RockMyAmadeus

https://www.ebay.com/itm/AMAZING-SPIDER-MAN-1-CGC-SS-9-8-STAN-LEE-SIGNED-11X-IN-COLORED-SHARPIES-1-1/264058419833?hash=item3d7b1bba79

Not in dispute.

I'm guessing the baffling secret is that the coins are all dated 1581, so Superboy's gone back in time.

All of which, of course, ignores the reality that commerce happens when people price their goods and/or services in a manner commensurate with demand. When Creator X sits at a table all day, because he/she is charging more for his/her signature than the market is willing to support, that doesn't help anyone. Economy works when everything moves, and balance occurs naturally between supply and demand, without artificial intervention by those who want to rig the system in their favor. If I want to get 20 books signed by Creator X, but he/she charges more than I'm willing to pay, he/she gets no money for their service, and I get nothing as well. Much better to charge a price that is supported by the market, and get cash flowing. Again....if the argument is "it's their signature, they can charge whatever they want for it, and if people don't like it, they're free to not pay it", I'm with that, 100%, and support that completely. It's THEIR sig, and if they want to charge $10,000 for it...hey, more power to them. You'll never see me saying they shouldn't be able to do that. But that's not the argument. The argument is "if Creator X is willing to sign for $Y for one person, but refuses to sign for less than $Y+$Z for another person, then they are creating a discriminatory situation, based on a scenario most of them don't even understand, because they've been told lies by the self-interested", and that's where there's a massive glitch in the Matrix. Stan's a great example of the former. He always charged the same price, regardless of where it was going, and the demand for his signature was insatiable. He never had a "tiered" system, and though the cost was high, the market was clearly, obviously, beyond question willing to support it. Good for him.

And I'm sure you explained to them the difference between "asking" price and "selling price", no....? And the difference between a 9.8 and an 8.5, and the effect that difference has on the value of signatures, no....?

(emphasis added) Nobody said it's not AN issue. It is. It's not, however, THE issue being discussed here. To try and subtly change the parameters of the discussion by engaging in wordplay is disingenuous.

This is a mischaracterization of the situation in two ways: 1. Those doing Sig Series had nothing to do to "help create" the perception of creators. They got in, they got their books signed, and they got out. The people who created the misperception that creators have are the facilitators who, in the (mostly successful) attempt to corner the market, told creators things that weren't true, like "people doing Sig Series are making money off of you, and you need a piece of that...and *I* can help you get it!", acting in their own interests, and creating the problem you have today, with "tiered" pricing based on information that is no one's business but the owner of the copy being signed. 2. No one is upset because it "takes more off of their bottom line." That isn't the issue, has never been the issue, and still isn't the issue. The issue is charging a higher price for the very same service, the very same effort, based on the misperception in #1. If Creator X wants to charge $1,000 for his signature...he/she is perfectly free to do that, and everyone is free to decide if that is worth it to them. The issue comes when Creator X...or his proxies in the form of monopolistic "facilitators"...demand to know what people intend to do with their property, and then charge a different, higher price depending on the answer. That is the heart of the issue, and always has been. Repeated, persistent attempts to make it seem as if the issue is merely about the price aren't going to change that fact.

Good post, Chuck. To add to that, I'll say this that I've said elsewhere: creators do not understand collecting. They just don't. They cannot fathom why anyone would want more than one copy of anything. It is foreign to them. So, the guy bringing up the beat up copy may have never actually read them, while the guy bringing up the pristine, beautiful, window-bagged perfect copy may have read the story a dozen times, which is why they want to get it signed. But creators don't know this, because they don't understand collecting, and many, many of them think collectors are a little off...and, while they're not wrong, they still don't understand why. If you tried to explain the vagaries of collecting to a creator, they usually get that glazed over look in the eyes, nod, and then hope you go away soon. And that goes quadruple or more for slabs. "So, you're willing to pay $1,000 for this copy of New Mutants #98, but you won't pay $250 for that copy, when they're completely identical (to their eyes)...? Oooook."

Not anymore.

Yay, sold out.

"Hi! You've reached RMA. I'm not able to take your call right now, but if you leave a message, I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Thanks, and have a cruncherific day!" *BEEEP*

I would respond, but my life is in taters at the moment...

Annnnnnnnnnnddddddd...

You should start by getting your old account back, newb.

So are they Touché.

I've seen 4.0s with completely detached covers. Almost exclusively Golden Age and PCH, but it happens.

I was joking.

I don't think PGX HAS a .5 grade....or knows what it is....

I loved that commercial.

The funny thing is, it takes me longer, sometimes much longer to ink one of Jim's pages than it takes him to pencil if from scratch. He is a freak of nature...in a good way! Scott Listen...the reason your Uncanny run is such a pleasure, as I'm sure you well know, is because you took so much time on the detail. I don't know if I've told you this, or if it matters to you, but there have only been two times that I opened a comic and had my breath taken away by the art. The second was Marvel Comics Presents #85 (and I've told Sam that.) But the first was X-Men #268. That splash page took my breath away, and made me a Lee/Williams fan for life. Every page of that book is a feast for the eyes. It is a masterpiece. It may not be as detailed as later stuff, but the work that is there...just gorgeous. And Black Widow....my word, Black Widow...Natasha never looked so good. So, whatever that's worth to you, there you have it.

Todd had two years' steady work as a penciler prior to this book (which was published in April of 1987.) McFarlane inked his own work starting with issue #340, 7 issues after #333. He also inked Detective #578, which was published only 2 months after Hulk #333, and it is quite clear from that issue that McFarlane had his fully developed style, as the entire book is classic McFarlane, of the quality of his Amazing Spiderman run. So, I don't know that the first time he inked someone else's work on the cover is indicative of much. He was essentially done with his Amazing run when NM #85 was published.

I don't understand what the big mystery is. "Hey Todd, did you work on this Hulk cover"? The answer is either yes or no. Talk about starved for attention. Why do you feel the need to try to provoke fights? What is wrong with you? The answer was NEITHER yes nor no, because Todd couldn't remember the piece. He DID, however, make an interesting observation, which I might share after I do some more research. If you don't care...keep your callous comments to yourself and find somewhere else to be.

That's supposed to be the point.

Talked to Todd this weekend about this cover. He had an interesting observation to make. I'll do a little research, and maybe share what he said after I do.

Your point would be far better served if you set aside the emotional language ("dishonors all Stan has done for the comic world") and made your case sticking just to the facts, Oops. Never mind, Didn't see the 3 additional pages. Remember, folks...this is the kind of person who should be "given a pass", because maybe they "had a bad day", rather than calling it what it really is: a leopard revealing his spots.