Aussie's wanted comic scans

[aussie500]

At the moment I am setting up the Ajax-Farrell section and I notice there is a scan of Bughouse 4 floating around somewhere on the internet. I do not suppose anyone would like to upload it if they can manage to find it. Please. 

[fett]

Just looking at it the other night. Just have to remember which folder.

[fett]

Uploading now.

[darwination]

You just beat me to it, Fett. I had Slinky track the scan down for Aussie this morning, but I was too slow 

[fett]

Nice photo Mam. I never knew.

[darwination]

Heh heh, it's a crop from a recent acquisition to my girlie collection.  I've got this one prominently on display on my bookshelf, my wife just rolls her eyes at this stuff  

http://i40.tinypic.com/k21f9c.jpg

There's a good amount of Carl Barks' art within, but I'm completely unsure whether this is his cover.  A little info on Barks' involvement with this pub can be found here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~vathek/View.html

Btw, thanks for all your scans, Fett, I'm a big fan of your scan style  

[fett]

LOL. She's probably thinking what to say when you ask her to dress up like that. And thanks for the rarities you've been scanning. Most of the titles I've never seen before, especially the 50s romance titles.

[aussie500]

Thanks for finding and uploading the scan fett, and thanks to all the others willing to help.  

[JVJ (RIP)]

FWIW, Darwin,
and I caution you that I'm NOT an expert on early Barks, I'd say there's an 80/20 chance that this IS Barks.

(|:{>

[darwination]

It's worth a good deal, Jim, I was hoping you might weigh in.

I've read The Unexpurgated Carl Barks and the Coo-Coo facsimile that Hamilton published a while back (I think both are still available from the publisher) but would still have a hard time being certain about these covers.  His early work seems like it is in a lot of styles and all over the place.  My interest in this magazine stems more from my interest in early humor/girlie publications - I'm as of yet no Barks aficionado or anything.  These later Red Pepper annuals surface from time to time on ebay, so they probably had a decent circulation, but considering how many years it was published, monthly issues of the Eye-Opener seems fairly scarce.  

Here's an image of the annual for the following year after which most definitely is in a similar style.  The date on this (1937) is after Barks had moved, but I'd wager the magazine kept plenty of his work on file...  

http://i42.tinypic.com/10yf4et.jpg

I saw a nice cover on a monthly issue that a seller recently advertised as Barks work.  I think the issue went for like 80 bucks, which shows what tagging a big name on your auction will do (random issues of Calgary Eye-Opener seem to go for about 10 dollars, about like Capt. Billy's).

http://i39.tinypic.com/21o7uw4.jpg

I've noticed Barks has a thing for harems, so I've got no problem with the attribution  

[Ami_GFX]

FWIW, Darwin,
and I caution you that I'm NOT an expert on early Barks, I'd say there's an 80/20 chance that this IS Barks.

(|:{>

It looks like Barks to me.Here are a couple of clips from Four Color 308s Dangerous Disguise which is the only Carl Barks Donald Duck story to use real humans:

http://sites.google.com/site/ddcbart/_/rsrc/1270517048433/cbhm/CBGGA2.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/ddcbart/_/rsrc/1270517017340/cbhm/CBGGA1.jpg

There are stylistic similarities. Look at the curves and style used to draw the bodies and the way the eyes are rendered.

[bbbrown]

Heh heh, it's a crop from a recent acquisition to my girlie collection.  I've got this one prominently on display on my bookshelf, my wife just rolls her eyes at this stuff 

They are just glad this hobby keeps us at home looking at cartoon women instead out and about looking at real women.

[JVJ (RIP)]

If you feel it's valuable, darwin,
I'll also "weigh in" (is that a fat joke? I'm trying to lose weight. Honest!) on the two latest cover posts. The Red Pepper is unlikely to be Barks, while the Eye Opener is most definitely his. A telling aspect of Barks' style is his realistic rendering of the human body. Note the "weight" (in the most respectful sense of the word) of the breasts in the Eye Opener drawing and very unrealistic and cartoony versions in the Red Pepper cover.

I sense the same dichotomy in the two panels posted by Ami_GFX. The right panel appears (to me, anyway) to be reworked by hands other than Barks. And the expression on her face is rather crude, wouldn't you say?

2¢ more.

(|:{>

[Ami_GFX]

Look at the lips in all the drawings posted. The same lines, the same lipstick. Look at the outline of the face in the second clip I posted and compare it to the second cover of Eyopener posted. The faces are very similar. Lastly look at how the hands are drawn. Both girls have almost the same hands drawn in the same style. There is both a similarity in drawing style and taste in women here--drop dead gorgeous brunettes and redheads with full lips coverd with bright red lipsick. Not a blond in sight.

[JVJ (RIP)]

Look at the lips in all the drawings posted. The same lines, the same lipstick. Look at the outline of the face in the second clip I posted and compare it to the second cover of Eyopener posted. The faces are very similar. Lastly look at how the hands are drawn. Both girls have almost the same hands drawn in the same style. There is both a similarity in drawing style and taste in women here--drop dead gorgeous brunettes and redheads with full lips coverd with bright red lipsick. Not a blond in sight.

I'm not anxious to argue with you, Ami,
but I stand by my initial statement. I don't see much similarity between the 2nd "Barks" panel and the Eye Opener cover. I see no similarity between the hands in the two. Note that Barks tends to draw his women with closed mouths and that the first comic book panel is much more suggestive of real shoulders and real breasts and a real body while the second is pretty much faked. Why ANYONE would mess with a Barks comic story is beyond me, and I won't try to make a case beyond stating what I see. I've been wrong before - probably more times than I'll admit is what my friend Hames Ware would say. Perhaps this is another case, but I stick with my assessment.

Peace, Jim (|:{>