First Appearance of Spider-Man's Black Costume Anywhere? 0

[MrWeen]

On 4/10/2019 at 9:52 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

This is excellent propaganda. Kudos!

Quick clarification: the pictures posted in Amazing Heroes, Comic Readers, etc., were given to them by Marvel. They are copies of the art that ultimately appeared in Marvel Age #12...which was the black AND RED costume. That design was ultimately rejected for the one that appeared....for the first time anywhere, mind you...in the pages of ASM #252. A quirk of publishing saw those reproductions produced in black and white, but their publication in MA #12 indicates those pieces were black & red. And which, of course, doesn't even matter.

"Tyrannical resistance"...aka, common sense (and a flagrant misuse of the word "tyrannical"...a frequent charge made by people who don't like the fact that, in a free society, others can publicly and freely challenge them, so they charge those others with what they would, themselves, like to do.) 

One more time: in the 5 or so decades of organized comics fandom, appearances in comics have been defined as taking place within the context of a story. And it's not as if previews and ads are anything new; they've been appearing since the dawn of the comic book. Generations of collectors rejected the idea that a mere house ad, preview, or promotional piece would be considered a "first appearance."

Context, as ever, is king.

I don't believe " generations of collectors rejected the idea", they just never really though of it before.  The internet has helped to create a great number of new avenues for collectors. Ads and previews are just examples of this.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

1 minute ago, MrWeen said:

I don't believe " generations of collectors rejected the idea", they just never really though of it before.  The internet has helped to create a great number of new avenues for collectors. Ads and previews are just examples of this.

"Never thought of it" = "Saw absolutely no importance attached to it"

[MrWeen]

1 minute ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

"Never thought of it" = "Saw absolutely no importance attached to it"

or had no real forum to do so.    Look if the internet were around when Hulk 180 was published what do you think the first appearance would be. 

[MrWeen]

On 4/17/2019 at 6:56 PM, MR SigS said:

You're all wrong.

The artwork is the first appearance the moment someone other than the artist sees it

j/k

If a claim can be made that the official 1st appearance of a character can take place outside of a comic book story, then where can those claims end? 

It ends at published.  If a napkin were published so be it.  There is a published definition by Overstreet, it has been published in it's terms section for ever.  It says nothing about a first needing to occur in a story and the definition predates the internet too!

[Lazyboy]

13 minutes ago, MrWeen said:

It ends at published.  If a napkin were published so be it.  There is a published definition by Overstreet, it has been published in it's terms section for ever.  It says nothing about a first needing to occur in a story and the definition predates the internet too!

It's a storytelling medium. This has been historically understood.

Claiming the first art published for any reason is the first appearance is like saying you saw the first episode of a TV series after only seeing a commercial for the series.

[MrWeen]

1 minute ago, Lazyboy said:

It's a storytelling medium. This has been historically understood.

Claiming the first art published for any reason is the first appearance is like saying you saw the first episode of a TV series after only seeing a commercial for the series.

That is an opinion for sure!  You are correct, comics are a storytelling medium but not ever collector collectors for the story.  Some buy for cover art alone right?  Some people buy third appearances and others collect last issues no matter what the story is inside.  Today, maybe more than ever, collecting is less about the story and more about the rarity of the image.  My point  is that times change and there is clearly room for the Comics Journals of the world.  Don't believe me?  Check the market.  Even I cannot believe what books like Amazing Heroes 131 go for now!

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

36 minutes ago, MrWeen said:

or had no real forum to do so.    Look if the internet were around when Hulk 180 was published what do you think the first appearance would be. 

The first appearance of Wolverine is and always has been Hulk 180. But that's not been the more desirable book for collectors, historically.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

35 minutes ago, MrWeen said:

It ends at published.  If a napkin were published so be it.  There is a published definition by Overstreet, it has been published in it's terms section for ever.  It says nothing about a first needing to occur in a story and the definition predates the internet too!

You're trying to conflate two different meanings of the word "appear." In the terminology of comic collecting, that has always been understood amongst reasonable people to mean the inclusion of a character, thing, place, etc. in a story. You'd like it to now mean the more generic definition of "appear" and be equivalent to "depiction" but that's not how the hobby works, or has worked.

[Lazyboy]

22 minutes ago, MrWeen said:

That is an opinion for sure!  You are correct, comics are a storytelling medium but not ever collector collectors for the story.  Some buy for cover art alone right?  Some people buy third appearances and others collect last issues no matter what the story is inside.  Today, maybe more than ever, collecting is less about the story and more about the rarity of the image.  My point  is that times change and there is clearly room for the Comics Journals of the world.  Don't believe me?  Check the market.  Even I cannot believe what books like Amazing Heroes 131 go for now!

Of course people can and do collect whatever they want, but we aren't talking about collecting here.

[MrWeen]

39 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

The first appearance of Wolverine is and always has been Hulk 180. But that's not been the more desirable book for collectors, historically.

What does desirability have to do with it.  Tell e what is so special about the narrative in 181?  It's the cover that mattered then and matters now.  You are confusing value with what is right.  181 is worth worth ore but not the first.

[MrWeen]

25 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

Of course people can and do collect whatever they want, but we aren't talking about collecting here.

Oh we aren't?  I am.  And someone is buying these crazy slabbed variant fro cover art alone at insane prices.  Those are collectors AND flippers.

[MrWeen]

37 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

You're trying to conflate two different meanings of the word "appear." In the terminology of comic collecting, that has always been understood amongst reasonable people to mean the inclusion of a character, thing, place, etc. in a story. You'd like it to now mean the more generic definition of "appear" and be equivalent to "depiction" but that's not how the hobby works, or has worked.

Tell Overstreet and their definition that.  Sounds to me like you want it to mean what YOU want it to mean.  And the hobby has no accepted definition so it can, and does work however we want it to.  If anything my logic is more sound, if we can't all agree on what a first is then let's go by the literal definition ( which just so happens to be the definition supplied by Overstreet! )

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

16 minutes ago, MrWeen said:

Tell Overstreet and their definition that.  Sounds to me like you want it to mean what YOU want it to mean.  And the hobby has no accepted definition so it can, and does work however we want it to.  If anything my logic is more sound, if we can't all agree on what a first is then let's go by the literal definition ( which just so happens to be the definition supplied by Overstreet! )

Really? If we can't agree, then we should just accept your garbage argument? How about no. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 hours ago, MrWeen said:

I don't believe " generations of collectors rejected the idea", they just never really though of it before.  

Sure they did. Ads and previews have existed since the dawn of the comic book. 

No one ever considered those ads and previews to be first appearances. 

And we know they thought of it, because there's an exception: More Fun #51.

It is the exception that demonstrates the rule. But generations of collectors certainly thought of it, because it happened the one time, for the one exception.

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 hours ago, MrWeen said:

or had no real forum to do so.    Look if the internet were around when Hulk 180 was published what do you think the first appearance would be. 

The same as it's always been: Hulk #180.

The internet didn't change that.

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 hours ago, MrWeen said:

It ends at published.  If a napkin were published so be it.  There is a published definition by Overstreet, it has been published in it's terms section for ever.  It says nothing about a first needing to occur in a story and the definition predates the internet too!

And yet, Overstreet has never called Action Comics #12 the first appearance of Batman (though it predates Detective #27) nor More Fun #31 the first appearance of Superman (though it predates Action #1.)

Action Comics #12 and More Fun #31 were both published. Overstreet was well aware that those books contained ads that predated Detective #27 and Action #1..

The reason the definition in Overstreet doesn't mention anything about "needing to occur in a story" is because no one challenged that understanding, even though there were examples going back 40 years.

Using inference, we can properly conclude that, since Overstreet was well aware of the ads in these and countless other comics, and did not identify them as "first appearances", he therefore never intended for his "first appearance anywhere" definition to cover ads and/or previews, and only applied to appearances in stories.

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 hours ago, MrWeen said:

That is an opinion for sure!  You are correct, comics are a storytelling medium but not ever collector collectors for the story.  Some buy for cover art alone right?  Some people buy third appearances and others collect last issues no matter what the story is inside.  Today, maybe more than ever, collecting is less about the story and more about the rarity of the image.  My point  is that times change and there is clearly room for the Comics Journals of the world.  Don't believe me?  Check the market.  Even I cannot believe what books like Amazing Heroes 131 go for now!

Value does not determine fact.

[RockMyAmadeus]

8 hours ago, MrWeen said:

Tell Overstreet and their definition that.  Sounds to me like you want it to mean what YOU want it to mean.  And the hobby has no accepted definition so it can, and does work however we want it to.  If anything my logic is more sound, if we can't all agree on what a first is then let's go by the literal definition ( which just so happens to be the definition supplied by Overstreet! )

No.

[valiantman]

Until the dictionary removes the word "preview" it will always be possible to have a "view" that occurs BEFORE ("pre") the first appearance.  Previews aren't views.

If it wasn't possible to view something before it was really there, we couldn't even have the word "preview". 

[divad]

2 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Until the dictionary removes the word "preview" it will always be possible to have a "view" that occurs BEFORE ("pre") the first appearance.  Previews aren't views.

If it wasn't possible to view something before it was really there, we couldn't even have the word "preview". 

Agreed, but the continued misuse of "cameo" really gets my goat. 

P.s. - Just bought a complete HG collection of Valiants . . . (including a glossy Rai 0 and a very sweet Solar 10, along with all of the other keys.)