Here's a coin set by a company called COINCRAFT, containing an example of every British coin in circulation at the time of QUEEN ELIZABETH II's Coronation in 1953. Again, not as sharp as they could be due to being scanned in their display case, but only slightly blurred. And look at the farthing, which ceased being produced in 1956, and was finally demonetised at the end of 1960. (I think I prefer these old coins to the decimal ones.)
A cascading cornucopia of cool comics, crazy cartoons, & classic collectables - plus other completely captivating & occasionally controversial contents. With nostalgic notions, sentimental sighings, wistful wonderings, remorseful ruminations, melancholy musings, rueful reflections, poignant ponderings, & yearnings for yesteryear. (And a few profound perplexities, puzzling paradoxes, & a bevy of big, beautiful, bedazzling, buxom Babes to round it all off.)
Thursday, 13 April 2017
JUST A NOTE TO REMIND YOU. (WELL, TWO, ACTUALLY)...
Look at these two notes from the 1960s. In total, a mere £1.50 in today's money, but don't they look as though they're worth far more? There's just something about paper money that somehow gives the impression of having a greater monetary significance. These notes were known as the Portrait Series, and were around from 1961 to 1971. Were you around then, and do you remember them?
PROOF THAT I'M COINING IT IN...
Over the next few days I'm going to be showering you lot with money. My money. I collect certain coins and notes, and I'm going to be sharing them with you (visually at least) over several posts. This one's the 1970 ROYAL MINT Proof Set, with a halfpenny that was never legal tender as the coin was demonetised on July 31st 1969 - making this one a bit of a collectors' item.
I've scanned these coins in their cases, so apologies if they're not 100% in focus, but they're clear enough to let you appreciate their individual aesthetic appeal.
Are you into old coins? Like me, do you yet regard pre-decimal coins as real money and today's currency as base pretenders? Tell your fellow Criv-ites in our scintillating comments section, why don'tcha?!
LET'S GET INDUSTRIOUS...
I'm often amused and amazed in equal measure when I hear some people claiming there's still a real comics 'industry' in this country. I'm having a bit of a guess here, but I suspect if you combined the sales of every genuine British comic available today, the total would still be lower than a mere handful of comics from the '60s & '70s. One successful title back then sold more than just about any four or five different ones do now, so that pretty much speaks for itself.
"But look at all the comic events taking place," they bleat. "That proves that there's still a huge interest in comics." Even if that were true, interest doesn't necessarily equal industry. Once, comics sold in large numbers without requiring promotion by special events to try and fan a dying spark into a flame. One could argue that such events prove what dire straits the so-called industry is in. Comics never needed such 'events' in their heyday.
Far fewer comics writers and artists make a living from the 'industry' now than was once the case (there just isn't the same number of opportunities), so you can regard such optimistic claims by folk trying to 'talk things up' as just that - which is understandable, but not an accurate reflection of reality. As for those few folk who do get a decent share of work, as somebody once pointed out, if you have a larder full of food at a time of famine, you may wonder why some people are claiming to be hungry, but you're living in a bubble.
I'd find such claims about how healthy the industry is more credible if some of those making them weren't currently recycling old strips in self-publishing ventures in order to supplement their incomes. Self-publishing is a hobby (or vanity-project) - not an industry. There's no shame in that of course, but let's call it what it is, not what some folk would prefer it to be.
DON'T BE BLUE - The ORIGINAL X-MEN ARE BACK...
Despite my occasional critiques about 'deficiencies' in JACK KIRBY's art, I'm a huge fan and think that, when he was at the top of his game, he was untouchable. (Especially when inked by someone like WALLY WOOD.) So I always get a thrill when I see his early MARVEL work gracing the cover of a contemporary comicbook.
Such a one is X-MEN BLUE #1, the first issue of a new series about the original X-Men, time-plucked from the past into the present day. It was okay, but I just love the above variant cover, even though Jack's drawn The BEAST with gloves, something he never wore.
If you think this mag might be your cup of tea, it's now on sale at all good comicbook shops. So race right 'round to your nearest one at the earliest opporchancity and grab yourself a copy before they're all gone. First come, first served.
Wednesday, 12 April 2017
KLASSIC KIRBY KOMIC KOVERS: The FANTASTIC FOUR #33...
Gotta be honest and say I don't think JACK KIRBY's collages always worked, but this one sure did. My one and only problem with it is that once again, Jack has drawn The THING far too small - SUSIE positively towers above him, even though BEN's meant to be in front of her. That apart though, it's certainly a very effective cover.
Tuesday, 11 April 2017
RIVETING REPOST: THE SECOND DOCTOR DOOM...
![]() |
| From SMASH! Annual 1967 |
Believe it or not, there once used to be two DOCTOR DOOMs inhabiting the same comics universe. As well as MARVEL's Doom, there was also the evil adversary of The MAN From B.U.N.G.L.E., who appeared weekly in SMASH!, stablemate to WHAM!, which had The FANTASTIC FOUR. Both publications fell under the POWER COMICS banner, both reprinted Marvel strips, and some of the U.K. humour strips occasionally referred to the Marvel ones (like The HUMBUGS in Wham! mentioning the FF one week).
So for any U.S. readers unaware of the fact, here's the second Doctor Doom trying to do away with The Man from B.U.N.G.L.E. Okay, okay - yours existed first! (But ours was funnier!)
******
(And, as revealed here, there was yet another Doctor Doom, who was the foe of LITTLE ARCHIE. I guess that makes our DD the third one, not the second. Nope, scratch that - DC had a Doctor Doom who fought BATMAN in #158 of DETECTIVE COMICS way back in 1950. Ta to TC for the info.)
******
(And there's more! See BR's info in the comments section.)
And to save you having to turn your computer screen upside down, here's the SOLUTION:
ZOUNDS! The EVEN MIGHTIER THOR...
![]() |
| Image copyright MARVEL COMICS |
Back in 1973 when The MIGHTY WORLD Of MARVEL #20 ran a double-page ad for the new SPIDER-MAN COMICS WEEKLY #1, they utilised a copy of the original cover proof of JOURNEY Into MYSTERY #83 for the 2nd page - with one difference. THOR was 'beefed up' a little in the arms and legs department, though his torso remained untouched. We've seen quite a bit of the original pic around here recently, but I thought you could stand seeing it again from its 1973 outing. (Who's gonna kick sand in his face, eh?)
******
(Actually, his left arm remained untouched, but 'arm and legs department' doesn't really sound quite right, does it?)
SPOT The DIFFERENCE: The FANTASTIC FOUR #11...
Well, in this one the differences are obvious, aren't they? In the production stat above (I'll call them 'cover proofs' from this point on), SUSAN is far too tall and BEN is far too small in relation to her. Solution? Redraw Susie smaller (and give her a haircut as well), and lengthen Ben's leg to make him appear taller. (Still not tall enough in my estimation.) The original version saw print, in colour, in 1973 as an ad for MWOM #23 in sister publication SMCW #4. (And turn in your F.O.O.M. card and hang your head in shame if you don't know what those esteemed initials stand for, not-so-frantic one.)
![]() |
| The published version |
Monday, 10 April 2017
SPOT The DIFFERENCE: The AVENGERS #4...
![]() |
| Images copyright MARVEL COMICS |
Above is a production stat of the cover to AVENGERS #4 as originally drawn and lettered, below as it was published. As you can see, CAPTAIN AMERICA's right head winglet has been altered to match the left one, and the jagged outline around the larger caption has been removed, along with the words 'THE REAL'.
This was in reference to a Cap impostor having recently appeared in a HUMAN TORCH story in STRANGE TALES #114. MARVEL obviously wanted us to know the original was back, but then must've realised that we were smart enough to figure that out for ourselves. The SUB-MARINER caption has also been slightly repositioned.
Marvel amended the production stat for their first printing of The Avengers MARVEL MASTERWORKS in 1988, but overlooked the head winglet. Below is how it appeared in that valiant volume.
SPOT The DIFFERENCE: The AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #11...
Yet another cover variation for you, Criv-ite chums, this time 'round The AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #11. Up above is how STEVE DITKO originally drew it, but fearless leader STAN LEE wasn't happy with the way Sturdy Steve had drawn the web-spinner's legs, so got Jolly JACK KIRBY to 'fix' them before publication (as you can see below). And, as I'm sure you'll already have noticed, DOC OCK's face looks like it's also been slightly revised.
But wait, that's not all! When the ish was reprinted in MARVEL TALES #148 in 1982, the cover was flipped, Spider-Man's legs were again redrawn, Doc Ock's face was 'slimmed down' even more - and he was given a new pair of glasses that didn't quite sit right. Three versions of the same cover is going a bit overboard, even for Marvel!
So whaddya make of that, frantic ones? Personally, I don't think the right leg Jack drew is an improvement. Feel free to leave a comment in the you-know-where.
And just so you don't feel like you're missing out on anything, below is the Marvel Tales version. (How to ruin a Steve Ditko cover without even trying.)
Sunday, 9 April 2017
FEEL LIKE COMMENTING?
I've had enough! I'm fed up leaving comments on other blogs to demonstrate I'm showing an interest and that their efforts haven't gone unnoticed, only to find when I revisit that my comment hasn't been acknowledged. I just find this terribly rude, so the next time I leave a comment somewhere that gets ignored, I won't be leaving any more comments. In fact, I may even stop reading their blogs altogether. They've only got themselves to blame.
Does such rudeness annoy you, Criv-ite chums? All comments will be responded to - honest.
KLASSIC KIRBY KOMIC KOVERS: AVENGERS #2...
I first read this tale in SMASH! in the 1960s, and again in MARVEL SUPER-HEROES in the '70s and there's just something about it that really grabs me. (Despite STAN LEE having RICK JONES say that The HULK's secret identity is Dr. DON BLAKE, but hey - nobody's perfect, eh?) Hulkie looks a bit small to me, which was a fault JACK KIRBY had, but it's not the real Hulk anyway so we'll overlook it this time. Not exactly an action-packed cover, but nice enough.
JOURNEY Into MYSTERY THOR COVER - HOW I WOULD HAVE DONE IT...
![]() |
| Images copyright MARVEL COMICS |
I've already added this image to the 'spot the difference' post on JOURNEY Into MYSTERY #83, but I felt it deserved a post of its own. As you know, several STONE MEN were removed from the cover before publication to give greater prominence to THOR, but I felt that a few of them could have been left in. Consequently, I did a little work on a copy of the original production stat to show how I would've done things had I been calling the shots. (Hey, you gotta think big!) Below is the original for comparison.
Saturday, 8 April 2017
ONE MORE TIME - SPOT The DIFFERENCE: The FANTASTIC FOUR #1...
Yup, you've got the idea of this series by now, Crivvies. Above is the cover of The FANTASTIC FOUR #1 as originally drawn by JACK KIRBY, below is the published version from 1961 after a few amendments. Incidentally, none of the original proofs were coloured at the time, that was done for their appearance in the MARVEL MASTERWORKS series of volumes which began in the late 1980s. Eventually, Marvel started featuring more faithful reproductions of the mags as first printed, but it's fun to see how they started out, don'tcha think?
SPOT The DIFFERENCE: JOURNEY Into MYSTERY #95 (Starring: MIGHTY THOR!)...
Okay, admittedly, the difference is a minor one in this instance, and not a change to the artwork but to the lettering. However, I think these matters are important as well as interesting, and hey - what else would you all be doing if you weren't reading this here humble blog of mine? The answer is obviously "nothing" otherwise you'd be away doing it, so let's have no complaints about the trivial nature of this post, or indeed me! ('Cos you know what a sensitive soul I am.)
SPOT The DIFFERENCE: JOURNEY Into MYSTERY #83... (Updated)
Well, I'm in repeat territory here, but not everyone will have seen my prior post on this classic cover, so I should get away with it. (And unlike the BBC, there's no licence fee required to view this blog.) When JACK KIRBY initially drew the cover, he put in more STONE MEN than appeared on the published mag. However, I'd say STAN LEE's instincts as art editor were correct, as, dramatic as the original version was, THOR The MIGHTY was visually swamped by his descending foes and the cover was just a tad too 'busy'.
I might have left some of the smaller Stone Men in as it was mainly the one behind Thor that compromised the layout, but maybe they'd have upset the balance of the final composition. It's difficult to be sure without seeing what I have in mind right in front of my baby-blue eyes.
Below is a b&w production stat I altered of the original cover to show how I might have done things. Lovely, eh?
SPOT The DIFFERENCE: TALES Of SUSPENSE #44...
I've shown this cover before, but last time I used an ALAN CLASS reprint to highlight the differences. The one above is as it was originally drawn and lettered (apart from the spelling of 'Pharaoh', which was corrected for its initial printing in an early MARVEL MASTERWORKS volume, from which the above image comes), and the one below is as it originally appeared to the panting public back in 1963, spelling error and all. (The image below is taken from a later, more archival printing of the same volume.) A great KIRBY piece indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)















.jpg)
























.jpg)










