I'm not a huge pinback button collector, but will pounce on those targets of opportunity that present themselves if they're free or cheap enough. The only actual Archie pins I have in my collection are the two released to comic shops to promote Archie Meets the Punisher, and a somewhat rarer (but otherwise quite recent) one promoting Archie vs Predator, and another promoting Afterlife With Archie. Now if I was going to go out of my way to aim to get some kind of pins representing Archie, those aren't the ones I'd put on the top of my list, but they were easy for me to get, so why not! The only other Archie-related pin I have is one Jonathan sent to supporters of The Riverdale Podcast with a silhouette of Jughead's hat on it.

Quote from: GingerGal on April 23, 2016, 03:48:41 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on April 23, 2016, 03:45:45 PM

Quote from: GingerGal on April 23, 2016, 03:36:42 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on April 23, 2016, 03:33:14 PM

Quote from: GingerGal on April 23, 2016, 03:15:09 PM
Free is always a good thing that is for sure. If all you want to do is have them stored on your computer device then that is great. If you want to display the covers in anyway then like I said it is not actually free in the end.

No, as invisifan said above, that is why they invented the digital picture frame. It's the same as the "slide show" photo viewer on your computer, just made specially to sit on a desktop or hang on a wall. For that matter, if your image resolution is good enough, you can do the same thing by downloading the pictures to your digital HDTV.

Does the digital picture frame cost anything or do you just download it for free?

Yes, it costs about the same as 25 copies of BETTY AND VERONICA #1, but is infinitely re-usable and can display hundreds (perhaps thousands) of digital images. But why gripe about that? Nobody gripes that they spent more money than that on a tablet so that they could better enjoy their collection of hundreds of digital comics.

So in the long run it is worth it. Now if I could only get my hands on the money that would be the same as 25 copies of Betty and Veronica #1 which would be about $100 I guess. 

$100 will get you a decent comic-size image display, and probably a couple of things like wi-fi and a remote. It's basically just a really flat high-resolution computer monitor that you can hang on the wall or prop on your desk or countertop, just as you'd do with a regular photo frame. Plus you've got enough memory in there to store boxes and boxes of photos (or artwork, your choice, whatever can be converted to digital images... even video, although you probably don't have enough memory for $100 for anything too long... still, with wifi you could stream from your computer to the frame).

Quote from: GingerGal on April 23, 2016, 03:36:42 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on April 23, 2016, 03:33:14 PM

Quote from: GingerGal on April 23, 2016, 03:15:09 PM
Free is always a good thing that is for sure. If all you want to do is have them stored on your computer device then that is great. If you want to display the covers in anyway then like I said it is not actually free in the end.

No, as invisifan said above, that is why they invented the digital picture frame. It's the same as the "slide show" photo viewer on your computer, just made specially to sit on a desktop or hang on a wall. For that matter, if your image resolution is good enough, you can do the same thing by downloading the pictures to your digital HDTV.

Does the digital picture frame cost anything or do you just download it for free?

Yes, it costs about the same as 25 copies of BETTY AND VERONICA #1, but is infinitely re-usable and can display hundreds (perhaps thousands) of digital images. But why gripe about that? Nobody gripes that they spent more money than that on a tablet so that they could better enjoy their collection of hundreds of digital comics.

Quote from: GingerGal on April 23, 2016, 03:15:09 PM
Free is always a good thing that is for sure. If all you want to do is have them stored on your computer device then that is great. If you want to display the covers in anyway then like I said it is not actually free in the end.

No, as invisifan said above, that is why they invented the digital picture frame. It's the same as the "slide show" photo viewer on your computer, just made specially to sit on a desktop or hang on a wall. For that matter, if your image resolution is good enough, you can do the same thing by downloading the pictures to your digital HDTV.

I guess where I am not understanding how others are viewing the printed variant covers is that in MY mind, I can make no actual connection between the art image on the variant cover (unless that particular variant cover was drawn by the same artist who did the interior comic artwork) and the comic book story.

To me, having a variant cover image as a .JPG or something is ideal, because I can disconnect it from the comic story inside that it bears no relationship to,and I don't have to purchase that same story in print over and over again.


