Copper's Heating/Selling Well on Ebay 33 33

[divad]

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

 

Clearly, it's one of the best examples of where and how the market got it wrong.

[divad]

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.

 

 

Then your timing has been perfect!

[valiantman]

For those who are arguing the definition of "first" in "first appearance" and saying that it includes marketing materials...

 

Why are we ignoring the definition of the word "appearance"?

 

The appearance of something is what it looks like... how you "view" it.

 

"First appearance" is the same as "first view".

 

So far, this argument says that marketing materials would be a first appearance because they are the "first view".

 

BUT WAIT...

 

What happens when we look at the definition of "preview"?

 

"pre" (before) and "view" ... a "preview" is what happens BEFORE the actual view.

 

Yes, you can see the character in marketing materials, but you're seeing them EARLY. You're "pre-seeing" them. You haven't actually seen them yet.

 

Preview isn't the first appearance. It's the "before appearance" because it happens before it actually counts.

 

Stop pointing out the definition "first" unless you're going to also point out the definition of "pre".

 

"Pre" comes before "first" because "first" hasn't happened yet.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

" 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..

 

 

 

While it is true that there are always people willing to cheat to gain, that's not true of all people, all the time.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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?

 

Yes, if that's the case.

 

The first appearance of Luke Skywalker would be whatever non-promotional medium he appeared in first...whether novel, comic book, or film.

 

[valiantman]

Or to put it another way...

 

The host (publisher) decides when the party starts.

 

The party doesn't start when the host puts out a flyer or invitations (marketing).

 

If you show up early for a party and see the decorators and caterers (preview), but the host isn't ready, the party doesn't start early.

 

The party starts when the host says the party starts.

 

Things that happen BEFORE the party that are party-related still aren't the actual party.

[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.

 

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:

 

 

Ween, this entire conversation has been about whether we should be calling Ads or Previews 1st appearances.

 

Zack comes here claiming he agrees with what you are saying, and then switches to a Cameo VS First appearance argument, which has absolutely nothing to do with that initial conversation.

 

We are talking about Ads and Previews.

 

[Broke as a Joke]

For those who are arguing the definition of "first" in "first appearance" and saying that it includes marketing materials...

 

Why are we ignoring the definition of the word "appearance"?

 

The appearance of something is what it looks like... how you "view" it.

 

"First appearance" is the same as "first view".

 

So far, this argument says that marketing materials would be a first appearance because they are the "first view".

 

BUT WAIT...

 

What happens when we look at the definition of "preview"?

 

"pre" (before) and "view" ... a "preview" is what happens BEFORE the actual view.

 

Yes, you can see the character in marketing materials, but you're seeing them EARLY. You're "pre-seeing" them. You haven't actually seen them yet.

 

Preview isn't the first appearance. It's the "zero appearance" because it happens before it actually counts.

 

Stop arguing about the definition "first" unless you're going to argue the definition of "pre".

 

"Pre" comes before "first" because "first" hasn't happened yet.

 

Truth is there is a growing segment of collectors that don't care about being within a story or what "counts". They want some obscure preview or advertisement with an early glimpse of the character. That's ok, CGC will still label the actual first appearance the correct way and we can all get along. And if the market determines differently maybe even the labels will change...

[Broke as a Joke]

And I don't think CGC will even slab a copy of Previews, but they do slab Marvel Age.

[Aweandlorder]

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

 

Here's one thing to consider..

UXM #266 - 1084 9.8s

XMA #14 - 195 9.8s

 

Maybe XMA #14 is a tougher book in 9.8??

[Aweandlorder]

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

 

None for none but Ill take an Art Adams cover over Kubert any day.. Including that one.. And especially in the 80s when AAdams was a rising star..

Just me though

[Vikingreed]

My argument is that Gambit is front and center on #266.

Put that cover on the Annual, and I think the market would have reacted differently.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

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.

 

What does "meaningful" mean? I don't use adjective qualifiers, because those words have different shades of meaning to just about everyone.

 

And you know that any "published definition" is also just someone's opinion?

 

Here's the crux: you'll be hard pressed to find a "published definition" because it's been self-evident for decades. No one bothered to publish a definition, because no one disputed it. If you had said "well, the first appearance of this character is really on this bookmark promo", that would have been dismissed, and rightfully so.

 

So, no need to dare...it doesn't exist, nor should it.

 

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.

 

And there's your problem right there: You have redefined "appears" as it applies to the context of comic books. Marvel Age IS NOT a "comic book" in the traditional sense. YES, it is in comic book form, and YES, it sometimes contains comic book elements, but it is NOT a comic book like Avengers #237 is a comic book. It is a promotional magazine, highlighting and showcasing the upcoming publications of Marvel Comics. Same with Marvel Requirer, and all the rest.

 

You want to redefine the word "appears" as to mean "any time the character shows up anywhere." And that's not correct, in the context of comic books.

 

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'm not a dealer. I am also not "simply a collector." And what is "older"? Is one's ability to learn and reason determined by age? Can one who is 85 agree with you? Can one who is 19 disagree? Age has nothing to do with this.

