• 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

RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Since you quoted me, and said "you", I naturally assumed you were, in fact, just talking to me. My mistake.

 

Are you disagreeing that the argument against mine is that the appearance has to be meaningful?

 

You'll have to clarify that. It's a bit convoluted at the moment.

 

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.

 

Who is "Walking Dead", and why should anyone care about his/her/their first appearance...?

 

hm

 

(For those wondering, yes, that's gentle sarcasm to make my point. How can the first appearance of a CONCEPT, a TITLE. be considered in the same vein as a "flesh and blood" character?)

 

Again: if the material is just a preview of material that is ultimately intended for its own book (that is, it's not original material in where it appears), then it's not an appearance at all. It's just the first few pages of #1.

 

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.

 

No, I'm arguing for the same reason you are arguing: because I don't agree with your position. Despite the endless accusations to the contrary, I do not "argue just to argue." What a colossal heaping pile of wasted time that is. I'm not that stupid, thanks.

 

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.

 

"Above" doesn't answer the question.

 

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

 

This is what you don't seem to understand, so let me spell it out as plainly as I can: I don't care about the argument of "cameo" vs. "brief appearance" vs. "full appearance." It is interesting, but ultimately, I don't care.

 

Did the character appear within the context of a story? Yes/no? That's all I care about in the context of THIS discussion.

 

Can we please, then, drop that aspect of it in response to me?

 

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.

 

The standard is: "Does the character appear within the context of a story or not? That's it. It was created by the market over time. It is defined in the market, by common usage.

 

I'm not sure how that last sentence isn't a non-sequitor. But no, I have zero Hulk #181s in my possession currently.

 

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.

 

In other words, if we chuck history and tradition, along with creator/publisher intent, and just capitulate to your opinion, everything will be fine. Why didn't I think of that? It's so obvious!

 

:D

 

 

 

 

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:

 

You're calling an issue of PREVIEWS...something no one has ever, in the entire history of the comics industry...has EVER recognized as ANY character's "first appearance." Previews is a RETAILER catalog, to entice retailers to order product.

 

It's CALLED "PREVIEWS."

 

The fact that we even HAVE this conversation just astonishes me. Just absolutely astonishes me. It is madness. You're trying to classify "ordering material", material designed to get retailers to order the first appearance, itself as the actual "first appearance."

 

Complete. Madness.

 

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.

 

Yes, everyone, throw out your comic books! You've all been duped! They're not real! It's always been Previews, and all the other distributor magazines that predated it!

 

Fools, all of you!

 

:insane:

 

(On another note, your format was very difficult to fix.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

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.

 

:idea:

 

I know!

 

Let's look at the US Copyright info!

 

Sadly, #11 isn't recorded...

 

But #10 is!

 

v. 1, no. 10, Dec90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-12-11; Reg. 1990-12-31; TX0002976891

 

And here's Marvel Age #96 and #97:

 

v. 1, no. 96, Jan91. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-11-20; Reg. 1990-12-26; TX0002966375

v. 1, no. 97, Feb91. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-12-25; Reg. 1991-03-05; TX0003025123

 

Since Marvel Requirer was ALSO a monthly title, it follows that.....drumroll please....

 

#11 came out AFTER Marvel Age #97!

 

:acclaim:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fastballspecial

fastballspecial

Posted
  • Author
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.

 

 

+2

 

That's entirely what several want.

 

Just re-title it. "Tell me what Coppers are hot so I don't have to look".

 

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.

 

:idea:

 

I know!

 

Let's look at the US Copyright info!

 

Sadly, #11 isn't recorded...

 

But #10 is!

 

v. 1, no. 10, Dec90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-12-11; Reg. 1990-12-31; TX0002976891

 

And here's Marvel Age #96 and #97:

 

v. 1, no. 96, Jan91. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-11-20; Reg. 1990-12-26; TX0002966375

v. 1, no. 97, Feb91. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-12-25; Reg. 1991-03-05; TX0003025123

 

Since Marvel Requirer was ALSO a monthly title, it follows that.....drumroll please....

 

#11 came out AFTER Marvel Age #97!

 

:acclaim:

 

 

Thank you for doing that research. Case closed.

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.

 

Since you quoted me, and said "you", I naturally assumed you were, in fact, just talking to me. My mistake.

 

Are you disagreeing that the argument against mine is that the appearance has to be meaningful?

 

You'll have to clarify that. It's a bit convoluted at the moment.

 

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.

 

Who is "Walking Dead", and why should anyone care about his/her/their first appearance...?

 

hm

 

(For those wondering, yes, that's gentle sarcasm to make my point. How can the first appearance of a CONCEPT, a TITLE. be considered in the same vein as a "flesh and blood" character?)

 

Again: if the material is just a preview of material that is ultimately intended for its own book (that is, it's not original material in where it appears), then it's not an appearance at all. It's just the first few pages of #1.

 

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.

 

No, I'm arguing for the same reason you are arguing: because I don't agree with your position. Despite the endless accusations to the contrary, I do not "argue just to argue." What a colossal heaping pile of wasted time that is. I'm not that stupid, thanks.

 

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.

 

"Above" doesn't answer the question.

 

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

 

This is what you don't seem to understand, so let me spell it out as plainly as I can: I don't care about the argument of "cameo" vs. "brief appearance" vs. "full appearance." It is interesting, but ultimately, I don't care.

 

Did the character appear within the context of a story? Yes/no? That's all I care about in the context of THIS discussion.

 

Can we please, then, drop that aspect of it in response to me?

 

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.

 

The standard is: "Does the character appear within the context of a story or not? That's it. It was created by the market over time. It is defined in the market, by common usage.

 

I'm not sure how that last sentence isn't a non-sequitor. But no, I have zero Hulk #181s in my possession currently.

 

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.

 

In other words, if we chuck history and tradition, along with creator/publisher intent, and just capitulate to your opinion, everything will be fine. Why didn't I think of that? It's so obvious!

 

:D

 

 

 

 

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:

 

You're calling an issue of PREVIEWS...something no one has ever, in the entire history of the comics industry...has EVER recognized as ANY character's "first appearance." Previews is a RETAILER catalog, to entice retailers to order product.

 

It's CALLED "PREVIEWS."

 

The fact that we even HAVE this conversation just astonishes me. Just absolutely astonishes me. It is madness. You're trying to classify "ordering material", material designed to get retailers to order the first appearance, itself as the actual "first appearance."

 

Complete. Madness.

 

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.

 

Yes, everyone, throw out your comic books! You've all been duped! They're not real! It's always been Previews, and all the other distributor magazines that predated it!

 

Fools, all of you!

 

:insane:

 

(On another note, your format was very difficult to fix.)

 

 

"Did the character appear within the context of a story? Yes/no? ."

 

Here are the only things you said worth responding to. The character does not need to appear in the context of a story to be a first appearance. Go back and read those Overstreet definitions I posted. They make sense. I'll say it one last time, a first appearance in no way requires an appearance within a story. You and others may prefer the placement of a character within a story. You may even put a higher value on those issues but in terms of determining a first appearance it is not necessary.

 

And yes my format was meant to make you work. If on occasion I have to respond to your ramblings I might as well make you labor.

 

Oh and just for fun what do you consider the first appearance of Darksied? You danced around it but ya didn't answer. (tsk)

 

 

Edited by MrWeen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrWeen

MrWeen

Posted
Posted (edited)
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.

 

:idea:

 

I know!

 

Let's look at the US Copyright info!

 

Sadly, #11 isn't recorded...

 

But #10 is!

 

v. 1, no. 10, Dec90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-12-11; Reg. 1990-12-31; TX0002976891

 

And here's Marvel Age #96 and #97:

 

v. 1, no. 96, Jan91. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-11-20; Reg. 1990-12-26; TX0002966375

v. 1, no. 97, Feb91. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-12-25; Reg. 1991-03-05; TX0003025123

 

Since Marvel Requirer was ALSO a monthly title, it follows that.....drumroll please....

 

#11 came out AFTER Marvel Age #97!

 

:acclaim:

 

 

Thank you for doing that research. Case closed.

 

Hey I stand corrected, Requirer 11 is the second appearance of Darkhawk and the second cover.

 

I did not know that Marvel Age 97 was on the shelves in December of 1990?

Edited by MrWeen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted

 

 

"Did the character appear within the context of a story? Yes/no? ."

 

Here are the only things you said worth responding to.

 

lol

 

And people think *I'm* condescending.

 

:cloud9:

 

The character does not need to appear in the context of a story to be a first appearance. Go back and read those Overstreet definitions I posted. They make sense. I'll say it one last time, a first appearance in no way requires an appearance within a story. You and others may prefer the placement of a character within a story. You may even put a higher value on those issues but in terms of a first appearance it is not necessary.

 

And, as I have said for the 10,000th time, you are misinterpreting the "Overstreet definitions", and trying to change long established conventions regarding these definitions. The OPG is a comic book price guide; it therefore follows that the definitions apply to comic books, not trade magazines, not previews, not promotional material.

 

"A first appearance in no way requires an appearance within a story" - yes, it does, because these are comic books, which are sequential art....stories told in words and pictures. They are not photographs, posters, album sleeves, novels, paperback books, baseball cards, manuals, or anything else that ALSO comes in printed form.

 

If it doesn't occur within a story...it's not an appearance. This isn't "preference", this is the way it has been since before I was alive, and the way it *should* be, because these are comic books.

 

And yes my format was meant to make you work. If on occasion I have to respond to your ramblings I might as well make you labor.

 

Well, that's rather petulant and contemptuous of you, isn't it? I did the work for YOUR benefit, and those reading it, to make it easier to read, and you posted that way out of spite? Now that I know that, I will refrain from engaging you further. I have no time for people who do not value it, and treat it with contempt. If you think it's acceptable to waste people's time out of petulance, you will quickly find no one here to talk to except those who don't know any better. Problem solved.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrWeen

MrWeen

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

"Did the character appear within the context of a story? Yes/no? ."

 

Here are the only things you said worth responding to.

 

lol

 

And people think *I'm* condescending.

 

:cloud9:

 

The character does not need to appear in the context of a story to be a first appearance. Go back and read those Overstreet definitions I posted. They make sense. I'll say it one last time, a first appearance in no way requires an appearance within a story. You and others may prefer the placement of a character within a story. You may even put a higher value on those issues but in terms of a first appearance it is not necessary.

 

And, as I have said for the 10,000th time, you are misinterpreting the "Overstreet definitions", and trying to change long established conventions regarding these definitions. The OPG is a comic book price guide; it therefore follows that the definitions apply to comic books, not trade magazines, not previews, not promotional material.

 

"A first appearance in no way requires an appearance within a story" - yes, it does, because these are comic books, which are sequential art....stories told in words and pictures. They are not photographs, posters, album sleeves, novels, paperback books, baseball cards, manuals, or anything else that ALSO comes in printed form.

 

If it doesn't occur within a story...it's not an appearance. This isn't "preference", this is the way it has been since before I was alive, and the way it *should* be, because these are comic books.

 

And yes my format was meant to make you work. If on occasion I have to respond to your ramblings I might as well make you labor.

 

Well, that's rather petulant and contemptuous of you, isn't it? I did the work for YOUR benefit, and those reading it, to make it easier to read, and you posted that way out of spite? Now that I know that, I will refrain from engaging you further. I have no time for people who do not value it, and treat it with contempt. If you think it's acceptable to waste people's time out of petulance, you will quickly find no one here to talk to except those who don't know any better. Problem solved.

and the first appearance of Darkseid is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HighStakesComics

HighStakesComics

Posted
Posted
Anyone watching the Titans related books after the TNT announcement yesterday?

Wondering which ones are popping.

 

Showcase 75 has been mentioned sporadically after the announcement of Hawk and Dove's inclusion within the lineup. Might want to check the SA forum for more details. The book came out in '68.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HighStakesComics

HighStakesComics

Posted
Posted

 

 

"Did the character appear within the context of a story? Yes/no? ."

 

Here are the only things you said worth responding to.

 

lol

 

And people think *I'm* condescending.

 

:cloud9:

 

The character does not need to appear in the context of a story to be a first appearance. Go back and read those Overstreet definitions I posted. They make sense. I'll say it one last time, a first appearance in no way requires an appearance within a story. You and others may prefer the placement of a character within a story. You may even put a higher value on those issues but in terms of a first appearance it is not necessary.

 

And, as I have said for the 10,000th time, you are misinterpreting the "Overstreet definitions", and trying to change long established conventions regarding these definitions. The OPG is a comic book price guide; it therefore follows that the definitions apply to comic books, not trade magazines, not previews, not promotional material.

 

"A first appearance in no way requires an appearance within a story" - yes, it does, because these are comic books, which are sequential art....stories told in words and pictures. They are not photographs, posters, album sleeves, novels, paperback books, baseball cards, manuals, or anything else that ALSO comes in printed form.

 

If it doesn't occur within a story...it's not an appearance. This isn't "preference", this is the way it has been since before I was alive, and the way it *should* be, because these are comic books.

 

And yes my format was meant to make you work. If on occasion I have to respond to your ramblings I might as well make you labor.

 

Well, that's rather petulant and contemptuous of you, isn't it? I did the work for YOUR benefit, and those reading it, to make it easier to read, and you posted that way out of spite? Now that I know that, I will refrain from engaging you further. I have no time for people who do not value it, and treat it with contempt. If you think it's acceptable to waste people's time out of petulance, you will quickly find no one here to talk to except those who don't know any better. Problem solved.

and the first appearance of Darkseid is?

 

Some may prefer the JO 134 cameo though.

152750.jpg.e52750e3049a962723f284951c2e6b2a.jpg

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