RockMyAmadeus

There is a small, but very vocal, movement about to change long held hobby conventions regarding the definitions of terms like "first appearance." For example...according to these folks, the first appearances of scores of characters wasn't in any comic book...it was in Previews. Because, ya know...that's their first "appearance." Also...the listing that starts this thread is still in violation of eBay rules. You CANNOT sell "secret" items. So you are now admitting that a change is occurring? Its a first step. It just seems like a change is coming. I think its ridiculous as well, but it seems change is inevitable in some cases. You have misred the statement, which has led to misunderstanding. The movement is what is "about", not the timing of a "change." As used in the phrase "out and about." Substitute "around" for "about" if that will clarify it. Original post has been edited for clarity.

Which is why label notes should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever....(breathe)...EVER be taken as anything more than what they are: free notations not included in the price of submission, based on CGC's opinions only.

Yes, a 22 year old "modern"...

Have we made whatever point was trying to be made? Can we move this back to Copper where it started, and belongs?

What did the reviews do, solve a case in the Mystery Machine...? "And I would have gotten away with it, too...."

Who said that?

You uber-newbs need to take a course in quote nests. What a mess.

Because that's the only rule that makes any sense. So you are saying previews count? If you are the sole artist/writer and created a new character finished the work on your own book, however your book was delayed. At the same time, a book that was suppose to feature your created character drawn by a different artist was on time. Do you feel the book drawn by a different artist should take credit for your created character? The other artist should not - and certainly would not - get credit for creating the character. But it would still be the first appearance of the character, because it would be the first time the character appeared. Unless you have a time machine, you can't alter reality to claim otherwise. And no, I am not saying previews count, because this is a storytelling medium, not an advertising medium. If people want to collect advertisements instead of comic books, that's their prerogative, but I'm not sure why it would impact anything comic collectors are doing. Anyway, this discussion is moot. Even if you want to claim that whatever was drawn first is the real first appearance - which I think is an utterly bizarre idea - SEE Noble Causes Secrets 3b Variant AND Invincible #1 source? Source? Actually, I'm pretty sure you provided the source yourself when you posted a link to an interview with the artist for #266 where he said the issue was a last minute rush job that he had to do in just 8 days to meet deadline. Given that a) #266 was published 2 weeks after Annual #14, b) the Annual is twice as long as #266 and c) Art Adams is legendarily slow with his pencils, there's no possible way that Annual #14 was drawn after #266. Not that it matters, because this entire concept is preposterous. Proof has been shown in this thread that Annual #14 came out before X-Men #266. Annual #14 has Gambit in it. I cannot see any possible way someone can claim with a straight face that #266 is Gambit's first appearance. If you want to claim that #266 is more important, that's cool, but this is just weird. The only "proof" in this thread that it was published before X-men 266. Everything else you said is an assumption. Provide a source where it says Chris gave the notes on how to draw Gambit. Two sources are saying x-men 266 was suppose to be published first but due to delays it wasn't. What delays? We have documented proof, from the US Copyright office, that there were NO DELAYS in the books or titles involved that year. None. We have the independent Marvel source which agrees with the US Copyright office. What good is a source if the source is wrong? It ceases, ipso facto, to be a source!

Because that's the only rule that makes any sense. So you are saying previews count? If you are the sole artist/writer and created a new character finished the work on your own book, however your book was delayed. At the same time, a book that was suppose to feature your created character drawn by a different artist was on time. Do you feel the book drawn by a different artist should take credit for your created character? The other artist should not - and certainly would not - get credit for creating the character. But it would still be the first appearance of the character, because it would be the first time the character appeared. Unless you have a time machine, you can't alter reality to claim otherwise. And no, I am not saying previews count, because this is a storytelling medium, not an advertising medium. If people want to collect advertisements instead of comic books, that's their prerogative, but I'm not sure why it would impact anything comic collectors are doing. Anyway, this discussion is moot. Even if you want to claim that whatever was drawn first is the real first appearance - which I think is an utterly bizarre idea - SEE Noble Causes Secrets 3b Variant AND Invincible #1 source? Source? Actually, I'm pretty sure you provided the source yourself when you posted a link to an interview with the artist for #266 where he said the issue was a last minute rush job that he had to do in just 8 days to meet deadline. Given that a) #266 was published 2 weeks after Annual #14, b) the Annual is twice as long as #266 and c) Art Adams is legendarily slow with his pencils, there's no possible way that Annual #14 was drawn after #266. Not that it matters, because this entire concept is preposterous. Proof has been shown in this thread that Annual #14 came out before X-Men #266. Annual #14 has Gambit in it. I cannot see any possible way someone can claim with a straight face that #266 is Gambit's first appearance. If you want to claim that #266 is more important, that's cool, but this is just weird. Also true, with one small, but relevant, nit...the annual came out THREE weeks before #266. By the time the Annual saw print, it's entirely possible that the finished art was just being turned in to Harras for production.

Also true. Adams was, and is, notoriously slow, which is why he had so little published at this time, so he likely would have been working on the pages for months...annnnddddd....since we know that #266 was drawn in 8 days, under deadline, it is almost a conclusion that Annual #14 was drawn first.

That's unworkable, and relies on assumptions that cannot be made; not to mention, contradicts traditional and long established conventions within the hobby. In order to visualize the character, then X-editor Bob Harras recruited a young Jim Lee to sketch out Claremonts conception, but when it came time to introduce the character properly in Uncanny, British veteran comics artist Mike Collins was the man chosen to ultimately pencil Gambits arrival in Uncanny #266. Mike Collins : Unfortunately, this issue coincided with Chris honeymoon, so I was getting pages sent through close to deadline. I drew the book in about eight days. So, yup tight! http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21007 Not sure what this is in response to, or what it demonstrates. Two different sources bleeding cool and comicbooksource saying the publishing schedule got messed up and 266 was meant to be the first published of Gambit and first drawn. And those sources are both incorrect. The publishing schedule "didn't get messed up"...they simply didn't bother about it, as evidenced by the editorial note in the annual, referencing the upcoming issues. As I have said before...Marvel and the creators that work for Marvel care very little about the aftermarket's response to a character, and in what order he/she appeared. Harras noticed it, obviously, which is why he had the note added (he probably said "hey, who's this trenchcoat guy?" and Claremont responded "oh, that's a new character...he'll be in #265-267 or thereabouts.") How, then, do you know that X-Men #266 is the "first drawn" of Gambit, when we have proof that that is NOT the first drawn...the Jim Lee sketches came first: No publishing "mess up", as has been anecdotally reported for 25+ years by people who couldn't deal with the fact that Gambit's first appearance was, in fact, in the Annual, which came out three weeks prior to #266. Everything came out exactly as it should have, which, by 1990, Marvel had gotten down to a science. If there was any sort of "mess-up" at all, it was on Claremont and Harras, for not mapping the character out a little better when they had the chance, but again...not a priority for them, and they just added the note to take care of it. Marvel didn't care. That's the reality that people need to come to grips with. If Gambit hadn't been popular, no one would ever have had to come up with an after-the-fact explanation for why X-Men #266 was the "real" first appearance (which clearly people knew that X-Men Annual had come out before...they just didn't know how much before, or if their memories were accurate.) The market applies such odd hindsight rationalizations to so much stuff... Regardless of all of that, it doesn't matter: we know when the Annual came out, we know when #266 came out, and the Annual is unquestionably, confirmed by various unrelated sources, first. Gambit appears on multiple pages, is addressed by name, the whole works. The only thing holding it back...and it's a small thing...is that he doesn't appear on the cover.

That's unworkable, and relies on assumptions that cannot be made; not to mention, contradicts traditional and long established conventions within the hobby. In order to visualize the character, then X-editor Bob Harras recruited a young Jim Lee to sketch out Claremonts conception, but when it came time to introduce the character properly in Uncanny, British veteran comics artist Mike Collins was the man chosen to ultimately pencil Gambits arrival in Uncanny #266. Mike Collins : Unfortunately, this issue coincided with Chris honeymoon, so I was getting pages sent through close to deadline. I drew the book in about eight days. So, yup tight! http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21007 Not sure what this is in response to, or what it demonstrates.

That's unworkable, and relies on assumptions that cannot be made; not to mention, contradicts traditional and long established conventions within the hobby. I disagree. The information about the book, title, issue, publication date, creator credits, all of which appear on the label, are all immutable, and not subject to the whims of the market, or someone's opinion. Those should all be correct, all the time, as there's no reason for them not to be other than human error. The issue is the label notes section, which is the small section of notes to the right of the bar code. These ARE changeable, and subject to market and personal opinion, and thus should be considered immaterial to any buying/selling decisions. But I understand where you're coming from...

My Easter Island Morpheus...I think it's the only one with a Sam Kieth sketch. And noooo, I'm never cracking it for a Gaiman sketch...it's a super soft 9.8.

Many people, including myself, didn't realize how much evidence stacked up in X-Men Annual #14's favor as being the actual full first appearance of Gambit until recently. Seeing the release date schedule, copyright info, and actual scans of the Gambit panels in XMA #14 show to me that a large majority in the hobby has had it wrong all these years, and are too stubborn to admit their mistake now. This. This, times a bazillion, especially the last part.

The answer is not thinking that the label notes should matter, because they obviously cannot. They are subject to change, obviously, as the market changes. What if a book is the first appearance of two characters? What if one of those characters is popular, but the other no one cares about? And then, down the line, what if that other character becomes popular? All those slabs will have notes that are wrong, according to the view of the market. The sure answer, therefore, is to put NO stock in the label notes, to recognize that they aren't ever going to be entirely correct and/or complete for every book, and recognize that they aren't to be considered authoritative. Problem solved.

#4, always, forever, the end. The best SS cover ever. But...the only thing that keeps #50 from the top spot is that dumb Johnny Storm box. Otherwise...#50.

$1200 was the reserve. Smells fishy. $1200 is $100 less than I paid in 2013 for a 9.0.

A couple of oft-repeated errors in this article: It was three weeks before, and repeats the idea that the publishing schedule was "muddled" a bit. Also says #266 was "meant" to have the first appearance of Gambit. The editorial note in Annual #14, referencing issues that weren't out yet, argues otherwise (although it can be reasonably argued that this supports both sides of the issue, I admit.) No "muddle", though, unless it was Claremont and the rest of the X-Team doing the muddling, which no one but they know. Everything from Marvel's point of view came out exactly as intended. I really wonder who came up with this "error" folklore...? It had to have been someone who just didn't like the fact that the story in the annual took place after the events of #265-267, and needed a reason to explain away why Gambit appeared, seemingly out of place, in the annual, and why X-Men #266 was "really" Gambit's first appearance. Fanboys are a funny thing.

What, that you casually make inaccurate statements that you then have to walk back when you are challenged...? Yes, I got that point about a year ago. Feel free to post whatever you have. This is the Sandman #1 and #8 appreciation thread, so I would imagine any discussion about those books would be fair game.

7 copies that we know of. You haven't answered the question of how 7 copies in the last 6 months means the book is getting tougher, rather than easier, to find. You also haven't answered how 6 months worth of sales means the prices have been progressively rising "for years", as you said earlier.

I wonder what effect...if any...this discourse will have on the fate of X-Men Annual #14...? I know many people pooh-pooh the idea, but there IS evidence that discussions here have a direct effect on the marketplace, as when people who were unaware of something become aware through discussion here, and then decide they now have interest. But what effect there is overall...? Impossible to say, of course, but the answer isn't "none", and it probably isn't even "nil."

What does that mean, "progressively rising in value" and "becoming tougher and tougher to find"? It looks like the "rise in value" has been limited to the last year and a half or so. All throughout the 2000s, the price was pretty flat. How are they tougher to find than in, say, 2004? 2010? How does one measure "tougher to find"? In the last 6 months, a total of 5 copies have come to the open market, plus the one Schmidt found, plus the one Evorus found, making 7 copies trading hands in the last half year that we know of. You argued in this very thread that there is an "uptick in price and heat", and now you're saying they are tougher to find...? How can something get hotter if it is tougherto find? If it can't be found, people give up looking for it. That "uptick in price and heat" has actually brought MORE copies to the market, making it EASIER to find (as evidenced by the $2,000 9.2 sale, which it is claimed was directly inspired by the "crummy $400 copy" selling a few months ago.) By all accounts, they have been easier to find in the latter half of 2014 than in several years prior. Which is it? All these flipflops are making me dizzy! PS. No one said anything about "flooding the market."

And, ladies and gentlemen, THIS is why label notes should not be factored into anyone's purchasing decisions. They simply aren't 100% accurate and reliable, nor should they be. They are just CGC's opinion. Therefore, this "OMG, THE LABEL NOTES SAY THIS AND IT SHOULD SAY THAT AND OMGOMGOMGOMG WHAT AM I GOING TO DO!!!!!???" is really a bunch of melodrama for no purpose. The label notes are a courtesy. They are free. They should not EVER take the place of what the hobby, and most importantly, the individual collector, decides what is important about any particular book. Those of you who agree need to point this out, and keep pointing it out, to anyone who argues that the label notes are important in ANY WAY. And X-Men Annual #14 SHOULD say: "1st appearance of Gambit (minor)" or something along those lines. If X-Men #266 needs to say "1st full appearance Gambit", that's fine, but it really highlights the issue, dunnit? The label notes should not matter, and should not form any basis for someone's purchase.

If the sale is legit, the seller got one hell of a sale. Something to keep in mind...the current values of the editorial variant are being fueled by an overall exuberance in the market. It's important to remember that, for decades now, the books just weren't worth all that much money. You had to wait a lonngggg time to see any sort of return on your $90 investment. It took 25 year for the book to gain some sort of serious value. Throughout the 2000s, you could buy slabbed 9.4s and 9.6s for $150-$300, if you were patient, and at a time when regulars 9.4s and 9.6s were still $30-$100 books. And, if this $2,000 sale is indeed legitimate, and those who have them get wind of this, they're going to come out of the woodwork. There are, after all, several hundred of them sitting in collections at the moment. $2,000 is a silly number for this book in 9.2. It's simply not a rational number. The market will not sustain prices like this. 9.8s? Yes. 9.2s? No.