MJ Watson - SENSM@ should be SENSM2@

All the text on one page suddenly showing up bold? Bad links? Titles missing from the Key? Let us know here.

Moderators: Col_Fury, michel, Arthur, Somebody, StrayLamb

Post Reply
SpiderMike
Supporting Character
Supporting Character
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:51 pm

MJ Watson - SENSM@ should be SENSM2@

Post by SpiderMike »

Hi Chronology Team,
In MJ Watson's appearance list, I believe every reference to Sensational Spider-Man Annual #1 should be for Annual #1 of the second volume of Sensational in which there were multiple flashbacks to MJ's life.

The 2nd volume's Annual #1 ("To Have and to Hold") was published in 2007. The 1st volume's Annual #1 was from 1996 featuring "Kraven's First Hunt" retelling Amazing Spider-Man #15 (1964). Mary Jane was not in that issue.

So I believe the 10 references to SENSM@ 1 should be SENSM2@ 1.

Thanks guys!
MikeF
User avatar
Somebody
Director
Director
Posts: 3390
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: MJ Watson - SENSM@ should be SENSM2@

Post by Somebody »

It's right as it stands, but I can understand your confusion - basically, there's two reasons why it is the way it is:
  • The "Kraven's First Hunt" annual is from a period where the Annuals were identified by years, rather than "Annual #X". So it was called Sensational Spider-Man '96, which is abbreviated by us as SENSM '96, not Sensational Spider-Man Annual #1 (1996).
  • More generally, annual numbering is decoupled from series numbering, because Marvel have been known to put out a new Annual #1 independently of rebooting the main series numbering - e.g., X-Men v2 (X2) is associated with X@2 *and* X@3 for its X-Men Annuals. This is why it's SENSM@ rather than SENSM2@ - if the first series' annuals had been Annual #X rather than '9X, it would have been SENSM@2.
Hope that helps, and thanks for asking.
SpiderMike
Supporting Character
Supporting Character
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:51 pm

Re: MJ Watson - SENSM@ should be SENSM2@

Post by SpiderMike »

Ah, I understand now. Thanks for the reply!
Post Reply