Has it ever occurred to you?

It wasn't long after I starting collecting McGill cards that I began to come across cards that looked like his but weren't signed by him. Some of them looked almost exactly the same as a signed card I had in my collection often with the same caption although not always.

"Almost exactly the same" being the operative phrase. Closer inspection showed these were very clever copies. Some better than others.

Were they copies by other artists? Had McGill redrawn the same image but slightly differently for another publisher?

In some cases it's fairly obvious these are copies by another hand ... but there are some that keep you wondering!

E.S. 2007	I have two copies of this card. Neither has any publisher information. One is numbered "636 B",  the other just says "Printed in Germany"
E.S. 2019 (Postmarked 1908)	(Postmarked 1911) No publisher information. It just says "Printed in Germany"
E.S. 111 (Postmarked 1906) This is the earliest of three versions of this card produced by McGill	E.L.P. Co. Series (Postmarked 1913)
E.S. 86 (Postmarked 1906)	E.L.P. Co. Series

There does appear to be a pattern emerging here. It looks like the E.L.P Co. were copying the cards published by E.S. I have a number of other examples which I shall post at a later date. Was this some sort of contractual arrangement between the two companies or just a case of E.L.P. not bothering to be original and trying to take advantage of McGill's success?

Some of the above cards by McGill do say "Copyright" on the reverse but that doesn't seem to have stopped the blatant copying. It's obvious that copyright was not upheld very vigorously for postcards back in Edwardian times.

New Section - More about McGill

I've just added a new page called 'More about McGill'. It's a work in progress at the moment but lists various books and pamphlets about McGill that are available. Each entry will eventually have a short review about the publication.

In the future I hope to add magazine and newspaper articles as well. If you are aware of any please let me know.

The link to the 'More about McGill' page is in the Navigation bar just below the header picture.

It's very airy, isn't it, Maudie?

Recognising one of McGill's designs, especially an early one, can be quite difficult as he didn't always sign them. This example is clearly one of his because it is signed.

Unknown publisher No. 1009
Early 1910s

Finding the above card is useful confirmation when you come across the one below which is obviously the same ... but for some reason isn't signed although it appears to be exactly the same design apart from the colour difference due to different printers. It is also slightly cropped and the type font is different.

Published by Joseph Asher & Co., No 185
Postmarked 1911

If the top design had not been signed there could have been some doubt about whether it was a McGill or not especially with there not being a publisher's mark either. Although, I'm guessing, most collectors would have recognised his style. However, the bottom design would have been easier to attribute to McGill without a signature because it was published by Joseph Asher & Co.

So why was one signed and not the other?

New section on McGill's Publishers

I've just added a new page about the different publishers identified with McGill's postcards. See the link on the navigation bar at the top of the blog just below the image and title.

Publishers are another confusing element of the McGill story. The information I have is limited in many cases. Even the few books about McGill do not have any great detail about the publishers apart from the obvious main ones - Joseph Asher & Co., Inter-Art Co. and D Constance Ltd.  I intend to update the page about publishers as and when I come across anything new.

McGill is definitely known to have worked with certain publishers but his periods of freelance work are much hazier. Plus there may have been some unscrupulous publishers who printed his cards without permission. The full story may never be clear!

Your head is like his behind

If McGill liked a joke then he was quite happy to use it again and again if he could. This is a classic example with six (so far!) different printings using the same joke. 

The earliest version is this one, E.S 3104 which is postmarked 1911 but was probably published in 1907 or 1908. (Thanks to David White for sending me this version.)

Then he reused the joke in a totally different setting for this card published by Joseph Asher & Co., No. A26 which is postmarked 1914.

Of the others one returns to the seaside setting while the other three are set in a church. All updated versions from the late 1920s to the late 1930s / early 1940s.

Published by Inter-Art Co. Ltd.
Comique Series No. 5106

Published by Inter-Art Co. Ltd.
Comique Series No. 7785 (Postmarked 1947)

Published by D. Constance Ltd., No. 1041 (Postmarked 1946)	Published by D. Constance Ltd., No. 1041

           

Sponging his Aspidistra

This wonderful double entendre has been published in two versions. I'm sure a fashion expert could probably pinpoint which came first.

In the early part of the 20th century almost every middle class home would have had an aspidistra plant.

Both cards are published by D. Constance Ltd., No. 1038


Both versions have the "Keep Saving For A Rainy Day" rhyme on the reverse. I also have a copy of the card on the right which doesn't have the rhyme and could indicate that it is the later version.

They're off

This rather weak joke seems to have made a popular card as I have come across three versions of it although two of them are very similar.

Published by D. Constance Ltd. No. 689

This first one pictured appears to be the original drawing. It has the "Keep Saving For A Rainy Day. The war is won, your £.s.d...." rhyme on the reverse	This second one also has the same "Keep Saving ..." rhyme but there are significant differences to the original.
This final version does not have the rhyme and the reverse looks to be much more recent, post rationing Britain rather than pre-war. However it is very similar to the second version except that the backgrounds are different. The difference in this case may be more to do with the printing process rather than McGill redrawing the image