• 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.

Coppers to buy before they explode

Started by oceanavekid,

455 posts in this topic

slym2none

slym2none

Posted
Posted

No, according to all of the top guides out there. Here's an example.

 

IH180 - Wolverine's first appearance

IH 181 - his "first full appearance"

 

I have yet to see a true first appearance (i.e., where it is also a "first full appearance," say UXM 266 for example) that is marked as "first full appearance." All the UXM266 slabs only say "1st Appearance of Gambit" and not "1st full appearance of Gambit."

 

;)

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites
divad

divad

Posted
Posted
No, according to all of the top guides out there. Here's an example.

 

IH180 - Wolverine's first appearance

IH 181 - his "first full appearance"

 

I have yet to see a true first appearance (i.e., where it is also a "first full appearance," say UXM 266 for example) that is marked as "first full appearance." All the UXM266 slabs only say "1st Appearance of Gambit" and not "1st full appearance of Gambit."

 

;)

 

 

 

-slym

 

If only it were . . . ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oceanavekid

oceanavekid

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Ok here's a book that anyone can find right now in $1 bins or 50 cent bins or penny bins if they even have those...X-Force first series #11.

 

With Fox already announcing an X-Force movie and a very good chance Domino could be in it, this is her real first appearance. Add to that this is I believe the 3rd full Deadpool appearance and cover, and the first time any real back history of the character is revealed. (He is called Wade in the story)

 

Any other characters that could be portrayed in an X-Force movie have already jumped in price. (Cable, Warpath, Psylocke, even Fantomax) This book could be a sleeper...

 

That book CGC 9.8 will already cost you around $80

 

If a movie really comes out Over $100 easy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
500Club

500Club

Posted
Posted
No, according to all of the top guides out there. Here's an example.

 

IH180 - Wolverine's first appearance

IH 181 - his "first full appearance"

 

I have yet to see a true first appearance (i.e., where it is also a "first full appearance," say UXM 266 for example) that is marked as "first full appearance." All the UXM266 slabs only say "1st Appearance of Gambit" and not "1st full appearance of Gambit."

Keep standing on principle.

 

Just don't tell your wallet, or expect to wag the dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oakman29

oakman29

Posted
Posted
No, according to all of the top guides out there. Here's an example.

 

IH180 - Wolverine's first appearance

IH 181 - his "first full appearance"

 

I have yet to see a true first appearance (i.e., where it is also a "first full appearance," say UXM 266 for example) that is marked as "first full appearance." All the UXM266 slabs only say "1st Appearance of Gambit" and not "1st full appearance of Gambit."

 

;)

 

 

 

-slym

 

If only it were . . . ;)

Isn't Gambits 1st Appearance in an X-Men Annual?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ComicPimpVIP

ComicPimpVIP

Posted
Posted

A few books i would like to pimpslap.

new teen titans #39 last as robin.

web of spiderman #27 2nd venom after #18 this has the most growth pentenial for venom apperances .

calibar presents #15 crow apperance.

alaph flight #34 uncanny x men #205

the tick #1

the comicpimp vip out

p.s. now i have to go seek alf #48s that cover rocks

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crimebuster

Crimebuster

Posted
Posted

"First full appearance" usually seems like an excuse fans make up to justify paying more for a comic with a cool cover, no matter how much it contradicts logic and reason.

 

Consider Conan #24. I just checked ebay. There are 20 copies for sale at the moment that list it as "First Full Red Sonja" and another 7 copies where they just said to heck with it and listed it as "First Appearance Red Sonja." Balanced against those 27 copies are a total of 3 that correctly list it as "Second Red Sonja."

 

And it's not like it's even a matter of debate. In #23 she's named, plays a major role in the story and appears on no fewer than five pages. That's a full appearance, man. It's a quarter of the comic! But she's not on the cover, so... yeah.

 

"First full appearance." BAH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
divad

divad

Posted
Posted
No, according to all of the top guides out there. Here's an example.

 

IH180 - Wolverine's first appearance

IH 181 - his "first full appearance"

 

I have yet to see a true first appearance (i.e., where it is also a "first full appearance," say UXM 266 for example) that is marked as "first full appearance." All the UXM266 slabs only say "1st Appearance of Gambit" and not "1st full appearance of Gambit."

 

;)

 

 

 

-slym

 

If only it were . . . ;)

Isn't Gambits 1st Appearance in an X-Men Annual?

 

Yep, X-Men Annual #14 is the first appearance (but due to retro continuity, it's discounted).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
inconceivable

inconceivable

Posted
Posted
"First full appearance" usually seems like an excuse fans make up to justify paying more for a comic with a cool cover, no matter how much it contradicts logic and reason.

 

Consider Conan #24. I just checked ebay. There are 20 copies for sale at the moment that list it as "First Full Red Sonja" and another 7 copies where they just said to heck with it and listed it as "First Appearance Red Sonja." Balanced against those 27 copies are a total of 3 that correctly list it as "Second Red Sonja."

 

And it's not like it's even a matter of debate. In #23 she's named, plays a major role in the story and appears on no fewer than five pages. That's a full appearance, man. It's a quarter of the comic! But she's not on the cover, so... yeah.

 

"First full appearance." BAH.

 

Yeah that is a definite "first cover" book for sure.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silverdream

Silverdream

Posted
Posted
No, according to all of the top guides out there. Here's an example.

 

IH180 - Wolverine's first appearance

IH 181 - his "first full appearance"

 

I have yet to see a true first appearance (i.e., where it is also a "first full appearance," say UXM 266 for example) that is marked as "first full appearance." All the UXM266 slabs only say "1st Appearance of Gambit" and not "1st full appearance of Gambit."

 

;)

 

 

 

-slym

 

If only it were . . . ;)

Isn't Gambits 1st Appearance in an X-Men Annual?

 

Yep, X-Men Annual #14 is the first appearance (but due to retro continuity, it's discounted).

 

Divad is exactly right. UXM 266 came out after UXM annual 14 by a few weeks. I remember buying Annual 14 , reading it and was like " wth is going on and who is the Gambit dude" and then a week or two later OHH I get it now when 266 came out. 266 was supposed to come out before annual 14. It was a release issue by marvel.

 

To me it doesnt matter, in my book Annual 14 is the first appearance of gambit, period and end of story. Release date/week always takes presidence on close first appearances. Reguardless of what marvel wanted/intended to do and reguardless of continuity , what happened is what matters. To tell me I was introduced to Gambit in UXM 266 is a lie. I was introduced to Gambit in Ann 14 , I bought them both off the stands.

 

I cannot think of a single other first appearance that is discounted by the collecting commuity because of "continuity". It's absurd. That would change thousands of first appearances. And even if someone can give another example, thats absurd too and not normal. Release date is the winnner. If Gambit was on the cover of the annual, and 266 wasnt such a " BOOM! HERE IS A NEW CHARACTER" cover I think things would be different. The market decided long ago that 266 is the winner but In my heart I know Annual 14 is the real deal.

 

What really irks me is that CGC lists annual 14 as a Cameo. Gambit is in over 14 panels across 7 pages with page 15 devoted almost soley to telling us who he is. He even bumps into cable. How is the a cameo? He is in the annual more than most characters.

 

Pardon my rant, these books always start a fire with me. Moving along....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oakman29

oakman29

Posted
Posted
No, according to all of the top guides out there. Here's an example.

 

IH180 - Wolverine's first appearance

IH 181 - his "first full appearance"

 

I have yet to see a true first appearance (i.e., where it is also a "first full appearance," say UXM 266 for example) that is marked as "first full appearance." All the UXM266 slabs only say "1st Appearance of Gambit" and not "1st full appearance of Gambit."

 

;)

 

 

 

-slym

 

If only it were . . . ;)

Isn't Gambits 1st Appearance in an X-Men Annual?

 

Yep, X-Men Annual #14 is the first appearance (but due to retro continuity, it's discounted).

 

Divad is exactly right. UXM 266 came out after UXM annual 14 by a few weeks. I remember buying Annual 14 , reading it and was like " wth is going on and who is the Gambit dude" and then a week or two later OHH I get it now when 266 came out. 266 was supposed to come out before annual 14. It was a release issue by marvel.

 

To me it doesnt matter, in my book Annual 14 is the first appearance of gambit, period and end of story. Release date/week always takes presidence on close first appearances. Reguardless of what marvel wanted/intended to do and reguardless of continuity , what happened is what matters. To tell me I was introduced to Gambit in UXM 266 is a lie. I was introduced to Gambit in Ann 14 , I bought them both off the stands.

 

I cannot think of a single other first appearance that is discounted by the collecting commuity because of "continuity". It's absurd. That would change thousands of first appearances. And even if someone can give another example, thats absurd too and not normal. Release date is the winnner. If Gambit was on the cover of the annual, and 266 wasnt such a " BOOM! HERE IS A NEW CHARACTER" cover I think things would be different. The market decided long ago that 266 is the winner but In my heart I know Annual 14 is the real deal.

 

What really irks me is that CGC lists annual 14 as a Cameo. Gambit is in over 14 panels across 7 pages with page 15 devoted almost soley to telling us who he is. He even bumps into cable. How is the a cameo? He is in the annual more than most characters.

 

Pardon my rant, these books always start a fire with me. Moving along....

 

I agree 110% (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slym2none

slym2none

Posted
Posted
No, according to all of the top guides out there. Here's an example.

 

IH180 - Wolverine's first appearance

IH 181 - his "first full appearance"

 

I have yet to see a true first appearance (i.e., where it is also a "first full appearance," say UXM 266 for example) that is marked as "first full appearance." All the UXM266 slabs only say "1st Appearance of Gambit" and not "1st full appearance of Gambit."

 

;)

 

If only it were . . . ;)

Isn't Gambits 1st Appearance in an X-Men Annual?

 

No.

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gradejunky

gradejunky

Posted
Posted
No, according to all of the top guides out there. Here's an example.

 

IH180 - Wolverine's first appearance

IH 181 - his "first full appearance"

 

I have yet to see a true first appearance (i.e., where it is also a "first full appearance," say UXM 266 for example) that is marked as "first full appearance." All the UXM266 slabs only say "1st Appearance of Gambit" and not "1st full appearance of Gambit."

 

;)

 

 

 

-slym

 

If only it were . . . ;)

Isn't Gambits 1st Appearance in an X-Men Annual?

 

Yep, X-Men Annual #14 is the first appearance (but due to retro continuity, it's discounted).

 

Divad is exactly right. UXM 266 came out after UXM annual 14 by a few weeks. I remember buying Annual 14 , reading it and was like " wth is going on and who is the Gambit dude" and then a week or two later OHH I get it now when 266 came out. 266 was supposed to come out before annual 14. It was a release issue by marvel.

 

To me it doesnt matter, in my book Annual 14 is the first appearance of gambit, period and end of story. Release date/week always takes presidence on close first appearances. Reguardless of what marvel wanted/intended to do and reguardless of continuity , what happened is what matters. To tell me I was introduced to Gambit in UXM 266 is a lie. I was introduced to Gambit in Ann 14 , I bought them both off the stands.

 

I cannot think of a single other first appearance that is discounted by the collecting commuity because of "continuity". It's absurd. That would change thousands of first appearances. And even if someone can give another example, thats absurd too and not normal. Release date is the winnner. If Gambit was on the cover of the annual, and 266 wasnt such a " BOOM! HERE IS A NEW CHARACTER" cover I think things would be different. The market decided long ago that 266 is the winner but In my heart I know Annual 14 is the real deal.

 

What really irks me is that CGC lists annual 14 as a Cameo. Gambit is in over 14 panels across 7 pages with page 15 devoted almost soley to telling us who he is. He even bumps into cable. How is the a cameo? He is in the annual more than most characters.

 

Pardon my rant, these books always start a fire with me. Moving along....

 

I too bought Annual #14 out of an airport newsstand when I was a young bucky and had no idea what was going on really. I didn't buy UXM religiously up to that point so for me it was just something to pass the time on the flight. I still have that copy, and about 8 more that I picked up for $1 to cover price in just the last 6 years or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silverdream

Silverdream

Posted
Posted
No, according to all of the top guides out there. Here's an example.

 

IH180 - Wolverine's first appearance

IH 181 - his "first full appearance"

 

I have yet to see a true first appearance (i.e., where it is also a "first full appearance," say UXM 266 for example) that is marked as "first full appearance." All the UXM266 slabs only say "1st Appearance of Gambit" and not "1st full appearance of Gambit."

 

;)

 

If only it were . . . ;)

Isn't Gambits 1st Appearance in an X-Men Annual?

 

No.

 

 

 

-slym

 

Yes.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whetteon

whetteon

Posted
Posted
No, according to all of the top guides out there. Here's an example.

 

IH180 - Wolverine's first appearance

IH 181 - his "first full appearance"

 

I have yet to see a true first appearance (i.e., where it is also a "first full appearance," say UXM 266 for example) that is marked as "first full appearance." All the UXM266 slabs only say "1st Appearance of Gambit" and not "1st full appearance of Gambit."

 

;)

 

If only it were . . . ;)

Isn't Gambits 1st Appearance in an X-Men Annual?

 

No.

 

 

 

-slym

 

Yes.

 

 

 

An absolute maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
faster friends

faster friends

Posted
Posted
No, according to all of the top guides out there. Here's an example.

 

IH180 - Wolverine's first appearance

IH 181 - his "first full appearance"

 

I have yet to see a true first appearance (i.e., where it is also a "first full appearance," say UXM 266 for example) that is marked as "first full appearance." All the UXM266 slabs only say "1st Appearance of Gambit" and not "1st full appearance of Gambit."

 

;)

 

If only it were . . . ;)

Isn't Gambits 1st Appearance in an X-Men Annual?

 

No.

 

 

 

-slym

 

Yes.

 

 

 

An absolute maybe.

Says in OS: Gambit 1st App 3 or 5 brief pages. Something alongthose lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing