There's not exactly a lot of "MIRTH" being "SEPARATED" on our two subject covers for this installment! Perhaps it would be more accurate to designate this post as "UN-PAIRED IN PERIL"!
...Or, "PAIRED IN PERIL", for that matter, as it is essentially the same characters in the same situation! ...That why I'm a WRITER and not an EDITOR!
Here are the covers of DONALD DUCK # 100 (Gold Key Comics, Cover Date: March, 1965) and DONALD DUCK # 195 (Gold Key Comics, Cover Date: May, 1978)...
Having never actually looked at them side-by-side, before undertaking the massive re-organizing and year-specific storage project that now provides the source material for so many of these posts, I always thought that DD # 195 was simply a REPRINT of DD # 100!
All of the interior content is reprinted from DD # 100, save a few pages taken-up by the higher number of ADs that proliferated throughout 1970s comics...
But the COVER is NOT a reprint of the earlier issue! It has been redrawn... and it took me until 2019 to realize this! ...Shame on me!
Oh, sure the COVER COPY has been moved and shortened to make way for the intrusive UPC Code Box... but this is a different - but similar - cover illustration altogether!
As such, the COVER is the ONLY NEW component to what would otherwise be a typically late-seventies / early-eighties ALL REPRINT issue of DONALD DUCK...
...Leaving me to ask WHY? Why, when Western was in such an "economy mode" (more so with its Disney titles than others like Warner Bros., Woody Woodpecker, Pink Panther, etc. - which were primarily all new), was the effort undertaken to have this cover completely redrawn...
...When the straight reprinting of any old "gag cover" would suffice - like so!
Not only would it have "sufficed", but this particular choice would have brought his "wild ride" to a sudden stop!
One could say that the REPRINT actually "did the original one-better" by having the TITLE LOGO misaligned by the impact of the crash! Nice touch for Seventies Gold Key!
But, no... For some reason they chose to redraw the cover - giving us an alternate image that is barely noticeable as such, unless you view the two issues side-by-side!
The original 1965 cover was drawn by Tony Strobl, who pretty much drew every issue of DONALD DUCK from the mid-1950s thru 1969 - and sporadically after that for the next several years.
Cover by Tony Strobl.
I must disagree with that because, even with inks by the great Bill Wright, Bob Gregory (while a good writer) was a terrible artist who drew flat and simplistic stuff like this!
Nope! My guess is that it was penciled by Larry Mayer and either inked by Mayer, or Bill Wright!
Regardless of artist we leave you with DONALD DUCK # 100 and DONALD DUCK # 195... "SEPARATED AT MIRTH"... or "PAIRED IN PERIL"? You decide!
17 comments:
I had the 1970s reprinted issue at one point. Since I found it after Gladstone’s run started, the first thing that I noticed that I chuckled at how silly it was is that “Wak-Quacky Donald” blurb.
Comparing the two drawings, I think I like the redrawn version better, as it looks less stiff and more animated. That said, Strobl’s original is still a good drawing too. If I were browsing through the comic book racks, I would wonder how Donald and the kids got into that predicament.
Deb:
You write: “I think I like the redrawn version better, as it looks less stiff and more animated.”
And THAT is exactly why I dispute the claim by GRAND COMICS DATABASE (…a VERY reliable source, BTW) that it was penciled by Bob Gregory!
Bob Gregory was the most stiff, flat, and repetitiously one-dimensional artist to ever draw these characters for American comic books! Even Kay Wright, as dreadful as he was, could be “more interesting” to look at! ...Or, at least, more varied!
Larry Mayer was the artist who did the good covers during the Whitman era, and that’s why I say this one was penciled by him.
“It’s Fun! It’s Adventurous! It’s Wak-Quacky Donald on… The Prehistoric Treasure Trail!”
To me, this sounds like a mid-1960s movie trailer narration for an adventure-comedy film! I can even hear Art Gilmore giving the copy a spirited reading!
The abbreviated ‘70s version just doesn’t have the same punch, despite retaining the “Wak-Quacky Donald” bit!
Besides, it was the wacky and wonderful mid-sixties! The era that gave us stuff like this…
“They’re creepy and they’re kooky
Mysterious and spooky
They’re altogether ooky
The Addams Family!”
After that, what’s a little “Wak-Quacky Donald” between friends!
" If I were browsing through the comic book racks, I would wonder how Donald and the kids got into that predicament."
I never got to browse a rack for DONALD DUCK # 100! I received it by mail subscription!
I never got to browse a rack for DONALD DUCK # 195! I picked it out of a dealer’s box at a comic-con!
