Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 14, 2016, 12:31:23 AM

Quote from: steveinthecity on November 13, 2016, 07:43:16 PM

Quote from: Cosmo on November 13, 2016, 06:39:41 PM
Wow....sounds like a mystery for the Dover Boys:  The Case of the Phantom Issue.

I don't have a copy of #1, but wonder if there is any mention of the next exciting issue in that book.

The last panel asks readers to send a postcard if they'd like more stories from the Dover Boys. 


But...I found a four year old post from one of the DCM admins who listed having "Adventures Of Dover Boys #2" on order in a "VG-" condition from Terry O'Neill. Terry hasn't updated his website since April, but I'll try to contact both of them to find out what they know or remember about this.  Could be a dead end, but I'd like to know what Terry thought he was selling, if not #2.

Seems dubious at best. If I understand this correctly, nobody's claiming to have any information regarding the contents of AotDB#2, and nobody claims to have seen it or have a picture of it. Unless it's one of those weird cases where #2 is actually #1 (as in, the cover and indicia of the book say different things), so that somehow a single comic wound up being listed as two different comics.

"Could be a dead end' doesn't equate to dubious? Thank you for the reality check.  Also, a well known dealer of Golden Age Comics for 35+ years apparently selling a copy isn't "information" worthy of following up on?  Maybe it was like a Stuntman #3 or still unknown like the Harvey Flash Gordon last issue?  My interests in the hobby apparently don't jibe with those of the board.   

Quote from: irishmoxie on November 14, 2016, 02:04:49 AM
This is like the case of Archie's TV Laugh Out #106.

Yeah, don't understand where that came from.  What's annoying is Doug Sulipa still lists it as "scarce" and he's been a go-to dealer for obscure stuff no one cares about for decades, like Whitman bagged comics, 70's Richie Rich, etc.


An aside, Overstreet in 1985 does list AotDB #2, but I don't have 82-84 to see where it was first mentioned.

Quote from: Cosmo on November 13, 2016, 06:39:41 PM
Wow....sounds like a mystery for the Dover Boys:  The Case of the Phantom Issue.

I don't have a copy of #1, but wonder if there is any mention of the next exciting issue in that book.

The last panel asks readers to send a postcard if they'd like more stories from the Dover Boys. 


But...I found a four year old post from one of the DCM admins who listed having "Adventures Of Dover Boys #2" on order in a "VG-" condition from Terry O'Neill. Terry hasn't updated his website since April, but I'll try to contact both of them to find out what they know or remember about this.  Could be a dead end, but I'd like to know what Terry thought he was selling, if not #2.

Here Betty goes old school.  No crystals, no liquids or gels.  If the Cooper household is typical of others in the US regarding their choice of cosmetic and grooming products, there is an over 50% chance Betty is using a bar of Dove.




Just wondering if others toss the bar into the tub ahead of themselves getting in?

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 12, 2016, 03:32:27 PM
I'm thinking of ordering a bunch of BETTY'S DIARY issues, as that title seems (based on the few issues I have read so far) to be a much better book on average than BETTY for Betty stories.

I don't recall off the top of my head, but was there a more consistent writer for Betty's Diary?  Those issues do seem to standout when compared to the Betty solo title.

Quote from: BettyReggie on November 12, 2016, 04:21:57 AM
I guess that Val from Josie & The Pussycats. But where is Reggie? Why isn't he there? He is actually on only one RiverDale #1

I wouldn't mind seeing the previously solicited books finally come out.  The downside is that timely interest or momentum of titles like the Crusaders example is lost.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 11, 2016, 10:32:06 AM

New sig... too much? Still mulling it over, might have been a tweak or two too many in manipulating the bits'n'pieces.

The coloring makes me think of Mr. Goodbar candy. Your mentioning "bits'n'pieces" then makes me think of Sugar Babies.   

Quote from: trb427 on November 11, 2016, 11:38:28 AMI've heard that OPG has been known to include deliberate but obscure errors. It helps identify plagiarism when other price guides include the same errors.

Quote from: trb427 on November 11, 2016, 11:43:05 AM
I've heard that OPG sometimes includes deliberate errors. It helps identify plagiarism when other price guides include the same errors.

   Welcome to the boards!


While probably true, wouldn't it make more sense to insert a typo or err on a publication month than to include a completely ficticious comic?  The latter does a great disservice to the collecting community imo.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 11, 2016, 12:08:20 AM
But all of the individual issues (including some that were going to be on sale soon) were very recent issues... and you don't see the same sort of ads for random issues of digest titles that weren't close to the cancellation line. They might have felt it was better to cut back the print runs of those [Available Through This Ad Only] issues, NOT distribute them to the returnable market, and keep the remainder of the print run (after direct/non-returnable distribution to comic shops, which wouldn't have amounted to much compared to the returnable market) in-house.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this one point at a time.  "Available Through This Ad Only", or ATTAO,    what does that mean exactly?  Was there a difference in the advertised book and the one in the marketplace?  That's why I brought up the direct vs. newsstand editions of that book. 


Were the ATTAO books in such low reserve they used them mainly to create a hype element to the offer?  Were any ATTAO books that remained after the ad ran it's course dumped into ACP's regular bulk back issue program?


I think step one is determining what (if anything) made the LA #20 & Betty #2 books offered unique. Do we know if there's both a Direct and Newsstand edition of LA #20? Were all digests offered to the market in both newsstand and direct only during that timeframe?  I'm not certain how common that was with digests.

Here Betty introduces "Bath Crystals".  Adding a new wrinkle to one's bathing experience.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on November 10, 2016, 01:22:35 AM

That's odd, since most of the gags seem to involve how difficult it is for Jughead to get Hot Dog to take a bath!

Yeah, it's backwards.  Maybe Hot Dog was swayed by the prospect of sitting in the People's tub and using a fresh scented, invigorating body wash?

Good question.  As for Betty Digest #2, there was both a newsstand and direct market edition, so I'm wondering if the Ads were selling one or the other version as a test of sorts as you suggested?


In general I believed the in-house ads for back issues was just a method used for selling off inventory.  ACP seemed to overprint as part of their business model with the digests.  Not how publishers overprinted when affidavit returns were the norm, but for maintaining backstock for later sale.

A boy and his dog.   

Here Jughead is apparently using a Dove Pink Beauty Bar. 

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on June 04, 2016, 07:10:12 PM

Quote from: bobk on June 04, 2016, 01:52:17 PM
Okay. I just thought it was funny because it looks nothing like Lucey's work and isn't even proportional to the rest of his body. Nevermind then.



I think you are right Tokyo. Whoever drew the head, its not Lucey. I'd be interested in seeing the original. I suppose they didn't cite the original story?

Lucey, probably badly inked over by someone in the production department, or an attempt to copy his original over. Almost looks like it could have been done with a felt tip pen. Reproduced from a damaged transparency, no doubt.

Not sure of the original publication, but it goes back to at least Life With Archie #115 (Nov. '71 cover date). 

I can go along with this being badly inked.  Maybe trying too hard to make the caricature more identifiable?

Not sure what type of soap Veronica's using here. 

From a 1946 daily:







image courtesy of Chuck