Moderns that are heating up on ebay! 71 71

[Jimmy Linguini]

Just to throw a wrench in the tire, I want you to look up the values of these two books:

 

Hulk 180 first appearance of Wolverine, he appears on one page

 

Hulk 181 First Full appearance of Wolverine

 

I have never understood how his appearance in 180 is not a full appearance? It is pretty clear that his first appearance is in 180 unlike other characters first appearances which are mired in ambiguity like Hellboy( SDCC 2/Dime Press 4 ) or the Goon ( Avatar Illustrated /Dreamwalker 0/Best Cellars ).

 

Then there are others like the TMNT. Is Gobbledygook 1, issue 1 of the series or Comic Buyers Guide 547 the first TMNT appearance? Many see issue 1 of the series as the true first appearance because Gobbledygook was not an actual comic and the ad Eastman and Laird took out in the buyer's guide is just that, an ad. If either Gobbledygook 1 or CBG 547 are the first appearance of the TMNT with an ad then why isn't the DC Current's book I have show considered the first appearance of Bane?

I would say the first published appearance of the characters represents the true first appearance ( like Spawn in Malibu Sun 13 ). In the TMNT's case is would be CBG 547 as it predates the convention release of the series issue 1. As far as I can tell there is no publication date for Gobbledygook because it was made with a copy machine. It's all pretty confusing if you ask me.

I'm sure all the argument have been hashed out long before this post concerning all the properties in question but in the case of Wolverine 180 it is quite clear that the first full appearance is in 180 and issue 181 is Wolverine's first appearance on a cover. Sadly too many are invested in the misrepresentation of 181 as the first so we are stuck with it.

 

Nick Fury Agent of Shield 15

 

Daredevil 131

 

or how about something I just got invested into,

 

X-Men Annual #14

 

X-Men #266

 

Maybe throw a Tick #1 in there for a debate as well?

 

[maloney414]

Hey, those old DC comics that have ads for Action 1 in them just became worth more than Action 1 if we follow this line of reasoning!! And every other comic that has a house ad of an iconic character before their book came out!!

 

Woo-Hoo!!

 

 

 

 

 

no?

 

It's important to separate the "1st appearance" opinion and "actual value" of the comics.

 

The opinion of the market as a whole will determine the demand for such things and thus the actual value. So far, the cameos, previews and ads are very rarely considered the 1st appearance and demand big bucks.

 

HOWEVER, there is nothing wrong with an individual having the opinion that a preview or advertisement is the 1st true appearance of a character. (Hopefully, they understand the market doesn't agree with them and they don't over pay for stuff.) But let them enjoy comics and collect what they like. (thumbs u

 

[HAPPY-migration]

I totally agree let people enjoy for what it is but i would like to add this info this debate. Image comics is not like marvel or dc where they cross over on titles and create this appearance,image writers create there own book and own world, therefore first appearance would be like the first 5 pages of the actual comic in whatever comic it appears in.

[mrwoogieman]

Hey, those old DC comics that have ads for Action 1 in them just became worth more than Action 1 if we follow this line of reasoning!! And every other comic that has a house ad of an iconic character before their book came out!!

 

Woo-Hoo!!

 

 

 

 

 

no?

 

It's important to separate the "1st appearance" opinion and "actual value" of the comics.

 

The opinion of the market as a whole will determine the demand for such things and thus the actual value. So far, the cameos, previews and ads are very rarely considered the 1st appearance and demand big bucks.

 

HOWEVER, there is nothing wrong with an individual having the opinion that a preview or advertisement is the 1st true appearance of a character. (Hopefully, they understand the market doesn't agree with them and they don't over pay for stuff.) But let them enjoy comics and collect what they like. (thumbs u

 

Agreed. (thumbs u

 

 

[Prince Namor]

And in case you haven't figured it out by now, I'm a huge Invincible fan and have spent some time researching this before.

 

I own all the books mentioned, including the 1st Previews Magazine that featured the ad for Invincible.

 

I know who to go to if I have any questions then! Great information!

Fired up for #100?

[Prince Namor]

Just to throw a wrench in the tire, I want you to look up the values of these two books:

 

Hulk 180 first appearance of Wolverine, he appears on one page

 

Hulk 181 First Full appearance of Wolverine

 

I have never understood how his appearance in 180 is not a full appearance? It is pretty clear that his first appearance is in 180 unlike other characters first appearances which are mired in ambiguity like Hellboy( SDCC 2/Dime Press 4 ) or the Goon ( Avatar Illustrated /Dreamwalker 0/Best Cellars ).

 

Then there are others like the TMNT. Is Gobbledygook 1, issue 1 of the series or Comic Buyers Guide 547 the first TMNT appearance? Many see issue 1 of the series as the true first appearance because Gobbledygook was not an actual comic and the ad Eastman and Laird took out in the buyer's guide is just that, an ad. If either Gobbledygook 1 or CBG 547 are the first appearance of the TMNT with an ad then why isn't the DC Current's book I have show considered the first appearance of Bane?

I would say the first published appearance of the characters represents the true first appearance ( like Spawn in Malibu Sun 13 ). In the TMNT's case is would be CBG 547 as it predates the convention release of the series issue 1. As far as I can tell there is no publication date for Gobbledygook because it was made with a copy machine. It's all pretty confusing if you ask me.

I'm sure all the argument have been hashed out long before this post concerning all the properties in question but in the case of Wolverine 180 it is quite clear that the first full appearance is in 180 and issue 181 is Wolverine's first appearance on a cover. Sadly too many are invested in the misrepresentation of 181 as the first so we are stuck with it.

 

Once upon a time, you couldn't walk into a comic book store and buy a tpb of every storyline you wanted to read about. There was no internet. I know it's hard to believe but it's true.

The back issue market was primarily driven by the need to READ these stories to find out what happen in them.

So people who were searching for the first 'appearance' of Wolverine, and there came a time when that character started to get really popular so the searching was frantic, didn't want to READ a #180 (all about Wendigo) just for an 'appearance' at the end. They wanted a full story.

And thus, they sought out #181.

In other words, the MARKET decided it was more important.

[MrWeen]

Just to throw a wrench in the tire, I want you to look up the values of these two books:

 

Hulk 180 first appearance of Wolverine, he appears on one page

 

Hulk 181 First Full appearance of Wolverine

 

I have never understood how his appearance in 180 is not a full appearance? It is pretty clear that his first appearance is in 180 unlike other characters first appearances which are mired in ambiguity like Hellboy( SDCC 2/Dime Press 4 ) or the Goon ( Avatar Illustrated /Dreamwalker 0/Best Cellars ).

 

Then there are others like the TMNT. Is Gobbledygook 1, issue 1 of the series or Comic Buyers Guide 547 the first TMNT appearance? Many see issue 1 of the series as the true first appearance because Gobbledygook was not an actual comic and the ad Eastman and Laird took out in the buyer's guide is just that, an ad. If either Gobbledygook 1 or CBG 547 are the first appearance of the TMNT with an ad then why isn't the DC Current's book I have show considered the first appearance of Bane?

I would say the first published appearance of the characters represents the true first appearance ( like Spawn in Malibu Sun 13 ). In the TMNT's case is would be CBG 547 as it predates the convention release of the series issue 1. As far as I can tell there is no publication date for Gobbledygook because it was made with a copy machine. It's all pretty confusing if you ask me.

I'm sure all the argument have been hashed out long before this post concerning all the properties in question but in the case of Wolverine 180 it is quite clear that the first full appearance is in 180 and issue 181 is Wolverine's first appearance on a cover. Sadly too many are invested in the misrepresentation of 181 as the first so we are stuck with it.

 

Once upon a time, you couldn't walk into a comic book store and buy a tpb of every storyline you wanted to read about. There was no internet. I know it's hard to believe but it's true.

The back issue market was primarily driven by the need to READ these stories to find out what happen in them.

So people who were searching for the first 'appearance' of Wolverine, and there came a time when that character started to get really popular so the searching was frantic, didn't want to READ a #180 (all about Wendigo) just for an 'appearance' at the end. They wanted a full story.

And thus, they sought out #181.

In other words, the MARKET decided it was more important.

 

No one is disputing that the market decided 181 is Wolverine's first appearance but that doesn't mean 181 IS his first appearance.

[whetteon]

People, People, let's focus here. Revival's first appearance was in Epic Kill #2.

 

(disclaimer: selling copies on the modern forum )

Edited November 30, 2012 by whetteon

[Legion HQ]

To my mind if its a few pages of the first issue its the same as an advertisement. If its a few pages of story that is not part of issue one then its the first appearance. A preview shouldn't count as the first appearance in my opinion.

I agree, it's more of a novelty.

 

Not sure about that statement, If a character or title appears then how is it not a first appearance? Something like Capes1/Agents 6 cannot be debated as the Walking Dead's first appearance. How can it be debated unless you want to argue which was released first. In the case of Invincible I would put Noble Causes 3a or 3b as the first appearance over Tech Jacket if they were released in the same month. I would even argue that something like this is Bane's first appearance...

 

[/img]

 

 

Edit: Nevermind, I see the Bane reference along the side....

Edited November 30, 2012 by dane323

[Point Five]

Somewhere I have one of these DC preview promos for Watchmen. Will scan & post it some rainy day...

