1st Teen Titans 3 3

[HighStakesComics]

Lets not forget the 300 lb gorilla. DC Wikia. If DC is the one monitoring the site how can you continue to deny the true 1st appearance of the Teen Titans, sfcityduck?

 

Wikipedia lists BB 54 as the first appearance of the Teen Titans. That's about as authoritative as DC Wikia. In other words, neither is canon or controlled by DC.

 

On the other hand, from the time of it first reprinting in 1972 on through until its inclusion in the office DC Teen Titans Archive, BB 54 has been referred to by DC as a Teen Titans story. So DC is pretty clear on the official position: BB 54 is the origin of the Teen Titans.

 

Of course, this is supported by actual continuity of the Teen Titans storyline. In BB 60, Robin says that the Teen Titans were formed as a result of the events in BB 54. In other words, BB 54 is like Avengers 1. The heroes come together and have an adventure, and at the conclusion they decide to form a team.

 

That Wonder Girl is not in the first Teen Titans adventure is about as meaningful as the fact that Speedy and Beast Boy aren't either. Like the Avengers, the line-up changes.

 

All you have established is that the term "Teen Titans" was first used in BB 60. That's pretty dang obvious. But, ultimately meaningless. The formation of the group precedes the adoption of an official name. It happens.

 

Trying to do away with 42 years of DC and Overstreet history in a retcon seems unlikely to deserve or obtain any traction.

 

When you have to reference the 60, in an attempt to strengthen the argument for the 54, you are actually weakening the argument for the 54, by using the 60 as the point of reference.

 

How about this example? If I were a real estate appraiser, and I used single family homes to determine the value of a multi family, I would probably end up losing my license or at the very least get a slap on the wrist. That is exactly what is occurring when you fall back on the TTA 27 is the gospel argument. You cannot compare the first appearance of an individual to the first appearance of a team. The better comparable, the Sub-Mariner Defenders tryout issues, are not considered the first appearance. It is not until Marvel Feature #1, when the team is complete and named on the cover, that the Defenders first appear. Why should the case be any different with the Teen Titans?

[passion4comics]

This keeps reminding me of the 180 and 181 debate....

[HighStakesComics]

IH 181 is clearly the 1st app. IH 180 does not pass the ASM 299 test. I am convinced ASM 299 is the lengthiest cameo in the history of comics, but it is still a cameo. Any book that features a lengthier appearance with more dialogue (See Strange Tales 180 & Forever People 1) should be considered a full appearance. IH 180 does not meet that criteria.

[sfcityduck]

Lets not forget the 300 lb gorilla. DC Wikia. If DC is the one monitoring the site how can you continue to deny the true 1st appearance of the Teen Titans, sfcityduck?

 

Wikipedia lists BB 54 as the first appearance of the Teen Titans. That's about as authoritative as DC Wikia. In other words, neither is canon or controlled by DC.

 

On the other hand, from the time of it first reprinting in 1972 on through until its inclusion in the office DC Teen Titans Archive, BB 54 has been referred to by DC as a Teen Titans story. So DC is pretty clear on the official position: BB 54 is the origin of the Teen Titans.

 

Of course, this is supported by actual continuity of the Teen Titans storyline. In BB 60, Robin says that the Teen Titans were formed as a result of the events in BB 54. In other words, BB 54 is like Avengers 1. The heroes come together and have an adventure, and at the conclusion they decide to form a team.

 

That Wonder Girl is not in the first Teen Titans adventure is about as meaningful as the fact that Speedy and Beast Boy aren't either. Like the Avengers, the line-up changes.

 

All you have established is that the term "Teen Titans" was first used in BB 60. That's pretty dang obvious. But, ultimately meaningless. The formation of the group precedes the adoption of an official name. It happens.

 

Trying to do away with 42 years of DC and Overstreet history in a retcon seems unlikely to deserve or obtain any traction.

 

When you have to reference the 60, in an attempt to strengthen the argument for the 54, you are actually weakening the argument for the 54, by using the 60 as the point of reference.

