Randall J. Paske

I've been reading this title. There is indeed a back-up story by Dean Haspiel in the current version of the series. It is only one or two pages per issue. Like @Gregory Hecht, I'm not sure if it was present in the original publications. To prevent confusion, I think it would be best to keep the two runs as separate series, even if the main content is the same in both runs. Something similar is happening with the title Tragedy from Philbo. I just recently submitted the current run as a second series (it should make the next content update), because even if the content in this run is the same as the previous Kickstarter series (and I'm not sure it is), the publication dates, retail prices, and variant covers are different. Some variant covers from the first run are even used as variant covers for different issues in the current run.

In yesterday's livestream, which I didn't watch live, Pete reiterated the idea that DC no longer publishes regular covers and only publishes variant covers. This is, again, a misconception. If you only look at solicitation data, it sort of makes sense. As Pete says, the issue options are lettered (A, B. C, etc.) and nothing is designated as "Regular" or "Main." However: Most publishers and retailers now use "Cover A" synonymously to mean the regular or main cover. That's what DC is doing. It is now uncommon for any publisher to use "Cover A" to mean the first of the variants instead of the main/regular cover. If you go beyond solicitation data and check any published DC comic, you will find credits that say "Cover by…" and "Variant Covers by…". This, by implication, shows what DC considers to be the main/regular cover, with the rest being variants. DC's UPC boxes also use the phrases "Cover by…" and "Variant Cover by…" (and even "1:25 Variant Cover by…"). Clearly the one that says "Cover by…" is the main/regular cover. For most of their titles, DC now publishes one cover that costs $1 less than the cardstock variant covers. That cheaper cover is the main/regular cover. Of late, they've even been including the cheaper cover beneath the cardstock variant covers, further evidencing that it is the regular cover. The UPCs of the main/regular covers end in "11," while the variants end in "21," "31," etc. So, DC's solicited Cover A is the regular cover: its UPC ends in 11, it is the base cover underneath the more expensive variants, its UPC box says "Cover by…" rather than "Variant Cover by…," and the interior credits also say "Cover by" for that one and "Variant Cover by" for all the others. Solicitation data is not taken as gospel for credits (which are incomplete and can change), titles (which can differ from the actual indicia), cover images (which change), or proof of publication (sometimes items get canceled or rescheduled). Why then give so much privilege to how solicitations refer to covers? I mentioned this when I griped about the changes to the Item Title field, but I'll quickly repeat: it makes less sense to call the DC variants "Cover A," "Cover B," etc., than to label them "Regular Cover" and "Variant Cover." The published issues carry no reference to those letters, so when you hold an issue, you can't tell which letter it's supposed to be without a secondhand reference. That's fair enough if you want to consider the solicitation data as the official terminology, but I maintain that it's clearer in most cases to use the terminology from the published comics, just as with other data.

No offense, but I'm a bit puzzled--since you seem adept at tracking down relevant information for missing issues or titles, why do you not add them to the database yourself and submit them as additions/corrections? They've made it a relatively simple process within the program.

The strangeness in the Item Description field is because besides the "Cover A" and "Cover B" that were solicited (assuming they were labeled as such), there was also "Kickstarter Cover A," "Kickstarter Cover B," and so on (as seen on the Kickstarter campaign page). Confusing, perhaps, but the decision to insert the ComicBase item letter into the Item Description field has made it worse: you end up with weird, incorrect descriptions like "Kickstarter Cover C A by Ben Dunn," or if you remove the publisher's actual designated letter ("A"), you get a "Kickstarter Cover C by Ben Dunn" that contradicts the publisher's actual "Kickstarter Cover C" by Shigari. This is just one of several ways in which the wholesale insertion of the ComicBase item letter into the description field creates more problems, inaccuracies, and confusion than it attempts to resolve. But I have griped about this at length before, to no avail. I am not sure why the Lunar exclusive version of Kendra says "Cover A" on the cover. Despite that designation, it seems to be referred to as "Cover C" on most of the Internet, including what looks like solicitation info. The 00131 UPC would also tend to make it Cover C, as well (with 00111 being Cover A and 00121 being Cover B). It's probably just another example of a publisher muddying the waters.

