Early Appearance of Harley Quinn? 0

[ion comics]

Well, now we need to determine which book hit the shelves first. With the Goon example I gave, Avatar Illustrated Summer 1998 edition was PUBLISHED before Dreamwalker #0. However, when collectors found out that Dreamwalker #0 hit the stands first (due to a delay in the Avatar Illustrated book), the Dreamwalker book took off while Avatar a Illustrated declined in value.

 

This all will be moot if no one even recognizes or cares about the "Almost Got 'Im" book.

 

Meck

[ion comics]

From a value perspective, I think it's CGC that controls it's success. If they won't grade it (and recognize it as her first appearance) there won't be that same irrational exuberance to own one.

 

Awesome thread!! And excellent detective work by everyone!!

 

Meck

[@Captain_Sawyer]

I see someone already has posted one on eBay

[ion comics]

"Control" is not the correct word. "Dictate" is more appropriate.

[Solar]

Well, now we need to determine which book hit the shelves first. With the Goon example I gave, Avatar Illustrated Summer 1998 edition was PUBLISHED before Dreamwalker #0. However, when collectors found out that Dreamwalker #0 hit the stands first (due to a delay in the Avatar Illustrated book), the Dreamwalker book took off while Avatar a Illustrated declined in value.

 

This all will be moot if no one even recognizes or cares about the "Almost Got 'Im" book.

 

Meck

 

Per divad's post, BA12 was published one week earlier...

[THB]

I see someone already has posted one on eBay

There were five on eBay when this thread started.

[Mike's Rack]

That book is analogous to a Power Records book and record combo:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/190881740183?lpid=82

 

Are they collectible - Yes

Are they awesome - Yes

Are they comics - No

 

This Harley book may have legs, and I hope it does, but it is not a comic.

 

I thought Power Records books were considered comic books? They are listed in my Oversteet Price Guide along with the other comic books. I wasn't aware of a controversy about that. It's interesting. Do others feel the Power Records books are not comic books?

CGC considers them comics http://www.cgccomics.com/census/issues_bytitle.asp?title=Power+Record+Comics&publisher=D%2EC%2E+Comics

 

CGC grades them. That doesn't make them comics.

It calls them comics ...

[the authority]

From a value perspective, I think it's CGC that controls it's success. If they won't grade it (and recognize it as her first appearance) there won't be that same irrational exuberance to own one.

 

Awesome thread!! And excellent detective work by everyone!!

 

Meck

 

I agree, very entertaining and informative thread and everybody is staying happy

 

I think we, the people who buy and collect the books will decide, not CGC. I have always been under the impression that CGC was strictly a grading company and didn't have anything to do with collecting comics for themselves. Somebody fill me in. Do the people at CGC buy, sell, and trade comics ?

[ion comics]

Whoops. Meant to say "distributed".

[ion comics]

Waitaminnit. I re-read my original post and realize no correction is necessary. There is a distinct timing difference best wee publication date and distribution date.

 

My point is that with the Goon character, Dreamwalker 0 was published after Avatar Illustrated 1998, but because Dreamwalker 0 hit the general public first, it was deemed The Goon's first appearance.

 

If someone can prove that "Almost Got 'Im" hit the shelves before BA 12, it could create a similar perception that "Almost Got 'Im" is in fact the first Harley Quinn (in comic form).

 

Hope I clarified my original statement!

 

Meckler

[seanfingh]

That book is analogous to a Power Records book and record combo:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/190881740183?lpid=82

 

Are they collectible - Yes

Are they awesome - Yes

Are they comics - No

 

This Harley book may have legs, and I hope it does, but it is not a comic.

 

I thought Power Records books were considered comic books? They are listed in my Oversteet Price Guide along with the other comic books. I wasn't aware of a controversy about that. It's interesting. Do others feel the Power Records books are not comic books?

CGC considers them comics http://www.cgccomics.com/census/issues_bytitle.asp?title=Power+Record+Comics&publisher=D%2EC%2E+Comics

 

CGC grades them. That doesn't make them comics.

It calls them comics ...

 

I can call you a cotton-headed ninnymuggins. That doesn't make you one.

[divad]

That book is analogous to a Power Records book and record combo:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/190881740183?lpid=82

 

Are they collectible - Yes

Are they awesome - Yes

Are they comics - No

 

This Harley book may have legs, and I hope it does, but it is not a comic.

 

I thought Power Records books were considered comic books? They are listed in my Oversteet Price Guide along with the other comic books. I wasn't aware of a controversy about that. It's interesting. Do others feel the Power Records books are not comic books?

CGC considers them comics http://www.cgccomics.com/census/issues_bytitle.asp?title=Power+Record+Comics&publisher=D%2EC%2E+Comics

 

CGC grades them. That doesn't make them comics.

It calls them comics ...

 

I can call you a cotton-headed ninnymuggins. That doesn't make you one.

[the blob]

If Overstreet says they are...

[Mike's Rack]

That book is analogous to a Power Records book and record combo:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/190881740183?lpid=82

 

Are they collectible - Yes

Are they awesome - Yes

Are they comics - No

 

This Harley book may have legs, and I hope it does, but it is not a comic.

 

I thought Power Records books were considered comic books? They are listed in my Oversteet Price Guide along with the other comic books. I wasn't aware of a controversy about that. It's interesting. Do others feel the Power Records books are not comic books?

CGC considers them comics http://www.cgccomics.com/census/issues_bytitle.asp?title=Power+Record+Comics&publisher=D%2EC%2E+Comics

 

CGC grades them. That doesn't make them comics.

It calls them comics ...

 

I can call you a cotton-headed ninnymuggins. That doesn't make you one.

I'm not sure if that is an insult or a compliment but since I am the eternal optimist I will take it as a compliment. You sir have made my day.

[rjrjr]

So we know by 9/93 the date on BA12, that book had been on the shelves what 1 or 2 months?

 

Well, once again, according to the U.S. Copyright Office, it appears that BA12 is the winner by a week:

Type of Work: Serial

Title: The Batman Adventures.

Serial Publication Year: 1993

Description: print material.

Frequency: Monthly.

Publication History: [No.] 1, Oct. 1992-

Copyright Claimant: DC Comics, Inc.

Issues Registered: no. 5, Feb93. Created 1992; Pub. 1993-01-05; Reg. 1993-02-17; TX0003486207

no. 6, Mar93. Created 1993; Pub. 1993-02-02; Reg. 1993-02-17; TX0003483195

no. 7, Apr93. Created 1993; Pub. 1993-03-02; Reg. 1993-04-22; TX0003532246

no. 8, May93. Created 1993; Pub. 1993-04-06; Reg. 1993-04-22; TX0003531853

no. 9, Jun93. Created 1993; Pub. 1993-05-11; Reg. 1993-05-18; TX0003545466

no. 10, Jul93. Created 1993; Pub. 1993-06-01; Reg. 1993-06-21; TX0003576687

no. 11, Aug93. Created 1993; Pub. 1993-07-06; Reg. 1993-08-04; TX0003597968

no. 12, Sep93. Created 1993; Pub. 1993-08-03; Reg. 1993-10-27; TX0003661101

no. 13, Oct93. Created 1993; Pub. 1993-09-07; Reg. 1993-10-27; TX0003662680

no. 14, Nov93. Created 1993; Pub. 1993-10-05; Reg. 1993-11-12; TX0003675201

no. 15, Dec93. Created 1993; Pub. 1993-11-02; Reg. 1994-01-24; TX0003726425

no. 16, Jan94. Created 1993; Pub. 1993-12-07; Reg. 1994-01-27; TX0003740611

no. Feb94, special. Created 1993; Pub. 1993-12-14; Reg. 1994-01-24; TX0003726427

Basis of Claim: New matter: additions.

 

Names: DC Comics, Inc.

 

Great research divad. I am curious about these dates however. I see the BA 12 has a cover date of September 1993 and I always thought the cover date was about 3 months in the future of the street date of the comic (which would put the comic on the shelves in June or July of 1993.) The original reason for this dating was so the news stands would keep the comic on the shelf for a few months before returning unsold copies. But the US Copyright office shows the publication date as August 1993.

 

I know current DC has a cover date that is 2 or 3 months in the future. Was that not the same back in 1993?

Edited November 6, 2013 by rjrjr

[divad]

Great research divad. I am curious about these dates however. I see the BA 12 has a cover date of September 1993 and I always thought the cover date was about 3 months in the future of the street date of the comic (which would put the comic on the shelves in June or July of 1993.) The original reason for this dating was so the news stands would keep the comic on the shelf for a few months before returning unsold copies. But the US Copyright office shows the publication date as August 1993.

 

I know current DC has a cover date that is 2 or 3 months in the future. Was that not the same back in 1993?

 

This was never the original reason . . .

 

Issue dates never matched distribution dates, and this goes way back (to at least the mid-sixties). This is why books were often date-stamped by the newsstand vendor. The vendor didn't want to keep old books on the shelves, they wanted only the newest books to sell to their customers. Before the direct market, vendors could return any unsold book to the distributor after 30-days for full credit. I don't understand how this idea ever got turned around and seen as a benefit to the vendor - vendors hated it.

 

Of course, 1993 was well into the direct market period.

 

Copyright filings, however, attempt to be as accurate as possible by the copyright claimant, and statements filed are made under the penalty of perjury. I'm not vouching for whomever made these filings, but those that I have personally filed were always accurate.

[divad]

For example, here are some issue and publication dates for Uncanny X-Men from 1982:

 

Type of Work: Serial

Title: The Uncanny X-Men / [Marvel Comics Group].

Serial Publication Year: 1982

Serial Key Title: The Uncanny X-Men

Imprint: New York : The Group.

ISSN: 0274-5372

Description: print material.

Frequency: Monthly.

Continues: X-Men.

Description based on: Vol. 1, no. 121, May 1979.

Copyright Claimant: Marvel Comics Group, a division of Cadence Industries Corporation.

Authorship on Application: text & ill.: Marvel Comics Group, a division of Cadence Industries Corporation, employer for hire.

Issues Registered: v. 1, no. 161, Sep82. Created 1982; Pub. 1982-05-18; Reg. 1983-05-31; TX0001130119

v. 1, no. 162, Oct82. Created 1982; Pub. 1982-06-15; Reg. 1983-06-20; TX0001149240

v. 1, no. 163, Nov82. Created 1982; Pub. 1982-07-20; Reg. 1983-06-20; TX0001148867

v. 1, no. 164, Dec82. Created 1982; Pub. 1982-08-17; Reg. 1983-06-20; TX0001148800

v. 1, no. 165, Jan83. Created 1982; Pub. 1982-09-21; Reg. 1983-06-20; TX0001150634

v. 1, no. 166, Feb83. Created 1982; Pub. 1982-10-19; Reg. 1983-07-25; TX0001164904

v. 1, no. 167, Mar83. Created 1982; Pub. 1982-11-16; Reg. 1983-06-20; TX0001154776

v. 1, no. 168, Apr83. Created 1983; Pub. 1982-12-21; Reg. 1983-06-20; TX0001137928

 

Names: Cadence Industries Corporation. Marvel Comics Group

Marvel Comics Group, a division of Cadence Industries Corporation

 

[Illustrious]

This thread slowed down quick when the copyright Divad showed had BA12 listed as being released a week earlier than the tape book. I wonder why?

Edited November 7, 2013 by Illustrious

[the blob]

Waitaminnit. I re-read my original post and realize no correction is necessary. There is a distinct timing difference best wee publication date and distribution date.

 

My point is that with the Goon character, Dreamwalker 0 was published after Avatar Illustrated 1998, but because Dreamwalker 0 hit the general public first, it was deemed The Goon's first appearance.

 

If someone can prove that "Almost Got 'Im" hit the shelves before BA 12, it could create a similar perception that "Almost Got 'Im" is in fact the first Harley Quinn (in comic form).

 

Hope I clarified my original statement!

 

Meckler

 

I don't purport to know the answer, but I am pretty sure that "publication" in a copyright filing need not be the day a book hit the stands, thought it can be:

 

“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords

of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership,

or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute

copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes

of further distribution, public performance, or public

display constitutes publication.

 

Under this definition (from the copyright office) "publication" also means that merely OFFERING the work for sale for further distribution to the public can be considered publication. So, in this case when shops got Previews? Dunno how the tape/combo would be sold to stores (and I am assuming this doesn't mean "offering" to the distributor..but it might?)

 

So now we don't have a clear cut answer as to what hit the shelves first.

 

 

[rjrjr]

Great research divad. I am curious about these dates however. I see the BA 12 has a cover date of September 1993 and I always thought the cover date was about 3 months in the future of the street date of the comic (which would put the comic on the shelves in June or July of 1993.) The original reason for this dating was so the news stands would keep the comic on the shelf for a few months before returning unsold copies. But the US Copyright office shows the publication date as August 1993.

 

I know current DC has a cover date that is 2 or 3 months in the future. Was that not the same back in 1993?

 

This was never the original reason . . .

 

Issue dates never matched distribution dates, and this goes way back (to at least the mid-sixties). This is why books were often date-stamped by the newsstand vendor. The vendor didn't want to keep old books on the shelves, they wanted only the newest books to sell to their customers. Before the direct market, vendors could return any unsold book to the distributor after 30-days for full credit. I don't understand how this idea ever got turned around and seen as a benefit to the vendor - vendors hated it.

 

Of course, 1993 was well into the direct market period.

 

Copyright filings, however, attempt to be as accurate as possible by the copyright claimant, and statements filed are made under the penalty of perjury. I'm not vouching for whomever made these filings, but those that I have personally filed were always accurate.

 

Are you sure about the cover dates?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_date

Edited November 7, 2013 by rjrjr