 

How about this example? If I were a real estate appraiser, and I used single family homes to determine the value of a multi family, I would probably end up losing my license or at the very least get a slap on the wrist. That is exactly what is occurring when you fall back on the TTA 27 is the gospel argument. You cannot compare the first appearance of an individual to the first appearance of a team. The better comparable, the Sub-Mariner Defenders tryout issues, are not considered the first appearance. It is not until Marvel Feature #1, when the team is complete and named on the cover, that the Defenders first appear. Why should the case be any different with the Teen Titans?

 

A number of problems with your analysis here.

 

First, there is no valid analogy between comic book collecting and real estate appraisal. I'm not even why you make such an absurd assertion.

 

Second, the topic here is "first appearances" of comic characters or teams. So, of course, it is a valid analogy to compare BB 54 to TTA 27. In both, the character team appeared without being given the name that they subsequently were known by. Both, nonetheless, are perceived to be the first appearance of the character/team. There are other analogous situations in comics. Which brings up the distinction between you and I: You are focused on trademarks. I am, like DC and Overstreet, focused on story continuity.

 

Third, your defenders example is not necessarily as good as you think it is. When Marvel compiled its Masterworks for the Defenders it did not start with Marvel Premiere #1. For purposes of story continuity, it started with Submariner 34 and 35, which is not a ridiculous choice for the "non-team," and an argument can be made that a those issues should be considered the real origin of the team. That's not my argument, and I don't analogize to Defenders because with Teen Titans, unlike Defenders, BB 60 made instantly clear that BB54 was the real origin of the team by stating so in it very text. Again, your mistake is you focus on trademark not story continuity.

 

Riddle me this: If the Avengers had not adopted the name "Avengers" until the beginning of issue no. 2, would that have meant that issue no. 1 of the title was not their first appearance? That, in a nutshell, is your position. And it is as absurd when applied to Teen Titans as it is to Avengers.

 

Finally, calling it a "retcon" to call BB 54 the first Teen Titans appearance is again absurd. As a matter of story continuity, the very next appearance of the Teen Titans, BB 60, issued six months after BB 54, directly refers to BB 54 as the origin of the Teen Titans (a group formed before BB 60). This is not a retcon, as nothing is being changed, this is exposition. What we learn in BB 60, that we didn't know from BB 54, is that Robin, Flash, and Aqualad decide to call their team the "Teen Titans." But, there's no new origin for the team (the origin is BB 54), nothing else changes.

 

The fact that you arguing so hard against an official DC position first articulated in BB 60 in 1964, confirmed in the first reprint of BB 54 in 1972, confirmed again in the Masterworks, and, thus, unchanged by DC for 50 years, at this late date, is a retcon. And one apparently being floated for commercial, not scholarly, concerns.

 

You're not convincing me, and I don't think you convince any dealers to forego putting the label "1st Teen Titans" on an issue of BB 54 when it is offered for sale. CD, the marketplace, and the guide decided this one long long ago. Your retcon isn't going to work.

[yoddler]

I own both BB54 and 60, but who doesn't look at the cover of BB54 and not think Teen Titans?

 

[Silver]

I think this is a pretty intelligent discussion overall. I personally side with those who say that 60 is the first appearance of the Teen Titans. They call themselves the Teen Titans, and tweak the membership from what it was in B&B 54. There is no doubt that B&B 54 is the prelude, inspiration, tryout or whatever you want to call it that led up to the Teen Titans. As such, it should be as sought after as it is. The debate really is about if 60 is getting the respect that it deserves.

 

I have never felt that OS (or CGC for that matter) are the ultimate authority in these matters. They get a lot of things wrong. Here is a cold hard fact that is undeniable...B&B 60 is the first time that a group was called the Teen Titans, it is the first appearance of the Donna Troy Wonder Girl, and it is a much tougher book to find in the higher grades. I just don't think those facts can be disputed.

 

If it was up to me OS would list the 54 as a Teen Titans tryout and the 60 as the first appearance of the Teen Titans.

 

As a disclaimer I own pretty nice copies of both books and the 54 is one of my favorite DC books of the silver age.

[rjpb]

Like the TTA 27/35 debate, this is another argument between the literalists and the conceptualists.

 

 

[HighStakesComics]

Once again, the first textual reference to the Teen Titans is Issue #60 FC followed by page 1. Both the FC and page 1 include Wonder Girl as an original member. Wonder Girl does not appear in 54. The same panel you like to quote from, the banter between Batman and Robin, also takes place in 60. It's important to note, this panel takes place further along into the story than the introduction of both Wonder Girl and the Teen Titans.

