The Great First Appearance Debate- Resolved??? 1 1

[sfcityduck]

7 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

The duck in your avatar - or 'Donald' as I believe he likes to be called - looks very annoyed. Are you very annoyed sfcityduck? You sound very annoyed. 

Yes.  Some things are worthy of annoyance.  

The official name of the duck in my Avatar, though, is not "Donald" - it is "the Duck" - an officially licensed mascot of the University of Oregon.

Edited September 11, 2019 by sfcityduck

[Get Marwood & I]

3 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Yes.  Some things are worthy of annoyance.  

Give the guy a break Duck. He's having a go, formulating his views. Trying to start his own discussion. It's not a crime worthy of annoyance. Is it? 

[sfcityduck]

1 minute ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Give the guy a break Duck. He's having a go, formulating his views. Trying to start his own discussion. It's not a crime worthy of annoyance. Is it? 

I agreed with the last three labels.  I offered a contrasting view of the first three.  I don't think the OP (or anyone else) is going to melt under the minimal heat of this discussion.

[Get Marwood & I]

2 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

I agreed with the last three labels.  I offered a contrasting view of the first three.  I don't think the OP (or anyone else) is going to melt under the minimal heat of this discussion.

Fair enough. 

[valiantman]

10 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

 WTF?  Foom 2 has nothing to do with Wolverine.  It's not a prototype of anything.

Quote

Give the guy a break Duck. He's having a go, formulating his views. Trying to start his own discussion. It's not a crime worthy of annoyance. Is it? 

 

Quote

I agreed with the last three labels.  I offered a contrasting view of the first three.  I don't think the OP (or anyone else) is going to melt under the minimal heat of this discussion.

Foom #2 has "enough" to be mentioned as something in the discussion of Wolverine.  It's not a glimpse, not a preview, not an advertisement, but it's a Marvel publication that features a fan creation/submission that actually is the name of a Marvel character soon after, with a progression of skull-bonded bone to skin that matches the adamantium-bonded-to-the-skeleton (or healing) concept of Wolverine even if there's not a metal mentioned.  The bottom left image looks like Weapon X hooked up to the machine.

There's no way that Marvel has an official contest in 1973 requesting fan submissions and then has a character named "THE WOLVERINE" in 1974 without something in common.  Prototype is probably the wrong word, but "Foom 2 has nothing to do with Wolverine" is also wrong.

"Conceptual" instead of "Prototype" maybe.

Edited September 11, 2019 by valiantman

[sfcityduck]

7 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Foom #2 has "enough" to be mentioned as something in the discussion of Wolverine.  It's not a glimpse, not a preview, not an advertisement, but it's a Marvel publication that features a fan creation/submission that actually is the name of a Marvel character soon after, with a progression of skull-bonded bone to skin that matches the adamantium-bonded-to-the-skeleton (or healing) concept of Wolverine even if there's not a metal mentioned.  The bottom left image looks like Weapon X hooked up to the machine.

 

Andy Olson's "The Wolverine" was a robot.  That's why the illustration on the right shows hatches open on his chest and arm and plugged in to recharge.  Closer to the Vision or a SHIELD Simulcron than anything else.  There is no adamantium, healing factor, or bonding of metal to bone.  The sequence on top is showing skin over mechanics.  There's no similarity to the character created later on called "Wolverine" other than the name. 

Most importantly, no creator of Wolverine has ever suggested this had any influence on their creation at all.  This is not like Dr. Occult and Superman which had the same creators.  

Edited September 11, 2019 by sfcityduck

[THE_BEYONDER]

Let’s talk about IF 13

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by THE_BEYONDER

[sfcityduck]

IF 13 is called a "house ad."

[THE_BEYONDER]

2 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

IF 13 is called a "house ad."

[Lazyboy]

52 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

In contrast, GI Combat 68 ("The Rock" by Kanigher and Kubert), OAaW 81 ("The Rock of Easy Company" by Haney and Andru), and OAaW 82 ("Sgt. Rock" by Haney and Andr0) are all clearly prototypes which led up to OAaW 83 ("The Rock and the Wall" by Kanigher and Kubert) and DC recognizes that fact, putting all of those prototypes in Sgt. Rock Archives vol. 1.

If DC included all those stories in the Sgt. Rock Archives they must all actually be Sgt. Rock.

[comicginger1789]

59 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

I agreed with the last three labels.  I offered a contrasting view of the first three.  I don't think the OP (or anyone else) is going to melt under the minimal heat of this discussion.

I want to thank you @sfcityduck

I think my lack of knowledge played a role in a poor label. You are right that Foom 2 and Marvel Age 12 are fan art entries. I just felt that there was enough to both that spawned and gave breath to the eventual character much like an object that is a prototype. But perhaps the better classification is just “fan art character Wolverine” and “fan art Black Costume Spider-Man”.

Your use of prototype to define Sgt Rock sounds a better fit. I wasn’t happy classifying him by my outlines to begin with and like your definition better.

I will still stand by my Preview appearance. An ad is a preview for a product thus for me it is the first Preview appearance. 

