<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">Dean:<DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><FONT face="Arial" size="2"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10px; ">Perhaps someone could help me with this question. In most of the Mickey stories published by Gladstone II by such artists as Noel Van Horn, Ferioli, etc., Mickey usually wore some sort of shirt and slacks. Since Gemstone has started publishing though, most of the times even when drawn by the same artists, he usually is shirtless and only has on his red shorts, in other words, his more classic look. Can anyone tell me why this change happened? Were some artists told by Egmont to start drawing Mickey with a more traditional look? Or during Gladstone II were images of Mickey redrawn so that he had a shirt and slacks on? I personally like the more classic look myself, but mostly am just curious for the reason for this change.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><DIV>My theory is that in recent years Disney's expressed preference for the "classic" version of their trademark has allowed that preference - always generally held, I think - to resurface at Egmont.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>As for Gladstone II, we never would have even contemplated going to that kind of trouble.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Gary</DIV></BODY></HTML>