HOW TO LOSE 45 YEARS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING... (Updated)

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Perhaps I should apologise for showing the above cover again so soon after last time, but just look at it.  Surely it would be a crime to apologise for such a great illustration.  So that means you're stuck with it!  Anyway, as I previously explained, someone gave me this issue recently (I won't say who in case he's shy) and when I got my hands on it (only today actually, but thanks to the magic of the 'edit' button on my earlier post, you'd think I'd had it for a few days) and when I opened its pages it was all extremely familiar to me.  I remembered certain panels in the b&w, grey tone way in which they appear inside and it seems, in memory, that I last read this specific comic only within the recent past, not 45 years ago when I first bought my original.

Thing is, I still have some of my original issues on either side of this number, so I really can't understand why I didn't have this one and the following issue too.  I always enjoyed 'The Inheritor!' (published over two issues) and I could've sworn I still had them, because, as I say, I recall looking at them in what feels like relatively recent history.  I can only assume that I gave them to a pal (who may well yet have them) amongst a pile of other comics, but at precisely which point in time I'm unsure of.  Anywhere between 1975 and '79, I'd say.  Can it really be so long since I last owned them?  I think I've got colour reprints of the stories in collected editions, but it's these 'monochrome' versions which are uppermost in my memory.

Well, anyway, I can't very well have #129 and not also have #130 in which the three stories (Hulk, Daredevil, and FF) continue, so I've just bought one on eBay.  It'll always be a mystery to me why I ever gave them away to begin with, so it'll be good to see the second comic reunited with the first, both back where they belong.  As I say, it's hard to believe that it's been 45 years since I first bought my original copies, but having them again will allow me to step back in time to that exact point in my youth, even if it's for far too short a period.

Honestly - it seems like only a few months at most since I last browsed through them, but how can such a thing be?!  Well, look at the cover of MWOM #124 below.  One possible explanation is that, as the cover for The Inheritor tale appeared several issues earlier (even though it had nothing to do with the Hulk story inside), whenever I looked at 124's cover down through the years, I subconsciously thought of the b&w reprint of the tale it represented.  That might account for why I believed I still had the issues in which the story appeared, long after I'd given them away.  That's the only explanation that seems to make any sense to me.  What do you think?

WIND-UP ROBOTS GALLERY...

 

I've been meaning to do a post on my wind-up (or clockwork if you prefer) toys for a good while now, but some of them are stored in big boxes and I have no idea which ones.  There's no way to ascertain precisely where they are without taking several days to look through them all (and there are loads) and locate them.  (I really do have a lot of stuff.)

So I've decided to compromise.  The definitive post on all my wind-up toys will have to wait, but in the meantime, I've decided to do one on just my robot wind-ups, as opposed to my 'character' ones.  That's to say, exclude ones such as Tom & Jerry, Paddington Bear, Noddy & Big Ears, Fred & Barney, Daleks (as they're not robots) and whatever others I've got in that category.

So there's no point in further preamble from me.  Here are a few wind up robots to tide you over 'til I find all my other clockwork toys.  Don't know when that'll be though.  Incidentally, there are three 'odd ones out' in this group - can you spot which ones?  Take a close look.

Aw, wee Frankie was hanging around wanting to get his photie taken, so because parents sometimes tell their kids that 'The Monster' is a robot so as not to scare them with the notion of sewn-together bits of corpses, I've decided to include the wee fella anyway.  (We don't want him sulking, do we?  That would never do!)

BABE Of The DAY - VALERIE PEREZ...

 

As many of you probably know by now, I'm not a big fan of current attempts to diminish (if not abolish) the distinction between genders, or being told what to think by those on a mission to remould society in their own minority image, so a female Doctor Who who was once a man but is now a woman is a load of old pants to my way of thinking.  (I can't help it, it's the way I was made - so I have no control over who I am, what I do, or how I think.  Well that argument seems to work for some!)

Actually, I have nothing against a female Doctor per se, it's only the gender agenda I'm against, and if the lady Doc wasn't a 'reassigned' man, it wouldn't bother me.  If 'The Doctor' was a title which could be transferred from one person to another, with the original title-holder retaining it in an honorary capacity in the same way as 'Mr. President', then that would be the ideal way of having a woman in the role.  And my first choice (even though she probably wouldn't be in accord with the views I've just expressed) would be the delightful, delicious, and delectable Valerie Perez.  (No relation to George as far as I know.)

She could take my temperature any time.  Which would only be fair as she constantly raises it every time I look at her.  Sigh.  (Yeah, okay, I know - different type of doctor, but I thought it was a good line.)

HE'S NUTHIN' BUT A TWO-FACED HULK... (GUESS WHAT? UPDATED, YESSIREE!)

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

It's a wet, rainy Saturday and - STOP!  Hold on a minute.  It could hardly be a dry, rainy Saturday (or any other day of the week) could it?  So when you think about it, qualifying a rainy day as 'wet' is a bit redundant.  However, sentences need rhythm, and 'It's a rainy Saturday' lacks a beat to my ears (and eyes).  So as you were then.

It's a wet, rainy Saturday and I'm in the comfy confines of my back room (once used as my 'studio'), desperately trying to think of something worth writing about.  Or at least something that you Crivs think might be worth reading, which may or may not be the same thing.  What should it be - comics, toys, TV shows, personal nostalgia - or something else entirely?  My repertoire is somewhat limited by my own interests, and on the few occasions when I've touched on subjects that lie beyond those parameters, then I'm usually out of my comfort zone.

So what'll it be?  48 years ago, October the 3rd was a Tuesday.  I couldn't say with any certainty whether it likewise rained back then, but my general impression of that whole week was that it was mild and sunny.  Well, it had been the previous Saturday (September 30th), and was again the following Friday (6th) and Saturday (7th), and if it ever rained in between, I have no memory of it.  But that doesn't solve the problem of what I should write about, does it?

Tell you what then.  I'll cop out by showing you a pretty picture, which sits at the top of this post.  However, as I type these very words, I haven't yet inserted the image into the designated space.  That's the thing about blog posts; the reader gets to see each post after it's composed and published, but the writer (that'll be me then) doesn't necessarily always construct it in the same order or sequence that the reader finally sees it.  But enough waffle!

Recently, someone gave me a comic I'd been thinking of acquiring.  (Once thought I still had it, turns out I didn't.)  Back when this image was first seen, it was in a comics ad for The Incredible Hulk King-Size Special #1.  In the half-page ad, Jim Steranko's Hulk face remained unchanged, though when the Special was published, a Marie Severin-drawn Hulk face had replaced it.

We Brits were lucky, because when the image turned up on the cover of MWOM #129 in 1975, Steranko's original Hulk fizzog was intact.  However, it had previously been used as a pin-up in MWOM #31 in 1973 (above), but was in b&w with grey 'Zipatone', not colour .

Anyway, feast your awestruck orbs, you Merry Marvel Maniacs!  And just in case you were wondering, below is how it appeared on the actual published Hulk Special.  Why'd they change it?  Your guess is as good as mine.  (And it's not often I say that.)  Perhaps Stan just wanted the Hulk's face to look the same on the cover as in the interior story, which Marie illustrated.

Y'know, someone once said that they could see I wasn't two-faced.  When I asked how they knew, they pointed at my kipper and answered "Because you wouldn't be wearing that one if you were!"  I just can't win, eh?

And below, as mentioned by CJ in the comments section, is the ad for the patch of the cover to MWOM #129, from the back page of The Super-Heroes #17, 1975 - a mere 3 months later.  It also appeared on the back cover of MWOM #150 and probably other Marvel weeklies.  Look at that badly redrawn right arm and hand on the larger Hulk figure holding the patch.  Ugh!  I hope Herb Trimpe never saw it - he wouldn't have been happy.

Ah, but hold on - there's more!  The cover was used again as a pin-up in The Mighty World Of Marvel Annual for 1977, as shown below.  As far as I know, this post includes all appearances of this illustration in Marvel UK mags and books of the '70s, but if you're aware of any other ones, be sure to let me know in our ever-lovin' comments section, effendis.

The MIGHTY MARVEL MAILBAG STRIKES AGAIN! (Or: 'NORMAN MAILER')...

Every comics fan in the world has surely heard of Frank Bellamy, right?  That being the case, many of them will know of Norman Boyd, who has a site devoted to Bellamy which can be found in my bloglist.  Norman is a longtime reader and collector of comics from back in the '60s, and it should therefore have come as no surprise to me to see a letter from a Norman Boyd in a back issue of The Mighty World Of Marvel (#85), when he'd have been a teenager.  However, I had no way of knowing for sure whether it was from the same Norman without first checking with him, so I contacted him to ask.

Norman couldn't remember if it might be one of his letters, so I scanned the page and sent it to him.  He was astounded to see (going by the location) that it was indeed written by him, as he had absolutely no recollection of it.  The same thing happened to me once.  I knew I'd written a few letters to Marvel UK back in the '70s, but I remembered the details of only one of them as I'd photocopied it at the time.  Imagine my surprise, then, when a Crivens reader (Duncan, I believe) commented to say that he'd read a letter by me in an issue of MWOM (I think) that I'd completely forgotten.  In fact, when he sent me a copy of it, I still couldn't fully recall it right away, though there was a hint of something vaguely familiar about it.

And so it was with Norman.  He was so thrilled at being reminded of his moment of glory in MWOM that he said I could write about it if I wanted to.  So I have.  Trouble is, my deteriorating memory is getting so bad that I'll probably have forgotten publishing this post in a couple of weeks and write it again.  Then you can all write in to remind me.  In the meantime, let's take a look at the letter which established Norman's near immortality in Marvel literary history for many years to come - probably for eternity, in fact.  (Well, you can't have one without the other, can you?  Immortality and eternity I mean.)

This ever happened to you?  Being reminded by someone of a letter you'd written to one of your favourite childhood comics that you'd completely forgotten about?  (The letter, not the comic.)  If so, tell all in the comments section.

The 'MESSY' WORLD Of MARVEL... (Updated)

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

I was looking through some '70s back issues of The Mighty World Of Marvel earlier tonight and was appalled by the amateurish manner in which many of them were presented.  No wonder the title (along with several other Marvel UK weeklies) was hemorrhaging readers in its middle years.  MWOM had started as a mixture of spot colour, full colour, and tones, then withered into a muddy, murky, black and grey mess that ruined the artwork and was sore on the eyes.

As an example, look at the page below.  The top two panels have been trimmed (shortened) to make the page better accommodate the slightly different dimensions of the UK Marvel titles, but the bottom border lines haven't been restored - leaving the panels looking as if they just disappear into the 'gutter'.  That's taking laziness just a bit too far, wouldn't you say?  And it's not an isolated incident; there are several examples of such clumsiness in this one issue alone.

Then there's a Daredevil splash page (below) which has been clumsily 'drawn-up', but is missing parts of the credit box and other bits of detail, giving it an unfinished appearance.  Doesn't it look awful?  Marvel UK did eventually get its act together and improve a bit, but these pages fare badly when compared against the professional quality of comics by IPC and DCT, with which they shared space on the newsagents' shelves at the same time.  Marvel later stopped trimming the artwork and learned to master more subtle shades of tone before doing away with it altogether, but until then, too many issues suffered from inferior production values.

I have very fond memories of those early Marvel UK mags, but when I look back at the makeshift appearance of many of them, I wonder why I wasn't put off by just how shoddily-produced they were.  This is Marvel we're talking about - surely they were capable of doing far better than this and giving the readers a higher standard for their money?  Remember, they weren't any less expensive than rival periodicals by other publishers, which contained mostly new material, whereas the Marvel weeklies were mainly reprint.  (Perhaps Marvel 'weaklies' would've been a more apt description.)

I have to be completely honest and say that I'm surprised that Marvel got away with producing such inferior-looking comics and wonder how they managed to survive for so long.  I suppose it's a testament to the artwork of Kirby, Ditko, Heck, Trimpe, Buscema, Colan, etc., that even when it was butchered in such an appalling manner it wouldn't just lie down and die, and that its inherent quality still managed to shine through - barely perhaps, but just enough to show what it was made of.  And no doubt the skillful scripting of Lee, Lieber, Thomas, etc., helped 'carry' the poor visual reproduction at its worst.

Even the cover blurbs were sometimes inaccurate.  For example, in #81 there are no 'inside news scoops on Marvel', only some info about a competition (hardly a scoop), and Spidey's swap shop is nowhere in evidence.  (And wouldn't that belong in SMCW anyway?)  I still have a soft spot for these comics, but my appreciation of them is hardly a 'warts and all' acceptance of them.  Sometimes I have to half-close my eyes and squint a bit in order to blur their faults and look past their inadequacies.  They didn't always do the art and stories justice, far too often depending on the readers' mercy, but they were of their time - and as that time coincided with my youth, I therefore can't help but think fondly of them - despite their imperfections.

 

 

Any thoughts on the matter, Crivvies?  Then you know the procedure.  Incidentally, above is the poster from 1972, given free to readers who sent in 8 tokens cut, one a week, from the centre pages of the first 8 issues of MWOM.  (There were two spare coupons in the next couple of issues for reader who might have missed any.)  This isn't a scan or photo of the full-size poster (which I've got), but a smaller preview of it from an ish of the comic.  I've included it as a bonus because it balances up the page.

 

And as you can see from this letter by R. Leyland in MWOM #129, I'm not the only one who'd noticed the falling standards in quality.  The editorial staff quote rising costs, etc., claiming that the comic is even better value for money than previously, but there's no denying the facts of young master Leyland's missive: the glossy-covered, black and white, grey-toned, 36 page 8p comic was a far cry from the 40 page, mix of full and spot colour, 5p comic of only 2 and a half years before.  Even if we accept Marvel's claim of better value, that's only from a monetary perspective; from a quality one, there's no denying it was far less than it had been.

  

 

 

Incidentally, today's date 48 years ago was a Saturday, which is when the very first issue of MWOM hit newsagents' counters all across the country, so to celebrate its anniversary, below is the cover to #1, along with a few interior pages and the 'green-skinned monster T-shirt transfer'.

 

NEVER MISS A BLOG POST ON CRIVENS! THAT'S BURKE'S LAW...

Copyright relevant owner

 

I'm unable to state with absolute certainty whether I was aware of Burke's Law as a TV show before or after I saw the comic strip in TV Century 21, but I believe it was the former.  Captain Amos Burke was first played by singer/actor Dick Powell in the first episode of The Dick Powell Show in 1961, but it was Gene Barry who made the part his own in two series from 1963-'65.  There was a third series in 1966, renamed Amos Burke Secret Agent, to cash in on the James Bond and Man From U.N.C.L.E. spy craze at the time, but it wasn't a hit and was cancelled after only 17 episodes.  I couldn't say whether it was ever broadcast on UK TV, but I don't remember it at all.

Because the original was a show that I associated with my childhood in the '60s, I was pleased when it was revived in 1994 (with Burke promoted to deputy chief), again starring Gene Barry.  I watched it avidly, because it was almost like having my childhood back again.  Anne Francis, who played Honey West in a '60s episode of Burke's Law before getting her own series, even popped up again in a cameo appearance, though this time referred to as Honey Best for copyright reasons.  (Perhaps viewers were meant to assume she'd married someone with the surname of Best, but they knew who she was supposed to be.)

Anyway, there were two seasons of the new series before Amos Burke was again relegated to 'TV Heaven', but for a while at least, it was good to catch up with an old friend from my youth.  Do you have any memories of the show, either in its '60s or '90s incarnation?  Indulge in some nostalgic reminiscing in our comments section.  And while you're casting your mind back, enjoy the debut episode of the comic strip from the first issue of TV Century 21.

Don't all rush at once now.

ANYONE KNOW WHAT THIS IS?

Funny the things you remember so long after the event.  It was November 1965 on the first day of moving into our new home.  Beside the tiled fireplace that was common to such terraced houses at the time, I found... well, what did I find?  I don't know what it's called, nor am I aware of it's purpose, so it's probably better that I show you something approximating it - which I have in the above photo.  If I recall correctly, it was the same colour, and it captured my interest for some reason.

