Moderns that are heating up on ebay! 71 71

[500Club]

If I'm reading the posts above correctly, the suggestion is that since Hush appears on the cover of the giveaway to retailers that that issue should be considered a first appearance? I think any book that's not available to the public doesn't really qualify. (Actually, I don't even think that con exclusives that are available for a weekend con the weekend before the official release date should qualify if it's an exclusive of the same issue.)

My guess is that if Hush begins to be widely collected, then 619 will get most of the attention, followed by 609, and then the 608 RRP. Currently, the RRP's price tag is such that you'd really have to be a hardcore Hush collector to want that as an appearance.

 

The market has been pretty rational in rejecting minor character depictions as 'first appearances', Jimmy Olsen 134 notwithstanding.

[Vikingreed]

Now that we have cleared that up. I wonder if the 608 RRP will become valuable. Oh wait.

 

hahaha

[Jaydogrules]

 

Are there multiple known instances when a character made a first appearance on the cover, but was not featured in that same issue's storyline? I know the reverse has happened tons of times. This might be a unique instance, since this issue was the beginning of an entire storyline that was introducing this particular character (and was titled after him). That being the case, why wouldn't a cover appearance be considered a first appearance since he literally "first appeared" on the cover of the first issue of his own self-titled story arc?

 

-J.

 

What is the difference between appearing on a cover and appearing in an advertisement, a preview, or at the back of the book as a pinup/character sketch? The cover art is usually related to the story within the pages of the book, but if it isn't actually depicting an event that occurs within the book then you are just left with the artwork that has no context. Most people regard first appearances to be when the character is first written into a story, not when their image is first mass-produced on a printed page.

 

The cover art in this case does depict (encapsulates) the storyline. Really, it features all of the players of the storyline (or most of them anyway), in context to the story itself. The center image featuring the 50/50 split of Batman and Hush is a nice metaphor of the duality of each of the characters' respective personalities. The cover has become somewhat of a classic image unto itself. I wouldn't equate it to say Gobbledygook where some people like to say that was really the first appearance of the Turtles, or Foom 2. If anything, maybe a cover only first appearance should be considered a cameo?

 

-J.

[darkstar]

The cover art in this case does depict (encapsulates) the storyline.

 

I disagree. It relates to the story-line, it doesn't actually frame a part of the story.

 

Really, it features all of the players of the storyline (or most of them anyway), in context to the story itself.

 

Its non-sequential artwork related to the story told within the pages for which it is used as cover art. At best its a visual snapshot of an instance within a story.

 

The center image featuring the 50/50 split of Batman and Hush is a nice metaphor of the duality of each of the characters' respective personalities.

 

Irrelevant to the first appearance discussion.

 

The cover has become somewhat of a classic image unto itself.

 

Also irrelevant to the first appearance discussion.

 

I wouldn't equate it to say Gobbledygook where some people like to say that was really the first appearance of the Turtles, or Foom 2.

 

Its no different than either of those. Its mass produced artwork that isn't being used to illustrate and tell the story or events the occur in the book as they happen. Its a visual summation and/or advertisement that depicts content involved with said story, but isn't actually part of it. It has no dialogue or exposition, its just there as stand-alone art.

 

Not trying to be a dik here, sort of hard to explain my reasoning is all. My only issue with 608 is how much local shops charge for a first print, which is anywhere from 2 to 5 times the market price of the book.

[Crimebuster]

New Avengers #1 had Ronin on the cover. The character didn't actually appear in the story until, like, #12 or something ridiculous. What a cluster that series was.

[Lonzilla]

Darkseid?

[MrWeen]

The cover art in this case does depict (encapsulates) the storyline.

 

I disagree. It relates to the story-line, it doesn't actually frame a part of the story.

 

Really, it features all of the players of the storyline (or most of them anyway), in context to the story itself.

 

Its non-sequential artwork related to the story told within the pages for which it is used as cover art. At best its a visual snapshot of an instance within a story.

 

The center image featuring the 50/50 split of Batman and Hush is a nice metaphor of the duality of each of the characters' respective personalities.

 

Irrelevant to the first appearance discussion.

 

The cover has become somewhat of a classic image unto itself.

 

Also irrelevant to the first appearance discussion.

 

I wouldn't equate it to say Gobbledygook where some people like to say that was really the first appearance of the Turtles, or Foom 2.

 

Its no different than either of those. Its mass produced artwork that isn't being used to illustrate and tell the story or events the occur in the book as they happen. Its a visual summation and/or advertisement that depicts content involved with said story, but isn't actually part of it. It has no dialogue or exposition, its just there as stand-alone art.

 

Not trying to be a dik here, sort of hard to explain my reasoning is all. My only issue with 608 is how much local shops charge for a first print, which is anywhere from 2 to 5 times the market price of the book.

 

This argument over 608 only further illustrates the confusion surrounding first appearances. This is why the definition clearly states: A first appearance/debut is the first time a character appears anywhere. Insertion into a narrative is not needed, an appearance on a cover is not needed. Though these things may be more desirable to collectors ans sell for many times more based on that desirability they still should not be considered a first appearance.

[Jaydogrules]

The cover art in this case does depict (encapsulates) the storyline.

 

I disagree. It relates to the story-line, it doesn't actually frame a part of the story.

 

Really, it features all of the players of the storyline (or most of them anyway), in context to the story itself.

 

Its non-sequential artwork related to the story told within the pages for which it is used as cover art. At best its a visual snapshot of an instance within a story.

 

The center image featuring the 50/50 split of Batman and Hush is a nice metaphor of the duality of each of the characters' respective personalities.

 

Irrelevant to the first appearance discussion.

 

The cover has become somewhat of a classic image unto itself.

 

Also irrelevant to the first appearance discussion.

 

I wouldn't equate it to say Gobbledygook where some people like to say that was really the first appearance of the Turtles, or Foom 2.

 

Its no different than either of those. Its mass produced artwork that isn't being used to illustrate and tell the story or events the occur in the book as they happen. Its a visual summation and/or advertisement that depicts content involved with said story, but isn't actually part of it. It has no dialogue or exposition, its just there as stand-alone art.

 

Not trying to be a dik here, sort of hard to explain my reasoning is all. My only issue with 608 is how much local shops charge for a first print, which is anywhere from 2 to 5 times the market price of the book.

 

I actually agree with everything you posit here. But even if all that is true, why would it prevent his appearance on the cover of the first issue of his self titled story arc from being considered his "first appearance", if not only in cameo ? In this particular instance, which may or may not be applicable only in the case of Hush? Must a character's first appearance only be within the pages of a comic book for it to "count"?

 

-J.

[Lonzilla]

The cover art in this case does depict (encapsulates) the storyline.

 

I disagree. It relates to the story-line, it doesn't actually frame a part of the story.

 

Really, it features all of the players of the storyline (or most of them anyway), in context to the story itself.

 

Its non-sequential artwork related to the story told within the pages for which it is used as cover art. At best its a visual snapshot of an instance within a story.

 

The center image featuring the 50/50 split of Batman and Hush is a nice metaphor of the duality of each of the characters' respective personalities.

 

Irrelevant to the first appearance discussion.

 

The cover has become somewhat of a classic image unto itself.

 

Also irrelevant to the first appearance discussion.

 

I wouldn't equate it to say Gobbledygook where some people like to say that was really the first appearance of the Turtles, or Foom 2.

 

Its no different than either of those. Its mass produced artwork that isn't being used to illustrate and tell the story or events the occur in the book as they happen. Its a visual summation and/or advertisement that depicts content involved with said story, but isn't actually part of it. It has no dialogue or exposition, its just there as stand-alone art.

 

Not trying to be a dik here, sort of hard to explain my reasoning is all. My only issue with 608 is how much local shops charge for a first print, which is anywhere from 2 to 5 times the market price of the book.

 

I actually agree with everything you posit here. But even if all that is true, why would it prevent his appearance on the cover of the first issue of his self titled story arc from being considered his "first appearance", if not only in cameo ? In this particular instance, which may or may not be applicable only in the case of Hush? Must a character's first appearance only be within the pages of a comic book for it to "count"?

 

-J.

Isn't there an issue of Noble Causes that's regarded as the 1st appearance of Invincible where he is only on the cover and not inside the book itself?

[paperheart]

The cover art in this case does depict (encapsulates) the storyline.

 

I disagree. It relates to the story-line, it doesn't actually frame a part of the story.

 

Really, it features all of the players of the storyline (or most of them anyway), in context to the story itself.

 

Its non-sequential artwork related to the story told within the pages for which it is used as cover art. At best its a visual snapshot of an instance within a story.

 

The center image featuring the 50/50 split of Batman and Hush is a nice metaphor of the duality of each of the characters' respective personalities.

 

Irrelevant to the first appearance discussion.

 

The cover has become somewhat of a classic image unto itself.

 

Also irrelevant to the first appearance discussion.

 

I wouldn't equate it to say Gobbledygook where some people like to say that was really the first appearance of the Turtles, or Foom 2.

 

Its no different than either of those. Its mass produced artwork that isn't being used to illustrate and tell the story or events the occur in the book as they happen. Its a visual summation and/or advertisement that depicts content involved with said story, but isn't actually part of it. It has no dialogue or exposition, its just there as stand-alone art.

 

Not trying to be a dik here, sort of hard to explain my reasoning is all. My only issue with 608 is how much local shops charge for a first print, which is anywhere from 2 to 5 times the market price of the book.

 

I actually agree with everything you posit here. But even if all that is true, why would it prevent his appearance on the cover of the first issue of his self titled story arc from being considered his "first appearance", if not only in cameo ? In this particular instance, which may or may not be applicable only in the case of Hush? Must a character's first appearance only be within the pages of a comic book for it to "count"?

 

-J.

Isn't there an issue of Noble Causes that's regarded as the 1st appearance of Invincible where he is only on the cover and not inside the book itself?

 

i'm pretty sure there is one panel of him in the book

[500Club]

This argument over 608 only further illustrates the confusion surrounding first appearances. This is why the definition clearly states: A first appearance/debut is the first time a character appears anywhere. Insertion into a narrative is not needed, an appearance on a cover is not needed. Though these things may be more desirable to collectors ans sell for many times more based on that desirability they still should not be considered a first appearance.

That is your definition of first appearance, as you've stated many times, and it's correct from a strict dictionary standpoint. However, as comic books are a storytelling medium, what is collected as first appearances is usually character involvement in a narrative, not Previews ads, CSN stories, flyers, coupons or inter-office memos.

 

Once again, despite the dictionary, if someone calls you 'bro', don't assume they're your brother.

[Jaydogrules]

This argument over 608 only further illustrates the confusion surrounding first appearances. This is why the definition clearly states: A first appearance/debut is the first time a character appears anywhere. Insertion into a narrative is not needed, an appearance on a cover is not needed. Though these things may be more desirable to collectors ans sell for many times more based on that desirability they still should not be considered a first appearance.

That is your definition of first appearance, as you've stated many times, and it's correct from a strict dictionary standpoint. However, as comic books are a storytelling medium, what is collected as first appearances is usually character involvement in a narrative, not Previews ads, CSN stories, flyers, coupons or inter-office memos.

 

Once again, despite the dictionary, if someone calls you 'bro', don't assume they're your brother.

 

...you didn't mention covers though. What more than the cover of a comic, especially in the age of the slab, is representative of the narrative within the pages of a comic? Be it metaphorical, literal, abstract, etc.?

 

Let me put it another way....In this particular instance, would it really be reasonable to say that 609 is the "first appearance of Hush", when he is right there on the cover of 608 RRP? Just a question ....

 

-J.

[Silverdream]

Batman 609 will be the book to get if Hush gets hot. First apperance or not, it's the book that will be able to be chased, so thats the book collectors will gravitate towards. Maybe 619 to some extent, but thats just the " Hush" name.

 

You can go in circles all you want fellas, you are all right, and all wrong. It's a personal opinion ( do you follow websters or not? )

 

Even when you follow traditional comic book guidlines ( being in the story ) Which book is " chosen" can be confusing.

 

Darkseid, Red Sonja, Ultron all confuse me and there are tons more.

 

The fact is, if the character is important, all of these early appearances are important. Collect what you want to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[500Club]

...you didn't mention covers though. What more than the cover of a comic, especially in the age of the slab, is representative of the narrative within the pages of a comic? Be it metaphorical, literal, abstract, etc.?

 

Let me put it another way....In this particular instance, would it really be reasonable to say that 609 is the "first appearance of Hush", when he is right there on the cover of 608 RRP? Just a question ....

 

-J.

It's a good question. My personal thoughts are several posts above, where I speculate that 619 will see the most attention. I'm not sure how the market will treat this one, but I'd lean toward it being dismissed as simply an image of the character, and not a canonical appearance.

 

You are right, though, in that this IS the age of the slab.

[ZaCrew]

Well... The loot crate RR is nice and cheap now... first few sold in the $50-$60 range, but now it's a rush to get as little as you can ...

 

I actually got a nice copy in my box, so off to grading it goes.

[socktopi]

Well... The loot crate RR is nice and cheap now... first few sold in the $50-$60 range, but now it's a rush to get as little as you can ...

 

Can someone explain to me why a copy would ever sell for $50? I thought Loot Crate's share of the RR print run was 100,000+ copies? http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=53380

 

I assume there's something I'm missing, since that would make it one of the most common comic books published in the last 20 years.

[Taco]

I sold mine for $30.

[the authority]

Well... The loot crate RR is nice and cheap now... first few sold in the $50-$60 range, but now it's a rush to get as little as you can ...

 

Can someone explain to me why a copy would ever sell for $50? I thought Loot Crate's share of the RR print run was 100,000+ copies? http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=53380

 

I assume there's something I'm missing, since that would make it one of the most common comic books published in the last 20 years.

 

101,000 buyers ?

[krighton]

Has the Winter Soldier appearances crashed and burned with all the Falcon as Captain America talk?

[Mike's Rack]

It's definitely settled after the movie buzz died down but with Sebastian Stan signed on for 9 movies, I don't think it's going anywhere.