There's a whole cottage industry in topless/nude retrofitted Archie covers (and sometimes stories) out there on the interwebs, you know. They're out there, you just have to look for them.

One big problem with that, is that Archie never had continuity in the sense of an "Official Handbook/Encyclopedia of the Archie Universe". Continuity in Archie Comics is loose and flexible. It's mostly a matter of a particular writer wanting to revisit a character or situation he invented (or less often, some other writer invented) in a previous story, in order to put some new spin on it -- but only if he can wring a funny story out of it. Conversely, a story idea that a writer might come up with that contradicts an earlier story (written by him or another writer) is just as valid an idea, because continuity is far less important than writing a funny story. Coming up with a funny story is the main goal, and continuity only applies if that makes ideas come easier for the writer in accomplishing that task. Topical references to things like Haagen Dazs ice cream would be especially fluid, changing from story to story, so that if such a reference appeared in more than one story, it would more than likely be two different "Archieverse" sound-alike brands.

The lack of continuity in Archie stories can be best understood by considering the context of their traditional main audience demographic, 8-to-12 year-old readers. As such, there was an assumed nearly-complete audience turnover every 5 years or so. The changing comic book marketplace resulted in some sporadic attempts at establishing continuity beginning in the late 1980s/early 1990s, in order to try to retain an older segment of readership for a little longer, but without some sort of overarching editorial mandate, even these instances are often contradictory with things established in later stories. A good example would be stories in which Sabrina the Teenage Witch (itself a character whose continuity is somewhat volatile over its history, due to influences from television) appears with Archie and the gang -- sometimes they are aware that she's a witch, and sometimes not, depending on the particular story you're looking at.

There's a (somewhat less-detailed than what you're asking for, but still helpful) Who's Who in the Archie Universe at http://www.mightycrusaders.net/a_pages/riverdale.htm, and you can find a similar list of characters on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Archie_Comics_characters). Those only help with characters though, and still only list the main ones while leaving dozens of more obscure/minor ones out.

I was just fooling around with some pencil drawings I found online. The figures of Betty and Reggie came from separate cover variants that Dan Parent drew for ARCHIE #666. I saved both of those variant cover pencil sketches, opened them both up in Paint and cropped and erased the elements (background figures) in both images that I didn't want. Then I pasted the Betty figure and the Reggie figure into the same image. I noticed in both drawings that their hands were on their hips with their elbows sticking out, and I realized that if you overlapped the images, it looked like Betty and Reggie were arm-in-arm, so I did that, and erased the overlapping lines. This just turned out to be really fortuitous, because with the two separate figures lined up correctly according to height, the way that Dan drew them in the original pencil sketches, their eyes look as if they're looking right at each other! The original idea was to tone down the blacks here so that I'd have some light gray lines and I intended to print this out and ink it myself, and white-out the stray lines I hadn't already erased after inking it. That will take a while though, so I'll just show you what I've got so far. You can see a lot of broken lines where I had to erase stuff, but it's pretty clear for me to see where the ink lines need to go, so no big deal. Below that you can see the final covers those figures of Betty and Reggie came from, as they were printed in the final cover versions inked by Rich Koslowski.

Quote from: BettyReggie on August 21, 2016, 11:10:17 PM
I colored in of my stress free coloring books before. I haven't done that in while. I used crayons.  Maybe I'll do it again tomorrow. I wish they made a Archie one. They would sell a lot. If I worked at Archie Comics I would suggest it.

The "coloring book variant" is the latest variant comic book cover trend. DC has already done a number of them, and Dynamite is starting to do them too. Here are a couple of Dynamite's coloring book variant covers from last month's solicitations: KISS #1 by Fernando Ruiz, and BETTY BOOP #1 by J. Bone. Of course, if you wanted to color these without altering the actual comic book, you could just print out the covers from the images, and color the copies you print. There are enough images of black and white comic book covers out there on the internet that you could print out a whole stack of drawings that you like, staple them together, and make your own coloring book.

If the aim was to make a profit, it's a bad risk for a return on your investment, so that's a "NO" for me.

If you just want to support a particular title (or group of titles) as a fan, then that's what Kickstarter is for. ACP tried that, and it turned out to be a disaster.

Quote from: steveinthecity on August 20, 2016, 08:43:11 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on August 20, 2016, 10:54:08 AM

Quote from: steveinthecity on August 20, 2016, 10:24:12 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on August 20, 2016, 12:30:43 AM

Quote from: Ottawagrant on August 19, 2016, 12:46:55 PM
See, that's an interesting point. B&V sell 70,000 copies with 25 different covers. So the question is- how many different people are buying this comic? Not that (less than) 3,000 people are buying all 25, but issue #1 of a comic usually sells well.