Also. Definitely not a dealer. I sell stuff I don’t love to fund my own collection. As for the purpose of this endeavour, I just like to chat. The subject intrigued me and the fact that there are discrepancies in Overstreet and on CGC labels seems silly. I appreciate the thoughts and have already started to revise my ideas 

Edited September 11, 2019 by comicginger1789

[RockMyAmadeus]

The issue doesn't need to be as difficult as some people want to make it. But some people want to make it difficult so they can profit off of confusion, and then scornfully castigate anyone who would dare call them out for doing so. If someone is corrected, and refuses to make those corrections, they fall into that category.

[kav]

Reading and quoting Comic Book Marketplace can clear up a lot of this stuff.

[comicginger1789]

23 minutes ago, kav said:

Reading and quoting Comic Book Marketplace can clear up a lot of this stuff.

But are they correct? Who do we hold to the standard and if there are a lot of disagreements from what I have seen so  some accurate labels seemed appropriate and necessary. 

Are mine the solution? Doubtful but I like this discussion:)

[kav]

3 minutes ago, comicginger1789 said:

But are they correct? Who do we hold to the standard and if there are a lot of disagreements from what I have seen so  some accurate labels seemed appropriate and necessary. 

Are mine the solution? Doubtful but I like this discussion:)

Well some people swear by em  

[sfcityduck]

49 minutes ago, comicginger1789 said:

 

I will still stand by my Preview appearance. An ad is a preview for a product thus for me it is the first Preview appearance. 

 

I like plain and clear language.  And if a character is appearing in an ad, why not just state that?  Why fog up the picture by claiming the ad is a "First Preview Appearance"?  The only reason I can think of is to hype a book with the ad by trying to conflate it with the book advertised in the ad.  And if you go down this road, does this mean we're going to see "Second Preview Appearances" as well?

The most obvious example to use is Action 1.  Action is the First Appearance and First Cover Appearance of Superman.  But, there were DC house ads that ran before Action 1 came out.  An example from Detective Comics 15 (April 10, 1938):

But, Detective 15 was not the first time an ad for Action 1 appeared in a house ad.  That was More Fun Comics 31 (April 5, 1938):

So Detective 15 is a "Second Preview Appearance"?  That way lies madness.  They are just house ads.  And house ads are not an "appearance" of a character at all because they do not take place in a story context.  

[sfcityduck]

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

 

There's no way that Marvel has an official contest in 1973 requesting fan submissions and then has a character named "THE WOLVERINE" in 1974 without something in common.  Prototype is probably the wrong word, but "Foom 2 has nothing to do with Wolverine" is also wrong.

"Conceptual" instead of "Prototype" maybe.

I don't think Roy Thomas, Len Wein, John Romita, and Herb Trimpe gave any thought to Foom 2.  It's called a coincidence, not a rip-off.  

Read this on the true creative process that led to Wolverine:

http://hero-envy.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-uncanny-but-true-creation-of.html

And this on Foom 2:

https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-legends-revealed-456/

Key point not made in posts above:  

Quote

To those who would argue that Olsen's Wolverine has a metal skeleton and a healing ability (I don't believe either are actually evident - I think Olsen's Wolverine looks more like a cyborg more than anything), it is important to note that Wolverine had neither in his first appearance so it really doesn't help Olsen's case.

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by sfcityduck

[valiantman]

29 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

 

There's no way that Marvel has an official contest in 1973 requesting fan submissions and then has a character named "THE WOLVERINE" in 1974 without something in common.  Prototype is probably the wrong word, but "Foom 2 has nothing to do with Wolverine" is also wrong.

"Conceptual" instead of "Prototype" maybe.

I don't think Roy Thomas, Len Wein, John Romita, and Herb Trimpe gave any thought to Foom 2.  It's called a coincidence, not a rip-off.  

Read this on the true creative process that led to Wolverine:

http://hero-envy.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-uncanny-but-true-creation-of.html

And this on Foom 2:

https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-legends-revealed-456/

Key point not made in posts above:  

Quote

To those who would argue that Olsen's Wolverine has a metal skeleton and a healing ability (I don't believe either are actually evident - I think Olsen's Wolverine looks more like a cyborg more than anything), it is important to note that Wolverine had neither in his first appearance so it really doesn't help Olsen's case.

 

That's good info. 

So you'd say Wolverine seems to have more in common with Timber Wolf (DC Comics), then. 

https://braveandboldlost.blogspot.com/2012/04/timber-wolf-vs-wolverine.html

[1950's war comics]

21 hours ago, comicginger1789 said:

Your Thoughts?

one of the better posts i have read in a long time - Thanks 

[Lazyboy]

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The issue doesn't need to be as difficult as some people want to make it. But some people want to make it difficult so they can profit off of confusion, and then scornfully castigate anyone who would dare call them out for doing so. If someone is corrected, and refuses to make those corrections, they fall into that category.

True, but because it's looking at only one specific aspect of serialized stories, it can be complicated. Appearances are not all equal, first or not.

People pushing certain agendas and ignoring reason is a separate issue.