Question about FALSE first appearances (ie., Wolverine)

[joe_collector]

The strangest one of these "first appearances" has got to be X-Men 120.

 

It's listed as a "brief appearance/cameo" of Alpha Flight, but the entire team is shown and named (along with a short bio) right at the beginning, they're on the cover, and each fights with the X-Men throughout. Sure, X-Men 121 lets us see the entire team in a big splash, but there is no way that 120 is some brief/cameo appearance.

[valiantman]

Yeah, I think it's got to be a comic off the shelf.

 

Can a comparison can be made between...

San Diego Comic-Con Comics #2 and Next Men #21 for Hellboy

...compared to...

Absolute Vertigo (1995) and Preacher #1 for Preacher

 

Absolute Vertigo (a publisher preview) was on the shelves... 99cents...

but I don't think it is anywhere near the current importance of Preacher #1.

 

[joe_collector]

Absolute Vertigo (a publisher preview) was on the shelves... 99cents...

but I don't think it is anywhere near the current importance of Preacher #1.

 

I think that's just the market talking, and preferring to start with the #1.

[Mac Man]

I don't believe advertisements should count as anything. Nor do they in the collectible market, at least not that I've seen. I remember a guy trying to hawk his Action 251 as the first appearance of Supergirl due to a picture in the next issue advertisement. Bollocks as Gordon Ramsey would say.

 

Hulk 180 is obviously and indisputedly the first appearance of Wolverine. By the very definition of the words, he does appear. Perhaps not enough to make it an ultra-highly marketable key, but he certainly does appear. I've checked.

 

I personally fall in the same vein of thought. I can certainly see how the market might bump those issues where images of character are published via advertisements for those first brief/full appearance of said character. I guess I could see dealers hocking them as the first published image of said character as well, but at this point we'd be splitting hairs past the point of usefulness with regards to the official notations. Does it make for some great trivia? Sure, but I think it's something that needs to be a little more substantial as I've mentioned earlier.

 

The point I'm trying to make is the reason Hulk 180-181 and ASM 299-300 are notated correctly (brief/cameo vs. full) is because the issues skyrocketed in price, so OS was required to make sure these were correct.

 

On the other hand, books like Avengers 195-196 and Defenders 17-18 are incorrect, and will probably stay that way until Taskmaster and The Wrecking Crew get ultra-hot.

 

The only problem with allowing this to happen (and if I read you correctly, you're simply stating it to be the case and not endorsing it) is that money should not dictate fact. Taskmaster and The Wrecking Crew legitimately had an appearance, albeit a brief one, in the previous issue it needs to be noted. Just because money talks doesn't make it factual. If we want OSPG to be as accurate a tool as possible, then this is something that needs to be remedied as soon as possible, and is almost as significant a problem as the argument over the pricing issues we've discussed here ad nauseum.

[Rodey]

I concur with Mac Man!

[Broken Shakespear]

Well,

 

There is a major difference.

 

Didn't absolute Vertigo simply contain pages from Preacher #1. It was a preview books that gave an advanced glimpse at #1.

 

However SDCCC #2 was actually a five page original story, and not just a preview of the upcoming Next Men story.

 

So I think you are talking two different things when you compare Absolute Vertigo and SDCCC #2.

[Broken Shakespear]

To back up what some others have said, Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen is credited as Darkseid's 1st Appearance. However, the appearance is in one panel only, it is merely his face on a video screen, and the face on the screen looks nothing like the Darkseid that made a full appearance a few months later.

 

Another example opposite that is the first appearance of Impulse. Flash #92 is the first appearance of Impulse, per Overstreet. However, In issue #91, you see the character who will later be revealed as Impulse several times, but from the back, or with his face in shadows. He isn't in costume until #92. So I guess the first appearance of Bart Allen is #91 and the first appearance of Impulse is #92. Should that distinction be made though?

 

Yet another example not currently in Overstreet is the first appearance of Purgatori from Lady Death comics.. Her first two comic appearances have her either completely silhouetted, or partialy obscured by shadows. However, in those cases, she does have dialog and is key in the sub-plot running through those issues. So which is her first appearance, the issue where she appears on several panels completely silhoutted, the one where she appears partially in shadow, or the one where she is fully visible?

 

Again, the problem is that no standard really exists. Literally, first appearance means the first time they are seen, which means cameos would count. Some folks don't care about cameos though, and only count the first time a character is seen and has dialog. Other rules apply for other people. I think part of the problem is that Overstreet gets alot of the info from advisors, and the numerous advisors all have a different meaning of 1st Appearance.

 

I personally think two annotations should be used. 1st Apperance should be used literally. The first time a character can be identified in a comic panel, that is their first appearance. It should have to be in story, not an ad or other material. And the character has to be easily identifiable. So say for example, it is a silhoutte of Silver Surfer on his board. Even though you don't see the character, he is easily identifiable by his silhoutte, and that is his first appearance (dialog can ID them too, if they have some). However, if it was a silhoutte of Black Widow, you may have no idea if it is BW, Ms. Marvel, Sharon Carter, etc. without dialog naming them.

 

The other annotation that should be used is 1st Full Appearance, which would mean you see the character in their entirty, not obscured by any shadow. Further the character must have dialog, or at least take actions (in the case of characters that are mute for example) that are crtical to the plot of the story).

 

I think it would also be okay to distinguish something like the 1st app of Carol Danvers, and then later, the 1st app of Ms Marvel, as they are several years apart. However, if the two had appeared in back to back issues, then it should just be the 1st app Ms Marvel, even if she is out of costume, and then 1st full appearance Ms Marvel the next issue, when in costume.

 

So basically, every character will have a 1st Full Appearance and some will have a 1st appearance in addition (you will know this is a 1 panel, brief, or cameo appearance by it being listed as 1st appearance instead of 1st full appearance.

[musicmeta]

I think Amazing Spider-man #50 and #51 with the Kingpin is comparable to Hulk 180 and 181 except in this case ASM #50 is considered a higher key book then #51.

[Ares]

Another example would be Lady Deathstrike!

In her civilian Identity Yuriko Oyama (SP?) I believe she is seen in Daredevil #197 followed later in Alpha Flight 33 as Lady Deathsrike

[Rodey]

Yeah, costumed and civilian are another issue.

[joe_collector]

I think Amazing Spider-man #50 and #51 with the Kingpin is comparable to Hulk 180 and 181 except in this case ASM #50 is considered a higher key book then #51.

 

Well, Kingpin is on a couple of pages in ASM 50.

[akaSteveRogers]

The strangest one of these "first appearances" has got to be X-Men 120.

 

It's listed as a "brief appearance/cameo" of Alpha Flight, but the entire team is shown and named (along with a short bio) right at the beginning, they're on the cover, and each fights with the X-Men throughout. Sure, X-Men 121 lets us see the entire team in a big splash, but there is no way that 120 is some brief/cameo appearance.

 

I think the strangest "first appearance" has got to be 1st app of Quasar aka Marvel Man. Rodey and I talked about this before. His 1st appearance as Marvel man is in CA #217. On IH #234, its listed as 1st app of Quasar. what the...

 

In IH #234, all there is are a couple of panels of Quasar talking and then he says on the last panel [paraphrasing]...

 

I'm no longer Marvel Man. My name is now Quasar!!

 

 

He had already appeared in other Marvel issues. No costume change. His powers weren't altered. Not even a different hair style. And this is classified as a "1st appearance"!?