1st Teen Titans 3 3

[sfcityduck]

Is Duck the only one defending the 54?

 

Nah, others did in prior pages. I just came to the discussion late and wanted to add my 2 cents. I suspect most people probably don't think this is a discussion worth having given how settled the topic seems to be with most fans, dealers, Oversteet, CGC, and DC.

[HighStakesComics]

The argument for the BB 54 is the one that requires you to ignore the footnotes, covers, splash pages, 1st appearances of other team ups, Wonder Girl, and DC Wikia.

 

Every time you mention the DC Wikia (not run by DC), I am embarrassed for you. Especially, since that site which is contradicts DC's official position as reflected in the first reprinting of BB 54 (labeling it a Teen Titans story) and the official DC Teen Titans Archive.

 

The rest of your statement above is gibberish and a strawman. The argument for BB 54 requires you to read and rely upon the content BB 60, most notably the exchange between Batman and Robin on page 5 and footnoted citation to BB 54 therein. The argument for BB 54 is in now way contradicted by the cover or splash of BB 60, neither of which states that it is the "first appearance" of the group called therein as the "Teen Titans." (I'm not disputing its the first use of the trademarked name for that group.) The argument for BB 54 being the first adventure of the Teen Titans is actually the same as the argument for Avengers 1 being the first adventure of the Avengers -- an argument you ignore.

 

You can keep fighting the fight, but I think logic, history, and DC are against you on this one.

 

P.S. Please don't mention the D.C. Wikia again. The front page of the wikia makes clear that "This is the world's largest DC Comics encyclopedia that anyone can edit, hosted by wikia." It is a Wiki. Not a DC corporate site.

 

You, good sir, are the spouter of gibberish.

 

Not a single comic comes to mind that officially announces on the splash page that its the "official first appearance" of anything. That is somewhat ridiculous. It's the first time the group is referred to as the Teen Titans. This cannot be disputed.

 

If DC Wikia is so easily manipulated maybe you should go on there and change it back to 54? It probably wouldn't take you as long as losing.

[steveinthecity]

FWIW, the DC Wikia currently states: "The Teen Titans were created by Bob Haney and Bruno Premiani, first appearing in Brave and the Bold #54. (1964)".

 

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Teen_Titans

 

 

[HighStakesComics]

Once again

 

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Brave_and_the_Bold_Vol_1_60

 

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Brave_and_the_Bold_Vol_1_54

Edited October 20, 2014 by blazincomics

[sfcityduck]

 

Not a single comic comes to mind that officially announces on the splash page that its the "official first appearance" of anything. That is somewhat ridiculous.

 

Really? Not a single one?

 

Not "Introducing Spiderman"?

 

 

There's a million covers stating they are "introducing" characters. Even at D.C.:

 

 

 

And even in Brave and Bold:

 

 

But not with Brave and Bold 60:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sfcityduck]

FWIW, the DC Wikia currently states: "The Teen Titans were created by Bob Haney and Bruno Premiani, first appearing in Brave and the Bold #54. (1964)".

 

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Teen_Titans

 

 

You've just established its a Wiki, because someone edited it back.

[steveinthecity]

Once again

 

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Brave_and_the_Bold_Vol_1_60

 

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Brave_and_the_Bold_Vol_1_54

My example was to show the inconsistencies in Wikia articles. The article I linked should be given the same consideration on this topic as the ones you linked. These Wiki's are often unreliable or completely incorrect.

[steveinthecity]

FWIW, the DC Wikia currently states: "The Teen Titans were created by Bob Haney and Bruno Premiani, first appearing in Brave and the Bold #54. (1964)".

 

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Teen_Titans

 

 

You've just established its a Wiki, because someone edited it back.

That was quick.

[Lazyboy]

The argument for the BB 54 is the one that requires you to ignore the footnotes, covers, splash pages, 1st appearances of other team ups, Wonder Girl, and DC Wikia.

 

Every time you mention the DC Wikia (not run by DC), I am embarrassed for you. Especially, since that site which is contradicts DC's official position as reflected in the first reprinting of BB 54 (labeling it a Teen Titans story) and the official DC Teen Titans Archive.

