KAMALA KHAN 1 1

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

Just stick with Marvel Point One and you can't go wrong.

 

And that audio with talking about 14 being her 1st app in the background, I don't see anyone in the background but in the foreground I see a 45sh woman with brown skin who looks nothing like Kamala...maybe she's pregnant with Kamala and this the 1st Cameo Womb shot.

Considering this was said in an interview, where certainly KSD didn't have the reading material in front of her, I think it makes perfect sense to say "background"; KK isn't part of the main action in that issue, so thematically she's in the background. As for the visual, sure, it doesn't look like KK in her own comic, but it's possible at that point that the artist didn't have much to go on; perhaps character design hadn't been completed by then. Or, we just recognize that artists have different styles. The two images below look like two different people as well.

 

 

[ygogolak]

I like this, from the link:

 

I think we should be able to close this debate once and for all.

 

Someone is new to comics collecting.

 

Edited May 30, 2015 by ygogolak

[Batman]

For what it's worth...

 

http://comicbookspeculation.blogspot.ca/2015/05/136-dakoit-special-curious-case-of.html

 

 

 

 

From my perspective, that's the worst argument yet...

 

It goes to show, never take the word of others but search and research yourself.

Referring to the source material... good start (thumbs u

 

However, when that source material is already in question, further evidence is required. Forming opinions unsupported by key references is not research.

What are you referring to?

 

What source material is in question?

 

The source material is Captain Marvel #14, #17 (1st & 2nd printings), Marvel Now Point One #1.

 

The argument regarding KK's first appearance(s) has been going on for a while now and this article (posted 15 hours ago) offers nothing new, despite claiming it does. It's just another interpretation of what can be seen in the comic books and that argument is already underway.

 

Dakoit (the author) says...

 

It goes to show, never take the word of others but search and research yourself.

...however has done no more than the next person arguing over the subject. To truly research and debate a matter, the author must find and provide evidence which supports their theory. There's plenty out there...

[jcjames]

To truly research and debate a matter, the author must find and provide evidence which supports their theory. There's plenty out there...

When does the character "Kamala Khan" first appear?

 

Provide evidence that it is in any book OTHER than ANMNPO#1.

 

Neither CM14 nor CM17-2nd Print have any mention of any character named "Kamala Khan", although a cover image unrelated to the inner storyline may be interpreted as an appearance - but cannot be mistaken for the "first appearance" of the character "Kamala Khan" that is clearly and unequivocally seen and announced in ANMNPO#1.

 

 

 

 

[Batman]

To truly research and debate a matter, the author must find and provide evidence which supports their theory. There's plenty out there...

When does the character "Kamala Khan" first appear?

 

Provide evidence that it is in any book OTHER than ANMPO#1.

 

CM17-2nd Print has no mention of any character named "Kamala Khan", although a cover image unrelated to the inner storyline may be mistaken for an appearance - but cannot be mistaken for the clear outright naming and identification of the character "Kamala Khan" in ANMPO#1.

 

Apologies if I confused you with my posts. I'm not arguing what was or wasn't KK's first appearance, nor the significance of any of her first appearances. I was pointing out that the article is not well researched like it claims to be. This point being demonstrated by the author editing his article in light of new evidence (edited within the last hour or so).

[MadGenius]

For what's it worth, I used to be on team "Captain Marvel #17 2nd Print" but now I'm team "ANMN Point One #1."

 

Do with that what you will.

[ygogolak]

To truly research and debate a matter, the author must find and provide evidence which supports their theory. There's plenty out there...

When does the character "Kamala Khan" first appear?

 

Provide evidence that it is in any book OTHER than ANMNPO#1.

 

Neither CM14 nor CM17-2nd Print have any mention of any character named "Kamala Khan", although a cover image unrelated to the inner storyline may be interpreted as an appearance - but cannot be mistaken for the "first appearance" of the character "Kamala Khan" that is clearly and unequivocally seen and announced in ANMNPO#1.

 

 

The evidence was posted in the comments on your blog.

[jcjames]

To truly research and debate a matter, the author must find and provide evidence which supports their theory. There's plenty out there...

When does the character "Kamala Khan" first appear?

 

Provide evidence that it is in any book OTHER than ANMPO#1.

 

CM17-2nd Print has no mention of any character named "Kamala Khan", although a cover image unrelated to the inner storyline may be mistaken for an appearance - but cannot be mistaken for the clear outright naming and identification of the character "Kamala Khan" in ANMPO#1.

 

Apologies if I confused you with my posts. I'm not arguing what was or wasn't KK's first appearance, nor the significance of any of her first appearances. I was pointing out that the article is not well researched like it claims to be. This point being demonstrated by the author editing his article in light of new evidence (edited within the last hour or so).

 

I didn't see that today - thanks.

 

So two cameos and a first full appearance.

 

 

 

[Santos208]

Which book is selling for over $100, CM17 2nd print or point one?

 

Case closed.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Santos208

[jcjames]

Which book is selling for over $100, CM17 2nd print or point one?

 

Case closed.

The market is very fickle and very irrational.

 

Many many examples of this.

 

 

[MadGenius]

I cite the "krighton paradox" as proof that ANMN Point One is the book to have: a 2nd print can't be the first appearance of a character if the 1st print of the same comic isn't considered the first appearance of said character.

