You cannot have more than one first appearance. That's a logical impossibility. The first appearance of a character is simply the first time that character appears in a comic book. Period. The first appearance of a character can be a cameo (a brief 1 or 2 panel appearance), as we see in Hulk #180 with Wolverine - or it can be a full appearance, as we see with Harpy's first appearance in Hulk #168 in which she is used throughout the story. Michael Storm is wrong. A cameo does not imply a known character - it can be a known or an unknown character. The criteria for a cameo is that it is merely a brief appearance. In most cases in comics, a cameo tends to be a one panel appearance, often as a cliff hanger at the end of the story to entice people to pick up the next issue and find out who the new character is. You can differentiate between a 1st cameo appearance and 1st full appearance as far as to indicate a specific thing - a 1st cameo introduces the appearance of a character but generally does not tell us much or anything about that character, nor does that character have much interaction in the story. If anything it's minimal interaction - for example, the 2nd from last panel may show a wall exploding in, and on the final panel we see a character who may say: "I'm Explosion Man". But we learn almost nothing about the character nor does he interact with the story as a whole. The cameo is a brief scene of a singly panel or perhaps a couple of panels. A 1st full appearance is the first time the character actually interacts with other characters and within the story in a significant way beyond simply being presented as an introduction. So the difference between cameo and full appearance is separate from actual 1st appearance. There is only ONE 1st appearance, and by definition that is the issue in which a character is first seen. Cameo vs full is simply a way of describing how much interaction a character has during his first appearance and second appearance. Anyone who considers Hulk #181 to be the 1st appearance of Wolverine simply does not know what he's talking about.
@@Vintage-Bob Cameo DOES mean a brief appearance of someone well known: "A cameo appearance, also called a cameo role and often shortened to just cameo, is a brief guest appearance of a well-known person or character in a work of the performing arts." Wikipedia
First FULL appearance is hulk 180. We get a full body image with a name and the character speaking. A "cameo" could be part of the character appears (arm, leg, obscured body). Hulk 181 is first cover appearance. The reason why people like that book more is because Wolverine is on the cover and appears throughout the book. Make no mistake, this is his 2nd appearance. Any argument calling hulk 180 a "cameo" is not rooted in logic. The argument for that fact falls apart very quickly. The creators themselves call 180 as first appearance, marvel cards from the 90's call 180 as first appearance. 180 is the first appearance. This is a definitive fact, regardless to what the "market" dictates.
Respectfully, you are 100% not making a statement rooted in facts. On the contrary, you are taking words and making up definitions for them that are not real. Nowhere is there any definition that defines a cameo as showing a body part. If you wish to believe this as true, try to submit something to Oxford or Webster for them to change the centuries old definition of the word. To the rest of your comment, I never negate those issues in the video. But like I said, 180 is the first ever appearance, but the industry sees it as a cameo (brief). 181 is the second ever appearance, but the industry also sees it as the first FULL appearance, and all of these happen at the same time and are all correct. A "FULL" appearance does not mean seeing the body from head to toe. It refers to the character being "FULLY" involved the story of that specific issue. Those are facts, based on industry standard and precedent, regardless how you personally feel about it. And if you want to change it? Sign a petition. I'll gladly add my name to it.
The arguing over whether this or that is the REAL first appearance is pointless. There's no prize for being the "official first appearance". It's just another thing for comic book nerds to argue over with each other.
@@corderoismael23 The price of books is determined by desirability and supply, not by labels. If everyone all of a sudden agreed that Hulk 180 is the "true" first appearance, it would mean nothing because people would still want 181. There's no law of physics that says the book with the true first appearance of a character is more valuable than the second appearance. So... no.
CGC said "181 is FA" bc the cover is more marketable. It wasnt "the industry"...it was money that declared that trash. That's what the modern designation of "FA" declared. It's a load of bantha fodder. I refuse to argue....it's for the Stackers who paid out the wahzoo to complain otherwise. Have at it! 180...is FA.
CGC isn’t the ‘industry,’ so you’re arguing the wrong argument to me. And like I said in the video, nobody is saying that 180 isn’t the first ever appearance of Wolverine.
@@batdadwholaughs Thanks for adding on, but I'm not even understanding what your last comment is implying. CGC labels their books wrong all the time, and I have no idea to care why, or if it's because someone is influencing them. So whatever your opinion is on CGC? You might be right. That has nothing to do with this conversation, though, as CGC does not dictate labels.
It's ridiculous that people have such a need to quantify, define or qualify things so small as when is the first time you saw a character or when is the first time that character has dialogue.
Love it brother. I also look at what the advertising was pointing to. All of the books promoting Wolverine were for Hulk 181. To me a cameo is a glorified advertisement for the first full appearance! Much love brother.
The first appearance is the cameo. There are first fuller appearances as well. Hell Arisen 3 is not Punchlines first full appearance it's her second cameo in reality. The early appearances count well. For Superman in the golden age, even 5th appearance matters. The value is only supply and demand. The value is determined by the choice to buy at a price or not to. The purchaser decides whether they buy or not. So whether we value the cameo more or the first full appearance more doesn't matter. It is only supply and demand.
The difference between the 2 was clear as day before this age where people still question what a woman is. A "First appearance" is the very first time you see the character A "Cameo appearance" is an established character popping in for a few frames. See, this was before cross overs where the biggest cash grab since poorly rebooting a cult classic movie. Then the late 80's hit and every other book had cameo appearances to set up for the crossover
@@JernosComicsPopCulture Respectfully, "stated in the video" doesn't mean a squirt of piss to me, and just because you wasted 15 minutes of your life sewing more confusion in an already autistically confused society doesn't change definitions that have been clear cut for centuries. The redefining of terminologies and challenging established norms is what this era's about, like how men can give birth. Its a miniscule argument that's not even worth arguing but its all you kids have nowadays because "muh feewins". I have MY definitions and you can stick with yours. Good day sir...
The first time a character appears in print is the first appearance, end of story. Marvel Age had many first appearances such as Darkhawk, Beta Ray Bill, Longshot, X-Force, Sleepwalker, and others. Yes, all first appearances. Rust 1 is the first appearance of Spawn in a comic book. You can get even more in the weeds where the true first appearance of many characters are in comic book distribution mags like Diamond's Previews, and maybe in comic fanzines, Wizard, etc.
Three things: First, thank you for being such a dedicated supporter of the channel! Second, to your first sentence: you saying it is the end of story is merely your opinion. You have the right to that opinion, but that's all it is. The industry disagrees with you, and whether you like that or not, that's reality. And lastly, characters showing up in distribution mags isn't a first appearance in a comic book, because they aren't comics. It is their first appearance in "print" though.
@@JernosComicsPopCulture Oh, I just love that you tell it like it is in your own special way and you are not a phony. Your channel will grow with you doing what you are doing. Let's get you to 100,000!! As to "first appearance" I keep it simple and factual. I'm leaving out the qualifiers such as "cameo", "first full", "in comic books"...I'm just sticking to "first appearance". The first appearance of Clint Eastwood on screen was in Revenge of the Creature (from the Black Lagoon). He made an uncredited cameo. That's his first appearance on film..
@@comicbookchris3509 I really do agree here, Chris. I think keeping it simple would solve so many issues. lol. But unfortunately, I don't make the rules. I appreciate the support and maybe one day I can get there, but I've already lost 3 subscribers on this video lol.
@@JernosComicsPopCulture It seems like your arguments circle back to the industry thinks this so what you think is wrong. now let's flip that what I think is correct and what the industry thinks is wrong. do you not see how this is a cyclical argument and just because of herd mentality that does not make the majority correct it just makes it easier to agree with.
@@NPCISREAL Absolutely not, and I addressed this in the video. YOUR opinion doesn't change what the industry has set forward. If you think it's wrong, then you have the right to think that. Let me use a very extreme example. Just over 150 years ago, slavery was legal. If one thought it to be wrong, it didn't change the fact that our government thought it to be right. See what I'm saying? You can say the industry is wrong for whatever reason, but even if you think it's wrong, the context in which they use these terms is not grammatically or linguistically wrong, and saying this isn't a matter of opinion.
No matter the label, the market dictates the value. I suppose 181 will alway be more valuable. But as far as labels go, there’s no coherent argument to be made where 180 isn’t Wolverine’s legit first appearance. First appearances like Venom (ASM 298) or Damien Wayne (Batman 655) have a more interesting debate due to partial views of the characters.
It depends on what comics you are selling because key issues are not rare. You make up a reason why a comic is important to talk a dumb rich kid into wasting their money, that's how key issues are determined.
Hulk 180 is Wolverines first appearance period. Whatever comic a character first ever appears in is a first appearance. For whatever reason the culture recognizes 181 as the first. Doesn’t make sense but that’s the one everyone wants which explains why everyone finds a why to justify it as the first.
I agree with you pretty much, and don't get upset at asking me this, but did you actually watch the video? Hulk 181 is a different "FIRST." Hulk 181 is not Wolverine's first appearance, it's his first FULL appearance. Completely different things, and no one is denying that Hulk 180 ISN'T his first overall appearance.
With the way Hulk 180 & 181 are currently viewed on the market...we can luckily say that we have two key issues instead of one. Which in turn will make one more easier to obtain than the other if a collector is on a limited budget. Great video Chris!
For me the first appearance is the first time that character went from someone’s head to a page. Anything after that is just milestones. First full appearance, first full series, first cover appearance, etc but that’s just my opinion which isn’t worth much lol
Man, 181 has never been his 1st appearance. I saw Logan down at the Circle K a week before 181 came out. Furry jag was getting a cherry slush, bag of Funyuns, and some scratchers.
Hulk 180 is wolverines first appearance; I'm lucky enough to have one. I actually bought it because thay . I also in no way coul afford a 181 BUT i know why book is way more money. That's an iconic cover and pne of the top ten best covers in all of comics. I do have the facsimile 181 and true belivers but this argument needs to end. Just happy this character exists and buy one or buy both. Love your comic collection.
The industry can call it what they want, or even those who follow them may call it as they wish. A sweet potato however, is not a "yam;" albeit, many call it & sell it as sweet yams. The English language is rather arbitrary at times when it comes to definition & pronunciation. & the market, well, it's the market. One day it'll be H180 selling as the 1st appearance.
It's simply how we use the words and the context they are in that matters. The "market" doesn't determine labels, it simply determines value. Two completely different things. Labels influence value in the end, of course. But the market (consumers) do not decide for the industry. They can decide for themselves and live by that opinion, and that's perfectly fine.
The whole argument is silly to me - if you've been into comic collection for more than a week you probably know the story on Wolverine's first app. but what difference does it really make? Hulk 181 is more desirable, has that cool cover, and gets all the collector love. If you feel 180 is the one and only first appearance, then you should be stoked to be able to get his first appearance for a better price than that overpriced 2nd appearance 🙂 FWIW - I totally agree with the contextual arguments being made here. The way I've been able to reconcile the whole 1st vs. Cameo is pretty similar to what Vintage-Bob mentioned - if the Character has anything to do with the story in that book, interacts with others, etc. then it is a full appearance. If its just a cool splash page at the back of the book, its basically an advertisement for the next issue.
i just think in the 90s more people had copies of 181 so they decided it was the first appearance...i believe the creator said that 180 is the first appearance and by definition 180 is the first appearance of wolverine full...hes not in the shadows...its not logan in a bar saying "hey bub"...its a full picture of him in his costume with his name being introduced....i think they made as plain as they could have
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Two things. One, actually, in the 90s, many publications (including skybox when doing the licensed Marvel trading cards) declared 180 as Wolverine's first appearance, without any other context. Secondly, according to industry standard and precedent, a "FULL" appearance has NOTHING to do with how much of the character's body we see on one or two panels. A first "FULL" appearance means that the character shows up FULLY in the entire issue for the first time. This isn't an opinion, this is industry fact.
Still just semantics. The money is the money book because of how important the character is to the story and the appearance on the cover in most cases. UXM266 is a Gambit story, he's also on the cover. XMA14 isn't a Gambit story, he's not on the cover. Same with IH181 and IH180.
I think Mike Bunn is right. I don't think it matters what "the industry" says is a "first" when we know what a first actually is. Some old dealers had an excess of hulk 181's so now we're all supposed to agree to this revisionist history? And that's what it really is, a matter of history. Namely, character history & that has significance to fans, so it's not a pedantic point to argue. I do not understand what mental gymnastics you had to go through to look at the panel of wolverine, appearing fully in 180, and then say he appears fully in 181 in response. You can't make it make sense.
This is all in mutual respect, but I'm going to challenge you. First off, you state, "we know 180 is the first." First what? First time someone went to the bathroom? I really feel like you missed everything that I said in the video. 180 and 181 are both firsts, but different firsts. A first appearance, and a first FULL appearance. Two different things, both firsts. This also isn't revisionist history, whatsoever. The history and information is there to find if you do the work. Understanding these terms isn't mental gymnastics; trying so hard to fight against them is. Again: NO ONE is saying that Hulk 180 ISN'T the first appearance of wolverine, they are simply adding context to it. Lastly, the market (consumers) dictate value, not labels. The only thing that decides labels is the industry, no matter if we like it or not. Now labels can influence market perception, sure, but the market does not create, invent, or assign labels. Again, if it was up to me, I would change the words of the labels or get rid of the sub-titles just to make these head aches go away, but I don't get to decide that.
@@JernosComicsPopCulture I think first appearance is implied here, but yeah, I'll go a step further and say 180 is the first full appearance. You see the picture of Wolverine in 180, that is a full appearance. The only way you can define 181 as a first full appearance is through a label, which has no clear cut definition it follows. If we were to define a full first appearance, hulk 180 would check every box needed unless the contingency was that it needed to be the first full story of a character. No one defines a first full appearance as such otherwise, so that could not be the definition we go by in this instance. Given that I think we can say Hulk 180 is mislabeled by the industry & I don't see any points to the contrary, aside from "that's the industry label" & that's not very compelling.
@@poing333 See I agree with your logic about how to use FULL, but you're still wrong, according to what the industry has laid forward. Contrary to what you are saying, yes, the industry (for decades now) has made it clear that a FULL appearance has NOTHING to do with how much of the body we see on a panel or two. According to industry standard and precedent, a FULL appearance refers to how fully the character is involved in the story throughout the specific issues. This is not something that only pertains to Wolverine. It's industry wide. And this is where your take on how FULL SHOULD be used, is merely an opinion, and doesn't change how the industry uses the term. Now, again, I actually agree with you that FULL SHOULDN'T be used in relationship to how much the character is within the story. I do think a better label would be "First FULL story." But again, that's MY opinion. What is contrary to you saying 180 is mislabled is basically every cameo and full appearance that is out there, and that's in the hundreds, if not thousands. I hope this clarifies things. Again, I agree that there are better words to use and terms to use for these labels to make it less confusing, but unfortunately, the industry decided, not us.
@@JernosComicsPopCulture Oh, I didn't know that was the standard. I've been operating under a different understanding but I can acknowledge that is a fine and consistent definition. Thanks for taking the time to write this out, this is how I'll be defining and explaining first full appearances going forward.
@@poing333 Thanks for listening with an open mind, and I think this is one area where people get lost. This IS how a FULL appearance is defined based on industry precedent. Once people accept this and understanding this, I understand the desire to still want to use different terms.
Am I wrong here, but didn’t Overstreet used to list #180 as first appearance and then it accidentally got changed? I thought I remember reading that somewhere.
The incident you are speaking of is irrelevent. But, Hulk 180 was coined simply as Wolverine's "first app" in multiple publications for a long time. BUT, that is not incorrect, it just withholds further context. When we add further context of cameo to 180, and first full app to 181, it does NOT change the fact that Hulk 180 is Wolverine's overall 1st ever appearance.
This topic gets comic fans foaming at the mouth when it comes up on IG. I see it this way. They're just following what was already established in television terminology. If a character shows up briefly in an episode but doesn't actually do anything until the next episode, it's a cameo. I'm perfectly fine with cameo being utilized in this way. And I get why collectors get touchy about it, they want their Hulk 180s to jump in value. And hey, I think that book should be worth much more. But until we do something about it - like start a petition, as you suggest - nothing will be done about it. Sorry for ranting, my brother. Much love.
Very entertaining posting Thank you. For what it's worth, I would much rather have hulk 180 because this is the first time that we actually see wolverine
I get what he's trying to say but it's almost like he's fighting the wrong battle. No one is arguing his point really. What you're saying is that there's a first cameo appearance and a first full appearance. He's just arguing that there can only be one first appearance. Which hes right, but so are you. There's a first Appearance Cameo appearance Full appearance. All of those can be said to be the first. It's like arguing about this, Imagine I say "Jacques is my first french friend". And someone says, you're wrong. Sophie is your first friend. Technically Sophie was your first friend but you're not talking about that. You're talking about your first FRENCH friend. And that's the same here It's not about first appearance, people are talking about First CAMEO appearance and first FULL appearance, which are two different things. Anyway sorry this comment is sloppy lol I think that guy was pretty rude to you and didn't even comprehend that you were agreeing with him. He was too focused on trying to be right and trying to prove you wrong when at the end of the day he was missing the whole actual arguement imo.
Why are you doing this again. You're killing me Jerno. Full is full, cameo is cameo. It's the public directing the narrative regardless of whether it's accurate or not.
You cannot have more than one first appearance. That's a logical impossibility. The first appearance of a character is simply the first time that character appears in a comic book. Period. The first appearance of a character can be a cameo (a brief 1 or 2 panel appearance), as we see in Hulk #180 with Wolverine - or it can be a full appearance, as we see with Harpy's first appearance in Hulk #168 in which she is used throughout the story. Michael Storm is wrong. A cameo does not imply a known character - it can be a known or an unknown character. The criteria for a cameo is that it is merely a brief appearance. In most cases in comics, a cameo tends to be a one panel appearance, often as a cliff hanger at the end of the story to entice people to pick up the next issue and find out who the new character is.
You can differentiate between a 1st cameo appearance and 1st full appearance as far as to indicate a specific thing - a 1st cameo introduces the appearance of a character but generally does not tell us much or anything about that character, nor does that character have much interaction in the story. If anything it's minimal interaction - for example, the 2nd from last panel may show a wall exploding in, and on the final panel we see a character who may say: "I'm Explosion Man". But we learn almost nothing about the character nor does he interact with the story as a whole. The cameo is a brief scene of a singly panel or perhaps a couple of panels.
A 1st full appearance is the first time the character actually interacts with other characters and within the story in a significant way beyond simply being presented as an introduction.
So the difference between cameo and full appearance is separate from actual 1st appearance. There is only ONE 1st appearance, and by definition that is the issue in which a character is first seen. Cameo vs full is simply a way of describing how much interaction a character has during his first appearance and second appearance. Anyone who considers Hulk #181 to be the 1st appearance of Wolverine simply does not know what he's talking about.
THHHAAAANNKKKK YOUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!
@@JernosComicsPopCulture You're very welcome. I've been reading Marvel since the mid-60s so I've heard all the various arguments.
@@Vintage-Bob Cameo DOES mean a brief appearance of someone well known:
"A cameo appearance, also called a cameo role and often shortened to just cameo, is a brief guest appearance of a well-known person or character in a work of the performing arts." Wikipedia
@@DocReasonable That's what I just said.
@@Vintage-Bob No, you said the opposite: "A cameo does not imply a known character - it can be a known or an unknown character."
First FULL appearance is hulk 180. We get a full body image with a name and the character speaking. A "cameo" could be part of the character appears (arm, leg, obscured body). Hulk 181 is first cover appearance. The reason why people like that book more is because Wolverine is on the cover and appears throughout the book. Make no mistake, this is his 2nd appearance. Any argument calling hulk 180 a "cameo" is not rooted in logic. The argument for that fact falls apart very quickly. The creators themselves call 180 as first appearance, marvel cards from the 90's call 180 as first appearance. 180 is the first appearance. This is a definitive fact, regardless to what the "market" dictates.
Respectfully, you are 100% not making a statement rooted in facts. On the contrary, you are taking words and making up definitions for them that are not real. Nowhere is there any definition that defines a cameo as showing a body part. If you wish to believe this as true, try to submit something to Oxford or Webster for them to change the centuries old definition of the word.
To the rest of your comment, I never negate those issues in the video. But like I said, 180 is the first ever appearance, but the industry sees it as a cameo (brief). 181 is the second ever appearance, but the industry also sees it as the first FULL appearance, and all of these happen at the same time and are all correct. A "FULL" appearance does not mean seeing the body from head to toe. It refers to the character being "FULLY" involved the story of that specific issue. Those are facts, based on industry standard and precedent, regardless how you personally feel about it. And if you want to change it? Sign a petition. I'll gladly add my name to it.
I’ll gladly trade my Hulk 180 and X-Men annual #14 for Hulk 181 and Uncanny X-Men 266.
Ask your landlord if he wants a 'cameo payment' or a 'full payment' for rent next month. :)
lolll
Ty for this. I needed the laugh.
Chris, you're a riot. Answering that poster while filming. 😂
🤣🤣
This is a moot argument because the market dictates what the book is. Not any one collector.
Market dictates value, not labels.
i agree. this cameo bs is awful. but i kinda love it too. more for us collectors to collect.
To be fair, the first appearance of Wolverine was when John Romita initially sketched him out on a piece of paper.
lol That's what it's first appearance in a "comic."
The arguing over whether this or that is the REAL first appearance is pointless. There's no prize for being the "official first appearance". It's just another thing for comic book nerds to argue over with each other.
Well there is not an actual prize but a huge difference in profit from one book to another. So it's easy to see why people make a big deal of this.
@@corderoismael23 The price of books is determined by desirability and supply, not by labels. If everyone all of a sudden agreed that Hulk 180 is the "true" first appearance, it would mean nothing because people would still want 181. There's no law of physics that says the book with the true first appearance of a character is more valuable than the second appearance. So... no.
@@DeusExAstra Exactly 100%.
CGC said "181 is FA" bc the cover is more marketable. It wasnt "the industry"...it was money that declared that trash. That's what the modern designation of "FA" declared. It's a load of bantha fodder. I refuse to argue....it's for the Stackers who paid out the wahzoo to complain otherwise. Have at it! 180...is FA.
CGC isn’t the ‘industry,’ so you’re arguing the wrong argument to me. And like I said in the video, nobody is saying that 180 isn’t the first ever appearance of Wolverine.
@@JernosComicsPopCulture lol. Sure....how much money influences these declarations. Your missing modern America carry on, Jerno.
@@batdadwholaughs Thanks for adding on, but I'm not even understanding what your last comment is implying. CGC labels their books wrong all the time, and I have no idea to care why, or if it's because someone is influencing them. So whatever your opinion is on CGC? You might be right. That has nothing to do with this conversation, though, as CGC does not dictate labels.
Anyone who wants to own the 'first Wolverine story' needs to buy Hulk #180, 181 and 182.
Get 10% off your BCW Supply order when you use the code JERNOS when you purchase from their website here: www.bcwsupplies.com/?acc=Jernos
Avengers #2 = first full appearance of the team (in #1 they only appear as 'The Avengers' in the very last panel when the group is formed). 🤔
It's ridiculous that people have such a need to quantify, define or qualify things so small as when is the first time you saw a character or when is the first time that character has dialogue.
Love it brother. I also look at what the advertising was pointing to. All of the books promoting Wolverine were for Hulk 181. To me a cameo is a glorified advertisement for the first full appearance! Much love brother.
Great perspective!! Thanks, Alex!
The first appearance is the cameo. There are first fuller appearances as well. Hell Arisen 3 is not Punchlines first full appearance it's her second cameo in reality. The early appearances count well. For Superman in the golden age, even 5th appearance matters. The value is only supply and demand. The value is determined by the choice to buy at a price or not to. The purchaser decides whether they buy or not. So whether we value the cameo more or the first full appearance more doesn't matter. It is only supply and demand.
👊🏻
This is so sad to me. Mine sword I shall die upon…
The difference between the 2 was clear as day before this age where people still question what a woman is.
A "First appearance" is the very first time you see the character
A "Cameo appearance" is an established character popping in for a few frames.
See, this was before cross overs where the biggest cash grab since poorly rebooting a cult classic movie. Then the late 80's hit and every other book had cameo appearances to set up for the crossover
Respectfully, as stated in the video, your definition for cameo in context to a comic book is inaccurate.
@@JernosComicsPopCulture Respectfully, "stated in the video" doesn't mean a squirt of piss to me, and just because you wasted 15 minutes of your life sewing more confusion in an already autistically confused society doesn't change definitions that have been clear cut for centuries.
The redefining of terminologies and challenging established norms is what this era's about, like how men can give birth. Its a miniscule argument that's not even worth arguing but its all you kids have nowadays because "muh feewins".
I have MY definitions and you can stick with yours.
Good day sir...
Amazing how many people can't understand and comprehend the English language.
The first time a character appears in print is the first appearance, end of story. Marvel Age had many first appearances such as Darkhawk, Beta Ray Bill, Longshot, X-Force, Sleepwalker, and others. Yes, all first appearances. Rust 1 is the first appearance of Spawn in a comic book. You can get even more in the weeds where the true first appearance of many characters are in comic book distribution mags like Diamond's Previews, and maybe in comic fanzines, Wizard, etc.
Three things: First, thank you for being such a dedicated supporter of the channel!
Second, to your first sentence: you saying it is the end of story is merely your opinion. You have the right to that opinion, but that's all it is. The industry disagrees with you, and whether you like that or not, that's reality.
And lastly, characters showing up in distribution mags isn't a first appearance in a comic book, because they aren't comics. It is their first appearance in "print" though.
@@JernosComicsPopCulture Oh, I just love that you tell it like it is in your own special way and you are not a phony. Your channel will grow with you doing what you are doing. Let's get you to 100,000!! As to "first appearance" I keep it simple and factual. I'm leaving out the qualifiers such as "cameo", "first full", "in comic books"...I'm just sticking to "first appearance". The first appearance of Clint Eastwood on screen was in Revenge of the Creature (from the Black Lagoon). He made an uncredited cameo. That's his first appearance on film..
@@comicbookchris3509 I really do agree here, Chris. I think keeping it simple would solve so many issues. lol. But unfortunately, I don't make the rules. I appreciate the support and maybe one day I can get there, but I've already lost 3 subscribers on this video lol.
@@JernosComicsPopCulture It seems like your arguments circle back to the industry thinks this so what you think is wrong. now let's flip that what I think is correct and what the industry thinks is wrong. do you not see how this is a cyclical argument and just because of herd mentality that does not make the majority correct it just makes it easier to agree with.
@@NPCISREAL Absolutely not, and I addressed this in the video. YOUR opinion doesn't change what the industry has set forward. If you think it's wrong, then you have the right to think that. Let me use a very extreme example. Just over 150 years ago, slavery was legal. If one thought it to be wrong, it didn't change the fact that our government thought it to be right. See what I'm saying? You can say the industry is wrong for whatever reason, but even if you think it's wrong, the context in which they use these terms is not grammatically or linguistically wrong, and saying this isn't a matter of opinion.
No matter the label, the market dictates the value. I suppose 181 will alway be more valuable. But as far as labels go, there’s no coherent argument to be made where 180 isn’t Wolverine’s legit first appearance. First appearances like Venom (ASM 298) or Damien Wayne (Batman 655) have a more interesting debate due to partial views of the characters.
@@TheUnchosenOnesPodcast indeed!
It depends on what comics you are selling because key issues are not rare. You make up a reason why a comic is important to talk a dumb rich kid into wasting their money, that's how key issues are determined.
We will respectfully disagree.
Hulk 180 is Wolverines first appearance period. Whatever comic a character first ever appears in is a first appearance. For whatever reason the culture recognizes 181 as the first. Doesn’t make sense but that’s the one everyone wants which explains why everyone finds a why to justify it as the first.
I agree with you pretty much, and don't get upset at asking me this, but did you actually watch the video? Hulk 181 is a different "FIRST." Hulk 181 is not Wolverine's first appearance, it's his first FULL appearance. Completely different things, and no one is denying that Hulk 180 ISN'T his first overall appearance.
@@JernosComicsPopCulture Not upset and definitely agree with you.
No continue this conservation lol
lol I love your lone wolf perspective!
Well, actually, many people might agree with you, but I just can't lol.
With the way Hulk 180 & 181 are currently viewed on the market...we can luckily say that we have two key issues instead of one. Which in turn will make one more easier to obtain than the other if a collector is on a limited budget. Great video Chris!
What a great way to look at it! :)
To hardcore Wolverine collectors, Thor 229 is the first appearance, so you're all wrong. 😜
For me the first appearance is the first time that character went from someone’s head to a page. Anything after that is just milestones. First full appearance, first full series, first cover appearance, etc but that’s just my opinion which isn’t worth much lol
That opinion pretty much follows industry standards.
Man, 181 has never been his 1st appearance. I saw Logan down at the Circle K a week before 181 came out. Furry jag was getting a cherry slush, bag of Funyuns, and some scratchers.
🤣🤣
Hulk 180 is wolverines first appearance; I'm lucky enough to have one. I actually bought it because thay . I also in no way coul afford a 181 BUT i know why book is way more money. That's an iconic cover and pne of the top ten best covers in all of comics. I do have the facsimile 181 and true belivers but this argument needs to end. Just happy this character exists and buy one or buy both. Love your comic collection.
The industry can call it what they want, or even those who follow them may call it as they wish. A sweet potato however, is not a "yam;" albeit, many call it & sell it as sweet yams. The English language is rather arbitrary at times when it comes to definition & pronunciation. & the market, well, it's the market. One day it'll be H180 selling as the 1st appearance.
It's simply how we use the words and the context they are in that matters. The "market" doesn't determine labels, it simply determines value. Two completely different things. Labels influence value in the end, of course. But the market (consumers) do not decide for the industry. They can decide for themselves and live by that opinion, and that's perfectly fine.
Foom should be the cameo appearance
for me personally there is no debate......i have high grades of 180 and 181
The whole argument is silly to me - if you've been into comic collection for more than a week you probably know the story on Wolverine's first app. but what difference does it really make? Hulk 181 is more desirable, has that cool cover, and gets all the collector love. If you feel 180 is the one and only first appearance, then you should be stoked to be able to get his first appearance for a better price than that overpriced 2nd appearance 🙂
FWIW - I totally agree with the contextual arguments being made here. The way I've been able to reconcile the whole 1st vs. Cameo is pretty similar to what Vintage-Bob mentioned - if the Character has anything to do with the story in that book, interacts with others, etc. then it is a full appearance. If its just a cool splash page at the back of the book, its basically an advertisement for the next issue.
i just think in the 90s more people had copies of 181 so they decided it was the first appearance...i believe the creator said that 180 is the first appearance and by definition 180 is the first appearance of wolverine full...hes not in the shadows...its not logan in a bar saying "hey bub"...its a full picture of him in his costume with his name being introduced....i think they made as plain as they could have
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Two things. One, actually, in the 90s, many publications (including skybox when doing the licensed Marvel trading cards) declared 180 as Wolverine's first appearance, without any other context.
Secondly, according to industry standard and precedent, a "FULL" appearance has NOTHING to do with how much of the character's body we see on one or two panels. A first "FULL" appearance means that the character shows up FULLY in the entire issue for the first time. This isn't an opinion, this is industry fact.
Still just semantics. The money is the money book because of how important the character is to the story and the appearance on the cover in most cases. UXM266 is a Gambit story, he's also on the cover. XMA14 isn't a Gambit story, he's not on the cover. Same with IH181 and IH180.
And everything you just said here explains why the industry created all these contextual side labels.
I have Hulk #180
I think Mike Bunn is right. I don't think it matters what "the industry" says is a "first" when we know what a first actually is. Some old dealers had an excess of hulk 181's so now we're all supposed to agree to this revisionist history? And that's what it really is, a matter of history. Namely, character history & that has significance to fans, so it's not a pedantic point to argue.
I do not understand what mental gymnastics you had to go through to look at the panel of wolverine, appearing fully in 180, and then say he appears fully in 181 in response. You can't make it make sense.
This is all in mutual respect, but I'm going to challenge you. First off, you state, "we know 180 is the first." First what? First time someone went to the bathroom? I really feel like you missed everything that I said in the video. 180 and 181 are both firsts, but different firsts. A first appearance, and a first FULL appearance. Two different things, both firsts.
This also isn't revisionist history, whatsoever. The history and information is there to find if you do the work. Understanding these terms isn't mental gymnastics; trying so hard to fight against them is. Again: NO ONE is saying that Hulk 180 ISN'T the first appearance of wolverine, they are simply adding context to it.
Lastly, the market (consumers) dictate value, not labels. The only thing that decides labels is the industry, no matter if we like it or not. Now labels can influence market perception, sure, but the market does not create, invent, or assign labels. Again, if it was up to me, I would change the words of the labels or get rid of the sub-titles just to make these head aches go away, but I don't get to decide that.
@@JernosComicsPopCulture I think first appearance is implied here, but yeah, I'll go a step further and say 180 is the first full appearance. You see the picture of Wolverine in 180, that is a full appearance. The only way you can define 181 as a first full appearance is through a label, which has no clear cut definition it follows. If we were to define a full first appearance, hulk 180 would check every box needed unless the contingency was that it needed to be the first full story of a character. No one defines a first full appearance as such otherwise, so that could not be the definition we go by in this instance. Given that I think we can say Hulk 180 is mislabeled by the industry & I don't see any points to the contrary, aside from "that's the industry label" & that's not very compelling.
@@poing333 See I agree with your logic about how to use FULL, but you're still wrong, according to what the industry has laid forward. Contrary to what you are saying, yes, the industry (for decades now) has made it clear that a FULL appearance has NOTHING to do with how much of the body we see on a panel or two. According to industry standard and precedent, a FULL appearance refers to how fully the character is involved in the story throughout the specific issues. This is not something that only pertains to Wolverine. It's industry wide. And this is where your take on how FULL SHOULD be used, is merely an opinion, and doesn't change how the industry uses the term.
Now, again, I actually agree with you that FULL SHOULDN'T be used in relationship to how much the character is within the story. I do think a better label would be "First FULL story." But again, that's MY opinion.
What is contrary to you saying 180 is mislabled is basically every cameo and full appearance that is out there, and that's in the hundreds, if not thousands.
I hope this clarifies things. Again, I agree that there are better words to use and terms to use for these labels to make it less confusing, but unfortunately, the industry decided, not us.
@@JernosComicsPopCulture Oh, I didn't know that was the standard. I've been operating under a different understanding but I can acknowledge that is a fine and consistent definition. Thanks for taking the time to write this out, this is how I'll be defining and explaining first full appearances going forward.
@@poing333 Thanks for listening with an open mind, and I think this is one area where people get lost. This IS how a FULL appearance is defined based on industry precedent. Once people accept this and understanding this, I understand the desire to still want to use different terms.
HULK #1 (2008) 1ST COVER ...#2 ...1st full RED HULK ??
Am I wrong here, but didn’t Overstreet used to list #180 as first appearance and then it accidentally got changed? I thought I remember reading that somewhere.
The incident you are speaking of is irrelevent. But, Hulk 180 was coined simply as Wolverine's "first app" in multiple publications for a long time. BUT, that is not incorrect, it just withholds further context. When we add further context of cameo to 180, and first full app to 181, it does NOT change the fact that Hulk 180 is Wolverine's overall 1st ever appearance.
This topic gets comic fans foaming at the mouth when it comes up on IG. I see it this way. They're just following what was already established in television terminology. If a character shows up briefly in an episode but doesn't actually do anything until the next episode, it's a cameo. I'm perfectly fine with cameo being utilized in this way. And I get why collectors get touchy about it, they want their Hulk 180s to jump in value. And hey, I think that book should be worth much more. But until we do something about it - like start a petition, as you suggest - nothing will be done about it. Sorry for ranting, my brother. Much love.
love hearing your thoughts!
this is my first appearance
Very entertaining posting
Thank you. For what it's worth, I would much rather have hulk 180 because this is the first time that we actually see wolverine
Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts!
Don't kid yourself.
So how do you explain gambits first app.
I already made videos on this, you could search them on my channel. BUT, that's another issue simply because of a release date problem.
I get what he's trying to say but it's almost like he's fighting the wrong battle. No one is arguing his point really. What you're saying is that there's a first cameo appearance and a first full appearance. He's just arguing that there can only be one first appearance. Which hes right, but so are you.
There's a first
Appearance
Cameo appearance
Full appearance.
All of those can be said to be the first.
It's like arguing about this,
Imagine I say "Jacques is my first french friend".
And someone says, you're wrong. Sophie is your first friend.
Technically Sophie was your first friend but you're not talking about that. You're talking about your first FRENCH friend.
And that's the same here
It's not about first appearance, people are talking about
First CAMEO appearance and first FULL appearance, which are two different things. Anyway sorry this comment is sloppy lol I think that guy was pretty rude to you and didn't even comprehend that you were agreeing with him. He was too focused on trying to be right and trying to prove you wrong when at the end of the day he was missing the whole actual arguement imo.
So glad to see someone really getting it! lol
Why are you doing this again. You're killing me Jerno. Full is full, cameo is cameo. It's the public directing the narrative regardless of whether it's accurate or not.
I did this just for you! 🤣