And I never even got to browse a rack for DONALD DUCK # 100 *or* DONALD DUCK # 195 to this day! I just put them in their proper places as part of “The Great Reorganizing and Year-Specific Storage Project” by which am presently (and joyously) consumed!
I don’t have very much of a “Bucket List”, but suddenly I feel the urge to add “browsing a rack for DONALD DUCK # 100 *or* DONALD DUCK # 195” to it! …Yeah, I know… Good luck!
Strobl's drawings always seem more on-model to me than practically anyone else's. I notice that the car's angle is almost identical in both drawings, but the redrawn version shows the ducks at a different angle. Louie's face is more obscured in the redrawing than in the original. Donald's head seems bigger in the later one, and thus his feet seem out of proportion. They seem a little out of proportion in Strobl's version also, but it is not as noticeable because Donald's head is smaller. The ropes in the Strobl version appear tighter, whereas the ropes in the redrawn version look as though they could be more easily pulled apart. Also the background in the first version is more usual for a sky color than the one in the second, unless perhaps it's supposed to be sunset. I like both, but for me the scales are tilted just a little more in Strobl's favor. Of course, the cover price on the earlier edition is much more to my liking. I thought it was ridiculous when a regular comic book cost ten cents more than the giant comics of just a couple of years earlier. But you've read my anti-inflation rants before! If it were up to me, comics would still cost 12 cents today.
Scarecrow:
Tony Strobl is one of the most underrated, and underappreciated, comics artists of the funny animal/humor world!
All of his character drawings were clean, crisp, and on-model! A quality that began “to get seriously lost” by Western, and especially Charlton, as we moved into the 1970s. Foreign publishers, the Italians in particular, also adopted a degree of unnecessary exaggeration that persists to this day – to where it’s become the norm by default!
All this just makes me appreciate Tony Strobl all the more for the wide range of great work he did for more than three decades! Not just Donald Duck and its related titles, but Bugs Bunny, Porky Pig, The Jetsons, and much more!
As for the coloring differences, we’ve established that Western’s (forever uncredited, alas) colorists went a bit wonky in the seventies, and that’s the reason for the red skies (unless this is a VERY EARLY “Crisis in Infinite Earths” crossover issue) and the deep purple radiator on Donald’s car. They really did like their purple!
Finally, regarding cover price… Today, there are more comics than ever that are WORTH TWELVE CENTS… but sell for 3.99 and up! (You ALL know what they are, without my prompting!) That’s why I enjoy the back issues more and more each day!
Joe:
I do believe that the art is by Bob Gregory and Bill Wright. No Larry Mayer as far as I'm concerned. The Nephews are Gregory's, but it's true that Wright embellished Bob's usually shabby art.
Best,
Alberto
Thank you, Alberto!
If there’s anyone I’m willing to defer to on matters of identification, it is you!
Yes, the nephews DO look like Gregory’s, but Donald does not – though Bill Wright’s strong inking could be the most likely reason for why Don looks so much better than in all the Gregory-drawn, non-Barks-reprint issues of DAISY AND DONALD combined!
While I have you here at this humble Blog, I’d like to call everyone’s attention to TWO MAGNIFICENT BOOKS that Alberto has written on a subject of great interest to nearly all of my regular readers…
“American Funny Animal Comics in the 20th Century: Volume ONE”
And the just-released “American Funny Animal Comics in the 20th Century: Volume TWO”!
I will be ordering VOLUME TWO this week. VOLUME ONE is something I’ve been waiting for most of my life! When I stick my nose into this book, even with only casual or momentary intent, I CANNOT PULL IT OUT!
If *I*, who have made a near-lifelong study of this stuff find this book SO INFORMATIVE AND FASCINATING, just imagine what awaits you between those covers!
I rarely plug products here beyond just “telling you that I like something”, but this one has my absolute endorsement and guarantee! You will lean MANY new things! In my case, more new things than I imagined possible!
Alberto has put together an incredible work, and I urge everyone reading this to support it!
You won’t be sorry!
Those are very Gregory-ish nephews. But then again, what strikes me most about the Strobl version of the cover is that while HDL are solidly Stroblian, Donald looks uncannily like a Barks Donald.
At any rate, notice also the difference in the nephews' coloring: the first one is the relatively well-respectd Red/Green/Yellow set-up… but then, the next one has blue (okay), lime green (huh) and… pink?!
I dunno, Achille…
I *do* see “Gregorian Nephews” (if you will) in the re-draw. But I also see a “Stroblian Donald” (Thank you, I like that!) in the original, and a decidedly “Non-Gregorian Donald” (Because it looks good!) in the re-draw.
Perhaps, when SO directly contrasted with the Gregory/Bill Wright big-eyed, short-beaked version, Strobl’s Donald just LOOKS more Barksian!
…But, that’s what these exchanges are all about!
As, as noted earlier, we know that Western “went a little wild” with their coloring during this period. Or, maybe Huey’s “red shirt” (Not the “Star Trek kind” – though he IS in a rather dangerous spot!) just FADED from red to pink in the hot desert sun!
Same with Louie’s deep green shirt fading to lime green! Dewey (by default) simply may have thought it to be a good idea to “change his shirt” from yellow to his traditional blue (and change his position with Huey, in the car) just to give us more things to write about in the distant future!
I know many German fans who couldn't care less about Strobl and love "the Italian way"*. Although that in itself is an oxymoron as, mostly in recent times, the artists from Italy have diversified in so many different directions (some of which I dearly love, such as the wonderful Lucio Leoni, Francesco Guerrini, Alessandro Perina or Libero Ermetti - and others, like Alberto Lavoradori, Stefano Intini or Francesco D'Ippolito, I can't stomach). But although I don't mind Strobl's art as much as some do, I just find him kind of boring (most of the time).
*And of course there's also those who are more into Rosa, or Van Horn, or Jippes, or Midthun, or whatever, and shun everything "Italian" except Rota.
Spectacular Spectrus!
First, it’s nice to see that you received a promotion in rank from just “Plain Old Spectrus” to “Spectacular Spectrus”! …I don’t know what you did to be thusly honored, but I’m sure it was well-deserved!
If there IS such a thing as “The Italian Way”, I’d imagine it to be… Longer stories that are more “way-out” than their American and Danish counterparts. Characters more “loosely drawn”, or exaggerated, in opposition to the classic Barks models. And coloring that chafes certain folks for its differences from the traditional norms… Scrooge’s coat, the Money Bin, Grandma Duck and Gyro’s hair, etc.
I have no issue with any of these, as long as the story is written well… and LOCALIZED WELL!
When I grew up here in the USA, there were only Barks, Strobl, Paul Murry, and a little Jack Bradbury. Strobl fared very well in that company.
And, once we began suffering through the vastly inferior artwork of Bob Gregory and Kay Wright, Strobl became almost GOD-LIKE in comparison!
Like so much else in life, one’s views on this matter are subjective! No one’s right, and no one’s wrong! It’s all good… except maybe Bob Gregory and Kay Wright!
Heh, I intend to change my name periodically like GeoX does. And it's the first time I've made a comment under my account as opposed to an anonymous one...
Anyway, as far as somebody who's not known for "loose" drawing at all, I should mention the passing of Giulio Chierchini here too, in case you haven't heard about it. Of all the Italian artists who have not been printed in the US yet, he's among the most significant, belonging to the same "school" as Carpi and Bottaro and closely collaborating with Carpi on many projects.
He was not only the oldest Disney artist still (sort of) active but also the one with the longest career!
Here's two panels to give an impression:
https://scontent-cdt1-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/e35/s320x320/67553773_556803688190533_3102271314578846451_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-cdt1-1.cdninstagram.com&oh=8fdd95d4823ff7768c73a980ebc27e4b&oe=5E06B35C&ig_cache_key=MjExMzc4NTkzNzAzMjUxNDQ2OQ%3D%3D.2
https://scontent-cdt1-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/e35/s320x320/67452516_894862570877343_4567502838975544167_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-cdt1-1.cdninstagram.com&oh=9723cac05119d4fcce33f0c1464492f8&oe=5DFB4F1C&ig_cache_key=MjExMzg4Mjc2OTY2Mzc1OTk3OQ%3D%3D.2
Spec-Spec:
Since we’re such old pals, can I call you Spec-Spec?
All these nifty rotating screen names make me feel sorta old-fashioned, using just my li’l old “real name” for my online presence. Then again, my name has more or less become “my brand” as a writer, translator, blogger, indexer, and historian… so I guess that works for me.
I am sorry to say I’d never heard of Giulio Chierchini. REALLY sorry, if those two samples are any indication of what he could do!
When I think of all the great European creators we in the USA *COULD* have seen, instead of a decade and a half of the spectacularly (…hope you don’t mind my invoking “half-your-new-name” in this unpleasant context) bad artwork of Bob Gregory and Kay Wright, I could cry AND tear my hair out!
HERE and HERE are Spec-Spec’s links for everyone’s viewing pleasure!
Seriously, that’s great stuff!
More great stuff in this post!
