|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Feb 26, 2017 11:21:24 GMT -5
Point #4: Don't give me that cameo nonsenseThe biggest reason I've been given over the years as to why #180 is not Wolverine's true first appearance is that it's a cameo. Here we seem to have a faulty conclusion attached to a truth. Wolverine's appearance in #180 is a cameo, as is Galactus' first appearance in FF #48. What seems to have no merit is the notion that a cameo cannot be a first appearance. This is simply not true. A graded copy of Hulk #180 (or FF #48) will state "1st appearance of Wolverine (Galactus) in cameo at end of story." This is accurate. A graded copy of Hulk #181 will state "1st full appearance of Wolverine." Also accurate and IMHO more accurate and informative than "2nd appearance of Wolverine." I believe the main reason we don't see the price disparity between FF #48 and #49 that we do with Hulk #180 and #181 is that FF #48 is the first appearance of the Silver Surfer, a full appearance to boot, with a Galactus cameo as an added bonus. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 26, 2017 11:25:37 GMT -5
Point #4: Don't give me that cameo nonsenseThe biggest reason I've been given over the years as to why #180 is not Wolverine's true first appearance is that it's a cameo. Here we seem to have a faulty conclusion attached to a truth. Wolverine's appearance in #180 is a cameo, as is Galactus' first appearance in FF #48. What seems to have no merit is the notion that a cameo cannot be a first appearance. This is simply not true. I'm with you to a point. Where I'm not is that there is no clear definition in use for the word "cameo". I disagree. It is, quite literally, the second appearance of Wolverine. You could argue it's a more "full" appearance, but it is the second appearance. Agreed, but my point is not the resale value of the book -- it's that people actively looking for Galactus' first appearance go to FF #48. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Feb 26, 2017 12:05:34 GMT -5
[I'm with you to a point. Where I'm not is that there is no clear definition in use for the word "cameo". The 21st edition of Overstreet (1991), which is the earliest example I have on hand, defines "cameo" as "When a character makes a brief appearance in one or two panels." While perhaps not a perfect definition, it demonstrates that there has been a definition for "cameo" specific to comics for some time. Option A: 2nd appearance of Wolverine. Option B: 1st full appearance of Wolverine. I think these are two ways of saying the same thing. Both are certainly true. I feel Option B conveys more information than Option A, with the modifier "full" suggesting the existence of an earlier, though smaller appearance. I definitely see your point and can find no error in your thinking. Perhaps an Option C might be preferable to all: "2nd appearance Wolverine (1st full appearance)." |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 26, 2017 12:07:00 GMT -5
Perhaps an Option C might be preferable to all: "2nd appearance Wolverine (1st full appearance)." That would be my choice, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Feb 26, 2017 12:34:01 GMT -5
Point #4: Don't give me that cameo nonsenseThe biggest reason I've been given over the years as to why #180 is not Wolverine's true first appearance is that it's a cameo. Here we seem to have a faulty conclusion attached to a truth. Wolverine's appearance in #180 is a cameo, as is Galactus' first appearance in FF #48. What seems to have no merit is the notion that a cameo cannot be a first appearance. This is simply not true. A graded copy of Hulk #180 (or FF #48) will state "1st appearance of Wolverine (Galactus) in cameo at end of story." This is accurate. A graded copy of Hulk #181 will state "1st full appearance of Wolverine." Also accurate and IMHO more accurate and informative than "2nd appearance of Wolverine." But it's not accurate! The character appears in a full length shot in #180, in which he speaks and is named. He also speks off-panel on the previous page. How can that not be his first "full" appearance? |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Feb 26, 2017 12:51:07 GMT -5
The character appears in a full length shot in #180, in which he speaks and is named. He also speaks off-panel on the previous page. How can that not be his first "full" appearance? What you have described is a "cameo," in the published, widely-accepted definition of the term. It's not necessarily a perfect definition or the final word on the subject, but it is what we have. "Cameo" is a thing, a descriptive term, nothing more. I think you may be assigning a pejorative or diminishing quality to the word that it is not intended to possess. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 13:12:07 GMT -5
Why is it? I'm sorry, but I just don't see that. What's so important about covers? Namor first appeared in Marvel Comics #1, but did not appear on a cover until #4. Judge Dredd first appeared in 2000 AD #2, in 1977. His first appearance on a cover was in #5. In neither case would the first cover appearance be considered more significant. shaxper pretty much covered it. I don't think in general that a cover appearance is more important. But, and again this is in the context of collecting (as opposed to buying to read), it seems like most collectors are also displayers. In that situation, to borrow your example, I think Marvel Comics #4 and 2000 AD #5 are more desirable. For me, I love Kitty Pryde. But I don't have any desire to own UXM #129, rather #139 was the "key issue" for me. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Feb 26, 2017 14:24:35 GMT -5
Why is it? I'm sorry, but I just don't see that. What's so important about covers? Namor first appeared in Marvel Comics #1, but did not appear on a cover until #4. Judge Dredd first appeared in 2000 AD #2, in 1977. His first appearance on a cover was in #5. In neither case would the first cover appearance be considered more significant. shaxper pretty much covered it. I don't think in general that a cover appearance is more important. But, and again this is in the context of collecting (as opposed to buying to read), it seems like most collectors are also displayers. In that situation, to borrow your example, I think Marvel Comics #4 and 2000 AD #5 are more desirable. For me, I love Kitty Pryde. But I don't have any desire to own UXM #129, rather #139 was the "key issue" for me. I don't personally know any collectors who are displayers. I've never met one who put their comics on display. I certainly wouldn't, as prolonged exposure to light damages them. Every collector I actually know personally keeps them bagged and boxed. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Feb 26, 2017 14:27:19 GMT -5
The character appears in a full length shot in #180, in which he speaks and is named. He also speaks off-panel on the previous page. How can that not be his first "full" appearance? What you have described is a "cameo," in the published, widely-accepted definition of the term. It's not necessarily a perfect definition or the final word on the subject, but it is what we have. "Cameo" is a thing, a descriptive term, nothing more. I think you may be assigning a pejorative or diminishing quality to the word that it is not intended to possess. I'm not saying it's perjorative, just that it doesn't make sense. To me, a cameo is an insignificant, probably non speaking one panel appearance; in #180, Wolverine speaks in two panels, and gets the final splash page. To me, that is a full appearance, not a cameo. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Feb 26, 2017 14:58:07 GMT -5
I'm not saying it's perjorative. To me, a cameo is an insignificant, probably non speaking one panel appearance But you use insignificant, which is a rather negative judgment. Cameo does not equal insignificant. A one-panel cameo in All Star Comics #7 is the first in-story appearance together of Superman and Batman, hardly insignificant. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 26, 2017 15:16:45 GMT -5
I agree 100% 180 is 1st appearance and should be credited as so. The only thing I can think of is those who make such decisions count actual action and part of the whole issue as a 1st appearance. Look at Amazing Spider-Man 299 and 300. 299 is the obvious 1st appearance but 300 gets all the kudos. Again Venom is in issue 300 throughout. It's the only excuse I can come up with.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 26, 2017 15:48:27 GMT -5
My thoughts on the various issues raised in this thread: 1. Wolverine's first appearance is #180. "Full", "cameo", "speaking", "significance/insignificance" designations are immaterial. He shows up fully in #180, as does Galactus in FF #48. If it was just an arm or foot or voice off-panel, that would be a different discussion, but each is seen in their entirety in those earlier issues, which constitutes a full appearance, impact on the story notwithstanding. 2. First cover appearances, at least to me, are immaterial as well. The first appearance of Kitty Pryde is UXM #129, as is Emma Frost's, and as to @needs ' point about Kitty's first cover appearance being UXM #139, that's actually wrong, as she technically shows up on the cover for UXM #131 (she's the female that Kurt is carrying in the lower right corner). While you can't see her face, her body is displayed in full and is actually a key component of the cover action.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Feb 26, 2017 16:12:17 GMT -5
Just to muddy the waters a little, in my indexing work I use "cameo" to mean an appearance of that character not otherwise part of the narrative, as in a photograph or painting, in flashback to a previous story, or in the minds' eye of another character. It's a narrower use of the term than, say, the Overstreet Guide prefers but I find its precision useful in discussions like this. By that standard, Wolverine's appearance in Hulk #180 is not a cameo, nor are Superman and Batman's in All-Star #7, nor the one-panel appearances of Dracula, Man-Thing, and Adam Warlock in Avengers #118. Cei-U! You're welcome!  |
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Feb 26, 2017 16:28:38 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with the way grading companies like CGC state the appearance. As PM stated, they note it as a first appearance and that it is a cameo. Wolverine comes in at the very end and has nothing to do with that plot line other than to set up the next story (yes, they mention sending him in earlier in the story but I still don't think that plays a major factor in the battle happening between Wendigo and Hulk). #181 is his first full appearance and I can see why it gets the love. You have him on the cover, fighting Hulk with Wendigo in the background. It is just a beautiful, action packed cover.
So should that affect the value? I think so. Let's say you are talking about some famous painter. Now maybe their first painting fetches a pretty piece of coin or the first time they use a certain technique in their art. But a painting that people generally like more always fetches more. Something classic, timeless and identifiable. This is why people put all the value on Hulk #181. And yes, you may have some people call it a first appearance (which it is) but I think simply correcting them that it is his first full appearance is all that needs to be said. As for changing the value or demand for #181...it won't happen. And I don't think it should. Superior cover, superior story (even if it is not accurate to the Wolverine we know today...I mean, which first appearance really still holds up to the original portrayal) and its a full issue.
Now why is this not the case for FF #48? Well, his name is on the cover so you know he is coming. Also a number of elements in the story are central to setting up his arrival. While it is just a one page appearance at the end, I feel that story does more and is more of a first true appearance. Do people seek Hulk #181 without giving #180 a look? I don't think so but I think they lean towards #181 more so because of that cover and (assuming they know comics) knowing that he just pops up at the end of the previous story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 26, 2017 17:03:14 GMT -5
Just to muddy the waters a little, in my indexing work I use "cameo" to mean an appearance of that character not otherwise part of the narrative, as in a photograph or painting, in flashback to a previous story, or in the minds' eye of another character. It's a narrower use of the term than, say, the Overstreet Guide prefers but I find its precision useful in discussions like this. By that standard, Wolverine's appearance in Hulk #180 is not a cameo, nor are Superman and Batman's in All-Star #7, nor the one-panel appearances of Dracula, Man-Thing, and Adam Warlock in Avengers #118. Cei-U! You're welcome! What do you think about Darkseid's first appearance in Jimmy Olsen # 134. The panel underneath is his entire appearance in that issue.  |
|
