• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Another reason to consider cameos true first appearances?

Started by UnboxingTreasures,

120 posts in this topic

rodan57

rodan57

Posted
Posted
Any 1 or 2 panel appearance SHOULD BE CONSIDERED a 1st appearance regardless of the context. If a character appears in the last panel that is the official true 1st appearance whether any one agrees with it or not.

 

(thumbs u

I agree. Motion made, motion seconded and motion carried. :sumo:

 

I sort of feel the same way. A first appearance is an appearance. A cameo, to my understanding, is a small appearance by an established character. In other words, a new or unknown character cannot make a cameo.

 

A prototype, and this one is heavily misused to market tangental pre-hero Marvels, is an early, primitive, tryout version of a character. (Giant spiders with super powers are not Spider-man prototypes. Or to use a hypothetical, if the main character in Tales to Astonish #27 had not been named Henry Pym, then #27 would be a perfect example of a prototype.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
Any 1 or 2 panel appearance SHOULD BE CONSIDERED a 1st appearance regardless of the context. If a character appears in the last panel that is the official true 1st appearance whether any one agrees with it or not.

 

(thumbs u

I agree. Motion made, motion seconded and motion carried. :sumo:

 

You two, get a room. Dime Press is an interesting example because it is nothing more than a cover drawing, no story no nothing, at least that is my understanding. It would be similar to saying that the Goon head on Avatar Illustrated is the 1st app of the Goon. It is cool and all, but I don't think so. I don't think Dime Press is the first app. of Hellboy either. He doesn't do anything, there is no story and no exposition. Obviously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Something that Mr. Delic needs to remember. Double :P

 

There is a difference between a prototype appearance (Mignola is quoted as this Dime Press character having little to do with the original) and Wolverine's 1st appearance or Darkseid's first appearance. In the latter example the true characters actually appeared 1st in the last panels of a previous issue. Overstreet should label them as a 1st app. whether it was 1 panel or 10.

 

The reason Hulk #181 is so desireable is because it is the 1st full story appearance and 1st cover appearance which are different things altogether.

 

I am 100% right.

 

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
musicmeta

musicmeta

Posted
Posted
Vince just because the masses do not agree does not make me wrong.(shrug)

 

Nope, when you're talking comic valuations/most important "first" appearance, it most certainly does.

 

Regardless of value's, Hulk 180 IS the first appearance of the Wolverine.

#181 does of course, bring the Wolverine to life and you get litte bit of a feeling for what the Wolverine is all about. With #180 is just a panel of him, but no matter, #180 IS the VERY FIRST appearance of the Wolverine.

 

Did the Wolverine appear in another book prior to Hulk #180? - No!

 

Did the Woverine appear in another book prior to Hulk #181? - Yes, Hulk #180 - even if it was only one panel.

 

Should Hulk #181 be worth more than #180 - The public has spoken and the answer is YES ( I strongly agree also). If you're talking about "important" first appearances then yes #181 is far more important of an appearance then #180, but

the fact does remain that #180 is THEEE first appearance of the Wolverine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seanfingh

seanfingh

Posted
Posted
Any 1 or 2 panel appearance SHOULD BE CONSIDERED a 1st appearance regardless of the context. If a character appears in the last panel that is the official true 1st appearance whether any one agrees with it or not.

 

(thumbs u

I agree. Motion made, motion seconded and motion carried. :sumo:

 

You two, get a room. Dime Press is an interesting example because it is nothing more than a cover drawing, no story no nothing, at least that is my understanding. It would be similar to saying that the Goon head on Avatar Illustrated is the 1st app of the Goon. It is cool and all, but I don't think so. I don't think Dime Press is the first app. of Hellboy either. He doesn't do anything, there is no story and no exposition. Obviously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Something that Mr. Delic needs to remember. Double :P

 

There is a difference between a prototype appearance (Mignola is quoted as this Dime Press character having little to do with the original) and Wolverine's 1st appearance or Darkseid's first appearance. In the latter example the true characters actually appeared 1st in the last panels of a previous issue. Overstreet should label them as a 1st app. whether it was 1 panel or 10.

