.jpg) |
| Copyright DC COMICS |
So what's the reason? Is it down to different editors being in charge of each individual issue, or is it lack of cooperation or just sheer incompetence? To what do I refer? I'll tell you. When DC issued a Golden Age-sized facsimile of Detective Comics #27 a little while ago, it looked as though it had been scanned from an original published issue and appeared 'old'. Yet when they released Action Comics #1 and Superman #1 Golden Age-sized facsimiles in the same style, they sourced the contents from negatives of the standard-sized replicas, which meant the page images had margins around them which were far too wide and looked white and new.
Now, with Batman, the facsimile of the first issue is the same as Detective Comics #27, except for the margins and gutters being cleaner and whiter with no sign of age, and the page images weren't scanned from an actual published 1940 issue. (With the possible exception of some of the ads.) The result is far superior and I can't help but wish that DC will redo the other three mags to the same specifications. When Ralph Waldo Emerson said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...", he didn't mean all consistency was foolish, only that of the foolish kind, so consistency between those four essential collectables should be a given.
However, despite my customary moan, this latest addition to my vast collection is very welcome. Why don't you buy one for yourselves, Crivvies, if you haven't already? Note the cover claims the comic contains 'all brand-new adventures', but the recap of the Batman's origin is an amended reprint from an earlier number of Detective Comics (#3, I think).
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment