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

[oakman29]

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.

 

(thumbs u

[Vikingreed]

the prices will shoot up to where Xmen 266 is and xMen 266 prices could see a fall.

 

I doubt that. Look at IH 180 & 181, for a prime example of why not.

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

Agreed.

We've known about this for years.

I truly don't see any changes made on their respective market values.

 

It's all about the covers.

[Silverdream]

the prices will shoot up to where Xmen 266 is and xMen 266 prices could see a fall.

 

I doubt that. Look at IH 180 & 181, for a prime example of why not.

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

Agreed.

We've known about this for years.

I truly don't see any changes made on their respective market values.

 

It's all about the covers.

 

I agree.

 

I would say annual 14 will see an uptick once this information is spread out more. Most collectors still truly believe this is a tiny cameo.

 

Neither will do much until they do something spectacular in the movies with Gambit, honestly. UXM 266 has been stagnant for a few years now.

[Lazyboy]

the prices will shoot up to where Xmen 266 is and xMen 266 prices could see a fall.

 

I doubt that. Look at IH 180 & 181, for a prime example of why not.

 

 

 

 

-slym

Did Gambit only appear in one panel of Annual 14? I thought we proved that he appeared in multiple panels across multiple pages.

[Silverdream]

the prices will shoot up to where Xmen 266 is and xMen 266 prices could see a fall.

 

I doubt that. Look at IH 180 & 181, for a prime example of why not.

 

 

 

 

-slym

Did Gambit only appear in one panel of Annual 14? I thought we proved that he appeared in multiple panels across multiple pages.

 

Slym gets a little carried away with Hulk 180 sometimes.

 

I think he was really just pointing out that the popular cover wins out sometimes. Hulk 180 is a borderline cameo on top of that, its not a shadowed face on one tiny panel. The last page of Hulk 180 is epic.

 

Just because this book is obviously a First appearance not a cameo , doesn't mean it will increase in price greatly, or ever be considered " THE" Gambit book to have.

[darkstar]

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??

 

The labels should read:

 

Annual #14 - 1st appearance of Gambit

 

UXM #266 - 2nd appearance of Gambit and/or 1st cover appearance of Gambit

 

This whole "full/cameo" notation nonsense needs to quit being a thing. The actual first appearance of a character is quite easy to nail down 99% of the time, with very few exceptions. Things only get complicated when people attempt to give a reason as to why a later appearance commands more money than the actual first appearance of the character. There is no reason to do this, especially when there has never and will never be a consensus as to what constitutes a "cameo" and also because there is no steadfast rule that a "full" appearance will always command the higher price.

 

 

[Meeklo]

I believe most of this comes down to what the individual person thinks. I didn't know about Annual #14 until a few years ago so, to me, UXM #266 will always be his 1st appearance.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do have an Annual #14 slabbed in 9.8 and it definitely should be collected by anyone who is a Gambit fan.

[Silverdream]

I believe most of this comes down to what the individual person thinks. I didn't know about Annual #14 until a few years ago so, to me, UXM #266 will always be his 1st appearance.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do have an Annual #14 slabbed in 9.8 and it definitely should be collected by anyone who is a Gambit fan.

 

So...

 

If you didn't know the earth was round and always thought it was flat, until you found out the truth recently....

 

The world will always be flat to you?

 

OK......

 

 

Not trying to be mean, but that's what you are saying basically, right?

 

 

 

 

[paul747]

This Info is not NEW ! most have known gambit was on multiple pages in the annual ! Buy both if your a fan. This info was not just broke in this thread there have been countless conversations for years. I guess the info will be better for CGC label chasers ..

 

RMA or someone will chime in but I think the annual has a moderate 200,000 plus print run.

 

Like x-men #94 that has held up BECAUSE it was the first appearances in the X-men run, the same will be true for X-men #266 . Too most Gambit fans it will always be a key Gambit book !

Edited February 17, 2015 by paul747

[slym2none]

the prices will shoot up to where Xmen 266 is and xMen 266 prices could see a fall.

 

I doubt that. Look at IH 180 & 181, for a prime example of why not.

 

Did Gambit only appear in one panel of Annual 14? I thought we proved that he appeared in multiple panels across multiple pages.

 

Slym gets a little carried away with Hulk 180 sometimes.

 

I think he was really just pointing out that the popular cover wins out sometimes. Hulk 180 is a borderline cameo on top of that, its not a shadowed face on one tiny panel. The last page of Hulk 180 is epic.

 

Just because this book is obviously a First appearance not a cameo , doesn't mean it will increase in price greatly, or ever be considered " THE" Gambit book to have.

 

(thumbs u to both of the emboldened statements.

 

 

 

-slym

[slym2none]

The labels should read:

 

Annual #14 - 1st appearance of Gambit

 

UXM #266 - 2nd appearance of Gambit and/or 1st cover appearance of Gambit

 

This whole "full/cameo" notation nonsense needs to quit being a thing.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[Aweandlorder]

So, UXM 266 is Gambit's second appearance.

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

absolutely

 

Aye aye sir

[gradejunky]

About people not knowing still. I was in a LCS today, and the younger guy working I've never seen before didn't have a clue about this book. I gave him the whole skinny, and walked away feeling good I edumacated someone new on Gambit's true 1st app.!

[Silverdream]

This Info is not NEW ! most have known gambit was on multiple pages in the annual ! Buy both if your a fan. This info was not just broke in this thread there have been countless conversations for years. I guess the info will be better for CGC label chasers ..

 

RMA or someone will chime in but I think the annual has a moderate 200,000 plus print run.

 

Like x-men #94 that has held up BECAUSE it was the first appearances in the X-men run, the same will be true for X-men #266 . Too most Gambit fans it will always be a key Gambit book !

 

You are correct about it being discussed here, and other boards before, many times actually. This thread seems to be different in that it hasn't died after 4 pages however, its sticking.

 

I think it's a little too much to say " most" have known about annual 14 being more than a small cameo however. Most here maybe, but to the general collecting community who has used Wizard, Overstreet, and CGC labeling for their information, they are not in the know, and are not steadfast in researching all the information.

 

This really isn't about calling out CGC and its labeling, its been primarily about Gambits first appearance. A few people have noted how they think CGC should label it now, with all of this information being presented better than at any point before. I was disappointed at CGC's response to how they will label the annual going forward, as it's just not honest. If they know for sure, like presented here, they should be honest with how they are labeling the book. Continuing to call it a cameo, refusing to call it a first and throwing in a " predates" which is typically used for previews, is just silly.

 

I think the print run estimate of 200k is high, but I have not done any real research on it. It was part of a big cross over, but it also came out before the huge increases in print runs of late 1992-1995. It's also an annual, which historically, were ordered less. I would say its closer to 100-150k print run at most.

 

Just throwing out a different perspective, really not trying to be argumentative.

[bababooey]

Maybe what CGC needs to do so that people can get on with their lives over these label discrepancies is to use quotes around the word "first" y'know like they do with "death" on labels - when their first appearance isn't technically their first.

 

I've always just understood that the first appearance in Overstreet or a CGC label generally means the first appearance is the first meaningful appearance - isn't that why the hobby's used weasel words like cameo, brief appearance etc.. to get people beyond trivial first appearances and point to the meaningful books people want, the books future collectors should be interested in etc...

 

I don't know if this makes sense to the 'first is first' crew but this prevailing attitude in this thread that CGC needs to be technically correct every time so future hobbyists can be informed properly via label so they'll seek out accurate first appearances whether they be a single panel or a shadow on a wall or we saw an arm or a new character made a meaningless background appearance with meaningless dialogue in a meaningless book. That seems more screwed up than getting "first" slightly wrong.

 

 

[spidrvacc]

I dont think its that people knew. I dont think the majority had a clue and I kinda heard wispers / "knew" that some people said that Annual 14 was the 1st app but never saw it with evidence. I understand now after this thread myself that Annual 14 is the first App and 266 is nothign more then the 2nd App / Cover and most had it wrong including myself.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

I think the print run estimate of 200k is high, but I have not done any real research on it. It was part of a big cross over, but it also came out before the huge increases in print runs of late 1992-1995. It's also an annual, which historically, were ordered less. I would say its closer to 100-150k print run at most.

Keep in mind that this annual was published during the period that Marvel was crossing over between annuals of related books, so in many ways these were event books for a few years. I imagine they were more heavily ordered than the annuals that came before and after them, although not perhaps as much as the regular issues in the run (depending on the title, of course; I imagine that less-popular titles that were crossing over with more popular titles had their annuals ordered more heavily than the regular run).

 

Besides just counting panels, has anyone actually read the story? If so, can you comment as to whether Gambit has a significant effect on the story? That is, could the story be told without his presence? That probably makes a big difference in the desirability of the book, combined with the lack of a cover appearance and the position in continuity. 20 years after the fact, some people don't care much about a small difference in release dates.

[paul747]

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 think you are on track !

 

Well then, all of these points are being made for people that don't read the books ! Even on-line sites list the annual as the first appearance.Gambit Info

 

Also if the x-men #266 is in continuity ahead of the X-men annual #14 It would be a situation Like Batman Adventures #12 and Batmen:Harley Quinn NN The labels should be similar to them !

 

X-men Annual #14 : 1st appearance of Gambit in comics (future continuity)

X-men #266 : 1st appearance of Gambit in Marvel continuity

[Waylander]

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 think you are on track !

 

Well then, all of these points are being made for people that don't read the books ! Even on-line sites list the annual as the first appearance.Gambit Info

 

Also if the x-men #266 is in continuity ahead of the X-men annual #14 It would be a situation Like Batman Adventures #12 and Batmen:Harley Quinn NN The labels should be similar to them !

 

X-men Annual #14 : 1st appearance of Gambit in comics (future continuity)

X-men #266 : 1st appearance of Gambit in Marvel continuity

 

[Crimebuster]

X-Men continuity is confusing enough without bringing CGC labels into it.