• 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

People have known about Annual 14 being out first for years now and it hasn't made a dent in the popularity of 266.

 

Many people, including myself, didn't realize how much evidence stacked up in X-Men Annual #14's favor as being the actual full first appearance of Gambit until recently. Seeing the release date schedule, copyright info, and actual scans of the Gambit panels in XMA #14 show to me that a large majority in the hobby has had it wrong all these years, and are too stubborn to admit their mistake now.

 

:applause:

 

 

Correcting mistakes cost money

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Anyone have a 9.8 Annual 14 for sale? hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, in Saint Petersburg

 

IMG_6839.jpg

 

lol

 

:applause:

 

I like that description much better. :applause:

 

They mustve read this thread and copied and paste its title I gave a quick phone call to CBCS to make them aware of this thread. Then, after about four more phone calls, they begged me to let them get back to work. So finally Borock says, 'What's it going to take to make it stop?' And that's when I said, 'About that label...'

 

:baiting:

 

But I have to say, '1st published appearance...' is not a bad compromise. There is no question X-Men Annual #14 hit the market first. Though why is the difference of opinion.

 

So what do they use for Uncanny X-Men #266?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, in Saint Petersburg

 

IMG_6839.jpg

 

lol

 

:applause:

 

I like that description much better. :applause:

 

They mustve read this thread and copied and paste its title I gave a quick phone call to CBCS to make them aware of this thread. Then, after about four more phone calls, they begged me to let them get back to work. So finally Borock says, 'What's it going to take to make it stop?' And that's when I said, 'About that label...'

 

:baiting:

 

But I have to say, '1st published appearance...' is not a bad compromise. There is no question X-Men Annual #14 hit the market first. Though why is the difference of opinion.

 

So what do they use for Uncanny X-Men #266?

 

The phrasing of this tells me that although X-men annual 14 may have been published first, they are acknowledging that the appearance may not be (or is not) his canonical "first appearance".

 

-J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The phrasing of this tells me that although X-men annual 14 may have been published first, they are acknowledging that the appearance may not be (or is not) his canonical "first appearance".

 

-J.

 

That's what I am thinking. '1st Full Appearance' could even be part of that label description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did.

But honestly, they need to drop the whole thing off of 266. His first appearance is Annual 14, and that's that. It's like the universe would collapse upon itself if that is changed.

 

With all the photos I took of Gambit in X-Men Annual #14, it's clear there was more than a cameo. It's the lack of focus on him other than background dressing that takes away from an easy agreement it is a full appearance book.

 

Meanwhile, I have them both. So it is totally okay!

 

UtyRHuS.jpg

 

:whee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did.

But honestly, they need to drop the whole thing off of 266. His first appearance is Annual 14, and that's that. It's like the universe would collapse upon itself if that is changed.

 

With all the photos I took of Gambit in X-Men Annual #14, it's clear there was more than a cameo. It's the lack of focus on him other than background dressing that takes away from an easy agreement it is a full appearance book.

 

Meanwhile, I have them both. So it is totally okay!

 

UtyRHuS.jpg

 

:whee:

 

The cover text of UXM 266 makes it pretty clear that it is intended to be his flashy and official first full introduction. We are talking about artifacts that tell "stories" and contextual/substantive first appearances do, always have, and always will have more relevance and significance in this hobby than quickie cameos, teases, etc.

 

The current labeling notations are fine with me.

 

-J.

Edited by Jaydogrules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did.

But honestly, they need to drop the whole thing off of 266. His first appearance is Annual 14, and that's that. It's like the universe would collapse upon itself if that is changed.

 

With all the photos I took of Gambit in X-Men Annual #14, it's clear there was more than a cameo. It's the lack of focus on him other than background dressing that takes away from an easy agreement it is a full appearance book.

 

Meanwhile, I have them both. So it is totally okay!

 

UtyRHuS.jpg

 

:whee:

With so many panels with him in, it doesn't matter to me if he's on a hamster wheel in the background. I'm just a literal person, I suppose. I see "1st appearance" as first appearance. I won't start the whole debate, but in this nugget, Hulk 180 is the first appearance of Wolverine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They mustve read this thread and copied and paste its title I gave a quick phone call to CBCS Steve Paulus to make him aware of this thread. :gossip:

 

 

And now they're sending me coupons for free submissions just to make me stop calling ;)

Edited by Aweandlorder
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