MARVEL TREASURY EDITIONS SELECTED COVER GALLERY... (Updated)

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

I bought at least the first dozen of these titles as they came out, but I didn't always keep the previous one(s) until the next one, so I have only three actual issues of my original MARVEL TREASURY EDITIONs from the time of purchase back in the '70s.  However, I replaced some of them around 30-35 years ago, and others maybe around ten years after that, so not only have I had the replacements longer than I had their originals, but also longer than I didn't have them (if you catch my drift).

One of them I obtained only recently (2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY), and I'm currently waiting for #4, CONAN The BARBARIAN, arriving anytime soon.  (Update: Now received and added.)  Then I'll get #5 (HULK), #6 (Dr. STRANGE), #7 (The AVENGERS), #9 (GIANT SUPERHERO TEAM-UP), and #10 (THOR), which will restore to me the first 12 numbered issues again.  (Incidentally, the friend to whom I gave my original copy of #9 (many, many years ago), says that he should still have it somewhere and that I can have it back if I want should he ever find it.)  (Update: #s 5, 6, 7, 9 & 10 now added.)  

There were also one-shots, like the first GIANT SUPERHERO HOLIDAY GRAB-BAG (1974), which was labelled as a Marvel Treasury SPECIAL rather than an 'Edition', as was the Space Odyssey and CAPTAIN AMERICA BICENTENNIAL BATTLES issues.  I probably also bought an occasional later TE if the contents appealed to me, but the first 12 will suffice to complete my collection.  Truth to tell, I don't even need them as I already have the stories in other reprint collections, but I get a feeling of immense satisfaction from plugging gaps in a series.

One thing about the Treasury Editions that irked me was that the pages were routinely resized and, sometimes, even abridged by having pages edited out.  (FF #4 in TE #2 is one such example).  Although larger than a standard comicbook, the TEs weren't of the same proportions, so in order to fit the different dimensions, tiers of panels were cropped in places so that there wasn't too large a margin around the top, bottom, or sides.  This sometimes resulted in uneven-sized gutters between tiers, and cropped panels occasionally had no bottom borders.  (Exactly like what was done in early issues of The MIGHTY WORLD Of MARVEL and SPIDER-MAN COMICS WEEKLY UK periodicals.)

I'll update this post as I re-acquire the missing editions (now done), but in the meantime, feel free to share your memories (if any) of these over-sized publications with your fellow Crivvies.  Did you like them, or did you prefer the regular monthly issues?  'Fess up now, while I start scanning my DC COMICS equivalents - coming soon in an upcoming post.    

Although not numbered on the front cover, the interior indicia reveals it to be #8

The soldiers with the flag on Cap's right were drawn by JOHN ROMITA

Although the mag below is also included in our DC post, I've added it here as it's actually a Marvel Treasury Edition (#28).

And although the following 'Book' isn't quite a Treasury Edition, I thought you'd all like to see it anyway, so here it is.

The MTEs were revived a couple of years back, so here are the front and back covers from a couple of them just in case you missed them at the time.

DETECTIVE COMICS #1000...

Copyright DC COMICS

As everyone and their granny will know, DETECTIVE COMICS reached its 1000th issue recently, celebrating 80 years of The BATMAN.  I ordered the BERNIE WRIGHTSON variant cover, but I was unaware until now that ALEX ROSS had also illustrated one, a homage to BOB KANE's cover to the mag's 27th issue in which Batman first appeared.  It's currently demanding huge prices on eBay, the highest I've seen so far being £381.98, but I don't think I'll bother.  I'll wait until the hardcover deluxe version which will include all the variant covers (33 I think) comes out and buy that instead.  I haven't yet read there'll be such a release, but they did it with the 1000th issue of ACTION COMICS so there's bound to be one (I hope).

Did you buy this ish, Criv-ites?  If so, what cover did you plump for - and why?

  

And below is my Wrightson issue, which arrived this morning.  Great, innit?

THE CHANGING 'FACE' OF THE TV21 DALEKS...

DALEKS copyright BBC TV and the Estate of TERRY NATION

When The DALEKS appeared on the back page of TV CENTURY 21 #1, cover-dated 23rd January 2065 (no, that's not a misprint), their appearance wasn't quite the same as it was on television's DOCTOR WHO.  They were thinner, with a rounder base and, if anything, they were perhaps even more sinister looking than their TV counterparts.  (The Dalek ROLYKINS seem to have been based on the comic's visual representation.)  RICHARD JENNINGS had established this look in The DALEK BOOK (on sale in 1964), and as he was also the artist (at least to begin with) on the comic's back page, it was only natural that he continued in the same vein.

The top picture introduced the strip for the first six issues of its 104 episode run, changing to the one below with #7 (though it changed again before the series ran its course).  As you can see, the same layout was kept, but the Daleks now better resembled their television incarnations.  Had readers commented on the disparity, or had the BBC (or TERRY NATION) requested a more accurate rendition?  Honest answer - don't have a scooby.  To be fair, though, despite the intro pic, their shape in the actual strip had started to 'fill out' in issue #5, so #7's updated pic was just playing 'catch up'.  Their appearance changed again when RON TURNER took over, and though he was reasonably faithful to RAY CUSICK's design to begin with, he eventually developed a more personal, stylised interpretation based on the movie Daleks (but not exactly the same).     

I loved the strip, and tended to think of The Daleks as the good guys, often cheering them on in their diverse adventures with a variety of foes.  TV21 never seemed quite the same to me after the metal-cased mutants departed the comic, and I sometimes wonder if the title could have better resisted its slow slide into decline had the little rascals hung around for longer.  Nobody can say for sure of course, but The Daleks had a huge fan base, and it's entirely possible that when the scions of SKARO left, a lot of readers left with them.

Were you a fan of the strip back in the day, and if so, what are your views on the matter?  Did you lament their departure, or were the GERRY ANDERSON strips the main draw for you?  If you can remember (and if you can be bothered), let loose in the comments section.  It's there to give you a voice, so speak up at the back there.

And below is a 'side-by-side' picture to enable you to make a better comparison.

LOOKING GOOD FOR AN 80 YEAR OLD - THE DELUXE EDITION OF ACTION COMICS #1000...

Copyright DC COMICS

I have to be honest and say I don't consider the drawing of SUPERMAN on the above cover to be particularly flattering.  His face is too fat, his legs are too thick, and he looks a bit on the short side.  That said, however, if you're a Supes fan, this is a book you'll want.  It's a hardcover, deluxe edition of ACTION COMICS #1000, with loads of extras, including all the variant covers, a bonus story by PAUL LEVITZ and NEAL ADAMS, scripts, cover sketches and the very first Superman story from Action Comics #1 (along with its cover).  Not that I needed to type any of that, as you can read it on the back of the dustjacket at the foot of this post.  (Gotta fill space some way though, eh?)  If you missed the 1000th ish when it came out last year, console yourself with this volume.  Dithering?  Then check out the illustrations below and see what you're missing.

(Pssst!  I got my copy for £14.99 from WATERSTONES.  Considering the actual comic cost me £7, the book is well worth it!)

ALL TOGETHER NOW - 'WE ARE SAILING...'

Take a look at the above red yacht - a SY1 yacht, made by STAR YACHTS of Birkenhead, who produced them (and other things) for nearly 70 years until they ceased trading around 1990.  I guess I got the yacht while holidaying in Rothesay in 1965 because I associate it with the house in which we were then living that year.  And I associate it with that house because, along with a water pistol, I swapped the yacht for a BUDGIE SUPERCAR with a boy who lived just around the corner.  However, I insisted on swapping back again about half-an-hour later when the bottom half of the Supercar separated from the top half, thus revealing itself as being not quite so 'super'.  (And no, I hadn't mishandled it - the bottom half just fell away.)

I got another yacht (same model) in 1968 or '69 while on holiday in Largs, and, back home, I remember keeping it in a red plastic pail in a cupboard under the stairs (access to which was in the kitchen) of our next house, and I think I may still have had my first one as well, as I have a vague hint of a memory of seeing them together.  Not exactly 100% sure though.  I don't know (or don't remember) what happened to them, perhaps they were dispensed with during a parental clear-out when I was at school one day, because there came a time when they just weren't there.  I think there should be a law against parents throwing out or giving away their kids' toys without their consent, don't you agree?

Anyway, I've recently managed to obtain three replacements for my two yachts of yesteryear, the first being for the Rothesay one, the second being for the Largs one, and the third being just for the hell of it.  (Never hurts to have a spare, does it?)  I remember being disappointed to see that the shallow boating ponds next to a swingpark in Largs, where I'd sailed my second yacht on the day I bought it back in the '60s, were no longer there when I revisited the place in 2014.  They'd either been turned into sand pits or grassed over, can't quite recall.  Anyway, did any of you Criv-ites ever have a Star yacht as a child, and do you have any specific memories of it that you'd care to share with the rest of us?  Go on now, don't be shy.  Incidentally, I've used the photos of one of the sellers because I'm too lazy to take my own, but I may well replace them at a later date when I have more energy.

One more thing; to someone my age, 1990 (when the factory ceased production) doesn't seem that long ago, even though it's nearly 30 years.  To think that a childhood toy was still being produced when I was an adult is something I find amazing, because the last time I saw either of my own two yachts would've been in the late '60s or very early '70s.  I don't even recall seeing the item on sale in any shops during my teens, but maybe that's only because I just wasn't looking for it.  I did see a second-hand one in an Edinburgh shop called 'Now and then Antiques' in 1991 when I was purchasing my CORGI BATMOBILE, but for some reason I didn't buy it, though I regretted not doing so very shortly after.  (It was only a tenner.)

Anyway, that's enough reminiscing from me - over to you!

'PRODDING A TROLL' - The FOLLOW-UP...

Well, it's only taken me four years to keep my word and address this issue, so I must be getting quicker.  Back in 2015, I wrote a post called 'Prodding A Troll', wherein I took to task someone who had accused me of being a, er... 'troll'.  This was from a total @rsehole whom I'd never met or interacted with, on behalf of one of his friends who seemingly wasn't interested in doing it himself.  The accuser said I'd made his pal's life a misery with my constant snarking.  Said 'constant snarking' consisted of me objecting to his pal spreading lies about me on his blog and Twitter site (and those of others) and addressing, on my own blog, his misrepresentations and outright distortions about me.  Why anyone would object to me merely defending myself against misinformation puzzles me, but there are some strange people out there.

Anyway, this post isn't about either of the two characters in the above paragraph, but rather about someone who took the opportunity to jump on the bandwagon of attacking me and thereby settling 'old scores'.  I merely refer to them in order to set the context of the following comment which was left in response to the first person's diatribe.  Here it is:

"This is typical behaviour from him.  He really does have form going back to 1995.  He drew a strip cartoon called Kevin and his Talking Socks in The Illustrated Comic Journal.  In an accompanying article the editor, Bryon Whitworth added this: Gordon would be interested in receiving your opinions of his strip - either favourable or otherwise.  When someone offered some truly constructive criticism in the next issue, Robson wrote a long howl of insulting protest in the issue after that.  His behaviour does not seem to have changed in the slightest."

I suspect that this was written by someone with the initials DM, or possibly by the author of the 'truly constructive criticism' referred to in the comment.  This was my response:

"Well, there's no polite way of saying this, but this guy's a total plonker.  His highly inaccurate account is a complete and utter pile of sh*te.  When I find my ICJs, I'll publish the actual comments and prove it.  First of all, I was the assistant editor on the mag, so it can hardly be implied that I'm a troll on the basis of my reply in a publication I was assistant editor on.  Secondly, I did not receive "truly constructive criticism" - what I received was a pompous lecture from an amateur cartoonist on how he would've done things, someone whose style was a poor imitation of strips from the'40s & '50s.  I politely thanked him for his 'advice' and explained why I'd written it the way I did.

This brought a 'howl of protest' from him, clearly miffed that I hadn't declared him a creative genius, deserving of my undying thanks for having set my dainty foot upon the  path of artistic enlightenment.  It was only then that I responded (in a humorous vein), explaining why I thought his huffy and less-than-gracious reaction was unnecessary."

Well, the good news is that I just recently rediscovered my ICJ issues and can now back up what I say.  First of all, though, read and examine the comic strip which heads this post.  Certainly not in LEO BAXENDALE's or KEN REID's class, and a bit '60s in appearance, it's nevertheless a competently drawn little strip.  (Though I would think that, wouldn't I?)  What mainly lets it down is the colouring, and that's made even worse by this example being scanned from the back page of the published issue, which reproduces the colours more poorly than my original efforts.  (I anticipated this would be the case, which is why I added the footnote at the bottom of the strip.)

Okay, so we're all agreed that Kevin isn't (and never was) going to earn me the 'Cartoonist of the Year' award (if there is such a thing), but I'd hazard a guess that it's far from the worst job any of us have ever seen in a published periodical (or am I being too presumptuous?).  Is it funny though?  It's about as funny (or not) as the standard fare appearing in any IPC or DCT title at the time, so I'd say it has to be judged in that context.  I wrote an accompanying cover piece about the strip, the pertinent part of which I have reproduced below.  (Click to enlarge.  In some instances, you'll need to click again for optimum size.)

Anyway, let's see what the response to it was in the following issue of the ICJ.  Incidentally, any spelling mistakes or missing punctuation in any of these scans are not mine, but those of the editor, who retyped the material for publication.

I decided to explain the reasons why I had taken the approach I did, and thought that we might get an interesting discussion going among the readers.  I really don't think it fits the description of a 'howl of insulting protest', but you can make up your own minds.

I thought that I was addressing the specific points of his letter - playing the ball, in effect, not the man - but the writer was of a different opinion.  Here is his reply in the following issue and my response to it.

And what editor BRYON WHITWORTH says at the end there is entirely true - it was entirely good-humoured on my part and I hadn't taken offense at anything the writer had said - I merely didn't agree with it in relation to My Kevin strip.  Obviously he objected to me having my own view on the matter.  Anyway, as I said, I think the description of my explanation as a 'howl of insulting protest' is far from accurate, I merely hoped to kick-start a discussion that would involve the readers and give the ICJ some much-needed content in the form of contributions from subscribers.

How very dare I, eh?

RUMINATING REPOST: PEBBLE MILL AT ONE...

BBC Pebble Mill studios, Birmingham

Just watched a programme on YouTube called GOODBYE PEBBLE MILL, and it reminded me of my own one-time lightning-quick visit to the iconic studios, which I wrote about in the following post.  Yes, it's a repeat, but considering it's a post about a BBC show, that's really quite apt, don't you think?

****** 

Several years ago, I accompanied a friend on a short business trip to Birmingham and, whilst there, took the opportunity to visit the famous BBC PEBBLE MILL studios.  PEBBLE MILL AT ONE was a daily lunchtime show that originally ran from towards the end of 1972 until 1986.  (It was revived in 1991 to 1996 - simply titled "Pebble Mill" - with a new cast of presenters.)

I remember watching the original incarnation back in the '70s, either on my dinner-break during school or work, and there was usually at least one feature which was interesting enough to delay me from stirring from my chair when I should have.  The four original presenters (I think - no research spared) were MARION FOSTER, BOB LANGLEY, DAVID SEYMOUR and DONNY MacLEOD.  In fact, big Donny once presented a programme about the MOD (a huge festival about Scottish and Gaelic music) from my hometown, and - if memory serves - I think I actually saw him wandering about my local shopping centre at the time.

Donny Macleod

Anyway, there I was, sitting in my friend's car, outside the now nearly deserted studios.  (Though there still seemed to be a trickle of traffic in and out the main gates, suggesting that it was not yet completely abandoned.)  Parked in the very street that I (and a significant portion of the population) had hitherto only ever seen through the studio windows as Marion, Bob, Dave or Donny interviewed some second-rate celebrity eager to plug his or her latest book or record.

I couldn't miss the opportunity.  Leaving my friend in the car (he was too scared to accompany me), I got out and wandered over to the unmanned security booth outside the main gates of the entrance to the car park.  I smiled into the camera, gave a thumbs-up, and - open sesame - the gates swung inward to allow me access.  I was in.  I spent the next 20 minutes wandering around the back of the studio, exploring the famous gardens from which PETER SEABROOK had presented his segment of the show.  (I now wish I'd lifted that abandoned plastic watering jug as a memento.)

Pebble Mill logo

Emboldened by my easy invasion of the Mill, I made my way around to the front of the building, just in time to see a security guard returning with his lunch from a nearby cafe or snack van.  "Any chance of seeing inside, mate?" I ventured.  "Sure, c'mon in", he replied.  (Friendly lot, those Brummie natives.)  And so it was that I found myself in the actual reception area of those iconic studios - the same reception area that absolutely every major star (and quite a few minor ones) who had ever appeared on the show would have had to pass through on entering the building.  I spent the next 10 minutes chatting with the guard and his colleague, and then - remembering that my timid friend would probably be wondering what had happened to me - prepared to take my leave.  However, not for nothing am I known as "Gordie the Bold" amongst my compatriots - I wasn't finished pushing my luck yet.  "Any chance of a souvenir?" I asked.

And that, dear readers, is how a magnificent, two-foot-long BBC RESOURCES magnetic-strip sign came to adorn the door of my fridge.  I came, I saw, I conquered - and I left with a trophy.  A trophy, I might add, which now resides in the very house in which I originally viewed the show back in the '70s.  Anyone who regularly watched the programme was as familiar with that Birmingham street (a cul-de-sac) as the one outside their own window - unlike most viewers, however, I was actually there.  Sadly, the building was demolished in 2006 - and thus vanished yet another iconic landmark from the '70s.

Excuse the reflection of the camera flash

The Pebble Mill site after demolition (2010)

'REPRO' RIP-OFF? SEND For STINGRAY... (Updated)

Take a look at the above box.  It's a 'repro' box, and my LONE STAR STINGRAY looks right at home in it.  It's a handsome looking box, but a closer inspection reveals that it's not printed from the best scan in the world.  Also, it wasn't assembled with 100% accuracy, resulting in a one-and-a half-millimetre protrusion on the right-hand side of the bottom of the box where the connecting lip is glued in place.  This meant (quite apart from its aesthetic appearance being compromised) that one side of the end flap, when inserted, didn't stay in place (though the other side of the same flap was okay).  I relieved the tension on the unobliging flap by gently bending it in further, but it made no difference.  As the area on one side of the box wasn't a close fit, that side of the flap's lip (steady) had nothing to hold it in position.

What was I to do?  I could return the box for a replacement, but that would've cost me £6.50 (going by what the seller charged me), and as I would've expected him to refund me (after all, it wasn't my fault that the box had a slight fault), then that's what it would've cost him.  However, that would mean inconvenience and expense for both of us, which I wanted to avoid.  I therefore contacted him and explained the problem, suggesting a partial refund of a fiver (which was less expensive than the return postal costs he'd incur having to reimburse me) to compensate me for the box's imperfection, for which I said I could provide photos.  He wasn't having it, and here I'm going to let you read his own words so that I can't be accused of misrepresenting him.

"hi oh thats odd it was closed up fine when I made it.

Mind you these things can happen though if they are posted immediately after being finished + its hand made which isn't as exact a science as factory made and sometimes they settle a bit.

This fix should work: stand it on end on the flap. 99% guarantee it will then stay in place. I do it all the time. You might have to leave it for a couple of days but it will work. Or you can gently massage the crease of the flap but you'd have to be very careful.

I probably didn't crease the flap fold quite hard enough as you can crack it if you do it too hard.

Hope thats ok."

Not an exact science he says.  Note that we're talking only about gluing two ends of a piece of card together, so no real science involved at all in the process.  Note also his claim that he resorts to his suggested fix 'all the time', which indicates a recurring problem.  Now, I'm quite prepared to accept that what he says is true - when the problem is caused only by the flap-fold not being creased 'quite hard enough', as he says.  However, when the problem is exacerbated by a larger than normal gap in the space where the flap folds into (resulting in the lip of the flap not being gripped properly), then his suggested fix just isn't applicable.  And mind, I'd tried that even before he suggested it, so I knew it didn't work.  Same goes with his direction to stand the box on its end for a couple of days - wouldn't have made any difference as there was no grip around the flap's lip.  And standing it on its end wouldn't have relieved the tension to any greater degree than folding it in further.  I explained this to him and this was his response.

"if you do try massaging the crease you have to be very careful - its a quicker fix but it is possible to damage the box so it would be at your own risk  (As stated, I'd already tried this.)

standing it on end is slower but totally safe

I'm still bit surprised as it stayed in fine when I made it and the flap would go between the outer box and the yellow inner which would normally hold it just by friction"

Perhaps, but once again he was overlooking the fact that, because of the excess space, the 'yellow inner' wasn't in proper contact with the flap's lip.  At your own risk he says.  Now, excuse me, but if someone sends you something that isn't right, then suggests a way to fix it, shouldn't it be at his own risk?  After all, he's responsible for sending a faulty item - a faulty item that he hasn't automatically offered to replace with a perfect one.  That's a bit like selling someone a new TV, and when it's discovered not to be working properly, telling them to bang the side of it (a guaranteed fix, works every time) - but as it's fragile, it's at their own risk.  It seemed to me that he was unwilling to accept responsibility for his carelessness in assembling the box, and was suggesting all sorts of options to deter me from returning the box for a replacement (no doubt because he has a 'no returns accepted' policy).  I put it to him that, at £35, I shouldn't have to faff about so much just to make one side of a flap stay in.

"It is a slight faff but its a handmade item. The effect I'd say is similar to when you buy a new shirt and the creases have to drop out.

You could always just put a small piece of paper in to hold the flap until it settles down - again being very careful.

That said it will stay flat if you just leave it overnight on end.

Let me know how you get on - if its a real problem I'll sort it but I've seen this many times and the fix I'm suggesting always works."

I reiterated my point that it might always work in the case of a properly fitting box with too much tension on a flap, but as I had the box in front of me and had examined it carefully, the problem in this instance was that there was no grip on the flap because he had left too much space around it.  I repeated that I had already lessened the tension on the flap to no avail, and that merely standing the box on its end was unlikely to work in this particular case - in fact, it was certain not to work.  I was beginning to get annoyed at his unwillingness to accept that it was indeed a real problem (and his dismissal of my informed observation on the reason for it), as well as his reluctance to offer to replace it outright without me wasting my time trying out suggested remedial action that was redundant.  Also, the other side of the same flap (as well as the flap at the other end of the box) likewise had tension and it didn't stick out - why?  Because the box was folded with more precision on that side and the flap was therefore held in place.  However, he persisted in his dogmatic explanation.

"it will possibly take a couple of nights to flatten and stay shut - if I was there I could massage it and fix it in 20 seconds but I wouldn't advise you try it unless you are very gentle with it - if the print cracks its not my responsibility

the reason it won't stay shut is because the 'hinge' of the flap is too strong - standing it on end will flatten it

I really really know my stuff and the reason the flap won't stay shut is not because of the reason you are stating

if the hinge was creased harder it would stay closed - there isn't a genie inside the box pushing it out - the tension on the hinge is pushing it out  (Yes, but it's only pushing it out because the box is too big on one side to hold it in.  To repeat - the problem is only on one side of the same flap, not both sides.) 

when I packed it it was all neatly tucked in and no problem  (It couldn't have been - he just never noticed - just like he never noticed the box hadn't been assembled properly at that end.) 

I've explained how to fix it and its a very simple and trivial fix so I won't do a partial refund but if you like you can send it back  (If I like - as if I'm making a fuss over nothing, but he'll indulge me.  Note that he completely dismisses my assessment of why the flap won't stay closed on one side, even though it's right in front of me and I can see what the problem is.  He just won't accept responsibility.)

please bear in mind though that to get a refund it has to come back to me in the same condition I sent it  (Seems to me he's laying the groundwork for a refusal in advance.  You see, he only gets each box printed when it's ordered and paid for.  To replace my box with another one, he'd have had to get a new one printed, assemble it, then spend another £6.50 posting it to me. Then he's stuck with a box that won't close properly, so might not be able to sell to someone else. He just doesn't want to go the bother or expense.)

I don't really understand your approach because to sort it out is way less hassle than returning it"  (I understand his approach only too well.)

Less hassle?  So is giving me a fiver partial refund instead of reimbursing me for the £6.50 it would've cost me to return.  Anyway, bear in mind that I'd already tried 'massaging' the crease even before he had suggested it and it simply didn't work.  He was completely ignoring the fact that the box hadn't been glued together with the necessary precision to hold the flap in place. Note also his refusal to accept responsibility if his suggested 'fixes' resulted in the box not being in the same condition sent, which was practically inevitable if his advice was followed.  If you bend a crease in, it's bound to be more noticeable, so he could (and I suspected he would) have used this as an excuse not to refund me.  And he didn't so much offer a refund as 'capitulate' to one, knowing that following his suggestion would likely result in the box not being in the (exact) same condition as it was sent.  Not that it would be damaged, but it would be 'different'.  Besides, I wouldn't have been looking for a (full) refund, I'd simply have been looking for a box that closed properly. 

Anyway, I could see it was a lost cause, and I was unwilling to expend the time and trouble to return the box only to have it sent back to me, so I told him I'd just keep it, but that my dissatisfaction would be reflected in my feedback and that I'd relate the events of my experience on my blog.  So here it is.  If you're thinking of buying a box from slats.2008, you should be aware that if you have any problems with it, he's not prepared to accept that he's responsible, and will try and dissuade you from returning the item, instead suggesting redundant fixes that will provide him with an excuse not to refund you.

Another thing: the box isn't a true repro, because it isn't printed on the same kind of card as the original (and the inner tray is much thinner), nor do the end flaps fold into the box in the way that the original's did.  He has simplified them, admitting that it's beyond his ability to reproduce the way in which they were done.  (None of which I knew until it arrived.)  I think that's more of a reflection on him than the box though.  Note also that you're likely to receive a barrage of emails (I received over 20 after I ended our initial correspondence), repeating the same thing over and over again, even if you ask him to stop contacting you.  I reported him to eBay, who told me that action was being taken on his account.  They must have warned him, because after I was told this (his messages were still coming in during my chat with eBay), they abruptly stopped.

It's a shame, because despite its imperfections, it is a fairly good box (though expensive) - or it would be had the maker assembled it properly.  Failing that, at least taken responsibility for his carelessness, and not tried every which way to blame it on something else.  In the end, I disassembled it and glued it together properly (problem fixed, which proves I was right). However, I notice that, even with careful handling (and note that I'm a comics collector who washes his hands before touching them) the colour tends to fade in places, so I'd suggest he changes to another outside printer to avoid this.

See?  Helpful to the end, that's me.

******

All afternoon, the seller has been besieging me with messages, endlessly repeating what he's already said in previous messages.  It's as if he thinks that if he repeats something often enough, then that makes it true.  Or maybe he believes that it will constitute a body of 'evidence' to which he can appeal with eBay in order to justify his behaviour.  Here's the most recent message I received from eBay:

"As discussed in chat, I’ve gone through each and every message between you and the seller and I’d like to share that we warned the seller for messaging you continuously even after you asked them not to.

Rest assured, seller will not message you again and an appropriate action has been taken on their account.

I appreciate your understanding and patience in this matter.

Kind regards"

MIGHTY MARVEL CHECKLIST - ON SALE 4th APRIL...

MIGHTY WORLD OF MARVEL #14

Copyright MARVEL COMICS.  Published by PANINI

76 pages of Marvel Universe action!  Four great stories!

Captain Marvel faces a personal crisis, unaware that an alien hunter is on Earth!  By Margaret Stohl & Carlos Pacheco!

The Fantastic Four battle Doctor Doom, now wielding the power of Galactus!  By Chip Zdarsky & Valerio Schiti!

The Champions return!  The Champs go on a recruitment drive while the two Viv Visions ponder their dilemma!  By Mark Waid & Humberto Ramos!

A Marvel classic from the 1960s:  the unlikely origin of the Simple Surfer!  By Roy Thomas & Marie Severin!

Featuring material first printed in Life of Captain Marvel #2, Champions #16, Marvel Two in One #6 and Not Brand Echh #13.

On sale 4th April.

£4.99.

 ******

ESSENTIAL X-MEN #13

76 pages of Mutant Mayhem!

Logan becomes the weapon of the Shadow King – and Archangel is reborn!  By Charles Soule, Carlos Pacheco, Mike Del Mundo & Ramon Rosanas!

Featuring material first printed in Astonishing X-Men #4-7.

On sale 4th April.

£4.99.

 ******

DEADPOOL UNLEASHED #26

76 pages of the Merc with the Mouth!  Two awesome stories!

The Avengers are hunting Deadpool – but he's going to give them a VERY tough time when they catch him!  By Gerry Duggan, Mike Hawthorne & Scott Koblish!

Danger comes from an unexpected source in the final chapter of Deadpool: Assassin!  By Cullen Bunn & Mark Bagley!

Featuring material first printed in Despicable Deadpool #299-300 and Deadpool:  Assassin #5-6.

On sale 4th April.

£4.99.

SUPERCAR GETS BOXED IN...

I showed my newly acquired FAIRYLITE SUPERCAR a few posts back, borrowing the seller's photos for the purpose because I was waiting for a replica box to arrive before I snapped a pic of my own.  (In fact, now that I remember, I was also waiting for the toy to turn up.)  Well, the professionally printed box arrived this morning, so here it is (with toy) against a backdrop of the first three issues of TV CENTURY 21.  Sharp-eyed readers will note that I've got two number ones, but I ain't selling either of them so don't ask.

I'll have something to say about repro boxes in an upcoming post, so keep your eyes peeled.  In the meantime, feel free to comment on this one.