JTLarsen

Not true. Forties, fifties and much of the sixties. Taxes were high on the rich, unions were strong and the middle class was thriving.

No one is arguing that an ad cannot create demand and value. But it's NOT the Crow's first appearance. That is Caliber Presents #1. So, Hulk 180 ISN'T the first appearance of Wolverine? Is that last panel an advertisement of sorts for the next issue? I will always believe 180 is his first appearance, and that will never change, but I'm with you on the gobbledygook's of the world. Not 1st appearances, but ads. This is a pretty easy one. If Marvel had gone bankrupt and closed shop before printing 181, would we say a character named Wolverine never appeared in Marvel Comics? Of course not. He appeared in 180. Subsequent appearances can't change that.

Or unwise. If having it now -- and evading the anxiety of waiting it out (not knowing whether that'll lead to ownership or not) -- is worth the extra money to them, then it seems like a wise decision. Especially if the money differential is meaningless to them.

Surprised this went for $215, given the condition: http://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/alternative-underground/marvelman-related-group-of-19-l-miller-and-son-1950s-total-19-items-/a/121539-14435.s?type=bidnotice-tracked-dailystatus

Actually, I do agree with this, too. Just an unfortunate cover all around.

This Titans fan is very satisfied owning 60 and not 54. So there is your first. Wow. That surprises even me. I don't consider myself a Titans completist, but I do own 60 and TT 1. I do consider BB54 an important milestone in the history/development of the TT and even though I don't consider it their first appearance, I would still like to own a copy some day. So, wow, this is interesting!

I don't recall that, so I can't agree to it. If Robin says they formed BECAUSE of Hatton Corners, rather than AFTER, then, yes, there's causality. But I don't recall seeing that. Robin says: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crimefighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!* *See Brave and the Bold 54." How can you not the causation? Robin specifically ties the Teen Titans to helping the kids of Hatton Corners. There would be no mention of Hatton Corners (or cite to BB 54) if the Teen Titans was unrelated to that adventure. I don't see the causation because they don't tell us it was causal. I didn't say it was unrelated. All I said was they don't tell us causality, just sequence. You cite something, you don't cite to something. But, no, here we disagree. I think 60 cites 54 when establishing the chronology of events, NOT specifically in reference to the formation. Again, Robin says: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crimefighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!* *See Brave and the Bold 54." The citation to BB 54 and the reference to "setting up" the Teen Titans is made in the very same sentence as the mention of "helping the kids of Hatton Corners." And note this: Robin does not say the TT were formed "after we left Hatton Corners." He merely says "after [we] helped the kids of Hatton Corners!" Do you now agree that BB 60 specifically cites to BB 54 when it states that the TT were formed off-camera? I don't see how disagreement is possible. It's the same sentence. Yeah, as a general rule, being in the same sentence with something doesn't make the other thing in the sentence a cause. And, no, I think it's quite clear that the intention of that word balloon and caption is to tell readers that they formed the Teen Titans after the events of BB 54. Agree and disagree. They use those words, but the meaning of those words was different at the time than we use and understand them now. I'll give you a +3 for this one. Yes: They use those words. Exactly! The exact meaning of those words as used in BB 54 is a question of interpretation and intent. And given that the editorial intent behind BB was to tell a junior JLA story, the meaning your proffer is debatable at the very least. Even assuming you're right about the intent re 54 (which I consider irrelevant), our point about intent actually works against you. If they had intended an editorial caption to be the introduction of a new superhero team, they would have used DIFFERENT language than the every-issue phrasing they used to refer to non-team team-ups in other issues. Disagree. And you were doing so well and being so civil up until then. What a shame. I've given you a second chance to get to +7. Can you do it? Not really a goal I'm working toward. Well, first of all, DC never says that's the case. Secondly, when exactly do you postulate this happens? It ends in Hatton Corners and Robin says TT formed "after" the adventure in Hatton Corners. Finally, I appreciate that you're agreeing the Teen Titans don't appear on-camera in BB54. Which would make BB60 the first appearance of the Teen Titans. First, DC does state that the group of Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad that appeared in BB 54 are the Teen Titans. I believe DC does so (1) in BB 60 when Robin references back to BB 54 to explain when the Teen Titans were formed, (2) in TT 1 when DC starts the "brief history of the Teen Titans" with BB 54, (3) in TT 1 when DC specifically acknowledges that Wonder Girl was an "addition" to the "new team" and notes that BB 60 is when they got the name, (4) in the first reprinting of BB 54 in the early 70s when it was called a TT adventure, (5) in the Teen Titans archives, and, most definitively, (6) in the 50th anniversary DC collected edition which starts with BB 54 and which DC used as the first appearance for purposes of the 50th anniversary. As I've said, I don't really care what DC says happened in BB 54. I've read it myself. I disagree with (1), (2) is ambiguous -- you could say the brief history of me starts with my mother and father, but I don't make my first appearance until at least nine months later, (3) we've already litigated their use of the phrase "new team," I don't care about (4) (especially since you've chosen to leave out the similar editorial examples that go against your argument, and I don't care about (5) or (6) for reasons I've already explained. Is it possible? Sure, why not. Anyone who's actually read the issue -- and didn't have a stake in this argument -- would find that a ridiculous assertion. If you really think it happened off-camera, why don't you show us the two panels between which this momentous, unseen, un-remarked-upon event occurs?

The battle against Loki is what led to the formation of the Avengers. The battle against the Space Phantom is the first time the Avengers fight. We know the Hulk left the team almost immediately. What if he had refused to join in the first place? Would it still be the Avengers fighting Loki in your opinion? What if another original member had refused? Nothing left to discuss. If you don't think that Avengers 1 tells the first Avengers adventure, then we have no common ground. If Hulk had refused to join the Avengers, Avengers 1 would still have told the first Avengers adventure of the fight against Loki. Hulk just wouldn't have been one of the Avengers. GS X-Men 1 is the first New X-Men adventure even though characters refused to join the team. Or do you also believe that GS X-Men 1 is NOT the first appearance of the New X-Men? ! I don't recall a "team" being "officially" formed in GS X-Men 1. I do recall the issue ending with a real question as to who, if anyone, was going to be an X-Man. And in the next issue, we found out that certain characters in the initial adventure would not be joining the team. Yet, it is still the first appearance of the New X-Men. We can at least agree on that, Right? [And if you can, then you should also agree Avengers 1 is the first adventure of the Avengers.] There are no New X-Men, only X-Men. Eventually, there were so many members that they split into two teams, but that was in the 90s. Do people call Avengers 16 the first appearance of the New Avengers? Your evasions are revealing the thinness of your arguments. From X-Men 94: So was GS X-Men the first new X-Men or not? I think there's a reason why the issue sells for so much. Yeah, obviously because it's the first appearance of Thunderbird. Duh! Back to reality... It's the first appearance of Storm, Nightcrawler and Colossus and the second full Wolverine appearance. Also, the prelude to the restart of new adventures in the main title rather than the reprints it had been featuring. It also features a superhero team.

Yes.

Robin doesn't say it happened "after the story in #54" or "after B&B 54" -- that's the misinformation. Obviously Robin wouldn't say anything about "#54." He says the events happened after the events in Hatton Corners. Which occurred in #54. Agree. I don't recall that, so I can't agree to it. If Robin says they formed BECAUSE of Hatton Corners, rather than AFTER, then, yes, there's causality. But I don't recall seeing that. Agree. You cite something, you don't cite to something. But, no, here we disagree. I think 60 cites 54 when establishing the chronology of events, NOT specifically in reference to the formation. Agree and disagree. They use those words, but the meaning of those words was different at the time than we use and understand them now. Don't recall, but happy to stipulate to this. That sounds right, but I don't recall off-hand. Disagree. And you were doing so well and being so civil up until then. What a shame. Well, first of all, DC never says that's the case. Secondly, when exactly do you postulate this happens? It ends in Hatton Corners and Robin says TT formed "after" the adventure in Hatton Corners. Finally, I appreciate that you're agreeing the Teen Titans don't appear on-camera in BB54. Which would make BB60 the first appearance of the Teen Titans.

I can only speak for myself and say why I'm engaged in the debate -- because I want people who might be inclined to spend money on it to know what they're getting...and not getting. I've been burnt by buying things based on what Overstreet told me, reading them, and finding out Overstreet was wrong. So, I'm trying to let people know, if you buy Brave and Bold 54, don't expect to see a superhero team form -- let alone appear -- within those pages. You get three future members working together, yes, but they don't form a team or even decide to.

I'm really getting tired of this misinformation. Robin never says: "The Teen Titans were formed after BB 54." Instead, he says: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crime-fighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!*" See the "*"? Below that quote, the editorial box cites to "* See Brave and the Bold 54" A very reasonable interpretation of that text is that when Robin talks about the formation of the Teen Titans he is saying that they were set up immediately after and as a result of the Hatton Corners adventure set forth in B&B 54. And that is clearly DC's editorial position because to support Robin's comment about the setting up of the Teen Titans they tell readers to "See Brave and the Bold 54." DC, of course, reinforced this conclusion in Teen Titans 1 when they started the "brief history of the Teen Titans" with a discussion of B&B 54 and explained that B&B 60 was only the "next time" the group appeared with the "addition" of Wonder Girl. If you're now pinning your argument on the placement of the asterisk -- which, :: -- I'm going to have to point out that the asterisk doesn't come after "set up," it comes after "helped the kids of Hatton Corners." In other words, when they say "See Brave and the Bold 54" they're referring to the helping of the kids of Hatton Corners. Which makes sense, because you wouldn't tell someone to see BB 54 for the "set up" part, because you can't see it in there, because it doesn't happen in there. Or else, feel free to show us the panel* you think they want us to see. * see Brave and Bold 60.

