Tuesday, 13 September 2022

THE MIGHTY THOR KING-SIZE SPECIAL/ANNUAL COVER GALLERY...

Copyright MARVELCOMICS

Y'know, it's a funny feeling to dig out a familiar comic with the intention of re-reading it and then suddenly realise, despite thinking it's a fairly recent acquisition, that it's been in one's possession for 37 years.  Such was the case with The Mighty Thor Annual #13, which I would've sworn was nowhere near as old as it is.  Wasn't it only a few months ago - okay, let's be realistic - a few short years ago, that I took it along to a friend's house so that he could read it (under my careful supervision)?  Nope, it was almost four decades back, and I marvel at how swiftly the time has seemed to pass since then.

Which brings me to this very post.  I've recently obtained a handful of Thor Annuals - 5-10, to fill in some gaps in my collection and I thought I'd share them with you here.  I forget exactly at what point I stopped buying them after #14, but I'm sure there's a handful more after that ish stashed away somewhere, which will give me material for a future post.  However, as I've shown the earlier Annuals and King-Size Specials before, I thought I'd feature them in reverse order, to avoid a previously seen image at the start of the post deterring anyone from 'tuning in'.

Even better, I decided to start with a great John Buscema image of Mephisto from Annual #13, the interiors of which John pencilled and inked himself.  I'm still trying to get my mind around the fact that I bought this comic when I wasn't even half the age I am today by quite a margin, but looking at it now, it seems as though it was no more than a butterfly's sigh away, rather than the almost two-thirds of my life it actually is.  Now ain't that a kick in the head?!

So enjoy the images.  (Just a shame that Kirby's cover to #5 is awful.)

Number 14 came out 4 years after the preceding ish, below.  So does it qualify as an Annual?





No Annual for 1980, the previous one being 1979, below



 
This 'Annual' came out 5 years after the preceding one, below, though 3 & 4 weren't actually
called Annuals.  Kirby is clearly past his best here - too many squiggles, no real detail
 

This issue's indicia is dated December 1971, so it likely went on sale in September...

...and this ish is dated January 1971, meaning it likely went on sale in October 1970 


5 comments:

  1. Okay, I'll start us off - brilliant covers, Gordie! Almost as good as you could do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very interesting, Kid, but I never owned any of the US annuals because I never saw any on sale. None. Ever.

    And they really needed to make up their minds between annuals, king-size annuals and king-size specials!

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're telling me, CJ. It was confusing because of the Special Marvel Edition Thor issues as well. I didn't get the first Thor Annual from 1965 until around 1973 or '74, when it popped up in several newsagents in my home town - and no doubt all across the country. Must've been a warehouse find.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The logo to King size Annual 4 always looks out of place to me. Like Colin I never saw these at the time so your explanation may well be correct. I always really liked the Destroyer storyline that was reprinted in the 2nd annual.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Destroyer Tale in the 2nd Annual was all new, McS. It only became a reprint when it was re-presented in Giant-Size Thor #1. The 1st Annual (J.I.M.) could well have been available in the UK in the '60s, but if so, it popped up again in the '70s, which is when I got it. However, I'd first read the main tale (Thor versus Hercules) in the 1968 Fantastic Summer Special.

    ReplyDelete

ALL ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED UNREAD unless accompanied by a regularly-used and recognized
name. For those without a Google account, use the 'Name/URL' option. All comments are subject to moderation and will
appear only if approved. Remember - no guts, no glory.

I reserve the right to edit comments to remove swearing or blasphemy, and in instances where I consider certain words or
phraseology may cause offence or upset to other commenters.