JTLarsen

DC has tried hard to combat the misinformation with repeated statements that the TT started with BB 54, so maybe that will solve the problem. In the meantime, watch out for what you read on the wikis, they are completely being manipulated. Fortunately, it does not appear that dealers are being taken in by the misinfo, and most everyone advertises BB 54 as a TT issue. Got a source for the claim that DC "has tried hard" to do anything? Let alone what you claim? Rather than just go along with the current prevailing idea? Do you really think Dan DiDio is losing sleep over which comic fans think is the first appearance of Teen Titans? They say it's BB54 (now!) because that's what Overstreet, et al, say. Of course, it's not what comics.org says, but what do they know. The big problem is that for many years now, most people who have worked in the industry were fans first and were exposed to all of the same things as other fans. A few of them really care about the history and try to correct faulty perceptions, but most can't be bothered. Comics.org is basically wiki level information. Bob Haney was a creator of the TT, wrote BB54 and BB60, and when shown a copy of BB54 in a long line of "team-up" issues his immediate unprompted reaction is "first Teen Titans." And that's consistent with other interviews by him and the stories about how the TT came to be created. DC has been saying BB54 was the first Teen Titans since it was first reprinted in the early 70' Maybe I'm a little confused? Where does DC call BB 54 the 1st Teen Titans in the early 70''s again? Literally every panel contradicts this statement, but perhaps there was one that was overlooked? Once again, show me one single panel published by DC, prior to the OPG guide changing its commentary in 1980, that backs up your point. Not to mention, it does not matter whether DC, Overstreet, Jesus Christ, Allah, or even Bob Haney says BB54 is the first appearance of the Teen Titans. Because it isn't. Prototype? That's ambiguous/subjective. Tryout? That has to do with intent, so I'm happy to take Haney at his word. Appearance, however, is not a subjective term. It requires actual appearing. The Teen Titans superhero team does not appear--with or without a name--in BB54. Which is why no one has posted a panel showing it.

For the record, here's what Bob Haney has to say about Sgt. Rock: So what were you saying about Sgt. Rock? That decades of consensus can change. Despite what Bob Haney says. But you make an excellent point -- despite what everyone knows (in this case, that Rock first appeared in OAW 83), it still might be wrong. As it is with BB54.

DC has tried hard to combat the misinformation with repeated statements that the TT started with BB 54, so maybe that will solve the problem. In the meantime, watch out for what you read on the wikis, they are completely being manipulated. Fortunately, it does not appear that dealers are being taken in by the misinfo, and most everyone advertises BB 54 as a TT issue. Got a source for the claim that DC "has tried hard" to do anything? Let alone what you claim? Rather than just go along with the current prevailing idea? Do you really think Dan DiDio is losing sleep over which comic fans think is the first appearance of Teen Titans? They say it's BB54 (now!) because that's what Overstreet, et al, say. Of course, it's not what comics.org says, but what do they know.

No, I think each side just has their own definition of what a first appearance is, and they're sticking to it. I'm guessing some people have been convinced to actually read BB54 and make a decision for themselves. And both sides of the debate have had ample opportunity to put the contents of 54 in context. The usage of the word "team" in contemporary DC titles, for instance, means that they're not automatically implying that a new superhero team has been created. Modern readers wouldn't know that without having seen the many examples provided here. They also might not have known that the comics community can be wrong for decades about a first appearance -- until they saw the discussion here about the recent shift on Sgt. Rock. So, maybe we're not convincing anyone either way. But I think we've given people the tools to make informed decisions for themselves, rather than just rely on what the notoriously fallible Overstreet says.

I tracked down and finally found all the Alan Moore issues. (And many if not most of the Grant Morrison issues). Tough to come by!

Let me just say, I love the research and historicity here. It's great stuff. And it certainly establishes that BB54 may have been a conscious try-out for a team of sidekicks. What it doesn't change is what happens in BB54--which is that no one starts a superhero group. Which is obvious if you read it.

But DC stated that they were a new team. Obviously new enough that the execs at DC hadn't even thought of the name Teen Titans yet. But they were more or less the same team, reintroduced a few issues later with a gimmicky name and maybe a new member. Still, the same team that was not only introduced but also noted on the last page that they were a new 'team'. It doesn't follow the formula of most team introductions but that doesn't mean it wasn't their first appearance. Again, no contest in my books. Have you read BB54? I think a good portion of the people who have been commenting on this thread haven't read either 54 or 60. Or the Teen Titans in general. I wouldn't be surprised. I used to consider 54 the first appearance. Then I read the reprint in DC Archives and thought to myself, what the hell? Because, y'know, no first appearance. Can't wait to read Superman 76, the first appearance of the "TEAM" later called "Justice League of America"!

Pretty much.

I'm not sure when that would be. After all, BB60 specifically cites to BB54 when it says the formation of the TT pre-dated BB60: So it was established by DC the first time that the name Teen Titans was used that the group originated in BB54. Moreover, the first time the story from BB54 was reprinted, in 1972, in DC 100 Page Super Spectacular DC-21, it was labeled on the cover as being a "Teen Titans" story. Hard to fault Overstreet for calling BB54 the first Teen Titans appearance when that's exactly what DC was doing back when the Guide was first written. Of course, subsequent DC publications, such as the Archives and 50th Anniversay HC, have also confirmed BB54 was the first appearance and origin of the TT. Bob got it right. That's why every dealer, including you, list BB54 as a TT book. Weird how everyone keeps dropping the word "after."

But DC stated that they were a new team. Obviously new enough that the execs at DC hadn't even thought of the name Teen Titans yet. But they were more or less the same team, reintroduced a few issues later with a gimmicky name and maybe a new member. Still, the same team that was not only introduced but also noted on the last page that they were a new 'team'. It doesn't follow the formula of most team introductions but that doesn't mean it wasn't their first appearance. Again, no contest in my books. Have you read BB54?

No one's saying BB54 isn't important. But, um, have you read it? Because, uh, then you might understand the argument that they don't form a superhero team in this issue. It's because they don't form a superhero team in this issue.

With this statement: Exactly. You are refuting yourself. BB was not solely a "team-up" book after BB50. While your ad touts "two hero" team-ups, there were a number of issues after BB50 that departed from that concept. As you rightly admit, there were non-"team-up" issues after BB50. These "exceptions" included BB 57 and BB 58 which featured solo Metamorpho stories (a possible Showcase style tryout for his own series?), BB 54 and BB60 which featured the TT (again a possible Showcase style tryout?), and BB 52 which featured Sgt. Rock, Haunted Tank and Lt. Cloud. Which just proves, as I said, that BB was not solely a "two hero" team-up book, as you claim the ad supports, until after BB 60. Which means that claiming that BB54 is just a team-up because it was after BB50 is an utterly false claim. No one's arguing that. We're rebutting the argument that the use of the word "team" in BB54 proves a formal superhero team has been introduced. BB50 and other examples illustrate that the word "team" doesn't mean what you think it means.

This second ad is just another two hero team-up in line with the concept for the ad you discuss in the first example. But, not only was BB54 not a two hero team-up in line with that ad, but the two hero team-up was not the only thing happening in B&B in that time period. BB was not solely a team-up book after BB 50. For example, BB 57 and BB 58 introduced Metamorpho in two solo adventures. BB 60 was also not a "team-up" but, as all of you contend quite vociferously, a true "team" story (not a team-up of a team and a solo hero as in BB 94 with TT and Batman teaming up). BB did not become a "team-up" book until after BB60. So the notion that BB was just a "team-up" book after BB 50, and therefore BB54 is just a "team-up", is utterly false. You neglected to address the salient point: When DC said "team" at the time, they were often not referring to formally constituted superhero teams. Which means that when they say "team" in BB54, we can't conclude that they think they just introduced a new superhero team (as confirmed by the Teen Titans' first appearance, in BB60, which tells us the team formed after BB54).

No, don't require them to proclaim it. Just to do it. They don't. They work together and part ways with no plans to work together again, let alone as a formally constituted group. They don't proclaim it because they haven't done anything to proclaim. It's not the lack of proclamation that's the problem, it's the fact they haven't done anything to proclaim. To put it in other terms, just because two people sleep together one time doesn't mean they're married--and it's not because they don't issue a wedding proclamation, it's because they don't get married. And yet, as illustrated above, they are proclaimed to be a "Startling new team of DC heroes" at the end of BB54. They referred to every team-up as a team. That's why it refers to "new teams" coming up. If you think they mean "formal new superhero teams," then please let us know which "new teams" you think were introduced in the subsequent issues. In any case, whatever the caption says, at no point in BB54 do we see anyone form a superhero team.

Keep in mind I have not read this entire thread (who has time for that) - but doesn't the last page posted of BB54 proclaim "Once again a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!" Doesn't this satisfy the need for a formal proclamation of a team? COmbined that with DC stating this was the first TT and isn't that enough? Furthermore, with regards to Wonder Girl not joining the team until BB60 - why does that even matter if one core member is not present? So do the Avengers not form until issue #4 when Captain America joins (who is arguably the most important member of the Avengers?) I agree with you that Wonder Girl is not necessary for Teen Titans to form. The problem with the "new team" blurb in BB54, as we've discussed (and, I think, documented) is that they use the word "team" on a routine basis to refer to any grouping of heroes -- usually when it's NOT a formal superhero team. That's why they refer to "new teams"...even though subsequent issues don't introduce new superhero teams, they just offer new combinations of individual heroes. I think what's throwing people here is that it's THREE heroes. If it were just Robin and Speedy, I doubt anyone would say BB54 was the first Teen Titans.

No team exists at the end of BB54. There's still no mention of the Teen Titans, nor any kind of formal organization. BB54 ends with DC proclaiming a new team. Not true, as we've established. Which specifically says the Teen Titans formed AFTER the events of BB54. As we've also established. All true. And all irrelevant to whether it's correct or not. Same could be said of Sgt. Rock not long ago. In fact, come to think of it, Sgt. Rock's first appearance was considered OAAW 81 for about as long as BB54 has been considered TT's first appearance, I think. That's not surprising, considering you've been stunningly intellectually dishonest in representing the counter-argument. I certainly agree that a team can be formed before it has a name. Show me the panel where Kid Flash tells Speedy, "We should form a team!" "What should we call it?" "I dunno, we'll think of it later!" No? Nothing? And no one has said a team's first adventure occurs only when it has been named. The reason I and others continue to maintain that no superhero team forms in BB54 is not semantic, it's that no superhero team forms in BB54. If it did, feel free to show us the panel in which that happens. Not much of a semantic argument I can offer against an actual illustration of something happening, is there? I could point you to Sgt. Rock--weird that you didn't address an example in which the character's first appearance was recognized only after decades of industry consensus that was wrong. I wonder why? Either way, I'm willing to concede your point: BB54 is neither a tryout for the Teen Titans nor a prototype nor a first appearance.

No, don't require them to proclaim it. Just to do it. They don't. They work together and part ways with no plans to work together again, let alone as a formally constituted group. They don't proclaim it because they haven't done anything to proclaim. It's not the lack of proclamation that's the problem, it's the fact they haven't done anything to proclaim. To put it in other terms, just because two people sleep together one time doesn't mean they're married--and it's not because they don't issue a wedding proclamation, it's because they don't get married.

No Wonder Woman til All-Star 8. Does that mean there was no Justice Society in All-Star 3-7? The Justice Society was called the Justice Society before Wonder Woman came along. The Titans on the other hand...... So what's the qualification for a first appearance, having a team name, or the roster? Well, BEING a team--acting like one, forming one, constituting one--is certainly part of it! Individuals appearing in the same story don't by themselves constitute a "team." And that's the core of our disagreement. You guys seem to require an intent by DC to create a team that will have further adventures. For me, their first appearance is simply the first adventure that they shared. So you admit the story itself makes no reference to a team or to the Teen Titans? It's the first appearance simply because 3/4 original Teen Titans members appear in a team up together? No team exists at the beginning of BB54. There's no mention of the Teen Titans. But, by the end of the story, they've clearly worked as a team to defeat Mr. Twister. Sales must have been strong enough on the issue for DC to give them another shot. They add a team name and draft Wonder Girl to attract girls to the book. "...worked together as a team..." seems a little redundant to me. Self-servingly. We can agree they worked together. How did they work together AS A TEAM that would be different from just working together? Were the cops or local teens (I forget the story's specifics) part of the team? Did they not work together with Robin, Kid Flash and Speedy? Asserting that they worked together "...as a team..." does not mean they formed a formal, ongoing superhero team. If it did, someone by now would have posted the panel in which we could all see it happen.

No Wonder Woman til All-Star 8. Does that mean there was no Justice Society in All-Star 3-7? The Justice Society was called the Justice Society before Wonder Woman came along. The Titans on the other hand...... So what's the qualification for a first appearance, having a team name, or the roster? Well, BEING a team--acting like one, forming one, constituting one--is certainly part of it! Individuals appearing in the same story don't by themselves constitute a "team." And that's the core of our disagreement. You guys seem to require an intent by DC to create a team that will have further adventures. For me, their first appearance is simply the first adventure that they shared. No, I don't require intent. Just the opposite. I require seeing it happen. The argument FOR BB54 is that it was intended to be a team. That hasn't been proven, but that's the argument. I don't care what they intended, no superhero team is formed in the book. If you consider the first adventure that two or more heroes share to be the first appearance of any team they also belong to, that's a definition you're certainly free to be guided by, but for people who have the more traditional definition of team, we should be clear about our terms. Three superheroes battle crime together in BB54. They don't form or even discuss forming a superhero team.

No Wonder Woman til All-Star 8. Does that mean there was no Justice Society in All-Star 3-7? The Justice Society was called the Justice Society before Wonder Woman came along. The Titans on the other hand...... So what's the qualification for a first appearance, having a team name, or the roster? Well, BEING a team--acting like one, forming one, constituting one--is certainly part of it! Individuals appearing in the same story don't by themselves constitute a "team."

While you're at it, you better convince everyone that Superman #1 isn't really Superman #1, as it was initially released as a one-shot, and only became a series after it's phenomenal success. What was intended at the time of release isn't relevant. The result is what matters. Yeah, but that's an apples to oranges comparison. Superman is Superman. There is nothing subjective about it. You are arguing that a book is a first appearance which A.) Doesn't mention the team appearing by name and B.) Doesn't include the entire original roster. If BB 54 referred to the Teen Titans and introduced the world to Wonder Girl my argument would have no merit. As it stands, I think my argument holds up pretty well Not apples and oranges. You're claiming that you can't call BB54 the first Titans appearance simply because they don't call themselves the Titans in that issue. I'm saying you might as well claim that Superman #1 isn't #1 because it doesn't say #1 and wasn't intended to be a continuing series. DC looked at the sucess of BB54 and decided to give the team a name and another issue, just as they looked at the success of the first issue of Superman and decided to publish another. Apples and apples. At this point aren't we just arguing that 54 is a prototype then? When it's this close I think we have to go with the book that establishes clarity and casts away the doubt. You cannot argue that prior to 60 the Teen Titans existed. Also, I think it's safe to say that after Action Comics #1 anyone who read it had a good idea who Superman was. Apples to oranges. In fact, since the first 13 page story within Action #1 is titled "Superman", Id say you are even making a case for 60 being the first appearance since the example you used clearly identifies the hero chronicled within. ? Wow, you are all over the map. I think your faulty reasoning stems from the misguided notion that we need to freeze time after BB54 came out and look at it within the narrow context of that single issue. We're looking at it in a broader context. A team formed and had an adventure, then 6 issues later another member joined the team and the name of the team was announced. That doesn't negate the fact that their first adventure occurred 6 issues earlier. Nope. No team formed. If they formed, show the panel where they formed. Or the page. Or pages. They worked together, didn't form a team, parted ways without even exchanging email addresses. We're getting into semantics here. Let's say I'm a great singer, and on a Saturday night I wander into an open-mic bar and meet a great guitar player, bass player, drummer, and saxophonist, and for the heck of it we perform together and rock the house. Then, the following Tuesday we decide to form a band, call ourselves The Screaming Bejebes, and perform again that night. I would always consider that Saturday night when we first met to be the first time The Screaming Bejebes performed for a crowd. It doesn't matter that we hadn't intended to perform together before we walked into the bar that night, it doesn't matter that we hadn't decided to form a band, or come up with a name to call ourselves. To me all that stuff is secondary to the fact that Saturday was the first time we shared the stage and accomplished something together. You, apparently, would consider the Tuesday to be the first appearance of The Screaming Bejebes. Maybe we're both right, or maybe it's just two different ways, both valid, of looking at the same situation. If it were any more clean-cut than that, as you seem to suggest, then this argument would have been settled years ago. I think it's a useful analogy, but an imperfect one. Performances aren't physical objects. You can't "collect" a performance (aside from recordings, obvi). And even if we do accept your analogy, by your reasoning, the world would consider the first time that The Quarrymen included Lennon, McCartney and Harrison in its ranks as the first appearance (or performance) of The Beatles. Which they don't. A prototype, maybe! No, that's not my reasoning at all. In my analogy, you have four distinct people coming together to accomplish a goal, a performance. In BB54, the goal is to save the kidnapped teenagers from Mr Twister. The two scenarios are comparable. In your Quarrymen analogy, an established band, or team, changes their name. That's a horse of a different color, and not comparable. They don't come together to accomplish a goal. I believe they go to accomplish a goal and then discover that the others have come to do so, too. Another difference is that the performance was part of an ongoing endeavor--being a band. Saving the kidnapped teenagers was a one-off--they never even contemplate teaming up again. So, no, not totally comparable. As for the Quarrymen, it wasn't a name change. They weren't the same band, they just included some of the same members. You had said the first time band members played together--regardless of name--would constitute the band's first appearance. By your logic, the first Quarrymen performance was the first Beatles appearance. If you're now saying that it doesn't "count" if they had a different name at the time, maybe you can explain why.

While you're at it, you better convince everyone that Superman #1 isn't really Superman #1, as it was initially released as a one-shot, and only became a series after it's phenomenal success. What was intended at the time of release isn't relevant. The result is what matters. Yeah, but that's an apples to oranges comparison. Superman is Superman. There is nothing subjective about it. You are arguing that a book is a first appearance which A.) Doesn't mention the team appearing by name and B.) Doesn't include the entire original roster. If BB 54 referred to the Teen Titans and introduced the world to Wonder Girl my argument would have no merit. As it stands, I think my argument holds up pretty well Not apples and oranges. You're claiming that you can't call BB54 the first Titans appearance simply because they don't call themselves the Titans in that issue. I'm saying you might as well claim that Superman #1 isn't #1 because it doesn't say #1 and wasn't intended to be a continuing series. DC looked at the sucess of BB54 and decided to give the team a name and another issue, just as they looked at the success of the first issue of Superman and decided to publish another. Apples and apples. At this point aren't we just arguing that 54 is a prototype then? When it's this close I think we have to go with the book that establishes clarity and casts away the doubt. You cannot argue that prior to 60 the Teen Titans existed. Also, I think it's safe to say that after Action Comics #1 anyone who read it had a good idea who Superman was. Apples to oranges. In fact, since the first 13 page story within Action #1 is titled "Superman", Id say you are even making a case for 60 being the first appearance since the example you used clearly identifies the hero chronicled within. ? Wow, you are all over the map. I think your faulty reasoning stems from the misguided notion that we need to freeze time after BB54 came out and look at it within the narrow context of that single issue. We're looking at it in a broader context. A team formed and had an adventure, then 6 issues later another member joined the team and the name of the team was announced. That doesn't negate the fact that their first adventure occurred 6 issues earlier. Nope. No team formed. If they formed, show the panel where they formed. Or the page. Or pages. They worked together, didn't form a team, parted ways without even exchanging email addresses. We're getting into semantics here. Let's say I'm a great singer, and on a Saturday night I wander into an open-mic bar and meet a great guitar player, bass player, drummer, and saxophonist, and for the heck of it we perform together and rock the house. Then, the following Tuesday we decide to form a band, call ourselves The Screaming Bejebes, and perform again that night. I would always consider that Saturday night when we first met to be the first time The Screaming Bejebes performed for a crowd. It doesn't matter that we hadn't intended to perform together before we walked into the bar that night, it doesn't matter that we hadn't decided to form a band, or come up with a name to call ourselves. To me all that stuff is secondary to the fact that Saturday was the first time we shared the stage and accomplished something together. You, apparently, would consider the Tuesday to be the first appearance of The Screaming Bejebes. Maybe we're both right, or maybe it's just two different ways, both valid, of looking at the same situation. If it were any more clean-cut than that, as you seem to suggest, then this argument would have been settled years ago. I think it's a useful analogy, but an imperfect one. Performances aren't physical objects. You can't "collect" a performance (aside from recordings, obvi). And even if we do accept your analogy, by your reasoning, the world would consider the first time that The Quarrymen included Lennon, McCartney and Harrison in its ranks as the first appearance (or performance) of The Beatles. Which they don't. A prototype, maybe!

For the record, the first group of panels you post is from a mid-70s retcon that DC has clearly stated is not accurate on multiple occasions, most recently in celebrating the 50th anniversay of the TT. The second group of panels you post from BB60 confirm that the team was formed prior to BB60 and cites to BB54. That pretty much blows you out of the water. It clearly ties the formation of the TT to BB54. Your problem is that you are so fixated on boosting the value of BB60 that you are not content with BB60 being the first WG and first use of the name TT, you want to call it the first appearance of the TT. But, its not. The origin and first appearance of the team (not the name) is BB54. DC, CGC, Overstreet, dealers, etc. all recognize this. You are swimming upstream against a very hard current. The whole notion of a "tryout" or "prototype" does not help you here at all. A "prototype" is a marketing term used by dealers to overclaim the value of a book. E.g. when Dr. Occult puts on a cape, dealers claim it was a "Superman prototype," even though Superman pre-dated Dr. Occult and aside from the cape and artist the concepts have nothing in common. And don't get me started on all the fake Atlas-Marvel "prototypes." But, in any event, BB54 is in no way shape or form a "prototype." A "tryout" is when a publisher tests the market with a one-shot or other finite appearance to see if a concept will fly. Showcase No. 4 was a "tryout." And guess what? It, as with all "tryouts," was a first appearance and origin. BB54 is a tryout. So is BB60 for that matter. And just like Showcase Nos. 4, 8, 13-14 led to Flash getting his own series, BB54, BB60 and Showcase 59 led to the TT getting their own series. How do we know BB54 was a tryout? How do you know they were specifically testing to see whether readers wanted to see those heroes in a formal team in the future? (More than any other issue is a "tryout" in the sense that if it gets great response, the publisher may act on it.) In other words, a prototype is identifiable externally. We can see for ourselves that something represents an early incarnation of a later thing. To claim something is a tryout you need to have evidence of intent. Where is that? Did they reveal it in the letters column? E.g., "Do you want to see these kids together again...?" That sort of thing.

While you're at it, you better convince everyone that Superman #1 isn't really Superman #1, as it was initially released as a one-shot, and only became a series after it's phenomenal success. What was intended at the time of release isn't relevant. The result is what matters. Yeah, but that's an apples to oranges comparison. Superman is Superman. There is nothing subjective about it. You are arguing that a book is a first appearance which A.) Doesn't mention the team appearing by name and B.) Doesn't include the entire original roster. If BB 54 referred to the Teen Titans and introduced the world to Wonder Girl my argument would have no merit. As it stands, I think my argument holds up pretty well Not apples and oranges. You're claiming that you can't call BB54 the first Titans appearance simply because they don't call themselves the Titans in that issue. I'm saying you might as well claim that Superman #1 isn't #1 because it doesn't say #1 and wasn't intended to be a continuing series. DC looked at the sucess of BB54 and decided to give the team a name and another issue, just as they looked at the success of the first issue of Superman and decided to publish another. Apples and apples. At this point aren't we just arguing that 54 is a prototype then? When it's this close I think we have to go with the book that establishes clarity and casts away the doubt. You cannot argue that prior to 60 the Teen Titans existed. Also, I think it's safe to say that after Action Comics #1 anyone who read it had a good idea who Superman was. Apples to oranges. In fact, since the first 13 page story within Action #1 is titled "Superman", Id say you are even making a case for 60 being the first appearance since the example you used clearly identifies the hero chronicled within. ? Wow, you are all over the map. I think your faulty reasoning stems from the misguided notion that we need to freeze time after BB54 came out and look at it within the narrow context of that single issue. We're looking at it in a broader context. A team formed and had an adventure, then 6 issues later another member joined the team and the name of the team was announced. That doesn't negate the fact that their first adventure occurred 6 issues earlier. Nope. No team formed. If they formed, show the panel where they formed. Or the page. Or pages. They worked together, didn't form a team, parted ways without even exchanging email addresses.

Context matters. You have to read both BB54 and BB60 in context. BB54 introduces an unnamed team of Robin, Kid Flash and Speedy (which we know was originally conceived as a "Junior Justice League"). BB60 names that team and adds a member. The fact that BB60 refers back to BB54 tells you all you need to know about the context of the issues. Under your "reasoning" the first Avengers adventure did not occur until Avengers 2. Because, it is not until the last panel or so of Avengers 1 that the superhero team of Iron Man, Thor, Ant-Man, Wasp, and Hulk decide to call themselves the "Avengers." But, no one is going to buy that Avengers 1 is like Hulk 180, only a last page first appearance of the Avengers with the first "full appearance" coming in Avengers 2. Like I said, you are swimming up stream. I'd give this a rest until you see DC, Overstreet, CGC, and dealers start listing BB54 as a non-Teen Titans book. Not going to happen. Nothing more need to be said. BB54 doesn't introduce anything. If it did, you could show us the panel in which it happens. BB60 refers back to BB54 because some of the Teen Titans appeared in that issue. If you were to show the actual references, everyone would see they clearly establish that BB54 was NOT the first appearance of a new superhero team. Also, unlike the error-riddled, slow-to-correct-itself (see: Rock, Sgt.) Overstreet, here's what comics.org, the single most authoritative online guide to comic books, has to say about BB54: Indexer Notes Kid Flash, Robin and Aqualad - later to become the Teen Titans.