 

And the "frustration" has to do with people coming along and trying to redefine terms according to THEIR perceptions, rather than learning and accepting what already is perfectly workable.

 

We don't need a revolution every generation.

 

I do understand that some of you hate the idea of a magazine as a first ( see Rocket Raccoon )

 

Who has said this? And why must you couch things in emotionally laden terms like "hate"? This isn't about "hate" or "love", it's about what is reasonable.

 

or an insert ( see Preacher Preview )

 

It's not an original story, so no, it's not the first appearance.

 

or a paperback ( see The Empire Strikes Back PB, first Bobba Fett )

 

There's nothing wrong with people liking a paperback novel as a first appearance. But this is a comic board, not a book board. The discussion is within the context of comic books, that is, sequential art.

 

but they are firsts

 

No, they are always qualified firsts. Always. That's why Hulk #271, BA #12 and Star Wars #42 have to have asterisks, and rightly so:: that is, the first comic book appearances of these characters, which is an acknowledgement that these characters appeared elsewhere in story contexts. Those are the exceptions, and they are perfectly valid exceptions.

 

even if the majority of collectors and the marketplace wish something else to be true or cannot let go of long standing incorrect traditions.

 

No, they are "firsts" because *you* have decided they are "firsts", and are trying to convince the marketplace that *your* opinion, rather than tradition, history, and creator/publisher intent, is what should be.

 

"Incorrect traditions"...? According to who...?

 

Yes, for decades and decades, the marketplace has regarded Detective Comics #27 as the real, genuine, honest-to-God first appearance of Batman, despite the fact that he appeared PRIOR TO Detective Comics #27 in at least two house ads. According to you, that is an "incorrect tradition."

 

That I even need to qualify the first appearance of Batman as "the real, genuine, honest-to-God first appearance" demonstrates how far down the rabbit hole this discussion is.

 

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.

 

No, you would be wrong, and worse, you would confuse others into thinking that previews and other promotional material "counts" as appearances, when they have never done so, and shouldn't do so.

 

"First story appearance"...doesn't have much ring to it, in a storytelling medium, does it?

 

The fact is a first appearance does not need to be valuable.

 

No disagreement there, except that what YOU mean by "first appearance" and what the market, as a whole, means, are completely different things.

 

As a collector I expect the hobby i love to be factually accurate.

 

No, you expect the hobby to cater to your interpretations, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless your interpretations run counter to everything that has gone before you.

 

If the facts are reflected in value then great but the market is based on money not truth so it's not a requirement.

 

The market is based on perception. That said, perception should, as much as possible, be based on fact, not opinion.

[500Club]

Here are some overstreet definitions for how they have always defined Cameo,First Appearance and Debut:

Let's dispense with, once and for all, the idea that Overstreet is some sort of authority that speaks for the market and is always factually sound. Despite your list of definitions, Overstreet itself is inconsistent with the application, as the history of listings for X-Men 266/Ann 14 will show.

 

 

You can have your literal definition of a first appearance being a first printed image.

 

I, and the great majority of responders, will hold with the bastardized meaning. The literal meaning hasn't been in use in the hobby for a long time, if ever.

[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...?"

 

 

 

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.

 

Do you really think comic book collectors care about a functionally non-collectable appearance of Harley Quinn, that just happens to be her first? Or, do you think BA #12 is what matters to them?

 

And I'm not sure you understand Ween's argument. Warlock appears in the context of the story in FF #67. You are quite correct, FF #67 is the first appearance of Warlock...it is a brief appearance, it is a cameo appearance, but it is an appearance in the context of a story.

 

Ween is talking about ANY appearance, even if that appearance was printed on a napkin, if that's the first time the character appeared to the public, that's the "first appearance."

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

 

You do realize that that is a comic book price guide that you're quoting from, correct?

 

That this comic book price guide is concerned with comic books, and while there may be other material within, they are ancillary to comic books, and therefore the definitions contained therein refer to comic books?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Because there is money involved we must assume that people will push their own agendas to make more money.

 

Should I regard all of your posts in that light, too?

 

Have we become so cynical that we must assume that everybody always has an agenda, all the time?

 

 

[500Club]

Because there is money involved we must assume that people will push their own agendas to make more money.

 

Should I regard all of your posts in that light, too?

 

Have we become so cynical that we must assume that everybody always has an agenda, all the time?

 

I think it says something about how Ween himself is viewing the issue.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Truth is there is a growing segment of collectors that don't care about being within a story or what "counts".

 

 

How big is this "growing segment"? How do you know it is growing, rather than shrinking? Where did this segment start? How did it start? Of whom is it comprised?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Because there is money involved we must assume that people will push their own agendas to make more money.

 

Should I regard all of your posts in that light, too?

 

Have we become so cynical that we must assume that everybody always has an agenda, all the time?

 

I think it says something about how Ween himself is viewing the issue.

 

I agree completely.

 

There's something to be said for coming at an issue a certain way, and assuming (consciously or subconsciously) that everyone is coming at it the same way.

 

For Ween:

 

I have argued counter to my interests...which is usually the strongest testimony of all...on many occasions on this board, and so have others. It's just intellectual honesty.