PSSSST! HEY, WANNA SEE MY WULLIE...?

Oor WULLIE copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co, Ltd

Or to be more precise, oor Wullie, your Wullie, a'body's Wullie.  That's a lot o' Wullie.

******

Just got time for another quick post.  See the photo above?  It's the cover from a 1975 Oor WULLIE book (issued in '74) that's lain around my back room for approximately 20 years or more.  (Someone must've given me it because I'd never buy a book in such poor condition.)  Now see the photos below.  That's the new cover I made for it with the help of a scanner/printer, digital restoration, couple of sheets of card, some Libra-Seal, and masking tape which I coloured with a felt marker pen.  Not too shabby, is it?  I had to enlarge the images at the printing stage by a few millimetres to allow for cropping, but the book's now neat enough to join my other Oor Wullie books.  Gosh, aren't I talented?  (And modest too of course.)

SO, WHAT ARE YOUR CONDITIONS?

My very own, almost-pristine, FANTASTIC Annual for 1968

I must confess to feeling guilty for neglecting all you Criv-ites these past few months, so I've been making a special effort recently (when time allows) to trot out the odd post.  (What do you mean that all my posts are odd?)  Here's the latest piece of self-indulgent nonsense...

****** 

Regarding the TV21 Annuals in the previous post, only the first one (of which I have three) is in anywhere near to almost brand-new condition,  the others having obvious tell-tale signs of wear (and thus age) about them.  With Annuals, as with anything I collect, I tend to take what I can get when I can get it, and replace it later on if a better condition one comes along, depending on the price obviously.  As an aside, I've still got my (pristine) copy of BEEB #1 that I bought down in Southsea/Portsmouth in 1985, but I noticed one on eBay recently in mint condition, still with its original free gift.  It sold for something like £2.50, but now there's now another one up for sale at the ridiculous price of £40.  (Maybe it's the one that cost £2.50, and the buyer's trying to make a tidy profit by selling it on right away.)  That's why I'm cautious (sometimes) about paying big bucks for something, because s*d's law says that a cheaper, better one will come along eventually. (Though in the case of Beeb #1, it happened in reverse on this occasion.)

I notice that when I'm lucky enough to buy an old item in pristine condition, especially when it's something I had new as a kid, that particular period seems not so far away, whereas if the item displays signs of age, then the period seems much further back in time.  Unless, of course, I acquired the original object from a jumble sale and it already looked old, in which case, because the replacement looks no worse than the original did when I first got it, that time doesn't seem so far removed as it otherwise would.  (Anyone following that, or am I far too obscure?)  It would be great to have everything I own looking as if it were brand-new, but at times I just have to settle for what my finances allow for.  Sometimes, a better-condition item will come along and I'll pass, because the not-so-good one has been in my possession for so many years that I've come to accept its imperfections and am exceedingly loath to part with it.  Admittedly, there have been occasions when I've bought another, better one and just kept both.

So what's your view on this if you're an eager collector of old items you had in your youth?  Is condition paramount to you, or not so important?  And, like me, does a replacement's condition influence your impression of how long ago you had the original?  If any of the above makes any sense to you, feel free to record your thoughts, theories and fancies in the comments section.

TV21 ANNUAL COVER GALLERY...

Characters copyright relevant and respective owners

As I was coming back from the main shopping centre in my town this evening, I took the route that was near to the house in which I'd lived when TV CENTURY 21 first came out in 1965 (but dated 2065 remember).  I've often walked along that way in the last few years, and had noticed an elderly man who used to sit in the open doorway of his bungalow, listening to his radio and watching the world go by.  We nodded to one another on two or three occasions as I passed, but never spoke a word other than a brief "A'right" in the few scant seconds our gaze connected on my circuitous way home.  I'd even started to keep an eye out for him whenever I was in the area, so that I could swap 'nods' with him in case my acknowledgement of his presence was the only interaction he had with another person in his long and lonely day.  It would've bothered me if, while lost in thought, I'd forgotten to glance at his doorway and thereby inadvertently ignored him on my way past.  What if he looked at me in anticipation, expecting a nod that never came?  

Tonight his door was closed, and several items of household furniture and appliances lay scattered on his small lawn and footpath.  A fireplace, washing machine, tumble dryer (or small fridge), several odds'n'ends - and his wheelchair.  That tends to suggest he's passed away, rather than gone into an old folks home, and although I didn't know the man or anything about him, I felt kind of sad that another light had apparently gone out in the world.  I couldn't help but wonder what his interests or hobbies had been, what he'd done with his life, and whether he'd owned anything that he'd wish to be preserved or passed on, rather than thrown in a skip or given to a charity shop.

