Wolverine 900 - Which Set Should It Be In?

[frostking70]

All,

 

Would like some input from fellow boardies on which set Wolverine #900 should be in.

 

1. Wolverine V3 (2003) Set: MyComicShop has #900 listed as part of this set, probably because the release date was while Dark Wolverine was in the last few issues before stopping at #90.

 

2. Wolverine One Shots

 

3. Other?

 

regards

A

[Waylander]

As the following made up #300 of Wolverine in the 1998 series:

 

Wolverine (1988) 189 Issues

Wolverine (2003) 74 Issues

Wolverine: Weapon X 16 Issues

Wolverine (2010) 20 Issues

 

(The 2003 series specifically excludes #900)

 

I would assume, like with Witchblade 500, it is intended to be the numbering from the original series, therefore I would suggest that #900 is added to the Wolverine 1988 series.

[frostking70]

bump

[Gemma]

So, are you both in agreement? No objections?

[frostking70]

Gemma,

 

I was hoping for a few more members for a better consensus. Give me a day or so to ping some of the other Wolverine collectors.

 

regards

A

[worldsbestcomics]

Wolverine 900 does not belong in the 1988 series. That series ended with 189 and the start of the 2003 series.

 

I also do not feel it belongs in the 2003 series. That series ended with the start if the 2010 series.

 

It is not an annual. It is more of a one-shot with a numbering oddity like 102.5. I personally don't feel like it belongs in any set. CGC has already added a bunch of one shots like Doombringer to Wolverine complete but I don't like that practice. I would rather see the core run be clean -just variants and annuals.

 

Stick all the one-shots and TPBs somewhere else instead of junking up the runs.

 

The Wolverine 1984 run now includes the TPB which has more than 7 prints. That is a perfect example of junking up a classic run by shoehorning a book in somewhere.

 

 

[Waylander]

Wolverine 900 does not belong in the 1988 series. That series ended with 189 and the start of the 2003 series.

 

I also do not feel it belongs in the 2003 series. That series ended with the start if the 2010 series.

 

It is not an annual. It is more of a one-shot with a numbering oddity like 102.5. I personally don't feel like it belongs in any set. CGC has already added a bunch of one shots like Doombringer to Wolverine complete but I don't like that practice. I would rather see the core run be clean -just variants and annuals.

 

Stick all the one-shots and TPBs somewhere else instead of junking up the runs.

 

The Wolverine 1984 run now includes the TPB which has more than 7 prints. That is a perfect example of junking up a classic run by shoehorning a book in somewhere.

 

 

I do agree that the trades and the one shots should be kept out of the volume runs however, IMO I believe issues 300 -317 should be part of the 1988 series (not separately listed), rightly or wrongly, as that's what Marvel had intended. Therefore, the same logic should be applied to #900.

[frostking70]

Would anyone have a serious concern with putting the 900 into the one shot set and be done with it?

 

regards

A

[kaholo1256]

I thought when you search the Marvel website it had this and the #300ish books all together as one Vol. Also they have the Complete Set as well as the One Shot. works for either of them I guess.

[masterlogan2000]

I don't have a horse in this race from the standpoint of Registry sets, but I figured I would add some input here. I have mostly extra information to think about with a little bit of opinion sprinkled in.

 

IMO I believe issues 300 -317 should be part of the 1988 series (not separately listed), rightly or wrongly, as that's what Marvel had intended. Therefore, the same logic should be applied to #900.

Marvel (and DC to an extent) is constantly renumbering their issues just so that they can get a sales bump. It's all a marketing ploy meant to squeeze every last cent from our completist pockets. I don't think they really have any "intention" of keeping numbering consistent or care what issues go into what series.

 

What's interesting is that in order to get to #300, you have to use issues from the 2003 and 2010 series to "add up" to #300 (189 issues Vol 2 + 90 issues Vol 3 + 20 issues Vol 4). It would make sense to me that Vol 2 ended with #189, and unless we consolidate all the series together with Vol 2, #300 is simply an extension of Vol 4. Or, maybe it should be the start of Volume 5 and we'll bump Volumes 5 and 6 to Volumes 6 and 7. And then in 12 months we'll then have a Vol 8 with 50 variant #1 covers to denote the "Return of Wolverine"... but I digress.

 

Again, it's all marketing.

 

 

Wolverine 900 does not belong in the 1988 series. That series ended with 189 and the start of the 2003 series.

 

I also do not feel it belongs in the 2003 series. That series ended with the start if the 2010 series.

I wanted to note that #900 was published in July, 2010. That's the same month as Dark Wolverine #86. Some would argue that the 2003 series ended with #74 and #75-90 were a different series altogether with Daken (though I don't subscribe to this). The CGC Registry does include all 90 issues for the 2003 series.

 

 

CGC has already added a bunch of one shots like Doombringer to Wolverine complete but I don't like that practice. I would rather see the core run be clean -just variants and annuals.

 

I'd also like to see some consistency in the sets, but aren't The Jungle Adventure (1989) and Bloodlust (1990) considered to be the first Wolverine Annuals before they went to a yearly annual numbering? Rahne of Terra (1991) may be "Annual 3", though I don't generally see it referred to that. Maybe Knight of Terra (1995) was added since it's the continuation to Rahne of Terra, but there's already an Annual '95. Doombringer (1997) has no good reason to be on this list IMO.

 

It's all just rather perplexing. I would imagine that someone at some time though it was a good idea to add it, and now it's too hard to remove it since people have spent time and money hunting down these issues for the set. Then again, IIRC, there was a French version of #1/2 that somehow ended up in the 1988 series for no good reason that has since been removed.

 

 

 

The Wolverine 1984 run now includes the TPB which has more than 7 prints. That is a perfect example of junking up a classic run by shoehorning a book in somewhere.

 

Again, let's have some consistency and either not include the TPB, or include all the different printings (as of last year, I counted 8 btw, not including the re-reprints from the last few years).

 

 

So I got a little off topic here...

Given (and/or despite) everything above, I have always put #900 as part of the 2003 series when I put together my longboxes of raws. Similarly, #300-317 and #1000 has always been placed as part of the 2010 series (CGC lists #1000 as part of 2003).

 

Maybe it's revisionist's memory, but when #900 came out, I remember it being "marketed" as a continuation of Wolverine's adventures sometime in the future. Are these considered canon? I was under the impression, yes. The book came out during the 2003 run, I consider it part of the 2003 run.

 

BTW, where is Deadpool #900 listed? Whatever is done here (for consistency's sake) should be done there and vice-versa.

 

Lastly, as Allen pointed out, mycomicshop lists Wolverine #900 under the 2003 series.

 

...

...

...

 

This book does sort of feel like a one-shot though.

[Gemma]

Currently Wolverine #900 is in these sets due to requests or attempted registrations:

Wolverine (2003)

David Finch Cover Set

Wolverine One-Shots

Wolverine (Complete)

Which, if any, would you like removed?

 

Also, if the Wolverine TPBs in the 1988 set are troublesome I can move them over to the one-shots set (if they are not there already). Just please let me know which ones you all agree should move.

 

Ultimately I have always tried to let the chat boards and other user requests dictate what belongs in the sets as I figured the collectors know best, but if there are problems with the setup I am always willing to make changes or updates.

[frostking70]

I guess I'll start this! I would suggest that the TPB (first printing ONLY) be left in the set, but all subsequent printings be removed. This would be the first "collected" printing of a set of comics.

 

I could also support creating two parallel sets. One would be "clean" only the original issues with variants and second / other printings, then an "expanded" or "master" set to include the TPB.

 

thoughts?

 

regards

A

[Vikingreed]

I was asked to place this here, so here you guys go!

 

A while back, prior to the 2014 awards, it was established that TPBs would not be a part of any Registry Sets, and would not provide competitive points.

 

I just noticed that the set for the

 

Wolverine Limited Series (1982)

 

has the TPB listed, and it does give points.

 

I just wanted to let you know, as that should probably be corrected.

 

Thank you!

 

 

Please provide a link to where this is discussed

 

Here you go!

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7681127&fpart=1