• 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

oakman29

oakman29

Posted
Posted
Grabbed a mid grade copy for $10 last night, I figure its only a matter of time until this book starts to shoot up.

 

And so the train goes down the track.

 

 

Will it de-rail?

 

We can influence the comic book world,in this place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aweandlorder

Aweandlorder

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just pulled out a stack of Annual 14 from the long boxes. 5 NM + copies. If these are comparable to 266 like everyone is saying I should be able to get around $100 a book, yes?

 

:devil:

 

CGC 9.8's are going for around $150.

 

Let's test this theory . . .

 

:wishluck:

 

GLWTS

 

You should use the images of the proof provided herein :gossip:

 

I would if you had them on a reputable hosting site . . . lol

 

top_chef_masters_305_episodic_promote.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeeksAreMyPeeps

GeeksAreMyPeeps

Posted
Posted
I can't believe CGC are going with "Gambit cameo (pre-dates Uncanny X-Men #266)".

 

That's like saying " Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel cameo (pre-dates Captain Marvel #1)" for Avenging Spiderman 9.

 

What other examples are there?

The Outsiders story in Brave & Bold #200 falls between issues 3 & 4 of Batman and the Outsiders series, but since it was published first, is considered the key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silverdream

Silverdream

Posted
Posted (edited)
I can't believe CGC are going with "Gambit cameo (pre-dates Uncanny X-Men #266)".

 

That's like saying " Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel cameo (pre-dates Captain Marvel #1)" for Avenging Spiderman 9.

 

What other examples are there?

The Outsiders story in Brave & Bold #200 falls between issues 3 & 4 of Batman and the Outsiders series, but since it was published first, is considered the key.

 

That is not an example like he was asking for. He is asking for an example for how CGC labels something.

 

To answer your Question, Yes I believe there are other notations that say " Cameo, Pre-dates XYZ " But those are actual cameos, not 10 page full appearances that are being falsely called cameos. If I can remember an example I will post it.

Edited by Silverdream
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronx

Bronx

Posted
Posted
After directing CGC to this thread with the supporting evidence contained within, they responded to me they will now label X-Men Annual #14 like this:

 

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

 

And, ladies and gentlemen, THIS is why label notes should not be factored into anyone's purchasing decisions.

 

They simply aren't 100% accurate and reliable, nor should they be. They are just CGC's opinion. Therefore, this "OMG, THE LABEL NOTES SAY THIS AND IT SHOULD SAY THAT AND OMGOMGOMGOMG WHAT AM I GOING TO DO!!!!!??????" is really a bunch of melodrama for no purpose.

 

The label notes are a courtesy. They are free. They should not EVER take the place of what the hobby, and most importantly, the individual collector, decides what is important about any particular book.

 

Those of you who agree need to point this out, and keep pointing it out, to anyone who argues that the label notes are important in ANY WAY.

 

And X-Men Annual #14 SHOULD say: "1st appearance of Gambit (minor)" or something along those lines. If X-Men #266 needs to say "1st full appearance Gambit", that's fine, but it really highlights the issue, dunnit? The label notes should not matter, and should not form any basis for someone's purchase.

 

Agree. CGC notes are not the end all be all. They have been wrong in the past and they will be again. To their credit they are willing to correct mistakes and omissions. It is up to collectors and readers to rectify mistakes and keep the flame of reading going.

 

When if first started collecting Avengers, I wanted to own all the key villains that I loved as a kid. Kang, Yellow Jacket... and more importantly Ultron. At the time neither CGC or Overstreet listed his first appearance. I found it odd that the Avengers greatest villain did not have a first appearance. I ended up reading every silver age avengers copy I could get my hands on. It was great fun and great learning. I zeroed in on Avengers 54 and 55. After much debate I chose to believe Ultron's first was 55 because of that fake out in that one panel in 54 (you really have to read it). I found Avengers 55 way undervalued and picked up quite a few every time I saw it cheap. I also picked up 54 when I saw it dirt cheap because as a collector I wanted both. Eventually the Age of Ultron series came out and the movie announcement was made and Ccg started labeling 55 and called it his first. I have some nice affordable copies off 55 and I am a happy more knowledgeable collector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silverdream

Silverdream

Posted
Posted
After directing CGC to this thread with the supporting evidence contained within, they responded to me they will now label X-Men Annual #14 like this:

 

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

 

And, ladies and gentlemen, THIS is why label notes should not be factored into anyone's purchasing decisions.

 

They simply aren't 100% accurate and reliable, nor should they be. They are just CGC's opinion. Therefore, this "OMG, THE LABEL NOTES SAY THIS AND IT SHOULD SAY THAT AND OMGOMGOMGOMG WHAT AM I GOING TO DO!!!!!??????" is really a bunch of melodrama for no purpose.

 

The label notes are a courtesy. They are free. They should not EVER take the place of what the hobby, and most importantly, the individual collector, decides what is important about any particular book.

 

Those of you who agree need to point this out, and keep pointing it out, to anyone who argues that the label notes are important in ANY WAY.

 

And X-Men Annual #14 SHOULD say: "1st appearance of Gambit (minor)" or something along those lines. If X-Men #266 needs to say "1st full appearance Gambit", that's fine, but it really highlights the issue, dunnit? The label notes should not matter, and should not form any basis for someone's purchase.

 

Agree. CGC notes are not the end all be all. They have been wrong in the past and they will be again. To their credit they are willing to correct mistakes and omissions. It is up to collectors and readers to rectify mistakes and keep the flame of reading going.

 

When if first started collecting Avengers, I wanted to own all the key villains that I loved as a kid. Kang, Yellow Jacket... and more importantly Ultron. At the time neither CGC or Overstreet listed his first appearance. I found it odd that the Avengers greatest villain did not have a first appearance. I ended up reading every silver age avengers copy I could get my hands on. It was great fun and great learning. I zeroed in on Avengers 54 and 55. After much debate I chose to believe Ultron's first was 55 because of that fake out in that one panel in 54 (you really have to read it). I found Avengers 55 way undervalued and picked up quite a few every time I saw it cheap. I also picked up 54 when I saw it dirt cheap because as a collector I wanted both. Eventually the Age of Ultron series came out and the movie announcement was made and Ccg started labeling 55 and called it his first. I have some nice affordable copies off 55 and I am a happy more knowledgeable collector.

 

No comment on the notes besides this:

 

When a group of people on their own chat board has provided proper proof that a particular book is in fact a first appearance, then they should start labeling it properly.

 

Being a bonus and that it doesn't "have" to be right is no excuse for this. Calling this book a cameo, with knowledge of this thread, is a misleading and a blatant lie. Plain and simple. They are reluctant to change it properly. For a multitude of reasons. None of which matter. The facts are all that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gradejunky

gradejunky

Posted
Posted

And, I believe the label should be notated as such:

 

Annual #14- 1st full app. of Gambit. Predates #266 by 3 weeks but story take place afterwards in continuity.

 

UXM #266- 2nd app. of Gambit.1st full cover app. Predates Annual #14 in story continuity.

 

Does this sound about right??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silverdream

Silverdream

Posted
Posted (edited)
And, I believe the label should be notated as such:

 

Annual #14- 1st full app. of Gambit. Predates #266 by 3 weeks but story take place afterwards in continuity.

 

UXM #266- 2nd app. of Gambit.1st full cover app. Predates Annual #14 in story continuity.

 

Does this sound about right??

 

I am not sure there is consensus as to the continuity thing. I would have to go back and re-read them. I don't think continuity should be stipulated either way. Intentional or not.

 

ASM 252 is the first appearance of the black alien costume by release date. However, Secret Wars 8 is first in continuity. Should they go back and label ASM 252 like you are saying above? I mean, that's like 6 months+ haha.

 

When you start talking about " continuity first appearances" you get into to trouble because of flashbacks, origins, time travel and so fourth.

 

Release date is the standard. No Asterisks needed, in my opinion.

Edited by Silverdream
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