As for the real estate comparison, it was meant to point out the tremendous difference between the singular and the plural. Historically, you are using first appearances of individuals to argue the first appearance of a team. This is what many on these boards would describe as a Straw-Man argument. You are using a point of reference that has absolutely zero, nothing, zilch to do with the debate at hand to strengthen your argument. IH 180/IH 181 is similar in nature. Neither has anything to do with the merits of arguing what may or may not be the first appearance of a team. The argument, in essence, holds as much merit as comparing a piece of residential real estate to a commercial piece of real estate. The comparison simply does not hold water.

 

There are two comparisons here that do. Avengers #1 and Sub-Mariner #34.

 

It's important to note that only once the team is complete and under the guise of "The Avengers" is it considered the first appearance. When a fraction of the team appears together this is not the case. No one is beating the drum claiming TTA 44, where a couple original team members appear together is the first appearance of the Avengers. It is only when they all appear as one, and call themselves the Avengers that we consider it to be their first appearance.

 

Sub-Mariner 34 is the other team oriented book you refer to, and like BB 54 it is clearly a prototype. Once again, only once the team is complete and under the guise of the Defenders do we consider it their undisputed first appearance in Marvel Feature #1.

 

These are facts, gentlemen. We cannot repress the truth for it will always come to light. I fear we are making things too complicated. All we really have to do is look at the two covers and they will tell us wherein the true 1st appearance of the Teen Titans lies.

[sfcityduck]

.These are facts, gentlemen. We cannot repress the truth for it will always come to light.

 

One thing is immediately clear to me: You are neither an attorney nor an academic because what you are stating are opinions not facts. It's an important distinction to keep in mind.

 

.All we really have to do is look at the two covers and they will tell us wherein the true 1st appearance of the Teen Titans lies.

 

You can't judge a book by its cover. TTA 27. Here's where we agree: BB 60 is the first appearance of the trademark "Teen Titans" and the first use of that term to refer to the team which includes Robin, Kid Flash, and Aqualad.

 

But, where we disagree is that as a matter of story continuity the origin of the team is BB 54. Which is why the text of BB 60 specifically cites to BB 54 in its text! You can't get around that fact, although you are trying mightily to ignore it. Robin explains the origin of the group to Batman in BB 60, and in doing so he specifically states that the group was formed because of the events in BB 54. So, as a matter of story continuity, the origin of the Teen Titans is BB 54.

 

Again, if what's important to you is collecting trademarks: You're right. But if you are a Teen Titans completest, who wants the origin of the group, you've got to get BB 54. DC, Overstreet, and every dealer I've ever seen put the book up on the wall seem to agree that BB 54 is a TT story.

Both the FC and page 1 include Wonder Girl as an original member. Wonder Girl does not appear in 54.

 

The words "original member" don't appear on the cover or first page of BB 60 to describe Wonder Girl. You're just making this up.

 

Instead, on p. 5 of the story, after a non-story splash and four pages of background that involve any of the heroes, Robin makes his first appearance in the story. And what happens? In response to a teen ham operator (last panel p. 4) calling the "Teen Titans" on his ham radio, Robin and Batman have the following exchange:

 

B: "What's this? Calling the 'Teen Titans'?"

 

R: "Check, Batman! Teen Titans is a group of junior crime-fighters I set up, after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the teenagers of Hatton Corners!*"

 

The asterix after Robin's comment leads to a text box in the bottom panel which states "*See Brave and Bold #54."

 

From this, you can conclude three things:

 

(1) As a matter of story continuity, the Teen Titans was formed prior to the events in BB 60;

 

(2) That formation was a direct result of the events described in BB 54, which comprises the origin of the team; and

 

(3) DC intended it this way from the very first appearance of a hero in BB 60.

 

The same panel you like to quote from, the banter between Batman and Robin, also takes place in 60. It's important to note, this panel takes place further along into the story than the introduction of both Wonder Girl and the Teen Titans.

 

Wrong again. The panel I describe is the first use of the term "Teen Titans" in the story and prior to the introduction of KF, WG, and AL in the story.

 

As for the real estate comparison, it was meant to point out the tremendous difference between the singular and the plural. Historically, you are using first appearances of individuals to argue the first appearance of a team. This is what many on these boards would describe as a Straw-Man argument.

 

Your comparison doesn't work. The only strawman here is your assertion that I'm using the first appearance of individuals to argue the first appearance of a team. I'm not arguing that D38 is the first appearance of the Teen Titans! I am arguing that the first appearance of the team of Robin, Kid Flash, and Aqualad is the first appearance of the team which became known in their very next appearance as the Teen Titans. I am arguing that a comic character or team can "first appear" before they adopt what will be their official name. TTA 27 being the classic example.

 

 

 

 

[sfcityduck]

The debate really is about if 60 is getting the respect that it deserves.

 

That's a different debate. BB 60 is a great and desirable book. It's just not the origin of the Teen Titans. BB 54 is, and BB 60 itself says so. That's undebateable.

[Silver]

The debate really is about if 60 is getting the respect that it deserves.

 

That's a different debate. BB 60 is a great and desirable book. It's just not the origin of the Teen Titans. BB 54 is, and BB 60 itself says so. That's undebateable.

 

If you want to talk about undeniable, BB 60 is the first time a group was called the Teen Titans and it was the first appearance of Donna Troy, it is the first time the group that was known to be the Teen Titans appeared in a book.

 

 

[HighStakesComics]

Once again, gang, you just heard somebody write here that what is listed on this page, the very first included in issue 60, does not include a reference to the Teen Titans "within the story". Covers excluded, this is the first mention of the team ever in newsprint. This is not an opinion, it's a fact.

 

My buddy, the duck, also is quoting a panel where Robin specifically states the Teen Titans were formed AFTER the events that transpired in issue 54. He does not state these events took place DURING issue 54. Once again, not an opinion. This is a fact.

[Silver]

The debate really is about if 60 is getting the respect that it deserves.

 

That's a different debate. BB 60 is a great and desirable book. It's just not the origin of the Teen Titans. BB 54 is, and BB 60 itself says so. That's undebateable.

 

No it's not a different debate, it is the debate. The debate is about which of these two books is the first appearance of the Teen Titans. BB 60 has long been in the shadows of BB 54 when its rightful place is as the book that is the first appearance of a pretty significant team in the DCU.

 

 

[sfcityduck]

Once again, gang, you just heard somebody write here that what is listed on this page, the very first included in issue 60, does not include a reference to the Teen Titans "within the story". Covers excluded, this is the first mention of the team ever in newsprint. This is not an opinion, it's a fact.

 

I think you need to work on accuracy. The splash page of BB 60 is not part of the narrative of the story. It's a splash page previewing the story. And, no, I'm not disagreeing that BB 60 is the first comic to use the term and trademark of "Teen Titans." My only point was factual: That the first time the term is used in the narrative flow of the story is on p. 5 when Robin explains to Batman the origin of the Teen Titans.

 

 

[sfcityduck]

 

My buddy, the duck, also is quoting a panel where Robin specifically states the Teen Titans were formed AFTER the events that transpired in issue 54. He does not state these events took place DURING issue 54. Once again, not an opinion. This is a fact.

 

I just quoted the panel to you. Robin says "Teen Titans is a group of junior crime-fighters I set up, after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the teenagers of Hatton Corners.* *See Brave and Bold #54."

 

Get it? Robin is saying in BB 60 that the origin of the Teen Titans is the story in BB 54. You can pretend otherwise, but by doing do you are making at least three errors:

 

(1) You are ignoring the continuity of the story. BB 60 makes clear that it is not the origin story of the Teen Titans. In fact, BB 60 assumes that the Teen Titans were already created and publicized to teens. And Robin says that happened as a result of the event of BB 54. In plain terms: The story of the Teen Titans clearly begins with the origin in BB 54, not BB 60, and BB 60 itself makes that clear.

 

(2) You are confusing the first appearance of the trademarked term "Teen Titans" (which I continue to fully admit was BB 60) with the first appearance and origin of the actual team (which occurred in BB 54). This is simple stuff. It's just like TTA 27.

 

(3) You are ignoring the official DC position that BB 54 is a Teen Titans story as set forth in BB 60, DC Giant 21, DC Archives, etc.

 

And there's no point to this retcon. Apparently, you and others (Silver, etc.) are concerned that BB 60 doesn't get enough "respect." I assume what you really mean is you don't think the price is high enough. But, BB 60 deserves respect anyway. It is the first appearance of Wonder Girl, second appearance of Teen Titans, Wonder Girl joins Teen Titans, and first use of the name Teen Titans. Dealers know that. You don't need to rewrite history and ignore well established DC narrative continuity to promote BB 60. It stands on its own merits without making the absurd claim that BB 54 is not the origin of the Teen Titans.

 

In sum, I assume you starting to get a little testy and your claims are getting more airy because you have strong feelings about this topic. But, in the end, your feelings should bow to this basic truth:

 

If you are a Teen Titans completest, you have to start your Teen Titans collection with BB 54 or you will not have the origin issue for the Teen Titans.

[Silver]

Your missing a key point, in BB 54 Robin was only 12 years old, he had his 13th birthday between 54 and 60, so they couldn't be the Teen Titans until then. He didn't want to call them the "Tween" Titans (I don't blame him). So therefore, 60 is the first Teen Titans.

 

On a more serious note. This is neither the first or last controversy there will be about a first appearance. Sgt. Rock, Wolverine, etc. There is no way DC set out with BB 54 to consciously create a team called the Teen Titans, they were just following the formula of complementary or opposite type of team ups that they had already established in BB 50-53. This one produced a hit and they tweaked it out in response. You really cannot deny that 54 was a tryout type appearance, 60 is the first appearance of the team known as Teen Titans.

 

And honestly this debate isn't going to change any minds, none of your arguments convince me and vice a versa. But then, I don't believe that Showcase 4 is the first silver age book, so I guess I'm a rebel.

 

The respect comment I made about 60 isn't a value thing, its that the book is viewed more as at best a minor key instead or the larger book that it is. Ultimately the market decides prices anyways, not price guides.

[HighStakesComics]

Once again, gang, you just heard somebody write here that what is listed on this page, the very first included in issue 60, does not include a reference to the Teen Titans "within the story". Covers excluded, this is the first mention of the team ever in newsprint. This is not an opinion, it's a fact.

 

I think you need to work on accuracy. The splash page of BB 60 is not part of the narrative of the story. It's a splash page previewing the story. And, no, I'm not disagreeing that BB 60 is the first comic to use the term and trademark of "Teen Titans." My only point was factual: That the first time the term is used in the narrative flow of the story is on p. 5 when Robin explains to Batman the origin of the Teen Titans.

 

 

Ill concede that as long as I ignore the cover, splash page and the fact that Wonder-Girl first appears in 60, that 54 then is the first appearance of the Teen Titans.

 

[boomtown]

For those that believe Brave & Bold #54 was the Teen Titans first appearance.

 

During the Summer of 76, when I was 13 I was out in the neighborhood & decided to rescue a cat out of a tree for sweet little Donna Sue. Soon after Robert & Wally came to help me get that cat down. The 3 of us managed to get the cat after about 20 minutes of hard work, It was the beginning of a friendship that lasted through high school. When we turned 16, in 79, we started a club (with Donna Sue) & named ourselves the Warriors.

 

Was the Warriors first appearance in 76 or 79?

 

It's really that simple, no matter what Overstreet says.

[JTLarsen]

If someone wants to argue that B&B 60 retconned B&B 54 as the origin of the Teen Titans, go right ahead. But the first appearance of the Teen Titans was clearly 60. The ultimate test? If DC had gone bankrupt with B&B 55, no one would've listed B&B 54 as "first and only appearance of the Teen Titans."

[sfcityduck]

That you guys are making up absurd hypotheticals to try and bolster your position speaks volumes.

 

Again this is really really simple.

 

* You guys are right that the trademark and name "Teem Titans" first appeared in BB 60.

 

* But, the first time that team of DC teen sidekicks got together, and their official origin, occurred in BB 54 ... according to BB 60 itself and DC then and subsequently.

 

In short, you are guys are having to make up these foolish hypotheticals because you are swimming upstream against the tide of the story continuity of the Teen Titans, the official DC position, and the consensus of comic dealers for the past 40+ years.