• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

1st Teen Titans
3 3

1,128 posts in this topic

It is a redux of the story told in Avengers 1.

 

It's not.

 

 

The fallacy is that you think a team cannot be formed unless it chooses a name.

 

No, but there's something that does need to happen in order to form a team: They have to actually form a team.

 

There's half a page in Avengers #1 dedicated to the members discussing the idea of forming an official team, agreeing to it, and then coming up with a name.

 

They decide, on panel, in the story, that their team up should not be a one time thing, but a formalized arrangement.

 

That's a major difference between Avengers #1 and B&B #54: In Avengers #1, they actually form a team. In B&B #54, they do not.

 

Bad scan:

 

Avengers-1-page-22.jpg

 

 

 

You've said that you think the burden of proof is on those arguing for #60, because we're trying to change conventional wisdom.

 

I think it's the opposite. If you look at the comics, the Teen Titans don't appear until #60. The burden of proof is on those trying to claim something that isn't in the comics actually is.

 

To invoke my favorite complete lunatic creator, A is A. Teen Titans first appears in #60, therefore #60 is the first appearance of the Teen Titans. If you're going to convince me that this is somehow not true, you're going to need more than ambiguous editorial text.

 

a-is-a-ditko.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a redux of the story told in Avengers 1.

 

It's not.

 

 

The fallacy is that you think a team cannot be formed unless it chooses a name.

If you're going to convince me that this is somehow not true, you're going to need more than ambiguous editorial text.

 

 

You don't need to be convinced...DC agrees, 50 years of history agrees, and the market agrees. Convincing anyone else is a moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The market agreed for a long time that Hulk 271 was the first appearance of the Racoon. The market agreed that company X was worth Y on Wall Street... right until it did not.

 

The market continuously learns, and truth will prevail in the end.

Edited by AlexanderM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a redux of the story told in Avengers 1.

 

It's not.

 

 

The fallacy is that you think a team cannot be formed unless it chooses a name.

If you're going to convince me that this is somehow not true, you're going to need more than ambiguous editorial text.

 

 

You don't need to be convinced...DC agrees, 50 years of history agrees, and the market agrees. Convincing anyone else is a moot point.

 

 

Then why does this thread exist?

 

We could all agree as a society that the moon is made of cheese, but that wouldn't actually mean the moon is made of cheese.

 

You're basically saying "it doesn't matter what the facts are, because we've all agreed to ignore them."

 

Honestly.

 

I'm not sure there's much point in continuing this debate. Both sides have presented their cases. We're just going around in circles at this point. And if people on the other side are just going to stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala" then this is really a waste of time.

 

People on the fence can make up their own mind at this point. I'll just reiterate my position for the record, and then I think I'm done:

 

I have no problem with fans treating #54 as the more important book. It's clear to me from the evidence posted here that the events in #60 follow and spring from the events in #54. Whether DC considers #54 to be a Teen Titans story - which they sometimes seem to - or not - which they also sometimes seem to - is irrelevant to me either way. If the market wants to consider #54 the more valuable book, that's also fine with me, and totally understandable. Without that team-up, DC would not have been inspired to create a permanent team of teen heroes, and in story continuity, Robin would not have been inspired to form the team. There are plenty of good reasons to argue #54 is more important.

 

But based on all the evidence presented here, it's clear that the Teen Titans - the concept, the team, and the name - first appear in #60. The evidence of our own eyes verifies that, and you have to jump through all sort of logic (or illogic) hoops to try and claim otherwise. All you have to do to settle this is look at the covers, so don't up my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

If someone has evidence that the Teen Titans did in fact appear prior to #60, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, though, as I said before: since the Teen Titans first appear in #60, #60 must be the first appearance of the Teen Titans. That's just basic logic.

Edited by Crimebuster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a redux of the story told in Avengers 1.

 

It's not.

 

 

The fallacy is that you think a team cannot be formed unless it chooses a name.

If you're going to convince me that this is somehow not true, you're going to need more than ambiguous editorial text.

 

 

You don't need to be convinced...DC agrees, 50 years of history agrees, and the market agrees. Convincing anyone else is a moot point.

 

Closer to 30 years would be more accurate, Aggiez. The early reprints indicate DC initially acknowledged 60 as the 1st appearance. The comic industry has leaned over the last few decades towards the 54, and no one disputes that.

 

I'm still surprised no one has picked up on the word "canonical". It's a unique word, and most often used to reference another famous 1st appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Closer to 30 years would be more accurate, Aggiez. The early reprints indicate DC initially acknowledged 60 as the 1st appearance. The comic industry has leaned over the last few decades towards the 54, and no one disputes that.

 

 

Now you are just lying.

 

Here's the chronology:

 

1964 - BB 54 announces "a new team" at the end of the story.

 

1965 - BB 60 cites back to BB 54 as the reference for when the "team" was created. BB 60 does not tout itself as "introducing" a new team, instead assuming the creation of the team predates that issue.

 

1966 - TT 1 identifies the start of the TT "history" with BB 54 and characterizes BB 60 as notable for the "addition" of Wonder Girl to the "team." E.g., the first appearance of the team was BB 54. TT 1 also notes that fans at the time viewed BB 54 as presenting a new "team" and clamored for the addition of Wonder Girl to it.

 

1972 - BB 60 is reprinted with the index identifying it as the first teen titans case in DC 100 Page Super Spectacular 12.

 

1973 - BB 54 is reprinted in DC 100 Page Super Spectacular 21 and DC identifies it as a "Teen Titans" story on the cover and the index.

 

mid-70s - OSPG identifies BB 54 as the first appearance of TT. No fan outrage ensues.

 

1978 - TT 53, the last issue of the mid-70s revival, in a retcon of their origin, identifies BB 54 as a "team-up" but not the first TT (in order to be consistent with the retcon) in a note signed "JCH."

 

1981-1982 - In the wake of the creation of the NTT, fan/scholars examine TT history in articles in publications like Amazing Heroes and Comics Feature and conclude that TT first appeared in BB 54.

 

1985 - the "Official Teen Titans Index" denotes the first Teen Titans appearance as BB 54. That index was approved by the staff of DC and consultants included Jerry Bails and George Olshevsky.

 

2006 - Teen Titans Showcase starts with BB 54 as a TT story.

 

2014 - DC markets BB 54 online as the first appearance of the Teen Titans.

 

2014 - DC promotes 2014 as the 50th Anniversary of the Teen Titans keying off of BB 54 (1964-2014).

 

Only twice in 50 years has DC said anything indicating that BB 60 was the first appearance of the TT. The first was in the 1972 reprint of BB 60, which was quickly corrected in the 1973 reprint of BB 54 (and DC has never waivered again in any reprint of BB 54 or 60). The second was a text note in a 1978 retcon of the Teen Titans origin that disregarded BB 54 as the first appearance to be consistent with the retcon. In all other instance, from 1964 to 2014, on multiple occasions, DC has viewed BB 54 as the first appearance of the Teen Titans.

 

And they will probably do so again in less than a month.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone has evidence that the Teen Titans did in fact appear prior to #60, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, though, as I said before: since the Teen Titans first appear in #60, #60 must be the first appearance of the Teen Titans. That's just basic logic.

 

There is a LOT of evidence, all of which is set forth in the prior post. You are dodging the basic question of whether a character/team can pre-exist being named. Your attempt at logic falls prey to the fallacy of tautology. You assume your conclusion. If what you are looking for is a name, you dictate the result. Fortunately, DC is wiser than you and doesn't fall prey to this logical error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duck, you are a schmuck. Here's the articles in question. Without playing connect the dots or trying to convince people that "after" and "later" are indicative of the past, why not just let them look at your sources and decide for themselves? Not once do they state 54 is the first app. Now 60 on the other hand... hm

150755.jpg.f48b2c9773a746ab33af3ef4f5696bf5.jpg

150756.jpg.9491484ffea613aa832d3841d774083d.jpg

150757.jpg.4dd3a0e90fb55b289e1b80a96bf2733f.jpg

150758.jpg.e6f04eba3a286d1c5a94d0ea5e140c4b.jpg

150760.jpg.5a4c01f47856b15ee9916f2c25949d3a.jpg

Edited by blazincomics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to up your credibility, why are you cropping the picture of TT 1?

 

C'mon. This is getting really sad.

 

Exactly what part that was cropped out do you think supports your case?

Is it the paragraph that mentions another great "first" and a brief "history" of TEEN TITANS?

Maybe the paragraph that says our fabulous new foursome is the key?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duck, if slandering me is your best argument to own the 54, I can see why you don't own one yourself. At least I'm honest about what I own and why I think it's key. As I stated earlier Id like to own a few more copies of 60, and spreading the gospel has not helped my cause at all. It has confirmed what I believed initially. That there is early evidence in print that DC considered 60 to be the first appearance for around 15 years after publication. As for the cropped photos Ill post both and let others decide on my credibility.

 

150761.jpg.d3464a9b04624c651d465b6491944f76.jpg

150762.jpg.7b27055477ef78ad14fa63d1ad04bb4b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duck. You are arguing the world is flat in the face of evidence showing it is round. And yiour best argument is.."many other people thought it was flat too!!".

 

It would be nice if you could take that in and think about it rather than just being stubborn no matter what.

Edited by AlexanderM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Closer to 30 years would be more accurate, Aggiez. The early reprints indicate DC initially acknowledged 60 as the 1st appearance. The comic industry has leaned over the last few decades towards the 54, and no one disputes that.

 

 

Now you are just lying.

 

Here's the chronology:

 

1964 - BB 54 announces "a new team" at the end of the story.

 

1965 - BB 60 cites back to BB 54 as the reference for when the "team" was created. BB 60 does not tout itself as "introducing" a new team, instead assuming the creation of the team predates that issue.

 

You are unbelievable. Literally. Other BB 54 defenders have managed to make their respective cases with integrity and intellectual honesty here. You, on the other hand, cherry-pick what you want and present it as the entire truth. And when you're called on it, you've responded with ad hominem attacks (implying financial motives to your critics, calling me young (which, natch, false), and even trotting out ADD; classy) and either simply ignore the refutations of your made-up arguments or make new stuff up out of whole cloth. It's really quite breath-taking.

 

1964 - BB 54 did not announce a new team. Show us the panel--the WHOLE panel--where this happens.

 

1965 - You say, "BB 60 cites back to BB54 as the reference for when the "team" was created." I can't tell whether your syntax is garbled here intentionally (to facilitate your obfuscation) or not, but either way, an innocent reader who didn't know your track record might think you meant to say, simply, "BB 60 cites BB 54 as when the "team" was created." Which is a lie.

 

Re: 54's supposed announcement of a "new team." You first made this claim when you dishonestly omitted the rest of that caption, which told readers more new teams were coming. So if you think they were referring to Robin, Aqualad and Kid Flash as a new superhero team rather than a generic teaming of characters who happened to be acting in concert, you should have been able to identify the additional teams BB introduced in subsequent issues. You haven't. Just like you haven't been able to identify a single panel in BB 54 in which ANYONE says, "Hey, great working with you guys, let's form a team." Because no one does. Three superheroes show up, they work together and they leave. The caption tells us this team has triumphed and there will be new teams ahead. Which turned out to be "teams" like Metal Men and the Atom. Black Canary and Starman.

 

I disagree with others who say we should care about what DC has said--either way (and here, too, of course, you've cherry-picked)--over the years about the creation and the origin, etc. The origin will change as continuity changes. The only permanent, unalterable aspect here is first appearance.

 

And the fact is, if you pick up and read BB54, you will see three teen-age superheroes fight crime together. They don't intend to team up, someone else brings them together without each other's knowledge. None of them decides they want to keep working together. No one SAYS they want to or will keep working together. No one even discusses the concept of forming any super-team, let alone with the others. If you pick up and read BB54, you will not see ANY super-team formed, let alone one called the Teen Titans. And if you read BB60, you WILL see the Teen Titans, and you will learn that Robin set up the group "after" the events of BB54. Which means not in BB54.

 

If you want to keep claiming that the superhero group now known as the Teen Titans formed and first appeared in a caption box in the last panel of BB54, go right ahead, but at the bare minimum, have the integrity to tell people who might be good-hearted enough to still believe you that the very next sentence in that caption box tells readers more new teams are on the way--and that despite your claim they meant "team" in the sense of an established, formal, persisting alliance, you can't name a single new superhero team that followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a redux of the story told in Avengers 1.

 

It's not.

 

 

The fallacy is that you think a team cannot be formed unless it chooses a name.

If you're going to convince me that this is somehow not true, you're going to need more than ambiguous editorial text.

 

 

You don't need to be convinced...DC agrees, 50 years of history agrees, and the market agrees. Convincing anyone else is a moot point.

 

 

Then why does this thread exist?

 

 

Great question...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe that BB 54 is unconditionally the 1st appearance of the Teen Titans there's a good chance I won't be able to change your mind, but you should at least be made aware that there is a very strong case, and possibly a majority of collectors who prefer the #60. That is why this thread exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has confirmed what I believed initially. That there is early evidence in print that DC considered 60 to be the first appearance for around 15 years after publication. As for the cropped photos Ill post both and let others decide on my credibility.

 

 

What you cropped, thus hurting your credibility, is the opening paragraph of that text in TT 1 which significantly states that DC is reciting a "brief history of the Teen Titans" when it starts with BB 54 and it is doing so to demonstrate what "you [fans] have to do with it." And what did the fans have to do with it? According to DC, the fans contribution was to "call for the addition of Wonder Girl to the teen team." Taken together, in context, TT 1 makes clear that as early as 1966 the official DC position was that the "team" was formed in BB 54, the beginning of TT history, and Wonder Girl was added in BB 60. It also makes clear that in 1964, fans viewed the "new team" of Kid Flash, Robin, and Aqualad as a "team" which could have new members.

 

 

Edited by sfcityduck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Re: 54's supposed announcement of a "new team." You first made this claim when you dishonestly omitted the rest of that caption, which told readers more new teams were coming. So if you think they were referring to Robin, Aqualad and Kid Flash as a new superhero team rather than a generic teaming of characters who happened to be acting in concert, you should have been able to identify the additional teams BB introduced in subsequent issues. You haven't.

 

Dude, I addressed your fallacious logic up thread. The text of the last panel of BB 54 has been quoted ad nauseum. In looking back at the story of which it is a part, it states that Robin, Kid Flash, and Aqualad are a "new team." In puffing up the comic to entice readers to buy future issues it alerts readers to look for "new teams, new adventures, and new something else" (I don't have it in front of me). That's just puffery, and the fact that DC didn't introduce "new teams" in later issues doesn't invalidate the comment in the panel about the story of which it is a part.

 

To make this really clear: The person who wrote the last panel of BB 54 had the benefit of reading the story which that panel concludes. What they wrote about that story is accurate. The person who wrote that last panel may not have had the benefit of knowing what the future schedule and plotlines were for the comic. So trying to indict the accuracy of the description of what the person saw, by citing the inaccuracy of the description of what they didn't, seem illogical in the extreme. It's like saying a weatherman is lying about it raining outside right now, when the weatherman can see the rain, just because he incorrectly forecasts rain in his next sentence.

Edited by sfcityduck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe that BB 54 is unconditionally the 1st appearance of the Teen Titans there's a good chance I won't be able to change your mind, but you should at least me made aware that there is a very strong case, and possibly a majority of collectors who prefer the #60. That is why this thread exists.

 

This thread exists because you are trying to change what people think. I disagree because the conventional wisdom of the past 50 years is correct. The Price Guide disagrees. Every dealer I've seen list the book disagrees. DC disagrees. Notable fan/scholars disagree. I'm unaware of a single article about the TT that takes your position. So I doubt that a majority of collectors agree BB 60 is the first appearance.

 

But, it's a free country, you have free speech, and so do I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And the fact is, if you pick up and read BB54, you will see three teen-age superheroes fight crime together. They don't intend to team up, someone else brings them together without each other's knowledge.

 

So? That's the plot of Avengers 1.

 

 

None of them decides they want to keep working together. No one SAYS they want to or will keep working together. No one even discusses the concept of forming any super-team, let alone with the others.

 

Not true. A subplot is Kid Flash and Aqualad viewing Robin as not a useful contributor. By the end of the story they have learned his value and the value of teamwork. A difference between Avengers 1 and BB 54, is that in Avengers 1 the heroes have a stilted on camera discussion where they say "Hey, let's form a team!" In BB 1, the announcement of the team is made instead in the text box where it announces the "new team" of DC superheroes. That's a distinction without a difference.

 

And if you read BB60, you WILL see the Teen Titans, and you will learn that Robin set up the group "after" the events of BB54. Which means not in BB54.

 

Again this same old misrepresentation. Robin does not say the team was formed "after the events of BB 54." He says it was set up after the adventure of Hatton Corners. That adventure ends on camera in BB 54. And in the last panel of that story, after the adventure is over and the villain defeated, DC announces a "new team."

 

Fans at the time recognized a new team had been formed according to TT 1. Not sure how you can ignore this. In fact, they clamored for Wonder Girl to be added to the new team. And DC responded to those requests. BB 60 was a continuation of the story started in BB 54, and it is notable for adding a new member to the existing team. That's how DC has treated BB 54 since the outset. That's what is said in BB 60 and in TT 1. To claim otherwise is dishonest, especially since DC is very clear on this right now.

 

 

Edited by sfcityduck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3