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

[Bosco685]

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.

 

You can discuss it all you want. But you are making a big assumption what is on record is representative of the inner workings of Marvel production. Were you there? Did you work for them, and know all that went on? If not, better to assume everything that is there doesn't tell the entire story. It's not worth even going down that path, because neither of us knows what scheduling or production hurdles they went through unless (1) we worked there or (2) Marvel Production released its daily records of what went on.

 

What we do have is what was released to the public. And that does add value. But to assume it tells the entire story would be a stretch. Production processes always have waste and defects that do not make it out to the public. That is why practices such as Six Sigma and Lean came about to improve them. So this is a situation where you can pull out all the public records you want. Meanwhile, it is not going to factually demonstrate what goes on for real behind the scenes.

 

Fair enough?

 

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.

 

Like you pointed out, better to not attempt to steer the conversion just to what you want to note. When it comes to the entire UXM #266/X-Men Annual #14 situation, there was a relationship between these books storywise. And just like a hospital working to maintain its visibility of the difference between the twins all the way through the lifecycle, the same would ring true here for Claremont's storytelling. He had a flow he was following to weave these universes together.

 

Fair enough?

 

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.

 

But this is not the case when it comes to Gambit. Mistakenly, for many years, his appearance in X-Men Annual #14 was noted as a cameo. And we all realize a cameo is so brief, this is why the hobby hesitates to call it a first appearance.

 

But through this discussion, including photos of each panel, we have helped establish it was not a cameo. It was much more, though most of the panels treat Gambit as a background character other than the first few parts of the book when Ororo and Gambit run into the New Mutants.

 

Now in the case of something like Goon, these previews were realized after-the-fact once the character really took off. And that led to collectors wanting CGC to change their labels on both books, along with sellers calling this out as 1st appearances.

 

So yes, it does fit the situation we are dealing with now. Just in the case of Gambit, the general hobby was fully aware of the X-Men Annual #14 appearance. It was a mistaken assumption it was just a cameo.

 

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.

 

I think the footnote discussion may have run its course. But just to be clear, here is where you steered it down this path.

 

"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.

 

First, a footnote isn't just to call out 'coming to a store near you'. It is referencing something that has been published and potentially referenced.

 

Second, the footnote references Ororo's experiences in UXM 265-267 which involved Gambit. It was not calling out 'if you want to know more about this character, go read these books' like you pointed out.

 

And that is what is relevent here. Ororo, who was key to that story, was sharing what took place in X-Men Annual #14 leading up to her arrival with Gambit. And with UXM 266-267, we find out about this wonderful new character called 'Gambit' that later on would bring us years of enjoyment since he becomes a key part of those two books.

 

See what I mean?

[Red_Hood]

1st appearance of Gambit is X-Men #266

 

I don't get into long winded discussions as to why because it doesn't make

me money to do so.

 

Selling X-Men #266 does make me a lot of money though.

[Bosco685]

1st appearance of Gambit is X-Men #266

 

I don't get into long winded discussions as to why because it doesn't make

me money to do so.

 

Selling X-Men #266 does make me a lot of money though.

 

I think that's what this will come down to for collector reality. Though there will be sales listings warring over which is the 'real' 1st appearance. And buyers will determine for themselves which they select based on what book they purchase.

 

For me, these are some of my favorite X-franchise books. So I own them all, and don't have to fret over if I missed a book.

[the blob]

OMG, this thread is still going on?

[Bosco685]

OMG, this thread is still going on?

 

Discussions. Just discussions.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1st appearance of Gambit is X-Men #266

 

I don't get into long winded discussions as to why because it doesn't make

me money to do so.

 

Selling X-Men #266 does make me a lot of money though.

 

And the first appearance of Wolverine is Hulk #181.

 

And the first appearance of Rocket Raccoon is Hulk #271.

 

And the first appearance of Tim Drake is Batman #440.

 

Easy, cheesy.

 

 

 

 

[Bosco685]

Easy, cheesy.

 

[slym2none]

 

 

 

-slym

[Illustrious]

1st appearance of Gambit is X-Men #266

 

I don't get into long winded discussions as to why because it doesn't make

me money to do so.

 

Selling X-Men #266 does make me a lot of money though.

 

My vote for ridiculous post of the day.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

You can discuss it all you want. But you are making a big assumption what is on record is representative of the inner workings of Marvel production. Were you there? Did you work for them, and know all that went on? If not, better to assume everything that is there doesn't tell the entire story. It's not worth even going down that path, because neither of us knows what scheduling or production hurdles they went through unless (1) we worked there or (2) Marvel Production released its daily records of what went on.

 

None of which is relevant, because we know there was no problem. There's no need to know the inner workings of Marvel production, because the only relevant information, we already have. There have been no "assumptions" made about the "inner workings of Marvel", because they aren't relevant.

 

If you DO have some evidence that there was something relevant happening at Marvel production at that time that had a direct bearing on the events under discussion, quit holding out. By all means, share this information already.

 

What we do have is what was released to the public. And that does add value. But to assume it tells the entire story would be a stretch. Production processes always have waste and defects that do not make it out to the public. That is why practices such as Six Sigma and Lean came about to improve them. So this is a situation where you can pull out all the public records you want. Meanwhile, it is not going to factually demonstrate what goes on for real behind the scenes.

 

Fair enough?

 

Not really. You are characterizing the situaions in terms that aren't justified by the statements of myself and others, such as "assume it tells the entire story."

 

I didn't say that. No one else said that. The "entire story" isn't relevant to the discussion. The only thing that matters is that the books came out as scheduled, and they did. Whether or not Steve Smith and Sandra Simon were having an affair in the production office coffee room while the books were being produced doesn't matter, unless said affair had a direct impact on the books and their print/release schedule.

 

None of it is relevant. So I'm not sure why you are continuing to bring it up.

 

The only thing relevant to this discussion is this "did Marvel production get the books out as scheduled?" The answer, clearly, is yes. Anything beyond that isn't relevant.

 

I know you are invested in the "production schedule error" story, and want it to have been an error in scheduling/production/release/distribution to explain why X-Men #266 is *really* the book to have, the "real" first appearance of Gambit. I understand that. You feel like, if you admitted that it wasn't, you would lose face.

 

But the reality is that the Annual came out before X-Men #266, and it was planned that way. That's just the way it is.

 

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.

 

Like you pointed out, better to not attempt to steer the conversion just to what you want to note.

 

Hold on...that's not an attempt to steer the conversation. That's plain ol' explanation of a disagreement.

 

I am going to point out what I want to note. You are free to point out what you want to note. The "steering" attempts occur when you say things like "better not to discuss thus and such...", which should be avoided (the irony of this statement doesn't escape me, but it is allowable in this instance.) I am not going to tell you what you should discuss....that's the crux.

 

You are perfectly free to take analogies down paths where they no longer make sense, as far as your heart desires. No one is saying you can't, or shouldn't. But that won't keep me from saying that you've taken your analogy down a path where it no longer makes sense. That's not steering the conversation, that's just dialogue.

 

When it comes to the entire UXM #266/X-Men Annual #14 situation, there was a relationship between these books storywise. And just like a hospital working to maintain its visibility of the difference between the twins all the way through the lifecycle, the same would ring true here for Claremont's storytelling. He had a flow he was following to weave these universes together.

 

Fair enough?

 

Again, no. Revat's analogy worked. Yours doesn't.

 

In fact, I don't even know what "And just like a hospital working to maintain its visibility of the difference between the twins all the way through the lifecycle" actually means.

 

I mean, I *think* I can figure it out, but it's a really awkward sentence, and I have no idea what making sure which twin is which has to do with Claremont's story flow.

 

Are you trying to say that the Annual and X-Men #265-267 are twins, and they need to be looked at according to their lifecycles...?

 

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.

 

But this is not the case when it comes to Gambit. Mistakenly, for many years, his appearance in X-Men Annual #14 was noted as a cameo. And we all realize a cameo is so brief, this is why the hobby hesitates to call it a first appearance.

 

But through this discussion, including photos of each panel, we have helped establish it was not a cameo. It was much more, though most of the panels treat Gambit as a background character other than the first few parts of the book when Ororo and Gambit run into the New Mutants.

 

Now in the case of something like Goon, these previews were realized after-the-fact once the character really took off. And that led to collectors wanting CGC to change their labels on both books, along with sellers calling this out as 1st appearances.

 

So yes, it does fit the situation we are dealing with now. Just in the case of Gambit, the general hobby was fully aware of the X-Men Annual #14 appearance. It was a mistaken assumption it was just a cameo.

 

I don't (necessarily) disagree with you about any of this. I don't think you understood my point. No problem.

 

I do take issue with your statement that "the hobby hesitates to call a cameo a first appearance." I don't, never have, and don't know anyone personally who does. It's just called a 1st Appearance (cameo.)"

 

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.

 

I think the footnote discussion may have run its course. But just to be clear, here is where you steered it down this path.

 

"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.

 

First, a footnote isn't just to call out 'coming to a store near you'. It is referencing something that has been published and potentially referenced.

 

Not always, and not in this case.

 

Second, the footnote references Ororo's experiences in UXM 265-267 which involved Gambit. It was not calling out 'if you want to know more about this character, go read these books' like you pointed out.

 

That is, of course, your opinion. As I said, Gambit was prominently featured in the Annual, and curious people would want to know who he was, and where he came from. He is an integral part of the story that is referenced in the footnote.

 

And that is what is relevent here. Ororo, who was key to that story, was sharing what took place in X-Men Annual #14 leading up to her arrival with Gambit. And with UXM 266-267, we find out about this wonderful new character called 'Gambit' that later on would bring us years of enjoyment since he becomes a key part of those two books.

 

See what I mean?

 

No, if we must be pedantic about it, the footnote is not specifically about Gambit, just Gambit, and only Gambit. The footnote is about what happens in X-Men #265-267. Gambit is a central character in those stories, and, in fact, the most important character in those stories next to Storm.

 

So, if you want to imagine that the footnote has nothing to do with Gambit, that's fine, but it's a disingenuous way to view it.

 

 

[Green]

Its nice to see you guys are still getting along

 

[Bosco685]

So, if you want to imagine that the footnote has nothing to do with Gambit, that's fine, but it's a disingenuous way to view it.

 

I'll make it simple for you, as you are stuck on a path with everything else.

 

 

The image clearly says it all. Ororo explaining what has taken place before and up to her arrival. And the footnote referencing where to read about this history to piece together the full Claremont story so as to catch up to how Ororo ended up where she is at that point in time. Not even a mention of Gambit as part of that footnote, though of course he is a key part of the UXM #266-267 content.

 

You may assume Gambit was prominently featured in the Annual. But honestly, there is nothing prominent (important, well-known) about his appearance. Which is probably why CGC is stuck on the cameo note.

 

 

If you are being factual and honest with yourself, it is clear there is nothing prominent about Gambit's appearance in X-Men Annual #14 other than he appears throughout the book. He isn't even central to the story.

 

That's the facts. Debate them all you want.

[JTLarsen]

it is clear there is nothing prominent about Gambit's appearance in X-Men Annual #14 other than he appears throughout the book.

 

Hilarious.

[Jeffro.]

1st appearance of Gambit is X-Men #266

 

I don't get into long winded discussions as to why because it doesn't make

me money to do so.

 

Selling X-Men #266 does make me a lot of money though.

 

My vote for ridiculous post of the day.

 

He rejects your reality and substitutes his own

[Illustrious]

1st appearance of Gambit is X-Men #266

 

I don't get into long winded discussions as to why because it doesn't make

me money to do so.

 

Selling X-Men #266 does make me a lot of money though.

 

My vote for ridiculous post of the day.

 

He rejects your reality and substitutes his own

 

[Bosco685]

it is clear there is nothing prominent about Gambit's appearance in X-Men Annual #14 other than he appears throughout the book.

 

Hilarious.

 

In what way? Unless reality is hilarious.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

So, if you want to imagine that the footnote has nothing to do with Gambit, that's fine, but it's a disingenuous way to view it.

 

I'll make it simple for you, as you are stuck on a path with everything else.

 

Alright, I'm game. Maybe there's something I hadn't considered. I'm open to reconsidering if there is some compelling evidence or argument presented.

 

The image clearly says it all. Ororo explaining what has taken place before and up to her arrival. And the footnote referencing where to read about this history

 

History to her. Not to us.

 

to piece together the full Claremont story so as to catch up to how Ororo ended up where she is at that point in time. Not even a mention of Gambit as part of that footnote, though of course he is a key part of the UXM #266-267 content.

 

You may assume Gambit was prominently featured in the Annual. But honestly, there is nothing prominent (important, well-known) about his appearance. Which is probably why CGC is stuck on the cameo note.

 

It looks like we disagree about the definition of the word "prominent." When I say prominent, I mean "obvious, readily apparent, not hidden, not shadowed, etc." Gambit is prominently portrayed in the Annual: he is on several pages, he is named, he speaks, his full figure is shown. That is what I mean by "prominent."

 

No assumption; it's how I understand the word "prominent." If that doesn't work for you, I'm perfectly willing to substitute another word that you can more easily accept. I'll change "prominent" to "Gambit is shown, in full figure, on several pages, speaks, and is named." Therefore, though he IS a background character in the Annual, he's not shrouded in shadow and mystery, like, for example, the identity of Hobgoblin in ASM #238.

 

I conclude that, foundationally, we look at the very definitions of words differently, which of course will create problems in communication.

 

As such, since Gambit is obviously and clearly portrayed in the Annual, and the readers don't know who this character is, and since he is central to the story that is being referred to in X-Men #265-267, the footnote is, in fact, about Gambit, because it is not an "either/or" situation...it is all-inclusive.

 

Is X-Men #265-267 about Ororo's adventures with Nanny? Yes.

 

Is X-Men #265-267 about the introduction to Gambit's character? Yes.

 

Is Gambit the most integral character of X-Men #265-267 after Storm? Most certainly.

 

Is it therefore reasonable to state that the footnote is just as much about Gambit as it is about Storm? Eminently. It's a completely logical conclusion.

 

And we have gone very, very, very far afield.

 

If you are being factual and honest with yourself, it is clear there is nothing prominent about Gambit's appearance in X-Men Annual #14 other than he appears throughout the book. He isn't even central to the story.

 

That's the facts. Debate them all you want.

 

Well, no, we just disagree about the definition of the word "prominent", and are now splitting vellus.

 

Substitute the word "prominent" with "Full figure shown, named, speaks, referred to by other characters, appears on multiple pages, not shadowed, not hidden, not obscured." We use words to define concepts, so we don't have to spell out those concepts completely every time we want to speak of them, but if we don't agree on these definitions, the laborious over-explaining is going to be necessary.

 

Examples that may help: "Warlock is prominently featured in New Mutants #86, though he is not central to the story."

 

"Wolverine is prominently featured in X-Men #99, though he is not central to the story."

 

"Starfire is prominently featured in New Teen Titans #38, though she is not central to the story."

 

Maybe that will help us reach understanding.

[Guardian Comics]

Honestly...who has Diamond/Capital City order forms that show which book showed up on which day???

 

That's really the only thing that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what is truly accurate?

 

Jim

[RockMyAmadeus]

Honestly...who has Diamond/Capital City order forms that show which book showed up on which day???

 

That's really the only thing that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what is truly accurate?

 

Jim

 

We already have the information from the US Copyright office, which is about as official as it gets, plus Marvel's own publishing schedule flyers for the time frame.

 

There's no (or, there shouldn't be any more) dispute about which came first. The Annual came out three weeks before #266.

[revat]

Honestly...who has Diamond/Capital City order forms that show which book showed up on which day???

 

That's really the only thing that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what is truly accurate?

 

Jim

 

Its not up for debate that X-Men Annual 14 came out before X-Men 266. They're arguing about something else....for some reason.

 

They're arguing about whether or not X-Men 266 SHOULD have come out first, and IF IT SHOULD HAVE, then does that mean X-Men 266 IS the TRUE first appearance, possibly regarding the intent of the creators. At least that's what I think they're arguing about.