• 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.

Copper's Heating/Selling Well on Ebay
33 33

Started by fastballspecial,

18,820 posts in this topic

Mumford's Comics

Mumford's Comics

Posted
Posted
Amazing Spider-Man #361 2nd print - $20 to $25.

Venom #1 Gold - $65 to $100ish book these days.

 

I thougt ASM #361 (2nd print) was hot too, but I just sold 361-363 plus another spider-man in nm for a grand total of $9.99 plus shipping on ebay. Ebay basically sucks.

 

I did sell a Hellblazer #1 NM- for $23.50 though.

 

Just because you list a book it doesn't mean it will sell for the going average. A lot of other things come into play like what else the seller has for sale and multiple bidders (bidding war).

 

Like listing it as an auction maybe?

 

I did list it as an auction. It wasn't a buy it now. I put up 4 spider-man books in a lot that were related to & included Carnage's 1st app(2nd prt) in nm condition that got a total of one bid in 7 days.

 

My Hellblazer #1 NM- in the same time period had a starting bid of $8.88 got 17 bids and a final bid of $23.50.

 

That came off a little sarcastic so let me expand on my thought.

 

Auctions are for only very hot books and books you just plain want to get rid of.

They bring in buyers that are only looking for cheap deals and honestly many don't pay or drag their heels on paying.

 

Even buyer's remorse is much larger with auctions in my experiences. I have pretty much stop doing them because they are too problematic. Id say 90% of my buyer problems over the years have been with auction buys so I just stop doing them and maybe only 2 or 3 times a year now do I have to file a NPB.

 

I cant really point to one main issue, but I can give you a few thoughts. Selling a book at auction and hoping and expecting that a large pool of buyers is waiting for that book on that exact week is a shoot. Does it happen? Sure it does and occasionally on books that are not in demand or high grade, but its not common.

 

Are their sellers that do this and are successful? Sure Zilaf is the first one that comes to mind, but they have long time buyers and have been selling for years.

I am sure someone will come here and tell me they do and it works great for them. More power to them, but it unless you build up a strong clientele that trusts you grading and packing over time its a losing proposition.

 

Seeing a book sells for $30 regularly and thinking Hey I can just list my book at auction and it will pull $30 just wont work. This the mistake many new sellers make.

 

Selling comics is about developing relationships with your buyers over time and they will come back. Screw one of them over and it can cost you literally 100s more.

 

Oh and one more thing. Don't post any of your drama here with your buyer or seller until they transaction is complete. It will blow up in your face. The General thread has one or two a week.

 

I didn't take it as sarcastic at all, I understood your meaning. I have been a seller on eBay since 1998 and have seen a lot of highs & lows during that time. I almost never sell raw because they sell for almost nothing in most cases. My best sales profits have come in buying in bulk from other ebay sellers of CGC/PGX 9.8 lots and believe or not CGC restored books.

 

The few times my items have been in a bidding war were about 15 years ago with a Vengence of Vampirella #1 2nd print (green foil) selling for $33 while having a book value of $8. A Pro Wrestling magazine where the Ultimate Warrior pinned Hulk Hogan in VF- condition sold for $52. I also sold Green Arrow #100 & 101 for $27 back when it was hot, but that was a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
500Club

500Club

Posted
Posted

Personally I'm motivated by the truth not market trends or making a profit. There has to be a separation between the market and what's true.

If more people thought like you, these examples of the 'truth' would be more sought after. They don't, and so they are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimik

kimik

Posted
Posted
I didn't take it as sarcastic at all, I understood your meaning. I have been a seller on eBay since 1998 and have seen a lot of highs & lows during that time. I almost never sell raw because they sell for almost nothing in most cases. My best sales profits have come in buying in bulk from other ebay sellers of CGC/PGX 9.8 lots and believe or not CGC restored books.

 

The few times my items have been in a bidding war were about 15 years ago with a Vengence of Vampirella #1 2nd print (green foil) selling for $33 while having a book value of $8. A Pro Wrestling magazine where the Ultimate Warrior pinned Hulk Hogan in VF- condition sold for $52. I also sold Green Arrow #100 & 101 for $27 back when it was hot, but that was a long time ago.

 

Green Arrow #101 is still going for good coin on eBay......

 

http://www.ebay.com/sch/Comics-/63/i.html?_from=R40&LH_Complete=1&_nkw=green+arrow+101

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted

Personally I'm motivated by the truth not market trends or making a profit.

 

hm

 

That would make you a rather virtuous and unique human being!

 

;)

 

Assuming, of course, that there's a difference between the truth and what the market has decided (market trends.) More on this in a bit.

 

There has to be a separation between the market and what's true. All of your examples are great and illustrate the need for such a separation. Comics like your examples support your belief that the market has decided against cameos or previews as firsts but there will always be comics like More Fun 51 ( your example ), Malibu Sun 13 and Dime Press 4 that show the opposite to be true. The point being, the market cannot be trusted as the authority in matters of historical comic record.

 

I'm not quite sure where to even go with this. Are you seriously suggesting that ads and previews are considered actual first appearances by the market, and that story appearances are (in general) disregarded if the character appeared in an ad or preview first...? (That is, my "belief" vs. what you have stated is "true.")

 

Before we go on, let's correct a misunderstanding: *Cameos* are first appearances if (and this is the crucial point) they appear within the context of a story. That's what a cameo is: a short appearance in a story. If it's a head shot, like the ad in Action #12, it's not a "cameo"...it's an ad.

 

Let's discuss your separation of "the truth" and "market trends." There is no separation. We're not talking about facts, here. We're talking about opinion. And what the market decides where opinion is concerned is true, by definition, precisely because it's opinion and not fact.

 

Fact: Batman's face first appeared in an ad in Action #12 (assuming the book appeared before Tec #27, there's still some debate about that, but that's not relevant here.)

 

Fact: Batman's first appearance in a story is Detective Comics #27.

 

These are facts, and they are indisputable.

 

Opinion: The first actual, real, genuine appearance of Batman is in Detective Comics #27. This is borne out by the values of the books in question. The market decides what the values of the books are (not any one person, or even group of people), and it has resoundingly determined that there's no question: Tec #27 wins, and has won, for 75 years.

 

It is the opinion of the market that Tec #27 is the actual, real, genuine first appearance of Bats, and this is demonstrated by the facts that it is a $1,000,000+ book in top grades, that it gets, and has gotten, all the press as the first appearance, that DC considers it the first appearance (as demonstrated by Detective Comics #526, 627, etc.), while Action #12, if mentioned at all in the context of Bats, is merely a footnote (this may seem like an intuitively obvious "duh" to many, but it bears explaining for the illustration.)

 

In the entire 75 year history of the Batman, no one has ever made a serious case for Action #12 even being a first appearance, not even a cameo, and the book has no additional value for it having the ad for Batman. It's just a curiosity, and the market has treated it as such.

 

The market is an entity that is composed of all the people who participate in it. In that respect, it cannot be controlled, except at the fringes, and though it can be manipulated and influenced, it is ultimately the market which determines what is, and what is not, in terms of how things are classified within that market.

 

And while there may be a premium for Malibu Sun #13 over Malibu Sun #12 or #14, the market does not call it "the first appearance of Spawn." I understand that it's not very sexy these days to have a character first appear in his or her own first issue, but the fact remains that Spawn #1 is the first appearance of Spawn, and not Malibu Sun #13 or Previews, or any of the other advertising that was done before Spawn #1 came out.

 

Even less with Dime Press #4, because it's not an English language book. Because of the odd appearance circumstances surrounding Hellboy, the argument can be made, but this is not an example of "the opposite being true." It's an exception that makes the rule.

 

The point, then, is that what the market decides is true is what is true, in the realm of opinion. This has always been true, and always will be true, by nature. While there will always be outliers and quirks that seem to shake things up, the truth is, Walking Dead #1 is considered the first appearance of Kirkman's the Walking Dead (and Rick Grimes, etc.), and not Agents #6, Capes #1, Previews, et al...because the value is concentrated on Walking Dead #1. A Walking Dead #1 in CGC 9.8 is worth $2,000 or so, with 680 9.8 copies of various flavors on the census, while Agents #6 (which likely has a lower print run than WD #1) is worth in the realm of $250-$300, with only 20 9.8s on the census.

 

Could there be a time that ads and previews take precedence over story apperances? Of course! That's why I said "and I hope it always will" at the end of my last post...because it CAN change, and what would be true if that were the case is that the market has decided that ads and previews are more important...and Capes #1, Agents #6, and even Previews (Diamond's catalog) will be worth more than Walking Dead #1, assuming all other conditions are equal (grade, extant copies, etc.)

 

That time has not arrived....yet....and again...I hope it never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrWeen

MrWeen

Posted
Posted

Personally I'm motivated by the truth not market trends or making a profit.

 

hm

 

That would make you a rather virtuous and unique human being!

 

;)

 

Assuming, of course, that there's a difference between the truth and what the market has decided (market trends.) More on this in a bit.

 

There has to be a separation between the market and what's true. All of your examples are great and illustrate the need for such a separation. Comics like your examples support your belief that the market has decided against cameos or previews as firsts but there will always be comics like More Fun 51 ( your example ), Malibu Sun 13 and Dime Press 4 that show the opposite to be true. The point being, the market cannot be trusted as the authority in matters of historical comic record.

 

I'm not quite sure where to even go with this. Are you seriously suggesting that ads and previews are considered actual first appearances by the market, and that story appearances are (in general) disregarded if the character appeared in an ad or preview first...? (That is, my "belief" vs. what you have stated is "true.")

 

Before we go on, let's correct a misunderstanding: *Cameos* are first appearances if (and this is the crucial point) they appear within the context of a story. That's what a cameo is: a short appearance in a story. If it's a head shot, like the ad in Action #12, it's not a "cameo"...it's an ad.

 

Let's discuss your separation of "the truth" and "market trends." There is no separation. We're not talking about facts, here. We're talking about opinion. And what the market decides where opinion is concerned is true, by definition, precisely because it's opinion and not fact.

 

Fact: Batman's face first appeared in an ad in Action #12 (assuming the book appeared before Tec #27, there's still some debate about that, but that's not relevant here.)

 

Fact: Batman's first appearance in a story is Detective Comics #27.

 

These are facts, and they are indisputable.

 

Opinion: The first actual, real, genuine appearance of Batman is in Detective Comics #27. This is borne out by the values of the books in question. The market decides what the values of the books are (not any one person, or even group of people), and it has resoundingly determined that there's no question: Tec #27 wins, and has won, for 75 years.

 

It is the opinion of the market that Tec #27 is the actual, real, genuine first appearance of Bats, and this is demonstrated by the facts that it is a $1,000,000+ book in top grades, that it gets, and has gotten, all the press as the first appearance, that DC considers it the first appearance (as demonstrated by Detective Comics #526, 627, etc.), while Action #12, if mentioned at all in the context of Bats, is merely a footnote (this may seem like an intuitively obvious "duh" to many, but it bears explaining for the illustration.)

 

In the entire 75 year history of the Batman, no one has ever made a serious case for Action #12 even being a first appearance, not even a cameo, and the book has no additional value for it having the ad for Batman. It's just a curiosity, and the market has treated it as such.

 

The market is an entity that is composed of all the people who participate in it. In that respect, it cannot be controlled, except at the fringes, and though it can be manipulated and influenced, it is ultimately the market which determines what is, and what is not, in terms of how things are classified within that market.

 

And while there may be a premium for Malibu Sun #13 over Malibu Sun #12 or #14, the market does not call it "the first appearance of Spawn." I understand that it's not very sexy these days to have a character first appear in his or her own first issue, but the fact remains that Spawn #1 is the first appearance of Spawn, and not Malibu Sun #13 or Previews, or any of the other advertising that was done before Spawn #1 came out.

 

Even less with Dime Press #4, because it's not an English language book. Because of the odd appearance circumstances surrounding Hellboy, the argument can be made, but this is not an example of "the opposite being true." It's an exception that makes the rule.

 

The point, then, is that what the market decides is true is what is true, in the realm of opinion. This has always been true, and always will be true, by nature. While there will always be outliers and quirks that seem to shake things up, the truth is, Walking Dead #1 is considered the first appearance of Kirkman's the Walking Dead (and Rick Grimes, etc.), and not Agents #6, Capes #1, Previews, et al...because the value is concentrated on Walking Dead #1. A Walking Dead #1 in CGC 9.8 is worth $2,000 or so, with 680 9.8 copies of various flavors on the census, while Agents #6 (which likely has a lower print run than WD #1) is worth in the realm of $250-$300, with only 20 9.8s on the census.

 

Could there be a time that ads and previews take precedence over story apperances? Of course! That's why I said "and I hope it always will" at the end of my last post...because it CAN change, and what would be true if that were the case is that the market has decided that ads and previews are more important...and Capes #1, Agents #6, and even Previews (Diamond's catalog) will be worth more than Walking Dead #1, assuming all other conditions are equal (grade, extant copies, etc.)

 

That time has not arrived....yet....and again...I hope it never will.

 

I cannot even finish reading this and I'm on a toilet in a strip mall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrWeen

MrWeen

Posted
Posted (edited)

Personally I'm motivated by the truth not market trends or making a profit.

 

hm

 

That would make you a rather virtuous and unique human being!

 

;)

 

Assuming, of course, that there's a difference between the truth and what the market has decided (market trends.) More on this in a bit.

 

There has to be a separation between the market and what's true. All of your examples are great and illustrate the need for such a separation. Comics like your examples support your belief that the market has decided against cameos or previews as firsts but there will always be comics like More Fun 51 ( your example ), Malibu Sun 13 and Dime Press 4 that show the opposite to be true. The point being, the market cannot be trusted as the authority in matters of historical comic record.

 

I'm not quite sure where to even go with this. Are you seriously suggesting that ads and previews are considered actual first appearances by the market, and that story appearances are (in general) disregarded if the character appeared in an ad or preview first...? (That is, my "belief" vs. what you have stated is "true.")

 

Before we go on, let's correct a misunderstanding: *Cameos* are first appearances if (and this is the crucial point) they appear within the context of a story. That's what a cameo is: a short appearance in a story. If it's a head shot, like the ad in Action #12, it's not a "cameo"...it's an ad.

 

Let's discuss your separation of "the truth" and "market trends." There is no separation. We're not talking about facts, here. We're talking about opinion. And what the market decides where opinion is concerned is true, by definition, precisely because it's opinion and not fact.

 

Fact: Batman's face first appeared in an ad in Action #12 (assuming the book appeared before Tec #27, there's still some debate about that, but that's not relevant here.)

 

Fact: Batman's first appearance in a story is Detective Comics #27.

 

These are facts, and they are indisputable.

 

Opinion: The first actual, real, genuine appearance of Batman is in Detective Comics #27. This is borne out by the values of the books in question. The market decides what the values of the books are (not any one person, or even group of people), and it has resoundingly determined that there's no question: Tec #27 wins, and has won, for 75 years.

 

It is the opinion of the market that Tec #27 is the actual, real, genuine first appearance of Bats, and this is demonstrated by the facts that it is a $1,000,000+ book in top grades, that it gets, and has gotten, all the press as the first appearance, that DC considers it the first appearance (as demonstrated by Detective Comics #526, 627, etc.), while Action #12, if mentioned at all in the context of Bats, is merely a footnote (this may seem like an intuitively obvious "duh" to many, but it bears explaining for the illustration.)

 

In the entire 75 year history of the Batman, no one has ever made a serious case for Action #12 even being a first appearance, not even a cameo, and the book has no additional value for it having the ad for Batman. It's just a curiosity, and the market has treated it as such.

 

The market is an entity that is composed of all the people who participate in it. In that respect, it cannot be controlled, except at the fringes, and though it can be manipulated and influenced, it is ultimately the market which determines what is, and what is not, in terms of how things are classified within that market.

 

And while there may be a premium for Malibu Sun #13 over Malibu Sun #12 or #14, the market does not call it "the first appearance of Spawn." I understand that it's not very sexy these days to have a character first appear in his or her own first issue, but the fact remains that Spawn #1 is the first appearance of Spawn, and not Malibu Sun #13 or Previews, or any of the other advertising that was done before Spawn #1 came out.

 

Even less with Dime Press #4, because it's not an English language book. Because of the odd appearance circumstances surrounding Hellboy, the argument can be made, but this is not an example of "the opposite being true." It's an exception that makes the rule.

 

The point, then, is that what the market decides is true is what is true, in the realm of opinion. This has always been true, and always will be true, by nature. While there will always be outliers and quirks that seem to shake things up, the truth is, Walking Dead #1 is considered the first appearance of Kirkman's the Walking Dead (and Rick Grimes, etc.), and not Agents #6, Capes #1, Previews, et al...because the value is concentrated on Walking Dead #1. A Walking Dead #1 in CGC 9.8 is worth $2,000 or so, with 680 9.8 copies of various flavors on the census, while Agents #6 (which likely has a lower print run than WD #1) is worth in the realm of $250-$300, with only 20 9.8s on the census.

 

Could there be a time that ads and previews take precedence over story apperances? Of course! That's why I said "and I hope it always will" at the end of my last post...because it CAN change, and what would be true if that were the case is that the market has decided that ads and previews are more important...and Capes #1, Agents #6, and even Previews (Diamond's catalog) will be worth more than Walking Dead #1, assuming all other conditions are equal (grade, extant copies, etc.)

 

That time has not arrived....yet....and again...I hope it never will.

 

Ok it took me a while but....

 

Again I am disregarding market trends for many reasons. Agendas of sellers here and everywhere aside, Ebay and other selling venues cannot be trusted when it comes to documenting comic history because the market is compromised on an every day basis. I can go on Ebay and list Captain America Vol. 5 #6 as The Winter Soldier's first appearance while some other guy lists Issue 1 as his first appearance. Are they both right? If Issue one regularly sells for more is it now considered the first appearance of the Winter Soldier because it routinely sells for more that issue 6? The answer is no. This is one reason why a marketplace with no regulation cannot be used as a barometer for chronicling the history of comics. Even Overstreet, comicvine and others cannot be trusted because they also routinely get it wrong. That leaves me with an argument I make from time time around here-first appearances should be taken literally whether sellers and dealers like it or not. So you are correct with your Batman reference. I don't care if Action 12 sells for a lot less. I don't Care is tec 27 sells for a lot more. But when it comes time to write the history of Batman, Action 12 should be listed as the first appearance and tec 27 as the first appearance of Batman in a storyline. I'm fine with issue 27 being worth more, selling for more and generally thought of as a more coveted collectible but it is still NOT the first appearance of Batman!

 

Thank you for your informed response though. You must be one of the few who have not put me on ignore! :D

Edited by MrWeen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AGGIEZ

AGGIEZ

Posted
Posted

Personally I'm motivated by the truth not market trends or making a profit.

 

hm

 

That would make you a rather virtuous and unique human being!

 

;)

 

Assuming, of course, that there's a difference between the truth and what the market has decided (market trends.) More on this in a bit.

 

There has to be a separation between the market and what's true. All of your examples are great and illustrate the need for such a separation. Comics like your examples support your belief that the market has decided against cameos or previews as firsts but there will always be comics like More Fun 51 ( your example ), Malibu Sun 13 and Dime Press 4 that show the opposite to be true. The point being, the market cannot be trusted as the authority in matters of historical comic record.

 

I'm not quite sure where to even go with this. Are you seriously suggesting that ads and previews are considered actual first appearances by the market, and that story appearances are (in general) disregarded if the character appeared in an ad or preview first...? (That is, my "belief" vs. what you have stated is "true.")

 

Before we go on, let's correct a misunderstanding: *Cameos* are first appearances if (and this is the crucial point) they appear within the context of a story. That's what a cameo is: a short appearance in a story. If it's a head shot, like the ad in Action #12, it's not a "cameo"...it's an ad.

 

Let's discuss your separation of "the truth" and "market trends." There is no separation. We're not talking about facts, here. We're talking about opinion. And what the market decides where opinion is concerned is true, by definition, precisely because it's opinion and not fact.

 

Fact: Batman's face first appeared in an ad in Action #12 (assuming the book appeared before Tec #27, there's still some debate about that, but that's not relevant here.)

 

Fact: Batman's first appearance in a story is Detective Comics #27.

 

These are facts, and they are indisputable.

 

Opinion: The first actual, real, genuine appearance of Batman is in Detective Comics #27. This is borne out by the values of the books in question. The market decides what the values of the books are (not any one person, or even group of people), and it has resoundingly determined that there's no question: Tec #27 wins, and has won, for 75 years.

 

It is the opinion of the market that Tec #27 is the actual, real, genuine first appearance of Bats, and this is demonstrated by the facts that it is a $1,000,000+ book in top grades, that it gets, and has gotten, all the press as the first appearance, that DC considers it the first appearance (as demonstrated by Detective Comics #526, 627, etc.), while Action #12, if mentioned at all in the context of Bats, is merely a footnote (this may seem like an intuitively obvious "duh" to many, but it bears explaining for the illustration.)

 

In the entire 75 year history of the Batman, no one has ever made a serious case for Action #12 even being a first appearance, not even a cameo, and the book has no additional value for it having the ad for Batman. It's just a curiosity, and the market has treated it as such.

 

The market is an entity that is composed of all the people who participate in it. In that respect, it cannot be controlled, except at the fringes, and though it can be manipulated and influenced, it is ultimately the market which determines what is, and what is not, in terms of how things are classified within that market.

 

And while there may be a premium for Malibu Sun #13 over Malibu Sun #12 or #14, the market does not call it "the first appearance of Spawn." I understand that it's not very sexy these days to have a character first appear in his or her own first issue, but the fact remains that Spawn #1 is the first appearance of Spawn, and not Malibu Sun #13 or Previews, or any of the other advertising that was done before Spawn #1 came out.

 

Even less with Dime Press #4, because it's not an English language book. Because of the odd appearance circumstances surrounding Hellboy, the argument can be made, but this is not an example of "the opposite being true." It's an exception that makes the rule.

 

The point, then, is that what the market decides is true is what is true, in the realm of opinion. This has always been true, and always will be true, by nature. While there will always be outliers and quirks that seem to shake things up, the truth is, Walking Dead #1 is considered the first appearance of Kirkman's the Walking Dead (and Rick Grimes, etc.), and not Agents #6, Capes #1, Previews, et al...because the value is concentrated on Walking Dead #1. A Walking Dead #1 in CGC 9.8 is worth $2,000 or so, with 680 9.8 copies of various flavors on the census, while Agents #6 (which likely has a lower print run than WD #1) is worth in the realm of $250-$300, with only 20 9.8s on the census.

 

Could there be a time that ads and previews take precedence over story apperances? Of course! That's why I said "and I hope it always will" at the end of my last post...because it CAN change, and what would be true if that were the case is that the market has decided that ads and previews are more important...and Capes #1, Agents #6, and even Previews (Diamond's catalog) will be worth more than Walking Dead #1, assuming all other conditions are equal (grade, extant copies, etc.)

 

That time has not arrived....yet....and again...I hope it never will.

 

Ok it took me a while but....

 

Again I am disregarding market trends for many reasons. Agendas of sellers here and everywhere aside, Ebay and other selling venues cannot be trusted when it comes to documenting comic history because the market is compromised on an every day basis. I can go on Ebay and list Captain America Vol. 5 #6 as The Winter Soldier's first appearance while some other guy lists Issue 1 as his first appearance. Are they both right? If Issue one regularly sells for more is it now considered the first appearance of the Winter Soldier because it routinely sells for more that issue 6? The answer is no. This is one reason why a marketplace with no regulation cannot be used as a barometer for chronicling the history of comics. Even Overstreet, comicvine and others cannot be trusted because they also routinely get it wrong. That leaves me with an argument I make from time time around here-first appearances should be taken literally whether sellers and dealers like it or not. So you are correct with your Batman reference. I don't care if Action 12 sells for a lot less. I don't Care is tec 27 sells for a lot more. But when it comes time to write the history of Batman, Action 12 should be listed as the first appearance and tec 27 as the first appearance of Batman in a storyline. I'm fine with issue 27 being worth more, selling for more and generally thought of as a more coveted collectible but it is still NOT the first appearance of Batman!

 

Thank you for your informed response though. You must one of the few who have not put me on ignore! :D

 

 

:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
paperheart

paperheart

Posted
Posted

Personally I'm motivated by the truth not market trends or making a profit.

 

hm

 

That would make you a rather virtuous and unique human being!

 

;)

 

Assuming, of course, that there's a difference between the truth and what the market has decided (market trends.) More on this in a bit.

 

There has to be a separation between the market and what's true. All of your examples are great and illustrate the need for such a separation. Comics like your examples support your belief that the market has decided against cameos or previews as firsts but there will always be comics like More Fun 51 ( your example ), Malibu Sun 13 and Dime Press 4 that show the opposite to be true. The point being, the market cannot be trusted as the authority in matters of historical comic record.

 

I'm not quite sure where to even go with this. Are you seriously suggesting that ads and previews are considered actual first appearances by the market, and that story appearances are (in general) disregarded if the character appeared in an ad or preview first...? (That is, my "belief" vs. what you have stated is "true.")

 

Before we go on, let's correct a misunderstanding: *Cameos* are first appearances if (and this is the crucial point) they appear within the context of a story. That's what a cameo is: a short appearance in a story. If it's a head shot, like the ad in Action #12, it's not a "cameo"...it's an ad.

 

Let's discuss your separation of "the truth" and "market trends." There is no separation. We're not talking about facts, here. We're talking about opinion. And what the market decides where opinion is concerned is true, by definition, precisely because it's opinion and not fact.

 

Fact: Batman's face first appeared in an ad in Action #12 (assuming the book appeared before Tec #27, there's still some debate about that, but that's not relevant here.)

 

Fact: Batman's first appearance in a story is Detective Comics #27.

 

These are facts, and they are indisputable.

 

Opinion: The first actual, real, genuine appearance of Batman is in Detective Comics #27. This is borne out by the values of the books in question. The market decides what the values of the books are (not any one person, or even group of people), and it has resoundingly determined that there's no question: Tec #27 wins, and has won, for 75 years.

 

It is the opinion of the market that Tec #27 is the actual, real, genuine first appearance of Bats, and this is demonstrated by the facts that it is a $1,000,000+ book in top grades, that it gets, and has gotten, all the press as the first appearance, that DC considers it the first appearance (as demonstrated by Detective Comics #526, 627, etc.), while Action #12, if mentioned at all in the context of Bats, is merely a footnote (this may seem like an intuitively obvious "duh" to many, but it bears explaining for the illustration.)

 

In the entire 75 year history of the Batman, no one has ever made a serious case for Action #12 even being a first appearance, not even a cameo, and the book has no additional value for it having the ad for Batman. It's just a curiosity, and the market has treated it as such.

 

The market is an entity that is composed of all the people who participate in it. In that respect, it cannot be controlled, except at the fringes, and though it can be manipulated and influenced, it is ultimately the market which determines what is, and what is not, in terms of how things are classified within that market.

 

And while there may be a premium for Malibu Sun #13 over Malibu Sun #12 or #14, the market does not call it "the first appearance of Spawn." I understand that it's not very sexy these days to have a character first appear in his or her own first issue, but the fact remains that Spawn #1 is the first appearance of Spawn, and not Malibu Sun #13 or Previews, or any of the other advertising that was done before Spawn #1 came out.

 

Even less with Dime Press #4, because it's not an English language book. Because of the odd appearance circumstances surrounding Hellboy, the argument can be made, but this is not an example of "the opposite being true." It's an exception that makes the rule.

 

The point, then, is that what the market decides is true is what is true, in the realm of opinion. This has always been true, and always will be true, by nature. While there will always be outliers and quirks that seem to shake things up, the truth is, Walking Dead #1 is considered the first appearance of Kirkman's the Walking Dead (and Rick Grimes, etc.), and not Agents #6, Capes #1, Previews, et al...because the value is concentrated on Walking Dead #1. A Walking Dead #1 in CGC 9.8 is worth $2,000 or so, with 680 9.8 copies of various flavors on the census, while Agents #6 (which likely has a lower print run than WD #1) is worth in the realm of $250-$300, with only 20 9.8s on the census.

 

Could there be a time that ads and previews take precedence over story apperances? Of course! That's why I said "and I hope it always will" at the end of my last post...because it CAN change, and what would be true if that were the case is that the market has decided that ads and previews are more important...and Capes #1, Agents #6, and even Previews (Diamond's catalog) will be worth more than Walking Dead #1, assuming all other conditions are equal (grade, extant copies, etc.)

 

That time has not arrived....yet....and again...I hope it never will.

 

Ok it took me a while but....

 

Again I am disregarding market trends for many reasons. Agendas of sellers here and everywhere aside, Ebay and other selling venues cannot be trusted when it comes to documenting comic history because the market is compromised on an every day basis. I can go on Ebay and list Captain America Vol. 5 #6 as The Winter Soldier's first appearance while some other guy lists Issue 1 as his first appearance. Are they both right? If Issue one regularly sells for more is it now considered the first appearance of the Winter Soldier because it routinely sells for more that issue 6? The answer is no. This is one reason why a marketplace with no regulation cannot be used as a barometer for chronicling the history of comics. Even Overstreet, comicvine and others cannot be trusted because they also routinely get it wrong. That leaves me with an argument I make from time time around here-first appearances should be taken literally whether sellers and dealers like it or not. So you are correct with your Batman reference. I don't care if Action 12 sells for a lot less. I don't Care is tec 27 sells for a lot more. But when it comes time to write the history of Batman, Action 12 should be listed as the first appearance and tec 27 as the first appearance of Batman in a storyline. I'm fine with issue 27 being worth more, selling for more and generally thought of as a more coveted collectible but it is still NOT the first appearance of Batman!

 

Thank you for your informed response though. You must one of the few who have not put me on ignore! :D

 

 

:facepalm:

 

he should consider a career in writing Russian history books

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
33 33
Go to topic listing