In January of 2018 CIDU Bill implemented a Contact form page*, and during February 2018 a few readers used that form to send in their suggestions for cartoons to run and analyze on CIDU. We recently stumbled on that cache, and will be running three.
Thanks to timharrod for suggesting this Mutt & Jeff. He notes ‘The price of the earrings changes and the “joke” seems to be “You want good thing? Well, you get bad thing” with no wit or twist.’
BTW, this “printing” at GoComics was from 2018, but the original seems to be 1991, not some ancient run of Mutt & Jeff. I now forget what we decided was the way to use these similar tags, but I’m calling this Rerun rather than Retro or Classic.
*Original Contact form now at https://cidu.info/contact/ . Updated Suggest-A-CIDU form page now at https://cidu.info/suggest-a-cidu/
This one was posted (as “Atomic Blonde“) on 6-Feb-2018; it appears to be the first example of Bill’s fascination with the “Mutt and Jeff” retreads.
Is it possible that when the strip was redone for 1991 that they updated one price but not the other?
Part of the joke is the running one about Jeff being absurdly miserly, certainly.
In the earlier post (see the link above), not only was the price disagreement noted, but CaroZ pointed out that the dialog in these strips has been “refurbished” using a computer font. Whoever was responsible for the work did a very haphazard, sloppy job: not just on this strip, but on all the “Mutt and Jeff” retreads (and they usually managed to wipe out the original artist’s signature).
The “original” strip ran on 2/1/18. If you look at the Spanish version of the strip, “Benitin y Eneas”, you can see that panels two and three both use “diez dolares” as the price of the earrings. Clearly someone at GOComics tried to change the price from ten dollars to fifty dollars, missed it in the second panel, and didn’t bother with the Spanish version of the strip. Just the usual GOComics quality of work.
Ohhh. I thought maybe she wore five earrings (kidding).
1991 is only when Pierre S. De Beaumont hijacked the original work and dubiously asserted a new copyright over it — this is copyright piracy! You can see in the final panel there is some type lost to resolution probably identifying the original syndicate name and date (though it looks like the date was removed even before they let the resolution decay). So who knows when this originally appeared — you could try to match the humor to a time period, but it could also be the product of a fossilized creator late in life who was tone deaf to cultural progress…
@Lark , My comment, when I came in, was going to be “They’ve scratched off a lot of ink since Pierre inherited the copyright.” (in response to the date discussion) I see you’ve taken care of that.
That nice shiny top hat can’t be cheap. He could at least spend on her what he spends on himself.
larK: Pierre de Beaumont inherited the copyright (rather than pirating it); he was Bud Fisher’s stepson.
I’m not sure on what basis he claimed a 1991 copyright, though. To my knowledge, no new Mutt and Jeff strips have been published since 1982.
So your argument is when it’s a privateer carrying a letter of marque, it’s not piracy?
If a person sails his own yacht, it is not piracy.
You could claim new copyright just by altering the original. I suspect that these errors are due to that.
GoComics is a web site that serves up strips. To my knowledge the operators make no changes to anything.
From my discussions with them, they say they are a small outfit and just take whatever strips the source gives them. Most of these are from parent company Andrews McMeel, whose syndication mark you can see on the strip. But there are other sources.
The About tab states “This historic comic is presented in its original form, unedited from the time period in which it was created.”
“You could claim new copyright just by altering the original.”
You could, but trivial alterations wouldn’t generate a new copyright.
Some of the earliest Mutt and Jeff strips aren’t even under copyright at all anymore.
The legality and/or morality of how the copyright was inherited is irrelevant. The primary issue is that the new owners did an inexcusably horrible job of slicing, dicing, and recoloring the original drawings, which resulted in an ugly zombie that doesn’t deserve a single column inch of newspaper space.