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

[Bosco685]

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.

 

If CGC goes with this approach, then they are covered on both counts.

[Cyclops]

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?

 

 

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

 

Hey cool. I completely missed that.

[Silverdream]

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

 

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.

 

I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree.

 

If you do this, then you have to do it for ASM 252 as well. And dozens or even hundreds of other books.

 

Also, doing this opens up arguments about time travel, flashbacks and so fourth.

 

You're asking for a mess.

 

Keep it clean. Release date wins, period.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2015 by Silverdream

[paul747]

Silverdream

I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree.

 

If you do this, then you have to do it for ASM 252 as well. And dozens or even hundreds of other books.

 

Also, doing this opens up arguments about time travel, flashbacks and so fourth.

 

You're asking for a mess.

 

Keep it clean. Release date wins, period.

 

 

NO

 

[Silverdream]

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.

 

OR...

 

 

That is what makes the release of Amazing Spider-man 252 an odd duck when compared to the content of Secret Wars 8. Continuity-wise, the story in the latter happens before the story in the former. And with the footnote in Amazing Spider-man 252 * , it references to read Secret Wars to understand what happened leading up to the story in Amazing Spider-man 252.

 

 

* page 7 of ASM 252: " Does all this make you just a LITTLE bit curious? Then pick up Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars -- Danny"

 

 

See the problem that is created here? We can insert dozens of books into that statement and it works. Yet this annual is the only one people are trying to place in this manner. It doesn't make sense. Intentional or accidental, it doesn't matter.

 

Release date is what matters.

[Illustrious]

Release date is what matters.

 

And it always has, but people seem to want to attempt mental gymnastics to justify as to why the Annual is exempt.

[Silverdream]

Silverdream

I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree.

 

If you do this, then you have to do it for ASM 252 as well. And dozens or even hundreds of other books.

 

Also, doing this opens up arguments about time travel, flashbacks and so fourth.

 

You're asking for a mess.

 

Keep it clean. Release date wins, period.

 

 

NO

 

Not sure what to make of that

 

Trying to Isolate this single issue ( x-men annual 14 ) based on continuity, while letting all other forms of continuity " firsts" go unchecked is absurd.

 

It doesn't matter if the story is out of order intentionally or unintentionally , or in this case, not cared about either way. The result is the same. You see a character for the first time out of order.

 

That is why release date is used and should always be used.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Silverdream

[Bosco685]

Release date is what matters.

 

And it always has, but people seem to want to attempt mental gymnastics to justify as to why the Annual is exempt.

 

Who said the annual is exempt?

[Bosco685]

OR...

 

 

That is what makes the release of Amazing Spider-man 252 an odd duck when compared to the content of Secret Wars 8. Continuity-wise, the story in the latter happens before the story in the former. And with the footnote in Amazing Spider-man 252 * , it references to read Secret Wars to understand what happened leading up to the story in Amazing Spider-man 252.

 

 

* page 7 of ASM 252: " Does all this make you just a LITTLE bit curious? Then pick up Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars -- Danny"

 

 

See the problem that is created here? We can insert dozens of books into that statement and it works. Yet this annual is the only one people are trying to place in this manner. It doesn't make sense. Intentional or accidental, it doesn't matter.

 

Release date is what matters.

 

I'm not sure this is 100% apples to apples, as the story in X-Men Annual #14 is a continuation of how Ororo and Gambit linked up in UXM 266-267 leading up to their breaking into the Xavier Mansion and running into The New Mutants. If you go back and read through the three books, you can tell how the story was supposed to flow from one to the other.

 

Is the ASM 252 and Secret Wars 1-12 storyline tied together like that? It's been a long time since I read these.

[Silverdream]

OR...

 

 

That is what makes the release of Amazing Spider-man 252 an odd duck when compared to the content of Secret Wars 8. Continuity-wise, the story in the latter happens before the story in the former. And with the footnote in Amazing Spider-man 252 * , it references to read Secret Wars to understand what happened leading up to the story in Amazing Spider-man 252.

 

 

* page 7 of ASM 252: " Does all this make you just a LITTLE bit curious? Then pick up Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars -- Danny"

 

 

See the problem that is created here? We can insert dozens of books into that statement and it works. Yet this annual is the only one people are trying to place in this manner. It doesn't make sense. Intentional or accidental, it doesn't matter.

 

Release date is what matters.

 

I'm not sure this is 100% apples to apples, as the story in X-Men Annual #14 is a continuation of how Ororo and Gambit linked up in UXM 266-267 leading up to their breaking into the Xavier Mansion and running into The New Mutants. If you go back and read through the three books, you can tell how the story was supposed to flow from one to the other.

 

Is the ASM 252 and Secret Wars 1-12 storyline tied together like that? It's been a long time since I read these.

 

Spiderman disappears at the end of ASM 251 pulled into the world that all the heroes were pulled into, then reappears in ASM 252 with the black costume. All of this is tied in. with secret wars, which was stretched out over a year.

 

Continuity wise, the entire events of Secret Wars happens in-between ASM 251 and 252.

 

ASM 252 is a continuation of what happened in secret wars 1-12. So... what is the first appearance of the black costume?

 

ASM 252 May 1984 OR Secret Wars # 8 December 1984 ( published 7 months later )

 

This is what happens when you start playing around with Continuity discrepancies and try to call something published later a 1st appearance.

 

Nearly everyone agrees ASM 252 is the first appearance of the Black costume. By release date it is correct. That is how it should be.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bosco685]

Spiderman disappears at the end of ASM 251 pulled into the world that all the heroes were pulled into, then reappears in ASM 252 with the black costume. All of this is tied in. with secret wars, which was stretched out over a year.

 

Continuity wise, the entire events of Secret Wars happens in-between ASM 251 and 252.

 

ASM 252 is a continuation of what happened in secret wars 1-12. So... what is the first appearance of the black costume?

 

ASM 252 May 1984 OR Secret Wars # 8 December 1984 ( published 7 months later )

 

This is what happens when you start playing around with Continuity discrepancies and try to call something published later a 1st appearance.

 

Nearly everyone agrees ASM 252 is the first appearance of the Black costume. By release date it is correct. That is how it should be.

 

What happens when you 'play around with' continuity discrepancies? All it does is makes you realize these things are not always well planned like some clear distribution roadmap. Or, that coordination breaks down between the creative teams (if it was ever thought of at all).

 

To also write off one for the other just based on when they were released versus accounted for these mix-ups seems to turn a blind eye to the situation. What would it hurt to call both books out based on the realization they are out of order? Especially when they are so closely published to one another like X-Men Annual #14 and UXM #266?

 

Will the hobby collapse with this information?

[Chip Cataldo]

Will the hobby collapse with this information?

Nope, but that's not what it's all about. It's all about the money...how the text on the little blue label syncs up with the number on said label.

 

Peace,

 

Chip

[Silverdream]

 

 

What happens when you 'play around with' continuity discrepancies? All it does is makes you realize these things are not always well planned like some clear distribution roadmap. Or, that coordination breaks down between the creative teams (if it was ever thought of at all).

 

Sure, it makes you wonder why. We can get into the why's all day, but it doesn't change the fact that one came out first. That is the whole point of this conversation. Which was first. The why doesn't really matter, at least not to the general collecting populace. If you are interested in the historical aspect of how and why things happened, that's fine. I dig it actually.

 

 

What would it hurt to call both books out based on the realization they are out of order? Especially when they are so closely published to one another like X-Men Annual #14 and UXM #266?

 

I don't think it would hurt anything. It is simply not a standard used, ever. Why now? Why this book? Why not ASM 252? Being published " close" to each other matters? Why? What is the limit? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? What do you suggest the standard be to put asterisks next to books with continuity problems? Does it have to be a publishing decision or problem? It just feels like some of you want to pick and choose which books to put asterisks next to.

 

Personally I think the books should be labeled like this:

 

Annual 14 1st appearance of Gambit.

 

Xmen 266 1st cover and full appearance of Gambit.

 

Why ad the continuity mess information to it? It's un-needed. One was published first. That is what matters.

 

 

 

 

Will the hobby collapse with this information?

 

 

 

[Silverdream]

Imagine a three issue mini series where , like many shows and movies nowadays, it starts in the middle of the story, instead of in chronological order.

 

 

You see the hero for the first time in issue number 1, which continuity wise, is the middle portion of the story. It starts in the middle of the action and there is no explanation of how we got to this point.

 

Issue number 2 you go back to the beginning showing what lead up to the events in issue 1, including the introduction of said hero.

 

Issue 3 closes everything off properly.

 

They do this often in movies and shows ( Breaking bad did it nearly every single episode )

 

They don't do this in comics much... but if they did... I ask all of you continuity truthers ( haha )

 

What is the first appearance of our hero?

[Bosco685]

Why ad the continuity mess information to it? It's un-needed. One was published first. That is what matters

 

Maybe. In this case, the books were published so close together, you can see why the delay in one could disrupt the story.

 

With ASM 252 and SW 8, that definitely just a lack of care how a universe is built out consistently.

 

 

[Bosco685]

Will the hobby collapse with this information?

Nope, but that's not what it's all about. It's all about the money...how the text on the little blue label syncs up with the number on said label.

 

Peace,

 

Chip

 

Is that what this is all about?

[divad]

Nope, don't let go of the faith Bosco - it's all about what's correct. (thumbs u

 

As you and I know, the money is secondary.

[Bosco685]

[Vikingreed]

The annual is obviously his 1st appearance.

There is no argument about that, right..? (except for the company who slabs the comics)

[Silverdream]

Will the hobby collapse with this information?

Nope, but that's not what it's all about. It's all about the money...how the text on the little blue label syncs up with the number on said label.

 

Peace,

 

Chip

 

Is that what this is all about?

 

 

Everyone is motivated in different ways. It's hard to tell which way when we are looking at black text from a monitor.

 

Sometimes when something is very obvious and there are detractors, its easy to single someone out and claim they are " vested" in a particular book. It's the easiest answer , and sometimes the most logical. Doesn't mean it's true, don't get me wrong.

 

It's also easy for one to point at large dealers influencing CGC. It happens. Who knows when, but I have no doubt that it happens.

 

My motivation is simple. I have been very annoyed that most sources claim Annual 14 is a cameo for over two decades now, CGC labeling it a cameo, on the second line is even more annoying. I have a few copies of each and no CGC copies. I don't really care about Gambit. I care that it is called what it really is.