Copper's Heating/Selling Well on Ebay 33 33

[RockMyAmadeus]

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..

 

The question isn't "why is this valuable?" The answer is "because people want them and are willing to pay for them." There's no issue with that.

 

The question is "why are people trying to redefine ads and previews as "first appearances"?"

[Silverdream]

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..

 

1 and 2. The debate over cameo and full appearance will never end. Yes the market pretty much decides which is more worthy of their money. Neither apply to this situation, as they are both " in story" appearances.

 

3.) Gobbledygook # 1 is an oddity, mostly because of how rare it is. It was touted as the 1st appearance for a LONG time, and not many people knew it was simply just an ad on the back cover. Once it was well known ( the internet) People's view on that book has changed. It's still a very sought after book, and yes its only an ad. TMNT collectors can and do go overboard sometimes. I can show you 10,000 ( probably more) examples of an " ad" or " preview" of a character that is worth much less than the" in story 1st", for every 1 example like Gobbledygook.

 

4.) DCP # 26 is not a preview. No matter what it says on the cover, it is not a preview. It is an original story, setting up issue # 1. It's a 1st in story appearance, not panels or pages " previewing" issue # 1.

 

5.) SDCC comics # 2 is not a magazine. It is a comic book, but, instead of one large story, there are a few 2-6 page stories, and a few pin-ups. The Hellboy story is original, and was created for this comic, and didn't appear anywhere else. The Market had always leaned toward Next Men 21 until this 4 page, earlier story came to light, and the market shifted appropriately.

 

" The market decides" in general is true, but the market can also be uninformed, and or deceived.

[500Club]

 

" The market decides" in general is true, but the market can also be uninformed, and or deceived.

Usually, in the long run, the market susses out the right book. We'll see how X-Men 266/Ann 14 plays out.

[Silverdream]

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..

 

The question isn't "why is this valuable?" The answer is "because people want them and are willing to pay for them." There's no issue with that.

 

The question is "why are people trying to redefine ads and previews as "first appearances"?"

 

Exactly.

 

If a preview or ad sells for more, that's great, but that's not what we are talking about. We are not talking about which book sells for more.

 

We are talking about the term first appearance as it relates to comic books, and why people are trying to change what it means.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Usually, in the long run, the market susses out the right book. We'll see how X-Men 266/Ann 14 plays out.

 

It's been 25 years. I don't think it's going to change any time soon.

 

Of course, I would LOVE to have Annual #14 be more sought after...I've got probably 40 copies. Maybe 3 copies left of #266.

 

[Silverdream]

 

" The market decides" in general is true, but the market can also be uninformed, and or deceived.

Usually, in the long run, the market susses out the right book. We'll see how X-Men 266/Ann 14 plays out.

 

Until it starts being called what it really is, instead of the longest cameo in the history of comics, it will be tough.

 

CGC and Overstreet, and nearly every comic database out there is doing the comic community a disservice calling Annual 14 a cameo, I think Overstreet actually changed it from Cameo to " minor appearance ( 5 pages ) " a few years ago.

 

What the heck is that?

 

Nobody wants to let go of 266.

 

It's the cover. I guess also, so many people have money in 266, they don't want to pizz anyone off.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2015 by Silverdream

[Aweandlorder]

" The market decides" in general is true, but the market can also be uninformed, and or deceived.

The market is ALWAYS deceived by people with capital gains and monopolistic sentiments towards achieving those, whether its joe schmoe who bought 10 copies of hottopic star wars and posted on a blog raving about them or a record label executive who bought all his artist's records to elevate him/her through the nielsen charts..

 

 

 

[Aweandlorder]

Hey sorry guys, just saw these and didnt wanna start a whole thread so it appears like spam..

Since theres so much off topic info offered casually here, Ill just ad it here.

 

love me some dark knight phone cases

 

[Aweandlorder]

Off to see The Interview again BTW night!

[rjrjr]

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.

 

Wouldn't the first depiction of Luke Skywalker be on the cover of the novel which pre-dates the Star Wars #1 comic book?

 

Regardless, this discussion is what makes this hobby so interesting to me along with the history of comics, the discussion about the various ages, etc. If everything was cut and dry, much of the aura around collecting would disappear IMHO.

 

[MrWeen]

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...?"

 

 

 

Marvel Requirer 11 is the first appearance and cover for Darkhawk.

 

Also I dare anyone to produce a published definition from overstreet etc. that states that a first appearance has to exist inside a story or be meaningful in any way. Even the term Cameo simply means debut and a debut in comic terms and the literal definition simply states that it is the first time a character appears. Appears. Not appears in a story or on a cover or in a shadowy, dim lit cave. While I understand the frustrations concerning this by some of you older dealers ( I say dealers because I find it hard to believe that many of you in a thread like this are simply collectors ) time makes corrections and in this case it's long overdue.

 

I do understand that some of you hate the idea of a magazine as a first ( see Rocket Raccoon ) or an insert ( see Preacher Preview ) or a paperback ( see The Empire Strikes Back PB, first Bobba Fett ) but they are firsts even if the majority of collectors and the marketplace wish something else to be true or cannot let go of long standing incorrect traditions. If you want to say that Hulk 271 is RR's first comic appearance then you would be correct. If you want to say that Darkhawk #1 is his third appearance, third cover and first story then you would be correct.

The fact is a first appearance does not need to be valuable. As a collector I expect the hobby i love to be factually accurate. If the facts are reflected in value then great but the market is based on money not truth so it's not a requirement.

 

Edited February 2, 2015 by MrWeen

[Zack1973]

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...?"

 

 

 

Marvel Requirer 11 is the first appearance and cover for Darkhawk.

 

Also I dare anyone to produce a published definition from overstreet etc. that states that a first appearance has to exist inside a story or be meaningful in any way. Even the term Cameo simply means debut and a debut in comic terms and the literal definition simply states that it is the first time a character appears. Appears. Not appears in a story or on a cover or in a shadowy, dim lit cave. While I understand the frustrations concerning this by some of you older dealers ( I say dealers because I find it hard to believe that many of you in a thread like this are simply collectors ) time makes corrections and in this case it's long overdue.

 

I do understand that some of you hate the idea of a magazine as a first ( see Rocket Raccoon ) or an insert ( see Preacher Preview ) or a paperback ( see The Empire Strikes Back PB, first Bobba Fett ) but they are firsts even if the majority of collectors and the marketplace wish something else to be true or cannot let go of long standing incorrect traditions. If you want to say that Hulk 271 is RR's first comic appearance then you would be correct. If you want to say that Darkhawk #1 is his third appearance, third cover and first story then you would be correct.

The fact is a first appearance does not need to be valuable. As a collector I expect the hobby i love to be factually accurate. If the facts are reflected in value then great but the market is based on money not truth so it's not a requirement.

 

I'm on your side with this Ween, you can't dispute a first appearance, it is what it is. I constantly hear the Warlock argument, and sorry but FF 67 is his first appearance. FF66 is the first Cocoon. So many keep saying oh the Thor issue blah blah blah.

[Illustrious]

Well this thread has made me go buy a X-Men Annual #14 9.8, I didn't realize it had that many panels with Gambit in it. I hope the market doesn't catch on yet, I'll happily buy 2-3 of these for the price of one #266 9.8

[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.

 

"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...?"

 

 

 

Marvel Requirer 11 is the first appearance and cover for Darkhawk.

 

Also I dare anyone to produce a published definition from overstreet etc. that states that a first appearance has to exist inside a story or be meaningful in any way. Even the term Cameo simply means debut and a debut in comic terms and the literal definition simply states that it is the first time a character appears. Appears. Not appears in a story or on a cover or in a shadowy, dim lit cave. While I understand the frustrations concerning this by some of you older dealers ( I say dealers because I find it hard to believe that many of you in a thread like this are simply collectors ) time makes corrections and in this case it's long overdue.

 

I do understand that some of you hate the idea of a magazine as a first ( see Rocket Raccoon ) or an insert ( see Preacher Preview ) or a paperback ( see The Empire Strikes Back PB, first Bobba Fett ) but they are firsts even if the majority of collectors and the marketplace wish something else to be true or cannot let go of long standing incorrect traditions. If you want to say that Hulk 271 is RR's first comic appearance then you would be correct. If you want to say that Darkhawk #1 is his third appearance, third cover and first story then you would be correct.

The fact is a first appearance does not need to be valuable. As a collector I expect the hobby i love to be factually accurate. If the facts are reflected in value then great but the market is based on money not truth so it's not a requirement.

 

I'm on your side with this Ween, you can't dispute a first appearance, it is what it is. I constantly hear the Warlock argument, and sorry but FF 67 is his first appearance. FF66 is the first Cocoon. So many keep saying oh the Thor issue blah blah blah.

 

You quote him, agree with him, and then go on to use three examples of " in story" comic book appearances. You are arguing Cameo VS Full, nothing close to what ween was talking about.

[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.

 

"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...?"

 

 

 

Marvel Requirer 11 is the first appearance and cover for Darkhawk.

 

Also I dare anyone to produce a published definition from overstreet etc. that states that a first appearance has to exist inside a story or be meaningful in any way. Even the term Cameo simply means debut and a debut in comic terms and the literal definition simply states that it is the first time a character appears. Appears. Not appears in a story or on a cover or in a shadowy, dim lit cave. While I understand the frustrations concerning this by some of you older dealers ( I say dealers because I find it hard to believe that many of you in a thread like this are simply collectors ) time makes corrections and in this case it's long overdue.

 

I do understand that some of you hate the idea of a magazine as a first ( see Rocket Raccoon ) or an insert ( see Preacher Preview ) or a paperback ( see The Empire Strikes Back PB, first Bobba Fett ) but they are firsts even if the majority of collectors and the marketplace wish something else to be true or cannot let go of long standing incorrect traditions. If you want to say that Hulk 271 is RR's first comic appearance then you would be correct. If you want to say that Darkhawk #1 is his third appearance, third cover and first story then you would be correct.

The fact is a first appearance does not need to be valuable. As a collector I expect the hobby i love to be factually accurate. If the facts are reflected in value then great but the market is based on money not truth so it's not a requirement.

 

I understand that some of you actually hate reading your comics, and that collecting comics doesn't mean you have actually read any of them, but that's what they are meant for, and that is where the importance comes from.

 

I collect and read comics. I am not a dealer, but I have enough comics that I suppose I could be one if I chose. To assume anything based on what threads one visits, is absurd. The fact that you pop up in all of these threads makes me wonder a few things, but to come on here an actually say something based on a flimsy assumption is, well I already said it, absurd.

 

It's obvious your argument is weak, since you have to stoop to calling people who argue against your train of thought " dealers" Insinuating we are not real collectors and our thoughts and arguments are motivated by monetary reasons. That is quite disrespectful. You should really think twice before you type. It's not like someone accused of that can show their " I'm not a dealer card" Going there just shows how desperate you get at times. You have done it before. Stop.

 

I'm cool with Rocket Raccoon's first comic book story being considered his first appearance. Think I'm talking about IH271? I'm not. A magazine , using a comic book format, created by a comic book company, is still a comic book story, and should be a first appearance.

 

Everything else you stated? . Dude I collect comics, not everything paper related.. Not paper back books, nor posters, or advertisements. While I agree Previews, flyers and the sort can be collectible, Its the term first appearance attempting to be linked to them, is where the problem lies.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Silverdream

[Vikingreed]

It's all about the cover.

Always has been.

 

That is the only rational explanation for the Gambit argument.

 

Look at the two Bishop comics, 282 and 283.

If he wasn't on the cover for 282, I guarantee 283 would dwarf it in price. As it is now, it's basically a split down the middle.

 

The Gambit and Bishop examples always pop in my head when it comes to these sort of arguments...

 

(5,000th post!!! )

 

haha

Edited February 2, 2015 by vikingreed

[awakeintheashes]

Incredible Hulk #324 has bumped a little since news broke about the Star Wars Hot Topic variant mess.

 

eBay

 

[Vikingreed]

Yeah, I think it had doubled in price there for a bit.

[MrWeen]

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...?"

 

 

 

Marvel Requirer 11 is the first appearance and cover for Darkhawk.

 

Also I dare anyone to produce a published definition from overstreet etc. that states that a first appearance has to exist inside a story or be meaningful in any way. Even the term Cameo simply means debut and a debut in comic terms and the literal definition simply states that it is the first time a character appears. Appears. Not appears in a story or on a cover or in a shadowy, dim lit cave. While I understand the frustrations concerning this by some of you older dealers ( I say dealers because I find it hard to believe that many of you in a thread like this are simply collectors ) time makes corrections and in this case it's long overdue.

 

I do understand that some of you hate the idea of a magazine as a first ( see Rocket Raccoon ) or an insert ( see Preacher Preview ) or a paperback ( see The Empire Strikes Back PB, first Bobba Fett ) but they are firsts even if the majority of collectors and the marketplace wish something else to be true or cannot let go of long standing incorrect traditions. If you want to say that Hulk 271 is RR's first comic appearance then you would be correct. If you want to say that Darkhawk #1 is his third appearance, third cover and first story then you would be correct.

The fact is a first appearance does not need to be valuable. As a collector I expect the hobby i love to be factually accurate. If the facts are reflected in value then great but the market is based on money not truth so it's not a requirement.

 

I'm on your side with this Ween, you can't dispute a first appearance, it is what it is. I constantly hear the Warlock argument, and sorry but FF 67 is his first appearance. FF66 is the first Cocoon. So many keep saying oh the Thor issue blah blah blah.

 

You quote him, agree with him, and then go on to use three examples of " in story" comic book appearances. You are arguing Cameo VS Full, nothing close to what ween was talking about.

 

A Cameo is defined as a brief appearance. A brief appearance can be a first appearance. I have always hated how this hobby has warped the definition of cameo. Here are some overstreet definitions for how they have always defined Cameo,First Appearance and Debut:

 

 

 

[MrWeen]

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...?"

 

 

 

Marvel Requirer 11 is the first appearance and cover for Darkhawk.

 

Also I dare anyone to produce a published definition from overstreet etc. that states that a first appearance has to exist inside a story or be meaningful in any way. Even the term Cameo simply means debut and a debut in comic terms and the literal definition simply states that it is the first time a character appears. Appears. Not appears in a story or on a cover or in a shadowy, dim lit cave. While I understand the frustrations concerning this by some of you older dealers ( I say dealers because I find it hard to believe that many of you in a thread like this are simply collectors ) time makes corrections and in this case it's long overdue.

 

I do understand that some of you hate the idea of a magazine as a first ( see Rocket Raccoon ) or an insert ( see Preacher Preview ) or a paperback ( see The Empire Strikes Back PB, first Bobba Fett ) but they are firsts even if the majority of collectors and the marketplace wish something else to be true or cannot let go of long standing incorrect traditions. If you want to say that Hulk 271 is RR's first comic appearance then you would be correct. If you want to say that Darkhawk #1 is his third appearance, third cover and first story then you would be correct.

The fact is a first appearance does not need to be valuable. As a collector I expect the hobby i love to be factually accurate. If the facts are reflected in value then great but the market is based on money not truth so it's not a requirement.

 

I understand that some of you actually hate reading your comics, and that collecting comics doesn't mean you have actually read any of them, but that's what they are meant for, and that is where the importance comes from.

 

I collect and read comics. I am not a dealer, but I have enough comics that I suppose I could be one if I chose. To assume anything based on what threads one visits, is absurd. The fact that you pop up in all of these threads makes me wonder a few things, but to come on here an actually say something based on a flimsy assumption is, well I already said it, absurd.

 

It's obvious your argument is weak, since you have to stoop to calling people who argue against your train of thought " dealers" Insinuating we are not real collectors and our thoughts and arguments are motivated by monetary reasons. That is quite disrespectful. You should really think twice before you type. It's not like someone accused of that can show their " I'm not a dealer card" Going there just shows how desperate you get at times. You have done it before. Stop.

 

I'm cool with Rocket Raccoon's first comic book story being considered his first appearance. Think I'm talking about IH271? I'm not. A magazine , using a comic book format, created by a comic book company, is still a comic book story, and should be a first appearance.

 

Everything else you stated? . Dude I collect comics, not everything paper related.. Not paper back books, nor posters, or advertisements. While I agree Previews, flyers and the sort can be collectible, Its the term first appearance attempting to be linked to them, is where the problem lies.

 

I did not say that all the people in here are dealers but I read this thread daily and you must see that the majority of people in here are selling comics no? Because there is money involved we must assume that people will push their own agendas to make more money. The point is that we must take the value of these books out of the equation and base a definition of first appearance around what's true.

Oh and don't tell me what to type or think hombre. I'm not sure how my posting reeks of desperation when all I am trying to do is make an argument for the need of a universal definition for something we all seem to care about.