Can't say exactly how long I had it or what its eventual fate was, but it's lived in my memory ever since, which is why, when I found something resembling it (I think the original had a more oval shaped head, with the underside slightly like a spoon or ladle) a number of years back, I kept it as a reminder of that day nearly 55 years ago.  It's around 2 inches long, pretty much the same as the one I found back then.

"So why tell us?" you may be wondering.  Simple.  Any of you Crivvies know just what the hell it is and what it's for?  Someone please enlighten me before I fall off the twig.

BABE Of The DAY - VALERIE PEREZ...

 

 

 

"Live long and prosper" says the vibrant Valerie

Perez.  "Come on round to my house and let's party," I

reply - "and keep the Star Trek outfit on."  (To start with).

Well, there's no harm in trying, is there?  With a bit of luck,

she'll give me a Vulcan mind-meld and maybe pinch

 one of my throbbing nerves.  A man can dream.

"The EYES Of The MUMMY!" A TRIBUTE To JOLTIN' JOE SINNOTT...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

 

As we all know, Marvel stalwart Joe Sinnott, probably best known for inking Jack Kirby's pencils on Fantastic Four for a number of years (and inking many other artists' work too), died back in June of this year.  Although I noted his passing on the blog, I thought I'd present one of his solo efforts, from Amazing Stories Of Suspense #146, published by Alan Class & Co. Ltd., a UK company that reprinted (in black and white) US stories from a variety of different magazines.  (The strip originally appeared in Tales To Astonish #42 in 1963.)

Just wanted you to know, if you didn't already, that Joe was a talented artist in his own right.

LOVE(LY COMICS & BOOKS) FOR SALE...

I think I'd be fairly safe in assuming that most comics collectors are like me when it comes to acquiring sought-after items, in that they'll purchase what's available and affordable even if the condition is less than perfect, then upgrade to a superior example should the opportunity ever present itself.  That's because there's no guarantee a better copy will come along at a respectable price (one that you'd be prepared to pay anyway), so you buy it when and where you can.

And so it is that I find myself with various spare copies of a diverse selection of comics and books I've obtained over the years, some of them only in recent months.  I usually don't mind having spares, but I'm running out of space which I'm eventually going to need to store new items.  I'll probably put them on eBay, though I know I won't get what I paid for them - mainly because some of them weren't worth what I paid for them to begin with.

Anyway, I thought I'd show them here, and if any of you want to make a decent offer for any of them, let me know.  I don't know what the Blogger rules are when it comes to advertising items for sale, but hopefully they won't mind.  Incidentally, the 1975 Garth book cost me £24.99 only a month or two back, and while I don't expect to make a profit on anything, I wouldn't like to take too much of a loss.  Any questions about condition, just ask.

THOUGHT For The DAY...

Were it a criminal offence to have an erection and you got charged, do you think it would stand up in court?  And if so, would you get a stiff sentence?  (Oo-er, missus!  Frankie Howerd is alive and well on Crivens.)

TALES Of SUSPENSE #39 - MARVEL FACSIMILE EDITION...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Hooray!  Arrived today, my Facsimile Edition of Tales Of Suspense #39 - the debut and origin of The Invincible Iron Man!  I love these comics, but a few things niggle me.  First of all, the bar code box is unnecessarily big, obscuring too much of that iconic cover.  It's been smaller on some previous facsimiles and could (and should) have been smaller on this one.

Inside, the indicia has been printed under the splash page instead of below the ad on the inside front cover.  The splash now contains a warning that 'This comic is presented as originally created.  It may contain outdated depictions.'  This would've been better placed as part of the indicia, instead of being imposed onto the published artwork and compromising the archival integrity of the material.

Another thing I've noticed in most of these facsimiles is that the image is often positioned too high on the page, leaving a bigger margin under the art than above.  I suspect this is caused by most reprint pages being first prepared for book collections, which usually have a new page number under each image.  When this is removed for single issue reprints (on account of it not appearing in the original comic), it leaves the lower margin too high.  (Though, strangely, the other two tales in the mag are better positioned in this regard.)  You'd think they'd compensate for this and lower the image for a better balance of top and bottom margins.

Those small niggles aside, it's great to see this iconic issue being re-presented as an individual magazine for a new audience, though there's bound to be a posse of older readers coming along for the ride.  Below is my original copy alongside its facsimile.  Make Mine Marvel!

BLOGGER FECKS THINGS UP...

 

Due to changes recently introduced by Blogger as to how posts are composed, I no longer have the easy flexibility to arrange or move opening images precisely into the position I want in order to keep them consistent with the layout of previous posts.  If I was prepared to faff about for half an hour, after much trial and effort, I might be able to get them exactly where I want them, but life's too short so I can no longer guarantee continuity in spacing between one post and another.  Everything about the new Blogger now makes everything about five times longer and more difficult to do than previously.  Why the hell do they do it?  Surely their motto should be "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?  Well, they've now broken it!

RUPERT WOULDN'T FEEL VERY CHARITABLE ABOUT THIS...

Copyright relevant owner

I see the Oxfam charity shop in Clarkston is at it again.  They have a facsimile of the 1952 Rupert Annual, without its slipcase, in a cabinet with a £24.99 price tag on it.  Just looked at it on eBay and there are several going for as much as a tenner less - with slipcase.  (Even allowing for p&p, it still works out a few good pounds cheaper.)  Out of the half dozen available on eBay, only one is marked up at £25, yet charity shops claim that they usually price items between the lowest and the highest on eBay - which, let's face it, given the chancers there, is hardly the most 'scientific' way of evaluating the value of anything.

Yeah, I hear you, it's for charity - but charity begins at home.

MELANCHOLY MUSINGS...

Childhood.  An age of innocence where time seems to hold no sway, and awareness of the future only extends as far as looking forward to school holidays, birthday and Christmas presents, and the latest issue of your favourite comic going on sale.  That apart, there only seems to exist one big 'now', and whatever state you find yourself in feels like it will never end.  The house you're living in will be your home forever, you'll always be a schoolboy (or girl), and your parents and siblings will be around for as long as you are - which feels like it will be for eternity.  Childhood - the best days of our lives we're told, and unless you lived in a third world country beset by war and poverty or were the victim of abuse or cruelty, they are.

It's all downhill from there I'm sad to say.  Age, illness, deaths of loved ones, financial and family worries, uncertainty about a future you never even realised lay ahead of you, so accustomed were you to the eternal present you once thought you had.  Sure, there are good moments too as the years pass and your youth recedes, but they're always bittersweet once you reach that age where you're painfully aware there are more years behind you than lie ahead.  Do policemen, teachers, shop assistants, workmen, etc., all look younger than you recall them being in your day?  They're not, it's just that you're getting older and at the stage where you're beginning to 'fret to find your bedtime near'.  The final bedtime that is.

So now that I've cheered everyone up with my positive and optimistic assessment, let me ask you all a question.  Are you fulfilled in your life; do you have a goodly store of pleasant memories while yet adding to them each and every day, or do you feel that you never achieved your potential and still have so much more you want to do, while being all too well aware that you really don't have enough time ahead of you in which to do it?  Linger a moment  in the darker recesses of your mind, consider your life up to now, and then share your regrets (if any) and sadness of how quickly life seems to pass without us being aware of it until we near journey's end.

(There's no doubt about it - I'll need to stop taking those happiness pills.)

GARTH & ROMEO - TOGETHER... (Update)

Copyright relevant owner

 

Here's a nice little eBay acquisition which I 'won' today - a 1960s 'Two-In-One' book of Garth and Romeo Brown.  Garth is on one side, Romeo on the reverse, so once you've finished one strip, you turn the book over to read the other.  This will complement my Garth books for 1975 and '76, all three bearing the Daily Mirror name on them.

 

Interestingly, each side of the cover refers to the other as the 'back', although when the price on the spine is the right way up, Romeo Brown is actually the 'front'.  Was Romeo being accorded a subtle degree of favouritism?  Having said that, Garth's name on the spine is above the price, thereby coming first, so perhaps that evens things out - or maybe the publishers didn't think it mattered?

 

Anyway, just thought you might like to see the book.  Anyone a Garth fan?