Mickey wasn't Walt's idea ????

[rex racer]

http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-MICKY-MOUSE-PERFORMO-TOYS-1926-1st-Mickey-Mouse_W0QQitemZ300020850385QQihZ020QQcategoryZ1391 QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Check the discriptive text on this item. Anyone heard of this story?? :confused:

[rkish]

Hey Del!

Yeah...believe it or not, I was watching a TV program over the summer that dealt with antiques and one section dealt with authenticating antiques. Someone has this particular Micky toy from Performo and wondered if this toy predated Walt's Mickey Mouse. After extensive research, I believe it was decided that although Performo got the patent on their "Micky" first, that Walt had still conceived his "Mickey" first. I don't remember all of the details or the name of the program, but I'll post it when I get the information.

[ohmahaaha]

Hey Del!

Yeah...believe it or not, I was watching a TV program over the summer that dealt with antiques and one section dealt with authenticating antiques. Someone has this particular Micky toy from Performo and wondered if this toy predated Walt's Mickey Mouse. After extensive research, I believe it was decided that although Performo got the patent on their "Micky" first, that Walt had still conceived his "Mickey" first. I don't remember all of the details or the name of the program, but I'll post it when I get the information.
The program you're referring to, I believe, is "History Detectives" which has been airing on Monday nights on PBS stations in kind of a "Summer Replacement" capacity - fascinating show. They first showed the Performo story last summer, and they encored it this summer. I don't know of "History Detectives" being available on DVD, but they do have their own page on the PBS website, and I'll bet you could find more info on the Performo story. Sorry I don't have a link, but I'm sure you're equal to the Search Engine Challenge. :tweety:

[JIM ENGEL]

More often referenced than this toy thing is that Johnny Gruelle (creator of Raggedy Ann & Andy) had a Mickey (and I think also a Minnie) Mouse character in at least one of his magazine stories (I wanna say for Ladies Home Journal)...

[ohmahaaha]

More often referenced than this toy thing is that Johnny Gruelle (creator of Raggedy Ann & Andy) had a Mickey (and I think also a Minnie) Mouse character in at least one of his magazine stories (I wanna say for Ladies Home Journal)...
Where did you hear of this? I heard of the Performo claim, but not this one.

[janiepooh34]

This is the same type of Micky they showed on History Detectives.

Now, go to PBS.org to look up the story.

They also show that both Micky and Mickey started out copying the cartoon mice of the previous 10 years, even naming Ingatz Mouse, Milton Mouse and the mice in the Felix the Cat cartoons.

[rex racer]

Hey Del!

After extensive research, I believe it was decided that although Performo got the patent on their "Micky" first, that Walt had still conceived his "Mickey" first. I don't remember all of the details or the name of the program, but I'll post it when I get the information.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jimq3/images/public_html/mickymouseb.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~jimq3/images/public_html/mickymouse.jpg

Hmm, well that must have taken some doing on Walt's part! Looks like Micky is even older than Oswald, going by the patent date...... Thanks Rich!

[rex racer]

This is the same type of Micky they showed on History Detectives.

Now, go to PBS.org to look up the story.

They also show that both Micky and Mickey started out copying the cartoon mice of the previous 10 years, even naming Ingatz Mouse, Milton Mouse and the mice in the Felix the Cat cartoons.

Thanks Janie! http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/pdf/302_mousetoy.pdf

Looks like Performo (great name!) didn't have the best of lawyers, and copying Disney's Mickey in the later years wasn't terribly brilliant either :rolleyes: If they'd challenged Disney right at the start in 1928, he'd have been in no position to fight them legally as he was financially strapped. Disney would likely have settled out of court, possibly by contracting with them to produce some of his "Mickey" merchandise, and Performo might have grown to be bigger than Hasbro or Mattel !!! (Ok so I'm speculatin' ;) )

[JIM ENGEL]

Where did you hear of this? I heard of the Performo claim, but not this one.

I recall reading it a long time ago, either in a book or an article about Gruelle.
I ran a search on it, to see if I could locate the source, but didn't find anything but the thread from THE ANIMATION SHOW:

http://www.animationshow.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=931

Scroll down, and someone else mentions it. HE read it in a piece by comics historian Bill Blackbeard. I think that MAY be where I first read it...Ray Pointer immediately jumps on this guy for "proof".

All I can say to that is that Ray Pointer may be unfamiliar with the impeccable credentials of Blackbeard, but I am fully aware of his credibility and wouldn't presume to doubt his claim (as if he had any reason to lie about something like this in the first place).

[frizfrelengfan]

A long time ago, the old Life magazine did an article about Mickey memorabilia. Along with the usual Mickey Mouse watches, there was a "Micky" mouse that the article said "may be an impostor" and which was produced in the 1920s. My memory is fuzzy, but I believe it was a stuffed toy, not like the Performo Mickys.

The story is pretty well known that Walt wanted to call his creation Mortimer but his wife Lilly talked him into naming it Mickey.

[Ray Pointer]

All I can say to that is that Ray Pointer may be unfamiliar with the impeccable credentials of Blackbeard, but I am fully aware of his credibility and wouldn't presume to doubt his claim (as if he had any reason to lie about something like this in the first place).[/QUOTE]

I am familiar with Mr. Blackbeard's credentials, which is why, when he approached me three years ago, I asked his professional guidance on my script for KRAZY KAT. While my request of him was related to images in the comic strip that supported contents of my script, Mr. Blackbeard seemed offended by my suggesting that George Herriman was a Mulatto Creole. The fact that Herriman had black anscestry has been documented by Herriman's Birth Certificate, which is designated as "Colored," and by the fact that Herriman's family followed the migration of New Orleans Creoles to Los Angeles during the period of 1880 to 1895.

While Mr. Blackbeard is the expert in the graphic history of Herriman's work, for some reason he seemed unwilling to accept the overwhelming evidence that George Herriman was in all probabitlity the first Black American Cartoonist 100 years ago. This is a most important detail of history, and I was most puzzled to see this fact "white washed" in Mr. Blackbeard's most recent reprint where he states that Herriman was of Greek decent. This is most definately not true since the surname itself has its origins in Alsace-Lorraine. Second, anyone having been exposed to Black culture will recognize the characteristics of Herriman, which resemble those of a man of a racially mixed background. If this were not the case, Herriman's own granddaughter, Dee Cox would not have participated in the publishing of KRAZY KAT: THE COMIC ART OF GEROGE HERRIMAN by Partick McDonnell, Karen O'Connell, and Gerogia Riley deHavenon. This book makes the statement about Herriman's background with references to his place of birth, address of birth, and the details of his race stated on the birth certificate. These are details which Mr. Blackbeard chooses not to recognize. And while Mr. Blackbeard's reputation may have been impecible, one can only wonder why he is bothered by the mere suggestion that Herriman "may" have had Black anscestry, whether it was true or not. In this respect, Mr. Blackbeard actually did me a favor in helping make my script that much stronger with the suggestion that Herriman's background is, and continues to be a soruce of controversy. In spite of this, Herriman has been elected into the Black Cartoonists Hall of Fame.

It is a curious thing also that a subject that I was discussing with others nearly a year ago should be brought up with such a distorted twist. To say that I was suggesting that Blackbeard was "lying" is an unnecessary overstatement, as I never said such a thing. But my asking for proof in seeing what was being referred to in the discussion of the origin of Mickey or Miky Mouse was legitimate, since as I originally stated, the 'proof is in the seeing." What I have seen looks nothing at all like the design of Mickey Mouse as a cartoon character, but vaguely resembles the Mickey Mouse dolls of the 1930s, an issue I believe has also been discussed in a past thread.

In conclusion, I do not understand the tone or reason for twisting this issue with an implication that I suggested that Bill Blackbeard was "lying" since I never made any such statement. There is the possiblity that he could have been mistaken, or biased in his view, as in the case of my experience with him. I merely wanted proof as anyone should have. This is a vital part of getting to the truth, and obtaining a meaningful discussion leading to enlightenment. But in light of the George Herriman incident, while Mr. Blackbeard's reputation is valued, he has dissappointed me.

[JIM ENGEL]

Okay, well--from the ANIMATION SHOW forum:

J.D. WEIL:
"In his article Mickey Mouse and the Phantom Artist Comics detective Bill Blackbeard uncovered a 1920's Mickey and Minnie Mouse in the pages of Good Housekeeping Magazine by Johnny Gruelle and citing it as a possible reason for Walt Disney to rename his new creation Mickey Mouse from Mortimer. Good Housekeeping was and still is is one of the most widely read women's magazine in the country and almost certainly read by Lillian Disney. The mice in Gruelle's strip are rendered in his own style and the relation between them is quite different from Disney's pair ( in the strip, Mickey is Minnie's son rather then her paramour) but look what did for Disney."

RAY POINTER:
"Okay, the proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes. I recently read an elaborate book on Johnny Gruelle and Raggedy Ann, and it did not mention anything to this sort.
And with all the myths that have already been spun on this subject, isn't it odd we are hearing about this now? Let's see it."

WEIL:
"Blackbeard's article was published as part of a larger compilation of artcles titled All In Color For a Dime which is still available even though it's been out for quite a few years."

POINTER:
"I don't see anything yet!!!!"

----------------------------------------------------

Ray, you certainly SEEM to be doubting that Blackbeard has the magazine with Gruelle's "Mickey"& "Minnie".

As to discussing with "others" a year ago, I guess you are implying I shouldn't comment here or on the ANIMATION SHOW public forums?

It just happens that i saw this "origins" of Mickey thread (about the toy), and recalled reading about Gruelle's characters. i thought that might be interesting to share HERE, so I ran a search on the subject to see if I could find specifics, and that search turned up the thread at ANIMATION SHOW where you seemed (at least to ME, others can draw their own conclusions from the above) to be doubting Blackbeard's credibility. At least you seem unwilling to believe his claim without somebody producing the magazine so you could see for yourself that he's telling the truth (or not lying).I was surprised anyone familiar with Blackbeard's long history as a comic art scholar would doubt his claim to have a magazine.

Blackbeard is certainly opinionated, and i don't agree with all his assessments (for example, he really seems to despise Bud Sagendorf's Popeye, which I love), but there's a difference between not agreeing about the quality of something, and not believing that something he says EXISTS exists. I'd believe him, without seeing it, and again--I can't imagine why he'd lie about it.

I dunno what problem he'd have re:Herriman's race either. It seems to be widely accepted that he was mulatto. I wasn't aware that that was debated.
Does his disagreeing with you about Herriman color your willingness to take him at face value re:Gruelle's Mickey/Minnie?

[Ray Pointer]

First of all, I wish to make it known that I have not been an active partcipant
in this forum for several months. With the exception of one or two brief responses to help someone, I have chosen to cease my participation here for reasons already known to Jon Cooke.

I have broken my silence because my name has been brought into a discussion that I was not active in, and I was referenced from comments I made at The Animation Show Cartoon Forum two years ago. The use of my name and the taking of my quotes out of context in this thread seem to have been distorted, and need clarification. I am responding accordingly to lend that clarification, and bring finalization of these references to my posts that originated outside of GAC.

Ray, you certainly SEEM to be doubting that Blackbeard has the magazine with Gruelle's "Mickey"& "Minnie"."

How do you conclude that? I NEVER said that. What I said was that I had finished reading an extensive book on Johnnie Gruelle, and it did not mention this. So I was naturally interested in seeing such a thing.

As to discussing with "others" a year ago, I guess you are implying I shouldn't comment here or on the ANIMATION SHOW public forums?


When did I ever say such a thing? I have no right to tell you what you can discuss in an open forum, and I never have interfered with anything you have posted in the past. I never considered there to be any problem with any of your posts, and I cetainly had no idea you had any problems with mine. But it does seem bad form for you to take something I said from two years ago from another forum to use it for what appears to be your own posturing.

As I recall, Rule three of this forum asks not to revive threads more than two weeks old. It only confuses other members. But the thread you lifted my quoatations from did not originate from GAC, and I believe that within the course of the current discussion you thought it necessary enought to research my comments from 2004 as a point of interest, or more accurately "controversy." The issue that bothers me is that I was not engaged in this current discussion, and your use of my name and quotes implies an effort to discredit me in some way without my knowledge or participation. Doing this potentially violates Rule nine : "There will be no misquotations or missrepresentations of other members. This is considered slander." While this is not serious enought to be considered slander in the legal sense, it is still an unfair action on your part, and somewhat self-embarrasing. You "assumed" from the beginning that I was ignorant of the place of Bill Blackbeard. I have carefully and courteously cleared up this "assumption" for you.

[QUOTE=JIM ENGEL]Blackbeard is certainly opinionated, and i don't agree with all his assessments (for example, he really seems to despise Bud Sagendorf's Popeye, which I love), but there's a difference between not agreeing about the quality of something, and not believing that something he says EXISTS exists. I'd believe him, without seeing it, and again--I can't imagine why he'd lie about it.

Once again, you insist on twisting my words, which I've already explained in exhaustive detail. I was interested in seeing what Blackbeard was referring to, not doubting so much the existence of the material. Again the image would be the proof of whether or not this was the origin of Mickey Mouse. But in all accuracy, we know that the actual design owes more to FELIX THE CAT than any of these rat-like images that preceeded him. To connect Mickey to these earlier concepts seems historically and artistically incorrect.

I dunno what problem he'd have re:Herriman's race either. It seems to be widely accepted that he was mulatto. I wasn't aware that that was debated.?

I have my own take on why this is, but out of respect and courtesy to Mr. Blackbeard, and for the well being of the GAC forum, I will refrain from stating it publically. However, the reader is free to draw his/her own conclusions on this matter.

Does his disagreeing with you about Herriman color your willingness to take him at face value re:Gruelle's Mickey/Minnie?

No, as I stated before, I wanted to see it. It's one thing to declare something in writing, but another to show it. It's also disappointing and annoying not to able to see the evidence. Therefore, my response was out of a combination of natural curiosity and a frustration in not seeing what was described. This can naturally cause one to doubt when the evidence is withheld. So my original statment, "The proof is in the seeing" was valid.

[JIM ENGEL]

If you're happy now, Ray, so am I, and we need not lengthen the discussion. I think you've overreacted in the extreme, but clearly we BOTH are content to let others read the above an draw their own conclusions.

"Controversy", "distortion", and "slander" were not the intent of my discussion, which is good, as none was present in what I wrote.

[Chasswynn]

Thanks Janie! http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/pdf/302_mousetoy.pdf

Looks like Performo (great name!) didn't have the best of lawyers, and copying Disney's Mickey in the later years wasn't terribly brilliant either :rolleyes: If they'd challenged Disney right at the start in 1928, he'd have been in no position to fight them legally as he was financially strapped. Disney would likely have settled out of court, possibly by contracting with them to produce some of his "Mickey" merchandise, and Performo might have grown to be bigger than Hasbro or Mattel !!! (Ok so I'm speculatin' ;) )

Hullo, I am new here and fascinated with everyone's knowledge and finding out things I am not sure I wanted to know like this. It sort of makes me feel wierd like when I found out at five about Santa. sniff, oh well it is about business after all.

[ohmahaaha]

Hullo, I am new here and fascinated with everyone's knowledge and finding out things I am not sure I wanted to know like this. It sort of makes me feel wierd like when I found out at five about Santa. sniff, oh well it is about business after all.
Welcome to the Forum - however, I don't think you need to feel that way. I really don't care what Performo or Gruelle did 80 or 85 years ago, to me, there was, is, and always will be, only 1 real Mickey Mouse.

[cpdavison]

I was once conducting a business-related telephone conversation (about what I've long since forgotten) with a lady by the name of Kim McNeil. A very uninteresting fact is that my sister's name is Kim, but this does figure into the story.

At the conclusion of the call we were exchanging contact information. When the woman asked me for my last name, I replied "Davison," for that is what it is.

"You're kidding me!" she howled. "That's my maiden name and I have a brother named Craig!"

"Now you're the one who is kidding, for my sister's name is Kim!" I might have said if I actually talked that way.

It boggles the mind that somewhere out there a seperate Mr. and Mrs. Davison decided to name their son and daughter Kim and Craig, but there you go. (I'm sorry if the thought of multiple Craig Davisons roaming the Earth is disturbing to anyone reading this, but imagine how I feel!http://www.goldenagecartoons.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif )

So, is it possible that someone came up with the idea of naming their fictional mice Mickey and/or Minnie Mouse prior Walt Disney doing so? Well, it looks like it was.

Is it probable that Walt Disney, who possessed one of the most celebrated imaginative minds of the twentieth century deliberately ripped off either Gruelle or Performo Toys? Given his dealing with the Winklers and the Oswald Rabbit debacle, I would tend to think he would have been very sensitive to any such sort of infringement.

Well that's my boring anecdote. Thanks for your time.

[JIM ENGEL]

For the record, I don't think in a million years that Disney lifted the names from Gruelle or Performo either. These things are just interesting bits of trivia.

( I also don't think Disney had an experience with a real mouse on a train, and the whole "Mortimer"/"Mickey" thing sounds like a story to me too.):mickey: