I don't usually bother with Christmas but here's a seasonal card for you.
The top card signed by McGill is by an unknown publisher. On the reverse it says 'Printed in Saxony No. 1004' and is probably from the time McGill was drawing cards for Joseph Asher.
As with many of the cards of this period it has been copied by another artist and published anonymously. This one is quite a good copy. The only information on the reverse of this card is 'Printed in Saxony'
Yes, that is indeed the question.
When I started collecting McGill postcards I picked up the accepted wisdom that Woolstone Brothers published the cards identified as 'W' or 'WB' on the reverse. This seemed a fair guess as there are no publisher details on those cards but Woolstone Brothers had issued many other McGills. WB = Woolstone Brothers seemed to be fair enough assumption.
However, as time went on I was not totally convinced that this was right.
I would be interested to know what evidence there is to back up this claim about Woolstone Brothers because I haven't seen any. The only evidence I have come across is a mention in Elfrida Buckland's book, but that doesn't seem to be backed up with any specific research.
There is a mention in Anthony Byatt's book, 'Picture Postcards & their Publishers', where he lists an 'Index of Publishers Initials' but that is just stating the obvious - i.e. Woolstone Bros has WB as its initials. The main article by Byatt on Woolstone mentions many of the series names they used but NO mention is made of a series called 'WB'.
I was talking with McGill collector and biographer, Bernard Crossley, one day and he told me that 'WB' cards and 'XL' postcards were all published by a company called Wilson Bros.!
That came as a bit of a surprise yet it made immediate sense.
But, "who were they?", you may well ask as no one seems to have been aware of Wilson Bros. existing as a postcard publisher. However, Bernard had come across correspondence between this company and McGill during the research for his book.
Now that we had another possible publisher for these cards - 'W', 'WB' and 'XL' - the case for Woolstone Bros. being the publisher seemed to me to be on even shakier ground.
As far as I knew Woolstone Bros. used their 'Milton' trademark on their cards along with their name, so why didn't they do this on the 'W', 'WB' and 'XL' cards ?
I think it's strange that Woolstone Bros. would produce a series with just 'W' and 'WB' (and no publisher details) which includes McGill and other artists, for a short period and then start the 'Milton Comic/Renowned Series' for McGill and a different set of other artists (which has full publisher details etc. on the reverse). They then revert to producing the 'XL' series which again does not include publisher details. It doesn't seem to me to make any sense for Woolstone Bros. to be changing their style around like this especially when they have such a strong logo i.e. the Milton trademark.
What is certain is that Woolstone Bros. did publish McGill postcards but only under their 'Milton' trademark. 'W', 'WB' and 'XL' cards were all published by Wilson Bros.
So who were these previously unknown publishers?
I decided to do some research and looked for Wilson Bros. in the London Post Office Directories to see if they are mentioned. These are the entries I found:
1915 edition
Wilson Bros
26 Commercial Road, E
Fine Art, christmas, new year and birthday card, and pictorial postcard publishers
1920 edition
Wilson Bros Ltd
26 Commercial Road E1
Fine art publishers / Post Cards
1925 edition
Wilson Bros Ltd
24 & 26 Commercial Road
Post cards (pictorial)
1930 edition
Wilson Bros Ltd.
80 Gt Eastern Road EC2
Post cards (Pictorial) / Greeting card / Xmas card publishers
1940 edition
Wilson Bros Ltd.
80 Gt Eastern Road EC2
Post cards (Pictorial) / Greeting card / Xmas card publishers / Calendar publishers & printers
I have been unable to find any specific information about who the Wilson brothers were but this is positive proof that Wilson Bros. as a company existed for 25 years at least and were postcard printers and publishers based in the same area as many of the other well known postcard publishers. The company probably closed due to the bombing of London during World War Two.
But why were Wilson Bros. not listed in Byatt's seemingly comprehensive book of postcard publishers?
Well, I can't answer that but I'm happy to speculate! I think it has to be accepted that Byatt's book is not comprehensive.
I have done a bit more research using the London Post Office Directories. I looked at their listing for 'Postcards (Pictorial)' for 1920 and 1930 and then checked to see if they were included in Byatt's book (after removing several that were 'dealers' rather than 'publishers'). The majority of the companies I found listed had an entry in his book ... BUT there were a few that he has not included. I am guessing this is because he did not have any details about those particular companies.
There is one company, I think, which helps back up this speculation - the publisher called Moore & Dewdney are mentioned in Byatt's book but only in passing as they took over the premises of another publisher - there is no separate entry for Moore & Dewdney. So here is one company Byatt knew about but didn't include in the main listings presumably because he had no information apart from a name and address. This could easily be the reason Wilson Bros. are not listed. But that, as I mentioned earlier, is speculation on my part !
UPDATE :
In early 2024 I finally came across a piece of conclusive proof that WB cards were published by Wilson Bros. Ltd., and what's more the evidence is printed on the reverse of a Donald McGill postcard - WB 150.
This advertising card was presumably printed for an exhibition or trade show of some kind. Unfortunately there isn't a date, but presumably it will be some time in the 1920s as the company had moved location by 1930.
Here's another example of a D. Constance Ltd. card which had been redrawn. As this is numbered 138 it would have been first published in 1937 or 1938. It's possible that the original drawing for this was one of those destroyed when the Constance warehouse was bombed in 1940 and presumably the card was thought funny enough or successful enough to be redrawn and republished.
Having come across two other similar cards by a different artist has made me speculate about the source of the captions on McGill's cards. I think it was a question that was raised with him and his answer was that he picked them up from cartoons, jokes (he was a fan of the music hall), and observation of everyday life.
It's obvious that there are many postcards from different artists that are the same joke that has been reworked within that artist's style. In this case, where did the original come from, and who 'borrowed' from whom are not questions that can be easily answered. In the case of this card it is possible to see two versions of Constance No. 138 by another artist - 'C.G.' - published much earlier than McGill's version. The versions I have seen bear postmarks of 1908 and possibly 1919, well before McGill published his card.
 |
| Published by C & H. Postmark 1908 |
 |
| Unknown publisher. Postmark 1919 |
So, did McGill see this card and keep it at the back of his mine for over 20 years before creating his own version or were there other versions by other artists between C.G.'s and McGill's which provided the inspiration?
If McGill did 'borrow 'C.G.'s idea he has almost copied the, I think, later card - he has kept the same elements, the maid peering over the fence and saying 'How long's your furlough?' and the soldier replying 'Mind your own business'. It is interesting that although McGill drew countless cards with Scotsmen and Scottish soldiers as the subject he, on this occasion, decides to change the original and have the soldier wearing trousers!
Here's another example of a card McGill seems to have liked enough to issue with five (that I know of) different captions. I'm presuming it was McGill who changed the captions ... or was it Inter-Art who did this?
 |
Inter-Art Co. Comique Series No. 2460 |
When you have collected a few thousand McGill cards you begin to get a feel for which publisher's cards are the more difficult to find. Also, which numerical sequences of cards do not turn up very often.
With McGill's cards for D. Constance Ltd. it is the cards published in 1940 that are more difficult to locate. These are in the 1000 - 1199 number range. This is because the Constance premises at 3-4 Ivy Lane, London EC4 were bombed on the night of 29th December 1940 by the German Luftwaffe.
According to Elfreda Buckland in her book about McGill Joseph Asher made a claim for the damages to the Ivy Lane property which included the loss of 101 original McGill drawings (for which he was awarded £126.12s) and 6000 cards which were in stock.
It seems that McGill redrew some of these lost originals as many Constance cards from the early sequence were republished after the war. (See some of my previous posts which show the difference between the original and redrawn card).
The cards which were drawn specifically about the war - military, blackouts, Hitler themes - were not republished as they were now irrelevant thus ensuring they are now quite rare.
However even rarer than the cards mentioned above are the Constance cards in the sequence 1200 - 1299. It finally clicked with me that not only had I not got any in that number sequence but I didn't recall seeing any. Since I started collecting I have always taken details of every McGill card I came across in an attempt to build up some sort of catalogue but I only had one solitary entry in the 1200 range.
And this is the card:
 |
| D. Constance Ltd. No. 1296 |
I then realised that I already had this card but with a different number and the image was slightly different. Here is the other card:
 |
| D. Constance Ltd. No. 296 |
So it was the same card but McGill had redrawn it. But why had it been republished with the number changed from 296 to 1296 ? As I have shown in other posts on this blog there are many early Constance cards that have been redrawn but they have always been republished with the same number they had originally.
Why was this different and where were all the other cards in the 1200 sequence ?
I was speaking to McGill collector and biographer Bernard Crossley and asked him about the absence of any cards in the 1200s and his simple answer was that there weren't any.
However there is the possibility of one other card existing - numbered 1207 - if it was ever printed and published. One collector has this black and white image (I do not know the story behind this card):
 |
| D. Constance Ltd. No. 1207 (?) |
If this number is correct it begs the question about the cards preceding this one in the sequence.
The last card that I know of in the 1100 sequence is number 1194.
 |
| D. Constance Ltd. No. 1194 |
For whatever reason Constance did not carry on numbering their cards where they had left off when they restarted operations in 1944. They had closed down operations due to the 1940 bombing plus the lack of card and ink needed to publish postcards.
When Constance began publishing again they started their sequence at 1300 and these were a series of birthday greetings cards for children.
 |
| D. Constance Ltd. Nos. 1301, 1302, 1303 |
There is also the theory that the originals destroyed in the 1940 bombing were the complete 1200 to 1299 run which is a very neat explanation as to why they appear to be non-existent.
So, whatever the reason it is very unlikely that any other 1200 cards exist. Should you come across any I'd be very interested to hear about them !
Afterthought:
Strangely there are no 1200 cards in the Joseph Asher & Co. numerical sequence either ! Did Asher have a phobia about the 1200s ?! May be not as there are A1200s in the other Asher sequence...
Another in this short sequence of early Constance cards that have been redrawn and republished. This card with its rather crude double-entendre was originally published in 1939 or 1940.
 |
D. Constance Ltd. No. 1005 Note: the card on the left is unsigned |
It is not straightforward to identify which version of the card was the original. The copies I have of them each carry the same post-war rhyme on the reverse and both have the later 22 Christchurch Road address.
If you take a closer look at the borders to the image, the card on the left with its continuous border is the earlier version (I think) whereas the border of the card on the right has the three stripes at intervals and this design is on later cards. If this is correct it means the cruder, and to my mind inferior, image on the right is the redrawn version !
My theory that these early cards were redrawn because the original had been destroyed in the 1940 bombing of the Constance warehouse does not stand up here. If the original had been destroyed how come it was printed with the post-war rhyme ? If it wasn't destroyed why bother redrawing it ?
Yes, I'm still confused about this one !
This card of a sculpture gallery guard patting a statue's bottom was originally published as a "New Donald McGill Comics" (i.e. no reference to D Constance at all) probably in 1940.
 |
New Donald McGill Comics No. 935 |
A redrawn version was published with D. Constance Ltd. details and their address given as 22 Christchurch Street.
 |
D. Constance Ltd. No 935 |
There is a slight variation to the caption, with the 'Yes' being removed otherwise there are just minor changes to the people and statues although the background colour has been changed from light to dark.
The copy I have is undated but it must be post-war due to the rhyme on the reverse:
The war is won, your £ s. d.
Has helped to bring us victory,
But saving still will pave the way
To that new world, for which we pray.
"KEEP SAVING FOR A RAINY DAY"
Presumably the original was a victim of the 1940 warehouse bombing which necessitated the redrawn image.
