comicginger1789

Thats a different character that never saw the light of day.

So your definition of Venom's first appearance is....?? If you say Web of Spidey #18 I might cry

How is it different that Wolverine's full body shot at the end of 180? We get multiple panels, a full page body shot and even the name below telling us who it is

Foom #2 is an interesting case too. No notation of the so called prototype of Wolvie yet there have been some high grade copies sold for high prices. Has this fanzine always had value? The cover is the reason I have always wanted it as I love Steranko

I think what @kav means by "the money follows the first appearance", is that if CGC labels it first appearance, people pay more. ASM #300 and Hulk #181 both say first full appearance. The actual firsts (as many here seem to agree with) use different wording On Hulk #180, it does say "first appearance of Wolverine in cameo on last page" In ASM #299 (arguably a larger first appearance as we get a full page), simply says "Venom cameo" on the label. No use of the word "first", not even a note about what page (guess they love Wolvie more?) I don't think doing the above is right. That being said, if it switches and uses labelling similar to what I have Frankensteined together, kav could be very right and the money could shift. I don't think it should because I would much rather a Hulk #181 in my collection than a #180 for the reasons I have mentioned (amazing, iconic cover, full battle in the issue...it is great!). So perhaps this endeavour is fruitless. I am seeing that more and more. I think all one can do is educate people. And at the end of the day, it is up to them. If someone wants to spend $500 on a high grade Foom #2 because they love Wolverine so much and feel this is a first appearance of some kind, can we stop them? I don't like it but it really is outta this collector's hands. I just think CGC could be better with their labelling. I really do. I think that ASM #299 should read "1st appearance of Venom in cameo at end" as its the same as Hulk #181. At least be consistent.

And that’s fine. I think it should. Again if it is part of the characters history and coming about, why not label it? Again my goal here is NOT to try and pump up value on anything. It’s to create a term that makes sense. If you want to eliminate glimpse, that’s ok. We just have a different opinion

I agree. Which is why calling it an ad appearance should help. It should be viewed as not a real comic book appearance. It can be interesting sure, for those looking into comic history. I myself have a couple issues of Alter Ego and enjoy reading some old interview with creators from the time period. But I agree labelling these things as first appearances and inflating prices to make a buck is wrong.

I still think it’s necessary to label issues like Marvel Age 12 and Comics Reader as first ad or preview, whichever term is more appropriate (so not fan art). Its part of the development and new collectors should know that. They should not be labelled first appearances though.

And I agree with that. 252 is first appearance. Marvel Age and the other stuff would be labelled as Ad Appearances that predate the first appearance.

Thanks! The concept was based on a fan idea though was it not? In addition there are other comic related material Comic Reader or something along those lines) that also featured sketches of the design. So I still put them all in the ad appearances column. It’s advertising a character in development. In this case there are multiple ad appearances

I meant #54, sorry that was a typo... I am still trying to just round out my history of characters and stories themselves. I only recently have been intrigued at the hobby of collecting itself. I dont like worry about market value and all that...I keep on top of whats current for the sake of knowing when I have/find something that I can sell for something I desire more. As time goes on, I am sure I will delve into some old Overstreets and collect more comic related print materials from various points in time. I sadly just don't have the time to get there right now. Ultimately, I disagree with trying to mislabel something it is not. And I also dislike the inconsistency. Which is the primary reason why I am trying to at least give a suggestion to a label system that works. After that, collectors can determine where they want to throw their money. Personally, a book like Malibu Sun #13 has no interest to me whatsoever. I am not a huge Spawn fan and for those prices, I dont care about it. I still own some Spawn because the story was okay at the start. Now, I loveee Spider-Man. That being said, I do not want to pay more than maybe $1-3 for Marvel Age #12. I think this fan art of the first black suit is interesting to the history of the costume...but certainly not $15-20+ interesting. I also do not agree with it labelled as a first appearance. It sets about confusion for new collectors and young people getting into the hobby who may not (unfortunately) take the time to research. Plus, if they "just Google it" like so many do, and it tells them its Marvel Age 12, well they think they are getting something good when really, it's just fan art.

An update, if I may... After a day of reading and pondering further, I feel my initial musings were a good start but I was not happy with it. I posted because I know people here know more than me and having heard a lot here (and on other sites) I have decided to revise my definitions. So let me try this again Fan Art Worth noting because who can ever definitively say that some of these did not inspire the minds at Marvel (or any other company). A book like Foom #2 can be labelled as containing "Fan art for character called Wolverine (predates first appearance)". Again, a completist may want this as part of their collection if they love Wolvie...and if they are willing to pay up that is fine. Heck the book itself contains and awesome Steranko cover so that alone holds value. Ad/Preview Appearances They are as stated, an ad (thanks to @sfcityduck for this new idea) or preview as they provide the bare bones. A pic, a promotional blurb or pic, or perhaps some concept art. These appearances can be found in magazines or other print items that are not exactly comic books. Malibu Sun #13 fits this bill. So do things like Marvel Age 12. They are ad books. In addition, an ad in a comic would count. It is advertizing a character to come. Some would likely pay more for something like Malibu Sun since you get a nice cover...others may not want to shell out too much to get a vague blurb about a new character at the bottom of the last page. The ad appearance needs to be visual, so a verbal blurb would not get this label. If the visual is vague as to the character's appearance, it can still be labelled as an ad appearance that predates the first appearance like Iron Fist 13. First Glimpse This was suggested by @valiantman! I like the wording better than my previous "first unknown appearance." A first glimpse is just that...a panel or couple of panels where we get a glimpse of a character for the first time in an actual story. We as a reader do not know who it is because we get a hand or vague outline. Think ASM #298 or ASM #360 for Venom and Carnage respectively. Maybe we even get a name but we really cannot put the whole picture (name and face and body) together to get a clear idea of who or what this character is. First Appearance Like before, we see the character in full for the first time. We may not get a name but visually we know so that when we do get a name, we can say "oh yes, they clearly appeared last issue and I got a glimpse of them the issue before that." Hulk #180, ASM #299 as examples. First Full Appearance Character appears in full throughout the story. They can be found on more than 5 panels in the story. If a first appearance is also a full appearance, the label would only state "first full appearance" (like ASM #129). If the first full appearance appears after a first appearance, label reads "second appearance, first full appearance." Hulk #181 or Avengers #196. First Cover Appearance Same as before. Labelled for the first time we see a character on a cover. This is different from a first appearance. If it all happens in the same ish (again example ASM #129), label can read "first full appearance, first cover appearance". For a character like Gwenpool, her first cover appearance would be labelled. Her first story appearance would be labelled as a "first appearance (appears prior on cover only)". Prototype Appearance I am reusing this label but changing the definition. Blame Sgt. Rock for this but hey, I think the definition does actually fit his situation. He was a character who grew and morphed into the Sgt. Rock we see today. However, if I use this definition as a catch all for all comics, it means I have to classify House of Secrets #92 as a first prototype appearance of Swamp Thing. That Swamp Thing is not the one we knew. It was changed and adapted later for a new (albeit very similar) character. This case can also be applied to the Teen Titans. Brave & Bold is a first prototype appearance for the Teen Titans...the original team we know and recognize does not start until issue #60. Again, I am not trying to shift any market...I think that HOS #92 is an amazingly iconic cover that could still hold its own. Those who know Swamp Thing's history know how the original creative team revamped their old idea so it clearly is important, arguably more so than the first app of Swamp Thing we see in issue 1. Retcon Appearance A retcon appearance happens well after the fact and works in an old moment or an old character into a new character. At the time the character or characters first appeared, they were not viewed as the are later. Example here is Misty Knight. Marvel Team Up #1 would be the "retcon first appearance of Misty Knight". This tells people that later on someone played with continuity to turn an unknown into a known. Avengers #71 would also fit this bill...it is a retcon first apppearance of the Invaders. Again, a completist may want these too. For me though, these retcon appearances are akin to when your fav character makes a cameo in another title. If I am collecting a run from a series, I am more focused on that series. Sure, I may become interested if and when my fav character pops up in another book, and I will seek out what happened there. That should be the case for a book like Avengers #71. Otherwise, GS Invaders should be "first full appearance, first cover appearance of Invaders". In Avengers #71, they were not a team. There was no eventual thought they would be. Heck, did the three never interact in the Golden Age of comics? If so, wouldnt that be the first appearance of the Invaders? Anyways, because a later writer worked it into their story, its a retcon first appearance. The term retcon itself should imply that it comes before the comic that is labelled their first appearance. There. Draft two. May the debate rage on

Again, are "these things" correct? Maybe they are and that is great but a number of comics have changed their standing over time. I am someone who was born in '89. I grew up and have learned about comics (the stuff I love at least) long after it first appeared and came out. I have no idea what was perceived as the "first appearance" of a character by collectors in the 80's and 90's and earlier. Perhaps I need to get my hands on some old price guides to really hone my knowledge....or perhaps people here can share Was Avengers #71 always considered the first Invaders? How about Brave and Bold #50 for Teen Titans? What about Sgt. Rock? That one has evolved for sure...

But are they correct? Who do we hold to the standard and if there are a lot of disagreements from what I have seen so some accurate labels seemed appropriate and necessary. Are mine the solution? Doubtful but I like this discussion:)

I want to thank you @sfcityduck I think my lack of knowledge played a role in a poor label. You are right that Foom 2 and Marvel Age 12 are fan art entries. I just felt that there was enough to both that spawned and gave breath to the eventual character much like an object that is a prototype. But perhaps the better classification is just “fan art character Wolverine” and “fan art Black Costume Spider-Man”. Your use of prototype to define Sgt Rock sounds a better fit. I wasn’t happy classifying him by my outlines to begin with and like your definition better. I will still stand by my Preview appearance. An ad is a preview for a product thus for me it is the first Preview appearance. Also. Definitely not a dealer. I sell stuff I don’t love to fund my own collection. As for the purpose of this endeavour, I just like to chat. The subject intrigued me and the fact that there are discrepancies in Overstreet and on CGC labels seems silly. I appreciate the thoughts and have already started to revise my ideas

Imagine Avengers #195 (the interior) had the cover #196 had. Guaranteed it would be the high money book and the only book worth having. You get a first cover and a first appearance. Issue #196 might also have a cover appearance but I bet it is not as valued. Would be neat to find an example like this, where the character appears for the first time and is on the cover BUT only featured in maybe 1-5 panels in the story...

Yes and there should be some consistency in wording too I feel... Calling Foom #2 a prototype for Wolverine seems correct Calling Sgt. Rock's first appearance a prototype? Not so sure... I understand that the character is not quite developed but it seems they continued to work on it and turned a character into something else. Kind of like with Swamp Thing. They took an old, one shot story, revamped it and created a new variation. If I take a character that appeared once in the Gold or Silver Age and adapt it into something new and have a long running story, I dont think it is right to call my first appearance the definitive first appearance.

Well value is not my target here. It is simply what to call the darn things. The value depends on the market. Can one really argue that the cover to Hulk 180 is better than 181? Nope. 181 gives you a first cover and a first full appearance. It's just a better looking book. Always has been and I believe it always will be. Now, you may have a situation come up where a variant cover shows a character before they appear and the cover is awesome! Then, in their actual first appearance, you have a ho hum cover well....maybe it does not go for much. The label plays a role in determining value but it is not the sole factor. Issue number, cover and overall story play minor parts in adding to the value also.

If her first ever appearance is a cover appearance, she this would be labelled "first cover appearance (predates first appearance)." Her actual "first appearance" would be the first time she is published in a story....Howard the Duck #1 Vol. 6 I believe.

YES! I really like your wording. Glimpse is a great way to put it! I was starting to really dislike my terminology of "unknown" appearance. The area that is stumping me now is a retcon appearance, which I despise. Something like Misty Knight being retconned to having her first app in MTU #1 for example. How to classify this is my latest thought. Perhaps a final appearance type called "retcon appearance" is all that is needed. Someone else other than the original artists and writers changed her first appearance to a random one in an earlier issue. This has happened to other characters too (Cable's baby appearance I believe would fall in this category?). Thoughts?

Surprisingly, not as commonly heard as one might think. If anything, kids are silent and mesmerized by how many streaks they are hitting on Snapchat....

You are right, First Unknown Appearance is not the best. Because in some cases, with a character like Killer Croc, we know his name before we see his face. So he is not truly unknown in the fullest sense. I like you label! ps I am fairly sure the words you used are not actually words but you were creative with the English language and in my classes I am all for that

Haha definitely. The people will always decide the value. Hence why the correct answer to everything is “whatever the market decides”.

Constantine. Now there is a character with a messy first appearance. Is it Swamp Thing 25, 37 or DC Sampler 3? To my knowledge, no writer has ever come out and said “yes that one panel face in Swamp Thing 25 is Constantine.” The fact that they look similar means nothing. This book is overvalued. DC Sampler 3 is exactly that...a sampler! Thus it fits into my “first preview” appearance because we see a preview for an upcoming character. Finally, Swamp Thing 37 showcases Constantine throughout. It is his first appearance. And that is the only designator that should be labelled for this issue.

Web of Spider-Man 18. Here is a potential weird one. When I first read it I was so confused...where was this supposed Venom/Eddie Brock appearance. Wait...that female looking hand that pushes Parker at the end? Apparently this was later retconned to be Eddie/Venom. If anyone can inform me when and in what issue this was retconned I would love to know. As is, I call it a first unknown appearance of Eddie/Venom. As an entity, the fact the symbiote possesses Eddie even when he is still Eddie means Venom is there but definitely not visually. Plus could be anyone’s hand. And in this case it did just look like a random persons hand. So there is my label but again, I’d like someone to confirm when and where event was confirmed to be Eddie/Venom