1st Teen Titans 3 3

[HighStakesComics]

Does the Haney interview predate the OPG change in 1980?

 

There was no OPB "change." The OPB did not denote a "first appearance" of the Teen Titans in any comic until 1980. 1980 was the year that the amount of information offered by the OPB in its listings exploded in volume due to a switch to smaller fonts and, it appears, better use of computers.

 

Now you are the one arguing semantics. Prior to 1980 BB 54 was listed as Kid Flash, Aqualad and Robin per Sqeggs earlier in the thread. In 1980 that was changed to 1st appearance of the Teen Titans per your prior remarks pertaining to Edition #10. Did this interview take place before or after OPG listed the book as a 1st appearance in 1980?

[sfcityduck]

Does the Haney interview predate the OPG change in 1980?

 

There was no OPB "change." The OPB did not denote a "first appearance" of the Teen Titans in any comic until 1980. 1980 was the year that the amount of information offered by the OPB in its listings exploded in volume due to a switch to smaller fonts and, it appears, better use of computers.

 

Now you are the one arguing semantics. Prior to 1980 BB 54 was listed as Kid Flash, Aqualad and Robin per Sqeggs earlier in the thread. In 1980 that was changed to 1st appearance of the Teen Titans per your prior remarks pertaining to Edition #10. Did this interview take place before or after OPG listed the book as a 1st appearance in 1980?

 

Before 1980 Overstreet just listed what the cover of B&B said without denoting a "first appearance" in either 54 or 60. In 1980, Overstreet, for the first time, denoted the "first appearance" of the Teen Titans -- and the issue so denoted was BB 54. Get it? There was no "change" in what was denoted as the "first appearance," it was never denoted before.

 

The interview was posted in 2011, but I really hope you are not so disrespectful of Bob Haney as to contend that his recollection of how he created the Teen Titans has been warped by an entry in the Price Guide. That would be ridiculous.

[HighStakesComics]

I don't believe I'm being disrespectful to Mr. Haney by bringing to light that this interview, which occured in 1997, references the Teen Titans in this context:

 

"CATRON: And, of course, Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad.

HANEY: Yeah, the first Teen Titans.

CATRON: Right. Before they were called the Teen Titans. It was just a three-way team-up, apparently.

HANEY: Right. I came up with the name.Teen Titans."

 

I understand that you are a passionate Duck, but I see no smoking gun here. Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad were the first Teen Titans alongside Wonder Girl. You will get no argument from me. But can we ascertain that Haney is unconditionally blessing the 54 as the annointed, unconditional first appearance of the Teen Titans based on this portion of the interview? Wouldn't this be similar to saying Hulk, Iron Man and Ant-Man were the 1st Avengers? Haney even ackowledges the book was a three way team-up in his very next statement. And to think this all took place in the midst of a discussion about all the team-ups which occured during his work on the Brave and the Bold

 

Also, did Haney write the editorial at the end of Teen Titans #1 where he states #60 was the issue where they were "Introduced to comicdom as the Teen Titans"? If he did, is there really anything here that serves as a more signifcant blessing than that?

[sfcityduck]

 

Also, did Haney write the editorial at the end of Teen Titans #1 where he states #60 was the issue where they were "Introduced to the world as the Teen Titans"? If he did, is there really anything here that serves as a more signifcant blessing than that?

 

I really don't like misrepresentations. And you are misrepresenting what the editorial in TT 1 states. This has all been covered ad nauseum in the past 10 pages, so I'm not going to repeat it all here. Suffice it to say that the "brief history of the Teen Titans" in TT 1 starts with B&B 54 and denotes B&B 60 only as the "next time" the team appeared with the "addition of Wonder Girl to the new team." This meshes nicely with B&B 54's own statement in the last panel that Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad were a "new team," and DC's editorial stance today that B&B 54 is the first Teen Titans. The "introduced" statement is taken out of context by you and misquoted. The full statement is:

 

"Next time around, in B&B 60, we took the lead from the vast number of fans who called for the addition of Wonder Girl to the new team, and we introduced them to comicdom as the Teen Titans."

 

Meaning, the "new team" got a new member and a new name in B&B 60, its "next" appearance after B&B 54.

 

All I take away from your posts at this point is that you are trying to distort the record by misrepresenting the facts.

Edited September 9, 2015 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

I don't believe I'm being disrespectful to Mr. Haney by bringing to light that this interview, which occured in 1997, references the Teen Titans in this context:

 

"CATRON: And, of course, Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad.

HANEY: Yeah, the first Teen Titans.

CATRON: Right. Before they were called the Teen Titans. It was just a three-way team-up, apparently.

HANEY: Right. I came up with the name.Teen Titans."

 

I understand that you are a passionate Duck, but I see no smoking gun here. Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad were the first Teen Titans alongside Wonder Girl. You will get no argument from me. But can we ascertain that Haney is unconditionally blessing the 54 as the annointed, unconditional first appearance of the Teen Titans based on this portion of the interview? Wouldn't this be similar to saying Hulk, Iron Man and Ant-Man were the 1st Avengers? Haney even ackowledges the book was a three way team-up in his very next statement. And to think this all took place in the midst of a discussion about all the team-ups which occured during his work on the Brave and the Bold

 

Once again, this was all covered in the preceding ten pages wherein your argument was dissected and shown to be wholly lacking. Again, Haney's unprompted recollection, the best type of evidence, was that B&B 54 was "the first Teen Titans" when he was physically shown that issue by Catron. Catron says "Right," which you apparently would argue is agreement. The other comments made by Catron and Haney subsequently are vague and open to multiple interpretations -- other than Haney's statement "I came up with the name. Teen Titans." Of course, in other interview, Haney said he came up with the name "Teen Titans" after the group was created. So that doesn't help you at all.

[sfcityduck]

My bottom line is that a guy who sells B&B 54 as a Teen Titans issue, in line with every other dealer and the price guides and CGC, is being hypocritical at best when he argues that B&B 60 is the Teen Titans first appearance.

[HighStakesComics]

 

Also, did Haney write the editorial at the end of Teen Titans #1 where he states #60 was the issue where they were "Introduced to the world as the Teen Titans"? If he did, is there really anything here that serves as a more signifcant blessing than that?

 

I really don't like misrepresentations. And you are misrepresenting what the editorial in TT 1 states. This has all been covered ad nauseum in the past 10 pages, so I'm not going to repeat it all here. Suffice it to say that the "brief history of the Teen Titans" in TT 1 starts with B&B 54 and denotes B&B 60 only as the "next time" the team appeared with the "addition of Wonder Girl to the new team." This meshes nicely with B&B 54's own statement in the last panel that Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad were a "new team," and DC's editorial stance today that B&B 54 is the first Teen Titans. The "introduced" statement is taken out of context by you and misquoted. The full statement is:

 

"Next time around, in B&B 60, we took the lead from the vast number of fans who called for the addition of Wonder Girl to the new team, and we introduced them to comicdom as the Teen Titans."

 

Meaning, the "new team" got a new member and a new name in B&B 60, its "next" appearance after B&B 54.

 

All I take away from your posts at this point is that you are trying to distort the record by misrepresenting the facts.

 

So by "introducing them to comicdom as the Teen Titans" you are arguing that they weren't really introduced to comicdom as the Teen Titans?

 

I did miss a word. I used "world" instead of "comicdom". My apologies for the typo. I won't, however, apologize for presenting the truth and I don't appreciate your accusations. If the Titans appeared in 54 you can shut me up with a single panel. Is 54 an origin issue? Sure. I'm good with that. But the Teen Titans did not appear until issue 60. Nothing you can say or do can prove otherwise. You can only supress the truth for so long before it comes to light.

 

 

[HighStakesComics]

My bottom line is that a guy who sells B&B 54 as a Teen Titans issue, in line with every other dealer and the price guides and CGC, is being hypocritical at best when he argues that B&B 60 is the Teen Titans first appearance.

 

I've probably sold 3 or 4 since this thread started and not once have I ever listed a copy of 54 as the 1st appearance of the Teen Titans. Since the events of 54 inspired Robin to form the Teen Titans which he clearly explains to Batman in issue 60, I don't take issue with it being called an origin issue. It's just not the first appearance of the Teen Titans. I've never listed a copy and stated otherwise.

 

 

[nearmint]

Wait. So you're saying 54 is the Titans origin, but its not their first appearance?

[HighStakesComics]

Wait. So you're saying 54 is the Titans origin, but its not their first appearance?

 

That's how I would depict what Robin is saying in this panel, which takes place in 60. Origin, prototype, genesis something occurred in 54. It just wasn't the formation of the Titans. If it was, surely a panel would be posted by now, which by the way, I don't fault you at all for not cracking out that glorious 9.4, Sir.

[HighStakesComics]

FWIW, here my $.02. I believe a strong case can be made for the #60. Here's why:

 

1. The Title-Whereas 54 appears to be a Brave and the Bold featuring an an Aqualad, Kid Flash & Robin team-up, 60 clearly defines on the FC that these are indeed the Teen Titans.

 

2. First Point of Reference-As two previous posters mentioned there is no reference made within 54 declaring these are the "Teen Titans" until the Batman/Robin dialogue in issue 60. While 54 can be considered the first team-up, there is nothing articulated to the reader pertaining to a "team" in perpetuity.

 

3. The Inclusion of Wonder-Girl-Making her first appearance in 60, the addition of Wonder Girl as a founding member constitutes the formation of the original team. Prior to her debut, there was never any reference to the Teen Titans, therefore it would be hard to argue that the team existed prior to 60.

 

And the same 3 points I made on page 5 hold true. None of these can be disputed without the use of a subjective argument.

[sfcityduck]

 

3. The Inclusion of Wonder-Girl-Making her first appearance in 60, the addition of Wonder Girl as a founding member constitutes the formation of the original team. Prior to her debut, there was never any reference to the Teen Titans, therefore it would be hard to argue that the team existed prior to 60.

 

And the same 3 points I made on page 5 hold true. None of these can be disputed without the use of a subjective argument.

 

Sure they can. As an example, you're item number 3 is not based in any fact. Wonder Girl, according to the "brief history of the Teen Titans" set forth in Teen Titans 1, was "an addition to the new team" not a "founding member."

 

All of your assertions boil down to one argument: You think that the group named the Teen Titans could not come into existence until it was named. That's a subjective evaluation that most of comicdom and D.C. disagree with.

 

 

[sfcityduck]

 

2. First Point of Reference-As two previous posters mentioned there is no reference made within 54 declaring these are the "Teen Titans" until the Batman/Robin dialogue in issue 60. While 54 can be considered the first team-up, there is nothing articulated to the reader pertaining to a "team" in perpetuity.

 

And the same 3 points I made on page 5 hold true. None of these can be disputed without the use of a subjective argument.

 

As to your no. 2, it too is factually incorrect. The last panel of BB 54 references a "new team," the same phrase Teen Titans 1 does when it starts the brief history of the Teen Titans with BB 54.

[sfcityduck]

FWIW, here my $.02. I believe a strong case can be made for the #60. Here's why:

 

1. The Title-Whereas 54 appears to be a Brave and the Bold featuring an an Aqualad, Kid Flash & Robin team-up, 60 clearly defines on the FC that these are indeed the Teen Titans.

 

 

And the same 3 points I made on page 5 hold true. None of these can be disputed without the use of a subjective argument.

 

And, yet another subjective argument based on a factual misstatement. BB 54 does not say it is a "team-up." A team-up is a one time short that doesn't lead to anything. In contrast, BB 54 used the term "team," which is when a "team-up" evolves into a regular grouping, which is clearly what happened here. BB 60 is the "next time" the "new team" appeared according to Teen Titans 1, so the facts don't support your subjective opinion.

 

There's a reason comic fans didn't rise up in outrage when the Price Guide listed BB 54 as the first Teen Titans in 1980. It was obvious to everyone that it was.

[HighStakesComics]

 

3. The Inclusion of Wonder-Girl-Making her first appearance in 60, the addition of Wonder Girl as a founding member constitutes the formation of the original team. Prior to her debut, there was never any reference to the Teen Titans, therefore it would be hard to argue that the team existed prior to 60.

 

And the same 3 points I made on page 5 hold true. None of these can be disputed without the use of a subjective argument.

 

Sure they can. As an example, you're item number 3 is not based in any fact. Wonder Girl, according to the "brief history of the Teen Titans" set forth in Teen Titans 1, was "an addition to the new team" not a "founding member."

 

All of your assertions boil down to one argument: You think that the group named the Teen Titans could not come into existence until it was named. That's a subjective evaluation that most of comicdom and D.C. disagree with.

 

 

The first panel to introduce Wonder Girl is the same panel that "introduces comicdom to the Teen Titans", or do you still contend this doesn't really mean comicdom was introduced to the Teen Titans?

[HighStakesComics]

FWIW, here my $.02. I believe a strong case can be made for the #60. Here's why:

 

1. The Title-Whereas 54 appears to be a Brave and the Bold featuring an an Aqualad, Kid Flash & Robin team-up, 60 clearly defines on the FC that these are indeed the Teen Titans.

 

 

And the same 3 points I made on page 5 hold true. None of these can be disputed without the use of a subjective argument.

 

And, yet another subjective argument based on a factual misstatement. BB 54 does not say it is a "team-up." A team-up is a one time short that doesn't lead to anything. In contrast, BB 54 used the term "team," which is when a "team-up" evolves into a regular grouping, which is clearly what happened here. BB 60 is the "next time" the "new team" appeared according to Teen Titans 1, so the facts don't support your subjective opinion.

 

There's a reason comic fans didn't rise up in outrage when the Price Guide listed BB 54 as the first Teen Titans in 1980. It was obvious to everyone that it was.

 

Subjective. The word team is used in a manner consistent with other teams formed within the same run within the same team up title

Edited September 9, 2015 by HighStakesComics

[nearmint]

Wait. So you're saying 54 is the Titans origin, but its not their first appearance?

 

That's how I would depict what Robin is saying in this panel, which takes place in 60. Origin, prototype, genesis something occurred in 54. It just wasn't the formation of the Titans. If it was, surely a panel would be posted by now, which by the way, I don't fault you at all for not cracking out that glorious 9.4, Sir.

 

I think this is where we disagree. It's unfathomable to me that an origin story wouldn't be considered an appearance.

[HighStakesComics]

I would agree it does not happen often but this is a unique scenario. The most obvious example that comes to my mind is Fantastic Four #66, which CGC considers Part 1 of Warlocks 2 part origin, without calling it his first appearance or cameo. I feel a similar set of circumstances is occurring here. You see that 3 of the members came to meet but the team, it's name, it's roster and it's brand are not revealed until the 2nd act. 54 is an important book, but it lacks the intellectual property.

[nearmint]

Again, this is where we disagree. I don't think a team name or roster need to be revealed in order for it to be the first appearance.

[HighStakesComics]

If that's the case we can agree to disagree. No hard feelings (thumbs u