Bronze Age First Appearances: The Complete Reference Thread

[shadroch]

DL,

Lets suppose you had a friend. Now that friend wants to buy you a comic from the month you were born. Is it a comic that appeared the month you were born,or is it a comic that is dated the month you were born?

Nevermind,the whole scenerio is crazy to begin with.

[deathlok]

DL,

Lets suppose you had a friend. Now that friend wants to buy you a comic from the month you were born. Is it a comic that appeared the month you were born,or is it a comic that is dated the month you were born?

Nevermind,the whole scenerio is crazy to begin with.

 

Dated the month the cover says. I'm being serious here also. Being born in September, the cover date should say September, not any other month.

[shadroch]

 

 

 

Using a cover date as a guide,with the understanding it is not a publication date is fine. Calling it a publcation date is simply incorrect,no matter how you wish to spin it.

 

A book on sale in October,1986 cannot have been published in Febuary,1987,would you agree or disagree with this statement?

[deathlok]

 

 

Using a cover date as a guide,with the understanding it is not a publication date is fine. Calling it a publcation date is simply incorrect,no matter how you wish to spin it.

 

A book on sale in October,1986 cannot have been published in Febuary,1987,would you agree or disagree with this statement?

 

What I don't understand is why you continue to refer to another date other than the cover date. Every single reference that I have ever seen or used has always used the cover date. To imply that anything else be used or determined is insane. Nobody really cares when the book went on sale, the only thing that matters is on the cover.

 

In your example Februaury 1987, if that is the date on the cover of example book, should be used as the date of the issue. Not some alleged date before or after this date.

 

If you don't understand that, then I don't know what else to say.

[FlyingDonut]

DL,

Lets suppose you had a friend. Now that friend wants to buy you a comic from the month you were born. Is it a comic that appeared the month you were born,or is it a comic that is dated the month you were born?

Nevermind,the whole scenerio is crazy to begin with.

 

Dated the month the cover says. I'm being serious here also. Being born in September, the cover date should say September, not any other month.

 

My son was born August 16, 1995. On that date, Amazing Spider-Man 408 was released at comic shops. What's the date on this book?

 

 

February, 1996.

[deathlok]

FD, stfu. Why difference does it make. When you refer to OS for the date of the that book, which date do you think will be listed? February. In reference to most comic book dates, they day it hits the shelves is irrelevant.

[hobbes]

Shang-Chi

Special Marvel Edition 15

12/1973

[shadroch]

DL,

May I suggest you read the article I referred to in OS 34. Read how a real comic historian refers to books. Or go on in your ignorant bliss.

If Robert Beerbohm and Dr. Olson reference books by when they go on sale,and also indicate the cover date,thats more than good enough for me.

Perhaps after you have one tenth the experiance of these two,your opinion will hold similar weight.

Until then,the old saying still goes. You get take a fool to the school,but you can't make him learn.

BTW-check out when DC celebrated Supermans 50th anniversary,or when Marvel did their 25th birthday party.

[Rival61-migration]

I am still trying to figure out why everyone including CGC and Overstreet keep stating that Captain Marvel #17 is the first appearance of the "new" (Not green-suited) Capatin Marvel when it is actually the last panel of #16 that he appears in. I guess not enough people care about Captain Marvel for it to ever get corrected. At least they got the first appearance of Wolverine corrent

[shadroch]

Just another example of Overstreets most inconsistent methodology.If enough people complain about it,and can show that #16 is worth more because of it,they might change it.

Arnold and the crew at OS have made a bunch of changes seemingly based on input from the board,so watch out for the next threas on this subject.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

"Arnold and the crew at OS have made a bunch of changes seemingly based on input from the board"

 

Change the word "seemingly" to "directly" and you're correct.

[BronzeBruce13]

did the "cameo" term change this year... or is it on the back-burner again?

[jbud73]

did the "cameo" term change this year... or is it on the back-burner again?

 

[bronze johnny]

Hello Rival61:

 

It appears as if Overstreet is applying the cameo/first full appearance to the Captain Marvel costume issue that you raise. I think a bigger issue than the one you raise is the first appearance of Darkseid. Overstreet indicates that Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen 134 is the first appearance of Darkseid but he shows up in one panel. Are they saying that one panel by a character is a first appearance? Sounds like a cameo to me. I think the people over at Overstreet need to re-evaluate some of the books they consider as first appearances. And the rule should be consistent.

 

BronzeJohnny

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

The whole cameo thing was sorted out. I may have missed one or two but I believe I was thorough. The whole system of notation from "cameo" to "first brief app." to "first full app." and variations should now all be internally consistent and follow in the appropriate order. If anyone notices otherwise, let me know.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

You'll see this year that (hopefully) all the language used to note these appearances and a logical order in which they *are* noted should be straightened out now. And let me clarify one thing:

 

"Are they saying that one panel by a character is a first appearance? Sounds like a cameo to me"

 

Of course it's the first appearance if it's genuinely the first time the character appeared, but it's not the same as a full issue debut. Therefore it's a "first brief app." followed by a "first full app." And no, it absolutely cannot be a "cameo," because as we've discussed elsewhere in other threads, the term "cameo" only applies to a brief meaningful appearance made by a familiar character we already know. So a first brief appearance of a character in one panel cannot be a cameo because we've never met him (or her) before. It's a "first brief app." Later one panel or short appearances of that character can be referred to as a "cameo." For many years - and I only recently realized this - the word "cameo" was used inconsistently and incorrectly throughout the Guide. I went through those notes for the edition coming out shortly, so hopefully things should make a lot more sense internally now.

[shadroch]

Outstanding!

For many years,the handeling of Galactus in FF 48/49 has been a real pet peeve of mine.#49 has always seemed to be given short shift,even by the notations in volume #34 of the guide.

[BronzeBruce13]

The whole cameo thing was sorted out. I may have missed one or two but I believe I was thorough. The whole system of notation from "cameo" to "first brief app." to "first full app." and variations should now all be internally consistent and follow in the appropriate order. If anyone notices otherwise, let me know.

 

(thumbs up)

(thumbs up)

(thumbs up)

(thumbs up)

(thumbs up)

(thumbs up)

[BronzeBruce13]

You'll see this year that (hopefully) all the language used to note these appearances and a logical order in which they *are* noted should be straightened out now. And let me clarify one thing:

 

"Are they saying that one panel by a character is a first appearance? Sounds like a cameo to me"

 

Of course it's the first appearance if it's genuinely the first time the character appeared, but it's not the same as a full issue debut. Therefore it's a "first brief app." followed by a "first full app." And no, it absolutely cannot be a "cameo," because as we've discussed elsewhere in other threads, the term "cameo" only applies to a brief meaningful appearance made by a familiar character we already know. So a first brief appearance of a character in one panel cannot be a cameo because we've never met him (or her) before. It's a "first brief app." Later one panel or short appearances of that character can be referred to as a "cameo." For many years - and I only recently realized this - the word "cameo" was used inconsistently and incorrectly throughout the Guide. I went through those notes for the edition coming out shortly, so hopefully things should make a lot more sense internally now.

 

 

(thumbs up

(thumbs up

(thumbs up

(thumbs up

(thumbs up

(thumbs up

[Aman619]

actually, I hope next year you will fix that notation gramatically.

"first brief appearance" SHOULD be "brief first appearance."

 

You are actually denoting the "first appearance" of the character, and modifying that notation by the clarification as to its size (brief). So it is really a brief "FIRST APPEARANCE" as opposed to a "extensive" first appearance or any other kind of FIRST APPEARANCE.

 

the way you have phrased it implies that this appearance is just the "first" of more than one "brief appearances". While that may be true, it isnt what you mean to denote, is it??

 

Sorry to nitpick, but now that you are finally fixing it to make it consistent and easy to understand, why muddy the waters by putting the words out of order?