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

[Bosco685]

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.

 

Again, I would stick with the facts versus making statements that are not really going to add value here to the discussion. Did Marvel's production team make errors in their output during the 90's?

 

 

What's that say in the upper left-hand corner? I think it states 'printing error' that came out of an efficient and capable process, producing millions of comics sometime during 1993. Marvel, like any production process, experienced errors. To state otherwise is not based in fact, and leans toward fanciful statements to support a claim.

 

Again, we should shy away from such statements.

[revat]

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.

 

Again, I would stick with the facts versus making statements that are not really going to add value here to the discussion. Did Marvel's production team make errors in their output during the 90's?

 

 

What's that say in the upper left-hand corner? I think it states 'printing error' that came out of an efficient and capable process, producing millions of comics sometime during 1993. Marvel, like any production process, experienced errors. To state otherwise is not based in fact, and leans toward fanciful statements to support a claim.

 

Again, we should shy away from such statements.

 

I think a printing error in this case is not the same as a production error. But yes, I'm sure SOME ERRORS were made across the board at every level during that time, no one was perfect or immune. But error or not, I'm not sure it makes a difference in this argument. The first appearance would be the first released book, regardless of storyline continuity or even the intentions of the publisher.

 

If you were having twins and one was positioned in the womb to be born first, but then you decided to have a C-section and the order was reversed...guess what? The twin who came out first is older, whether by necessity or doctor's choice or nature or pure luck.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

Again, I would stick with the facts versus making statements that are not really going to add value here to the discussion.

 

A point of philosophical distinction on your statement here: "sticking to the facts" and "adding value to the discussion" are not mutually exclusive concepts, as you seem to suggest here.

 

One may stick to facts, like "X-Men #279 came out after X-Men #143", which is a fact, but one that doesn't add any value to this particular discussion.

 

Or, one may also add value to a discussion by giving an opinion, like "I think it's important to consider Marvel's production capabilities at the time before classifying the situation as an "error", which is, of course, not a fact but an opinion, but does add considerably to the discussion.

 

And, after all, one person's idea of "adding value to the discussion" may not be another's, so I, myself, would be careful in presuming to speak for everyone in regards to that assumption.

 

As entertaining as philosophical asides are, however, we are getting a bit afield from the topic.

 

Did Marvel's production team make errors in their output during the 90's?

 

 

What's that say in the upper left-hand corner? I think it states 'printing error' that came out of an efficient and capable process, producing millions of comics sometime during 1993. Marvel, like any production process, experienced errors. To state otherwise is not based in fact, and leans toward fanciful statements to support a claim.

 

Again, we should shy away from such statements.

 

Marvel's production department had nothing to do with that error, so that particular example is not going to illustrate the point you are trying to make.

 

It is always prudent to make sure one thoroughly understands what is being said in the discussion before responding. For example, it would be incorrect to state that, because this particular scheduling situation was not in error, and that Marvel's production team was efficient and capable, that they therefore made no errors of any kind whatsoever. That would be a leap past the boundaries of reason, not justified by statements made previously.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

Again, I would stick with the facts versus making statements that are not really going to add value here to the discussion. Did Marvel's production team make errors in their output during the 90's?

 

 

What's that say in the upper left-hand corner? I think it states 'printing error' that came out of an efficient and capable process, producing millions of comics sometime during 1993. Marvel, like any production process, experienced errors. To state otherwise is not based in fact, and leans toward fanciful statements to support a claim.

 

Again, we should shy away from such statements.

 

I think a printing error in this case is not the same as a production error. But yes, I'm sure SOME ERRORS were made across the board at every level during that time, no one was perfect or immune. But error or not, I'm not sure it makes a difference in this argument. The first appearance would be the first released book, regardless of storyline continuity or even the intentions of the publisher.

 

If you were having twins and one was positioned in the womb to be born first, but then you decided to have a C-section and the order was reversed...guess what? The twin who came out first is older, whether by necessity or doctor's choice or nature or pure luck.

 

Agreed.

[Bosco685]

I think a printing error in this case is not the same as a production error. But yes, I'm sure SOME ERRORS were made across the board at every level during that time, no one was perfect or immune. But error or not, I'm not sure it makes a difference in this argument. The first appearance would be the first released book, regardless of storyline continuity or even the intentions of the publisher.

 

If you were having twins and one was positioned in the womb to be born first, but then you decided to have a C-section and the order was reversed...guess what? The twin who came out first is older, whether by necessity or doctor's choice or nature or pure luck.

 

I'd say an error in a production process shows there is room for other defects. And as massive an output as Marvel had at the time, having some errors could be expected. It's the nature of the beast.

 

As far as comparing to twin birth, I think we are straying from the topic. But I do appreciate the intent.

 

This is about two comic books that had close ties to one another by way of the story flow. Comparing to twin birth (I have experience with that) wouldn't help sort this out.

[Bosco685]

Marvel's production department had nothing to do with that error, so that particular example is not going to illustrate the point you are trying to make.

 

It is always prudent to make sure one thoroughly understands what is being said in the discussion before responding. For example, it would be incorrect to state that, because this particular scheduling situation was not in error, and that Marvel's production team was efficient and capable, that they therefore made no errors of any kind whatsoever. That would be a leap past the boundaries of reason, not justified by statements made previously.

 

I very much understand and comprehend what is being stated here. So no need to point that out.

 

You feel strongly one way. I feel there is more to the production story due to some of the facts associated with the situation. Stating repeatedly it was not a production planning issue which did not account for the flow of the story is your opinion, along with others. But then there are those that feel otherwise.

 

Again, there is nothing wrong with that. Some are going to feel X-Men Annual #14 is the 1st appearance. Some are not. The world will not spin out of control if we don't get everyone to change their thinking to one or the other.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think a printing error in this case is not the same as a production error. But yes, I'm sure SOME ERRORS were made across the board at every level during that time, no one was perfect or immune. But error or not, I'm not sure it makes a difference in this argument. The first appearance would be the first released book, regardless of storyline continuity or even the intentions of the publisher.

 

If you were having twins and one was positioned in the womb to be born first, but then you decided to have a C-section and the order was reversed...guess what? The twin who came out first is older, whether by necessity or doctor's choice or nature or pure luck.

 

I'd say an error in a production process shows there is room for other defects. And as massive an output as Marvel had at the time, having some errors could be expected. It's the nature of the beast.

 

Yes, but not this particular "error", that is, a publication scheduling error.

 

You would probably have to go back to the 40's to find a production scheduling issue at Timely/Atlas/Marvel. There were legal issues at stake that made production scheduling extremely important very early on.

 

As far as comparing to twin birth, I think we are straying from the topic. But I do appreciate the intent.

 

This is about two comic books that had close ties to one another by way of the story flow. Comparing to twin birth (I have experience with that) wouldn't help sort this out.

 

I dunno, I thought the example illustrated the concept quite well.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Marvel's production department had nothing to do with that error, so that particular example is not going to illustrate the point you are trying to make.

 

It is always prudent to make sure one thoroughly understands what is being said in the discussion before responding. For example, it would be incorrect to state that, because this particular scheduling situation was not in error, and that Marvel's production team was efficient and capable, that they therefore made no errors of any kind whatsoever. That would be a leap past the boundaries of reason, not justified by statements made previously.

 

I very much understand and comprehend what is being stated here. So no need to point that out.

 

Excellent! Sometimes, we get a little ahead of ourselves, and lose focus on who's saying what to whom. I'm glad we could get that straightened out.

 

You feel strongly one way. I feel there is more to the production story due to some of the facts associated with the situation. Stating repeatedly it was not a production planning issue which did not account for the flow of the story is your opinion, along with others. But then there are those that feel otherwise.

 

Again, there is nothing wrong with that. Some are going to feel X-Men Annual #14 is the 1st appearance. Some are not. The world will not spin out of control if we don't get everyone to change their thinking to one or the other.

 

I understand, but the issue isn't about how strongly one feels. It's about basic facts, and the facts are, there wasn't a production planning issue, and the flow of the story was accounted for by editorial...hence, the note.

 

Was it poorly planned on Claremont's part...? Possibly. But that's really only a claim that can be made in hindsight. For everyone beyond Claremont and the creative team, it really wasn't an issue. "In case you're wondering who this character is, check out our upcoming issues!" is, in effect, what the "See X-Men #265-267" is saying. It's not an opinion - it's right there in black and white.

 

Feelings shouldn't play into it. I can feel that Batman #449 should be known as the first appearance of the Penguin, but that doesn't make it so, right?

 

And no, the world will not spin out of control if people believe things that aren't true. That is demonstrated here on an hourly basis.

 

[Bosco685]

Not to cut your posts apart. But there are a few items here that would be confusing to respond to at the bottom without excessive explanation.

 

And no, the world will not spin out of control if people believe things that aren't true. That is demonstrated here on an hourly basis.

 

 

It goes both ways. Those that assume errors happened. Or those that assume the opposite for whatever reason.

 

There were legal issues at stake that made production scheduling extremely important very early on.

 

And in the case of Marvel Production having to comply with any legal expectation concerning scheduling, count on there is going to be less public information on the process. Who wants any mistakes or errors called out about their process? Especially if it can lead to anything resembling a fine which then may lead to personnel corrective action.

 

Was it poorly planned on Claremont's part...? Possibly. But that's really only a claim that can be made in hindsight. For everyone beyond Claremont and the creative team, it really wasn't an issue. "In case you're wondering who this character is, check out our upcoming issues!" is, in effect, what the "See X-Men #265-267" is saying. It's not an opinion - it's right there in black and white.

 

But now that Gambit is a key player for many X-Men/X-Franchise fans, it does become a point of discussion. Hence, this thread or else who would really care?

 

I do agree the 'flashback'/footnote reference helps to point something out. But you do realize it had no focus on Gambit as a character, right? It was about the story, and what happened to Ororo leading to her young form. So it was meant to help readers understand the flow of the story.

 

 

That's why you need to read these comics first before making any assumptions about them. There is so much great action going on across them all.

 

If you were having twins and one was positioned in the womb to be born first, but then you decided to have a C-section and the order was reversed...guess what? The twin who came out first is older, whether by necessity or doctor's choice or nature or pure luck.

 

I dunno, I thought the example illustrated the concept quite well.

 

 

Here is where it would fit in, and explain why Marvel.com even notes UXM #266 as Gambit's 1st appearance.

 

1) So the hospital has to identify each baby in a multiples birth for insurance reasons to note throughout the pregnancy so it is clear what treatment each baby received. So let's say in this case, UXM #266 is our Baby A and X-Men Annual #14 is Baby B to grow our overall story.

 

2) Through the treatment process, Baby A and Baby B are tracked throughout for proper health and growth. In our comic book womb, Claremont is growing this story that is going to swing from the Shadow King storyline to Days of Future Past. In his mind, he is clear on the path to be taken. Ororo will meet up with Gambit in her younger form, and then together they will end up at Xavier Mansion after the events of Mister Sinister's actions.

 

3) Somewhere along the growth of the overall X-Franchise storyline, the books get distributed out of the order of the actual story. But no worries. As there is a footnote in X-Men Annual #14 to clarify where this book fits in the flow of things. This is where the twins comparison goes squirrely. Babies do not have footnotes on them. But in this case, Claremont would still call UXM #266 his Baby A, and X-Men Annual #14 his Baby B. No matter what order they were delivered. Because storyline-wise, that is how the tale goes when you read through these books.

 

So you can see how somewhere the story got out of order, Gambit involved or not. It just so happens now Gambit matters.

[Bosco685]

 

And thank goodness Gambit's overall design changed rather quickly. X-Men Annual #14's appearance throughout looks horrible

[Bosco685]

Wait a minute...

 

 

[revat]

Not to cut your posts apart. But there are a few items here that would be confusing to respond to at the bottom without excessive explanation.

 

And no, the world will not spin out of control if people believe things that aren't true. That is demonstrated here on an hourly basis.

 

 

It goes both ways. Those that assume errors happened. Or those that assume the opposite for whatever reason.

 

There were legal issues at stake that made production scheduling extremely important very early on.

 

And in the case of Marvel Production having to comply with any legal expectation concerning scheduling, count on there is going to be less public information on the process. Who wants any mistakes or errors called out about their process? Especially if it can lead to anything resembling a fine which then may lead to personnel corrective action.

 

Was it poorly planned on Claremont's part...? Possibly. But that's really only a claim that can be made in hindsight. For everyone beyond Claremont and the creative team, it really wasn't an issue. "In case you're wondering who this character is, check out our upcoming issues!" is, in effect, what the "See X-Men #265-267" is saying. It's not an opinion - it's right there in black and white.

 

But now that Gambit is a key player for many X-Men/X-Franchise fans, it does become a point of discussion. Hence, this thread or else who would really care?

