WHEN DEJA VU IS NOT DEJA VU...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Imagine for a second that you run into a friend while you're passing a shop in town one day.  A fortnight or so later, you run into him again outside the exact same shop and he exclaims "Deja vu!"  Except he'd be wrong, because deja vu is when you experience something for the first time and it feels like you've experienced it before - not something that you have actually experienced before.  So what I'm now about to describe to you isn't deja vu, but it's like deja vu.

Back in 1981, in the VIRGIN MEGA STORE in Glasgow, I purchased my first JOHN BYRNE issue of The FANTASTIC FOUR - issue 234, "The MAN With The POWER!"  Loved it, and started buying the mag regularly from that point on whenever I saw it.  However, I missed a couple of issues, and ordered them, as well as the first two JB issues, from WONDERWORLD COMICS in Bournemouth.  I no longer recall if I ordered them all at the same time or on two separate occasions (though I'm pretty sure that I got #s 236 & 237 in the same package), but what I do remember is receiving #232, the "BACK To The BASICS!" issue, the first one of John Byrne's 62 issue run as regular writer and artist.

So today, the TRUE BELIEVERS reprint of that very issue arrived - and immediately took me back 37 years in time, when, in the very same room, in the very same bed (well, it's actually a new bed, but it has the very same headboard and it's in the very same corner of the room), I first read that classic comicbook from so very long ago.  It's a weird feeling to re-experience a moment (or one very similar to it) in the very same place where it first happened.  Anyway, I re-read the comic and marvelled (contrived pun intended) at how quickly time passes, remembering that I was far less than half the age I am now when I initially read the issue.

So, simply to give you something to read (and give me an excuse to show the cover), above is the TB version, and below is the original one.  Funny how the span between past and present can vanish in an instant on sight of something as simple as reprint of a comic, don't you think?

******

(The tale has been reprinted a few times over the years and I have at least three of them, but this is the first time [that I know of] it's been reprinted as a single issue.)

Yup, this is my original issue, purchased back in the early '80s

RESTORATIVE REPOST: RESTORING The KING...

"Where's Cagney?  I'll moider da bum!"

Being incredibly talented - as well as witty, charming and handsome (not to mention modest and with a self-deprecating sense of humour) - it should come as no surprise to anyone to learn that I once inked (re-inked, to be precise) the artwork of JACK "KING" KIRBY - while he was still alive, making it even more of a thrill for me.  To see my name listed with some of the legendary greats of the comicbook biz like STAN LEE, JACK KIRBY, VINCE COLLETTA, etc., was a big deal for me, and one of which I'm immensely proud.  How did this monumental accomplishment occur, you are perhaps asking - so here's the scoop.

MARVEL were producing their first run of MASTERWORKS editions, when then-editor, TOM BREVOORT, asked me if I could supply some of the absent pages from their files.  As it happened, I was in a position to help out, utilising some of my comics collection featuring Marvel reprints in U.K. publications of the '60s.  However, things were a lot more complex than simply photocopying pages from old comicbooks and sending them over to the States - and here's why:

Back in the '60s, ODHAMS PRESS, publishers of comics such as WHAM!, SMASH!, POW!, FANTASTIC, & TERRIFIC (also EAGLE and others), made all sorts of alterations to the Marvel comic strips they reprinted.  Credit boxes were deleted, American references were changed, colloquial speech was altered, characters' names were revised, and pages were - in the case of Wham!, Smash!, and Pow! - also resized to fit the standard British dimensions.  However, rather than witter on about it let me show you.  Below is a THOR page as it appeared in issue #27 of Fantastic back in 1967.

And here's how the page looked once I had restored it to its original appearance.  What you might call 'invisible mending'.



Next is a poorly printed ad featuring the cover art from FANTASTIC FOUR ANNUAL #3, taken from an issue of SMASH! printed back in the 1960s.  As you can see, most of the linework has dropped out and a couple of characters have been deleted, but this is what I had to work with.  I later found a much sharper copy of this ad in an issue of FANTASTIC, but by then it was too late - I'd already completed all the work and wasn't willing to do it again.

And below is the finished result, a combination of re-created lettering and some taken from my own copy of the actual issue.  You'll see that I had to add two missing figures, as well as re-ink the entire page.

When I first started restoring pages, my aim was to make them as exact as I could, but then I succumbed to the temptation to leave my own 'stamp' on them.  If you look closely, you'll find occasional little deviations from the original.  However, this was accentuated by Marvel not following the original colouring of the published comics.  Nowadays, Marvel strive to make their Masterworks volumes as close to the originals as possible.  The recent softcover editions really are worth acquiring for your collection.

Above is a section from the cover - isn't that gilded frame a thing of beauty?  Below is a section from the credits page - Stan Lee's name kicks it off, I bring up the rear.

And now, what you've been waiting for - the published result.  Unfortunately, the outline of 'King-Size' in the banner at the top of the page was somehow 'lost' in the colouring process, but it was fixed when the cover was later reproduced in other publications.

Considering I used only a Marsmatic technical pen to re-ink a photocopy on cheap paper (copied in my local library), it turned out not too badly.  I also worked on Volume 26 (THOR) - the series was cancelled after Volume 27, but was revived a few years later.

Here are a few more 'before & after' illustrations for your perusal.  As you can see below, the figure of The THING lost most of his body when the image was resized to fit the larger U.K. page.  With the aid of reference as to how the page should have looked, I soon restored the missing details and returned the page to its former state.

BEFORE:

AFTER:

BEFORE:

AFTER:

And finally, a Thor pic, before and after restoration.

Remember - the images can be enlarged by clicking on them - and then clicking again on the enlarged pic to make it larger yet.  (These two are a little blurred - although the preceding pictures can be seen to their best advantage by this process.)

And that's how one restores royalty.  Simple, really - but immensely satisfying.  Altogether now - "Long live the King!"

BABE Of The DAY - LYNDA CARTER...

Red and gold top, blue and white

pants, tiara and lariat.  Okay, that's my

Hallowe'en costume sorted - now let's

 ogle lovely LYNDA CARTER.

BABE Of The DAY - CLAUDIA CARDINALE...

CLAUDIA CARDINALE has just

finished perusing my 14 chapter novella

on Crivens! - The JANUS DILEMMA -

and says she'll buy a copy should it ever be

published.  Said she'd leave it in her toilet

in case she ever runs out of loo roll.  Er,

 whatever can she mean by that?

COVER ME - I'M FADING FAST...

Images copyright relevant owner

So there I was, sometime back in 1981 or '82, sitting in my local cinema (now gone 30 years) watching DRAGONSLAYER.  The movie was okay, nothing brilliant, but a pleasant enough way in which to while away an hour-and-a-half or so.  I'd bought the MARVEL SUPER SPECIAL MAGAZINE (#20), though I no longer recall with certainty whether I got it before or after seeing the movie, but I think it was before.  At some (again forgotten) stage, I got the two issue regular comicbook size versions of the mag, which I still have after all this time.

As for the magazine, at some point in the '80s I inadvertently inflicted some damage on it, so I removed the front cover and used it as a pin-up on my bedroom wall.  I have an idea it was while I was still living in my present abode, before my family moved to another house for just over four years, though possibly it happened in our new residence.  Then again, it may not have been pressed into service as a poster until we returned to our previous (and my present) home in August 1987.  It's hard to remember after all this time, and I must confess that my fading memory sometimes gives me cause for concern.  At one time I could recall such trivial details with startling clarity, but no longer, alas.  Not with everything anyway.  (Update: Old photos of that other room suggest it was there that it became a 'poster'.)

As regular readers will perhaps remember, I've been replacing old, faded, rippled and mottled posters and pin-ups that have adorned my bedroom walls for up to 43 years in some cases, with new, freshly printed replicas.  With some, I've scanned the original images and then restored them by means of digital technology, but that can be extremely time-consuming and the results can be variable.  With others, I've scanned duplicate editions that were purchased at the same time as the issues I mutilated for use of their covers, and in some instances I've just recently tracked down replacements to scan and print.

Such an example is the issue that sits at the top of this post.  A few days ago, I noticed that the Dragonslayer cover on my wall was looking a bit faded, so I removed it, scanned it, tweaked it, and then printed out a fresher copy.  However, after affixing it to the wall, I decided to buy a replacement copy of the 1981 magazine to add back to my collection.  I purchased it from QUICKSILVER COMICS and they lived up to their name.  I ordered it on Wednesday and it arrived today, so well done them.  However, I was surprised at just how colourful and vibrant the cover was, compared to my original cover and even its home-produced enhanced facsimile.

I knew the cover that had been on the wall was faded, but I hadn't realised just how badly until I laid eyes on the mag that arrived today.  Take a look for yourself.  That's the replacement above, the original I bought back in '81 is below.  Well, there was only one thing for it - I immediately scanned the cover of the new mag and printed out a copy to replace the one I put on the wall only two days ago.  What a difference it makes.  Incidentally, the contents of the mag were illustrated by the recently departed MARIE SEVERIN, so it's good to have it for that fact alone. 

The cover (and my memories) may fade with time, but the lustre of the legendary Marie Severin never will.

And in case you were wondering, below is the 'enhanced' copy I made from my original.  As you can see, it's still a poor copy in comparison to the almost pristine one which opens the post.

BABE Of The DAY - CLAUDIA CARDINALE (AGAIN)...

So there was I, waiting for CLAUDIA to get

up and make me my breakfast, and all she wanted

was a "roll in the sheets" she proclaimed.  "That's what

I want too," I answered, "but make mine with bacon on

it."  Huh, modern women, eh?  They just don't seem to

know how to keep a man happy.  I'm now thinking

about trading her in for a newer model.

BABE Of The DAY - CLAUDIA CARDINALE...

When you're blessed with such

manly-man machismo like myself, there

are very few places you can go to and not be

met by hot babes in skimpy underwear trying

to catch your eye.  You say it never happens

to you?  Then you must be ugly - so here's

a photo of CLAUDIA CARDINALE to

 hopefully cheer you up a little bit.

BABE Of The DAY - LYNDA CARTER...

LYNDA CARTER shows why

she's such a wonder woman.  Well, why

not?  After all, if you've got it, flaunt it!

(I've been fined twice for 'flaunting' it

in the last month, Crivvies.)

FABULOUS FANTASTIC FOUR FIRST ISSUE FACSIMILES DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

The debut issue of The FANTASTIC FOUR has been reprinted quite a number of times since it was first published in 1961, in books like ORIGINS Of MARVEL COMICS, MARVEL MASTERWORKS, FANTASTIC FIRSTS, MARVEL FIRSTS, MARVEL OMNIBUS Editions, MARVEL EPIC Editions, FANTASTIC FOUR KING SIZE ANNUALS, plus various UK weekly and monthly comics - and that's only the ones I know about.  (No doubt there were foreign versions as well.)

However, forget full or partial reprints that were included in other publications -  the only ones I'm interested in for this post are single issue facsimiles, of which the earliest was the 1966 GOLDEN BOOK & RECORD Set that came with an LP containing a dramatization of the comic's contents.  That's it above, and as you can see, it sports what's known as the 'missing man' cover (though there are other differences), which is the cover as JACK KIRBY originally drew it before changes prior to publication.  (The cop has been added to make it look more like the 1961 issue.)  Some of the linework had dropped out in several interior panels, though were thankfully spared the clumsy retouching that later reprints suffered from.  (See examples at foot of post.)

Next one up (as far as I know) was the 1991 MARVEL MILESTONE Edition (below), which also featured the cover as originally drawn by Kirby.  The contents were marred by some dreadful 'retouching' of the missing line-work I referred to in the previous paragraph, but it included all the original ads from the 1961 mag, giving readers a taste of the context of the times.  It was recoloured and didn't match the 1961 original.

In 2001, Marvel released the top 25 of The 100 GREATEST MARVELS Of ALL TIME, number two being FF #1, having been robbed of the top spot by AMAZING FANTASY #15.  (I demanded a recount, but as usual, nobody listened to me.)  Once more, the 'missing man' cover was used, though the caption was replaced by a neater version. 

Then, in 2005, yet another reprint appeared, this time included in a package containing a TOY BIZ articulated figure of The THING as he appeared in the debut issue.  Again, this didn't follow the original colouring and even differed from the Milestone and 100 Greatest mags.  The only reprints that follow the original colouring of the contents are the 1966 Golden Book version and the recent deluxe facsimile edition, but even then, due to the vagaries of printing, they're not an exact match in every instance.

Anyway, enjoy looking at the covers and join me again after the 2018 issue and we'll compare a couple of examples of what I referred to earlier.      

Okay-dokey, look at the two examples of the same page below (click to enlarge).  The first one is from the 2018 facsimile and is how the page should be.  In the second version (from 2001, but also used - with different colouring - in 1991 and 2005), The INVISIBLE GIRL's outline has been clumsily retouched - obviously by someone who shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near it.  It looks as if it's been done with a felt-tip marker.

Now cop a gander at the panels below.  The first is as it appeared in the 1966 reprint which suffered from missing detail, the second is how it was presented in subsequent retouched versions in 1991, 2001, and 2005, and the third is from the recently published facsimile, which matches how it first appeared in 1961.  Click each one to enlarge for closer study. 

So there you go!  Hasn't that been interesting and informative?  Eh, what's that?  Whaddya mean no?  Hey, just remember, pal, you got in here for free, so there's absolutely no refunds if you're not satisfied.  (Tourists!) 

(BOND) BABE Of The DAY - CAROLINE MUNRO...

Let's be honest - any words from me are

superfluous with photos like this.  Suffice to

say - CAROLINE MUNRO!

COLOUR OR BLACK AND WHITE...?

Images copyright their relevant owner

I published this post before a couple or so months back, but then removed it to accommodate a publisher who felt it detracted from a project he was then working on.  That project has now reached fruition, so I feel the question raised in the post is a valid one, hence me now offering it up again for your consideration.

******

Which of these versions of the same strip do you prefer, readers - the original colour strip or one of the two black and white (or grey-scale) offerings presented below?  I have to declare my preference in favour of the colour strip, but if I had to pick one of the non-colour offerings, I'd lean towards the first one as, in my view, it captures more of the 'essence' of the page than the somewhat washed out incarnation below it.  Tastes will vary of course, but the closer a reprint collection is to the original appearance of the contents, the better, as it captures more fully the visual impact the strips had on their initial printing.

Feel free to contribute to any discussion that may ensue. 

Note that the little fine-line visual effects around Davy's head in the last panel
are extremely faint, as a direct result of converting the page to 'black & white'

BABE Of The DAY - DURHAM RED...

"That's a mighty big weapon you've

got there," says me to DURHAM RED.

"That's just what I was gonna say to you,"

she replies.  "But I'm not carrying a gun," I

respond.  "Who said anything about a gun?"

she retorts, quick as a flash.  Oh, she sure

 is a witty gal, and no mistake.

The POWER PACK Of KEN REID - NOW IT CAN BE TOLD... (Updated)

An early cover rough from before Ken's son became involved.
At this stage, I was unaware which intro was for which volume,
hence NP's name instead of SH's  

Received my 'free' slipcase edition of The POWER PACK Of KEN REID a while back, but I've sat on my thoughts about it until now.  Having actually contributed my services (unpaid) to the production of this two volume set, my 'free' copy perhaps doesn't fit that category, but let's not get bogged down in pedantic detail at this stage.  (That'll come later.)  So, how do I rate this collection of Ken Reid's entire output for WHAM!, SMASH!, and POW! (three of the five POWER COMICS), published by ODHAMS PRESS back in the '60s?

