CALLING CRIV-ITE COLLECTORS Of KELLOGG'S CHARACTERS...

The very first SOOTY figure I ever had as a lad was a grey one, included as a free gift in a packet of KELLOGG'S cereal.  Today I received a replacement for it, and by that mysterious, magical, mystical method I've referred to before, it 'became' the actual item I had way back in the early '70s.  Don't ask me to explain how it works - it just does.  (In my mind anyway.)

We usually got Corn Flakes when I was a kid, occasionally Weetabix, and when there was a coveted free gift included, Sugar Smacks or Sugar Puffs.  (Which were the same thing in all but name, and even that was 50% the same.)  I've looked up the Sooty figures on the Internet and, apparently, they were giveaways with Coco Krispies in 1973.

This perplexes me somewhat, 'cos I don't remember ever getting Coco Krispies, but it's conceivable we did on that occasion because I wanted a Sooty.  But what about the year?  When I look at Sooty (and even in memory for decades), I see him in the house we lived in until June 1972, which would mean I had him for a few months before that at the very least.  I can see him in the living room, my bedroom, etc., and I find it hard to believe I didn't acquire him until 1973.

So Kellogg's collectors, could the 1973 date attributed to the Sooty line be for a reissue, or is my memory of having Sooty earlier than that simply a delusion, brought about by me associating him with earlier cereal characters (like CRATER CRITTERS or NEPTUNE & His SEA-BED SERENADERS) that I did have in my previous house?

If you will, do me a favour and rack your brains on my behalf.  Are Sooty and his pals (SWEEP, SOO [spelt SUE by Kellogg's], KIPPER, and BUTCH) definitely from 1973, or were they available before that, perhaps in another cereal?  I'm bewildered by how I could associate these figures for so many years with one particular house, if they weren't issued until sometime after we flitted from it.  Can you help?

STAN LEE KEEPS ON TRUCKIN'...

Here's a photo supplied by reader Terranova47 of a truck in New York City, which I thought STAN LEE fans would like a look at.  Nice to see he hasn't been forgotten by MARVEL true believers.  Excelsior!  (Click to enlarge.)

THE FABULOUS FANTASTIC FOUR BY THE AWESOME ALEX ROSS... (Updated)

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Don't know about you, but I just love this fabulous FANTASTIC FOUR illustration by awesome artist ALEX ROSS.  It reminds me so much of my own work, it just isn't true.  (That'll be because it just isn't true!)  Great picture, eh?

And below is the JACK KIRBY/JOE SINNOTT splash page from (as Comicsfan reminded me) FF #83 that inspired the talented Mr. Ross to produce his valiant version - with the addition of SUE RICHARDS.

SPECTACULAR SPLASH PAGES #23...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Another Mighty AVENGERS splash page this time around, effendis, making it two in a row - but when they're this good, and drawn by JACK KIRBY, who's gonna complain?  (Eh, what's that?  You are, Melvin?  Well, in that case, kindly leave the room.)  I first saw this page in TERRIFIC #1 back in 1967, and even though it was in b&w, it still looked great.

Of course, it still has a little of Jack's 'idiosyncratic' inconsistencies when it comes to composition (for example, RICK JONES seems to have short legs with no feet), but it remains a striking image.  What do the rest of you Criv-ites think?  (Someone tell Melvin he can come back in now.)

COLOUR OR BLACK AND WHITE SHOULDN'T BE A GREY AREA...

Copyright REBELLION.  Yup, it's over-saturated, but it's original

When it comes to reprinting strips from days of yore, I'm a great believer in doing so as faithfully as possible to their original presentations - or, at least, in the 'spirit' thereof.  Last year, a two volume set of KEN REID strips from the '60s was issued with most of the colour strips converted to grey-scale, on the grounds that, according to the publisher, it reproduced the artist's line work to greater effect.

Now, it's always possible that he genuinely believes this, but I suspect that other, more pressing factors in his decision were, firstly, the work and expense that would've been required to clean up the colour strips to a high enough standard (removing age spots, yellowing of the paper, etc.), and, secondly, the delay this would've caused in rushing the books out.

Recently, on his blog (quite a good one actually), he showed an example of the difference between a black and white panel and the same one in colour, saying that the colour had obscured the detail.  And so it had, but it wasn't exactly a typical example in my view, and the b&w version was taken from a later printing sourced from the original art, not the converted grey-scale version he'd printed in one of his books.  That's the original '60s printing above, and the later '70s printing below.  There's no question that the detail in the b&w example is clearer.

If only the books had all been published from original art, as this was 

However, now take a look (below) at how it was presented in one of his volumes.  Is it actually any better?  Not really I'd say.  That's often what happens when you transform some colour strips into monochrome ones - you merely exchange one murky mess for another.  At least with the colour version, the original appearance of the published strip is maintained, and the mood of the period in which it was first published is preserved.  And I think that's worth doing, especially as many potential purchasers are likely to be those who originally read them back in their childhood.

Thankfully, REBELLION (who now own the copyright to these strips, but didn't at the time the books were published) have found a way to present old colour pages (from the actual published comics too) in a way that captures how readers first experienced them - while enhancing them at the same time.  (See their CREEPY CREATIONS volume to see what I mean.)  I suppose that's the difference between professional publishers and amateur part-time ones.  One has the money and the means to do them properly, the other doesn't.  Nor, it would seem, the desire either.

So what do you think?  Do you prefer to see old colour strips in the way they were first presented (with a bit of work done on them to maximise their presentation), or converted into grey-scale as a way of cutting costs to the publisher and getting them out on sale as quickly as possible?

Does this really have clearer detail than the colour one?  Nah!

I have the issue from which the above panel comes, but it's in a bound volume which I can't open wide enough to scan the complete page without damaging the book, otherwise I'd reproduce the whole strip to give you a better idea of what it looks like. However, I do have a few loose copies of other issues which I can scan, so here are a couple of pages to illustrate that, generally, the colour didn't 'ruin' the art as has been alleged - not in my view anyway.  To my eyes, the pages are far more appealing than dull grey-scale any day of the week.  And can you imagine how good they'd look once those with the required technology to enhance them got to work?  It can be done.