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

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

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.

Separate, but intertwined by those same people. I'm not so sure it's all that complicated. Generations of collectors before ours managed to figure these things out, after all.

[Lazyboy]

6 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Generations of collectors before ours managed to figure these things out, after all.

Yeah, but some of the things they "knew" and passed down are highly suspect or just plain incorrect. But they're now so ingrained in the hobby that it's difficult to change perceptions and the people questioning things get accused of being unreasonable and pushing an agenda (see the recent Lex Luthor discussion in the GA forum).

[comicginger1789]

14 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Separate, but intertwined by those same people. I'm not so sure it's all that complicated. Generations of collectors before ours managed to figure these things out, after all.

Again, are "these things" correct? Maybe they are and that is great but a number of comics have changed their standing over time. 

I am someone who was born in '89. I grew up and have learned about comics (the stuff I love at least) long after it first appeared and came out. I have no idea what was perceived as the "first appearance" of a character by collectors in the 80's and 90's and earlier. Perhaps I need to get my hands on some old price guides to really hone my knowledge....or perhaps people here can share

Was Avengers #71 always considered the first Invaders? How about Brave and Bold #50 for Teen Titans? What about Sgt. Rock? That one has evolved for sure...

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 minutes ago, comicginger1789 said:

I am someone who was born in '89. I grew up and have learned about comics (the stuff I love at least) long after it first appeared and came out. I have no idea what was perceived as the "first appearance" of a character by collectors in the 80's and 90's and earlier. Perhaps I need to get my hands on some old price guides to really hone my knowledge....or perhaps people here can share

I cannot, in any way, overstate how useful, constructive, and important this would be to your understanding of how the comic market came to be. It is invaluable. Whatever you can get your hands on, Overstreets, Updates, Bulletins, Comics Values Monthlies, Wizard is good to get the kitschy "speculator" flavor of the 90s, Comics Buyers Guide...it's all incredibly valuable.

B&B #50 has never been considered the first appearance of the Teen Titans.

There are lots of details, for sure...but here's the kicker: none of that stuff is difficult to figure out when people take a scientific approach to the subject. OAAW #81 is the first appearance of Sgt, Rock? Well, sure, if you don't actually read the book. I think it's a little bit of a quibble, but the first, no-contest appearance of Sgt. Rock IS #83. Past generations called it #81 because, to them, "Sgt. Rocky" was close enough.

And you might be surprised...or not...at how many people deal in comics who have never opened one in their lives.

That's a lot of the problem, right there.

15 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

Yeah, but some of the things they "knew" and passed down are highly suspect or just plain incorrect. But they're now so ingrained in the hobby that it's difficult to change perceptions and the people questioning things get accused of being unreasonable and pushing an agenda (see the recent Lex Luthor discussion in the GA forum).

Granted. No question, as you, I, and others have detailed here over the years. The tightrope of truth is a narrow one, and one can fall on either side. Like, for example, Silver Surfer #4 and Conan #3 being "low distribution", or the Marvel fat diamonds of the late 70s being all "reprints." It's why it's so important to take a stand on these things, regardless of the slings and arrows, and lay out the case for why something is wrong, if it is. It's a pain, and will often lead to unpopularity (at the very least), but eventually, the truth will out, if people will take a stand for it.

[comicginger1789]

An update, if I may...

After a day of reading and pondering further, I feel my initial musings were a good start but I was not happy with it. I posted because I know people here know more than me and having heard a lot here (and on other sites) I have decided to revise my definitions. So let me try this again

Fan Art

Worth noting because who can ever definitively say that some of these did not inspire the minds at Marvel (or any other company). A book like Foom #2 can be labelled as containing "Fan art for character called Wolverine (predates first appearance)". Again, a completist may want this as part of their collection if they love Wolvie...and if they are willing to pay up that is fine. Heck the book itself contains and awesome Steranko cover so that alone holds value. 

Ad/Preview Appearances

They are as stated, an ad (thanks to @sfcityduck for this new idea) or preview as they provide the bare bones. A pic, a promotional blurb or pic, or perhaps some concept art. These appearances can be found in magazines or other print items that are not exactly comic books. Malibu Sun #13 fits this bill. So do things like Marvel Age 12. They are ad books. In addition, an ad in a comic would count. It is advertizing a character to come. Some would likely pay more for something like Malibu Sun since you get a nice cover...others may not want to shell out too much to get a vague blurb about a new character at the bottom of the last page. The ad appearance needs to be visual, so a verbal blurb would not get this label. If the visual is vague as to the character's appearance, it can still be labelled as an ad appearance that predates the first appearance like Iron Fist 13.

First Glimpse 

This was suggested by @valiantman! I like the wording better than my previous "first unknown appearance." A first glimpse is just that...a panel or couple of panels where we get a glimpse of a character for the first time in an actual story. We as a reader do not know who it is because we get a hand or vague outline. Think ASM #298 or ASM #360 for Venom and Carnage respectively. Maybe we even get a name but we really cannot put the whole picture (name and face and body) together to get a clear idea of who or what this character is.

First Appearance

Like before, we see the character in full for the first time. We may not get a name but visually we know so that when we do get a name, we can say "oh yes, they clearly appeared last issue and I got a glimpse of them the issue before that." Hulk #180, ASM #299 as examples.

First Full Appearance

Character appears in full throughout the story. They can be found on more than 5 panels in the story. If a first appearance is also a full appearance, the label would only state "first full appearance" (like ASM #129). If the first full appearance appears after a first appearance, label reads "second appearance, first full appearance." Hulk #181 or Avengers #196.

First Cover Appearance

Same as before. Labelled for the first time we see a character on a cover. This is different from a first appearance. If it all happens in the same ish (again example ASM #129), label can read "first full appearance, first cover appearance". For a character like Gwenpool, her first cover appearance would be labelled. Her first story appearance would be labelled as a "first appearance (appears prior on cover only)".

Prototype Appearance

I am reusing this label but changing the definition. Blame Sgt. Rock for this but hey, I think the definition does actually fit his situation. He was a character who grew and morphed into the Sgt. Rock we see today. However, if I use this definition as a catch all for all comics, it means I have to classify House of Secrets #92 as a first prototype appearance of Swamp Thing. That Swamp Thing is not the one we knew. It was changed and adapted later for a new (albeit very similar) character. This case can also be applied to the Teen Titans. Brave & Bold is a first prototype appearance for the Teen Titans...the original team we know and recognize does not start until issue #60. Again, I am not trying to shift any market...I think that HOS #92 is an amazingly iconic cover that could still hold its own. Those who know Swamp Thing's history know how the original creative team revamped their old idea so it clearly is important, arguably more so than the first app of Swamp Thing we see in issue 1.

Retcon Appearance

A retcon appearance happens well after the fact and works in an old moment or an old character into a new character. At the time the character or characters first appeared, they were not viewed as the are later. Example here is Misty Knight. Marvel Team Up #1 would be the  "retcon first appearance of Misty Knight". This tells people that later on someone played with continuity to turn an unknown into a known. Avengers #71 would also fit this bill...it is a retcon first apppearance of the Invaders. Again, a completist may want these too. For me though, these retcon appearances are akin to when your fav character makes a cameo in another title. If I am collecting a run from a series, I am more focused on that series. Sure, I may become interested if and when my fav character pops up in another book, and I will seek out what happened there. That should be the case for a book like Avengers #71. Otherwise, GS Invaders should be "first full appearance, first cover appearance of Invaders". In Avengers #71, they were not a team. There was no eventual thought they would be. Heck, did the three never interact in the Golden Age of comics? If so, wouldnt that be the first appearance of the Invaders? Anyways, because a later writer worked it into their story, its a retcon first appearance. The term retcon itself should imply that it comes before the comic that is labelled their first appearance.

 

There. Draft two. May the debate rage on 

Edited September 12, 2019 by comicginger1789

[comicginger1789]

20 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I cannot, in any way, overstate how useful, constructive, and important this would be to your understanding of how the comic market came to be. It is invaluable. Whatever you can get your hands on, Overstreets, Updates, Bulletins, Comics Values Monthlies, Wizard is good to get the kitschy "speculator" flavor of the 90s, Comics Buyers Guide...it's all incredibly valuable.

B&B #50 has never been considered the first appearance of the Teen Titans.

 

I meant #54, sorry that was a typo...

I am still trying to just round out my history of characters and stories themselves. I only recently have been intrigued at the hobby of collecting itself. I dont like worry about market value and all that...I keep on top of whats current for the sake of knowing when I have/find something that I can sell for something I desire more. As time goes on, I am sure I will delve into some old Overstreets and collect more comic related print materials from various points in time. I sadly just don't have the time to get there right now.

Ultimately, I disagree with trying to mislabel something it is not. And I also dislike the inconsistency. Which is the primary reason why I am trying to at least give a suggestion to a label system that works. After that, collectors can determine where they want to throw their money. Personally, a book like Malibu Sun #13 has no interest to me whatsoever. I am not a huge Spawn fan and for those prices, I dont care about it. I still own some Spawn because the story was okay at the start. Now, I loveee Spider-Man. That being said, I do not want to pay more than maybe $1-3 for Marvel Age #12. I think this fan art of the first black suit is interesting to the history of the costume...but certainly not $15-20+ interesting. I also do not agree with it labelled as a first appearance. It sets about confusion for new collectors and young people getting into the hobby who may not (unfortunately) take the time to research. Plus, if they "just Google it" like so many do, and it tells them its Marvel Age 12, well they think they are getting something good when really, it's just fan art. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

23 minutes ago, comicginger1789 said:

I meant #54, sorry that was a typo...

I am still trying to just round out my history of characters and stories themselves. I only recently have been intrigued at the hobby of collecting itself. I dont like worry about market value and all that...I keep on top of whats current for the sake of knowing when I have/find something that I can sell for something I desire more. As time goes on, I am sure I will delve into some old Overstreets and collect more comic related print materials from various points in time. I sadly just don't have the time to get there right now.

Ultimately, I disagree with trying to mislabel something it is not. And I also dislike the inconsistency. Which is the primary reason why I am trying to at least give a suggestion to a label system that works. After that, collectors can determine where they want to throw their money. Personally, a book like Malibu Sun #13 has no interest to me whatsoever. I am not a huge Spawn fan and for those prices, I dont care about it. I still own some Spawn because the story was okay at the start. Now, I loveee Spider-Man. That being said, I do not want to pay more than maybe $1-3 for Marvel Age #12. I think this fan art of the first black suit is interesting to the history of the costume...but certainly not $15-20+ interesting. I also do not agree with it labelled as a first appearance. It sets about confusion for new collectors and young people getting into the hobby who may not (unfortunately) take the time to research. Plus, if they "just Google it" like so many do, and it tells them its Marvel Age 12, well they think they are getting something good when really, it's just fan art. 

Marvel Age #12 is not "fan art." Not sure where you got that. The "red spider" black costume is Rick Leonardi art.

[comicginger1789]

20 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Marvel Age #12 is not "fan art." Not sure where you got that. The "red spider" black costume is Rick Leonardi art.

Thanks!

The concept was based on a fan idea though was it not? In addition there are other comic related material Comic Reader or something along those lines) that also featured sketches of the design. So I still put them all in the ad appearances column. It’s advertising a character in development. In this case there are multiple ad appearances 

[RockMyAmadeus]

12 minutes ago, comicginger1789 said:

Thanks!

The concept was based on a fan idea though was it not? In addition there are other comic related material Comic Reader or something along those lines) that also featured sketches of the design. So I still put them all in the ad appearances column. It’s advertising a character in development. In this case there are multiple ad appearances 

They're all the same art, by Rick Leonardi.

https://marswillsendnomore.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/first-appearance-of-spider-mans-black-costume/

The idea was fan generated, yes, but the artwork is all from the Marvel preview art that they sent out to various preview publications. It all springs from what ended up being in MA #12.

And...it's concept art, not the finished product, which was different (white spider rather than red.)

In this case...the first appearance of the black costume that is THE black costume was ASM #252.

[comicginger1789]

10 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

They're all the same art, by Rick Leonardi.

https://marswillsendnomore.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/first-appearance-of-spider-mans-black-costume/

The idea was fan generated, yes, but the artwork is all from the Marvel preview art that they sent out to various preview publications. It all springs from what ended up being in MA #12.

And...it's concept art, not the finished product, which was different (white spider rather than red.)

In this case...the first appearance of the black costume that is THE black costume was ASM #252.

And I agree with that. 252 is first appearance. Marvel Age and the other stuff would be labelled as Ad Appearances that predate the first appearance. 

[comicginger1789]

I still think it’s necessary to label issues like Marvel Age 12 and Comics Reader as first ad or preview, whichever term is more appropriate (so not fan art).

Its part of the development and new collectors should know that. They should not be labelled first appearances though.

[sfcityduck]

13 hours ago, comicginger1789 said:

I still think it’s necessary to label issues like Marvel Age 12 and Comics Reader as first ad or preview, whichever term is more appropriate (so not fan art).

Its part of the development and new collectors should know that. They should not be labelled first appearances though.

What you may not be realizing is that back in the late 70s and 80s there were magazines like the Comics Journal, Amazing Heroes, the Comic Reader, etc. that commonly published the publisher's promotional materials as "news" items.  Those "news" items necessarily included images from time to time that would be of characters or developments that would not officially published until later.  Any article about a new series would predate the new series first issue.  This also occurred in publications designed to promote the solicitation or sell of comics like Marvel Age, Previews, etc.  Those types of out of story and continuity marketing visuals have traditionally been viewed by collectors as having minimal significance.  Unfortunately, some dealers are always searching for ways to maximise the price for their wares, have taken to labeling these out of story and continuity marketing visuals as "first appearances" in order to sucker folks into paying big bucks for things like Marvel Age 12.  

These days those marketing visuals are found all over the internet.  I don't doubt that someday we'll see someone trying to sell a website print-out or jpeg as a "first appearance."  

Personally, I'd prefer to tell new collectors to stay away from such rip-offs instead of telling them they are of significance.  But, I'm old school.

[sfcityduck]

 

15 hours ago, comicginger1789 said:

An update, if I may...

After a day of reading and pondering further, I feel my initial musings were a good start but I was not happy with it. I posted because I know people here know more than me and having heard a lot here (and on other sites) I have decided to revise my definitions. So let me try this again

....

First Glimpse 

This was suggested by @valiantman! I like the wording better than my previous "first unknown appearance." A first glimpse is just that...a panel or couple of panels where we get a glimpse of a character for the first time in an actual story. We as a reader do not know who it is because we get a hand or vague outline. Think ASM #298 or ASM #360 for Venom and Carnage respectively. Maybe we even get a name but we really cannot put the whole picture (name and face and body) together to get a clear idea of who or what this character is.

 

I really don't like this concept.  What you are talking about is not an appearance of a character, but foreshadowing (meaning an indication of a future event).  The classic example is when you have an upcoming villain pictured as being cloaked in shadows silently observing the heroes.  Usually, the villain is unrecognisable, unidentified, and the whole point of the "appearance" is to foreshadow that something will be happening at a later date.  Of course, if the title is cancelled, we'll never know what was going to happen or who the mystery person cloaked in shadows was.  So it's not a real appearance.  It's just foreshadowing.  

I really don't think a hand or shadowed outline warrants mention.  

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

15 hours ago, comicginger1789 said:

An update, if I may...

....

Prototype Appearance

I am reusing this label but changing the definition. Blame Sgt. Rock for this but hey, I think the definition does actually fit his situation. He was a character who grew and morphed into the Sgt. Rock we see today. However, if I use this definition as a catch all for all comics, it means I have to classify House of Secrets #92 as a first prototype appearance of Swamp Thing. That Swamp Thing is not the one we knew. It was changed and adapted later for a new (albeit very similar) character. This case can also be applied to the Teen Titans. Brave & Bold is a first prototype appearance for the Teen Titans...the original team we know and recognize does not start until issue #60. Again, I am not trying to shift any market...I think that HOS #92 is an amazingly iconic cover that could still hold its own. Those who know Swamp Thing's history know how the original creative team revamped their old idea so it clearly is important, arguably more so than the first app of Swamp Thing we see in issue 1.

I don't think B&B 54 or HoS 92 fall into the well-established view collectors have of the term "prototype."  Both are rightly viewed as first appearances.  They are in continuity appearances that DC views as the Teen Titans and Swamp Thing's first appearances.  

A "prototype" is not an earlier appearance of a character that has a different look or feel because, after all, the look and personality of characters change all the time.  NO, a "prototype" is more like when you see a creative team "trying out" a version of an idea that will later be manifested as a completely different character.  The best example of this often hotly debated notion is Siegel & Shuster's Dr. Occult and Superman.  

[Darth Floppy]

14 hours ago, comicginger1789 said:

I still think it’s necessary to label issues like Marvel Age 12 and Comics Reader as first ad or preview, whichever term is more appropriate (so not fan art).

Its part of the development and new collectors should know that. They should not be labelled first appearances though.

 

Gwenpool is odd, it was a variant cover depicting Gwen Stacy as Deadpool, which in turn led to the creation of Gwen Poole, the character.  FWIW, it could have Mary Jane on those covers and it could have been Janepool because the costume created the viral sensation. 

How does an object that later becomes a character fit it? Classic example is coccoon/Adam Warlock, costume/Venom or most recently egg/Xandra in Mr and Mrs X.  Appearance of object or emergence of character.  I ask this because I've seen dealers stretch "first apprearance" to suit their inventory at shows.

My own opinion is that Gwen Poole as Gwenpool was in HTD #1, that is her first appearance as the identifiable character. Emerging is the first appearance, not the object.  Character creation development is fascinating and print teases pique curiosity, they will never be in the first appearance to me.

 

 

[Lazyboy]

2 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

I don't think B&B 54 or HoS 92 fall into the well-established view collectors have of the term "prototype."  Both are rightly viewed as first appearances.  They are in continuity appearances that DC views as the Teen Titans and Swamp Thing's first appearances.

Wrong.

Wein and Wrightson refused to continue the story from HoS 92 when asked. They eventually realized that they could create a new, similar character and story and go from there. They are absolutely not the same characters.

You already know my position on the Titans, which is completely supported by a simple reading of the books.

[Lazyboy]

2 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

 

I really don't like this concept.  What you are talking about is not an appearance of a character, but foreshadowing (meaning an indication of a future event).  The classic example is when you have an upcoming villain pictured as being cloaked in shadows silently observing the heroes.  Usually, the villain is unrecognisable, unidentified, and the whole point of the "appearance" is to foreshadow that something will be happening at a later date.  Of course, if the title is cancelled, we'll never know what was going to happen or who the mystery person cloaked in shadows was.  So it's not a real appearance.  It's just foreshadowing.  

I really don't think a hand or shadowed outline warrants mention. 

A presence is a presence, no matter how small. The character is part of the story.

[Lazyboy]

15 hours ago, comicginger1789 said:

I still think it’s necessary to label issues like Marvel Age 12 and Comics Reader as first ad or preview, whichever term is more appropriate (so not fan art).

I disagree

15 hours ago, comicginger1789 said:

Its part of the development and new collectors should know that.

Not really and I don't see why new collectors would need to know that.

15 hours ago, comicginger1789 said:

They should not be labelled first appearances though.

That's for sure.

[sfcityduck]

3 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

Wrong.

Wein and Wrightson refused to continue the story from HoS 92 when asked. They eventually realized that they could create a new, similar character and story and go from there. They are absolutely not the same characters.

You already know my position on the Titans, which is completely supported by a simple reading of the books.

Same character name, same character look, same creative team, same copyright, same publisher, etc.  What changed was the story around the character.  In other words, a re-boot of sorts to the story.And what we are talking about is the first appearance of a character, not the first appearance of a story arc.

If what mattered was story arcs, then most of the popular characters would have multiple first appearances.  Especially Batman, who goes from the Dark Knight, to guy with a kid tagging along, to scion of the Batman Family of Batwoman, Batgirl, Bathound, Batmite, etc., to new look Batman, to socially relevant Batman, to Dark Knight, to R-rated Batman, etc. 

But we all know the first appearance of Batman was D 27.

And, of course, your position on TT is a minority position that is incorrect, but we can agree to disagree.  No need to veer this thread off on that debate.

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by sfcityduck

[comicginger1789]

6 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

 

Personally, I'd prefer to tell new collectors to stay away from such rip-offs instead of telling them they are of significance.  But, I'm old school.

I agree. Which is why calling it an ad appearance should help. It should be viewed as not a real comic book appearance. It can be interesting sure, for those looking into comic history. I myself have a couple issues of Alter Ego and enjoy reading some old interview with creators from the time period. But I agree labelling these things as first appearances and inflating prices to make a buck is wrong.