That moment I realized people confuse 'first appearance' with 'first cameo'

I was at a comic shop on Saturday and this guy was bragging about his copy of Incredible Hulk #180. He kept saying it was Wolverine's first appearance. I showed him the panel where Wolverine only has one line and his face is half in shadow. That's a cameo, not an appearance. The real first full appearance is issue #181. The owner behind the counter just nodded at me. Has anyone else dealt with this argument? It happens to me about twice a year.

3 comments

3 Comments

elliot_taylor22d ago

Oh man, I've totally been that guy at the shop before... except I was the one getting corrected. I remember thinking I was so smart with my copy of Iron Man #55 until someone pointed out Thanos was just a floating head in the background. Now I just nod quietly whenever someone starts talking about first appearances.

webb.ben22d ago

Stand there nodding with my copy of Hulk #180 thinking I'm hot stuff, but folks always remind me Wolverine doesn't even get named until #181. The "first appearance tax" is real, but the real move is pretending you knew about the background cameo from day one.

-1

grace_wright22d ago

Yeah @webb.ben gets it. The background cameo is the real flex because it shows you were paying attention before everyone else jumped on the bandwagon. I got a copy of Amazing Spider-Man #300 thinking I was clever for snagging Venom's first full appearance. Then someone pointed out the symbiote actually shows up in #252 first. Now I just keep my mouth shut and let people think I'm dumb. The "first appearance" game is a trap anyway. Collect what you like not what some price guide tells you to buy.