Welcome to the Cheeky Weekly blog!


Welcome to the Cheeky Weekly blog!
Cheeky Weekly ™ REBELLION PUBLISHING LTD, COPYRIGHT ©  REBELLION PUBLISHING LTD, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED was a British children's comic with cover dates spanning 22 October 1977 to 02 February 1980.

Quick links...
Basic Stats
Cheeky Weekly Index Updated 06 June 2017
Cheeky Weekly Artist Index Updated 08 June 2017
Features by Number of Appearances
Issue Summaries posted to date
Major Characters from the Cheeky pages
Features Ordered by Date of Commencement

*** ALL IMAGES COPYRIGHT ©  REBELLION PUBLISHING LTD, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Used with permission. ***
*** CHEEKY WEEKLY, KRAZY, WHOOPEE and WHIZZER AND CHIPS ARE ™ REBELLION PUBLISHING LTD, COPYRIGHT ©  REBELLION PUBLISHING LTD, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ***

The images posted on this blog can be enlarged by clicking on them.  Depending on your browser, you may have to click again on the enlarged image to see it in full size.
Thanks for reading the blog.

Monday, 6 June 2016

The Mike Lacey and Jimmy Hansen Crisis! Part 5

Since raising the thorny issue of the similarity of Mike Lacey and Jimmy Hansen's drawing styles I have been continuing my reading of the post-Whoopee-merge issues of Whizzer and Chips, to which both artists contributed, along the way trying to train my eye to recognise any peculiarities of illustration by which the two styles may be differentiated. I have also done a bit of internet searching for any biographical detail about Jimmy, in the hope of discovering the date of his earliest published comic work, but sadly there seems to be practically no available information. Confusingly this site refers to him as Jim Hanson which doesn't help.

Anyway, back to the different art styles - I'd say Jimmy's character work often displays particularly exaggerated reactions, regularly veering into the grotesque, with Mike having a less extreme approach of depicting shock, fear, delight etc. which rarely extends to the ugly end of the spectrum (well, maybe a bit grotesque in the case of Ursula!).

While preparing a future post looking at the 15 September 1979 issue of Cheeky Weekly I was struck by the non-Mike-Laceyness of this page (which I had previously attributed to Mike)...


The above page exhibits some of the extremes that I have now come to associate with Jimmy. Interestingly, that same issue also contains Cheeky pages that to me seem to be drawn Mike, such as this...


...the depictions of Cheeky also differ quite considerably between the two pages.

So, in the absence of any information as to Jimmy's earliest published work, I'm going to assign the Monday page above (and the other pages in the same issue exhibiting the same style) to Jimmy. I will at some point have to go through all the Cheeky Weekly work I have attributed to Mike and re-assess it based on the comparative styles above. It may be that the above is the first 'Jimmy' page that featured in Cheeky Weekly - won't know until that re-evaluation is complete.

5 comments:

  1. If you've any lingering questions you could try this:

    https://www.facebook.com/james.hansen.9277?hc_ref=SEARCH&fref=nf

    I gather you aren't that keen on Facebook; I only really use it slightly. Think of something bigger than yourself, e.g. the information the man's got to share with your followers. If that's just Peter and me so be it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link - I am able to see that page (I presume some facebook users set their preferences to allow their page to be seen by those not logged in to fb), but how do we know that's the page of the Jimmy Hansen in question? Also to me there doesn't seem to be any activity on it (unless I'm just allowed a limited view because I'm not logged in). It's all a bit of a mystery to little old Luddite me.

      Delete
    2. Because a Facebook search for Bumpkin Billionaires brought it up easily, with the comment, "Just out of interest, I drew the Bumpkin Billionaires, not the brilliant Mike Lacey. Also took over from him Shiner and Pete's Pockets." Man up and have a go - if you are a man. (That's to do with gender, not some silly notion as to masculinity!)

      Delete