Peeps contest winner pays homage to fellow sweet treat
From popes to pop stars, this year's Peeps Show featured many marshmallow versions of current events depicted in all their sugary glory.
This year, it was a sweet victory for Kristy Locklin of Ross, whose grand-prize-winning design, “Funeral for a Friend,” depicted the demise of the beloved Hostess Twinkie, complete with Peep mourners, a portrait of the deceased and a “Rest in Peeps” sign.
“I'm a big Twinkie fan,” says Locklin, who will receive a $100 gift card, an assortment of Peeps products and, of course, bragging rights for the next year.
For her runner-up creation, Casandra Benzel of Plum played on a pysanky theme, incorporating elaborately decorated eggs among babushka-donning Peeps. Called “Peepsanky,” her piece also includes quail eggs and even a baby Peep perched in a stroller.
Val Dallos' take on a popular theme was called “Farewell to Pope Peep Benedict XVI.” Entering the contest was on her bucket list, Dallos of Butler says, but the piece took some work.
“It's tricky working with those little sticky things,” she says with a laugh.
The two runners-up each will receive a $50 gift card.
The new pope was just one of several themes seen throughout this year's entries. Justin “Peep-er” made a couple appearances, as did “Angry Peeps” and “Peepton Abbey.”
To see all entries, head to trib.me/2013Peeps.
Rachel Weaver is a staff writer forTrib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-320-7948 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.