• 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,

18,856 posts in this topic

darkstar

darkstar

Posted
Posted
Can we please start a different Copper discussion thread and leave this one strictly to it's current heading. It's excellent topics and conversation guys but it should not be here. Thanks

 

The heating up threads in the various age subforums act as defacto general discussion threads in said subforums. As part of the tradeoff with all of the information posted here in regards to money-making opportunities one has to put up with the discussion going off the rails from time to time.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrWeen

MrWeen

Posted
Posted (edited)

Ok RMA, today I'll play.

 

 

 

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.

I wasn't just talking to you. Are you disagreeing that the argument against mine is that the appearance has to be meaningful? If so you need to go back and read a lot of posts about this. All I hear is that there has to be a story. Agents 6 can't be the Walking Dead's first appearance cause there's no complete story, blah, blah, blah.

 

 

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?

 

You seem smart. You must realize that many here elsewhere do not see it that way. I could site many arguments but you already know this and are arguing just to argue.

 

 

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.

See above.

 

Here's a question for you. What is Darksied's first appearance?

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.

 

 

So what's the standard and who created it. Where is it defined. You are probably sitting on a stack of Hulk 181's.

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.

I agree that this is probably unattainable and it is why I suggest the first time we see it in print is then the first published appearance. If we do that then there's no need to discuss and we can go back to waiting for comics like Major Bummer to get optioned.

 

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 ;)

 

:facepalm:

 

He's on the cover and a full color preview of issue 1 is inside. If it's not a first appearance to you ok :screwy:

 

but it's still valuable to any true Invincible fan just like the appearances in Brit, Savage Dragon, Future Shock, Tech Jacket, Master of the Universe and others.

Edited by MrWeen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
500Club

500Club

Posted
Posted
Can we please start a different Copper discussion thread and leave this one strictly to it's current heading. It's excellent topics and conversation guys but it should not be here. Thanks

No.

 

But thanks for asking.

 

Or, better yet, why don't YOU step up and contribute what you feel is appropriate.

 

I just did. COPPER COMICS THAT ARE HEATING UP ON EBAY. Maybe the thread heading isn't clear enough for you.

You contributed nothing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aweandlorder

Aweandlorder

Posted
Posted
Can we please start a different Copper discussion thread and leave this one strictly to it's current heading. It's excellent topics and conversation guys but it should not be here. Thanks

No.

 

But thanks for asking.

 

Or, better yet, why don't YOU step up and contribute what you feel is appropriate.

 

I just did. COPPER COMICS THAT ARE HEATING UP ON EBAY. Maybe the thread heading isn't clear enough for you.

 

tumblr_lu9t1oL9xL1qgyu1m.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slym2none

slym2none

Posted
Posted
Not sure if this is beating a dead horse or adding to the discussion...

 

How long were Annuals supposed to remain on sale?

 

Is it possible it was still a "current issue" as far as the publisher's recommended "pull date" even after X-Men #267?

 

At my newsstand, we had a three-month return window on monthly magazines & comic books.

 

hm

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Plantman

Plantman

Posted
Posted
Marvel Requirer 11 is the first appearance and cover for Darkhawk... [edited]

 

Based on the "Coming Attractions" feature in Marvel Age #94, I strongly suspect that you are wrong about the release dates. Marvel Requirer #9 was scheduled to ship a week later than Marvel Age #95. It would follow that Marvel Requirer #11 went on sale a week later than Marvel Age #97.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slym2none

slym2none

Posted
Posted

My best guess is that Marvel hashed out a rough plan for releases 6-12 months ahead, with the releases in proper order. Given the way he was scattergunning concepts and subplots at the time, Claremont probably got sidetracked on a storyline, and ended up having Gambit appear in UXM 2-3 months later than the original blueprint.

 

And there's no need to assume there's some sort of "messup" involved. I feel this needs to be said again: creators don't care about the aftermarket.

 

Their only concern is "is this a good story, yes/no, and will it sell copies, yes/no?"

 

I doubt the scheduling of Gambit's appearances even entered Claremont's...or anyone's...mind. He and the Simonsons plotted out DOFP, included Gambit because the story takes place after the story in 265-267, and that was that.

 

No error, no screwup. Nothing "came out too early", there was no "mixup at the distributor", etc. This isn't the first time such an "out of chronology" story has happened...in fact, it happened all the time ("The events in this story take place BEFORE/AFTER thus and such")...it just happened that THIS time involved the debut of one of the more popular characters created in the time period.

 

I have to wonder why we were told to pull them off the shelves, then.

 

hm

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrWeen

MrWeen

Posted
Posted
Marvel Requirer 11 is the first appearance and cover for Darkhawk... [edited]

 

Based on the "Coming Attractions" feature in Marvel Age #94, I strongly suspect that you are wrong about the release dates. Marvel Requirer #9 was scheduled to ship a week later than Marvel Age #95. It would follow that Marvel Requirer #11 went on sale a week later than Marvel Age #97.

 

Requierer 11 has a release date of Jan 91, a month earlier than Marvel Age 97 but you could be correct although the costume on the cover of Requirerer 11 looks a bit different that the one Marvel stuck with. And yes I know that doesn't mean anything.

 

For Deadpool fans I found the issue of Requierer that discusses NM 98 but there is no cover image so NM 98 is still Deadpool's first (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
500Club

500Club

Posted
Posted

My best guess is that Marvel hashed out a rough plan for releases 6-12 months ahead, with the releases in proper order. Given the way he was scattergunning concepts and subplots at the time, Claremont probably got sidetracked on a storyline, and ended up having Gambit appear in UXM 2-3 months later than the original blueprint.

 

And there's no need to assume there's some sort of "messup" involved. I feel this needs to be said again: creators don't care about the aftermarket.

 

Their only concern is "is this a good story, yes/no, and will it sell copies, yes/no?"

 

I doubt the scheduling of Gambit's appearances even entered Claremont's...or anyone's...mind. He and the Simonsons plotted out DOFP, included Gambit because the story takes place after the story in 265-267, and that was that.

 

No error, no screwup. Nothing "came out too early", there was no "mixup at the distributor", etc. This isn't the first time such an "out of chronology" story has happened...in fact, it happened all the time ("The events in this story take place BEFORE/AFTER thus and such")...it just happened that THIS time involved the debut of one of the more popular characters created in the time period.

 

I have to wonder why we were told to pull them off the shelves, then.

Were you told anything more? Because that IS odd. It's very tough for these books to end up shipping early by mistake, because the print and distribution schedule is pretty tight. That's doubly true for this book, which was part of a sequential story across the Annuals of several titles. I don't recall anything at the time about the parts of DoFP shipping out of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
Can we please start a different Copper discussion thread and leave this one strictly to it's current heading. It's excellent topics and conversation guys but it should not be here. Thanks

No.

 

But thanks for asking.

 

Or, better yet, why don't YOU step up and contribute what you feel is appropriate.

 

+1

 

If people want this to be a "hey, everyone, this book is selling well, go out and look for it cheap so you can make money!!" thread, while doing no contributing yourself, you're going to be very disappointed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted

 

Dude, I tried to be nice, even reverential, recognizing your brilliance and expertise in this subject matter, but you've devoted like 50 pages to this particular topic (Gambit's first appearance). You won, ok. You won like 40 posts ago. Your arguments were persuasive, well reasoned, well researched and correct. You are on the side of truth, justice and the american way!

 

In the words of some Disney princess, "Let it go, let it go, let it go..." (can't remember the rest of the song). I can't even remember who you are arguing with (I am certain it was not me!), I can only remember your name. Aren't you bored with this topic? Yes, I know it is your right to muse endlessly on the same topic and putting anyone who disagrees with you (aka "is wrong") in their place, I'm all for the First Amendment, but there is so much more you probably know that I would like to be privy to. Plus, it is getting in the way of me freeloading information from other folks here about which copper age books are hot in the event I ever sell or buy comics again, which is pretty likely as I just bought some on Friday.

 

And yes, it's not fair to single you out, but frankly i tend to read your posts because you quote what you are responding to and it's just easier, so I really do lose track of the names of other people involved.

 

 

Why are you making a public issue of this?

 

 

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