Crimebuster

As you say, it's my understanding that Sgt. Fury #8 came out the same day as Avengers #6, so that should be a nice argument over "first appearance." Obviously there are a lot more Avengers fans out there, so it's a better bet value-wise, but Sgt. Fury #8 has equal claim to first appearance status.

Sabrina #2 still hasn't come out yet, so I'm not sure the magazines have had anything to preview.

My copy took off when I threw it across the room.

I have August 25 and August 27. But... yeah. Any particular year you are looking for?

Absolutely loved it. Great start, can't wait for the rest of it.

4.0!

Kurtis has posted the upcoming publication schedule on the Rat Queens Facebook page: "Rat Queens Braga One Shot: January 14 Rat Queens #9 (Sejic): February 26 Rat Queens #10 (Sejic): March 26 April Break Rat Queens #12 (Sejic): May (The Braga issue is technically #11, but is now being called a Special One Shot) What's important to note is that beginning in January, you will have a Rat Queens issue every month (with only the April break) from now on. No more delays." The Braga story was originally scheduled to be issue #11. It seems as though they have moved it up from April to January to fill the hole in the release schedule caused by the change in artists.

Can not wait! I hope the book starts coming out more often now. Due to the change in artists, it appears #9 will not be out until February. HOWEVER... according to Bleeding Cool, the book will actually be monthly at that point. Hurray! http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/12/confirmed-stjepan-sejic-new-artist-rat-queens/

Never heard of Quake before, but reading her bio now, it's very, very clear that MagnetoWasRight is right. Very interesting.

Now we know why Marvel flipped out and cancelled FF to spite Fox.

January solicits for #5. Normal cover: Variant cover: Still haven't seen anything about the Francavilla variant for #2. I guess we'll see pretty soon if it's real.

It's not. 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.

It's not. 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: 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.

Then you would be ignoring the publishing history, the actual storyline, and decades of opposing opinion... to what end? I'm ignoring comics history? Did you even see the picture from Teen Titans posted above by Ferdelance? It is clear that the rumour spread for several years that BB54 was the first appearance. Just like Hulk 271 is the first Racoon. Misinformation easily spreads. But if you go by what actually happened that says BB60. Misinformation begat misinformation. Attributing 50 years of professional opinion as misinformation is ridiculous. DC has stated several times that BB54 is the first appearance and origin. Are you saying DC is misinformed about their own property? There have been several images posted in this thread that have also shown DC at various times has considered #60 to be the teams first appearance. So why should we conveniently ignore those - as you are doing - but give weight to their statements supporting #54? It seems pretty clear from what people have posted here that at various times, different editors at DC have considered one or the other to be the team's first appearance. So that avenue of argument seems kind of pointless, as they cancel themselves out. Furthermore, as I have said before, who cares what DC thinks? We can read the comics and see for ourselves what was actually published. I mean, DC could announce tomorrow that they consider More Fun Comics #14 to be the first appearance of Superman, but that doesn't mean it's true. I don't see how either "the market" or DC editorial can, should or does have any effect on the actual contents of the actual comics. Who cares what conventional wisdom has believed for the last 50 years? Let's deal with what's in the comics! You know, about a year ago I got in a similar argument regarding TTA #27 vs. #35, only in that case, I was arguing the opposite side. That argument went on for a long time and got somewhat nasty and somewhat personal. Despite that, however, I thought the other side had a lot of good points. Their arguments had merit, and there's a good chance I was wrong. In this case, though, I have to say I haven't seen any good evidence to suggest that #54 is correct. Almost all of the arguments presented rely on conventional wisdom, retroactive editorial decisions or ambiguous editorial commentary made decades later. The only bit of evidence given in favor of #54 that seems to hold any weight for me is the use of the word "team" in the text box following the story. That I can see, and I think that argument has merit. It doesn't sway me personally, however, because team can be used formally or informally, and nothing in the story suggests they meant it in a formal sense. DC had been using the term "Superman-Batman team" in issues of World's Finest for many years at that point, but were Superman and Batman actually a team in the same sense that the Justice league or the Teen Titans are a team? No, of course not. There are a lot of ambiguous first appearances in comics that are worthy of debate. Ant-Man is kinda complicated, depending on how you look at things. The first appearance of the Unknown Soldier gets legitimately complicated. Or, if you want to really get into an endless continuity morass, we can debate the first appearance of the Silver Age Black Canary. But this doesn't seem nearly as complicated. #60 is literally the first time the "Teen Titans" appear.

haha As an example of why this discussion is taking so long, and is so maddening to all of us with every other post (the ones promoting the other side…), I actually agree with the above … and yet it reads like you have it backwards to me. In my world, the one that I think of as the "real" world -- the ones we fans live in, that DC published comics in, their "Publication History" says #54 to me, and it's the fans today that are demanding that #60 be their first appearance. I think to a degree people are arguing two different things here. I think it's clear that #54 is an important step in the formation of the Teen Titans. That is true both in terms of the story, where Robin pretty clearly implies in #60 that the inspiration for forming the group was their adventure in #54, and in terms of the real world, where DC I think was inspired to make a more permanent team after they saw the sales of #54. If this means that some people feel #54 is more important than #60, that's perfectly reasonable. But #60 literally is the first appearance of the Teen Titans. Key word here being literally. Prior to the publication of #60, no such entity existed. So I find it pretty impossible to believe that #54 is their first appearance when, factually, it was not. What this means to Teen Titans fans - whether #54 or #60 is more important or more valuable - is up to fans to decide for themselves. I'm not even a Titans fan. I just find claims that #54 is their first appearance to be weird, when all evidence presented so far directly contradicts this. I'll also say that some of the arguments presented by proponents of #54 just don't make any sense to me. The comparison with Avengers #1 in particular is odd, since any such comparison supports #60. I also feel there's a pretty clear distinction between a team-up and a team. It's like the difference between going to the gym and playing in a pickup game, and going to the gym and signing up for a rec league. One is informal, the other is formally organized. Everything I've seen in this thread so far supports the idea that #54 was a team-up and #60 was a team.

I suspect it won't be, mainly because he's correct. DC can retcon their own universe, but they can't retcon ours. According to everything that has been presented so far, it seems to be a plain fact that #60 is the first time something called "Teen Titans" appeared in a comic. Prior to #60, nothing called "Teen Titans" existed. Now, you might be able to argue that in story terms, the story in #54 was later deemed to be a "Teen Titans" story - though nothing anyone has said or shown so far has convinced me that's the case either. But even if it that was the case, it would be a retcon. This whole thing is very similar to Avengers #71, which has long been listed in price guides and considered by fans to be the first appearance of the Invaders. Except, it very much is not in any sense, even in a story sense. It came out in 1969. The Invaders weren't created until Giant-Size Invaders #1 in 1975. It wasn't until Invaders Annual #1 in 1977 that Roy Thomas retconned a link to the story in Avengers #71 - and it's not even part of their origin story, it's just a random adventure they went on long after they formed. But thanks to "the market" and "fan knowledge," everyone just knows that Avengers #71 is their "first appearance." Despite, you know, every fact of reality itself. Fans can say whatever they want and the market can decide what it wants to as well. Those factors can make #54 the key issue for collectors. That's all fine and I have no problem with it. People can collect what they want, how they want. But in terms of the real world, actual publication history shows that #60 is the first appearance of the Teen Titans.

Went to the shop yesterday hoping to pick this up. Nothing in sight, so I asked the shop guy when it was coming out, since it had been pushed back twice. New release date: November 26. It's pretty frustrating. It's not even that I really want to read the story - though of course I do - but this series had so much buzz and momentum and I feel like it's really slipping away because of these delays. I'm really rooting for the series and for the company. This sort of thing does not help.

Bobbi is already more interesting in the show than she ever was in the comics.

Did #7 come out this week? It has been scheduled for this week for quite a while now, but I haven't seen anyone talking about it and I can't find any confirmation online that it actually shipped. I have a suspicion it didn't ship, but I haven't found anything online suggesting a new ship date either.

I haven't been able to find any images of it. It's supposedly by Francavilla is all I know.

The reason is simple and hilarious: Bob Haney apparently didn't read Wonder Woman and therefore assumed that Wonder Girl was a separate character from Wonder Woman. So that's how he wrote her. Which is a perfectly reasonable assumption given that Wonder Girl (and Wonder Tot) often teamed up with Wonder Woman. Of course, if you've read those issues of Wonder Woman - which I don't recommend - it turns out that both Wonder Girl and Wonder Tot are younger versions of Wonder Woman, and she teams up with herself through the power of magic. Since that's clearly insane, though, Haney just wrote Wonder Girl as though she were a different character entirely. It's my understanding that it wasn't until after the fact that someone, probably the readers, pointed out that Wonder Girl is supposed to be Wonder Woman herself. But that obviously wouldn't work long term in a team-up title, plus it was stupid. The solution: Just make her a new character named Donna instead. Which might explain why Donna Troy's origin has been so messed up and convoluted since, because she wasn't intended to even exist.

My - DC is right. #54 is a team-up, not a team. The team isn't founded until #60. It's the same as Sub-Mariner #34-35. Yes, it has Hulk, Sub-Mariner and Silver Surfer teaming up. But they aren't the Defenders until Marvel Feature #1, when they gain both Dr. Strange and the name "Defenders." The Teen Titans aren't the Teen Titans until #60, when they gain the team name and are joined by fellow founder Wonder Girl. There's no confusion over the first Defenders; the Sub-Mariner issues are seen as a prototype. The same should be true for B&B #54 and #60.

Here's my copy. As you can see, I am not it's most famous owner, but I am the current owner:

December solicits for #4. Normal cover: Variant: