SEASONAL REPOST - SANTA IN SENSATIONAL 'STITCH-UP' SCANDAL...

Okay, it's that time of the year once again for SANTA CLAUS to raise his bearded head, and provide me with all the excuse I need to indulge in the kind of personal nostalgia which regular Criv-ites always find so enthralling.  (And even if you don't, you got in here for free so you'll take what you get and be thankful for it.  Don't you just love it when I'm masterful?)  Anyway, here's the story.

Back in the '60s, after school one day, a classmate by the name of RAYMOND BENNIE (may even have been Benny, can't remember) invited me back to his house.  During my visit, I noticed a stuffed Santa figure, which was probably a cat's plaything, though that thought likely never occurred to me at the time.  Raymond kindly said I could have it, and so little Santa came back home to live with me.

He immediately fell victim to terrible abuse, as me and my brother utilised him to play 'dodge ball'.  I'd kneel on my bed and try and hit my bruv with Santa by throwing him across the room at my ducking and diving sibling.  Then he'd return fire from his bed, chucking Santa back at me as I tried to avoid being hit.  Eventually, SC became a bit loose around the seams, so I undid his stitching and took him apart, intending to sew him back together again and tighten and tidy him up a bit.

Alas, it never happened, and eventually poor old 'cotton wool' Santa suffered, I assume, the fate of most things in a state of disrepair, and was unceremoniously discarded without even a thanks for the moments of enjoyment he had afforded me and my older relation.  I think I still had his pieces when I spied his twin in a back garden across from the house of one of my mother's friends whom we were visiting one day in 1968 or '69.  (Early '70 at a push.)

I'd just acquired my second QUERCETTI FIREBALL XL5 parachute toy from a superb shop in Rutherglen, called JOHNNY'S, and it had overshot it into a neighbour's garden as I played with it in the backyard of my mother's friend.  As I went to retrieve it, I noticed the double of my stuffed Santa lying on the neighbour's back lawn.  It did occur to me for a second to 'liberate' him, but my virtuous nature won out.

Anyway, I've never again seen another duplicate of that Santa since then, but several years back I bought the one in the picture at the top of this post, merely to 'fill the space', as it were.  Apart from the fact that it's a Santa Claus, he's really nothing like the one I used to have back in the '60s - but he reminds me of him, if you know what I mean.

I sometimes wonder if Raymond Bennie, who emigrated down under with his family in the late '60s, ever thinks back to the stuffed Santa Claus that he (or his cat if he had one) used to have once upon a time when we were both young and innocent and thought we had forever.  And does he recall giving him to me - or even remember my name?  Probably not.

I occasionally think of Raymond and wonder what he's doing now.  More often, however, I think of that Santa and wish he were still mine.  There are two other Santas I wish I still had - maybe I'll tell you about them one day, too.

A Merry Christmas when it comes. Ho ho ho!

Raymond Bennie in July 1967

Update: In December 2023 I managed to obtain via eBay a replacement for the Santa I got from Raymond when I was yet a primary school pupil.  I did a separate post about him, but thought I'd add a photo here as well.  If you'd like to read that other post, click here.

AN OLD CHRISTMAS CARD...

Time now for another track from the singer with a voice as soft as someone who could walk through snow and leave no footprint - JIM REEVES.  Do you remember (or still have) the first Christmas card that your 'significant other' gave to you?  Jim does.  Listen to him tell you about it.

TIME - THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT...

Largs, 1971.  During a fortnight's holiday there, I bought three things that I yet remember to this day.  Not necessarily in the order acquired, I purchased a witch keyring, a cheap ACTION MAN knock-off (in a deep sea diving suit, I think), and a little plastic deer.  The last two items were bought in the same shop though not necessarily on the same day, the first item's place of purchase is beyond my ability to recall.  Oh, and I also remember buying at least a couple of issues of KNOCKOUT, a comic that had only come out in June.

So where am I going with this you may be wondering.  Well, in previous posts, I've posited the idea that if we live somewhere for several years, and buy something only a year or so before moving, in retrospect it feels that we had that something for the entire time we lived there, not just the latter stages of our occupancy.  That's because we associate the item with the place, and as we lived in the place for years, the association feels of equal duration.  Does that make sense to you?  That's how it often seems to me anyway.

But there can be exceptions - kind of.  I was surprised to learn that a BEANO I associate with my current house in September of 1972 was bought in my previous home in February of 1971.  I was amazed to discover (upon re-acquiring the issue around three years back) that I must've owned it for at least a year and seven months, though goodness knows how long I had it beyond that.  Until I saw the date on the replacement, I assumed for years that I'd bought it only that week or the week before in September of '72.  (If you're interested in that story, see here.)

Same goes for that little deer bought in Largs in June or July of '71.  I mainly associate it with my previous home, but there it is on the card table in the top photo, taken in July of '72.  (It's to the right of the flowers in front of a little vase - see close-up above.)  I'm staggered to learn that, at that point, I'd owned it for just over a year, as I just never thought I'd had it for so long.  How long did I own it in total?  Couldn't say - could've been another week, another month, or another year, but I just don't remember.

And that's it, I'm afraid.  All I wanted to say was that I'm sometimes staggered to realise that I had something for far longer than I thought I did, just as I'm equally staggered to learn that something I feel I had for yonks, I actually had for no more than a few days. (Like the first revamped 1969 issue of SMASH!  For that story, see here.)  Don't get me wrong though; on a conscious level I know I had that Smash! for only around 3 or 4 days, but on another level it feels that I had it for far longer than that.

So readers, wanna play?  Is there anything that you once owned which, thinking back, seems like you had for longer than you actually did, or (conversely) something which feels like you had in your possession for a far shorter period than you seem to remember?  If that makes any sense to you, astound us all with your recollections in the comments section.       

REFLECTIVE REPOST - IS THE 'ART' BEING TAKEN OUT OF COMICS?

 

Front page of hand-lettered promotional leaflet, sans address &
'phone number

As regular readers of this humble blog should know by now (all four of them), your fearless host has never been one to avoid subjects of a controversial nature.  So, let's once more leap into the fray and tackle the topic of the role of computers in comics, and whether or not they've taken some of the 'art' out of the process of producing them.  With that subject in mind, I once enquired of a computer-colourist if he'd be able to colour a comic the traditional way, by hand.  "No!", was his short and honest answer.  Apparently, he didn't think he had sufficient ability and was therefore dependent on technology to enable him to make his comic contributions.

Technology has taken over in other areas too.  Lettering, for example.  Most comics nowadays are lettered by computer fonts, enabling practically anyone who can type (which is just about everyone) to overlay speech-balloons, text panels, sound effects and logos onto a comics page.  All of which most of them would be unable to create by their own hand to a satisfactory professional level.

From the reader's point of view I don't suppose it matters so long as it's done well, although I find all those perfectly elliptical balloon shapes quite tedious.  I prefer the spontaneity of hand-lettering (again, when it's done well), because it permits the letterer to accommodate the artist's layout in a far more personal and sympathetic manner than computer fonts can allow for.

When I used to earn a full-time living from lettering many years ago now, I took great delight in making speech-balloons fit in spaces that one would think had no room for them, and to do it in such a way that didn't seem forced and awkward-looking.  For the most part I succeeded, and derived immense satisfaction from making a page look as if art and lettering were an 'organic' whole.  I find that a lot of computer-lettering looks as if it isn't part of the artwork, but rather some 'disembodied' shape that floats over the surface of each panel.

Promotional leaflet's centre-page spread of hand-lettered logos

A few years back, I briefly considered returning to comics work and had a go at computer-lettering with some fonts someone lent me, just to see what the process was like.  How mind-numbingly tedious compared to the joy of handling an actual page of art and affixing the lettering directly onto the page or acetate overlay (for colour work) in such a way as to make it a 'finished' piece.  I soon abandoned the exercise as it afforded me not even an iota of creative satisfaction.  I felt like a secretary.  (Which is fine if that's what you want to be.)

I should make it absolutely clear that I have no problem with genuine hand-letterers putting their fonts onto a computer programme and going down that route.  After all, these guys have been in the trenches for years and earned their stripes, so anything that makes their job a little quicker or easier is not something I'm going to grudge them.  Legendary 2000 A.D. calligrapher TOM FRAME eventually resorted to computer-lettering (I believe his deteriorating eyesight made it increasingly difficult for him to continue in the 'old-fashioned' way), but he'd earned the right to do so, and it was his own lettering style he utilised.

It niggles me though, when I see some of the newer people called letterers when they should more properly be credited as typographers - or in some cases, just plain typists.  After all, they couldn't letter by hand if their lives depended on it.

If you can't play the game, then don't wear the name.

******

(Agree or disagree?  Feel free to let me know, but try and do it without cussing.  You know how sensitive I can be.)

   

Back page of hand-lettered promotional leaflet

RIVETING REPOST - CAN SO-CALLED COMICS 'PIRACY' EVER BE A GOOD THING?

Here's a 'Babe of the Day' at no extra cost - PENELOPE CRUZ

The subject of 'piracy' seems to get some people hot under the collar, going from a discussion on a certain comics forum a while back.  (That's the one I resigned from and was then 'banned', after the fact, "for leaving", by an over-zealous, biased moderator - even though the site owner invited me to rejoin.  Running true to form, a disingenuous detractor of mine continued for some time to maliciously misrepresent the facts of the situation over on his blog in an attempt to malign me.)

But that's by-the-by; more pertinent is how one defines 'piracy' in relation to comics.  Some people sell discs of comic collections on eBay, comics that the copyright holders (if they can actually be identified) don't seem particularly interested in exploiting for financial gain.  It seems to me that some so-called 'piracy' can have positive benefits which, in certain circumstances, mostly outweigh any negatives.

To give you an analogous example: I'm a JIM REEVES fan (don't shoot), and on occasion I've made compilation discs for my own use which I've occasionally duplicated to give to friends.  No money is involved, except for what I spend in buying the originals (not for the purpose of copying, merely for my own enjoyment) and then on the blank tapes or discs when it occurs to me that someone I know might enjoy listening to a sample.  I don't even let them cover the cost of the blank disc, should they offer.

I know from experience not to lend originals because they won't be returned in the condition lent, regardless of how well the borrower may think they've looked after them.  So in the case of my own music collection, being able to occasionally burn a disc for someone to see if they might like it is a handy thing.  As I said, I don't charge, and in some cases, the other person has become a fan and then bought other recordings by the same artist, thereby increasing sales.  So who loses in that situation?  Certainly not the record company, who lose no money by me giving a compilation copy to someone who wouldn't have bought an original disc in the first place.

With back issue comics it's a similar scenario, although collectors prefer to own the originals, and in most cases only resort to facsimiles or disc collections as a stop-gap, until such time as they manage to track down an acceptable-condition original at an affordable price.  In my case (and I'm sure it's true with most folks), if I really want a particular series and it's released in an authorised print edition, I'll buy it - even if I already have it in disc form.  If I don't buy it, it's because I'm really not that fussed about it, though I may have it in digital form merely because it was available.

In that instance, as it's something I wouldn't have bought anyway, me having acquired it in digital form from the Internet doesn't deprive the publishers of income.  I'm sure most of us own something that we don't mind having because it was free, but would never have purchased otherwise.  Obviously, I'm not talking about new material (whether it be comics, music or movies) bought by one person for the purpose of copying for friends (or selling to strangers) in order to spare them having to buy an item they'd willingly pay full price for if there was no other way of acquiring it - I only mean out-of-print comics, books or old records that aren't currently available and don't look like being at any time in the future.

In the case of facsimiles of old back issues, no surviving contributors are deprived of any royalties as they were paid for their work outright.  Nor are the publishers losing out if they don't have any intention of reprinting the stuff as it first appeared.  And, if the publishers ever do decide to reprint their back catalogue in some form or other, the vast majority of avid collectors would readily buy it, because they'd want the 'official' package with its superior printing on quality paper, along with the informative introductions, prefaces and appendices - regardless of however many digital discs or 'pirate' facsimiles they may already possess.  Those that wouldn't clearly don't want it enough to spend money on it anyway.

In short, what I'm saying is that whether or not I buy an official collected edition is determined only by how much I like the material - not by whether I already own it in digital form.  That isn't a factor.  I bet it's the same for most of you.

I note with interest that one of the more vocal opponents of so-called 'piracy' has no objections to people scanning their own collections and making digital copies available to friends - so long as no money changes hands.  What real difference does it make?  The contributors would never see a penny in royalties anyway - even if it was an authorised publication, and those chasing their nostalgia fix could well be dead before the current copyright holder (if even known) extracts the digit and decides to make the material available to an ageing and ever-diminishing audience.

What must be remembered is that the current crop of new reprint editions now on sale are aimed at a readership whose interest has been kept alive by Internet comics blogs; and digital discs and amateur facsimiles have fed the appetite for vintage material in the absence of proper print-editions - until some publishers took note and realised that there was still a market for it.  A limited one, admittedly, and ever-decreasing, but one that would probably have long since perished had it not been for a dedicated group of enthusiasts stoking the fires and keeping the spluttering flame alive.

So ignore those po-faced, self-righteous critics who are lucky enough to be able to afford those scarce back issues for themselves, but loudly decry anyone whose only option is to obtain the much-missed, long-sought reminders of their childhood by the only means open to them until something better comes along.

I don't know about you, but I've always considered the "I'm all right, Jack" attitude of the 'haves' towards the 'have nots' to be a particularly ugly one - whether it be with regard to money, security, status, or even just comics.

What say the rest of you?

******

Update: Case in point: I have a complete set of weekly '60s comic Fantastic, wherein The Missing Link/Johnny Future strip appeared.  However, when Rebellion issued a collected edition of the series in 2019, I nabbed three copies of the deluxe hardbacked volume for myself - even though I already had all the stories.

WHAT COLOUR OF CHRISTMAS WILL YOU HAVE?

JIM REEVES will be having a blue one.  As I'm a greedy buggah, I'm going to try and have every colour going - a rainbow Christmas so to speak.  What can I say?  I just can't help myself.  Does that make me a bad person?  (Yes, you're right - I've just taken a  nonsense pill.)

THE LAST SURVIVING WOOLWORTH'S...?

Images copyright relevant owners

Saw a link to this story over on MARK EVANIER's blog, about an original WOOLWORTH'S Luncheonette still in operation to this very day.  There's dispute as to whether this is the only survivor, with some people claiming that others are still around elsewhere.  However, this one is an original, and not a replica or re-creation, as some (if not all) of the others might be.  It's in the FARLEY BUILDING, which is a 'Five And Dime Antique Mall', in Bakersfield, and seeing these photos makes me want to jump on a plane (or into a telephone box, but my costume's at the cleaners) and fly right over to experience this delightful-looking place for myself.  It's a slice right out of history.

What do you think, readers?

BABE Of The DAY - SOPHIA LOREN...

Here's sensational SOPHIA LOREN

to warm the cockles of every red-blooded

male Crivvie's heart on the planet.  And also

to remind me I need to buy a couple of new

 coat-pegs.  Ta, Sophia, you're a gem.

DO YOUR BELLS JINGLE?

Okay, in response to thousands of requests (which I've decided to ignore by playing JIM REEVES songs regardless), here's JINGLE BELLS to start us on our way.  As our American readers will be aware, this was originally a Thanksgiving song, but Christmas decided to adopt it because it was such a good fit.  Everyone got their seatbelts on?  Great, then let's go!

RELEVANT REPOST: POLITICIANS? DON'T GET ME STARTED...

Politicians, eh?  While they feather their nests with cosy pensions, travel expenses, food and second home allowances, and all sorts of other top perks that no one in an 'ordinary' job ever gets to see, they're currently targeting the most vulnerable people in society, the sick and the elderly. The ones who don't enjoy the 'benefits system' that the politicians get to exploit.

Old people now have to work longer before they can retire (thereby exposing the nonsense of Tomorrow's World, which once assured us that, in 'the future', we'd all have much more leisure time), and people in wheelchairs and with cancer (I kid you not) are now having pressure put on them (under the false description of 'assisting' them) to return to the 'jobs market'.  (At a time when there are far fewer employment opportunities around than ever.)

Not only do some politicians pick up 'attendance fees' (actually paid for turning up for work on top of their wages - strewth), all of them have access to 25 subsidised bars in the House of Commons and goodness knows exactly how many canteens or restaurants.  Just think - those who already have far too much handed to them on a plate (literally), can partake of the finest wines, ales and spirits in the world - for a nominal fee - while you have to pay full price for your pint of Stella in a dirty glass down your local pub on a Friday night.  (A little hyperbole in that last part, but don't worry, it's free.)

And as you wonder if you have enough money to afford that microwave meal for one and a can of Coke, they tuck into a king's banquet of the most tantalisingly-delicious meals available - all laid on at our expense.  Aren't they supposed to work for us?  Do tell, pray, why they get to dictate to their collective employer (that's you and me, buster), the terms, conditions and remunerative fee for sitting about on their fat @rses all day, stuffing their faces with the best bevvy and grub that our taxed-to-the-hilt dosh can buy for them.

Remember when Norman Tebbitt told us to "get on our bikes" and look for work?  That's rich coming from some titled tit who has at least two homes, one of which the taxpayer pays for, so that him and his ilk don't have to get on their own bikes; or rather in one of their several luxury cars which adorn the mono-blocked driveways of their country estates (or London apartments). No sirree.  We pay their first-class transport costs to and from the plush offices in which they're supposed to toil on our behalf.  Make you sick or what?

The so-called benefit reforms currently under way, spring from nothing more than a resentment by the 'haves' of society, who begrudge having to part with even the most minimal portion of their over-abundance in order to assist the poorest and most unfortunate amongst us, the 'have nots'.

Of course, there are those who abuse the system, and no decent person is happy with the situation, but the amount of unclaimed benefit which never finds its way to those entitled to it probably far outweighs the sum collected by the spongers and malingerers in our midst.  It is certainly significant, but you don't see the government putting as much effort into ensuring that it finds its way to those who need and deserve it.

Don't be fooled: this is Robin Hood in reverse.  (More like Robbin' B@st@rds in fact.)  The rich are stealing from the poor, the better to weather the continuing downturn in the economic climate.

Politicians?  Nothing but money-grubbing, self-serving, cheating, lying b@st@rds!

Or do you think I'm over-reacting?

EVEN MORE TRUE BELIEVERS...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Ever wanted to own FANTASTIC FOUR #s 14, 18, & 35?  Well now you can with the latest great TRUE BELIEVERS currently on sale.  I've got these stories several times over, but nothing compares to having them in individual issues.  Run round to your favourite comics shop as soon as you can, or order them on eBay.  The MARVEL AGE of comics is here again!

KLASSIC KIRBY KOMIC KOVERS: TALES Of SUSPENSE #43...

Image copyright MARVEL COMICS

I've always loved this cover, ever since I first saw it on UK weekly FANTASTIC #7 back in 1967.  Comparing the two, it looks like the version on Fantastic has been re-lettered and perhaps even been redrawn (or at least retouched a tad), because there are a few subtle differences between them.  You'll have to take my word for it though, as you're only getting the original this time round, seeing as I'm too lazy to search for the other image.  JACK KIRBY, brilliant artist though he was, often forgot certain details, and on this occasion he's left out IRON MAN's belt.  Just as well the joins in his armour are magnetised, otherwise his 'trousers' would collapse, being so heavy as they are.  Or is that just me being daft again?

A TRIBUTE TO TERRY BAVE - "GHOSTING ALONG WITH SAM'S SPOOK..."

B&W copy of colour cover (sans logo) of the ICJ, in which
the Baves' article was originally intended to appear

In tribute to the late, great TERRY BAVE, I thought I'd repost this 2004 article he kindly wrote at my request, wherein he describes his career in comics, in particular 'ghosting' for other cartoonists.  It was originally intended for The ILLUSTRATED COMIC JOURNAL, which, alas, languished in limbo, so I passed it on to CRIKEY!, who were going to publish it, but ceased to exist before it saw print.  Never mind, at least it appeared somewhere, even if it was only on this humble blog.  Incidentally, all comic strip images below were supplied by Terry himself.

******

SHIELA and I have been creating, writing and drawing many, many children's comic strips since way back in 1967.

Our break came via ALBERT 'COS' COSSER, the editor of WHAM!.  He bravely handed me SAMMY SHRINK, "The Smallest boy in the World" - my 'first' of many 'ghosted' features, and one we were able to make our own.  In fact, over the following years, we supplied many of the weekly scripts and drew the strip for over 20 years. SAMMY SHRINK appeared in WHAM!, SMASH!, POW!, KNOCKOUT and WHIZZER & CHIPS.
  

Terry's version of Danny Dare, from Wham! Annual 1971

Now and again a comic artist would be called upon to 'ghost' (copy) another artist's strip on a weekly basis for a while when, for example, the regular artist was either sick or perhaps found himself in the rather enviable position of having far too heavy a workload.

As each artist has his own individual style of drawing, it was important to 'ghost' that particular style as closely as possible.  With luck, and if the Editor showed willing, over a period of time it would be possible to 'make the strip your very own' by gradually introducing your own distinctive style of drawing.  This didn't happen too often, and certainly not in the short term.

I was very lucky - I found it a reasonably easy task to copy LEO BAXENDALE's basic drawing style, which appeared in WHAM!, SMASH!, and POW! at that time.

Shiela & Terry Bave

Being particularly keen to make my way in this FUN business, I jumped at the chance when 'COS' offered me the chance to create a brand-new comic character of my own.

He wanted a wicked 'baby' fun character as a mascot for WHAM!, so Shiela and I came up with BABY WHAMSTER, who was quickly followed up by BABY SMASHER, the new mascot for SMASH!.  We supplied scripts and artwork for both babies, who were very successful in their respective comics, and later appeared in both WHAM! and SMASH!.  Each baby made a perfect foil for one another.

Sam's Spook, from Smash! Fun Book 1971

To date, Shiela and I have created, written and drawn many original comic strips.  At the same time, we have been called upon to write and 'ghost' many others.  In 1968, we scripted and drew GRIMLY FEENDISH and PERCY'S PETS for SMASH!.  At the time, these strips were being drawn (also 'ghosted') weekly by STAN McMURTY, one of our favourite and most respected cartoonists.

In November of 1969, we got another wonderful break.  GIL PAGE, then Editor of the 'new' SMASH!, invited us to contribute to the 1971 SMASH! FUN BOOK, a 96 pager full of favourite fun characters.

We scripted and drew a SAMMY SHRINK 2-pager, scripted and 'ghosted' two 4-page strips of The SWOTS & The BLOTS, and again for a 2-pager of SAM'S SPOOK.  The scripts were supplied by editorial staff for a further 3-pager and 2-pager of BIG 'EAD, plus a 2-pager of BAD PENNY.  A big challenge, but great fun to tackle different styles.  I never looked back after that - I was happy to have a go at 'ghosting' many more styles.



The Baves supplied the script and art for The Swots & The Blots for the Smash! Fun Book 1971

WHAM!, SMASH!, and POW! were owned by ODHAMS PRESS, then IPC/FLEETWAY took over, continuing to run SMASH! in a 'revamped' form for a little while longer.  But not before I had added EAGLE EYE, DANNY DARE, The DOLLS Of St. DOMINICS and WEE WILLIE HAGGIS to my 'ghosted' list.

Big 'Ed, from Smash! Fun Book 1971

Over the following years, I 'ghosted', amongst others, SWEET TOOTH in WHIZZER & CHIPS, HIRE-A-HORROR and VAL'S VANISHING CREAM in COR!!, The KATTS, JELLY BABY and TOFFEE NOSE in KNOCKOUT, and SHIVER, SHAKE, SOGGY The SEA MONSTER and DAMSEL In DISTRESS in SHIVER & SHAKE.

Bad Penny, from - go on, take a guess

Also SNAP HAPPY and FUN FEAR in WHOOPEE!, X-RAY SPECS, MUMMY'S BOY, GUMS, and ART'S GALLERY in MONSTER FUN, RITCHIE RAGS in JACKPOT, NUMBER 13, BASH STREET KIDS, BILLY WHIZZ, The GERMS and IVY The TERRIBLE in The BEANO and KORKY The CAT in The DANDY. I've even had a go at DESPERATE DAN in the Fun-Size DANDY books.

A lot of challenging drawing, but what a lot of fun 'ghosting' the work of so many favourite comic artists.

******

Terry & Shiela Bave (October 2004).

******

And thanks to Terry and Shiela for all the years of hard work they put into making a lot of happy childhood memories for millions of readers.

TERRY BAVE PASSES AWAY...

I've just received a letter from the Bave family, letting me know that TERRY BAVE, one of the UK comics industry's stalwarts (when we had an actual industry), passed away peacefully on December 6th after a short illness.  Terry and his wife Shiela had moved into a residential care home back in May.  The letter says: "Virtually the last thing they said to each other was 'I love you', which after 66 years of marriage is quite an achievement."  Indeed, and it's great that they enjoyed such a happy life together for so long.  

I'm sure that everyone who grew up reading Terry and Shiela's comic strips will be saddened by the news of Terry's passing.  He was a true legend in British comics, and I'm glad to have played a small part (via Crivens) in reuniting him and BOB PAYNTER (IPC group editor of the humour dept.) a year or so ago, after many years of them having lost touch.

Terry's funeral will be on January the 4th.  Raise a glass on the day to his memory, and give thanks for the long line in chuckles that he (and Shiela) provided.

******

The letter was included with a Christmas card from Shiela, and it was sad to see Terry's name missing for the first time since we started exchanging cards a number of years ago.  Terry used to draw his own cards (and have them printed), and he very kindly sent me the original art to one of them a few years back, which I still have (below).  I sent my own Christmas card to Terry and Shiela around a week ago, either on the day of his passing or the day after, so it's sad that he never saw it.  In fact, I was unaware that they'd moved and sent it to their old address.  I don't know if it would've been forwarded or not, though I hope so, but I'll send another card to Shiela at her new address anyway, just so that she knows that she's being thought of at this sad time.

MORE TRUE BELIEVERS...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Here are some earlier-released TRUE BELIEVERS FANTASTIC FOUR mags to the ones in the previous post, for all those who are interested in acquiring inexpensive reprints of some classic FF tales.  There are some more KIRBY drawn issues on the way, which I'm expecting to receive pretty soon.  I'll post them on the blog the minute I've got my grubby hands on them.  If your local comics shop doesn't have the ones shown here, they should be available on eBay. 

ARE YOU A TRUE BELIEVER?

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

If you're not buying the TRUE BELIEVERS FANTASTIC FOUR series of comics then you're missing out on some great classics.  Sure, like me, you may already have the stories in various reprint collections, but there's just something about having them in their own individual issues which is hard to beat.  Take the ish above, for example.  I first read this tale in MARVEL COLLECTORS' ITEM CLASSICS #1 back around 1967 or thereabouts (and again in The MIGHTY WORLD Of MARVEL #s 3 & 4 in 1972), but having the latest TB reprint is almost like having the original FF #2.  You're not going to come any closer than this to it - unless you already own it or win the Lottery.

Next up is FF #8, which I first read when it was spread across a couple of issues of WHAM! back in the '60s.  Like the SKRULLS tale, I read it again in an issue of MCIC and MWOM, and I still recall reading its ODHAMS PRESS presentation in my grandparents' ground floor flat one Sunday afternoon on one of my family's weekly visits.  To have it again in its very own individual comic is brilliant.  No more sitting with a heavy Omnibus volume on my thighs when I'm in the smallest room in the house, perched on the porcelain.  (Well, you gotta have something to read while you're in there, haven't you?)

And then comes FF #15, which I again remember reading in Wham!, this time during some 'free time' in my primary school classroom.  (Or it may have been during an interval when it was pouring down with rain outside and too wet to let us out into the playground.)  Seeing the story again in this superb re-presentation is almost like being a kid again in the '60s.  There are more STAN LEE and JACK KIRBY Fantastic Four classics coming soon, so keep an eye out for them to add to your collection.  I hope they reprint #7 ("PRISONERS Of KURRGO, MASTER Of PLANET X!") before too long, as it's one of my favourites.

So what are you waiting for?  Rush straight round to your local comicbook store today.  Each issue is only around a pound, though it'll cost you more if you order them through eBay.  Either way, they're worth it!  

KLASSIC KIRBY KOMIC KOVERS: JOURNEY Into MYSTERY #84...

Image copyright MARVEL COMICS

Quick - who's the nurse in the left of the picture?  JANE FOSTER you say?  No, JANE NELSON, which is what Nurse Jane was called in her first appearance, in JOURNEY Into MYSTERY #84. (It was amended to Foster in early reprints, but was restored to Nelson in more up-to-date re-presentations.)  The EXECUTIONER wasn't THOR's ASGARDIAN adversary of the same name, but rather only the lowly dictator of SAN DIABLO, a rather second-rate villain for the mighty thunder god it has to be said.  JACK KIRBY has made 'Goldilocks' a little bulkier on this cover than the previous one, but inside he's slightly more slender in form.

BABE Of The DAY - SYBIL DANNING...

Today's babe is requested by someone

named BASIL, who wanted to see a sultry

photo of SYBIL.  We aim to please, Basil, so

here she is.  The telephone line was a little bit

FAWLTY, but it sounded like he said he's

 married to her.  A very lucky man, eh?

GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN...

It's funny the things we remember long after the fact.  The Christmas tree I put up in my living room on the 1st of this month is probably older than I am.  In every house I've ever lived in, it's served its festive purpose faithfully.  It's around 4ft high, and its branches are supposed to bend up against its 'trunk' to facilitate fitting back into its box.  However, it's been many years since that's happened, for two very good reasons.  Namely, the wire branches have long been too fragile to withstand bending without breaking, and the box was discarded sometime in the early '80s because it was redundant.  After all, what's the use of a box if you can no longer fit what came out of it back into it?

It wasn't my decision.  One year the box was still there in the loft, the next year it wasn't.  I suspect it may have been thrown out when we moved house in '83, but it could've happened up to a year or three before this.  It had been a familiar object whenever I was in the loft, all through my childhood and right up into my 20s, and it's difficult to believe that it's now been gone for longer than we had it.  In fact, whenever I go into the loft, I'm still sort of half-expecting to see it, as it's so embedded in my consciousness as one of the loft's inhabitants.  Daft as it may sound, I miss it when its absence once again registers with me.

The box was approximately this size and shape, and opened at the ends.  It also had
printing on it, but I forget what.  And I seem to recall an order or address label on it

So, dear Criv-ites, is there something that your family once owned which, in the back of your mind, you feel is still around - until you look over to its once-accustomed place and are suddenly reminded that it isn't?  Some fondly-recalled item from your childhood and/or teenage years whose presence yet remains long after its physical departure?  If you're even half as bonkers as I am, there's bound to be, so share your memories of it in our comments section.

(And, in case you were worrying or wondering, my Christmas tree now has its own black bin-bag in which it resides [unfolded] between yuletide gigs, to protect it from the loft's less-than-tropical conditions.)  

OVER 200 QUID? YOU'RE 'AVIN' A LARF!

Images copyright relevant owner

Take a look at the above cover of the TV COMIC Annual for 1977.  There's one on sale on eBay at the moment for a 'buy it now' price of a fiver, and another one for £4.99.  Unless they're in absolute pristine condition, those prices are pretty fair for a book that pops up on a regular basis.  Hold on though.  There's another couple also available which are ludicrously expensive - one for - wait for it - £201.08 from julies.bookshop, the other for £202.47 from worldofbooks.  The former is described as being "in very good overall condition, with some signs of previous ownership", which means it may well have an inscription or some scribbles, and have puzzle pages filled in.

The latter is described as "...a Reading Copy.  You can call it "well loved" if you want, but the reality is this book is likely to be heavily worn, possibly with external damage.  If you are after the text of the book then this will be absolutely fine, but it's unlikely to meet your needs for a present or as part of a collection."  Basically, what you're buying is potentially as far away from pristine as it's possible to get.

I have two theories here.  The first is that one seller has seen what the other seller is asking for and merely followed their example.  Y'know - "Wow!  If theirs' is worth that, then mine must be worth that too!"  Trouble is, the book is worth nowhere near that amount, and it'll be another couple of centuries before it even might be.  The second theory is that both sellers are merely chancers who hope that there's someone stupid enough to pay over £200 for a book that's only worth a mere fraction of that.  And harking back to an earlier post, it's ridiculously obscene amounts like this that clueless charity shop staff are basing their prices on.

All I can say is it's just as well I still have the copy I bought back in the '70s (that's it at the top of this post) - not that there'd be much chance of me ever paying £200 for a fairly easy-to-come-by Annual that can be bought for a fiver.  What's your take on this situation, readers?  Ever been flabbergasted by the asking price for something on eBay?  Tell your fellow Criv-ites about it in the comments section.