SUPERMAN Versus MIGHTY MOTH...

Pencilled, inked & lettered by KID ROBSON

Here's another unseen page from the archives.  This one's 25 years old and is scanned from a photocopy rather than the original art.  (Most of the stuff in my files comes from photocopies, the originals having been given away or misplaced over the years.)  Consequently, it's not as sharp or as detailed as it otherwise would be.  This was intended for a fanzine produced by the now defunct comics shop A.K.A. (Also Known As), run by JOHN McSHANE, the late PETE ROOT and BOB NAPIER, three luminaries in the Glasgow comics scene.  (I think little STEVIE MONT-GOMERY also became involved at a later date.)

The cover was produced in a hurry between lettering assignments for 2000 A.D. and other IPC publications, so it's not as 'finished' as I would've liked.  (The floor and cape are desperately in need of some shadows.)  The issue this cover was intended for was never published due to a lack of material, so it's languished in my files until now.  First person to say it should've stayed there gets a cheap laugh, but loses their BLUE PETER badge.  

WILL YOU ALWAYS KEEP A DANDY HANDY?

A more polished version of Jamie Smart's Desperate Dan

As regular readers will know, there are certain aspects of the new DANDY that I'm not too keen on.  JAMIE SMART's DESPERATE DAN strip has come in for a bit of a kicking elsewhere on the internet, and I have to admit that I'm not its biggest fan either.  It's all just a little too rushed-looking and roughly-finished to suit my tastes.  (Though not so much in the above pic - read on.)

However, intrigued by those who claim to like his artwork, I had a look at his website and I was surprised to see that his style seems less jarring on characters I haven't seen before, and even has a certain rough-hewn charm.  In fact, even his Desperate Dan strips on his site seem to have had a bit more care and attention lavished on them.  (The illustrations on this page are "borrowed" from over there.  Let's hope he won't mind.)

So I had another look at the first couple of issues and - guess what?  That's right - they still didn't work for me.  Perhaps he was under pressure and had to produce his Dandy pages in a hurry; or perhaps he's experimenting with a rougher, more organic look - who knows?  Well, he does, but he's hardly likely to tell me.

Another slightly smoother look

What I will say, however, is this.  To all those old-timers who aren't too keen on his Dandy pages, take a look at his website.  Divorced from familiar characters we all know and love (and let's face it, who - with the possible exception of KEN H. HARRISON - could compete with DUDLEY D. WATKINS?), his pages don't seem as jarring as they do in DCT's relaunched comic.

If DAN had to have a new look, I think I would have preferred to see TOM PATERSON or HUNT EMERSON (I liked his LITTLE PLUM - ooer, missus) have a go at him.  I still don't think Jamie's style (or, to be more precise, the version of his style that he uses on DD) quite works.  However, if he just shaved off some of the rougher edges from the strip and it had a more consistent lettering font, I feel that much of the criticism it has received might be dissipated somewhat.

I'm sure Mr. Smart cares not a jot for my opinion - and that's perhaps how it should be.  However, I'm sure I'm not the only one who hopes that he may yet see the wisdom in aiming his strips not only at new readers, but at older ones as well.  That way everybody's happy.

TOYBOX TREASURES Of The PAST: COMET HYDRO PLANE...

One of the "must-have" toys of the '60s

Surely there can't have been a kid in the '60s who didn't have one of this fantastic battery-operated HYDRO PLANE speedboat?  As well as playing with it in ponds, baths and sinks, it also came in useful as a handy fan on hot summer days at the seaside.  They just don't seem to make toys like this anymore.

AND TIME TICKS ON...



He's going to have some wait



And another quickie.  Basic, but effective.  (Hey, I was working for chips - I wasn't going to knock myself out!)  Again, everything produced by my own fair hand.  The shop is no longer there, so it looks like that guy could be waiting for quite some time.

P-P-PICK UP A - PIZZA?

This was an A5 flyer for a local business which I knocked up a few years back (the flyer, not the business).  Of course, when one is doing stuff which isn't going to be printed in a comic, one can afford to relax about the finishing on a piece of work. Nevertheless, it's not too bad, every aspect of it being hand-lettered and drawn to quite a high standard (if I say so myself).

WHO'S A HAPPY CAMPER?

"Yaaawn! I wonder what kind of day it's going to be, Fred?"

Here's a little amateur cartoon I did back around 1977-'78 for a church camping poster.  Looking at it now, I can mainly see where it could be improved - but, overall, it's really not too bad for a teenager.  I coloured it in for the poster, but unfortunately that's been long lost to the mists of time.  One day I'll tidy it up and recolour it, just to make it as good as it could be.

AND NOW - A NEWSFLASH...

Image copyright MARVEL COMICS

Hey, quick, comics fans - click on this link - http://www.lettersofnote.com/ - for an interesting item relating to The X -MEN.  This is a great site, and has many fascinating historical letters of... er, note.

Go on - what are you all waiting for?  (Though you'll now have to dig through the archives to find it.  Use the date this was posted as a guide.) 

IT'S DESPERATE, DAN...

Copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd

I must confess to not being impressed by sections of the new DANDY.  It seems indisputable to me that the overall look could be improved by a few simple steps, namely in the lettering department.  Which is not to say that all the lettering is bad, but it would still benefit from a change to upper case to make it easier to read.  I don't even mean that the current style is too small, but it's definitely too rough in places to flow smoothly.

So far, I've studiously avoided specifically naming any particular strip or artist that I'm not so keen on, but JAMIE SMART's DESPERATE DAN strip seems to be the focus of a lot of less-than-positive attention elsewhere on the internet.  I'm assuming he letters the strip himself in the new Dandy, but if so, he really isn't doing himself any favours.  Have a look at the DD trailer page (above) from the OLD Dandy.  His art doesn't seem quite as roughly finished, and the overall look of the strip is vastly improved with more uniform frame borders and consistently rendered, uppercase lettering.  I'm sure at least some of the critics would look far more favourably on the strip if it looked like this.  (Though I'd still prefer a slightly more detailed version - after all, the original had been established for nearly 70 years.)

The editor did no one any favours when he abandoned the above slightly more polished-looking finish for the current one.

Okay, D.C. THOMSON - you've had your fun - change it to the above look - NOW!

NOT A "MATTED MASTERWORK OF MURDEROUS MALIGNANCY" - BUT DEFINITELY A MASTERWORK...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Just out - the MARVEL MASTERWORKS edition of The MIGHTY THOR Volume 9, featuring the last of JACK KIRBY's run on the title.  This bombastic book also contains two NEAL ADAMS and three JOHN BUSCEMA illustrated tales, which provide an interesting contrast to Jack's artwork.  Golden Age Great BILL EVERETT inked some of the Kirby tales in this volume, foreshadowing the look that MIKE ROYER was later to give Kirby's pencils, but it's the VINCE COLLETTA finished stories which steal the show.

Since he died, Colletta has been unfairly (in my opinion) much-maligned for some of the shortcuts he took on Kirby's art, but he was a favourite with readers at the time.  (Apparently the book dipped in sales when Everett inked it.)  VC's finishes gave Jack's pencils a far more illustrative look which totally fitted the mood of the comic - in fact, it was Colletta's inks which were largely responsible for that mood.  Say what you like, but Vinnie's inks gave more to Jolly Jack's pages than they ever took away.

With an introduction by WILL MURRAY and reprinting The MIGHTY THOR #s 173-183.

Run, don't walk, to your nearest comics store and pick up your copy now.  (Pay for it first though.)

ISBN # 978-0-7851-4200-1.

And still available is the softcover edition of the first volume of Thor Masterworks, containing JOURNEY Into MYSTERY #s 83-100.  This recent printing of the book contains the best and most faithful presentation of Thor's origin since it was first published, and is a must-have for every true believer.

ISBN # 978-0-7851-4568-4.

So, what're you waiting for?  Rush out and buy it today!

ANYTHING Can HAPPEN In The NEXT HALF HOUR...

The rubberband version



1965 was the year I got my rubberband-powered STINGRAY by LONESTAR. There was also a clockwork version which looked pretty much the same (see below), but it was the cheaper version I had. Cheaper, but no less fun at the nearby pond just along the road from where I lived at the time.  And there was also the kitchen sink or the bath for Stingray to continue its undersea explorations when I couldn't be bothered going out or the weather was against me.



The clockwork version

I acquired a replacement for this childhood toy a good number of years back and proudly have it on display.  VIVID IMAGINATIONS produced their own, far more detailed version of this craft sometime back in the '90s, but there's something about the '60s original which is hard to beat.

WHAT'S GOOD And BAD ABOUT The NEW DANDY?

Copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd

Here's what's right with it - full-colour, good paper (though it tends to smudge), some well-drawn strips, and smatterings of irreverent humour in the small print on the inside back page.

Here's what's wrong with it - in some places, amateur lettering, clumsy placement of word balloons, roughly-rendered logos which are too similar (no individual identity), and some inadequately drawn sequential art, which could be vastly improved.

Take BANANAMAN - never liked the character and didn't care much for the old version of the strip, although it was drawn in a highly competent and professional manner.  So, I therefore don't have a problem with the new art style and direction for the hero.  (No doubt many fans of the original might disagree.)

However, it could stand some improvement in the following areas.  Upper case lettering in the word balloons, slightly bolder exterior lines on the characters to make them stand out - and more space in the frames to accommodate the lettering so that the art isn't obscured by it.  Same goes for PEPPERONI PIG.

Also, just why does it feel that I'm looking at too many of the strips through the wrong end of a telescope?  Everything seems to be in long-shot - even the close-ups.  (No complaints about HARRY HILL whatsoever.)  Had I been the editor, I'd have made sure problems like these had been resolved before the strips had gone to press.

Another thing - some defenders of the new DANDY claim that it's aimed at kids, but if that's the case, why does some of the art look like it belongs more in PUNCH or PRIVATE EYE?  Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but they seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

Hopefully these problems will be fixed sooner rather than later.  Feel free to agree or disagree - or even ignore - I don't care.

"AN EPIC FOR OUR TIMES"...?

Images copyright DC COMICS

Here's the cover of JACK KIRBY's first issue of NEW GODS, as it appeared back at the start of the 1970s.  Part of what came to be known as the FOURTH WORLD saga (along with FOREVER PEOPLE, MISTER MIRACLE, and SUPERMAN'S PAL JIMMY OLSEN), it lasted for 11 bi-monthly issues before being cancelled due to disappointing sales.  (Forever People likewise disappeared after 11 issues, Jack relinquished Jimmy Olsen after 15 issues, and Mister Miracle 'expired' after 18.)

 

Did you know, however, that the premier New Gods story was originally intended to debut in an issue of SHOWCASE?  Here's how it could've looked had Jack not successfully argued for the series getting its own title.  Kirby thought it would stand a better chance of being a hit in its own comic, rather than as a 'try-out' strip in a 'revolving-door' mag.  He may have been wrong (in fact, if not in theory), but if anyone deserved to be given the best chance to succeed, it was Jack.

And, just in case you were wondering, when SHOWCASE #94 eventually did appear (in 1977), it featured the first of a three issue DOOM PATROL run.  Enjoy, history lovers.

******

UPDATE: Since originally publishing this post, I've been advised that the SHOWCASE/NEW GODS cover (originally sent to me in an email with no reference to its source) is merely a much later 'mock-up' of what the cover could have looked like, and not an archival image.  I've also been informed that it may have originated on (or been inspired by) another blog - which misleadingly lists it as an 'unpublished rejected or altered' cover.  As it was fraudulently misrepresented, we could be forgiven for regarding some other assertions by the blogger in question with an extremely large pinch of salt.

ADVENTURE In The 21st CENTURY...

 

Agent 21, Fireball XL5, Thunderbirds & Stingray copyright relevant owner(s)

A couple of months ago (here), I posted the cover of the very first TV CENTURY 21 ANNUAL for 1966 (released towards the end of '65), so I thought you might be ready for another look 'back' at the 21st Century.  Here's the Annual cover for 1967, containing all the old favourites that anybody who is old enough will remember.  Just think - when this Annual first appeared, man hadn't yet walked on the moon.

I often wonder if today's children will one day reminisce with such affection over what they used to read, as - in the main - there doesn't seem to be as many quality publications around for kids as there used to be back in the 'old' days.  There's certainly nothing today that compares with TV21 (as it was known, for short) and I doubt that there ever will be again.

One of the things I enjoyed about the weekly comic was The DALEKS strip, which ran for 104 issues.  It's a shame the Daleks never appeared in the Annuals though (apart from the odd photo to advertise the weekly), as it would have been great to see them in a strip consisting of several pages, as opposed to just one on the back page of the comic.  However, they did have their own Annuals in 1964, '65 & '66, so that's something to be grateful for I suppose.

"ALL HAIL TYRANNUS The MIGHTY!"



Neither shaken nor stirred

I've recently received loads of emails (okay - three, to be honest) asking me to show an up-to-date photo of myself.  I'd like to think SALMA HAYEK was one of them (using an assumed name), but they're probably some blue-rinse grannies in their eighties.

So, in an effort to give my panting public what they ask for, here's a photo of me taken about a week ago.  Yes, that is all my own hair, even though it looks a bit 'wiggy' in the picture.  Hopefully, the BOND producers will see it and give me a call if that ugly little blond guy who looks like a monkey isn't available for the next movie.

However, I'm left to wonder why those three people (or maybe one person with three aliases) thought any of the other photos of me which appear on this blog were out of date.  Must be my youthful good looks, obviously.  (Though you should see the portrait in my attic.)  I'm so glad I swapped that issue of The HULK #5 for the little phial of elixir that TYRANNUS was carrying when I ran into him a few years back.

I now return you to the real world.

NOW - THIS IS WHAT I CALL FUNNY...

Copyright D.C. Thomson & Co., Ltd

 

It seems ironic that, in abandoning its DANDY XTREME incarnation, the new DANDY has become even more extreme in some respects.  It's trying too hard to be "down wiv the kids, innit!" by going for a more radical look with some of the new comic strips it now features.

  

However, it's all been done before - and to much better effect. Look at this classic DENNIS The MENACE strip from the 1978 DTM book (reprinted from a 1950s BEANO by the look of it), drawn by DAVEY LAW. The art is outrageous enough, even by today's standards, and Law is a master of sequential art - an absolute necessity in telling a story.

 

What's more, the plot is true to life in a way which both children and adults can relate to - and displays a wit and charm sadly lacking in many of today's comics. No zooming around in a ridiculous flying "Dennis-mobile" here. Hey, it's even funny - what more could one want from a comic strip?

EVERTHING'S FINE & DANDY - OR IS IT?

Copyright D.C. THOMSON

It seems that everyone's talking about the new DANDY - but is it any good?  My opinion isn't coloured by any association with the comic other than as a reader, so let me tell you what I think.

NIGEL PARKINSON'S HARRY HILL strip is humorous enough and the artwork is of the usual high standard.  If anything brings new readers in, it will probably be this strip which does it.  LEW STRINGER displays competent artwork in his two strips - KID COPS and POSTMAN PRAT, but in a slightly looser style than usual. His artwork isn't helped by the placement of some of the lettering balloons though - something that quite a few strips in the comic suffer from.

As for the rest, it's a mixed bag of some good, some okay, and some downright awful strips, so perhaps there's something for everyone.  Not quite my cup of tea overall, but maybe it'll improve with a bit of polishing.  Go on -give it a try - you might like some of it.

And here's a picture of the very first issue of The Dandy from 1937 - don't ever say I don't give you something for nothing.

"THREE WEE WITCHES On The GREEN..."



Just for fun, here are some more frightfully fiendish images suitable for Hallowe'en.  First up, an AURORA ad from any number of DC COMICS mags from the 1960s - followed by the box art (painted by JAMES BAMA) of ol' FRANKENSTEIN's and DRACULA's plastic model kits by the selfsame company.  (AURORA, that is - not DC.)

Don't you just wish you had these two little beauties in your collection?  (I have.)

Okay, so I lied about the witches - sue me.

BRING On The BAD GUYS...TRICK Or TREAT?

 

"BOO!"

Hallowe'en - and this cover by JOHN ROMITA for the FIRESIDE book, BRING On The BAD GUYS, is the perfect image to illustrate a blog about comicbooks on this particular day of October 31st - it's even got a pumpkin on it.

One word of warning though.  If you get a knock on your front door and open it to find this assortment of colourful characters on your step, you'd better have more than a few monkey nuts and an apple each for them.  If not, slam it shut and get out the back door as fast as you can.  These guys don't mess around.

FREEDOM Of INFORMATION ACT...

Inked with a Windsor & Newton #3 sable brush



This page was pencilled by DOM REGAN and inked, dialogued and lettered by myself.  Dom doesn't seem to use a ruler, so his perspectives aren't always as precise as they could be, requiring a bit of sorting out at the inking stage.  His rendering is also a bit vague at times (though not so much on this page), which means the inker isn't quite sure exactly what he's looking at on occasion - but his artwork certainly packs a punch.

As the page features a CAPTAIN AMERICA stand-in (MAJOR AMERICAN - a name I coined), I tried to give it a CHIC STONE-type finish. I've probably over-inked the machinery in the first couple of pics, which are far too laboured, but it didn't come out too bad overall.

SO TELL ME, CRIVS... DID YOU EVER WONDER ABOUT SUPERMAN'S "U"?

Superman #233, featuring Ira Schnapp's logo.
(Art by Neal Adams) 

  

SUPERMAN's logo is as iconic as that of COCA COLA and is recognized the world over, but it took a little while before it was standardized by NATIONAL PUBLICATIONS' ace designer and calligrapher IRA SCHNAPP (on the cover of issue #6), based on JOE SHUSTER's original design.  Did you ever wonder, however, why it had that peculiar shaped angular "U" which didn't match any of the other letters?

Superman Ashcan edition. (Art by Joe Shuster)

I thought I had solved the mystery when I first saw the cover of the Ashcan Edition of Superman (SUPERMAN COMICS), and noticed that the "C" of "Comics" cuts into the lower part of the "U" of "Superman".  Closer examination shows that the "U" had almost the same squarish curve (if that's not a contradiction in terms) as the "P" and the "R".  Was it simply a case of this rough logo being relettered for issue #1 with the word "Comics" omitted, and someone taking the easy way out by angling-off the letter to complete the bottom line of the "U"?

Superman #6. 1st appearance of Ira's logo.
(Art by Joe Shuster)

  

It would be easy to assume so, going by the cover (and centre pages) of the actual first issue (which, legend has it, was originally intended as a one-off - hence the un-numbered cover).  It therefore didn't seem unreasonable to suppose that, when Ira Schnapp came to letter the definitive version, he was provided with a printed copy of the then-relatively recent SUPERMAN #1 for reference.  It certainly couldn't have been issues 2-5, as each cover logo featured a curved "U".  (For the cover of issue #1, see previous post.)  So - mystery solved?

Well, no.  Despite my fine speculations, after a bit more digging I found that JOE SHUSTER had occasionally rendered the "U" in that way from as early as ACTION COMICS #2 - which predates the Ashcan and the first issue by quite a margin.  (As that story was actually reprinted in SUPERMAN #1, I could have saved myself needless hypothesizing by simply reading the comic.)  It seems entirely possible, therefore, that Ira Schnapp was provided with a copy of the angular lettered logo for reference instead of the curved one merely on a whim of fate.  (Though I have to concede that, with it's distinctive "U", maybe the editor - or Ira himself - just preferred that version.)  But just think - comics history could so easily have been different.

   

Ira's logo lasted for over 40 years, until 1983, when it was relettered by MARSHALL ARISMAN to more closely resemble the earliest regular incarnations of the title.  I actually think it's excellent, though I have reservations about the top curve of the "S" overlapping the top of the "U".  Maybe one day I'll have a go at doing it.

(Note: An "Ashcan Edition" is an in-house, non-distributed publication used for the purpose of securing copyright on a title.)

Now, be honest - did you ever wonder.....?



Superman #386, 1st appearance of Marshall
Arisman's logo. (Art by Gil Kane)

A COMICS CONTROVERSY - CARE TO COMMENT?



SUPERMAN's first issue of his own comic

Consider, if you will, fellow Criv-ites, the following scenario.  A person buys an orna-ment for £2 from a charity shop.  Later, upon reflection, they decide that they don't really like it, so when someone collecting for a jumble sale chaps their door, the ornament is handed over to help raise funds to repair a leaky church roof.

Ten years later, the first person is watching ANTIQUES ROADSHOW and sees "their" ornament declared as being worth £20,000.  Do they have a moral or legal claim on any of that money if the current owner decides to sell?

Now consider this scenario.  An artist is asked to paint a picture of someone's house and gardens. He charges £300 and is extremely pleased at the amount he has secured for himself.  Five years further on, a visitor to the purchaser's house is so enamoured of the painting that he offers them a whopping £5,000 for it.  Over the years, it changes hands for increased amounts until it's worth £50,000.  Does the artist have a moral or legal claim on any of the money it has changed hands for over the years?

The answer is surely "no" - isn't it?

So - what's the difference between those two examples and what happened to SIEGEL and SHUSTER over SUPERMAN, or JACK KIRBY and the many char-acters he created or co-created for MARVEL or DC COMICS?  Or the work LEO BAXENDALE (or any artist you care to name) did for D.C. THOMSON or IPC/FLEETWAY?  I would suggest none at all.

BATMAN's first issue of his own comic

If you consent to sell something outright for an agreed fee, then it's really nothing to do with you what the purchaser does with his purchase or how much he profits from it in the years to come. If you buy a house for £80,000 and then sell it for £100,000, the previous owner (even if he built the house) is neither legally nor morally entitled to a share of your profit.  And, back in the day, that's the way it was done in the world of comics.

That's not to say that I have anything against present-day creators' rights, profit-sharing, copyright ownership, artwork return, or anything like that - because that's the way things are done nowadays.

However, back in the 1930s (until the late '70s, early '80s), comics were just a job to the writers and artists - 'twas the publishers who took the financial risk in launching a new comicbook, so why shouldn't their share of the profits proportionately reflect that risk?

When a publisher bought a character, they bought it outright - if it was a success, they made money, if it was a failure, they didn't.  It's a safe bet that there were a lot more failures than successes in those days. That was just the way the cookie crumbled back then.

Anyone got any thoughts on the matter?  Let's hear them.

ODDS 'N' ENDS...

May I present a few logos I lettered relatively recently?  Everything is done freehand - apart from a ruler for the horizontal pencil guidelines before inking.  Feel perfectly free to tell me how talented I am, whether you mean it or not.  Hey, I don't care - compliments are compliments, sincere or otherwise.

DO YOU REMEMBER The ILLUSTRATED COMIC JOURNAL?

Can you name them all?

The accompanying illustration is a scan of a very poor quality colour photocopy taken about fourteen or more years ago when I was preparing a cover for The ILLUSTRATED COMIC JOURNAL.  The copier (in a local garage of all places) didn't have the right paper and was so badly in need of toner that the resulting copy was unusable.  However, it's the only one I have to hand so it'll have to suffice for the moment.

The Illustrated Comic Journal was a fanzine created and published by ALAN CADWALLANDER back in the early '80s (I think) and then taken over by BRYON WHITWORTH some time later.  At first it was a black and white A5 publication, but when I became involved as assistant editor in the early '90s or thereabouts, it became A4 with colour covers.  Bryon picked the articles and I proofread and corrected them - though he always managed to overlook some of my corrections and add a few new mistakes once the edited version was returned to him.  Such were the drawbacks of the pre-computer "cut and paste" method he employed.

The late DENIS GIFFORD, celebrated comics historian and collector (and compiler of the A.C.E. section of the mag), was much taken with the new logo I designed, drew, coloured and lettered as it featured his STEADFAST McSTAUNCH character from WHIZZER & CHIPS, saying at the time "What a find in Gordon Robson" (to be sung to the tune of "WHAT A FRIEND WE HAVE IN JESUS" - only kidding) - despite me having been a professional comics contributor for quite a few years by that time.

Denis didn't seem to remember that he'd suggested I become a letterer back in the '70s after I'd submitted a one page comic strip to his short-lived monthly (four issues) ALLY SLOPER magazine.  Denis wrote to me to say that he couldn't print it because the inking technique I'd used wouldn't reproduce too well, but adding that I could easily make a living as a letterer in his opinion.  He even supplied me with some names at IPC (Jack Le Grand - and another, which I forget) and D.C. THOMSON (W. Stirton) to contact.



Black and white photocopy of the original artwork



Anyway, I'm quite proud of the logo - everything on it was produced by my own fair hand, with the exception of the words "illustrated" and "Incorporating", which were done with LETRASET.  Bryon eventually passed the mag on to other hands and only one further issue was produced before it unfortunately faded into comics limbo.  Shame really.

PRESENTING: A PULSATING PINNACLE Of PRACTICAL PERFECTION PERTAINING To A PROFOUNDLY PERTINENT POWER-PACK PUBLICATION From The PAST, PROUDLY PARADED For YOUR PARTICULARLY PASSIONATE And PERSONAL PERUSAL...

Pencils by Werner Roth, inks by Dick Ayers, layouts by Jack Kirby



Here's the comic that was on sale from October 21st (dated a week ahead, naturally) 43 years ago.  The cover art has been extended to accommodate the different page size to the original U.S. dimensions and, to be honest, hasn't been done too well.  That was one of the problems with the 'bodgers' of yesteryear (and no doubt some of today) - they just weren't competent when it came to executing such tasks.  Look at CYCLOP's arm and neck - they're far too thin and out of proportion to the rest of the figure.  And ICEMAN doesn't seem much of a threat - on account of him being 'armless.  That's what comes from merely extending the curve of a line (or the line of a curve, even) without giving thought to what the 'missing' part of the picture should look like.

 

A Power-House Pin-Up by Barry (Windsor) Smith (?)



That said, FANTASTIC (published by ODHAMS PRESS) really was a fantastic comic, and I've got loads of very happy memories from when it was being published back in the '60s.  It only lasted for 89 issues, a Summer Special and three Annuals - and I've got a full set.  (Nope - they're not for sale.  Getcher own!)

89 issues - only about a year and nine months.  Funny how periods from the past, once they've been dated and placed in their own little compartments of the mind, don't seem to measure up in duration to our perceptions of them.