-
¿What’s Bueno But Ultimately Worthless? ¡1984 Olympic Bus Tokens!
Now here’s something you don’t see every day.
Recently, over at the extremely dog-friendly Woodland Hills 99¢ Only store, I happened upon a magnificent and unusual example of What’s Bueno At The 99¢ Only Store – an item which is sort of a throwback, in a couple of ways, to the 99¢ Only Store’s glory days – when it was much less of a discount food store and much more of a closeout store; and where heaven only knows what sort of bizarre treasures you’d find!
There – for 99¢ Only – you can purchase a set of not one, not two, but twenty-four transit fare tokens “created for the Southern California Rapid Transit District in cooperation with the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee, for use during the 1984 Olympic Year.”
Again, you’re not getting just one of these coins, but a complete set of 24, still sealed after thirty years, and presented in a handsome navy blue padded case, each token mounted in its own receptacle on a flocked velvet board inside.
There was a stack of a few dozen of these boxes, all similarly sealed, at the store, half-hidden towards the back of a bottom shelf. I’m not greedy (nor stupid, as you’ll see, but you should already know that): I bought just one. And frankly, I bought it solely for the purpose of the blog.
It was only later when I thought of a pal who, bless her heart, must rely on public transportation, and wondered if perhaps these tokens were still good. After all, tokens don’t expire, do they? Sure they were “created…for use during…1984,” but that wouldn’t preclude them from being legal bus and subway fare tender today, would they? They’re like the coinal equivalent of the US Postal Service’s Forever Stamps, right?
Turns out I’m wrong. The Southern California Rapid Transit District, or “RTD” as it had been known, hasn’t existed since 1993. Thankfully, it’s been a while since I’ve had to take a filthy LA bus, though for the last 21 years, I’d still been considering LA’s bus service “the RTD” (when I’d considered it at all). And brother, the only time we car owners even think of LA bus service is when one of those enormous land-barges is in front of you on the road and you can’t get around it. Anyway, turns out LA’s bus service has been “Metro” or “LA Metro” for two decades, and while I guess that sounds familiar, I haven’t been thinking much about it. You know, being a car owner and all.
My point is, either as bus fare or as collectibles (and hopeful eBay sellers are being disappointed as we speak), these tokens aren’t worth the bronze they’re minted on.
But what’s really fascinating, at least from the perspective of a fellow writing a blog with an unnatural and/or uninteresting focus on a Southern California dollar store chain, is that when I searched online for these things, the only result – from whatever very specific parameters I used – was a posting on a Google-archived Usenet “misc.transport.urban-transit” group, where the author mentioned having found these for sale at the 99¢ Only store as well. But the post was quite a bit older than this one: It was written in 1994!
According to the twenty-year old post, back then, 99¢ Only was cracking open the sets, dumping the individual tokens in boxes, and selling them two for 99¢ Only – as “slammers.” Like for use with pogs. You remember pogs, don’t you?
The original poster, him- or herself a fan of the 99¢ Only store as I am, wondered the same thing two decades ago – if they were still good for use as bus fare. (And even back then: No.)
How crazy is that: Two internet posts about the same ultimately good-for-nothing 99¢ Only offering, two decades apart!
And if you enjoyed this, and you did, imagine how fascinating it will be to read about the next person to be struck by the Curse of the Worthless Olympic Coins scheduled presumably for 2034 when 99¢ Only will be selling an entire case of sets for a buck. Mark your calendars!
-
Whoop-De-Doo, Dere, Edith! Whoop-De-Doo!
HERE’S an odd one that I perhaps thought better of posting ages ago when I first came up with it, but now – it being the silly season (as it’s known during the slow news period of the summer, at least in England, where I’ve never been) – it’s time to burn off any old, leftover material that’s just taking up space on the ol’ hard drive and actually put it to good use as frivolous, idiotic content – well, more frivolous, idiotic-er content – that you, what?, six readers may or may not enjoy, so maybe I can get out to the beach at some point secure in the knowledge that I’ve vomited something up on the site here relatively recently.
As you know, Hollywood long ago ran out of new ideas and everything anywhere for the last dozen years or so has been a reboot of a previous better something.
Well, one thing they haven’t screwed with yet is “All in the Family.” So far. But what I’m about to show you will change all that.
A while back, I was obliged to watch the HBO series “Girls” for a piece I was working on. And the one and only thing I came away from watching it, aside from a healthy contempt of Lena Dunham of course, is that Zosia Mamet, who plays Shoshanna Shapiro, should obviously be playing a character made famous by the late Jean Stapleton in the 1970s, but an earlier, whaddaycall, intarnation dere of said character.
Yes, I propose a prequel to “All in the Family.” A prequel starring the delightful Zosia Mamet as Edith!
I’m telling you, Mamet’s practically playing Young Edith Bunker as it is on “Girls,” at least ditzy, scatterbrained-wise. Why not go the whole hog and just make it official? Sure, Zosia’s going to have to Edith-up the voice a bit and dye her hair or wear a wig, but I know you’ll agree: Young Edith is the role this Girl was born to play!
So I think we’ll call it “Archie & Edith: The Early Years” or better yet, “Some in the Family” and it will focus on the Bunkers right after the War – and shortly before their little goil, Gloria, dere, is borned.
And there just might be a cameo appearance or two…
I haven’t cast Young Archie yet. But not to worry. If I don’t come up with no one good, we’ll just set it during Dubbaya Dubbaya Two so that way Archie don’t even gotta be in it, him being stationed dere in Italy. In which case we’ll call it “One in the Family.”
Norman Lear, if you’re one of my, what?, six readers, call me!
-
They’ve Finally Reached Full Absurdity and Peak Hyperbolicity!
Well, it’s official!
With this stellar piece, there is absolutely no difference anymore between actual “Huffington Post” headlines and parodies of “Huffington Post” headlines!
Arianna must be thrilled, dahling!
Or, in the words of a Huffington Post headline writer, “Amazing Transition To Completely Inane Non-News Source Will Make You Ugly-Cry Tears Of Joy In The Best Possible Way.”
And speaking of parodies, pal of this blog and hideous monster Scott Maiko himself worked on a parody of “The Huffington Post” that appeared in Mad a few months back. You really should be buying the magazine, but you can see part of the parody on Jim Romensko’s blog here.
-
So I Was Shoplifting From Target The Other Day…
…or rather, I was about to.
I mean, a fellow could go broke buying razor blades otherwise!
Forty-two bucks?! And you only get a dozen!
Let’s remember, folks, I’m Slovak – a dozen razors only keeps my neck, shoulders and about a third of my back reasonably smooth for about four days, if that.
So I’m heading towards the exit with these – and, sure, I’m aware that these security disks start emitting a loud, high-pitched screech when you try to get past those posts at the doors. But I had my earplugs in and my running shoes on – I wasn’t too worried.
Thank God, though, I turned it over before I went through with it!
Apparently now they also release live spiders! No thank you!
-
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Venerable newspaper / squeaky toy Doggy News…
…launches digital edition!
Eh…get it? It’s, uh, it’s all ones and zeroes.
Maybe the real story here is how Hartz Mountain managed to let the copyright for their perennial best-selling squeaky latex dog toy – which dates back to at least the 1970s – lapse into public domain so that a poorly reproduced knockoff with a barely legible masthead (“Doggn Nems,” it seems to read; “Weather: Dog Days” and “Kennel Edition” are nowhere in sight) can be manufactured in China and sold at 99¢ Only.
I mean, what’s next, an unlicensed Crinkle Fish cat toy?!
Although…re-reading this post I’m wondering if perhaps an even bigger scoop would be why in God’s name I remember the specifics of a dog toy from almost 40 years ago.
-
Archie… Archie Andrews! WHERE ARE YOU? [The Morgue]
BIG NEWS from the world of poorly crafted press releases and sloppy yet sensationalistic 21st century journalism!
Archie Comics has announced that their titular tic-tac-toe-haired hero, Archie Andrews, is being killed off!
…Well, actually, they announced it months ago – while all but glossing over the fact that the “Archie” who is dying is the adult, married Archie from “Life with Archie” (which is not the “Life with Archie” comic book we all grew up with, but a larger format, teen magazine-type thing with a thoroughly confusing dual plot – with one storyline following Archie’s life had he married Betty, and the other, if he married Veronica, both presented in each issue); and that teenage Archie will continue to live on in the regular (and surprisingly expensive) comic books; and that “Life with Archie,” the magazine, is ending and this was a nice tidy way to tie up all the loose ends and get an enormous amount of publicity as well.
But today they gave us more details, which clarified everything, thankfully:
Archie will die after getting shot defending his gay best friend.
Wait, Archie has a gay best friend?!
No, no, no! Who put that thing there?!
Good heavens, Reggie isn’t gay, and he’s Archie’s friendly rival, not his best friend.
Gay best friend? Why, they’re referring to Jughead, of course, whose disinterest in girls has been a hallmark of his personality for decades, and who apparently came out of the closet at some point to no one’s surprise.
…Wait, what’s that? It’s not Juggie? He’s not gay?!
Oh, okay, here we go – from one of a few dozen near-identical articles filed today: Archie dies taking a bullet for his gay best friend Kevin Keller, a new-ish character introduced in 2010.
I see – well, that makes sense then.
…Well, except for the fact that Archie’s best friend is, again, Jughead. And that According to Wikipedia, Kevin’s best friend is Betty.
It just gets so confusing – Archie Comics issues an intentionally vague press release, no one contacts them for more information, and most news outlets just reprint whatever comes across the AP wires.
So let me make it clear once and for all: This is not really the death of Archie!
This is:
-
It Was Tuesday, January 9th.
It was cool in Los Angeles.
We were working the day watch out of Internal Affairs Division, Personal Hygiene Department.
-
Go Go Gadget Nit-Picky ‘OITNB’ Complaint!
LIKE you, I’m a huge fan of the Netflix original series, “Orange Is The New Black.”
Oh my goodness, huge fan. Huge fan.
From the theme song that goes on and on and on and on and on for, I believe – and correct me if I’m wrong – the first twenty-three minutes of each episode’s fifty-five-minute run time, to the marvelously uneven writing that ricochets back and forth willy-nilly between intense drama to absurd comedy, to the cast of 1,200 characters we’re supposed to keep track of and care about, to – now understand I haven’t spent any considerable time in women’s prison – what I would guess are some rather unrealistic story lines, to a self-absorbed main character that, heaven help us all, the average female viewer is supposed to identify with, my God, I can’t get enough of this show!
Another reason I keep tuning in is that I like cartoons, and due to that wildly erratic writing, a good portion of the cast are required to play their roles as cartoon characters, at least half of the time.
Besides, I’m thrilled to see renowned Twitter wag Jason Biggs (Jim from “American Pie”) back here playing a new character, “Jim-from-American-Pie.”
[Side note: Deborah Rush, who played Jim’s future mother-in-law in “American Wedding” is back , too, playing a new character: “Jim’s-Future-Mother-In-Law-in-American-Wedding!” Hooray!]
Wait, OITNB fans argue, Bigg’s character’s name is Larry – and he’s playing a completely different character here.
Oh, my, yes. Yes, of course he is.
…And yet then there’s this, which directly references two iconic scenes from the first and third “American Pie” movies:
Sadly, I’m not Jason Biggs – though like you, I aspire to be him someday. But if I was Jason Biggs, why, I’d have taken one look at those lines in the script and say, “Nuh-uh. Nope. Change it.”
I’d probably even take the series creator, Jenji Kohan, aside and say something helpful like, “Okay, you’re trying to do a progressive, groundbreaking show about women in prison…and you’re going to squander it on references to my old movies…Really? Reeeally?”
But I’m guessing Jason Biggs was probably too busy crafting one of those delightfully mean-spirited Tweets of his to notice the details of the script.
Anyway – where was I?
Ah yes – cartoons. For a show whose writers evidently are cartoons fans as well, I find it shocking when they get details of actual cartoons wrong. Shocking!
Case in point:
Lead character Pooper Chapstick, returning from a little vacation to another prison, finds that in her absence, all of her stuff has been co-opted by the other inmates. While reclaiming a tiny radio, she’s called “Inspector Gadget” by Cindy, the girl who took it.
To which Pooper expresses over-the-top indignation, and replies with…
As many of you know, oh my goodness, I’m a huge fan of “Inspector Gadget.”
Huge fan.
(No seriously, I am.)
So I find that last line inexcusable.
There is no “the” before the dog’s name in “Inspector Gadget.” It was never Penny and the Brain. It’s Penny and Brain.
There’s “Pinky and the Brain,” sure, but those are different characters from a different cartoon from a different decade.
If you’re going to make a point to derail a scene so the main character can spout some cute dialogue purely for a cheap laugh, you might want to get the details right.
It’s almost as bad as me somehow getting main character Piper Chapman’s name wrong up there.
Anyway, Cindy obviously agrees with me. She has no interest in being schooled on the minutia of 1980s cartoons and casually replies with a much more believable line that almost redeems the inanity of Piper’s dialogue:
Or maybe she was just more of a “Jem” fan.
-
That Horribly Racist “Redskins” Team Name Is In The News Again…
…so, speaking of which, I think it’s time we have a discussion about offensive stereotypes so we can all move forward, eh, as a society. Sure.
And what better way to move forward than to turn the clock back fifty-four years and check out this 1960 ad from a chain of long-defunct Florida appliance stores:
Oh my. That’s something else, isn’t it?
The ad features “Chief Wag” creating a smoke signal to call his “Council of Braves” to “declare war on high prices.”
It’s unclear whether Chief Wag was specific to this ad or Tyree’s always ran Indian-themed ads, or, my guess – “Wag” was Tyree’s regular cartoon mascot, dressed in Indian garb for this ad. Although judging by his crow’s feet, maybe he was a caricature of the owner of the chain. Or maybe all that smoke just irritated his eyes.
They really, eh, heaped it on with the mock Indian talk. By my count, there are 19 instances of the ol’ favorite: adding the suffix “um” to a verb. Among them: “No messum up tepee,” “gottum two doors,” “savum wampum,” “fillum tepee with music,” “no needum two stick to startum [an oven],” “washum-dryum all in one.”
I think I speak for all of us when I say, “I didn’t realize they had washer/dryer combos in 1960.”
They didn’t skimp on the exceedingly tasteless visuals, either:
Left to right: arrowhead, tom-tom drum, deerskin pouch, tepee, tomahawk, and an Indian head that looks remarkably like it’s straight out of a Walter Lantz or UPA cartoon of the 1950s.
Regardless, the entire ad – from the tepee that reads “No payum for 3 moons” at the top to “Deliver um free” at the bottom – is highly inappropriate. With insensitive ads like this, no wonder Tyree’s is long gone! And, brother, if they weren’t already, this would drive ’em out of business much like the European colonization of North American drove Nativ– eh, nevermind.
But the question is, cherished reader, will you see at it through the eyes of a 1960 newspaper reader and chuckle at its-over-the-top goofiness, declare it somehow “harmless” and excuse it as “a product of its time”?
Or will you be brave (oh dear) and as an informed citizen of the 21st century world, glance at it only briefly – just enough to get the gist! – before becoming suitably outraged?
Oh, I hope for your sake you pickum the latter!
Next time: We’ll explore our feelings after binge-watching all 65 episodes of F-Troop.
-
The 99¢ Only Store Is Dead! Long Live The 99¢ Only Store!
Question: When is the 99¢ Only store not the 99¢ Only store?
Answer: When it sells things for prices other than 99¢ only.
Ah, the 99¢ Only store! Regular readers of this blog – all, what?, six of you, know I love it. But I’ve become a little concerned at some changes I’ve been noticing there lately…
A little history:
Founded in 1982 by savvy businessman Dave Gold, the 99¢ Only chain held the line at exactly 99¢ for twenty-five long years when in 2007, a slightly more flexible pricing structure was introduced allowing the store to sell items at prices lower than 99 cents (39¢, 49¢, 59¢ – you get the idea).
And of course prior to that, you could (and can) buy multiples of an item for 99¢. (Old-timers such as myself remember a time not too, too long ago, when full-size candy bars were 4 for 99¢ only.)
2008 rolled around and things changed significantly, if you can call a penny ‘significant’: In September of that year, they added 99/100th of a cent to their signature price, so countless thousands of shelf tags that read 99¢ Only were pulled and replaced with new ones printed 99.99¢ Only (with the last two digits a bit smaller).
Rounding that hundredth up, shoppers began paying $1 for each item, and the chain, through a niggling technicality, managed to keep their name (mostly) honestly.
The 1¢ increase even made the news around Southern California – not bad publicity for the discount chain who was then able to explain that they’d kept everything under a buck for more than a quarter century and this teeny-tiny increase would allow them to continue to offer great deals. One measly penny on every item purchased would add up sufficiently to cover increasing costs. Perhaps someone at 99¢ Only headquarters had just watched “Superman III.”
Up to this point, in-store pre-recorded announcements usually ended with a sunny voice reminding us that we were shopping at a place where there was “Nothing over 99¢. Ever.” Unsurprisingly, new messages omitted the sign-off.
Many locations had that same slogan painted along the wall above a top shelf in their famous purple, blue and green color scheme. One might assume Corporate sent a memo to store managers advising them to get a can of white paint and a brush to get rid of the evidence, because this disappeared at this time, too.
But if you look carefully in some stores you can still figure out where it was…
Over the last few years, more and more items started hitting the stores that were more than 99¢ only.
The first item I noticed was a great big bottle of wine for $4.99 in their Burbank outlet over two years ago.
Other items soon followed in all the stores.
Initially, the signs on these items had an almost apologetic explanation below the more than 99¢ only price, as though it was an exasperated response to the umpteenth literal-minded customer challenging them with a whining “But your name is 99¢ Only!”
(Incidentally, that “one exception” for the eggs was the same “one exception” they made for milk, toilet paper and wine.)
Then as they introduced more and more more-than-99¢ Only items to their shelves, they stopped bothering to justify it at all.
Though in one case, they even tried to make us forget about their store name by distracting us with an enthusiastically positive spin on the more-than-a-buck price:
And that brings us up to this week, when I saw this at the front of their Canoga Park location (as well as on big decals on their doors):
Ooh, that can’t be good.
While prices higher than 99¢ are nothing new throughout the chain, that they’re calling attention to it is in itself noteworthy. I see it as a harbinger of higher prices: I bet we shoppers will very likely soon be seeing more and more items over the store’s celebrated 99.99¢ price point.
Over the last few months, every store I’ve gone to has changed their shelving, too. All the locations used to have shelves that were about five feet tall. Those have been pulled out and replaced with much taller units – the kind you see in most supermarkets – that can accommodate that much more merchandise.
Which makes sense when I remember a conversation I had back in December with an employee at this newly-opened location – the largest 99¢ Only store I’d ever been in – on La Tijera in Westchester:
She told me that they took over the space where a grocery store had gone out of business, and that all future 99¢ Only stores would open in similarly-sized venues. If that’s the case, it seems to me that 99¢ Only is making the slow transition from discount store to supermarket.
I remain wary but for now anyway, none of this changes my affection for the 99¢ Only store. It’s discount chains like this that have forced some manufacturers to keep their products under a buck, at least at the dollar store. (Though now even that seems in jeopardy.)
Like you, I exist on the Helper family of products, and by Godfrey, I haven’t been willing to pay more than a dollar for them since 99¢ Only has started carrying them.
I’m not the only one who feels this way – and not just about the Tetrazzini Tuna Helper, either, but about a lot of their merchandise: Friends who used to make fun of me for shopping at 99¢ Only have finally seen the light and now tell me about the great deals they themselves find there! (They’ve since found other things to make fun of me for.)
The 99¢ Only store has had some amazing bargains over the years and hopefully will continue to do so, so that this blog can continue to celebrate “What’s Bueno at the 99¢ Only Store.”
Store employees will continue to ask me not to take pictures in their stores.
I’ll continue to (surreptitiously) defy them.
And while it’s not quite the same, consider this: When I was growing up, there was an F. W. Woolworth’s in my hometown. Even into the 80s when it closed, everyone I knew referred to it as “The Five & Ten,” despite the fact that there was not – nor had ever been during my lifetime – any merchandise available at the cost of a nickel or a dime.
So it certainly makes this shopper think: How soon until we’re shopping at a 99¢ Only store where the only item labeled as such is the charmingly nostalgic and out-of-date sign out front?
Ted Parsnips
?>
