1ST mention/teaser appearance < 1ST full appearance ?
0

18 posts in this topic

653 posts

Hi all,

 

 

Something that's been debated on several comics boards

and may apply to OA as well:

 

is a

1ST (teaser/cameo/name mention) appearance

= < >

1ST full appearance

 

?

 

 

Usually, a full appearance is more visually striking, so maybe

more attractive artwise, but as far as the narrative goes...

 

 

Your thoughts ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,105 posts
Hi all,

 

 

Something that's been debated on several comics boards

and may apply to OA as well:

 

is a

1ST (teaser/cameo/name mention) appearance

= < >

1ST full appearance

 

?

 

 

Usually, a full appearance is more visually striking, so maybe

more attractive artwise, but as far as the narrative goes...

 

 

Your thoughts ?

 

 

Good question; the water gets even muddier when the character is introduced in a two part story arc. Take WWBN 32 and 33. 32 is the first appearance, but would it be incorrect to say a page from 33 was "from the first Moon Knight story", even if it's the 2nd part of the story? 33 had a couple of awesome battle pages,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,915 posts

Mary Jane Watson (with face obscured by a flower) in ASM # 25 (I think).

 

Romita would later illustrate her in full (1st full appearance, yeah), but to me I lean towards Ditko's introduction. Romita produced a very striking end panel of MJ, but Ditko playfully teases the reader - as Peter Parker's love rivals react in such a way to MJ that tells us she's going to be one hot babe when fully revealed. Very inventive.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,284 posts

Darkseid. Brief intro in Jimmy Olsen 134, first full appearance Forever People 1. I think the Jimmy is actually more valuable at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
683 posts

I'd like to think that if a mention, cameo, and first full appearance all appeared in auction at once, and all things were what we came to expect from each page such as a verbal mention, a silhouette or a body part or profile, and a full-fledged costume appearance, and a buyer had to choose only one, that the full-fledge appearance would trump all in value on the grounds that the visual aesthetics tend to drive the market, in theory. On the other hand, I can see a situation where the conventional wisdom would be turned on its head (Trump, anyone?). If for example all three showed up in auction but in auctions ending in consecutive days with the full appearance page ending first and the mention ending last, creating a "fear of missing out" frenzy among two or more collectors with deep pockets and a need for bragging rights that could "artificially" inflate the price of the "mention" page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,281 posts

I think it's a mixed bag, based on the usual theories that it depends on who the buyers are that day in that scenario. Some collectors would lean aesthetics over "key" moments. Others are vice versa.

 

It would depend on who the character is, where they fall in the pantheon of characters in the book, who the artist is, who the writer is (it's true) and what the book is known for. Is it an "art" book? Is it a "story" book? Is it a character driven book? What kind of scenario do they appear in? Critical to that story? Critical to the history of the whole book? Does the character just kind of show up in an undeveloped way or without expectation?

 

So many variables. As with everything, I'd personally only ever judge on case by case and never apply a blanket expectation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,998 posts

Since all art is one of a kind, not so much condition sensitive (CGC grading world), and is less about the supply and demand or population reports, it boils down to aesthetics.

 

I believe when an art collector discusses having a "1st app" piece, granular scrutiny in the OA world may only recognize the very page with the first panel appearance only as the true first. However, I think most recognize that it can be any page from the 1st app issue, so long as that character is rendered on the page (I saw a pg at auction from Amazing Spider-Man #129, but no Punisher on it, tho pitched as the 1st app story, had little appeal other than novelty to me).

 

I do think there is a prestige of a 1st app issue page, with a premium on the 1st panel pg, but if it is obscured and a splash page in thesame issue exists, the higher quality art rendering should win overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,796 posts

I think the Hulk 180 page proved that the character's very first page can carry a significant premium. I doubt any 181 page (not including the cover) would come close to matching its price.

 

Of course 180 is pretty much the ideal cameo. Cameos that don't show the full character (i.e. Doomsday's fist punching his containment unit wall) or out of costume cameos would probably go for far less than full appearances from the character's first full appearance issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,723 posts

I have always had a trouble with how first appearances are determined and never really understood who makes the call. Perfect example is Wolverine. His first appearance is clearly in 180 and I can't see any argument against that fact. However, 181 is famously credited as the first appearance. Is it Marvel that slaps the 1st appearance label? Overstreet?

 

From an art perspective, for me it is back to the art. If the cited 1st appearance is a shadow, teased, mention, alluded to reference, etc. but the first time you get a really good visual is much better artistically I will go that direction every time.

Edited by JadeGiant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,221 posts
I have always had a trouble with how first appearances are determined and never really understood who makes the call. Perfect example is Wolverine. His first appearance is clearly in 180 and I can't see any argument against that fact. However, 181 is famously credited as the first appearance. Is it Marvel that slaps the 1st appearance label? Overstreet?

 

From an art perspective, for me it is back to the art. If the cited 1st appearance is a shadow, teased, mention, alluded to reference, etc. but the first time you get a really good visual is much better artistically I will go that direction every time.

 

That's how I feel, too. A shadowed figure in a smoky room might be the acknowledged "first appearance" but I want to see the character and would value it more highly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,998 posts

 

That's how I feel, too. A shadowed figure in a smoky room might be the acknowledged "first appearance" but I want to see the character and would value it more highly.

 

I had seen a lot of these obscured 1st Appearances, including characters introduced but not yet named nor costumed. I think Deadpool's Daughter was introduced that way.

 

I find them interesting and appealing as original art, but less attractive as actual comic books.

 

I was contemplating getting a lot of the slow reveal "Agent Brand" in Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-Men, including her 1st appearance and the development of the character, then decided to pick a few pieces for the storytelling. The pages weren't remarkable by illustration, but as far as storytelling goes were really nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,272 posts

Question: was this the first appearance of Guardian/Vindicator? Or had he appeared earlier in the issue (don't have the comic on hand at the moment):

 

X-Men 109 CLink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
173 posts
Question: was this the first appearance of Guardian/Vindicator? Or had he appeared earlier in the issue (don't have the comic on hand at the moment):

 

X-Men 109 CLink

 

Yes, that page features the first interior page appearance of Weapon Alpha/Vindicator/Guardian from X-men #109, albeit in shadows. I own the page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,272 posts

So that one sold for $16k (a good buy IMO) but the other Byrne X-Men page from the same CLink session (which had better overall character content) sold for $25k.

 

My thoughts are that OA collectors right now are generally more concerned with imagery than anything else.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
653 posts
So that one sold for $16k (a good buy IMO) but the other Byrne X-Men page from the same CLink session (which had better overall character content) sold for $25k.

 

My thoughts are that OA collectors right now are generally more concerned with imagery than anything else.

 

 

Not to be a 'Debbie Downer', but (and it is a big 'but') if I'm not mistaken,

the Vindicator had already appeared (in full costume) on the cover of that

same issue, rendering the interior shadowed debut a bit less "important".

 

I'd say that both are desirable, but once he'd appeared on the cover, well,

that was his actual first appearance....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
683 posts

Because storytelling in some modern comics build on suspense, little nuggets of a new character are dropped in piecemeal until there is a full blown reveal. Since talking about a 1st appearance in comics is a lot different than talking about it in comic art, I wish we had clearer designations, such are "First appearance in artwork." In the comic collecting world, HULK 180 is considered to be Wolverine's "1st appearance in cameo," but to me in original art it's "first appearance in artwork." Followed by the cover of HULK 181 as "2nd appearance in artwork."

 

I concede, however, that cameos, mentions, body parts, silhouettes, muddy the designations. Should Doomsday busting through the containment be his "1st appearance in artwork," while his full reveal be considered something else? Perhaps a designation such as "1st appearance in full costume"?

 

Just food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,723 posts

Question for this thread: Where do you consider Maestro's first appearance to be?

Share this post


Link to post
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