BLIMPS & FLIVVERS - OR FRIENDS REUNITED (UPDATED)...

It's funny the imagination we have as kids, don't you think?  We seem to be able to visualise impossible, unlikely, or even contradictory scenarios in the 'ideas factory' of our minds.  Our brains don't have much (if any) difficulty in running along two different trains of thought at the same time, even if reason and common sense dictate that those 'trains' shouldn't be able to run on tracks so closely parallel to one another without risking a collision when they reach the junction (metaphorically speaking).  No, it's not a perfect analogy, but you know what I mean.

Which is a rather grandiose (pretentious even?) way of setting the scene for the simple subject matter of this latest post, but let's stick with it for a just a little longer.  In my vast and diverse collection of DVDs, there's one entitled A FLINTSTONE CHRISTMAS.  Haven't watched it since I first owned it in VHS format around 30 years ago, but if I recall correctly, FRED and BARNEY stand in for SANTA (who's caught a cold) in order to deliver presents that year.  Even in their comic strips and mags, the Flintstones have been depicted celebrating the Festive Season.

The obvious problem with just such a scenario, however, is that the Stone Age occurred long, long before the birth of CHRIST, so Christmas didn't exist back in Fred and Barney's time.  But why let that little fact get in the way of a story though, eh?  Kids would probably be unaware of the dichotomy of the situation because, presumably, they're more willing to accept whatever's presented to them without analysing it for mistakes or contradictions (or some other reason).

Whatever the cause, when I was a kid I was the same when it came to contriving adventures for two of my toys to embark on as a duo.  I often sat on the back step of my house and dreamt up stories involving my Fred figure from my MARX Toys FLINTSTONE FLIVVER, and Santa from my LP Toys SPACE BLIMP Of CHRISTMAS.  (Yes, I'm back to that again - it arrived today.)  It never occurred to me that the characters couldn't co-exist in the same 'reality', so that never got in the way of the imaginary escapades I created for them. 

Note the Flivver's pattern is a nigh-perfect match with my kitchen worktop in the 1st photo 

Now, at the back step of every home I've ever lived in we kept the same 'shoe scraper' grate, which came with us whenever we moved house.  In the one I then lived in, I'd sit with my feet on the grate while Fred and Santa (the Unlikely Duo) palled about in whatever situation I mentally placed them (mental being an appropriate word in my case).  That grate sits at the back door of my present abode (though now it's an inner back door as we closed off the once open back porch, which has another door), so I thought I'd rope it in for a photo opportunity in order to provide this post with some pictorial content.

I managed to obtain a replacement for my Flintstone Flivver around 20 years or so ago, and I bought the replacement for the Blimp on Sunday (as I said, it arrived today).  Originally, there was a gap of around five or six years between my '60s possession of these two toys, though they met their demise at the same time in the '70s.  It's good to see two old 'pals' reunited, and although they might be only two lumps of lifeless plastic to you, to me they're family and it's great to see them together again.

Okay, doctor, I've finished typing - just let me hit 'publish' and then you can take me back to the nut-hut.  Flibble!

But before I go, let me ask you Crivs a question that I've asked before, but I'll ask again for the benefit of any new readers (though older ones can answer it again if they want to).  Is there a particular toy from your childhood that you'd love to own again, and what specific memories does it conjure up in your mind?  The comments section is ravenous, so please feed it as much as you like.

Update: As you can see in the above photos, in common with a lot of '60s toys made in Hong Kong, the paint job on mass-produced items was seldom administered neatly.  Although the Space Blimp had clearly never been played with (as witnessed by the fact that the reindeer head, etc., were still untouched in their bags), Santa's beard, gloves and fur trim had been painted with not much precision.  I therefore gave them a minor touch-up to improve their cosmetic appeal, while not going overboard so that they retained the 'spirit' of their '60s appearance.  Take a look below and compare the 'before and after' photos.

Of course, some collectors will be aghast, believing as they do that toys should be left in their original state even if slightly inferior, but I prefer to put my 'stamp' on them (only when 'corrective' work is required) so that it then becomes my toy, as opposed to a generic example of its kind.  I wouldn't advise just anyone to do this, but I'm a dab hand with a brush (as you'll know if you've seen my built and painted model kits on the blog) and I'm of the opinion that a toy is much improved after any 'remedial' tinkering by me.  You can judge for yourselves. 

TOYBOX TREASURES Of The PAST - The SPACE BLIMP Of CHRISTMAS...

Rejoice with me - that's another toybox treasure from the past that will shortly be back in the fold.  The SPACE BLIMP Of CHRISTMAS is a toy that my parents (with me in tow) bought from WOOLWORTH's back in the '60s, though I can't now recall whether I got it '66 or '68 - or maybe even in between.  On the evening of purchase, on the run-up to Christmas (that I do remember), we retired to a cafeteria (pretentiously) titled The NORFOLK RESTAURANT ('twas a great place though), where I examined my new acquisition.

I had the Santa figure for quite a few years before, as a teenager, binning most of my childhood possessions in an attempt to 'grow up'.  (As you can see, that never quite worked.)  Well, for the last 10 days or so, I've been keeping my eye on another aforementioned Space Blimp on eBay, and tonight I struck.  (Surprisingly, for such an extremely rare toy, there was only one other bidder.)  It's bought and paid for, done and dusted, and will soon be winging its way to Castel Crivens to join all my other replacement childhood toys.  Can't wait!

The one I owned in the '60s may have had a different colour scheme as far as the rocket sleigh goes.  I seem to recall the top part as being orange or light brown, though the colour of the bottom half escapes me.  (It was quite common back then for toys to have variant colours and I'm just glad to have one.)  I'm not too fussed as I never actually kept the sleigh for too long, though I retained the Santa figure and reindeer head into the early or mid-'70s.    In case you're wondering, I don't actually play with any of my classic toy collection - the satisfaction of ownership comes purely from looking at them - and remembering.

Anyway, I'm sure the seller won't mind me sharing a few of his photos so that you can see what it looks like - I'll publish my own when I receive the toy.  Until then, I'm simply wishing my life away!  Incidentally, the one I had originally came in a window box (I'm pretty sure) like the one below, but these toys are so rare that I'm not too fussed about that little fact.  Both boxes feature the same main artwork, and I can always make myself a replica window box if I feel like it.  "Ho-ho-ho!"  I'm bound to say that I prefer the colour scheme of the one I've just bought, as Santa stands out more on the blue upper half.

BABE OF THE DAY - PAULA PERIL...

PAULA PERIL - aka VALERIE

PEREZ - walks behind me, intent on

taking me unawares and ravishing my

magnificent manly-man body.  However,

lucky for me I've got a secret camera in the

back of my beanie and know she's there.

When she makes her move, I want to be

prepared so that I can enjoy every

 wonderful second of it.

BLACK, WHITE, OR YELLOW...?

Copyright relevant owner

The world falls deeper and deeper into 'PC' madness with the announcement that the producers of The SIMPSONS will no longer be using white actors to voice black characters.  What complete and utter tosh.  Am I a racist?  No, I simply believe that regardless of the colour of the character (I thought they were all yellow on the show anyway), it shouldn't matter what colour the 'voice actor' is - not just on The Simpsons, but on any animated show.  

So, for example, if a black actor voiced BRUCE WAYNE/BATMAN, I wouldn't mind at all as long as he had the right voice for the part.  It's acting, right?  If actors only played roles that were restricted to a reflection of themselves, it wouldn't be much of a stretch, would it?  Does this mean that should The HUNCHBACK Of NOTRE DAME ever be remade (and if so, the word 'hunchback' would probably be substituted by 'bellringer'), only repulsive, hunchbacked actors (and those two impediments don't automatically go hand-in-hand) would be considered for the role?

And what about NANCY CARTWRIGHT - a woman who not only voices the boy called BART, but also around another five male characters on the show?  Hey, Nancy, you're denying work from male actors, so how about a little consistency from the show's makers?  These days, if a man was voicing a female cartoon character, there'd probably be a right ol' stushie over it from female actors, claiming they were being denied the opportunity of work.

Also, as most of the show's characters are yellow, should white actors - or any actor who isn't yellow - even be working on it?  Yes, it is a daft question, but I ask it simply to highlight the absurdity of such a notion.  If a white actor can voice a yellow character, then why not a black one?  When it comes to cartoons, shouldn't the suitability of the voice be the only thing that counts, irrespective of race, creed, colour or sex?  When is sanity - or even common sense - going to be restored to our ever-increasingly insane world?

So, Crivs - any thoughts on the matter one way or the other?  Give it laldy in the comments section.     

IS YOUR HEART STILL A FIREBALL...?

Images copyright relevant owner

Around 40 years ago, I managed to obtain replacements for the two copies of the 45 rpm single of FIREBALL that had been part of the family record collection since I was a child until only a few short years previously.  Therefore, the interval between the originals (which had been dispensed with due to damage) and their replacements wasn't much of a span, with the result that whenever I look at them today, it doesn't feel as if there was ever a period when I was without them.

Then, around a quarter of a century ago, someone lent me their Extended Play version of the record along with its picture sleeve.  This single had four themes (two each side), so I taped them onto a cassette and had the sleeve photocopied, then made a couple of 'facsimile' covers.  Since then, I've stored my two singles inside their respective replica sleeves, even though they were short of the full complement of themes listed on the track list.

The plot now thickens.  A couple or so years back I saw another copy of the record (not the EP) listed on eBay, this one sporting what the seller claimed was the 'original' first pressing blue label (the other singles had black labels, same as my childhood copies), so I bought it.  This now meant I had three singles of the same theme, and it occurred to me that it would be nice if they each had an appropriate paper picture sleeve to store them in.

So a couple of nights ago I scanned one of my homemade replica EP sleeves and used digital technology to remove references to the extra two tracks, along with anything else that would betray the fact that it wasn't designed for the two-track single.  The first two accompanying images are of the sleeve in its pre-altered state, followed by a second two showing the 'customised' result.  When I remember where I stored the cassette recording of the EP I'll transfer it onto CD, then make a CD-sized copy of the unaltered sleeve, but that's a project for the future.

In the meantime, paste your pulsating peepers on the rip-roaring results of my handiwork - visual testimony of my creativity, and the reason why I often astound myself with the exceptionally high standard I usually achieve in all my chosen endeavours.  Combined with my modesty and humility (to say nothing of my good looks), that's a pretty potent combination.  Hey, why are you all laughing?

I've since added the single's number to the top corner

And below, because you demanded it (you didn't?  Then who did?), both tracks on the single.  (Incidentally, DON SPENCER didn't provide the speaking voice of STEVE ZODIAC on the TV show - that was PAUL MAXWELL.) 

BATMAN'S DETECTIVE COMICS #475 FACSIMILE EDITION...

Copyright DC COMICS

For all those collecting the DC Facsimile Editions, DETECTIVE COMICS #475 is now available, though for some reason the page margins seem slightly larger than before, resulting in a smaller image on each page.  That aside, it's another classic issue that's well-worth having, either to replace your long-gone original copy, or because you didn't buy it back in the day.  (There's no excuse - unless you weren't born then, that is.)  Grab one while they're going.

JOE SINNOTT PASSES AWAY...

Comics fans will be saddened to learn of the passing at the age of 93 of legendary artist and inker JOE SINNOTT, who inked JACK KIRBY's pencils on The FANTASTIC FOUR mag.  He inked just about everyone else at MARVEL as well of course, and had a long career doing what he did best.  We salute him.  R.I.P. Joe.

TITANIC TRUE BELIEVERS...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

A trio of TRUE BELIEVERS for you to look out for, effendis.  If comics shops in your area aren't yet open, why not give eBay a try?  They cost a bit more, but at least they get delivered right to your door and you don't even have to leave the house.  And I'm glad to see that MARVEL are now leaving the original mastheads untouched, instead of replacing them with inferior new ones naming the featured character, like they did with some earlier TBs.  The series and character names now go in the banners along the top, leaving the original artistic integrity of the covers uncompromised (for the most part anyway).

.

CALLING ALL MELLOWS...

Just to let you all know that today I published yet another new post on my other blog, which you can access by clicking here.  Go on, cop a gander.

ARE YOU A FELLOW MELLOW?

Just in case you haven't noticed, there's a brand-new, exclusive post over on my other blog (MILD & MELLOW MELANCHOLY MUSINGS), which you can access by clicking on this link.  I spoil you, I really do.  Now why not hop over there and give it a read before you forget? 

KING OF THE COPS - BILLY HOWARD...

Having shown the label of one of my 45 rpm singles (KING OF THE COPS) from 1975 in the previous post, I thought I'd go the whole hog and show you the video made to accompany it.  As I type this, I haven't yet watched it since last seeing it on TOP Of The POPS back in '75, so let's watch it together.

TO EVERY THING THERE IS A SEASON... (Updated)

I probably didn't buy my first single 45 rpm record until 1974, and I think it was SEASONS IN THE SUN by TERRY JACKS (don't shoot me).  Over the years, I bought many more, even some earlier singles which predated 'Seasons'.  Many records were available for years after their first release, and could be ordered, brand-new, from a back catalogue kept by record shops and departments.  Some were exactly as they'd first appeared, others had a different Side B, but they were pretty readily to hand if you wanted to order a particular single to fill a gap in your collection.

Eventually, I gave them all to my brother, who hardly ever played them - though when he did, it can fairly be said that he didn't look after them.  A year or two later I reclaimed them, and was astonished to see that he'd discarded any picture sleeves, and that some were bent or warped, and also scratched and seriously scuffed into the bargain.  (Although, to be fair, some were still pristine.)  Over the years, I've replaced the more prominently damaged ones (though I've so far kept the originals), and there's probably only another couple or so that I want to update.

I still have my original copy of Seasons In The Sun, and if my memory is correct in recalling it as the first single I ever bought, it's a bit of a landmark as, hitherto, all the other singles in the house had been procured by my brother.  Whatever record it was though (if I'm mistaken about 'Seasons'), I'll still own it, and it's good to look through them all from time-to-time and remember what was happening in my life when I first acquired them.  (I was still at school when Terry Jack's record hit the airwaves.)

In 1981, I was living down in Southsea, Portsmouth, and I bought ALL AROUND MY HAT by STEELEYE SPAN from a second-hand record shop called JACK'S.  It's stamped with WEAPONS ELECTRICAL OFFICER 1.  H.M.S. SHEFFIELD and also has a word on Side A, which might be a name.  As most of you will know, in 1982, the Sheffield was bombed in the Falklands war and was designated as an official war grave, as neither it, nor the 20 crewmen (out of 281) who were killed were ever recovered.  I can't help but wonder if the previous owner of my record is lying at the bottom of the sea on the edge of the Total Exclusion Zone, where the ship sank after an attempt to tow it to South Georgia.  I hope he was one of the survivors though.  (See footnote at the bottom of this post.)

Anyway, what I want to ask all you faithful Crivs is this: Can you remember the first ever single you bought and do you still have it?  If so, what happy memories does it conjure up for you whenever you play it (or hear it on the radio)?  Don't be shy now, share your reminiscences with your fellow Crivvies in the comments section.

However, before you do, let me say that I have an earlier single that I remember buying, namely I RECALL A GYPSY WOMAN by DON WILLIAMS.  It came out in 1973, but I must've bought it later, after hearing it on the radio one night, as I'm pretty sure I'd left school by then.  Below, should you be interested, are numbers 2 to 5 of the first five singles I bought, though they might not be displayed in the exact sequence I got them.

Footnote: Talking about H.M.S. Sheffield, I used to have a pal who was in the Royal Navy for a short time.  Navy doctors eventually learned of his long-standing knee problem (which he'd had from youth) that would've prevented him from serving effectively at sea, so he was given a choice; either leave the Navy or train for a land-based job (as a 'medical assistant' he said) at Haslar Hospital in Gosport.  He wasn't there long either, but, years later, he created a fantasy for his Facebook page, wherein he claimed that he'd been fast-tracked through the Royal Navy and had been one of the officers on the Sheffield.

In a sense, he was fast-tracked - in one end and out the other - with a brief spell at Haslar in between, but imagine having the brass neck to claim being an officer on H.M.S. Sheffield, a designated war grave and memorial to the 20 sailors who lost their lives on it.  I very much doubt he'd ever set foot on the ship, even when he was still in the Navy.  He now claims he's a Falklands veteran, though as a land-based hospital worker (if he was still in that job in '82), it's unlikely that he was anywhere near the place.  What a lowlife, eh?  A complete fantasist and @rsehole to boot!

******

Update: I learned in September 2023 that he died in January 2013.  His demise makes me feel more kindly towards the youth I recall from childhood, but I still feel irritated and annoyed at his behaviour as an adult.  Still, I hope he's at peace.   

BABE OF THE DAY - PAULA PERIL...

Alias VALERIE PEREZ, a woman

guaranteed to make a man's heart beat

faster.  But what I wanna know is how'd

she know red's my favourite colour?

KID DOES COMICS...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

I thought I'd try something new for a change, Crivs.  (Well, new for me anyway.) Most of the time, the images you see on this blog are culled from my own personal collection.  Occasionally, I'll use a temporary, borrowed image until such time as I acquire the comic for myself, and then the visual 'stand-in' gets replaced with a scan of my own copy.  For this post though, all images are lifted at random from the Internet, after I typed '1970s Marvel comics' into the Google search box.

Also, usually I tell you something about the comics themselves, with a little bit of personal reminiscing thrown in for good measure.  Now, truth be told, I have a few of the comics shown in this post, but for the purpose of this experiment, I'm going to pretend that I don't.  You see, I've noticed that on some other blogs, the site owners don't own the comics they post, nor do they seem to know anything about the contents, yet they appear to have a hardcore following of commenters who lap it all up, and leave comment after comment.

So that looks like the way to go - give the readers the chance to show everyone what they know about comics that the hosts are unaware of and the comments will just pile up, and all the hard work is done by the commenters, not the hosts.  It's a win-win situation for the site owners, because not only do they not have to spend a bean buying any comics to feature on their blogs, but their lack of knowledge of any of the titles reels the suckers readers in.

Wanna give it a try?  Then let's go.  Regarding the above cover, obviously the comic is about a nurse who works at night.  That's all you need to know and, indeed, all that I can tell you.  What's up next?

Spot the boobies of the babe on the above cover defy gravity as CAPTAIN MARVEL (I think he's the guy on the left in the red long-johns) battles The CONTROLLER.  Don't ask me who or what he controls though, as I just don't have a Scooby.  (I don't even know why it's called a Scooby.)

Here's another guy in red long-johns, seemingly getting kicked out of the church disco by some dude called COPPERHEAD.  Why a bouncer needs a costume is beyond me (unless it was a fancy-dress disco), so don't ask me for any details - I don't have any.  (Perhaps the guy in the red suit was caught smoking in the toilets.)  Wait - now I've got it.  It symbolises the Devil being thrown into a churchyard grave - brilliant!

Here's CAPTAIN AMERICA & The FALCON showing what a couple of wimps they are, running away from a motley street gang who are tripping over their own feet.  They sure don't make heroes like they used to, but don't ask me what happens inside the mag as I don't have a clue.

Is that another guy in a red suit I see before me?  Just where do they all come from?  Ol' Red could be a midget for all I know, as I'm unsure whether BLACK GOLIATH is at normal height or giant-size.  Perhaps I should be bothered by my lack of knowledge on the very subject I blog about, but hey - what do I care?!  You rubes can fill in the details for yourself.

What?!  I don't believe it!  Yet another guy in red - pyjamas this time - with a swollen leg that's reminiscent of POPEYE.  Going from the cover-copy, he's having an argument with his dad, so he was probably sent to bed early for not doing his homework or eating his greens.  (I don't know to be honest, so please don't embarrass me by asking.)

Well, thank goodness for that - there's only half a red suit this time.  The story seems to be about a guy who's going to earn himself a restraining order for stalking the stars.  No names are mentioned, but as this was the '70s, it was probably stars like BRUCE FORSYTH, NORMAN WISDOM, JOAN COLLINS, VIOLET CARSON and the like.  Or could it have been American stars perhaps?  Don't ask me, 'cos I just don't know.  (Hey, at least I'm consistent.) 

Ah, a guy in a green suit - that makes a nice change.  However, I don't have a Scooby about what goes on inside, so you'll have to track down a copy if you want to know that - assuming that you don't already have one.  You probably do, though, as you readers seem to know far more than me about what transpires within the pages of these crazy comics.

Anyway, until next time, may your amulet never tickle.  (I don't actually know what that means, but it sounds a bit rude.  Titter!)   Oh, and by the way, if anyone would like to sponsor this site by the auspices of Patsycon, feel free.

DC FACSIMILE EDITION - MYSTERY IN SPACE #75...

Copyright DC COMICS

Here's a nice facsimile issue worth having - MYSTERY IN SPACE #75.  An interesting tale, despite a needless bit of convoluted continuity-jumping that could've been bypassed by a couple of speech balloons being dialogued differently.

In case you're wondering, The FLASH (says a footnote) proposed that ADAM STRANGE be allowed to join The JUSTICE LEAGUE Of AMERICA in an earlier issue of JLA (#4), but that this current story (MIS #75) takes place before that ish.  There's absolutely no need for this continuity blip that I can see, so who knows what writer GARDNER FOX was thinking when he concocted this caper.

Anyway, the reproduction of the main tale is top-notch, having been reprinted before for other presentations from newly-coloured sources (in accordance with the original colour palette), but the ads and filler pages are scanned from a 1961 published issue and aren't quite as bright and clear as the story pages.

That said, it perfectly captures the feel of the period and would make a worthwhile addition to your collection, so track one down right away.  (It also contains a missive from PAUL GAMBACCINI in the letters page.)    

MIGHTY MARVEL CHECKLIST - AVAILABLE NOW!

SPIDER-MAN MAGAZINE #377

Copyright MARVEL COMICS.  Published by PANINI

This issue, the mechanical menace that is Ultron wreaks havoc in Spidey’s world! But our wall-crawler has got back-up from Tigra, Iron Fist and Daredevil!  Even still, the odds are stacked against them!  Who will prevail?  Plus: There are heaps of arachnid puzzles, activities, posters and features to check out.  So swing on in!

Available now!

£3.99.

BABE OF THE DAY - PAULA PERIL...

Lady chapped my door last night and

asked if I was interested in a subscription

to READER'S DIGEST.  I invited her in and

persuaded her to stay the night - that's her above,

relaxed, happy, and comfortable in my cellar.  Chill,

you nutters - I'm joking!  It's VALERIE PEREZ in

her role as PAULA PERIL, and I got the photo off

the Internet.  Regulars will have seen her before on

here as ZATANNA and WONDER WOMAN. 

Regardless of which role she's playing, she's

 definitely always a babe!

DON STARR HAS AN APPOINTMENT WITH MR. BIG - PART THREE...

Copyright relevant owner

Okay, frantic ones, we now return to 1968 (wow, 52 years - how time flies) and to secret agent DON STARR's encounter with Mr. BIG.  We're now precisely halfway through Don's final adventure ever to be featured in the pages of TERRIFIC, which, after another 3 issues, was fated to be merged into its sister POWER COMIC publication - FANTASTIC.  Anyway, that's all the introduction you need (and, indeed, are getting), so let's plough straight in!

TWO LITTLE DUCKS IN A ROW...

Two of the earliest items from my childhood that I remember from infancy (and still have) are the ducks in the photo above.  They've occupied the bathroom of every family home I've ever lived in and there's absolutely no danger of me ever dispensing with their familiar presence now.  But what will happen to them when I'm finally pushing up the daisies or my ashes are scattered over a field somewhere?  As that final moment inches ever closer, I actually find myself concerned about their eventual fate.  I feel like that about everything I own, of course, but original items that go all the way back to my earliest years elicit a slightly keener concern in my mind.

Will they be thrown away, or given to a charity shop or jumble sale?  If they get 'adopted', will they remain a pair, or have to endure being separated from their lifelong bath-time partner of so many decades?  I'd like to think that they'll stay together and adorn the bathroom of their new owner for many a long year, but alas, there are no guarantees in this life, are there?  If there's an afterlife, my idea of Heaven would be to wake up in my present house when my town was at its best (long time ago now), and find myself reunited with every toy, book, comic, ornament, item of furniture, etc., that I've ever owned.