 

I do agree the 'flashback'/footnote reference helps to point something out. But you do realize it had no focus on Gambit as a character, right? It was about the story, and what happened to Ororo leading to her young form. So it was meant to help readers understand the flow of the story.

 

 

That's why you need to read these comics first before making any assumptions about them. There is so much great action going on across them all.

 

If you were having twins and one was positioned in the womb to be born first, but then you decided to have a C-section and the order was reversed...guess what? The twin who came out first is older, whether by necessity or doctor's choice or nature or pure luck.

 

I dunno, I thought the example illustrated the concept quite well.

 

 

Here is where it would fit in, and explain why Marvel.com even notes UXM #266 as Gambit's 1st appearance.

 

1) So the hospital has to identify each baby in a multiples birth for insurance reasons to note throughout the pregnancy so it is clear what treatment each baby received. So let's say in this case, UXM #266 is our Baby A and X-Men Annual #14 is Baby B to grow our overall story.

 

2) Through the treatment process, Baby A and Baby B are tracked throughout for proper health and growth. In our comic book womb, Claremont is growing this story that is going to swing from the Shadow King storyline to Days of Future Past. In his mind, he is clear on the path to be taken. Ororo will meet up with Gambit in her younger form, and then together they will end up at Xavier Mansion after the events of Mister Sinister's actions.

 

3) Somewhere along the growth of the overall X-Franchise storyline, the books get distributed out of the order of the actual story. But no worries. As there is a footnote in X-Men Annual #14 to clarify where this book fits in the flow of things. This is where the twins comparison goes squirrely. Babies do not have footnotes on them. But in this case, Claremont would still call UXM #266 his Baby A, and X-Men Annual #14 his Baby B. No matter what order they were delivered. Because storyline-wise, that is how the tale goes when you read through these books.

 

So you can see how somewhere the story got out of order, Gambit involved or not. It just so happens now Gambit matters.

 

but what if there was a break of more than a month? what if it was 3 months or more? Would it still matter? Is there a line? and would it be arbitrary?

[Bosco685]

but what if there was a break of more than a month? what if it was 3 months or more? Would it still matter? Is there a line? and would it be arbitrary?

 

It would, as there would be such a gap in the storyline and the advancement of Gambit as a character. Remember, by UXM #273 Gambit gets a new costume AND beats Wolverine in the Danger Room.

 

Because these two books were associated with a few stories that had a close connection through the amazing creative delivery of the overall X-Franchise teams, mistiming could throw off the connection between them other than a footnote reference.

 

And like RMA said, it's right there in black and white. The footnote was meant to maintain the connection of the story to explain what happened to Ororo before arriving in X-Men Annual #14. It had nothing to do with Gambit at that point.

[Bosco685]

And like RMA said, it's right there in black and white. The footnote was meant to maintain the connection of the story to explain what happened to Ororo before arriving in X-Men Annual #14. It had nothing to do with Gambit at that point.

 

Sorry. I meant to say RMA mistakenly assumed the footnote had to do with Gambit.

 

Was it poorly planned on Claremont's part...? Possibly. But that's really only a claim that can be made in hindsight. For everyone beyond Claremont and the creative team, it really wasn't an issue. "In case you're wondering who this character is, check out our upcoming issues!" is, in effect, what the "See X-Men #265-267" is saying. It's not an opinion - it's right there in black and white.

 

The footnote was about Ororo's age regression at the hands of Nanny when she was captured (I think this was back in UXM #248).

[RockMyAmadeus]

Not to cut your posts apart. But there are a few items here that would be confusing to respond to at the bottom without excessive explanation.

 

And no, the world will not spin out of control if people believe things that aren't true. That is demonstrated here on an hourly basis.

 

 

It goes both ways. Those that assume errors happened. Or those that assume the opposite for whatever reason.

 

No, not really. Not all assumptions are equal, and it doesn't really go "both ways." For example, someone may assume that a murder happened at 10:37 PM on Thursday, Jan 29 2015, at the corner of Main and Broadway. But there's no body, no blood, no witnesses to a crime, no missing person reports, no disturbances in the area...nothing to suggest that such a crime actually occurred. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that what happened that night was precisely what usually happens. Both are assumptions...but one is reasonable, while the other is not.

 

For there to be an assumption of an error in the publication scheduling, there would have to be evidence of it. There isn't any, none at all, with the exception of the editorial note (which, it has been shown, supports the "there was no error; we planned this all along" argument.) No resolicitation, no trade notices, no letters to distributors or retailers, nothing. All the evidence points to everything being released exactly as planned, like clockwork. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that everything carried on as it normally did.

 

There were legal issues at stake that made production scheduling extremely important very early on.

 

And in the case of Marvel Production having to comply with any legal expectation concerning scheduling, count on there is going to be less public information on the process. Who wants any mistakes or errors called out about their process? Especially if it can lead to anything resembling a fine which then may lead to personnel corrective action.

 

Interesting theory, but not relevant to the discussion. The issue of legality that I raised was one of historicity and intellectual property rights, and how that relates to the everyday operations of the Marvel production department; not whether someone was doing something that may or may not have been illegal.

 

The Marvel production department is one of the most tightly run departments of the company, because it involves scheduling and logistics with every aspect of comic book production, from dealing with creative to printing to distribution to marketing, and everything in between. They are the "funnel" through which everything passes, and the fact that they have an essentially unbroken record of publication at the US Copyright Office for decades demonstrates that they were a top notch, professional department. That is not a claim that other publishers (like Image, for example, or Pacific Comics, or Eclipse) can make.

 

While it's interesting to hypothesize about an illicit coverup at Marvel production, there's nothing that suggests any sort of thing like that actually occurred.

 

Was it poorly planned on Claremont's part...? Possibly. But that's really only a claim that can be made in hindsight. For everyone beyond Claremont and the creative team, it really wasn't an issue. "In case you're wondering who this character is, check out our upcoming issues!" is, in effect, what the "See X-Men #265-267" is saying. It's not an opinion - it's right there in black and white.

 

But now that Gambit is a key player for many X-Men/X-Franchise fans, it does become a point of discussion. Hence, this thread or else who would really care?

 

It is a hindsight issue, and not relevant to anyone at the time.

 

I do agree the 'flashback'/footnote reference helps to point something out. But you do realize it had no focus on Gambit as a character, right? It was about the story, and what happened to Ororo leading to her young form. So it was meant to help readers understand the flow of the story.

 

Gambit was a central part of that story, so it most certainly had focus on Gambit as a character. Obviously, Claremont wrote Gambit into the annual, and intended for readers to be made aware of this character, or he wouldn't have been in the -script.

 

While the footnote specifically deals with the story of Nanny and Storm's regression, Gambit is central to that story, as we find out, and thus the footnote directly pertains to him, as well.

 

That's why you need to read these comics first before making any assumptions about them.

 

I'm not sure who you're talking to, here. I, personally, have red the books, and am not making any assumptions about them. You must be speaking to the general "you."

 

Here is where it would fit in, and explain why Marvel.com even notes UXM #266 as Gambit's 1st appearance.

 

Marvel.com is just people, too, whose opinions are no more nor less valid than anyone else's. Just because Marvel.com says something, it doesn't make it official if it contradicts the facts.

 

(And you've taken the twins example wayyyyy out of proportion.)

 

]quote]So you can see how somewhere the story got out of order, Gambit involved or not. It just so happens now Gambit matters.

 

This assumes that the story "got out of order." Stories have been "out of order" throughout the history of comics for all sorts of reasons.

 

No one is denying that the story order is not chronological. It's not, obviously. But it doesn't mean they messed up.

 

Have you ever seen the story order for the Mutant Massacre? (Marvel even published a wonky map!) How about the X-Men/Asgard storyline from 1985? Secret Wars? (all of which takes place, literally, between single issues of each affected title.) How about Deathmate? (Now THAT was an error in production.)

 

It happens all the time. It doesn't mean anyone screwed up. It just means they were published in a different order than chronologically, and THIS time, it mattered.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

The footnote was meant to maintain the connection of the story to explain what happened to Ororo before arriving in X-Men Annual #14. It had nothing to do with Gambit at that point.

 

Again, as Gambit was central to that story, this is not true.

 

There is no difference; whether the gap was 7 years or 7 days, the Annual was on the stands, for sale, before X-Men #266. That's what is important, and that is the only fact that matters, because it is inarguable, and has decades of precedent.

 

It may be interesting to discuss first appearances as it relates to continuity, but it is an ultimately hopeless venture, because it is not concrete, and can (and frequently does) change.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And like RMA said, it's right there in black and white. The footnote was meant to maintain the connection of the story to explain what happened to Ororo before arriving in X-Men Annual #14. It had nothing to do with Gambit at that point.

 

Sorry. I meant to say RMA mistakenly assumed the footnote had to do with Gambit.

 

The footnote says "for details, see X-Men #'s 265-267."

 

Gambit was central to the story in those issues. I'm not sure, then, how assuming the footnote has to do with Gambit would be a mistake.

 

 

[Still Only 35c]

Hasn't this already been resolved in the Label Updates? post in the Ask CGC section?

 

So we've talked about it in the grading room and this is what we did -

 

Avenging Spider-man #9 -

1st Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel, predates Captain Marvel #1 (9/12)

 

Captain Marvel #1 -

Carol Danvers becomes the new Captain Marvel.

 

Iron Man Wal-Mart Custom Comic

1st appearance of Phil Coulson in comics (out of Marvel Universe continuity).

 

Battle Scars #1

1st appearance of Phil Coulson in Marvel Universe continuity.

 

X-Men Annual #14

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

[Bosco685]

Since the entire production response is based on your assumptions, with no real documented facts from behind the scenes how smoothly the production process worked, let's focus on the comics. It makes the discussion easier.

 

(And you've taken the twins example wayyyyy out of proportion.)

 

Interesting. I felt like it fit the situation as there is more to twins than just who was snatched first from a woman's womb. Maybe it didn't fit the way you wanted it to.

 

 

It may be interesting to discuss first appearances as it relates to continuity, but it is an ultimately hopeless venture, because it is not concrete, and can (and frequently does) change.

 

We are in agreement on this statement. We see this from time to time. Look at Goon as he became more popular how it went from Goon 1 (Avatar) to Avatar Illustrated to Dreamwalker 0. Those trying to figure out which was the big book to grab were being bounced around (along with CGC's labels). Look at this video from a fan trying to talk through each book he picked up - including referencing CGC.

 

 

Again, as Gambit was central to that story, this is not true.

 

There is no difference; whether the gap was 7 years or 7 days, the Annual was on the stands, for sale, before X-Men #266. That's what is important, and that is the only fact that matters, because it is inarguable, and has decades of precedent.

 

Sure the timing makes sense when the books are this close to one another, and the story flows one into the other. Ororo being captured by Nanny, age regressed and then dealing with the Shadow King with the assistance of Gambit then flows into X-Men Annual #14 with her arrival. Ororo's return to the mansion kicks off the entire annual storyline. Gambit was not central to the story. Look at the images I took of all the appearances in this book, and you can see he is inserted in as background noise. Ororo's return to the X-Men was a key part of the story, with the footnote pointing out what occurred before her arrival.

 

 

In your words, 'it's right there in black and white'. The panels in the comic book are quite clear.

 

Hasn't this already been resolved in the Label Updates? post in the Ask CGC section?

 

X-Men Annual #14

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

 

Here is where the new CGC label notes still adds some confusion (though I do agree with the pre-dates note). X-Men Annual #14 has been proven to NOT be a cameo. Although Gambit is background noise, he is frequent throughout the comic.

 

It may have better served collectors to have a more detailed note about the situation of these two books like that 9.9 example of Amazing Spider-Man #252.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Since the entire production response is based on your assumptions, with no real documented facts from behind the scenes how smoothly the production process worked, let's focus on the comics. It makes the discussion easier.

 

That's simply not correct. Let me show you why:

 

v. 1, no. 259, Mar90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-01-02; Reg. 1990-04-06; TX0002813490

v. 1, no. 260, Apr90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-02-06; Reg. 1990-04-30; TX0002819059

v. 1, no. 261, May90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-03-06; Reg. 1990-05-23; TX0002832961

v. 1, no. 262, Jun90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-04-03; Reg. 1990-05-31; TX0002843519

v. 1, no. 263, early Jun90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-05-01; Reg. 1990-06-19; TX0002872984

v. 1, no. 264, late Jul90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-05-15; Reg. 1990-06-19; TX0002793635

v. 1, no. 265, early Aug90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-06-05; Reg. 1990-08-27; TX0002882811

v. 1, no. 266, late Aug90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-06-19; Reg. 1990-08-27; TX0002882810

v. 1, no. 267, early Sep90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-07-03; Reg. 1990-12-20; TX0002965689

v. 1, no. 268, Sep90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-07-17; Reg. 1990-12-20; TX0002965727

v. 1, no. 269, Oct90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-08-07; Reg. 1990-12-20; TX0002965639

v. 1, no. 270, Nov90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-09-04; Reg. 1990-12-20; TX0002965691

v. 1, no. 271, Dec90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-10-02; Reg. 1990-12-20; TX0002965669

v. 1, no. 272, Jan91. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-11-06; Reg. 1990-12-26; TX0002966307

v. 1, no. 273, Feb91. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-12-04; Reg. 1990-12-31; TX0002976869

 

Those are from the US Copyright office. There are more just like it. It tells us that the publication of this title, and the rest that Marvel was producing at the time, was running exceptionally smoothly, even with bi-weekly issues. Marvel did this hundreds of times, every month, with nary a hiccup. Obviously, things were being done well at Marvel during this time period.

 

I don't need affidavits from then-current Marvel employees to determine these things; the above data alone demonstrates that. No assumptions required; the data speaks for itself.

 

You might want to steer the conversation, but if you could leave out the "let's focus on this, better not to speak for others, let's not talk about this other topic" language, it would be appreciated. If you think something isn't worth discussing, you can refrain from discussing it. Otherwise, if someone else brings something up, it's because they think it's worth discussing, and it's presumptuous to tell people what they have to say isn't what you think they should discuss.

 

Fair enough?

 

(And you've taken the twins example wayyyyy out of proportion.)

 

Interesting. I felt like it fit the situation as there is more to twins than just who was snatched first from a woman's womb. Maybe it didn't fit the way you wanted it to.

 

The analogy only followed insofar as "what came first." That was Revat's point, with which I agreed. Delving further into the analogy didn't work, because the point was simple: what came first. Anything beyond that went too far.

 

It may be interesting to discuss first appearances as it relates to continuity, but it is an ultimately hopeless venture, because it is not concrete, and can (and frequently does) change.

 

We are in agreement on this statement. We see this from time to time. Look at Goon as he became more popular how it went from Goon 1 (Avatar) to Avatar Illustrated to Dreamwalker 0. Those trying to figure out which was the big book to grab were being bounced around (along with CGC's labels). Look at this video from a fan trying to talk through each book he picked up - including referencing CGC.

 

But that's not the point...the contention is not about trying to figure out what a character's first appearance is. That's important, but the fact is, there IS a first appearance for every character, a book that came out first, whether the collecting world knows what it is or not; it will eventually be discovered.

 

The contention is basing first appearances on continuity, because that can (and does) change. How? People write new stories. As of right now, the "first appearance" of Wolverine in continuity is Origin #1. Before that book came out, it was Wolverine #10. Before that, it was whatever story took place before Hulk #180-181.

 

But the first appearance of Gambit has been, since publication, X-Men Annual #14, and that won't ever change. It's a fact of history, immutable, barring the incredibly unlikely discovery of a heretofore unknown Marvel publication showing Gambit that came out before the Annual.

 

Again, as Gambit was central to that story, this is not true.

 

There is no difference; whether the gap was 7 years or 7 days, the Annual was on the stands, for sale, before X-Men #266. That's what is important, and that is the only fact that matters, because it is inarguable, and has decades of precedent.

 

Sure the timing makes sense when the books are this close to one another, and the story flows one into the other. Ororo being captured by Nanny, age regressed and then dealing with the Shadow King with the assistance of Gambit then flows into X-Men Annual #14 with her arrival. Ororo's return to the mansion kicks off the entire annual storyline. Gambit was not central to the story. Look at the images I took of all the appearances in this book, and you can see he is inserted in as background noise.

 

You've misunderstood.

 

Gambit is central to X-Men #265-267, not Annual #14. It is #265-267 to which the footnote refers.

 

Ororo's return to the X-Men was a key part of the story, with the footnote reference pointed out what occurred before her arrival.

 

Ororo's return to the mansion wasn't a key part of Days of Future Present, but that's a side issue.

 

In your words, 'it's right there in black and white'. The panels in the comic book are quite clear.

 

That statement referred to the footnote. I thought that was clear, but if it's not, I'll state it clearly: that statement referred to the footnote. Hopefully, that statement is fully clarified at this point.