Overall it's quite impressive as reprint collections go, but, as is always the case in these matters, the devil is in the detail.  Does it perhaps qualify as the 'ultimate' collection of these particular strips?  Well, to be honest - no.  The reason why is because some of the QUEEN Of The SEAS and DARE-A-DAY DAVY strips were originally printed in colour, whereas this collection renders them in black and white.  Forget the rationalisation of the publisher for doing this (to present them more like the way Ken drew them) because it's nonsense.  It was done for reasons of expense and expediency, because it would've been too costly and taken too much time and trouble to tidy up scans of the colour pages in their original form for reproduction.

I don't know about you, but I prefer to re-experience stories from my childhood in the same way as I first encountered them; that way, the memories and associations are 'truer' and more accurate.  Readers who never saw the original colour stories won't miss them of course, and will appreciate the art for what it is, but to those who remember their first presentation, their recollections are compromised to a degree.  There's also the matter that when colour stories are presented in monotone, some linework is lost under a muddy mess.  There are instances in the book where some captions are virtually unreadable because the murky fog that was once a colour obscures them.

An even earlier cover rough with my version of the
already completed art

Another thing that bothers me about the books is that much of the grey wash that graced the FRANKIE STEIN and JASPER The GRASPER strips is practically 'washed out' due to the contrast being upped in an attempt to clean them up a tad, with only the merest hint of it remaining.  (There are a few exceptions where the wash is more evident, thank goodness.)  Then there are instances where type-set 'next issue' captions have been removed in some strips, but not in others.  Whatever happened to consistency?  Again, I want to see the stories as they were originally presented, not messed around with at the whim of the publisher.

Nope, I'm not finished yet.  Half-page adverts have been replaced with grey line illustrations, but the ones which bleed off the page are too overwhelming in my estimation.  There are a few where there's a margin left around them and they're confined to within the original dimensions of the replaced ad, and they're much more effective and less distracting.  In the previous paragraph I mentioned consistency, and while some of you may think I'm being too pernickety, I find it annoying that the space between the line 'The Power Pack Of Ken Reid' (at the bottom of each page) and the page number is often inconsistent from one page to the next.  In my view, this sort of thing marks the difference between a professional and an amateur publication, and despite all that is good about the two volumes, they still have one foot squarely set in the amateur camp.

So what did I do on the books, and why didn't I get a mention?  I hand-lettered the cover logo (Ken Reid's name in the jaggy blurb, deliberately reminiscent of the Wham! logo - my idea - without being an exact copy), hand-lettered the stylised 'signature' of Ken on the slipcase, proposed the name 'The Power Pack Of Ken Reid' (and produced the spine, utilising the comic logos from an ad in my own ish of FANTASTIC #1, and providing the Power Comics emblem), wrote the copy for the back of the books and slipcase, proofread, edited, amended and added to the introductions (though with NIGEL PARKINSON's, all that was required was highlighting some words in bold), and suggested the chosen fonts (and sizes) of the characters' names on the covers, which were at first a bit underwhelming in appearance, due to the publisher's readiness to accept whatever his designer came up with.  'Twas I who recommended that Nigel should be contacted and invited to provide an intro, and persuaded the publisher to ask Ken's son ANTONY to do likewise, thereby facilitating permission for use of the Reid archive.

A quick 'cut & paste' to illustrate what I wanted for the
placement of the characters' names and 'Introductions'
text.  Both publisher and designer seemed incapable of
grasping what I meant, and couldn't see the difference
'twixt this and what became the published version 

I'm still not happy with the cover to volume one as, despite my earnest entreaties for symmetrical spacing on either side of the 'Vol. 1:  Frankie Stein and Jasper The Grasper' lines, it's still out of balance.  (As is the 'With Introductions by' text.)  I would've preferred to have hand-lettered Frankie's and Jasper's titles, but time was against me and it now takes me days to do things that once would've taken me only an hour or two.  (A combination of failing eyesight, ailing health, diminished stamina, and being long out of practice, alas.  That's why I'd never be able to pursue it as a career nowadays.)  Add to that having to look after an elderly and infirm relative, and it's a miracle I was able to do anything at all.

It got to the point where I became so disappointed and frustrated with the publisher's unwillingness (or inabilty) to aspire to the same standard I did, that I requested that he remove my name from the 'credits' and I stopped promoting it.  Although, given his failure to correct a mistake on the back cover of volume one (which I informed him of in plenty of time), I suspect my name was never in that 'thank you' list to begin with.  After all, if he couldn't be bothered to change 'strips' to 'scripts' (as I had originally written, the distinction being important), then I doubt he'd have gone to the bother of removing my name as that would've required action on his part.  As would replacing my first Ken Reid 'signature' with an improved version I supplied, and which I was assured would be implemented.  It wasn't (at least not in my copy - perhaps it was a 'tryout'), leading me to conclude that he simply told me whatever he thought necessary in order to fob me off, all the while content to take the easier route.  So why claim credit now you might be wondering?  Well, my annoyance has subsided somewhat and, overall, I'm quite pleased with my contributions so there's no reason to continue concealing my involvement.

There are other deficiencies, but the publisher at least deserves a pat on the back for initiating the project (though the ultimate pat should go to Ken Reid himself) - but the books could (and should) have been even better than they are.  Below are a few examples of just what I'm talking about.  Minor things perhaps, but it's this kind of attention to detail that separates the men from the boys.  However, don't let my observations deter you from buying these two volumes; despite these shortcomings, the plusses outweigh the minuses.  (Though it's a shame there are any minuses at all.)

The last panel originally had a caption, as you can see below...

As it was within the panel it should have been considered
part of the artwork and left where it was.  Why remove it?

Same again - though this time it's been done rather clumsily as
part of the letter 'M' still remains.  Now that's what I call sloppy

The caption draws the instalment neatly to a close and should've been
left where it is.  A trivial complaint?  Perhaps, but they all add up

This page has missing border lines on the sides of the first panels on
the first and second tiers, as well as on the last panel in the bottom
tier.  There's no excuse for this kind of sloppiness

The dividing line between the bottom tier and the deleted indicia has been removed,
but part of it is still evident on the left-hand side.  On other pages, the line remains.
Whatever happened to consistency?

FANTASTIC FOUR #1 FACSIMILE EDITION... (Updated)

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

If you've long-yearned to own an original issue of FANTASTIC FOUR #1, unless you win the Lottery, the closest you're ever likely to get is this amazing facsimile edition just released by MARVEL COMICS.  It even reproduces the original adverts in a stunning clarity that avoids the poor photocopied look of the earlier (1990s) MARVEL MILESTONE edition.  As well as the complete original issue, there's a bombastic bonus section in the back of the mag with lots of extra goodies.  This is a 'must have', and you should buy your copy now before the price escalates to ridiculous levels on the collectors circuit.

Incidentally, if you own any of the previous individual reprints of this issue published over the years, this one is sourced from superior proofs with no clumsy 'touch-ups' like its predecessors.  It really is the best single reprint of this cataclysmic classic produced to date.  (A planned TRUE BELIEVERS reprint of the issue was cancelled so as not to impact on the sales of this incarnation.)

But this wouldn't be a Crivens! review unless there's an element of criticism about it. STAN LEE's introduction from ORIGINS Of MARVEL COMICS is included, but where he refers to himself as 'yours truly', it's been rendered as 'you truly', thereby compromising the sense of the sentence.  The FF Omnibus also made this mistake, but I alerted them to it several years back so there's no excuse for repeating it here.

And, a minor thing perhaps, but I'd like to have seen the 'Continued After Next Page' line restored to the pages preceding the ads, just for the sake of authenticity.  Not too much to ask is it?  Having said that though, it really is 'The World's Greatest Comic Facsimile'!  Buy one while you can. 

Bonus:  As mentioned in the comments section, below are the three scans that Barry Pearl sent me, taken from his very own original issue of The Fantastic Four #1 which he bought back in 1961.