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

Bronze age comics that are heating up on eBay...
38 38

Started by PeterPark,

11,720 posts in this topic

RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
I think you are drastically underestimating the influence CGC has on the market. People do not have to buy into CGC to pay attention to what they are doing with certain books.

 

There are 2,704,568 currently for sale on eBay in the section titled "comics."

 

Of those listings, 64,061 have CGC in the title, which includes PGX books, "CGC it!" and the like.

 

So, 2.4% of the listings are "CGC related."

 

The other 97.6% of the listings in comics have no direct link to CGC.

 

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of the comic collecting world doesn't really care about CGC.

 

Just for comparison's sake: 120,827 of the listings have "Batman" in the title.

 

Nearly twice as many listings have to do with one character, than all the listings that have CGC in the title combined.

 

RMA you are a pretty smart dude, but I cannot even comprehend what any of that has to do with CGC's influence on the collecting community.

 

2.6% of ebay listings are CGC "related" So what? So there is a tiny number of CGC related books on ebay compared to raw ungraded and that means "most' collectors don't care about CGC? lol

 

I think all your numbers show is that the vast majority of comics are not worth CGC grading fees, shipping fees, 4 month waiting times et cetera.

 

You realize that slabbing a book costs $20+ right? How many of those "raw" copies cost less than the cost of slabbing? These numbers you are throwing out really doesn't show anything other than there are millions of comics not worth the cost of slabbing. Using these numbers in the way you are is reaching for something that isn't there.

 

 

 

:popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HighStakesComics

HighStakesComics

Posted
Posted
Enjoying the first-appearance debate. Curious to hear how you folks think it applies to a group--in fact, this is the converse of the GotG first-appearance debate.

 

Brave and Bold 54 is listed as the first appearance of the Teen Titans. But they're never called the Teen Titans and don't even form a group. Three of the founding characters, yes, but no group. If Brave and Bold 60 had never been published, no one ever would've referred to 54 as the first appearance of Teen Titans. It's only in 60 that they form a group and are called Teen Titans.

 

So...how do the various metrics you guys have applied to character first appearances...apply to the Teen Titans?

 

You make a great point but that's a silver age book. I think these are BA examples due to the nature of the thread. The 54/60 debate has always interested me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
Enjoying the first-appearance debate. Curious to hear how you folks think it applies to a group--in fact, this is the converse of the GotG first-appearance debate.

 

Brave and Bold 54 is listed as the first appearance of the Teen Titans. But they're never called the Teen Titans and don't even form a group. Three of the founding characters, yes, but no group. If Brave and Bold 60 had never been published, no one ever would've referred to 54 as the first appearance of Teen Titans. It's only in 60 that they form a group and are called Teen Titans.

 

So...how do the various metrics you guys have applied to character first appearances...apply to the Teen Titans?

 

Excellent example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
I think you are drastically underestimating the influence CGC has on the market. People do not have to buy into CGC to pay attention to what they are doing with certain books.

 

There are 2,704,568 currently for sale on eBay in the section titled "comics."

 

Of those listings, 64,061 have CGC in the title, which includes PGX books, "CGC it!" and the like.

 

So, 2.4% of the listings are "CGC related."

 

The other 97.6% of the listings in comics have no direct link to CGC.

 

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of the comic collecting world doesn't really care about CGC.

 

Just for comparison's sake: 120,827 of the listings have "Batman" in the title.

 

Nearly twice as many listings have to do with one character, than all the listings that have CGC in the title combined.

 

RMA you are a pretty smart dude, but I cannot even comprehend what any of that has to do with CGC's influence on the collecting community.

 

2.6% of ebay listings are CGC "related" So what? So there is a tiny number of CGC related books on ebay compared to raw ungraded and that means "most' collectors don't care about CGC? lol

 

I think all your numbers show is that the vast majority of comics are not worth CGC grading fees, shipping fees, 4 month waiting times et cetera.

 

You realize that slabbing a book costs $20+ right? How many of those "raw" copies cost less than the cost of slabbing? These numbers you are throwing out really doesn't show anything other than there are millions of comics not worth the cost of slabbing. Using these numbers in the way you are is reaching for something that isn't there.

 

 

 

 

So people do not sell and buy expensive comics that are not CGCed? Good luck in your debate with RMA. :tonofbricks:

 

Nah, not worth it. There's debate, and then there's just snide. No one learns anything useful from snide...at least, not directly.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AGGIEZ

AGGIEZ

Posted
Posted
Let me throw this "1st full appearance" on to the fire...

 

Batman #357 - 1st full appearance of Killer Croc? What a crock... :kidaround:

 

 

batman3572.jpg

 

I believe there is more than just that page where he appears. I could be wrong as I don't have any raw copies at the moment.

 

 

There are a few more panels with the man in the green trench coat…weakest 1st "full appearance" out there? It's like a Where's Waldo book…

 

 

14735111408_f0d10b22dd_c.jpg

 

14735156317_dc071a5541_c.jpg

 

14735109038_1164f8bedb_c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NinjaSealed

NinjaSealed

Posted
Posted
Enjoying the first-appearance debate. Curious to hear how you folks think it applies to a group--in fact, this is the converse of the GotG first-appearance debate.

 

Brave and Bold 54 is listed as the first appearance of the Teen Titans. But they're never called the Teen Titans and don't even form a group. Three of the founding characters, yes, but no group. If Brave and Bold 60 had never been published, no one ever would've referred to 54 as the first appearance of Teen Titans. It's only in 60 that they form a group and are called Teen Titans.

 

So...how do the various metrics you guys have applied to character first appearances...apply to the Teen Titans?

 

If I had to call it I would say BB #54 is the prototype issues for the teen titans and #60 in the first appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Poe

Poe

Posted
Posted

If someone started a thread for debating first appearances it would fetch lots of replies and tons of views.

 

That would be good.

 

And it would remove the discussion from this thread.

 

That would be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DavidTheDavid

DavidTheDavid

Posted
Posted

Enjoying the first-appearance debate. Curious to hear how you folks think it applies to a group--in fact, this is the converse of the GotG first-appearance debate.

 

Brave and Bold 54 is listed as the first appearance of the Teen Titans. But they're never called the Teen Titans and don't even form a group. Three of the founding characters, yes, but no group. If Brave and Bold 60 had never been published, no one ever would've referred to 54 as the first appearance of Teen Titans. It's only in 60 that they form a group and are called Teen Titans.

 

So...how do the various metrics you guys have applied to character first appearances...apply to the Teen Titans?

I just bought both. Finally saw a BB 60 on CLink and snagged it. Neither book surfaces often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
white_rushin

white_rushin

Posted
Posted (edited)

For some people, they buy these books early on to sell them off for profit.

 

For me, its more like "figure out which books will be hot and buy them now before they will be out of your price range."

 

I picked up my fine looking Inhumans #1 for a few bucks earlier this week, now I can relax and read :cloud9:

 

lol the struggle of being a new collector in college.

Edited by spideyfan78ct
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjrjr

rjrjr

Posted
Posted
The problem is that since there was never any established guidelines in place as to what is required to constitute a 1st full appearance as opposed to a cameo, there is always going to be inconstancies across different issues that for one reason or another, the market has determined that in one instance its a 1st appearance but in another similar instance, its a cameo.

 

My suggestion would be for Overstreet to publish a set criteria for what is required for a 1st full appearance. It would have to be applied, however, as of a certain date and then all issues would follow this criteria going forward. It probably would be far too difficult for it to be applied retroactively for the any books older than copper. ( the market would never accept 180 as the true 1st Wolverine regardless of what Overstreet states). All books published prior to this designated date ( for example 1990), the market could dictate what the 1st appearance is- as it has always done.

 

I would suggest the following as the criteria needed for a 1st full appearance

 

1) at least one panel where the character has a majority of his/her body shown. No shadows, arms, face shots, etc... Web 19 and CAP 359 violate this rule

2) Covers count, as do previews contained in a different issue, but ads do not count. The appearance has to be a self contained story or related to the story- i.e. cover to the story. ex)Omega men 3 and X-men 282

3)The character name must be established at the time of the appearance- either by character, other characters, or writer- .i.e.-AMS 299- states Venom in block text at bottom of page. Strange tales 180 would not count as Gamora's name is not revealed until next issue.

4)Costume appearances are different than non-costume. There is distinction. Norman Osborn 1st appearance is not the same as Green Goblin. They are 2 diff characters. Same with Cable and baby Nathan- i.e NM 87 and x-men 201.

5) Group appearances- whole team must be present in same panel not just in story shown in separate actions- prior rules 1-4 apply as well. Ex.- AF is X-men 121 and GOG is gog 1 2007 series.

 

The goal is to be able to identify the character(s) without ever needing another source to aid in identifying the character. It should be

apparent from this appearance and this appearance alone. The only exception that I can think of is G.I. Joe 21. since it is a silent issue, rule 3 never comes into play.

 

Thoughts?

 

I disagree with 3 and 5, but like your other suggestions. I can see an artistic reason for not naming a character, but having the character appear in several pages. I also see an artistic reason for showing the individual members of a team before showing the entire team in a later issue. In this age of decompression, it's just a matter of time before we get a team origin that has each member in their own issue before they come together several issues later. Didn't Ultimate Spider-Man not show Spider-Man until the 3rd or 4th issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjrjr

rjrjr

Posted
Posted
Iron Man #118, Jim Rhodes panels on last page....

 

This is false. It's on page 5 of 18.

 

oops...you're right, its not on the last page. But the point was these are the only panels. Doesnt change that important fact. Being on the last page or page 5 or page 12 really doesnt affect the point.

 

But thanks for correcting that.

 

He's named, his job is identified, he's wearing a yellow hat and he has a big thumbs up. Sounds like a first app to me!

 

Jim Rhodes' appearance is the exact same as Scott Lang's in Avengers 181, which is nuts hot. Who knows.

 

But isn't that Scott Lang on the cover of #181? I think that trumps any comparisons to Iron Man #118.

 

I don't see Scott Lang anywhere on the cover. The guy not in costume is Henry Peter Gyrich.

 

But he's Ant Man! Just because you don't see him doesn't mean he is not there! :sumo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
catch21

catch21

Posted
Posted
Let me throw this "1st full appearance" on to the fire...

 

Batman #357 - 1st full appearance of Killer Croc? What a crock... :kidaround:

 

 

batman3572.jpg

 

I believe there is more than just that page where he appears. I could be wrong as I don't have any raw copies at the moment.

 

Actually, Jason Todd would be a better example in this issue.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
catch21

catch21

Posted
Posted (edited)
The problem is that since there was never any established guidelines in place as to what is required to constitute a 1st full appearance as opposed to a cameo, there is always going to be inconstancies across different issues that for one reason or another, the market has determined that in one instance its a 1st appearance but in another similar instance, its a cameo.

 

My suggestion would be for Overstreet to publish a set criteria for what is required for a 1st full appearance. It would have to be applied, however, as of a certain date and then all issues would follow this criteria going forward. It probably would be far too difficult for it to be applied retroactively for the any books older than copper. ( the market would never accept 180 as the true 1st Wolverine regardless of what Overstreet states). All books published prior to this designated date ( for example 1990), the market could dictate what the 1st appearance is- as it has always done.

 

I would suggest the following as the criteria needed for a 1st full appearance

 

1) at least one panel where the character has a majority of his/her body shown. No shadows, arms, face shots, etc... Web 19 and CAP 359 violate this rule

2) Covers count, as do previews contained in a different issue, but ads do not count. The appearance has to be a self contained story or related to the story- i.e. cover to the story. ex)Omega men 3 and X-men 282

3)The character name must be established at the time of the appearance- either by character, other characters, or writer- .i.e.-AMS 299- states Venom in block text at bottom of page. Strange tales 180 would not count as Gamora's name is not revealed until next issue.

4)Costume appearances are different than non-costume. There is distinction. Norman Osborn 1st appearance is not the same as Green Goblin. They are 2 diff characters. Same with Cable and baby Nathan- i.e NM 87 and x-men 201.

5) Group appearances- whole team must be present in same panel not just in story shown in separate actions- prior rules 1-4 apply as well. Ex.- AF is X-men 121 and GOG is gog 1 2007 series.

 

The goal is to be able to identify the character(s) without ever needing another source to aid in identifying the character. It should be

apparent from this appearance and this appearance alone. The only exception that I can think of is G.I. Joe 21. since it is a silent issue, rule 3 never comes into play.

 

Thoughts?

 

For 4, I like how CGC does it. If the character appears first without costume, it's first appearance of the character's real name. Then if the character appears in costume, it's first appearance of character's real name as (superhero).

 

However, if the costume appears first without revealing the identity it's 1st Superhero. Then if the character appears without the costume it's 1st real name.

 

Market-wise in most cases, it's whichever is printed 1st is worth the most money.

Edited by catch21
Link to comment
Share on other sites
white_rushin

white_rushin

Posted
Posted

 

For 4, I like how CGC does it. If the character appears first without costume, it's first appearance of the character's real name. Then if the character appears in costume, it's first appearance of character's real name as (superhero).

 

However, if the costume appears first without revealing the identity it's 1st Superhero. Then if the character appears without the costume it's 1st real name.

 

Market-wise in most cases, it's whichever is printed 1st is worth the most money.

 

Except War Machine, Ant Man, Venom, and even Cable all appeared in costume 2nd and those are the money books right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
38 38
Go to topic listing