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

[Vikingreed]

Sweet pages!

Edited April 24, 2015 by vikingreed

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

At the time...?

 

I was 3 when X-Men #98 came out...so, no, I wasn't reading them "at the time."

 

However, I HAVE red them all, and no, Wolverine did not have any significant impact on ANY story until X-Men #109.

 

Everything he did before then could have just as easily been done by Colossus, or Thunderbird (yes, let's not go over the fact that he was dead, this is "alt" history I'm referring to) or any other strong man, scrappy type character.

 

Wolverine didn't become WOLVERINE until Byrne got a hold of him.

 

Claremont and Cockrum are on record as saying they didn't like Wolvie, and were looking for ways to get rid of him.

 

Do not confuse "impact on the character himself" with "the character's impact on the story."

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

Claremont didn't like Wolverine, and wanted to kill him off.

 

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.

 

No one said that. If you're going to use quotation marks, as if you're actually...you know...QUOTING someone...then use the actual quotation. Don't just make stuff up off the top of your head and then pretend someone else said it.

 

That's dishonest.

 

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.

 

That is entirely your opinion, and doesn't change the fact that Wolverine had very little impact on the early stories. He did not.

 

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

 

No one said anything differently. However, Wolverine wasn't central to that story, and made little impact on the outcome.

[joe_collector]

At the time...?

 

I was 3 when X-Men #98 came out...so, no, I wasn't reading them "at the time."

 

Exactly my point - your entire input to this forum is based on 20-20 hindsight, as opposed to actual reality.

 

You're like the kid who has seen the execrable Star Wars prequels, then watches Empire Strikes Back and wonders what the big deal was about Dark Vader being Luke's father - "I knew that already", the self-proclaimed genius says, "I don't see the big deal and I can't believe it actually surprised anyone".

 

So yes, "at the time" matters.. a LOT.

[joe_collector]

And speaking of Wolverine, was there ever a better 2-page (re)into to a character than in Giant-Size X-Men #1. If I hadn't already read (and later lost) Hulk 181, I would have been ordering one from Robert Crestohl in a NY minute.

 

[joe_collector]

The following panel (after all the other X-Men are beaten senseless by Kierrok) is probably the point where I started taking notice of Wolverine. It's so visceral, and really foreshadows future Wolverine meltdowns.

[RockMyAmadeus]

At the time...?

 

I was 3 when X-Men #98 came out...so, no, I wasn't reading them "at the time."

 

Exactly my point - your entire input to this forum is based on 20-20 hindsight, as opposed to actual reality.

 

Except no.

 

One doesn't need to have red the books "as they came out" to understand what happened in them.

 

And..."my entire input to this forum"...? Which forum? Copper? The CGC boards in general?

 

And, do you mean "20-20 hindsight (not too bad, all things considered) as opposed to actual experience"...?

 

It is your usual claim, that only people that were there as it happened can possibly know, that is patently false. There are people alive today who know more about the Civil War than anyone who lived through it...because they have the advantage of being able to gather all the information after the fact, while any one person alive at the time, if they were even paying attention, would only have their own experience to draw from until after the fact.

 

You're like the kid who has seen the execrable Star Wars prequels, then watches Empire Strikes Back and wonders what the big deal was about Dark Vader being Luke's father - "I knew that already", the self-proclaimed genius says, "I don't see the big deal and I can't believe it actually surprised anyone".

 

So yes, "at the time" matters.. a LOT.

 

Except no.

 

"At the time" means nothing to what you are trying to claim. You, personally, may have been excited "at the time", but hardly anyone else was. Know how I know? Because the new X-Men didn't capture the general imagination until about 1978. Sure, there were fans who were glad there was "new stuff" being printed...but the sales data shows, quite clearly, that there was no massive jump in sales...in fact, there was no massive jump in sales, as JOHN BYRNE confirms, until AFTER he was gone...right around 1982-1983.

 

Combine that with the fact that there is absolutely no mention of the "revelations" about Wolverine in the fan press of the day (and sparse mention in the published letter columns), and you'll find that your experience is just that: your experience.

 

Trying to compare the fact that Wolverine's claws were "a part of him" to the revelation that Darth Vader was Luke's father...?

 

Seriously....?

 

Yeah, ok. That's got to be the most hyperbolic thing anyone has said on this board, and that's saying a lot.

 

If you want anyone to take what you say seriously, JC, you really ought to confine your statements to the realm of reasonable.

 

And, as usual, you have taken us very far afield. The issue isn't whether there was an impact on Wolverine as a character. The issue is that Wolverine, as a character, made little impact ON THE TITLE until Byrne showed up.

 

AGAIN...Claremont and Cockrum didn't like the character, and wanted to get rid of him.

[joe_collector]

Another seminal moment in Wolverine history comes in X-Men 100, where he's forced to rely on his "animal senses" for the first time, leading him to "kill" a teammate.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Another seminal moment in Wolverine history comes in X-Men 100, where he's forced to rely on his "animal senses" for the first time, leading him to "kill" a teammate.

 

Except it's not "seminal moment's in Wolverine's history" being discussed.

[joe_collector]

One doesn't need to have red the books "as they came out" to understand what happened in them.

 

Wow, you are one deluded little SOB, ain't ya?

 

Like I said, you're like the kid who has seen the execrable Star Wars prequels, then watches Empire Strikes Back and wonders what the big deal was about Dark Vader being Luke's father - "I knew that already", the self-proclaimed genius says, "I don't see the big deal and I can't believe it actually surprised anyone".

 

Seriously, your hubris is awe-inspiring, and it would be like me going into the GA forum and yelling at a WW2 veteran that he's wrong about the sources for a Captain America Hitler cover from the 40's. The fact that he was physically *at* the battle wouldn't matter to you, right, just what you read in a history text.

 

You, obviously are so deluded that you would jump in with both feet and call the guy a maroon, but not me, since I give real-world experience and "at the time" relevance a lot more respect than some of the knotheads on here.

[RockMyAmadeus]

One doesn't need to have red the books "as they came out" to understand what happened in them.

 

Wow, you are one deluded little SOB, ain't ya?

 

Namecalling...?? From JC??

 

No way.

 

Seriously, your hubris is awe-inspiring, and it would be like me going into the GA forum and yelling at a WW2 veteran that he's wrong about the sources for a Captain America Hitler cover from the 40's.

 

Meanwhile, in reason and logic land, I say this: aside from the weird "sources for a Captain America Hitler cover" (whatever that even means), you have to ask several questions. First, that "WW2 veteran" is going to be around 90 at this point. Is he going to know more about the "inspiration for a Captain America Hitler cover" than, say, oh, I don't know....just about any decent comics historian? After all, what on earth does a Captain America comic book cover...you know, FANTASY...have to do with being a veteran of a very real war?

 

So, would that WW2 veteran know more about the film Casablanca than a film historian? After all, Casablanca was set during WW2, right? So, then, a "WW2 veteran" would know more about anything and everything having to do with WW2, no matter how tenuously, than a historian, right...? "Because they were there", right...?

 

You see how your example fails.

 

Your examples need to be much better.

 

Oh, and do try to tone down your responses, just a bit. No one is "yelling" except you.

 

You, obviously are so deluded that you would jump in with both feet and call the guy a maroon, but not me, since I give real-world experience and "at the time" relevance a lot more respect than some of the knotheads on here.

 

One more time: those "who were there"...especially young children, as you were...do not have a monopoly on the facts of any matter. In fact, those who "weren't there", but have studied the era almost always have a better understanding of what happened, when, how, and why.

 

This is basic reason. This is basic science. This is basic logic. You don't have to have "been there"...ESPECIALLY if those who were there look at it from the lens of their own childhood...to know what happened.

 

You have been told this, many, many, many times, and yet you still refuse to give up such an unreasonable concept.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Like I said, you're like the kid who has seen the execrable Star Wars prequels, then watches Empire Strikes Back and wonders what the big deal was about Dark Vader being Luke's father - "I knew that already", the self-proclaimed genius says, "I don't see the big deal and I can't believe it actually surprised anyone".

.

 

You already used this one, and it's already been discredited.

 

Try again.

[slym2none]

So, Gambit... Annual #14... #266... has there been some change I should know about? Or is Annual 14 still his first appearance & 266 his first cover?

 

 

 

 

-slym

[Illustrious]

Is Annual 14 still his first appearance & 266 his first cover?

 

Yep. (thumbs u

[Bosco685]

So, Gambit... Annual #14... #266... has there been some change I should know about? Or is Annual 14 still his first appearance & 266 his first cover?

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

Pick your path. It's a collector's call how they feel about either book. Telling someone what they must believe in this case would be assuming much.

[Illustrious]

So, Gambit... Annual #14... #266... has there been some change I should know about? Or is Annual 14 still his first appearance & 266 his first cover?

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

Pick your path. It's a collector's call how they feel about either book. Telling someone what they must believe in this case would be assuming much.

 

Yeah, so in this case it's about feelings rather than facts?

[Bosco685]

So, Gambit... Annual #14... #266... has there been some change I should know about? Or is Annual 14 still his first appearance & 266 his first cover?

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

Pick your path. It's a collector's call how they feel about either book. Telling someone what they must believe in this case would be assuming much.

 

Yeah, so in this case it's about feelings rather than facts?

 

The details have been discussed extensively in this thread either way. 'Facts' are up to interpretation where you lean.

 

Why, does that bother you?

[Illustrious]

So, Gambit... Annual #14... #266... has there been some change I should know about? Or is Annual 14 still his first appearance & 266 his first cover?

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

Pick your path. It's a collector's call how they feel about either book. Telling someone what they must believe in this case would be assuming much.

 

Yeah, so in this case it's about feelings rather than facts?

 

The details have been discussed extensively in this thread either way. 'Facts' are up to interpretation where you lean.

 

Why, does that bother you?

 

No it doesn't "bother" me, since I don't let feelings get in the way of facts.

[Bosco685]

So, Gambit... Annual #14... #266... has there been some change I should know about? Or is Annual 14 still his first appearance & 266 his first cover?

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

Pick your path. It's a collector's call how they feel about either book. Telling someone what they must believe in this case would be assuming much.

 

Yeah, so in this case it's about feelings rather than facts?

 

The details have been discussed extensively in this thread either way. 'Facts' are up to interpretation where you lean.

 

Why, does that bother you?

 

No it doesn't "bother" me, since I don't let feelings get in the way of facts.

 

Well, there you go then.

 

Depending on how a collector interprets the facts laid out with the early Gambit books, they'll either go with the first published appearance of the book that was miscategorized as a cameo, or the book that has been known for years to be the first full appearance.

 

How someone interprets the facts will be where their collecting focus steers.

[Aweandlorder]

Friday Saturday Sunday - HAPPY DAYS