• 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."

 

;)

 

If only it were . . . ;)

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

 

No.

 

Yes.

 

:lol:

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mike-honcho

mike-honcho

Posted
Posted
x-force 1 second appearance of deadpool :)

 

lol. not sure if you're just being sarcastic or not.

 

however i do think x-force #2 could see start seeing some movement being the 2nd app of deadpool. nm 98 is becoming quickly out of reach for a lot of collectors, and i can see them moving onto x-force #2 as a consolation prize.

 

i could see it becoming maybe a consistent 20-30 book in high grades in the next year or so. nothing too crazy, but a pretty good spec on a book readily available in .50 and 1.00 boxes right now. i got a few brewing in a short box for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lonzilla

Lonzilla

Posted
Posted

Rocket Raccoon mini series. People who decide to buy the older comics after the movie is out will be asking for Rocket Raccoon #1. You can tell them it's not his first appearance, but casual buyers only know to ask for "#1's"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oceanavekid

oceanavekid

Posted
  • Author
Posted
x-force 1 second appearance of deadpool :)

 

lol. not sure if you're just being sarcastic or not.

 

however i do think x-force #2 could see start seeing some movement being the 2nd app of deadpool. nm 98 is becoming quickly out of reach for a lot of collectors, and i can see them moving onto x-force #2 as a consolation prize.

 

i could see it becoming maybe a consistent 20-30 book in high grades in the next year or so. nothing too crazy, but a pretty good spec on a book readily available in .50 and 1.00 boxes right now. i got a few brewing in a short box for sure.

 

That book CGC 9.8 on Ebay is already going for over $70

 

So is X-Force #11 & #116

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KPR Comics

KPR Comics

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....

Here's an example (I think): ASM 252 vs Team Up 141 vs Secret Wars 8. Collectors disagree as to which is the first black costumed Spidey. 252 wins most times, but I think 141 shipped first.

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....

Here's an example (I think): ASM 252 vs Team Up 141 vs Secret Wars 8. Collectors disagree as to which is the first black costumed Spidey. 252 wins most times, but I think 141 shipped first.

It did!

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).

 

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....

Here's an example (I think): ASM 252 vs Team Up 141 vs Secret Wars 8. Collectors disagree as to which is the first black costumed Spidey. 252 wins most times, but I think 141 shipped first.

It did!

 

Actually, it didn't. :foryou: We've discussed this many time over:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7348233#Post7348233

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oceanavekid

oceanavekid

Posted
  • Author
Posted
X-Force 116?

First new team and first doom.

 

For some reason people like "doop" I wish I would have bought this on the boards for $55

 

All the ones i've seen in 9.8 go for over $80 and no LCS have one in good condition

 

It's still a book you can find for cheap because its X-Force and most shops think X-Force is junk but hard to find in higher grade

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....

Here's an example (I think): ASM 252 vs Team Up 141 vs Secret Wars 8. Collectors disagree as to which is the first black costumed Spidey. 252 wins most times, but I think 141 shipped first.

It did!

 

Actually, it didn't. :foryou: We've discussed this many time over:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7348233#Post7348233

 

Yeah, 141 was shipped second.

 

If you really want to compare the black costume thing to the absurd gambit Continuity/release date problem it would be like this:

 

The story in secret wars 8 .. the entire secret wars mini series actually, happened " Continuity/timeline wise" in between ASM 251 and 252.

 

Its a confusing mess. But " TECHNICALLY, by continuity and timeline" secret wars 8 is the first appearance. If marvel could have made all their money at once, the entire series WOULD have came out inbetween ALL of the marvel issues released between April 1984 ( ASM 251 ) and May 1984 ( ASM 252)

 

But thats not how selling comics work, they wanted a " summer blockbuster mini series " So they made all the heroes disapear in April.... said oh they went somewhere, and the story is in this awesome new Mini series called Secret Wars, but your heroes will be back next month in their regular books. Dont be confused with all the new changes, just go buy secret wars.

 

Using the logic people are applying to UXM annual 14

 

Secret wars 8 is the first appearence of the Black costume.

 

Nobody agrees with that.

 

You cannot have it both ways.

 

UXM annual 14 is the first appearance of Gambit, just as ASM 252 is the first app. of the symbiote costume.

 

You cannot apply " intent" to this either. It doesnt matter if what they did was a mistake ( as with UXM annual 14 ) or intentional ( Secret Wars 8 ) What matters is release date, as it does in every other situation.

 

Our first gimplse in comics of Gambit was in UXM Annual 14. Thats the definition of first appearance.

 

Edit: And when I say "glimpse" I really mean Full appearance covering 7 pages and 14 panels of our cajun card throwing friend. NOT A CAMEO.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
awakeintheashes

awakeintheashes

Posted
Posted
X-Force 116?

First new team and first doom.

 

For some reason people like "doop" I wish I would have bought this on the boards for $55

 

All the ones i've seen in 9.8 go for over $80 and no LCS have one in good condition

 

It's still a book you can find for cheap because its X-Force and most shops think X-Force is junk but hard to find in higher grade

 

doh! Autocorrect drinks my milkshake again.

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....

Here's an example (I think): ASM 252 vs Team Up 141 vs Secret Wars 8. Collectors disagree as to which is the first black costumed Spidey. 252 wins most times, but I think 141 shipped first.

It did!

 

Actually, it didn't. :foryou: We've discussed this many time over:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7348233#Post7348233

 

Yeah, 141 was shipped second.

 

If you really want to compare the black costume thing to the absurd gambit Continuity/release date problem it would be like this:

 

The story in secret wars 8 .. the entire secret wars mini series actually, happened " Continuity/timeline wise" in between ASM 251 and 252.

 

Its a confusing mess. But " TECHNICALLY, by continuity and timeline" secret wars 8 is the first appearance. If marvel could have made all their money at once, the entire series WOULD have came out inbetween ALL of the marvel issues released between April 1984 ( ASM 251 ) and May 1984 ( ASM 252)

 

But thats not how selling comics work, they wanted a " summer blockbuster mini series " So they made all the heroes disapear in April.... said oh they went somewhere, and the story is in this awesome new Mini series called Secret Wars, but your heroes will be back next month in their regular books. Dont be confused with all the new changes, just go buy secret wars.

 

Using the logic people are applying to UXM annual 14

 

Secret wars 8 is the first appearence of the Black costume.

 

Nobody agrees with that.

 

You cannot have it both ways.

 

UXM annual 14 is the first appearance of Gambit, just as ASM 252 is the first app. of the symbiote costume.

 

You cannot apply " intent" to this either. It doesnt matter if what they did was a mistake ( as with UXM annual 14 ) or intentional ( Secret Wars 8 ) What matters is release date, as it does in every other situation.

 

Our first gimplse in comics of Gambit was in UXM Annual 14. Thats the definition of first appearance.

 

Edit: And when I say "glimpse" I really mean Full appearance covering 7 pages and 14 panels of our cajun card throwing friend. NOT A CAMEO.

 

 

Agreed! (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oceanavekid

oceanavekid

Posted
  • Author
Posted
X-Force 116?

First new team and first doom.

 

For some reason people like "doop" I wish I would have bought this on the boards for $55

 

All the ones i've seen in 9.8 go for over $80 and no LCS have one in good condition

 

It's still a book you can find for cheap because its X-Force and most shops think X-Force is junk but hard to find in higher grade

 

doh! Autocorrect drinks my milkshake again.

 

It happens :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vader2001

vader2001

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....

Here's an example (I think): ASM 252 vs Team Up 141 vs Secret Wars 8. Collectors disagree as to which is the first black costumed Spidey. 252 wins most times, but I think 141 shipped first.

It did!

 

Actually, it didn't. :foryou: We've discussed this many time over:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7348233#Post7348233

 

Yeah, 141 was shipped second.

 

If you really want to compare the black costume thing to the absurd gambit Continuity/release date problem it would be like this:

 

The story in secret wars 8 .. the entire secret wars mini series actually, happened " Continuity/timeline wise" in between ASM 251 and 252.

 

Its a confusing mess. But " TECHNICALLY, by continuity and timeline" secret wars 8 is the first appearance. If marvel could have made all their money at once, the entire series WOULD have came out inbetween ALL of the marvel issues released between April 1984 ( ASM 251 ) and May 1984 ( ASM 252)

 

But thats not how selling comics work, they wanted a " summer blockbuster mini series " So they made all the heroes disapear in April.... said oh they went somewhere, and the story is in this awesome new Mini series called Secret Wars, but your heroes will be back next month in their regular books. Dont be confused with all the new changes, just go buy secret wars.

 

Using the logic people are applying to UXM annual 14

 

Secret wars 8 is the first appearence of the Black costume.

 

Nobody agrees with that.

 

You cannot have it both ways.

 

UXM annual 14 is the first appearance of Gambit, just as ASM 252 is the first app. of the symbiote costume.

 

You cannot apply " intent" to this either. It doesnt matter if what they did was a mistake ( as with UXM annual 14 ) or intentional ( Secret Wars 8 ) What matters is release date, as it does in every other situation.

 

Our first gimplse in comics of Gambit was in UXM Annual 14. Thats the definition of first appearance.

 

Edit: And when I say "glimpse" I really mean Full appearance covering 7 pages and 14 panels of our cajun card throwing friend. NOT A CAMEO.

 

 

Agreed! (thumbs u

 

I believe the very first appearance was in Marvel Age #12 which I believe came out in March..

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing