Is a second printing with a 1st appearance still a first appearance? 0

[Blastaar]

25 minutes ago, Domo Arigato said:

Different question.

I never purchased or read any of these comics because, frankly, this character just looks stoopid to me.

Did these characters during this era EVER pull anything out of a any of those pouches? 

Just more pouches like a Russian nesting doll. 

[Von Cichlid]

On 1/27/2020 at 4:25 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

PS. For those keeping score at home, New Mutants #87 was reprinted in between New Mutants #100 and X-Force #1...over a year after the first print.

That what I was thinking.  I was going to look it up but you beat me to it.  I remember from being a kid at the time that that book came out way later.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, Von Cichlid said:

That what I was thinking.  I was going to look it up but you beat me to it.  I remember from being a kid at the time that that book came out way later.  

What's sad about that book is there are probably 5 times as many of it than the first print.

[Von Cichlid]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

What's sad about that book is there are probably 5 times as many of it than the first print.

At the time that was the hottest, most expensive Marvel comic from the copper age.  It was probably higher than ASM 300 too, but I would have to look in some old Wizard's to be sure.  

[Von Cichlid]

On 1/27/2020 at 5:16 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Because Marvel didn't change cover dates.

 

 

 

And they were inconsistent with indicias, too.

I think he meant why does the CGC label show a cover date of 3/90.

That is an inconsistency on CGC's part.  In the X-Men 248 reprint, for example, they post the reprint date of 6/92 as opposed to 6/89.

[RockMyAmadeus]

11 minutes ago, Von Cichlid said:

At the time that was the hottest, most expensive Marvel comic from the copper age.  It was probably higher than ASM 300 too, but I would have to look in some old Wizard's to be sure.  

Oh, easy. In 1991, nobody cared much about Venom (this is a general statement, people, don't panic. I'm not saying anyone's specific early infatuation with Venom wasn't real.). It was all Cable and Hobgoblin, all the time. New Mutants #87 easily outstripped ASM #300. You could trade NM #87s straight across for ASM #238s. NM #87 topped out at $65-$75, while ASM #300 was $30-$42.

NM #87 was easily the single hottest comic on the market in 1991.

How the mighty have fallen.

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, Von Cichlid said:

I think he meant why does the CGC label show a cover date of 3/90.

Correct...which was answered with the two examples above. New Mutants #87 second printing is dated 3/90, even though it came out a year or so later. 

Most, if not all, of the Joe reprints, for example, are also dated from the original issue, not when the reprint came out:

That book came out 4+ years after the original, but it's still dated "August, 1982."

10 minutes ago, Von Cichlid said:

That is an inconsistency on CGC's part.  In the X-Men 248 reprint, for example, they post the reprint date of 6/92 as opposed to 6/89.

That's not an inconsistency on CGC's part. CGC goes by the indicia...not the cover date, be it original or new. X-Men #248 was an exception to Marvel's practices.

Here's another example: the indicia for the book says "9/90", but the second printing was printed sometime in 1992 (which is made obvious by the Spidey 30th anniversary UPC box art.)

In the case of the older reprints of keys that Marvel was into in 1991-1993, they usually revised the date in the indicia. But for the newer reprints, they kept the indicia, which is why that Hulk #377 3rd print is dated 1/91, when it was printed in 1994.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 hours ago, Blastaar said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which Cable appeared to you first? The top one or the bottom one?

 

 

 

 

 

[Von Cichlid]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Correct...which was answered with the two examples above. New Mutants #87 second printing is dated 3/90, even though it came out a year or so later. 

Most, if not all, of the Joe reprints, for example, are also dated from the original issue, not when the reprint came out:

That book came out 4+ years after the original, but it's still dated "August, 1982."

That's not an inconsistency on CGC's part. CGC goes by the indicia...not the cover date, be it original or new. X-Men #248 was an exception to Marvel's practices.

Here's another example: the indicia for the book says "9/90", but the second printing was printed sometime in 1992 (which is made obvious by the Spidey 30th anniversary UPC box art.)

In the case of the older reprints of keys that Marvel was into in 1991-1993, they usually revised the date in the indicia. But for the newer reprints, they kept the indicia, which is why that Hulk #377 3rd print is dated 1/91, when it was printed in 1994.

OK my mistake.  Shouldn't have blamed CGC.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, Von Cichlid said:

OK my mistake.  Shouldn't have blamed CGC.  

Oh, no worries. Keeping up with second, third, etc. printings starting in the 80s requires a Master's degree. It's ugly.

[kav]

6 hours ago, Domo Arigato said:

Did these characters during this era EVER pull anything out of a any of those pouches? 

Not once did anything ever come out of them stoopid pouches.  Certainly never any SOCKS.

[Hollywood1892]

On 1/27/2020 at 2:19 PM, Blastaar said:

Example:

CGC still labels the second printing of NM #87 as the first appearance of cable. But is it really? 

 

 

Imo 

Yes

It's the second printing of his first appearance 

It's no different than a novel, there can be 100 printings, it is still the same content.

But unlike a novel, it becomes different when other versions ie true believers are printed.

And that's why valuations are placed on it, in some cases 1st prints are more valuable and in some cases lower print runs, variants, virgins are more valuable 

[wilbil]

On 1/27/2020 at 5:07 PM, Number 6 said:

Actually, I think it is the same. 

The novel Gone with the Wind is the fist appearance of Rhett, Scarlet, Wilkes, Mammy and all the other characters associated with that story.  That’s true whether it’s the first printing or the one hundredth printing  

The first printing of the first edition is the first appearance of the novel itself, which includes the first appearance of all those characters. 

I missed this post and noticed it this morning. What I mean when I say not the same as book publishing (not only printing) and using your example Gone With The Wind, or any other book, is what I will call the Copyright page of a published book. This page lists all editions (1st/2nd/3rd etc.) whether a hard cover or paperback, the publishing house, the month and date of the edition publishing and the name of the publishers, and usually but not always Library of Congress control number. I guess I am thinking more along the lines of collecting first editions of books which is a lifelong hobby. There are also many books where a 2nd or later edition is more prized than a first edition because of an added inclusion such as artwork or a missing page, but that is more of an exception than the rule. I can see how comic publishing is different and much more visual, but usually a character first appearance whether by name or drawing is the first edition first printing. The first edition does not always include the first appearance of all characters. There are books where the first edition first printing by a publisher got the name or artwork identification wrong or confused due to human error/editing mistakes, that are corrected in later editions/printing. Value of editions/mistakes/publisher/printing makes the collecting much more fun.

I do agree that the first edition is the first appearance of the novel, but this is not to be confused with the first edition of any character/artwork, or even author. When I say author I am thinking of books where authors collaborated on a later edition/artwork or story line.

I think comic book collecting and identification is more challenging, and adds to the enjoyment, though.

[Iconic1s]

On 1/27/2020 at 5:16 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Because Marvel didn't change cover dates.

DC examples of the same.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think this fifth printing came out a couple years later.

I agree with previous posters and think that these are all still the first appearance in the context of comics books.  Although the later printings aren't the first time in recorded history that the character appeared in print.

I wonder if publishers should change cover dates considering this?  I think a second and later 'printing' is looked at differently by the publisher than a re-print (where they change/add to the cover art or add pages/art, etc.) and that is probably why they don't change the date.  To them, the book still contains the first appearance.

A good example for me is the 2005 MOS 19 reprint that came with the action figure... different cover art and different cover date.  I personally don't count that as a MOS 19 subsequent 'printing.'

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Iconic1s
typo

[Iconic1s]

Subsequent printing...

Although the label says MOS 19 if this were a 'first appearance' type book then I personally don't think it would count as a first appearance in the 'comic book world', although maybe yes in the Gone With the Wind example given above, as it's cover has probably changed a lot over the years.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Iconic1s
clarification

[AndyFish]

Of course it's still the first appearance-- its the first appearance of a particular character in a title regardless of the degree of printing.   

[valiantman]

On 2/2/2020 at 1:33 PM, AndyFish said:

Of course it's still the first appearance-- its the first appearance of a particular character in a title regardless of the degree of printing.   

I think that there's also the argument to be made that comic books are "books" after all, and if you want to read about the first appearance of Harry Potter, you don't need the first printing of the first edition of Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone, you just need to read Harry Potter And The Philosopher's (or Sorceror's) Stone in whatever printing/edition includes all those pages.  Don't go on to Chamber of Secrets until you've read "the first appearance" in the first book (any edition). But don't expect any value in later editions. They're not originals. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by valiantman

[xNerdyThingsx]

On 1/28/2020 at 3:32 PM, Von Cichlid said:

That what I was thinking.  I was going to look it up but you beat me to it.  I remember from being a kid at the time that that book came out way later.  

I’m really confused by this as I was collecting when this book came out. The thing I don’t understand is why UXM 201 isn’t his first appearance as he’s the focus of the storyline (baby). Next, NM87 came after 86 in which he makes an appearance. Cameo philosophy is clearly not my bag. Anyway you slice it, 87 2nd print cam over a year after everything happened which, with CGC logic implies that an Amazing Fantasy 15 reprint is a 1st appearance of spidey which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. 

[xNerdyThingsx]

On 2/4/2020 at 3:46 PM, valiantman said:

I think that there's also the argument to be made that comic books are "books" after all, and if you want to read about the first appearance of Harry Potter, you don't need the first printing of the first edition of Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone, you just need to read Harry Potter And The Philosopher's (or Sorceror's) Stone in whatever printing/edition includes all those pages.  Don't go on to Chamber of Secrets until you've read "the first appearance" in the first book (any edition). But don't expect any value in later editions. They're not originals. 

Fascinating, so CGC should mark Amazing Fantasy 15 reprints done recently as 1st appearance of Spider-Man?

[valiantman]

21 minutes ago, xNerdyThingsx said:

On 2/4/2020 at 5:46 PM, valiantman said:

I think that there's also the argument to be made that comic books are "books" after all, and if you want to read about the first appearance of Harry Potter, you don't need the first printing of the first edition of Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone, you just need to read Harry Potter And The Philosopher's (or Sorceror's) Stone in whatever printing/edition includes all those pages.  Don't go on to Chamber of Secrets until you've read "the first appearance" in the first book (any edition). But don't expect any value in later editions. They're not originals. 

Fascinating, so CGC should mark Amazing Fantasy 15 reprints done recently as 1st appearance of Spider-Man?

"Reprints the 1st appearance of Spider-Man" would be a good notation on the label.