• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

What is the REAL 1st app. of Gambit?

Started by slym2none,

52 posts in this topic

Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
Common sense dictates that if X-Men Annual #14 was published first and he was mentioned as well as appeared in a few panels and spoke then surely that is his first appearance (shrug)

 

It comes up right at the point Ororo is explaining why she has been regressed back to a child between X-Men 265-267.

 

jCDNY9rl.jpg

 

So talking about history in a book that is published prior to X-Men 266. This is most probably what helped make up the market's decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gaz973

gaz973

Posted
Posted

The annual is definitely a full appearance but # 266 was intended to introduce the character and is the first chronologically so that is the one that I would want personally. Most collectors, it seems agree with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
The annual is definitely a full appearance but # 266 was intended to introduce the character and is the first chronologically so that is the one that I would want personally. Most collectors, it seems agree with me.

 

What's it like to be so right?

 

:baiting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silverdream

Silverdream

Posted
Posted
The annual is definitely a full appearance but # 266 was intended to introduce the character and is the first chronologically so that is the one that I would want personally. Most collectors, it seems agree with me.

 

 

Right on.

 

1.) # 266 has been the winner for two decades. IMO because of the cover. If both books had him in it but 266 did not have a cover app./intro , the annual would have much more traction, and based on the release date it might have even took the collectors preference. Even considering the continuity questions...But thats not how it happened... hm

 

2.) I dont have a problem with it. The cover app. in 266 makes it my preference as well. However I absolutly cannot stand people calling the annual # 14 a CAMEO.... its a full appearance. I dont see how that could even be argued. Why CGC calls it that, is beyond me , and it should be changed, again IMO.

 

3.) Maybe CGC doesnt know what else to call it? Technically, the annual is the first full appearance of Gambit, by release date. But if they Label 266 as such, what else could they call the annual? 2nd app? that would be wrong, again technically.... I would prefer just " Gambit app" over cameo ( its not a cameo). Maybe " early gambit app".

 

4.) I know people argue this stuff all the time, Im not trying to continue a contraversy. Shouldnt there be a set way cgc labels their books tho? I think a set standard should be applied for all 1st app. X number of panels, named or not named. Whats a cameo and whats not. Shouldnt CGC have a method to decide. chronological order, or release date. We look to them for consistancy, and it seems they are as confused as we are at times. If the Annual 14 is a cameo, I'm sure we could find a dozen books listed as a 1st app that have less coverage of stated character, what then? Which book sells for more shouldnt be what makes their decision. (shrug)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
4.) I know people argue this stuff all the time, Im not trying to continue a contraversy. Shouldnt there be a set way cgc labels their books tho? I think a set standard should be applied for all 1st app. X number of panels, named or not named. Whats a cameo and whats not. Shouldnt CGC have a method to decide. chronological order, or release date. We look to them for consistancy, and it seems they are as confused as we are at times. If the Annual 14 is a cameo, I'm sure we could find a dozen books listed as a 1st app that have less coverage of stated character, what then? Which book sells for more shouldnt be what makes their decision. (shrug)

 

If anything, trust in that CGC is always open to suggestions if you can make a good point.

 

We had this previously with Hellboy, The Maxx and even Omaha the Cat Dancer's 1st color appearance in comics. I would collect up what details you have and contact them to see what can be done.

 

And there is always the "Ask CGC" forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
awakeintheashes

awakeintheashes

Posted
Posted

:golfclap:

 

Ok. I take back my post about this being in the copper forum. I thought this thread would fall by the wayside, since it does not discuss a TV of movie option.

 

I was wrong and love this type of discussion. While we're on a hot streak, we should move UXM 423 error variants thread to this forum to see if it gets any traction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oakman29

oakman29

Posted
Posted

This is like the Hulk 180, 181 debate.Where as I personally think if a character initially makes an appearance,that should be their 1st app.I feel Hulk 180 is the true 1st app. of Wolvie,and I think the X-Men Annual 14 is the true 1st app. of Gambit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted

In researching what other sites had to say about Gambit's appearances, I happened across the 1st piece of OA to contain Gambit from X-Men #266.

 

Not-The-First-Appearance Of Gambit Page Sells For $7767

 

y2Jsm8i.jpg

 

Uncanny X-Men #266 was meant to have the first appearance of Gambit, written by Chris Claremont, drawn by Mike Collins and Joe Rubinstein, but he actually appeared in an X-Men Annual the week before, drawn by Art Adams, after the publishing schedule got muddled up a bit.

 

There is a site dedicated to everything Gambit. The FAQ hits on the same details that have been tossed around for years, along with our recent discussion about his appearances.

 

Gambit FAQ

 

======================

Q2: Who created Gambit?

 

A2: Gambit was created by Chris Claremont and Jim Lee. It is noted that Gambit's physical appearance was apparently designed by Steve Gieger and was drawn by Mike Collins in his first story.

 

Q3: When did Gambit first appear in the pages of the X-Men?

 

A3: We were first introduced to the man known as Gambit in the late summer of 1990. His first appearance continuity-wise occurred in Uncanny X-Men 266. Due to different release dates, we first caught glimpse of him in Uncanny X-Men "Days of Future Present" Annual 14, which took place right after the events in Uncanny X-Men 266-267.

 

Q4: When did Gambit join the X-Men?

 

A4: This is a little confusing since Gambit has referred to himself as "an X-Man by default, not desire." (Note that this is probably another case of Gambit covering up the truth about his real feelings, as the team and the Dream clearly both mean much to him.) There has never been an official welcoming ceremony or issue where someone states "welcome to the X-Men, Gambit" His induction into this merry band of mutants was somewhat obscure. Strictly speaking he was never invited to join. However, X-Men Index places his joining the team in issue 273 in which he is among the X-Men who wear X-Men uniforms as a sign of team unity. In this issue there is a close-up of everyone in their standard X-uniforms and Wolverine says: "Well, darlin', here we are. Never thought I'd wear THIS monkey suit." to which Gambit replies: "But if we're a TEAM, mes braves...we should dress the part, n'est-ce-pas?" It is also interesting to note UXM 278 is the first time Gambit refers to himself as an X-Man.

======================

 

I remember all those "official" welcome issues in X-Men. Some of the covers were pretty funny.

 

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted

And it looks like early on Jim Lee had different costume designs for Gambit that - well - would have definitely qualified as a bust.

 

3-x-men-archives-sketchbook.jpg

 

Captain Stripe Pants with chest armor would have been great for a pirate story, though.

 

:insane:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LloydJBailey

LloydJBailey

Posted
Posted

I guess really it's the covers that make them the real deals. I.e. Hulk 181 has Wolverine on the cover, and 180 doesn't, and I bet that makes for a lot more appeal. It's the same with Gambit I guess... to an extent anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gaz973

gaz973

Posted
Posted
The annual is definitely a full appearance but # 266 was intended to introduce the character and is the first chronologically so that is the one that I would want personally. Most collectors, it seems agree with me.

 

What's it like to be so right?

 

:baiting:

 

It's great. :acclaim:

 

Seriously though, everyone's entitled to their opinion and it's cool that yours differs to mine. All your points are valid but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. :foryou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gaz973

gaz973

Posted
Posted
I guess 266 is his first appearance to me.

 

I got this recently from the penciler Mike Collins of X-Men 266 :cloud9:

He actually lives just 10 minutes away from me.

 

MikeCollins-Gambit2.jpg

 

Wow, that is really nice, Lloyd. :applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
The annual is definitely a full appearance but # 266 was intended to introduce the character and is the first chronologically so that is the one that I would want personally. Most collectors, it seems agree with me.

 

What's it like to be so right?

 

:baiting:

 

It's great. :acclaim:

 

Seriously though, everyone's entitled to their opinion and it's cool that yours differs to mine. All your points are valid but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. :foryou:

 

You do realize all those details I posted proved creation-wise X-Men #266 is the 1st appearance, right?

 

But if you want to disagree with that because it is too much for you...

 

:baiting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gaz973

gaz973

Posted
Posted
The annual is definitely a full appearance but # 266 was intended to introduce the character and is the first chronologically so that is the one that I would want personally. Most collectors, it seems agree with me.

 

What's it like to be so right?

 

:baiting:

 

It's great. :acclaim:

 

Seriously though, everyone's entitled to their opinion and it's cool that yours differs to mine. All your points are valid but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. :foryou:

 

You do realize all those details I posted proved creation-wise X-Men #266 is the 1st appearance, right?

 

But if you want to disagree with that because it is too much for you...

 

:baiting:

 

It is all too much for me. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silverdream

Silverdream

Posted
Posted
The annual is definitely a full appearance but # 266 was intended to introduce the character and is the first chronologically so that is the one that I would want personally. Most collectors, it seems agree with me.

 

What's it like to be so right?

 

:baiting:

 

It's great. :acclaim:

 

Seriously though, everyone's entitled to their opinion and it's cool that yours differs to mine. All your points are valid but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. :foryou:

 

You do realize all those details I posted proved creation-wise X-Men #266 is the 1st appearance, right?

 

But if you want to disagree with that because it is too much for you...

 

:baiting:

 

I dont think anyone can really argue about that, even without that information, if you just read both books you can tell 266 was " supposed " to come out first.

 

The question is, what do we go by? we need a set standard. So if " continuity" is the main deciding factor, I guess 1st appearances should be changing constantly?? Have a flashback? New 1st app. Yes that sounds absurd, but thats what we are doing here.

 

 

Release date? Cover app?

 

There just needs to be a set standard. This is something CGC should definatally be able to provide.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing