Sunfire & Big Hero 6

[Sensei Ryan]

It's a case of not quoting correctly. Silver put in an eyeroll and Ryan had a facepalm, but the quoting messed it up.

 

Hence my question of the "same person."

 

That's great if you want consistency on your comic labels, however, there are many cases where CGC is not correct -- and people still debating these notations.

 

I can agree to meet in the middle and cover all bases and opinions: Put the same label notation on Sunfire #1 -- Early BH6 Appearance.

 

 

Where is CGC not correct on their labels? I am honestly asking with this. Can you provide an example?

 

Also, that wouldn't be meeting in the middle unless there was an earlier appearance by BH6 that negated the other two (S&BH61 & AF17). Is there? If not, and S&BH6 came out 3 months earlier than AF17, how can you argue anything otherwise as their 1st appearance? Evidence, please.

 

For reference, if I walk into a room before you do, who appeared first? Or would you not specify and claim we both arrived there 'early?' Just trying to understand your line of reasoning on this issue.

[Silverdream]

It's a case of not quoting correctly. Silver put in an eyeroll and Ryan had a facepalm, but the quoting messed it up.

 

Hence my question of the "same person."

 

That's great if you want consistency on your comic labels, however, there are many cases where CGC is not correct -- and people still debating these notations.

 

I can agree to meet in the middle and cover all bases and opinions: Put the same label notation on Sunfire #1 -- Early BH6 Appearance.

 

 

Typical.

 

So this guy tries to single out your question and facepalm it, using the quote I started , accidentally deleting your name and leaving mine, and now we are the same person? Wow that is a leap in logic.

 

Nice try, blatent attempt to discredit your detractors. Its a maneuver used by people who know they are on the losing end.

 

Sunfire and Big hero Six # 1 is the first appearance of BH6. CGC will label it as such soon enough. Go ahead and put your foot in your mouth now, so I can quote you later.

[manetteska]

Typical--typical what? Jeebus, here you are again coming in with a real hard-on for things that don't matter.

 

Here is the post that confused Ryan (which he messed up himself) yet I am being called out on somehow. You're as informed and quick-to-the-gun as Nancy Grace.

 

I'll politely step aside here as I have no idea why you are so jonesed about this topic and I really don't care either way. I'll sell all of my copies for way more than the $2 I spent on them and let the speculators sort them out.

 

All I'm saying is that even if CGC slaps a notation on a comic, it doesn't make it gospel.

 

Thanks!

[Lonzilla]

It's a case of not quoting correctly. Silver put in an eyeroll and Ryan had a facepalm, but the quoting messed it up.

 

Hence my question of the "same person."

 

That's great if you want consistency on your comic labels, however, there are many cases where CGC is not correct -- and people still debating these notations.

 

I can agree to meet in the middle and cover all bases and opinions: Put the same label notation on Sunfire #1 -- Early BH6 Appearance.

 

 

Where is CGC not correct on their labels? I am honestly asking with this. Can you provide an example?

 

Also, that wouldn't be meeting in the middle unless there was an earlier appearance by BH6 that negated the other two (S&BH61 & AF17). Is there? If not, and S&BH6 came out 3 months earlier than AF17, how can you argue anything otherwise as their 1st appearance? Evidence, please.

 

For reference, if I walk into a room before you do, who appeared first? Or would you not specify and claim we both arrived there 'early?' Just trying to understand your line of reasoning on this issue.

Yeah, I was supposed to go to NYCC but didn't because I wouldn't have been able to afford it until 3 months from now, does that mean I still went?

[Sensei Ryan]

Typical--typical what? Jeebus, here you are again coming in with a real hard-on for things that don't matter.

 

Here is the post that confused Ryan (which he messed up himself) yet I am being called out on somehow. You're as informed and quick-to-the-gun as Nancy Grace.

 

I'll politely step aside here as I have no idea why you are so jonesed about this topic and I really don't care either way. I'll sell all of my copies for way more than the $2 I spent on them and let the speculators sort them out.

 

All I'm saying is that even if CGC slaps a notation on a comic, it doesn't make it gospel.

 

Thanks!

 

I like how I'm 'confused' when you apparently don't even read the posts that you're referencing .

 

PS - still waiting on that evidence to back up your claim about CGC messing up 1st appearance nods on their labels.

 

And leave Nancy Grace out of it...she's a classy lady!

[manetteska]

I'll skip past the "same guy" comment as it was a bad joke that didn't fly. The mis-quote didn't help, either.

 

Back to the topic at hand: Take a look through the ASK CGC forum (http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=postlist&Board=25&page=1); many examples in there of wrong notations, notation updates, etc.

 

For specificity, I'll point to Hulk #271, Marvel Preview #7, and Rocket Raccoon.

 

Example #1 -- MP #7 -- no mention

Example #2 -- MP #7 -- 1st appearance

Example #3 -- Hulk #271 -- no mention

Example #4 -- Hulk #271 -- 1st comic book appearance

Example #5 -- Hulk #271 -- 1st appearance

 

Good enough?

[divad]

Movie reminds me of another Disney movie from a while ago. Lilo & Stitch. Popular for a short time after it was released then swept away into obscurity. It is Disney we are talking about here...the sequel will be direct to dvd while they pimp out their new exciting movie for the year.

 

If you bought these books when they were cover price that's great but I wouldn't invest any big money into a cartoon that kids wont remember a year from now.

 

And that's why you're Broke as a Joke . . .

[divad]

Ta-da!

 

 

[manetteska]

Ta-da!

 

 

 

...and there's the dinner bell. Now I know it's time to put mine up there.

[Sensei Ryan]

I'll skip past the "same guy" comment as it was a bad joke that didn't fly. The mis-quote didn't help, either.

 

Back to the topic at hand: Take a look through the ASK CGC forum (http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=postlist&Board=25&page=1); many examples in there of wrong notations, notation updates, etc.

 

For specificity, I'll point to Hulk #271, Marvel Preview #7, and Rocket Raccoon.

 

Example #1 -- MP #7 -- no mention

Example #2 -- MP #7 -- 1st appearance

Example #3 -- Hulk #271 -- no mention

Example #4 -- Hulk #271 -- 1st comic book appearance

Example #5 -- Hulk #271 -- 1st appearance

 

Good enough?

 

The jury's still out on this one. So you claim that CGC has made mistakes on these books (dealing with Rocket Raccoon's 1st appearance), right? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that #2 and #4 are the most recently graded slabs (with the other three being older as no one (or not many people at least) really cared about RR's stats until the GotG movie) - much akin to the situation with BH6 that is coming up. Granted, I can't prove that without seeing when each was graded but I'd guess it's a logical assumption to make. So I don't agree that CGC made mistakes on the labels…I just believe they just omitted the information that no one else cared to have on the slabs yet. Assuming I'm right (which also can't be proven without knowing the dates they were all graded) I can understand why you'd think they were mistakes.

[Sensei Ryan]

Ta-da!

 

 

 

...and there's the dinner bell. Now I know it's time to put mine up there.

 

Whoever sold this is misleading the buyer into thinking this is their 1st appearance in order to make a sale. To me, not a very cool move as a seller.

 

Now if that info hadn't been on the listing (or had it been stated as an 'early appearance') I'd be applauding the sale.

[Jimmy Linguini]

Alpha Flight 16 is obviously the first appearance.

[divad]

Alpha Flight 16 is obviously the first appearance.

 

You are joking. I checked that out last week - one panel (tiny, unrecognizable, honey lemon (only) saying, check my new team out next month . . . )

[divad]

Ta-da!

 

 

 

...and there's the dinner bell. Now I know it's time to put mine up there.

 

Whoever sold this is misleading the buyer into thinking this is their 1st appearance in order to make a sale. To me, not a very cool move as a seller.

 

Now if that info hadn't been on the listing (or had it been stated as an 'early appearance') I'd be applauding the sale.

 

My, you are dense. Read the listing again.

[Jimmy Linguini]

Alpha Flight 16 is obviously the first appearance.

 

You are joking. I checked that out last week - one panel (tiny, unrecognizable, lemongirl (only) saying, check my new team out next month . . . )

 

But it has the big hero 6 logo...

 

I honestly think both can be considered first appearances BH6 #1 and AF #17 - I don't think a seller listing one for sale with the "first appearance" designation is fraud or doing something "uncool" - more a difference of opinion.

 

That logo could be considered a first appearance. Sure, its not, but don't pretend an argument couldn't be made

[divad]

Alpha Flight 16 is obviously the first appearance.

 

You are joking. I checked that out last week - one panel (tiny, unrecognizable, lemongirl (only) saying, check my new team out next month . . . )

 

But it has the big hero 6 logo...

 

I honestly think both can be considered first appearances BH6 #1 and AF #17 - I don't think a seller listing one for sale with the "first appearance" designation is fraud or doing something "uncool" - more a difference of opinion.

 

That logo could be considered a first appearance. Sure, its not, but don't pretend an argument couldn't be made

 

I agree, as to arguable. I guess I'll have to pull it . . .

[Sensei Ryan]

Ta-da!

 

 

 

...and there's the dinner bell. Now I know it's time to put mine up there.

 

Whoever sold this is misleading the buyer into thinking this is their 1st appearance in order to make a sale. To me, not a very cool move as a seller.

 

Now if that info hadn't been on the listing (or had it been stated as an 'early appearance') I'd be applauding the sale.

 

My, you are dense. Read the listing again.

 

Ah…we resort to name calling on a listing we clearly misled the buyer on. Glad I know your eBay ID now! (thumbs u

 

What is it I'm supposed to be missing with your listing? You clearly state that it is the 1st appearance of BH6.

[manetteska]

I'll skip past the "same guy" comment as it was a bad joke that didn't fly. The mis-quote didn't help, either.

 

Back to the topic at hand: Take a look through the ASK CGC forum (http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=postlist&Board=25&page=1); many examples in there of wrong notations, notation updates, etc.

 

For specificity, I'll point to Hulk #271, Marvel Preview #7, and Rocket Raccoon.

 

Example #1 -- MP #7 -- no mention

Example #2 -- MP #7 -- 1st appearance

Example #3 -- Hulk #271 -- no mention

Example #4 -- Hulk #271 -- 1st comic book appearance

Example #5 -- Hulk #271 -- 1st appearance

 

Good enough?

 

The jury's still out on this one. So you claim that CGC has made mistakes on these books (dealing with Rocket Raccoon's 1st appearance), right? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that #2 and #4 are the most recently graded slabs (with the other three being older as no one (or not many people at least) really cared about RR's stats until the GotG movie) - much akin to the situation with BH6 that is coming up. Granted, I can't prove that without seeing when each was graded but I'd guess it's a logical assumption to make. So I don't agree that CGC made mistakes on the labels…I just believe they just omitted the information that no one else cared to have on the slabs yet. Assuming I'm right (which also can't be proven without knowing the dates they were all graded) I can understand why you'd think they were mistakes.

 

OK.

 

PS - You can check the grade date of a comic by looking up the serial number.

[divad]

Ta-da!

 

 

 

...and there's the dinner bell. Now I know it's time to put mine up there.

 

Whoever sold this is misleading the buyer into thinking this is their 1st appearance in order to make a sale. To me, not a very cool move as a seller.

 

Now if that info hadn't been on the listing (or had it been stated as an 'early appearance') I'd be applauding the sale.

 

My, you are dense. Read the listing again.

 

Ah…we resort to name calling on a listing we clearly misled the buyer on. Glad I know your eBay ID now! (thumbs u

 

What is it I'm supposed to be missing with your listing? You clearly state that it is the 1st appearance of BH6.

 

"Dense" is not name calling. It is an accurate description of your failure to read and comprehend. Shall I suggest you read it again?

[divad]

Alpha Flight 16 is obviously the first appearance.

 

You are joking. I checked that out last week - one panel (tiny, unrecognizable, lemongirl (only) saying, check my new team out next month . . . )

 

But it has the big hero 6 logo...

 

I honestly think both can be considered first appearances BH6 #1 and AF #17 - I don't think a seller listing one for sale with the "first appearance" designation is fraud or doing something "uncool" - more a difference of opinion.

 

That logo could be considered a first appearance. Sure, its not, but don't pretend an argument couldn't be made

 

Here you go: