Ablation Steve

10 hours ago, William-James88 said:

If Harley only appeared in that comic and not on the show, she'd probably be less popular and thus never entering the cultural zeitgeist as she has now, which would make her comic worth A LOT less.

And let me ask you this, what about Journey into Mystery 83? Stories of Thor had been around for over 1000 years before that comic, by your line of questioning, there is no reason for that comic to be worth much of anything. 

Dude, it's the first appearance of Donald Blake. DONALD BLAKE! I don't think Thor had much to do with it. 

1 hour ago, valiantman said:

There are at least two other requirements for a true test... 1) age of the comics need to be the same, 2) the characters need to have similar depictions in the other media (both are from animations or both are based on live actors, etc.).

Star Trek #1, Scooby Doo #1, Space Ghost #1, and The Green Hornet #1 have a lot in common (all four between 50 and 55 years old, all four from Gold Key, all four based on popular television series debuting a few months earlier).

Star Trek #1 and The Green Hornet #1 are comic book depictions of characters known first as live actors.

Scooby Doo #1 and Space Ghost #1 are comic book depictions of characters known first as drawings/animation.

An average CGC graded copy of Star Trek #1 is about $300, Scooby Doo #1 is about $600, Space Ghost #1 is about $300, and Green Hornet #1 is about $150.

The Star Trek franchise is easily the biggest of all four, but Scooby Doo #1 is the "winner" among these comics - most likely because it is based on drawn characters, rather than live actors. 

Either Green Hornet or Space Ghost is the least-known character, but Bruce Lee is still better known than Space Ghost --- yet the Space Ghost #1 sells for twice as much as Green Hornet #1.

Comics seem to be "valued more" when the original depiction is essentially a moving comic (animation).

Animation vs. actor is likely why the average CGC graded Harley Quinn first appearance in comics (Batman Adventures #12, twenty-five years later) is worth nearly the same as Scooby Doo #1, while the average CGC graded Star Wars #42 (Boba Fett) is much closer in value to the Green Hornet.

That was an incredible analysis, thank you for shining some light on the subject.

1 hour ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

Here’s my blanket, opinionated statement:

i nominate this topic as the dumbest ever posted on the CGC message boards.

You have hurt my feelings. I am simply glad that others appear to be enjoying themselves and providing excellent analysis and information.

13 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

This doesn't bother me as much as the folks desperately digging to find an alternate "REAL!!" first appearance, like a coloring book, an ad in an earlier book, the cover of Amazing Heroes, etc. It's getting kind of ridiculous. Then again, if I don't care, I don't have to buy it.

True, the hype-beast is running with that one right now, aren't they? Marvel Age is a comic, so you can't say that it's not the first appearance in comics for some characters. But if you label their actual first appearance as "in continuity," then that boots out comics like B:TAS 12 because it's not in DC continuity. What's Rocket (Rocky) Raccoon's first appearance in comics, because Marvel Preview was magazine size? But then Marvel Preview pretty much has to count, because GA comics were larger than Modern, so Modern can't be the standard.

(and yeah, I do understand that there could be some argument as to whether or not Marvel Age is a comic or a comic-sized magazine.)

"It is because both characters have more than one method (medium) of growing their popularity that there are also toys, costumes, and video games which have been collectible for decades."

This is probably the truest statement so far, and quite convincing. 

Agreed, poorly phrased by me. Perhaps "shouldn't be worth much more than other comics from that title with close release dates."

I certainly understand supply and demand for comics, and yes, it's worth what people will pay. And I understand that comics that have appearances of certain characters are the ones people want. That will tweak the price up a little, like Star Wars 81. 

I'm simply putting it out there that the (IN COMICS) part gets forgotten in the phrase FIRST APPEARANCE (IN COMICS). These First Appearances seem to have a Barry Bonds record-breaking home run asterisk in my mind. (Then again, that ball sold for $750,000, so that doesn't help my argument.) 

It simply seems like, since comic collectors can't get their hands on a 70mm print of ESB, we overhype the first appearance in our preferred medium.

Here, let me ask a less contentious question. Would something like ASM #361 be worth as much as it is now is the character first appeared in a Spider-Man cartoon? Would Batman Adventures 12 be worth more if she'd never shown up in B:TAS?

Agreed, I phrased that poorly.

Blanket, opinionated statement: Comics should not be worth more when a character first appears in other media. The first appearance in comics of Boba Fett or Ahsoka or Harley Quinn should not be worth more than any other comic they appear in, because their actual first appearance is in other media. 
 

Discuss!

Thanks for the reply. I got in touch with Tom Feister and he confirmed that the covers were sold shortly after he drew them.

Can I ask how you know that the covers are in a permanent collection? I'd love to chat with the owner.

If anyone knows where I can find the covers, and more importantly certain interiors of these issues, I'd much appreciate it.

Alternately, if someone can get me in touch with Robert Teranishi, that might be helpful. He's pretty much a ghost online.

Thanks!

I needed a lesson on this back in 1993!

Well, I'm glad I hit a little nerve! Collectors seldom behave rationally, and am happy to hear about the situations that you all have found weird.

So what would happen if someone retconned Hulk #181 to say that that wasn't even Wolverine? Maybe it was actually Mystique or Copycat or Chameleon. Yes, it would be stupid, and no, I doubt it would affect prices. Or would it?

Isn't it just a little weird how retcons can affect back issue prices? The issue was nothing special when it came out, and a writer way down the line decides to make something out of nothing, or change which character was actually there.

Examples? Uncanny X-Men 201 comes to mind, because Nathan was never intended to be Cable. New Mutants #98/X-Force #8 is the reverse, where it actually made the earlier issue less important (though #98 had its own reason to rise).

But how far can it go? What if Len Wein said "In Hulk #179, Wolverine is in disguise and is that fourth guy on the left on the top of page 11, and then he followed Hulk to Canada." What if some other writer came along next year and wrote that into continuity? How far will we go to believe that #179 is worth thousands?

You know what? I'm going to stock up on Strange Tales #104, because that white goo that Paste Pot Pete was shooting out was actually Anti-Venom. It's the first appearance of a symbiote in the Marvel Universe, or at least it will be when Marvel hires me to write it. (Joking, but you see where I'm going with this.)

How easily, do you think. Professionally? Or by an amateur?

Thanks to you both. Any idea why those Supermans were stickered?

Hi all, just bumping this since it took a few days to get my first message cleared by a moderator and it ended up pretty far down the page.

Let's say that the issue is in 9.2.   Is the UPC sticker (which I'm guessing is aftermarket at the comic shop that was using scanners) going to knock it down any more?