Copper's Heating/Selling Well on Ebay 33 33

[jsilverjanet]

 

Everything RMA has said on this subject is 100% accurate.

 

-J.

 

[MrWeen]

While I agree with the above the market is starting to change.

 

I am sure no one here can continue to argue that there is some stronger evidence that this trend will continue good or bad.

 

 

You're right, the market has changed a lot since we were kids. Can you imagine 2nd prints bringing more than 1st prints when we were young ? Look at what is happening with Man of Steel/ Doomsday later printings on Captain Marvel #17. In the past, I wouldn't have thought about buying a 2nd print other than a TPB, and still wouldn't for me. That doesn't mean they won't be picked up for someone else who will appreciate them. A few Batman:TDKR 2nd and 3rd prints were just picked up due to other's buying preferences. I'm a 1st print guy all the way but I'm open minded too.

 

I remember 2nd prints being looked at with disdain among collectors and for good reason.

[the authority]

While I agree with the above the market is starting to change.

 

I am sure no one here can continue to argue that there is some stronger evidence that this trend will continue good or bad.

 

 

You're right, the market has changed a lot since we were kids. Can you imagine 2nd prints bringing more than 1st prints when we were young ? Look at what is happening with Man of Steel/ Doomsday later printings on Captain Marvel #17. In the past, I wouldn't have thought about buying a 2nd print other than a TPB, and still wouldn't for me. That doesn't mean they won't be picked up for someone else who will appreciate them. A few Batman:TDKR 2nd and 3rd prints were just picked up due to other's buying preferences. I'm a 1st print guy all the way but I'm open minded too.

 

I remember 2nd prints being looked at with disdain among collectors and for good reason.

 

Yep, I'd agree but I'm not going to go against the grain for selling. Collecting ? 1st prints or nothing. (thumbs u

[RockMyAmadeus]

Deadworld #10 is a good example where the back cover ad created demand and value for the book

 

No one is arguing that an ad cannot create demand and value.

 

But it's NOT the Crow's first appearance. That is Caliber Presents #1.

So, Hulk 180 ISN'T the first appearance of Wolverine? Is that last panel an advertisement of sorts for the next issue? I will always believe 180 is his first appearance, and that will never change, but I'm with you on the gobbledygook's of the world. Not 1st appearances, but ads.

 

I don't know how to respond to this.

 

 

[MrWeen]

Deadworld #10 is a good example where the back cover ad created demand and value for the book

 

No one is arguing that an ad cannot create demand and value.

 

But it's NOT the Crow's first appearance. That is Caliber Presents #1.

So, Hulk 180 ISN'T the first appearance of Wolverine? Is that last panel an advertisement of sorts for the next issue? I will always believe 180 is his first appearance, and that will never change, but I'm with you on the gobbledygook's of the world. Not 1st appearances, but ads.

 

I don't know how to respond to this.

 

 

Here I'll help:

 

So, Hulk 180 ISN'T the first appearance of Wolverine?

 

Yes, it is.

 

Is that last panel an advertisement of sorts for the next issue?

 

No.

 

I will always believe 180 is his first appearance, and that will never change, but I'm with you on the gobbledygook's of the world. Not 1st appearances, but ads.

 

Yes 180 is his first but because Wolverine wasn't on the cover until 181 the majority of dealers and collectors erroneously gave the distinction of first appearance to the wrong comic. There are more than one example of this from this era and I suspect it would not have happened if there were forums and other internet resources available back then.

 

Here's how I see it:

 

Foom 2 - First appearance of Wolverine prototype where elements and design were basically stolen by Marvel and used to create one of the most iconic comic characters ever.

 

Hulk 180 - First appearance/full appearance of Wolverine.

 

Daredevil 115, Marvel Premiere 119, Thor 229 - First appearance of Wolverine on the cover for Hulk 181 in an advertisement

 

Hulk 181 - Third appearance of Wolverine, first appearance on a cover

 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2015 by MrWeen

[Beastfeast]

How you see it is irrelevant.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

You can answer no, no,no all you want but that doesn't make you correct.

 

Very true.

 

Of course, I didn't answer "no, no, no." I specifically denied your specific statements. There's a subtle but important distinction there.

 

What makes someone correct is the accuracy of their information, not saying "no" or "yes."

 

So...whose information is accurate?

 

If we are talking about a preview of a book like Green Wake 7, Agents 1, House of Mystery Annual 1 or a single image of a character like Gwenpool who does NOT appear in the book beyond the cover I just don't see how you can argue against those examples as first appearances.

 

I don't have any knowledge of "Green Wake 7", am not familiar with the preview in House of Mystery Annual 1, and I don't know who first appears in Agents 1. Do you mean Agents 6?

 

And if you can't see as you say, I'll explain it again: if I take a handful of pages....like Image has done for the better part of 20 years...that are pages out of the upcoming Comic Book X #Y, and put them in a current publication as a "preview", that is not a first appearance...it is a preview.

 

Common sense, reason, and the definitions of words tells us that a "preview" of something is NOT the thing itself, which is what you're attempting to redefine. It is literally a PRE-view, that is, a glimpse, a look, a taste of something BEFORE it officially debuts.

 

Is it cool that the first few pages of Walking Dead #1 appear in Agents #6 and Capes #1? Yes, definitely. Does that increase interest in (and usually the value of) these particular issues? Absolutely.

 

Is it literally the first appearance of these characters in published form? Yes, and no one's arguing against that.

 

But the phrase "first appearance" has a slightly different meaning than "first time this character ever appeared in/on a product intended for public consumption", because comic books are a storytelling artform. If it doesn't tell a story, it's NOT sequential art. That is the defining characteristic of sequential art - it's art that's sequential, meaning, "it tells a story", regardless of what that story is.

 

In THAT context, it doesn't matter if characters appear in ads, in previews (also ads), on Pop-Tart boxes, in TV shows, on billboards, articles of clothing, lunchboxes, or anywhere else outside of the context of a STORY.

 

As has been mentioned many times, the first appearance of Harley Quinn isn't in a comic book...it's in a TV show. But that's not a form that is readily collectable, so what have people turned to? Her first comic book appearance, which has tremendous value.

 

Context, context, context. Context is critical, and defines what "first appearance" really means...and this understanding goes back decades. No one calls the first appearance of Batman "Action Comics #12", even though it is literally true that Batman's likeness first appears in print prior to Detective Comics #27. The hobby has known this for decades, and still doesn't care, because it's just an ad.

 

Does that make Action #12 more important than #11? Not really. And certainly not more than #13, which is the 4th Supes cover.

 

In the comic book world "first appearance" has a specific meaning that doesn't necessarily coincide with the first time a character appears in print.

 

Again they not be worth more that what the market has incorrectly deemed to be the first appearance ( see X-Factor 24 as a example ) but an error by the large collecting community doesn't change facts.

 

Not relevant to this discussion, because we're not discussing such misunderstandings.

 

We can disagree RMA but your definition only serves your argument and does not represent the truth.

 

One more time: it's not my definition. I didn't invent it; it's been around since the beginning of comics fandom. Obviously, the definition serves my argument, because my argument is based on standard definitions, context, and history. And you continuing to say it "doesn't represent the truth" or some other form of that idea, while being unable or unwilling to provide anything from historical literature to refute it, doesn't make it so.

 

If we can't decide on a universal definition they we should go with the literal definition.

 

That is just terrible reasoning. "We can't agree because I reject standard definitions, history, and context, so let's just go with my definition which ignores all of those things."

 

How is that statement not entirely self-serving...?

 

It is silliness on a grand scale.

 

That doesn't mean that Hulk 181 cannot be worth more than 180. All it means is that 181 cannot be called a first appearance.

 

True.

 

"It's only you Johnny-come-latelies that are trying to redefine terms that have been accepted for literally decades that are "making up" "arbitrary" definitions."

 

As far as this statement it's not wise to make assumptions when you know nothing about me. I'm the only one arguing against you so it is directed at me.

 

Of course it was directed at you. I said "you", in response to you. But it wasn't solely directed at you. You are hardly the only person who has argued for "ads" and the like to be considered "true" first appearances, which is why the phrase was plural.

 

And I know nothing about you...? On the contrary, I know much about you, because of what you say on these boards, just as anyone can know much about me, because of the same. But that's a philosophical tangent not related to this discussion.

 

First off my definition isn't arbitrary at all. In fact it is quite clear: Wherever a character first appears in a printed publication, then that's the first appearance.

 

Technically correct. Contextually wrong.

 

As for the rest of your laughable statement, I have been collecting comics for over 30 years. I don't think that qualifies me as a "Johnny-come-lately.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. There are people who have been collecting comics for 50 years who know very little about the hobby. Those people, when discussing the hobby, will be "Johnny-come-latelies" because they are uninformed...not because of their length of time collecting comics.

 

Just curious though, what do you think about Gwenpool. Is Deadpool's Secret Secret Wars 2 variant her first appearance or are you going against the marketplace and sticking with your definition of what a first appearance is?

 

 

I have no idea. I rarely deal in new material. You're going to have to provide some more information.

[jsilverjanet]

I believe HOM Annual 1 is a reference to the first appearance of I Zombie

[Broke as a Joke]

I have asked others before on what would happen if a character made a first appearance on nothing but a cover. Seems to be no consensus on an opinion, but it certainly throws a wrench in the "needs to be in a story" idea because people have already thrown money at the gwenpool book with the intent that this is a first appearance.

 

Like some others have said, times are changing. Keep an open mind.

[revat]

I have asked others before on what would happen if a character made a first appearance on nothing but a cover. Seems to be no consensus on an opinion, but it certainly throws a wrench in the "needs to be in a story" idea because people have already thrown money at the gwenpool book with the intent that this is a first appearance.

 

Like some others have said, times are changing. Keep an open mind.

 

just give complete info when selling, and do a bit of research on your own when buying, and call it a day. these debates will go on til the end of time, but I gots to make my cheddars today.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Deadworld #10 is a good example where the back cover ad created demand and value for the book

 

No one is arguing that an ad cannot create demand and value.

 

But it's NOT the Crow's first appearance. That is Caliber Presents #1.

So, Hulk 180 ISN'T the first appearance of Wolverine? Is that last panel an advertisement of sorts for the next issue? I will always believe 180 is his first appearance, and that will never change, but I'm with you on the gobbledygook's of the world. Not 1st appearances, but ads.

 

I don't know how to respond to this.

 

 

Here I'll help:

 

Thanks, but not necessary. I can speak for myself just fine, and will always give you and everyone else the same respect, and not try to speak or answer for you.

 

Context is king. And, in this case, you don't know the context of my statement, which is multi-layered.

 

I will always believe 180 is his first appearance, and that will never change, but I'm with you on the gobbledygook's of the world. Not 1st appearances, but ads.

 

Yes 180 is his first but because Wolverine wasn't on the cover until 181 the majority of dealers and collectors erroneously gave the distinction of first appearance to the wrong comic.

 

Do you have anything that supports this idea? An article, a blog post, anything at all that shows that "the majority of dealers and collectors gave the distinction of first appearance to the wrong comic"...?

 

Because I don't see anything in any literature that I have (and I have quite a bit) going back to the first acknowledgements of Wolverine's appearances that gives the "distinction of first appearance" to Hulk #181 with the possible exception of the OPG #8, which lists the "1st app. Walverine" (yes, misspelled with an "a", which goes to show how impactful he was.)

 

By the 1981 edition of the OPG, this information...long before the invention of mass-communication methods like the internet, and also long before Wolverine was a household name...had been resolved and correctly listed #180 as his first appearance.

 

Hulk #181, in 1978-1981, wasn't even on the radar of most "dealers and collectors", much less enough for them to have the wrong impression in any meaningful way. Hulk #181 was essentially a brand new modern at this point, and most such books were ignored by dealers and collectors. It would be like looking at a 2008 comic now: modern drek.

 

So, for Overstreet to have it corrected by late 1980 (when OPG #11 was being compiled) is pretty darn reactive of him.

 

There are more than one example of this from this era and I suspect it would not have happened if there were forums and other internet resources available back then.

 

That's precisely the point: there wasn't any quick way for such "misinformation" to be corrected. However...the impact of such an "error" would have been beyond minimal. It certainly wasn't "the hot new book" of the era: those distinctions belonged to GSXM #1 and X-Men #94, which set the modern comics world on fire in 1978-1981. There weren't hoards of dealers and collectors making poor decisions because they "didn't know" that Wolverine's first appearance was in issue #180.

 

Context, context, context.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I believe HOM Annual 1 is a reference to the first appearance of I Zombie

 

Yes, but I am not familiar with the preview, whether it contains original material not in I Zombie #1, or is just a preview. I suspect the latter, based on the context of the example being given.

[Gatsby77]

I know there's a whole thread on this, but is X-Men Annual 14 now the first appearance of Gambit even if, as we all now know, that was just due to a publishing delay and story-wise, it clearly takes place after 266?

 

The Wikipedia entry for him is surprisingly accurate, noting the annual as first appearance (cameo) vs. 266 as "first full" and correctly listing Jim Lee as co-creator.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I have asked others before on what would happen if a character made a first appearance on nothing but a cover. Seems to be no consensus on an opinion, but it certainly throws a wrench in the "needs to be in a story" idea because people have already thrown money at the gwenpool book with the intent that this is a first appearance.

 

Like some others have said, times are changing. Keep an open mind.

 

just give complete info when selling, and do a bit of research on your own when buying, and call it a day. these debates will go on til the end of time, but I gots to make my cheddars today.

 

Yes. Exceptions to the rule do not the rule make, nor are they "wrenches."

 

Maybe tweezers.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I know there's a whole thread on this, but is X-Men Annual 14 now the first appearance of Gambit even if, as we all now know, that was just due to a publishing delay and story-wise, it clearly takes place after 266?

 

The Wikipedia entry for him is surprisingly accurate, noting the annual as first appearance (cameo) vs. 266 as "first full" and correctly listing Jim Lee as co-creator.

 

What publishing delay?

 

And Wikipedia should not be sourced for anything.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Speaking of Gwenpool...

 

...is anyone else here familiar with the stages of genre according to genre theory as described by Giannetti?

 

We are fully immersed in the parodic stage now.

 

[Jaydogrules]

I know there's a whole thread on this, but is X-Men Annual 14 now the first appearance of Gambit even if, as we all now know, that was just due to a publishing delay and story-wise, it clearly takes place after 266?

 

The Wikipedia entry for him is surprisingly accurate, noting the annual as first appearance (cameo) vs. 266 as "first full" and correctly listing Jim Lee as co-creator.

 

Yes, X-,men 266 is still (quite obviously) the first canonical appearance of Gambit.

 

A quirk in the publishing schedules is the only reason X-men Annual #14 just so happened to incidentally hit the newsstands first.

 

Again, comics are not simply "collector's items". They are stories, and when considering this or that character's cameo, first full appearance, etc, it must be done so in that context, and this is why the designations exist as they do.

 

And it is also why any conversation about ads, "prototypes", etc, as being "first appearances" is frankly, stupid.

 

-J.

[B-Smooth]

 

Everything RMA has said on this subject is 100% accurate.

 

-J.

 

[B-Smooth]

Deadworld #10 is a good example where the back cover ad created demand and value for the book

 

No one is arguing that an ad cannot create demand and value.

 

But it's NOT the Crow's first appearance. That is Caliber Presents #1.

So, Hulk 180 ISN'T the first appearance of Wolverine? Is that last panel an advertisement of sorts for the next issue? I will always believe 180 is his first appearance, and that will never change, but I'm with you on the gobbledygook's of the world. Not 1st appearances, but ads.

 

I don't know how to respond to this.

 

[B-Smooth]

It sounds to me like "certain people" have stocked up on (or only own) the much less desirable cameo and/or ad "appearances" of some characters and are upset that they aren't "worth" much (or anything) compared to the industry standard actual first appearances and/or first full appearances of the characters.

 

Everything RMA has said on this subject is 100% accurate.

 

-J.

Man.. I wish I had "stocked up" on Hulk 180's.