• 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

620 posts in this topic

lol

 

Meanwhile, in reality, CGC is always open to correcting any label mistakes if the appropriate details are provided. And the side benefit is with these correctly noted details, new comic hobbyist learn up front which books contain significant events associated with a character, team or overall company.

 

I like how CGC will even note letter submitters, like the Fantastic Four George R.R. Martin book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, the most disturbing part of this whole conversation is this obsession with what the label notes say on slabs...

 

:screwy:

 

Is it label chasing or people thinking they will make more money on flipping the annual if it gets re-labelled? (shrug)

 

Personally I have em both anyway,you need both if you're a fan of the character.

I think of us collectors as keepers of the flame,for future generations.We must get the true 1st appearances correct for the next group of collectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol

 

Meanwhile, in reality, CGC is always open to correcting any label mistakes if the appropriate details are provided. And the side benefit is with these correctly noted details, new comic hobbyist learn up front which books contain significant events associated with a character, team or overall company.

 

I like how CGC will even note letter submitters, like the Fantastic Four George R.R. Martin book.

 

Personally I have em both anyway,you need both if you're a fan of the character.

I think of us collectors as keepers of the flame,for future generations.We must get the true 1st appearances correct for the next group of collectors.

 

:applause:

 

I like the way you think.

 

:cloud9:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)"

 

See if they can make it

 

"Gambit (10 page) cameo (pre dates X-Men #266)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)"

 

See if they can make it

 

"Gambit (10 page) cameo (pre dates X-Men #266)"

 

lol

 

I know, it's the biggest "cameo" I know of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

For that matter, neither should the numeric designation in the ULC . . . :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The label notes should not matter, and should not form any basis for someone's purchase.

 

absolutely correct.

Hype does.. If word gets out that this book preceded UXM266 people will make their decision on which one they prefer.. or both..

Reminder.. Not everyone buys graded books, in fact, the majority do not.. So if word gets out thats all that collectors will be looking up to and in affect make the market change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hm

 

I wonder what effect...if any...this discourse will have on the fate of X-Men Annual #14...?

 

I know many people pooh-pooh the idea, but there IS evidence that discussions here have a direct effect on the marketplace, as when people who were unaware of something become aware through discussion here, and then decide they now have interest.

 

But what effect there is overall...? Impossible to say, of course, but the answer isn't "none", and it probably isn't even "nil."

 

hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hm

 

I wonder what effect...if any...this discourse will have on the fate of X-Men Annual #14...?

 

I know many people pooh-pooh the idea, but there IS evidence that discussions here have a direct effect on the marketplace, as when people who were unaware of something become aware through discussion here, and then decide they now have interest.

 

But what effect there is overall...? Impossible to say, of course, but the answer isn't "none", and it probably isn't even "nil."

 

hm

 

They do... But the more the merrier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There a reason why I mentioned Bleeding Cool:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/11/17/not-the-first-appearance-on-gambit-page-sells-for-7767/

 

This is from 4 years ago.. So theyre clearly aware.. Just needs to reiterate the issue (pun intended)

 

A couple of oft-repeated errors in this article:

 

Uncanny X-Men #266 was meant to have the first appearance of Gambit, written by Chris Claremont, drawn by Mike Collins and Joe Rubinstein, but he actually appearaed in an X-Men Annual the week before, drawn by Art Adams, after the publishing schedule got muddled up a bit.

 

It was three weeks before, and repeats the idea that the publishing schedule was "muddled" a bit. Also says #266 was "meant" to have the first appearance of Gambit. The editorial note in Annual #14, referencing issues that weren't out yet, argues otherwise (although it can be reasonably argued that this supports both sides of the issue, I admit.)

 

No "muddle", though, unless it was Claremont and the rest of the X-Team doing the muddling, which no one but they know. Everything from Marvel's point of view came out exactly as intended.

 

I really wonder who came up with this "error" folklore...? It had to have been someone who just didn't like the fact that the story in the annual took place after the events of #265-267, and needed a reason to explain away why Gambit appeared, seemingly out of place, in the annual, and why X-Men #266 was "really" Gambit's first appearance.

 

Fanboys are a funny thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)"

 

No.

 

Wow.

 

This, to me, is unacceptable.

 

They are doing everything they can to NOT call it a first appearance. This isn't a cameo in any sense of the word, not comic book or literal.

 

I would be ok with first appearance ( minor) as RMA suggested and Overstreet started calling it a few years ago. Even though that is incorrect ( in my mind ) as well.

 

They just don't want to ruffle any feathers after nearly the entire hobby said 266 was it for 25 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I've said it before, and I will say it again....

 

You are right about the notes.

 

It doesn't matter though. The fact is, what CGC puts on that label matters. To who? Maybe not to you or I, or any of the other seasoned collectors here, but it seems to matter to the new age of comic collectors, hobbyists, investors, speculators... whatever you want to call the huge influx over the past few years. Should it matter? Of course not , they should know what they are buying.

 

This hobby has started to get hyper-focused on 1st appearances. Any change on CGC's label for first appearances immediately has an effect on the market, even raw copies. It doesn't matter if they are freebees, or if they can be changed, if they don't have to be accurate. People buy what's on that label. They just do.

 

Change this subject from notes to the designated grade and the same argument happens. Buy the book, not the grade, or buy the book, not what it says on the label are interchangeable here. Just because many seasoned collectors care that two 9.8's can and are different, doesn't mean this new regime does. Miswraps are a big deal to some here, myself included. CGC ignores them for the most part. So do many collectors. I think it's silly, but there isn't anything I can do about it, but buy what I like. That ship sailed years ago.... This one is leaving port.

 

 

You can argue it until you are blue in the face, but I just don't see the trend changing.

 

I don't agree with it, but I would be doing myself a disservice by not acknowledging what is happening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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