• 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

Crimebuster

Crimebuster

Posted
Posted
This thread assumes the rule is 1st published makes it a first appearance.

 

Because that's the only rule that makes any sense. 2c

 

So you are saying previews count?

 

If you are the sole artist/writer and created a new character finished the work on your own book, however your book was delayed. At the same time, a book that was suppose to feature your created character drawn by a different artist was on time. Do you feel the book drawn by a different artist should take credit for your created character?

 

The other artist should not - and certainly would not - get credit for creating the character. But it would still be the first appearance of the character, because it would be the first time the character appeared. Unless you have a time machine, you can't alter reality to claim otherwise.

 

And no, I am not saying previews count, because this is a storytelling medium, not an advertising medium. If people want to collect advertisements instead of comic books, that's their prerogative, but I'm not sure why it would impact anything comic collectors are doing.

 

Anyway, this discussion is moot. Even if you want to claim that whatever was drawn first is the real first appearance - which I think is an utterly bizarre idea -

 

SEE Noble Causes Secrets 3b Variant AND Invincible #1

 

that would almost certainly still be X-Men Annual #14. Given that Art Adams did the interior, he was probably drawing pages with Gambit months before #266 was done.

 

 

source?

 

 

 

Source? Actually, I'm pretty sure you provided the source yourself when you posted a link to an interview with the artist for #266 where he said the issue was a last minute rush job that he had to do in just 8 days to meet deadline.

 

Given that a) #266 was published 2 weeks after Annual #14, b) the Annual is twice as long as #266 and c) Art Adams is legendarily slow with his pencils, there's no possible way that Annual #14 was drawn after #266.

 

Not that it matters, because this entire concept is preposterous. Proof has been shown in this thread that Annual #14 came out before X-Men #266. Annual #14 has Gambit in it. I cannot see any possible way someone can claim with a straight face that #266 is Gambit's first appearance. If you want to claim that #266 is more important, that's cool, but this is just weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
catch21

catch21

Posted
Posted (edited)
This thread assumes the rule is 1st published makes it a first appearance.

 

Because that's the only rule that makes any sense. 2c

 

So you are saying previews count?

 

If you are the sole artist/writer and created a new character finished the work on your own book, however your book was delayed. At the same time, a book that was suppose to feature your created character drawn by a different artist was on time. Do you feel the book drawn by a different artist should take credit for your created character?

 

The other artist should not - and certainly would not - get credit for creating the character. But it would still be the first appearance of the character, because it would be the first time the character appeared. Unless you have a time machine, you can't alter reality to claim otherwise.

 

And no, I am not saying previews count, because this is a storytelling medium, not an advertising medium. If people want to collect advertisements instead of comic books, that's their prerogative, but I'm not sure why it would impact anything comic collectors are doing.

 

Anyway, this discussion is moot. Even if you want to claim that whatever was drawn first is the real first appearance - which I think is an utterly bizarre idea -

 

SEE Noble Causes Secrets 3b Variant AND Invincible #1

 

that would almost certainly still be X-Men Annual #14. Given that Art Adams did the interior, he was probably drawing pages with Gambit months before #266 was done.

 

 

source?

 

 

 

Source? Actually, I'm pretty sure you provided the source yourself when you posted a link to an interview with the artist for #266 where he said the issue was a last minute rush job that he had to do in just 8 days to meet deadline.

 

Given that a) #266 was published 2 weeks after Annual #14, b) the Annual is twice as long as #266 and c) Art Adams is legendarily slow with his pencils, there's no possible way that Annual #14 was drawn after #266.

 

Not that it matters, because this entire concept is preposterous. Proof has been shown in this thread that Annual #14 came out before X-Men #266. Annual #14 has Gambit in it. I cannot see any possible way someone can claim with a straight face that #266 is Gambit's first appearance. If you want to claim that #266 is more important, that's cool, but this is just weird.

 

The only "proof" in this thread that it was published before X-men 266. Everything else you said is an assumption. Provide a source where it says Chris gave the notes on how to draw Gambit. Two sources are saying x-men 266 was suppose to be published first but due to delays it wasn't.

Edited by catch21
Link to comment
Share on other sites
divad

divad

Posted
Posted
This thread assumes the rule is 1st published makes it a first appearance. 1st appearance should be first drawn. X-men #266 was done before X-men annual #14.This explains why there is a referral to 266 in this issue. Plus, the title of 266 is Enter the Mutant Called Gambit!

 

That's unworkable, and relies on assumptions that cannot be made; not to mention, contradicts traditional and long established conventions within the hobby.

 

In order to visualize the character, then X-editor Bob Harras recruited a young Jim Lee to sketch out Claremonts conception, but when it came time to introduce the character properly in Uncanny, British veteran comics artist Mike Collins was the man chosen to ultimately pencil Gambits arrival in Uncanny #266.

 

Mike Collins :

Unfortunately, this issue coincided with Chris honeymoon, so I was getting pages sent through close to deadline. I drew the book in about eight days. So, yup tight!

 

 

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21007

 

Not sure what this is in response to, or what it demonstrates.

 

Two different sources bleeding cool and comicbooksource saying the publishing schedule got messed up and 266 was meant to be the first published of Gambit and first drawn.

 

Well, aside from the fact that nobody believes that so-called scheduling mix-ups actually impact which is the first appearance (see Alpha Flight 17 discussion in modern thread), it's pretty clear here that Gambit appears significantly in XM Annual 14, and that it was first distributed to the public, which equals first appearance. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crimebuster

Crimebuster

Posted
Posted

that would almost certainly still be X-Men Annual #14. Given that Art Adams did the interior, he was probably drawing pages with Gambit months before #266 was done.

 

 

source?

 

 

 

Source? Actually, I'm pretty sure you provided the source yourself when you posted a link to an interview with the artist for #266 where he said the issue was a last minute rush job that he had to do in just 8 days to meet deadline.

 

Given that a) #266 was published 2 weeks after Annual #14, b) the Annual is twice as long as #266 and c) Art Adams is legendarily slow with his pencils, there's no possible way that Annual #14 was drawn after #266.

 

Not that it matters, because this entire concept is preposterous. Proof has been shown in this thread that Annual #14 came out before X-Men #266. Annual #14 has Gambit in it. I cannot see any possible way someone can claim with a straight face that #266 is Gambit's first appearance. If you want to claim that #266 is more important, that's cool, but this is just weird.

 

The only "proof" in this thread that it was published before X-men 266. Everything else you said is an assumption. Provide a source where it says Chris gave the notes on how to draw Gambit. Two sources are saying x-men 266 was suppose to be published first but due to delays it wasn't.

 

 

I literally don't even know what you are talking about at this point. Or why.

 

You're right when you say that the only proof in this thread is that X-men Annual #14 was published before X-Men #266. Given that you acknowledge this fact, why we are even having an argument at all defies all logic and reason.

 

What's weird is that at the same time you are dismissing my arguments as being unsourced and unverified, you somehow manage to make this assertion multiple times:

 

Two sources are saying x-men 266 was suppose to be published first but due to delays it wasn't.

 

Even though the article you're claiming as a source says no such thing and doesn't even mention Annual #14 except in a picture caption.

 

Of all the arguments I've had about first appearances on these forums, this one is turning out to maybe be the silliest.

 

Therefore I am going to unilaterally declare this argument to be over, and with the power vested in me as an internet commenter, I am also going to declare myself the winner.

 

The end, I hope to god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
This thread assumes the rule is 1st published makes it a first appearance. 1st appearance should be first drawn. X-men #266 was done before X-men annual #14.This explains why there is a referral to 266 in this issue. Plus, the title of 266 is Enter the Mutant Called Gambit!

 

That's unworkable, and relies on assumptions that cannot be made; not to mention, contradicts traditional and long established conventions within the hobby.

 

In order to visualize the character, then X-editor Bob Harras recruited a young Jim Lee to sketch out Claremonts conception, but when it came time to introduce the character properly in Uncanny, British veteran comics artist Mike Collins was the man chosen to ultimately pencil Gambits arrival in Uncanny #266.

 

Mike Collins :

Unfortunately, this issue coincided with Chris honeymoon, so I was getting pages sent through close to deadline. I drew the book in about eight days. So, yup tight!

 

 

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21007

 

Not sure what this is in response to, or what it demonstrates.

 

Two different sources bleeding cool and comicbooksource saying the publishing schedule got messed up and 266 was meant to be the first published of Gambit and first drawn.

 

And those sources are both incorrect.

 

The publishing schedule "didn't get messed up"...they simply didn't bother about it, as evidenced by the editorial note in the annual, referencing the upcoming issues.

 

As I have said before...Marvel and the creators that work for Marvel care very little about the aftermarket's response to a character, and in what order he/she appeared. Harras noticed it, obviously, which is why he had the note added (he probably said "hey, who's this trenchcoat guy?" and Claremont responded "oh, that's a new character...he'll be in #265-267 or thereabouts.") How, then, do you know that X-Men #266 is the "first drawn" of Gambit, when we have proof that that is NOT the first drawn...the Jim Lee sketches came first:

 

 

xmenarchivesgambit.jpg

 

 

No publishing "mess up", as has been anecdotally reported for 25+ years by people who couldn't deal with the fact that Gambit's first appearance was, in fact, in the Annual, which came out three weeks prior to #266. Everything came out exactly as it should have, which, by 1990, Marvel had gotten down to a science. If there was any sort of "mess-up" at all, it was on Claremont and Harras, for not mapping the character out a little better when they had the chance, but again...not a priority for them, and they just added the note to take care of it.

 

Marvel didn't care. That's the reality that people need to come to grips with. If Gambit hadn't been popular, no one would ever have had to come up with an after-the-fact explanation for why X-Men #266 was the "real" first appearance (which clearly people knew that X-Men Annual had come out before...they just didn't know how much before, or if their memories were accurate.)

 

The market applies such odd hindsight rationalizations to so much stuff...

 

Regardless of all of that, it doesn't matter: we know when the Annual came out, we know when #266 came out, and the Annual is unquestionably, confirmed by various unrelated sources, first. Gambit appears on multiple pages, is addressed by name, the whole works. The only thing holding it back...and it's a small thing...is that he doesn't appear on the cover.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
Even if you want to claim that whatever was drawn first is the real first appearance - which I think is an utterly bizarre idea - that would almost certainly still be X-Men Annual #14. Given that Art Adams did the interior, he was probably drawing pages with Gambit months before #266 was done.

 

Also true.

 

Adams was, and is, notoriously slow, which is why he had so little published at this time, so he likely would have been working on the pages for months...annnnddddd....since we know that #266 was drawn in 8 days, under deadline, it is almost a conclusion that Annual #14 was drawn first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
This thread assumes the rule is 1st published makes it a first appearance.

 

Because that's the only rule that makes any sense. 2c

 

So you are saying previews count?

 

If you are the sole artist/writer and created a new character finished the work on your own book, however your book was delayed. At the same time, a book that was suppose to feature your created character drawn by a different artist was on time. Do you feel the book drawn by a different artist should take credit for your created character?

 

The other artist should not - and certainly would not - get credit for creating the character. But it would still be the first appearance of the character, because it would be the first time the character appeared. Unless you have a time machine, you can't alter reality to claim otherwise.

 

And no, I am not saying previews count, because this is a storytelling medium, not an advertising medium. If people want to collect advertisements instead of comic books, that's their prerogative, but I'm not sure why it would impact anything comic collectors are doing.

 

Anyway, this discussion is moot. Even if you want to claim that whatever was drawn first is the real first appearance - which I think is an utterly bizarre idea -

 

SEE Noble Causes Secrets 3b Variant AND Invincible #1

 

that would almost certainly still be X-Men Annual #14. Given that Art Adams did the interior, he was probably drawing pages with Gambit months before #266 was done.

 

 

source?

 

 

 

Source? Actually, I'm pretty sure you provided the source yourself when you posted a link to an interview with the artist for #266 where he said the issue was a last minute rush job that he had to do in just 8 days to meet deadline.

 

Given that a) #266 was published 2 weeks after Annual #14, b) the Annual is twice as long as #266 and c) Art Adams is legendarily slow with his pencils, there's no possible way that Annual #14 was drawn after #266.

 

Not that it matters, because this entire concept is preposterous. Proof has been shown in this thread that Annual #14 came out before X-Men #266. Annual #14 has Gambit in it. I cannot see any possible way someone can claim with a straight face that #266 is Gambit's first appearance. If you want to claim that #266 is more important, that's cool, but this is just weird.

 

Also true, with one small, but relevant, nit...the annual came out THREE weeks before #266. By the time the Annual saw print, it's entirely possible that the finished art was just being turned in to Harras for production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
This thread assumes the rule is 1st published makes it a first appearance.

 

Because that's the only rule that makes any sense. 2c

 

So you are saying previews count?

 

If you are the sole artist/writer and created a new character finished the work on your own book, however your book was delayed. At the same time, a book that was suppose to feature your created character drawn by a different artist was on time. Do you feel the book drawn by a different artist should take credit for your created character?

 

The other artist should not - and certainly would not - get credit for creating the character. But it would still be the first appearance of the character, because it would be the first time the character appeared. Unless you have a time machine, you can't alter reality to claim otherwise.

 

And no, I am not saying previews count, because this is a storytelling medium, not an advertising medium. If people want to collect advertisements instead of comic books, that's their prerogative, but I'm not sure why it would impact anything comic collectors are doing.

 

Anyway, this discussion is moot. Even if you want to claim that whatever was drawn first is the real first appearance - which I think is an utterly bizarre idea -

 

SEE Noble Causes Secrets 3b Variant AND Invincible #1

 

that would almost certainly still be X-Men Annual #14. Given that Art Adams did the interior, he was probably drawing pages with Gambit months before #266 was done.

 

 

source?

 

 

 

Source? Actually, I'm pretty sure you provided the source yourself when you posted a link to an interview with the artist for #266 where he said the issue was a last minute rush job that he had to do in just 8 days to meet deadline.

 

Given that a) #266 was published 2 weeks after Annual #14, b) the Annual is twice as long as #266 and c) Art Adams is legendarily slow with his pencils, there's no possible way that Annual #14 was drawn after #266.

 

Not that it matters, because this entire concept is preposterous. Proof has been shown in this thread that Annual #14 came out before X-Men #266. Annual #14 has Gambit in it. I cannot see any possible way someone can claim with a straight face that #266 is Gambit's first appearance. If you want to claim that #266 is more important, that's cool, but this is just weird.

 

The only "proof" in this thread that it was published before X-men 266. Everything else you said is an assumption. Provide a source where it says Chris gave the notes on how to draw Gambit. Two sources are saying x-men 266 was suppose to be published first but due to delays it wasn't.

 

What delays?

 

We have documented proof, from the US Copyright office, that there were NO DELAYS in the books or titles involved that year. None. We have the independent Marvel source which agrees with the US Copyright office.

 

What good is a source if the source is wrong?

 

It ceases, ipso facto, to be a source!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
divad

divad

Posted
Posted
So to summarize, heres why you should own X-Men Annual #14:

1. First published appearance of Gambit

2. NOT a cameo

3. NOT drawn in 8 days or less

 

 

Sheeet, Kirby woulda knocked that out in 8 hours . . . :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
divad

divad

Posted
Posted
So to summarize, heres why you should own X-Men Annual #14:

1. First published appearance of Gambit

2. NOT a cameo

3. NOT drawn in 8 days or less

 

4. Arthur Adams art

 

5. Last of the X-Men Annuals that will ever be worth anything. :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
So to summarize, heres why you should own X-Men Annual #14:

1. First published appearance of Gambit

2. NOT a cameo

3. NOT drawn in 8 days or less

 

 

Sheeet, Kirby woulda knocked that out in 8 hours . . . :grin:

 

Some of those images look like it was knocked out in 5 hours or less. Just going back through those photos was a painful experience. Gambit deserved better treatment!

 

:sumo:

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