BABE Of The DAY - CAROL DANVERS...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Ain't she a Marvel!  'Nuff said!

The TERRIFIC TRIO - MARVEL FIRSTS...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Look at what just arrived at Castel Crivens - 'Read 'em and weep!'

SUPERMAN #233 FACSIMILE EDITION...

Copyright DC COMICS

Number 1 Best-Selling Comics Magazine! proclaimed the cover of The Amazing New Adventures Of Superman #233 back in 1970/'71 - and it may even have been true at the time.  However, the huge numeral was really symbolic as it was the first issue in a new direction for the Man Of Steel, though some 'peripheral' changes had already been introduced in previous issues of the title, as well as its companion, Action Comics.  The mag was dated January, but had probably gone on sale around October or thereabouts, as it was (and still is) the custom to pre-date periodicals to give them a longer shelf-life.

Which brings us to the new Facsimile Edition of this landmark publication, which was previously released as an individual issue as part of the Millennium series way back in 2000/'01, though it didn't include the original ads and letters page as this latest presentation does.  (Nor did it include the next issue blurb and details at the foot of the last page, which were omitted for some reason.)  Despite the good job DC generally do with their current facsimile comics (and they seem to be getting better), it's a shame they can't be consistent in preserving the archival accuracy for posterity.

For instance, some 'Continued On 2nd Page Following' captions are included, some aren't, and where they're omitted, the art 'replacement' to fill the space they occupied isn't always the best it could be (though sometimes it's perfectly fine).  Some examples follow, with descriptions in footnotes under the panels.  For a clearer look at the smaller images, click to enlarge, then click again for optimum size.

From the original '71 printing, 'continued' box present

From the 2000/'01 Millennium and 2025 Facsimile Editions, 'continued' box removed

Same again.  Shame they forgot to draw in the loop on Superman's belt

For some reason they missed removing the 'continued' box in this panel

The original '71 printing

The 2000/'01 and 2025 printing

Comparing the left-hand side of both pages, it's clear the Millennium/Facsimile version has been

sourced from either a bound volume or published issue with pronounced spine roll, as the top and

bottom lettering has a curve to it and appears to have been retouched in the top caption.  Also, the

space between the floating captions and the panel borders narrows where the spine has curved

  

This is the same comic with a variant cover in the style of a Super Powers figure

And above, the original and the Facsimile side-by-side

******

Bonus: Star Wars #1 Facsimile Edition, which arrived at the same time as the Superman issue.  Just look at that barcode box - far too prominent and ruins the look of the cover, don'tcha think, Crivs?  Go on, somebody agree with me for a change.

Copyright relevant owner

BABE Of The DAY - BUNTY WINDERMERE...

Penelope 'Bunty' Windermere,

putting on a private show for me.  Just so

she doesn't feel too exposed, I'm sitting in

my underwear in solidarity with her.

FRANK THORNE'S ONLY MARVEL UK WORK?

Copyright relevant owner

I'm now too old to reliably recall whether I ever had Planet Of The Apes & Dracula Lives #100 back in the day or not, but having recently seen the cover of it over on McScotty's blog That Was Then (should actually be called Now And Then 'cos he doesn't post very often, the lazy loafer), I decided I must have the issue for myself so promptly bought one via eBay.  Why?  Well, as far as is known (by me anyway), it's the only cover Frank Thorne ever drew for a UK Marvel mag, perhaps even any UK mag in fact, and that makes it worth having in my collection.

Frank was an excellent artist and he drew the female figure in such a way as to induce feelings of lust and desire in young teenage boys who slobbered and drooled over babes like Red Sonja - She-Devil With A Sword.  He could draw bosoms as if they were ripe pears just waiting to be plucked (I said plucked, Melvin) and it's difficult for me to tear my eyes away from the lovely lass on the cover of POTA's Centennial issue, despite all the action going on.  Anyway, thought I'd show it here to save you having to jump over to McS's blog to view it.  I'm thoughtful that way.

LOOK And LEARN's FINAL BOW...

Copyright relevant owner

It was 43 years ago that something came to an end, though I didn't know about it at the time and didn't learn of the sad event until many years (perhaps even decades) after the fact.  Look And Learn first hit newsagents' shelves in January 1962 and finally breathed its last in April 1982, not even granted the courtesy of being merged with another weekly magazine as was usually the case with IPC Magazines.

I've been looking to acquire the last issue for a good while now and it finally landed on my hall carpet this afternoon.  The periodical lasted for three months past 20 years, though seemed to have been around for much longer as 20 years doesn't seem a very long time in retrospect from this old man's perspective.  (I suppose if I were still only in my early 20s, the same span would seem like  practically forever.)

Anyway, thought I'd show you the cover of the final issue (and the 'special message' from the editor), as well as the cover of the one that started it all, which I acquired a fair number of years ago.  Not long after buying a facsimile of the debut issue, an original came into my possession, so it's nice to have both.  Were any of you ever Look And Learn readers, Crivs?  Then feel free to share your memories with your fellow members.

Note that in the response to one of the above letters, the editor says to look out for The Trigan Empire Annual 1983.  Was it ever published?  I have The Look And Learn Book Of The Trigan Empire for 1973/'74 and the Hamlyn book from 1978, but I've never seen another that would fit the description of an 'Annual'.  Any info would be appreciated.  While you're thinking about it, below is the cover of the ish that started it all.

THROUGH THE... BEDROOM WINDOW...

Back in 1983, when my family moved from this house, the tenancy still had almost 3 weeks to run.  We moved out early because the house we were moving to was new-built, so it was lying empty waiting for us.  We left the odd piece of furniture at our old address, to be collected at our leisure before our tenancy officially ended.  During that period, although we were living in our new home, I'd now and then pop into our old one and sit on a wicker chair and gaze out of my old bedroom window at the sun going down on the horizon.

I knew I'd miss my old view, and never quite felt that I'd ever get used to the 'new' one.  Well, as regular readers know, just over four years later, we returned to our former domicile and I was reunited with that view, and for the next 20 years, I seldom thought about the house we'd vacated, or the view from its bedroom window.  Now, however, another 10 years down the line, I find myself recalling it with almost the same kind of fondness I had for the one I returned to.  I find it strange that I immediately fell into the familiarity of my old view and never gave the 'new' one much thought - until relatively recently that is.

I just accepted being back in my old home to the extent that it almost felt as if I'd never been away.  However, I looked out of my window tonight, and I think it was the first time since being back that I realised I'd taken it pretty much for granted.  Tonight was the first time it'd struck me that the view I'm again so familiar with was once part of my past life, and not (for just over 4 years) my then-present one.  I sometimes feel as if I only dreamt about living in another house, but now and again I'm reminded that, no - it was for real.

You know what?  I reckon that if for some reason, I had to live in that house again, then I'd probably feel as if my 30 years back here were a dream, not the other way around.  No real point to this by the way, I just thought I'd share with you the strange thoughts that can occur to a fella from glancing out his bedroom window.

(Originally published Tuesday July 4th 2017.) 

FOR FACS' SAKE - FACSIMILE RIP-OFF ON EBAY...

Copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd

An eBay seller currently has the above slabbed issue of a facsimile of The Beano #1, given away with The Sunday Post in 1998, at an asking price of £500.  It's printed on 'glossy' paper, has only 24 pages out of the original 28, and part of the top of masthead mascot Peanut's hair has been cut off.

First of all, I can't believe that anyone would be so optimistic (or opportunistic) as to ask for such a ludicrous price, never mind anyone actually being stupid enough to pay it.  I recently showed you a far superior facsimile of this comic going for a mere £13.20, which has the complete 28 pages, unlike this one.

How anyone can ask for £500 and not be aware of the damage to their credibility as a seller is beyond me.  It also speaks volumes as to what he thinks of potential buyers if he really thinks anyone would ever pay it, given the fact that it's hardly rare.  In fact, I've got around a dozen of them, still in the poly bags they came in inside The Sunday Post.

And he's such an unpleasant seller.  The way he answers his neutral and negative feedback is a disgrace, and eBay should ban him at once.  We can only live in hope.  (And no, as far as I recall, I've never bought anything from him.)

WHEN IS A FACSIMILE NOT QUITE A FACSIMILE?

Copyright DC COMICS

DC Comics have been producing facsimiles of some of their Limited Collectors' Editions for quite a while now, and for anyone who missed the originals back in the '70s, it's a less expensive way of obtaining replicas of classic comics they'd like to have owned back then, but for some reason didn't or couldn't.  Or perhaps they did, but lost, misplaced, or gave them away down through the years.  So now these 'new' presentations help them roll back the years and let them re-experience aspects of their youth that were once so dear to them.  (It's a strange concept - to reprint a reprint, as most [though not all] of those giant-size card-covered mags were.)

However (as is often the case), there's a catch.  When the original reprint editions were produced, amendments were often made to their larger-than-life presentations in what was then a new format.  Splash pages were usually extended, height-wise, to compensate for missing indicias present in the initial standard-sized printings of the tales.  Credits were sometimes added and captions and footnotes altered to bring them up-to-date, or for some other editorial reason entirely.  So having clued you in, I'll shortly demonstrate exactly what I'm talking about, using the relatively recent facsimile of LCE CR-48 (Superman Vs The Flash) to provide examples.

But why's it so?  Well, the original (altered) proofs for CR-48 probably no longer exist, so when the decision was made to reprint it, DC went with whatever sources were available of the two tales from later (restored) presentations, like hardback collected editions for example, which sought to preserve the archival aspects of the strips' first printings.  That's why the facsimile has corner page numbers and different colours, while the '70s incarnation had the numbers removed, new colouring, added credits (on the first strip), an amended end-caption, and an extended splash page.  With the facsimile, they used whatever more archival proofs for reprints that were to hand.

So these new facsimiles aren't always exact  - they're as close as they can be without going overboard in the 're-creation' stakes.  I daresay most readers wouldn't even notice the difference unless they have an original to compare to, but if they don't, then it hardly matters much, does it?  Unless you're as pernickety as me, that is.  What do you think, Crivs?  Would you rather have exact facsimiles (prices and indicias aside), or as long as they use the same covers and contain the same strips and features, do the occasional slight departures from the originals not bother you?  Comments extremely welcome, so start exercising your typing fingers now and have your say!

Note the 'pattern' in the grey of the facsimile (right).  This is usually the result of not

being scanned at the appropriate resolution 

As you can see, the original reprint (left) has been amended and extended

End caption has been slightly amended in the original reprint (left)

Original reprint page (left) has been extended downwards.  For some odd reason, in

the facsimile (right), this page was printed smaller than others (and the original)

Horizontal gutter in middle of page has been reduced in facsimile (right)

Both covers side-by-side for you to compare - click to enlarge

Not even one comment so far?  Hell's teeth, you lot are hard to please, that's a fact.  I'm off to sulk under my bed - and I may not come out for, oh - ages.  (Better hoover the carpet under it first.)