Lethal_Collector Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Lazyboy said: How is that similar? What's a "cameo, full" appearance? An appearance is either brief/cameo or full. Venom's first full appearance is ASM 300 in (approximately) 80 panels on 24 pages as the main focus of the story. Before that, he had appeared as a mysterious, obscured/partial figure in one (or two, if you believe he was the fully shadowed figure in the previous panel) panel of WoSM 18 one panel of WoSM 24 five panels on one page of ASM 298 two panels on one page of ASM 299 before stepping out of the shadows on the last (splash) page of ASM 299. It's similar in the sense that it's not cut and dry and you can argue that his first appearance isn't in ASM 300. It's similar, but not exactly the same I know. It was the closest example I could think of, sorry for letting you down brah Jerome Edited May 10, 2017 by Lethal_Collector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juno Beach Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 There are lots of first appearances that are only on the cover. Can anybody prove the Domino on the cover of NM #98 is not Neena Thurman instead of Copycat? Seriously, there's no way to tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazyboy Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 46 minutes ago, Juno Beach said: There are lots of first appearances that are only on the cover. No. That wouldn't be true even if covers were appearances (in which case it might be 0.000001%). 46 minutes ago, Juno Beach said: Can anybody prove the Domino on the cover of NM #98 is not Neena Thurman instead of Copycat? Seriously, there's no way to tell. So what? Covers may sell books, but they aren't appearances. There's no way to prove that any character on any cover is "real" and not an impostor or illusion or whatever because there's no accompanying narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juno Beach Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 9 minutes ago, Lazyboy said: No. That wouldn't be true even if covers were appearances (in which case it might be 0.000001%). So what? Covers may sell books, but they aren't appearances. There's no way to prove that any character on any cover is "real" and not an impostor or illusion or whatever because there's no accompanying narrative. There was an entire thread here about cover only first appearances. Or was it on another site? Either way it does happen. Your second point proves mine. The first time you see a character is logically their first appearance. Unless your argument is it has to be in the narrative only to count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divad Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 Eventually, as the market and the (current) collectors mature, lame-azz 1st appearances, will be recognized as just that, and we will return to normalcy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteppinRazor Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 First appearances are the comic equivalent of rookie baseball cards. If that ceases to be of value, then that would mean all comics would be worth the same, except for limited runs, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGGIEZ Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 On 5/13/2017 at 1:14 PM, Juno Beach said: There are lots of first appearances that are only on the cover. Can anybody prove the Domino on the cover of NM #98 is not Neena Thurman instead of Copycat? Seriously, there's no way to tell. How do you know it's not Mystique...? hmmmmmmmm...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 53 minutes ago, AGGIEZ said: How do you know it's not Mystique...? hmmmmmmmm...... How do we know that isn't Mystique on Amazing Fantasy #15? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGGIEZ Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 2 hours ago, valiantman said: How do we know that isn't Mystique on Amazing Fantasy #15? ADAMANTIUM, ygogolak and fullerjason 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianchew Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) cant believe this got complicated cuz Liefeld and cgc created this issue(pun intended). Though there is a lot of disagreement which is sad cuz you would have thought that the 1st appearance formula would have been solved by now, I think Liefeld is cheating. I'll give him a pass on NM 98 since we have had that before with Capt America in Strange Tales 114 was not actually Cap but the Acrobat(I know it was mentioned before by someone pretty intelligent as apples and oranges but lets just take the similarities here) and then with Valkyrie in Avengers 83 but she was really the Enchantress. The market says imposters dont count as much. But in this case, Liefeld is trying to say is flashbacks dont count. Which defies logic cuz what if we said Wolverines 1st appearance in Hulk 181(not cameo 180) was a flashback in the storyline? God forbid it be a dream sequence. Because Liefeld is playing Marvel Universe god, he is telling us that he only counts things that are not flashbacks. And CGC is playing that same role by legitimizing it in the marketplace. Based on 1st appearance rules in all of Marvel history, Xforce 8 should be the 1st appearance. AND furthermore, to illustrate the power of CGC, since they deem Xforce 11 as the 1st appearance, there have been 1261 submissions for #11 to be graded at cgc in which 806 are 9.8. guess how many #8s have been submitted and are 9.8? ONE and it graded 9.8. #8 is a ghost town folks Edited August 9, 2017 by brianchew AGGIEZ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ygogolak Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 7 hours ago, brianchew said: cant believe this got complicated cuz Liefeld and cgc created this issue(pun intended). Though there is a lot of disagreement which is sad cuz you would have thought that the 1st appearance formula would have been solved by now, I think Liefeld is cheating. I'll give him a pass on NM 98 since we have had that before with Capt America in Strange Tales 114 was not actually Cap but the Acrobat(I know it was mentioned before by someone pretty intelligent as apples and oranges but lets just take the similarities here) and then with Valkyrie in Avengers 83 but she was really the Enchantress. The market says imposters dont count as much. But in this case, Liefeld is trying to say is flashbacks dont count. Which defies logic cuz what if we said Wolverines 1st appearance in Hulk 181(not cameo 180) was a flashback in the storyline? God forbid it be a dream sequence. Because Liefeld is playing Marvel Universe god, he is telling us that he only counts things that are not flashbacks. And CGC is playing that same role by legitimizing it in the marketplace. Based on 1st appearance rules in all of Marvel history, Xforce 8 should be the 1st appearance. AND furthermore, to illustrate the power of CGC, since they deem Xforce 11 as the 1st appearance, there have been 1261 submissions for #11 to be graded at cgc in which 806 are 9.8. guess how many #8s have been submitted and are 9.8? ONE and it graded 9.8. #8 is a ghost town folks I think it has more to do with the fact that Liefeld was not the main writer or artist on #8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revat Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 1 hour ago, ygogolak said: I think it has more to do with the fact that Liefeld was not the main writer or artist on #8. I agree, but seriously, the 'real' domino was on the cover of #8 too. #8 is the 1st app. No question in my mind. But I don't mind letting the buyers do what they want, its their money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazyboy Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 5 hours ago, ygogolak said: I think it has more to do with the fact that Liefeld was not the main writer or artist on #8. He only did the art for the framing sequence, but the writing credits are the same as the other issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianchew Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 7 hours ago, ygogolak said: I think it has more to do with the fact that Liefeld was not the main writer or artist on #8. Ya, it looks like Liefeld was the still the writer and creative force on #8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ygogolak Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 4 hours ago, brianchew said: Ya, it looks like Liefeld was the still the writer and creative force on #8 Is this a Rob ghost account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianchew Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 1 hour ago, ygogolak said: Is this a Rob ghost account? Nope just a person who can say, Anyone who thinks Liefeld had nothing to do with #8 can delete their comments and just say Liefeld is trying to dictate where the 1st appearance of Domino should be(#11) even though it will always be #8 even if the market backs up #11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ygogolak Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 5 hours ago, brianchew said: Ya, it looks like Liefeld was the still the writer and creative force on #8 34 minutes ago, brianchew said: Nope just a person who can say, Anyone who thinks Liefeld had nothing to do with #8 can delete their comments and just say Liefeld is trying to dictate where the 1st appearance of Domino should be(#11) even though it will always be #8 even if the market backs up #11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juno Beach Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 On 8/9/2017 at 0:08 AM, brianchew said: cant believe this got complicated cuz Liefeld and cgc created this issue(pun intended). Though there is a lot of disagreement which is sad cuz you would have thought that the 1st appearance formula would have been solved by now, I think Liefeld is cheating. I'll give him a pass on NM 98 since we have had that before with Capt America in Strange Tales 114 was not actually Cap but the Acrobat(I know it was mentioned before by someone pretty intelligent as apples and oranges but lets just take the similarities here) and then with Valkyrie in Avengers 83 but she was really the Enchantress. The market says imposters dont count as much. But in this case, Liefeld is trying to say is flashbacks dont count. Which defies logic cuz what if we said Wolverines 1st appearance in Hulk 181(not cameo 180) was a flashback in the storyline? God forbid it be a dream sequence. Because Liefeld is playing Marvel Universe god, he is telling us that he only counts things that are not flashbacks. And CGC is playing that same role by legitimizing it in the marketplace. Based on 1st appearance rules in all of Marvel history, Xforce 8 should be the 1st appearance. AND furthermore, to illustrate the power of CGC, since they deem Xforce 11 as the 1st appearance, there have been 1261 submissions for #11 to be graded at cgc in which 806 are 9.8. guess how many #8s have been submitted and are 9.8? ONE and it graded 9.8. #8 is a ghost town folks Not following what you mean about Valkyrie. Even though in Avengers #83 it turns out to be the Enchantress it's still known to be the first appearance of her. Is there another appearance that is worth more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeeksAreMyPeeps Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) On 8/9/2017 at 3:08 AM, brianchew said: AND furthermore, to illustrate the power of CGC, since they deem Xforce 11 as the 1st appearance, there have been 1261 submissions for #11 to be graded at cgc in which 806 are 9.8. guess how many #8s have been submitted and are 9.8? ONE and it graded 9.8. #8 is a ghost town folks That's not accurate. https://www.cgccomics.com/census/grades_standard.asp?title=X-Force&publisher=Marvel+Comics&issue=8&year=1992&issuedate=3%2F92 Edited August 11, 2017 by GeeksAreMyPeeps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ygogolak Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 2 hours ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said: That's not accurate. https://www.cgccomics.com/census/grades_standard.asp?title=X-Force&publisher=Marvel+Comics&issue=8&year=1992&issuedate=3%2F92 I think the poster meant since CGC made a decision on labelling #11, which I believe was more recent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