The true number of unique readers or retail purchasers will never be known. The sales figures that are a matter of record only indicate the (nonreturnable) sales to comics retailers. You can probably safely assume that most of the unique readers are represented by single-copy sales of the main cover, and that most of the variant cover sales (by retailers to comic book collectors) represent additional copies of the same issue sold to one reader or collector who purchased one or more variant cover copies of the same issue number containing the same story. Collecting variant covers has nothing to do with reading comic books, it's more like collecting stamps. Some of the unique readers will simply purchase a single copy of the cover that appeals most to them, but if you stop and think about it, there's no reason for a publisher to incur the additional expenses of the variant cover artwork and printing costs, unless it results in selling additional copies that wouldn't have been purchased otherwise, if there had been only a single cover produced. Really, the crucial thing here is the publisher selling copies to the retailer. Some retailers will try to assemble a complete set of all cover variants and sell those (usually online) as a set.

While I agree with this, I'd remind everyone to consider the vagaries of the speculator market particularly where #1's and hot artists are concerned.  Maybe a "drop in the bucket", but CGC and CBCS aren't hurting for business.

I'm not sure what "vagaries" you're alluding to Steve. People who aren't comic book readers as such, but are only interested in making money by reselling (after grading, etc) variant covers for profit? But that would include all retailers, too. Then too, these things are mercurial in nature, and can skyrocket in price and plunge just as quickly in a very short window of time.

I'm not sure what that might mean in terms of trying to get a handle on how many retail sales, out of any given reported sales number of copies (to retailers), might be distinct individuals. I guess the number we're trying to estimate (out of say, the 70,000 copies total sold of B&V#1 to retailers) is how many individuals purchased a copy of B&V#1 (out of the 70,000 -- or less? -- being offered by retailers for sale), not how many of the 70,000 copies were sold by retailers at a profit. How many retail consumers were involved in a sales transaction for that comic book, regardless of whether each of them purchased 1 copy, 10 copies, 100 copies, etc.

I'm pretty much addressing the question of "who buys multiple covers". I'm certain the Adam Hughes B&V was "invested" in even more than Archie #1 due to Hughes (as an example of vagaries) and we'll see those copies show up on the CGC census over the next 3-4 months as well as e-Bay.  To the other topic, I've pretty much abandoned hope of determining exact print runs of some more recent comics as stuff shows up at Cons that isn't accounted for by Diamond numbers(from creators). I'm interested, though.  Still.   

Well, in a sense that's nothing new. There have always been, and will probably always be, speculators. It's true enough that when publishers recognized that this was a significant enough factor in a potentially otherwise somewhat borderline-sales comic book title, they realized they could exploit that speculator factor to sell enough additional copies a a comic book title to push sales into the profitability range. You'll note that the publishers whose percentage of the total comics market share falls in the 2% and below range tend to be the same publishers that exploit the variant cover gimmick with the greatest regularity across the board, although in the last couple of years even Marvel and DC's sales have diminished to the point that they've begun to increase their relative percentage of variant covers as well.

The biggest group of speculators are the comic book retailers themselves. The economics of profitability for the independent comic shop owner have changed radically in the last decade, due to the ever-increasing shift in readership towards trade paperbacks and digital comics (driven largely by Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and ComiXology), so much so that there's an increasing "profitability gap" separating the single-store owner from the larger comics retailers who operate 2 or more large stores. The single-store owners have been working on thinner and thinner margins of profit. I would point specifically to the exponential increase in the number of RE (Retailer Exclusive) variant covers as the most indicative visible example of this. Five or ten years ago, only the largest of comic book retailers were doing these, but now it's the smallest of stores as well. If, hypothetically speaking, variant covers were to disappear overnight, the number of single-store comic shop owners would be decimated by 90%. Without internet and convention sales of variant covers, those retailers would have to close their doors and go out of business. They are surviving mainly on sales of those variant covers, and selling cheap comics bought up in bulk purchases, and deeply-discounted trade paperbacks from publishers' liquidation of backstock.

Quote from: irishmoxie on August 20, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
Wandering Island - after DeCarlo Rules' recommendation. It was really good. Kinda in the same family as castaway stories. Unfortunately there's only one volume, it ends on a cliffhanger, and it looks like it's been 5-6 years so I don't think the mangaka is writing another one. I wonder if I would like Spirit of Wonder as it's out of print now and retailing for $60+. Worth it??

That was... ? Someone else, not me. And now that you reminded me, I still didn't get around to reading those SPIRIT OF WONDER issues that I found a couple of weeks back. They are cheap though. Usually like a buck each or less, assuming you can find them. If you're not interested in hunting them down, mycomicshop.com has all five issues (NM) for $1.35 per issue.

Well, I'm glad someone told me that WANDERING ISLAND is a story that has no conclusion. I'll pass on reading it now, or at least until such time (if ever) that it IS completed.

I hope you'll leave the Archives of older podcasts up online for a while. I never did get caught up on listening to those. Might be a few of those episodes I might even want to download and save.

Come to think of it, before you call it quits on the whole idea, couldn't you just go into "re-runs" for a while, and maybe just do a new one once in a while, without the pressure of having a weekly deadline over your head?  Or maybe some sort of quickly-edited compilation of "the best of" clips culled from highlights of past podcasts, with say, just five or ten minutes worth of news and comments on current stuff?

Quote from: steveinthecity on August 20, 2016, 09:50:31 AM
The Pink Lady I spoke of can be found at www.pinkladyhollywood.com.  She's pretty cool to my thinking.  I never heard of the Pink Lady tv series.

Fair enough. I thought they were pretty obscure today, hopefully enough to be a "stumper". But on the other foot, I've never heard of your Pink Lady, either. What's her claim to celebrity, again? Motivational speaking, or is that more of a sideline?

Quote from: steveinthecity on August 20, 2016, 10:24:12 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on August 20, 2016, 12:30:43 AM

Quote from: Ottawagrant on August 19, 2016, 12:46:55 PM
See, that's an interesting point. B&V sell 70,000 copies with 25 different covers. So the question is- how many different people are buying this comic? Not that (less than) 3,000 people are buying all 25, but issue #1 of a comic usually sells well.

The true number of unique readers or retail purchasers will never be known. The sales figures that are a matter of record only indicate the (nonreturnable) sales to comics retailers. You can probably safely assume that most of the unique readers are represented by single-copy sales of the main cover, and that most of the variant cover sales (by retailers to comic book collectors) represent additional copies of the same issue sold to one reader or collector who purchased one or more variant cover copies of the same issue number containing the same story. Collecting variant covers has nothing to do with reading comic books, it's more like collecting stamps. Some of the unique readers will simply purchase a single copy of the cover that appeals most to them, but if you stop and think about it, there's no reason for a publisher to incur the additional expenses of the variant cover artwork and printing costs, unless it results in selling additional copies that wouldn't have been purchased otherwise, if there had been only a single cover produced. Really, the crucial thing here is the publisher selling copies to the retailer. Some retailers will try to assemble a complete set of all cover variants and sell those (usually online) as a set.

While I agree with this, I'd remind everyone to consider the vagaries of the speculator market particularly where #1's and hot artists are concerned.  Maybe a "drop in the bucket", but CGC and CBCS aren't hurting for business.

I'm not sure what "vagaries" you're alluding to Steve. People who aren't comic book readers as such, but are only interested in making money by reselling (after grading, etc) variant covers for profit? But that would include all retailers, too. Then too, these things are mercurial in nature, and can skyrocket in price and plunge just as quickly in a very short window of time.

I'm not sure what that might mean in terms of trying to get a handle on how many retail sales, out of any given reported sales number of copies (to retailers), might be distinct individuals. I guess the number we're trying to estimate (out of say, the 70,000 copies total sold of B&V#1 to retailers) is how many individuals purchased a copy of B&V#1 (out of the 70,000 -- or less? -- being offered by retailers for sale), not how many of the 70,000 copies were sold by retailers at a profit. How many retail consumers were involved in a sales transaction for that comic book, regardless of whether each of them purchased 1 copy, 10 copies, 100 copies, etc.

There's a 16-page preview of Paul Castiglia and Rik Offenberger's new book, as discussed with the authors and host Jonathan Merrifield on The Riverdale Podcast Episode #231 (http://riverdalepodcast.com/post/148536816603/the-riverdale-podcast-episode-231-mlj) over at First Comics News (http://www.firstcomicsnews.com/?p=226006). The book is due to be released in comics shops on Sept. 21st, 2016, or you can order it directly from the publisher, TwoMorrows (link is on the preview article page), either as a print book or digital.

I'm SUPER excited about this book, and the previews reveal it to be a slick, colorful, and attractively-designed book as well. Check it out.

Quote from: Ottawagrant on August 19, 2016, 12:46:55 PM
See, that's an interesting point. B&V sell 70,000 copies with 25 different covers. So the question is- how many different people are buying this comic? Not that (less than) 3,000 people are buying all 25, but issue #1 of a comic usually sells well.

