Deadpool 2nd Appearance

[Green]

By this rational the back of the shirtless McFarlane card would be the first appearance of Spawn.

 

well these days malibu sun 13 is considered spawns first by the marketplace and that's just a cover image, no contextual appearance there.

By who??

 

malibu sun cover appearences would be the FA of almost all the original image lineup. I certainly dont count them (altho i do have them all) and i dont know anyone other than an ebay carnival barker that would.

[pubmonkey]

I believe it was x-force 2 and is labeled so by CGC.

 

This is why i want to sort this out. CGC has been wrong before and in this case i believe they are again.

 

At the end of the gold 2nd print for X-Force 1 there is an id card similar to the ones on the back of G.I.Joe toys or in the marvel Encyclopedia comics. Dead pool IS pictured there. This addition is only in the reprint which predates the issue 2 of the X-Force series. i ask because despite high a print run for issue 2 there has been some interest in that issue as a second appearance. I don't know what the print run was for the gold 2nd of issue 1 but i suspect it was much lower than issue 2.

 

At the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, the main issue is what does "appearance" mean? For literalists, it may be #1 Gold because his likeness is there, hence it is an appearance. For contextualists, appearance typically means that the character "appeared" in the story line. Comic collectors (and their secondary market) tend to favor a more contextual approach.

 

The same logic is then applied to the significance of the appearance. For example, Doomsday's arm appears in MOS 17, so it is a literal appearance, but it is not considered particularly material, thus MOS 18 is the key book.

 

What nearly always happens, is that the value of these books gets looped in to the analysis. People think Hulk 180 is undervalued because it has the first appearance of Wolverine. While that may or may not have merit or appeal, when the market speaks, it rarely reverses field.

 

I am not talking about value tho I do recognize that X-Force 2's value is altered based on what the market decides. And yet what the market decides the value is of a comic does not change the facts about the comic.

Personally i don't care about the value of X-force 2

Marvel added the Deadpool card to issue 1. Is that an appearance? Not in comics because it was in a different medium. But they did add the bio and likeness of Deadpool in that reprint. My point here is that there is a lot of erroneous and missing info on character appearances all over the web, and on some pretty popular pages. I see it as a collector our duty to make sure properties we enjoy are accurately represented. Deadpool is a great case because he has so few appearances prior to his own inaugural series. By the way a book like the Deadpolica Encyclopedia is cataloged as a chronological appearance on webs like the CB Database but they don't even list the gold reprint as an appearance at all. Here is another example, The Marvel Preview 93 should be listed as an appearance of Deadpool because of one head shot in the magazine. I hear your counter but for X-Force 2 to be considered his second you need your word contextual put before appearance every time.

 

Appearance is defined as...The act or an instance of coming into sight. presented before the eye and mind before the public.

 

 

 

 

You are pretty much right in everything you have said. But the literalists are far outnumbered amongst comic collectors. You should hear the GA guys rumble about ad pages for Tec 27 being the first appearance of Batman . . .

 

Another copper example of this would be Gobbledygook and TMNT #1...which one is the first appearance? does an Ad qualify? Personally I say no but the way you collect may differ from the way I collect....

[seanfingh]

 

Absolutely. A character appearing in an ad or a preview can increase interest (and cause spikes in price). You will always have people on both sides of the fence as to whether those are first appearances or not.

[AGGIEZ]

By this rational the back of the shirtless McFarlane card would be the first appearance of Spawn.

 

well these days malibu sun 13 is considered spawns first by the marketplace and that's just a cover image, no contextual appearance there.

By who??

 

malibu sun cover appearences would be the FA of almost all the original image lineup. I certainly dont count them (altho i do have them all) and i dont know anyone other than an ebay carnival barker that would.

 

Agreed, awesome book to have but not a first appearance.

 

And the comic "rookie card" debate has me laughing.

 

 

 

[MrWeen]

I believe it was x-force 2 and is labeled so by CGC.

 

This is why i want to sort this out. CGC has been wrong before and in this case i believe they are again.

 

At the end of the gold 2nd print for X-Force 1 there is an id card similar to the ones on the back of G.I.Joe toys or in the marvel Encyclopedia comics. Dead pool IS pictured there. This addition is only in the reprint which predates the issue 2 of the X-Force series. i ask because despite high a print run for issue 2 there has been some interest in that issue as a second appearance. I don't know what the print run was for the gold 2nd of issue 1 but i suspect it was much lower than issue 2.

 

At the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, the main issue is what does "appearance" mean? For literalists, it may be #1 Gold because his likeness is there, hence it is an appearance. For contextualists, appearance typically means that the character "appeared" in the story line. Comic collectors (and their secondary market) tend to favor a more contextual approach.

 

The same logic is then applied to the significance of the appearance. For example, Doomsday's arm appears in MOS 17, so it is a literal appearance, but it is not considered particularly material, thus MOS 18 is the key book.

 

What nearly always happens, is that the value of these books gets looped in to the analysis. People think Hulk 180 is undervalued because it has the first appearance of Wolverine. While that may or may not have merit or appeal, when the market speaks, it rarely reverses field.

 

I am not talking about value tho I do recognize that X-Force 2's value is altered based on what the market decides. And yet what the market decides the value is of a comic does not change the facts about the comic.

Personally i don't care about the value of X-force 2

Marvel added the Deadpool card to issue 1. Is that an appearance? Not in comics because it was in a different medium. But they did add the bio and likeness of Deadpool in that reprint. My point here is that there is a lot of erroneous and missing info on character appearances all over the web, and on some pretty popular pages. I see it as a collector our duty to make sure properties we enjoy are accurately represented. Deadpool is a great case because he has so few appearances prior to his own inaugural series. By the way a book like the Deadpolica Encyclopedia is cataloged as a chronological appearance on webs like the CB Database but they don't even list the gold reprint as an appearance at all. Here is another example, The Marvel Preview 93 should be listed as an appearance of Deadpool because of one head shot in the magazine. I hear your counter but for X-Force 2 to be considered his second you need your word contextual put before appearance every time.

 

Appearance is defined as...The act or an instance of coming into sight. presented before the eye and mind before the public.

 

 

 

 

You are pretty much right in everything you have said. But the literalists are far outnumbered amongst comic collectors. You should hear the GA guys rumble about ad pages for Tec 27 being the first appearance of Batman . . .

 

Another copper example of this would be Gobbledygook and TMNT #1...which one is the first appearance? does an Ad qualify? Personally I say no but the way you collect may differ from the way I collect....

 

I would eat a plate of fried tits for a first print Gobbledygook #1

[MrWeen]

By this rational the back of the shirtless McFarlane card would be the first appearance of Spawn.

 

well these days malibu sun 13 is considered spawns first by the marketplace and that's just a cover image, no contextual appearance there.

By who??

 

malibu sun cover appearences would be the FA of almost all the original image lineup. I certainly dont count them (altho i do have them all) and i dont know anyone other than an ebay carnival barker that would.

 

Agreed, awesome book to have but not a first appearance.

 

Once again I refer you to the definition of the word appearance. It's both crystal and clear.

[seanfingh]

By this rational the back of the shirtless McFarlane card would be the first appearance of Spawn.

 

well these days malibu sun 13 is considered spawns first by the marketplace and that's just a cover image, no contextual appearance there.

By who??

 

malibu sun cover appearences would be the FA of almost all the original image lineup. I certainly dont count them (altho i do have them all) and i dont know anyone other than an ebay carnival barker that would.

 

Agreed, awesome book to have but not a first appearance.

 

Once again I refer you to the definition of the word appearance. It's both crystal and clear.

 

Just because you think it doesn't make it right. Using definitions with no context is unpersuasive. Taking your thesis to its logical conclusion, there would be 1st appearances in dreams, scrapped drafts, and scribbled on the backs of napkins.

[MrWeen]

By this rational the back of the shirtless McFarlane card would be the first appearance of Spawn.

 

well these days malibu sun 13 is considered spawns first by the marketplace and that's just a cover image, no contextual appearance there.

By who??

 

malibu sun cover appearences would be the FA of almost all the original image lineup. I certainly dont count them (altho i do have them all) and i dont know anyone other than an ebay carnival barker that would.

 

Agreed, awesome book to have but not a first appearance.

 

Once again I refer you to the definition of the word appearance. It's both crystal and clear.

 

Just because you think it doesn't make it right. Using definitions with no context is unpersuasive. Taking your thesis to its logical conclusion, there would be 1st appearances in dreams, scrapped drafts, and scribbled on the backs of napkins.

 

Are dreams, scrapped drafts and scribbled napkins ever officially released to the public? No.

Again i have yet to hear a valid counter argument. All i am saying is that there needs to be a more accurate way to determine first appearance. In fact there needs to be a universal definition of a comic book first appearance. The whole thing is way to convoluted.

Here are some examples:

Doomsday: Man of Steel 17 or 18. The internet cannot seem to agree.

Damian Wayne: Batman 655 is labeled as his first but it's only a cameo. 656 SHOULD be labeled as his first.

Rocket Raccoon: Marvel Preview 7 or The incredible hulk 271? Many argue against the marvel preview because it is a magazine and not a comic. ( that is bullsh*t by the way )

Larfleeze: Green Lantern 25 9(cameo ) or DC universe 0

Darksied: Jimmy Olsen 134, Forever People 1, New Gods 1

Volthoom: This one is a mess

 

It goes on and on...

 

I feel like collectors who have invested in a first appearance will argue against a proper revision of history because they don't want their items to drop in value rather than support the truth.

[slym2none]

WHAT? People protecting their wallet in lieu of the truth?

 

SAY IT AIN'T SO, JOE!?!?!

 

 

 

 

-slym (no offense intended, MrWeen)

[seanfingh]

I feel like collectors who have invested in a first appearance will argue against a proper revision of history because they don't want their items to drop in value rather than support the truth.

 

It's only a proper revision of history according to your perspective. Do tiny, one panel appearances matter to anyone? Not really. What matters is the first time that a character makes a "meaningful" appearance. Everyone gets it. You think that any appearance is meaningful, and whichever is first in time is the first appearance. The market disagrees.

 

And I don't think it is purely financial. I think a lot of it is pragmatic. The reason first appearances caught on is because of continuity and long range popularity. A shot of an arm or a guy standing on a rock is not part of why the character became so important. A 20 page battle, where you see the character use his abilities and interact with the rest of the world, is.

 

As I said earlier, from a pure logic standpoint and the literal definitions, your position is more than defensible. But it is not wrong, stupid, or greedy to put a patina of importance on the concept of a "first appearance" in the realm of comic collecting.

[RockMyAmadeus]

[slym2none]

 

 

 

 

-slym

[MrWeen]

I feel like collectors who have invested in a first appearance will argue against a proper revision of history because they don't want their items to drop in value rather than support the truth.

 

It's only a proper revision of history according to your perspective. Do tiny, one panel appearances matter to anyone? Not really. What matters is the first time that a character makes a "meaningful" appearance. Everyone gets it. You think that any appearance is meaningful, and whichever is first in time is the first appearance. The market disagrees.

 

And I don't think it is purely financial. I think a lot of it is pragmatic. The reason first appearances caught on is because of continuity and long range popularity. A shot of an arm or a guy standing on a rock is not part of why the character became so important. A 20 page battle, where you see the character use his abilities and interact with the rest of the world, is.

 

As I said earlier, from a pure logic standpoint and the literal definitions, your position is more than defensible. But it is not wrong, stupid, or greedy to put a patina of importance on the concept of a "first appearance" in the realm of comic collecting.

 

Well a shot of an arm ( web spider-man 18 ) is a different animal. The same goes for Earth's first female Green lantern. In those cases we cannot see the character at all. But when I see a face on a screen ( Darkseid ) and collectors try to say that that's not his first because we don't see his body I start to groan. He's not in a shadow, his freakin face is right there. That's a first appearance. Tiny panels don't mean anything? That Darkseid panel is tiny.