 

 

[MrWeen]

To my mind if its a few pages of the first issue its the same as an advertisement. If its a few pages of story that is not part of issue one then its the first appearance. A preview shouldn't count as the first appearance in my opinion.

I agree, it's more of a novelty.

 

Not sure about that statement, If a character or title appears then how is it not a first appearance? Something like Capes1/Agents 6 cannot be debated as the Walking Dead's first appearance. How can it be debated unless you want to argue which was released first. In the case of Invincible I would put Noble Causes 3a or 3b as the first appearance over Tech Jacket if they were released in the same month. I would even argue that something like this is Bane's first appearance...

 

[/img]

 

 

Edit: Nevermind, I see the Bane reference along the side....

 

He is pictured inside as well.

[the blob]

Just to throw a wrench in the tire, I want you to look up the values of these two books:

 

Hulk 180 first appearance of Wolverine, he appears on one page

 

Hulk 181 First Full appearance of Wolverine

 

I have never understood how his appearance in 180 is not a full appearance? It is pretty clear that his first appearance is in 180 unlike other characters first appearances which are mired in ambiguity like Hellboy( SDCC 2/Dime Press 4 ) or the Goon ( Avatar Illustrated /Dreamwalker 0/Best Cellars ).

 

Then there are others like the TMNT. Is Gobbledygook 1, issue 1 of the series or Comic Buyers Guide 547 the first TMNT appearance? Many see issue 1 of the series as the true first appearance because Gobbledygook was not an actual comic and the ad Eastman and Laird took out in the buyer's guide is just that, an ad. If either Gobbledygook 1 or CBG 547 are the first appearance of the TMNT with an ad then why isn't the DC Current's book I have show considered the first appearance of Bane?

I would say the first published appearance of the characters represents the true first appearance ( like Spawn in Malibu Sun 13 ). In the TMNT's case is would be CBG 547 as it predates the convention release of the series issue 1. As far as I can tell there is no publication date for Gobbledygook because it was made with a copy machine. It's all pretty confusing if you ask me.

I'm sure all the argument have been hashed out long before this post concerning all the properties in question but in the case of Wolverine 180 it is quite clear that the first full appearance is in 180 and issue 181 is Wolverine's first appearance on a cover. Sadly too many are invested in the misrepresentation of 181 as the first so we are stuck with it.

 

Once upon a time, you couldn't walk into a comic book store and buy a tpb of every storyline you wanted to read about. There was no internet. I know it's hard to believe but it's true.

The back issue market was primarily driven by the need to READ these stories to find out what happen in them.

So people who were searching for the first 'appearance' of Wolverine, and there came a time when that character started to get really popular so the searching was frantic, didn't want to READ a #180 (all about Wendigo) just for an 'appearance' at the end. They wanted a full story.

And thus, they sought out #181.

In other words, the MARKET decided it was more important.

 

I think 181 was reprinted in about 86 when 181 started to percolate in price, but yes, you're right. at least for the first few bucks of appreciated value, but at some point the price was based on "collectability," not just a desire to read it...Not to mention, Marvel has been reprinting its stuff for years in its various reprint titles..heck, marvel tales reprinted ASM 129 in two separate issues, once in like the late 70s and again 10 years later.

[MrWeen]

Just to throw a wrench in the tire, I want you to look up the values of these two books:

 

Hulk 180 first appearance of Wolverine, he appears on one page

 

Hulk 181 First Full appearance of Wolverine

 

I have never understood how his appearance in 180 is not a full appearance? It is pretty clear that his first appearance is in 180 unlike other characters first appearances which are mired in ambiguity like Hellboy( SDCC 2/Dime Press 4 ) or the Goon ( Avatar Illustrated /Dreamwalker 0/Best Cellars ).

 

Then there are others like the TMNT. Is Gobbledygook 1, issue 1 of the series or Comic Buyers Guide 547 the first TMNT appearance? Many see issue 1 of the series as the true first appearance because Gobbledygook was not an actual comic and the ad Eastman and Laird took out in the buyer's guide is just that, an ad. If either Gobbledygook 1 or CBG 547 are the first appearance of the TMNT with an ad then why isn't the DC Current's book I have show considered the first appearance of Bane?

I would say the first published appearance of the characters represents the true first appearance ( like Spawn in Malibu Sun 13 ). In the TMNT's case is would be CBG 547 as it predates the convention release of the series issue 1. As far as I can tell there is no publication date for Gobbledygook because it was made with a copy machine. It's all pretty confusing if you ask me.

I'm sure all the argument have been hashed out long before this post concerning all the properties in question but in the case of Wolverine 180 it is quite clear that the first full appearance is in 180 and issue 181 is Wolverine's first appearance on a cover. Sadly too many are invested in the misrepresentation of 181 as the first so we are stuck with it.