For all I know, he could have been an ardent comics collector with a full set of the original EAGLE, and maybe even, as a young adult, collected TV21 because it had been cast in Eagle's mould.  Now perhaps his collection lay in bin bags, or had been given to grandchildren or nieces and nephews, who would read these prized gems with no regard for their condition and then casually, callously, discard them afterwards.  Whenever I'm in the area in the future, I'll probably find myself automatically preparing to nod to him as I walk by his bungalow, before remembering that he's no longer there.  Which means, I suppose, that in some kind of ironic way, he'll always be sitting in that doorway - at least in my mind.  It also made me think of what lay ahead of me in my own future, and whether I'll likewise be an old man on my lonesome, worrying about what's going to happen to my collection of comics and toys when I die.  A sobering thought indeed.

(Update: I've since learned that the gentleman's name was MATT, and that he'd once been a banker.  A neighbour told me he was cheated out of his life savings by his girlfriend, but I don't know at what stage in his life that happened.  He has indeed passed on, so let's hope he's now at peace in a better place.)

And so, because I was thinking of TV21, and having just recently acquired the last two Annuals I needed (1969 & '70) to complete the set of eight, I thought I'd display them here.  As you can see, the last three come from a time when the comic was completely different to what it had started out as.  Despite what it says on the cover of the 1971 book, JOE 90 doesn't appear inside - nor does any other strip based on a GERRY ANDERSON puppet programme.  The comic had taken the nation by storm, but was barely a feeble puff by the time it finally breathed its last in the early '70s.  And thus do the mighty fall into ruin - as, also, must we who look at the stars while lying in the gutter, hoping for an immortality that may not exist and therefore may never inherit.

Enjoy the covers.

Y'know, it's hard to believe that there were a mere eight Annuals in total over a period of seven years - and that only the first five of them were in the style of the TV21 weekly as it had been when first released.  Back then, the comic seemed to have been around forever, yet five slim volumes on a bookshelf are all there is to represent its yearly output, in what seemed like an eternity at the time.  Funny that.  The remaining three Annuals spring from an entirely different style of comic altogether, the same in name only.

MILD & MELLOW MELANCHOLY MUSINGS...

Some of you might not know of my other Blog, which you can access my clicking here.  It currently features a new post, published earlier today.  Check it out.

What's that?  What's with DIANA RIGG?  Well, you know her - always trying to push her way into things, the glory hog.  (Looks like she's just ran into a glass pane.)

HAVE YOU HEARD OF HECTOR'S HOUSE? YOU HAVE NOW...

Oh, you lucky peeps.  Managed to find the time to dash off a quick post - hopefully it's one that you'll think was worthwhile.

******

A couple of years or so back I was in a shop with someone I know and got to talking about TV shows for kids with the two female shop assistants (who, I guess, were in their 40s).  It was a sort of card/gift shop and there must've been some item or other that kick-started the discussion.  We briefly talked about BAGPUSS and various other shows, and I mentioned HECTOR'S HOUSE, which elicited an interested enquiry from the pair.  As I started to explain, the guy I was with suddenly ejaculated in an exasperated manner "For Pete's sake, Gordie, they're far too young to have ever seen Hector's House!"  I put his remark down to an attempt to ingratiate himself with the women by indulging in a bit of fawning flattery, so I ignored him and calmly continued my discourse.  However, as we were leaving, my companion looked at the duo with an apologetic expression on his kipper and said "Sorry about that!"  I considered his remark patronising (to the women) in the extreme, and insulting to me, so I said to them "Well, you've heard of Bagpuss - he's Sourpuss!"  (I presume their rejoining laughter indicated their agreement.)  As you may have gathered, I wasn't best-pleased with his obnoxious attitude.

Now, here's an interesting fact.  Bagpuss was first screened in 1974 and Hector's House, though first broadcast in Britain in 1968, was still being regularly repeated by the BBC up until at least 1975.  Both shows are readily available on DVD and YouTube, and have most likely been shown at various times on TV over the years.  Many parents purchase DVDs of old TV shows for their kids, whether they actually watched them themselves when young or not.  My point being that those two women were just as likely to have seen - or not seen - one show as the other.  Going by the logic of my companion, I shouldn't have heard of, never mind seen, FRANKENSTEIN, which was made in 1931, or DOUBLE INDEMNITY, made in 1944 - or anything else that was issued prior to my arrival in the world.  You see the flaw in his thinking?  To assume that because someone wasn't born when a movie or TV show was first shown means they can't possibly have heard of it, is extremely condescending - and blinkered.