 

As far any "meaningful appearances" That reminds me of " contextual appearances" You cannot say that the HQ one shot is her first because it's her first in-continuity appearance in the DCU. That book may be more "meaningful " but her first appearance is in a Batman adv comic that hold no importance other that being the first public offering of her image in a comic.

[MrWeen]

WHAT? People protecting their wallet in lieu of the truth?

 

SAY IT AIN'T SO, JOE!?!?!

 

 

 

 

-slym (no offense intended, MrWeen)

 

 

none taken!

 

[Kevin76]

By this rational the back of the shirtless McFarlane card would be the first appearance of Spawn.

 

well these days malibu sun 13 is considered spawns first by the marketplace and that's just a cover image, no contextual appearance there.

By who??

 

malibu sun cover appearences would be the FA of almost all the original image lineup. I certainly dont count them (altho i do have them all) and i dont know anyone other than an ebay carnival barker that would.

 

Agreed, awesome book to have but not a first appearance.

 

Once again I refer you to the definition of the word appearance. It's both crystal and clear.

 

Just because you think it doesn't make it right. Using definitions with no context is unpersuasive. Taking your thesis to its logical conclusion, there would be 1st appearances in dreams, scrapped drafts, and scribbled on the backs of napkins.

 

Are dreams, scrapped drafts and scribbled napkins ever officially released to the public? No.

Again i have yet to hear a valid counter argument. All i am saying is that there needs to be a more accurate way to determine first appearance. In fact there needs to be a universal definition of a comic book first appearance. The whole thing is way to convoluted.

Here are some examples:

Doomsday: Man of Steel 17 or 18. The internet cannot seem to agree.

Damian Wayne: Batman 655 is labeled as his first but it's only a cameo. 656 SHOULD be labeled as his first.

Rocket Raccoon: Marvel Preview 7 or The incredible hulk 271? Many argue against the marvel preview because it is a magazine and not a comic. ( that is bullsh*t by the way )

Larfleeze: Green Lantern 25 9(cameo ) or DC universe 0

Darksied: Jimmy Olsen 134, Forever People 1, New Gods 1

Volthoom: This one is a mess

 

It goes on and on...

 

I feel like collectors who have invested in a first appearance will argue against a proper revision of history because they don't want their items to drop in value rather than support the truth.

 

Just buy them all so you're covered

[DeliBebek]

I feel like collectors who have invested in a first appearance will argue against a proper revision of history because they don't want their items to drop in value rather than support the truth.

See, I always had the opposite opinion. I think that a lot of those people who argue that the one-panel appearance should make that book more valuable are only adjusting because they got locked out of having the accepted first appearance before prices went up, but they did manage to scoop up a few of the "arm appearance" so they want to sway everyone that the one they happen to own is the "real first appearance," so they can manage some kind of profit.

[Kevin76]

I feel like collectors who have invested in a first appearance will argue against a proper revision of history because they don't want their items to drop in value rather than support the truth.

See, I always had the opposite opinion. I think that a lot of those people who argue that the one-panel appearance should make that book more valuable are only adjusting because they got locked out of having the accepted first appearance before prices went up, but they did manage to scoop up a few of the "arm appearance" so they want to sway everyone that the one they happen to own is the "real first appearance," so they can manage some kind of profit.

 

Just buy both and you're covered, sell both and get more of which one sells for the most out of the 2

[whetteon]

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

The gang is all back together!

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

The gang is all back together!

 

[juggernaut]

I feel like collectors who have invested in a first appearance will argue against a proper revision of history because they don't want their items to drop in value rather than support the truth.

See, I always had the opposite opinion. I think that a lot of those people who argue that the one-panel appearance should make that book more valuable are only adjusting because they got locked out of having the accepted first appearance before prices went up, but they did manage to scoop up a few of the "arm appearance" so they want to sway everyone that the one they happen to own is the "real first appearance," so they can manage some kind of profit.