.JPG) |
| Copyright BBC TV |
A few years ago I read somewhere about a privately-produced 'fan' Annual of Dr. Who featuring William Hartnell. The idea was to make it look as if it'd been published in the '60s and I must confess the idea rather appealed to me. However, I never got around to ordering one until recently, when semi-regular commenter JP reminded me of its existence.
I think I got the very last one the publisher still had (unless he's printed some more) and I've enjoyed browsing through it. It's not perfect though, with some decidedly 'dodgy' amateur illustrations, and the lettering and speech balloon shapes on one of the two picture-strips is pretty dreadful, it has to be said.
However, overall, it's a very slick and professional-looking piece of work and most of the art is around the standard of the two genuine Bill Hartnell Dr. Who Annuals for 1966 and '67, so this one makes a nice addition to anyone who has them in their collection. I think there are other 'faux' Annuals for other years (and Doctors), but I won't be bothering with them.
Anyway, thought you Crivvies might like to see a few images from my newest acquisition, so here they are - enjoy! (And welcome back to the '60s.)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG) |
| This isn't the strip I referred to in my intro - this is the 'better' lettered of the two |
.JPG)
It looks really nice and fits in well with the other two Hartnell Annuals. As for the dodgy amateur illustrations, I think that fits in with the others as well. The first one I had was the 1976 Tom Baker Annual and there's one particular illustration in it that always puzzled me. I thought it looked more like Chris Searle than Tom Baker.
ReplyDeleteTrust me, M - some of the illos look as though they've been drawn by a 10 year-old. Having said that, most of the better ones are near-enough the same standard as the two official Hartnell Dr. Who Annuals. It's nice to have.
ReplyDeleteYou have to give the guy behind the annual credit. He has done a good job.
ReplyDeleteI think it's definitely fit to be in one's collection. Sure you expect a few substandard illustrations but I will give it good marks. I must hunt around for one. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
He's definitely done a good job, LM, but it wouldn't be fair on you Crivvies if I didn't inform you all of its few defects as well as its many strengths. Definitely one to have if you can find a copy.
ReplyDelete