• 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.

X-Men Annual #14 - Proof of Gambit's 1st published appearance within
3 3

Started by Aweandlorder,

620 posts in this topic

GeeksAreMyPeeps

GeeksAreMyPeeps

Posted
Posted
X-men annual 14 is first cameo appearance and 266 is first appearance.

Different story if Gambit would be like Hi, I am Gambit in annual 14 but no just standing in the crowd and mumbling something like ay biiiatch and as X-men collector I was always going to buy both of course cos I also wanted all the annuals but I just dont feel that annual 14 is 1 appearance.

I dont have hulk 180 or 181 but i would be satisfied just owning 180 cause in the last page Wolverine introduces himself.

Batman 357 is better comic to debate which I havent read but I understand that Killer Croc dont show his face, dont say who he is and still it seems 357 is important and not 358.

Ps.I just checked when ASM252 came out and it is definitely 1 app of blacksuit. Secret wars 8 is like the origin story..

 

Gambit don't has to introduce self to make first appearance. Gambit has just to appear. First. Even if you doesn't feel it.

n4ea58cd344be0.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aweandlorder

Aweandlorder

Posted
  • Author
Posted
has anyone asked claremont directly this at a convention?

 

 

what is Claremonts response?

 

edit: beautiful 9.8 's guys...

 

Im gonna see AAdams in April and will try to politely ask him how long it took him to draw XMA14.. Im pretty sure he will curse at me for asking him that, but Ill try my best to be polite about it lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slym2none

slym2none

Posted
Posted
X-men annual 14 is first cameo appearance and 266 is first appearance.

Different story if Gambit would be like Hi, I am Gambit in annual 14 but no just standing in the crowd and mumbling something like ay biiiatch and as X-men collector I was always going to buy both of course cos I also wanted all the annuals but I just dont feel that annual 14 is 1 appearance.

I dont have hulk 180 or 181 but i would be satisfied just owning 180 cause in the last page Wolverine introduces himself.

Batman 357 is better comic to debate which I havent read but I understand that Killer Croc dont show his face, dont say who he is and still it seems 357 is important and not 358.

Ps.I just checked when ASM252 came out and it is definitely 1 app of blacksuit. Secret wars 8 is like the origin story..

 

Two yes/no questions for you:

 

Did Gambit appear in UXM Annual #14?

Did UXM Annual #14 come out before UXM #266?

 

As much as I didn't want to believe it, there is overwhelming evidence that Annual #14 came out first. Gambit appears in that comic. UXM Annual #14 is Gambit's 1st appearance. It really is that simple, and calling his second appearance a "first" anything (except perhaps "first cover") is disingenuous and dishonest.

 

:)

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrwoogieman

mrwoogieman

Posted
Posted
X-men annual 14 is first cameo appearance and 266 is first appearance.

Different story if Gambit would be like Hi, I am Gambit in annual 14 but no just standing in the crowd and mumbling something like ay biiiatch and as X-men collector I was always going to buy both of course cos I also wanted all the annuals but I just dont feel that annual 14 is 1 appearance.

I dont have hulk 180 or 181 but i would be satisfied just owning 180 cause in the last page Wolverine introduces himself.

Batman 357 is better comic to debate which I havent read but I understand that Killer Croc dont show his face, dont say who he is and still it seems 357 is important and not 358.

Ps.I just checked when ASM252 came out and it is definitely 1 app of blacksuit. Secret wars 8 is like the origin story..

 

Two yes/no questions for you:

 

Did Gambit appear in UXM Annual #14?

Did UXM Annual #14 come out before UXM #266?

 

As much as I didn't want to believe it, there is overwhelming evidence that Annual #14 came out first. Gambit appears in that comic. UXM Annual #14 is Gambit's 1st appearance. It really is that simple, and calling his second appearance a "first" anything (except perhaps "first cover") is disingenuous and dishonest.

 

:)

 

 

 

-slym

 

First saddle-stitched appearance? :insane:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silverdream

Silverdream

Posted
Posted
X-men annual 14 is first cameo appearance and 266 is first appearance.

Different story if Gambit would be like Hi, I am Gambit in annual 14 but no just standing in the crowd and mumbling something like ay biiiatch and as X-men collector I was always going to buy both of course cos I also wanted all the annuals but I just dont feel that annual 14 is 1 appearance.

I dont have hulk 180 or 181 but i would be satisfied just owning 180 cause in the last page Wolverine introduces himself.

Batman 357 is better comic to debate which I havent read but I understand that Killer Croc dont show his face, dont say who he is and still it seems 357 is important and not 358.

Ps.I just checked when ASM252 came out and it is definitely 1 app of blacksuit. Secret wars 8 is like the origin story..

 

 

Ummm WTTBs

 

A character doesn't have to stroll around in the first book he appears in to be all like " Yo im Gambit, I throw cards and I like Cajun food." He just has to appear.

 

He is named in annual 14, since you obviously have not read the entire thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waylander

Waylander

Posted
Posted

I do not know if anyone has referenced the Overstreet Price Guide, but it states...

 

 

Annual 14 - 1st app. Gambit (minor app., 5pgs)

UXM 266 - 1st full app. Gambit (see Annual #14)

 

Even 5 pages is enough to be a 1st appearance, but to them that's a 'minor' first appearance :facepalm:

 

How many pages does it take to be a 'full' 1st appearance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
divad

divad

Posted
Posted
X-men annual 14 is first cameo appearance and 266 is first appearance.

Different story if Gambit would be like Hi, I am Gambit in annual 14 but no just standing in the crowd and mumbling something like ay biiiatch and as X-men collector I was always going to buy both of course cos I also wanted all the annuals but I just dont feel that annual 14 is 1 appearance.

I dont have hulk 180 or 181 but i would be satisfied just owning 180 cause in the last page Wolverine introduces himself.

Batman 357 is better comic to debate which I havent read but I understand that Killer Croc dont show his face, dont say who he is and still it seems 357 is important and not 358.

Ps.I just checked when ASM252 came out and it is definitely 1 app of blacksuit. Secret wars 8 is like the origin story..

 

Two yes/no questions for you:

 

Did Gambit appear in UXM Annual #14?

Did UXM Annual #14 come out before UXM #266?

 

As much as I didn't want to believe it, there is overwhelming evidence that Annual #14 came out first. Gambit appears in that comic. UXM Annual #14 is Gambit's 1st appearance. It really is that simple, and calling his second appearance a "first" anything (except perhaps "first cover") is disingenuous and dishonest.

 

:)

 

 

 

-slym

 

First saddle-stitched appearance? :insane:

 

:signfunny:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crimebuster

Crimebuster

Posted
Posted
After directing CGC to this thread with the supporting evidence contained within, they responded to me they will now label X-Men Annual #14 like this:

 

"Gambit cameo (pre-dates Uncanny X-Men #266)"

 

Still trying to wrap my head around how they came up with this one.

 

What they are saying is that this counts as a "first appearance" for the sake of their label notations:

 

cross1_zps7c1e5b27.jpg

 

 

 

 

But 9 pages, plus being identified by name and actually participating in the story, is just a "cameo."

 

(shrug)

 

How do they determine these things, anyway? Is it really just whoever asks first gets to put whatever they believe on the label?

 

It seems like there should be some kind of consistent policy for this sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broke as a Joke

Broke as a Joke

Posted
Posted
I do not know if anyone has referenced the Overstreet Price Guide, but it states...

 

 

Annual 14 - 1st app. Gambit (minor app., 5pgs)

UXM 266 - 1st full app. Gambit (see Annual #14)

 

Even 5 pages is enough to be a 1st appearance, but to them that's a 'minor' first appearance :facepalm:

 

How many pages does it take to be a 'full' 1st appearance?

 

I think the fact that as an X-Men reader back then, you open up Annual 14 and see a character you have never seen before interacting with Storm, which makes us think who the heck is this guy?? There was no introduction to the character just random placement in a book he didn't even need be in.

 

Then 266 comes out a month later and we get formally introduced to the character with the story that had taken place prior to the events in Annual 14. Yes his first appearance was in Annual 14, but the book that mattered then and still matters most is 266. They won't be flip flopping in price, just like Hulk 180 will never overtake 181.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oakman29

oakman29

Posted
Posted
After directing CGC to this thread with the supporting evidence contained within, they responded to me they will now label X-Men Annual #14 like this:

 

"Gambit cameo (pre-dates Uncanny X-Men #266)"

 

Still trying to wrap my head around how they came up with this one.

 

What they are saying is that this counts as a "first appearance" for the sake of their label notations:

 

cross1_zps7c1e5b27.jpg

 

 

 

 

But 9 pages, plus being identified by name and actually participating in the story, is just a "cameo."

 

(shrug)

 

How do they determine these things, anyway? Is it really just whoever asks first gets to put whatever they believe on the label?

 

It seems like there should be some kind of consistent policy for this sort of thing.

Yet Darkseid appears on a T.V. screen,and THAT they call a 1st appearance. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slym2none

slym2none

Posted
Posted
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.

 

That works with (most of) us, because we are pretty savvy collectors. It's the "general public" that sees a reputable company like CGC saying "this is this character's first appearance" and they believe it and repeat it as fact.

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites
godzilla43

godzilla43

Posted
Posted (edited)
I do not know if anyone has referenced the Overstreet Price Guide, but it states...

 

 

Annual 14 - 1st app. Gambit (minor app., 5pgs)

UXM 266 - 1st full app. Gambit (see Annual #14)

 

Even 5 pages is enough to be a 1st appearance, but to them that's a 'minor' first appearance :facepalm:

 

How many pages does it take to be a 'full' 1st appearance?

 

I think the fact that as an X-Men reader back then, you open up Annual 14 and see a character you have never seen before interacting with Storm, which makes us think who the heck is this guy?? There was no introduction to the character just random placement in a book he didn't even need be in.

 

Then 266 comes out a month later and we get formally introduced to the character with the story that had taken place prior to the events in Annual 14. Yes his first appearance was in Annual 14, but the book that mattered then and still matters most is 266. They won't be flip flopping in price, just like Hulk 180 will never overtake 181.

 

I agree with this and Overstreet Price Guide. How about this idea for all you speculators out there just leave couple nice copies of annual 14 and just burn the rest. That makes it more rare eventually :D Also 266 like new mutants 98 is really important for comic book stores if they have slow month they can CGC one those thousands of copies they have to sell online :D

Edited by godzilla43
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
I do not know if anyone has referenced the Overstreet Price Guide, but it states...

 

 

Annual 14 - 1st app. Gambit (minor app., 5pgs)

UXM 266 - 1st full app. Gambit (see Annual #14)

 

Even 5 pages is enough to be a 1st appearance, but to them that's a 'minor' first appearance :facepalm:

 

How many pages does it take to be a 'full' 1st appearance?

 

I think the fact that as an X-Men reader back then, you open up Annual 14 and see a character you have never seen before interacting with Storm, which makes us think who the heck is this guy?? There was no introduction to the character just random placement in a book he didn't even need be in.

 

Then 266 comes out a month later and we get formally introduced to the character with the story that had taken place prior to the events in Annual 14. Yes his first appearance was in Annual 14, but the book that mattered then and still matters most is 266. They won't be flip flopping in price, just like Hulk 180 will never overtake 181.

 

That is what makes the release of X-Men Annual #14 an odd duck when compared to the content of UXM #266. Continuity-wise, the story in the latter happens before the story in the former. And with the footnote in X-Men Annual #14, it references to read UXM 265-267 to understand what happened leading up to the story in X-Men Annual #14.

 

So this is not like Hulk 180 and 181. The continuity in those two books is Wolverine appears in the last panel of Hulk 180, the story continues in 181, and then in 183 off Wolverine goes after the battle. In that case, Marvel cleanly kept the story flowing in the right order.

 

CGC potential label clarity:

X-Men Annual #14: 1st published Gambit appearance (noted as appearing in UXM 266 beforehand)

UXM #266: 1st appearance of Gambit based on storyline content

 

That's reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Illustrious

Illustrious

Posted
Posted
This really isn't about calling out CGC and its labeling, its been primarily about Gambits first appearance. A few people have noted how they think CGC should label it now, with all of this information being presented better than at any point before. I was disappointed at CGC's response to how they will label the annual going forward, as it's just not honest. If they know for sure, like presented here, they should be honest with how they are labeling the book. Continuing to call it a cameo, refusing to call it a first and throwing in a " predates" which is typically used for previews, is just silly.

 

If you and enough people feel this way, you all should email CGC about this as well like I did. Maybe when a lot more people start giving them heat about it, they will look at this once again and reconsider the whole "Gambit cameo (pre-dates #X-Men 266)" cop out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cyclops

Cyclops

Posted
Posted
I do not know if anyone has referenced the Overstreet Price Guide, but it states...

 

 

Annual 14 - 1st app. Gambit (minor app., 5pgs)

UXM 266 - 1st full app. Gambit (see Annual #14)

 

Even 5 pages is enough to be a 1st appearance, but to them that's a 'minor' first appearance :facepalm:

 

How many pages does it take to be a 'full' 1st appearance?

 

Hmm interesting. I always thought that he was only in one panel but I just looked through it and he is fully identifiable in at least 4 panels on 3 pages, and a strong argument could be made that it's him on a couple of other pages. Not much thought seems to have been given to drawing him beyond the first few panels he's in so it's ambiguous.

 

It's definitely the first published appearance but it's just a cameo, imo. If he had some dialogue I might look at it differently. But, for me, 266 is the book I like owning more and the book I would pay more to have, even if it is the second appearance from a release date pov. The annual doesn't make any sense without 266.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Illustrious

Illustrious

Posted
Posted
It's definitely the first published appearance but it's just a cameo, imo. If he had some dialogue I might look at it differently.

 

Did you look and see he has dialogue in 6 different panels on this page?

 

sales_books004_zpsbadef8ef.jpg

 

And here's the original link Bosco provided where you can zoom into the scan and read it all:

 

http://s717.photobucket.com/user/bosco685/media/Xmen_Ann14/sales_books004_zpsbadef8ef.jpg.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3
Go to topic listing