On another occasion we were in a comics shop and, during my enquiry to an assistant (the manager actually) about a publication with some DALEKS strips, I referred to TV CENTURY 21.  "Gordie, he wasn't even born then, so there's no point going on with that!" this same fellow interjected.  I ignored him and continued, "TV21 was a comic in the '60s that published comic strips based on GERRY ANDERSON puppet shows."  My way, the guy learned a snippet of information that may prove useful in dealing with future enquiries from others, the other guy's way, he remains ignorant and clueless about a landmark in British comics publishing.  That's assuming that he hadn't actually heard of TV21 of course; the fact is, it's unlikely, because the shop sold various books reprinting strips from the comic and he's bound to have seen the name at one time or another.  (Granted, whether it made any impression on him or not is a different matter.)

If you pay people the compliment of assuming that they're at least as informed as you are on a subject, they may (and fairly often do) live up to your expectations - if not, they'll soon let you know and you can then take the opportunity to bring them 'up to speed'.  The point is, knowledge is for sharing.  If you share your knowledge, you enlighten others; if you assume that everyone else is mired in ignorance and keep your knowledge to yourself, then if that's how they are, that's how they'll remain.  Don't know about you, but I know which approach I prefer.             

BABE Of The DAY - SALMA HAYEK...

If you say the magic word,

SALMA's cover will drop away

as if by, er, magic.  I'll give you all

a clue to start you off - the word

definitely isn't "SHAZAM!"

THUNDERBIRDS ARE MINE...

Just time for a quick post to show off a couple of recent eBay acquisitions - two of the four little plastic THUNDERBIRDS craft given away free (and separately) with KELLOGG'S SUGAR SMACKS in the '60s.  Had them back in the day, have them once more -  I'm a very happy chappie.  (I'll no doubt track down the other two some day.)  Bring back any memories for anyone?  Feel free to share with your fellow Criv-ites.

BABE Of The DAY - SALMA HAYEK...

Who needs words with pics like this?

JUST A THOUGHT...

Tonight, as I luxuriated in the refreshed familiarity of my bedroom, a sudden thought occurred to me.  (You shouldn't find that surprising by the way - thoughts very often occur to me.)  That in turn led to another thought - see?  It can be habit-forming - which was this:

Imagine we're living in a world where technology is more advanced that it currently is.  Imagine also that you're 14, and come home from school one day to find a forlorn-faced relative who informs you that your parents have just been killed in an accident.  Well, obviously you'd be devastated, and to those who have actually suffered such a tragedy, I hope you won't find the following scenario too disturbing.

Now imagine that some official comes to see you one day and informs you that, rather than commit you into care, two clones of your parents will be supplied to look after you and any siblings.  These clones look like your parents, talk like your parents, are capable of independent thought, and are practically indistinguishable from the real people they're cloned from.  In this way, the home environment with which you are so familiar can be maintained, thereby hopefully lessening the trauma of your parents' death.

Would this work for you?  It occurs to me that though this illusion of 'continuance' might be comforting to a degree, every so often you'd be reminded that, although these replacements fulfilled the role that your real parents had once served, they were mere duplicates, replicas, stand-ins - fakes even.  Sure, it would be great to have your life continue as before, but this couple were not the ones who had brought you into the world, looked after you, dried your tears as a child, etc., etc., - they were merely imitations.

Of course, the same scenario can be imagined for spouses and children, siblings and pets, but is this concept one that you feel drawn to, or do you reject it completely out of hand as something you'd never entertain if given the choice?  I must confess that the idea intrigues me, though I don't know if I'd go for such a scenario were it within the realms of possibility.

What gave rise to this bizarre idea?  Well, as I said, tonight, as I luxuriated in the refreshed familiarity of my bedroom, a sudden thought occurred to me, which was this:

As regular readers will be aware, I've recently been replacing posters, pin-ups, pages and pictures with newer duplicates.  The ones that now adorn my bedroom walls may appear the same as those they replaced, but they aren't the ones upon which I've daily gazed over the last 35-40 years of my life - they merely look like them (though newer, brighter, cleaner and whiter).

