What comics did you buy today?

[Peter Gray]

got the whizzer and chips its quite nice But slim...didn't see the best of Topper and best of Beezer..do these have early pages from the 60's?

[Raven]

There's a clue that it's a bit slapdash with its note urging readers to have fun with "the Chip-ites and Whizzer-Kids" at the start. How much reading would it have taken to know it should be "Whizz-kids"? One copy? Three seconds on Google?

There are a few cheery strips in there, and you can try to justify with the "cheap and cheerful" thing, but it would be nice if these things were done with less of a "well, I suppose that'll do" approach.

For example, in the Girls' annual, there's no annotation as to which comic title each piece is from, or from when, so it's all rather random. Again, how much effort would it have taken?

[Lew Stringer]

There's a clue that it's a bit slapdash with its note urging readers to have fun with "the Chip-ites and Whizzer-Kids" at the start. How much reading would it have taken to know it should be "Whizz-kids"? One copy? Three seconds on Google?

There are a few cheery strips in there, and you can try to justify with the "cheap and cheerful" thing, but it would be nice if these things were done with less of a "well, I suppose that'll do" approach.

For example, in the Girls' annual, there's no annotation as to which comic title each piece is from, or from when, so it's all rather random. Again, how much effort would it have taken?

When I used the term 'cheap and cheerful' I was solely responding to a comment about the page count, nothing else. As I said, I haven't even seen the books myself as they're not available in my area.

They do sound quite slapdash from your account. I don't know who's compiled them but sadly I don't think there's any staff left at Egmont UK now with any comics experience. The new editors are highly skilled in magazine production but they don't have a background in comics. Understandable of course, as magazines are what Egmont do these days. From what you say, it sounds like they could have done with bringing in a comics consultant but these books are done on a tight budget so that'd be out of the question I guess.

As for the 'Whizzer-kids' thing, it's quite likely that was a typo that wasn't picked up. After all, Whizzer and Chips has been dead for 24 years! The 20-somethings working at Egmont would never have heard of the comic.

[Raven]

They do sound quite slapdash from your account. I don't know who's compiled them but sadly I don't think there's any staff left at Egmont UK now with any comics experience. The new editors are highly skilled in magazine production but they don't have a background in comics. Understandable of course, as magazines are what Egmont do these days. From what you say, it sounds like they could have done with bringing in a comics consultant but these books are done on a tight budget so that'd be out of the question I guess.

Or just spent a few hours - or minutes - doing a little research! Even if you can't get a single person familiar with the comic to proofread or offer advice, there are so many blogs online nowadays, and original copies easily available, you don't really need a background in comics. Could you imagine Egmont's books on dinosaurs or the Romans having errors because the twenty-somethings weren't around at the time? You can pick up a lot about British comics from this forum. My thought is just: if you're going to do it, why not do it well?

[Lew Stringer]

Or just spent a few hours - or minutes - doing a little research! Even if you can't get a single person familiar with the comic to proofread or offer advice, there are so many blogs online nowadays, and original copies easily available, you don't really need a background in comics. Could you imagine Egmont's books on dinosaurs or the Romans having errors because the twenty-somethings weren't around at the time? You can pick up a lot about British comics from this forum. My thought is just: if you're going to do it, why not do it well?

I'll no doubt sympathize more with your opinion when I've actually seen the books but apart from the 'Whizzer-kids' typo and the slim page count (a finance dept decision) what do you consider was done badly?

[Raven]

I'll no doubt sympathize more with your opinion when I've actually seen the books but apart from the 'Whizzer-kids' typo and the slim page count (a finance dept decision) what do you consider was done badly?

As I mentioned above, "For example, in the Girls' annual, there's no annotation as to which comic title each piece is from, or from when, so it's all rather random. Again, how much effort would it have taken?" Just a little contextualisation: whether something's from Jinty or Misty, or from 1971 or 1985, I think would make a better collection, which readers would appreciate. There's also the feeling - as with some of those 'Best Of' magazines - of them being, rather than a thoughtfully curated Best Of, a fairly random selection based on what was to hand.

The printing quality in the girls one also looks a lot worse, and there's a bizarre excuse at the front that it's due to the material being "exceedingly rare", whereas there's nothing in there that's exceedingly or even slightly rare - if the original annuals are their source, they're all a click away on eBay - so it's a weird justification.

[Lew Stringer]

I'll no doubt sympathize more with your opinion when I've actually seen the books but apart from the 'Whizzer-kids' typo and the slim page count (a finance dept decision) what do you consider was done badly?

As I mentioned above, "For example, in the Girls' annual, there's no annotation as to which comic title each piece is from, or from when, so it's all rather random. Again, how much effort would it have taken?" Just a little contextualisation: whether something's from Jinty or Misty, or from 1971 or 1985, I think would make a better collection, which readers would appreciate. There's also the feeling - as with some of those 'Best Of' magazines - of them being, rather than a thoughtfully curated Best Of, a fairly random selection based on what was to hand.

I'm sure your last comment there is on the button. As I said, it's unlikely to have been compiled by anyone with comics experience and it's unlikely there'd be time for researching where each strip came from. It'd likely be on short-notice to get the books out as quickly and cheaply as possible.

The printing quality in the girls one also looks a lot worse, and there's a bizarre excuse at the front that it's due to the material being "exceedingly rare", whereas there's nothing in there that's exceedingly or even slightly rare - if the original annuals are their source, they're all a click away on eBay - so it's a weird justification.

They really aren't likely to trawl eBay buying old annuals for source material. As I said, they'd be on a tight budget and the cost of scanning and cleaning up the pages is an additional expense they wouldn't be likely to go for. (Yes, I know we do that sort of thing all the time for blogs, but doing it for print is a lot different.)

I'm not saying that's good. It's just how it is. They're producing cheap books, quickly, as stocking stuffers. If they were doing books for the serious collector it'd push the price up (and there aren't enough of us to risk doing that).

I'm afraid it's a case of being grateful for what we're given. Look at it this way: a week ago, we knew nothing about those books. Now they exist, and there's four on the way from Thomsons too. Seven books reprinting old material that we never expected. That's got to be a glass half full situation, surely?

[dandy mad]

My local sainsburys has all the aforementioned titles and I've treated myself to the Battle annual

[Raven]

I'm sure your last comment there is on the button. As I said, it's unlikely to have been compiled by anyone with comics experience and it's unlikely there'd be time for researching where each strip came from.

You'd just look at the front of the annual you got it from and make a note.

They really aren't likely to trawl eBay buying old annuals for source material.

They will have most likely got rid of the original artwork and file copies long ago, so I would expect that is where they got them from.

As I said, they'd be on a tight budget and the cost of scanning and cleaning up the pages is an additional expense they wouldn't be likely to go for. (Yes, I know we do that sort of thing all the time for blogs, but doing it for print is a lot different.)

It's another thing, though, that when you see things cleaned up much better on amateur blogs - it's just not that difficult nowadays - it highlights the lack of care in a professional publication. The Look-In collections took care over cleaning up, and they were from magazine copies. They weren't aimed at "serious collectors" - they just took some pride in and care over the publications. Of course, they were more expensive.

I'm not saying that's good. It's just how it is. They're producing cheap books, quickly, as stocking stuffers. If they were doing books for the serious collector it'd push the price up (and there aren't enough of us to risk doing that).

I'm afraid it's a case of being grateful for what we're given. Look at it this way: a week ago, we knew nothing about those books.

That seems another missed trick - not a single mention anywhere on the internet beyond that link you found, and they're already out. No promotion whatsoever, not even contacting prominent bloggers like yourself.

Now they exist, and there's four on the way from Thomsons too. Seven books reprinting old material that we never expected. That's got to be a glass half full situation, surely?

I'm hoping the Thomson ones will be better as they do traditionally take some care and thought over their 'best of' selections. The problem is, if you do rather slapdash, "Well, I suppose it'll do" publications - like some of those Egmont 'Best of' magazines - yes, they exist and are out there, but you're probably more likely to find that no more will follow.

[starscape]

There are issues but I'd rather be positive than negative. Sounds like a great source of nostalgia. Had the distribution been better, I think Egmont would have got a lovely surprise as to how many they would have sold. I'll be hoping one or two drop into my Christmas stocking. An annual from Fleetway on Xmas Day? Sounds amazing!

[Lew Stringer]

That seems another missed trick - not a single mention anywhere on the internet beyond that link you found, and they're already out. No promotion whatsoever, not even contacting prominent bloggers like yourself.

As I said, they're only accustomed to magazine production. It would not occur to them to think there might be comics blogs. And even if they did know, their remit was probably just to paginate the book quickly, not add historical notes. I don't recall IPC annuals of the past listing where their reprints originated from, so why should we expect these books to? I think you're attributing more to 'The Best of' part of the books than they deserve. They're just quickly produced cheap stocking stuffers. No doubt the same person compiling all three books to a deadline on a small budget, whilst also dealing with his/her regular duties. 216 extra pages to deal with all at once. No time for research.

[Lew Stringer]

I'm sure your last comment there is on the button. As I said, it's unlikely to have been compiled by anyone with comics experience and it's unlikely there'd be time for researching where each strip came from.

You'd just look at the front of the annual you got it from and make a note.

They really aren't likely to trawl eBay buying old annuals for source material.

They will have most likely got rid of the original artwork and file copies long ago, so I would expect that is where they got them from.

Fleetway transferred all their pages onto film or some other storage system many years ago. Presumably they'd be shooting from that, not scanning old comics.

[Raven]

Fleetway transferred all their pages onto film or some other storage system many years ago. Presumably they'd be shooting from that, not scanning old comics.

Never heard of that. I'd assumed they no longer had much of it in any form. Any verification that they still have everything - it would be good if true. But how would that tie in with the excuse for poor reproduction being because the material is "exceedingly rare"?

As I said, they're only accustomed to magazine production. It would not occur to them to think there might be comics blogs.

Egmont publish a wide variety of books - and their PR department should know about blogs. Just as when they promote Young Adult or genre books, a PR will contact lots of specialist blogs. Internet/viral marketing is basics in 2014. Lots of free publicity.

I don't recall IPC annuals of the past listing where their reprints originated from, so why should we expect these books to?

Seriously...? Because the girls one is a 2014 'Best Of' nostalgia book of reprints looking back on a variety of titles, whereas the old annuals wouldn't have even acknowledged they contained reprints, hoping the young readers would assume the annuals were "all new." They would have done whatever they could to disguise that they were reprints, if necessary, at the time. The selling point of the new book is that it's reprints.

[Lew Stringer]

As I said, they're only accustomed to magazine production. It would not occur to them to think there might be comics blogs.

Their PR department should know that. Just as when they promote Young Adult books, the PR will contact lots of Young Adult reader blogs. This is basics in 2014. Lots of free publicity.

I don't recall IPC annuals of the past listing where their reprints originated from, so why should we expect these books to?

Seriously...? Because the girls one is a 2014 'Best Of' nostalgia book of reprints looking back on a variety of titles, whereas the old annuals wouldn't have even acknowledged they contained reprints, hoping the young readers would have assumed the annuals were "all new." They would have done whatever they could to disguise that they were reprints if necessary. The selling point of that book is that it's reprints.

As I keep saying, it's unlikely they'd have the time to research the origins of the strips. These sound like quickly packaged books, done as cheaply as possible, probably by some busy staff member who also had regular duties on a monthly magazine. They're not intended to be definitive reprint collections for the hardcore comics fan.

Members here have been wanting books like these for years. Now you have seven.

[Raven]

They're not intended to be definitive reprint collections for the hardcore comics fan.

Even if they did make that minimal editorial effort, the books would still not be within a million miles of "definitive reprint collections for the hardcore comics fan", so I don't really see the relevance of that point. But if they are "quickly packaged books, done as cheaply as possible" then a response indicating that that's what they seem like is surely appropriate?

Members here have been wanting books like these for years. Now you have seven.

I think it's questionable that they've been waiting years for books specifically like these (at least the W+C and Girls one), but I'm looking forward to seeing what the Thomson ones contain.