DO YOU PREFER HARD OR SOFT? YOU DECIDE...

Copyright DC COMICS

I'm sure most of you recall the Famous First Editions tabloid-sized mags from the '70s.  Some of them were also actually distributed in hardback by Lyle Stuart, Inc. in a limited run, with cloth covers and dust-jackets.  A few years ago, DC issued one in the same format, that being More Fun Comics #1.  However, they've also published hardback versions of some of their Collectors' Editions and I have five of them in all, though I'm not sure exactly how many altogether have been released in this deluxe presentation.  More than five?  Anyone know?

They're printed on superior glossy paper and are a delight to the eyes and hands.  Honest, it's just such a pleasure to look at and touch them and I wish DC and Marvel would get together and reissue the first Superman Vs. Spider-Man team-up in hardback.  I can see no reason why they couldn't, as it's been reprinted at least a couple of times over the years in standard-size comics and books.  The covers are just like traditional UK Annuals, with no dust-jackets, and to be honest, I prefer them that way.

So what would you prefer, Crivs - cardboard covered Collectors' Editions or hardback deluxe versions?  Reveal your palpitating preferences now in our comments section, if you'd be so good. 

DC LIMITED COLLECTORS' EDITION FACSIMILES...

Copyright DC COMICS

Behold - two new facsimiles of DC Collectors' Editions from the '70s, Crivs.  If you don't have the originals, then these are the very chappies for you.  As it happens, I don't have the originals either, so they're the very chappies for me, too!  I've also got a hardcover edition of the Superman Vs Wonder Woman issue, published in 2020, winging its way to me as I type these words, so hooray for me.

Did you purchase any of the various DC Collectors' Editions back in the day, and if so, what impressed you about them?  Let it all hang out (figuratively speaking) in our comments section.

And below is the latest arrival at Castel Crivens...

BABE Of The DAY - DENISE MILANI...

The delightful, delectable, and devastatingly

beautiful Denise Milani is our 'Babe' for today,

Crivvies.  I'd better pop out and buy some chocolate

digestives in case she wants a wee biccie with a cup

of tea later - only the best for divine Denise.

2025 FACSIMILE EDITION OF THE 2018 FF #1 FACSIMILE EDITION - OR IS IT? (EH?)

2025 Facsimile.  Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Above, is the latest Facsimile Edition of The Fantastic Four #1.  Look at that barcode box in the corner; far too big and intrusive compared to the 2018 edition, below.  Why do Marvel do it?  I'm talking about unnecessarily obscuring part of the cover in this way.  At least with the 2025 edition they've got the date right (November) as opposed to August on the previous version.  I should point out, though, that back in 1961, although the issue was cover-dated November, it actually went on sale in August (8th, I think), and the 2018 incarnation was, I assume, merely reflecting this fact.

2018 Facsimile with less intrusive barcode

At least this time they've included the 'Continued After Next Page' tagline before the ads, which they neglected to do last time.  I also note that although the 2018 facsimile placed the indicia under the ad on the inside front cover (as did the 1961 original), it's now been moved to under the splash page.  Again, why?  Okay, the 2018 indicia had fewer lines than the latest one, but as the 2025 splash page was reduced in size to accommodate it, why couldn't they do likewise with the ad and put the indicia where it should be?  (Seeing as how it's meant to be a 'facsimile'.)

2025 Facsimile, indicia moved to splash page, reduced to accommodate it

This latest edition doesn't have the 16 extra pages of bonus material that the last one did, which is something I actually approve of as I prefer it to be more like the 1961 printing.  If they'd only reduced that barcode and had the indicia under the ad, the whole comic would've been perfect.  However, there's some good news. The upcoming foil variant cover version has placed the barcode on the back cover (like DC now do) so that's an improvement.  Why Marvel didn't do so with their 'standard' facsimiles is beyond me, but all the mags will likely be reissued again in the future, so we can only hope that then they'll do things right.

2018 Facsimile with updated indicia, though in the right place as per original

I've heard that the barcode is destined for extinction anyway, before too long, so that's something to look forward to if it means its defacement of comicbook covers will soon be a thing of the past.  Anyway, if you want a relatively inexpensive copy of FF #1, despite my observations this is one of the better ones.  Buy it as soon as you can, effendis - you know it makes sense.  And below is an old photo of another issue of #1 in my collection, which is currently tucked away in a safe place, and not at hand for scanning.

BABE Of The DAY - DENISE MILANI...

Would you look at that - Denise Milani

hasn't yet taken down her Christmas tree, the

lazy lass.  Better get to it, Denise, before Easter

is upon us.  Then you'll be too full of chocolate

eggs to want to do anything but sleep.

FRED FLINTSTONE - A SPY-TYPE GUY... (Updated)

Well, Crivs, do I have a treat for you!  No, that isn't a question, it's a statement, as I'm now about to unleash on you the Gold Key comic strip adaptation of The Man Called Flintstone movie from 1966 - including some clips from the film itself.  See if you can spot the apparent plot flaw that tends to suggest not a lot of thought was put into the story.  Either that or Hanna-Barbera's writers were making some of it up as they went along.  Don't worry if it passes over your head, I'll spell it out at the foot of the post.  Enjoy!

(Update: Since first publishing this post, I've obtained a better copy of the comic without the 'ripples' the first one had.  I've therefore rescanned the complete story and replaced the images with better ones.  Well done me.)

And now - the plot flaw.  As Triple X is the Green Goose, he clearly would've known that Fred was standing in for Rock Slag and be therefore unable to supply him with the information he was looking for.  Which, as he was a government agent himself on the same case, he wouldn't have had to look for as he'd surely have known from the beginning when the Chief gave him his mission instructions.  H-B didn't think it through, did they?

Or maybe they did.  I've just noticed the Chief introduces Fred to Triple X as Rock Slag, not Flintstone, so maybe X/Goose didn't know Fred was a stand-in.  However, he'd surely have known the overall details of the case he (Triple X) was on, going by what his mission instructions were, and just what info the Chief and Slag were looking for about his criminal alter-ego.

PART SIXTY-ONE Of FAVOURITE COMICS Of The PAST - AMAZING ADVENTURES #17...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Around 20-25 years back, an acquaintance gave me a beat-up copy of Amazing Adventures #17.  When I say 'beat up' I mean it, as the cover was hanging off, the spine was rolled, and it had multiple wrinkles.  I only accepted it because I'd once owned the issue back in the early '70s and thought it'd be nice to have again.  The replacement lay neglected for a few years, 'til one day I spruced it up a little to make it slightly more presentable.

It consists of edited-together reprints of back-up tales in the X-Men mags of the '60s, with a new splash page and end page by Jim Starlin, as well as the cover.  Truth to tell, it's hardly a classic, but I remember having it back in the day, so owning it again made that particular period of my life seem not so far away.  However, I always intended to acquire a better condition copy, though the rather extravagant prices some dealers were asking deterred me for a while.

Anyway, I recently saw a very nice condition copy (VF) on eBay for a few paltry quid, so I snapped it up right away, and that's its cover image at the top of the post.  I've also included the first and last pages so you can enjoy Mr. Starlin's complete contribution to this usually (though surprisingly) expensive back issue - unless you get lucky like me.

I have the X-Men Masterworks and Omnibus editions reprinting the original separate tales of which the contents of AA #17 consists, which were rather heavily re-edited and, in some instances, resized in order to fill the required panel dimensions.  The image below shows one panel which was 'drawn up', and as you can see, whoever did it neglected to add Cyclops' body past where the original (and now invisible) lower border line cut it off.  Take a look - Cyclops' torso appears to be floating in mid-air with no visible means of support.  (I haven't checked, but I suspect this may've originally been two panels combined into one.)

Then there's the panel below, where whoever added to it drew The Beast's right foot too small and without any toes.  I don't know why some people don't seem to take pride in their work.  Blowing my own trumpet for a moment, when I resized panels for IPC Pocket Libraries I never stinted in giving them my all, so that the 'joins' were never visible and the added parts looked as if they'd always been there from the start.  Sadly, not everyone has my desire (or skill - laugh if you want) to do things properly.

So yet another Marvel mag has joined my merry throng of comics, and it seems as though it's never been away.  If you had (or still have) this comic, feel free to record your memories or thoughts about it in the comments section.