|
|
Post by FiveZero on May 5, 2017 16:11:50 GMT -8
I was looking through eBay and noticed the high asking price for Foom #2 and amazed that it's still being called the "1st Appearance of Wolverine", "Pre-181", or "prototype" of Wolverine. Sold auction pricing looks more reasonable but it still list the books using similar descriptors for the book. As a buyer, I would be pretty pissed if I won an auction that list something that isn't necessarily true. Another book is Ninja High #38 which consistently lists as being Warrior Nun's 1st appearance. I don't think the book is since the character does not appear at all in the book but because there is already a premium on the book, this is being designated as her 1st appearance.
I know there are books out there that are being described as "1st appearance of", or whatever, but aren't or are a stretch to be called that. Even books like Web of Spider-Man #18 which is supposedly the 1st appearance of Venom's hand. It seems that greed will win out over facts, but at what price point do inaccurate facts about a book wind up being taken for the truth?
|
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on May 5, 2017 16:21:50 GMT -8
In some cases "truth" is up to the individual. On another board I read posts from collectors/speculators that consider ads or previews to be first appearances. Personally, I don't. I want to see the character in an actual story. Isn't there an example going all the way back to Batman in an ad prior to Tec #27?
Otherwise I agree that it's misleading particularly to those new to the hobby to describe a prototype as a first appearance and so forth as you mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Siggy's Tar Dust® on May 5, 2017 16:23:42 GMT -8
While I feel anyone can ask whatever price they want for an item, I feel they should at least mention the controversy in their listing. IF the person TRULY believes this to be a 1st app, they wouldn't be lying, but the odds of them being unaware that this is a controversial subject is slim.
Plus, the buyer should be doing some research before shelling out 1st app money.
|
|
|
|
Post by FiveZero on May 5, 2017 16:25:10 GMT -8
I don't think it does this hobby any good if a new collector jumps at a Foom #2, or any other book, thinking it's a 1st appearance/prototype when it has nothing to do with the character.
|
|
|
|
Post by FiveZero on May 5, 2017 16:37:01 GMT -8
While I feel anyone can ask whatever price they want for an item, I feel they should at least mention the controversy in their listing. IF the person TRULY believes this to be a 1st app, they wouldn't be lying, but the odds of them bring unaware that this is a controversial subject is slim. Plus, the buyer should be doing some research before shelling out 1st app money. While I agree the buyer should do some research before shelling out big dollars for 1st appearances, but it seems like there is bad information about some of these first appearances and when you google for 1st appearances, it usually leads to spec sites or wiki sites that may not be accurate. Worst of all is if they search eBay and see multiple listings with similar descriptions in the listing. |
|
slym2none
TCBF Member
Joined: December 2016
Posts: 3,540
|
Post by slym2none on May 5, 2017 16:42:29 GMT -8
I love it when people tell me "I just bought the 1st appearance of Wolverine!" and show me their graded Incredible Hulk 181. I just chuckle inside, politely smile, and say "Good job."  |
|
|
|
Post by FiveZero on May 5, 2017 16:47:27 GMT -8
I love it when people tell me "I just bought the 1st appearance of Wolverine!" and show me their graded Incredible Hulk 181. I just chuckle inside, politely smile, and say "Good job." I think it would be better than to pick up BS 1st appearance book like Foom for several hundred dollars. |
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on May 5, 2017 17:06:06 GMT -8
One problem within the hobby is a lack of consistency over what constitutes a first appearance or even a cameo. I don't know if it's always been like this or when it started exactly. I do remember an OPG where it listed Inc. Hulk #180 as Wolverines first appearance, then it didn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by FiveZero on May 5, 2017 17:18:23 GMT -8
I don't know when they broke out 180-182 to its own line listing but 180 was listed as 1st Appearance (cameo) to it's current 1st Brief Appearance as far back, maybe even further back, as Overstreet Annual Guide #20. Even back then 181 was valued higher than 180 because of it being a full appearance.
|
|
MetalPSI™
TCBF Member
I don't make the internet, I just report it
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 2,742 
|
Post by MetalPSI™ on May 5, 2017 19:04:44 GMT -8
Can't quite remember the debate, but I think Darker Image #1 won out Wizard 1/2 and Maxx #1 for first Maxx appearance. I discussed with the man Sam Kieth himself and he said that Comic Primer #5 was defiantly NOT Maxx's first appearance.
|
|
|
|
Post by FiveZero on May 5, 2017 20:09:40 GMT -8
Can't quite remember the debate, but I think Darker Image #1 won out Wizard 1/2 and Maxx #1 for first Maxx appearance. I discussed with the man Sam Kieth himself and he said that Comic Primer #5 was defiantly NOT Maxx's first appearance. According to the wiki page, Comico Primer #5 is Maxx's first appearance even though CGC list it as Max the Hare's 1st appearance.  People are still picking up the book due to it being Sam Kieth's first work (IDK if that's accurate) but the item description has MAXX on some of the sold listings so people aren't doing their research on it. |
|
MetalPSI™
TCBF Member
I don't make the internet, I just report it
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 2,742
|
Post by MetalPSI™ on May 6, 2017 4:48:53 GMT -8
I'd have to have OS chime in on this, but I'm not sure what Kieth's first work is. I'm sure he told me that as well, but I've forgotten or not remembering correctly, but I'm under the impression it isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Siggy's Tar Dust® on May 6, 2017 8:54:27 GMT -8
Can't quite remember the debate, but I think Darker Image #1 won out Wizard 1/2 and Maxx #1 for first Maxx appearance. I discussed with the man Sam Kieth himself and he said that Comic Primer #5 was defiantly NOT Maxx's first appearance. That's odd. I realize the GCD isn't the last word in information, but CP #5 is his only credited work that year, and Journey #14 is it for 1984. Whatever his first work is, it must have been pretty obscure. |
|
MetalPSI™
TCBF Member
I don't make the internet, I just report it
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 2,742
|
Post by MetalPSI™ on May 6, 2017 13:36:03 GMT -8
Can't quite remember the debate, but I think Darker Image #1 won out Wizard 1/2 and Maxx #1 for first Maxx appearance. I discussed with the man Sam Kieth himself and he said that Comic Primer #5 was defiantly NOT Maxx's first appearance. That's odd. I realize the GCD isn't the last word in information, but CP #5 is his only credited work that year, and Journey #14 is it for 1984. Whatever his first work is, it must have been pretty obscure. I believe his first work was inking Mage in 83-84 |
|
|
|
Post by FiveZero on May 10, 2017 17:55:05 GMT -8
So flashbacks aren't considered an appearance? Trying to think of any book that would show a flashback as a first appearance.
|
|
