Comics UK

Every time a new book or magazine comes out about comics, and under-researched British comics in particular, there is nearly always the odd complaint concerning mis-identified artwork. I know this to be true because I have on a number of occasions been the complainer and also, in the odd instance, been responsible, however indirectly, for the error.
When I was busy indexing the major comic titles published by D C Thomson I made the decision that when it came to listing the artists involved in producing a strip or heading block I would adopt the system of only listing those artists who first worked on the strip or whatever and only mention subsequent contributors when and if they then worked on the item in question to a significant degree. In most cases I still think, given the obvious constraints of time and space, that this method worked pretty well.
Except of course it couldn't account for the odd ghosted strip here and there and that this ghosting could reach quite sizeable proportions when a strip ran for many years. After all not every artist can be like Jimmy Crighton who never missed drawing the Korky strip for all of the Dandy's first 1000 issues.
When Denis Gifford asked me to help him to compile the D C Thomson artists lists for his 'Dictionary of Comic Characters' I knew that it would eventually cause confusion when space was limited, in most instances, to only listing those artists who first worked on a strip. A particular example that comes to mind being 'The Four Marys' from the Bunty which was begun by Bill Holroyd but for the most part drawn, over many years, by Peem Walker. Several times since, and most recently in Paul Gravett's book, this identification has come back to haunt me as there in the chapter on girls papers is a fine example of Peem Walker's 'Four Marys' listed as being the work of Bill Holroyd. OK there are a number of mistakes like this in what is otherwise a beautiful book but in this one instance I somehow feel to blame.
It's alright me looking at the artwork and saying to myself how could they mistake this Peem Walker artwork for Bill Holroyd but then that is my area of, I think at least some, expertise. When I look at many other sections in the same book I'm lost and at the mercy of other 'experts' to give me good or duff information as they will.
Thankfully, these days, forums like this one can act as a sort of endless addendum to the 'set in stone' reference works published in paper and ink.

Well, that would explain why 'Smasher' is credited as being drawn by Philpott when the picture is one of Ian Kennedy's run in 1976. But I can understand that several artists 'ghosting' any strip could cause a major problem, for any researcher, when trying to identify all the contributors to a long running strip.

Yes it's amazing how many strip artists are misidentified. Classics which the GACCH have rectified are:

Perils of Parker - Peter Ford. In fact Gerry Embleton did the first 20 or so, then there was a 'crossing over' period as Embleton and Ford shared a studio, before Ford took over the strip entirely.

Thunderbirds: 'Waves of Disaster - Don Harley. Harley obviously started the strip but Michael Strand did the last two pages:

http://www.technodelic.pwp.blueyonder.c ... pecial.htm

Supercar - H Watts or T-Watts. Artist's full name is Harold Tamblyn-Watts

Project SWORD (TV21) - few if any of the artists correctly catalogued

And then for 'Look-In:

Catweazle: Incorrectly attributed to John Stokes. Gerry Embleton did the first twenty installments, flagged by the fact he also painted a cover promoting the strip early in 1972.

The late Denis Gifford was a true pioneer, and a genuine expert on those strips that were his personal favourites, but it has to be said that some of his books could be maddeningly untrustworthy. As Kashgar says his Encyclopedia of Comic Characters is an excellent volume in many ways, but some of the entries are very odd indeed. Apart from attributing some features to artists who had no connection with them at all (eg. Don Lawrence on 'Wrath of the Gods'), there seems to be no way of distinguishing writers from artists (eg. 'Paddy Payne' by Mark Ross, 'Roy of the Rovers' by Joe Colquhoun) but most frustrating of all from the point of view of a comics enthusiast are those strips credited just to the copyright holders like Gerry Anderson, George Lucas or - in the case of 'Sindy' - Pedigree Toys! It reminds me of those serious newspapers and magazines that insist on reproducing classic pieces of work by Steve Ditko or Jack Kirby only to add a little note saying 'Art by Marvel Comics' - thereby implying that it's been churned out by some sort of anonymous machine.

Another mistake that kept being repeated for years was the identification of Jerry Siegel as the "creator" of The Spider; this must have been quoted dozens of times after it was accidentally included in the UK Price Guide!

- Phil Rushton

Phil is right. Denis Gifford (God rest) was a true comics enthusiast, but one can sense he loathed the 'licensed' end of the market and often made errors there. His 'Encyclopedia of Comic' still stands up as one of most encompassing of tomes, and yet to really be bettered in scope but he says 'Captain Scarlet', unlike 'Stingray' and 'Thunderbirds', didn't get a 'title' of its own (he's referring to 'TV Century 21') but only a couple of pages in 'TV Tornado'! He ignores the fact it was 'the' strip in 'TV21' from late 1967 on, and is somehow attributing 'The Mysterons' as the real thing!

His 'British Comic Catalogue 1874-1974' also attributes 'Space Family Robinson' to Jim Baikie, when it's obviously John M. Burns!

philcom55 wrote:The late Denis Gifford was a true pioneer, and a genuine expert on those strips that were his personal favourites, but it has to be said that some of his books could be maddeningly untrustworthy.

Unfortunately so, although I think we'd agree that we all owe Denis a great deal for inspiring our interests in old British comics. I remember borrowing some of his books from the local library when I was a teenager, and became fascinated with the history of UK comics because of them.

I used to bump into him at London marts in the 1980s. Denis' forte were Victorian comics to the 1930s. After then, his facts get a bit wayward. In later years (1980s) I believe he only bought the first issues of new comics, so not the best way to judge a comic's run really.

And he was a good cartoonist too. His Steadfast McStaunch and Koo-Koo Klub pages from the early Whizzer and Chips being one of the main reasons I bought it.

Lew

Lew Stringer wrote:

philcom55 wrote:The late Denis Gifford was a true pioneer, and a genuine expert on those strips that were his personal favourites, but it has to be said that some of his books could be maddeningly untrustworthy.

Unfortunately so, although I think we'd agree that we all owe Denis a great deal for inspiring our interests in old British comics. I remember borrowing some of his books from the local library when I was a teenager, and became fascinated with the history of UK comics because of them...

My own interest in researching comics history is almost completely down to 2000AD and the books that they put out in the 1990's. The History and the A to Z of 2000AD grabbed me and from those two tomes, my library has slowly but surely expanded. With books ranging from Martin Barker's Action and Comics: The Ideology to the Loft's A to Z of Writers, it builds up a fascinating behind the scenes picture. But the internet has truly been a godsend as without it, wewould not have either Moose's sevenpennynightmare or Shaqui's GACCH or even this fine bulletin board that shows that there is still a hardcore of British comic fans.

More anon as it's time for me to go to work!

I picked up Dennis Gifford's Encyclopedia as it was on sale at Swindon's main library for a ?1! It was and is an essential tool for researching comic art styles. While the odd glitch is acceptable, it is always gratifying to a amateur historian like me when I can spot an error. Currently thinking about purchasing Alan Clark's Encyclopedia but does anyone who has it recommend it? If so, why? The reason that I hesitate is that it is ?40 and while scouring the net, I have been unable to find a cheaper copy.

colcool007 wrote:Currently thinking about purchasing Alan Clark's Encyclopedia but does anyone who has it recommend it?

I've no hesitation at all in recommending any of Alan Clarke's books...except his Encyclopedia of British Comic Writers and Artists.

From what I can remember that stinks like a heap of old putrid fish-heads - IMHO at any rate!

- Phil Rushton

I think the problem with anything that is labelled 'encyclopaedic' is that it rarely lives up to, what are often in hindsight, somewhat unrealistic expectations. An encyclopaedia by definition has to cover everything within its subject range and who can say that they have an encyclopaedic knowledge of comics and comic artists.
For this reason Alan Clarke's encylopaedia is the weakest of all his, mostly fabulous, books but still, I feel, worth tracking down.
I remember, many moons ago, when I bought Denis Gifford's newly published 'British Comic Catalogue 1874-1974' I thought, in my naivete, that it would be my 'one-stop shop' for all matters related to comics. Here, I thought, I'll find out who drew all those strips in the Beano and Dandy and Topper and Beezer and Victor and Hotspur and so on ad infinitum. But, of course, I didn't. Now, looking at it with wiser eyes, that book was then and still is, in my opinion and despite its shortcomings, the greatest book that has ever been published on British comics for the sheer audacity of what Denis was trying to do.
Guys like Bill Lofts, Derek Adley, Alan Clarke and Denis were the pioneers of British comic collecting, the ones who began to put up the signposts in the 'Terra Incognita' that lay before them and the fact that, after all these years, we are still finding false trails just goes to show the immensity of the task that they took on.

Kashgar wrote: Guys like Bill Lofts, Derek Adley, Alan Clarke and Denis were the pioneers of British comic collecting, the ones who began to put up the signposts in the 'Terra Incognita' that lay before them and the fact that, after all these years, we are still finding false trails just goes to show the immensity of the task that they took on.

Agreed. Also, I thought it was a disgrace how the majority of 1970s - 1990s British comics fanzines ignored British comics! Okay, they wanted to favour the comics THEY liked (American) but surely a page or two to promote our OWN product wouldn't hurt?

I did a few Brit-com centred 'zines myself, and I used to contribute a few features on UK comics to fanzines, and write letters promoting UK comics. Bizarrely, a few comic fans then assumed I was xenophobic old boy patriot who hated US comics! (Nothing could be further from the truth!) It was as if they expected people to be either fans of British comic or American comics but not both!

Things changed a little with 2000AD, but only because it was a sci-fi comic. Most "fans" still ignored the rest of British comics. As for humour comics; really ghettoized even today by most comic fans who attend cons etc.

Very odd. In countries such as France or Norway the fans appreciate all genres equally. But not here.

Lew

Kashgar wrote: For this reason Alan Clarke's encylopaedia is the weakest of all his, mostly fabulous, books but still, I feel, worth tracking down.

You're right! I was being unnecesarily harsh; the thing that probably gave rise to most complaints about the Encyclopedia when it came out (I remember Dez Skinn getting particualrly hot under the collar in Comics International) was the ?40 price tag. To be fair I think Alan's idea was that once the first, rather skimpy version had been produced it could serve as the basis for a number of increasingly reliable editions as both professionals and enthusiasts from all over the country pooled their knowledge, creating a sort of comics equivalent of the Stanley Gibbons catalogue. Unfortunately I don't think it ever sold well enough to be reprinted. (Though perhaps something similar could now be attempted using the internet?)

Does anybody know if Alan is still around btw? I used to think he was the same Alan Clarke (now deceased) who served as a Minister in Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet, but I've since been assured that this wasn't the case by people who met him. As Kashgar says, wherever he is there's no doubt that we all owe him an immense vote of thanks for his work in recording the history of British comics at a time when almost nobody else was interested.

- Phil Rushton

Very interesting posts one and all.I suppose like many modern hobbies based on near-modern art forms,no body at the time entertained the possibility that comics would become a serious subject of study and scrutiny.Even the writers and artists who produced these gems were effectively creating throwaway pop culture in exchange for hard cash for their labours.Not one of these guys/gals woulo ever have dreamt that 20/30 years later fans would be salivating over their work and scrutinizing it! I suppose from a research point of view 2000ad/Starlord/Tornado fans have had it easy thanks to Pat Mills & Co. giving credits even to the letterers(The U.S. had been doing it for years)I know Battle and a few others did it later on,but as we all know that was not always the case,with DC Thomson being the biggest offender!!! Most of the greats are now either dead or retired(or both )It's getting to the point of trying to interview Cleopatra about the Pyramids!