RockMyAmadeus

Yes, but who is the chef........?

That's an argument from emotion, not reason.

Not even remotely. But hey, that's life.

I'm confused because I don't understand how someone gets to a certain age, and doesn't realize that life choices, how one chooses to live, has a direct bearing on what situations one finds oneself, at all stages of life. Your arguments are made from emotion, not reason. "But what about the guy who's been divorced 3 times? He's broke!" Yes...and do you think he bears any responsibility for those divorces...? That's life! If I gave you enough of a sob story, I have no doubt I could convince you to flip your entire argument: "RMA can't afford to live, and all he has is SS books. If you charge him more, he'll have to move into a van down the river, and then what will he do? He needs to make a living somehow!" So, you're going to begrudge the guy who might be eking out a living getting junk books signed, because that's all he has, when ho hum artists are getting $250 a page for their time, and make millions in royalties....? These aren't rational arguments. Again: the issue has nothing to do with economics, and everything to do with discrimination. You're an attorney, not an economist. I'll give you a little insight into economics, here, if you won't be offended: charging people different prices based on assumptions is dangerous, economically, because it tends to alienate people. I have, in my possession, a short box of books that I have had ready for...literally, now...8 years. I am ready, willing, and able to get those books signed by a certain creator. I have dutifully carried those books around with me, HOPING against hope that they would sign them for what I am willing to pay. There are a few more than 150 books. I was prepared to pay, last May & October, $10/book to have them signed. The creator's art rep refused, insisting that it was $20 or nothing. Now...to the rep's credit, they charge a FLAT FEE, regardless of where it goes to, which I support 10,000,000%. Think in terms of economics: how much does that creator make if he signs 0 of my books? Right, $0. If he signs all of my books, he makes $1500. And though it's none of your or my business, *I* think $1500 for half an hour of signing is pretty darn lucrative. If he charges $20, he signs none, and makes $0. If he charges $10, he signs all, and makes $1500. These guys need the money...right? That's your argument. I don't agree with your premise, as it's none of your OR my business what these guys may or may not need, but for the sake of the argument, let's say you're correct. $10 each = 150 books signed = $1500 $20 each = 0 books signed = $0 Now...economically...which is the correct choice? Oh, and I'm not alone, by the way.

I agree with everything you've said here. Except the bolded part.  Yeah, I know. Wishful thinking on my part. Me and my facilitator are engaged in this same struggle ourselves.

No, because it is. Indeed...that's why I didn't go into any reasons: you find discussion unpalatable. Not a problem. If you are interested, I can point you to other threads where it is explained in great detail. No doubt, you are perplexed, but there's no need for the emotionally tinged language. No one is "enraged." As I said, this has been explained over and over again, and if you're interested, I can point you to those discussions. I can't make you understand, though, so if you can't understand, or won't understand, I'm of no further help to you. Let me give you the major hint, though: it has nothing whatsoever to do with economics, and everything to do with discrimination. It's weird to see people arguing in favor of discrimination, but hey, that's life. These are the facts: 1. Creators should charge whatever they want. $0, $5, $50, $5,000. It's their signature, they can and should charge whatever they want. 2. Those suggesting that anyone is saying otherwise are lying. 3. Creators should not charge different prices for the exact same service, because it is discrimination. 4. Those suggesting they should end up hurting creators in the long run. 5. It's no one else's business what someone does with their own property. 6. Appeals to emotion are logical fallacies. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/29/Appeal-to-Emotion

Even if they did, it would still be irrrelevant, because: 1. It's a signature, not work-for-hire. 2 It's no one's business what someone else chooses to do with their property. 3. The "friend" could use that "logo" and potentially make millions of dollars off of it, while the "corporation" could commission the work, decide it doesn't suit them, and shelve it forever. What someone *may* use it for is none of the service provider's business. 4. The idea that "they are most likely gonna sell for $100" is no bearing on the conversation, for the reasons stated elsewhere ad nauseum. The "$100" isn't for the signature. 5. No one has a problem with creators signing their friends' books for free. The arguments supporting discrimination are all bad ones, and eventually, the addicts will wake up and stop it.

This is not correct, for all sorts of reasons.

Because it's none of their business what someone else does with that someone else's property. Charging different prices for the exact same service, at the exact same time, in the exact same place, based on nothing more than information which the service provider is not entitled to know is discrimination, as you well know. It is "accepted" because collectors behave like addicts.

=

Holoplaids are so dang cool. PS. the font in your first post is tiny.

Neat! Who?

Literally. The scam is to get them to the next level down; after that, they don't care.

...because I'm stupid. But they were all cheaper than I could have bought them "new."

That's because that number is the amount of regular copies that a retailer must order to obtain a single copy of the variant (that number means nothing else, by the way.) If a retailer has to order additional copies of a book that they don't think they will sell, that additional cost has to go into the price. If you must have it, buy it. Otherwise...don't waste your money. 99% of all variants can be bought for literal cents now. I just bought 18 short boxes of variants for about 80 cents each.

Yes, and there are several first appearances in the Morrison run, too (Flex Mentallo, for example)...currently, however, it's the only "modern era" 1st appearance of a Doom Patrol character in the tv show as of right now, which is the reason why DP #19 is "hot." In case I was unclear, I was referring to the tv show characters.

I'm given to bombast on occasion, but I can say that Doom Patrol #19-50 is one of the most underrated series of all time. #19-#22, "Crawling From The Wreckage" is absolutely stunning. I can read it today and enjoy it...not find it stilted or dated, as other stuff from the era. It's all delightfully weird, but cohesive. It is the equal of Sandman, and as good, if not better, than Animal Man #1-26, which is also an underrated classic. "Beware the scissormen." Of course, being the only 1st appearance in "the modern era" of a Doom Patrol character (Crazy Jane; I don't *really* consider Vic to be anything other than a Teen Titan), it's the easiest to obtain. MGA #80 is a tough book to find in general.

Doom Patrol 19...for the first time in many, many years...is hot again. I'm RICH!

They always end up that way.

This is not accurate. Why? The "height of the Joe craze" was NOT December of 1983, which is when #21 was printed and distributed. The height of said craze was in 1985-1986, well after. That's why everything Joe up to about #29-#30 is relatively less common than everything after. It's why books in the 30s (1985) are really common, and why books in the 40s and 50s (1986) are ULTRA common. Don't believe me? Check out the SOOs (Statements of Ownership) from Joe #23, #34, =#46, and #57: Total copies printed (avg): #23 - 354,335. Single issue nearest to filing date: 363,962. (I believe this is the earliest SOO printed in Joe.) #34 - 357,468. Single issue nearest to filing date: 344,156. <----- this would be the time period including #21 #46 - 449,081. Single issue nearest to filing date: 474,242. #57 - 499,151. Single issue nearest to filing date: 534,350. As you can see, the print runs ramped up considerably in 1985 and 1986. (If anyone has the actual copies handy, and wants to provide the numbers SOLD, that would give an even clearer picture.) By the way....virtually EVERYONE on the internet, including Lonestar and Grand Comics Database, is wrong about there not being 2nd printings of #3 and #4. There are, in fact, 2nd printings, and they were the FIRST reprints done on the title...in 1983! But they weren't "demand" reprints...they were reprints for Marvel to sell more copies to alternative markets (in this case, their bagged comics market.) They are not designated as "reprints" in any way, but the ads are from 1983...NOT 1982, when the originals were printed. The interesting thing? The GCD article for #3 shows the cover image for the reprint! Another interesting bit of trivia: there is, to date, NO KNOWN example of a "2nd print" #21. All the "reprints" say "3rd printing."

That's amazing. Sal will be 84 this year, and he's still drawing like a champ. People: get your Spectacular Spidermans, Roms, and other Sal books signed before it's too late!

I HAVE #663 and #665 in SS 9.8...it's just that the grader at CGC didn't agree. They'll have to go back in, whether through review (which I'm hoping, but not too hopeful for), or straight resub (which annoys me to no end, for obvious reasons.) As for the #666...yeah, it's a...er..."beast" in 9.8. It was shoddily made, and the heavy ink on the cover made it very susceptible to cracking, leading to color breaking spine stress and "bigger than average" splitting along the spine, revealing more white than 9.8 can tolerate. I think I went through 15 copies (don't ask me why I have 15 copies) and managed to find just TWO candidates...and one got 9.8, the other 9.6. For some books, the ink simply isn't as pliant, and can't bounce back from a bend...some books, the ink won't crack and flake, but for many books, there's just so much it can take, and the heavier the application, as with this book, the more prone to color breaks.

Are we talking about Zap #1?

Yes, you *can* remove them, and NO, you would never want to. You can do considerable damage to the book trying to remove a printer's crease, especially if the crease is under a printed area. Frankly, I don't think CGC should be counting off for printer's creases at all, but I'm not the one making that decision.

Couple of things worth pointing out: 1. Isn't that Croc sketch by Balent just amazing on Tec #660...? Just amazing. Someday, I'd like to get someone to ink it...maybe Hanna. 2. I'm so very, very thankful that comic collecting had matured by that point, because if people were still collecting comics in the 90s the way they were in the 60s, there wouldn't be a single copy above 9.0, with all those dark covers AND back cover ads. 3. Tec #666 is a tough book, but I managed to get at least one copy in 9.8...and none of the others (#661, 663-665.) Go figure.