Now, I know what you're thinking.  You're thinking that I'm going to ask you if you're concerned about what will happen to your cherished items once you fall off the twig, but no!  (Though you can address that if you want to.)  What I'd like to know ('cos I'm an inquisitive soul) is whether you believe in an afterlife or not, and, if so, what form you think it's likely to take?  Even if you don't subscribe to the notion of survival of the spirit or soul, you may still have an idea of what you'd want Heaven to be like- if it existed.  And would your ideal imagining include not only the people and pets you loved, but also your childhood playthings?

Don't be backward in coming forward - share your sentiments in the comments section now!

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY...?

Yesterday was sort of an anniversary for me, in that it was 48 years ago that I first moved into the house in which I now reside.  (Not the one above, which is just for illustration purposes.)  June 14th 1972, which was a Wednesday, though we should actually have flitted on Monday 12th, which was when our official tenancy commencement date took effect.  I presume it was arranging removal vans for both properties (it was a mutual exchange) on the same day which accounts for the hold-up.  We lived here for 11 years before moving to another house in another neighbourhood, where we lived for just over 4 years, before moving back to this one. Regular, long-term Crivs already know all this, of course, having read it (too) many times before in previous posts.

48 years, eh?  How can that be possible?  I don't even feel like I'm 48, so how can I have moved into this house that same length of time ago?  I've pondered before about how staying in the same place you've lived since you were 13 up into advanced adulthood can make your teenage years seem closer to you and not so far distant, but that can have its drawbacks as well as its advantages.  You see, when the gap between 13 and 60-plus seems like the blink of an eye through one end of Time's telescope, it likewise seems the same from the other - moreso when all those years have been lived in the same house.

Under normal circumstances, most people will have lived in a number of houses and neighbourhoods (even countries in some cases) between youth and their later years, so there have been regular interruptions in continuity to distinguish the different events over the course of their lives.  Add to that different jobs, relationships, marriage, kids and grandkids, and there are numerous signposts to measure how things have unfolded over the years.  That doesn't really apply in my case.  With the exception of that 4 year blip, my life is pretty much the same as it's always been since I was a youth, making 48 years feel like one big 'now' as opposed to a collection of various little 'then's.

To someone else, 48 years ago may seem like an eternity away, due to the fact that they've crammed multiple and varied experiences into their life, whereas, to someone like me, who hasn't, 48 years doesn't feel like being very long ago at all.  (Well, sometimes it does - depends on how I'm feeling I suppose.)  How does it feel for you, if you're old enough to encompass 48 years into your span thus far?  Was it a 'forever' ago, or does it appear much more recent than that?

I've always derived a certain measure of comfort from obtaining comics, books and toys (and houses?) I had as a kid, because then the time in which I originally owned them doesn't seem that far away.  However, perhaps things from our past belong in the past and should stay there so that we have a more realistic concept of the passage of time.  When too many items from the past also form our present, the span between them seems almost non-existent, resulting in the illusion that we've gone from child to pensioner faster than a fart from The Flash!  (Hey, I just had to squeeze that in somewhere.)  

Another 'anniversary' is looming, in that on August 1st I'll have been back in this house for 33 years.  The official tenancy commencement date was August 4th 1987, which was a Tuesday, so we moved in early this time, on the Saturday.  Funnily enough, this August 1st will also be a Saturday, so I suppose things have come full circle. I've now been back for 33 years, but, despite being exactly 3 times the duration of my first term of 11 years in the '70s and early '80s, it seems nowhere near as long.  I don't think I'll ever be able to get my head around paradoxes like that.

Anyway, I know this post has been another extremely self-indulgent wallow in personal nostalgia, but if you'd like to comment on my meandering musings, feel free to do so - you know where. 

THE MAN WHO DREW TOMORROW - REVISITED...