The true number of unique readers or retail purchasers will never be known. The sales figures that are a matter of record only indicate the (nonreturnable) sales to comics retailers. You can probably safely assume that most of the unique readers are represented by single-copy sales of the main cover, and that most of the variant cover sales (by retailers to comic book collectors) represent additional copies of the same issue sold to one reader or collector who purchased one or more variant cover copies of the same issue number containing the same story. Collecting variant covers has nothing to do with reading comic books, it's more like collecting stamps. Some of the unique readers will simply purchase a single copy of the cover that appeals most to them, but if you stop and think about it, there's no reason for a publisher to incur the additional expenses of the variant cover artwork and printing costs, unless it results in selling additional copies that wouldn't have been purchased otherwise, if there had been only a single cover produced. Really, the crucial thing here is the publisher selling copies to the retailer. Some retailers will try to assemble a complete set of all cover variants and sell those (usually online) as a set.

Quote from: Ottawagrant on August 19, 2016, 12:46:55 PM
And as you mentioned these artists & writers are not cheap. You are quite correct about Kevin Keller. After year one (2007) sales dropped 40% in year 2 (2008). What's really brutal is the drop in sales of the digests. I believe they only sell less than 25% of total printed. I grew up in the era of 10 cent & 12 cent comics. Sure, it's 2016, but $6.99 for a ever shrinking digest of reprints?

In the old days of returnable-for-credit comics distribution, 50% sell-through was considered the break-even point. Any title that performed below that level was in danger of cancellation. A comic with a 60-80% sell-through percentage was considered a solid hit, and higher sales practically unheard of. ACP depends on direct sales through its website to take up the slack these days, with older returned stock deeply discounted or offered in assorted bargain bundles.

Quote from: Ottawagrant on August 19, 2016, 12:46:55 PMA while ago I bought the dvd-rom sets of bronze age Archie & Betty/Veronica (1970-79) comics. Grand total for both sets from Amazon Canada? -the princely sum of 10 bucks. Ten dollars for 240 digital comics? Works for me.

I purchased those DVD "Bronze Age Collection" discs (ARCHIE, BETTY AND VERONICA, and JUGHEAD) as well, at a cost of between $4 and $8 each, American (plus shipping). In most ways that format represents the idea form of a digital comic to me. I was able to copy those PDF files to a folder and move them on to my 10" tablet, where they can be read with a generic PDF reader (or Amazon's Kindle app). Too bad they never sold well enough for the company to make the Silver Age Collections, sets of complete issues from the 1960s. Also, I'd have preferred to have complete 1970s runs of SABRINA and JOSIE, if beggars could be choosers.

A minor quibble (considering the cost) is that each image file is a 2-page spread of both left- and right-hand pages scanned from the actual printed comics with no digital enhancement or cleanup. Bit of a pain there, as reading them on a tablet at full page size requires pinching-and-zooming, then moving the image from the left to the right at full size to read, rather than just a single swipe to continue from one image file to the next. If you were willing to purchase the full-featured Reader app from Adobe, you could edit the image files to break them down from a single image into individual left- and right-hand page images, but at the ridiculous price Adobe is asking for a year's subscription to that full-featured version, I'll live with it, I guess. A more expensive tablet with a larger screen would be another solution (so as to read the PDF images in the landscape mode without having to pinch and zoom), but at the sacrifice of portability.

Quote from: Ottawagrant on August 18, 2016, 08:04:02 PM
As for Kevin Keller, he got a raw deal. I suspect with the reboot of 'Archie' coming Kevin got the boot before his time. I actually subscribed to Kevin Keller & thought it was a good comic.

Nothing to do with New Archie. KEVIN KELLER got cancelled a whole year before New Archie was launched. Kevin got a lot of media attention at first, and then sales just trickled off. Not unlike what seems to be happening with the New Riverdale titles, actually. B&V #1 sold 70,000 or so, which is pretty good in today's comics market, but don't forget, that's with 25 cover variants. I get the impression that in hiring Adam Hughes (who's certainly the most expensive of any creators ACP has hired to date) they were expecting to blow the doors off the sales of ARCHIE #1, but it didn't happen. ARCHIE seems to have settled down to about 15,000 copies with the most recent issues. Still better than before the reboot, but after you subtract the addition costs to the creators, not exactly generating a great profit.

Okay, already. Quit with the griping. I just thought there might be somebody interested.

When you get right down to it, most of these comics aren't worth buying anyway. Better to just download them off torrents or something.

1. As far as I'm concerned Fran the Fan was the star of the show. The guys always underestimated her, and she always showed them up.

2. 27 issues is not a dismal failure by ACP standards. That's actually a fairly decent run. Better than Kevin Keller got.

3. How did you manage to mention every band ACP had except Josie and the Pussycats?