• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

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

Started by Aweandlorder,

620 posts in this topic

GeeksAreMyPeeps

GeeksAreMyPeeps

Posted
Posted
On 9/20/2021 at 10:20 PM, catch21 said:

The problem with UXA14 it is not 1st in continuity. It's not the panels or speaking panels. Continuity in story supersedes 1st published. 1st published is card lingo which does not apply. 266 was suppose to be published 1st, we all know it. This book is actually Gambit's third appearance in continuity and it is written like it and confirmed with the editorial message.

image.png.685953f0bbc7362bc1d41af1a38d2605.png

That's part of it, but the more important part is that you could completely remove Gambit from this story without changing much. Except that you'd have to explain why he disappeared between the story in Uncanny X-Men, and the story that follows this one. Not the same for Uncanny X-Men 266

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeeksAreMyPeeps

GeeksAreMyPeeps

Posted
Posted
On 9/20/2021 at 10:51 PM, revat said:

Well what’s the time limit on intention?  What if it was 2 months earlier, two years?  What if the editor had one intention and the writer had another intention?  

Not sure if that's the editor or marketing. The mutant annuals had a specific time slot to be published, as Marvel was releasing one annual per week in the middle of the year in this period. I'm sure if that was not the case and there was wiggle room on the schedule, they would have published the annual after 266

Link to comment
Share on other sites
catch21

catch21

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/20/2021 at 8:44 PM, Lazyboy said:

What is Rogue's first appearance?

Is this a trick question? 1st published is Avengers Annual #10; however, 1st appearance Marvel Superheroes #11 but that came out in 1990 hence the 6 month rule.

Edited by catch21
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lazyboy

Lazyboy

Posted
Posted
On 9/20/2021 at 9:20 PM, catch21 said:

266 was suppose to be published 1st, we all know it.

No, we don't. It's not that unusual for continuity and publishing dates to be out of sync, especially for more prominent characters.

On 9/20/2021 at 9:20 PM, catch21 said:

This book is actually Gambit's third appearance in continuity

Not at all. Gambit has appeared in many stories that took place before he met Storm and the X-Men. That's why publishing order matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
catch21

catch21

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/20/2021 at 9:02 PM, Lazyboy said:

 

Not at all. Gambit has appeared in many stories that took place before he met Storm and the X-Men. That's why publishing order matters.

What are those stories outside of Uncanny X-men annual 14?

Edited by catch21
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waaaghboss

waaaghboss

Posted
Posted

Gotta say I don't have a dog in this fight, but really enough reading posts from those that do.

 

That said, isn't there a similar issue with Lex Luthor?  Where his first published story is set after his first apperance story?   And batman #1 is not the first Catwoman.  I've had that chip on my shoulder since reading the greatest batman tpb #2 30 years ago.  

😡

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shoomanfoo

Shoomanfoo

Posted
Posted

I surprised anybody would be so passionate to prove or disprove this trivial matter.

If you read and collect than you read these books and probably enjoyed them.

If you invest then your making your money off of 266 1st or not.

Now both those that read, collect, invest, flip or whatever...all should know that all the cameos, 1st covers, 1st full is all BS and do not matter as far has market value or preference.

No individual opinion will change this so what’s the argument really?

1st appearance or the fake made up definitions by the comic industry that everyone uses to push or pump this issue or that?

My money says it doesn’t care...so why should anybody 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oakman29

oakman29

Posted
Posted
On 9/21/2021 at 6:44 PM, Shoomanfoo said:

I surprised anybody would be so passionate to prove or disprove this trivial matter.

If you read and collect than you read these books and probably enjoyed them.

If you invest then your making your money off of 266 1st or not.

Now both those that read, collect, invest, flip or whatever...all should know that all the cameos, 1st covers, 1st full is all BS and do not matter as far has market value or preference.

No individual opinion will change this so what’s the argument really?

1st appearance or the fake made up definitions by the comic industry that everyone uses to push or pump this issue or that?

My money says it doesn’t care...so why should anybody 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Then why are we here? If we didnt talk about sheit like this , we wouldn't have anything to say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lazyboy

Lazyboy

Posted
Posted
On 9/21/2021 at 8:44 PM, Shoomanfoo said:

I surprised anybody would be so passionate to prove or disprove this trivial matter.

If you read and collect than you read these books and probably enjoyed them.

If you invest then your making your money off of 266 1st or not.

Now both those that read, collect, invest, flip or whatever...all should know that all the cameos, 1st covers, 1st full is all BS and do not matter as far has market value or preference.

No individual opinion will change this so what’s the argument really?

1st appearance or the fake made up definitions by the comic industry that everyone uses to push or pump this issue or that?

My money says it doesn’t care...so why should anybody 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

You're back?

Stolen any good books lately? :popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattrixAlien

MattrixAlien

Posted
Posted

Across the internet there are people who care enough to join a discussion to ask why does anyone care about the discussion. The irony of this never ceases to amaze me. Opinions have actually shifted things. The annual has significantly increased in value and CGC has noted it predates 266.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3
Go to topic listing