X-men Prime is the first cameo appearance of Onslaught. Not X-man #15.
Incorrect. Although we don’t have the exact release date for Prime #1, we do have one for X-Man #15. Even looking looking at the cover dates you can see that X-Man came out 2 months prior to Prime #1. Cover dates and release dates differentiate about 2-3 months. X-Man #15: 1996-03-21. My guess is that Prime came out in May, that’s still a 2 month difference.
X-men #53: 1st full (which has a release date of 1996-04-17). This shows that Prime #1 came out after X-Men #53 as their cover dates are 1 month apart.
Thank you for posting! Happy to dig in and answer any future key corrections 
I’m looking at the book right now. On the cover, it says July. On the indicia it’s dated 1995. I looked up the release dates for both, and found that Prime was released July 1995, and that X-Man 15 was released March of 1996? I’m confused. Could you explain? Or is this one of those “supposed to be released, but was delayed” kind of things?
Sorry, the date thing doesn’t work. You’re right about that. But apparently it’s not Onslaught. Although looking very similar, it’s a character named Hound. He made 3 appearances, with his 1st full in X-Factor 123.
This is the panels you meant right?:
I dont see any mention of a character named Hound. On any site. Including CLZ. But i did find that CGC identifes Prime #1 as an Onslaught cameo. As do other sites. But Key Collector is on your side and sats X-Man 15 is the first cameo. This is a very interesting rabbit hole lol. Just as many resources say prime as do x-man. Those panels dont really help. The words “it begins” would almost point to onslaught. Im not trying to be argumentative. I swear. It just has me stumped. Thanks for going on this quest with me. Very intriguing to say the least!
Oh I know don’t worry. It’s totally fine
I found this on the marvel wiki. Although this is a fan site and isn’t always right, it is a good foundation of info to start on.
i was just reading the same page. Its starting to appear as though there was a case of mistaken identity at some point lol. Which means cgc got it wrong agian! Worthless ass company lol.
1 Like
Their fingers looking the same doesn’t help from a design stand point but I think the title revering to his dialogue is a dead giveaway. What are your thoughts?
1 Like
1 Like
This is why i love you guys! I should’ve never doubted. But it was a fun education. Thank you for putting up with me! Also…on a side note. Thanks for identifying Annual 14 as 1st full gambit! Made my day!
1 Like
Yeh no worries! Happy to dig into any confusing keys
1 Like