Vger7

Picked up an ASM#20 from Chay. It was a smooth transaction and I appreciate that he took extra care packing the book,. Many thanks and I look forward to more transactions with Chay.

I bought a bunch of books off the boards recently and the one I bought from Marcus was the first to arrive. Well packaged, speedy delivery and very easy to talk to. I look forward to doing more business with him in the near future.

People have a way convincing themselves that something is true if they really want it to be true: Only the people at the meeting will know for sure... My point is that KK's one panel appearance in #14 makes no sense because it serves no purpose. To me, it contradicts what was stated. "Deliberate"... in what way? But, like I said, it's all moot at this point. People will believe what they believe and make their purchase accordingly.

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 I get it - the first cameo. Not a problem. I don't get the 1st unnamed non-speaking background cameo > 1st named/costumed/full appearance thing. But like I said, the market is fickle and irrational. If the writer has to after-the-fact explain who the person in the background is, then it's not much of a significant appearance at all, IMO. 2 TOTALLY AGREE. Logically speaking, what purpose does the very first appearance in #14 serve? Being "deliberate" suggests some sort of grand plan but to what extent... especially if Khan looks so different and the audience can't make the connection. If it's simply a case of bad inconsistent art, then the meaning behind Khan's one panel appearance should be revealed in the story... no? Stan Lee said he created Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, the Hulk... etc. But a creator making a claim does not always make it true. People tend to say all sorts of thing when put on the spot. This is just my personal perspective but if viewed logically, it makes no sense. I suspect that this is a case of jumping on the band wagon.

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.

I can confirm that the Canadian single price $5.95 variant does exist. I've got 4 copies MGN#4, all first prints, 2 of them priced at the US $4.95 and the remaining 2 priced at the CAD $5.95. However, not sure if the price variant makes it much more valuable...

Not to get off topic, but that is not generally how people who speak yiddish define schmuck. It's a bastardized term. Kind of like how Chinese people don't actually eat sweet and sour chicken balls. If it was used in my house you got slapped. Same with Chicken Balls, if you brought those to my house you'd get slapped up side the head.

Not to get off topic, but that is not generally how people who speak yiddish define schmuck. It's a bastardized term. Kind of like how Chinese people don't actually eat sweet and sour chicken balls.

My last comment was meant to be a joke... ala Seinfeld's anti-dentite? Perhaps I should have included this reference: The only time I lost money on a deal was when I took the advise from a schmuck at Comic Connect. On top of my loss, he had the audacity to send me a pompous note when I asked for my remaining unlisted books back. Talk about unprofessional. Although he's no longer working there... the whole experience left a bad taste in my mouth and I haven't been back. Otherwise, I've been fortunate in that I haven't had many serious problems (**knock on wood**)... Although, I did have request for a refund recently on eBay, my first ever. In this particular case, I think the seller should have simply admitted he made a mistake offering the book up so cheap. The buyer would be upset but at least it would demonstrate maturity and responsibility. A few kind words could have de-escalated this whole situation. The seller could also have some issues that we don't know about so I prefer not to bash people (and no, "schmuck" is not bashing. It means foolish and obnoxious which he was). I think it's better to simply state the case and move forward.

As a new seller I take offense to the above remark! When are people going to realize that "new sellers" are people too. New sellers came to this board just like everybody else looking for a better life. When I first came out as a "new seller", it was difficult. Some of my friends were like... what the...? Why are you selling your stuff? But I've made new friends... and they helped me realize now that I have nothing to be ashamed of.

Curious: If the seller admitted to not knowing the market value of the book and simply asked to cancel the deal due to his error, which he now recognizes, would you guys have let him off the hook?

They had me at Margot Robbie!

Terrific seller. Marc took care of everything and kept me informed. I look forward to buying more books from him in near future. Top score from me.