Category Archives: z Archive

Recreation Vs. Restoration, How Should Reprints Be Done?

by
Posted in 2008/07, Restoration, Topic, z Archive.

Not long ago Daniel Best wrote a post on his blog about art recreations used in Marvel Masterworks (Original Art Stories: Marvel Masterworks Non-Original Artists). The gist of his comments was that he objected to Marvel’s use of recreated art in the Masterwork volumes. Mike Kelleher who does work for Marvel reprints posted a reply on the Marvel Masterworks Fan Site. The ensuing thread is typical of the sort of thing to be found in lists. It ranges from insightful discussion to meaningless name calling.

I have to give Mike Kelleher credit; he is open about what he has done. Apparently he felt quite justified in recreating art in some cases:

Marvel never gave me any instructions on how to recreate art. There is no way anyone could have known I redrew some of the pages on paper first before reconstructing them. My first 6-12 months of art recreation was done digitally, I then read an article somewhere ( might have been here but I don’t recall ) about how artists used to, and still do, literally redraw the pages for reprint purposes. Since I wasn’t happy with the results I was getting digitally, I decided to try drawing them (contrary to recent comments I am an accomplished, although unknown, artist :-). I’m still getting the feeling that some people are trying to attach sinister motives to this process, but there really are none.

He has an interesting post in the thread showing various stages in one of his reconstructions. Of particular interest to me was this statement:

Because Masterworks line art is printed 100% black just like the original comics, we need to digitally transform this image so that there is no grey. This is problem 1. There is no setting that will fill in the areas where the ink was light or dropped out completely. After playing with the adjustments for a few minutes I have decided that this is the best result I can get…

This explains the source of many of Marvel’s problems. Restricting the black plate to just line art was common in the original comics but is not typical of modern printing methods. In my opinion Marvels use of this technique in their reprints unnecessarily complicates the restoration process. With the level of correction that must be done the final results can be anything from a restoration to a recreation, depending on the person doing the work.

I found another of Mike Kelleher’s comments interesting:

Final points– All reconstructed artwork ( and most done from scans of stats and original art ) have some level of redrawn lines. Reality. Period.

This simply is wrong but I understand now why he believes it to be true. It is all back to that 100% black plate. Use a modern separation and you just cannot beat reproductions based on original art (assuming the original art is complete). I know original art is not always available so this is not a suggestion that Marvel take that approach.

In a previous thread on the same Marvel Masterworks Fan Site I learned from another that micro filch were used as the source for some of the golden age reprints. These micro filch were made many years ago but still occasionally show up in places like eBay. Their quality is fine for casual reading but as a source for reprints they leave much to be desired. Any reprint based on micro filch would almost certainly end up being a very poor recreation.


Treasure Comics #10 (December 1946), art by Jack Kirby

Years ago I decided digitally restore the line art for every Simon and Kirby cover. Even then I could not afford to chemically bleach the original comics. So I developed a method to remove the color using Photoshop. I must add that I am sure others have also figured how to do this on their own. Digitally bleaching is not as successful as with the use of chemicals so there was still a lot of work needed to clean up the final results.


Captain America #7 (October 1941), art by Jack Kirby (original scan)
Larger view

I did finish the project but in the end I came away with two basic realizations. One was this method required too much work. The second was that color really should be a part of the restoration process. I did not like Marvel reprints and felt there was a better and more accurate way of doing things. So once again I figured a process using Photoshop to do restoration. And yes I am sure others figured it out themselves as well. Usually I only post at least partially restored images in this blog, but now I will made an exception. The above image is an actually scan from a comic just as it came from my scanner. Below can be found my restoration based on that very scan. I was so pleased with my method that I once started a group (Digitizing Comic Books ). In that group I posted an explanation of some of my techniques. Well I do not think many got what I was trying to do so I never went past the basics. I am the moderator so there will be no problems if anyone wants to become a member. It is pretty much a dormant group but the archive still has my posts.

Captain America #7
Captain America #7 (October 1941), art by Jack Kirby (restored)
Larger view

Is Marvel being dishonest by presenting recreations in a reprint volume? My original reaction was yes. Some on the thread have said that this was all well known facts. That it was not hidden in either Marvel interviews or posting on lists. I do not feel that is true discloser as not everyone reads those interviews or reads all comic book lists. So I pulled out my Marvel Masterwork volume of Daring Mystery. There in the table of contents they credit those who did the color and art “reconstruction”. Yes reconstruction is their word. My dictionary provides this definition of the word reconstruct:

“1) to construct again; rebuild; make over. 2) to build up, from remaining parts and other evidence, an image of what something was in its original and complete form”.

Well I feel the first definition is certainly valid for what Marvel has been doing (though not the second since the final result is nothing like the original form). So yes Marvel is being honest. I should have been more careful when buying these volumes because here reconstruct is another word for recreate.

There are those who honestly like Marvel’s approach and think the Masterwork volumes are the correct way to do reprints. They would not spend their money on what they would describe as just scans. There are also those who really are only interested in the characters and have little concern for studying the original artists and inkers. For all of them these Marvel Masterworks are a good deal. There are others who never did like what the glossy pages and flat colors of the Masterworks. There are also some who truly admire the earlier artists and want to see their art and not some recreation by a modern artist. For those the Masterworks just do not have the same value. I fall in this second category and I will be getting rid of the volumes I have and will not buy any more.

Goodbye Creig Flessel

by
Posted in 2008/07, Odds & Ends, Topic, z Archive.

During my visit with Joe Simon today we got the news of the passing of Creig Flessel. It saddened us both. Joe reminisced about Creig and George Tuska being part of his crew. Joe commented that they both were beautiful people. The three lived close to one another at that time. It is a period of Joe’s career that I have not studied sufficiently and so have not posted on yet. Not because it is less important then the rest of his career, but just because there is so many parts of his life that need to be studied.

I can recall a number of occasions during previous visits where Joe would pull out a copy of some commission piece that Creig had done recently. He never could get over how beautiful Creig’s work still was (nor could I).

Mark Evanier has a nice obituary for Creig Flessel. Ger Apeldoorn’s blog has a couple of posts with nice examples of Flessel’s commission work and other oddities.

One of Joe’s last comments before I left was “I am not ready to check in yet, I just ordered a couple of boxes of cigars”. In that case Joe, keep ordering those cigars.

