• 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.

What is the true first appearance of Captain Marvel part 2
0

Started by MrWeen,

47 posts in this topic

MrWeen

MrWeen

Posted
Posted

Since that other thread is closed I figured I would post this. 

If people here who say that a first appearance requires a story ( where is that definition??? )  then how do you explain Foom 15?  Danvers appears in  pinup.  That's not a preview of her comic at all. 

The cover is " previewed "  but the art is just an original pinup. 

My point here is that you don't need a narrative to make a first appearance a first appearance.  Someone said it's a visual medium and that is correct.  Today people are concerned with cover art over story and it's not even close.  Her first cover appearance as Cap was in the sampler.  Avenging 9 took off because it has other things going for it such as it's an iconic cover and it's a Spidey cover.  The sampler was some giveaway most people missed,

Does the story really matter anymore?  To speculators and those of us who deal in comics for profit the answer is probably no.  Anyone have a list of valuable modern books that sell for big money because of the story?  A great story is why we READ comics but these days it has little to do with making money off comics.  I can name a hundred stories that should be worth a ton but unless there's a badass cover or it's a rare variant, 9/10 times it's going nowhere. 

 

There is no definition anywhere that says a first appearance can only occur in a story and just because an easily manipulate market says a book is first and that book sells for a large sum, it in no way means that it's actually a first.  All it says is that the book is valued over others or a litany of reasons, many of which cannot be relied upon.

FOOM_Vol_1_15.jpg

7d0a0434eee803170aabf4f46fe45d11-460x699.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
3 minutes ago, MrWeen said:

If people here who say that a first appearance requires a story ( where is that definition??? )

It's called "custom."

Not everything has to have a "definition" to exist, and definitions are, themselves, the result of other people's opinions about what something means.

Comic books are called sequential art. That was Will Eisner's term, by the way.

It is art forms that use images deployed in a specific order for the purpose of graphic storytelling.

As such, "pinups", which ARE NOT an example of sequential art, cover pieces, which generally ARE NOT examples of sequential art, and promotional pieces, which also generally ARE NOT examples of sequential art, aren't considered "appearances", because comic books, by nature, are sequential art.

That doesn't mean those who like such things ought to be defensive about it; no one is saying they ought not have any value or appreciation for what they are.

But what they ARE NOT is first appearances, the way the entire comics hobby has defined them since the 60s and before. 

"But...Overstreet says a first appearance is the first time they appear anywhere!"

True...but Overstreet almost certainly didn't anticipate, 40 years later, that there would be a segment of collecting attempting to push the idea that promos, previews, pinups, and ads would be considered "appearances." And you know how you can figure that out? Because the first published appearance...anywhere...of Sabretooth is in Iron Fist #13. There he is, at the end of the story, in a preview panel for the next issue.

And yet...no one has ever considered that the first appearance of Sabretooth. 

Wolvie, on the other hand? Hulk #180 has ALWAYS been considered the first appearance of Wolvie, because he appears in the context of the story.

Again: no one is disparaging the idea that promos, previews, pinups, and the like are neat, and have their own place in comics history. Of course they do.

But trying to convince comicdom that those things should be "counted" as "actual first appearances"....in opposition to over 50 years of established convention...is not reasonable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrWeen

MrWeen

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

It's called "custom."

Not everything has to have a "definition" to exist, and definitions are, themselves, the result of other people's opinions about what something means.

Comic books are called sequential art. That was Will Eisner's term, by the way.

It is art forms that use images deployed in a specific order for the purpose of graphic storytelling.

As such, "pinups", which ARE NOT an example of sequential art, cover pieces, which generally ARE NOT examples of sequential art, and promotional pieces, which also generally ARE NOT examples of sequential art, aren't considered "appearances", because comic books, by nature, are sequential art.

That doesn't mean those who like such things ought to be defensive about it; no one is saying they ought not have any value or appreciation for what they are.

But what they ARE NOT is first appearances, the way the entire comics hobby has defined them since the 60s and before. 

"But...Overstreet says a first appearance is the first time they appear anywhere!"

True...but Overstreet almost certainly didn't anticipate, 40 years later, that there would be a segment of collecting attempting to push the idea that promos, previews, pinups, and ads would be considered "appearances." And you know how you can figure that out? Because the first published appearance...anywhere...of Sabretooth is in Iron Fist #13. There he is, at the end of the story, in a preview panel for the next issue.

And yet...no one has ever considered that the first appearance of Sabretooth. 

Wolvie, on the other hand? Hulk #180 has ALWAYS been considered the first appearance of Wolvie, because he appears in the context of the story.

Again: no one is disparaging the idea that promos, previews, pinups, and the like are neat, and have their own place in comics history. Of course they do.

But trying to convince comicdom that those things should be "counted" as "actual first appearances"....in opposition to over 50 years of established convention...is not reasonable.

 

 

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

It's called "custom."

Not everything has to have a "definition" to exist, and definitions are, themselves, the result of other people's opinions about what something means.

Comic books are called sequential art. That was Will Eisner's term, by the way.

It is art forms that use images deployed in a specific order for the purpose of graphic storytelling.

Yea this seems like a nice way to explain nothing.  If I were to agree that everyone's opinion counts then I can say an image is a first appearance and I am correct.  You can say the opposite and you would be correct.  But if we just go by what we see then there is no need to argue! 

Quote

As such, "pinups", which ARE NOT an example of sequential art, cover pieces, which generally ARE NOT examples of sequential art, and promotional pieces, which also generally ARE NOT examples of sequential art, aren't considered "appearances", because comic books, by nature, are sequential art.

No.  You don't need a sequential work to define a first.  There are many example where a character's first happens on a cover and they are not part of the narrative within.  There are also many comics in existence that have no sequential art but are still technically comic books.

Quote

That doesn't mean those who like such things ought to be defensive about it; no one is saying they ought not have any value or appreciation for what they are.

But what they ARE NOT is first appearances, the way the entire comics hobby has defined them since the 60s and before. 

What can I say times change.  Without the internet we wouldn't even be having this conversation unless you like waiting for a letter. 

Quote

"But...Overstreet says a first appearance is the first time they appear anywhere!"

True...but Overstreet almost certainly didn't anticipate, 40 years later, that there would be a segment of collecting attempting to push the idea that promos, previews, pinups, and ads would be considered "appearances." And you know how you can figure that out? Because the first published appearance...anywhere...of Sabretooth is in Iron Fist #13. There he is, at the end of the story, in a preview panel for the next issu.

They actually define a first a a debut and a debut is defined as the first time a character appears anywhere.  ANYWHERE!!!

Just to let you know the most recent Overstreet has given some validity to previews, etc.

Quote

And yet...no one has ever considered that the first appearance of Sabretooth. 

Wolvie, on the other hand? Hulk #180 has ALWAYS been considered the first appearance of Wolvie, because he appears in the context of the story.

Sorry but that panel with Sabretooth is easily missed and he's in shadow.  We all miss things,  look at Archangel.  He appears in issue  23 and in 21 or 22.  But because of the cover to 24 the market continues to be wrong.  And no the market does not consider 180 Woilverine's first appearance thanks to that cover on 181. Times are changing on that too,  thank god.

Quote

Again: no one is disparaging the idea that promos, previews, pinups, and the like are neat, and have their own place in comics history. Of course they do.

But trying to convince comicdom that those things should be "counted" as "actual first appearances"....in opposition to over 50 years of established convention...is not reasonable.

I am not going to try and convince you but if CCG notes a first appearance on a cover where there is no appearance inside then it's really just a pinup no?  The real problem is that because there is no real definition you and I can use all sorts of examples to justify our positions.  What is needed more than ever is a definition!

 

Quote

 

 

Edited by MrWeen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lazyboy

Lazyboy

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, MrWeen said:

They actually define a first a a debut and a debut is defined as the first time a character appears anywhere.  ANYWHERE!!!

I'll repeat this yet again: As soon as you convince everybody that Action Comics 1 is not the first appearance of Superman and Detective Comics 27 is not the first appearance of Batman, I'll accept this definition literally rather than in the implied context. Until then... well, let's just say I won't be holding my breath.

 

Why was the other thread locked?

Edited by Lazyboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fastballspecial

fastballspecial

Posted
Posted (edited)

Really the money is in Avenging Spider-man 9 and will be for while. What will be interesting is the value of the Summer of Spider-man as we get 
closer to the movie. Its an interesting test case for how the market is changing. 3 years ago this wouldn't have been an issue. All that being said
I don't pass up the book in $1 bins currently. The risk reward is too good.

 

Edited by fastballspecial
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExNihilo

ExNihilo

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Lazyboy said:

Why was the other thread locked?

Better question, why was a new thread even needed?

Considering the collective knowledge of comic books found on these boards, I find it absurd that the discussion even lasted as long as it did.  I'm with RMA, an appearance that occurs within the context of a story counts.  Whether that appearance is a 1st appearance or a cameo or some other definition is a separate discussion.  A preview or a promo or anything else does not constitute an appearance within the context of the story that a comic is trying to tell.  If that's how someone wants to define it, then the truth is, there are no 1st appearances.  At least none that a normal collector will be able to acquire without dropping a reasonable chunk of change.  What do I mean by that?

Here's Omega Red's "1st appearance" then:

https://imgur.com/a/mlz03LI

Good luck acquiring that from Jim, Marvel, or whomever is in possession of that sheet right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeeksAreMyPeeps

GeeksAreMyPeeps

Posted
Posted

I'm 95% with RMA on this, but I think collecting is more an art than a science, so there's a few things I have slightly different opinions on. Some notes:

• The market isn't "wrong" as the market doesn't decide what a first appearance is or isn't. The market just decides what books are worth spending money on, and how much to spend.

• Of course story is important. Without stories there are no "characters" but only designs; The reason people might spend more because of covers now is because there are many ways to read the story besides buying a physical copy of a monthly comic book.

• While sequential art is important, when Deadpool's Secret Secret Wars popped up, that book definitely had the feel of a first appearance. This is what I mean by being an art form. I don't think a sketch of a character in marketing material should be considered a first appearance, but they both boil down to a single illustration. Maybe it's that the cover isn't marketing material (defining marketing material as a visual meant to get you to buy some physical object other than what the visual appears on). Maybe it's that the cover does tell a story in a way. (There are clearly actions that one can infer preceded the image, in a way you don't have with a pinup.) Looking for a definition to remove the subjectivity in this case, I would say that a first appearance has to be in creative material (whether a story or a cover) rather than marketing material. I'm sure the "previews are first appearances" crowd would point to the 5-page excerpts in Marvel Age as being stories, but those are still marketing materials meant to get you to buy the book that the full story appears in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeeksAreMyPeeps

GeeksAreMyPeeps

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, divad said:

I don't see the words "first" or "appearance" anywhere in those notes . . . :grin:

 

Exactly. This is precisely how things of this sort should be denoted. I have no issue with books of this sort being identified as a "first printed depiction in editorial/marketing material" but "depiction" is not the same as "appearance" in the context of comic collecting terminology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrWeen

MrWeen

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 9/2/2018 at 4:19 PM, divad said:

I don't see the words "first" or "appearance" anywhere in those notes . . . :grin:

 

CGC is not an authority, make errors all the time and even have labeled books as firsts where the character only appears on the cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
divad

divad

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, MrWeen said:

CGC is not an authority, make errors all the time and even have labeled books as firsts where the character only appears on the cover.

I don't necessarily consider you an authority either. :foryou:

Link to comment
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
Go to topic listing