 

The reason Hulk #181 is so desireable is because it is the 1st full story appearance and 1st cover appearance which are different things altogether.

 

I am 100% right.

 

:P

 

This thread is about Dime Press. :sumo: Peddle your 1 panel appearance tripe elsewhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
Any 1 or 2 panel appearance SHOULD BE CONSIDERED a 1st appearance regardless of the context. If a character appears in the last panel that is the official true 1st appearance whether any one agrees with it or not.

 

(thumbs u

I agree. Motion made, motion seconded and motion carried. :sumo:

 

You two, get a room. Dime Press is an interesting example because it is nothing more than a cover drawing, no story no nothing, at least that is my understanding. It would be similar to saying that the Goon head on Avatar Illustrated is the 1st app of the Goon. It is cool and all, but I don't think so. I don't think Dime Press is the first app. of Hellboy either. He doesn't do anything, there is no story and no exposition. Obviously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Something that Mr. Delic needs to remember. Double :P

 

Ahhh, but even the creator aknowledges that the Dime Press character has little to do with the true Hell Boy character...and there is the difference...

 

Whether the character appears on the cover or not...or spends a lot of time in the story or not makes no difference. There is only 1 first appearance. There is only one first impression. There is only 1 first time....

 

Right?

 

Market direction is based on a lot of factors and not always fact.

 

(thumbs u

 

:P :p :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted

BTW there is a difference between actual 1st appearance and which book the market deems more important. That is a completely different arguement.

 

Hulk #181 is a great story, a great cover and a solid book. It kills #180. It's just mis-labelled in the guide is all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EwanUK

EwanUK

Posted
Posted

Ok, how about our friend Miracleman...

 

1st appearance? Surely Miracleman no.1, Eclipse, August 1985 (mainsteam) worth very little

 

Well, no!

 

1st appearance was actually Daredevils no.7, Marvel UK, July 1983 (pictured and named in Captain Britain story) I've sold copies for $100

 

Are you sure?

 

1st appearance was actually Marvel Super Heroes no.388, Marvel UK, August 1982 (name appears on tombstone) so rare I've never owned this

 

that's ridiculous.... isn't it?

 

1st appearance was actually Marvel Super Heroes no.387, Marvel UK, July 1982 (name mentioned by character) also very rare... sold for $80

 

on come on...

 

1st appearance was actually Warrior no.1, Quality, March 1982 (as Marvelman) worth $10

 

hang-on

 

1st appearance was actually Marvelman no.25, L Miller & Son, February 1954 - very rare, worth probably $100

 

 

And I could go back further.... but you get the idea

Myself, I consider Daredevils no.7 to be the genuine 1st appearance of Miracleman - but the price of that issue is probably driven more by scarcity rather than the 1st appearance. It's also by Alan Moore & Alan Davis.

 

I think things like Dime Press and DC Sampler (Watchmen) are fascinating collectables! EwanUK for the rich and varied world of collecting!

 

miracl1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TomG

TomG

Posted
Posted

The term cameo has been improperly used in our hobby for a number of years. A great example of this is Incredible Hulk #180 it is not a cameo, but a brief first appearance. It should have been considered this years ago as the language used in explaining these types of appearances was incorrect. You can't have a cameo appearance of an unknown character.

 

Gobbledygook #1 and #2 both feature back cover ads for the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but neither issue is considered their first appearance. Their first appearance is TMNT #1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thirdgreenham

thirdgreenham

Posted
Posted
Vince just because the masses do not agree does not make me wrong.(shrug)

 

Nope, when you're talking comic valuations/most important "first" appearance, it most certainly does.

 

Regardless of value's, Hulk 180 IS the first appearance of the Wolverine.

#181 does of course, bring the Wolverine to life and you get litte bit of a feeling for what the Wolverine is all about. With #180 is just a panel of him, but no matter, #180 IS the VERY FIRST appearance of the Wolverine.

 

Did the Wolverine appear in another book prior to Hulk #180? - No!

 

Did the Woverine appear in another book prior to Hulk #181? - Yes, Hulk #180 - even if it was only one panel.

 

Should Hulk #181 be worth more than #180 - The public has spoken and the answer is YES ( I strongly agree also). If you're talking about "important" first appearances then yes #181 is far more important of an appearance then #180, but

the fact does remain that #180 is THEEE first appearance of the Wolverine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, Hulk #180 is not the first appearance of wolverine. History has it all wrong. I've heard the true version, from a friend of a friend, who is a very reliable source by the way. Len Wein was doodling on a piece of toilet paper while he was on the crapper. He "apparently" drew out a character on 3 successive pieces, detailing the costume, nails, and accessories. Unfortunately, the telephone rang and he wiped and got up to answer the phone. Two of the three pieces were "affected", so they got flushed down, but one piece is still out there somewhere.....the true 1st appearance of Wolverine.

 

Don't believe me? Look it up.

 

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
The term cameo has been improperly used in our hobby for a number of years. A great example of this is Incredible Hulk #180 it is not a cameo, but a brief first appearance. It should have been considered this years ago as the language used in explaining these types of appearances was incorrect. You can't have a cameo appearance of an unknown character.

 

Gobbledygook #1 and #2 both feature back cover ads for the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but neither issue is considered their first appearance. Their first appearance is TMNT #1.

 

Ahh the voice of reason. Tom, in your opinion why does an advert not count as an appearance? In this case TMNT in Gobbledygook #1....

 

R.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EwanUK

EwanUK

Posted
Posted
"DC Sampler (Watchmen)"

 

I have several of these, somewhere.

In what issue do the Watchmen make their first app.?

Is it the U.K. or U.S. version?

 

Apologies - it's actually 'DC Spotlight' (hope you've got several of those too!)

 

It's issue no.1, 1985...

 

DC Spotlight # 1 dated 1985. Highly collectible and historic Modern Age comic. This was a FREE GIVEAWAY COMIC in 1985 and FEATURES a ONE PAGE PREVIEW for both BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and THE WATCHMEN! THIS BOOK PRE-DATES "BOTH" THE DARK KNIGHT and THE WATCHMEN by A YEAR! This book is A REAL SLEEPER AND A TRUE MODERN AGE KEY! A CGC 9.4 copy of this book sold for $249.95 in April of this year.

 

Is this a true 1st appearance? Discuss...

 

dcspotlight1aaa.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheShadowKnows

TheShadowKnows

Posted
Posted
Any 1 or 2 panel appearance SHOULD BE CONSIDERED a 1st appearance regardless of the context. If a character appears in the last panel that is the official true 1st appearance whether any one agrees with it or not.

 

(thumbs u

I agree. Motion made, motion seconded and motion carried. :sumo:

Law school in your spare time?Or too much Perry Mason :baiting:

Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EwanUK

EwanUK

Posted
Posted

Additionally, Watchmen also first appeared in an obscure UK fanzine (it's my secret which hm ) which slightly predates the publication of DC's Watchmen no.1....

 

is this a first appearance? looks like it to me!

 

on a roll tonight folks

 

birmwatch.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
Dude, what the market dictates and what is actually considered true are two different things.

 

The market dictates that certain stocks are valueable when in effect it is just a myth and untrue.

 

What the heck are you talking about?

 

If the market values a stock at $XX right now, I can put a sell order in and get $XX back, which makes its current value fact and not myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
Regardless of value's, Hulk 180 IS the first appearance of the Wolverine.

 

Yes, it is the First BRIEF Appearance of Wolverine (on last panel). :makepoint:

 

It's been that way for decades and it's like some of you just fell off the turnip truck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing