What comics did you buy today?

[Lew Stringer]

just purchased two whole years of Battle/Action comic - 1978/79 for a pretty penny but, considering what I shelled out for with previous issues in piecemeal, I feel good

I saw those. The same seller was selling them in yearly lots for £65 per year. Sounds like a bargain, if the condition is good.

I've bought a job lot of every issue of Scorcher and Score (bar one) so along with the pile I bought the other week I will soon have every issue of Scorcher (except for one, which I'm sure I'll find sometime). Yes, a bit odd for someone who doesn't like football, but I find Scorcher quite engaging. IPC's first theme comic, slightly lighter in tone to Fleetway's output, but plenty of Ken Reid goodness.

[David McDonald]

I got a load of Scorchers last year, and like you Lew not a particular soccer fan, but these are well crafted comics, and great covers in the main by the severely underrated Mike Western.
I didn't notice the theme before (!??) but you are right, Scorchers was probably the first theme comic, and maybe took a cue from Stan Lee, detailing the lives and troubles and leaving the football in the background!

[philcom55]

The short-lived Score 'n' Roar is also worth a look if you can find any copies going cheap. This was interesting in that it combined the football theme with the 'twin comics' format of Whizzer & Chips, along with some nice artwork by Fleetway regulars such as Solano Lopez and Jesus Blasco.

- Phil R.

[Lew Stringer]

The short-lived Score 'n' Roar is also worth a look if you can find any copies going cheap. This was interesting in that it combined the football theme with the 'twin comics' format of Whizzer & Chips, along with some nice artwork by Fleetway regulars such as Solano Lopez and Jesus Blasco.

- Phil R.

Yep, I had the first few issues of Score 'n' Roar back in 1970 but sold them about 35 years ago. I saw a few up for 99p on eBay this week so bought those too.

[Raven]

Score 'n' Roar was a strong comic, especially the first few months. Nipper is especially well written and rendered; another case of "detailing the lives and troubles." A multi-layered strip with writer Tom Tully demonstrating how good he was at the serial form. Simpler, but Peter the Cat also stands out as a good serial. The best football comic, I think.

[Lew Stringer]

Score 'n' Roar was a strong comic, especially the first few months. Nipper is especially well written and rendered; another case of "detailing the lives and troubles." A multi-layered strip with writer Tom Tully demonstrating how good he was at the serial form. Simpler, but Peter the Cat also stands out as a good serial. The best football comic, I think.

A good comic, but I think a few things went against it. The 9d cover price for a start, when most comics were 7d or 8d or less. Plus the 'two 16 page comics in one' gimmick was completely unconvincing when most adventure comics of the time had 32 pages. To only run for 41 weeks was a bit of a disaster, although I suppose IPC would get used to that with Thunder and Jet being flops with even less issues. The fact they even merged Score 'n' Roar into itself, retitled as simply Score, must have been a bit embarrassing for IPC at the time.

When it boils down to it, perhaps Score 'n' Roar's failure was simply because comics that are all football-themed have never had longevity, with Roy of the Rovers weekly being the exception. Perhaps there simply weren't enough football fans around who liked football comics. Seems they preferred fact to fiction with their football mags, as Shoot! had a very long run. (And still survives as a digital mag.)

[Raven]

A good comic, but I think a few things went against it. The 9d cover price for a start, when most comics were 7d or 8d or less.

Of course it was very good quality paper, and had some colour inside, mixing magazine and comic strips, so was presenting itself as something of a 'deluxe' weekly..

Plus the 'two 16 page comics in one' gimmick was completely unconvincing when most adventure comics of the time had 32 pages.

Jack of United in Score and his brother Jimmy of City, the rival team, in Roar was a good idea, though. But I don't think it was really presenting itself as 'twice the value' - IPC often focused on novelty, which many kids like, and I think the two title set-up was just part of the fun.

The fact they even merged Score 'n' Roar into itself, retitled as simply Score, must have been a bit embarrassing for IPC at the time.

'Roar' had actually stopped being an 'inside comic', the two blending into one, several months before the title changed to just 'Score', though; it coincided with the issue where the paper type changed, I think, in Feb '71. Maybe a revamp was in order at that point partially to keep the price stable, partially a rethink due to a drop in sales - who knows.

When it boils down to it, perhaps Score 'n' Roar's failure was simply because comics that are all football-themed have never had longevity, with Roy of the Rovers weekly being the exception. Perhaps there simply weren't enough football fans around who liked football comics.

I'm possibly an exception in that I'm not a football fan, but like a lot of football comics!

I wonder if there were also just too many comics for the market to sustain during this booming period of often excellent titles.

[Lew Stringer]

I'm possibly an exception in that I'm not a football fan, but like a lot of football comics!

I wonder if there were also just too many comics for the market to sustain during this booming period of often excellent titles.

I've no time for football either, but I do like Scorcher (and I bought Striker every week).

Coincidentally, as I was typing my previous ramble about Score 'n' Roar the ones I'd bought arrived by post. Yes, a nicely slick comic/mag publication.

I've always felt that IPC's comics were very well produced, with some great talent, but were a bit 'soft' compared to the more energetic 1960s comics that Fleetway and Odhams had been producing. I know IPC's editors had a more 'careful' attitude but perhaps that wasn't welcome in the 1970s. Interesting that their adventure comics didn't last long until Battle came along, a grittier comic. 2000AD, another more robust comic, also proved to have longevity. (Action might have lasted longer too, had it not overstepped the mark.) Valiant changed too late to save it. Then for some reason IPC went a bit soft again with comics like Speed, which typically didn't last.

[philcom55]

On the subject of 'themed' comics it's worth noting that Tiger spent most of its life devoted to sports stories (even Olac was based on gladiatorial games), though the incorporation of Comet meant that some non-themed series like Jet-Ace Logan were included for a while. Of course, there were also some early Romance comics aimed at the girls' market.

- Phil R.

[Raven]

I've always felt that IPC's comics were very well produced, with some great talent, but were a bit 'soft' compared to the more energetic 1960s comics that Fleetway and Odhams had been producing.

As you've expressed a zillion times, though, as I've expressed a zillion times, I feel the exact opposite.

Interesting that their adventure comics didn't last long until Battle came along, a grittier comic. 2000AD, another more robust comic, also proved to have longevity. (Action might have lasted longer too, had it not overstepped the mark.) Valiant changed too late to save it.

The revamped Valiant was relatively banal, I felt, and a huge drop in quality and range - I think it more likely that it quickly finished off the comic rather than saved it.

I think the supposed need for "gritty" comics is a myth that's been hugely overplayed, and that the increase in supposed "grit" (violence, cynicism, bleakness ...) was one of the things that ultimately helped to kill off the broadly popular comic with huge sales both here and in the States. Valiant and even Lion were full of macabre stuff, but also lots of imaginative, way out, weird and solid storytelling of many kinds - in all, a great variety.

[Lew Stringer]

I've always felt that IPC's comics were very well produced, with some great talent, but were a bit 'soft' compared to the more energetic 1960s comics that Fleetway and Odhams had been producing.

As you've expressed a zillion times, though, as I've expressed a zillion times, I feel the exact opposite.

Interesting that their adventure comics didn't last long until Battle came along, a grittier comic. 2000AD, another more robust comic, also proved to have longevity. (Action might have lasted longer too, had it not overstepped the mark.) Valiant changed too late to save it.

The revamped Valiant was relatively banal, I felt, and a huge drop in quality and range - I think it more likely that it quickly finished off the comic rather than saved it.

I think the supposed need for "gritty" comics is a myth that's been hugely overplayed, and that the increase in supposed "grit" (violence, cynicism, bleakness ...) was one of the things that ultimately helped to kill off the broadly popular comic with huge sales both here and in the States. Valiant and even Lion were full of macabre stuff, but also lots of imaginative, way out, weird and solid storytelling of many kinds - in all, a great variety.

Not sure that the harder content killed off adventure comics, considering Battle and 2000AD proved popular and the softer ones (Thunder, Jet, Speed) failed.

Yes, Valiant and Lion in their heyday (1960s) had some great macabre stories. (Eric Bradbury and others excelled at such stuff.) But overall those comics were feeling dated by the mid 1970s. I feel it was more a weakness in the scripts, not the art. Not every story of course, but a lot of them seemed weaker than they had been under Fleetway.

[philcom55]

One of the Mandrake comics I picked up yesterday. I'm not sure if this is rare or not but I love that dopey cover!


- Phil R.

[paw broon]

Phil, I'm not absolutely sure of this but I think it dates from 1953, mainly because Consolidated Press distributed a Shakespear Publishing title then. However, I could be havering here as there was another #1 around 1957, again by Shakespear but I think the telling thing is the Consolidated Press notice on your cover.
Could you have a wee look in the comic for any mention of a date? Or anything else in an indicia, please? Being a bit selfish here as this is as much for my info. as anything else.

[philcom55]

Hi Paw! Annoyingly there's no date or indicia printed inside, other than a line at the bottom of the back cover saying that it was printed by Conpress Ltd. for the publishers Consolidated Press Ltd. I'm pretty sure it is the 1953 edition though. The other titles I got with it were no.5 from the same series (dated July 1953, though printed in a wider format), a 1953 Mandrake Annual (also from Consolidated Press) and Supercomic Series no.10 from November 1948, featuring 'Mandrake & the Moon Men'. The Phil Davis artwork in the latter is particularly impressive.

- Phil R.

[paw broon]

Thanks Phil. That's great. Before I jumped in with that reply, I should have had a wee look online, particularly at this site:-
http://comicsdownunder.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... spell.html
As you'll see (and I got the Shakespeare Head Press name wrong) Shakespeare also produced the mid '50's annuals and were a company which Consolidated took over in 1946. For anyone else reading this, take a glance at the article and you'll see that Australian comics history can be just as complicated as British comics. Absolutely intriguing stuff.