Copper's Heating/Selling Well on Ebay 33 33

[Bosco685]

Here's the distinction I see:

 

Prove it!

 

-or-

 

Your evidence, please.

 

See, plain as day!

 

That has been the story for years, most probably because the market saw it as odd to have a book with mid-stream story content being the 1st appearance of a character when:

 

1) Footnotes reference UXM 265-267, as if already published.

2) Remy and Ororo have discussions about their experiences in UXM 266.

 

That's what throws the market off. But X-Men Annual 14 did hit the market first. Someone may want to check with Marvel though, because its stance is also UXM 266.

 

Marvel.com - Gambit

 

First Appearance

(as Gambit) Uncanny X-Men #266 (1990), (as Death) X-Men #184 (2006)

 

Origin

Gambit #1 (1999); X-Men #8 (1992)

[Jeffro.]

I DO NOT EXPECT THE HOBBY TO CATER TO MY INTERPRETATIONS. I expect the hobby to correct itself and for all the great minds ( you included! ) who spend so much time arguing to come together and eliminate the gray areas concerning the definition of a first appearance.

So you don't expect your... unique interpretations to be catered to, you just expect the hobby to "correct" itself to conform to your interpretations?

 

Spot on. Highly contradictory.

 

Keep chasing down those "1st apps" Ween. The hobby will likely never subscribe to your definition.

[MrWeen]

If Gambit had been on the cover, even in the background, it would be no question.

 

But he's definitely there, in the story, multiple panels.

 

Add X-Factor 24 to this list.

 

seriously, just read x factor 23 again last night, and archangel is in more than one panel, he does stuff, and he talks. You see most if not all of his body. I think it the most aggressive use of the "If the 1st app has him on one page only and the second app has him in the story and the cover then its the real 1st appearance rule."

Yeah, that's another example of a pretty significant 'cameo'.

 

How is his appearance in 23 a cameo based on what the board member describes about the issue?

 

I thought I'd laid the sarcasm on pretty thick...

 

It looks pretty damn close to a full appearance to me.

 

I like it super thick.

[MrWeen]

 

While I appreciate the time you take to respond I have much to much sour diesel to smoke gardening to do to reply to all your thought out, albeit erroneous responses. I will say this though:

 

I DO NOT EXPECT THE HOBBY TO CATER TO MY INTERPRETATIONS. I expect the hobby to correct itself and for all the great minds ( you included! ) who spend so much time arguing to come together and eliminate the gray areas concerning the definition of a first appearance. Trust me sir, it would benefit both those who collect, those who sell and and all those who enjoy a bit of both. ( ummm yes that's a GOTG film reference. )

 

Already done. You just don't like it. That means you want the hobby to cater to your interpretation. You want the hobby "to correct itself"...to your opinion.

 

For all the reasons I've already given, and other reasons not mentioned, I hope the redefinition of "first appearance" doesn't happen.

 

So then you also believe a first appearance has to happen within a meaningful narrative? Here's a question then, shouldn't Marvel Super Heroes 11 ( 1990 ) be considered the true first appearance of Rogue? It was published after the Avengers Annual 10 only due to the cancellation of Ms. Marvel. It is the chronological first appearance of Rogue.

 

 

Or how about this one:

Nobles Causes 3? It looks like CGC is using the definition of Cameo as it SHOULD be used. Invincible as a character doesn't matter to the story in this issue. If the definition of cameo is what most of you claim it is then why would CGC use both terms, first appearance in a cameo? Let's face it most people do not use the term cameo correctly and according to CGC a cameo is a first appearance when we first see the character in print. No narrative is needed.

 

People who buy comics are being cheated and swindled as many of you guys say but not because they are being tricked into buying issues that preview upcoming comics as firsts or because Spawn is in Malibu Sun 13. They are being cheated because there is no standard. There is too much ambiguity surround what defines one of the most important points for comic collectors.

 

Is it still not time for a universally accepted definition of a first appearance?

 

Oh and just for the record I still believe that Invincible's first appearance is NOT in Noble 3. It's in an issue of Previews

Edited February 3, 2015 by MrWeen

[whetteon]

And to cause more ruckus about Malibu Sun #13 - It appears that there is a new 1st app of Spawn gaining market share here recently, Rust #1 @ $30 & 37 watchers are all believing they found a new cash cow. MOOOooo!

[Broke as a Joke]

And to cause more ruckus about Malibu Sun #13 - It appears that there is a new 1st app of Spawn gaining market share here recently, Rust #1 @ $30 & 37 watchers are all believing they found a new cash cow. MOOOooo!

 

A good example of that growing segment of collectors I was discussing earlier. 37 watchers on a book that nobody should care about...

[MrWeen]

And to cause more ruckus about Malibu Sun #13 - It appears that there is a new 1st app of Spawn gaining market share here recently, Rust #1 @ $30 & 37 watchers are all believing they found a new cash cow. MOOOooo!

 

A good example of that growing segment of collectors I was discussing earlier. 37 watchers on a book that nobody should care about...

 

The auction for this is a bit shady. Why not show the cover of the book?

[THB]

They were trying to keep it secret? It was not hard to figure out.

[MK Ultra]

As people that know me in the real world will attest, I never met a dead horse I didn't enjoy beating.

 

But, hasn't everyone written enough about what their interpretation of a first appearance is?

 

There are some people on here who are persuasive with facts, and well constructed arguments, and yet, other's have their heels dug in as if this was as important as 5x or 10x powdered sugar when baking.

 

It seems to me that nobody is changing their opinion on this, and that to continue to post away just illustrates the steadfastness of those hell bent to bend the malleable to their p.o.v. Problem is, nobody's malleable.

 

 

[HighStakesComics]

As people that know me in the real world will attest, I never met a dead horse I didn't enjoy beating.

 

But, hasn't everyone written enough about what their interpretation of a first appearance is?

 

There are some people on here who are persuasive with facts, and well constructed arguments, and yet, other's have their heels dug in as if this was as important as 5x or 10x powdered sugar when baking.

 

It seems to me that nobody is changing their opinion on this, and that to continue to post away just illustrates the steadfastness of those hell bent to bend the malleable to their p.o.v. Problem is, nobody's malleable.

 

 

You are correct in assuming that most of us are stubborn and minds have already been made up. But don't you think in an era of encapsulated books, the majority of which will never be read that perhaps a more scholarly approach to first appearances is a necessity? For those who are interested in spreading the proverbial gospel thier best ammunition is posting a panel and letting others decide for themselves. If this chat board isn't the proper forum for such topics I'm not sure one exists.

[MK Ultra]

I relish the idea of more information out there, than less. If that's what you're asking.

 

However, I believe everyone has spread their gospel, several times over. If you read one of the recent posts, one of the primary participants basically threw in the towel. Said they'd read all of RMA's posts, admired his passion, and said they weren't going to reply.

 

Finally, something on the topic that I wanted to read!

 

In all seriousness, wouldn't a thread dedicated to arguing over what is and what is not a first appearance make more sense then? Unless you feel that thread would degenerate into a discussion of which copper books are heating up on ebay?

 

 

[HighStakesComics]

Good point, Sir. On that note keep an eye on X-Factor 19.

[revat]

Good point, Sir. On that note keep an eye on X-Factor 19.

 

In my area, I've been able to find plenty of X factor 5, 6, 15, 23, 24. Not always at the best prices (but many at really good prices), but they exist. X Factor 19 all gone all day long, and has been for a while.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And to cause more ruckus about Malibu Sun #13 - It appears that there is a new 1st app of Spawn gaining market share here recently, Rust #1 @ $30 & 37 watchers are all believing they found a new cash cow. MOOOooo!

 

lol

 

That listing is hilarious. Look at the subtitle:

 

"Discovery drastically devalues Malibu Sun 13 - WOW!"

 

 

Yes, it's not enough to hype an ad, but we have to actively speak AGAINST other books!

 

And...here's the real kicker, here....it might not even be accurate.

 

In the early 1990's, things were very, very loosey-goosey. Dates for books NOT distributed via the newsstand had become anachronisms. They no longer served the purpose they once did (that is, to tell newsstand dealers that it was time to take a book OFF sale), and were printed as a matter of tradition, rather than practicality.

 

That doesn't mean that these cover dates serve NO purpose, but they must always, especially during this period, be taken with a grain of salt. Does anyone remember Deathmate Red? The book is cover dated 11/93...but it came out AFTER Deathmate Epilogue, which is dated FOUR MONTHS LATER, 2/94.

 

This is the extreme example, but it is not the only one.

 

Now, does that mean that this book...which is very, very weirdly "hidden" by all these sellers (they don't want people to discover what it is!)...does NOT pre-date Malibu Sun #13? No, not necessarily.

 

This is critical: just because it says "April 1992" does NOT (necessarily) mean it came out "one month before" both MS #13 and Spawn #1.

 

Hucksters and shill-men, PT Barnum is alive and well, and selling on eBay!

 

[MrWeen]

They were trying to keep it secret? It was not hard to figure out.

 

Yes I realize this. It's quite stupid.

[HighStakesComics]

Good point, Sir. On that note keep an eye on X-Factor 19.

 

In my area, I've been able to find plenty of X factor 5, 6, 15, 23, 24. Not always at the best prices (but many at really good prices), but they exist. X Factor 19 all gone all day long, and has been for a while.

 

I just picked up a VF & NM from Chuck a couple days ago You've got to love those stock photos.

 

I checked the census a few days ago and were only 22 X-Factor 19's on it. This might just be because no one cares, or it could be one of those $.25 bin, unbagged books that is a bit tougher to get in ultra HG. Either way, it might be a case where a well timed 9.8 could yield a nice profit with the Age of Apocalypse looming.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The more I read these listings, the more disgusted I get.

 

 

They are BLATANTLY violating eBay policy by NOT listing what the item actually for sale is, or including ACCURATE pictures of it.

 

"Ooo, we don't want anyone to know our little secret!"

 

 

Vomit-worthy. Hucksterism and fraud.

 

Who is to say that Rust #1 is the only Malibu book with this ad? Who is to say ALL the books from this time period don't have this ad?

 

It's blatantly fraudulent, but, unfortunately, you can't report these listings, because stupid, stupid eBay doesn't have an open option for reporting.

 

 

Disgusting. These frauds should be ashamed of themselves.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I reported both of them to eBay, under the generic "search and browse manipulation."

 

What a bunch of frauds.

[the blob]

"Do you have any proof of the "released by the distributors as an accident"?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

OT, What is less adversarial/accusatory sounding, asking for "evidence" or "proof"? Or does it sound the same to the folks here?

 

Just curious.

 

It's only adversarial/accusatory if you're defensive by nature.

 

People ask me for proof and/or evidence of the things I say all the time, and I don't look at it as being (necessarily) adversarial/accusatory, without further contextual evidence.

 

I'm only asking as a lawyer, particularly curious how non-lawyers perceive the language (maybe one day I will need to think this through when doing a closing argument, for example). At first I thought demanding "proof" sounded more adversarial, but then i thought about it and decided I'm not even sure as "proof" does not mean "prove it" necessarily....

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

So then you also believe a first appearance has to happen within a meaningful narrative?

 

No. That has nothing to do with anything I've been talking about.

 

Here's a question then, shouldn't Marvel Super Heroes 11 ( 1990 ) be considered the true first appearance of Rogue? It was published after the Avengers Annual 10 only due to the cancellation of Ms. Marvel. It is the chronological first appearance of Rogue.

 

It seems like we're having completely different conversations. No one is talking about in-story chronology, because in-story chronology doesn't matter.

 

Nobles Causes 3? It looks like CGC is using the definition of Cameo as it SHOULD be used. Invincible as a character doesn't matter to the story in this issue. If the definition of cameo is what most of you claim it is then why would CGC use both terms, first appearance in a cameo?

 

Because it's a first appearance, and it's a cameo?

 

 

Let's face it most people do not use the term cameo correctly and according to CGC a cameo is a first appearance when we first see the character in print. No narrative is needed.

 

According to whose definition? If we go by the traditional comic definition, a cameo is simply a short, small appearance by any character, at any time in their existence. If we go by the film/TV definition, it's a short appearance (usually unannounced) by a well known person. But these are comic books, so we should be using the comic book definition.

 

People who buy comics are being cheated and swindled as many of you guys say but not because they are being tricked into buying issues that preview upcoming comics as firsts or because Spawn is in Malibu Sun 13. They are being cheated because there is no standard. There is too much ambiguity surround what defines one of the most important points for comic collectors.

 

There is "too much ambiguity" precisely because of the attempts by you and others to redefine perfectly workable terms. No one is being "cheated" because there is "no standard." There IS a standard...you simply reject it. Your rejection does not negate its existence.

 

Is it still not time for a universally accepted definition of a first appearance?

 

No, because universal acceptance means that everyone has to accept it. Most people don't accept your definition, and you don't accept theirs. Universal acceptance, defeated.

 

Oh and just for the record I still believe that Invincible's first appearance is NOT in Noble 3. It's in an issue of Previews