Moderns that are heating up on ebay! 71 71

[MrWeen]

I was thinking the first full appearance of the Winter Soldier would be higher in light of the movie coming out. 9.8 SS $95 20 min to go

 

 

people want the variant

 

Hasn't there always been a higher demand for issue 14 than any other issue from the series?

 

Also how is issue one not considered the first appearance of the Winter Soldier when Batman 655 IS considered the first appearance of Damian Wayne?

 

Here is the best shot of Damian from 655:

 

Here is the best shot of the Winter Soldier from issue 1 vol. 5 of Cap:

 

As far as I know 656 of Batman is NOT considered Damian Wayne's first appearance but here is the first image of Damian Wayne ( not in shadows ):

 

Its like you find all these conspiracies. Why fight it since its already established? I commend you on your argument this time. CGC has spoken though.

 

14 is a classic issue its just not undervalued currently. It may rise some, but 6 is the issue that is undervalued currently.

 

CGC is wrong all the time! I agree that six is undervalued but I am simply wondering why there are different rules concerning first appearances from company to company.

Edited September 26, 2013 by MrWeen

[Mr Wiggles]

Check out these super hot books

 

Spiderman

 

S. Spidey

 

How about this one - RAW

BA 12

 

Obvious shills

 

 

 

 

the first two make no sense.

 

Yeah...the first two are from the same new (feedback of 3) seller. Shilled all the way.

 

They look like placeholders for private deals using eBay/PayPal as a secure payment transfer.

 

Possible...very possible....

 

I guess my mind isn't deviant enough. I would never thought of an idea like this.

 

But with $900 prices vs $50, doesn't that meen more fees to eBay??

 

It is more fees but the cost is the cost if you want a secure money transfer. I used to see these on a daily basis when eBay fees were much smaller but it doesn't shock me they still exist.

[MrWeen]

Catwoman 23 showing some heat

 

Anyone have a newsstand edition they want to sell?

[vader2001]

I bought 2 off of ebay, I couldn't find any in my area.

[Mike's Rack]

CGC is wrong all the time! I agree that six is undervalued but I am simply wondering why there are different rules concerning first appearances from company to company.

The beauty of the hobby is that there are no rules regarding first appearances. "First appearance" is a term of art not a dogmatic dictate. In this hobby, the phrase has two meanings, the first being the literal first appearance, the second being a less literal translation and would be more literally interpreted as most valued early appearance. The second definition is what most hobbyists refer to when they say "first appearance". While this may not always be literally true, most comic collectors appreciate the nuance. See AMS 300, Hulk 181, TMNT 1 ... ad infinitum.

[the authority]

CGC is wrong all the time! I agree that six is undervalued but I am simply wondering why there are different rules concerning first appearances from company to company.

The beauty of the hobby is that there are no rules regarding first appearances. "First appearance" is a term of art not a dogmatic dictate. In this hobby, the phrase has two meanings, the first being the literal first appearance, the second being a less literal translation and would be more literally interpreted as most valued early appearance. The second definition is what most hobbyists refer to when they say "first appearance". While this may not always be literally true, most comic collectors appreciate the nuance. See AMS 300, Hulk 181, TMNT 1 ... ad infinitum.

 

Perfect explanation.

[seanfingh]

CGC is wrong all the time! I agree that six is undervalued but I am simply wondering why there are different rules concerning first appearances from company to company.

The beauty of the hobby is that there are no rules regarding first appearances. "First appearance" is a term of art not a dogmatic dictate. In this hobby, the phrase has two meanings, the first being the literal first appearance, the second being a less literal translation and would be more literally interpreted as most valued early appearance. The second definition is what most hobbyists refer to when they say "first appearance". While this may not always be literally true, most comic collectors appreciate the nuance. See AMS 300, Hulk 181, TMNT 1 ... ad infinitum.

 

Perfect explanation.

 

Not for Mr. Ween.

[Awax]

CGC is wrong all the time! I agree that six is undervalued but I am simply wondering why there are different rules concerning first appearances from company to company.