I'm encountering the same problem and some similar ones that seem to indicate problems with the server or its connection.

Art of Geist sounds more like a collection of artwork than an actual comic. It may not belong in the Comic Books category. The title Gallery of Chills (Mike Wolfers…) is missing an apostrophe (Wolfer's). Also, the creator referred to it as a pin-up book in a Facebook post, so it probably does not belong in the Comic Books category. Joe Pekar Art Book is called a "32 page comic sized, art book" in the creator's webshop, so it probably does not belong in the Comic Books category. The newly-added Popeye and Transportation Careers was already in the database as Popeye (Educational Series) #E 4. Item titles for issues of that series would probably be a good idea, to help prevent such duplication. Red Sonja New Years Special 2025 is missing the apostrophe (Year's) found on all the non-virgin covers shown in the database. Shiver Suspenstories (2nd Series) should be camelCase, like ComicBase: Shiver SuspenStories (2nd Series). That would also match the first series, as well as the EC titles that inspired it. Zombie Tramp Vs. Hack Slash is missing the slash between "Hack" and "Slash" that all other Hack/Slash titles possess. Going back to last week's update, Faro’s Lounge American Safari Sketchbook sounds like another sketchbook/art book that may not belong in the Comic Books category. Also from last week: Long Pig & Azrael and Long Pig & Azrael One-Shot appear to be the same publication. And the Item Description field is still full of garbage data, but nobody else seems to care.

And in case anyone missed it, Red Hood (2nd Series) #2 and 3 will not be published, though the pre-release data is in the database.

Oops, that last bullet point should be two bullet points. (I had some formatting issues with this post.) Paul Auster’s the New York Trilogy: City of Glass, Ghosts, the Locked Room - This should be New York Trilogy, The: City of Glass, Ghosts, The Locked Room (Paul Auster’s…). Prince is in the Villainess’ Way! - Should have “,The” at the end (it's "The Prince," not just "Prince").

New book titles: Devil Princess , The(Light Novel) - Weird spacing. There’s an extra space after “Princess” and a missing space between “The” and “(Light Novel).” Percy Jackson and the Olympians the Sea of Monsters - There should likely be a colon after “Olympians,” with the following “The” capitalized. Spongebob Movie, The: Search for Squarepants: How to Be a Swashbuckler! - “SpongeBob” and “SquarePants” should be camel case, like ComicBase. New comic book titles: I Abandoned My Engagement Because My Sister Is a Tragic Heroine, But Somehow I Became Entangled With a Righteous Prince (Light Novel) - This should be under Books, not Comic Books. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Pink Ranger and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Pink Ranger Deluxe Edition - Are these really separate title entries, or two editions of the same title? New Recruit , The - There's an extra space after “Recruit.” Paul Auster’s the New York Trilogy: City of Glass, Ghosts, the Locked Room - This should be New York Trilogy, The: City of Glass, Ghosts, The Locked Room (Paul Auster’s…).Prince is in the Villainess’ Way! - Should have “,The” at the end (it's "The Prince," not just "Prince").

DC Finest: Super Friends: the Fury of the Super Foes should have a capital T for the first "The": DC Finest: Super Friends: The Fury of the Super Foes.

As I continue to add items to my database, I feel the need to reiterate my disappointment: the Item Description field has become an awful mess of garbage data that annoys me every time I use the program. It doesn't seem like there's been much effort, if any, to understand the problems created by this ill-conceived mass change (several already described here) or to clean them up. This, along with the inability to change long-standing but erroneous title information (the "installed user base" problem), is my new top frustration with ComicBase. I think I can use a custom field for a personal workaround, but I really hate to see so much bad info in the program and on Atomic Avenue.

The following four book titles were added: LEGO Dreamzzz World Builder LEGO Minecraft Games Book Lego Minifigure a Visual History Updated and Expanded LEGO Ninjago World Builder While the Lego Group (the owners of the brand) prefer the all-caps form of the name (LEGO), it is not an acronym and most editorial style guides would call for "Lego." I can see going either way with that, but for the sake of consistency, ComicBase should use one or the other, not both. The title Back Owner's Manual was added in the Comic Books category. This PDF version has a different front cover but the same publisher, and it is clearly not a comic, though it has illustrations. The title Ballad of Sword and Wine: Qiang Jin Jiu (Novel) was added in the Comic Books category. Wouldn't that "(Novel)" designation place it under Books? And the same thing with these titles: Lout of Count’s Family (Novel) Reincarnated Into a Game As the Hero’s Friend: Running the Kingdom Behind the Scenes (Light Novel) Survival in Another World With My Mistress! (Light Novel) Villainess and the Demon Knight (Light Novel) Beetle Bailey was added as a new title in Comic Books. As multiple other existing entries could also lay claim to that title entry, shouldn't this newly-added one be Beetle Bailey (Tempo)? The title I would most expect to see as Beetle Bailey is listed, oddly, as Beetle Bailey (Vol. 1). The title Clive Barker’s Next Testament Complete Collection was added in the Comic Books category. Following the current ComicBase style, that should be Next Testament Complete Collection (Clive Barker's…). House of Slaughter Deluxe Edition Limited Edition Slipcased Edition -- yikes, what a title. Would this not fall under the main House of Slaughter title? Wouldn't Seven Secrets Deluxe Edition Slipcased Edition fall under the main Seven Secrets entry?

Sorry, I could have sworn I was looking at the August catalog, but apparently it was the July catalog where I saw them.

Hermes and FairSquare stand out for me. Also, Crusade and Devil's Due are not in the list above but are both in the August Philbo catalog and have both published some notable titles (not sure if they're exclusive to Philbo). Dren Publications also looks like it has some notable titles. Couldn't HC use Philbo's solicitation info without necessarily ordering everything? I know it's impossible to account for every comic published and distributed via other avenues (local publications, crowdfunded items, etc.), but ideally anything circulated through a distributor (even a smaller one) would make it into the database.

There's a new Books addition called Spongebob Squarepants 5-Minute Stories Collection. "SpongeBob" and "SquarePants" officially use camel case (capital letters in the middles of the compounded names), just like "ComicBase." There are already a bunch of variations among SpongeBob title entries in ComicBase, but maybe it could be done correctly for any new titles. Similarly, the new Comic Books title Mrballen Presents: Where Nightmares Live should be styled "MrBallen."

American Comic Book Chronicles: 1940-1945 was added as a new title in the Comic Books category. This is a history of comics, not a comic itself. It belongs in the Books category.

I agree with your distinction, but ComicBase is not consistent on the matter. For example, none of the following titles from ComicBase contain the possessive apostrophe s in their actual titles: Andy Panda (Walter Lantz…) New Funnies (Walter Lantz…) TV Funnies (Walter Lantz…) Woody Woodpecker (Walter Lantz…) Woody Woodpecker Summer Fun (Walter Lantz…) Banana Splits, The (Hanna-Barbera…) And there's the reverse issue, where possessive titles are not indexed that way: Roy Rogers' Trigger loads of Walt Disney's titles And then you've got titles like this, without possessives but with ellipses: Man O War (William Shatner Presents…) Amazing Adventures of the Escapist, The (Michael Chabon Presents…) Shadowland (Fantagraphics Books Presents…) And there are also odd cases like these titles: Snifter of Blood (Edgar Allan Poe's…) Snifter of Death (Edgar Allan Poe's…) Snifter of Terror (Edgar Allan Poe's…) Snifter of Terror Season Two (Edgar Allan Poe's…) While Edgar Allan Poe was a real person, these series do not adapt his writing and appear to treat him as an Alfred E. Neuman type of fictional mascot. And obviously Poe was not alive to endorse or "present" these titles. Thus, unlike a title such as Conqueror Worm, The (Edgar Allan Poe's…) that actually is based on Poe's work, I think these titles should be indexed as Edgar Allen Poe's Snifter of…, sort of along the lines of Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen, Bart Simpson's Joke Book, or Tipper GORE's Comics and Stories. But I sense that I am off on a tangent. Maybe it at least illustrates my bit of uncertainty. P.S. Never mind the Fred Perry title. But it looks like Denis Kitchen's Chipboard Sketchbook should be Chipboard Sketchbook (Denis Kitchen's…).

Buck Godot Zap Gun For Hire (1986 Starblaze Edition) was added as a new title in the Comics category. Leaving aside the nonstandard title entry, this appears to already be listed as Buck Godot, Zap Gun for Hire Bk 1, where the note is "Published by Starblaze Graphics." Also in the Comics category, the new title Spider-Man by David Michelinie & Mark Bagely has a typo in "Bagley." And in the new Magazine title Fred Perry Treasure Vault Sketchbook, Fred Perry is the name of the artist. Wouldn't this typically be listed as Treasure Vault Sketchbook (Fred Perry…) in ComicBase? It's less clear to me when there's no apostrophe s.

You can tell which item is being described by the rest of the description: "Variant Cover by Mike Allred" or "Design Variant by Peach Momoko." This is typically not confusing when taken with the rest of the corresponding information. Mislabeling an item as "Cover A" does nothing to help. The item number already tells us it's #12/A. Contradictory information is more confusing. ComicBase describing a variant as "Cover B" when the publisher calls it "Cover RI" is confusing. ComicBase calling the first variant "Cover A" when everyone else calls the regular version "Cover A" is confusing. Yeah, sure, using an item description of "Cover B" instead of "Variant Cover" when its item number is 12/B is consistent within the program. But that description does nothing to actually describe the item, relying on a correlation that only exists in ComicBase, supplying information that contradicts the actual published issue, and adding a layer of abstraction that is unnecessary and confusing outside of the program. Further, the ComicBase item number does not always neatly align with the actual name for the cover even when the publisher uses letters. I have more than once had to add the publisher's Cover Q at, say, item #12/X, because other items were already entered at #12/Q-W and somehow the publisher's Cover Q was not one of them. ComicBase calling it Cover X in the item description would be a direct contradiction of what is actually printed on the issue. Again, there's no issue with using /A - /Z in item numbers. That's needed. My assertion is that the item description should describe the actual item in a way that is not contradictory or meaningless when examining or searching for the comic itself. Describing a variant as "Cover C" implies that if I want that issue, I can go look for "Cover C." But if the actual item carries no such designation, or a different designation, it's inaccurate and problematic. I have to disregard part of the ComicBase description in order to find and identify that comic. ComicBase is then an obstacle instead of an aid to collecting.

I've seen that a few times, too. In those rare cases, if the publisher doesn't make an identifying distinction, it's probably best to add a descriptor: "Close-Up Variant Cover by The Artist" or "Black Background Variant Cover by The Artist" or "Bullwinkle Variant Cover by The Artist." While this kind of commits the same transgression as arbitrarily calling it "Cover B" (because it looks a bit like an official name), it is at least descriptive of the item and doesn't rely on assigning a letter that has no real correlation to the comic. I've also seen store variants that have their own letter assignments, separate from any continuity with the publisher's letter assignments. An example that I found comes from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (5th Series) #110. The retailer known as The 616 Comics has three variant covers that they call "Trade Dress Cover A," "Virgin Cover B," and "Red Scale Virgin Cover C." But in ComicBase, because their item numbers are #110/E, 110/F, and 110/G, they are now inaccurately called "Cover E," "Cover F," and "Cover G" in the item descriptions. This, I think, is more confusing than having both a publisher's Cover A (at #110A) and a 616 Comics Exclusive Cover A (at #110/E). I see also that IDW titles have had arbitrary cover letters added that don't match the publications. IDW has tended to call their incentive covers "Cover RI" or "RI Cover," and to label them clearly as such--but looking at a few titles, I see that those designations have now been overwritten in ComicBase with "Cover B" or whatever matches the item number. The real description of Donald Duck (IDW) #2/B should be "1:25 Cover RI by James Silvani," not "Retailer Incentive Incentive Cover B by James Silvani." "Cover RI" is how it's labeled on the cover of the comic. It is plainly not Cover B. The more I see of this, the more disappointed I am.

Yes, you have succinctly summarized my long-winded post. The letters in the Item # field are necessary to distinguish variants from each other, but those letters should not be used in the Item Description field unless the publisher uses them. Otherwise, the description should simply be "Variant Cover by This-Artist" or "1:25 B&W Variant Cover by That-Artist," or should generally follow the terminology of the publisher. I think the unique designations in the Item # field are sufficient There shouldn't be any confusion when the item description for #12/B is "Variant Cover by This Artist" and the item description for #12/C is "Variant Cover by That Artist." There's no need to explain or repeat the letter from the Item # field. That letter is just a database designation. It's not defining what the variant is called in the world at large. (At least, that's how I interpret it.) But when you describe a variant in the Item Description field as "Cover B" or "Cover C," and the publisher does not use those terms, you're arbitrarily giving it a name that sounds official--a name which may not be used anywhere else, or worse, will often contradict what is used elsewhere. This will create more confusion than the situation it attempts to solve. Most of them do visibly label their variants in some way, but there's sadly not a universal standard. Rather than imposing letters where they are not used, ComicBase should have a formula or style guide for the Item Description field that can accommodate the various naming methods. Maybe this is my disconnect. I thought the purpose of the Item Description field was to describe the item itself--to distinguish it from its variants and make it easier to identify both in the program and in the wild. I wouldn't have said it was meant to explain the ComicBase Item number. Those, I thought, were generally self-evident.

In the past couple of days, I've noticed more erroneous Item Description fields, and I think it may stem from a change Pete alluded to in this week's livestream. The problem is this: variant covers are being assigned cover letters where none actually exist. As we all know, there are too many variant covers these days. And publishers identify these covers in a variety of ways, which aren't always consistent even within the same publishing house and can change over time or differ between solicitation and publication. Some publishers give names to their different variants, some assign letters (Cover A, Cover B, etc.), and some just refer to all of them as variant covers (or sometimes "alternate" covers). (Rarely, I've even seen some numbered variant covers, as in "Variant Cover 1.") Some publishers designate a "regular" (or "main" or "standard") cover, and regard the others as variants, while for other publishers (many of them now) "Cover A" serves as the de facto "regular" cover. Because there is no single standard of identification, I feel that covers should be identified as the publishers label the actual comics whenever possible. By this, I mean that if the actual comic only says "Variant," no attempt should be made to assign it a name like "Cover C," even if it has an item number of something like 12/C in ComicBase. Reason #1: Assigning a name that it doesn't actually carry will lead to more conflicting information between sources. ComicBase doesn't always list items in the same order as other sources. The cover that lands at item number 12/C in ComicBase may be called Cover D on the Midtown Comics website or be listed as "12D" or "12Ultimate" on a price guide site like Comic Book Realm. Calling it "Cover C" in the item description in addition to listing it as item number 12/C gives the impression that it is officially called "Cover C" when that's not true. Reason #2: Assigning such names creates discrepancies between the database and the physical comics. Calling something "Cover C" when the actual physical object is only labeled "Variant" is misleading and will add to confusion about versions. If I go to a convention looking for what appears to be officially called "Cover C," and it's not called that in real life, nobody will know what I'm talking about. The clearest and most accurate way to describe a variant is to use as closely as possible the publisher's description as it is on the comic. Yes, sometimes that's not enough information and further descriptors need to be added, but they should be meaningful descriptors, not arbitrarily-assigned, official-sounding names. For some time now, ComicBase has been handling DC titles in a way that I find problematic: on the presumption that there's no longer a regular or standard DC cover, ComicBase lists new DC issues as Cover A, B, C, D, etc., when there are no such letter designations on the actual comics. Those letters come from solicitation information, so they're semi-official, but there's no way to know that from the actual publications. In the actual comics, you'll find one credit that says "Cover by Artist-Name" (this is, by implication, the main or regular cover) and a separate credit that says "Variant Covers by Other-Artist-Name, Another-Artist-Name," etc. Sometimes there might be a more specific credit like "Artist Spotlight Cover by Artist-Name." And further, there might additionally be something in the UPC box like "1:25 Variant Cover by Artist-Name." But in current DC comics, you will not find labels like Cover A, B, C, D, etc. Yet ComicBase has been going with the solicitation letters in its item descriptions. I understand why, because that's the information furnished ahead of publication--but solicitation info should be regarded as meaningless after publication, when the actual publications differ. Were it up to me, current DC comics would still be listed with a whole number for the regular cover (the one solicited as Cover A), 12/A might be "Variant Cover by Artist-Name," and 12/B might be "1:25 Variant Cover by Artist-Name"--whatever the situation calls for, following the actual publications as closely as possible. When a comic's title changes between solicitation and publication, ComicBase now changes the title entry to reflect the actual published title. It should be the same for the names or labels of variants--follow the reality of the published comics. The new problem now is that while it seems there's been a recent attempt to standardize the Item Description field, more letters are being assigned where they don't actually exist. and perhaps worse yet, they contradict what has evolved into something of a standard. I'm seeing this on Marvel titles especially. For an example, let's go to Fantastic Four Fanfare, a current Marvel title. I have #2 in front of me. A credit inside says "Cover Artist: Claudio Castellini & Dean White." Then another credit says "Variant Cover Artists:" with a list of a handful of names. Mine is the variant by Russell Dauterman. Like most Marvel variants, it says "Variant Edition" on the cover. There's no letter designation. Yet in ComicBase, the item description now says "Cover C by Russell Dauterman." How this differs from what's been happening for months with DC titles is that ComicBase still lists Marvel titles with a whole number for the regular cover and uses 2/A, 2/B, 2/C, etc., for the variants. And that makes sense! As I said, that's how I think DC titles should still be listed! But this gets problematic when a script (I'm presuming) adds item descriptions like "Cover A" aligning with the ComicBase item number, because the whole number is skipped. That whole number (#2), the regular cover, is regarded by most other sources as "Cover A," but has no item description in ComicBase. The first variant (item 2/A in ComicBase, now called "Cover A" in the Item Description field) is "Cover B" in other places. And so forth. It puts ComicBase out of step. To be more specific: Going by what is printed in the comic, I would give my variant an item description of simply "Variant Cover by Russell Dauterman." Currently, though, ComicBase says "Cover C by Russell Dauterman." On the Midtown Comics website, it's listed as "Cover D Variant Russell Dauterman Cover." On MyComicShop and on ComicBookRealm.com, it's listed as #2D. My point isn't that ComicBase should call it Cover D. I don't think Midtown should call it Cover D, either. And the MyComicShop #2D and ComicBookRealm #2D designations are more analogous to the Item Number field in ComicBase, where it's #2/C. (MyComicShop assigns #2A to the regular cover, while ComicBookRealm uses #2 for the regular cover and skips #2A as a number, using #2B for the first variant. So they all arrive at "D" for the Dauterman variant.) But in their descriptions, MyComicShop and ComicBookRealm make no attempt to assert that "Cover D" is the official name of the variant, just as I don't think ComicBase should call it "Cover C." That will only add to the noise and confusion. The item description for #2/C should be "Variant Cover by Russell Dauterman." That reflects the only way the physical comic can be identified, as it is labeled neither "Cover C" or "Cover D." I've gone on too long and spent too much time trying to explain why I think this kind of labeling is troublesome. I hope I'm making sense to someone other than myself. But if ComicBase doesn't get this right, I think its accuracy and its usefulness will be compromised. TL,DR: Please don't make up names for variants. Just because a variant is listed at #12/D in ComicBase does not make it Cover D.

I should have added that I did hear something about them going back to press after the initial run of comics sold out. I believe I heard that on one of the comics-focused YouTube shows. But I have no idea of how many printings they've done, or how to distinguish them all. Let's hope that all the subsequent printings (if there's more than just one reprint) have a date at the end of the indicia like mine does.

It came straight from Milk-Bone.

The mail carrier delivered my own copy of this comic since I last posted. It must be a second or subsequent printing, though it doesn't say so. (It does have a printing date at the end of the indicia, though, absent from the indicia provided earlier by @Steven L. Dasinger.) The "Milk & Bone" error got fixed, so now I think it's even less suitable to reproduce it in the CB title entry. Here's the indicia from my copy: