• 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

Bosco685

Bosco685

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

 

True.

 

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.

 

True. Though I wouldn't call an opposing view 'absurd' just because it differs from yours. It's just someone seeing things differently.

 

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.

 

:o

 

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.

 

It isn't a cameo. Even when I took all those pictures of each page after not reading this book for the longest time, I was surprised how many pages Gambit appears on.

 

But there is a publication link between X-Men Annual #14 and UXM #266 that Marvel mishandled since they were released on top of each other (8/90 and 8/90). The difference is all of one to two week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chip Cataldo

Chip Cataldo

Posted
Posted
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?

If it wasn't, then CGC would not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red_Hood

Red_Hood

Posted
Posted
marvel simply did not care that things were out of continuity.

 

And that is poor on its part being focused more on getting books out, and not enough on the story flow.

 

On page 17 of the X-Men Annual #14 it says in the top panel to

"For Details see X-Men #265 - 267 " when Gambit mentions escaping.

I'll stick with X-Men #266 as the 1st full appearance for the sake of story continuity as Marvel meant it to be.

I don't care about printing release dates. The annual #14 was meant for 1990 and Marvel could've easily released it in September as it was in May.

It's dissecting semantics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
marvel simply did not care that things were out of continuity.

 

And that is poor on its part being focused more on getting books out, and not enough on the story flow.

 

On page 17 of the X-Men Annual #14 it says in the top panel to

"For Details see X-Men #265 - 267 " when Gambit mentions escaping.

I'll stick with X-Men #266 as the 1st full appearance for the sake of story continuity as Marvel meant it to be.

I don't care about printing release dates. The annual #14 was meant for 1990 and Marvel could've easily released it in September as it was in May.

It's dissecting semantics.

 

Except it's not.

 

For 80 years now, the "first appearance" has been what first was available to the public, because that is, literally, the first time the public saw the character in a story context.

 

Gambit appears on multiple pages. He is named. The book was on sale before X-Men #266 was printed.

 

The annual is his first full appearance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
Except it's not.

 

For 80 years now, the "first appearance" has been what first was available to the public, because that is, literally, the first time the public saw the character in a story context.

 

Gambit appears on multiple pages. He is named. The book was on sale before X-Men #266 was printed.

 

The annual is his first full appearance.

 

As much as it may seem against the grain of things for some, UXM 266 really is the 1st full appearance if you follow the story.

 

Of course X-Men Annual 14 is not a cameo. We've all proven that to the wider audience. But in referencing UXM 265-267 as material to read to understand what is taking place in XM Annual 14, it's clear how this was supposed to be published.

 

The best thing for a collector/fan/reader is buy them both, and don't get caught up in any concern which came first. Then at least you can consider them in any order you like.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted

"Appearance in continuity" has never mattered in the entire history of the comics hobby.

 

Otherwise, Secret Wars #8 is the "real" first appearance of the symbiote, Detective Comics #33 would be the first appearance of Batman, and Wolverine #10...no, wait, Origin #1...would be the first appearance of Wolverine....until someone comes along and depicts Logan as a baby, fetus, zygote, egg and sperm, etc....

 

Obviously, it doesn't work that way, and cannot work that way, because it would constantly change what is the real first appearance, so it's not reasonable to apply that standard to every book except X-Men #266.

 

And "supposed to be published" still sticks to the now discredited idea that Marvel made some sort of mistake. They did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Illustrious

Illustrious

Posted
Posted
"Appearance in continuity" has never mattered in the entire history of the comics hobby.

 

Otherwise, Secret Wars #8 is the "real" first appearance of the symbiote, Detective Comics #33 would be the first appearance of Batman, and Wolverine #10...no, wait, Origin #1...would be the first appearance of Wolverine....until someone comes along and depicts Logan as a baby, fetus, zygote, egg and sperm, etc....

 

Obviously, it doesn't work that way, and cannot work that way, because it would constantly change what is the real first appearance, so it's not reasonable to apply that standard to every book except X-Men #266.

 

And "supposed to be published" still sticks to the now discredited idea that Marvel made some sort of mistake. They did not.

 

:applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted

One more point....since X-Men Annual came out first, then X-Men #266-#267 are rightfully flashback stories....and since when have flashbacks, even in the context of the main title, ever been properly considered "first appearances" without qualification?

 

 

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