I think one reason why Chierchini has not gotten the same amount of attention and praise as, say, Carpi, is because his early art tended to be a bit inconsistent and edgy. It didn't have the elegance that Carpi displayed even back then (although the two were friends and worked together both on Disney and non-Disney comic projects). But he developed his style through the years, and from the mid-70s to the mid-90s I think he can be considered a "complete artist" with his own distinct style. That style was particularly well suited to gothic horror stories and the like (ghosts, vampires and monsters were a recurring theme of his work) but he could also display a wonderfully weird sense of humour. Especially in the stories he wrote himself, some of which featured his own invention Little Gum (a duck-alien that eats chewing gum and can make all kinds of deus-ex-machina devices out of it, and shpeaks with a very dishtinct acshent, if you get my gist.), and during what I consider his heyday he experimented wildly with painted panels delivered in a 2-rows-per-page format:
https://inducks.org/hr.php?image=https://outducks.org/webusers/webusers/2009/02/it_tl_1795f_001.jpg&normalsize=1
https://inducks.org/hr.php?image=https://outducks.org/webusers/webusers/2008/06/it_tl_1893b_001.jpg&normalsize=1
https://inducks.org/hr.php?image=https://outducks.org/webusers/webusers/2009/02/it_tl_1885c_001.jpg&normalsize=1
Most of his work was with the Ducks, but he was clearly also a big admirer of Floyd Gottfredson (not unusual for Italian artists). He was, for example, the first to bring Miklos back - years before Casty. (Casty, incidentally, had hoped that his first Scrooge story could be drawn by "the mythical" Chierchini. In the end it was given to Andrea Ferraris, who did an acceptable job, but the combo Casty/Chierchini would really have been something interesting.)
Here's an hommage to Gottfredson: https://digilander.libero.it/Babalui75/autori/tavole/originali/chierchini-wolf-big.jpg
I'm sure I made another comment? Anyway, it wouldn't be hard to put together a "Disney Masters" book on Chierchini. I'd maybe select "Duck Avenger versus the incredible Little Gum" (https://inducks.org/story.php?c=I+TL+1707-A one of his painted stories and also the introduction of his character Little Gum, who hash thish funny way of shpeaking), "The Return of the Pirate Submarine" https://inducks.org/story.php?c=I+TL++212-BP and "TV Horrors" https://inducks.org/story.php?c=I+TL+1714-A which is a good example of his wacky and dark sense of humour.
So sorry Spec-Spec! Things just got a little too busy around here, even more “horrifically” than usual, and the Blog suffered for it. Note the uncharacteristic gap between the current (Scooby-Doo) post and the previous one (Paul Murry Pluto). I’ll beat you (and everyone) to it and say that, at least for a short period of delay) my Blog has “gone to the dogs!”
Yes, “Little Gum” does indeed evoke Atomo Bleep-Bleep (complete with accent) and, to a lesser extent, Eega Beeva! Sounds as if he would have been fun character to write dialogue for, as was O.K. Quack!
Here are the links…
Chierchini 1
Chierchini 2
Chierchini 3
Great stuff, as is this Gottfredson homage!
From what you’ve provided, not only would I like to SEE a Disney Masters" book on Chierchini, I’d also insist that I work on it. Obviously, they’d have to properly introduce Little Gum, as was done with Eega Beeva, Atomo Bleep-Bleep, and O.K, Quack (the latter of which REALLY is unimaginably named)! It would fit in very well with current IDW!
And now for more links!
"Duck Avenger versus the Incredible Little Gum"
"The Return of the Pirate Submarine" I’d sure like to do THAT ONE!
"TV Horrors"
I'm not complaining, by the way. Just worried I might have lost the post. Sometimes things disappear on the interwebs!
That Vulter story is, as you can see from the scans, not the best that Chierchini has drawn Mickey (he'd improve upon that quite a bit, and also did some nice stuff with the Phantom Blot, why of course!), but of course there's the historical significane. Just like "The Blot's Double Mystery", it's Guido Martina once again getting there first when it comes to reviving a classic Gottfredson character.
In fact, I like Little Gum so much, I even made a drawing a year ago celebrating Chierchini's 90th birthday. And of course I don't speak Italian and can't draw properly. But you may not notice this ^^ https://i.postimg.cc/LR1vYjbH/For-Maestro-Chierchini.jpg
(And maybe the Miklos story might be a better choice than the Vulter one simply because it's in the large 4-tiered format? Although I can't comment on it since it's sadly never been released in my language...)
That’s very nice. Not nice enough to make ME wish I was 90… but really nice! HERE’S the link!
Post a Comment