Copper's Heating/Selling Well on Ebay 33 33

[MrWeen]

If only there was a Deadpool prototype which preceded Deadpool, you know kinda like Foom #2 for Hulk...

 

 

 

...Wait....

 

I have done more research that you can possibly fathom on this. There is no Deadpool appearance prior to NM 98.

 

"prototype" is the key word.

 

I have also found no "prototype" in any Marvel or other industry publication!

[Broke as a Joke]

NM #86 does not count as a Cable appearance. It's an ad.

I can see UXM #201, but it has never latched on with collectors.

 

Agree with you on 86. It's an ad, not an appearance.

 

201 is only an "appearance" due to retcon. Doesn't count, IMO.

 

86 is a second appearance via ad. 87 is his first cover/appearance in a story. The market has determined 87 to be more valuable for two reasons. 1. This issue has a long history of erroneously being considered his first and it takes a lot of time to change people's perception of what is accurate. 2. It's a sick cover, much like X-Factor 24.

 

I tend to agree with you on 201 but if I can play devil's advocate for a moment...If Marvel retcons the character to advance their own narratives then I wonder why so many of us don't see things like ASM 4 ( first Alias ) and Marvel GN 17 ( first Apocalypse ) as first appearances. What is is about the retcon that turns collectors off? The market seems a bit more receptive to a book like the MGN 17 as of late so maybe time are a changin'.

 

I have no problem with the 201 "retcon" as you are talking a period of 4 years. Seems perfectly reasonable for a story to have played out within that amount of time. Now some of these retcon scenarios that take place 10 - 20 years after I would see as just lazy storytelling.

[FormerReader]

These Cable prices will come back down after this initial sell through, but it will be interesting to see where they level out at.

 

Yep. I would hate to be the buyer who is paying $600+ for a 9.8.

Edited February 19, 2016 by FormerReader

[ygogolak]

If only there was a Deadpool prototype which preceded Deadpool, you know kinda like Foom #2 for Hulk...

 

...Wait....

 

I have done more research that you can possibly fathom on this. There is no Deadpool appearance prior to NM 98.

 

"prototype" is the key word.

 

I have also found no "prototype" in any Marvel or other industry publication!

 

Really, not other industry publication?

[ygogolak]

Seems like the new Daredevil teasers have brought the Punisher limited series back into light. Heck, even the #1 of the first ongoing series is selling.

 

Punisher Sales

 

Punisher #1 Limited Series

[chrisco37]

NM #86 does not count as a Cable appearance. It's an ad.

I can see UXM #201, but it has never latched on with collectors.

 

Agree with you on 86. It's an ad, not an appearance.

 

201 is only an "appearance" due to retcon. Doesn't count, IMO.

 

86 is a second appearance via ad. 87 is his first cover/appearance in a story. The market has determined 87 to be more valuable for two reasons. 1. This issue has a long history of erroneously being considered his first and it takes a lot of time to change people's perception of what is accurate. 2. It's a sick cover, much like X-Factor 24.

 

I tend to agree with you on 201 but if I can play devil's advocate for a moment...If Marvel retcons the character to advance their own narratives then I wonder why so many of us don't see things like ASM 4 ( first Alias ) and Marvel GN 17 ( first Apocalypse ) as first appearances. What is is about the retcon that turns collectors off? The market seems a bit more receptive to a book like the MGN 17 as of late so maybe time are a changin'.

 

I don't think it turns anyone off, just no reason to think that the majority of people are going to change their minds about a book.

 

Here's the timeline (according to Wiki):

 

Xmen 201 - Jan 1986 - 1st App (baby) Nathan Summers

NM 87 - Mar 1990 - "Intro" Cable

Cable 6 - Dec 1993 - Nathan Summers is Cable

 

 

So, for 7+ years, Nathan Summers was Nathan Summers. 3 of those years, Cable was Cable.

 

Then it's "revealed" that Cable is Nathan Summers. Marvel took an existing character (that was 3.5 years old) and made him another character (that almost 8 years old).

 

I was reading NM and Xforce (early on) and I don't ever remember any sort of hints/clues that Cable was Nathan Summers.

 

NM87 has always been the "first appearance". You've got the cover (that even says "Here Comes.....The Man Called Cable"), you've got the full story, etc...

 

It's just a way to turn a relatively "nothing" book into a "semi" key (talking about X201 now) and be able to get more than a buck or two for it. If the time frame were closer (maybe same calendar year?), the argument holds a lot more weight.

 

I don't consider the Web #18 as the first Venom (although some do). I consider it to be ASM300 (298 & 299 are cameos). And there is considerably more "evidence" that Venom may have been in the planning stages in Web 18.

 

[Broke as a Joke]

NM #86 does not count as a Cable appearance. It's an ad.

I can see UXM #201, but it has never latched on with collectors.

 

Agree with you on 86. It's an ad, not an appearance.

 

201 is only an "appearance" due to retcon. Doesn't count, IMO.

 

86 is a second appearance via ad. 87 is his first cover/appearance in a story. The market has determined 87 to be more valuable for two reasons. 1. This issue has a long history of erroneously being considered his first and it takes a lot of time to change people's perception of what is accurate. 2. It's a sick cover, much like X-Factor 24.

 

I tend to agree with you on 201 but if I can play devil's advocate for a moment...If Marvel retcons the character to advance their own narratives then I wonder why so many of us don't see things like ASM 4 ( first Alias ) and Marvel GN 17 ( first Apocalypse ) as first appearances. What is is about the retcon that turns collectors off? The market seems a bit more receptive to a book like the MGN 17 as of late so maybe time are a changin'.

 

I don't think it turns anyone off, just no reason to think that the majority of people are going to change their minds about a book.

 

Here's the timeline (according to Wiki):

 

Xmen 201 - Jan 1986 - 1st App (baby) Nathan Summers

NM 87 - Mar 1990 - "Intro" Cable

Cable 6 - Dec 1993 - Nathan Summers is Cable

 

 

So, for 7+ years, Nathan Summers was Nathan Summers. 3 of those years, Cable was Cable.

 

Then it's "revealed" that Cable is Nathan Summers. Marvel took an existing character (that was 3.5 years old) and made him another character (that almost 8 years old).

 

I was reading NM and Xforce (early on) and I don't ever remember any sort of hints/clues that Cable was Nathan Summers.

 

NM87 has always been the "first appearance". You've got the cover (that even says "Here Comes.....The Man Called Cable"), you've got the full story, etc...

 

It's just a way to turn a relatively "nothing" book into a "semi" key (talking about X201 now) and be able to get more than a buck or two for it. If the time frame were closer (maybe same calendar year?), the argument holds a lot more weight.

 

I don't consider the Web #18 as the first Venom (although some do). I consider it to be ASM300 (298 & 299 are cameos). And there is considerably more "evidence" that Venom may have been in the planning stages in Web 18.

 

Actually X-Factor 68 has baby Nathan sent into the future to become the character we know as Cable today. That was basically a year after Cable made his debut and was penned by Claremont and Jim Lee so they knew the direction they were heading even then. I really don't see 201 as a retcon but more the progression of a character's path.

[LordRahl]

NM #86 does not count as a Cable appearance. It's an ad.

I can see UXM #201, but it has never latched on with collectors.

 

Agree with you on 86. It's an ad, not an appearance.

 

201 is only an "appearance" due to retcon. Doesn't count, IMO.

 

86 is a second appearance via ad. 87 is his first cover/appearance in a story. The market has determined 87 to be more valuable for two reasons. 1. This issue has a long history of erroneously being considered his first and it takes a lot of time to change people's perception of what is accurate. 2. It's a sick cover, much like X-Factor 24.

 

I tend to agree with you on 201 but if I can play devil's advocate for a moment...If Marvel retcons the character to advance their own narratives then I wonder why so many of us don't see things like ASM 4 ( first Alias ) and Marvel GN 17 ( first Apocalypse ) as first appearances. What is is about the retcon that turns collectors off? The market seems a bit more receptive to a book like the MGN 17 as of late so maybe time are a changin'.

 

I don't think it turns anyone off, just no reason to think that the majority of people are going to change their minds about a book.

 

Here's the timeline (according to Wiki):

 

Xmen 201 - Jan 1986 - 1st App (baby) Nathan Summers

NM 87 - Mar 1990 - "Intro" Cable

Cable 6 - Dec 1993 - Nathan Summers is Cable

 

 

So, for 7+ years, Nathan Summers was Nathan Summers. 3 of those years, Cable was Cable.

 

Then it's "revealed" that Cable is Nathan Summers. Marvel took an existing character (that was 3.5 years old) and made him another character (that almost 8 years old).

 

I was reading NM and Xforce (early on) and I don't ever remember any sort of hints/clues that Cable was Nathan Summers.

 

NM87 has always been the "first appearance". You've got the cover (that even says "Here Comes.....The Man Called Cable"), you've got the full story, etc...

 

It's just a way to turn a relatively "nothing" book into a "semi" key (talking about X201 now) and be able to get more than a buck or two for it. If the time frame were closer (maybe same calendar year?), the argument holds a lot more weight.

 

I don't consider the Web #18 as the first Venom (although some do). I consider it to be ASM300 (298 & 299 are cameos). And there is considerably more "evidence" that Venom may have been in the planning stages in Web 18.

 

Actually X-Factor 68 has baby Nathan sent into the future to become the character we know as Cable today. That was basically a year after Cable made his debut and was penned by Claremont and Jim Lee so they knew the direction they were heading even then. I really don't see 201 as a retcon but more the progression of a character's path.

 

Really? You think when Claremont wrote 201, he intended Nathan to become Cable 4+ years later? As Keyshawn Johnson would say "C'mon MAN!!!"

[Broke as a Joke]

NM #86 does not count as a Cable appearance. It's an ad.

I can see UXM #201, but it has never latched on with collectors.

 

Agree with you on 86. It's an ad, not an appearance.

 

201 is only an "appearance" due to retcon. Doesn't count, IMO.

 

86 is a second appearance via ad. 87 is his first cover/appearance in a story. The market has determined 87 to be more valuable for two reasons. 1. This issue has a long history of erroneously being considered his first and it takes a lot of time to change people's perception of what is accurate. 2. It's a sick cover, much like X-Factor 24.

 

I tend to agree with you on 201 but if I can play devil's advocate for a moment...If Marvel retcons the character to advance their own narratives then I wonder why so many of us don't see things like ASM 4 ( first Alias ) and Marvel GN 17 ( first Apocalypse ) as first appearances. What is is about the retcon that turns collectors off? The market seems a bit more receptive to a book like the MGN 17 as of late so maybe time are a changin'.

 

I don't think it turns anyone off, just no reason to think that the majority of people are going to change their minds about a book.

 

Here's the timeline (according to Wiki):

 

Xmen 201 - Jan 1986 - 1st App (baby) Nathan Summers

NM 87 - Mar 1990 - "Intro" Cable

Cable 6 - Dec 1993 - Nathan Summers is Cable

 

 

So, for 7+ years, Nathan Summers was Nathan Summers. 3 of those years, Cable was Cable.

 

Then it's "revealed" that Cable is Nathan Summers. Marvel took an existing character (that was 3.5 years old) and made him another character (that almost 8 years old).

 

I was reading NM and Xforce (early on) and I don't ever remember any sort of hints/clues that Cable was Nathan Summers.

 

NM87 has always been the "first appearance". You've got the cover (that even says "Here Comes.....The Man Called Cable"), you've got the full story, etc...

 

It's just a way to turn a relatively "nothing" book into a "semi" key (talking about X201 now) and be able to get more than a buck or two for it. If the time frame were closer (maybe same calendar year?), the argument holds a lot more weight.

 

I don't consider the Web #18 as the first Venom (although some do). I consider it to be ASM300 (298 & 299 are cameos). And there is considerably more "evidence" that Venom may have been in the planning stages in Web 18.

 

Actually X-Factor 68 has baby Nathan sent into the future to become the character we know as Cable today. That was basically a year after Cable made his debut and was penned by Claremont and Jim Lee so they knew the direction they were heading even then. I really don't see 201 as a retcon but more the progression of a character's path.

 

Really? You think when Claremont wrote 201, he intended Nathan to become Cable 4+ years later? As Keyshawn Johnson would say "C'mon MAN!!!"

 

No, not 201 but X-Factor 68 yes. That was a little over one year after Cable debuted. By that time Claremont had thrown up his hands with the current state of X-Men as it was obvious that Bob Harras, Rob Liefeld and Jim Lee were running the show. The wheels were in motion most likely months after Cable first appeared.

[The Less Blob]

If only there was a Deadpool prototype which preceded Deadpool, you know kinda like Foom #2 for Hulk...

 

 

 

...Wait....

 

I have done more research that you can possibly fathom on this. There is no Deadpool appearance prior to NM 98.

 

"prototype" is the key word.

 

he is making a stroke joke

[The Less Blob]

It's just a way to turn a relatively "nothing" book into a "semi" key (talking about X201 now) and be able to get more than a buck or two for it. If the time frame were closer (maybe same calendar year?), the argument holds a lot more weight.

 

===

 

201 being a book someone might care about has been going on off and on for 20+ years now

[Lazyboy]

NM #86 does not count as a Cable appearance. It's an ad.

I can see UXM #201, but it has never latched on with collectors.

 

Agree with you on 86. It's an ad, not an appearance.

 

201 is only an "appearance" due to retcon. Doesn't count, IMO.

 

86 is a second appearance via ad. 87 is his first cover/appearance in a story. The market has determined 87 to be more valuable for two reasons. 1. This issue has a long history of erroneously being considered his first and it takes a lot of time to change people's perception of what is accurate. 2. It's a sick cover, much like X-Factor 24.

 

I tend to agree with you on 201 but if I can play devil's advocate for a moment...If Marvel retcons the character to advance their own narratives then I wonder why so many of us don't see things like ASM 4 ( first Alias ) and Marvel GN 17 ( first Apocalypse ) as first appearances. What is is about the retcon that turns collectors off? The market seems a bit more receptive to a book like the MGN 17 as of late so maybe time are a changin'.

 

I don't think it turns anyone off, just no reason to think that the majority of people are going to change their minds about a book.

 

Here's the timeline (according to Wiki):

 

Xmen 201 - Jan 1986 - 1st App (baby) Nathan Summers

NM 87 - Mar 1990 - "Intro" Cable

Cable 6 - Dec 1993 - Nathan Summers is Cable

 

 

So, for 7+ years, Nathan Summers was Nathan Summers. 3 of those years, Cable was Cable.

 

Then it's "revealed" that Cable is Nathan Summers. Marvel took an existing character (that was 3.5 years old) and made him another character (that almost 8 years old).

 

I was reading NM and Xforce (early on) and I don't ever remember any sort of hints/clues that Cable was Nathan Summers.

 

NM87 has always been the "first appearance". You've got the cover (that even says "Here Comes.....The Man Called Cable"), you've got the full story, etc...

 

It's just a way to turn a relatively "nothing" book into a "semi" key (talking about X201 now) and be able to get more than a buck or two for it. If the time frame were closer (maybe same calendar year?), the argument holds a lot more weight.

 

I don't consider the Web #18 as the first Venom (although some do). I consider it to be ASM300 (298 & 299 are cameos). And there is considerably more "evidence" that Venom may have been in the planning stages in Web 18.

 

Actually X-Factor 68 has baby Nathan sent into the future to become the character we know as Cable today. That was basically a year after Cable made his debut and was penned by Claremont and Jim Lee so they knew the direction they were heading even then. I really don't see 201 as a retcon but more the progression of a character's path.

 

Really? You think when Claremont wrote 201, he intended Nathan to become Cable 4+ years later? As Keyshawn Johnson would say "C'mon MAN!!!"

 

Cable, specifically? No way. An important character at some point in the future? No doubt.

 

 

[FormerReader]

The only people that believe X-men #201 is Cable's first appearance are the people trying to sell them.

[ygogolak]

The only people that believe X-men #201 is Cable's first appearance are the people trying to sell BUYING them.

 

Fixed that for you.

[FormerReader]

The only people that believe X-men #201 is Cable's first appearance are the people trying to sell BUYING them.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

I assume the people buying them are somewhat misinformed. I believe people pushing them as Cable's first appearance are doing so because it is in their financial interest to do so.

[Broke as a Joke]

UXM 201 was a "hot" book within 2 years of NM 87 release because of at the time rumors of the baby being Cable. In fact it was even in the Wizard Top 10 hottest books list back then. This is not some new conspiracy to sell copies, just another book that was hot once and now 25 some years later can become relevant again. This has been happening a lot with movie hyped books.

 

Wash, rinse and repeat.

[FormerReader]

UXM 201 was a "hot" book within 2 years of NM 87 release because of at the time rumors of the baby being Cable. In fact it was even in the Wizard Top 10 hottest books list back then. This is not some new conspiracy to sell copies, just another book that was hot once and now 25 some years later can become relevant again. This has been happening a lot with movie hyped books.

 

Wash, rinse and repeat.

 

I'm not saying it isn't or won't become a hot book again. I remember when it was hot in the early 90's. People saying it is Cable's first appearance to try and push the book is disingenuous. NM #87 is his first appearance. It is the same story with NM #86. NM #86 does not contain a cameo it contains an add. Does that mean the book can't heat up? No. I'm just saying this is not the first appearance of Cable.

[Aweandlorder]

If only there was a Deadpool prototype which preceded Deadpool, you know kinda like Foom #2 for Hulk...

 

 

 

...Wait....

 

I have done more research that you can possibly fathom on this. There is no Deadpool appearance prior to NM 98.

 

"prototype" is the key word.

 

I have also found no "prototype" in any Marvel or other industry publication!

 

Here are some clues

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Stop talking about NM 87 already. It's salt in the wound since I sold my CGC 9.8 for $350 cash a month ago.

 

I had 5 9.8s that I got slabbed at WWLA in 2008.

 

Struggled to sell the last one at $160 in 2012 ish.

 

All recorded in GPA.

 

 

Good thing I have more copies.

[followtheleader]

My memory of Cable/Stryfe is likely skewed.

 

It seems clear that the body/arm in 86 is Stryfe (part of the MLF).

Aren't the two basically twins?

Couldn't 86 more likely be the 1st cameo of Stryfe and 87 is Cable?

 

If someone's read these recently, please correct me.

Kind of like the whole Domino situation.

 

Patrick