• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Which is the true 1st Appearance of Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel?
0

83 posts in this topic

11 minutes ago, divad said:
1 hour ago, valiantman said:

Marvel Super-Heroes #13 beat that one by 9 years. lol

Except she was only Carole Danvers then. :makepoint: And you were but a wee sprite . . . lol

True!  Except for the wee sprite thing... I was alive for Ms. Marvel #1, but not MSH #13. :grin:  It's silly that the true first appearance of characters from decades earlier is sometimes cheaper than a more recent change for that same character.  Mary Jane Venom costs more than 1st Mary Jane.  Spider-Gwen can cost more than 1st Gwen.  Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel can cost more than 1st Carol Danvers.  Yes, they're higher grades and yes, they're sometimes limited variants... but we're talking about the true original from 40+ years ago and something "modern"... there should be no comparison, regardless of condition.  A low grade Amazing Fantasy #15 should beat EVERY recent copy of any Spider-Man book, even if it's CGC 10.  Same thing for Mary Jane, Gwen, and Carol. But that's common sense... and that doesn't work well in this market. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, divad said:

Except she was only Carole Danvers then. :makepoint: And you were but a wee sprite . . . lol

 

And then in Captain Marvel 18, She lost the "e." The loss of the electron in her name gave her a positive charge, which is where her powers come from.

Or something.

I don't know. It's been a while since I read that book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, divad said:

Ms. Marvel #1 - she didn't change a bit. :grin:

Yup, she definitely never had her powers stolen, or got new powers and went out into space, or (whatever the clowns at Marvel have done to her in the last 20 years (shrug)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, valiantman said:

Trailers don't matter if there's a teaser poster with "coming soon" at the bottom.  That's the first appearance of Iron Man.

But can you prove which came first? ygogolak needs to know quickly, before his brain-dead speculator overlords become displeased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

But I'm of the opinion that "Appearance" in comic collecting vernacular has historically had a pretty consistent meaning; the inclusion in a comic story. Anyone that says otherwise is trying to sell you something.

Yes, but there is a lot of confusion for a few reasons, mostly stemming from the fact that comics are a visual medium. I started a thread about the definition and perception of appearances once, but nobody responded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, fastballspecial said:

This argument branches out much wider than this. Anymore I have just embraced it instead of arguing against it anymore.

Otherwise all those Marvel Age books would still be worth the $.50 they used to be worth. Because they are preview books right?

Yes, Marvel Age books are preview books, and preview books contain an "early view" of an upcoming character... so if that upcoming character is popular, then the Marvel Age book should have some extra value above the next nearest issues of Marvel Age.  But that doesn't make them "true first appearances" because they were previews, intended to be previews, in order to advertise to comic shops to order and to advertise to customers to buy the actual first appearance when it arrived later.  Anyone attempting to turn previews into "true first appearances" is ignoring everything that the publisher, retailers, and customers agree about how storytelling in this industry works.  If we have to assign a number of appearance to previews, it should be zero.  A preview for a character is not a first appearance, it's a zeroth appearance... since it was always intended to occur before the first appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

I started a thread about the definition and perception of appearances once, but nobody responded.

If nobody responded, that indicates that the definition and perception of appearances for decades isn't wrong.  Otherwise, there would be support to change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, valiantman said:

If nobody responded, that indicates that the definition and perception of appearances for decades isn't wrong.  Otherwise, there would be support to change it.

The thread wasn't about first appearances or previews, it was about literacy and understanding stories versus superficiality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, valiantman said:
17 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

I started a thread about the definition and perception of appearances once, but nobody responded.

If nobody responded, that indicates that the definition and perception of appearances for decades isn't wrong.  Otherwise, there would be support to change it.

 

4 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

The thread wasn't about first appearances or previews, it was about literacy and understanding stories versus superficiality.

So, you started a thread about appearances but not about first appearances and previews, and people didn't want to talk about 2nd, 6th, or 671st appearances relative to literacy. hm

I'm shocked. 

image.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, valiantman said:

So, you started a thread about appearances but not about first appearances and previews, and people didn't want to talk about 2nd, 6th, or 671st appearances relative to literacy. hm

I'm shocked.

Exactly. meh

One way or another, the thread would have eventually tackled brief/cameo versus full, ads, etc. But I wanted a discussion, not just to write an essay.

The timing may have been poor, as well. I started it not too long after the change and some people may still have been mad at me for not irrationally hating the new boards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lazyboy said:

The timing may have been poor, as well. I started it not too long after the change and some people may still have been mad at me for not irrationally hating the new boards.

Yep, there are a few topics from the time of the board change that got overshadowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realistically, it's whatever book got on the hype train first. AS9 was the book people first grabbed hold of. It wasn't really until later that the Preview book became more widely known. At that point, the next wave 1st appearance seekers see a $100 book claiming to be the 1st appereance and buy that. 

Oh, and Foom 15 pre-dates Ms. Marvel 1 if we are getting technical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, valiantman said:
22 hours ago, fastballspecial said:

This argument branches out much wider than this. Anymore I have just embraced it instead of arguing against it anymore.

Otherwise all those Marvel Age books would still be worth the $.50 they used to be worth. Because they are preview books right?

Yes, Marvel Age books are preview books, and preview books contain an "early view" of an upcoming character... so if that upcoming character is popular, then the Marvel Age book should have some extra value above the next nearest issues of Marvel Age.  But that doesn't make them "true first appearances" because they were previews, intended to be previews, in order to advertise to comic shops to order and to advertise to customers to buy the actual first appearance when it arrived later.  Anyone attempting to turn previews into "true first appearances" is ignoring everything that the publisher, retailers, and customers agree about how storytelling in this industry works.  If we have to assign a number of appearance to previews, it should be zero.  A preview for a character is not a first appearance, it's a zeroth appearance... since it was always intended to occur before the first appearance.

Not disagreeing you,  just reflecting the market viewpoint whether right or wrong it no longer believes that especially in the modern market. 

Until a few years ago I would have laughed at it as well. It is what it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2018 at 7:53 AM, kimik said:

You have it wrong - the people that need to change their view on the significance of the previews are the pump and dump types that try to hype them up all the time. The market has decided which appearance it considers more significant/valuable, and it is not the preview in this case.

This, times a hundred thousand.

Previews are PRE...VIEWS...that is, views before the actual work comes out. They are not, and never have been intended to be, taken as "first appearances."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
0