Avenging Spiderman #9 0

[Lazyboy]

5 minutes ago, Juggernaut said:

Sorry but it has been established a very long time ago that covers are part of the story. 1st appearance of a character (on the cover only) goes as far back as the Platinum age.  I agree with you that covers shouldn't be 1st appearances but I can't argue against 100 years of fact and consensus amongst comic book historians. Ultimately, comic book covers can be the 1st appearance of a character as it is part of the story.

I know some covers, especially from the early days of comics, are actually story pages, but if covers are generally part of the story, why did this issue need a notation?

Covers used to most often be representative of the interior contents. However, an increasing trend for many, many years has been to have covers that are just random, unrelated pin-ups, and that's not even including variants.

[RockMyAmadeus]

35 minutes ago, Juggernaut said:

We wouldn't be talking about it if everything was straightforward. I don't want it to change but it has too. It is starting to confuse everyone especially new individuals to the hobby.

Example of #4 is Uncanny X-Men Annual #14 (Gambit cameo) Predates Uncanny X-Men #266 (1st Appearance of Gambit) / Avenging Spider-Man #9 (1st Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel) Predates Captain Marvel #1 (Note: Chronologically Captain Marvel #1 (2012) is first or the beginning of the story but was released after Avenging Spider-Man #9)

Above are 2 perfect examples on why some definitions (1st Appearance and/or related) need to be expanded or changed. 

Make it clear to everyone with very little wiggle room for interpretation. For example: Ads are advertising .......... and cannot be a 1st appearance of a character as it not presented in the serialized or subsequent story in the form of a comic strip / Previews are a preview of a story ........ but can be 1st appearance of a character if the preview is an original story not reprinted or retold in the subsequent story / Cover Appearance is the appearance of character on the cover ..... and can be the 1st appearance of a character as the cover is presented as part of the story

I am absolutely in sync with your last paragraph...those are my positions throughout the discussion. 

I think we're talking about it, not because it isn't straightforward, but for the very simple reason that some segment of the comic collecting world is trying...for reasons of their own...to reclassify "first appearances" as the first time any character appeared in print, in any format, regardless of the source and regardless of the intentions of the publishers, redefining previews and ads as "actual appearances", despite the lack of sequential art that is the foundation of the artform.

That is the fundamental problem.

An ad in Previews magazine, for example, showing Rick Grimes on the cover of Walking Dead #1...several months before it was published...and the logotype for the title hadn't even settled at that point...that is now being pointed to as "the real" first appearance of Rick Grimes.

Such way lies madness.

 

[divad]

13 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

15 hours ago, Juggernaut said:

We wouldn't be talking about it if everything was straightforward. I don't want it to change but it has too. It is starting to confuse everyone especially new individuals to the hobby.

Example of #4 is Uncanny X-Men Annual #14 (Gambit cameo) Predates Uncanny X-Men #266 (1st Appearance of Gambit) / Avenging Spider-Man #9 (1st Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel) Predates Captain Marvel #1 (Note: Chronologically Captain Marvel #1 (2012) is first or the beginning of the story but was released after Avenging Spider-Man #9)

Above are 2 perfect examples on why some definitions (1st Appearance and/or related) need to be expanded or changed. 

Make it clear to everyone with very little wiggle room for interpretation. For example: Ads are advertising .......... and cannot be a 1st appearance of a character as it not presented in the serialized or subsequent story in the form of a comic strip / Previews are a preview of a story ........ but can be 1st appearance of a character if the preview is an original story not reprinted or retold in the subsequent story / Cover Appearance is the appearance of character on the cover ..... and can be the 1st appearance of a character as the cover is presented as part of the story

I am absolutely in sync with your last paragraph...those are my positions throughout the discussion. 

I think we're talking about it, not because it isn't straightforward, but for the very simple reason that some segment of the comic collecting world is trying...for reasons of their own...to reclassify "first appearances" as the first time any character appeared in print, in any format, regardless of the source and regardless of the intentions of the publishers, redefining previews and ads as "actual appearances", despite the lack of sequential art that is the foundation of the artform.

That is the fundamental problem.

An ad in Previews magazine, for example, showing Rick Grimes on the cover of Walking Dead #1...several months before it was published...and the logotype for the title hadn't even settled at that point...that is now being pointed to as "the real" first appearance of Rick Grimes.

Such way lies madness.

Indeed, madness. The unfortunate thing is the motivation is $$$. But to dilute what took so long to evolve is sacrosanct.

 

 

 

(Kind of like pressing to get a higher grade, or micro-trimming, or spine realignment . . . ) 

Edited June 21, 2018 by divad

[ygogolak]

14 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I am absolutely in sync with your last paragraph...those are my positions throughout the discussion. 

I think we're talking about it, not because it isn't straightforward, but for the very simple reason that some segment of the comic collecting world is trying...for reasons of their own...to reclassify "first appearances" as the first time any character appeared in print, in any format, regardless of the source and regardless of the intentions of the publishers, redefining previews and ads as "actual appearances", despite the lack of sequential art that is the foundation of the artform.

That is the fundamental problem.

An ad in Previews magazine, for example, showing Rick Grimes on the cover of Walking Dead #1...several months before it was published...and the logotype for the title hadn't even settled at that point...that is now being pointed to as "the real" first appearance of Rick Grimes.

Such way lies madness.

 

Hmm, evidence of this please?