Sgt. Rock is probably the best-known example. Other first appearances have been and are being debated, too, though.

Not trying to stir anything up, but, yeah, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on your previous comments and how/whether you reconcile them with your position now. Thanks.

If there were hundreds of appearances afterward of the Metal Men/Atom team, then yes, that would be their first appearance. No it wouldn't be. You don't even know if a team exists at this point, let alone if they have a name or whom the roster consists of. Best watch yourself, Sir. You are making a very strong argument for the 60. That's where we fundamentally disagree, as I've said repeatedly in this thread. I don't care when they get a name, and I don't care if we know a team exits at the time that they first gather to defeat a bad guy. Their first adventure is their first appearance. Well, we actually know NO team exists when they first gather--since Robin tells us the team wasn't formed until after. But I think as long as you're explicit -- as you're being here (I'm not saying you weren't in the past) -- about what you consider a first appearance, I have no problem with that. I don't want people NOT to buy BB 54, I just don't want them surprised/disappointed by what's inside. So, thanks for hanging in there with the discussion and for your willingness to clarify your position and criteria.

Covet.

If there were hundreds of appearances afterward of the Metal Men/Atom team, then yes, that would be their first appearance. How many hundreds? If that's the definition, it should be specific.

Deficits don't matter.

Everyone with even half a brain already realized that DC was regularly using "team" very loosely at that point in time. What's really funny is that the Atom's "Hope we meet again soon!" is much more than we got at the end of 54. Actually, I disagree here. Super-smart people who aren't familiar with how DC used different lingo at the time certainly have an understandable excuse for thinking that the words "new team" in BB 54 constituted the introduction of an ACTUAL (or official, etc.) superhero team. Once they've seen the evidence, such as you've helpfully provided, that the phrase was used very loosely to refer even to one-time partnerships, then, however, they should concede that there's no actual evidence in BB 54 of the formation of a superhero team. Some folks, to their credit, have done so--and explained that they consider BB 54 the first appearance of the Teen Titans because they have their own personal definitions of "team" or "appearance." Which is fine -- as long as everyone knows what those definitions are. Anyway, thanks for the info!

Really? Where do they do that? I'm seeing a lot of misinformation on this thread and not a lot of clarification. Did you go to comics.org? If you had, you'd have gotten the clarification. Here it is. Comics.org's listing for BB 54 clarifies its relationship to the Teen Titans with the following: "Indexer Notes "Kid Flash, Robin and Aqualad - later to become the Teen Titans." I did go to comics.org. There are no stated "factors" for what constitutes a first appearance. As I said, a lot of misinformation on this thread. Not the least of which the claim that wikis are authoritative, something my middle school kid knows is not the case (he'll get down graded for citing wikis as sources in his papers). I never said there were factors for what constitutes a first appearance. I said they explain what factors are relevant to the Teen Titans' first appearance. It lists the three individual superheroes who appear and explains that they later become the Teen Titans. Calling something misinformation does not make it so. Impugning an industry source does not make them un-credible. I'm well aware that it's a wiki. Overstreet is not. In my experience, Overstreet has more errors. The fact that something is a wiki doesn't just address the fact that it could be wrong (as can ANY authority), it tells us that it has mechanisms in place to fix those errors. And calling them a wiki doesn't mean they're wrong. Or else by now you'd have shared the BB 54 panel that proves them wrong. Which you haven't. My apologies if I'm being dense, but I don't follow what the bolded statements mean. What exactly explains the relevant factors of TT's first appearance? The second bolded "explains" loses me, too. There's no explanation, just a statement. Statements can explain things. "I skipped lunch" is a statement that explains why I'm hungry. "later to appear as the Teen Titans" explains that the three heroes team up in BB54 and, um, later appear as the Teen Titans, which they do many times...starting with BB 60.

That pretty much sums it up. Agree that that sums it up. And by the same argument and standards, Superman 76 is the first appearance of the Justice League. You can't get to BB 28 without Batman and Superman teaming up, which Superman 76 did first. This kind of "logic" shows the weakness of your argumentation. Good. Because it's your logic. That's the point of making this weak argument: It's the same as yours.

What the heck is an "official" superhero team? Do they get a membership badge? Or is the title of a comic or continuing series enough? By any measure, Green Lantern-Green Arrow was an official superhero team. Have you heard of GL-GA 76? Read the title. It is worth money for a reason. Superman-Flash did not have a steady series of adventures, they had very sporadic cross-overs. Superman-Batman, on the other hand, did have a monthly series of adventures starting with World's Finest 71 (again a "key" worth a premium). Of course, the comic collecting community recognizes Superman 76 and World's Finest 94 as notable for telling the origin of the Superman-Batman team (and, hey, check out the cover of WF 94). And I won't even go into Power Man & Iron Fist, etc. at Marvel. Where was the Green Lantern-Green Arrow headquarters again? And where was the headquarters of the Superman-Batman team? Were there lots of membership changes with any of these teams? And how "steady" does a "team"'s adventures need to be for them to be a team? Are you really saying that Superman-Flash would have been magically transformed into an "official" superhero team if they'd gotten a monthly team-up book? What about bi-monthly? What about a mini-series? Most comic-book fans know the difference between a superhero team and an official superhero team. Batman and Robin are a partnership, hero and sidekick. Superman-Batman and Green Lantern-Green Arrow are equal partnerships, "teams" in the generic sense of the word. Two friends who play basketball together regularly are not a basketball team in the same sense that the Knicks are. Green Lantern-Green Arrow is not a superhero team the same way the JLA is. And, yes, sometimes groups have insignia or other signifiers of membership. (Oh, here's wikipedia's list of DC superhero teams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superhero_teams_and_groups#DC_Comics. Note that GL-GA and Superman-Batman are nowhere to be found.) And by the way, your erroneous assumption that I haven't read GL 76 aside, it's not worth the money it's worth because it's the first appearance of the GL-GA "team." Again you go to wikipedia? ! And now your argument is about "superhero teams" and "official superhero teams"? What are the Defenders (the non-team team)? You are portraying a lot of opinions as facts. Nope. Just demonstrating how out of the mainstream your opinions are about what constitutes a superhero team. If you want to find an "authoritative" list of superhero teams that includes every superhero team-up that's occurred more than once, feel free. You can post it next to that BB 54 panel in which the Teen Titans form. Green Lantern-Green Arrow Assemble!

Really? Where do they do that? I'm seeing a lot of misinformation on this thread and not a lot of clarification. Did you go to comics.org? If you had, you'd have gotten the clarification. Here it is. Comics.org's listing for BB 54 clarifies its relationship to the Teen Titans with the following: "Indexer Notes "Kid Flash, Robin and Aqualad - later to become the Teen Titans." I did go to comics.org. There are no stated "factors" for what constitutes a first appearance. As I said, a lot of misinformation on this thread. Not the least of which the claim that wikis are authoritative, something my middle school kid knows is not the case (he'll get down graded for citing wikis as sources in his papers). I never said there were factors for what constitutes a first appearance. I said they explain what factors are relevant to the Teen Titans' first appearance. It lists the three individual superheroes who appear and explains that they later become the Teen Titans. Calling something misinformation does not make it so. Impugning an industry source does not make them un-credible. I'm well aware that it's a wiki. Overstreet is not. In my experience, Overstreet has more errors. The fact that something is a wiki doesn't just address the fact that it could be wrong (as can ANY authority), it tells us that it has mechanisms in place to fix those errors. And calling them a wiki doesn't mean they're wrong. Or else by now you'd have shared the BB 54 panel that proves them wrong. Which you haven't.

You keep ascribing new criteria to what constitutes a team. So now they need a headquarters? Membership changes? All that's needed of a team is that they are teamed up together and over a period of time, IMO. I'd have to reread Avengers #1 as it's been a while but is there a headquarters in issue #1? Those aren't new criteria, they're examples of the kinds of things that differentiate a Superhero Team from a recurring partnership or team-up. If, in your opinion, all that's needed for a superhero team to come into being is that they team up together over a period of time, then your list of DC superhero teams should include: All-Star Squadron Batman and the Outsiders Batman and Superman Batman and the Teen Titans Green Lantern Corps Green Lantern-Green Arrow Justice League Superman and Batgirl Superman and Flash Young All-Stars All of these -- and MANY more -- are DC superheroes who have teamed up together over a period of time. So, at last we have agreement, if THAT is the definition of a superhero team, then, yes, BB 54 is the first appearance of a superhero team that later decided to form a superhero team called the Teen Titans.

That pretty much sums it up. Agree that that sums it up. And by the same argument and standards, Superman 76 is the first appearance of the Justice League. You can't get to BB 28 without Batman and Superman teaming up, which Superman 76 did first.