 

Once upon a time, you couldn't walk into a comic book store and buy a tpb of every storyline you wanted to read about. There was no internet. I know it's hard to believe but it's true.

The back issue market was primarily driven by the need to READ these stories to find out what happen in them.

So people who were searching for the first 'appearance' of Wolverine, and there came a time when that character started to get really popular so the searching was frantic, didn't want to READ a #180 (all about Wendigo) just for an 'appearance' at the end. They wanted a full story.

And thus, they sought out #181.

In other words, the MARKET decided it was more important.

 

I think 181 was reprinted in about 86 when 181 started to percolate in price, but yes, you're right. at least for the first few bucks of appreciated value, but at some point the price was based on "collectability," not just a desire to read it...Not to mention, Marvel has been reprinting its stuff for years in its various reprint titles..heck, marvel tales reprinted ASM 129 in two separate issues, once in like the late 70s and again 10 years later.

 

Here's one I wouldn't mind having...

[/img]

[the blob]

can't we just call these things previews if that is what they are intended to be? (talking about the image stuff)

[Mike's Rack]

Just to throw a wrench in the tire, I want you to look up the values of these two books:

 

Hulk 180 first appearance of Wolverine, he appears on one page

 

Hulk 181 First Full appearance of Wolverine

 

I have never understood how his appearance in 180 is not a full appearance? It is pretty clear that his first appearance is in 180 unlike other characters first appearances which are mired in ambiguity like Hellboy( SDCC 2/Dime Press 4 ) or the Goon ( Avatar Illustrated /Dreamwalker 0/Best Cellars ).

 

Then there are others like the TMNT. Is Gobbledygook 1, issue 1 of the series or Comic Buyers Guide 547 the first TMNT appearance? Many see issue 1 of the series as the true first appearance because Gobbledygook was not an actual comic and the ad Eastman and Laird took out in the buyer's guide is just that, an ad. If either Gobbledygook 1 or CBG 547 are the first appearance of the TMNT with an ad then why isn't the DC Current's book I have show considered the first appearance of Bane?

I would say the first published appearance of the characters represents the true first appearance ( like Spawn in Malibu Sun 13 ). In the TMNT's case is would be CBG 547 as it predates the convention release of the series issue 1. As far as I can tell there is no publication date for Gobbledygook because it was made with a copy machine. It's all pretty confusing if you ask me.

I'm sure all the argument have been hashed out long before this post concerning all the properties in question but in the case of Wolverine 180 it is quite clear that the first full appearance is in 180 and issue 181 is Wolverine's first appearance on a cover. Sadly too many are invested in the misrepresentation of 181 as the first so we are stuck with it.

 

Once upon a time, you couldn't walk into a comic book store and buy a tpb of every storyline you wanted to read about. There was no internet. I know it's hard to believe but it's true.

The back issue market was primarily driven by the need to READ these stories to find out what happen in them.

So people who were searching for the first 'appearance' of Wolverine, and there came a time when that character started to get really popular so the searching was frantic, didn't want to READ a #180 (all about Wendigo) just for an 'appearance' at the end. They wanted a full story.

And thus, they sought out #181.

In other words, the MARKET decided it was more important.

 

I think 181 was reprinted in about 86 when 181 started to percolate in price, but yes, you're right. at least for the first few bucks of appreciated value, but at some point the price was based on "collectability," not just a desire to read it...Not to mention, Marvel has been reprinting its stuff for years in its various reprint titles..heck, marvel tales reprinted ASM 129 in two separate issues, once in like the late 70s and again 10 years later.

I was flipping through an old Overstreet guide around #10 or so, and I noticed a dealer advertising Hulk 180 for $6.00 and Hulk 181 at $1.25. This was 7-8 years after the issues were released so sometimes this stuff is open for debate for a while.

[Gotham Gambit-migration]

Thief of Thieves has been goin up and up.

[songsaboutclouds]

Walking Dead Weekly is dead, I can't get cover

[ThoseBackPages]

Walking Dead Weekly is dead, I can't get cover

 

for the keys?

[fastballspecial]

Walking Dead Weekly is dead, I can't get cover

 

Sold 3 for $10 and 27 for $15 this week. The demand has slowed, but its still there. I sold every copy of 19 I could get ahold of for $20-35 for the last few months. The value wont every go away entirely until the show ends. Every year people want to pick up the books and WD Weekly offers an inexpensive alternative as well as great SS opportunities.

 

 

[ThoseBackPages]

ive said it before, and i'll say it again. for those of you that were collecting in 2011 (i wasnt), i cant see why you didnt stock up on these