Avenging Spiderman #9 0

[500Club]

3 hours ago, valiantman said:

12 hours ago, 500Club said:

• I don’t think he was posting it as an equation.  Switch out the slash for a +. 

It is an equation, if done correctly.

Value = Demand / Supply

 The Value of an individual book is the Overall Demand divided by the Overall Supply.

My comment was confined purely to the fact that ygogolak had no intention of posting an equation.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

On 6/16/2018 at 10:59 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Value doesn't determine a first appearance. A first appearance, on the other hand, determines value.

After all, these are the most valuable, therefore the first appearance.

It's not possible to have a discussion if...for whatever reason, your fault, my fault, the universe's fault...we cannot even communicate the most basic of concepts to one another.

Read what I wrote, quoted here again. 

If you're going to continue to pluck exceptions (such as characters appearing only on covers; a rather novel, recent innovation) to make points about the rule, then we don't have a foundation for discussion. 

For the record...appearing on the cover of a published comic book...rather than a preview...is perfectly legitimate.

[ygogolak]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

It's not possible to have a discussion if...for whatever reason, your fault, my fault, the universe's fault...we cannot even communicate the most basic of concepts to one another.

Read what I wrote, quoted here again. 

If you're going to continue to pluck exceptions (such as characters appearing only on covers; a rather novel, recent innovation) to make points about the rule, then we don't have a foundation for discussion. 

For the record...appearing on the cover of a published comic book...rather than a preview...is perfectly legitimate.

I see what you wrote. These are the highest valued and thus first appearances.

These are not exceptions. These are current standards. As I said way back on the first page, why do people try to apply old standards to new scenarios?

   

Can you please post these rules somewhere?

 

 

[500Club]

3 hours ago, valiantman said:

If there's a way to buy A for $2 and sell it for $50, then of course, do it. But don't be spouting nonsense about how A is more important than B because $50 is greater than $5. The overall market doesn't care about individual prices, just overall demand and the supply available to meet it.

I don’t think anyone spouted any such nonsense.  You’re preaching to three collectors/debaters who are very well versed in the economics of the hobby.

The only point that came remotely close was when RMA compared Capes 1 to WD 1, and in that instance it was specifically noted that insight could be drawn because print runs were similar.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, ygogolak said:

I see what you wrote. These are the highest valued and thus first appearances.

 

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Value doesn't determine a first appearance.

 

1 minute ago, ygogolak said:

These are not exceptions. These are current standards. As I said way back on the first page, why do people try to apply old standards to new scenarios?

The exceptions are your examples, (Metal #3/Teen Titans #12, Ms. Marvel #17 2nd, Hulk #1) not the "current standards." Again...if we cannot even communicate, there is no foundation for discussion. We are having multiple communication breakdowns. 

7 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

Can you please post these rules somewhere?

I already have, but I can do so again:

The rule: a first appearance occurs when a character appears in the context of a story.

Exception: first appearances that are on covers only. 

There is the rule, and there are the exceptions that make the rule.

"But, but, but, but Overstreet defines "first appearance" or "debut" as "the first time a character appears anywhere"!!!

Except that's not true, and Overstreet...not anticipating the pedantic nature of future comic fans...almost certainly did not intend that definition to cover previews and, in fact, Overstreet contradicts itself in its own pages. Sabretooth, for example, appears at the bottom of the last story page of Iron Fist #13...yet the "first app" of Sabretooth is listed as #14. 

Multiple Marvel and DC characters appeared in house ads for upcoming books. Are those "the first time a character appears anywhere"...? Yup. Does that make those house ads....those previews....the actual first appearances of those characters...?

No.

"But, but, but, but....a PREVIEW matches your rule for first appearances!!!" 

Not true. Those pages...to whatever extent they appear, whether a single image in a house ad, or a 10 page preview...are intended, quite obviously, by the publisher and creators to be published in an upcoming book. If that's the case...then those pages are merely an ad for an upcoming publication, and not the publication itself. 

I don't have a problem with first appearances being on covers only, provided they are the covers of actual comic books with actual story...not previews.

Show me a preview book with a story that is unique to that book, and not intended to be printed in an upcoming publication...like Marvel Age Annual #4, for example...and I'll gladly agree with you.

[ygogolak]

9 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

 

The exceptions are your examples, (Metal #3/Teen Titans #12, Ms. Marvel #17 2nd, Hulk #1) not the "current standards." Again...if we cannot even communicate, there is no foundation for discussion. We are having multiple communication breakdowns. 

I already have, but I can do so again:

The rule: a first appearance occurs when a character appears in the context of a story.

Exception: first appearances that are on covers only. 

There is the rule, and there are the exceptions that make the rule.

"But, but, but, but Overstreet defines "first appearance" or "debut" as "the first time a character appears anywhere"!!!

Except that's not true, and Overstreet...not anticipating the pedantic nature of future comic fans...almost certainly did not intend that definition to cover previews and, in fact, Overstreet contradicts itself in its own pages. Sabretooth, for example, appears at the bottom of the last story page of Iron Fist #13...yet the "first app" of Sabretooth is listed as #14. 

Multiple Marvel and DC characters appeared in house ads for upcoming books. Are those "the first time a character appears anywhere"...? Yup. Does that make those house ads....those previews....the actual first appearances of those characters...?

No.

"But, but, but, but....a PREVIEW matches your rule for first appearances!!!" 

Not true. Those pages...to whatever extent they appear, whether a single image in a house ad, or a 10 page preview...are intended, quite obviously, by the publisher and creators to be published in an upcoming book. If that's the case...then those pages are merely an ad for an upcoming publication, and not the publication itself. 

I don't have a problem with first appearances being on covers only, provided they are the covers of actual comic books with actual story...not previews.

Show me a preview book with a story that is unique to that book, and not intended to be printed in an upcoming publication...like Marvel Age Annual #4, for example...and I'll gladly agree with you.

By your rules, a cover can be a first appearance even without anything in the pages that follow that relate to that. So, the cover is an ad for something completely different. But a preview of a story, with said fist time a character is seen and is in the context of a story, does not qualify.

Clear as mud as they say. These are all rules that apply to your personal point of view, not to mine, not to Joe's. You don't get to decide the rules for everyone else.

Edited June 18, 2018 by ygogolak

[RockMyAmadeus]

8 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

By your rules, a cover can be a first appearance even without anything in the pages that follow that relate to that. So, the cover is an ad for something completely different. But a preview of a story, with said fist time a character is seen and is in the context of a story, does not qualify.

Clear as mud as they say. These are all rules that apply to your personal point of view, not to mine, not to Joe's. You don't get to decide the rules for everyone else.

I didn't decide the rules for anyone. I merely report what is. The cover is not an "ad for something else" unless it identifies itself as an "ad for something else."

And a preview is a preview...it is not the actual thing which it is previewing, or then it wouldn't be a preview. You, yourself, can't even talk about it without acknowledging that it is a preview: "But a preview of a story...."

It's either a preview, or the actual thing. It cannot, simultaneously, by both...except maybe in Quantum Physics.

I'm sorry these things aren't clear to you, but the entire rest of the comic collecting world has no problem with this, aside from the group who wants to change the rules.

No need to be upset about it.

Edited June 18, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[ygogolak]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I didn't decide the rules for anyone. I merely report what is. The cover is not an "ad for something else" unless it identifies itself as an "ad for something else."

And a preview is a preview...it is not the actual thing which it is previewing, or then it wouldn't be a preview.

I'm sorry these things aren't clear to you, but the entire rest of the comic collecting world has no problem with this, aside from the group who wants to change the rules.

No need to be upset about it.

Yes, the cover is an ad for a character to entice a reader to buy other issues. Since they are not in that issue, what else would the the point?

No, for about the 50th time, please point me to your survey results that have concluded your statement what the "entire rest of the comic collecting world" has decided.

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

Yes, the cover is an ad for a character to entice a reader to buy other issues. Since they are not in that issue, what else would the the point?

No, for about the 50th time, please point me to your survey results that have concluded your statement what the "entire rest of the comic collecting world" has decided.

No, the cover is not an ad for a character to entice a reader to buy other issues. You are stretcccccchhhhhhhhhing the definition of "ad" to make it fit your "rules." There are all sorts of reasons why an editor would use a piece of art for a cover and not intend it to be an "ad." It could have been a job that the editor didn't think worked on the first print, but would be ok for the second. It could be a paid-for inventory piece that the editor liked.

Unless it identifies itself as an ad...either directly or indirectly...then it is not an ad.

As to the second statement, I already have, and do so again: The Overstreet Price Guide, All In Color For A Dime, Comics Buyers' Guide, this message board, etc etc etc.

This IS NOT the first appearance of Longshot and Ricochet Rita.

It is an ad.

But...it appears IN PRINT prior to the publication of Longshot #1.

It is STILL not the first appearance of Longshot and Ricochet Rita.

It is only an ad.

This IS NOT an ad. It is the cover to a comic book.

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[ygogolak]

15 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No, the cover is not an ad for a character to entice a reader to buy other issues. You are stretcccccchhhhhhhhhing the definition of "ad" to make it fit your "rules." There are all sorts of reasons why an editor would use a piece of art for a cover and not intend it to be an "ad." It could have been a job that the editor didn't think worked on the first print, but would be ok for the second. It could be a paid-for inventory piece that the editor liked.

Unless it identifies itself as an ad...either directly or indirectly...then it is not an ad.

As to the second statement, I already have, and do so again: The Overstreet Price Guide, All In Color For A Dime, Comics Buyers' Guide, this message board, etc etc etc.

 

This IS NOT the first appearance of Longshot and Ricochet Rita.

It is an ad.

But...it appears IN PRINT prior to the publication of Longshot #1.

It is STILL not the first appearance of Longshot and Ricochet Rita.

It is only an ad.

 

This IS NOT an ad. It is the cover to a comic book.

 

Aside from the people who post on these message boards, all of the others are for-profit ventures which intrinsically have a monetary motive and some type of standard to keep in relation to previous decisions on such instances. They can't keep changing what their opinions are and thus loose credibility. (This forum is operated by a for-profit venture and their standards which may or may not be moderated on here.)

As I have stated many times, what was true 10+ years ago is not true with new properties and instances today.

 

Anyway, we all know this is the first appearance of Longshot:

 

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by ygogolak

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, ygogolak said:

Aside from the people who post on these message boards, all of the others are for-profit ventures which intrinsically have a monetary motive and some type of standard to keep in relation to previous decisions on such instances. They can't keep changing what their opinions are and thus loose credibility. (This forum is operated by a for-profit venture and their standards which may or may not be moderated on here.)

No. This has nothing to do with "for profit" motives. No one is going to lose their credibility, and no one is suggesting anyone "keep changing their opinions."

This has just gotten silly.

These are customs and traditions that have been agreed upon by consensus....as reflected (NOT "dictated") in the above entities, and many others....over decades.

58 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

As I have stated many times, what was true 10+ years ago is not true with new properties and instances today.

 

According to whom? You're not the authority. You don't get to make up the rules.

1 hour ago, ygogolak said:

Anyway, we all know this is the first appearance of Longshot:

 

 

Who is "we"...? Unless I'm completely mistaken,,,,and I could be...that ad appeared BEFORE Marvel Age #29 was published.

So....

[valiantman]

9 hours ago, 500Club said:

I don’t think anyone spouted any such nonsense.  You’re preaching to three collectors/debaters who are very well versed in the economics of the hobby.

The only point that came remotely close was when RMA compared Capes 1 to WD 1, and in that instance it was specifically noted that insight could be drawn because print runs were similar.

You're absolutely right because no one besides the three of you has ever had a conversation just like this one for hundreds of pages in the past 16 years on this board.

 

Just this one, right here, right now, just you three.

[ygogolak]

15 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No. This has nothing to do with "for profit" motives. No one is going to lose their credibility, and no one is suggesting anyone "keep changing their opinions."

This has just gotten silly.

These are customs and traditions that have been agreed upon by consensus....as reflected (NOT "dictated") in the above entities, and many others....over decades.

According to whom? You're not the authority. You don't get to make up the rules.

Who is "we"...? Unless I'm completely mistaken,,,,and I could be...that ad appeared BEFORE Marvel Age #29 was published.

So....

You're right. Just keep doing things the same way you have always done it. That usually works out really well.

[divad]

On 6/16/2018 at 10:30 AM, ygogolak said:

Hmm, na. The market is different now than it was 10 years ago and every year before that. I'm not sure why some people try to hold onto the past as the almighty authority and not look to the future.

Cuz we're old . . . (er).

 

[divad]

On 6/16/2018 at 10:44 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Hmm, yeah. Consensus means something. Just because a small, but very loud, very vocal, tiny minority of people want to pretend otherwise, trying to redefine what constitutes an appearance to "previews" of identical pages from an upcoming book isn't going to catch on...in the future...because it's opposed to common sense.

"This preview book is the first appearance of The Catlasher!" 

"It is?"

"Yes! See? Clearly, here is the Catlasher, depicted prominently, in a book that was published PRIOR TO Indefatigable Impman #378, which, for some strange reason, some people are calling the Catlasher's first appearance."

"But...isn't that preview book just a few pages taken from Indefatigable Impman #378....?"

"Yes, but as you can clearly see, this preview was printed BEFORE Indefatigable Impman #378!! Therefore, it is the REAL first appearance of the Catlasher!"

"Um...yeah, that's because it's a preview...it's literally the name of the thing you're holding: 'preview.' That means it's a view of the actual book before it comes out, to garner interest in that book...not to garner interest in the preview itself."

"You're not the authority! Catlasher is clearly printed here, so that's clearly his first appearance!!"

"ooook."

 

 

 

Catlasher & Indefatigable Impman are copyright 2018 RMA productions, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

 

Love me some Catlasher! 

[divad]

12 hours ago, valiantman said:

You're absolutely right because no one besides the three of you has ever had a conversation just like this one for hundreds of pages in the past 16 years on this board.

 

Just this one, right here, right now, just you three.

Yep. (but I enjoyed it.) What's that say about me?

[valiantman]

38 minutes ago, divad said:

12 hours ago, valiantman said:

You're absolutely right because no one besides the three of you has ever had a conversation just like this one for hundreds of pages in the past 16 years on this board.

 

Just this one, right here, right now, just you three.

Yep. (but I enjoyed it.) What's that say about me?

That you're still a newb. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by valiantman

[valiantman]

55 minutes ago, divad said:

Love me some Catlasher! 

You should have seen the early drafts when the character was called P*$$ywhipper.

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, ygogolak said:

You're right. Just keep doing things the same way you have always done it. That usually works out really well.

It usually does. This isn't a "that's how it's always been done!" discussion, but whatevs. I'm not going to suggest that 2+2=5, simply because 2+2=4 is "the way it's always been done."

More to the point: if people want to buy previews and collect previews and value previews, that's fine. There's nothing at all wrong with that.

But if someone is going to come along and suggest that a preview is now "the first appearance"...when the very word "preview" completely negates that...and try to convince other people of the same, then I'm going to counter it, and maybe even question their motives...just as you should if I was constantly pumping Batman #442 as the next breakout hot key book.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, valiantman said:

2 hours ago, divad said:

Love me some Catlasher! 

You should have seen the early drafts when the character was called P*$$ywhipper.

I'm sure there was absolutely nothing Freudian about my choice of character names. Nothing at all. 

I'm totally sure of it.