Images copyright relevant and respective owners

The MAN WHO DREW TOMORROW was published in 1985, but I think I probably acquired it a few years after that - though I've had it for so long that I can now no longer recall exactly when I bought it.  It's all about FRANK HAMPSON, the man behind DAN DARE, and it's a thoroughly entertaining and informative read.  However, I have to be honest and say that I don't think the art on Dare was particularly outstanding at the start, but it got better over time, and at its height, the strip contained some of the best art ever seen in comics, then or now.

I still have a few reservations about the shape of Dan's head - too long and too thin, especially in profile shots, and just how much credit for the high quality visuals belongs to Hampson is perhaps debatable, as he used assistants like DON HARLEY, ERIC EDEN, HAROLD JOHNS, JOAN PORTER and others.  Could Hampson have done it on his own?  The studio system that he utilised was self-indulgent in the extreme, especially for what amounted to two pages of artwork a week.  Hampson would sketch out a rough, his assistants would then photograph each other according to the positions indicated in the rough, redraw the page using the photos as reference (including specially constructed models of spaceships and buildings), then Frank would go over it and bestow the finishing touches.
  

FRANK HAMPSON's original rough

That's how it was done in its most basic terms, though there were variations on that formula, but it was considered an unnecessary procedure by his assistants, who thought that Frank's roughs, with a little more polish, would be good enough to print without losing two days in the photography aspect of the operation.  True, it was Dan Dare who sold EAGLE, but the strip could probably have been produced to an equally high standard without all the painstaking palaver that Hampson deemed necessary.  Other artists could do it, so why, seemingly, couldn't he?

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in for your consideration.  Around ten years ago, the author of the aforementioned book, ALASTAIR CROMPTON, wrote another version of his tome, this time titled TOMORROW REVISITED, and yesterday I took possession of it.  It's touted as being a 'complete rewrite', but I'm not sure (after a cursory comparison between the two) whether that's entirely accurate or not.  While the new version has images not seen in the old, the old has images not used in the new, which, considering that Tomorrow Revisited has four blank numbered pages at the back of the book, makes me wonder why.  All the original images, plus the new ones, would have fitted with no problem.

Photos taken for reference, presumably after the rough was produced

The new book (if you can call a ten year old book new) has an odd quirk, in that hyphens and dashes are used indiscriminately and interchangeably, though this happens less towards the end of the book.  For example, hyphenated words like 'brand-new' would be rendered 'brand--new' (imagine the two dashes there as one long one, 'cos my keyboard doesn't do long dashes), and sentence breaks have a hyphen instead of a long dash - with no space either side of it like I've used here.  There's not even any consistency in the size of the hyphens or dashes - sometimes they're both long, other times they're both short - which is a bit irksome at times.

More minor problems (perhaps) are spelling errors.  DICK TRACY's surname is rendered as Tracey, and PAUL GRAVETT, though mostly correct, is once rendered as Gravatt.  And TOMMY WALLS is described as a blonde (feminine) instead of a blond (masculine), again making me wonder about the quality of proof-readers on such publications.  Overall, though, the book is a good read, but I don't think it can rightly be regarded as better than its predecessor.  The one thing it does have going for it is the inclusion of unseen strips created by Hampson which have (until now) never been published.  But even here, there seems to be a mistake.

Finished art by FRANK HAMPSON & DON HARLEY

On Hampson's MODESTY BLAISE try-out strips, the text introducing them says that each Hampson example is followed by one by JIM HOLDAWAY, though all of them seem to be by Hampson as there's no difference between them - aside from pencilled strips also being shown at various stages of the inking process, though none are fully inked.  Perhaps copyright permission couldn't be secured to reproduce Holdaway's strips, but surely there was plenty time to amend the text?  Also, infuriatingly, two of the three more interesting pencil versions are reproduced far smaller than their inked equivalents.

Anyway, is there any point to buying the 'new' edition if you already have the old one?  I'd say the new version complements the old one rather than replaces it, but, considering that you can currently buy it direct from the publisher for £14.99 (half its original price of £29.99), it's hardly going to break the bank and will look nice on your bookshelf.  And, of course, if you've never read the original edition and you're a Dan Dare or Frank Hampson fan, you'll love looking at the many fine examples reproduced directly from the original art.

Limited edition dustjacket