Overrated Key "First" Books 5 5

[the blob]

On 1/24/2023 at 11:09 AM, shadroch said:

Have you ever seen numbers for the GS books? I haven't, but if they were successful the line wouldn't have disappeared.

Who can say where your copies came from? They might have been bought off the newstand or they might be from unsold hoards.  Chucks buy wasn't the only such stash. A guy in Pennsylvania sold hundreds of copies going back twenty years or so.

I don't think they were around long enough for the publication numbers to show up in the comics. Were they intended to sit on the rack for 3 months until the next one? I just don't think they were "miniscule" given that there are 12K GS X-Men 1 in the census, although X-Men might have been one of the lower print runs out of the Giant Size books.

[the blob]

On 1/24/2023 at 11:23 AM, Gatsby77 said:

This.

As some have noted, X-Men 94 for years was more expensive than GS # 1 because it was harder to find in high grade (9.0+). IIRC, a 9.8 didn't even exist until ~10 years ago.

But it's *also* key because it restarts the run. If it didn't exist, GS # 1 would just be a one-off - like the first appearance of the Great Lakes Avengers - or maybe The Champions. Still key as the 2nd full Wolverine? Sure. But X-Men 94 - and the 50 issues that followed *made* GS # 1 important.

And as someone who once owned - and read - X-Men 94-304, virtually the only ones I care about are 94-143.

The late '80s/early '90s run hold some sentimental value, since that's when I was buying the mutant titles off the shelves - but 94-143 were also reprinted in the 80s by Classic X-Men, thus introducing my generation to the Cockrum/Claremont/Byrne runs.

It is harder to find in high grade, but if you were buying a "NM" book in 1982, chances are it might only be a 6.0 now

 

[trademarkcomics]

Once again, I'm back to my reclassification of appearance vs introduction story. It would solve SO many problems. The first "cameo"/first "full" appearance thing leaves way too much open and makes it hard when the character has many first cameos, like Damien Wayne, Killer Croc, James Rhodes, Darkseid, etc. But to say Darkseid's first appearance is in Jimmy Olsen #134, however his introduction story is in Forever People #1, makes both books seem more important to me and eliminates a lot of doubt and confusion. Nothing is perfect, but the first cameo/first full thing is too flawed to be the standard of the industry in my opinion. 

[trademarkcomics]

The GSX #1 vs X-Men #94 thing comes down to this to me: If I can't afford both books, which one would I rather have? And if I can't afford GSX #1 but can afford #94, is it a good substitute for GSX #1? The answers are easy there to me: GSX #1 and no, #94 cannot be a substitute for GSX #1 since it contains no first appearances.

It becomes a bit more complicated with Hulk #180 vs 181. Would I rather have Wolverine's first full story with a great cover, or his first actual appearance? How can I, as a huge Wolverine fan not have his first actual appearance? And as far as 180 being a great substitute for 181 if I can't afford it, there's no doubt it is.  

Edited January 24, 2023 by trademarkcomics
typo

[shadroch]

On 1/24/2023 at 10:06 AM, the blob said:

I don't think they were around long enough for the publication numbers to show up in the comics. Were they intended to sit on the rack for 3 months until the next one? I just don't think they were "miniscule" given that there are 12K GS X-Men 1 in the census, although X-Men might have been one of the lower print runs out of the Giant Size books.

The orders were miniscule because there few comic shops buying them. The rest were distributed on newstands, not ordered.

The hope was that vendors would give more shelf space to a 50 cent  book than 20  cent books.  Comics were getting squeezed out as magazine prices increased.

The seller in 1940 made the same money if he sold a copy of Time as a comic- they were both a dime.  By the mid-70s, the gap was significant. Do you display a 75 cent Time or a 20 cent  comic?

[JC25427N]

  

On 1/24/2023 at 12:12 PM, trademarkcomics said:

Once again, I'm back to my reclassification of appearance vs introduction story. It would solve SO many problems. The first "cameo"/first "full" appearance thing leaves way too much open and makes it hard when the character has many first cameos, like Damien Wayne, Killer Croc, James Rhodes, Darkseid, etc. But to say Darkseid's first appearance is in Jimmy Olsen #134, however his introduction story is in Forever People #1, makes both books seem more important to me and eliminates a lot of doubt and confusion. Nothing is perfect, but the first cameo/first full thing is too flawed to be the standard of the industry in my opinion. 

I don't think your reclassification really solves anything, you're just changing the words around

In your system

1st Cameo Appearance -> 1st Appearance

1st Full Appearance -> 1st Introduction

The same arguments would be had just with different words. "Me as a reader when these books came out was not INTRODUCED to Wolverine in 181, I was INTRODUCED to Wolverine the first time when I read Hulk 180".  

and how long until someone starts to argue 1st Cameo Introduction.

Edited January 24, 2023 by JC25427N
typo

[Gatsby77]

On 1/24/2023 at 1:17 AM, sfcityduck said:

Roy Thomas, co-creator, says: "Obviously it's 180 because he's in that last panel," Thomas tells ComicBook.com. Thomas co-created the character with Len Wein and John Romita. "It's just that the other is a full story and the one's a panel of it. But the first appearance is in #180, obviously."  (Roy, an old time collector, knows that no one thinks that Galactus's first appearance is FF 49.)  

And what do we see in IH 180?:

The installation in which Alpha Flight was assembled and the first reference to "Weapon X:" 

The story then shifts to future Alpha Flight member Wendigo, and finally we the first appearance of Wolverine in full, in costume, talking, in story continuity, with exposition on his backgound - that he is "Weapon X":

In short, he's a thread in the story throughout.  He just does not appear until the final page.  But an appearance is an appearance.  This is not someone lurking in the shadows.

Should 180 be worth more than 181?  I'm not arguing that.  A first appearance does not need to be the most valuable appearance of character.  In today's CGC world where covers have disproportionate weight, that 181 is worth more than 180 is not surprising.  But it does not mean that 181 is the first appearance - just that it is the more valuable book in the marketplace. 

I know this has been litigated ad nauseum, but you're not wrong.

The entire plot of Hulk 180 revolves around Weapon X, Wolverine appears (in full, not shadow) and talks (to the Hulk).

Literally the only reason it's not considered the "first appearance" value-wise is he isn't on the cover.

Fact: If Wolverine were on the cover of Hulk 180, the relative values of 180 vs. 181 would be reversed. 

[WolverineX]

On 1/24/2023 at 12:18 PM, trademarkcomics said:

The GSX #1 vs X-Men #94 thing comes down to this to me: If I can't afford both books, which one would I rather have? And if I can't afford GSX #1 but can afford #94, is it a good substitute for GSX #1? The answers are easy there to me: GSX #1 and no, #94 cannot be a substitute for GSX #1 since it contains no first appearances.

It becomes a bit more complicated with Hulk #180 vs 181. Would I rather have Wolverine's first full story with a great cover, or his first actual appearance? How can I, as a huge Wolverine fan not have his first actual appearance? And as far as 180 being a great substitute for 181 if I can't afford it, there's no doubt it is.  

If someone can't afford GSX1, then X94 is a good alternative.   Better something than nothing.

If someone who had deep pockets and buys a GSX1, X94 is next.

If someone is a run collector instead of a key collector then X-men 94 to 144 becomes their focus.   And X-94 is the most expensive book of that run.  

[trademarkcomics]

On 1/24/2023 at 10:24 AM, JC25427N said:

  

I don't think your reclassification really solves anything, you're just changing the words around

In your system

1st Cameo Appearance -> 1st Appearance

1st Full Appearance -> 1st Introduction

The same arguments would be had just with different words. "Me as a reader when these books came out was not INTRODUCED to Wolverine in 181, I was INTRODUCED to Wolverine the first time when I read Hulk 180".  

and how long until someone starts to argue 1st Cameo Introduction.

That doesn't take into account multiple cameos before the first "Full Appearance". Right now this is how the first appearances of Darkseid are described by CGC:

Jimmy Olsen #134: 1st Appearance of Darkseid in Cameo on Last Page

Jimmy Olsen #135: Darkseid Cameo

Forever People #1: 1st Full Appearance of Darkseid

 

And with your interpretation of my idea it would go like this:

Jimmy Olsen #134: 1st Appearance of Darkseid

Jimmy Olsen #135: 2nd Appearance of Darkseid

Forever People #1: Darkseid Introduction Story

 

Which of the two seems more clear and concise and which makes all of the first three appearances seem more appealing?

 

Isn't that the main thing that makes the value of comics go up...appeal? Let's take this a step further with Hulk 180, 181, 182 and GSX #1:

Current CGC descriptions of these issues:

Hulk #180: 1st Appearance of Wolverine in Cameo on Last Page

Hulk #181:1st Full Appearance of Wolverine

Hulk #182: Wolverine Cameo on 1st Page

Giant-Size X-Men #1: 2nd Full Appearance of Wolverine

My idea:

Hulk #180: 1st Appearance of Wolverine

Hulk #181: Wolverine Introduction Story and 1st Cover

Hulk #182: Cameo Appearance of Wolverine

Giant-Size X-Men #1: 2nd Wolverine Story

 

Clear, concise and appealing. But it would give fanboys a lot less to debate so what's the fun in that? 

 

[JC25427N]

On 1/24/2023 at 2:08 PM, trademarkcomics said:

That doesn't take into account multiple cameos before the first "Full Appearance". Right now this is how the first appearances of Darkseid are described by CGC:

Jimmy Olsen #134: 1st Appearance of Darkseid in Cameo on Last Page

Jimmy Olsen #135: Darkseid Cameo

Forever People #1: 1st Full Appearance of Darkseid

 

And with your interpretation of my idea it would go like this:

Jimmy Olsen #134: 1st Appearance of Darkseid

Jimmy Olsen #135: 2nd Appearance of Darkseid

Forever People #1: Darkseid Introduction Story

 

Which of the two seems more clear and concise and which makes all of the first three appearances seem more appealing?

 

Isn't that the main thing that makes the value of comics go up...appeal? Let's take this a step further with Hulk 180, 181, 182 and GSX #1:

Current CGC descriptions of these issues:

Hulk #180: 1st Appearance of Wolverine in Cameo on Last Page

Hulk #181:1st Full Appearance of Wolverine

Hulk #182: Wolverine Cameo on 1st Page

Giant-Size X-Men #1: 2nd Full Appearance of Wolverine

My idea:

Hulk #180: 1st Appearance of Wolverine

Hulk #181: Wolverine Introduction Story and 1st Cover

Hulk #182: Cameo Appearance of Wolverine

Giant-Size X-Men #1: 2nd Wolverine Story

 

Clear, concise and appealing. But it would give fanboys a lot less to debate so what's the fun in that? 

 

I agree that your labeling could appear cleaner in a way to some people (until people begin to argue on the definition of "Introduction", but semantics aside), but my point was that it wouldn't change anything when it comes to the debate on these issues. You said it yourself, all you're doing is "Reclassifying" (Relabeling is the word I use), but people are still gonna argue the core concept itself regardless of what label is used to describe it. In the world that uses your labeling system, people will argue that the "Introduction Story" of Wolverine is 180 and they will argue that 180 should be labelled as "1st Introduction and Appearance of Wolverine"

edit: also just a nit-pick, but labelling GSX1 as the 2nd Wolverine Story sounds so confusing when there are three other stories that significantly revolve or include him before that

Edited January 24, 2023 by JC25427N

[Ken Aldred]

For me, the significance of X-Men 94 is that it’s the start of the classic run in which the team transitioned from a failed title reduced to Silver Age reprint oblivion and guest appearances into comics megastars.  Certainly the first series is bookended by some very nice material; Lee and Kirby, Thomas and Adams, but it’s generally quite boring in the long period in between.  It took a while for Claremont and Byrne’s run to gain wide recognition, but, once it did, you can understand how there’d be backtracking and a focus on the starting point of the ascent within the main title, as well as the Giant-Size.

[trademarkcomics]

On 1/24/2023 at 11:21 AM, JC25427N said:

I agree that your labeling could appear cleaner in a way to some people (until people begin to argue on the definition of "Introduction", but semantics aside), but my point was that it wouldn't change anything when it comes to the debate on these issues. You said it yourself, all you're doing is "Reclassifying" (Relabeling is the word I use), but people are still gonna argue the core concept itself regardless of what label is used to describe it. In the world that uses your labeling system, people will argue that the "Introduction Story" of Wolverine is 180 and they will argue that 180 should be labelled as "1st Introduction and Appearance of Wolverine"

How could they do that? A reference to activate Weapon X and a cameo on the last page does not a story make. 

[JC25427N]

On 1/24/2023 at 2:27 PM, trademarkcomics said:

How could they do that? A reference to activate Weapon X and a cameo on the last page does not a story make. 

And thats how the argument would begin

[trademarkcomics]

On 1/24/2023 at 11:25 AM, Ken Aldred said:

For me, the significance of X-Men 94 is that it’s the start of the classic run in which the team transitioned from a failed title reduced to Silver Age reprint oblivion and guest appearances into comics megastars.  Certainly the first series is bookended by some very nice material; Lee and Kirby, Thomas and Adams, but it’s generally quite boring in the long period in between.  It took a while for Claremont and Byrne’s run to gain wide recognition, but, once it did, you can understand how there’d be backtracking and a focus on the starting point of the ascent within the main title, as well as the Giant-Size.

While you're correct that Claremont and Byrne was the classic X-Men team like Lee/Kirby on FF and O'Neil/Adams on GL/GA. That X-Men team didn't start until #108(it was Claremont/Cockrum before that). And Claremont's first work on X-Men is not #94, it's #59 and he also helped plot GSX #1. #94 is his first credited X-Men work.

[trademarkcomics]

On 1/24/2023 at 11:28 AM, JC25427N said:

And thats how the argument would begin

There's no argument though. Wolverine is simply not the focus of the story in #180. This is why X-Men Annual #14 should be described as the first appearance of Gambit and X-Men #266 should be his introduction story since "Gambit cameo" is just not a correct description because he's in the story throughout but we all can tell that Gambit is not the focus of the X-Men Annual #14 story. There's just no argument to be made to the contrary. No valid argument anyway.

Edited January 24, 2023 by trademarkcomics
Clarification

[Ken Aldred]

On 1/24/2023 at 7:30 PM, trademarkcomics said:

That X-Men team didn't start until #108(it was Claremont/Cockrum before that).

I thought I’d be quoted on that, despite being fully aware of it. I simply couldn’t be bothered to type out ‘it took a while for Claremont’s run on the title and then later on his all-time classic run with John Byrne to gain wide recognition’ on my phone.

[Lazyboy]

On 1/24/2023 at 12:24 PM, JC25427N said:

  

I don't think your reclassification really solves anything, you're just changing the words around

In your system

1st Cameo Appearance -> 1st Appearance

1st Full Appearance -> 1st Introduction

The same arguments would be had just with different words. "Me as a reader when these books came out was not INTRODUCED to Wolverine in 181, I was INTRODUCED to Wolverine the first time when I read Hulk 180".  

and how long until someone starts to argue 1st Cameo Introduction.

Different, but much less accurate words. A vast improvement!

[trademarkcomics]

On 1/24/2023 at 11:21 AM, JC25427N said:

 

edit: also just a nit-pick, but labelling GSX1 as the 2nd Wolverine Story sounds so confusing when there are three other stories that significantly revolve or include him before that

That's just simply not true.

It goes like this:

Hulk #180: Wendigo story

Hulk #181: Wolverine story

Hulk #182: Hammer and Anvil story

Giant-Size X-Men #1: New X-Men story with Wolverine as a main member of the team

Wolverine's impact on the stories is so minor in 180 and 182 that he's barely worth mentioning. However, that does not change the fact that 180 is his first appearance anywhere, no matter how minor it is. 

[trademarkcomics]

Appearance: The act, action, or process of appearing

Appear: to be or come in sight

 

Introduction: the act or process of introducing : the state of being introduced

Introduce: to cause to be acquainted

Acquaint: to make familiar : to cause to know firsthand

[Lazyboy]

On 1/24/2023 at 12:28 PM, Gatsby77 said:

I know this has been litigated ad nauseum, but you're not wrong.

The entire plot of Hulk 180 revolves around Weapon X,

It ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT!

180 is about the Hulk vs. Wendigo. 181 is about Wolverine joining that fight.

Maybe you're confusing it with FF 48, which actually entirely revolves around Galactus, despite him not being depicted until the end.

On 1/24/2023 at 12:28 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Wolverine appears (in full, not shadow) and talks (to the Hulk).

Again, a full appearance has nothing whatsoever to do with how much of the character the artist draws.

On 1/24/2023 at 12:28 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Literally the only reason it's not considered the "first appearance" value-wise is he isn't on the cover.

There's no such thing as a "first appearance value-wise". Two different things.

On 1/24/2023 at 12:28 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Fact: If Wolverine were on the cover of Hulk 180, the relative values of 180 vs. 181 would be reversed. 

Prove it. Good luck, especially since the cover is nothing special and the relative values have been the same for decades.