I would much rather buy an art book compiling a bunch of "guest artists" interpretations, or homages, or whatever you want to call them, in printed form, rather than hunt down 25 different $4 comic books.

Quote from: GingerGal on April 23, 2016, 02:45:12 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on April 23, 2016, 02:37:13 PM

Quote from: irishmoxie on April 23, 2016, 01:31:02 PM
IMO, buying variant covers is one of the few, only? reason to buy paper comics anymore. You can read the digital versions earlier and faster. I haven't been a comic collector for years and years so I'm not good at the delayed gratification comic shops insist on. Plus, to own a copy of Donald Duck or Silk wouldn't make me as happy as owning the variant cover of B&V.

Which is about 180 degrees apart from my own way of thinking. If you like digital comics, then why is the "main cover" (or non-variant) comic book NOT worth owning on paper, AND YET... somehow, the minute the printed comic is available with multiple options for covers, it suddenly IS worth collecting on paper?


Sure, you love the artwork on some particular cover variants over others. BUT YOU CAN HAVE ALL OF THEM FOR FREE (or only the selected ones you prefer over others) simply by right-clicking and "Save image", and you can have these FREE images to admire on your tablet or desktop months in advance of those who need to wait to purchase the printed comic. That, and not American Pickers, it what I find baffling.

Like it was said earlier by someone else it isn't really 100% free to right click them and save and then print them. First you have to have a good print to print quality stuff. Then you have to buy good quality printer paper to make it look all nice, and then there is the cost of the ink as well. Sure you can just have them sitting on your computer to look at now and then but really what fun it that? You could even make your favourite cover your wallpaper if you want. That is free, but not much fun at all. I do agree though that a comic is mostly what comes inside and the cover makes it look pleasing to the eye. Some covers are better than others and I guess that is what they are trying to achieve by giving readers more options to choose the ones they like the best.

So Digital Comic = GOOD; Digital Cover = BAD ?


Me no understand. U like e-comic, Y U print cover then?


It's only "fun" if you have to hunt down the variants one at time, pay for shipping, buy the same actual comic book story over and over again to get the ones that have different printed covers?  I'm MUCH more inclined to collect digital cover images than I am to collect entire digital comics, but I have to admit that the FREE aspect is a big lure, plus it helps to know how to search for images sometimes.

Quote from: irishmoxie on April 23, 2016, 01:31:02 PM
IMO, buying variant covers is one of the few, only? reason to buy paper comics anymore. You can read the digital versions earlier and faster. I haven't been a comic collector for years and years so I'm not good at the delayed gratification comic shops insist on. Plus, to own a copy of Donald Duck or Silk wouldn't make me as happy as owning the variant cover of B&V.

Which is about 180 degrees apart from my own way of thinking. If you like digital comics, then why is the "main cover" (or non-variant) comic book NOT worth owning on paper, AND YET... somehow, the minute the printed comic is available with multiple options for covers, it suddenly IS worth collecting on paper?

Sure, you love the artwork on some particular cover variants over others. BUT YOU CAN HAVE ALL OF THEM FOR FREE (or only the selected ones you prefer over others) simply by right-clicking and "Save image", and you can have these FREE images to admire on your tablet or desktop months in advance of those who need to wait to purchase the printed comic. That, and not American Pickers, is what I find baffling.

Quote from: irishmoxie on April 23, 2016, 01:31:02 PM
Why do people buy tons of blank sketch covers (with the same internal material usually unrelated to the commission) when the artist could draw on any old piece of paper?

Let me venture a guess on this one. It's not that any of the people buying those sketch variants particularly care what the interior pages of that (NOT COMPLETELY*) blank sketch variant cover contain, the pages themselves could be blank as well, if it were more feasible (meaning cheaper) to print them that way (but it's not).

*WHY is a blank sketch cover "not completely" blank? Because it has a character's title logo on it, just like regular comic books do. The importance of the logo is this. A BETTY & VERONICA blank sketch cover variant is absolutely worthless to someone who only wants an artist to sketch a picture of SPIDER-MAN on it (unless that pic of Spidey ALSO has B&V in it, as well). That means when the cover gets sketched on by a pro, what the owner now has in his collection is in effect a "custom comic", a one-of-a-kind (as opposed to the unsketched blank) variant THAT NO ONE ELSE OWNS A COPY OF. That's true of the original sketch on an ordinary blank piece of paper as well, but here is the crucial difference (in the minds of those that care about such things, and the popularity of the blank sketch variant attests to this) -- no matter how nice the original art sketch on a blank sheet of paper, IT IS NOT A COMIC BOOK. That's about as simple as it is.

Quote from: GingerGal on April 23, 2016, 12:26:38 PM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on April 23, 2016, 11:28:18 AM

Quote from: GingerGal on April 23, 2016, 11:01:13 AM
You know those Vintage Buttons the Archie Comics site has for sale for just .99 cents per button, how vintage do you think they really are for that little of a price tag?

Not 100% sure on this, but just at a guess I'd say they look to be no older than mid-1990s.

Not really that Vintage then.

Well, certainly not what I'd consider vintage, considering that Archie has been around since the 1940s. It's pretty easy tell tell by looking at the art used on those buttons that they don't come from the 1940s or 1950s, which I'd guess (at a minimum) would be most people's interpretation of "vintage". Possibly even (depending on the age of the person) the 1960s or 1970s... Here's one that looks to be early 60s, maybe late 50s...



And here are some that look to be about a decade younger, from the late-late 1960s/early 1970s...



Of course, it's perfectly easy for someone to make more recent buttons using older artwork to give them that "retro look" as well. Here's one with art from the 1950s era that was probably manufactured in the 1990s or even later. The seller was calling it "vintage" on his ebay listing, while at the same time admitting it was from the 1990s.

Does the cable network (don't even know what network it's on) have a website where I can view this episode, or clips from the episode?


You know what would have been funny, if at the end after they declared a winner, they had some guy come out dressed as Jughead and just go hog wild on the cake.

Quote from: GingerGal on April 23, 2016, 11:01:13 AM
You know those Vintage Buttons the Archie Comics site has for sale for just .99 cents per button, how vintage do you think they really are for that little of a price tag?

Not 100% sure on this, but just at a guess I'd say they look to be no older than mid-1990s.

Quote from: BettyReggie on April 23, 2016, 08:58:40 AM
I get a lot different ones because I have 12 comic frames . I like to change my wall around . And I don't have a printer . They would just come out black & white at the library. I have only pre-order 13 so far.

Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing the people who collect and enjoy having these variants. It's YOUR money, and nobody can tell you how best to spend it. It's YOUR choice. My choice happens to be to spend my disposable income on maximizing the number of comics I can purchase whose interior contents contain as many different stories as possible, but that's neither here nor there.

I just question whether the continuing proliferation of cover variants doesn't put the comic publishers in the position of becoming overly dependent on too few consumers for the sales of too many copies.


Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let's say Joe Squish is a big fan of all the new Archie Comics. He buys ALL the New Riverdale titles, ALL the Archie Action titles, ALL the Archie Horror titles, and ALL the Dark Circle titles. Joe is an Archie Comics superfan, so he doesn't just get one copy of each issue to read, he gets ALL of the cover variants as well, because he just enjoys collecting them and looking at them. Joe's got a good job, and plenty of disposable income to spend on his hobby, so what's the harm? He enjoys it. Then one day Joe finds out that he's got a medical problem. It's manageable, and not life-threatening, but it's going to cost him some money in terms of doctor appointments, medications, and so forth, even though the major expenses are being covered by his medical insurance. Now Joe has to crunch his budget, and figure out what luxuries to cut out of his disposable income, and he's really going to be forced to curtail his comic spending. Or, maybe Joe's just been collecting too long, not enjoying the hobby the way he did 5 or 10 years ago. Or maybe he needs to save money to buy a new house or a new car, or his hours got cut back at work from 40 to only 32 hours a week. Doesn't matter what the reason is, but Joe Squish's days of throwing cash around for his hobby are coming to an end. He can still enjoy the older comics in his collection, but he needs to cut out buying new ones.


If there are 3 New Riverdale titles, 2 Archie Horror titles, 3 Archie Action titles, and 3 Dark Circle titles, and they all cost $4 each, then if ACP only produced one cover of each of those books every month, the loss of Joe Squish as a consumer of ACP product is (3+2+3+3=)11 comics @ $4 each (OK, just to keep it simple, I'm ignoring the fact that Archie Action titles are still priced at $3, I know). But now what if each of those titles produced by ACP has at least one cover variant every month, and some of them have 3 or 4? Or a new #1 issue that month has 25 variants? Now instead of Joe being responsible for buying 11 copies of Archie Comics every month, he's buying more like 25 or 35 copies. Now Joe Squish's loss as an ACP customer is hurting ACP as a company a lot more than it would have if they were only depending on Joe to buy ONE copy of every title.

TANIA DEL RIO just had a new hardcover book (aimed at readers aged 8-12) published by Quirk Books: Warren the 13th and the All-Seeing Eye. I believe her last prior book was Betty: Diary of a Girl Next Door, published by ACP. As with the Betty book by ACP, the new one from Quirk Books is a novel told in text, although (also like the Betty book) it's heavily illustrated; this time, by artist Will Staehle (who does not, as far as I'm aware, have any prior credits working for ACP). Quirk decided to heavily promote the book by providing a softcover chapbook composed of the first 3 chapters of the novel to comic shop retailers free of charge through Diamond Comics Distribution (which is where I learned of it). Your LCS may have copies of the free 48-page (surprisingly substantial) promotional chapbook, which was delivered to shops last week, still available.

QuoteMeet Warren the 13th. He's the lone bellhop, valet, groundskeeper, and errand boy of his family's ancient hotel. It's a strange, shadowy mansion full of crooked corridors and mysterious riddles—and it just might be home to a magical treasure known as the All-Seeing Eye. But if Warren is going to find the hidden treasure, he'll need to solve several other mysteries first: What is the strange creature lurking in the hotel boiler room? Who is the ghostly girl creeping around the garden's hedge maze? And why is the hotel's only guest covered in bandages? Full of puzzles, secret codes, outrageous inventions, and hundreds of intricate illustrations, Warren the 13th and the All-Seeing Eye will delight and confound readers of all ages.

http://www.quirkbooks.com/book/warren-13th

This is probably news to some, OLD news to others, and maybe the kind of thing that even less people might care about. It's a bit of a fuzzy gray area as far as being on-topic for this thread, but let's just categorize it as a related topic by way of "Archie creators who did work for other publishers". If you happen to be more than a casual fan of Stan Goldberg, George Gladir, and The Three Stooges, it's certainly something you'd want to be made aware of, at minimum as an interesting footnote in their careers, and perhaps worthy of further investigation.

PAPERCUTZ (which specializes in marketing graphic novels to kids) produced a couple of THREE STOOGES graphic novels back in 2012, with art by Stan Goldberg, written by George Gladir (in collaboration with Stefan Petrucha and Jim Salicrup). In this particular instance, neither George nor Stan is an "ex-Archie artist" through any fault of ACP's. Originally 4 such graphic novels were planned, of which apparently only two were actually published. You can check out previews of the published Volumes 1 & 2 over at Papercutz' official website. >http://papercutz.com/kids-comics-graphic-novels/the-three-stooges



They also have a couple of reprint collections of "The Best of" the original Three Stooges comics published in the 1950s by Norman Maurer, a cartoonist who was the son-in-law of Moe Howard of the Stooges, in collaboration with his studio partner Joe Kubert. The two artists were also notable for developing the anaglyphic (red and green glasses) stereovision process which kicked off a brief boom in 3D comic books in the early 1950s.

I present the covers of the unpublished Volumes 3 and 4 below.

Fernando Ruiz already came up with a pitch for this story, but when he submitted it to ACP he never heard anything back from them on the idea. That seems to be a common refrain among artists and writers who submit story pitches, or art samples.