There's something comforting about retaining things that have accompanied you through a significant period of your life's journey; they have silently seen and shared your joys and sorrows, heartaches and hopes, like old friends that have always been there for you.  It suddenly struck me tonight that these pictorial doppelgangers don't share the lengthy history of their predecessors - they only have the same appearance, though not the same 'experience'.

I feel very guilty.  Though it's nice to have my room looking more colourful and less aged, I know that I'd never have replaced my parents with newer, younger duplicates when they began to look old and faded, so now wonder why I did so with my posters and pin-ups.  True, it's not an entirely equivalent comparison, but I still can't help but wonder at my heartlessness in dispensing with those loyal pictorial companions, many of which have accompanied me through nearly two-thirds of my life.  Like I said - I feel very guilty.

H'mm.  I think perhaps I shouldn't think so much.  It hurts.

VISITOR In The NIGHT...

On the wall across from the foot of my bed hangs an AIRFIX skeleton.  I purchased it in the early 1990s as a replacement for several of the same model I'd owned (at different times) as a child.  I'd love to be able to tell you that it inspired the following poem (which I wrote in 1980) because it would make a great anecdote to be able to say that the skeleton at the foot of my bed gave me the idea of Death being ever-present, but, alas, it had nothing to do with it, apt as it would be to claim otherwise.

Most of the poem came to me unbidden in the early hours of that '80s morning (I think it was October - I have a note of it somewhere, but it's not to hand at the moment), and, unable to sleep, I grabbed a pen and paper and jotted it down as it came to me.  Later, I added some bridging lines and polished it up into its present form, but, truth to tell, I'm still not entirely happy with it.  One day I must sit down and apply myself to giving it a further polish, but in the meantime I present it as it is for your esteemed consideration.  Are you all sitting comfortably?  Good, then I'll begin.

******          

                                                    Reader dear, if you will hearken,
                                                    a hellish tale I shall relate;
                                                    each and ev'ry word consider,
                                                    for in their story lies my fate.
                                                    One night while vainly seeking sleep,
                                                    I heard a sound within my room,
                                                    and slowly opening my eyes,
                                                    I pierced the near-Stygian gloom.

                                                    A fearful sight confronted me,
                                                    O reader how can I convey
                                                    the scene that met my startled eyes,
                                                    a scene that haunts me to this day?
                                                    A figure draped in black I saw,
                                                    it lurked mere inches from my bed;
                                                    a vision from the vaults of hell -
                                                    my quaking heart was filled with dread!

                                                    I lay quite still, no sound I made,
                                                    though all the while I longed to scream -
                                                    but I held back my cries of fear
                                                    with hope 'twas all an idle dream.
                                                    And then with stealth I pinched myself,
                                                    with fervent pray'r my head would clear,
                                                    but, alas, 'twas no vain fancy -
                                                    the image did not disappear.

                                                    I heard it moving closer then,
                                                    though soft and muffled was its tread,
                                                    a face peered out from 'neath its hood -
                                                    a ghastly pale skeletal head!
                                                    I watched the fiend loom over me,
                                                    my body froze, my limbs grew numb.
                                                    It bent its skull towards my face -
                                                    I thought my final hour had come.

                                                    And then it spoke - O saints above,
                                                    I felt its fetid icy breath!
                                                    The words it said near stopped my heart -
                                                    "Tremble mortal, for I am Death!"
                                                    And then my clouded head did spin,
                                                    for he stretched out his evil claw,
                                                    but something seemed to hold it back -
                                                    his gnarled talon did withdraw.

                                                    And as I gazed into his eyes,
                                                    they glitter'd with intense regret;
                                                    and then he spoke and I knew why -
                                                    he said "Your time has not come yet.
                                                    But know you this, although unseen,
                                                    I stand forever at your side -
                                                    and when at last your time does come,
                                                    there is no place where you can hide!

                                                    So now I leave you with these words" -
                                                    he seemed to fade into the black -
                                                    "You have respite, for now at least,
                                                    but live in fear for I'll be back!"
                                                    And with those words the fiend was gone,
                                                    though only from my human sight,
                                                    for he, in truth, yet lingers near -
                                                    in spirit, ev'ry day and night.

                                                    And since that dreadful hour I fear
                                                    the chimes that bid me to my bed,
                                                    for on some unknown day to come,
                                                    the rising sun shall find me dead.
                                                    And so I sit here while time flies
                                                    until the day of Death's return,
                                                    when he shall come to claim his prize -
                                                    O reader dear, the tale is done! 

PART TWELVE Of The TITANS COVER COMPARISONS - FANTASTIC FOUR #103...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Okay, folks - just clearing out my drafts file.  You now have every post in this series I'd prepared before I pulled the plug on regular posting on this blog.  Maybe one day I'll get around to compiling and publishing the rest of the cover comparisons.  If so, you'll be the first to know - promise.

******

You all know the drill by now - two covers for the same story, one based on the other, but different artists on each, several years apart.  Got a preference?  You know where the comments section is, frantic ones - don't neglect it.

The SAGA Of - The PAPER PIN-UP...

Images copyright DC COMICS

I unexpectedly find myself with a bit of spare time in which to dash off a couple of new posts, so why deprive you all of my wit and wisdom?  (Okay, so which Crivvie said "Because you have none!" ?)  Here's one of them.  (The other is on MMMM.)

******

Cop a gander at the image above.  Back in 1982/'83, I must've had spare issues of a couple of DC comics, one from the early '70s, the other from the early '80s, because I cut an ad for the first series of the SWAMP THING from one and glued it onto a piece of card above an ad for The SAGA Of The SWAMP THING I'd cut from the other.  Alas, memory no longer recalls exactly what comics I desecrated in the process of combining the old with the new.  The plan was to put the homemade pin-up on my bedroom wall with all the other cut-outs and posters that adorned it, but I can no longer recollect whether I actually managed to get around to it before moving house in May of '83.  I'll have to dig out my album of photographs of my old (and current) room and check to see if it's on one of the walls.  Whether it was or not (just checked - no sign of it), it was certainly given a spot in my new bedroom once it had been decorated, though I had to wait a year for the new-built house to settle before I could get around to it.

Anyway, when we flitted back to our previous house four-and-a-bit years after having vacated it, the pin-up was again awarded the accolade of enhancing the decor, and has done so for the past 30 years.  Until recently that is, as, like many other of my posters and pin-ups, it had discoloured with the passage of time and was in dire need of replacing.  So that's precisely what I did.  I carefully removed it from the wall, trimmed off the margins and gutter, then scanned it against a white background and printed out a duplicate.  With one difference (as you can see if you compare the above pic with the one below) - namely, I reduced the space between the top ad and the one below it just a tad, as I thought it looked much better.  Anyway, the image survives, and continues to grace the same spot on the wall where it's been for the last 30 years.  This time though, it doesn't look quite so time-worn as it had become a good while back, leaving me to wonder if there's anything that can be done to replicate the effect on me.

I'm saddened by the fact that I've had to dispense with the services of the original, 35 or so years after cobbling it together on the living room table (which I remember doing as if it were only yesterday) back in '82/'83, but at least this way I've ensured that the image survives without further deterioration for hopefully the same length of time again.  And should it ever need replacing in future, I can merely print off another copy as it's safely stored in a file on my computer.  (And again, I find myself wishing that I could do the same thing with myself.  Bet you feel the same.  If only, eh?)

THE TITANS COVER COMPARISONS PART ELEVEN - FANTASTIC FOUR #102...

Image copyright MARVEL COMICS

Oops!  I've had a couple of these FF/TITANS posts sitting in my drafts file from before I discontinued the blog on a regular basis.  Was looking at them earlier and unintentionally hit the publish button instead of the close button on the second post without realising it.  Just this moment noticed, so I've returned part 12 to my draft file and decided to publish part 11 just in case you're wondering what the heck is going on.

****** 

JACK KIRBY's final issue of The FANTASTIC FOUR, sporting a cover by JOHN ROMITA and JOHN VERPOORTEN, and its near doppelganger, The TITANS #45, by - who?  Anyone know for sure?  The penciller's initials are SS so could be by STEVE STILES, and the inker is likely DUFFY VOHLAND.  There, I've suggested an answer to the question myself, but feel free to chip in your two cents worth, true believers.

The TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGING... (Updated)

SUPERMAN copyright DC COMICS

I find myself with a few spare moments, so even though the blog is officially 'retired', I thought I'd dash off a quick post for anyone who might still be feeling deprived over the absence of any regular posting on Crivens!  What follows is the result - hope it doesn't prove a disappointment for you.

******

Well, "Yes" and "No" is my response to the exasperated question I imagine some of you may be asking.  Yes, it is a post about me renewing and replacing a 'poster' on my wall, and no, it isn't just that.  Intrigued?  Then read on, MacDuff.

I obtained the above issue of the RADIO TIMES in Southsea or Portsmouth back in April of 1981, around three weeks before returning home and eventually putting the cover up on one of my bedroom walls.  (I still have the 3 page SUPERMAN article from inside.)  There it stayed for two years before we moved house, whereupon it took up residence on the wall of my new room, where it stayed for the final three years out of four.  (I had to wait a year for the house to settle before decorating, as it had just been newly built.)  Then, as any regular Crivvies will be tired of reading, we moved back to our former home, and the image resumed it's previous place on the wall, where it's been for around 30 years.

I'm sure you're all aware of just what 30 years can do to a piece of paper, and sure enough, the page had become tanned and perhaps just a tiny tad faded.  Also, when I'd first stuck it up on the wall, I used so-called 'invisible' tape, which despite claims to the contrary, can brown and shrink over time - and it had!  (Originally, I'd carefully and neatly taped it all the way around the edges, half on the page, half on the wall, but latterly, it was held in place by small pieces of double-sided tape on the back.)  So, recently, I took down the image, carefully cut away the margins of the page, replaced the line of print on the top right-hand corner with an enhanced copy of the original (the surrounding area whitened, the words darkened), scanned it against a white background, then printed out a superior copy the same size as the 'master copy'.  I also took the opportunity to digitally remove any noticeable wrinkles and scuffs, though I didn't bother with mere minor imperfections.

So a nice new replica now adorns that same space on the wall, but I haven't yet disposed of the original.  I find it hard to casually cast off something that I've had for 37 years, more than half my life away.  I'll maybe paste it onto a piece of card and put it with the few internal pages that I yet possess, but that's a decision for another time.

Anyway, the other topic I wanted to mention is just how amazed I am that, after staying in Southsea for around 3 or 4 months, when I returned home, I fitted right back into my old life as though I'd never been away and never really missed Southsea or Portsmouth.  Looking back, it seemed that I instantly forgot about my time there, but I now realise that's not quite true.  It was still all so recent and fresh in my mind that I simply didn't feel far enough removed from it for me to miss the place.  That takes time of course, but I still remember my first day back home and how easily and effortlessly I resumed my old routine.  I ran into someone I knew on my first day back, and he said "I thought you were down in Portsmouth?"  "Just got back this morning!" I said as we passed one another, but he looked as if he didn't quite believe me, and it occurred to me to wonder if he thought I'd invented my intention to visit the place and had just been staying out of sight for a few months.

You're probably wondering why I even mention the subject, but I'm astonished that I could live in another part of the country for that length of time, with different neighbours, different accents, different shopping centres, different experiences, different points of reference, different local newspaper, etc., - and then remove myself from it all, seemingly without even a backward glance or feeling of regret or displacement.  (And I really enjoyed my time there.)  As I said though, it was all still so recent to me that it simply never occurred to me to miss it.  Perhaps, subconsciously, part of me was still there, which would help explain the ease with which I returned to my old routine.

(The same sort of thing happened when my family flitted to another house in a different neighbourhood back in 1972.  Because I still attended the school on the other side of the street from my old house, and also due to the fact that I hung around the shopping area across from the house in the evenings, I never really missed the place until years later, after we'd moved to yet another house and neighbourhood in '83.  Enough water had passed under the bridge by then and my daily routine had changed to such an extent that I began to 'pine' for things as they'd been between 1965 and '72.  I now realise that it usually takes time to miss what was once familiar and regular in our everyday lives.) 

Anyway, perhaps you feel this post is a bit pointless or self-indulgent - and it probably is, but I wanted to get my thoughts (however insignificant) down on paper (figuratively speaking of course) before they disappeared back into the void whence they came.  And look on the bright side - at least you've got a nice colourful Superman cover to print out and hang on your wall, just like me.  And who wouldn't want to be just like me, eh?  (Hey, where'd everybody go?!)

MODEL SUPPLIES - YOU DON'T SEND ME, FLOWERS... (Updated - AGAIN)

A month to the day after retiring the blog, I find myself forced to return for a one-shot special in pursuit of justice and to draw attention to a shocking situation.  I've always been quite prepared to use this blog as an organ of retribution against the guilty and that's not going to stop now.

Some of you may have heard of MODEL SUPPLIES, a business run by a chap called STEVE FLOWERS.  He supplies newly manufactured replacement parts for various diecast models from the '50s, '60s, '70s and beyond.  Some of the parts are excellent, some quite good, others merely better than nothing - and a few are downright mediocre.  Back in September last year, I ordered a white metal replica of the famous BUDGIE Toys SUPERCAR from the 1960s, which I received on the 27th of that month.  It's quite a rough replica which will need a lot of filling, filing, sanding and shaping before it can be assembled and painted, but I'm willing to give it a go when I have time.

The Budgie name had been very roughly scraped off the base, leaving some noticeable gouges, and I emailed Model Supplies to register my disappointment, as, to my mind, a replica should remain faithful to the original.  After all, there have been a few Supercar models in recent years (by PRODUCT ENTERPRISE and JOHNNY LIGHTNING), so the attraction of having a Budgie Supercar is that it says Budgie on the base.  I then put the replica aside for a while, but upon a later viewing, I noticed that the canopy was extremely 'cloudy' and did not have the crystal clear finish that it ought to.  When enquiring about something else at a later date, I mentioned this, and was told to return the defective part for a replacement.

All well and good you may be thinking, but I've always taken the view that if I'm provided with something that isn't as it should be, then I shouldn't be put to any expense in obtaining a replacement - that's the responsibility of the person or company who provided the faulty part to start with.  I duly contacted Model Supplies and requested that they send the replacement part first, along with a prepaid, self-addressed label or envelope for me to return the inferior item.  No reply.  They're busy, I thought - I'll give them some time.  Almost a month later, I contacted them again - once more, no response.

I should point out that, had they responded and said they'd reimburse me for any costs in returning the defective part once they'd received it, then that would have been acceptable to me, but not even the hint, never mind the courtesy, of a reply.  I waited another month, then emailed them to say that, as they had ignored my previous two emails, if they didn't forward the replacement part along with a prepaid address label, then I would address the matter on my blog - as well as raise a case against them with eBay.  (That's my next step - if I haven't left it too long.)

I received a reply from someone called ERICA HALL, who said that the part would only be replaced once I had returned the original, but there was no mention of a refund for the post and packing charges that I'd incur because of their ineptitude in supplying an inferior part to begin with.  Nor was there an answer to my perfectly reasonable enquiry as to just why I should be inconvenienced with extra expense because of their mistake.  She also had the temerity to suggest that I would not report the facts correctly, so I'll be forwarding a link to this post so that she can see her impertinent insinuation is unfounded.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable about this.  I was supplied with a defective part, and though they are prepared to replace it, they expect me to cover the expense of returning it, with no offer of reimbursement.  They also ignored two of my emails requesting a prepaid address label, which they could have conveniently sent along with said replacement.  (And remember, the returned item will be of no use to them because it is not up to par.)  Also, I could have used the padded bag containing the replacement to return the original.  Other mail order businesses have no issues with doing this, so I don't see why Model Supplies should consider themselves exempt from what is standard practice by companies who place their customers' convenience before their own.

When it comes to doing the right thing, Model Supplies are far from being (dare I say it?) a model company.  (Yes, a corny pun, but nonetheless true.)  Just thought you should all know in case any of you were ever thinking of ordering anything from them.  Establish in advance that they're prepared to meet your costs when resolving their mistakes.

Incidentally, I've availed myself of their services a few times over the years and this isn't the first time I've been disappointed with them.  However, in the interests of fairness, I've confined myself to this specific instance, though I may yet air previous grievances at a later date.  So why didn't I learn my lesson the first time?  The triumph of hope over experience, alas.  Also, when they're good, they're very good, but when they're bad, they're absolutely fecking shocking!

******

And I'm not alone it seems.  Here's some of his negative feedback (as originally typed by buyers), indicating that he (or his staff) is running true to form.

Wrong size & type!  No communication!  Returned, Refund by eBay intervention!

SHOCKING "CUSTOMER SERVICE" AND EXTREMELY RUDE ABOUT THEIR ERRORS!

SENT WRONG ITEMS WEEKS WAITING FOR REPLACEMENT THEN CHEEK IN COMMUNICATIONS

This guys a joke never replys to emails until you report him or her to ebay.

******

And you should see the awful email I received from one of his employees called NIKKY earlier today.  Nothing but impudence and barely concealed abuse (to say nothing of spelling errors, poor punctuation, and bad grammar).  Obviously Mr. Flowers' staff subscribed to The BASIL FAWLTY Correspondence Course on Customer Service.  (They should seek a full refund.)  True, his positive feedback outnumbers the negative, but in my book, the measure of a company's integrity is how they deal with customers when they have a complaint, not when there isn't a problem.

******

Update: Unfortunately, eBay couldn't assist me in this matter as their 30 day time limit had expired, but they agreed that I should have been supplied with a prepaid address label.  However, they suggested I pursue the matter through PayPal as they have 180 day time limit to raise issues with sellers.  PayPal found in my favour in double-quick time, and awarded me a partial refund which was actually more than the one I'd suggested.  It was more the principle with me than the money anyway, and the fact that PayPal found in my favour means that they accept that the other party was at fault.  That means - on a matter of principle - I win and they lose.  Justice is served.  Just think - all this could have been avoided if Model Supplies had replied to my two ignored emails, and provided me with a prepaid address label or agreed to reimburse me for my p&p costs.  I'd like to think they've learned their lesson, but going by their response to this result, it's clear that they haven't.       

YOWZA! PART TEN Of The TITANS COVER COMPARISONS - FANTASTIC FOUR #98...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Aha, not only has it been redrawn, it's been done so in reverse, just to keep all of us on our toes in regard to FANTASTIC FOUR #98 and THE TITANS #41 - in this, the latest in our series of cover comparisons.  Well, you know the drill by now - if you'd like to air your thoughts, theories, or observations on these two images, then our comments section awaits your input.  Why not avail yourself of its facilities and share your wisdom with Crivendom? 

BABE Of The DAY - JANE RUSSELL...

Stunning good looks, sheer

class, elegance, and sophistication.  But

hey - that's enough about me!!  JANE

RUSSELL ain't too bad either.

RUPERT ENDPAPERS By JOHN HARROLD...

Copyright EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS & DREAMWORKS DISTRIBUTION Ltd

Back in the late 1980s when I was freelancing for IPC, sometimes when I was in the main post office sending off work to London, the assistants would enquire of me (on sighting the name 'EAGLE' or 'WHIZZER & CHIPS' or '2000 A.D.' [or whatever] on the package of artwork I was posting) "Do you know the RUPERT BEAR artist?"  The first time it happened I assumed they just thought that anyone involved in comics must know one another, but after a short while they explained that artist JOHN HARROLD posted his Rupert strips from the very same post office.  Turned out that he lived in my home town, just a short walk down the road from me.

Eventually, while in Glasgow one day, I was introduced to Rupert's illustrator in AKA BOOKS & COMICS by comics fan and historian JOHN McSHANE, and we both later found ourselves sharing the same train carriage back home.  He invited me to drop in for a cuppa and chat some time, and repeated his invitation whenever we ran into one another, but I was always busy with work back then and never got around to taking him up on his kind offer.  Eventually, John moved down to England somewhere, and then to Paris, and I've no idea what he does now as he no longer draws Rupert, and hasn't for a long time.

However, one of his endpapers from an earlier Annual is reprinted (or so I assume - maybe it's new) in this year's Rupert book (along with a couple of his strips), and I thought you might like to see it.  Maybe I should put in a bit of time and effort and digitally remove the spine-line down the middle, but why should I always do all the work?  I'm sure if you all try hard enough, you can imagine it isn't there.  Very evocative, eh?  (Oh, go on then - I've included a line-free version below.)

Incidentally, this 2018 Annual's contents are all reprints from earlier books, going right back to 1939, including strips by ALFRED BESTALL, so it's a nice little collectors' item.  I've no idea if this is a 'one-off' event, or whether the books have been all reprints for a while now, but perhaps a knowledgeable 'Crivens!' reader can enlighten me?  Ta muchly.

Enjoy!  Did you read Rupert as a kid?  Let's be having your reminiscences in the comments section.

RUPERT HAS A DANDY TIME AT THE BEANO ANNUAL EVENT...

Copyright EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS & DREAMWORKS DISTRIBUTION Ltd

Managed to pick myself up a few bargain books the other day, which surprised me, because I thought there'd be none left in the shops.  All four books cost me a grand total of £6.96, averaging £1.44 per book.  (If I'd had to pay full price, they'd have cost £38.96, so that's a saving of £32.)  In the case of The BEANO and the RUPERT Annual, they were the very last ones in their respective shops, so had I wandered in a mere half-hour later, they might well have been gone.  What, if any, Annuals did you get for 2018, readers, and how many years have you been getting them?  Go on, don't be shy now - give us their names.

Copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd