BEANO AND DANDY SCANS AND SCAMS - THE TRUTH REVEALED...

The CHIMERA-POSNER book

I run this blog because I'm a fan - I don't consider myself an expert - on anything!  There are some things I know a little about, some things I know a lot about - but absolutely nothing I know everything about.  It's the same with most people.  Even those who write detailed and informative articles on some subject or other have to check their facts with other sources as they go along.  If I'm not sure about something, I usually say so - and I'm never dogmatic when there's an absence of proof or room for doubt.

Now, at the risk of boring regular readers, I find that I must return to an earlier topic, but bear with me - hopefully it'll be instructive.  Recently, someone posted scans of a facsimile of The DANDY on their blog.  I left a fairly innocuous comment along the lines of: "Shame you don't have an original copy from which to scan, instead of a mini-facsimile."  Well, blow me down if that didn't open a can of worms.  The indignant blog owner replied that the scans weren't from a mini-facsimile, but rather the 1978 CHIMERA-POSNER volume, D.C. THOMSON FIRSTS.  Let's take a look at the scan he posted, shall we?

Scan from site which claims image is from D.C. THOMSON FIRSTS

Click on the above image - then enlarge it and study it.  Now look at The Dandy cover below, which was actually scanned from the book that he claims his images were sourced from.  This is from my own copy of the book so there's no room for doubt - and it's because I can finally show conclusive proof that I've returned to the subject.

Scan from D.C. THOMSON FIRSTS book

As you can see, the Chimera-Posner book used a different source - one that has a tear in the cover and hasn't had an outline added to the lettering in the upper-right corner of the page. Now study the following pic, scanned from a mini-facsimile in my possession, and compare it with the cover taken from the other blog - apart from some scuffs on the first image, the two are identical - even down to the positioning of the staples.  (I've left a margin on the spine so that you can check for yourselves.)

Scan of mini-facsimile



When I pointed this out to the blogger, he claimed that someone else had supplied the scans and informed him they were from the Chimera-Posner book.  Really?  I just don't buy it.  It's hardly a mistake one could easily make, given the clear differences between the two sources.  The simplest and most obvious explanation is that the blogger is lying.  As someone else has since pointed out, he once lifted scans from another blog without permission, and only sought retroactive consent once he'd been caught out.  (If he's running true to form, he probably claimed to have been sent the scans by someone who hadn't revealed where they were from.)  Is this what lies behind his denials?  Has he been lifting scans from other blogs and mis-attributing them to other sources in a bid to escape detection?

This blogger is a member of a comics forum to which a detractor of mine also belongs, and says that he has had many a discussion with said person in the past, so the pair are certainly not total strangers.  This detractor turned up on the other's blog claiming that the facsimiles contained in the book had also been issued separately (which I have never disputed - the late comics historian DENIS GIFFORD had some in his collection), and that the blogger was therefore correct in his original assertion that The Dandy pages did indeed come from the 1978 C-P book.  The above scans confirm the erroneous nature of his claim.

Scan of SUNDAY POST's BEANO facsimile from other site

I had also pointed out to the blogger that The BEANO scans he had featured on another post were missing four pages and had come from a facsimile given away with The SUNDAY POST a few years back, not D.C. Thomson Firsts.  The blogger originally disputed the page count, saying that several 'experts' had confirmed his statement, but has since admitted, grudgingly, that I was correct after all.  So much for his un-named 'experts' - or was he lying again?  Also, contrary to what he currently appears to be suggesting on his blog, The D.C. Thomson Firsts book printed the full 28 pages of The Beano, not 24 - and a different source seems to have been used for the facsimile given away with The Sunday Post.

Scan from D.C. THOMSON FIRSTS book

So - the verdict is in.  The blogger has been consistently wrong - but blames others for supplying him with misinformation.  His honesty, however, has already been demonstrated to be highly suspect.  My detractor - who fancies himself as a comics 'expert' - in his eagerness to spite me by endorsing the blogger's inaccuracies, has demonstrated that he doesn't know what he's talking about in this instance.  The fact that he only responded to the blogger's two posts on which I had commented - in order to disagree with me and take a dig - seems highly suggestive of his motivations.

The above scans prove beyond doubt or dispute that I was right all along.  If only the blogger could have contented himself with a gracious 'thank you' - instead of a bitter tirade against me for merely trying to be helpful - both he and his forum chum could have been spared the resulting damage to their credibility.