• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

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

120 posts in this topic

3 minutes ago, divad said:

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.)

What's the story on the complete HG collection of Valiants?  I'm always interested if they're from dealers, from serious collectors who somehow decide that "now" is the time to sell?  Those stories fascinate me because "having some Valiant" would be every collection (especially "having some 1993-1994 Valiant", but a complete high-grade Valiant collection doesn't happen by accident. :grin: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, valiantman said:

What's the story on the complete HG collection of Valiants?  I'm always interested if they're from dealers, from serious collectors who somehow decide that "now" is the time to sell?  Those stories fascinate me because "having some Valiant" would be every collection (especially "having some 1993-1994 Valiant", but a complete high-grade Valiant collection doesn't happen by accident. :grin: 

Unfortunately, there is no first-hand story as the collector died relatively young from cancer. He was an avid buyer of independent labels mostly, The books were boxed as he bought them with no order as to title, publisher or issue number, and appear to range in date from 1988 through 1996. The funny thing is, he kept all of his cash register receipts in the boxes - the guy would drop $150-200 a week on books! It's been a lot of work to sort through so far - somewhere around 45 small boxes  and a few longs - about 5,000 books.:smile:

I am now officially a Valiant collector! :whee:

Edited by divad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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.

Times change RMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, divad said:

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

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.)

Yup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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.

I'm not so sure that Overstreet was aware of the Tec 27 ad - the Spectre appearance in MF51 was called out in the first Overstreet I bought (the 1987 edition, I'm sure if must have been listed in previous editions as well). I read that thing from cover to cover as a kid, and I thought that MF51 was THE Spectre book to get. Years later, thanks to the magic of the internet, I was able to see the actual image, and...yikes. But, I digress - the Spectre appearance was called out in the guide, but the Batman preview wasn't. In fact, I don't believe it was added to the guide until the 2000's. Even then, it only lists it as an ad for Tec 27. Personally, I'd love for the label/guide to update it in a similar manner as MF 51. Something along the lines of "Batman appears in one panel ad for Detective Comics 27". I imagine that if a relatively obscure character like the Spectre warranted a callout in the guide, the Batman ad would have as well, unless I'm missing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, The Mad Irishman said:

I'm not so sure that Overstreet was aware of the Tec 27 ad - the Spectre appearance in MF51 was called out in the first Overstreet I bought (the 1987 edition, I'm sure if must have been listed in previous editions as well). I read that thing from cover to cover as a kid, and I thought that MF51 was THE Spectre book to get. Years later, thanks to the magic of the internet, I was able to see the actual image, and...yikes. But, I digress - the Spectre appearance was called out in the guide, but the Batman preview wasn't. In fact, I don't believe it was added to the guide until the 2000's. Even then, it only lists it as an ad for Tec 27. Personally, I'd love for the label/guide to update it in a similar manner as MF 51. Something along the lines of "Batman appears in one panel ad for Detective Comics 27". I imagine that if a relatively obscure character like the Spectre warranted a callout in the guide, the Batman ad would have as well, unless I'm missing something.

Robert Overstreet was very aware of the Batman ad in Action Comics #12. 

More Fun #51 is the exception because of the nature of the "ad": it is the last panel of the Buccaneer story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Robert Overstreet was very aware of the Batman ad in Action Comics #12. 

More Fun #51 is the exception because of the nature of the "ad": it is the last panel of the Buccaneer story.

I’m very lucky in that I have both MF51 and Action 12 - both ads are incredibly similar in that they promote character appearances in upcoming books. If Overstreet was aware of the Action ad, why wasn’t it notated until fairly recently? For a character as popular as Batman, and for how similar the ads are I would imagine it would have been notated much earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Because...and I cannot stress this enough...no one cared about ads and previews. The ad for More Fun #51 is the "final panel" of the story. The ad for Batman is not.

I respectfully disagree. The MF  51 ad is not part of the buccaneer story; the previous panel ends the story (and even states “end”). The ad in Action 12 is exactly the same - the story is ended on the prior panel. I’ve added pics for comparison...sorry for the quality, I’m out of town and don’t have access to my copies so I grabbed the Action 12 from one of the posts in the golden age forum.

42FF7A7D-EEFB-4FD5-873A-5D893DA47C9B.png

E01CAFCF-7FF1-4B91-BC22-B49B9FCCE3ED.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2019 at 2:28 PM, The Mad Irishman said:

Now that I'm back home, here are the full pages I mentioned for More Fun 51 and Action Comics 12. Please take a look and judge for yourself - thanks!

 

Spectre.jpeg

Action12.JPG

So, I’m guessing this might be better asked in the golden age forum, but does anyone else have some insight into this discrepancy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things that are the same:

Both ads are "the last panel on the page."

Neither ad is connected to the preceding story in any way.

 

Things that are different:

The ad in Action Comics #12 is for Detective Comics #27, a different publication.

The ad in More Fun #51 is an ad for More Fun #52, the same publication.

The ad for More Fun #52 is entirely hand drawn (and almost certainly by Bailey, as with the preceding story.)

The ad for Detective #27 is mostly typset, and probably not drawn by Shuster (or whoever drew the preceding story.)

The Action #12 page is a standard 8 panel layout.

The More Fun #51 page is a hand drawn, variable panel layout.

 

Did any of those similarities or differences have an influence on why they are so designated? Probably.

More Fun #51 is one of the very, very few exceptions in comic collecting history.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Things that are the same:

Both ads are "the last panel on the page."

Neither ad is connected to the preceding story in any way.

 

Things that are different:

The ad in Action Comics #12 is for Detective Comics #27, a different publication.

The ad in More Fun #51 is an ad for More Fun #52, the same publication.

The ad for More Fun #52 is entirely hand drawn (and almost certainly by Bailey, as with the preceding story.)

The ad for Detective #27 is mostly typset, and probably not drawn by Shuster (or whoever drew the preceding story.)

The Action #12 page is a standard 8 panel layout.

The More Fun #51 page is a hand drawn, variable panel layout.

 

Did any of those similarities or differences have an influence on why they are so designated? Probably.

More Fun #51 is one of the very, very few exceptions in comic collecting history.

 

This - and I can’t stress this enough - does not come close to answering my question. All you provided was a condescending description of pages I posted AND stated I owned. You ignored my prior post that pointed out an inaccurate answer you provided while still finding a way to respond in a manner that, frankly, doesn’t surprise me one bit. I knew I should have just kept you on ignore. Back you go. ANYWAYS...I’ll move this to the golden age forum to get a new perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, The Mad Irishman said:

This - and I can’t stress this enough - does not come close to answering my question. All you provided was a condescending description of pages I posted AND stated I owned. You ignored my prior post that pointed out an inaccurate answer you provided while still finding a way to respond in a manner that, frankly, doesn’t surprise me one bit. I knew I should have just kept you on ignore. Back you go. ANYWAYS...I’ll move this to the golden age forum to get a new perspective. 

This reply is entirely unjustified and, frankly, completely mystifying. I provided my perspective on the similarities and differences between the two pages that does not warrant this intense overreaction. The "condescension" you see is entirely a construct of your own mind. I agree: you should have kept me on ignore. 

I wish you luck in finding the answers you seek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Mad Irishman said:

You ignored my prior post that pointed out an inaccurate answer you provided

Oh, and just for the record...I did not see your "prior post", because I have you on ignore. That doesn't preclude me from looking at the occasional post, especially when there seems to be some sort of dialogue going on, but I generally don't, so I did not see your previous rebuttal.

As to the specific charge here, I'll point out my previous statement on the matter:

On 7/4/2019 at 3:27 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

The ad for More Fun #51 is the "final panel" of the story. The ad for Batman is not.

(emphasis added)

The words "final panel" are in quotes. Those quotation marks have meaning; in this case, that it's the last panel of the page, though it's not actually part of the story....but it is still drawn in the same manner as that story, drawn undoubtedly BY Bailey, and every part of the panel is hand drawn...a continuation of style, if not substance, and clearly connected to the very next issue of the very same publication.

The ad for Batman, however, is not in any way connected to the story. It is clearly a "house ad", not drawn by anyone connected to the previous story, typeset,  and in reference to an entirely different publication.

That is the difference to which I refer, and why I believe More Fun #51 has always been an exception to the rule. I thank you for the opportunity to expand & clarify.

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0