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

[Bosco685]

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?

 

If you actually read the stories from book to book, the events shown in X-Men Annual #14 take place right after the events of UXM 265-267. There is no need to dig up any letter from Marvel apologizing for the publication error to prove that.

 

That's why the annual references those flashbacks.

[Backrem]

 

Annual 14 1st appearance of Gambit.

 

Xmen 266 1st cover and full appearance of Gambit.

 

 

 

I have had a nice copy of #266 for over 20 years and no annual, but I vote for this.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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?

 

If you actually read the stories from book to book, the events shown in X-Men Annual #14 take place right after the events of UXM 265-267. There is no need to dig up any letter from Marvel apologizing for the publication error to prove that.

 

That's why the annual references those flashbacks.

 

And the events of Amazing Spiderman #252 take place literally seconds after the events of Secret Wars #12.

 

That doesn't mean Secret Wars #8 is the first appearance of the symbiote.

 

There is no letter from Marvel apologizing for an error, because there was no error to apologize for.

 

All that matters is: what hit the stands first?

[ashsaytr]

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?

 

If you actually read the stories from book to book, the events shown in X-Men Annual #14 take place right after the events of UXM 265-267. There is no need to dig up any letter from Marvel apologizing for the publication error to prove that.

 

That's why the annual references those flashbacks.

 

And the events of Amazing Spiderman #252 take place literally seconds after the events of Secret Wars #12.

 

That doesn't mean Secret Wars #8 is the first appearance of the symbiote.

 

There is no letter from Marvel apologizing for an error, because there was no error to apologize for.

 

All that matters is: what hit the stands first?

 

IH 180

[Bosco685]

And the events of Amazing Spiderman #252 take place literally seconds after the events of Secret Wars #12.

 

That doesn't mean Secret Wars #8 is the first appearance of the symbiote.

 

There is no letter from Marvel apologizing for an error, because there was no error to apologize for.

 

All that matters is: what hit the stands first?

 

Sorry. You missed my point.

 

The Amazing Spider-Man#252 (May 1, 1984)

Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars#8 (December 1, 1984)

------------------------

7 month gap between them = No confusion which came first

 

The Incredible Hulk#181 (November 1974)

Wolverine #10 (August 1989)

------------------------

15 years, 3 month gap between them = No confusion which came first

 

X-Men Annual#14 (August 1, 1990)

The Uncanny X-Men#266 (August 1, 1990)

------------------------

0 month gap between them = Potential for confusion

 

So comparing the other books to the X-Men Ann #14/UXM #266 situation is not the same. They were published in the same month. That is why it is easily assumed Marvel messed up the release of this book because (1) who cared about Gambit anyway, and (2) Marvel just wanted to crank books out without a care of which order the books had to be released.

[MK Ultra]

And the events of Amazing Spiderman #252 take place literally seconds after the events of Secret Wars #12.

 

That doesn't mean Secret Wars #8 is the first appearance of the symbiote.

 

There is no letter from Marvel apologizing for an error, because there was no error to apologize for.

 

All that matters is: what hit the stands first?

 

Sorry. You missed my point.

 

The Amazing Spider-Man#252 (May 1, 1984)

Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars#8 (December 1, 1984)

------------------------

7 month gap between them = No confusion which came first

 

The Incredible Hulk#181 (November 1974)

Wolverine #10 (August 1989)

------------------------

15 years, 3 month gap between them = No confusion which came first

 

X-Men Annual#14 (August 1, 1990)

The Uncanny X-Men#266 (August 1, 1990)

------------------------

0 month gap between them = Potential for confusion

 

So comparing the other books to the X-Men Ann #14/UXM #266 situation is not the same. They were published in the same month. That is why it is easily assumed Marvel messed up the release of this book because (1) who cared about Gambit anyway, and (2) Marvel just wanted to crank books out without a care of which order the books had to be released.

 

Were they released the same month? Kind of like ASM 252 MTU 141 and PPTSSM 90 (89?)

 

Which is the first black costume?

[Bosco685]

Were they released the same month? Kind of like ASM 252 MTU 141 and PPTSSM 90 (89?)

 

Which is the first black costume?

Even though the Marvel catalog has release dates with a one-month gap between them, they were released within two weeks of each other.

 

On the Spider-Man books, I never noticed that before.

 

[Illustrious]

And the events of Amazing Spiderman #252 take place literally seconds after the events of Secret Wars #12.

 

That doesn't mean Secret Wars #8 is the first appearance of the symbiote.

 

There is no letter from Marvel apologizing for an error, because there was no error to apologize for.

 

All that matters is: what hit the stands first?

 

Sorry. You missed my point.

 

The Amazing Spider-Man#252 (May 1, 1984)

Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars#8 (December 1, 1984)

------------------------

7 month gap between them = No confusion which came first

 

The Incredible Hulk#181 (November 1974)

Wolverine #10 (August 1989)

------------------------

15 years, 3 month gap between them = No confusion which came first

 

X-Men Annual#14 (August 1, 1990)

The Uncanny X-Men#266 (August 1, 1990)

------------------------

0 month gap between them = Potential for confusion

 

So comparing the other books to the X-Men Ann #14/UXM #266 situation is not the same. They were published in the same month. That is why it is easily assumed Marvel messed up the release of this book because (1) who cared about Gambit anyway, and (2) Marvel just wanted to crank books out without a care of which order the books had to be released.

 

You're glossing over the gap there, there was three weeks between them, pretty damn close to a month.

[Bosco685]

And the events of Amazing Spiderman #252 take place literally seconds after the events of Secret Wars #12.

 

That doesn't mean Secret Wars #8 is the first appearance of the symbiote.

 

There is no letter from Marvel apologizing for an error, because there was no error to apologize for.

 

All that matters is: what hit the stands first?

 

Sorry. You missed my point.

 

The Amazing Spider-Man#252 (May 1, 1984)

Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars#8 (December 1, 1984)

------------------------

7 month gap between them = No confusion which came first

 

The Incredible Hulk#181 (November 1974)

Wolverine #10 (August 1989)

------------------------

15 years, 3 month gap between them = No confusion which came first

 

X-Men Annual#14 (August 1, 1990)

The Uncanny X-Men#266 (August 1, 1990)

------------------------

0 month gap between them = Potential for confusion

 

So comparing the other books to the X-Men Ann #14/UXM #266 situation is not the same. They were published in the same month. That is why it is easily assumed Marvel messed up the release of this book because (1) who cared about Gambit anyway, and (2) Marvel just wanted to crank books out without a care of which order the books had to be released.

 

You're glossing over the gap there, there was three weeks between them, pretty damn close to a month.

 

I'm not glossing over anything. To compare two books with seven (7) months between them and then compare two books with fifteen (15) years between them is not like two books released around the same time that one references as a FLASHBACK (in RMA's word) to the story contained in X-Men Annual #14.

 

That's pretty damb close to each other's release, making it easy for a mishandled schedule leading to one being out-of-synch with another.

[JTLarsen]

And the events of Amazing Spiderman #252 take place literally seconds after the events of Secret Wars #12.

 

That doesn't mean Secret Wars #8 is the first appearance of the symbiote.

 

There is no letter from Marvel apologizing for an error, because there was no error to apologize for.

 

All that matters is: what hit the stands first?

 

Sorry. You missed my point.

 

The Amazing Spider-Man#252 (May 1, 1984)

Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars#8 (December 1, 1984)

------------------------

7 month gap between them = No confusion which came first

 

The Incredible Hulk#181 (November 1974)

Wolverine #10 (August 1989)

------------------------

15 years, 3 month gap between them = No confusion which came first

 

X-Men Annual#14 (August 1, 1990)

The Uncanny X-Men#266 (August 1, 1990)

------------------------

0 month gap between them = Potential for confusion

 

So comparing the other books to the X-Men Ann #14/UXM #266 situation is not the same. They were published in the same month. That is why it is easily assumed Marvel messed up the release of this book because (1) who cared about Gambit anyway, and (2) Marvel just wanted to crank books out without a care of which order the books had to be released.

 

You're glossing over the gap there, there was three weeks between them, pretty damn close to a month.

 

I'm not glossing over anything. To compare two books with seven (7) months between them and then compare two books with fifteen (15) years between them is not like two books released around the same time that one references as a FLASHBACK (in RMA's word) to the story contained in X-Men Annual #14.

 

That's pretty damb close to each other's release, making it easy for a mishandled schedule leading to one being out-of-synch with another.

 

Y'know, the numbers one and two are RIGHT NEXT TO each other. No gap at all. So it's possible two was SUPPOSED to come first. So I could see why people would say two is really first. Before one.

[Bosco685]

Y'know, the numbers one and two are RIGHT NEXT TO each other. No gap at all. So it's possible two was SUPPOSED to come first. So I could see why people would say two is really first. Before one.

 

 

You're reaching too far with that one.

[Vikingreed]

CGC lists ASM #252 as tying with MTU 141 as the 1st appearance of the black costume.

 

I know there has been a ton of debate about that topic on these boards.

 

[Bosco685]

CGC lists ASM #252 as tying with MTU 141 as the 1st appearance of the black costume.

 

I know there has been a ton of debate about that topic on these boards.

 

That is interesting CGC noted the parallel between the books. What does the label note state?

[Jeffro.]

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.

 

That logic makes Marvel Super-Heroes 11 (not Avengers Annual 10) the first appearance of Rogue and that would be asinine.

 

First appearances have always been about when it was published.

[Bosco685]

Soooooo - moving on.

 

Like I was pointing out, Marvel published the two books in question so close to one another, and within a related story flow, it is easier to understand the release of X-Men Annual #14 leads to it being out-of-synch with the details of UXM #266.

 

I like that approach Vikingreed pointed out when two books are on top of each other like this with a major event.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And the events of Amazing Spiderman #252 take place literally seconds after the events of Secret Wars #12.

 

That doesn't mean Secret Wars #8 is the first appearance of the symbiote.

 

There is no letter from Marvel apologizing for an error, because there was no error to apologize for.

 

All that matters is: what hit the stands first?

 

Sorry. You missed my point.

 

The Amazing Spider-Man#252 (May 1, 1984)

Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars#8 (December 1, 1984)

------------------------

7 month gap between them = No confusion which came first

 

The Incredible Hulk#181 (November 1974)

Wolverine #10 (August 1989)

------------------------

15 years, 3 month gap between them = No confusion which came first

 

X-Men Annual#14 (August 1, 1990)

The Uncanny X-Men#266 (August 1, 1990)

------------------------

0 month gap between them = Potential for confusion

 

So comparing the other books to the X-Men Ann #14/UXM #266 situation is not the same. They were published in the same month. That is why it is easily assumed Marvel messed up the release of this book because (1) who cared about Gambit anyway, and (2) Marvel just wanted to crank books out without a care of which order the books had to be released.

 

I didn't miss your point, no.

 

The length of time in between is not the issue.

 

Whether it was 7 months, or 7 days, the issue is the same. The assumption that Marvel "messed up", while certainly an old one, doesn't make it so. The publication data clearly shows there was no "mess up" (and, indeed, for a company that had been publishing comics, month in and month out, for 50+ years by this point, they had it down to a science.)

 

That some people, who didn't have all the information, came up with the "mess up" story, and it stuck, does not therefore mean that it is valid.

 

As far as Marvel "cranking out books without a care of which order the books had to be released"...I suspect the production team at Marvel might be a bit insulted by that. It may have seemed like that in the heady days of youth, but it wasn't ever really that way. There was, and is, a process, from start to end, that Marvel followed.

 

And the books weren't published in the same month. One was published in May, the other in June. They were published in the same 30 day time frame, but not the same month.

[Bosco685]

I didn't miss your point, no.

 

The length of time in between is not the issue.

 

Whether it was 7 months, or 7 days, the issue is the same. The assumption that Marvel "messed up", while certainly an old one, doesn't make it so. The publication data clearly shows there was no "mess up" (and, indeed, for a company that had been publishing comics, month in and month out, for 50+ years by this point, they had it down to a science.)

 

That some people, who didn't have all the information, came up with the "mess up" story, and it stuck, does not therefore mean that it is valid.

 

As far as Marvel "cranking out books without a care of which order the books had to be released"...I suspect the production team at Marvel might be a bit insulted by that. It may have seemed like that in the heady days of youth, but it wasn't ever really that way. There was, and is, a process, from start to end, that Marvel followed.

 

And the books weren't published in the same month. One was published in May, the other in June. They were published in the same 30 day time frame, but not the same month.

 

Of course the length of time between books factors into a situation. Especially if something becomes key from those books that readers later on wish to figure out like this thread has worked to achieve.

 

As far as the Marvel Production Team taking offense to to the perception they were cranking out books at that time without care, unless you worked there previously or currently, better you not attempt to speak for them. Otherwise, the discussion deviates from facts to assumptions.

 

What this thread has shown, though, is there is going to be a camp that feels X-Men Annual #14 is the 1st appearance, X-Men #266 for others (including Marvel.com), and some are even going to lean towards both books being called out. There is nothing wrong with any of the three due to the timing of the book releases, 'flashback' reference to UXM 265-267, and general feeling of a collector.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I didn't miss your point, no.

 

The length of time in between is not the issue.

 

Whether it was 7 months, or 7 days, the issue is the same. The assumption that Marvel "messed up", while certainly an old one, doesn't make it so. The publication data clearly shows there was no "mess up" (and, indeed, for a company that had been publishing comics, month in and month out, for 50+ years by this point, they had it down to a science.)

 

That some people, who didn't have all the information, came up with the "mess up" story, and it stuck, does not therefore mean that it is valid.

 

As far as Marvel "cranking out books without a care of which order the books had to be released"...I suspect the production team at Marvel might be a bit insulted by that. It may have seemed like that in the heady days of youth, but it wasn't ever really that way. There was, and is, a process, from start to end, that Marvel followed.

 

And the books weren't published in the same month. One was published in May, the other in June. They were published in the same 30 day time frame, but not the same month.

 

Of course the length of time between books factors into a situation. Especially if something becomes key from those books that readers later on wish to figure out like this thread has worked to achieve.

 

Except, of course, that we now know most, if not all, of details surrounding the release of these books, and we know precisely what came out, when. There is no longer any reasonable dispute regarding release dates. The length of time between books is no longer a factor in dispute, so that really should settle the matter.

 

As far as the Marvel Production Team taking offense to to the perception they were cranking out books at that time without care, unless you worked there previously or currently, better you not attempt to speak for them. Otherwise, the discussion deviates from facts to assumptions.

 

Quite the contrary. I was not speaking to the personal opinions and feelings of those working at Marvel at the time (because, as you rightly imply, no one but they can know them, and those with whom they share them), but to basic reason. Most people take a certain amount of pride in their work, or, at least, not doing it so badly they would screw up a process that had been in place for decades. It is, therefore, simple, basic common sense, rather than presumption, to state that they were not "cranking out books" at a pace that would cause them to commit such a substantial error.

 

In fact, to suggest otherwise is to impugn them quite unfairly, especially in light of the facts as we now know them.

 

It is a well established fact, not an assumption, that Marvel's production department was an efficient, well-running system that had been in place for decades. Surely, no one can reasonably dispute this. The assumption, therefore, lies with those who would suggest some type of mistake was made in a system that was efficient and capable of producing millions of comic books every month, month in and month out, for decades.

 

 

[bababooey]

[RockMyAmadeus]

CGC lists ASM #252 as tying with MTU 141 as the 1st appearance of the black costume.

 

I know there has been a ton of debate about that topic on these boards.

 

 

What a beauty.

 

There shouldn't be any debate. Here is the Copyright office info:

 

v. 1, no. 252, May84. Created 1984; Pub. 1984-01-10; Reg. 1984-03-20; TX0001319971

 

v. 1, no. 90, May84. Created 1984; Pub. 1984-01-24; Reg. 1984-03-20; TX0001325179

 

v. 1, no. 141, May84. Created 1984; Pub. 1984-01-24; Reg. 1984-03-20; TX0001328284

 

And, of course, anyone with basic common sense will realize that, just from the cover of #252 alone, it was a big deal to Marvel, and they wouldn't spoil it by releasing the other two books concurrently (not that they could; the publication schedule was set.)