

More to follow when I get the chance...
- Phil Rushton


True, but this was done for a publication outside of their control. Convention programmes would usually feature pages contributed by artists for free, and the original art was auctioned off for charity. (I don't know if that applied to Comics 101.)Jonny Whizz wrote:The first thing I noticed with the Charlie Grigg picture was that he'd signed it. It looks a bit odd, because it's all DCT characters that's he drawn, and Thomsons didn't allow their artists to sign their work until the '90s, with the exceptions of Dudley Watkins and Allan Morley.
Yes I'd imagine so. Presumably some are art editors or assistants who would do paste ups, hence the paste gag. (Ah, the pre-computer days when logos and editorial copy were physically glued into place!)Jonny Whizz wrote:Could the IPC caricatures be the Fleetway version of the real-life equivalents of the 'Sparky People' or something? Unfortunately, I won't be able to recognise them.
If it's out of their control, why was he allowed to use the Dandy and Topper characters? After all, DCT own them, not Charlie.Lew Stringer wrote:True, but this was done for a publication outside of their control. Convention programmes would usually feature pages contributed by artists for free, and the original art was auctioned off for charity. (I don't know if that applied to Comics 101.)Jonny Whizz wrote:The first thing I noticed with the Charlie Grigg picture was that he'd signed it. It looks a bit odd, because it's all DCT characters that's he drawn, and Thomsons didn't allow their artists to sign their work until the '90s, with the exceptions of Dudley Watkins and Allan Morley.
Lew
As I said presumably it was a freebie done for charity. That was the point of Convention booklet illustrations. We'd draw the characters that the readers were familiar with. I'm sure publishers would only object if it was done for profit.Digifiend wrote:If it's out of their control, why was he allowed to use the Dandy and Topper characters? After all, DCT own them, not Charlie.
Jonny Whizz wrote:The first thing I noticed with the Charlie Grigg picture was that he'd signed it. It looks a bit odd, because it's all DCT characters that's he drawn, and Thomsons didn't allow their artists to sign their work until the '90s, with the exceptions of Dudley Watkins and Allan Morley.









Yes, Comics 101 was, so I believe, dedicated to 101 years of British comics, as opposed to other UK conventions of the period which were pretty much 100% supporting US comics.Raven wrote: And should we assume then that this 1976 comic convention was attended by lots of fans who were actually into and appreciative of the British weekly comics rather than just imported American - mostly superhero - titles?