OtherEric

Different publishers, different designs. Some were red and blue, some red and green, for that matter.

My guess would be unverified signatures on the qualified books.

I think the original poster is talking about this version: I think the glasses on this one came separate, if I recall correctly the retailer handed you a pair of glasses when you bought the book. But I could be very wrong. One of these years I'm going to need to go through my 3D books and catalogue just how many different versions of the 3D glasses I actually have.

Just jumping in with my occasional "I have nothing to contribute at this point but I'm loving the discussion" comment. Keep it coming, everyone!

This is actually a point of contention, the books were undeniably distributed by Whitman, probably even primarily distributed by Whitman. But there is an ongoing disagreement over were they exclusively distributed by Whitman. In this thread, we happily accept them as Whitman books, because they were definitely distributed by Whitman. But be careful elsewhere, many people have very strong feelings on the subject.

Just a reminder, since we're discussing It Rhymes With Lust: The DCM has a copy for people to read. https://digitalcomicmuseum.com/index.php?dlid=27911

https://www.kayobooks.com/ Make sure to contact the store first, they're open eccentric hours. Which reminds me, I need to contact them, since I'm going to be in SF this weekend as well visiting my sister.

That's only two books there, the bottom two images are both D-182

Well, if we're doing Zola... I think that's the only case of Ace reprinting a single as part of a double, they reprinted halves of doubles as singles all the time.

Glad you asked! What I mean is, they've restarted the comic strip with new creators, it's been in repeats for the last 20 years or so. https://comicskingdom.com/flash-gordon The first new strip is Sunday, October 22nd. Thanks to Mark Evanier for the heads up https://www.newsfromme.com/2023/10/22/news-flashes-2/

Eerie Annual 1971 thoughts: Cover: Not really impressed, honestly. Putting the new art under an enormous banner and a couple of genuinely great earlier covers (the Frazetta and Bode) just underwhelms, and the colors of the reprinted covers and the bright banner just mess up the muted palate the new art uses. I suspect I would like it quite a bit more as a piece of art on its own. I'm afraid I have even less to say than I did on the Creepy Annual. The choices, while not bad, seem to be almost deliberately atypical compared to what the creators did more frequently. Adkins was in his full blown channel Wally Wood mode, Craig did more an illustrated story than a comic, things like that. I suppose I appreciate highlighting some of the diversity of the title, and it does give a contrast to the Creepy Annual out at the same time, but it doesn't work nearly as well on its own. A check with Red/Green 3D glasses didn't have much impact looking at the cover, other than the EERIE logo on the small 26, which had nearly a strobe effect going that was pretty interesting. Why, yes, I keep two pairs of 3D glasses on my desk at all times, one red/green and one red/blue. That way I can find them when I want to read a 3D book, particularly a scanned comic. Doesn't everybody keep them right at the ready?

The airport I work at has a Little Free Library outside the kids play area. So I've started grabbing cheap copies of The Wizard of Oz when I go to used bookstores, and drop them off in the library, since it has been one of my favorite books ever since I was a little kid. After I put the last one in, I realized that I should start scanning the covers, since there's just an amazing diversity of versions out there. So we'll start with the one I got today. This one is particularly sentimental, because it's the version I had when I was a little kid. (My sister still has that copy, she assumed custody of the childhood paperbacks once I started building my collection of vintage Oz hardcovers.)

Some pickups at the local Half Price Books today, with great Jones covers:

Guess #1: Because the cover started as a riff on the Creepy #1 cover, and on that the chair was red. When the artist went to add Vampirella in front of the chair, they realized the red costume didn't stand out against the red chair, so they changed colors. Guess #2: Due to rights issues, they couldn't get permission to use Vampirella on the cover. I know Roy Thomas has said that Alter Ego can't use Marvel and DC characters on the same Alter Ego cover, for example. So the artist did a character who is clearly intended to suggest Vampirella, but with enough differences that should anybody complain they can claim it wasn't really her.

if it's still available. Didn't want to grab it as my lone book in the batch.

What’s the point of growing up if you can’t still be childish sometimes?

It really wasn’t meant to be, and I apologize if it came across as such.

Well, I remain optimistic about the new series. One of the great truths about Doctor Who is it will sometimes amaze you beyond all hope. And it will sometimes present garbage that you can't believe made it out into the world. And it's very possible for both of those things to be in the same episode, and sometimes the very same thing within the episode. I'm trying to remember who described "The Two Doctors" as "It's Robert Holmes finest hour. Unfortunately, it runs two hours." I may not care for the new theme but I'm not as bothered by it as others seem to be.

And looking around I came across this:

I would describe the new version as too much Ron Grainer, not enough Delia Derbyshire.

Well said. There are occasions where a version like this would work but I don't see any reason for it to be the main version. Just leaving this link here:

You see a faint Bonnett's store stamp above and over the brain. Bonnet's was completely unable to grasp the concept of "small" store stamp.