mtlevy1 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 On 2/5/2024 at 9:26 AM, CGC Mike said: Here's more from our Database Specialist. <<twoseezy file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png Hi all! Similar to Wonder Woman, Joker, Catwoman, (Sensation #1, DC #40 and #122 respectively), and many other great characters, the below books should be given the designation “first cover appearance of _____” 1. Strange Tales #118 - Dr. Strange Depicted in the bottom 1/4 of the book with his name displayed prominently. He is also holding the Eye of Agamotto, a key item in the character’s mythos. More than a floating head that is for sure! 2. New Gods #2 - Darkseid Depicted with his name displayed prominently. He is at the forefront and drawn larger than any of the posse of characters behind him. Much more than a tiny floating head.>> After consulting with the other graders, the wording we have now added to the Key Comments for these two books are: "1st Dr. Strange on cover." and "1st Darkseid on cover.", respectively. <<mtlevy1 Conan 58 1st Belit (You can remove 1st Belit from Conan GS 1 - it only mentions her name - the tiny woman is not Belit, it is Valeria - if you can't admit the error then go Belot cameo if you must) Compare this to Hulk 180/181 if you doubt that Beloit's 1st App is Conan 58>> Again, after consulting with the other graders and doing some research, we have changed Giant-Size Conan #1 to say "1st appearance of Belit in cameo." and Conan #58 to state "1st full appearance of Belit." Cool to see changes made! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Shepherd Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 The key comments for Batman: Son of the Demon ## (1987) do not currently notate the first appearance of Damian Wayne. From GCD: https://www.comics.org/issue/365295/ Damian Wayne (1st appearance, unnamed in the story, cameo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Shepherd Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 Superman: The Man of Steel #17 (11/92) Key comments read, “Doomsday cameo on last page.” Can this be updated to say “First Appearance of Doomsday in cameo.”? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William-James88 Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 X-Factor 23 has 0 mention on the label of the appearance of Archangel (or Angel as the Horsemen Death). Instead, issue 24 has the “1st appearance of archangel “ on the label. 24 is not his first appearance, and he is not called Archangel in the comic. Below are images of his first appearance in x-factor 23 Brandon Shepherd and ADAMANTIUM 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William-James88 Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 (edited) Also, with this thread around (thanks @CGC Mike) we can hopefully fix the mistake on Batman 357. CGC writes it is the first full appearance of Killer Croc when we only see a dude in a tench coat in a couple of panels. This was an error in the price guide but since then all databases online have corrected it as a « second cameo appearance », including GCD. first appearance of Killer Croc is now attributed to Detective comics 524 where his face is finally revealed. so changes requested: Batman 357: second cameo appearance of Killer Croc OR cameo appearance of Killer Croc Detective Comics 524: first full appearance of killer croc Breakdown of killer croc appearances in comics: Detective Comics 523 - Feb. 1983. CGC label notation states "1st appearance of Killer Croc in cameo." Here is the extent of his appearance in the issue: Next up: Batman 357 - March 1983. CGC notation is "1st full appearance of Killer Croc and Jason Todd." Here's Croc in the issue: Detective Comics 524 - March 1983. CGC label says: "Killer Croc appearance." Edited March 6 by William-James88 Brandon Shepherd 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrlatko Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 On 9/22/2023 at 9:58 PM, mrlatko said: This MTU 141 notation is wrong, and the notations for ASM 252 and PPTSSM 90 are also wrong and add to fandom's general confusion about the black suit early releases. This book is listed as tying with ASM 252, but that is incorrect. I remember buying ASM 252 first when it came out. MTU 141 and SSM 90 came out the same month, but not the same day or week as 252. I can't remember for sure, but I think those others came out on the same day together, but after 252. MTU and SSM 90 could mention that they tie for 2nd black suit appearance, but ASM 252 should have that honor all to itself. Go collect verifies my memory on this topic with a blurb: "This week, we see Marvel Team-Up #141 making waves as it broke into the top 100 best sellers. Released days after Amazing Spider-Man #252, MTU #141 is tied with Spectacular Spider-Man #90 for the second overall appearance of the black suit that would later become Venom". Anybody have the exact release dates for these books? Edit: The release dates on some Go collect reference pages for these issues are wrong. They list dates in April and May which make no sense for books with a cover date of May. Looked up the exact release dates of these 3 books on mikesamazingworld.com and they reflect what I remember from childhood when I bought them: ASM 252 - January 31 1984 MTU 141 - February 14 1984 SSM 90 - February 14 1984 Here is another site that verifies those same release dates: http://www.kleefeldoncomics.com/2022/07/irl-chronology-of-spideys-black-suit.html?m=1 So, Spidey 252 was first all by itself. That label should be corrected to reflect that. MTU 141 and SSM 90 came out 2 weeks later on the same day. Both of those labels should be corrected to say: Ties for 2nd black suit appearance with... It is disappointing that the chronology around such an important event in Marvel history is flat out wrong on all 3 of these labels. Hopefully they can be corrected going forward. @CGC Mike Any update on this request from 6 months ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domo Arigato Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 On 11/24/2023 at 6:56 AM, CGC Mike said: Apparently, the Key Comment for this issue used to be simply "Classic cover", but at some point was updated to "Historic Atomic radiation cover". From the imagery on the cover, it does appear conclusively that it depicts firefighters at an oil well, and is not related to radiation. The Key Comment has now been changed back to "Classic cover." From Domo Arigato Not sure were this Action Comics #61 notation error originated (Overstreet?).....but it's not correct. Superman is not fighting atomic radiation on the cover. He's fighting an oil well fire. How do you tell?: The four huge oil drilling rigs in the background. The massive fire and black smoke shooting out of the hole in the ground (why would atomic radiation cause fire and smoke to shoot out of the ground?). The men are not wearing radiation suits. They are suits used for fighting oil well fires to protect them from the flames and intense heat (Link to fire fighting equipment....see an image of a similar suit below from that linked page). You can see the exact same type of oil drilling rigs (and fire) in the picture at the bottom of this post. The comic is from 1943...well before the first detonation of a nuclear device, and before the general public was even aware of them. Edit: For those thinking this sounds familiar.....I discussed the same topic in this thread two years ago.>> Thanks, Mike! That one always bothered me on such a cool golden age cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator CGC Mike Posted March 7 Administrator Share Posted March 7 On 3/6/2024 at 11:52 PM, mrlatko said: @CGC Mike Any update on this request from 6 months ago? It's hard for me to tell. I send everything to our database specialist with only the user id that made the request. (no dates) I do this to make it as clean for him as possible. When I receive the decision from him, it is in a different e-mail. If one is not listed here, all I can do is send it in again when I send another batch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorick Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Requesting Superman #1 (1939) add a note to the labels to indicate the inside back page ad on-sale date (for Action Comics 14) as either "June 2nd AD" or "Now On Sale AD" to differentiate between copies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorick Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Requesting "John Richard Flanagan" be given cover art credit for the following books: More Fun #45 (1939) has no cover credit for Flanagan More Fun #48 (1939) incorrectly states the cover is by Flessel Adventure #36 (1939) incorrectly states the cover is by Flessel Adventure #38 (1939) incorrectly states the cover is Flessel's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
