BRONZE AGE MARVEL 1ST APPEARANCES

[TheAmazing R.J.S.]

Visions #1 1st. Flaming Carrot ? from 1979 He might not be a big key but the book is very rare !

[Silverdream]

I'm not sure when I said they labeled MP 21 wrong

 

When you began your response talking about the "Misty Knight thread" then in the same breath mentioned "the hundreds of mislabeled first appearances" my assumption was that you were making a correlation between the two. Thats what I didn't get.

 

 

Not labeling books until they can reach a solid consensus is how id like them to do it. Honestly, I cannot give them a ton of credit. They didn't label any book as Misty knights first app. because nobody cared, not because they were not sure which book to list it on. There are thousands of first appearances not listed on CGC labels simply because they are nobody characters. Street level characters and so on. Not listed in OS, Nor on CGC labels.

 

I know you don't give them much credit. And there probably isn't anything I or anyone else could say to convince you otherwise. I'm not waving CGC poms-poms but I think maybe it's a bit exaggerated on how bad of a job they do on posting 1st appearances on labels.

 

They are by no means perfect. But when you grade over a million books, if you got 100 books incorrectly labeled, that is still miniscule in terms of %'s. The worse that happens is that you let them know, tell them why they are wrong...and they fix it. Ive never known CGC to be stubborn if they got a 1st app wrong.

 

Especially with the overnight resurgence of basically B-, C-, even D-list characters being brought into the limelight now with a mere mention of possible movie or tv appearances.

 

Have I caught a mistake on a 1st app? Sure. Are there hundreds of just 1st appearances labeled incorrectly? That might be overstating things a bit. Just my . Please note that I don't consider catergorizations of 1st appearances (ie. brief vs. full vs 1st) as being labeled incorrectly.

 

I wouldn't expect you to waste your time in looking for that many but when you make a statement like that...they shouldn't be hard to find.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A lot of the misunderstanding here is my fault. I have failed to get my point across and a lot of that has to do with using the wrong words and other things.

 

I do not have a problem with CGC really, I think they are a great company and I give them a lot of credit for the resurgence in comic collecting that happened post 2000. While I do have a serious problem with how they treat error books ( randomly green and blue ) that is my only real gripe.

 

When I said they make mistakes on labels, that isn't really what I meant. While they do make label mistakes ( of all kinds) its more about consistency with me. For me, it does matter what they are putting on that label. I have a problem when they label one book a 1st cameo and another book simply 1st, when they are essentially the same type of appearance. They will also label what is essentially a 1st appearance... meaning dozens of panels and named correctly as a 1st, and then come back and label the next issue of a book 1st full appearance. What is that about? It almost feels like CGC labels 1sts on some books based on what is collected/desired more, instead of what is factual. That bothers me.

 

All I would like to see from CGC is consistency. Form some kind of consensus on what they " believe" is the proper terms, length of appearance etc. and stick to it and label each book according to their rules. Currently it seems they just open overstreet or some other database and use that, which is akin to someone using Wikipedia as fact.

 

Labeling inconsistencies , maybe that is a better way to put it. Maybe its too much to ask of them.

[PeterPark]

I'm not sure when I said they labeled MP 21 wrong

 

When you began your response talking about the "Misty Knight thread" then in the same breath mentioned "the hundreds of mislabeled first appearances" my assumption was that you were making a correlation between the two. Thats what I didn't get.

 

 

Not labeling books until they can reach a solid consensus is how id like them to do it. Honestly, I cannot give them a ton of credit. They didn't label any book as Misty knights first app. because nobody cared, not because they were not sure which book to list it on. There are thousands of first appearances not listed on CGC labels simply because they are nobody characters. Street level characters and so on. Not listed in OS, Nor on CGC labels.

 

I know you don't give them much credit. And there probably isn't anything I or anyone else could say to convince you otherwise. I'm not waving CGC poms-poms but I think maybe it's a bit exaggerated on how bad of a job they do on posting 1st appearances on labels.

 

They are by no means perfect. But when you grade over a million books, if you got 100 books incorrectly labeled, that is still miniscule in terms of %'s. The worse that happens is that you let them know, tell them why they are wrong...and they fix it. Ive never known CGC to be stubborn if they got a 1st app wrong.

 

Especially with the overnight resurgence of basically B-, C-, even D-list characters being brought into the limelight now with a mere mention of possible movie or tv appearances.

 

Have I caught a mistake on a 1st app? Sure. Are there hundreds of just 1st appearances labeled incorrectly? That might be overstating things a bit. Just my . Please note that I don't consider catergorizations of 1st appearances (ie. brief vs. full vs 1st) as being labeled incorrectly.

 

I wouldn't expect you to waste your time in looking for that many but when you make a statement like that...they shouldn't be hard to find.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A lot of the misunderstanding here is my fault. I have failed to get my point across and a lot of that has to do with using the wrong words and other things.

 

I do not have a problem with CGC really, I think they are a great company and I give them a lot of credit for the resurgence in comic collecting that happened post 2000. While I do have a serious problem with how they treat error books ( randomly green and blue ) that is my only real gripe.

 

When I said they make mistakes on labels, that isn't really what I meant. While they do make label mistakes ( of all kinds) its more about consistency with me. For me, it does matter what they are putting on that label. I have a problem when they label one book a 1st cameo and another book simply 1st, when they are essentially the same type of appearance. They will also label what is essentially a 1st appearance... meaning dozens of panels and named correctly as a 1st, and then come back and label the next issue of a book 1st full appearance. What is that about? It almost feels like CGC labels 1sts on some books based on what is collected/desired more, instead of what is factual. That bothers me.

 

All I would like to see from CGC is consistency. Form some kind of consensus on what they " believe" is the proper terms, length of appearance etc. and stick to it and label each book according to their rules. Currently it seems they just open overstreet or some other database and use that, which is akin to someone using Wikipedia as fact.

 

Labeling inconsistencies , maybe that is a better way to put it. Maybe its too much to ask of them.

 

Aren't they more market-driven than they are market-makers? Some 1st appearances are not recognized til they have them slabbed. Should they have an issue recognition system to catch things they miss? YES. Why do I have price variants that aren't labeled as such? Beyond that, they should make a more-detailed slab listing that keeps track of items not listed on the actual label. Did M-11's first appearance only become relevant after the issue had been slabbed a few times? UNDOUBTEDLY. That's not CGC's GRADING fault. They're a grading company, not a detail company. The buyer should know what an issue is as they buy it and thank CGC for its help when applicable.

 

[Ronnylama]

I deleted most of the alphabetized books. The new thread says UPDATED MARVEL BRONZE FIRST APPEARANCES...I will put some of these on for further discussion

Thanks