1st Teen Titans 3 3

[HighStakesComics]

17 hours ago, Point Five said:

Hey guys,

Lifelong Titans fan here. I just noticed this thread the other week, and read it all the way through. Much enjoyed the spirited debate.   I'm way, way late to the party but wanted to throw in my two cents anyhow.

I would say Brave & Bold #54 is the first appearance of the Teen Titans, but I would frame the question differently than most have done in this thread: the concept of the Teen Titans as it has more or less endured for 5+ decades seems to me to be quite firmly in place in B&B 54. You may reasonably disagree, but personally I wouldn't attach much importance to what the characters say is the precise moment of formation of the team, or when the team name debuted, or what the writers or the editors or the company have said or written later. The story is in continuity and the Teen Titans idea is right there.

As an exercise,

What is the concept of the Avengers? More or less, superheroes from existing Marvel titles teaming up in one book to fight villains. That idea is there in Avengers #1, regardless of when the characters picked out their team name, when Cap joined, which members came and went, etc. And even if most of the characters look different, that idea of the Avengers is still there in 2017.

What is the concept of the X-Men? Again more or less, a group of mutants cast out by humans join forces and fight villains. That idea is right there in X-Men #1, regardless of when the characters picked out their team name, when other members joined, etc etc. The X-Men universe now looks completely different, but that idea that debuted in issue #1 is still there in 2017.

And you could do the same for FF #1 and B&B #28 and so forth. To me it doesn't matter when the characters went and said 'we are a team', or picked out their costumes or built an HQ or what have you. It's the first appearance of that core idea.

So what is the concept of the Teen Titans? I'd say the concept is, again broadly, junior characters from existing DC titles join forces to fight villains. That concept is present from B&B #54 and #60, through the Titans' title in the 1960s, through the reincarnation of the group as the New Teen Titans in the 1980s (the formula stretches out a bit more, as new characters are introduced, but even Beast Boy/Changeling is a tie back to the original concept, as were other recurring characters)... all the way to (amazingly) the Teen Titans Go cartoons running in 2017. And so on.

I see that concept in B&B #54 without a doubt, so for me at least that's the Teen Titans right there, no question. A group of junior DC heroes (even led by Robin, which is not entirely essential to the concept of the TT but a bit of a bonus in this context) working together to fight a villain, even if the villain is a complete turkey.

With that said, I do like B&B #60, I respect its importance and I'd like to own both books. I see why the 'first appearance' is a bit messy to some because of the logo situation and the dialogue between characters in #60, and it would ideally be otherwise. But "first Titans"? Clear as day to me.
 

 

If we are arguing precedent I would refer you to another DC title. OAAW #81 very clearly depicts the concept of Sgt Rock but #83 is considered his first appearance due to practically all the same arguments used to justify #60 as the first TT.

In fact, OAAW #81 even notes "The Rock of Easy Co" on the front cover which is a much more defining than anything within BB #54. 

 

[sfcityduck]

4 hours ago, JTLarsen said:

Totally forgot about all this. Doesn't matter to ME...the contents of 54 and 60 speak for themselves...but if your argument is that it matters what the company says, well...

Re-read the early pages of this massive debate and you'll discover that the "dc.wikia.com" is not owned, controlled or run by DC.  It's a wiki.  Like wikipedia.  Editable by anyone.  DC's official position is most recently found in the Teen Titans archives and Teen Titans anniversary edition, both of which identify BB 54 as the origin and first appearance of the TT.

[sfcityduck]

3 hours ago, HighStakesComics said:

If we are arguing precedent I would refer you to another DC title. OAAW #81 very clearly depicts the concept of Sgt Rock but #83 is considered his first appearance due to practically all the same arguments used to justify #60 as the first TT.

In fact, OAAW #81 even notes "The Rock of Easy Co" on the front cover which is a much more defining than anything within BB #54. 

 

OAAW 83 versus 81 and 82 is not a good example.  Why?  Because the conclusion that OAAW 81 is not the first Sgt. Rock is largely based on the fact that the artist of "The Rock of Easy Co." was Ross Andru (writer Bob Haney), and the artist of the story "Hold Up Easy" in 82 was Mort Drucker (writer Bob Haney). 

Although both those stories are pretty clearly "Sgt. Rock" stories, neither was drawn by Kubert the artist of the story "The Rock and the Wall" (writer Kanigher) in 83.   As a result, comic fandom has made the questionable decision to overlook 81 and 82 (although DC did not in the Sgt. Rock Archives), and instead christen the first Sgt. Rock story to be the one that first featured Kubert art (and Kanigher writing), the man most associated with the character. 

It is hard to defend this decision, given that the cover of 83 states "The Rock and the Wall" is "a NEW Easy Co. story," clearly indicating that it is a continuation of the Easy Co. stories in the prior two issues.   Kubert just has vocal fans, I guess.

TTA 27 and 35 is a far better analogy, because like with BB 54 and 60, they feature the same writer/artist teams (Haney/Premiani for BB and Lee/Kirby for TTA).

[JTLarsen]

2 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Re-read the early pages of this massive debate and you'll discover that the "dc.wikia.com" is not owned, controlled or run by DC.  It's a wiki.  Like wikipedia.  Editable by anyone.  DC's official position is most recently found in the Teen Titans archives and Teen Titans anniversary edition, both of which identify BB 54 as the origin and first appearance of the TT.

Ah, didn't realize that. Luckily, as I said, it doesn't matter.

[JTLarsen]

2 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

OAAW 83 versus 81 and 82 is not a good example.  Why?  Because the conclusion that OAAW 81 is not the first Sgt. Rock is largely based on the fact that the artist of "The Rock of Easy Co." was Ross Andru (writer Bob Haney), and the artist of the story "Hold Up Easy" in 82 was Mort Drucker (writer Bob Haney). 

Although both those stories are pretty clearly "Sgt. Rock" stories, neither was drawn by Kubert the artist of the story "The Rock and the Wall" (writer Kanigher) in 83.   As a result, comic fandom has made the questionable decision to overlook 81 and 82 (although DC did not in the Sgt. Rock Archives), and instead christen the first Sgt. Rock story to be the one that first featured Kubert art (and Kanigher writing), the man most associated with the character. 

It is hard to defend this decision, given that the cover of 83 states "The Rock and the Wall" is "a NEW Easy Co. story," clearly indicating that it is a continuation of the Easy Co. stories in the prior two issues.   Kubert just has vocal fans, I guess.

TTA 27 and 35 is a far better analogy, because like with BB 54 and 60, they feature the same writer/artist teams (Haney/Premiani for BB and Lee/Kirby for TTA).

I forget the others, but Kubert is hardly the only factor re 83.

[HighStakesComics]

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

OAAW 83 versus 81 and 82 is not a good example.  Why?  Because the conclusion that OAAW 81 is not the first Sgt. Rock is largely based on the fact that the artist of "The Rock of Easy Co." was Ross Andru (writer Bob Haney), and the artist of the story "Hold Up Easy" in 82 was Mort Drucker (writer Bob Haney). 

Although both those stories are pretty clearly "Sgt. Rock" stories, neither was drawn by Kubert the artist of the story "The Rock and the Wall" (writer Kanigher) in 83.   As a result, comic fandom has made the questionable decision to overlook 81 and 82 (although DC did not in the Sgt. Rock Archives), and instead christen the first Sgt. Rock story to be the one that first featured Kubert art (and Kanigher writing), the man most associated with the character. 

It is hard to defend this decision, given that the cover of 83 states "The Rock and the Wall" is "a NEW Easy Co. story," clearly indicating that it is a continuation of the Easy Co. stories in the prior two issues.   Kubert just has vocal fans, I guess.

TTA 27 and 35 is a far better analogy, because like with BB 54 and 60, they feature the same writer/artist teams (Haney/Premiani for BB and Lee/Kirby for TTA).

Didn't GI Combat #68 come out about six months before OAAW #83 and feature a story about "The Rock" with art by Kubert? 

 

[jimjum12]

17 hours ago, JTLarsen said:

Ah, didn't realize that. Luckily, as I said, it doesn't matter.

A rose, by any other name....... right ? GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[nearmint]

Two recent sales of BB54 in CGC 9.4. 

On eBay, seller was asking 10K for a copy with OW-W pages, but accepted a best offer of 6K.

On Heritage, a white-paged copy sold for $4302.

Considering prices these days, I'd say the Heritage sale was a pretty good deal.