[krighton]

Which book is selling for over $100, CM17 2nd print or point one?

 

Case closed.

 

People have been known to spend millions on a forged painting, doesn't mean they're doing it right.

[krighton]

I cite the "krighton paradox" as proof that ANMN Point One is the book to have: a 2nd print can't be the first appearance of a character if the 1st print of the same comic isn't considered the first appearance of said character.

 

+1

[marvelcollector]

 

Neither CM14 nor CM17-2nd Print have any mention of any character named "Kamala Khan", although a cover image unrelated to the inner storyline may be interpreted as an appearance - but cannot be mistaken for the "first appearance" of the character "Kamala Khan" that is clearly and unequivocally seen and announced in ANMNPO#1.

 

 

 

 

When a character or event is depicted on a cover, but not in the actual story inside the book, do we consider it as "happening"?

 

It's an old marketing ploy you used to see more often. I've never considered an image of a character on a cover an appearance in said book if he/she did not actually appear in the story inside.

 

Add to that a publisher retroactively placing it on a second print cover, and the notion of any appearance - much less first appearance - becomes even more spurious.

[MadGenius]

 

Neither CM14 nor CM17-2nd Print have any mention of any character named "Kamala Khan", although a cover image unrelated to the inner storyline may be interpreted as an appearance - but cannot be mistaken for the "first appearance" of the character "Kamala Khan" that is clearly and unequivocally seen and announced in ANMNPO#1.

 

 

 

 

When a character or event is depicted on a cover, but not in the actual story inside the book, do we consider it as "happening"?

 

It's an old marketing ploy you used to see more often. I've never considered an image of a character on a cover an appearance in said book if he/she did not actually appear in the story inside.

 

Add to that a publisher retroactively placing it on a second print cover, and the notion of any appearance - much less first appearance - becomes even more spurious.

What we have here is the same situation as Marvel Age #97 and Darkhawk #1.

 

Marve Age 97 features Darkhawk on the cover, and is a nice collectible for Darkhawk fans, but he's not on the inside. Thus, Darkhhawk #1 (not Marvel Age 97) is considered his 1st appearance.

[Vger7]

DD#115 is famous for containing a Wolverine ad that pre-dates Hulk#181. Some argue it matters, for others it's just a novelty. However, DD#115 is still worth more than it should be because of the ad.

 

Point being, buy what interests you.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

To truly research and debate a matter, the author must find and provide evidence which supports their theory. There's plenty out there...

When does the character "Kamala Khan" first appear?

 

Provide evidence that it is in any book OTHER than ANMNPO#1.

The writer explicitly stated that she was intentionally placed in issue 14.

 

http://1979semifinalist.podomatic.com/entry/2013-11-18T01_13_14-08_00

 

Start listening at 1:37:30

[fastballspecial]

 

Neither CM14 nor CM17-2nd Print have any mention of any character named "Kamala Khan", although a cover image unrelated to the inner storyline may be interpreted as an appearance - but cannot be mistaken for the "first appearance" of the character "Kamala Khan" that is clearly and unequivocally seen and announced in ANMNPO#1.

 

 

 

 

When a character or event is depicted on a cover, but not in the actual story inside the book, do we consider it as "happening"?

 

It's an old marketing ploy you used to see more often. I've never considered an image of a character on a cover an appearance in said book if he/she did not actually appear in the story inside.

 

Add to that a publisher retroactively placing it on a second print cover, and the notion of any appearance - much less first appearance - becomes even more spurious.

What we have here is the same situation as Marvel Age #97 and Darkhawk #1.

 

Marve Age 97 features Darkhawk on the cover, and is a nice collectible for Darkhawk fans, but he's not on the inside. Thus, Darkhhawk #1 (not Marvel Age 97) is considered his 1st appearance.

 

Very good point.

 

The only counter argument at all is scarcity is driving this book as well due to low print run.

 

[UltraMaximus]

Just picked up a NM All New Marvel Now copy! I can unload my VF copies now!

[MadGenius]

 

Neither CM14 nor CM17-2nd Print have any mention of any character named "Kamala Khan", although a cover image unrelated to the inner storyline may be interpreted as an appearance - but cannot be mistaken for the "first appearance" of the character "Kamala Khan" that is clearly and unequivocally seen and announced in ANMNPO#1.

 

 

 

 

When a character or event is depicted on a cover, but not in the actual story inside the book, do we consider it as "happening"?

 

It's an old marketing ploy you used to see more often. I've never considered an image of a character on a cover an appearance in said book if he/she did not actually appear in the story inside.

 

Add to that a publisher retroactively placing it on a second print cover, and the notion of any appearance - much less first appearance - becomes even more spurious.

What we have here is the same situation as Marvel Age #97 and Darkhawk #1.

 

Marve Age 97 features Darkhawk on the cover, and is a nice collectible for Darkhawk fans, but he's not on the inside. Thus, Darkhhawk #1 (not Marvel Age 97) is considered his 1st appearance.

 

Very good point.

 

The only counter argument at all is scarcity is driving this book as well due to low print run.

I think ANMN Point One is going to be much tougher to find in high grade, regardless of print run, because it's an over-sized issue and was initially dismissed by collectors.