To me a cameo is a glimpse at a character. A first appearance you get to see who that character is and learn their name and some of what they can do. A first full appearance they are part of the story. Now the first appearance of Gambit and like characters when dealing with publication dates consider continuity. Great job in breaking it down.
There's only one way to settle this debate and that's to eliminate the "cameo" distinction completely. If they appear in a comic for the first time, regardless of numbers of panels or dialogue, then that's their "First appearance" and there's nothing to argue about. Now that doesn't mean the market can't still favor their second appearance, which honestly is almost always determined by which cover is better.
@8:55 I agree. I'd like to see a viewer poll vote on X-Men Annual #14 vs Uncanny X-men #266 and see what the overall census is for Gambit's cameo vs 1st appearance. To me X-men Annual #14 is the most obvious to be titled as 1st Gambit first appearance. Uncanny X-men #266 should be retitled as first cover appearance.
I think it's because chronologically, #266 came before X-Men Annual #14 judging by how it's written. Which is why even the CGC considers #266 his first full appearance and the former a cameo. It's all a mess either way, but at this point, I don't think it's going to change.
I just recently got into comic books and honestly I have never really understood why there is a distinction between first appearance and first full appearance. This vid really cleared it up for me! I do however consider any sort of a reveal of the character (even if it's a shadow) as a cameo :) congrats on 8000 subs btw! And keep up the good work!
UNDERSTANDING THE DEFINITION OF CAMEO: There are two separate textbook definitions of cameo. One relates to plays or written works that use live actors (plays, film, etc). This is the one that folks refer to when the character making the cameo needs to be an "already established character." The second definition for cameo pertains to literature. For literature, the "already established" factor is not needed. Hence, using the term cameo in a comic book can absolutely - according to definition - pertain to a character that we have never seen before.
I agree, 180 is a first appearance... in cameo. The word cameo is used for good reason and I like how you were the only person who took the time to explain it's proper use. In the video, creating comic book rules and guidelines for the defintion of a cameo is a flawed approach. Basically, one person decided what questions to ask. Why not ask how many pages does thge person appear instead of how many panels? How many panels is the character visible on nstead of speech bubbles? People want to recreate their own definition of what a cameo (or even get rid of it) to favor the outcome they want.
I think you really hit on something with this video. I think you’re right. Fans tend to favor the better cover as the first appearance if it’s up for debate.
Great video, thanks! I remember back in 5th grade one of my teachers had a copy of Hulk 180 and 181 on her bookshelf. I read those books probably 100 times back then. I wish I had them both now.
I think cameos are smaller appearances with a few panels like you said in the beginning. First appearances may feature the character in the cover and have a large presence in the comic. Just what I thought.
These distinctions will be argued for the rest of history, but I like your take on this. For me, I am OG and when a character appears, it is a first appearance
Damn a entire run I thought you would have wanted to keep that cuz you really seem to like the knightfall series and shows of the bat is right after it
I think a lot of the cameo v full appearance debate is just about giving comic books significance when there wouldn’t otherwise be significance to them. First cameo, first appearance, first cover, first solo story, first fight between blank and blank, first silver age appearance (no one ever says first bronze or copper age appearance).
I think the Superman: MoS arm shot of Doomsday, although in a few panels with the character being named, falls into the cameo category given that it really shows about half of one arm of the character. My two cents. Terrific video!
I have a copy of X-Men Annual 14 and get told all the time it's not Gambit's first appearance. I've always considered it one over 266, due to the very reasons you brought up.
I've always considered ASM 299 1st appearance of Venom too. With Gambit I understand the annual 14, but when you see that 266 story was 1st it makes more sense too, like you mentioned.
@@MintHunterComics wow that's insane so you eventually have to send it back to get reslabbed to get to note updated ...I did not know that ! Publishing keeps some tricks up their sleeve to be very cautious about then .
On Darkseid, and following your rules, Jimmy Olsen 135 is his first appearance. Appears on two panels, dialogue across two panels, plus has a look closer to what we know today. Another odd is Grail (Darkseid’s daughter). Justice League 40 is a cameo (one panel only, face concealed), FCBD divergence is her first appearance (multiple panels, dialogue), and Justice League 41 is first full
Ha, i just found the first ratcetcher in shadow of the bat like 2 days ago. #43 i think it was. Looking for the next one now. I get first appearances but def kills me when i just wanna full run of what im reading.
I enjoyed your cameo in this video. Newer subscriber. Thanks for the videos. Curious on your thoughts on that Miles Morales previews sale for like $9000
For me, the debate of cameo vs first full doesnt really matter, I will just do my best to get both (or more) of the books. I can see both sides of the coin really, I just want all the books and let the market dictate which is the most valuable lol, excellent video and topic as always!!
Great video; killer Croc's and Jason's first appearance/cameo is interesting alright. Lots of confusion around this one. Still love my Batman 357 though :)
A first appearance, is a first appearance. It doesn't matter if it's only one panel. A couple of 1st appearances to consider: Yelena Belova's first appearance in Inhumans #5 is another book that is being overlooked in favor of Black Widow #1, particularly the 1 in 4 variant. Catalina Chavez actually appears in one panel in America Cavez: Made in America #1, and she appears in multiple panels/pages in issue #2. However, speculators were jumping on issue #3.
I love shadow of the bat I have 22 copies of issue 19 first appearance of tally man . My aunt was trying to get me more then one book but she just bought a lot of the same copies I don’t mind tho it’s a good book
I feel a first appearance is a first appearance. No cameo, no "oh they were only in one panel etc." The first time the character is seen is their first appearance. Hulk 180, ASM 299, etc. should just be strict first appearances in my opinion
The weirdest cameo that I am aware of is Hawkeye versus Deadpool 0, which is the first cameo appearance of Jane Foster Thor and Spider-Gwen, which is so random.
AWWWW! I should have added that one in here! Doi.... I think that's a cameo for sure: no dialogue, no name drop, just one (it was just one right?) panel of them in halloween costumes
I think if the character just appears in the background of a frame with no name or any mention then its not a first appearances but if they are part of the story then it counts. but i just go by key collector or the general consensus tbh. Great vid man! hope you smash that 8k subs soon!
If it's still open I would cherish that shadow of the bat run forever. I'm building a collection for my sons and would love to finish it off and pass it down
What do you think about the established first appearance of The Court of Owls in Batman #6 in the new 52? The Court is shown in issues #3 I believe but they are actually pictures of the current Court of Owls in that timeline. Do you think that would be considered a first appearance? Just curious, I’m sticking by #6 myself, but I’m curious to see what you guys think.
To be completely honest with you I'd have to reread it again to say definitively. I don't want to just fire off a guess. I'm due for some new 52 reading actually!
I would love to hear what you think about Fantastic Four 67 vs Thor 165 Adam Warlock as Him, they always call that issue 67 a cameo, but he has a full reveal and a lot of dialogue in a full conversation.
First off, I absolutely love what you do. So please don't take this as a slight in any way! (Like you said, merely differences of opinion to provoke critical thinking). I think this video in totality is extremely problematic simply because you decided to pin "cameo" against a "first appearance." The problem is that they are not inherently two separate things. By saying this, it's as if you are insinuating that a "true first appearance" means simply a "first FULL appearance," and that a cameo appearance in which we see the character for the first time isn't an appearance at all. Hulk 180 is still the FIRST appearance of Wolverine.... IN CAMEO. Hulk 181 is still the first FULL appearance of Wolverine. So from pinning cameo vs. first appearance, we're now trying to twist the definition of not only "cameo," but what makes a first appearance "true." Really, we need to throw the term "true" out the window, because it's not about "true," it's about cameo vs. full. A "TRUE" first appearance would be a cameo if indeed the character showed up in a cameo prior to a full. Why? Because they STILL appear. Therefore, it is the first, and it is an appearance, and it is IN CAMEO. That makes it a true first appearance. Stating Hulk 180 is Wolverine's first "true" appearance does not change the fact that HUlk 181 is STILL Wolverine's first FULL appearance. Ultimately, I agree with your end result labels for each book. You said it yourself Hulk 180 is truly Wolverine's first appearance, and 181 is his first FULL. Because 180 is indeed his first.... in cameo. Every other book that you deemed a "first appearance" and not cameo is half right, and every book you deemed a "cameo" and not a first appearance is half right. So again, any time you see a character for the first time, it's an appearance. From there, we have to add context ON TOP of "1st app," and that is where we add cameo or full... or for some people, brief, or sneak. I believe big heads in the community and industry really need to have a round table debate and put together a "label accords." lol. I love discussing this topic and I always appreciate your ability to clearly convey your thoughts in a way that is also extremely respectful. Keep up the great work!
Hi there! Appreciate your take man! Like I said I DO like the distinction of a cameo vs first app because of course technically speaking any time a character first appears no matter how small its a first appearance. But I belive a cameo is a term that isn't traditionally defined nor do I take it so technically or literally, that's why I like the definition we've come up with as a community. That being said I see where you stand! Cheers man
This is crazy. The Spiderman and venom carnage i knew as I read them at the time. But if these characters were actors, what would their first on screen credit be? I think you nailed it. Imagine the meltdown when peoples investments alter because of this acceptance? 😆
I think this made me change my mind on some of these appearances. The thing about the something like ASM 360 is it maybe not on the radar as much and it becomes more affordable for someone if 361 is out of someone's price range.
The problem is not if it is cameo or first appearance, the problem is that people who already invested a lot of money in their first appearances will never accept that the number before the one they say cameo will never become first appearance. The most tangible sample is that of X-men 266, when it became known that X-MEN annual 4 is really the first Gambit release, immediately many influencers in the comics environment sent it to cameo, obviously they were not going to accept that this number that It is cheaper to gain ground to 266, of course, they were not going to lose all their investment. X-men annual is the clear example that it is the first appraisal, whoever likes it. Thats the reality. And I'm not going to get into the Hulk 180-181 or AMS 299 - 300 is wasting time. Greetings and thanks for exposing the reality on this issue. Greetings.
Exactly - how do you tell someone that's known for years a book is a first appearance only to tell them it's not actually the first appearance?! it's tough. and hard to swallow! but nonetheless true
From Go Collect.... Amazing Spider-Man #298 in a 9.8: $700 Amazing Spider-Man #299 in a 9.8: $975 Amazing Spider-Man #300 in a 9.8: $10,000 “First Full Appearance” is what drives the market. Great video. Keep on Hunting!!!
great vid I believe a first appearance has to show the face (at least) of the character that's why I don't really count shadow of the bat as zsasz's first appearance considering has in a giant metal cylinder with only his mouth showing
It is weird how the market dictates a lot of these things. And sometimes you see the market changing its mind. I wonder if they ever would for Venom and make 299 the more desired comic book.
To me a cameo is a glimpse at a character. A first appearance you get to see who that character is and learn their name and some of what they can do. A first full appearance they are part of the story. Now the first appearance of Gambit and like characters when dealing with publication dates consider continuity. Great job in breaking it down.
Well said.
If you’re slabbing comics, the most important thing should be 1st cover appearances.
There's only one way to settle this debate and that's to eliminate the "cameo" distinction completely. If they appear in a comic for the first time, regardless of numbers of panels or dialogue, then that's their "First appearance" and there's nothing to argue about. Now that doesn't mean the market can't still favor their second appearance, which honestly is almost always determined by which cover is better.
I like the distinction of cameo. I don't look at it so literally as the "first app" the majority of collectors use cameos to describe a soft 1st app
Excellent video and certainly a good topic of discussion. Thanks James!
Glad it was helpful!
@8:55 I agree. I'd like to see a viewer poll vote on X-Men Annual #14 vs Uncanny X-men #266 and see what the overall census is for Gambit's cameo vs 1st appearance. To me X-men Annual #14 is the most obvious to be titled as 1st Gambit first appearance. Uncanny X-men #266 should be retitled as first cover appearance.
Ooooh I should totally do that
I think it's because chronologically, #266 came before X-Men Annual #14 judging by how it's written. Which is why even the CGC considers #266 his first full appearance and the former a cameo. It's all a mess either way, but at this point, I don't think it's going to change.
I just recently got into comic books and honestly I have never really understood why there is a distinction between first appearance and first full appearance. This vid really cleared it up for me! I do however consider any sort of a reveal of the character (even if it's a shadow) as a cameo :) congrats on 8000 subs btw! And keep up the good work!
UNDERSTANDING THE DEFINITION OF CAMEO: There are two separate textbook definitions of cameo. One relates to plays or written works that use live actors (plays, film, etc). This is the one that folks refer to when the character making the cameo needs to be an "already established character." The second definition for cameo pertains to literature. For literature, the "already established" factor is not needed. Hence, using the term cameo in a comic book can absolutely - according to definition - pertain to a character that we have never seen before.
I appreciate your take my man! I commented on your other comment!
I agree, 180 is a first appearance... in cameo. The word cameo is used for good reason and I like how you were the only person who took the time to explain it's proper use. In the video, creating comic book rules and guidelines for the defintion of a cameo is a flawed approach. Basically, one person decided what questions to ask. Why not ask how many pages does thge person appear instead of how many panels? How many panels is the character visible on nstead of speech bubbles? People want to recreate their own definition of what a cameo (or even get rid of it) to favor the outcome they want.
Thank you for covering this topic. I really enjoyed you explaining the difference.
Great video James. It's a debate that will rage forever however first "full" will in most cases always be more sought after.
This is most certainly true
Amazing breakdown over cameos and appearance!
I'm glad you think so!
I think you really hit on something with this video. I think you’re right. Fans tend to favor the better cover as the first appearance if it’s up for debate.
It's all about that ART that drives a comic hahaha
I've never even really thought about the distinction tbh, typically I just go off if what Key Collector says
Hahaha Key Collector is pretty accurate out of all the apps I will say
Key Collector makes a lot of mistakes on appearances, I don't trust them at all.
Great video, thanks! I remember back in 5th grade one of my teachers had a copy of Hulk 180 and 181 on her bookshelf. I read those books probably 100 times back then. I wish I had them both now.
You had way cooler teachers than I ever did that's for sure!
Great video as always! Thanks for the info.
Thanks for watching!
Love the videos and your candid comments!
I really appreciate your approach and calmness. You work through your methods.
Great job!
Great stuff as always man.
Glad you enjoyed!!!
Looking forward to more of this type of content. Thanks.
More to come!
As a new collector I like first appearance vs first full appearance
Great video, really enjoying your videos, keep it up
Thanks my man!
Haha this is soooo interesting! Thanks for the great video!
Thanks Jarno!
Great video love the info never thought of these keys in that way lol
Glad it was helpful!
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of Hulk 180 being more than a cameo! Subbed!!! 👍🏼
I was going through my 90s comics the other day and found 7 asm 361s(3 newstand) and they were in perfect shape.
Well Damn!!!
Wow dude, very useful info as always. I learnt a lot, keep up the vids dude!
My pleasure VP!
I think cameos are smaller appearances with a few panels like you said in the beginning. First appearances may feature the character in the cover and have a large presence in the comic. Just what I thought.
That aligns with our definition! Cheers DK League!
Great video. It really opens up the perspective of cameo vs 1st appearance. 👍🏻
Thanks Paul!
Your getting that Carnage issue signed and getting that awesome yellow signature series label yes!!! 😆👍
Can't wait!
Good news I’m going to upgrade my membership the comic book I was gonna get sold out so I figured I’ll just upgrade
Oh hell yeah! Welcome to the extended club!
Awesome information and I couldn’t agree more. Great video 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻
These distinctions will be argued for the rest of history, but I like your take on this. For me, I am OG and when a character appears, it is a first appearance
Appreciate your take Steve!
Congratulations on closing in on 8k!
I want that run!! Nice video :)
Excellent work!
Ayyyy thank you!
I totally agree with you that 299 is the first appearance of Venom and that 298 is a cameo.
No doubt!
I would have to agree with you. All set a side you have to love it or leave it. Great video.
I like both. Because it puts a spotlight on 2 or 3 books not just one. And it makes good conversation, witch is a healthy thing.
Amen to this
Damn a entire run I thought you would have wanted to keep that cuz you really seem to like the knightfall series and shows of the bat is right after it
True but I want to make sure I take care of the comic community first and foremost!
I think a lot of the cameo v full appearance debate is just about giving comic books significance when there wouldn’t otherwise be significance to them. First cameo, first appearance, first cover, first solo story, first fight between blank and blank, first silver age appearance (no one ever says first bronze or copper age appearance).
I say first bronze and copper appearance! lolol
I think the Superman: MoS arm shot of Doomsday, although in a few panels with the character being named, falls into the cameo category given that it really shows about half of one arm of the character. My two cents. Terrific video!
I have a copy of X-Men Annual 14 and get told all the time it's not Gambit's first appearance. I've always considered it one over 266, due to the very reasons you brought up.
Don't let em tell ya otherwise!
I've always considered ASM 299 1st appearance of Venom too. With Gambit I understand the annual 14, but when you see that 266 story was 1st it makes more sense too, like you mentioned.
Indeed, I truly do wish it came.out first but alas here we are!
I think it's safe to say that the panel of importance would be the upper right cgc panel shortly after the upper left panel of the slab 😅
Often times CGC notes are wrong! I've had to correct them many times
@@MintHunterComics wow that's insane so you eventually have to send it back to get reslabbed to get to note updated ...I did not know that !
Publishing keeps some tricks up their sleeve to be very cautious about then .
On Darkseid, and following your rules, Jimmy Olsen 135 is his first appearance. Appears on two panels, dialogue across two panels, plus has a look closer to what we know today.
Another odd is Grail (Darkseid’s daughter). Justice League 40 is a cameo (one panel only, face concealed), FCBD divergence is her first appearance (multiple panels, dialogue), and Justice League 41 is first full
Good catch Rob - I missed that one! I agree with Grail
For Me if you can see the character in full, has dialogue its a first appearance, even more if he shows his abilities or powers
Powers should be an extra category I agree
Wolverines “cameo” feels more like a first appearance to me
It still may to many people! but by our criteria it's bumped up
@@MintHunterComics in that case Using the same criteria, isn’t Venoms 1st app ASM 299 not 300?
It is both. It is a first appearance, in cameo.
I like your breakdown of cameo vs first appearance.
I am 100% behind having a cameo and a first separately.
Indeed. -same here
Ha, i just found the first ratcetcher in shadow of the bat like 2 days ago. #43 i think it was. Looking for the next one now. I get first appearances but def kills me when i just wanna full run of what im reading.
There ya go! you've now got an entry!
Was hoping you'd discuss Trigon's 1st appearance. That's a tough one..
New teen titans 2, he has dialogue with Raven
I enjoyed your cameo in this video. Newer subscriber. Thanks for the videos. Curious on your thoughts on that Miles Morales previews sale for like $9000
I think its a bit silly! But I see the perspective on it
Is it clearly defined how CGC defones these things, since they put these statements on the top of the cases? Great video, thanks!
Not necessarily - CGC notes are sometimes blank for notable books. use Key Collector before using CGC notes
Thank you for sharing your knowledge I really appreciate it.
And in the x men 266 on the cover it says who their featuring and gambit isn’t mentioned although it could just be keeping the character a secret
An odd history for sure between those 2 books
For me, the debate of cameo vs first full doesnt really matter, I will just do my best to get both (or more) of the books. I can see both sides of the coin really, I just want all the books and let the market dictate which is the most valuable lol, excellent video and topic as always!!
Great video; killer Croc's and Jason's first appearance/cameo is interesting alright. Lots of confusion around this one. Still love my Batman 357 though :)
Still a great book!
As a collector I just get both. So I don't miss out.
if i see a name and face you appeared that’s basically it. if i hear a name called out that’s just a camek
Interesting take!
A first appearance, is a first appearance. It doesn't matter if it's only one panel.
A couple of 1st appearances to consider:
Yelena Belova's first appearance in Inhumans #5 is another book that is being overlooked in favor of Black Widow #1, particularly the 1 in 4 variant.
Catalina Chavez actually appears in one panel in America Cavez: Made in America #1, and she appears in multiple panels/pages in issue #2. However, speculators were jumping on issue #3.
I love shadow of the bat I have 22 copies of issue 19 first appearance of tally man . My aunt was trying to get me more then one book but she just bought a lot of the same copies I don’t mind tho it’s a good book
Tally man! what an underrated DC character for sure
The Venom hand is a perfect example of what I would call a cameo.
Exactly
Hulk 181, to me, is the comic that truly matters for Wolverine.
Most would agree BUT 180 meets all of our criteria!
Agree
I feel a first appearance is a first appearance. No cameo, no "oh they were only in one panel etc." The first time the character is seen is their first appearance. Hulk 180, ASM 299, etc. should just be strict first appearances in my opinion
Our definition tends to agree with you! we're a little stricter with ours but your opinion is valid!
@@MintHunterComics Nothing wrong with be strict on comic books!
I like to think that 180,181, and 182 are all apart of the same appearance since it is the same story. A wolverine fan would want all three.
Now this is very true - any Wolvy fan would want em all
I'm going to go with an unobscured shot and a name drop for the first appearance.
I want to make it nearly impossible to get retconned later.
Hahaha valid point and opinion!
Guess I'll have to buy all appearances whether it's considered a "cameo" or "first appearance" just to cover my bases lol.
That's one way to do it! Hahaha
The weirdest cameo that I am aware of is Hawkeye versus Deadpool 0, which is the first cameo appearance of Jane Foster Thor and Spider-Gwen, which is so random.
AWWWW! I should have added that one in here! Doi.... I think that's a cameo for sure: no dialogue, no name drop, just one (it was just one right?) panel of them in halloween costumes
@@MintHunterComics it's actually three or four panels but they're all the same because they're in the background and there is no dialogue
And has your 125 green lantern books come back from cgc yet
It hasn't even been picked up by CGC yet! lololol
@@MintHunterComics returns times r crazy n now that Jay z some how bought the place who knows what will happen 😂
Excellent! Great job!
Thank you very much! you won the members giveaway my man!
Great video!!!
Glad you liked it!
Great video!
Thanks for the visit
I think if the character just appears in the background of a frame with no name or any mention then its not a first appearances but if they are part of the story then it counts. but i just go by key collector or the general consensus tbh.
Great vid man! hope you smash that 8k subs soon!
If it's still open I would cherish that shadow of the bat run forever. I'm building a collection for my sons and would love to finish it off and pass it down
Didn't the same thing happen with Sabertooth? I think he was seen an issue earlier as well
I'm not sure actually!
Yay discussing comic book language/terminology!
Woot woot!
I will never understand how the annual isn’t considered Gambits first appearance
Smh me neither man!
For me, if there is a name, dialogue and the character is fully shown in the comic then its a first appearance.
I appreciate your take!
First reveal ought to be more of a thing. Anyhow, word up!
Thanks my man!
What do you think about the established first appearance of The Court of Owls in Batman #6 in the new 52? The Court is shown in issues #3 I believe but they are actually pictures of the current Court of Owls in that timeline. Do you think that would be considered a first appearance? Just curious, I’m sticking by #6 myself, but I’m curious to see what you guys think.
To be completely honest with you I'd have to reread it again to say definitively. I don't want to just fire off a guess. I'm due for some new 52 reading actually!
Another great video.
I appreciate that - glad you enjoyed!
That's why I try to get them all, Cameo, First Appearance, First Full Appearance, First Cover Appearance. It gets expensive.
I would love to hear what you think about Fantastic Four 67 vs Thor 165 Adam Warlock as Him, they always call that issue 67 a cameo, but he has a full reveal and a lot of dialogue in a full conversation.
First off, I absolutely love what you do. So please don't take this as a slight in any way! (Like you said, merely differences of opinion to provoke critical thinking). I think this video in totality is extremely problematic simply because you decided to pin "cameo" against a "first appearance." The problem is that they are not inherently two separate things. By saying this, it's as if you are insinuating that a "true first appearance" means simply a "first FULL appearance," and that a cameo appearance in which we see the character for the first time isn't an appearance at all.
Hulk 180 is still the FIRST appearance of Wolverine.... IN CAMEO. Hulk 181 is still the first FULL appearance of Wolverine. So from pinning cameo vs. first appearance, we're now trying to twist the definition of not only "cameo," but what makes a first appearance "true." Really, we need to throw the term "true" out the window, because it's not about "true," it's about cameo vs. full. A "TRUE" first appearance would be a cameo if indeed the character showed up in a cameo prior to a full. Why? Because they STILL appear. Therefore, it is the first, and it is an appearance, and it is IN CAMEO. That makes it a true first appearance. Stating Hulk 180 is Wolverine's first "true" appearance does not change the fact that HUlk 181 is STILL Wolverine's first FULL appearance.
Ultimately, I agree with your end result labels for each book. You said it yourself Hulk 180 is truly Wolverine's first appearance, and 181 is his first FULL. Because 180 is indeed his first.... in cameo. Every other book that you deemed a "first appearance" and not cameo is half right, and every book you deemed a "cameo" and not a first appearance is half right.
So again, any time you see a character for the first time, it's an appearance. From there, we have to add context ON TOP of "1st app," and that is where we add cameo or full... or for some people, brief, or sneak.
I believe big heads in the community and industry really need to have a round table debate and put together a "label accords." lol.
I love discussing this topic and I always appreciate your ability to clearly convey your thoughts in a way that is also extremely respectful. Keep up the great work!
Hi there! Appreciate your take man! Like I said I DO like the distinction of a cameo vs first app because of course technically speaking any time a character first appears no matter how small its a first appearance. But I belive a cameo is a term that isn't traditionally defined nor do I take it so technically or literally, that's why I like the definition we've come up with as a community. That being said I see where you stand! Cheers man
Its crazy that hulk#180 isn't wolverine's first app and hulk#181 is and i think that's just because he is on the cover.
People go Gaga for a good cover and ignore the facts
@@MintHunterComics the first app of Rogue is a terrible cover art.
This is crazy. The Spiderman and venom carnage i knew as I read them at the time. But if these characters were actors, what would their first on screen credit be? I think you nailed it. Imagine the meltdown when peoples investments alter because of this acceptance? 😆
I think this made me change my mind on some of these appearances. The thing about the something like ASM 360 is it maybe not on the radar as much and it becomes more affordable for someone if 361 is out of someone's price range.
I feel like first appearance should include an identifiable Face shot as well.
Face or partial face shot is pretty important for me
The Golden Rule... One who holds the gold makes the rules.
Hahahah I appreciate your take!
FINALLY! Someone calls it right. Some of these are debatable but X-men 266 is definitely not a 1st appearance at all, its just a 1st cover.
Agreed, there's so leeway with some of these but not with Gambit at all lol
The problem is not if it is cameo or first appearance, the problem is that people who already invested a lot of money in their first appearances will never accept that the number before the one they say cameo will never become first appearance. The most tangible sample is that of X-men 266, when it became known that X-MEN annual 4 is really the first Gambit release, immediately many influencers in the comics environment sent it to cameo, obviously they were not going to accept that this number that It is cheaper to gain ground to 266, of course, they were not going to lose all their investment.
X-men annual is the clear example that it is the first appraisal, whoever likes it. Thats the reality. And I'm not going to get into the Hulk 180-181 or AMS 299 - 300 is wasting time. Greetings and thanks for exposing the reality on this issue. Greetings.
Exactly - how do you tell someone that's known for years a book is a first appearance only to tell them it's not actually the first appearance?! it's tough. and hard to swallow! but nonetheless true
From Go Collect....
Amazing Spider-Man #298 in a 9.8: $700
Amazing Spider-Man #299 in a 9.8: $975
Amazing Spider-Man #300 in a 9.8: $10,000
“First Full Appearance” is what drives the market.
Great video. Keep on Hunting!!!
First FULL app is usually the favorite anyway but it's still interesting to note that the 1st app was NOT the big famous issue! lol
The only correct thing to do is buy all of them. Every comic of every run of every hero ever
Hahahahahaha
Can you do a green lantern video? btw love the channel!
I'd HAPPILY do that! love GL
Where do you sell your comics? As the ones like the batman slabs you got in the last video?
I often don't haha but when I do it's through IG
great vid I believe a first appearance has to show the face (at least) of the character that's why I don't really count shadow of the bat as zsasz's first appearance considering has in a giant metal cylinder with only his mouth showing
Good example! I haven't read it in so long I honestly didn't even remember that!
As an OCD Completest I have to buy both first cameo and first appearance on characters I like just to cover all bases.
Hahahaha #same
Hulk 180 is a first appearance but the consensus says it's 181. The consensus is wrong in this case and Punchlines case as well.
1st appearance would be saying their names meaning introducing the character. Cameo would be just “teasing” the character.
It is weird how the market dictates a lot of these things. And sometimes you see the market changing its mind. I wonder if they ever would for Venom and make 299 the more desired comic book.
Probably not - but the reality is - that's the first app!
The last page of 299 is classic though. I think 299 is way undervalued compared to 300.
Can you make a video on you green lantern collection
I indeed shall