Saturday, July 20, 2013
Herriman Saturday
Well, anyway, Herriman is covering the exhibition matches put on by boxing legend Jim Jeffries for the jack tars on leave.
Labels: Herriman's LA Examiner Cartoons
Friday, July 19, 2013
Sci-Friday starring Adam Chase
Adam Chase (c) renewed 2013 by Russ Morgan. All rights reserved.
Adam Chase strip #30, originally published December 25 1966. For background on the strip and creator, refer to this post.
Labels: Adam Chase Sci-Friday
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Obscurity of the Day: King Baloo
The weird thing is that the feature seems like it could have been a winner. King Baloo is a fun character -- his personality is half King of Id, half Little King. He's playful, but can also be cheerily despotic. The gags, though they can be pointedly political and contemporary, always have an element of whimsy to keep things light.
The creators also doubled their chances for success by making the daily version available in both panel and strip configurations. So how this feature managed to be such an utter failure is beyond my comprehension. The strip is so obscure that the Sunday version, which I'm assured did exist based on United Media records, I've never even seen.
King Baloo ran from May 23 1988 to April 16 1989, not even making it to the end of the first year contract. In a 1992 interview, Scott Stantis made a remark about the feature being relaunched, but as far as I know nothing ever came of it.
Labels: Obscurities
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Magazine Covers: Kathleen and the Great Secret
If you are a Brinkley fan, or are intrigued to perhaps become one based on these amazing covers, I recommend you pick up Trina Robbins' The Brinkley Girls, which offers amazing restorations of a slew of Brinkley covers. In fact the two above are included in the book, lovingly restored, which is why I chose to leave these ones as raw scans to offer contrast.
Thanks, Cole Johnson!
Labels: Magazine Cover Comics, Women Cartoonists
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Obscurity of the Day: Betsy Bouncer and her Doll
Betsy Bouncer ran in the Sunday comics section of the New York Herald from August 14 1904 to May 14 1905, and is the only known credit for someone who signed themselves 'Tom Tucker'. Except I don't think there really is such a person.
As much as I distrust my own abilities as an art spotter, I have to climb out on a limb on this one and say that I think Tom Tucker is actually a pseudonymous E.W. Kemble. The style is right, though predictably not of the highest caliber since his considerable reputation is not at risk. The signature, too, is quite 'Kemble-ish'.
But why would Kemble, who freely signed his Hearst comic strip work until he parted company with them in 1902, take a pen name? I think I may have that answer. According to the Wikipedia bio of Kemble, he went to work for Collier's Weekly in 1903. My guess is that they didn't like the idea of him moonlighting, and so he did this series under an assumed name.
The evidence, of course, is slight. But I find the source (moi!) utterly convincing. What say you?
Labels: Obscurities
Comments:
Hi, I just found four episodes fron April 1905, which I am going to put on Ebay. I hope you'll see them.
Post a Comment
Monday, July 15, 2013
Newspaperarchive.com -- My Cautionary Tale
Newspaperarchive.com is a website
where you can access images of complete historical newspapers, including comics
pages, for thousands of different U.S. newspapers. I have long been a
user, supporter and fan of the website, and since their debut the content
they offer has become an important factor in my research. Those web-based newspapers
have saved me many hours in libraries looking at physical microfilm.
Because of the richness of that
resource, I have put up with a lot. The website is notorious for technical
glitches and performance issues. The search
functionality, for instance, is bizarre. You can do a search on a term, then do
the exact same search a minute later and get completely different results. Or
no results. Or even no response at all from what appears for all the world to
be a dead website. And when you do find an important result, and you eagerly
choose to look at that newspaper page, sometimes it loads, sometimes it
doesn't. Sometimes you get a message saying that the page is unavailable.
Sometimes the page takes so long to load that you forget why you wanted to look
at it in the first place.
Despite all this, I'm still a fan. I
chalk up all the annoyances to the price I have to pay to get what I want. In
fact, I even did an interview with the company's marketing director and wrote a
highly complimentary article about the website for Hogan's Alley magazine.
Shortcomings aside, the website offers access to an incredible database of
newspapers -- far more than the half-assed and now moribund Google Newspaper
Archive, far more than the Library of Congress' useful but very limited
Chronicling America, and don't get me started on Proquest, the company that
holds some of America's most important newspapers hostage.
In this world, the sin of being
inept is one that we have to forgive more often than not. We grin and bear it,
to echo Lichty.I have kept my Newspaperarchive.com subscription through thick
and thin, through all the technical glitches and annoyances. When I couldn't
get much use out of the site for weeks at a time, as they tinkered and
inevitably broke things, I didn't call and read them the riot act. I knew that
I was in this thing for the long run, and that the website would hopefully be working
better the next time I visited. Like The Dude, I abide.
Yes, ineptitude I forgive.
Chicanery, though, is another matter. And that brings me to the point. Last
month I received an unwelcome surprise on my credit card bill. I'm used to
seeing the Newspaperarchive.com charge, and sometimes when the website has been
practically useless for a long period, I really grimace. However, last month I
did more than grimace. I noticed that the amount had almost doubled. Actually,
I didn't really get totally bent out of shape right off the bat. I'd had this
happen once before. That time, when I called Newspaperarchive.com, they said
they'd switched me to a new more expensive subscription plan "by
accident" and that they'd fix everything right away. And they did. I
figured this was another case of ethically questionable, but easy to resolve,
bit of 'up-selling'.
But it wasn't. When I called the
customer service line at Newspaperarchive.com I was told that my previous
subscription plan was no longer offered, and they'd "automatically
switched me to the closest option they now offer." I told them that their
closest option was almost double what I was paying before, and that at the new
price of $200 per year, as opposed to $120, I really had to think about whether
I could afford to use their service. Besides, why wasn't I notified so that I
could make up my mind what I wanted to do about their new subscription
offering?
The rep, sounding so bored that it
was obvious she'd already had this exact conversation many times over recently,
said that by the subscription agreement they were allowed to change the price
and terms. Well, I didn't appreciate the sound of that much, so I told her that
I'd like to cancel my membership for now. Maybe I would return later when I need
the service badly enough, or when they make a more attractive subscription
offer. She said that was fine, she was cancelling my membership and that there
would be no further charges at the end of the current period, which will end in
November. Whoa there, I said. I want the service to stop this second, and I
want that $100 charge on my credit card reversed. No can do, she said, because to get a refund you have to cancel your membership
within 48 hours of when it is automatically renewed.
Through gritted teeth, I told her
that I had received my credit card bill today. How was I to know they would
change their subscription price before I received my statement? Newspaperarchive.com certainly hadn't bothered
to inform me. She replied that, basically, rules are rules and tough luck
Charlie. I told her I would dispute the charge with my credit card company. She
told me to go right ahead.
So that's what I did. I explained
the situation to a rep at the credit card company, and she agreed
wholeheartedly that Newspaperarchive.com was engaging in underhanded business
practices. She assured me that once all the paperwork was taken care of, unless
something highly unlikely came to light, that there was most certainly a refund
due me.
Flash forward three weeks. I receive
a packet from the credit card company. They had contacted Newspaperarchive.com,
and had received their response, in the form of their subscription agreement
terms. The subscription agreement did indeed stipulate that the company was
allowed to change the terms and fees at any time, and that they were not
obligated to notify the subscriber when they do so, and if the subscriber
doesn't somehow find out about the change within two days of it changing, they
are locked in for another subscription period whether they like it or not. Ethical or not, fraudulent or not, I had stupidly agreed to those terms. It is out of
the credit card company's hands. My only recourse would be to sue them in their
home state, where a judge could decide whether their contract was
legal.
My credit card company is now
considering whether they should revoke Newspaperarchive.com's privileges to act
as a merchant for the card in the future. That's good, and I hope they take positive action to
discourage such underhanded business practices. What's bad is that I'm out $100 and
a useful resource has been cut off to me. I suppose I should be relieved at the cost of this lesson. The company could just as easily have changed their subscription fee to $5000 and I'd be poorer by that amount. By the terms of their contract I'd be in the exact same boat with no recourse.
My conclusion? It's all because this company has chosen the unfortunate path of those who value only the quick buck. Why put a lot of money into creating a great website with superb content and treat your customers as valuable assets? Instead you can offer a shoddy product, add a little slick window-dressing and write a contract designed to forcibly extract money out of the customer when, inevitably, they wise up and decide to leave.
You'd think that the era of this sort of business model had passed. Today on the web every product gets reviewed by customers on innumerable highly public forums. If you treat your customers badly you have nowhere to hide; your secrets won't stay secrets for long. A web search on "Newspaperarchive.com complaints" reveals many, many disgruntled customers. If I was a prospective new subscriber who did my homework, I would never subscribe. Unfortunately, when I subscribed long ago, the bad buzz evidently wasn't nearly as loud.
My conclusion? It's all because this company has chosen the unfortunate path of those who value only the quick buck. Why put a lot of money into creating a great website with superb content and treat your customers as valuable assets? Instead you can offer a shoddy product, add a little slick window-dressing and write a contract designed to forcibly extract money out of the customer when, inevitably, they wise up and decide to leave.
You'd think that the era of this sort of business model had passed. Today on the web every product gets reviewed by customers on innumerable highly public forums. If you treat your customers badly you have nowhere to hide; your secrets won't stay secrets for long. A web search on "Newspaperarchive.com complaints" reveals many, many disgruntled customers. If I was a prospective new subscriber who did my homework, I would never subscribe. Unfortunately, when I subscribed long ago, the bad buzz evidently wasn't nearly as loud.
If you are
considering a new subscription to Newspaperarchive.com, I can only plead that you read the fine print of that agreement and take into consideration the experiences of other subscribers. If you are a subscriber, and are thinking about cancelling, plan your exit very carefully if you don't want to get burned.
Comments:
I'm really sorry to hear of this. This is such a wrong way to do business. I hope newspaperarchive.com will come to its senses.
Yes, I too have found many frustrating parts of the Newspaperarchive.com site, especially if you want to print from it-for instance, you have no horizontal control, you must print half a page.
Whole runs of papers become inexplicably unavailable for as long as you need them.
Many papers (especially the British ones) are seemingly misdated in the wrong CENTURIES on purpose. Lots of time is pointlessly wasted, like when doing a search, you can't go directly to "exact phrase", you must first go to a general search that takes in everything back to medieval broadsides that contain even part of your quest, and only then can you go to "revise your search" which will allow you to start a new, more precise one. Also, it only gives you ten listings on a page. Why must there be a choice to restart the page to get twenty or thirty on a page? Why would one choose twenty over ten or thirty anyway?
The time is important because after whatever it is, maybe fifteen minutes?,you are suddenly off line and must go back and restart with your password at page one again. It doesn't matter if you are right in the middle of an involved search, it must stop and restart. It's not like it matters if you're a paying customer and have been for a while, they have your money, and there's no reason to consider you or what you might be there for in the first place, and it shows. It's like a bunch of rapcious illiterates got ahold of a site they didn't understand past the ability to screw Americans out of cash.
I second Mr. Holtz's sentiments and recommend that if you have any desire to use Newspaperarchive.com, by all means go for the minimum possible.
Whole runs of papers become inexplicably unavailable for as long as you need them.
Many papers (especially the British ones) are seemingly misdated in the wrong CENTURIES on purpose. Lots of time is pointlessly wasted, like when doing a search, you can't go directly to "exact phrase", you must first go to a general search that takes in everything back to medieval broadsides that contain even part of your quest, and only then can you go to "revise your search" which will allow you to start a new, more precise one. Also, it only gives you ten listings on a page. Why must there be a choice to restart the page to get twenty or thirty on a page? Why would one choose twenty over ten or thirty anyway?
The time is important because after whatever it is, maybe fifteen minutes?,you are suddenly off line and must go back and restart with your password at page one again. It doesn't matter if you are right in the middle of an involved search, it must stop and restart. It's not like it matters if you're a paying customer and have been for a while, they have your money, and there's no reason to consider you or what you might be there for in the first place, and it shows. It's like a bunch of rapcious illiterates got ahold of a site they didn't understand past the ability to screw Americans out of cash.
I second Mr. Holtz's sentiments and recommend that if you have any desire to use Newspaperarchive.com, by all means go for the minimum possible.
# posted by 
: 7/15/2013 9:41 AM
: 7/15/2013 9:41 AM
This is reprehensible behavior, but, of course, all quite legal.
The only issue I take with your essay is the suggestion that the day of this sort of business model has passed. On the contrary, its day is just beginning. The model that seems to have faded is the one they taught me in school umpteen years ago: by providing quality goods and services a business wins more customers and thus guarantees itself a long life, a decent profit, and a reasonable return for investors.
Its replacement seems to be to extract from customers as much money as possible as quickly as possible while using legal cover (obscure laws, mandatory arbitration, complex EUAs, etc.) to avoid responsibility for its actions. The present controversy about Goodwill Industries is instructive.
The age of the Ferengi is here!
The only issue I take with your essay is the suggestion that the day of this sort of business model has passed. On the contrary, its day is just beginning. The model that seems to have faded is the one they taught me in school umpteen years ago: by providing quality goods and services a business wins more customers and thus guarantees itself a long life, a decent profit, and a reasonable return for investors.
Its replacement seems to be to extract from customers as much money as possible as quickly as possible while using legal cover (obscure laws, mandatory arbitration, complex EUAs, etc.) to avoid responsibility for its actions. The present controversy about Goodwill Industries is instructive.
The age of the Ferengi is here!
There is still social media to publicly shame companies. No business can thrive that treats its customers like this.
Glad you wrote this, Allan. I too was recently using newspaperarchive.com and found it to be the worst online microfilm resource I have ever used. Despite the impressive selection of papers, the interface is extremely poorly designed and stopped working altogether half way through the first (and only) month of my subscription. I'm currently pushing for a full refund and would suggest any other disgruntled researchers do the same, these scumbags don't deserve anyone's money.
Wow.
I paid $39.95 for annual service last December. I looked at my account today and see my next payment this coming December will be $99.95 for six months. Nope -- I guess not. Good-bye Newspaper Archives in 6 months.
I paid $39.95 for annual service last December. I looked at my account today and see my next payment this coming December will be $99.95 for six months. Nope -- I guess not. Good-bye Newspaper Archives in 6 months.
Many of the users of Newspaperarchive are there for only a short term to do personal geneology and would go after the one week or month. Many of the rest are large institutions and libraries who will keep paying no matter what out of necessity and are using money not their own anyway.
# posted by : 7/18/2013 3:29 PM
: 7/18/2013 3:29 PM
Thanks for writing this. I didn't realize I have a recurring membership and I'm in for another $100 bucks for 6 more months. I will be more vigilant.
I had my own experience with these clowns last year. My yearly subscription was renewed with a increase. I didn't protest. Then they billed me again 3 months later. I'm yearly, you bill me once not quarterly. To make a long story short
- I threatened to call the Cedar Rapids police to pursue possible fraud charges. I got the second charge reversed. Not a subscriber anymore.
Post a Comment
- I threatened to call the Cedar Rapids police to pursue possible fraud charges. I got the second charge reversed. Not a subscriber anymore.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Jim Ivey's Sunday Comics
