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

[Bosco685]

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.

 

 

And now their sending me coupons for free submissions just to get rid of me

 

 

I knew it.

 

[divad]

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!

 

 

 

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.

 

Classic JayDog response . . . he never admits he's wrong, even in the face of it.

[Jaydogrules]

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!

 

 

 

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.

 

Classic JayDog response . . . he never admits he's wrong, even in the face of it.

 

How's that ? I literally posted twice in this thread (this is the third)- one of which where I agreed with the labeling.

 

-J.

[Bosco685]

Classic JayDog response . . . he never admits he's wrong, even in the face of it.

 

Easy now. Back away from the pea shooter slowly and calmly. It's just two comic books - not a hostage negotiation.

 

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

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.

 

 

 

Correcting mistakes cost money

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

 

I have two copies that should be coming back from CGC soon. Don't know what they graded at yet; I pegged them at 9.6, but I could get lucky.

 

As for the appearance thing, the issue of first appearances popped up in the Modern section in the thread about Gwenpool, who has not appeared in an actual story yet, but only on a variant cover. While I've generally been in the camp that an appearance in a story (not a preview, ad, etc.) is key, I do think that the variant cover will be the key book if the character actually goes anywhere. So I had to reexamine my position on first appearances to figure out why. Bottom line I think that an appearance in creative content (stories, covers*, pinup I suppose) is more important that marketing or editorial content (previews, even if they're excerpts of stories; ads; Marvel Age articles; etc.). Why that's relevant in this case is that the stories are written in such a way that it seems clear to me that the intention of the creative team was to introduce Gambit through the story that is published in UXM 266, but the publishing schedule necessitated that the annual be released first, so an explanation was provided as to who the character is. 266 still seems more key to me (although I'm perfectly happy if many people choose to value the Annual more, as I have more copies of that).

 

*covers of books that are story-telling vehicles, not marketing vehicles like Marvel Age

[matchstick johnny]

Hello Copper Friends!

 

Imagine if you were reading/collecting back then and decided to pass on the issue because of Mike Collins. Imagine if this book had Jim Lee or Marc Silvestri on pencils?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Hello Copper Friends!

 

Imagine if you were reading/collecting back then and decided to pass on the issue because of Mike Collins. Imagine if this book had Jim Lee or Marc Silvestri on pencils?

 

If it had Jim Lee pencils, I would have owned a lot more of them.

 

But at least the Kubert cover isn't a mess.

[matchstick johnny]

I only own this one copy.

 

 

Would this be his THIRD appearance?

 

[Bosco685]

Would this be his THIRD appearance?

 

 

Second appearance - third appearance - no matter what, it is one of those semi-keys that gets passed up by collectors digging for what they feel or know is the 1st full appearance.

 

This is a good one to have!

 

[matchstick johnny]

Thanks!

 

 

 

[B-Smooth]

-Annual 14. Hey look... There's Gambit, and on several pages! BAM!! First appearance.

- Xmen 266. Hey look.. It's Gambit again, but only after we saw him several times in Annual 14.

BAM!! Second appearance.

 

I guess I'm just too literal for this whole comic book business.

[Aweandlorder]

Thanks!

 

 

 

Arthur Adams is god. That is all

[Bosco685]

-Annual 14. Hey look... There's Gambit, and on several pages! BAM!! First appearance.

- Xmen 266. Hey look.. It's Gambit again, but only after we saw him several times in Annual 14.

BAM!! Second appearance.

 

I guess I'm just too literal for this whole comic book business.

 

I think we are clear a number of people feel it is that cut and dry at this point. But maybe like Dorothy repeating 'There's no place like home' after a few more times everyone else will realize the error of their ways.

 

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

-Annual 14. Hey look... There's Gambit, and on several pages! BAM!! First appearance.

- Xmen 266. Hey look.. It's Gambit again, but only after we saw him several times in Annual 14.

BAM!! Second appearance.

 

I guess I'm just too literal for this whole comic book business.

At this point, I think everyone that's visiting this thread acknowledges what was printed first. But in my mind, it's:

 

Annual 14. Hey look... There's Gambit, a character who's not particularly integral to the story being published.

 

Xmen 266. Hey look.. It's Gambit again, in a story that was pretty clearly written to be an introduction to the character if the publishing schedule of one annual per week during the summer didn't necessitate publishing the annual before the intro that serves as a better introduction.

 

Again, I have one copy of 266, which isn't leaving my collection any time soon. I have several copies of the annual, two of which are coming back from CGC soon. It's in my financial best interest for people to value the annual more, but IMO 266 is still the more desirable of the two, despite the fact that the annual was published first, and I would imagine has the lower print run.

[Aweandlorder]

-Annual 14. Hey look... There's Gambit, and on several pages! BAM!! First appearance.

- Xmen 266. Hey look.. It's Gambit again, but only after we saw him several times in Annual 14.

BAM!! Second appearance.

 

I guess I'm just too literal for this whole comic book business.

At this point, I think everyone that's visiting this thread acknowledges what was printed first. But in my mind, it's:

 

Annual 14. Hey look... There's Gambit, a character who's not particularly integral to the story being published.

 

Xmen 266. Hey look.. It's Gambit again, in a story that was pretty clearly written to be an introduction to the character if the publishing schedule of one annual per week during the summer didn't necessitate publishing the annual before the intro that serves as a better introduction.

 

Again, I have one copy of 266, which isn't leaving my collection any time soon. I have several copies of the annual, two of which are coming back from CGC soon. It's in my financial best interest for people to value the annual more, but IMO 266 is still the more desirable of the two, despite the fact that the annual was published first, and I would imagine has the lower print run.

... And significantly lower 9.8s on the census

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

-Annual 14. Hey look... There's Gambit, and on several pages! BAM!! First appearance.

- Xmen 266. Hey look.. It's Gambit again, but only after we saw him several times in Annual 14.

BAM!! Second appearance.

 

I guess I'm just too literal for this whole comic book business.

At this point, I think everyone that's visiting this thread acknowledges what was printed first. But in my mind, it's:

 

Annual 14. Hey look... There's Gambit, a character who's not particularly integral to the story being published.

 

Xmen 266. Hey look.. It's Gambit again, in a story that was pretty clearly written to be an introduction to the character if the publishing schedule of one annual per week during the summer didn't necessitate publishing the annual before the intro that serves as a better introduction.

 

Again, I have one copy of 266, which isn't leaving my collection any time soon. I have several copies of the annual, two of which are coming back from CGC soon. It's in my financial best interest for people to value the annual more, but IMO 266 is still the more desirable of the two, despite the fact that the annual was published first, and I would imagine has the lower print run.

... And significantly lower 9.8s on the census

Fair enough. The squarebound format is probably more difficult in grade, but if people were hunting both equally I think you'd have a lot more annuals submitted for grading.

[divad]

-Annual 14. Hey look... There's Gambit, and on several pages! BAM!! First appearance.

- Xmen 266. Hey look.. It's Gambit again, but only after we saw him several times in Annual 14.

BAM!! Second appearance.

 

I guess I'm just too literal for this whole comic book business.

 

I think we are clear a number of people feel it is that cut and dry at this point. But maybe like Dorothy repeating 'There's no place like home' after a few more times everyone else will realize the error of their ways.

 

 

Certainly not disagreeing, as I am in line with you guys, but another thing to consider (or ponder) is that the Annuals were left up on the newsstand a lot longer than the monthly books. You could probably still buy the annual long after 266 had come and gone (although this was 1990, not 1975).

[B-Smooth]

-Annual 14. Hey look... There's Gambit, and on several pages! BAM!! First appearance.

- Xmen 266. Hey look.. It's Gambit again, but only after we saw him several times in Annual 14.

BAM!! Second appearance.

 

I guess I'm just too literal for this whole comic book business.

At this point, I think everyone that's visiting this thread acknowledges what was printed first. But in my mind, it's:

 

Annual 14. Hey look... There's Gambit, a character who's not particularly integral to the story being published.

 

Xmen 266. Hey look.. It's Gambit again, in a story that was pretty clearly written to be an introduction to the character if the publishing schedule of one annual per week during the summer didn't necessitate publishing the annual before the intro that serves as a better introduction.

 

Again, I have one copy of 266, which isn't leaving my collection any time soon. I have several copies of the annual, two of which are coming back from CGC soon. It's in my financial best interest for people to value the annual more, but IMO 266 is still the more desirable of the two, despite the fact that the annual was published first, and I would imagine has the lower print run.

Only in the world of comics does that logic make sense. The "first full appearance", being thought of as an actual 1st appearance, even though it is not factually true. The Hulk 180/181 debate, and now this. Whether he's integral or not. Or a plant sitting in the corner of several panels, is irrelevant. CGC, collectors with investments, and just stubborn people will never let the obvious take hold.. Gambit's first appearance is Annual 14. Period. All else is just jibba- jabbah.

 

And Hulk 180 is the first appearance of Wolverine.

 

Edited October 5, 2015 by Dungeon 2.0

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

-Annual 14. Hey look... There's Gambit, and on several pages! BAM!! First appearance.

- Xmen 266. Hey look.. It's Gambit again, but only after we saw him several times in Annual 14.

BAM!! Second appearance.

 

I guess I'm just too literal for this whole comic book business.

At this point, I think everyone that's visiting this thread acknowledges what was printed first. But in my mind, it's:

 

Annual 14. Hey look... There's Gambit, a character who's not particularly integral to the story being published.

 

Xmen 266. Hey look.. It's Gambit again, in a story that was pretty clearly written to be an introduction to the character if the publishing schedule of one annual per week during the summer didn't necessitate publishing the annual before the intro that serves as a better introduction.

 

Again, I have one copy of 266, which isn't leaving my collection any time soon. I have several copies of the annual, two of which are coming back from CGC soon. It's in my financial best interest for people to value the annual more, but IMO 266 is still the more desirable of the two, despite the fact that the annual was published first, and I would imagine has the lower print run.

Only in the world of comics does that logic make sense. The "first full appearance", being thought of as an actual 1st appearance, even though it is not factually true. The Hulk 180/181 debate, and now this. Whether he's integral or not. Or a plant sitting in the corner of several panels, is irrelevant. CGC, collectors with investments, and just stubborn people will never let the obvious take hold.. Gambit's first appearance is Annual 14. Period. All else is just jibba- jabbah.

 

And Hulk 180 is the first appearance of Wolverine.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily make either book the more desirable book.

[B-Smooth]

True. I like the 266 cover better, in spite of the Dee Snyder inspired, purple thong combo he's sporting.