1st Teen Titans 3 3

[sfcityduck]

 

Stated differently, yet again, do you really think Avengers 2 is the first adventure of the Avengers?

 

I don't. And therein lies the difference.

 

The battle against Loki is what led to the formation of the Avengers. The battle against the Space Phantom is the first time the Avengers fight.

 

We know the Hulk left the team almost immediately. What if he had refused to join in the first place? Would it still be the Avengers fighting Loki in your opinion? What if another original member had refused?

 

 

Nothing left to discuss. If you don't think that Avengers 1 tells the first Avengers adventure, then we have no common ground.

 

If Hulk had refused to join the Avengers, Avengers 1 would still have told the first Avengers adventure of the fight against Loki. Hulk just wouldn't have been one of the Avengers.

 

GS X-Men 1 is the first New X-Men adventure even though characters refused to join the team. Or do you also believe that GS X-Men 1 is NOT the first appearance of the New X-Men? !

 

I don't recall a "team" being "officially" formed in GS X-Men 1. I do recall the issue ending with a real question as to who, if anyone, was going to be an X-Man. And in the next issue, we found out that certain characters in the initial adventure would not be joining the team.

 

Yet, it is still the first appearance of the New X-Men. We can at least agree on that, Right? [And if you can, then you should also agree Avengers 1 is the first adventure of the Avengers.]

 

There are no New X-Men, only X-Men. Eventually, there were so many members that they split into two teams, but that was in the 90s.

 

Do people call Avengers 16 the first appearance of the New Avengers?

 

Your evasions are revealing the thinness of your arguments.

 

From X-Men 94:

 

 

So was GS X-Men the first new X-Men or not?

 

I think there's a reason why the issue sells for so much.

[Lazyboy]

 

Stated differently, yet again, do you really think Avengers 2 is the first adventure of the Avengers?

 

I don't. And therein lies the difference.

 

The battle against Loki is what led to the formation of the Avengers. The battle against the Space Phantom is the first time the Avengers fight.

 

We know the Hulk left the team almost immediately. What if he had refused to join in the first place? Would it still be the Avengers fighting Loki in your opinion? What if another original member had refused?

 

 

Nothing left to discuss. If you don't think that Avengers 1 tells the first Avengers adventure, then we have no common ground.

 

If Hulk had refused to join the Avengers, Avengers 1 would still have told the first Avengers adventure of the fight against Loki. Hulk just wouldn't have been one of the Avengers.

 

GS X-Men 1 is the first New X-Men adventure even though characters refused to join the team. Or do you also believe that GS X-Men 1 is NOT the first appearance of the New X-Men? !

 

I don't recall a "team" being "officially" formed in GS X-Men 1. I do recall the issue ending with a real question as to who, if anyone, was going to be an X-Man. And in the next issue, we found out that certain characters in the initial adventure would not be joining the team.

 

Yet, it is still the first appearance of the New X-Men. We can at least agree on that, Right? [And if you can, then you should also agree Avengers 1 is the first adventure of the Avengers.]

 

There are no New X-Men, only X-Men. Eventually, there were so many members that they split into two teams, but that was in the 90s.

 

Do people call Avengers 16 the first appearance of the New Avengers?

 

Your evasions are revealing the thinness of your arguments.

 

From X-Men 94:

 

 

So was GS X-Men the first new X-Men or not?

 

I think there's a reason why the issue sells for so much.

Yeah, obviously because it's the first appearance of Thunderbird. Duh!

 

Back to reality... It's the first appearance of Storm, Nightcrawler and Colossus and the second full Wolverine appearance. Also, the prelude to the restart of new adventures in the main title rather than the reprints it had been featuring.

[sfcityduck]

 

Stated differently, yet again, do you really think Avengers 2 is the first adventure of the Avengers?

 

I don't. And therein lies the difference.

 

The battle against Loki is what led to the formation of the Avengers. The battle against the Space Phantom is the first time the Avengers fight.

 

We know the Hulk left the team almost immediately. What if he had refused to join in the first place? Would it still be the Avengers fighting Loki in your opinion? What if another original member had refused?

 

 

Nothing left to discuss. If you don't think that Avengers 1 tells the first Avengers adventure, then we have no common ground.

 

If Hulk had refused to join the Avengers, Avengers 1 would still have told the first Avengers adventure of the fight against Loki. Hulk just wouldn't have been one of the Avengers.

 

GS X-Men 1 is the first New X-Men adventure even though characters refused to join the team. Or do you also believe that GS X-Men 1 is NOT the first appearance of the New X-Men? !

 

I don't recall a "team" being "officially" formed in GS X-Men 1. I do recall the issue ending with a real question as to who, if anyone, was going to be an X-Man. And in the next issue, we found out that certain characters in the initial adventure would not be joining the team.

 

Yet, it is still the first appearance of the New X-Men. We can at least agree on that, Right? [And if you can, then you should also agree Avengers 1 is the first adventure of the Avengers.]

 

There are no New X-Men, only X-Men. Eventually, there were so many members that they split into two teams, but that was in the 90s.

 

Do people call Avengers 16 the first appearance of the New Avengers?

 

Your evasions are revealing the thinness of your arguments.

 

From X-Men 94:

 

 

So was GS X-Men the first new X-Men or not?

 

I think there's a reason why the issue sells for so much.

Yeah, obviously because it's the first appearance of Thunderbird. Duh!

 

Back to reality... It's the first appearance of Storm, Nightcrawler and Colossus and the second full Wolverine appearance. Also, the prelude to the restart of new adventures in the main title rather than the reprints it had been featuring.

 

So you're saying that all of us who have viewed Giant Size X-Men 1 as the first appearance of the new X-Men since it came out in 1975 have got it wrong? Better tell CGC. And the Price Guide. And the eBay dealers.

 

You are just highlighting the absurdity and fringe nature of your views of these books. GS X-Men no. 1 is the first appearance of the new X-Men just as BB 54 is the first appearance of the Teen Titans and Avengers 1 tells the first Avengers adventure. Your contrary assertions are credibility destroying. Do you think DC Comics Presents 26 and/or new Teen Titans 1 are not the first appearance of the new Teen Titans?

Edited September 14, 2015 by sfcityduck

[Foolkiller]

I'm sure someone already asked this, but why does it matter either way which issue was the first appearance?

 

I don't think enough people are going to change their minds either way, and OS is going to continue to recognize BB 54 as the first appearance.

 

I'm not sure there's going to be a "right" answer to this. And the debate doesn't really yield anything.

 

I can only speak for myself and say why I'm engaged in the debate -- because I want people who might be inclined to spend money on it to know what they're getting...and not getting.

 

I've been burnt by buying things based on what Overstreet told me, reading them, and finding out Overstreet was wrong. So, I'm trying to let people know, if you buy Brave and Bold 54, don't expect to see a superhero team form -- let alone appear -- within those pages. You get three future members working together, yes, but they don't form a team or even decide to.

 

They know exactly what they're getting. A Brave and the Bold 54, or 60. BB 54 has long been established as "the first appearance" and the value isn't going to change. Even if BB 60 suddenly has more popularity, nobody's going to say, well, gosh, now it's BB 60 (or at least nobody in the mainstream). That ship sailed amongst most people. It certainly has at OS.

 

Do most collectors even care? No. That's why I asked the question. If you're lobbying for BB 60 to be "first teen titans", it's the same as those of us who think (and know) Hulk 180 is the first appearance of Wolverine. But who really cares who's right? The book to own is still 181. Just the way it is.

 

And we can all post 100+ pages and won't change a single fact about it except to make you feel good about certain points that you may (or may not) be right about the formation in the team.

 

If you want a 54 you'll have to pay market rate to get one. If you want a 60, you'll have to pay market rate to get one. Even if you really believe 60 is the "first appearance" of the Teen Titans, if nobody will pay you like it's a first appearance, who cares. And are you really satisfied with owning a 60 and no 54, I've never run into a Teen Titans collector who was.

 

Team first appearances are generally better laid out like BB 28 or FF 1 or Avengers 1. Some clear delineation. If this is ambiguous because they didn't use the words "teen titans" in 54, I'm going to grant that is an absolute fact. So what? Let's say these folks are right about it being in 60, not 54. Great. Now what. Mainstream hasn't and isn't going to accept it. When I go to the Guide it'll still say BB 54. When I ask dealers, it's still 54. When it's posted in the Clink auction BB 54 will still say first Teen Titans.

 

Like Hulk 180, it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong. Because not enough people actually care.

[Lazyboy]

First of all, continuing to call a group that was put together forty years ago "new" is asinine. There have been many new X-Men rosters over the years.

 

Which team/roster is the New New New Brotherhood of Dada X-Men? Is the current roster the All-New, All-Different, Marvel Now, New New New New New New New New New New New New New New New X-Men or are they simply the X-Men, as they have always been?

 

The loose language and slang people use to refer to specific time periods or iterations of teams or characters is irrelevant. Increasingly so, as time goes by, in some cases.

[HighStakesComics]

I'm sure someone already asked this, but why does it matter either way which issue was the first appearance?

 

I don't think enough people are going to change their minds either way, and OS is going to continue to recognize BB 54 as the first appearance.

 

I'm not sure there's going to be a "right" answer to this. And the debate doesn't really yield anything.

 

I can only speak for myself and say why I'm engaged in the debate -- because I want people who might be inclined to spend money on it to know what they're getting...and not getting.

 

I've been burnt by buying things based on what Overstreet told me, reading them, and finding out Overstreet was wrong. So, I'm trying to let people know, if you buy Brave and Bold 54, don't expect to see a superhero team form -- let alone appear -- within those pages. You get three future members working together, yes, but they don't form a team or even decide to.

 

They know exactly what they're getting. A Brave and the Bold 54, or 60. BB 54 has long been established as "the first appearance" and the value isn't going to change. Even if BB 60 suddenly has more popularity, nobody's going to say, well, gosh, now it's BB 60 (or at least nobody in the mainstream). That ship sailed amongst most people. It certainly has at OS.

 

Do most collectors even care? No. That's why I asked the question. If you're lobbying for BB 60 to be "first teen titans", it's the same as those of us who think (and know) Hulk 180 is the first appearance of Wolverine. But who really cares who's right? The book to own is still 181. Just the way it is.

 

And we can all post 100+ pages and won't change a single fact about it except to make you feel good about certain points that you may (or may not) be right about the formation in the team.

 

If you want a 54 you'll have to pay market rate to get one. If you want a 60, you'll have to pay market rate to get one. Even if you really believe 60 is the "first appearance" of the Teen Titans, if nobody will pay you like it's a first appearance, who cares. And are you really satisfied with owning a 60 and no 54, I've never run into a Teen Titans collector who was.

 

Team first appearances are generally better laid out like BB 28 or FF 1 or Avengers 1. Some clear delineation. If this is ambiguous because they didn't use the words "teen titans" in 54, I'm going to grant that is an absolute fact. So what? Let's say these folks are right about it being in 60, not 54. Great. Now what. Mainstream hasn't and isn't going to accept it. When I go to the Guide it'll still say BB 54. When I ask dealers, it's still 54. When it's posted in the Clink auction BB 54 will still say first Teen Titans.

 

Like Hulk 180, it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong. Because not enough people actually care.

 

Actually, the 60 typically already sells for more in 9.0 & better, with the 9.6 Pacific Coast bringing the highest dollar figure of any graded copy of either book. That said, the 60 is much tougher in higher grade.

Mid grade copies of the 54 typically sell for a premium to the 60, but 60 had one of the largest year over year gains of any book in the guide.

 

[divad]

First of all, continuing to call a group that was put together forty years ago "new" is asinine. There have been many new X-Men rosters over the years.

 

Which team/roster is the New New New Brotherhood of Dada X-Men? Is the current roster the All-New, All-Different, Marvel Now, New New New New New New New New New New New New New New New X-Men or are they simply the X-Men, as they have always been?

 

The loose language and slang people use to refer to specific time periods or iterations of teams or characters is irrelevant. Increasingly so, as time goes by, in some cases.

 

Wow.

[Zonker]

Exactly. A perfect Straw Man team up argument appearance.. Not his first sadly.

 

Not sure if that was directed at me, but since some have seemed to miss the point, let me make it less subtly:

 

The editorial blurb at the end of #55 "Another DC team of heroes has triumphed over fantastic odds! Look for more blockbusting new teams in future issues of Brave & Bold!"

 

 

Is remarkably similar to the editorial blurb at the end of #54: "Once again a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed! Watch Brave & Bold for New Teams, New Adventures, New Excitement!"

 

The "new team" (new team-up) is an every-issue occurrence during this period of B&B. Nothing special is being called out at the end of B&B 54.

 

[VintageComics]

 

There are no New X-Men, only X-Men. Eventually, there were so many members that they split into two teams, but that was in the 90s.

 

Do people call Avengers 16 the first appearance of the New Avengers?

 

Whoah. Really?

 

Being a lifelong X-men fan, there was the original line up and then the new X-men after GSX #1 / X #94 - no question about it.

 

Of course, it's all relative and they are no longer new but for decades when you talked about the new X-men it was clear who you were talking about.

 

The Avengers had established early on that they were a constantly rotating lineup (from issue #1 actually), unlike the X-men or the FF which kept constant lineups for a decade or even decades.

 

 

 

 

[Lazyboy]

 

There are no New X-Men, only X-Men. Eventually, there were so many members that they split into two teams, but that was in the 90s.

 

Do people call Avengers 16 the first appearance of the New Avengers?

 

Whoah. Really?

 

Being a lifelong X-men fan, there was the original line up and then the new X-men after GSX #1 / X #94 - no question about it.

 

Of course, it's all relative and they are no longer new but for decades when you talked about the new X-men it was clear who you were talking about.

 

Yeah, it's outdated slang.

 

The Avengers had established early on that they were a constantly rotating lineup (from issue #1 actually), unlike the X-men or the FF which kept constant lineups for a decade or even decades.

 

Since when have the X-Men has any mutant team kept the same lineup for ten issues (yes, slight hyperbole), let alone ten years?

 

We're not talking about the FF, but I'm not even sure that Marvel's first family has accomplished a ten year run with no changes.

[JTLarsen]

 

After the story in #54, they formed the Teen Titans.

 

It doesn't matter whether it happened immediately, as a result of their team-up, or not. I don't believe any of us have ever disputed that. What matters is that it happened after, which it clearly did, since it doesn't happen in the story in #54.

 

There's no misinformation here. There's just information that is being interpreted differently. I simply don't understand your interpretation of it, though, because how a quote saying it happened after #54 somehow proves it happened in #54 is beyond me.

 

Robin doesn't say it happened "after the story in #54" or "after B&B 54" -- that's the misinformation.

 

Obviously Robin wouldn't say anything about "#54." He says the events happened after the events in Hatton Corners. Which occurred in #54.

 

Let's what we can agree on:

 

(1) The Teen Titans, as a group, were formed off camera. Agree or Disagree?

 

Agree.

 

(2) The stated reason why the Teen Titans became a group was "the adventure in Hatton Corners." Agree or Disagree?

 

I don't recall that, so I can't agree to it. If Robin says they formed BECAUSE of Hatton Corners, rather than AFTER, then, yes, there's causality. But I don't recall seeing that.

 

(3) B&B 60 states the group was formed off-camera prior to the events in that issue. Agree or disagree?

 

Agree.

 

(4) B&B 60 specifically cites to B&B 54 when it states that the TT were formed off-camera. Agree or disagree?

 

You cite something, you don't cite to something. But, no, here we disagree. I think 60 cites 54 when establishing the chronology of events, NOT specifically in reference to the formation.

 

(5) B&B 54 ends with DC touting a "new team". Agree or disagree?

 

Agree and disagree. They use those words, but the meaning of those words was different at the time than we use and understand them now.

 

(6) TT 1 begins its history of the TT by starting with B&B 54 and only refers to B&B 60 as the "next time" the group had an adventure. Agree or disagree?

 

Don't recall, but happy to stipulate to this.

 

(7) TT 1 states that Wonder Girl was an "addition" the "new team." Agree or disagree?

 

That sounds right, but I don't recall off-hand.

 

If you are honest, you have to agree with (1) through (7).

 

Disagree. And you were doing so well and being so civil up until then. What a shame.

 

Now, explain to me why the "group" could not have been formed off-camera in B&B 54 as DC states is the case.

 

Well, first of all, DC never says that's the case. Secondly, when exactly do you postulate this happens? It ends in Hatton Corners and Robin says TT formed "after" the adventure in Hatton Corners. Finally, I appreciate that you're agreeing the Teen Titans don't appear on-camera in BB54. Which would make BB60 the first appearance of the Teen Titans.

[JTLarsen]

To put it another way, if, in B&B 60, a flashback to B&B 54 had occurred with Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad saying to each other while standing in Hatton's Corner: "Wow, what a great job we did together. Let's form a team!" Would you still be calling B&B 60 the first appearance of the Teen Titans even though they'd already had their origin adventure together.

 

Yes.

[JTLarsen]

 

Stated differently, yet again, do you really think Avengers 2 is the first adventure of the Avengers?

 

I don't. And therein lies the difference.

 

The battle against Loki is what led to the formation of the Avengers. The battle against the Space Phantom is the first time the Avengers fight.

 

We know the Hulk left the team almost immediately. What if he had refused to join in the first place? Would it still be the Avengers fighting Loki in your opinion? What if another original member had refused?

 

 

Nothing left to discuss. If you don't think that Avengers 1 tells the first Avengers adventure, then we have no common ground.

 

If Hulk had refused to join the Avengers, Avengers 1 would still have told the first Avengers adventure of the fight against Loki. Hulk just wouldn't have been one of the Avengers.

 

GS X-Men 1 is the first New X-Men adventure even though characters refused to join the team. Or do you also believe that GS X-Men 1 is NOT the first appearance of the New X-Men? !

 

I don't recall a "team" being "officially" formed in GS X-Men 1. I do recall the issue ending with a real question as to who, if anyone, was going to be an X-Man. And in the next issue, we found out that certain characters in the initial adventure would not be joining the team.

 

Yet, it is still the first appearance of the New X-Men. We can at least agree on that, Right? [And if you can, then you should also agree Avengers 1 is the first adventure of the Avengers.]

 

There are no New X-Men, only X-Men. Eventually, there were so many members that they split into two teams, but that was in the 90s.

 

Do people call Avengers 16 the first appearance of the New Avengers?

 

Your evasions are revealing the thinness of your arguments.

 

From X-Men 94:

 

 

So was GS X-Men the first new X-Men or not?

 

I think there's a reason why the issue sells for so much.

Yeah, obviously because it's the first appearance of Thunderbird. Duh!

 

Back to reality... It's the first appearance of Storm, Nightcrawler and Colossus and the second full Wolverine appearance. Also, the prelude to the restart of new adventures in the main title rather than the reprints it had been featuring.

 

It also features a superhero team.

[nearmint]

I'm sure someone already asked this, but why does it matter either way which issue was the first appearance?

 

I don't think enough people are going to change their minds either way, and OS is going to continue to recognize BB 54 as the first appearance.

 

I'm not sure there's going to be a "right" answer to this. And the debate doesn't really yield anything.

 

I can only speak for myself and say why I'm engaged in the debate -- because I want people who might be inclined to spend money on it to know what they're getting...and not getting.

 

I've been burnt by buying things based on what Overstreet told me, reading them, and finding out Overstreet was wrong. So, I'm trying to let people know, if you buy Brave and Bold 54, don't expect to see a superhero team form -- let alone appear -- within those pages. You get three future members working together, yes, but they don't form a team or even decide to.

 

They know exactly what they're getting. A Brave and the Bold 54, or 60. BB 54 has long been established as "the first appearance" and the value isn't going to change. Even if BB 60 suddenly has more popularity, nobody's going to say, well, gosh, now it's BB 60 (or at least nobody in the mainstream). That ship sailed amongst most people. It certainly has at OS.

 

Do most collectors even care? No. That's why I asked the question. If you're lobbying for BB 60 to be "first teen titans", it's the same as those of us who think (and know) Hulk 180 is the first appearance of Wolverine. But who really cares who's right? The book to own is still 181. Just the way it is.

 

And we can all post 100+ pages and won't change a single fact about it except to make you feel good about certain points that you may (or may not) be right about the formation in the team.

 

If you want a 54 you'll have to pay market rate to get one. If you want a 60, you'll have to pay market rate to get one. Even if you really believe 60 is the "first appearance" of the Teen Titans, if nobody will pay you like it's a first appearance, who cares. And are you really satisfied with owning a 60 and no 54, I've never run into a Teen Titans collector who was.

 

Team first appearances are generally better laid out like BB 28 or FF 1 or Avengers 1. Some clear delineation. If this is ambiguous because they didn't use the words "teen titans" in 54, I'm going to grant that is an absolute fact. So what? Let's say these folks are right about it being in 60, not 54. Great. Now what. Mainstream hasn't and isn't going to accept it. When I go to the Guide it'll still say BB 54. When I ask dealers, it's still 54. When it's posted in the Clink auction BB 54 will still say first Teen Titans.

 

Like Hulk 180, it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong. Because not enough people actually care.

 

Actually, the 60 typically already sells for more in 9.0 & better, with the 9.6 Pacific Coast bringing the highest dollar figure of any graded copy of either book. That said, the 60 is much tougher in higher grade.

Mid grade copies of the 54 typically sell for a premium to the 60, but 60 had one of the largest year over year gains of any book in the guide.

 

A little context...

 

The Pacific Coast BB60 CGC 9.6 is the solo highest graded copy. There are 8 copies of BB54 in 9.6.

 

In 9.0 or better, there are 92 copies of BB54, and just 26 of BB60.

[sfcityduck]

Let's what we can agree on:

 

(1) The Teen Titans, as a group, were formed off camera. Agree or Disagree?

 

Agree.

 

+1

 

(2) The stated reason why the Teen Titans became a group was "the adventure in Hatton Corners." Agree or Disagree?

 

I don't recall that, so I can't agree to it. If Robin says they formed BECAUSE of Hatton Corners, rather than AFTER, then, yes, there's causality. But I don't recall seeing that.

 

Robin says: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crimefighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!* *See Brave and the Bold 54." How can you not the causation? Robin specifically ties the Teen Titans to helping the kids of Hatton Corners. There would be no mention of Hatton Corners (or cite to BB 54) if the Teen Titans was unrelated to that adventure.

 

So do you now agree or not?

 

(3) B&B 60 states the group was formed off-camera prior to the events in that issue. Agree or disagree?

 

Agree.

 

+2

 

(4) B&B 60 specifically cites to B&B 54 when it states that the TT were formed off-camera. Agree or disagree?

 

You cite something, you don't cite to something. But, no, here we disagree. I think 60 cites 54 when establishing the chronology of events, NOT specifically in reference to the formation.

 

Again, Robin says: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crimefighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!* *See Brave and the Bold 54." The citation to BB 54 and the reference to "setting up" the Teen Titans is made in the very same sentence as the mention of "helping the kids of Hatton Corners." And note this: Robin does not say the TT were formed "after we left Hatton Corners." He merely says "after [we] helped the kids of Hatton Corners!"

 

Do you now agree that BB 60 specifically cites to BB 54 when it states that the TT were formed off-camera? I don't see how disagreement is possible. It's the same sentence.

 

(5) B&B 54 ends with DC touting a "new team". Agree or disagree?

 

Agree and disagree. They use those words, but the meaning of those words was different at the time than we use and understand them now.

 

I'll give you a +3 for this one. Yes: They use those words. Exactly! The exact meaning of those words as used in BB 54 is a question of interpretation and intent. And given that the editorial intent behind BB was to tell a junior JLA story, the meaning your proffer is debatable at the very least.

 

(6) TT 1 begins its history of the TT by starting with B&B 54 and only refers to B&B 60 as the "next time" the group had an adventure. Agree or disagree?

 

Don't recall, but happy to stipulate to this.

 

+4

 

(7) TT 1 states that Wonder Girl was an "addition" the "new team." Agree or disagree?

 

That sounds right, but I don't recall off-hand.

 

+5

 

If you are honest, you have to agree with (1) through (7).

 

Disagree. And you were doing so well and being so civil up until then. What a shame.

 

I've given you a second chance to get to +7. Can you do it?

 

Now, explain to me why the "group" could not have been formed off-camera in B&B 54 as DC states is the case.

 

Well, first of all, DC never says that's the case. Secondly, when exactly do you postulate this happens? It ends in Hatton Corners and Robin says TT formed "after" the adventure in Hatton Corners. Finally, I appreciate that you're agreeing the Teen Titans don't appear on-camera in BB54. Which would make BB60 the first appearance of the Teen Titans.

 

First, DC does state that the group of Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad that appeared in BB 54 are the Teen Titans. I believe DC does so (1) in BB 60 when Robin references back to BB 54 to explain when the Teen Titans were formed, (2) in TT 1 when DC starts the "brief history of the Teen Titans" with BB 54, (3) in TT 1 when DC specifically acknowledges that Wonder Girl was an "addition" to the "new team" and notes that BB 60 is when they got the name, (4) in the first reprinting of BB 54 in the early 70s when it was called a TT adventure, (5) in the Teen Titans archives, and, most definitively, (6) in the 50th anniversary DC collected edition which starts with BB 54 and which DC used as the first appearance for purposes of the 50th anniversary.

 

Second, Robin NEVER says "the TT formed 'after' the adventure in Hatton Corners" as you keep asserting. That's a flat out misstatement. And you are making it repeatedly. He also never says the TT were formed "after we left Hatton Corners." What Robin says is: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crimefighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!* *See Brave and the Bold 54." Of course, the TT were done helping the kids of Hatton Corners by the end of BB 54.

 

So would it be impossible for Kid Flash, Aqualad, and Robin to have said "Hey, let's form a group" while in Hatton Corners off-camera during the events told in BB 54? Of course not. Do you really disagree?

 

Third, I'm NOT agreeing the Teen Titans don't appear on camera in BB 54. They appear on camera throughout BB 54. That story tells the origin of the TT, and it is therefore their first appearance. They just aren't called the TT. The name came later. Just like Ant Man.

 

And, like Ant Man, it matters not that we wouldn't have viewed BB 54 as the first appearance of the "Teen Titans" had BB 60 not occurred, because it did -- just as we rightly view TTA 27 as the first appearance of "Ant Man" even though he didn't don a costume or adopt that name until his next appearance and wouldn't be viewed as "Ant Man" had that next appearance not occurred.

Edited September 15, 2015 by sfcityduck

[JTLarsen]

Let's what we can agree on:

 

 

(2) The stated reason why the Teen Titans became a group was "the adventure in Hatton Corners." Agree or Disagree?

 

I don't recall that, so I can't agree to it. If Robin says they formed BECAUSE of Hatton Corners, rather than AFTER, then, yes, there's causality. But I don't recall seeing that.

 

Robin says: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crimefighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!* *See Brave and the Bold 54." How can you not the causation? Robin specifically ties the Teen Titans to helping the kids of Hatton Corners. There would be no mention of Hatton Corners (or cite to BB 54) if the Teen Titans was unrelated to that adventure.

 

I don't see the causation because they don't tell us it was causal. I didn't say it was unrelated. All I said was they don't tell us causality, just sequence.

 

(4) B&B 60 specifically cites to B&B 54 when it states that the TT were formed off-camera. Agree or disagree?

 

You cite something, you don't cite to something. But, no, here we disagree. I think 60 cites 54 when establishing the chronology of events, NOT specifically in reference to the formation.

 

Again, Robin says: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crimefighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!* *See Brave and the Bold 54." The citation to BB 54 and the reference to "setting up" the Teen Titans is made in the very same sentence as the mention of "helping the kids of Hatton Corners." And note this: Robin does not say the TT were formed "after we left Hatton Corners." He merely says "after [we] helped the kids of Hatton Corners!"

 

Do you now agree that BB 60 specifically cites to BB 54 when it states that the TT were formed off-camera? I don't see how disagreement is possible. It's the same sentence.

 

Yeah, as a general rule, being in the same sentence with something doesn't make the other thing in the sentence a cause. And, no, I think it's quite clear that the intention of that word balloon and caption is to tell readers that they formed the Teen Titans after the events of BB 54.

 

(5) B&B 54 ends with DC touting a "new team". Agree or disagree?

 

Agree and disagree. They use those words, but the meaning of those words was different at the time than we use and understand them now.

 

I'll give you a +3 for this one. Yes: They use those words. Exactly! The exact meaning of those words as used in BB 54 is a question of interpretation and intent. And given that the editorial intent behind BB was to tell a junior JLA story, the meaning your proffer is debatable at the very least.

 

Even assuming you're right about the intent re 54 (which I consider irrelevant), our point about intent actually works against you. If they had intended an editorial caption to be the introduction of a new superhero team, they would have used DIFFERENT language than the every-issue phrasing they used to refer to non-team team-ups in other issues.

 

If you are honest, you have to agree with (1) through (7).

 

Disagree. And you were doing so well and being so civil up until then. What a shame.

 

I've given you a second chance to get to +7. Can you do it?

 

Not really a goal I'm working toward.

 

Now, explain to me why the "group" could not have been formed off-camera in B&B 54 as DC states is the case.

 

Well, first of all, DC never says that's the case. Secondly, when exactly do you postulate this happens? It ends in Hatton Corners and Robin says TT formed "after" the adventure in Hatton Corners. Finally, I appreciate that you're agreeing the Teen Titans don't appear on-camera in BB54. Which would make BB60 the first appearance of the Teen Titans.

 

First, DC does state that the group of Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad that appeared in BB 54 are the Teen Titans. I believe DC does so (1) in BB 60 when Robin references back to BB 54 to explain when the Teen Titans were formed, (2) in TT 1 when DC starts the "brief history of the Teen Titans" with BB 54, (3) in TT 1 when DC specifically acknowledges that Wonder Girl was an "addition" to the "new team" and notes that BB 60 is when they got the name, (4) in the first reprinting of BB 54 in the early 70s when it was called a TT adventure, (5) in the Teen Titans archives, and, most definitively, (6) in the 50th anniversary DC collected edition which starts with BB 54 and which DC used as the first appearance for purposes of the 50th anniversary.

 

As I've said, I don't really care what DC says happened in BB 54. I've read it myself. I disagree with (1), (2) is ambiguous -- you could say the brief history of me starts with my mother and father, but I don't make my first appearance until at least nine months later, (3) we've already litigated their use of the phrase "new team," I don't care about (4) (especially since you've chosen to leave out the similar editorial examples that go against your argument, and I don't care about (5) or (6) for reasons I've already explained.

 

Second, Robin NEVER says "the TT formed 'after' the adventure in Hatton Corners" as you keep asserting. That's a flat out misstatement. And you are making it repeatedly. He also never says the TT were formed "after we left Hatton Corners." What Robin says is: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crimefighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!* *See Brave and the Bold 54." Of course, the TT were done helping the kids of Hatton Corners by the end of BB 54.

 

So would it be impossible for Kid Flash, Aqualad, and Robin to have said "Hey, let's form a group" while in Hatton Corners off-camera during the events told in BB 54? Of course not. Do you really disagree?

 

Is it possible? Sure, why not. Anyone who's actually read the issue -- and didn't have a stake in this argument -- would find that a ridiculous assertion. If you really think it happened off-camera, why don't you show us the two panels between which this momentous, unseen, un-remarked-upon event occurs?

[Lazyboy]

So you're saying that all of us who have viewed Giant Size X-Men 1 as the first appearance of the new X-Men since it came out in 1975 have got it wrong? Better tell CGC. And the Price Guide. And the eBay dealers.

 

You are just highlighting the absurdity and fringe nature of your views of these books. GS X-Men no. 1 is the first appearance of the new X-Men just as BB 54 is the first appearance of the Teen Titans and Avengers 1 tells the first Avengers adventure. Your contrary assertions are credibility destroying. Do you think DC Comics Presents 26 and/or new Teen Titans 1 are not the first appearance of the new Teen Titans?

 

New Teen Titans was the title of the series featuring the third incarnation (teams calling themselves the Teen Titans having disbanded twice previously) of the Teen Titans. The "New" part was marketing to separate the new title from the failed revival of the original Teen Titans title in the not-so-distant past. The "Teen Titans" part was mostly for trademark purposes.

 

DC changed the title of the series when the team could no longer be reasonably considered "new." Then again, they immediately started a new series with the same title.

 

Regardless of the team almost always referring to themselves as just "Titans," the first appearance of that team is DCP 26.

 

[Crimebuster]

So would it be impossible for Kid Flash, Aqualad, and Robin to have said "Hey, let's form a group" while in Hatton Corners off-camera during the events told in BB 54? Of course not. Do you really disagree?

 

Oh, it's possible, sure. Just like it's equally possible that Art Rooney formed the Pittsburgh Steelers between panels in BB #54.

 

[Lazyboy]

So would it be impossible for Kid Flash, Aqualad, and Robin to have said "Hey, let's form a group" while in Hatton Corners off-camera during the events told in BB 54? Of course not. Do you really disagree?

 

Oh, it's possible, sure. Just like it's equally possible that Art Rooney formed the Pittsburgh Steelers between panels in BB #54.

 

 

It's not quite impossible, but there has never even been a retcon suggesting that. It's also much more likely that it happened during the large stretch of time between 54 and 60 than in the tiny moment between the rescue of the teenagers and the end of the story.

 

Anyway, since it didn't happen "on-camera" in 54, it's no different than suggesting that Wolverine first "appeared" lurking in the bushes in (insert random Marvel comic published before Hulk 180).

[StingerMcK]

And are you really satisfied with owning a 60 and no 54, I've never run into a Teen Titans collector who was.

 

This Titans fan is very satisfied owning 60 and not 54. So there is your first.