1st Teen Titans

3 3

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.

 

So you take issue with me leaving out the words "brief history"?. I looked at it as cutting right to the chase. I consider your argument unreasonable and will not give it any more thought.

As far as your other arguments, you are trying too hard. DC makes it clear what the author intended by naming & completing the team in 60. This is confirmed by the reference to the "original team in its first case" quote from the 1st reprint and the first appearance together but "not as the Teen Titans" reference from the other BA panel. For an anonymous message board poster to determine the intent of the author 50 years after the fact is also an unreasonable argument. It shouldn't have to be that hard. That is why I find the word "canonical" in the DC wiki write up fascinating. Whomever wrote this was a student of literature, possibly even biblical scripture. It is a direct reference to the New Testament where the book that appears first was actually wrote last. Mark begat Matthew, but it is Matthew that introduces the reader to Christianity. There are 4 "canonical" books of the New Testament. This is where the word originates.

By using the word canonical, the author of the wiki entry for BB 60 is stating that this is the book that removes all doubt and ambiguity. This is a very strongly worded statement. I wish there was more clarity into who wrote this.

 

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.

well written!

 

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.

 

Do you doubt that the Avengers is a formal team, rather than just a cross-over/team up like there has been so many of in MArvel and DC?

Hint: It is called "Avengers #1".

...

BB54 on the other hand is just a cross-over of three teens.

When that was successful the 4 teens were implemented as a formal team in BB60.

This thread is seriously devolving.

Neither side is going to convince the other, so what purpose does this debate serve? It's just gotten uglier and more personal. You're both presenting the same facts over and over again -- to what end?

You've all fought for your opinions valiantly. Stop piling on because it doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Everyone take a break. Or let the thread die...

Just a friendly suggestion to all.

 

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.

Weird that you didn't quote it, then. But then, that seems to be the pattern.

The text of the last panel of BB 54 has been quoted ad nauseum.

Not by you.

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.

So your NEW argument is that the word "team" in the first sentence was written by a writer, editor or storyteller introducing into the narrative the momentous, non-puffery announcement of the creation of a new superhero team, a method never used before or since in comic books to create new superhero teams. And then, for the SECOND word in this caption, they called in the boys from marketing and said, "Hey, why don't you go ahead and finish this caption box for us; you can even play off our incredibly understated use of the word "team" to accomplish what an entire comic-book worth of story failed to--the creation of a new superhero team--and now SWITCH the meaning of that word totally to refer to generic, transient partnerships." Well, I'm sold.

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.

I see. So now you're saying the writer of BB54 did not write that caption. So, according to you, someone other than the writer decided to add on the notion that the three teens then formed a superhero team. AND, you further suggest, DC let someone who was neither the writer, NOR an editor familiar with even next month's story, come in and write a caption that both summarized the current issue and promoted future ones.

I must admit, I definitely think you have made this really clear.

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.

Except I'm not trying to indict their accuracy. The entire point of my claim is that the writer of that caption box (likely the writer or editor of the story) used the word "team" honestly and consistently throughout the entire two sentences--to refer to people teaming up without forming lasting, formal alliances.

My theory requires a simple explanation. Yours requires several people producing (1) the story for the comic book, (2) the first sentence of the last caption of that comic book and then (3) the second sentence of that caption--with (2) having the benefit of reading what (1) wrote and adding the formation of a new superhero team to (1)'s story, but neither (1) nor (2) nor editor (4) informing (3) what "teams" (3) should be promoting for the issues that (1) would write and editor (4) would already have assigned.

So, folks who subscribe to your theory should feel free to continue thrilling in the exciting first appearance of the Teen Titans in the momentous, historic, first sentence of the final caption of BB54, written by the mysterious, anonymous, never-identified-in-history TRUE creator of the Teen Titans who stepped in to help out after reading what the writer of that issue wrote.

Or they can read BB60.

This thread is seriously devolving.

 

Neither side is going to convince the other, so what purpose does this debate serve? It's just gotten uglier and more personal. You're both presenting the same facts over and over again -- to what end?

 

You've all fought for your opinions valiantly. Stop piling on because it doesn't add anything to the conversation.

 

Everyone take a break. Or let the thread die...

 

Just a friendly suggestion to all.

In my defense, I was told there would be beer.

This thread is seriously devolving.

 

Neither side is going to convince the other, so what purpose does this debate serve? It's just gotten uglier and more personal. You're both presenting the same facts over and over again -- to what end?

 

You've all fought for your opinions valiantly. Stop piling on because it doesn't add anything to the conversation.

 

Everyone take a break. Or let the thread die...

 

Just a friendly suggestion to all.

 

In my defense, I was told there would be beer.

Seriously though, if one side can't convince the other in almost 50 pages... probably not going to happen!

More like 50 years. That does not mean it cannot be done, oh ye of little faith!!

This thread is seriously devolving.

 

Neither side is going to convince the other, so what purpose does this debate serve? It's just gotten uglier and more personal. You're both presenting the same facts over and over again -- to what end?

 

You've all fought for your opinions valiantly. Stop piling on because it doesn't add anything to the conversation.

 

Everyone take a break. Or let the thread die...

 

Just a friendly suggestion to all.

 

In my defense, I was told there would be beer.

 

 

Seriously though, if one side can't convince the other in almost 50 pages... probably not going to happen!

Agreed--which is why I'm not trying to make people agree with me. I just won't let ridiculous arguments stand when they misquote and cherry-pick what I say.

Happy to disagree with you, sir, you've been civil and fair-minded throughout! Enjoy your BB54 in good health!

Someone made a vote....what was the result?

Does anyone care about message board polls? I didn't even vote.

The way to tell how the market votes is go search the auction sites for BB 54 and BB 60. What you'll find is that BB 54 is uniformly referred to as the first TT appearance. The market for comics speaks through dealer listings and prices paid.

Does anyone care about message board polls? I didn't even vote.

 

The way to tell how the market votes is go search the auction sites for BB 54 and BB 60. What you'll find is that BB 54 is uniformly referred to as the first TT appearance. The market for comics speaks through dealer listings and prices paid.

You are assuming that there are HG copies of the 60 for sale. I could buy a handful of nice 54's in the next 2 minutes. The market is speaking rather clearly.

Someone made a vote....what was the result?

Depending on the poll 55-60% in favor of the 60.

Does anyone care about message board polls? I didn't even vote.

 

The way to tell how the market votes is go search the auction sites for BB 54 and BB 60. What you'll find is that BB 54 is uniformly referred to as the first TT appearance. The market for comics speaks through dealer listings and prices paid.

 

You are assuming that there are HG copies of the 60 for sale. I could buy a handful of nice 54's in the next 2 minutes. The market is speaking rather clearly.

Well, to be fair, 60 is harder to find in HG because it's a black cover...

3 copies on ebay total vs 12 of the 54. Someone is snatching these up. A BB 60 was auctioned on the sales forum last night and the 2nd bidder hit the BIN. 7 pending sales of the 54 versus one of the 60 on Comiclink.

To be fair, there is the aforementioned 9.0 60 on Metro vs 1 7.0 54. FWIW, I believe that 9.0 will beat the sales price of the pending 9.0 #54 on comiclink ($650).

Does anyone care about message board polls? I didn't even vote.

 

The way to tell how the market votes is go search the auction sites for BB 54 and BB 60. What you'll find is that BB 54 is uniformly referred to as the first TT appearance. The market for comics speaks through dealer listings and prices paid.

 

You are assuming that there are HG copies of the 60 for sale. I could buy a handful of nice 54's in the next 2 minutes. The market is speaking rather clearly.

Well ... a quick search shows that on Comic Connect you can get a BB 60 in 9.0.

On Metro, you can pick up a BB 54 in 9.4 (not yet processed)!

I don't see any available 9.0+ copies of either issue on any of the easy places to look. But, neither issue is particularly hard to find, so if you look hard enough I'm sure you'll find other nice copies.

What's the highest price paid for a BB 60?

$8365-Single highest graded Pacific Coast pedigree. 9.6. Unsure of pq. This was back in 3/2008.

3 copies on ebay total vs 12 of the 54. Someone is snatching these up. A BB 60 was auctioned on the sales forum last night and the 2nd bidder hit the BIN. 7 pending sales of the 54 versus one of the 60 on Comiclink.

 

To be fair, there is the aforementioned 9.0 60 on Metro vs 1 7.0 54. FWIW, I believe that 9.0 will beat the sales price of the pending 9.0 #54 on comiclink ($650).

I see at least five copies of BB 60 on eBay. So I don't think its at all rare.

Based on the number of pending sales on comiclink, it appears that BB 54 is in high demand at good prices.

So what would you care to wager on the hammer price of the 60 9.0 on comicconnect beating the 54 9.0 price on Link, Duck? Ill take over $650 all day long.