Copper's Heating/Selling Well on Ebay 33 33

[Bosco685]

Anyone ever happen across the forum dedicated to Gambit?

 

The Gambit Guild

 

When we were discussing these two books, I happened across this. A very cool little site about an odd yet interesting character. It mentions the confusion between the two books as well, and the scheduling mishap that made it slightly confusing.

 

But I like the level of research they put into being fans of the character. Worth a read!

[Bosco685]

And just think of what Gambit came close to looking like for those early appearances.

 

 

[500Club]

If that is the case (need to read these two again), how could Annual 14 be the 1st appearance of Gambit?

 

It came out in stores/on the newstand first. Thus, the first time the public saw Gambit...right?

 

Correct - due to a print scheduling error. X-Men 266 ' s story comes first before X-Men Annual 14.

A) You missed RMAs rather compelling argument that the book came out when it was supposed to. It even had the footnote referencing X-Men 265-267, which would have been placed IN PRODUCTION. Either Marvel knew the Annual was coming out first, or someone at Marvel had a crystal ball and foresaw a 'shipping error'.

 

B) The above is moot. The Annual came out first.

 

 

Edit: now that I think about A, I'm not as sure, as Marvel footnotes were so common back then...

Edited February 3, 2015 by 500Club

[Bosco685]

If that is the case (need to read these two again), how could Annual 14 be the 1st appearance of Gambit?

 

It came out in stores/on the newstand first. Thus, the first time the public saw Gambit...right?

 

Correct - due to a print scheduling error. X-Men 266 ' s story comes first before X-Men Annual 14.

A) You missed RMAs rather compelling argument that the book came out when it was supposed to. It even had the footnote referencing X-Men 265-267, which would have been placed IN PRODUCTION. Either Marvel knew the Annual was coming out first, or someone at Marvel had a crystal ball and foresaw a 'shipping error'.

 

B) The above is moot. The Annual came out first.

 

It would be a quest in error to try and pitch UXM 266 was published first. Reality says otherwise.

 

But when you follow the story flow, UXM 266 comes before X-Men Annual 14. There is no debating that either. Even that early conversation between Ororo and Gambit in Annual 14 is talking about their meeting in UXM 266. Gambit even wishes she would go back to a speechless child - but in jest.

 

Is there really any debate over the flow of the story?

[Bosco685]

Edit: now that I think about A, I'm not as sure, as Marvel footnotes were so common back then...

 

 

Bingo.

 

With as much product that was being pumped out at this point, footnotes ran the risk of being rushed just to keep up.

[500Club]

Anyone ever happen across the forum dedicated to Gambit?

 

The Gambit Guild

 

When we were discussing these two books, I happened across this. A very cool little site about an odd yet interesting character. It mentions the confusion between the two books as well, and the scheduling mishap that made it slightly confusing.

 

But I like the level of research they put into being fans of the character. Worth a read!

Interesting website for sure.

 

Not much on the possible shipping error, though.

[Hekla]

 

With as much product that was being pumped out at this point...

 

And that is the real reason for the discrepancy... Marvel was producing so much X-product at the time they were tripping over themselves.

[500Club]

If that is the case (need to read these two again), how could Annual 14 be the 1st appearance of Gambit?

 

It came out in stores/on the newstand first. Thus, the first time the public saw Gambit...right?

 

Correct - due to a print scheduling error. X-Men 266 ' s story comes first before X-Men Annual 14.

A) You missed RMAs rather compelling argument that the book came out when it was supposed to. It even had the footnote referencing X-Men 265-267, which would have been placed IN PRODUCTION. Either Marvel knew the Annual was coming out first, or someone at Marvel had a crystal ball and foresaw a 'shipping error'.

 

B) The above is moot. The Annual came out first.

 

It would be a quest in error to try and pitch UXM 266 was published first. Reality says otherwise.

 

But when you follow the story flow, UXM 266 comes before X-Men Annual 14. There is no debating that either. Even that early conversation between Ororo and Gambit in Annual 14 is talking about their meeting in UXM 266. Gambit even wishes she would go back to a speechless child - but in jest.

 

Is there really any debate over the flow of the story?

None at all. Story flow and release dates are flip flopped. BUT, it's been seen before, with ASM 252, SW 8.

 

I suspect Marvel realized they were locked into a release schedule with the sequential Annuals, and put the footnote in, though.

 

On an unrelated note, as an 11 year old newsstand buyer, those footnotes were like a sniff of highly addictive comic book crack.

[Bosco685]

Anyone ever happen across the forum dedicated to Gambit?

 

The Gambit Guild

 

When we were discussing these two books, I happened across this. A very cool little site about an odd yet interesting character. It mentions the confusion between the two books as well, and the scheduling mishap that made it slightly confusing.

 

But I like the level of research they put into being fans of the character. Worth a read!

Interesting website for sure.

 

Not much on the possible shipping error, though.

 

Yeah, they also have the same challenge of determining why Marvel would publish a crossover story out of order, other than noting 'different release dates'.

 

But I didn't post that to prove anything. If we are going to discuss an interesting character like Gambit, it's also fun to happen across a site like that. We all know there are fanatics for most of these characters. But that site definitely shows a level of fan love for sure.

[500Club]

Anyone ever happen across the forum dedicated to Gambit?

 

The Gambit Guild

 

When we were discussing these two books, I happened across this. A very cool little site about an odd yet interesting character. It mentions the confusion between the two books as well, and the scheduling mishap that made it slightly confusing.

 

But I like the level of research they put into being fans of the character. Worth a read!

Interesting website for sure.

 

Not much on the possible shipping error, though.

 

Yeah, they also have the same challenge of determining why Marvel would publish a crossover story out of order, other than noting 'different release dates'.

 

But I didn't post that to prove anything. If we are going to discuss an interesting character like Gambit, it's also fun to happen across a site like that. We all know there are fanatics for most of these characters. But that site definitely shows a level of fan love for sure.

 

It worked. I went in there thinking they had some info on the release dates, and ended up bookmarking the site to read later.

[Bosco685]

On an unrelated note, as an 11 year old newsstand buyer, those footnotes were like a sniff of highly addictive comic book crack.

 

 

SO TRUE!!!!!!

 

Even as a kid during the 70's, I fell victim to those footnotes and went to hunt down stories thinking there was going to be some tight link between the books. Then, you'd find out it was like one or two panels.

 

[Vikingreed]

I have always like Gambit.

I bought all the comics I could that he took a part in (which started getting crazy as his popularity grew).

 

But somewhere along the line, he began to be written poorly. Very poorly. And I stopped caring.

 

I have no idea if he is alive, dead, has his powers, what books he's even in, etc.

I still like those early appearances though.

 

And that whole story line that involved Bishop and his timeline was pretty darn cool to me when I read it.

I think that ended up going no where, unfortunately...

 

And that, boys and girls, is Reed's history with Gambit, hahaha.

Edited February 3, 2015 by vikingreed

[Bosco685]

And that, boys and girls, is Reed's history with Gambit, hahaha.

 

 

[jsilverjanet]

Wasn't this discussed before (in modern) with the captain marvel in avenging spiderman 9 published before captain marvel 1 where the storyline takes place beforehand

Edited February 3, 2015 by jsilverjanet

[mrwoogieman]

"Do you have any proof of the "released by the distributors as an accident"?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

OT, What is less adversarial/accusatory sounding, asking for "evidence" or "proof"? Or does it sound the same to the folks here?

 

Just curious.

 

Sounds the same to me.

 

Here's the distinction I see:

 

Prove it!

 

-or-

 

Your evidence, please.

 

See, plain as day!

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

And that is the real reason for the discrepancy... Marvel was producing so much X-product at the time they were tripping over themselves.

 

Still not sure what the discrepancy is that you're referring to.

 

Yes, Marvel was publishing X-Men, X-Factor, New Mutants, Excalibur, and Wolverine, but that's it.

 

X-Men Annual #14 takes place after the events of #265-267...but ASM #252 takes place after the events of Secret Wars #8.

 

But the black costume first made its appearance in ASM #252, which no one (rationally) disputes, regardless of in-story continuity.

 

Claremont and the Simonsons all worked on DOFP, and Gambit had clearly been designed at that point. "The events in this story take place BEFORE (or AFTER) thus and such an issue" was very common in the era, and I'm sure no one thought twice about it.

 

Remember...creators don't give a hoot about things like "first appearances and their value on the aftermarket." It wouldn't have been a problem to have scheduled DOFP, in which Gambit played a very insignificant role, prior to the events of #265-267, with no thought to the "official" introduction of Gambit.

 

In fact, other characters had similar confusing introductions, but they didn't become "superstars" like Gambit.

 

PS. The "Gambit Guild" needs an editor, desperately.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

On an unrelated note, as an 11 year old newsstand buyer, those footnotes were like a sniff of highly addictive comic book crack.

 

11?? You're just a kid!

 

[Lazyboy]

If Gambit had been on the cover, even in the background, it would be no question.

 

But he's definitely there, in the story, multiple panels.

 

Add X-Factor 24 to this list.

 

seriously, just read x factor 23 again last night, and archangel is in more than one panel, he does stuff, and he talks. You see most if not all of his body. I think it the most aggressive use of the "If the 1st app has him on one page only and the second app has him in the story and the cover then its the real 1st appearance rule."

 

Yup. ( I meant 23 by the way! ) I always felt that the mistake here revolves around the iconic cover of 24. Yes it's a great cover but it's not the first appearance of the character.

Archangel again?!?

 

8 months ago[/b]]Death/Archangel first appears as a monochrome background character (with the rest of the Horsemen) in 21, followed by multiple panels in shadow in 22, then shows his new form and abilities in 23. Then he gets the cover of issue 24, in which his change is revealed to X-Factor. Various characters call him Death, Death Angel, Dark Angel, etc. until he is named "Archangel" by the Beast at the end of issue 38.

 

[Lazyboy]

I DO NOT EXPECT THE HOBBY TO CATER TO MY INTERPRETATIONS. I expect the hobby to correct itself and for all the great minds ( you included! ) who spend so much time arguing to come together and eliminate the gray areas concerning the definition of a first appearance.

So you don't expect your... unique interpretations to be catered to, you just expect the hobby to "correct" itself to conform to your interpretations?

 

You're not a politician by any chance, are you?

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

While I appreciate the time you take to respond I have much to much sour diesel to smoke gardening to do to reply to all your thought out, albeit erroneous responses. I will say this though:

 

I DO NOT EXPECT THE HOBBY TO CATER TO MY INTERPRETATIONS. I expect the hobby to correct itself and for all the great minds ( you included! ) who spend so much time arguing to come together and eliminate the gray areas concerning the definition of a first appearance. Trust me sir, it would benefit both those who collect, those who sell and and all those who enjoy a bit of both. ( ummm yes that's a GOTG film reference. )

 

Already done. You just don't like it. That means you want the hobby to cater to your interpretation. You want the hobby "to correct itself"...to your opinion.

 

For all the reasons I've already given, and other reasons not mentioned, I hope the redefinition of "first appearance" doesn't happen.