HighStakesComics Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 I think the ambiguity lies between what is the first appearance and the first significant appearance. Wolverine clearly appears in one panel in 180, but due to the cover and melee of 181 it's the more coveted of the two books. There's plenty of other similar examples throughout the history of comic book literature. Some are really vague. I'm still not sure which direction FF 67/Thor 165 will break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divad Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 180 = first appearance (a cameo can be a first appearance, IDK why people are so reluctant to accept that) Do I really need to go into this again? Did you ever read comics as a kid? As in READ them just to READ them and experience the stories, follow your favorite characters, etc.? Well I did, and before sportscard dealers brought this whole "rookie card" mentality to comics in the late-80's, people actually READ these things, so ask yourself this: If you are looking to READ and collect a back issue (remember, there were no TPBs) about your fave character's past exploits, would you choose: a) a comic with the first single panel of your fave character and no cover appearance. or b) a comic with the first entire story about your fave character and an action cover image. That's why "first FULL appearances/covers" were more popular and worth more historically pre-CGC, and will continue to be, as in the CGC entombed comic world, covers mean more than ever. You don't need to shoehorn a first appearance label onto a particular issue just because it is the more sought after book among a character's early appearances. You add more legitimacy to the book by separating it from being associated with a character's first appearance, as it is then allowed to stand on its own. You don't need to call 181 the first appearance of Wolverine to sell it as a desirable issue, the cover and it being his first fight with hulk are enough. Truedat, you weren't anybody in the Marvel Universe until you fought the Hulk, or Thor, (or both). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimjum12 Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 180 = first appearance (a cameo can be a first appearance, IDK why people are so reluctant to accept that) Do I really need to go into this again? Did you ever read comics as a kid? As in READ them just to READ them and experience the stories, follow your favorite characters, etc.? Well I did, and before sportscard dealers brought this whole "rookie card" mentality to comics in the late-80's, people actually READ these things, so ask yourself this: If you are looking to READ and collect a back issue (remember, there were no TPBs) about your fave character's past exploits, would you choose: a) a comic with the first single panel of your fave character and no cover appearance. or b) a comic with the first entire story about your fave character and an action cover image. That's why "first FULL appearances/covers" were more popular and worth more historically pre-CGC, and will continue to be, as in the CGC entombed comic world, covers mean more than ever. You don't need to shoehorn a first appearance label onto a particular issue just because it is the more sought after book among a character's early appearances. You add more legitimacy to the book by separating it from being associated with a character's first appearance, as it is then allowed to stand on its own. You don't need to call 181 the first appearance of Wolverine to sell it as a desirable issue, the cover and it being his first fight with hulk are enough. Truedat, you weren't anybody in the Marvel Universe until you fought the Hulk, or Thor, (or both). ...I once fought Hulk's Momma...... she ended up on top..... GOD BLESS.... -jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bababooey Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 180 = first appearance (a cameo can be a first appearance, IDK why people are so reluctant to accept that) Do I really need to go into this again? Did you ever read comics as a kid? As in READ them just to READ them and experience the stories, follow your favorite characters, etc.? Well I did, and before sportscard dealers brought this whole "rookie card" mentality to comics in the late-80's, people actually READ these things, so ask yourself this: If you are looking to READ and collect a back issue (remember, there were no TPBs) about your fave character's past exploits, would you choose: a) a comic with the first single panel of your fave character and no cover appearance. or b) a comic with the first entire story about your fave character and an action cover image. That's why "first FULL appearances/covers" were more popular and worth more historically pre-CGC, and will continue to be, as in the CGC entombed comic world, covers mean more than ever. You don't need to shoehorn a first appearance label onto a particular issue just because it is the more sought after book among a character's early appearances. You add more legitimacy to the book by separating it from being associated with a character's first appearance, as it is then allowed to stand on its own. You don't need to call 181 the first appearance of Wolverine to sell it as a desirable issue, the cover and it being his first fight with hulk are enough. Ask yourself this, how many comic book stories end with a teaser, hook or whatever on the last page to get you to want to buy the next issue? When that teaser involves a new character, the hobby has always used "cameo appearance" to describe insignificant first appearances by characters. So some people argue that the technical first appearance is the only appearance that should warrant a label that claims to be "first". No one is shoehorning a "first appearance" onto a label, the people arguing for cameos as legitimate "firsts" are trying to rewrite history for whatever reason. This all pre-dates CGC labeling and the hobby's use of "cameo" to describe a first 'minor' appearance comes hand-in-hand with our almost universal understanding that first appearance generally means first "full or feature" appearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vaillant Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 You don't need to shoehorn a first appearance label onto a particular issue just because it is the more sought after book among a character's early appearances. You add more legitimacy to the book by separating it from being associated with a character's first appearance, as it is then allowed to stand on its own. You don't need to call 181 the first appearance of Wolverine to sell it as a desirable issue, the cover and it being his first fight with hulk are enough. That’s precisely what I think. And one may think whatever he wants, but Thor #165-166 remain pretty much neglectable in the economy of Warlock’s own life. Hulk #180 is another matter, as the story is meaningful as a whole, not just because Wolverine appears, and it is in two parts, so if one is serious about the stories you need to have both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boboset Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 180 = first appearance (a cameo can be a first appearance, IDK why people are so reluctant to accept that) Do I really need to go into this again? Did you ever read comics as a kid? As in READ them just to READ them and experience the stories, follow your favorite characters, etc.? Well I did, and before sportscard dealers brought this whole "rookie card" mentality to comics in the late-80's, people actually READ these things, so ask yourself this: If you are looking to READ and collect a back issue (remember, there were no TPBs) about your fave character's past exploits, would you choose: a) a comic with the first single panel of your fave character and no cover appearance. or b) a comic with the first entire story about your fave character and an action cover image. That's why "first FULL appearances/covers" were more popular and worth more historically pre-CGC, and will continue to be, as in the CGC entombed comic world, covers mean more than ever. You don't need to shoehorn a first appearance label onto a particular issue just because it is the more sought after book among a character's early appearances. You add more legitimacy to the book by separating it from being associated with a character's first appearance, as it is then allowed to stand on its own. You don't need to call 181 the first appearance of Wolverine to sell it as a desirable issue, the cover and it being his first fight with hulk are enough. Ask yourself this, how many comic book stories end with a teaser, hook or whatever on the last page to get you to want to buy the next issue? When that teaser involves a new character, the hobby has always used "cameo appearance" to describe insignificant first appearances by characters. So some people argue that the technical first appearance is the only appearance that should warrant a label that claims to be "first". No one is shoehorning a "first appearance" onto a label, the people arguing for cameos as legitimate "firsts" are trying to rewrite history for whatever reason. This all pre-dates CGC labeling and the hobby's use of "cameo" to describe a first 'minor' appearance comes hand-in-hand with our almost universal understanding that first appearance generally means first "full or feature" appearance. This is what everything boils down to. It's that some people are taking the "first" in the term first appearance way too literally. Like they've stumbled upon this great hidden secret that the word "first" has been misinterpreted by everyone in the hobby for many decades. Heck, some are even claiming that Previews, the solicitation magazine, should be fair grounds for first appearance recognition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaeldubyoo Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Where did Wolverine first appear in a comic story? We're not talking about a solicitation magazine or ad. There he is in his full glory and named. That is a first appearance, no matter how brief. What's so hard to understand? How do we misinterpret that fact? The issue is not what's more important or worth more. We all know more people want #181 more. That's not the point. Where did he first appear as Wolverine in a comic book story? Collectors paying more for #181 doesn't change the fact that he first appeared in #180. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclops Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 I think everyone is entitled to their own interpretation. I consider 180 to be the first appearance. Would I pay more for 180 than 181? Of course not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boboset Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Where did Wolverine first appear in a comic story? We're not talking about a solicitation magazine or ad. There he is in his full glory and named. That is a first appearance, no matter how brief. What's so hard to understand? How do we misinterpret that fact? The issue is not what's more important or worth more. We all know more people want #181 more. That's not the point. Where did he first appear as Wolverine in a comic book story? Collectors paying more for #181 doesn't change the fact that he first appeared in #180. Because "cameo" and "full". Why do people want 181 significantly more? Why do more people think 181 is significantly more important? Why is 181 worth significantly more? It's because significantly more people believe 181 is the first appearance. Now I will circle back to my previous comment: taking the "first" in the term first appearance way too literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beamer Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 What about MOS 17 & 18? It seems the cameo is much worth more than the full app. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boboset Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 What about MOS 17 & 18? It seems the cameo is much worth more than the full app. Many more copies of #18 were printed. Plus, #18 was a hoard book so people saved them in nice shape for the most part. If a comparison is to be drawn between 180/181, the character first appearing has to be similarly popular and the cameo/full issues need to have a similar print run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaeldubyoo Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Where did Wolverine first appear in a comic story? We're not talking about a solicitation magazine or ad. There he is in his full glory and named. That is a first appearance, no matter how brief. What's so hard to understand? How do we misinterpret that fact? The issue is not what's more important or worth more. We all know more people want #181 more. That's not the point. Where did he first appear as Wolverine in a comic book story? Collectors paying more for #181 doesn't change the fact that he first appeared in #180. Because "cameo" and "full". Why do people want 181 significantly more? Why do more people think 181 is significantly more important? Why is 181 worth significantly more? It's because significantly more people believe 181 is the first appearance. Now I will circle back to my previous comment: taking the "first" in the term first appearance way too literally. Take away the qualifiers and what do you have? The point of contention is not which is more important. I've never disputed that. I'll just agree to disagree and leave it that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatest Lantern Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Anything hotter in bronze than this argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkstar Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Ask yourself this, how many comic book stories end with a teaser, hook or whatever on the last page to get you to want to buy the next issue? When that teaser involves a new character, the hobby has always used "cameo appearance" to describe insignificant first appearances by characters. There is no industry wide standard for a cameo or full appearance. There are way too many variables to come up with a black and white distinction between the two that can always be measured or followed. Its a fruitless endeavor. This board still can't even come to a consensus on Gambit's first appearance or whether it is a cameo or full appearance. So some people argue that the technical first appearance is the only appearance that should warrant a label that claims to be "first". There isn't anything to argue about here really. The words "first" and "appearance" are pretty easy to understand and it isn't something to awarded to more than one issue. There are exceptions of course; is a character in disguise considered an appearance? Or a character in shadows? What if they aren't depicted on the page but have a word balloon attributed to them? But these circumstances occur far less frequently than the cameo/full appearance nonsense people put themselves through - going back and forth over the number of panels the character appears in, how much dialogue he has, or if he is named. Why bother? When the character is first introduced into the narrative - through the course of the story, the art, or both - its a first appearance. Boom. Done. If this appearance is a one panel teaser on the back page, who cares? If a future issue that features a more substantial appearance is more sought after by the community, who cares? You don't need to classify the next issue his first appearance to make sense of the higher price. Collectors familiar with the material will understand why in some cases the second appearance commands the higher price. No one is shoehorning a "first appearance" onto a label Sure they are. If you want to label or refer to 181 as a first appearance you are ignoring the character's actual first depiction in the previous issue. , the people arguing for cameos as legitimate "firsts" are trying to rewrite history for whatever reason. Arguing for the actual first depiction of the character is illegitimate and rewriting history? That character's one panel teaser/cliffhanger on the last page is a part of published comics history. It doesn't go away just because the brief appearance is minimized and less sought after due to the character's much larger impact in the following issue. This all pre-dates CGC labeling and the hobby's use of "cameo" to describe a first 'minor' appearance comes hand-in-hand with our almost universal understanding that first appearance generally means first "full or feature" appearance. There is no universal understanding and acceptance of what constitutes a full or feature appearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkstar Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 the people arguing for cameos as legitimate "firsts" are trying to rewrite history for whatever reason. This is what everything boils down to. It's that some people are taking the "first" in the term first appearance way too literally. You have it backwards. If someone were to take the first appearance designation literally then they would be in favor of the cameo vs full distinction. The full appearance designation would be used to note an instance where the character does not literally appear enough in the cameo issue to constitute a first appearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boboset Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 the people arguing for cameos as legitimate "firsts" are trying to rewrite history for whatever reason. This is what everything boils down to. It's that some people are taking the "first" in the term first appearance way too literally. You have it backwards. If someone were to take the first appearance designation literally then they would be in favor of the cameo vs full distinction. The full appearance designation would be used to note an instance where the character does not literally appear enough in the cameo issue to constitute a first appearance. Uh, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkstar Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Why do people want 181 significantly more? Because Wolverine is featured heavily for the first time, battles hulk for the first time, and is featured on a cover for the first time. Why do more people think 181 is significantly more important? See above. Why is 181 worth significantly more? See above. It's because significantly more people believe 181 is the first appearance. That is an impossible claim to make. If you qualified your statement by saying "first SUBSTANTIAL appearance" I would agree with you. There is no rule that a character's first appearance has to be the character's most valuable or sought after. Seeing as how this medium is used to tell stories, it should be easy to see why a character's first significant contribution to the story may be more desirable than the character's initial introduction. Actual first appearances, however brief, should be sought after because of that character's eventual total impact on their respective universe. The reader recognizes that everything that comes later started there in that single panel where the creator(s) chose to introduce them into that comic's universe. Anyone who reads books for years or decades should be able to understand and appreciate that. First substantial (or whatever other term you want to use) appearances should be sought after because they are the first instance of that character making an impact; the first instance of that character leaving an impression on the reader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slym2none Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 180 = first appearance (a cameo can be a first appearance, IDK why people are so reluctant to accept that) Do I really need to go into this again? Did you ever read comics as a kid? As in READ them just to READ them and experience the stories, follow your favorite characters, etc.? Well I did, and before sportscard dealers brought this whole "rookie card" mentality to comics in the late-80's, people actually READ these things, so ask yourself this: If you are looking to READ and collect a back issue (remember, there were no TPBs) about your fave character's past exploits, would you choose: a) a comic with the first single panel of your fave character and no cover appearance. or b) a comic with the first entire story about your fave character and an action cover image. That's why "first FULL appearances/covers" were more popular and worth more historically pre-CGC, and will continue to be, as in the CGC entombed comic world, covers mean more than ever. You are arguing a point that I am not making. -slym Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slym2none Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 100% agree. Ist Appearances became valuable because fans wanted to read a popular characters first story, which usually also contained their origin, their first costume, their first battle. Especially if it's a brawl with the Incredible Hulk. People tend to forget *why* first appearances are valuable historically in the hobby and instead search for some character peeking up from behind a couch or something. Except Wolverine isn't "peeking from behind a couch." He stands in full-pose, claws out, says his name, and is talking to the protagonist & antagonist of the issue he is in. Besides, I am nothing but emotionally invested here. I don't have a stack of either book to sell. My point, as I have said repeatedly, is that IH #180 is Wolverine's first appearance, not #181. That. Is. All. -slym Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slym2none Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 180 = first appearance (a cameo can be a first appearance, IDK why people are so reluctant to accept that) Do I really need to go into this again? Did you ever read comics as a kid? As in READ them just to READ them and experience the stories, follow your favorite characters, etc.? Well I did, and before sportscard dealers brought this whole "rookie card" mentality to comics in the late-80's, people actually READ these things, so ask yourself this: If you are looking to READ and collect a back issue (remember, there were no TPBs) about your fave character's past exploits, would you choose: a) a comic with the first single panel of your fave character and no cover appearance. or b) a comic with the first entire story about your fave character and an action cover image. That's why "first FULL appearances/covers" were more popular and worth more historically pre-CGC, and will continue to be, as in the CGC entombed comic world, covers mean more than ever. I really appreciate this post. The attention that the Marvel movies brought to the hobby has been a mixed blessing. I love selling books that were drek a few years ago for three and four figures and buying books that I really love. But, it seems that the hobby is losing it's connection with the stories inside the books and trying to develop a formulaic approach to predicting what books will yield the most profit. Profit is fine, but if you pillage the soul from the hobby, you will kill the golden goose, which is what I believe was the root of the 90's crash. The soul of the hobby is storytelling that people connect with and enjoy. The hobby sold it's soul and paid big time. Please see my above post. -slym Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
