1st appearance of Kid Mavelman? 0

[Bart Allen]

I'm curious about this one, as I just don't know, as well as being unsure whether I've missed an issue - more so that CGC hasn't acknowledged it, nor has anyone sent a Warrior #2 or #3 for grading. Would Warrior #2 be classed as a full appearance or a cameo appearance? As with what CGC have labelled Miracleman's appearance in Warrior #1, it seems like the following label would be fitting for either Warrior #2 or #3: First appearance of "Kid Marvelman" (later becomes Kid Miracleman).

Warrior #2

Spoiler

An enraged Johnny Bates smashing the table at the end of the issue

Warrior #3

Johnny meeting with Michael and revealing himself to still be Kid Miracleman.

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2020 by Bart Allen

[Ryan.]

Wouldn't the first appearance be Marvelman 102?

[Bart Allen]

6 hours ago, Ryan. said:

Wouldn't the first appearance be Marvelman 102?

Yes, and the first appearance of Marvelman would be Mavelman #25, however, these are the modern versions which have the "Marvel" in their name removed - later to be corrected in the Miracleman 1985 series by Eclipse via their reprint - for the trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Marvel Comics over the use of the name "Marvel" in Marvelman, hence why the name Marvelman is in speech-marks in the census of Warrior #1:

 

Edited June 1, 2020 by Bart Allen

[Ryan.]

Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with Miracleman. What's unclear is why CGC would label Warrior 1 as Marvelman's first appearance when the standard practice in such matters is to qualify first modern appearances as "First modern appearance of character X" or occasionally "Reintroduction of character X". 

[PeterPark]

Wouldn't say corrected, just changed...

[Lazyboy]

11 hours ago, Bart Allen said:

for the trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Marvel Comics over the use of the name "Marvel" in Marvelman

Nope. Marvel may not have liked the return of the character, but they had no claim to the name and didn't file a lawsuit. When Eclipse brought the character to the U.S., they decided to avoid any potential conflict with the much bigger publisher by changing the name.

[Bart Allen]

20 hours ago, Ryan. said:

Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with Miracleman. What's unclear is why CGC would label Warrior 1 as Marvelman's first appearance when the standard practice in such matters is to qualify first modern appearances as "First modern appearance of character X" or occasionally "Reintroduction of character X". 

 

16 hours ago, PeterPark said:

Wouldn't say corrected, just changed...

Or how about what they did for Marvelman's namesake: Shazam? "1st appearance of Marvelman (later becomes Miracleman) since the Silver Age." or for Warrior #3: "1st appearance of Kid Marvelman (later becomes Kid Miracleman) since the Silver Age."

 

14 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

Nope. Marvel may not have liked the return of the character, but they had no claim to the name and didn't file a lawsuit. When Eclipse brought the character to the U.S., they decided to avoid any potential conflict with the much bigger publisher by changing the name.

Apologies, you're right, as stated by Padraig O Mealoid ~

Edited June 2, 2020 by Bart Allen