The beauty of the hobby is that there are no rules regarding first appearances. "First appearance" is a term of art not a dogmatic dictate. In this hobby, the phrase has two meanings, the first being the literal first appearance, the second being a less literal translation and would be more literally interpreted as most valued early appearance. The second definition is what most hobbyists refer to when they say "first appearance". While this may not always be literally true, most comic collectors appreciate the nuance. See AMS 300, Hulk 181, TMNT 1 ... ad infinitum.

 

Perfect explanation.

 

Not for Mr. Ween.

 

[Dukes40]

Check out these super hot books

 

Spiderman

 

S. Spidey

 

How about this one - RAW

BA 12

 

Obvious shills

 

 

 

 

the first two make no sense.

 

Yeah...the first two are from the same new (feedback of 3) seller. Shilled all the way.

 

They look like placeholders for private deals using eBay/PayPal as a secure payment transfer.

 

Possible...very possible....

 

I guess my mind isn't deviant enough. I would never thought of an idea like this.

 

But with $900 prices vs $50, doesn't that meen more fees to eBay??

 

It is more fees but the cost is the cost if you want a secure money transfer. I used to see these on a daily basis when eBay fees were much smaller but it doesn't shock me they still exist.

 

My not just do an eTransfer through the bank?

Or, if it's for illegal stuff, why not put up an item that is worth around $900. Would that not make it less obvious that something's up?

[Dukes40]

CGC is wrong all the time! I agree that six is undervalued but I am simply wondering why there are different rules concerning first appearances from company to company.

The beauty of the hobby is that there are no rules regarding first appearances. "First appearance" is a term of art not a dogmatic dictate. In this hobby, the phrase has two meanings, the first being the literal first appearance, the second being a less literal translation and would be more literally interpreted as most valued early appearance. The second definition is what most hobbyists refer to when they say "first appearance". While this may not always be literally true, most comic collectors appreciate the nuance. See AMS 300, Hulk 181, TMNT 1 ... ad infinitum.

 

The first Apocalypse always bugged me like this.

 

Some say X-Factor #5, some say #6.

 

Also, on the topic, I picked up a few extra Wolverine Origins #39 at one point, thinking it was the first appearance of Romulus (who I had waited SO long to see what he looked like). Well, he looked pretty awesome:

 

 

 

 

 

Turns out, his first appearance is considered WOlverine #50, and looks like this:

 

 

 

 

SOOOOOOO don't agree with this one. Like, their flashbacks and dreams that hide him in the shadows. Thoughts??

[Jackhartmann]

Check out these super hot books

 

Spiderman

 

S. Spidey

 

How about this one - RAW

BA 12

 

Obvious shills

 

 

 

 

the first two make no sense.

 

the Seller has 95% feedback. I would never bid if they had that low.

[MrWeen]

CGC is wrong all the time! I agree that six is undervalued but I am simply wondering why there are different rules concerning first appearances from company to company.

The beauty of the hobby is that there are no rules regarding first appearances. "First appearance" is a term of art not a dogmatic dictate. In this hobby, the phrase has two meanings, the first being the literal first appearance, the second being a less literal translation and would be more literally interpreted as most valued early appearance. The second definition is what most hobbyists refer to when they say "first appearance". While this may not always be literally true, most comic collectors appreciate the nuance. See AMS 300, Hulk 181, TMNT 1 ... ad infinitum.

 

Perfect explanation.

 

Not for Mr. Ween.

 

 

Though well written I'm only on board until you say " less literal " In the case of the two comics I presented it sure seems like DC and Marvel are being treated differently by collectors, CGC whoever. There should be rules concerning this matter. It is important to set a clear definition for those who collect especially since vast sums of money change hands over these items. In the case of this hobby using literal and less literal only serves to justify selling say Batman 655 and 656 then claiming that both are the first appearance because CGC says 655 and comicvine says 656. I know you all hate me because now and again I repeat this argument but it is important. If we simply decide to go by your literal definition it would make it easier to determine an actual first appearance. So something like 655 would be a cameo and 656 would hold the first.first full appearance of Damian. But in the case of say Darksied, his appearance on the monitor in Jimmy Olsen would be a first appearance and his first full appearance would be New Gods 2/Forever People 1 depending on date. There is no cameo because he is not in shadow or obstructed in some other way.

 

I just wanted to show the Cap comic and Batman comics to illustrate the problem of first appearances/full and cameo appearances. I often take it further and do believe that certain preview mags hold some first appearances ( especially if sequential pages are previewed ) and I do support the idea that a comic like Malibu Sun 13 is Spawn's first appearance, iron man/fury/hulk one-shot is Agent Coulson's first appearance but I can respect arguments against BECAUSE there is no clear definition.

 

[Mike's Rack]

CGC is wrong all the time! I agree that six is undervalued but I am simply wondering why there are different rules concerning first appearances from company to company.

The beauty of the hobby is that there are no rules regarding first appearances. "First appearance" is a term of art not a dogmatic dictate. In this hobby, the phrase has two meanings, the first being the literal first appearance, the second being a less literal translation and would be more literally interpreted as most valued early appearance. The second definition is what most hobbyists refer to when they say "first appearance". While this may not always be literally true, most comic collectors appreciate the nuance. See AMS 300, Hulk 181, TMNT 1 ... ad infinitum.

 

Perfect explanation.

 

Not for Mr. Ween.

 

 

Though well written I'm only on board until you say " less literal " In the case of the two comics I presented it sure seems like DC and Marvel are being treated differently by collectors, CGC whoever. There should be rules concerning this matter. It is important to set a clear definition for those who collect especially since vast sums of money change hands over these items. In the case of this hobby using literal and less literal only serves to justify selling say Batman 655 and 656 then claiming that both are the first appearance because CGC says 655 and comicvine says 656. I know you all hate me because now and again I repeat this argument but it is important. If we simply decide to go by your literal definition it would make it easier to determine an actual first appearance. So something like 655 would be a cameo and 656 would hold the first.first full appearance of Damian. But in the case of say Darksied, his appearance on the monitor in Jimmy Olsen would be a first appearance and his first full appearance would be New Gods 2/Forever People 1 depending on date. There is no cameo because he is not in shadow or obstructed in some other way.

 

I just wanted to show the Cap comic and Batman comics to illustrate the problem of first appearances/full and cameo appearances. I often take it further and do believe that certain preview mags hold some first appearances ( especially if sequential pages are previewed ) and I do support the idea that a comic like Malibu Sun 13 is Spawn's first appearance, iron man/fury/hulk one-shot is Agent Coulson's first appearance but I can respect arguments against BECAUSE there is no clear definition.

I have no hatred for you for you at all. In fact, if we ever meet, I'd like to buy you a beer. If you head over to Amazing Arizona Comicon in January, we'll make it happen. I can see how a reasonable person would arrive at the conclusions that you have reached on this issue. I do, however, disagree with your position, I think it's unnecessarily dogmatic and rigid. But I couldn't hate a fellow lover of comics, we have too much in common.

[MrWeen]

CGC is wrong all the time! I agree that six is undervalued but I am simply wondering why there are different rules concerning first appearances from company to company.

The beauty of the hobby is that there are no rules regarding first appearances. "First appearance" is a term of art not a dogmatic dictate. In this hobby, the phrase has two meanings, the first being the literal first appearance, the second being a less literal translation and would be more literally interpreted as most valued early appearance. The second definition is what most hobbyists refer to when they say "first appearance". While this may not always be literally true, most comic collectors appreciate the nuance. See AMS 300, Hulk 181, TMNT 1 ... ad infinitum.

 

Perfect explanation.

 

Not for Mr. Ween.

 

 

Though well written I'm only on board until you say " less literal " In the case of the two comics I presented it sure seems like DC and Marvel are being treated differently by collectors, CGC whoever. There should be rules concerning this matter. It is important to set a clear definition for those who collect especially since vast sums of money change hands over these items. In the case of this hobby using literal and less literal only serves to justify selling say Batman 655 and 656 then claiming that both are the first appearance because CGC says 655 and comicvine says 656. I know you all hate me because now and again I repeat this argument but it is important. If we simply decide to go by your literal definition it would make it easier to determine an actual first appearance. So something like 655 would be a cameo and 656 would hold the first.first full appearance of Damian. But in the case of say Darksied, his appearance on the monitor in Jimmy Olsen would be a first appearance and his first full appearance would be New Gods 2/Forever People 1 depending on date. There is no cameo because he is not in shadow or obstructed in some other way.

 

I just wanted to show the Cap comic and Batman comics to illustrate the problem of first appearances/full and cameo appearances. I often take it further and do believe that certain preview mags hold some first appearances ( especially if sequential pages are previewed ) and I do support the idea that a comic like Malibu Sun 13 is Spawn's first appearance, iron man/fury/hulk one-shot is Agent Coulson's first appearance but I can respect arguments against BECAUSE there is no clear definition.

I have no hatred for you for you at all. In fact, if we ever meet, I'd like to buy you a beer. If you head over to Amazing Arizona Comicon in January, we'll make it happen. I can see how a reasonable person would arrive at the conclusions that you have reached on this issue. I do, however, disagree with your position, I think it's unnecessarily dogmatic and rigid. But I couldn't hate a fellow lover of comics, we have too much in common.

 

I love beer so we have two things in common I just hope you are not a Cardinals fan.

[Dukes40]

CGC is wrong all the time! I agree that six is undervalued but I am simply wondering why there are different rules concerning first appearances from company to company.

The beauty of the hobby is that there are no rules regarding first appearances. "First appearance" is a term of art not a dogmatic dictate. In this hobby, the phrase has two meanings, the first being the literal first appearance, the second being a less literal translation and would be more literally interpreted as most valued early appearance. The second definition is what most hobbyists refer to when they say "first appearance". While this may not always be literally true, most comic collectors appreciate the nuance. See AMS 300, Hulk 181, TMNT 1 ... ad infinitum.

 

Perfect explanation.

 

Not for Mr. Ween.

 

 

Though well written I'm only on board until you say " less literal " In the case of the two comics I presented it sure seems like DC and Marvel are being treated differently by collectors, CGC whoever. There should be rules concerning this matter. It is important to set a clear definition for those who collect especially since vast sums of money change hands over these items. In the case of this hobby using literal and less literal only serves to justify selling say Batman 655 and 656 then claiming that both are the first appearance because CGC says 655 and comicvine says 656. I know you all hate me because now and again I repeat this argument but it is important. If we simply decide to go by your literal definition it would make it easier to determine an actual first appearance. So something like 655 would be a cameo and 656 would hold the first.first full appearance of Damian. But in the case of say Darksied, his appearance on the monitor in Jimmy Olsen would be a first appearance and his first full appearance would be New Gods 2/Forever People 1 depending on date. There is no cameo because he is not in shadow or obstructed in some other way.

 

I just wanted to show the Cap comic and Batman comics to illustrate the problem of first appearances/full and cameo appearances. I often take it further and do believe that certain preview mags hold some first appearances ( especially if sequential pages are previewed ) and I do support the idea that a comic like Malibu Sun 13 is Spawn's first appearance, iron man/fury/hulk one-shot is Agent Coulson's first appearance but I can respect arguments against BECAUSE there is no clear definition.

I have no hatred for you for you at all. In fact, if we ever meet, I'd like to buy you a beer. If you head over to Amazing Arizona Comicon in January, we'll make it happen. I can see how a reasonable person would arrive at the conclusions that you have reached on this issue. I do, however, disagree with your position, I think it's unnecessarily dogmatic and rigid. But I couldn't hate a fellow lover of comics, we have too much in common.

 

It would be hard to do in some cases.

 

For instance, I feel that a cameo appearance should be the 1st appearance if it's a full appearance, I mean, we're seeing the character in a comic STORY for the FIRST time. But, should that have to include dialogue or not? What about the monitor thing like you said (if it's just in the background)? What about just a head shot vs full body? Just speaking but character not shown?

[the authority]

CGC is wrong all the time! I agree that six is undervalued but I am simply wondering why there are different rules concerning first appearances from company to company.

The beauty of the hobby is that there are no rules regarding first appearances. "First appearance" is a term of art not a dogmatic dictate. In this hobby, the phrase has two meanings, the first being the literal first appearance, the second being a less literal translation and would be more literally interpreted as most valued early appearance. The second definition is what most hobbyists refer to when they say "first appearance". While this may not always be literally true, most comic collectors appreciate the nuance. See AMS 300, Hulk 181, TMNT 1 ... ad infinitum.

 

Perfect explanation.

 

Not for Mr. Ween.

 

 

Though well written I'm only on board until you say " less literal " In the case of the two comics I presented it sure seems like DC and Marvel are being treated differently by collectors, CGC whoever. There should be rules concerning this matter. It is important to set a clear definition for those who collect especially since vast sums of money change hands over these items. In the case of this hobby using literal and less literal only serves to justify selling say Batman 655 and 656 then claiming that both are the first appearance because CGC says 655 and comicvine says 656. I know you all hate me because now and again I repeat this argument but it is important. If we simply decide to go by your literal definition it would make it easier to determine an actual first appearance. So something like 655 would be a cameo and 656 would hold the first.first full appearance of Damian. But in the case of say Darksied, his appearance on the monitor in Jimmy Olsen would be a first appearance and his first full appearance would be New Gods 2/Forever People 1 depending on date. There is no cameo because he is not in shadow or obstructed in some other way.

 

I just wanted to show the Cap comic and Batman comics to illustrate the problem of first appearances/full and cameo appearances. I often take it further and do believe that certain preview mags hold some first appearances ( especially if sequential pages are previewed ) and I do support the idea that a comic like Malibu Sun 13 is Spawn's first appearance, iron man/fury/hulk one-shot is Agent Coulson's first appearance but I can respect arguments against BECAUSE there is no clear definition.

 

I don't hate you. I like that there aren't a bunch of zombies on this board walking in lockstep. The issue with this is that not everyone agrees. You are technically correct when you point to a 1st appearance as to the earliest print date. Mike is correct in saying that it is a majority opinion as to what many collectors consider a first appearance that becomes the accepted first appearance . The most important appearance in my mind is the most valued but thats just me.

[Dukes40]

CGC is wrong all the time! I agree that six is undervalued but I am simply wondering why there are different rules concerning first appearances from company to company.

The beauty of the hobby is that there are no rules regarding first appearances. "First appearance" is a term of art not a dogmatic dictate. In this hobby, the phrase has two meanings, the first being the literal first appearance, the second being a less literal translation and would be more literally interpreted as most valued early appearance. The second definition is what most hobbyists refer to when they say "first appearance". While this may not always be literally true, most comic collectors appreciate the nuance. See AMS 300, Hulk 181, TMNT 1 ... ad infinitum.

 

Perfect explanation.

 

Not for Mr. Ween.

 

 

Though well written I'm only on board until you say " less literal " In the case of the two comics I presented it sure seems like DC and Marvel are being treated differently by collectors, CGC whoever. There should be rules concerning this matter. It is important to set a clear definition for those who collect especially since vast sums of money change hands over these items. In the case of this hobby using literal and less literal only serves to justify selling say Batman 655 and 656 then claiming that both are the first appearance because CGC says 655 and comicvine says 656. I know you all hate me because now and again I repeat this argument but it is important. If we simply decide to go by your literal definition it would make it easier to determine an actual first appearance. So something like 655 would be a cameo and 656 would hold the first.first full appearance of Damian. But in the case of say Darksied, his appearance on the monitor in Jimmy Olsen would be a first appearance and his first full appearance would be New Gods 2/Forever People 1 depending on date. There is no cameo because he is not in shadow or obstructed in some other way.

 

I just wanted to show the Cap comic and Batman comics to illustrate the problem of first appearances/full and cameo appearances. I often take it further and do believe that certain preview mags hold some first appearances ( especially if sequential pages are previewed ) and I do support the idea that a comic like Malibu Sun 13 is Spawn's first appearance, iron man/fury/hulk one-shot is Agent Coulson's first appearance but I can respect arguments against BECAUSE there is no clear definition.

 

I don't hate you. I like that there aren't a bunch of zombies on this board walking in lockstep. The issue with this is that not everyone agrees. You are technically correct when you point to a 1st appearance as to the earliest print date. Mike is correct in saying that it is a majority opinion as to what many collectors consider a first appearance that becomes the accepted first appearance . The most important appearance in my mind is the most valued but thats just me.

 

I think it really comes down to a question of ease of lingo. Are you going to say "1st appearance of Wolverine, or "the 1st appearance of Wolverine where he is most involved in the story and fights and stuff".

 

Also, the whole "accepted" first appearance thing, I mean, some are very contentious, but some, I mean, even if it's "accepted by collectors" as a first appearance, if the character appears before somewhere else, then that's FACT that the character appeared 1st in a different comic. You can't change what happened.

[MrWeen]

CGC is wrong all the time! I agree that six is undervalued but I am simply wondering why there are different rules concerning first appearances from company to company.

The beauty of the hobby is that there are no rules regarding first appearances. "First appearance" is a term of art not a dogmatic dictate. In this hobby, the phrase has two meanings, the first being the literal first appearance, the second being a less literal translation and would be more literally interpreted as most valued early appearance. The second definition is what most hobbyists refer to when they say "first appearance". While this may not always be literally true, most comic collectors appreciate the nuance. See AMS 300, Hulk 181, TMNT 1 ... ad infinitum.

 

The first Apocalypse always bugged me like this.

 

Some say X-Factor #5, some say #6.

 

Also, on the topic, I picked up a few extra Wolverine Origins #39 at one point, thinking it was the first appearance of Romulus (who I had waited SO long to see what he looked like). Well, he looked pretty awesome:

 

 

 

 

 

Turns out, his first appearance is considered WOlverine #50, and looks like this:

 

 

 

 

SOOOOOOO don't agree with this one. Like, their flashbacks and dreams that hide him in the shadows. Thoughts??

 

Cameo Wolverine 50, first full Origins 39, buy them both especially the variant for issue 39. Thank you for speaking about this character, never heard of him. It looks like new characters surrounding Wolvie are often based on the next creative place for a claw as it relates to an appendage. I think I know where to place an adamantium coated claw on my new villain for Logan's first cousin on his father's side " Hog Logan "

[Solar]

But in the case of say Darksied, his appearance on the monitor in Jimmy Olsen would be a first appearance and his first full appearance would be New Gods 2/Forever People 1 depending on date. There is no cameo because he is not in shadow or obstructed in some other way.

 

This IS a cameo. The term 'cameo' is getting mixed up a little here; it doesn't mean obscured or partially visible - it simply means a brief appearance. Hulk 180 is a fully visable Wolverine appearance, but it's still a cameo. Obscured Winter Soldier would be a cameo appearance too. Visibility doesn't have anything to do with it.

[Dukes40]

But in the case of say Darksied, his appearance on the monitor in Jimmy Olsen would be a first appearance and his first full appearance would be New Gods 2/Forever People 1 depending on date. There is no cameo because he is not in shadow or obstructed in some other way.

 

This IS a cameo. The term 'cameo' is getting mixed up a little here; it doesn't mean obscured or partially visible - it simply means a brief appearance. Hulk 180 is a fully visable Wolverine appearance, but it's still a cameo. Obscured Winter Soldier would be a cameo appearance too. Visibility doesn't have anything to do with it.

 

So how, logically, can a cameo like that NOT be a first appearance??? Just because it's brief doesn't change the fact that the character appeared (unless it's the Flash or Quicksilver, then maybe it was too brief).