Comics UK

Lew Stringer wrote:I did a similar thing around 1971 by cutting out all the Desperate Dan and Black Bob stories from The Dandy of that year and using the rest to light the fire with. I still have all those Dan and Bob pages, sewn together in their makeshift books.

Yeah, but that fire will have gone out ages ago. Lesson learned!
I would make copies of anything I liked by rubbing a white candle on the image and placing a piece of paper over it and rubbing it down with the back of a spoon. Hey presto, instant faded back-to-front copy! Got that tip from TV Comic I believe. I'm trying to remember if I ever cut up a comic and the worst thing I ever did (I think) was to trim that huge white border of the Odhams Press Power Comics down to a more pleasing to my eye width. I stopped when, due to the haphazard printing, I accidentally trimmed a little bit of Moon Madness on page 6. Never again.

Also, when you used to paste in low-grade comics-paper newsprint, it used to shrink and bleed badly...it looked pretty unappetizing, when I done it.

NP wrote:

Lew Stringer wrote:I did a similar thing around 1971 by cutting out all the Desperate Dan and Black Bob stories from The Dandy of that year and using the rest to light the fire with. I still have all those Dan and Bob pages, sewn together in their makeshift books.

Yeah, but that fire will have gone out ages ago. Lesson learned!
I would make copies of anything I liked by rubbing a white candle on the image and placing a piece of paper over it and rubbing it down with the back of a spoon. Hey presto, instant faded back-to-front copy! Got that tip from TV Comic I believe. I'm trying to remember if I ever cut up a comic and the worst thing I ever did (I think) was to trim that huge white border of the Odhams Press Power Comics down to a more pleasing to my eye width. I stopped when, due to the haphazard printing, I accidentally trimmed a little bit of Moon Madness on page 6. Never again.

Yes! I'd forgotten about that candle/spoon trick. I remember trying it with some Marvel comics. Got a faint image on paper and a waxy residue on the comic, so didn't do it again. (I think it may have been a trick from the Mr.Knowall page in Smash! but I could be wrong.)

I trimmed an issue of Smash as well, to fit inside a scrapbook. (For some reason I decided I'd put one issue of each comic in this scrapbook, lightly glued at the spine, perhaps to preserve them as examples of comics of the time, or something.) I went off the idea fairly quickly and put the comics back in their respective piles. I still have that issue with it's roughly trimmed edges.

As well as breaking like a biscuit, flowing like a liquid, stretching like toffee and bouncing like a ball, the thing that really captured my attention in those old 'Silly Putty' adverts was the way in which it could be used to copy pictures from comics (leaving behind the same 'waxy residue'). It really is amazing how many of the things we used to dream about as kids (instant scanning, 'Q Bike'-style walkie-talkies, TV and films on tap, etc.) are now quite commonplace for the children of today.

...Still, we had the comics! (though maybe the truth is that they simply became unnecessary in an age of real-life miracles )

- Phil Rushton

I had never thought there was a difference between 'collector' and 'fan'... I suppose 'collector' means someone who is obsessive about it and 'fan' is more casual or am I wrong? In this case, I guess I am a fan: I do collect comics but I don't fret if I have a few issues missing in any particular collection. In fact I am happy with having comics from a particular artist as samples so to speak, to study the drawings. And whenever I travel abroad, I try and get comics from the visited country and don't worry about getting complete collections, as long as I get what I call samples of the local comics

I was a big collector of any British and American comics, I would buy any comics I saw cheap just for the thrill of getting them before some body else did , this left me with boxs of comic that I never read or wanted to read . I now any a fan who collects, I now just get what I like which is silver age DC comics , pocket library comics and photo cover 50s and 60s comics

Nagorama wrote:I had never thought there was a difference between 'collector' and 'fan'... I suppose 'collector' means someone who is obsessive about it and 'fan' is more casual or am I wrong?

There's nothing set in stone but really there isn't any difference. I've only ever seen it discussed here, in 38 years of being involved with fandom. Collector is just another name for fan as far as comics are concerned. I think people are thinking of the difference between 'reader' and 'collector/fan'. Or the difference between 'collector/fan' and 'completest'.

If someone is a fan of a comics creator, character, or comic, then naturally they collect those comics. Fan. Collector. Same thing. If they feel a need to collect every issue of a comic, or everything a creator has done, or every comic a certain character is in, then they're a completest. If they're casual about it (eg: buying comics but not keeping them for long) then they're "just" readers. (Not to put down readers of course, - everyone is of equal importance.)

Lew Stringer wrote:
If someone is a fan of a comics creator, character, or comic, then naturally they collect those comics. Fan. Collector. Same thing. If they feel a need to collect every issue of a comic, or everything a creator has done, or every comic a certain character is in, then they're a completest.

I see, thank you for your explanation. I have known someone who was what is defined as a completest: he likes to buy and complete a series even if his tastes had changed and he didn't like the series anymore... he wouldn't even read the comics but buy them anyway for the sake of completing the collection. Having said that, I am not critical or judgemental of completests in any way. To each their own

Nagorama wrote:

Lew Stringer wrote:
If someone is a fan of a comics creator, character, or comic, then naturally they collect those comics. Fan. Collector. Same thing. If they feel a need to collect every issue of a comic, or everything a creator has done, or every comic a certain character is in, then they're a completest.

I see, thank you for your explanation. I have known someone who was what is defined as a completest: he likes to buy and complete a series even if his tastes had changed and he didn't like the series anymore... he wouldn't even read the comics but buy them anyway for the sake of completing the collection. Having said that, I am not critical or judgemental of completests in any way. To each their own

As I said, the descriptions aren't set in stone but they're the sort of distinctions I've always come across. I'd never heard anyone in fandom talk about a difference between collector and fan until this thread started.

I agree with Lew that collectors tend to be fans and fans tend to be collectors - but I do think it's possible to see the two roles as opposite ends on a spectrum: thus extreme collectors can become obsessed with the condition and completeness of their collection - sometimes to the extent of sealing them in plastic - while the pure fan wants nothing more than to reread his prized possessions over and over again (and to seek out more of the same).

This is nicely illustrated by a copy of DC Thomson's 'Morgyn the Mighty' novel that I picked up this morning for just £1.40 from a local charity shop. While it still has the original dustjacket, albeit worn and clipped, the problem is that all of Dudley Watkins' interior illustrations have been carefully coloured in by a previous owner. No doubt this would render it virtually worthless for the sort of collector who always insists on mint condition in everything he buys (as reflected in the relatively low price) - but for myself I have to say that it didn't bother me in the slightest as the story itself is completely unaffected, while the artwork remains perfectly visible.





The odd thing about the question posed by this thread is its assumption that pure fans are somehow inferior to pure collectors ("just a fan"); in fact it seems to me that the fan is far more likely to have a genuine appreciation of the objects of his desire, while the collecting impulse might just as easily be satisfied by stamps or golfing memorabilia!

- Phil Rushton

philcom55 wrote:I agree with Lew that collectors tend to be fans and fans tend to be collectors - but I do think it's possible to see the two roles as opposite ends on a spectrum: thus extreme collectors can become obsessed with the condition and completeness of their collection - sometimes to the extent of sealing them in plastic - while the pure fan wants nothing more than to reread his prized possessions over and over again (and to seek out more of the same).

This is nicely illustrated by a copy of DC Thomson's 'Morgyn the Mighty' novel that I picked up this morning for just £1.40 from a local charity shop. While it still has the original dustjacket, albeit worn and clipped, the problem is that all of Dudley Watkins' interior illustrations have been carefully coloured in by a previous owner. No doubt this would render it virtually worthless for the sort of collector who always insists on mint condition in everything he buys (as reflected in the relatively low price) - but for myself I have to say that it didn't bother me in the slightest as the story itself is completely unaffected, while the artwork remains perfectly visible.





The odd thing about the question posed by this thread is its assumption that pure fans are somehow inferior to pure collectors ("just a fan"); in fact it seems to me that the fan is far more likely to have a genuine appreciation of the objects of his desire, while the collecting impulse might just as easily be satisfied by stamps or golfing memorabilia!

- Phil Rushton

The colored parts can easily be put back to their b&w state as it doesn't look like its ink from this end by using a pencil eraser just go easy with the rubbing if you wish to do so that is

Actually - the colouring in that Morgyn the Mighty book is quite good - far better than many others that I've seen.

I did experiment with a soft eraser and you're right - the colouring is quite easy to remove. On the other hand, as George says, it almost seems a shame to do so...!

- Phil R.

I've had plenty of Dandy comics and annuals that have been coloured in even the beano book 1940 reprint had all it's b&w strips and prose illustrations in pastel colours! Odd that tbh but it is entirely up to you if the colour stays or goes

Very unusual to see a 'realistic' Dinosaur drawn by Dudley Watkins...many thanks for including this, Phil!

Watkins' Dinos were more often than not of the skeleton variety, usually depicted within a Museum setting.