Copper's Heating/Selling Well on Ebay 33 33

[Silverdream]

Actually, this is a better example. This IS the first appearance of Gambit. The marketplace discounts it, but it is.

 

Ive been a long time supporter of Xmen annual 14. It's a Full appearance ( CGC and Overstreet still call it a cameo, it is nothing close to that ) and it was released before UXmen # 266.

 

The argument has always been, that the story in the annual takes place after # 266, and that #266 was intended to come out first.

 

All of this may be true , but it doesn't matter. I read Xmen books at the time. Gambit was introduced for the first time in a story in Uncanny Xmen annual # 14. I read the book the day it was released, Well before I had my hands on #266, which didn't exist at the time. It aslo has amazing Adams artwork, as RMA has said.

 

This is a case of a book that was wrongly considered a first appearance for over two decades and people not wanting to let go. People not wanting to agree because they are vested in #266 , and many collectors hate first appearances that do no have a cover appearance ( See Red Sonja )

[500Club]

Some people don't seem to get that the use of the English language is fluid, has nuances, and changes over time. Terms are often co-opted, and diverge from their literal use.

 

In other words, you're not my brother, bro.

[500Club]

 

I think agents # 6 is undervalued. Is it a first appearance? No. It's a preview. The story is continued in WD # 1... on Page # 7. If the story in Agents 6 or Capes for that matter was a " lead-in" to # 1 it would be different. It's not however, its just the first few pages of #1 used to push sales. It's an Ad.

 

With such a huge following for Walking dead, being a WD# 1 preview, I don't understand why its not a $100 book. With all the money going around in comics these days, I see $100 being wasted all over the place. I wouldn't consider Agents 6 or Capes a bad purchase.

I agree. Not a first appearance, but still a cool item for WD collectors, of which there are many.

 

And, yeah, I agree with X-Men Annual 14, too.

[Vikingreed]

I also agree with the whole Gambit argument, but people love them some 1st appearances that coincide with a spiffy cover.

 

I don't see the market ever changing.

[Silverdream]

I also agree with the whole Gambit argument, but people love them some 1st appearances that coincide with a spiffy cover.

 

I don't see the market ever changing.

 

If CGC changes their label from listing it as a simple " cameo of gambit" on the 2nd line to 1st full appearance of gambit on the top line, the market will change. There will be resistance, but it will change.

 

I know some people dislike this thought , or disagree, but I feel that is what would happen.

 

 

[fastballspecial]

 

I think agents # 6 is undervalued. Is it a first appearance? No. It's a preview. The story is continued in WD # 1... on Page # 7. If the story in Agents 6 or Capes for that matter was a " lead-in" to # 1 it would be different. It's not however, its just the first few pages of #1 used to push sales. It's an Ad.

 

With such a huge following for Walking dead, being a WD# 1 preview, I don't understand why its not a $100 book. With all the money going around in comics these days, I see $100 being wasted all over the place. I wouldn't consider Agents 6 or Capes a bad purchase.

I agree. Not a first appearance, but still a cool item for WD collectors, of which there are many.

 

And, yeah, I agree with X-Men Annual 14, too.

 

Yes I see nothing worth changing there. Agents 6 is just a preview.

 

No development discussion of the character. No early sketches, no discussion by writers/artists, no interview, not on the cover etc.....

 

Some of the Marvel Age books are much more then that and are coveted by collectors for all the above reasons that Agents 6 is not.

 

The perception of 1st appearance is starting to change and some just wont let it go of the traditional views. While I tend to agree with the traditional view as well, I just cant deny that the market is starting to change this trend somewhat in some cases.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Fastballspecial

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

re: Sonic

Check out Mile High's asking price for a NM Justice League Europe #33.

http://milehighcomics.com/cgi-bin/backissue.cgi?action=enlarge&issue=46776729336%2033

 

He's out of his mind

I hope this turns out to be reasonable (as I just got back a slab of this book).

[Silverdream]

re: Sonic

Check out Mile High's asking price for a NM Justice League Europe #33.

http://milehighcomics.com/cgi-bin/backissue.cgi?action=enlarge&issue=46776729336%2033

 

He's out of his mind

I hope this turns out to be reasonable (as I just got back a slab of this book).

 

Considering three books all have this insert from that month, there is close to 500k copies of books with this insert, The books are common. The mini Sonic comic is the book to own. It came out first. impossible to find in NM or better.

 

The stand alone newsstand copies that exist, whether they were torn out of the comics, or were actually handed out with pre-orders, don't matter because it has never been proven and they cannot be differentiated from each other.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

The perception of 1st appearance is starting to change and some just wont let it go of the traditional views. While I tend to agree with the traditional view as well, I just cant deny that the market is starting to change this trend somewhat in some cases.

 

 

Orrrrrr....some understand the use of the language, and don't see any need to change the language to accommodate people who want to change meanings for no valid reason, and the worst reason of all: personal gain.

 

Nothing is "changing." There are simply people who don't understand what the term "first appearance" means, and/or want the definition of a "first appearance" to change so they can make money.

 

There's no great sea change to redefine what "first appearance" means. Honest. And, if on the extremely remote chance that the idea of a "first appearance" being a PREVIEW gains ANY traction in the comics market, there will be a grand backlash by thinking, rational people.

 

"What's that?"

 

"Marvel Age #97. It's the first appearance of Darkhawk!"

 

"Oh, really? Huh. I didn't know that. Cool, I'll pick it up."

 

(time passes)

 

"Hey, this isn't his first appearance. This is just a PREVIEW!"

 

"Right, the first appearance!"

 

"Um...no, Darkhawk #1 is his first appearance. He isn't even IN this book, it's a book with interviews and ! You lied to me. This is just a PREVIEW. Do you know what a PREVIEW is...?"

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Some people don't seem to get that the use of the English language is fluid, has nuances, and changes over time. Terms are often co-opted, and diverge from their literal use.

 

In other words, you're not my brother, bro.

 

Who are you talking to?

 

[Broke as a Joke]

 

I think agents # 6 is undervalued. Is it a first appearance? No. It's a preview. The story is continued in WD # 1... on Page # 7. If the story in Agents 6 or Capes for that matter was a " lead-in" to # 1 it would be different. It's not however, its just the first few pages of #1 used to push sales. It's an Ad.

 

With such a huge following for Walking dead, being a WD# 1 preview, I don't understand why its not a $100 book. With all the money going around in comics these days, I see $100 being wasted all over the place. I wouldn't consider Agents 6 or Capes a bad purchase.

I agree. Not a first appearance, but still a cool item for WD collectors, of which there are many.

 

And, yeah, I agree with X-Men Annual 14, too.

 

Yes I see nothing worth changing there. Agents 6 is just a preview.

 

No development discussion of the character. No early sketches, no discussion by writers/artists, no interview, not on the cover etc.....

 

Some of the Marvel Age books are much more then that and are coveted by collectors for all the above reasons that Agents 6 is not.

 

The perception of 1st appearance is starting to change and some just wont let it go of the traditional views. While I tend to agree with the traditional view as well, I just cant deny that the market is starting to change this trend somewhat in some cases.

 

I think a possible shift in the perception of first appearances can be seen with Harley Quinn, who is arguably one of the 5 hottest characters right now.

 

Like RMA pointed out earlier, Luke Skywalker first appeared in A New Hope, because that is where he was intended to be.

 

So going by this theory, Harley Quinn's first appearance is actually an animation cel from the first Batman Adventures TV show she was on. She was created for a cartoon, not comics. She found her way into the comic medium later, but it wasn't intended for that to happen. Even the first comic book she appeared in is just a continuation of cartoon stories.

 

So where do we as comic book collectors draw the line? I don't care, nor have the money to go after the first Harley Quinn animation cels. But that would be her first appearance in story driven media. So instead comic collectors flock to Batman Adventures 12 because it is a comic book and they can feel comfortable with owning it. It is not her first appearance though, according to the logic we are trying to hammer out here. And if collectors are willing to overlook the first actual appearance and spend big bucks on a comic book first appearance of her, there is no reason to think it won't happen to other books and characters in the future.

 

 

[Plantman]

The perception of 1st appearance is starting to change and some just wont let it go of the traditional views. While I tend to agree with the traditional view as well, I just cant deny that the market is starting to change this trend somewhat in some cases.

 

 

Orrrrrr....some understand the use of the language, and don't see any need to change the language to accommodate people who want to change meanings for no valid reason, and the worst reason of all: personal gain.

 

Nothing is "changing." There are simply people who don't understand what the term "first appearance" means, and/or want the definition of a "first appearance" to change so they can make money.

 

There's no great sea change to redefine what "first appearance" means. Honest. And, if on the extremely remote chance that the idea of a "first appearance" being a PREVIEW gains ANY traction in the comics market, there will be a grand backlash by thinking, rational people...

 

I doubt that.

 

Remember the frenzy (chronicled in this very thread) over Superman Adventures #5?

 

Was that not started over Livewire appearing in a single panel of a New 52 comic?

 

She hasn't even appeared since

 

Yet SA #5 is still a $30+ book on eBay.

 

Maybe you'd get a clamor.

[Aweandlorder]

The question- what makes a 1st full appearance more valuable (IH181)(( where u at slym)), or a cameo more valuable (Jimmy Olsen #134), or an Ad appearance more valuable (Gobbledygook #1), or a preview appearance more valuable (DCP #26), or a promotional magazine more valuable (San Diego Comic-Con Comics #2) - Is simply answered by these words: The Market

If we're borrowing examples from other industries, I would compare this discussion to an argument that happens daily among music enthusiasts: What makes a record a hit record? Its the market.

Granted, intellectual properties were written and distributed properly to the masses, its now up to the people to decide what they prefer to read, listen or collect..

 

[500Club]

Some people don't seem to get that the use of the English language is fluid, has nuances, and changes over time. Terms are often co-opted, and diverge from their literal use.

 

In other words, you're not my brother, bro.

 

Who are you talking to?

 

The folks who think 'first appearance' is carved in stone as the literal meaning, and not the way it has become used in the comic collecting lexicon over 40 some years. In this hobby, first appearance correlates pretty poorly with the literal sense.

[Silverdream]

The perception of 1st appearance is starting to change and some just wont let it go of the traditional views. While I tend to agree with the traditional view as well, I just cant deny that the market is starting to change this trend somewhat in some cases.

 

 

Orrrrrr....some understand the use of the language, and don't see any need to change the language to accommodate people who want to change meanings for no valid reason, and the worst reason of all: personal gain.

 

Nothing is "changing." There are simply people who don't understand what the term "first appearance" means, and/or want the definition of a "first appearance" to change so they can make money.

 

There's no great sea change to redefine what "first appearance" means. Honest. And, if on the extremely remote chance that the idea of a "first appearance" being a PREVIEW gains ANY traction in the comics market, there will be a grand backlash by thinking, rational people...

 

I doubt that.

 

Remember the frenzy (chronicled in this very thread) over Superman Adventures #5?

 

Was that not started over Livewire appearing in a single panel of a New 52 comic?

 

She hasn't even appeared since

 

Yet SA #5 is still a $30+ book on eBay.

 

Maybe you'd get a clamor.

 

What are you talking about?

 

How does what you said, at all, relate to what you quoted. I'm totally confused.

 

 

[Silverdream]

Some people don't seem to get that the use of the English language is fluid, has nuances, and changes over time. Terms are often co-opted, and diverge from their literal use.

 

In other words, you're not my brother, bro.

 

Who are you talking to?

 

The folks who think 'first appearance' is carved in stone as the literal meaning, and not the way it has become used in the comic collecting lexicon over 40 some years. In this hobby, first appearance correlates pretty poorly with the literal sense.

 

(thumbs u

 

I think...

 

[darkstar]

Some people don't seem to get that the use of the English language is fluid, has nuances, and changes over time. Terms are often co-opted, and diverge from their literal use.

 

In other words, you're not my brother, bro.

 

Who are you talking to?

 

The folks who think 'first appearance' is carved in stone as the literal meaning, and not the way it has become used in the comic collecting lexicon over 40 some years. In this hobby, first appearance correlates pretty poorly with the literal sense.

 

Not really. "first appearance" in regards to comics is widely recognized as being the time the character first appears in a panel of sequential art in the context of a story. All of the qualifiers in that sentence get omitted because its a mouthful and much easier to just say/write "first appearance". The importance of THAT first appearance is because of the character's eventual impact on the story and the entire history of the comics universe that the character's creation ultimately has. You aren't chasing the first appearance in a comic because its simply the first visual depiction of that character, otherwise you would be collecting OA, preliminary sketches, and bar napkins with doodles on them.

 

And when people start arguing over first cameo appearance and first full appearance all they are doing is arguing over which appearance is the one that the market has decided is the first MEANINGFUL appearance. But people like to complicate things and advertise things as something they aren't, so instead we end up arguing over cameo/full appearances when there is no clear cut definition of either or even widely adopted guidelines to apply to the gray areas so that a final decision can be reached anyway.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think a possible shift in the perception of first appearances can be seen with Harley Quinn, who is arguably one of the 5 hottest characters right now.

 

Like RMA pointed out earlier, Luke Skywalker first appeared in A New Hope, because that is where he was intended to be.

 

So going by this theory, Harley Quinn's first appearance is actually an animation cel from the first Batman Adventures TV show she was on. She was created for a cartoon, not comics. She found her way into the comic medium later, but it wasn't intended for that to happen. Even the first comic book she appeared in is just a continuation of cartoon stories.

 

So where do we as comic book collectors draw the line? I don't care, nor have the money to go after the first Harley Quinn animation cels. But that would be her first appearance in story driven media. So instead comic collectors flock to Batman Adventures 12 because it is a comic book and they can feel comfortable with owning it. It is not her first appearance though, according to the logic we are trying to hammer out here. And if collectors are willing to overlook the first actual appearance and spend big bucks on a comic book first appearance of her, there is no reason to think it won't happen to other books and characters in the future.

 

 

No. That's not it at all. You're missing the forest to pick the bark off a few trees. The point isn't about "story driven media", the point is appearances in the context of a story within a comic book.

 

As an aside, the first appearance of Luke Skywalker in a NON-PREVIEW was IN A COMIC BOOK.

 

Yes, that's right...the first appearance of Luke Skywalker is Star Wars #1, which came out many weeks before the movie. But that's not the point. I'm not referring to CROSS MEDIA appearances. We're talking about comic books. We've already been down the BA #12 road. BA #12 is the first COMIC BOOK appearance of Harley Quinn.

 

Why do you think that Harley Quinn's appearance in comic books "wasn't intended"? Do you have any evidence for such a claim? Batman Adventures was produced concurrently with B:TAS, and, in fact, the first issue came out BEFORE the animated series debuted...so I'm not quite sure where you would have gotten that information, but please share, by all means.

[500Club]

Some people don't seem to get that the use of the English language is fluid, has nuances, and changes over time. Terms are often co-opted, and diverge from their literal use.

 

In other words, you're not my brother, bro.

 

Who are you talking to?

 

The folks who think 'first appearance' is carved in stone as the literal meaning, and not the way it has become used in the comic collecting lexicon over 40 some years. In this hobby, first appearance correlates pretty poorly with the literal sense.

 

Not really. "first appearance" in regards to comics is widely recognized as being the time the character first appears in a panel of sequential art in the context of a story.

No, it's not, IMO. It's almost become a colloquialism. I can tell you that when we set up at shows, innumerable collectors want to look at our copies of the 'first Wolverine', Hulk 181. They verbally refer to it as that. It's a term that has been bastardized, and has almost become shorthand for 'book the market has decided is the character's first meaningful appearance.'

[RockMyAmadeus]

The perception of 1st appearance is starting to change and some just wont let it go of the traditional views. While I tend to agree with the traditional view as well, I just cant deny that the market is starting to change this trend somewhat in some cases.

 

 

Orrrrrr....some understand the use of the language, and don't see any need to change the language to accommodate people who want to change meanings for no valid reason, and the worst reason of all: personal gain.

 

Nothing is "changing." There are simply people who don't understand what the term "first appearance" means, and/or want the definition of a "first appearance" to change so they can make money.

 

There's no great sea change to redefine what "first appearance" means. Honest. And, if on the extremely remote chance that the idea of a "first appearance" being a PREVIEW gains ANY traction in the comics market, there will be a grand backlash by thinking, rational people...

 

I doubt that.

 

Remember the frenzy (chronicled in this very thread) over Superman Adventures #5?

 

Was that not started over Livewire appearing in a single panel of a New 52 comic?

 

She hasn't even appeared since

 

Yet SA #5 is still a $30+ book on eBay.

 

Maybe you'd get a clamor.

 

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.