 

The rest of your statement above is gibberish and a strawman. The argument for BB 54 requires you to read and rely upon the content BB 60, most notably the exchange between Batman and Robin on page 5 and footnoted citation to BB 54 therein. The argument for BB 54 is in now way contradicted by the cover or splash of BB 60, neither of which states that it is the "first appearance" of the group called therein as the "Teen Titans." (I'm not disputing its the first use of the trademarked name for that group.) The argument for BB 54 being the first adventure of the Teen Titans is actually the same as the argument for Avengers 1 being the first adventure of the Avengers -- an argument you ignore.

 

You can keep fighting the fight, but I think logic, history, and DC are against you on this one.

 

P.S. Please don't mention the D.C. Wikia again. The front page of the wikia makes clear that "This is the world's largest DC Comics encyclopedia that anyone can edit, hosted by wikia." It is a Wiki. Not a DC corporate site.

 

You, good sir, are the spouter of gibberish.

 

Not a single comic comes to mind that officially announces on the splash page that its the "official first appearance" of anything. That is somewhat ridiculous. It's the first time the group is referred to as the Teen Titans. This cannot be disputed.

 

If DC Wikia is so easily manipulated maybe you should go on there and change it back to 54? It probably wouldn't take you as long as losing.

 

I'm tempted to sign up for Wikia so I can change the entry to "blazincomics SUCKS!" in the largest font size available just to prevent you from continuing to reference wiki sites as some kind of authority. And because I'm White and Nerdy.

[HighStakesComics]

 

Not a single comic comes to mind that officially announces on the splash page that its the "official first appearance" of anything. That is somewhat ridiculous.

 

Really? Not a single one?

 

Not "Introducing Spiderman"?

 

 

There's a million covers stating they are "introducing" characters. Even at D.C.:

 

 

 

And even in Brave and Bold:

 

 

But not with Brave and Bold 60:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parlor tricks. Obviously there are issues introducing characters, but none of them, including 54 which only states that Kid Flash, Aqualad and Robin are appearing, claim to be an "official first appearance". It's all about semantics.

 

60 on the other hand refers to the Teen Titans as the "latest and greatest", which serves as an introduction

 

 

[HighStakesComics]

FWIW, the DC Wikia currently states: "The Teen Titans were created by Bob Haney and Bruno Premiani, first appearing in Brave and the Bold #54. (1964)".

 

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Teen_Titans

 

 

You've just established its a Wiki, because someone edited it back.

That was quick.

 

From what I can tell Steveinthecity's link allows for editing. The seperate links I provided for the 54 & 60 do not.

[sfcityduck]

 

Parlor tricks. Obviously there are issues introducing characters, but none of them, including 54 which only states that Kid Flash, Aqualad and Robin are appearing, claim to be an "official first appearance". It's all about semantics.

 

60 on the other hand refers to the Teen Titans as the "latest and greatest", which serves as an introduction

 

 

Have you looked at the last panel of BB 54?

 

It states: "Once again, a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!"

 

I think your argument is unraveling pretty fast.

[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.

 

Which of these is unraveling?

 

"Team", by definition, means more than one person working together. What you state is obvious since BB 54 is a team up between Robin, Kid Flash & Aqualad. I honestly don't think you understand the semantics involved in the argument you are making.

[sfcityduck]

 

"Team", by definition, means more than one person working together. What you state is obvious since BB 54 is a team up between Robin, Kid Flash & Aqualad. I honestly don't think you understand the semantics involved in the argument you are making.

 

A guy who is arguing that a "team-up" is the same as a "new team of DC heroes" is accusing me of semantic games? !

 

The last panel of BB 54 clearly signals that DC viewed Robin, Kid Flash, and Aqualad as a "new team." Which would also explain why BB 60 does not say it is "introducing" a new team.

[HighStakesComics]

A nameless team of heroes that added a member and later made their debut as the Teen Titans in BB 60. These are facts you cannot dispute. You just fall back on the trademark argument when you get backed into a corner.

Edited October 20, 2014 by blazincomics

[sfcityduck]

A nameless team of heroes that added a member and later made their debut as the Teen Titans in BB 60. These are facts you cannot dispute. You just fall back on the trademark argument when you get backed into a corner.

 

Correction: The nameless team of heroes made their debut in BB 54. But, you're right that they did add a member and did first use the name Teen Titans in BB 60. The, as DC put it, "new team" first appeared in BB 54. The name and a new member first appeared in BB 60.

 

Again, very similar to TTA 27.

[HighStakesComics]

A nameless team of heroes that added a member and later made their debut as the Teen Titans in BB 60. These are facts you cannot dispute. You just fall back on the trademark argument when you get backed into a corner.

 

Correction: The nameless team of heroes made their debut in BB 54. But, you're right that they did add a member and did first use the name Teen Titans in BB 60. The, as DC put it, "new team" first appeared in BB 54. The name and a new member first appeared in BB 60.

 

Again, very similar to TTA 27.

 

But more so to Marvel Feature #1.

[TeddieMercede]

Is Duck the only one defending the 54?

 

Nah, others did in prior pages. I just came to the discussion late and wanted to add my 2 cents. I suspect most people probably don't think this is a discussion worth having given how settled the topic seems to be with most fans, dealers, Oversteet, CGC, and DC.

 

I know you enjoy being argumentative which is why this thread has turned stupid but you obviously can't believe what you posted here because you aren't that dense. Fans, dealers and Overstreet have always been lemmings and debates with evidence (and not just semantics about what you think should or shouldn't be important) are what have changed opinions - you keep bringing up "what dealers have on their wall" - that is the worst statement in this thread as dealers only care about what sells. If collectors have their eyes opened in regards to a book dealers will quickly change their stance accordingly because they will stock again what sells.

 

Just because DC includes BB 54 in Titans compilations doesn't mean it's the first appearance. Like has been stated by both you and people who disagree with you it is part of the Titans storyline, however as a prequel to the formation of the group which doesn't occur until BB 60. Plenty of these archive books and compilations have included prequel books as part of the storyline and there is evidence as has been posted that DC considers 54 just being a teamup which you now convienently dismiss.

 

You were right in that if you want the whole story BB 54 is part of it and should have stopped there, nobody disagrees with you but the rest you're just fighting an incoming wave.

 

[sfcityduck]

there is evidence as has been posted that DC considers 54 just being a teamup which you now convienently dismiss.

 

You were right in that if you want the whole story BB 54 is part of it and should have stopped there, nobody disagrees with you but the rest you're just fighting an incoming wave.

 

You and I are going to have disagree on the existence of an incoming wave and the role of dealers (who are the market makers and comprise the Overstreet advisors) in resolving these kind of disputes. But, that's a matter of opinion.

 

I'm more intrigued by what "evidence" that DC considers BB 54 as just "a teamup" you think I am "conveniently dismissing." The way I see it, the wikia is clearly not evidence of what DC thinks. The only person who thinks otherwise is blazing, and I don't think he gets wiki's. Which leaves the following evidence of DC's views on whether BB 54 was the origin of a new team of DC superheros:

 

* In 1964, BB 54 concludes by stating that "Once again, a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!"

 

* In 1965, BB 60 does not, contrary to DC practice, tout itself as "introducing" a new team. Instead, the text of BB 60 makes clear that the formation of the team pre-dates BB 60 and there is a specific citation back to BB 54.

 

* In 1973, DC 100 Page Super Spectacular 21 reprints BB 54 as a "Teen Titans" story.

 

* In 1978, TT 53 retcons a new origin of Teen Titans and refers to BB 54 as a "team-up" before the team was formed.

 

* In 1985, the "Official Teen Titans Index" denoted the first Teen Titans appearance as BB 54. That index was approved by the staff of DC and consultants included Jerry Bails and George Olshevsky.

 

* In 2003, DC Archives reprints BB 54 as the first Teen Titans adventure.

 

Aside from the footnote to the retcon, seems pretty clear that DC has always viewed BB 54 as an adventure of the "new team of DC heroes" that were first named the "Teen Titans" in BB 60.

Edited October 20, 2014 by sfcityduck

[HighStakesComics]

No one here is arguing whether or not BB 54 is an important issue. It's the first time a fraction of the original Titans teamed-up to fight evil. It also served as a prototype for the team that would later be deemed and make their first appearance as the Teen Titans in BB 60.

 

I would agree that your arguments pertaining to later reprints are layered in ambiguity.