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

[Vikingreed]

I think this thread has lost its way . . .

 

But the fact remains: X-Men Annual #14 is ABSOLUTELY Gambit's 1st published appearance.

 

Agreed.

No doubt.

 

(thumbs u

 

There are two things going on here.

1 - Which comic does Gambit first appear, cameo or full - Answer - Annual 14

2 - Which comic is garnering the most demand from collectors - Answer - X-Men 266

 

Will demand flip in the future?

 

I don't think so.

#266 has the cover (which is huge), and it has been so ingrained in the minds of readers that the annual was just a cameo, I just don't think it will ever change.

[joeypost]

I think this thread has lost its way . . .

 

But the fact remains: X-Men Annual #14 is ABSOLUTELY Gambit's 1st published appearance.

 

Agreed.

No doubt.

 

(thumbs u

 

There are two things going on here.

1 - Which comic does Gambit first appear, cameo or full - Answer - Annual 14

2 - Which comic is garnering the most demand from collectors - Answer - X-Men 266

 

Will demand flip in the future?

 

I don't think so.

#266 has the cover (which is huge), and it has been so ingrained in the minds of readers that the annual was just a cameo, I just don't think it will ever change.

 

I would agree. The reason why is I own 3 copies of X-Men 266 and about 30 of X-Men Annual #14.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

Considering what's been presented in this thread, I don't think there's any question whether the annual was actually published first or whether it was on the publishing schedule to be published first. But I think it's a little disingenuous to call UXM 266 & 267 "flashbacks" even if the events in them take place before the events in a previously published book. A flashback is a narrative device to convey to the reader information from prior events that are pertinent to understanding the events currently at hand. That's not the case with those issue. (If the events of those issues had appeared in place of Storm's summary of the events, then I could understand calling them a flashback.)

 

What seems the most likely explanation? As I remember it, Marvel during a few years during that time period (including the summer in question) was publishing annuals throughout the summer, with 4 or so annuals crossing over in a single month to tell an extended story. My guess is that a particular month was determined to be when the mutant annuals would be published, and that month was before UXM 266 & 267 were on the publishing schedule. It's quite possible that the decision of when the books would be published wasn't even made by creative but rather by teh marketing department. (I work in a creative field and I can certainly tell you that in big companies, decisions that *should* be made by creative, if one wants to maintain a certain level or creative integrity, are instead driven by marketing.)

 

I also have to say that I think there's an area between "cameo" and "significant" appearances where the annual falls. A significant appearance in my opinion is one in which the story can't be told without the character in question (or is a significantly different story). That's not the case with Gambit here. There's nothing requiring his appearance here. One might argue that his inclusion is necessary if Storm was to be involved, but if he and Storm had parted ways at the end of the Nanny storyline this story could have been told without him with minimal changes. At the same time, it's not exactly what one normally calls a "cameo" as he is depicted throughout the book.

 

In short, is it his first appearance? Yes. But is it important enough to be considered the key? That's up to the individual collector, but I'd have to say no, considering the details of the appearances and the proximity of the release dates. For the record, I've got a few extra copies of the annual but only one of 266, so it would be to my advantage if the contrary were true.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Considering what's been presented in this thread, I don't think there's any question whether the annual was actually published first or whether it was on the publishing schedule to be published first. But I think it's a little disingenuous to call UXM 266 & 267 "flashbacks" even if the events in them take place before the events in a previously published book. A flashback is a narrative device to convey to the reader information from prior events that are pertinent to understanding the events currently at hand. That's not the case with those issue. (If the events of those issues had appeared in place of Storm's summary of the events, then I could understand calling them a flashback.)

 

How is it "disingenuous"...? Is there some sort of intent to deceive involved in using the term "flashback"? There isn't any on my part. Are you sure that's the word you mean to use?

 

In any event, yes, they are, properly, flashbacks. In the narrative form, whatever is the latest event to happen is what is "now" (unless explicitly said otherwise), and everything that takes place before that, but presented to the reader after that is, properly, a flashback to a story that takes place earlier in continuity.

 

At the time of publication, the Annual was the latest story told, and therefore, anything published after the Annual that referred to events before the annual was a flashback.

 

As far as "pertinent to understanding the events currently at hand"....that's precisely what happened, in shortened form, in Storm's exposition, with the footnote to refer to the issues in question for more information. Flashbacks don't necessarily have to explain or bring the reader "up to speed" to be a flashback. In fact, flashbacks are often used to add to the mystery of the current events (see: pretty much any criminal investigation procedural show.)

 

Whether that event takes place 30 minutes, or 30 years, before the current events, if it is presented afterwards, it is a flashback (although, to be fair, as I said before, it could also be called a flash sideways if it refers to relatively concurrent events.)

 

What seems the most likely explanation? As I remember it, Marvel during a few years during that time period (including the summer in question) was publishing annuals throughout the summer, with 4 or so annuals crossing over in a single month to tell an extended story.

 

This was indeed the case, and has already been gone over in great detail in this thread.

 

I also have to say that I think there's an area between "cameo" and "significant" appearances where the annual falls. A significant appearance in my opinion is one in which the story can't be told without the character in question (or is a significantly different story). That's not the case with Gambit here. There's nothing requiring his appearance here. One might argue that his inclusion is necessary if Storm was to be involved, but if he and Storm had parted ways at the end of the Nanny storyline this story could have been told without him with minimal changes. At the same time, it's not exactly what one normally calls a "cameo" as he is depicted throughout the book.

 

The use of the word "significant" should be discouraged as much as possible, because it is qualitative, and not quantitative, and thus subject to the personal interpretations of whomever is discussing it.

 

What is "significant" to one is not "significant" to others.

 

I don't think many people would agree with your definition of a "significant appearance", in any event. Why does the character have to be central to the story? There are several instances where characters have made full appearances, which weren't necessary to the story.

 

Case in point: Wolverine's second full appearance is GSXM #1. The entire story could be told without him. He makes very little difference in the outcome of the story. There are a couple of panels throughout where he is the focus, but for the most part, he is a background, ancillary character. In fact...Wolverine doesn't make a significant (there's that word again) impact on ANY story until X-Men #109, where he is the central focus of Weapon Alpha. Up until then? Could have completely done without him, and whatever he did do could have been done by any of the other characters with no problem.

 

 

[Bosco685]

In short, is it his first appearance? Yes. But is it important enough to be considered the key? That's up to the individual collector, but I'd have to say no, considering the details of the appearances and the proximity of the release dates.

 

And that is what it comes down to is the individual collector's perception and interpretation. To tell someone they can't have their own opinion on the situation, or if it differs from some then there must be something wrong with you, is close-minded.

 

Depending on the individual, and how they interpret the details of this image, quite easy.

 

 

And I can see where CGC is stuck on the 'cameo' stance, though there are quite a few 'cameos' throughout X-Men Annual #14 to make it less than that.

 

 

But where UXM #267 wraps up the story of Ororo and Gambit...

 

 

X-Men Annual #14 picks up the next steps of their journey.

 

 

So it was an odd way to outline an interconnecting story flow, weaving the two into the next stage of their adventures.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

Considering what's been presented in this thread, I don't think there's any question whether the annual was actually published first or whether it was on the publishing schedule to be published first. But I think it's a little disingenuous to call UXM 266 & 267 "flashbacks" even if the events in them take place before the events in a previously published book. A flashback is a narrative device to convey to the reader information from prior events that are pertinent to understanding the events currently at hand. That's not the case with those issue. (If the events of those issues had appeared in place of Storm's summary of the events, then I could understand calling them a flashback.)

 

How is it "disingenuous"...? Is there some sort of intent to deceive involved in using the term "flashback"? There isn't any on my part. Are you sure that's the word you mean to use?

Perhaps "disingenuous" was a poor word choice, but my point stands. I think you're taking huge liberties with the definition of "flashback."

 

In any event, yes, they are, properly, flashbacks. In the narrative form, whatever is the latest event to happen is what is "now" (unless explicitly said otherwise), and everything that takes place before that, but presented to the reader after that is, properly, a flashback to a story that takes place earlier in continuity.

 

At the time of publication, the Annual was the latest story told, and therefore, anything published after the Annual that referred to events before the annual was a flashback.

By this definition, for any character that has multiple titles being published in story arcs (especially when there are cliffhangers where a subsequent issue picks up immediately after the events of the previous one), then all but one of those titles are flashback titles, since the events in all but one of those issues necessarily take place before the events of the other. I don't think anyone sees things that way.

 

As far as "pertinent to understanding the events currently at hand"....that's precisely what happened, in shortened form, in Storm's exposition, with the footnote to refer to the issues in question for more information. Flashbacks don't necessarily have to explain or bring the reader "up to speed" to be a flashback. In fact, flashbacks are often used to add to the mystery of the current events (see: pretty much any criminal investigation procedural show.)

 

Whether that event takes place 30 minutes, or 30 years, before the current events, if it is presented afterwards, it is a flashback (although, to be fair, as I said before, it could also be called a flash sideways if it refers to relatively concurrent events.)

Storm's exposition takes care of explaining how they get there. The actual story doesn't do anything to add to the story in the annual, which is the purpose of a flashback.

 

I also have to say that I think there's an area between "cameo" and "significant" appearances where the annual falls. A significant appearance in my opinion is one in which the story can't be told without the character in question (or is a significantly different story). That's not the case with Gambit here. There's nothing requiring his appearance here. One might argue that his inclusion is necessary if Storm was to be involved, but if he and Storm had parted ways at the end of the Nanny storyline this story could have been told without him with minimal changes. At the same time, it's not exactly what one normally calls a "cameo" as he is depicted throughout the book.

 

The use of the word "significant" should be discouraged as much as possible, because it is qualitative, and not quantitative, and thus subject to the personal interpretations of whomever is discussing it.

 

What is "significant" to one is not "significant" to others.

 

I don't think many people would agree with your definition of a "significant appearance", in any event. Why does the character have to be central to the story? There are several instances where characters have made full appearances, which weren't necessary to the story.

 

Case in point: Wolverine's second full appearance is GSXM #1. The entire story could be told without him. He makes very little difference in the outcome of the story. There are a couple of panels throughout where he is the focus, but for the most part, he is a background, ancillary character. In fact...Wolverine doesn't make a significant (there's that word again) impact on ANY story until X-Men #109, where he is the central focus of Weapon Alpha. Up until then? Could have completely done without him, and whatever he did do could have been done by any of the other characters with no problem.

I think you're quibbling with definitions here again. One of the purposes of the story in GSXM #1 was to introduce a new team of characters, of which Wolverine was a member. Generally I'd say things like that, or bits that reveal character, make an appearance more significant. There's not a hard cutoff in determining that. It's a spectrum. Considering where the annual falls on that spectrum and its proximity in publication to UXM 266, I can see why collectors value the latter book more, regardless of the publication date.

[AKA Rick]

I think X-Men Annual #14 has bigger upside with today's current pricing of anywhere from $2 to $10 (check eBay completed/sold auctions) since it is notable by both Arthur Adams artwork and Gambit's 1st albeit cameo, Appearance.

 

Where an Uncanny X-Men #266 will cost about $40.

 

So, from an investor / investing standpoint, the odds of the X-Men Annual #14 going up by a bigger %, let's say 300% or more from $2-10 up to $6-30, is more probable than Uncanny X-Men #266 going up by 300% from $40 to $120, plus if you have disposable cash, you can horde a lot more X-Men Annual #14's and find them in the bargain bins still.

 

 

[Couchy81]

I think X-Men Annual #14 has bigger upside with today's current pricing of anywhere from $2 to $10 (check eBay completed/sold auctions) since it is notable by both Arthur Adams artwork and Gambit's 1st albeit cameo, Appearance.

 

Where an Uncanny X-Men #266 will cost about $40.

 

So, from an investor / investing standpoint, the odds of the X-Men Annual #14 going up by a bigger %, let's say 300% or more from $2-10 up to $6-30, is more probable than Uncanny X-Men #266 going up by 300% from $40 to $120, plus if you have disposable cash, you can horde a lot more X-Men Annual #14's and find them in the bargain bins still.

 

 

I'm not sure the 300% jump hasn't already happened on 266. I see F/VF copies on ebay sold $60-80 and NM copies on ebay, the boards and at recent shows over $100

[AGGIEZ]

I think X-Men Annual #14 has bigger upside with today's current pricing of anywhere from $2 to $10 (check eBay completed/sold auctions) since it is notable by both Arthur Adams artwork and Gambit's 1st albeit cameo, Appearance.

 

 

I still can't comprehend how showing up in something like 14 panels is a "cameo"...

[Silverdream]

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.

 

I find it interesting that you have provided pictures of ALL gambits small page appearances in the annual to basically back the idea this is a cameo and conveniently forget to add the image for page 15.

 

You personally provided the images earlier on page 4 of this thread, it seems after 37 pages you have formed a strong opinion towards Annual 14 still being a cameo. That's fine by me if you want to think that way, even though I do not agree, but don't exclude things to support your opinion.

 

Here is your image to page 15.

 

 

 

For me, the sum of everything should be used to form or argue an opinion , not the sum of SOME.

 

Everything you provided above could be very easily argued as a cameo, even though those 9 cropped images are from 8 different pages. When you add in pages 15 and 16 from the annual... well I guess you know what happens, it breaks down the cameo argument.

 

Factual and Honest. SMH.

 

 

 

 

[Bosco685]

Everything you provided above could be very easily argued as a cameo, even though those 9 cropped images are from 8 different pages. When you add in pages 15 and 16 from the annual... well I guess you know what happens, it breaks down the cameo argument.

 

Factual and Honest. SMH.

 

Look above - on the same exact page.

 

And I can see where CGC is stuck on the 'cameo' stance, though there are quite a few 'cameos' throughout X-Men Annual #14 to make it less than that.

 

You missed that, and may have assumed there was some 'slight of hand' or trickery here. There isn't.

[oakman29]

Well,now that Gambit is green lit for 2016. What do you guys think of the growth potential for the annual #14?

[divad]

Well,now that Gambit is green lit for 2016. What do you guys think of the growth potential for the annual #14?

 

Gotta keep spreadin' the Gospel.

[oakman29]

Well,now that Gambit is green lit for 2016. What do you guys think of the growth potential for the annual #14?

 

Gotta keep spreadin' the Gospel.

 

Amen brother.

[Vikingreed]

Well,now that Gambit is green lit for 2016. What do you guys think of the growth potential for the annual #14?

 

Gotta keep spreadin' the Gospel.

 

Amen brother.

 

+1

 

 

[joe_collector]

Case in point: Wolverine's second full appearance is GSXM #1. The entire story could be told without him. He makes very little difference in the outcome of the story. There are a couple of panels throughout where he is the focus, but for the most part, he is a background, ancillary character. In fact...Wolverine doesn't make a significant (there's that word again) impact on ANY story until X-Men #109, where he is the central focus of Weapon Alpha.

 

Seriously? Have you even read the X-Men comics?

 

One of *the* most important revelations in the Wolverine mythos came about in X-Men 98, whereby his claws are shown to be part of his body (prior to that, it was the old "claws in the glove" character design) and it's hinted that he may not be a mutant after all (the mutated wolverine angle was later dropped), as well as some healthy sexual-undertone banter with Jean. This also might be the first time Wolvie slices and dices non-super human beings with his claws.

 

Wolverine having claws attached to his skeleton is SOP today, but back then it was huge news and kinda freaked me out at the time (how could his claws not rip off his arms? - answered later in X-Men 126) and I can remember showing the page to some friends and they were equally surprised.

 

Show me a single page in X-Men Annual 14 that gives Gambit this level of exposition and character development.

 

There are many others, keeping in mind this is a T-E-A-M book that needs to share the pages with other members - Wolverine is also central in the big dust-up with Juggernaut in X-Men 103-104 and against the Imperial Guard (where he gets a new costume) in X-Men 107-108.

[HeroX]

I love that sequence in 98...kinda want to do another reread starting from GSXM now...

 

Man, Claremont's UXM is my favorite run in comics.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Case in point: Wolverine's second full appearance is GSXM #1. The entire story could be told without him. He makes very little difference in the outcome of the story. There are a couple of panels throughout where he is the focus, but for the most part, he is a background, ancillary character. In fact...Wolverine doesn't make a significant (there's that word again) impact on ANY story until X-Men #109, where he is the central focus of Weapon Alpha.

 

Seriously? Have you even read the X-Men comics?

.

 

 

What was I thinking, that was BATMAN I was thinking of.

 

My bad.

 

PS. Your examples aren't of any significant impact.

[joe_collector]

PS. Your examples aren't of any significant impact.

 

Obviously, as you clearly weren't reading this series at the time.

 

When it came out, it was big news, and Banshee echoed the readers with his "Yer claws... laddie... lord above.. they're part of you... we.. I... didn't know!" comment.

[joe_collector]

I love that sequence in 98...kinda want to do another reread starting from GSXM now...

 

The early X-Men are great not only for the stories, but also because Claremont, and later Byrne, slowly parceled out tiny but integral pieces of the Wolverine origin, while developing the character into the icon that took comics by storm.

 

And to say that "all Wolverine did from GS X-Men 1 to X-Men 108 was to sit around doing nothing in a few panels per issue" is insane. Some of the best pages of the book involved Wolverine, and again, it being a team book required that all characters get their time in the sun.

 

The Juggernaut fight in X-Men 102-103 is a great action piece, and although outmatched, Wolvie is in there fighting.