wasn't popular enough to get his own series. Marvel did not think he could carry his own series, when they thought dozens of others could. He was simply not considered a "solo" character, and could not be a superstar in his own right because of it. He was part of a team. An integral part of the team, yes. But part of a team nonetheless. Just like Sue, Johnny, and Reed didn't have their own series, but the Thing did, because Marvel believed that the Thing was the most popular character on the team (which was proven correct, by virtue of him carrying his own series for 136 consecutive issues.) He appeared high on fan award polls, yes. But it has to be taken into account that those poll results are from people who were very big comic fans to begin with, and who cared enough to respond. They are not scientific. That doesn't mean they have no value...of course not. But they are not scientific, and they are most decidedly skewed towards people who were already huge fans to begin with. If you had simply said Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986, I'm not sure I would have entered the debate. I would have disagreed but would have likely not entered a prolonged debate.. But since we have some more parameters of the debate I added a quote and a link. Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986-up and.... "I think it's safe to say that Wolverine was NOT *THE* big draw for the X-Men until the late 80's (generally, 1986 and beyond), and that it was fairly equally spread up until then. " See most Significant X-Men thread. http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7637525&fpart=6 That's the thread that really started the debate. You were claiming that Wolverine wasn't even the most popular X-men. Your above quote makes it look like you are moving the goalposts. Do you know why Wolverine didn't get his own series? Do you have any information to support your claim that "Marvel did not think he could carry his own series until 1988" other than simply not having one? And if Marvel believed this, what facts can you bring to the table that supported Marvels supposed belief? Polling? Mothers against Wolverine? Why did the series wait until late 1988 when you claim he was a superstar around the start of 1986. You can't argue it both ways. Wolverine didn't get his own series until 1988. Marvel's focus on new series in 1986 was CLEARLY the New Universe, and very little new ongoing series came out in the 1986-1987 period, outside of Star and the New U. I stand by my statements. We can agree to disagree. I'm tired of the debate, really. Too much hostility. I'm open to discussion as long as anyone wishes, but not confrontation. Both ways? I'm trying to understand your logic and see the supporting information. So you are telling me, (according to you) Marvel would rather wait on Wolverine and instead go with Star, and New Universe, a complete gamble that failed? (And yes I'm sure you could debate the degree of failure for 50 pages) Is this your reasonable reply to all of the above? You DO realize its OK to say you are wrong on the internet. I won't think any less of you. Yes, both ways. You can't say on the one hand "so, you're saying Wolvie wasn't popular at all in the early 80's" and on the other "so, you're saying Wolvie was a superstar by 1986, so why didn't get get a series until 1988?" The answer, as always, is between those two extremes. And Wolverine DID have his own title by 1986...it just happened to be called "The Uncanny X-Men." But the focus for the title clearly changed to become "Wolverine: Occasionally Guest Starring The Other X-Men." I am not going to debate it with you for 50 more pages or 1 more page. I've presented the information, and it's clear: Wolverine was popular in the early 80's. However, he was among a team of equals, that team being the X-Men. He was thought of as a supporting character by many, demonstrated by the Eagle awards you cited. He was neither *THE* X-Man, nor was he a superstar at this point. This is the period from 1980-1983. To suggest that Marvel didn't give him his own series because they didn't want to "overexpose him", when Spidey had 4, the Thing had 2, and there are literally hundreds of other characters that Marvel believed could sustain their own titles in the meantime, makes little sense. They were Marvel. They were in business to make money. If they thought Wolverine was as popular as you claim, he would have had a series. This is a company, after all, that gave the Punisher a mini-series in the fall of 1985...and by the spring of 1987, a year and a half later, gave him a regular one. But, a year and a half after Wolvie's mini, late 1983, there was....nothing. And you folks arguing that he was the hottest thing since sliced bread have no answer for that. If you want to cite two fan polls, and various pieces of ad art, as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", then there's no point at which we can reach consensus, and we are simply talking in circles. Talking in circles doesn't achieve anything. If you need to believe I'm wrong, by all means, feel free. When you're discussing something that ultimately boils down to opinion, which is never an issue of right or wrong to begin with, and you have to insist I admit I'm wrong, there's nothing more to discuss. :shrug:

My argument is that Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986-up. Was he very popular? Yes, of course. But...and this is a key that many want to diminish, but it speaks volumes: he wasn't popular enough to get his own series. Marvel did not think he could carry his own series, when they thought dozens of others could. He was simply not considered a "solo" character, and could not be a superstar in his own right because of it. He was part of a team. An integral part of the team, yes. But part of a team nonetheless. Just like Sue, Johnny, and Reed didn't have their own series, but the Thing did, because Marvel believed that the Thing was the most popular character on the team (which was proven correct, by virtue of him carrying his own series for 136 consecutive issues.) He appeared high on fan award polls, yes. But it has to be taken into account that those poll results are from people who were very big comic fans to begin with, and who cared enough to respond. They are not scientific. That doesn't mean they have no value...of course not. But they are not scientific, and they are most decidedly skewed towards people who were already huge fans to begin with. If you had simply said Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986, I'm not sure I would have entered the debate. I would have disagreed but would have likely not entered a prolonged debate.. But since we have some more parameters of the debate I added a quote and a link. Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986-up and.... "I think it's safe to say that Wolverine was NOT *THE* big draw for the X-Men until the late 80's (generally, 1986 and beyond), and that it was fairly equally spread up until then. " See most Significant X-Men thread. http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7637525&fpart=6 That's the thread that really started the debate. You were claiming that Wolverine wasn't even the most popular X-men. Your above quote makes it look like you are moving the goalposts. Do you know why Wolverine didn't get his own series? Do you have any information to support your claim that "Marvel did not think he could carry his own series until 1988" other than simply not having one? And if Marvel believed this, what facts can you bring to the table that supported Marvels supposed belief? Polling? Mothers against Wolverine? Why did the series wait until late 1988 when you claim he was a superstar around the start of 1986. You can't argue it both ways. Wolverine didn't get his own series until 1988. Marvel's focus on new series in 1986 was CLEARLY the New Universe, and very little new ongoing series came out in the 1986-1987 period, outside of Star and the New U. I stand by my statements. We can agree to disagree. I'm tired of the debate, really. Too much hostility. I'm open to discussion as long as anyone wishes, but not confrontation.

What grade is your counterfeit?

very nice, Brandon. Very, very nice.

That is pretty cool. A couple years ago, at San Diego, I held the double page spread of "The Frost Giant's Daughter" from Conan #16 in my hands. I felt the same way.

My argument is that Wolverine was not a superstar until 1986-up. Was he very popular? Yes, of course. But...and this is a key that many want to diminish, but it speaks volumes: he wasn't popular enough to get his own series. Marvel did not think he could carry his own series, when they thought dozens of others could. He was simply not considered a "solo" character, and could not be a superstar in his own right because of it. He was part of a team. An integral part of the team, yes. But part of a team nonetheless. Just like Sue, Johnny, and Reed didn't have their own series, but the Thing did, because Marvel believed that the Thing was the most popular character on the team (which was proven correct, by virtue of him carrying his own series for 136 consecutive issues.) He appeared high on fan award polls, yes. But it has to be taken into account that those poll results are from people who were very big comic fans to begin with, and who cared enough to respond. They are not scientific. That doesn't mean they have no value...of course not. But they are not scientific, and they are most decidedly skewed towards people who were already huge fans to begin with.

Since I POSTED the CBG results, I think it's safe to say that I read them, yes. As I said before, these polls are only a part of the picture. Watch: Eagle 1978: Favourite Character: Batman Eagle 1978: Favourite Supporting Character: Pip The Troll (yes, that's Pip the Troll...those Brits are a funny lot.) Eagle 1979 Favourite Character: Batman Eagle 1979 Favourite Supporting Character: Wolverine Eagle 1980 Favourite Character Wolverine Eagle 1980 Favourite Supporting Character Wolverine CBG 1982 Favourite Character Wolverine CBG 1982 Favourite Cover Wolverine 1 CBG 1983 Favorite Character: Batman Eagle 1983 Favourite Character: Wolverine Eagle 1983 Favourite Single or Continued Story: Wolverine #1-4 (miniseries) CBG 1984 Favourite Character Wolverine Eagle 1984: Favourite Character: Torquemada. Notice, the Eagle Awards voted Wolvie SUPPORTING (meaning, not STARRING) character for the two years he was favorite character, too, which means those people thought of him in a support role, not a leading one. And, then, with CBG awards, Batman appears 19 times. Wolverine appears in 1982 and 1984, and then is never seen again. 1986 is not considered, as it is not in contention. A bit different. when everything is considered. And your analysis is incorrect. The listings are for nominees, not "2nd place, 5th place", etc. How do these polls prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt"....? Supporting character works against your argument. And let's consider the conversation at Marvel: Shooter: "We'd like to issue some new titles, who do you think would be able to support their own title?" Editors: "How about Dazzler?" Shooter: "Ok, sounds good. In fact, we can use that title to see if this Direct Market thing is for real. Next?" E: "Moon Knight?" Shooter: "Perfect" E: "Claremont's got a new idea with these New Mutants. How about them?" S: "Great. And Byrne's been chomping at the bit to get his own series, so Alpha Flight it is." E: "Don't forget Rom!" S: "Totally." E: "How about Wolverine? I hear he's getting pretty popular in X-Men." S: "Wolverine? I don't think he can support a book. He's more of an anti-hero. We should probably do something like Power Pack." E: "Well, how about a mini-series, then? Miller's red hot, we could convince him to do it!" S: "Ok, sounds good, but let's also do another one at the same time. I know...HERCULES! That'll sell like hotcakes!" E: "Yeah! Claremont said he was worried about overexposure of the X-Men, though. Man, he gets a little territorial with those characters!" S: "We are Marvel. If it will make money, we print it. That's why Spidey has 4 titles all to himself. I don't think Wolvie is popular enough to carry his own series." E: "Yeah, you're probably right."

While Byrne absolutely trumps Cockrum in most things, there are a few things that makes the cover to X-Men #101 about on par with #137: First, the layout to #101 is superior to #137. #101 is focused entirely on Phoenix, she is the central (and centered) figure on the page: Whereas, on #137, the focus is split between Phoenix and Cyclops (though Jean is slightly more centered.) Also...in #101, she appears in her Phoenix costume (well...none of it is really Jean, after all, but you know what I mean), whereas #137 has her in her mid-60's Marvel Girl uniform. And, #101 features Storm, Cyclops, and Nightcrawler, and is the first appearance of Phoenix, as well as being closer to the All New, All Different, and, of course, the value of the resultant comics themselves has some weight, if not much. #101, just considered on compositional merits, is a better, more dynamic image than #137. Yes, Byrne counts for so much more than Cockrum, but in this case, the factors in Cockrum's favor tend to balance out quite a bit.

Well, there's that gross mischaracterization and what I actually said on the matter: No, it's pretty much spot on with what you said here: And, in one fell swoop, you not only completely discounted my argument for no other reason than "you weren't there", but you also confused what someone else said with me. Are you seriously going to deny that's what your quoted statement here is....? We have all been over this before. I am perfectly capable of refuting your misstatements, false claims, misrepresentations, and erroneous "facts", but it serves no purpose. "Circulation data" does not prove who was the most popular X-Man, because the circulation data is for the X-MEN...NOT Wolverine, because he had no title of his own. And this is one of many of the mistakes you made in that discussion. And no one "stealthily moved the goalposts", as you misrepresent here. I established the parameters of my argument as up to issue #200 from the outset. You may disagree with those parameters, but I certainly did not "stealthily change them" after the fact. Why do you keep doing this? You are....again and again and again...trying to present your opinion as established fact. "Argue the point into oblivion"...? Who tried to start up the argument AGAIN today...? Hint: not me. I will simply quote you one more time: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence." Nothing was "proven" as you claim, because, at the heart, we were talking about OPINION, and the fact that you think the memories of the 10-15 or so board members who chimed in to agree with you somehow constitutes a "comprehensive refutation" is beyond all sanity. In any event, as usual, this accomplishes nothing good, so I will go back to ignoring you. I'm truly sorry it has come to this, really, but nothing good can come of trying to defend myself against you: you won't quit, no matter the truth. So...I quit, as far as you are concerned.

It may be the most significant/most valuable, but others would be considered more significant/more valuable. That's an interesting statement right there. c'mon RMA, you're better than that. He clearly stated interior page and cover. You're right, he did. I misread it. My mistake. C'mon, Bronty, you're better than this. You can (and should) be saying the exact same thing to delekkerste.

This surprises me. I'd think the 101 cover would be worth quite a bit more than the 137. It's definitely a much more iconic cover in my eye anyway. I don't think the #101 cover exists, but, even if it did, the #137 cover would be far more valuable. It's the more iconic image, it's a bigger key, it's the greatest X-Men art team at the top of their game, etc. Once more...when we say X-Men #137 is a "more iconic image", a "bigger key", than #101, we have once again taken leave of our senses.

I would think opinion is an integral part of the equation "Those deeming the artwork important" so if everyone agreed it was more important, with good reason one could claim the artwork "is more important". After all its people who are deeming the artwork important. Not chimps or raccoons. This isn't like polling for the Big Bang, or if the moon is made out of cheese. Where as public polling on that outcome has zero to do with the Empirical evidence at hand. Absolutely. You are absolutely correct. No dispute from me. It is, after all, the foundation of my argument for why I believe this is a million dollar piece. The opinion of Wolverine worldwide. It's absolutely far, far more important than a "Rob Liefeld sketchbook" (to bring up an example of great hyperbole.) The problem arises when people present opinion as fact, no matter how well held that opinion may be.

And yet, you keep saying the selling point of this page is that it's the first depiction of the character, as if it's the end-all, be-all. Well, it's not. This is a hobby driven by nostalgia, first and foremost, and few consider the art or story from Hulk #180-181 to be the pinnacle of comics achievement from the past 40 years. No one said that. No one said that, either. It may be the most significant/most valuable, but others would be considered more significant/more valuable. That's an interesting statement right there. Speculation. It is relevant, if only as a bar. Really? You speak for every other knowledgeable OA collector? Which hard datapoints did I "skirt over"? You sure it wasn't an attempt to just ignore YOU? "Solely-held opinion"? Read the thread again. I have already made my case: this piece is more important to comics history than the covers of ASM #50, Silver Surfer #4, and DKR #1. It's not a great piece. But it is the first appearance of Wolverine. That makes it, historically, more important than Spidey #50, Surfer #4, and DKR #1. That is, of course, the beauty of opinion. It is not fact.

Oh come on, now. You and I both know that changing the meaning of something that someone says when it is a point of contention isn't fair play. And in other threads, he said, more than once, that "you weren't there, so you couldn't possibly know what happened"...which flies in the face of the study of history itself. I'm not even going to go wade into all that. That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm discussing is the basic points that it was, paraphrasing, 'the best OA to be auctioned in X years' and that it would break a million. I don't think either of those statements really hold up and apart from some popcorn worthy repartee that's what the thrust of the discussion has been. I.e. what's 'best', why is this or is this not 'best', why is this or is it not as valuable as $1m, etc. Do you not think it is the most important (not "best") OA to be auctioned in the last 20 years...? I do, and I think I've made the case for it fairly well. But then again, I have no idea what I'm talking about, so why even bother...?

And yet, you keep saying the selling point of this page is that it's the first depiction of the character, as if it's the end-all, be-all. Well, it's not. . One more time: that statement is independent of the discussion of the cover of Hulk #181. That statement has to do with this present auction, and this present auction alone, and why I believe the piece is so important....and NOT...again, NOT...in relation to #181's cover which is not being auctioned at this time. Separate ideas. Complex, compound discussions, discussing myriad aspects, not all of which are directly related to each other.

Oh come on, now. You and I both know that changing the meaning of something that someone says when it is a point of contention isn't fair play. And in other threads, he said, more than once, that "you weren't there, so you couldn't possibly know what happened"...which flies in the face of the study of history itself.

Yeah, I know. I really shouldn't be doing this. I really held delekkerste in high regard, and I am genuinely saddened to find out that I was wrong in my estimation of him.

There is, quite a bit. Different words have different meanings. At least, in the conversation, I won't misstate what you have said for the purposes of making my own opinion stronger, as you have done consistently, nor will I continue to try and prove to everyone that my opinion is established fact, again, as you have done consistently. So, I have that going for me. If you consistently need to do these things, what does that say for your own "authority"....?

Addendum: As tth said before, no one is disputing this. I don't know how to make it any more clear to you. No one is disputing that the cover to Hulk #181 is more important and more valuable than the last page of #180. But the fact is, the #180 page is up for auction NOW, while the cover to #181 has not been up for public sale in the last 20 years. It is STILL opinion, which you would do well to understand. Fact and opinion...even opinion shared by everyone...are DIFFERENT things. One is demonstrable, provable, and the other is not. You can make an ARGUMENT for an opinion, and it could be a very STRONG argument...but that doesn't make it an established fact, which is what you seem to have a problem with. Here's a really good hint: whenever you see qualifying words like "more" or "less" in conjunction with adjectives like "important" or "beautiful" or "desirable" or "hideous", the chances are reallllly good that you're discussing opinion, and not fact. Spiderman's first published appearance is in Amazing Fantasy #15. This is an established, demonstrable fact. He did not "more appear" in Amazing Fantasy #15. He first appeared.

How does pressing have anything to do with undisclosed micro-trimming? Neither can be consistently detected. You do the math. Neither can farting on a book and letting it air out. Neither farting nor pressing is equivalent to undisclosed destruction of a book meant to defraud a buyer. Speak for yourself, farty.

Saved for posterity. No need. The original is still there, unedited. But I AM glad you managed to quote it correctly, without changing what I actually said to suit your argument better. (thumbs u

You are misrepresenting.....again....what I said. I said "I have little doubt that it will cross $1 million"....that is not the same as "this piece will easily surpass $1 million." Is it possible for you to have discussion with anyone without misrepresenting what they said to score your points...? You DO realize that making straw men arguments is a fallacious way to discuss anything, don't you? Yet, you keep on doing it. And yet, you are the wisdom from on high, and I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about....? Your hubris is immense. As to the rest...

http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&id=351046566638 That auction is going to look pretty tame in the long run of DC 26. Glad I saw the writing on the wall back when the MOS easter eggs were dropping. Seems like we're on a solid trajectory for Doomsday, Booster Gold and others as well. There's a Booster appearance in MOS?

I'll say this again: It is likely the most important piece of comic book OA auctioned in the last 20 years. Why? It is the first depiction (published) of the 4th most popular superhero in the world. Short of comparable pages of Superman (almost guaranteed to no longer exist) and Batman (almost guaranteed to no longer exist) and Spiderman (safely ensconced in the Library of Congress), there are few pieces of OA which are comparable in terms of historic importance. Therefore, it breaks the rules for "normal" OA. The fact is, more important pieces...and the argument can be made for covers like FF #1, Hulk #1, X-Men #1, etc, are more important pieces than this...either no longer exist, or haven't shown up in the last 20 years. "But OA buyers don't CARE (as much) about the fact that it's Wolverine's first appearance." Right. Because OA collectors care ONLY about the merit of the piece itself, and not what it means to pop culture in general. As we know from Fine Art, that's not true at all. The NAME adds the superstar status, not *necessarily* the quality of the piece itself. 10 years ago, I agree, it would not have made an impact. But that was 10 years ago, not now. Now, Wolverine is a character who has gained worldwide fame, and the argument can be made (again, keeping in mind that this is OPINION) that he is the 4th most popular comic book character in the entire world (after Supes, Bats, and Spidey.) The cover to #181 is more important. <------ this statement is opinion. It is not provable. Opinion, even if 10 billion people agree, is not the same thing as fact. When and if the cover to #181 shows up for public sale, then it should surpass this page. This is a unique situation. Will it cross $1M? I think it stands a fair shot, and if not, at least close. Will I be wrong? Who knows? It's an AUCTION, anything can happen. It's at nearly $1/4M now. It's already surpassed many other pieces that some might consider "more important." Do I follow the OA market as closely as some? No, of course not. Does that mean I am talking completely out of my rear, and know nothing about what I speak? No. And people can disagree...even those who might be "more informed" than others...without being dismissive about it. I know I'm making that effort.

The "more informed opinion" has stated, multiple times, that "you weren't there, so you couldn't possibly know what happened" with regards to events in the comics industry, among other misstatements. You know...despite the reality of History departments in schools all over the world.