Why is ACTION #251 not considered the 1st appearance of SUPERGIRL?
1 1

50 posts in this topic

10,158 posts
15 hours ago, Readcomix said:

It's a cool anomaly in the market, but it's not driving DD 115 past IH 181 anytime soon.

I wish people would stop mentioning DD #115 at all. The date for DD #115 is November 1974. The date for Incredible Hulk #180 is October 1974.

DD #115 happened AFTER Hulk #180.  Daredevil #115 is at BEST just a "2nd appearance ad"... and that's not a thing (unless you're trying to sell one, then it's the greatest thing that has ever happened in the world).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,419 posts
39 minutes ago, APDallas said:

I admit that it is an ad but i see all the time collector's pulling out obscure appearances and claiming them as first appearances (example MARVEL AGE citing BETA RAY BILL, et al). How is this any different?

What you're seeing is a fringe element of hucksters trying to rewrite decades of accepted comic fandom to their own economic advantage.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
229 posts
52 minutes ago, APDallas said:

How is this any different?

If anything this book has more going for it in the "first appearance" department then most "first ad" books. Not a lot, mind you, but more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,158 posts
33 minutes ago, valiantman said:

I wish people would stop mentioning DD #115 at all. The date for DD #115 is November 1974. The date for Incredible Hulk #180 is October 1974.

DD #115 happened AFTER Hulk #180.  Daredevil #115 is at BEST just a "2nd appearance ad"... and that's not a thing (unless you're trying to sell one, then it's the greatest thing that has ever happened in the world).

None of the books with Incredible Hulk 181 ads even predate Incredible Hulk 181, let alone 180. They are a minor curiosity and nothing more. Why doesn't anybody ever talk about the house ads for failed characters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,158 posts
Just now, Lazyboy said:

None of the books with Incredible Hulk 181 ads even predate Incredible Hulk 181, let alone 180. They are a minor curiosity and nothing more. Why doesn't anybody ever talk about the house ads for failed characters?

Failed? Or yet-to-be-rumored for the next movie? hm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,158 posts
18 hours ago, namisgr said:

No.  It's an advertisement, not a panel from a comic book story.

Technically, it's an advertisement previewing a panel from a comic book story.

16 hours ago, Readcomix said:

It IS a cool ad; I wouldn't be surprised if it was an alternate cover illustration for 252.

2 hours ago, HuddyBee said:

But with Supergirl actually interacting with Superman, and having dialogue, not just with the reader, but characters in the DC Universe, it seems closer to a cameo than say a preview.

See above. You guys know that comics can be opened and read, right? It's not all about the covers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
229 posts
28 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

You guys know that comics can be opened and read, right? It's not all about the covers.

I'm confused. Who are you talking to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 posts
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, valiantman said:

No difference. Sellers are just trying to make more money by any means necessary.  Are they neat ads? Yes. Are they first appearances? Nope. Why would anyone claim they are? Money.

That's true. The problem is that i see people falling for it and it does seem to cause some confusion. I guess the market will ultimately decide.

Like for instance why is this not the first Supergirl? 1665656121_Superman123-00-FC.thumb.jpg.61956b75d788222ab58c1816d6415619.jpg

Edited by APDallas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
229 posts
Posted (edited)

Supes 123 is the first appearance of Supergirl, not of Kara Zor-El, but of Supergirl. Just like HOS 92 is the first Swamp Thing, but ST 1 is the first Allec Holland.

Superboy 5 and 78 are also contenders, but don't count for much, if you actually read them.

Edited by HuddyBee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 posts
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, HuddyBee said:

Supes 123 is the first appearance of Supergirl, not of Kara Zor-El, but of Supergirl. Just like HOS 92 is the first Swamp Thing, but ST 1 is the first Allec Holland.

Superboy 5 and 78 are also contenders, but don't count for much, if you actually read them.

Hmmm. So if DC decided to "bring back" this GIRL OF STEEL then  it would be the "first" SUPERGIRL.

Like for instance the first "BATGIRL" is not Detective 359 but Batman 139

First-Bat-Girl-Costume.png

Edited by APDallas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 posts
Posted (edited)

We also seem to have this problem with SGT.ROCK. What is considered a true 1st appearance as opposed to a "proto-type" or ad or cameo?

 

Edited by APDallas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
229 posts
39 minutes ago, APDallas said:

Hmmm. So if DC decided to "bring back" this GIRL OF STEEL then  it would be the "first" SUPERGIRL.

Like for instance the first "BATGIRL" is not Detective 359 but Batman 139

I consider it the first appearance of the character or idea of Supergirl or Batgirl, but not the first appearance of the person Kara Zor - El or Barbara Kane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 posts
Just now, HuddyBee said:

I consider it the first appearance of the character or idea of Supergirl or Batgirl, but not the first appearance of the person Kara Zor - El or Barbara Kane.

That is true but on strictly technical level how can this not be a 1st appearance of the "character"? Just because it is played by a different alter ego does that diminish the actual "character"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,158 posts
1 hour ago, HuddyBee said:

I'm confused. Who are you talking to?

For one, the person who posted that a preview of the first panel from the story "seems closer to a cameo than say a preview."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,158 posts
3 minutes ago, APDallas said:

That is true but on strictly technical level how can this not be a 1st appearance of the "character"? Just because it is played by a different alter ego does that diminish the actual "character"?

Yes. Bat-Girl is a minor footnote in history. Barbara Gordon, formerly known as Batgirl (and I think back in the role now (shrug)) has been a significant character in the DCU for many years.

A generic idea (especially an obvious derivative) is nothing compared to a properly developed character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,158 posts
Posted (edited)

The hobby could shift somewhat as a result of the continued publication of books.  Grey Hulk wasn't a separate character until decades later, so Hulk #1 is the first Hulk (and first Grey Hulk), but Hulk #2 is now the first (full) Green Hulk. There are characters which are "played by" other named characters later, multiple Robins for Batman, etc., so the first Robin (Detective #38) is already recognized differently from the first Jason Todd as Robin. Obviously the earlier one is more important, but as we've seen with Groot, the early not-very-close appearance can get more credit if the continued stories (or movies) add importance/collectibility to a character. 

Superman #123 has the first Supergirl (or Super-Girl) who isn't Kara Zor-El, but if there's more story about a series of Supergirls or Batgirls throughout publication history, it could make these first ones (even if they only existed for an issue) more important if someone collects ALL of the incarnations of a character.  This is of course a different discussion than Action #251 since that's Kara Zor-El in an advertisement, but Superman #123 is definitely the first Super-Girl, just not Kara.  If there's a whole series of Supergirls someday, or if the "wish" Super-Girl of Superman #123 is brought back, given a story, alternate universe, whatever, then Superman #123 could be more than it is. It's unlikely it would ever be more than Action #252 no matter how many "other" Supergirl stories could be told, but it does have plenty of room to grow. 

Edited by valiantman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,158 posts
10 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Grey Hulk wasn't a separate character until decades later, so Hulk #1 is the first Hulk (and first Grey Hulk), but Hulk #2 is now the first (full) Green Hulk.

The Grey Hulk wasn't a separate character at all, just a different aspect of Banner being in control (and no, I don't know or want to know about any post-PAD garbage that Marvel did).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
229 posts
46 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

For one, the person who posted that a preview of the first panel from the story "seems closer to a cameo than say a preview."

But what does that have anything to do with what you said about it:

2 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

You guys know that comics can be opened and read, right? It's not all about the covers.

I simply don't understand the point your trying to make. Yes, comics can be opened and read. I think most folks know that. (shrug)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,158 posts
11 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

The Grey Hulk wasn't a separate character at all, just a different aspect of Banner being in control (and no, I don't know or want to know about any post-PAD garbage that Marvel did).

lol Hulk #324 was 33 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,343 posts
3 hours ago, valiantman said:

I wish people would stop mentioning DD #115 at all. The date for DD #115 is November 1974. The date for Incredible Hulk #180 is October 1974.

DD #115 happened AFTER Hulk #180.  Daredevil #115 is at BEST just a "2nd appearance ad"... and that's not a thing (unless you're trying to sell one, then it's the greatest thing that has ever happened in the world).

Sorry for any confusion, Claudio. I didn't mean to take away from my main point, which we seem to agree on. I don't have a DD115 or care to; I just remember the brief hype fest for it. I assume the seemingly strange timing vis a vis cover dates has to do with production schedules; DD I think was bi-monthly in that timeframe; timing to precede or even be concurrent with release of the book the ad was promoting was probably a bit challenging/inexact.

Regardless of when it was released, it's not Wolverine's first appearance. I believe we are saying the same thing about house ads.

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
1 1