.jpg) |
| Copyright DC COMICS |
If you're a comics-buying Brit of a similar vintage to myself, you know US comics used to come to the UK as ballast in ships. This meant it was months, maybe even years after they were published in the States, before they appeared on our newsagents' spinner-racks, though occasionally some of them were available on our shores not too far removed from their US point of sale. 'Twas all down to random chance and a bit of good luck, basically.
I recall buying a few US mags back in the '60s, which I later bought again in the '70s, in brand-new condition and for their original price - or whatever the current equivalent was. Seaside resorts like Largs and Blackpool were particularly good for finding pristine, inexpensive US comics, and I acquired several Kirby FFs years after he'd departed Marvel for DC, as well as some Buscema Silver Surfers. What are the chances of that happening today, eh?
.jpg)
Forgive the preamble, but I wanted to set the scene for what I'm about to say next. Although DC Super Spectacular #6 was published in 1971, I never saw it in my local shops 'til around '73, maybe even '74, whereupon I swiftly bought it. I no longer remember how long I had it for, but I don't think it would've been years, probably no more than a few months at the most. I was more of a comics buyer in those days, as opposed to a collector.
Anyway, in 2004, DC Comics released a replica edition of the mag, which I bought at the time (and still have), though there was something about the wrap-around cover that didn't look quite right to me. The original covers had been drawn by Neal Adams (pencils) and Dick Giordano (inks), but there was something subtly different about the replica edition. Upon investigation (reading the indicia), I discovered the cover was a re-creation by Dick Giordano on his own.
.jpg)
I'd have thought Giordano, as the original inker, could've managed to re-create a more faithful replica of the covers, but seemingly not. Did he draw it from scratch, trace it, use a projector, or utilise the 'graph' method? I don't know, so if anyone does, please enlighten your fellow Crivvies, if you'd be so good. Anyway, I recently acquired a replacement for my long-gone original, which I wanted simply because I once had it and wanted to own it again. That's nostalgia for you.
So here are both versions for you to compare. Black Canary looks as though she's got a slight squint in the replica and there are other faces which don't quite match their original incarnations. Is this the sort of thing that'd bother you, Crivs, or do you regard such things as inconsequential? Would you even have noticed the differences had I not drawn your attention to them? Feel free to mock my anally-retentive memory (when it works properly) in the comments section.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
I dunno, Gordie - you go to all this work and nobody even leaves a comment. Makes you wonder why you bother, eh?
ReplyDelete(Kid from Earth 2.)
I don't think I would have noticed these changes at all I am even struggling to see them once you pointed them out. In saying that the facsimile cover does look a bit different to the original which I would have assumed incorrectly was due to new colouring . I can see the Black Canary "squint" and I think Hourman looks to have more of a smile on the original and more a "snarl" on the facsimile.
ReplyDeleteI don't really bother with the art and minor story mistakes in comics as it's bound to happen working to right deadlines but this is different as it's a new cover. I can't image why they had this redrawn for a facsimile .
I was sure I had shown this cover (original) on my blog a few years ago. I can see my scanned copies on my phone\laptop but can't find it , talk about brain fog!!!
The differences are easier to see when the two actual mags are side-by-side, McS, they're less obvious when reduced on a computer screen. Saying that, however, when I bought the replica edition in 2004, I didn't have the original to compare with, but I knew something wasn't quite right about the cover. I assume it was redrawn because DC had mislaid any good b&w copies of the original art to recolour and republish, hence having to get Giordano to redraw it.
DeleteKid, I'm only aware of US comics being ballast on ships because I read it on your blog. When I was regularly buying US Marvels in the early '80s they were always on sale in WH Smith's at the beginning of the month featured on the cover (so comics with a June cover-date would be on sale in early June for example) - were they still being used as ballast by that point?
ReplyDeleteNo, CJ, though who knows, some might still have been. If so, they were used purely as ballast, as US comics distribution was a business in its own right by then, and speciality shops had sprung up all over Britain. I recall that in the mid-late '80s, if you were prepared to pay a bit more for your comics, you could get them weeks (if not a month or so) before the cover dates on what were called 'advance' issues. This was possible because US comics were published months before the date on the cover and in the indicia.
DeleteThis was one of the first superhero comics that I bought (well, that my mom bought for me…. I was seven). I had gotten a few Superman and Batman comics (well….see above), but I had actually picked out a previous issue of JLA, which also, coincidentally, included the JSA. I loved this comic and may have to track down this new edition.
ReplyDeleteThere are numerous replica and original issues currently available on eBay, G, at various prices, so good hunting.
DeleteKid,
ReplyDeleteAlso, the cover design of DC Super Spectacular #6 by Neal Adams/ Dick Giordano was actually a homage to the cover of All-Star Comics #16 (Apr-May 1943).
The 1971 cover even includes the central spotlight that is on Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, whilst in the original 1943 cover, Wonder Woman is in the spotlight with other members of the Justice Society of America.
Matt
That's probably why it seemed familiar to me at some stage down the line, M, though I likely hadn't yet seen ASC #16 back in the '70s. Thanks for the info.
Delete