It’s a Crime, Chapter 1, Promoting Crime

by
Posted in 2008/07, 5 Studio, Artists, It's a Crime, Kirby, Jack, Periods, Prize, Serial Posts, z Archive and tagged , , ,

(Treasure #10, Prize Comics #63, Frankenstein #7)

Feature Publications, more commonly known as Prize Comics but also as Crestwood, was a relatively small company in 1946. There were five titles in their comic line all of which were bimonthlies; Frankenstein, Headline, Prize, Treasure and Wonderland. It was not just that Prize had a limited number of comic titles; Hillman for example had even fewer. Feature’s problem was more about what they were offering. Wonderland had funny stories aimed at the younger comic book readers but did not have any outstanding features. Treasure was a more general anthology again without any features that were likely to excite readers in 1946. Prize and Headline were also anthologies with an emphasis on the hero genre. Unfortunately in 1946 the popularity of superheroes was on a distinct decline. This could even be seen in Prize’s offering. During the war Yank and Doodle had been young patriotic heroes while the Owl was more of a standard crime fighting costumed hero. Yet by 1946 the two had been combined into a single feature. It was an awkward match to say the least. The only title Feature had that set them apart from other comic publishers was Frankenstein. It probably was not a great success otherwise it would not have remained a bimonthly. With the exception of Frankenstein, the best description of Prize’s comics would be tired.


Treasure #10 (December 1946) “The Treasure Keeper”, art by Dan Barry

Blame for Prize’s humdrum nature does not rest with its artists. Some talented individuals at least occasionally appeared in their comics. We have encountered Dan Barry before when I discussed My Date. The Treasure Keeper was an ongoing feature in Treasure Comics. Unfortunately I do not have access to any other issues but I do not believe Barry was always the artist. Here Barry illustrates the story a successful Russian violinist fall after his anti-Czarist efforts are discovered by the authorities. Dan does a good job with the story, or at least as good as can be expected with the script.


Treasure #10 (December 1946) “Know Your America”, art by Mort Meskin

In 1946 Mort Meskin was doing work for a number of different publishers. Was his appearance in Treasure #10 unique or are there other works by Mort to be found in early Prize comics? Meskin was certainly in good form with his contribution to this issue of Treasure. “Know Your America” was another ongoing feature. I suspect its historic nature probably did not generate a lot of reader enthusiasm even in those patriotic days following the war. Meskin manages to add excitement to what really was a rather dry script. The story page I present above is by no means unique. Note how Meskin puts action into a sequence which is really nothing more then the report to the governor about the public’s rejection of the stamp act (about 10 years prior to the revolutionary war). Mort’s command of perspective, something he is not normally known for, is clear in his depiction of the hand extending to the viewer in the third panel.


Treasure #10 (December 1946) “Tomorrow’s Murder”, art by Jack Kirby

The final story in Treasury #10 was something new for Treasure, or for any Feature comic. It was “Tomorrow’s Murder” by Simon and Kirby. New because it was the first Simon and Kirby piece to be published by Feature since a few pre-war stories. But more importantly new because it was Prize’s first true crime genre work. The crime genre itself was certainly not new as Bob Wood and Charles Biro created Crime Does Not Pay for publisher Lev Gleason in 1942. At that time Simon and Kirby may have been too busy with their entrance into the armed service to notice Wood and Biro’s new genre but after the war they could hardly have missed it. When their post-war titles, Stuntman and Boy Explorers, failed and Joe and Jack were looking for something to keep their collaboration going one of the categories they turned their attention to was the successful crime genre. Just a few months after the failure of their Harvey line (Stuntman #3 with cover date October 1946 was released as miniature comic to subscribers only) Simon and Kirby had manage to sell the crime genre concept to Prize.

“Tomorrow’s Murder” also introduced Red-Hot Blaze. Blaze was supposed to be a sort of investigative reported for Headline Comics. The results of his investigations would then be drawn up as a comic story. The splash presents the enactment of the crime as if it was being rendered on a drawing board. In the story panel we get to see the artist. The comic artist’s curly hair indicates that this was not meant to literally be a self-portrait of Jack Kirby. There was no reason to be since the comic book reading public would not have any idea what Jack looked like. Nor was “Tomorrow’s Murder” signed. However the ever present cigar shows that in Jack’s mind there truly was a connection between the real and fictional comic artist.


Treasure #10 (December 1946) house advertisement, art by Jack Kirby

The end of the “Tomorrow’s Murder” story only occupied the top with the house ad shown above taking up the rest of the page. Clearly Simon and Kirby had not just sold Prize on a single crime story, Joe and Jack had convinced them to publish a comic devoted to the genre. Headline would no longer be a general anthology. Of the titles currently being published by Prize, Headline had the most appropriately named for a crime comic. By retaining the original title name, I am sure Prize hoped that they might keep some of the former readers as well. The advertisement indicated that the switch to crime would happen in the January issue. Things did not work out as originally planned as Headline #23 would be cover dated March. When Headline #23 was finally released its cover was not the mock-up issue depicted in the house ad either. The one shown in the ad would actually be used for Headline #24.


Prize Comics #63 (March 1947) “Romania’s Strangest Killer”, art by Jack Kirby

The same month that Headline #23 was released a Simon and Kirby crime story also appeared in Prize Comics #63. In “Romania’s Strangest Killer” the placement of the splash panel at the bottom of the first page is rather unique. Of course the story panels at the top of the page are not truly part of the story. It is actually just an introduction using the theme of Red-Hot Blaze being an investigator for Headline Comics. Only this time it is a Headline editor who makes an appearance not the artist. The splash panel is very powerful showing a murdered victim in the foreground, another hanging in the mid-ground and the perpetrator exiting in the back. Part of the title is enclosed with an outline of a hatchet. It is a great design but we shall see that a lot of the Simon and Kirby crime splashes are masterpieces.

Just as with “Tomorrow’s Murder”, the last page of “Romania’s Strangest Killer” includes the same house advertisement. Well not quite the same since the text referring to the release and issue dates have been removed. Not, however, completely because although small and blurred the January – February cover date can still be made out on the small mock-up cover.


Frankenstein #7 (May, 1947) “Justice Finds A Cop Killer”, art by Jack Kirby

Two months after the actual release of the first crime version of Headline a crime story appeared in yet another Prize title. In 1946 Frankenstein as portrayed by Dick Briefer was not truly monster stories but rather belonged to the humor genre. The Simon and Kirby story “Justice Finds a Cop Killer” seems very much out of place. It is once again a Red-Hot Blaze story with the curly haired and cigar smoking artist making a reappearance. Although not a particularly impressive design the splash panel is still very dramatic largely due to Kirby’s famous exaggerated perspective. The falling policeman is so dramatic that it is easy to overlook the fact that the gun and bullet trace do not actually seem to be aimed properly.

“Justice Finds a Cop Killer” concludes with the same house ad. More specifically the dateless version that appeared in Prize Comics #63. Despite the late date (as the second crime version of Headline had appeared in this same month) the presence of the crime story in Frankenstein was part of the same promotion campaign. The only Prize comic not to receive this treatment would be Wonderland. That title was much too directed at a very young readership for a crime story to be at all appropriate or productive.

The art for these promotional stories was typical for the crime genre work that Simon and Kirby would do. Most important was the dramatic action that was Jack Kirby’s trademark. There would be a slightly greater emphasis on realism as compared to Kirby’s Stuntman and Boy Explorers but the art would otherwise very much like S&K’s previous efforts for Harvey. One hallmark of Simon and Kirby’s art for Timely and DC had been the extending parts of figures beyond the panel borders. This technique could still be found in Stuntman and Boy Explorers but not nearly as commonly as the earlier work. It would disappear completely in the crime work.

Another prominent trait of Simon and Kirby’s work for Timely and DC was the use of unusual panel shapes. Among panels with the normal straight edge others would trace a zigzag pattern. Circular or sub-circular panels would also be used in places. This use of non-rectangular panels would be continued in Stuntman and Boy Explorers. For instance “Curtain Call for Death” from Stuntman #2 (June 1946) 16% of the panels were circular or sub-circular. The number may seem small but had all the pages had the typical 6 panels (however S&K never adopted such a regimented layout) that would mean on average there was a rounded panel on each page. The promotional crime stories maintained a similar level of rounded panels. In “Tomorrow’s Murder” and “Romania’s Strangest Killer” 14% of the panels were circular or sub-circular while in “Justice Finds a Cop Killer” the ratio was 16%.

The inking was in the bold manner of what I have called the Sculptural style due to its emphasis on what I refer to as form lines that are not shadows but are used to give a sense of volume to shapes (see my Inking Glossary for explanations of my terms). The Sculptural style was previously used for the Simon and Kirby work done for DC (as for example in the Newsboy Legion stories). The use of this inking style was continued after the war. However Simon and Kirby art was never static and was always evolving. The Sculptural style used for Stuntman and Boy Explorers made use of even bolder brushwork. The individual brush marks stand out and while still indicating shadows or form they take on an expressive roll of their own. This bolder manner of the Sculptural style would be used in the early S&K crime art as well. Absent for the most part are techniques like picket fence crosshatching, drop strings, shoulder blots and abstract arch shadows. Such techniques do make rare appearances but even then are usually not done in the manner typical of the soon to appear Studio style.

Joe and Jack were heavily into self promotion. Much of the comic book art that they created was provided with a Simon and Kirby signature. The operative word is “much” as not every work they did was signed. None of the three promotional pieces I discussed above had a signature. Normally with such a small group I would not make much about that fact but as we shall see the absence of a signature was not limited to these pieces alone.

Again and again, while working on my serial post “The Art of Romance” I found myself referring to the Headline and Justice Traps the Guilty for help in questions about attributions. This is not surprising because artists that worked for the Simon and Kirby studio normally were expected to be able to handle work from any genre. I have decided that it would be beneficial to review the Simon and Kirby crime material so this will be the first of another serial post. It will not have as many chapters as “The Art of Romance” because as we will see Simon and Kirby’s involvement with the crime genre only lasted a few years.

Chapter 2, A Revitalized Title
Chapter 3, Competing Against Themselves
Chapter 4, Crime Gets Real
Chapter 5, Making a Commitment
Chapter 6, Forgotten Artists
Chapter 7, A Studio With Many Artists
Chapter 8, The Chinese Detective
Chapter 9, Not The Same
Chapter 10, The Master and His Protege
Chapter 11, The New Team

A Date Without Romance

by
Posted in 2008/07, 5 Studio, Artists, Featured Work, Hillman, Kirby, Jack, Periods, Topic, z Archive and tagged , ,

Most of the work that Simon and Kirby did for Hillman in 1947 was for previously existing titles. The sole exception was My Date. Despite its title, My Date was not a romance comic (as I discussed previously) instead it is teenage humor and in particular an Archie-clone. Archie first appeared as a backup feature in MLJ’s Pep Comics during the war while both Joe and Jack were in military service. Archie was so successful that MLJ’s superheroes were eventually dropped and the company’s name changed to Archie Comics. 1947 found Simon and Kirby looking for a work so it is not surprising that the popular Archie would lead them to suggest teenage humor title to Hillman. Although My Date was not a romance comic it clearly was directed at teenage girls. There would be a lot of dating in My Date but no romance.


My Date #1 (July 1947) “My Date with Swifty Chase”, art by Jack Kirby

The first story in all the My Date issues would be by Simon and Kirby. Initially the feature centered on Swifty Chase a good hearted young inventor. Like Archie there is a love triangle but in this case the center of it is the beautiful Sunny Daye and Snubby Skeemer is Swifty’s rich and unscrupulous rival. The first story has quite a cast of characters as can be seen in the splash. Three of them were clearly meant for this story alone; Humphrey Hogart, his fiance actress Chandra Blake and B. O. his business manager (the three are shown in the center background of the splash). The rest seem to be meant to be re-occurring cast members. However issue #2 introduced a new character, House-Date Harry, who would quickly become the feature’s lead character while Swifty would be delegated to a supporting roll. This is the equivalent of Jughead pushing out Archie. The Swifty Chase feature would be Simon and Kirby’s only contribution to the title and only the last issue would have more then one Swifty or House-Date Harry story.

Kirby’s drawing for My Date is surprising good. I say surprising because Jack is most famous for his more realistic portrayals. Yet the Swifty Chase stories are filled with visually interesting characters all done in a more cartoony style then is typical for Kirby although not as cartoony as his work at the same time in Punch and Judy. I wish I can be as complimentary about the writing. The first story is really a masterpiece. Lots of action and funny turns of events. Having Humphrey Hobart in it also helped. Things changed with the introduction of House-Date Harry. The idea of the scheming but good hearted Harry would have been fine as one shot story line. With the recurring use of the House-Date Harry theme it becomes forced and not nearly so funny. I really cannot see Simon and Kirby being able to continue to make this feature interesting.

Incidentally, I once wrote that the first use of a pin-up by Simon and Kirby was for Boys’ Ranch. Well I was wrong. I forgot about the pin-up found in My Date #3. It depicts Harry’s new house-on-wheels. It was printed to be viewed by rotating the page but perhaps it was originally meant to be a double page pin-up.


My Date #2 (September 1947) “My Date”, art by Dan Barry

Not only was there a feature “My Date with Swifty Chase” but there was also another simply titled “My Date”. Interestingly “My Date” uses the same ribbon border on the splash page that is found in “My Date with Swifty Chase”. The premise for the feature was the supposed true stories as told to Jean Anne Marten. But after reading these stories it is clear that they are fictional. The feature “My Date” was drawn by Dan Barry in issues #1 to #3 and by an unidentified artist in the final issue. At this time Barry was doing a bit of work for Hillman including Airboy and the Heap. Besides comic books, Dan would also do syndication work on Tarzan (1947 – 1948) and Flash Gordon (1951 – 1990). Joe Simon told me that Barry did work for him during the Mainline period. Originally I thought this was on Charlie Chan but when I showed Joe that art he said it was not done by Barry. So at this point I have no idea what work Dan Barry did for Mainline. Barry seems a good enough artist but I cannot get very excited about the work he did for My Date.


My Date #1 (July 1947) “Ginny”, art by unidentified artist

Another feature in My Date is “Ginny”. Nothing particularly outstanding about this feature, it was just another teenage group. The most unusual member was a cigar smoking girl with the name of Big Bertha. (Big Bertha was a heavy gun used by the Germans during World War 1). I have no idea who the artist was but it was the same one in all four issues. In terms of drawing skills this artist really was not more exceptional then other artists in My Date (of course excluding Kirby). What really distinguishes him is his use of panel layouts. These were much more imaginative then even those by Simon and Kirby in the “Swifty Chase” stories.


My Date #1 (July 1947) “Ultra Violet” page 2, art by Jerry Robinson? and George Roussos?

Perhaps the most unique feature in My Date was “Ultra Violet”. The lead character Violet has a very active imagination. But she is no Walter Mitty, her daydreams actually affect reality. In the sequence shown above, Violet transforms into a glamorous school superintendent (that sure sounds like an oxymoron). Her actions in that roll have repercussions even after she resumes her more ordinary existence. Another daydream reveals the truth behind a musical idol (he has false teeth and wears a toupee). I rather like the fact that no explanation is given as to how she is able to achieve such transformations.

The first Ultra Violet story is unsigned. When writing in this blog I prefer to record my current opinions even when they are very tentative and in need of further investigation. Such is the case here where I feel the art looks very much like that by Jerry Robinson. You can see some of Jerry’s work with Mort Meskin in a previous post. However the art is not so well done as to suggest that Jerry inked it himself, nor is the inking by Mort Meskin. If it is by Robinson, and that still is a big if, then it may have been inked by George Roussos.


My Date #2 (September 1947) “Ultra Violet”, art by Dan Barry

The Ultra Violet features in My Date #2 and #3 were done by Dan Barry. Barry brought to the feature a more finished and elaborate style but I rather liked the original artist.


My Date #2 (September 1947) “The Rosebud Sisters”, art by Jack Keeler

My Date included stories that only appeared once. Was that intentional or were they tryouts that were judged to be unsuccessful? One unusual story was “The Rosebud Sisters”. Since the story is about a couple of elderly woman it seems very out of place in a comic devoted to teenage humor. The oddness of including this story was obvious even then since it was subtitled “Those 70-Year-Old Teen-Agers”. Fortunately the art was signed by Jack Keeler otherwise I never would have recognized it. Keeler had worked with Simon and Kirby previously having provided some 3 page Junior Genius stories for Stuntman. The Junior Genius was one of those humor strips with rather cartoony type of drawing. Keeler drew “The Rosebud Sisters” more realistically without completely loosing the cartoon-like effect.


My Date #2 (September 1947) “Lindy Hopp Dancing Lessons”, art by unidentified artist

Another curious feature is “Lindy Hopp Dancing Lessons” from My Date #2. What is unusual about it is although it clearly was not drawn by either Jack Kirby or Joe Simon it includes two characters from “My Date with Swifty Chase”. The boy in the green sweater and yellow hat is clearly Bumpy although he is referred to as Soud. Snubby Skeemer is correctly named but in this strip he will not hold a girl because when he does he breaks out in a rash. This is hardly consistent with his portrayal in the Swifty Chase stories.


My Date #3 (November 1947) “Date Snatcher”, art by unidentified artist

While recognizing My Date was not a romance comic, some have called it a proto-romance. The idea being that it lead the way to the first true romance comic book, Young Romance. Personally I do not buy that argument since I feel the best prototype was just what Joe Simon claimed, the romance pulps. Almost all of My Date was teenage humor albeit primarily aimed at a young female readership. There is some justification for a label of proto-romance for a couple of stories in My Date. “Date Snatcher” (My Date #3) and “Genius, That’s What” (My Date #4) are decidedly not humor. They both deal with relations between the sexes. However there are no kisses or expressions of love although the lead character’s sister in “Date Snatcher” does get married. Like the humor stories, there is lots of dating but no romance. Still very little would have to be changed to make these true romance stories so proto-romance seems appropriate for these particular features.


My Date #4 (January 1948) “Genius, That’s What”, art by unidentified artist

I am undecided about just what level of involvement did Simon and Kirby have with My Date. I am sure the title was Joe and Jack’s brain-child. Although not belonging to the romance genre, My Date was clearly aimed at teenage girls which was the same audience intended for the romance comic that Simon and Kirby were proposing at this time. All the covers were by Kirby except the last one which was by Jerry Robinson and Mort Meskin but that one also depicted Swifty Chase, Sunny Daye and House-Date Harry. Further the first story in the comic was always by Simon and Kirby. In fact the only art that Simon and Kirby signed for Hillman was for My Date and the Western Fighters #1 cover. All that would suggest that My Date was produced by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby. But not everything in the comic supports that thesis. Usually any new Simon and Kirby title would feature a lot of work drawn by Jack but My Date would only have one Kirby story per issue (except for My Date #4). S&K would usually provide a feature with a story title while Hillman generally only used the feature’s name and My Date followed the Hillman format. Like Sherlock Holmes’s barking dog, what is most surprising is what is not present in My Date and that is Bill Draut. Draut played an important part in earlier the Stuntman and Boy Explorers comics and would again in Young Romance but he is completely absent from My Date. The only artist that worked with Joe and Jack previously was Jack Keeler and he only shows up once. I am not sure what to say about Dan Barry. Barry appeared in a number of Hillman titles in about the same time. Did Simon and Kirby introduce Dan to Hillman or was it the other way around? I am unfamiliar with the rest of the My Date artists and do not believe any of them did work for Simon and Kirby later. All in all there is a least a suggestion the Simon and Kirby did not have the full creative control over My Date that they obviously had with titles that they produced for Prize.

Simon and Kirby Take On Kiddy Comics

by
Posted in 2008/07, 5 Studio, Artists, Hillman, Kirby, Jack, Periods, z Archive and tagged , ,

After the failure of Stuntman and Boy Explorers (published by Harvey Comics) by October 1946 (cover date) Simon and Kirby had to look elsewhere to keep their partnership going. DC was not really much of an option. Simon and Kirby had pretty much burned that bridge behind them when they made the deal with Harvey. Yes they still contributed to Boy Commandos, but Sandman had been cancelled months before and the Newsboy Legion would be a few months later. Joe and Jack would eventually do work largely for two publishers, Hillman and Prize. On the face of what S&K initially produced one might predict that Hillman would be the primary source of future work. While Simon and Kirby produced a crime title for Prize (Headline) they supplied a wide variety of genre to Hillman; crime (Clue and Real Clue Crime Stories), adventure (Flying Fool in Airboy), teenage humor (My Date), and most surprising kiddy humor (Punch and Judy). Furry animal stories seem such an unlikely product for Joe and Jack. However I doubt that Simon and Kirby felt there was any genre they could not do better then most other creators.

Punch and Judy volume 1 number 4
Punch and Judy vol. 1 no. 4 (Fall 1945) “How to Make Your Own Puppets”, art by an unidentified artist

According to the Jack Kirby Checklist, the first time Kirby drew something for Hillman was for Punch and Judy in the fall of 1945. If true it would have been one of the earliest things that Jack did after the war. The earliest other post-war work was the cover for Adventure #100 (October 1945, and no I do not believe this was done before Kirby went into the Army) so the date for the early Punch and Judy piece is just possible. At this point Joe Simon was still in the Coast Guard and so any work that Jack did was done without Joe’s help. The last time I wrote about this early Punch and Judy piece I was undecided about how correct the attribution to Kirby was. Since then I come to believe that “How to Make Your Own Puppets” should be excluded from work by Kirby. The timing seems wrong. It does not seem reasonable that immediately after returning to civilian life that Jack would seek out and find a company that he had never work for previously. Instead it would have made more sense to return to DC since at that point he still had a good relationship with that company. Yes I know Kirby did work for another company Lafayette Street Corp. (Picture News #1, January 1946, “You Can’t Loose A Faithful Dog”) but that had a cover date of months later. The inking for “How to Make Your Own Puppets” was not by Kirby. And last, but certainly not least, the drawing does appear to have any distinctive Kirby traits. Now it is true that the subject matter is not typical for Jack Kirby and therefore there is less to compare with it. But it is easy to recognize Kirby’s hand in some similar work for newspapers that Kirby did early in his career as well as the later work for Punch and Judy. So the absence of Kirby traits in “How to Make Your Own Puppets” is not a good sign.


Punch and Judy volume 2, number 9 (April 1947) “Rover the Rascal”, art by Jack Kirby

So if we exclude “How to Make Your Own Puppets”, the earliest work that Simon and Kirby did for Hillman was “King of the Bank Robbers” (Clue volume 2, number 1, March 1947). The next month Joe and Jack did another crime story and their first contribution to Hillman’s Punch and Judy Comics. Punch and Judy obviously catered to a younger reader then S&K normally dealt with. The feature story was about a about a wooden puppet that was very much alive, in other words a Pinocchio clone. Other stories included talking animals. Art was very simple consisting of little more then outlines. S&K first art for Punch and Judy was “Rover the Rascal”. This was a single page humor using a humanized dog family. I am not sure whether this was the first appearance of “Rover the Rascal” but it would not appear again. The line art was a simple as that found in the rest of the comic. The humor was of the slap-stick variety, something that Kirby gravitated towards. Probably the only exceptional thing about this piece was the use of a circular panel. That was a device that was very abundantly used from Captain America to Stuntman, but in the near future would become less common. All in all “Rover the Rascal” was not a very successful piece, but it was not a failure either. It was a beginning. For the rest of the year each issue of Punch and Judy what have at least one piece by Simon and Kirby and often two.


Punch and Judy volume 3, number 2 (December 1947) “Earl the Rich Rabbit”, art by Jack Kirby

One of the stories that Simon and Kirby would do for Punch and Judy was not their own creation. “Earl the Rich Rabbit” had appeared previously. I am not sure when it was created but the GCD has an entry for it for February 1947 issue (volume2, number 7). The Wikipedia says that Tony DiPreta drew it, but it is not clear if he was the creator or even when he worked on Earl. Jack Kirby did “Earl the Rich Rabbit” three times (June, October and December 1947). As generally was the case for Punch and Judy, the art for “Earl the Rich Rabbit” was very simplistic. Little more then outlines. Even so Kirby’s personal drawing style can often be recognized. There is little in the way of spotting but the spotting that was used was often drop strings (see the Inking Glossary for an explanation of inking terms). Considering their situation it is unlikely that Simon and Kirby had any studio assistants at the time. So it is likely that the inking was done by either Jack or Joe. There is little to go on, but what little there is looks like Jack’s spotting. The outline inking is just too simple to hazard a guess. The humor is often the slap-stick that Jack preferred. The “Earl the Rich Rabbit” stories that Simon and Kirby did were nicely done and funny in places. But I cannot help but feel that Joe and Jack’s hearts were not really into it. Since it was an ongoing feature I suspect that Simon and Kirby were not given any leeway to make the type of changes that would get their creative juices flowing.


Punch and Judy volume 2, number 10 (May 1947) “Lockjaw the Alligator”, art by Jack Kirby

Simon and Kirby’s most frequent contribution to Punch and Judy was “Lockjaw the Alligator” which appeared on four occasions. Lockjaw was a S&K creation and forms an interesting contrast to “Earl the Rich Rabbit”. The art is much more substantial in Lockjaw as compared to Earl. Although still simple relative to work by Simon and Kirby in other genre, the drawing is more detailed and the inking more substantial then the other funny animal stories. Drop strings are much more evident but there are no signs of techniques such as picket fence crosshatching. Most important is that forms are given a much more three dimensional shape. As I wrote before the inking was probably done by either Joe or Jack. In the case of the above splash I suspect it was Kirby doing the spotting.


Punch and Judy volume 3, number 1 (October 1947) “Lockjaw Goes To College” page 4, art by Jack Kirby

The humor is predominately slap-stick and can get pretty ridiculous. This is not a negative criticism because you can hardly expect talking animal stories to be serious (that only changed in recent years). Lockjaw really can be a lot of fun. I could not resist including one of my favorite pages. The image of an alligator on a college date is pretty ludicrous. Lockjaw’s cloths always looked funny but never more so then this tux. The dance sequence continues onto the next page where it goes to rather extremes, but it is panel 5 that is one of my favorite pieces of Simon and Kirby humor art.

The inking of the cloth folds does not look like Kirby’s which normally would have more elongated oval (spatulate) shapes. Also the placement of the folds does not look typical for Jack. So this story was most likely inked by Joe Simon.


Punch and Judy volume 2, number 12 (July 1947) “The Mystery Crooner”, art by Jack Kirby

Simon and Kirby had one other creation used in Punch and Judy; Toby and His Band. Toby had only one appearance but the fact that it was provided with both a feature name and a story title (not done for any of the other Simon and Kirby stories in Punch and Judy) suggests a hope for it to be a continuing feature. Toby was not a funny animal story but rather belong to the teenage humor genre. The surprise is not that Simon and Kirby would try teenage humor (after all Archie was a big success) but that they would try it twice for the same publisher. My Date was a not the proto-romance that some have tried to make it but rather another teenage humor comic. The fact that the first issue of My Date and the Toby and His Band story were both released in the same month suggests that Toby may originally have been conceived for My Date.

Toby also has a more then passing resemblance to another Simon and Kirby story: “Pipsy” from Laugh #24 (September 1947) published by Archie. Only a slight change in hair style would be required to morph Toby into Pipsy. Doreen, the leading lady from “Pipsy”, even has the same ribbon in her hair as Jill does in the splash for Toby and His Band. Since “Pipsy” was published just a couple months after “The Mystery Crooner” if it was not recycled art it was at least a recycled concept.

Although Simon and Kirby started out doing a greater variety of work for Hillman then for Prize by the end of the year things were very different. It was Prize that agreed to publish Joe and Jack’s Young Romance in September. The conversion of Headline into a crime comic by S&K must have been very successful as the first Justice Traps the Guilty was released in October. The deal that Simon and Kirby made with Prize must have been very attractive, particularly the sharing of the profits for the highly successful Young Romance. Simon and Kirby’s last crime work for Hillman would appear in September, the last Fly Fool and the last work for Punch and Judy would be in December, and My Date would end in January 1948. The last Hillman work would be a cover for Western Fighters #1 (April 1948). Left over inventory?

News on Titan’s Simon & Kirby books

by
Posted in 2008/06, Odds & Ends, z Archive.

As I warned previously, I am not going to be the one to break any news about Titan’s Simon & Kirby book projects. But the Jack Kirby Weblog has a post about some new information. Not much but it is better then nothing.

Marvel Reprints or Marvel Recreations?

by
Posted in 2008/06, Odds & Ends, z Archive.

Dan Best has an interesting post on his blog 20th Century Danny Boy. It is Original Art Stories: Marvel Masterworks Non-Original Artists. In it he discusses Marvel’s policy of re-creating art when the original stats are not available. It sounds like it is a lot more prevalent then I originally believed. I once wrote a post about Marvel’s reprint of the Human Torch #2 (1). In it I used the term re-inked, but in all honesty re-created is a more accurate description.

Admittedly the original comics were printed with a very primitive type of press. I understand why Marvel would want to use stats when available rather then the original comics. But when original stats are not available the idea that a re-creation is superior to restoring from the original comics is just bizarre. Any re-creation no matter how skillfully done is always one artist’s interpretation of another’s work. This is true even if the original artist is used since so many years have passed. This can be misleading to any comic art historian trying to understand the style of the original penciler or inker. What is worse is Marvel does not even provide any indication as to what stories are based on stats and what are re-creations.

The Boys’ Ranch Landscape Swipe

by
Posted in 2008/06, 5 Studio, Artists, Harvey, Kirby, Jack, Periods, z Archive and tagged , ,

Boys' Ranch #2
Boys’ Ranch #2 (December 1950) “Lead Will Fly At Sunset”, art by Jack Kirby

In a recent post about Boys’ Ranch I wrote about what is probably the most unusual splash the Jack Kirby ever drew. The reader need not go back to my original post because I include an image of the splash above and here is what I wrote:

Not only did Boys’ Ranch include exceptional pinups, the splash pages are among the best that Jack Kirby did and that is saying a lot. Most of them are full page splashes filled with excitement. However the most unusual splash that Kirby did, not just for Boys’ Ranch but for any Simon and Kirby production, was certainly the one for “Lead Will Fly at Sunset.” Not only does it have no action, it does not even have any characters at all. That is Boys’ Ranch we see below from a distance but there is only the caption to confirm that. What we are provided with is nothing more then a landscape. Well that is a little misleading as this was drawn by Jack Kirby who shows here that he can embody a landscape with interest as well. Partly this is due to the unusual perspective Jack has depicted. In the foreground a steep trail descends to a panoramic vista. The nearby terrain is so rugged that only a few twisted trees have managed to cling to the rocks. With the extensive view it is easy to overlook the most significant inhabitant, a coyote on our left descending via the trail.

But if a reader still wants to go back to my original post here is a link.

Book of Cowboys
Illustration from “The Book of Cowboys” by Holling C. Holling

Kirby scholar and sleuth Tom Morehouse added a comment to my post:

Part of the reason this may stand out is that Jack swiped this particular landscape from The Book of Cowboys by Holling C. Holling (published in 1936).

and he kindly sent a scan of the landscape in question.

Frankly I am not at all surprised that the splash was based on a swipe as it was so unusual. Further that fact that Kirby sometimes used swipes is now too well documented (mostly by Tom) to provide any shock. The equivalent of swiping is a fundamental process in art but only comic art fans use such a derogatory term (swipe is slang for steal). I hasten to add that I believe Tom uses the term for the same reason that I do; the word is so entrenched with comic book fans and requires no explanation. Personally I find cases such as this not a source of embarrassment or condemnation, but as valuable windows into the mind of the creator. Despite my having referred to it as a swipe the splash is truly a Kirby creation and not a mere copy. Compare any detail and it will be seen that Kirby has not followed Holling’s closely. For instance Kirby has only kept one of the distant mountains and even that has been rendered in a manner suggesting that it may be a cloud. This has the effect of making the closer bluffs more dramatic then in Holling’s illustration. Also Kirby has added clumps of trees in the background in places that Holling had left rather featureless.

Although I was not surprised that Kirby swiped this splash I would never have guessed the most important change that Jack made. The most unusual aspect of the comic splash, particularly for an artist like Kirby, was the complete absence of people. It would never have occurred to me that this would not also be found in the original source of the swipe. Yet Holling has foreground figures descending the trail. The most natural expectation would have been that Jack would replace Holling’s figures with Boys’ Ranch members. Unexpectedly Kirby removed Holling’s figures entirely and introduced the lone coyote in their place. It is one of those creative leaps of a great artist that provide awe but can never be truly understood. It seems counter-intuitive, but the removal of all people has made the splash more dramatic.

That the Boys’ Ranch splash was now been shown by Tom Morehouse to be based on a swipe does not diminish it in my eyes. Quite the contrary, seeing how Kirby has used Holling’s book illustration has increased my appreciation for the splash. I may use the term swipe but in reality Jack has not stolen anything.

The Real Reason for the Decline of Comics

by
Posted in 2008/06, Topic, Wertham & Censoring, Why Comics Declined, z Archive and tagged ,

When I reviewed Michelle Nolan’s recent book, “Love on the Racks”, I mentioned that I sometimes had trouble keeping track of the numbers that she would cite to illustrate the ups and downs of romance comics. I therefore resolved to try to make a graphic presentation. I used the data collected by Dan Stevenson found in “All the Romance Comics Ever Published (?)”. As I previously described, what I have done was followed the time during which each romance title appeared and counted up the number of titles that could be expected to be out each month. Bimonthlies were treated as being out in the in-between months (it is not an unreasonable assumption that they would actually stayed on the racks for a couple of months).

Tracking the number of titles provides an indirect indication of the popularity of the romance genre over time. After all if a title sells well enough a publisher is likely to introduce a new one in the same genre, while if sales are poor the title is likely to be cancelled. Thus in such a free market the number of titles is a fair reflection of the popularity of romance comics. There is one important caveat to this statement and that has to do with response time. With comic books it took one to two months to prepare the art, a month for the printing, and another month for the distribution. Comic books were released on assignment and profits were based on the comics actually sold. The publisher would not know how well a particular issue sold for at least a couple of months, if not more. This means that by the time the first indications reached a publisher of how successful a new title was there already may have been as many as four issues released (assuming it is a monthly). Further a publisher might want to give a new title a chance to gain its audience so even further issues might be issued before a poorly selling title might be cancelled.

Romance Titles
Romance Titles over Time

The lag between release of a new title and the cancellation if it sold poorly is the explanation for the love glut. I previously showed the graph just for the glut itself but the above chart for the entire history of romance comics puts it into a better perspective. The rapidness of the ascent, the height achieved, and the quickness of the decline are unmatched in any other period. Probably unmatched by any other comic book genre as well.

As interesting and distinct as the love glut is revealed in this graph, there are other features that call for explanation. Initially I thought to divide up the chart into three distinct periods. The first period would begin with the love glut and last until early in 1957. The ending for the second period is not as distinct but could be placed between 1963 and early 1965. The final period lasted until late 1977 when the romance genre disappeared. The two small blips (1979/80 and 1982/83) are nothing more then failed revival attempts.

Romance Titles by Individual Publishers
Romance Titles for All Publishers
Different colors are used for the graphs of the individual publishers

I also plotted the number of romance titles for each publisher. Now the reader should not strain themselves trying to understand the ups and downs of the individual publishers. Even with a much larger image then the one I provide above I could never truly distinguish what was going on. This chart does reveal some interesting features. One is how distinct the love glut was even when broken down into the individual publishers. This is because of overzealous actions of four in particular (Timely, Fox, Fawcett and Quality) who combined contributed to about two thirds of the love glut.

Although part of the chart is pure confusion it becomes more understandable from 1957 on. Initially there were a lot of different publishers pursuing the romance comic market but after 1957 their number became drastically reduced. For much of the ending period there were only two or three publishers of romance comics. I will be returning to phenomena below where I will present another way of examining it.

Perhaps the most unusual feature of the chart is the dominance of one publisher from 1957 on. This publisher released romance titles at levels that was only exceeded by Timely, Fox, Fawcett and Quality during the love glut and at one point (1963) was only surpassed by Timely’s peak. Who was the successful publisher? Well it was Charlton. In a free market the number of romance title was supposed to reflect their popularity. Does this mean during the later period Charlton love comics became the most popular of the genre even more successful then any other publisher throughout the history of the romance comics? Not really. Charlton was unique among the romance publishers in that they printed their own comics as well. Charlton would actual save money by keeping the print press continually running. Therefore the company had an incentive to publish comics that had low profits providing they were not actually losing money. Unfortunately that means Charlton is not running under quite the same version of the free market that the other publishers who would be less willing to put effort into titles that produced low profit. Therefore Charlton distorts the picture provided by the first chart.

Romance Titles by Charlton and All Other Publisers
Romance Titles by Charlton and All Other Publishers
Charlton in red, all other publishers in blue

To judge how Charlton was distorting the data, I graphed Charlton separately from all other publishers. This graph shows that what I originally thought was a middle period was actually due to affects of one publisher, Charlton. It might be interesting to determine the meaning of Charlton’s downturn from 1963 to 1965 but that explanation would only enlighten Charlton’s history not to the history of romance comics in general. Therefore I now divide the history of love comics into two periods; an early or flourishing period and a final or waning period. The transition between the two periods is very sharp and that feature is unchanged whether the Charlton data is included or not.

The early period begins with the love glut and last until early in 1957. This is the heyday of romance comics. I would love to call it their golden age but that would only cause confusion as that term is often used among comics in general for an earlier period. It certainly was a good period for publishers of romance comics. Although we can see a lot of fluctuations in the number of titles there were about 50 toward the end of the prime period which is a respectable number for any genre. There are features in this period I would like to understand in particular the two mini-peaks that occurred after the love glut. Were they a similar, but more reduced, version of a phenomenon like the love glut? That is could they have been caused by publishers trying to cash into the popularity of romance comics, albeit with more caution then previously? Or was the popularity of romance comics at that time being influenced by something else as for example the general state of the economy (the trickle down effect)? At this time I have not drawn any conclusions on the matter but the subject deserves more investigation.

Romance Publishers
Romance Publishers and Titles
Number of romance publishers in blue, compared with a scaled version of the number of romance titles in red

When I charted the romance titles for each publisher (the second graph) there seemed to be a decline in the number of publishers at approximately the end of the flourishing period. Because that graph was much too confusing to make out the details I decided to chart the number of romance publishers which is shown just above. To help relate the variations in romance publishers to that of romance titles I included the romance titles graph scaled to approximately fit the chart of the romance publishers during the early period. As can be seen there is some good correspondence between the two charts. In particular both graphs show a rapid decline at the end of the flourishing period which terminates at the same February 1957 date. This is not too surprising because a free market affects both the number of publishers as well as the number of titles. Note however that when the number of romance titles was scaled to match the number of publishers during the flourishing period, there are proportionally more titles then publishers during the waning period. One explanation for this divergence is that those publishers who continued to do romance comics were able to increase the number of romance titles they released because of the decrease in the number of competing romance publishers. However remembering how Charlton’s desire to keep their presses running had distorted the romance title graph during the waning period I decided to compare the two graphs with Charlton removed.

Romance Publishers Excluding Charlton
Romance Publishers and Titles Excluding Charlton
Number of romance publishers in blue, compared with a scaled version of the number of romance titles in red

Once Charlton is removed from the picture, the graphs of the number of romance publishers and the scaled version of the number of titles has become remarkably similar. Thus the number of romance publishers and the number of love titles they released both seem to be subject to a free market and both are good indicators of the popularity of love comics.

Either of the charts, including or excluding Charlton, says pretty much the same thing. In the discussion below I will be using the graphs that include Charlton. The most interesting thing about the early period is the rapid decline that ended it. From a local high of 23 romance publishers with 70 titles at June 1954 the number of publishers steadily declined until February 1957 when there were only 7 romance publishers with a total of 29 titles. While the decline in romance publisher was continuous, the decline in titles hovered around the 50 titles mark for much of this period.

It was not just romance, instead there was a decline in comics of all genre at approximately this same time. I have heard two explanations for this. One is that the blame falls on the Comic Code. The idea being that with the heavy censuring of the comic code the quality of the stories declines and many readers lost interest and stopped buying comics. The problem with this explanation is that the Comic Code stamp started appearing on comics on or about March 1955. However the rapid decline had actually started many months before.

Another explanation advanced for the decline of comics of all genres is the rise of televisions. I have two problems with this explanation. One is this presumes that entertainment is a zero sum game. That is the audience for television could not grow without taking readership away from comics. I am not convinced that is true. Secondly the American public did not suddenly buy televisions. TV’s began to appear in the late ’40s however the public’s response was not immediate but was spread out over many years. The end of the prime period occurs over much too short a time to be due to the increased dominance of televisions. So I am unsatisfied with this explanation as well.

Is there any other candidate for the decline that started after June 1954? Well actually there was. June 1954 was the peak but that meant the actual first decline started in July. The dates I have been using are cover dates, which are actually a couple of months later then the true colander date of their release. So the first decline was really in May. April 23 and 23 marked the dates for the Kefauver Senate hearings about the supposed effect of comic books on the youth of America. But the Senate hearings did not come out of the blue; they were part of the response to the public outcry brought on by the book “Seduction of the Innocents” of Dr. Frederick Wertham. There were anti-comic sentiments prior to Wertham’s book, as shown in the recent book “The Ten Cent Plague” by David Hajdu. In fact Wertham had played a part in the earlier anti-comic feelings as well. But using his status as an expert (and without any real scientific evidence) Wertham and his book incited a reaction against comic books greater then ever seen before. As I said his book led to the Kefauver Senate hearings but it had an even more immediate result. There were newsstands and other sellers of comic books that began to refuse comics they considered objectionable. This decrease in sales in turn lead to the failure of the distributor Leading News which in turn lead to the decline of some comic publishers most importantly EC. A later result was the creation of the Comic Code Authority which only made matters worse. All of this started with “Seduction of the Innocent” so the ultimate case of the collapse of comic books can be traced to one supposed expert Dr. Frederick Wertham.

But what if there was no Wertham and “Seduction of the Innocents”? Well such questions can never be answered with complete assurance. Anti-comic sentiments did exist and there were other public figures to promote them. If the previous history of comic criticism was any example then there is no reason to believe that the publishers would ever been faced with much difficulty. What seemed to be needed to bring anti-comic feelings to a significant level was some spokesman like Wirtham. There is no way of knowing whether without Wirtham some other spokesman would have arisen. But it would seem that without Wirtham at least the timing would have been altered and history would have played out differently. How different cannot be guessed.

Another question is that if comics were a free market system, why did not the publishers remaining during the waning period just increase their number of romance titles to bring the number of titles up to levels more closely approximately that of the flourishing period? The answer to that is that not all publishers and their comic titles are alike. This should not be surprising as even today collectors tend to focus on particular comics. Readers were not satisfied to read any comic on the racks but each had their own favorite titles and publishers. When particular publishers disappeared their fans were less satisfied with what remained and less likely to switch to another publisher. The drop in story quality with the Comic Code did not help matters either.

Sky Masters Color Guide, Kirby Kolors?

by
Posted in 2008/06, Odds & Ends, Topic, z Archive and tagged

Ferran Delgado, who as I previously mentioned is working on a Spanish reprint of Sky Masters of the Space Force, has posted an image of a Sky Masters color guide on his blog. There is every reason to believe Jack Kirby did the coloring for the Sky Masters Sunday strips. Therefore the Sunday strips may be the only source to be able to come to a true understanding of Kirby Kolors. It is particularly nice to see an example of the actual color guide. I cannot wait for the final volume (containing the Sundays) of the Spanish Sky Masters reprints to come out.