RockMyAmadeus

Gah! Do you folks know how hard it is to find something that is BIN'd at GPA, and not 20, 30, 50% OVER GPA, making the 20% off coupon utterly moot...? GAH! After losing that Tec #49 3.5 auction to some toolbag, I had to scramble to find something that was priced fairly. Wanted SO badly to buy something GA, but...nothing. Everything was DOUBLE what it was on GPA, because of all the GOT DANG FLIPPERS. Jerks. I finally ended up with this at $400: GREAT book, no doubt, but not what I wanted. Already have a copy in about that grade range, and paid a LOT less than $400 for it. Ah well, maybe I can trade it to someone for something I do want. But at least the BIN was reasonable to start with!

I look at this, and I still giggle like a schoolgirl. Isn't that just the greatest book ever? I'm so very, very, very glad it's not worth more. There were some leannnn times in the last couple of years, and I had to sell some treasures. But damn, isn't that just the shiz? There's an awesome scene in this book where starts taking off his Robin costume for the last time...and Terra wolf-whistles, and yells "take it off!" or somesuch...and says "this isn't a strip show." And then, how Wolfman tied it all in with George almost 6 YEARS later with Year 3 and Lonely Place of Dying, and there was a "will he, won't he?" vibe to coming back after Jason was killed...and instead, officially passed the mantel forever, putting it in Tim's hands. Ah. Magic. "Don't you see? Batman NEEDS a Robin!"

No, they have been tricked in reality. Do you just not understand how any of this works...?

Right on, right on, right ON.

Oh, thank you! I never knew that.

Forgive my ignorance, and my preference to type a whole bunch more words in this post than a Google search would take, but what is a "bye"...?

And you know, that's really, deep down, at the heart of it: that people I idolize look at me with a measure of contempt, because they judge me...by appearance only, mind you...as someone who cares nothing about their work, and just wants to make money off of them. Isn't that what a publisher does? Isn't that what a printer does? Isn't that what a distributor does? Isn't that what a retailer does? Make money off of creators? And aren't some of those people fans...? Surely, some are. And aren't those people making money off a far more significant effort than just a signature? Absolutely. When a creator tells me "you have to pay EXTRA because of how you like to collect", that is an expression of contempt. I don't care what the amount they charge is. If Starlin charged $1,000, and I could only afford to get one book signed, I'd still probably do it. It's the second class citizen mentality of the "CGC punishment charge" that really bothers me, and it would bother me no matter WHAT the amount is. Capullo, Miller, Claremont, Golden, Zeck, Snyder, Cho, Janson, Portacio, Jim Lee, McFarlane....all these guys who charge a higher price if you want to slab your book just breaks my heart. And if those guys knew the truth of the matter, I suspect most of them would change their positions. I've read every single issue of Groo published from 1982 to 2007, and I can tell you where the hidden messages are in most of the Epic run. I can give you a plot outline of every issue of Silver Surfer #34-50 AND Batman #414-430. I can quote lines from ASM #300 from memory: "Slowly, Peter's spirits begin to rise", which is a naughty double entendre. But, you know...I'm not a "real fan" because I like to slab. And every time I see a new announcement of someone being "exclusively represented", with a "it's this price for raws, and that price for slabbed!" I get a little sick to my stomach, because it just means another creator has bought into the lie they've been fed, and decided to treat fans differently from other fans, based on nothing more than how someone likes to collect. And I'm not too proud to say that hurts.

Respect doesn't work that way just because you are his fan does not mean the creator has to respect you. It doesn't? That's an odd way to look at mutual respect. As long as they tell you up front "For Ebay" and or "Do Not Slab" will be written on the book and gave you the option, then they respected your property enough to give you that warning and left you an option for their service or not. That's not what happened. You're making statements concerning matters about which you are not informed. HaHaHaHa There is always enough fans to replace the ones that leave. It's like thinking you are indispensable at a work place unless you are the owner you are dispensable. Really...? Guess you weren't buying comics in the late 90's/early 00's...? Maybe they think your behavior is rude. Greedy practices? Hmm if they care more about money than fans that is their business not yours. Maybe they want to make sure they have enough money for retirement and know there is only so long to bring it in before they are not as popular as they once were. So, it's the fans' responsibility to subsidize someone's retirement...? How about creating something that people want, and are happy to pay you for...? Aas far as "maybe they think your behavior is rude", perhaps. I daresay, however, that I've never seen anyone ask a creator how they intend to spend the money they were paid for signing. THAT would be rude. And yet...that's exactly what these creators are doing: asking you what you intend to do with YOUR property! Wait, who's being rude again...? Yes, the ever popular "if you don't like it, don't do it!" line. Never do the people making these statements consider the truth: that the reason people complain is because they DO like it, but don't think it's being done as well as it could be. No, no, that's never considered. "Shut up and quit complaining. If you don't like it, go somewhere else." Yes, yes, you've said this over and over and over again, and no one is disputing it. However, you keep saying something that is not accurate. It is not their right to know what you intend to do with your property. No one has that right, so long as what you intend to do is legal. They have the right to ASK...but they don't have the right to KNOW. And, if I say "none of your business", that IS my right, because it's none of their business. Does that mean they can refuse to sign? Of course. But they shouldn't be asking in the first place. It's rude, intrusive, and no one's business but the property owner's. And in the real world...the world not populated by addicts afraid of being cut off...and I certainly admit, I'm in that camp...such a question would NEVER be tolerated. Who do you think you are, asking me what I am going to do with my property? Mind your own damn business!

Well...the new board "software" obliterated what I wrote, so...I have to slog through it again. Sigh. Allow me, Mr. and/or Mrs. Rice, to explain a few things to you: There's a concept called "don't count my money, and I won't count yours." What it means is that " don't be concerned with how, why, or where I make my money, so long as I do it legally, and I'll show you the same respect and courtesy by not being concerned with yours." Doing the Sig Series program as a collector is a tough road. When it's just you and your facilitator and your witness and CGC, it's not very easy. When you're people like you, who have dozens or hundreds of people paying you to get stuff signed for them, I suspect it's a lot easier. I know I've seen your setup at shows. I couldn't afford it. I know you can afford to get a booth at SDCC. I know you can afford to hire all sorts of people to work for you. I can't do any of those things. Do I expect sympathy? No. It's my choice to do this, and I do it because I love the process, I love meeting creators who have made something which had an impact on my life. I love collecting. I love high grade comics. I love all these things, and I do it because I love it. I do not ask for, nor do I expect, any concessions from anyone. But what I CAN expect is that people like you don't muck it up relations with creators by misrepresenting why people do CGC in the first place. When you and people like you coach and prod these creators into thinking that anyone doing CGC is "just in it for the money", you drive a wedge between creators and fans. Creators look on anyone and everyone as a potential business rival, instead of a fan, and it makes them bitter and cynical, and suspect of everyone wanting to get a signature. "Oh, you're getting this slabbed? Filthy slabber." The contempt I have suffered from people like J. Scott Campbell, who told me he had to "sign for the fans" before he would sign my books....because, obviously, no FAN gets books slabbed, right...? And one of my heroes, Sergio Aragones, who practically SNEERED at me because he thought I was just some money grubber. Sergio Aragones! And Jae Lee, whom I have followed and whose work I have admired since Namor #26...26 YEARS ago. And Jim Starlin, who thinks the whole thing is a scam. These things hurt me. I'm considered a second class citizen by these creators whose work I love, whose work made a substantial impact on me, but to them, I'm just a dirty flipper, looking to profit off of their hard work. And WHY do they think that....? Because people like you have told them that the only reason, or most of the reason, people get things slabbed is "to make money." You played upon and exploited their fear, greed, and petty jealousy, while simultaneously taking advantage of the addict behavior of comic collectors. And don't pretend you're not. If you weren't, there would be no two-tiered pricing system. That system exists because someone came along and told them, or reinforced the idea, that people were selling their sigs on eBay for a lot of money, and they deserved a part of that, and here, if you let me represent you, I'll make sure you get your fair share of the profit!" Take a look at this book: I nearly cried when I saw this book finished, as my facilitator and probably Mike Balent can attest. This book will never leave my possession, barring some weird life catastrophe, until I die. In fact, if I pre-decease George, I would like it to go back to him, to show my appreciation and to help him understand that people really do slab books to collect them, instead of just flip them endlessly to other flippers. When I first saw that book 28 years ago, I thought to myself "wow, that white space would be PERFECT to have a sketch of Nightwing and Flash on either side!" And it took me 25 years to get it done. I get goosebumps and a little teary-eyed thinking about it NOW. It is one of the crown jewels of my collection. Is it worth money? Sure, a bit. I could probably sell it for $200-$300. It's pretty damn cool, after all. But why would I? These things MEAN something to me, which is why I do it. You know...there really ARE people who slab just because they like them. Who'da thunk it..? Here's another jewel: How cool is that? Do you know why it is signed by "Sam Jiltirn" and "J.L. Minirats" and "Ms. Natjiril"...? Because Starlin anagrammed his name in the credits, which someone wouldn't know unless they opened the book and read it. Do you have any idea how flippin' cool that is? It's friggin' awesome, and only something a nerd fanboy would love. Sure, the clunky scrawls have a slightly negative aesthetic appeal on an objective level, but who the hell cares? Starlin signed it! Tell me, do you think this book is worth "FAT STACKS OF $$$$:...? It's not. It's probably not even worth the cost to slab. But do you know what it IS? A damn cool book in a damn cool slab. When you interfered that day in August of 2016, it broke my heart. Since Sam started making public appearances again in 2010, between then and 2016, I went to every single appearance he made, except the Sacramento store signing. I have two long boxes full of books here, waiting to get signed. I was acting as a witness in Boston, and had several hundred books for my facilitator, as well as witnessing for my friend (with Balent's permission, natch) and who was a member of this board. I didn't expect him to sign them all, but you have to be prepared. You cost me, personally, several hundred dollars in a mostly wasted trip (I pay for these trips out of my own pocket.) You cost my facilitator his books being signed. And you cost CGC several hundred submissions that would, if not all at Boston, eventually have been subbed. They sit, in long boxes, unsigned, and why...? Because you had to make sure that Albert...not Sam...charged everyone "for CGC", because they're "making money!" Since that event, Sam has appeared a few more times, and I just didn't really want to bother with perhaps wasting my time again. And what should have been a wonderful event was totally overshadowed by your interference, and why...? Naked greed. "If I have to pay, everyone ELSE should have to pay!!" Do I expect anyone to empathize with me? No, of course not. Do I expect my emotional attachment to influence others in my favor? Absolutely not. Do I expect to get concessions from anyone because I'm "really a fan"? No. Do I tell creators "I'm your #1 fan, and would never, EVER sell ANYTHING you signed for me!" No, of course not, because it's not true, and unethical to manipulate a creator like that. Should what I do with my books matter to anyone else? NO! Not in the SLIGHTEST! But by the same token...what I do with my books shouldn't matter to anyone else! Is it ANYONE'S business what I, or anyone else, does with our property? NO! If you're going to interfere with other people and their collecting pursuits, by telling creators things which aren't true, like "the only reason people slab is for $$$$", then I am going to explain where I come from, and set the record straight. Don't count my money, and I won't count yours.

AMEN!

There aren't enough facepalms.

Did you read this whole conversation...? Or did you read one post, and decide to fire off a response...? If the latter, I would encourage you to read the entire conversation, before stating things that no one is arguing against. Of course. It's not coming out of your pocket, so what do you care? Nobody has any problem with a creator charging a fee. The issue is WHY they are charging that fee and HOW they are charging that fee. The question is, have you ever (and the answer, of course, is yes, because I am an eye witness to it) interfered with other people getting things signed, and told a creator, through their handler, that they "ought to be charging people getting books done for CGC"? You directly encouraged a creator that, despite what that creator said to his fans, he needs to "charge for CGC"....not for ALL sigs, mind you, just "for CGC." You injected yourself into a situation that was none of your business, and caused a CONSIDERABLE amount of loss to several people, INCLUDING CGC, who did not get submissions they otherwise WOULD have gotten had you not interfered. Let me be clear: the creator stated, UPFRONT, that he was not charging for signatures. The creator in question is Sam Kieth, and the convention was Boston, in August of 2016. After standing in line for EIGHT HOURS, you sauntered up and demanded your handful of Sandman books be signed. When you saw people who had waited for EIGHT HOURS IN LINE with "stacks" of books, you called Albert Moy over and informed him that "those books were for CGC, and you need to CHARGE for them!"...hoping, I guess, to discourage everyone and send them away, after having waited in line for EIGHT HOURS. I guess you just assumed that window bags = "for CGC", and while that may generally true, it's not always. Even if it was true, what business is it of yours? I know all this, because I am an eye witness to it. Albert Moy, after talking to you, walked over to Sam and announced to the line, including people who had waited for EIGHT HOURS, that "anyone with books in window bags would be charged $20 per book!" He forced everyone with window bags to take them out, or they'd be charged $20 PER BOOK. AGAIN...DESPITE the fact that Sam Kieth posted, IN WRITING, PRIOR to the convention, that he was NOT charging for signatures. YOU encouraged Moy to do that. YOU cost people hundreds of dollars in lost expenses. YOU cost CGC hundreds of submissions. I don't blame Sam. I blame you and Albert, but mostly you, for playing on and exploiting Albert's greed. Because, obviously, everyone slabbing it is doing it for the fat stacks of cash, right...? NOBODY could be slabbing because they...you know...just like to slab, right...? AND despite the fact that the next day, according to fellow witnesses and facilitators I know, Sam didn't charge anything. So really, pretending you don't "encourage" it isn't quite...accurate...is it? I really think you ought to read the entire conversation before posting. Really...? I had no idea! You really need to read the entire conversation before posting. This has already been covered. No one should be lying to creators. Period. Creators have NO RIGHT to ask people what they intend to do with their property. It's none of their business, and it's incredibly rude. The fact that it's tolerated at all is because of the addictive behavior of collectors, who are afraid to be cut off. But it is NOT "because of actions like that"...which takes place, as far as I can tell, on a VERY limited basis, that has "caused creators to do what they do." What has caused them to do what they do is a combination of people...like yourself...misrepresenting just what CGC is, and why people slab books, a deliberate misrepresentation to secure these creators under "exclusive" terms, and the creator's lack of understanding of how the SS market actually works. Can you say "conflict of interest"...? Creators don't need goons to "protect them", any more than store owners need the Mob to "protect them." It is a racket, based on misinformation and deception, playing on the base emotions of creators and the addictive nature of collectors, for the benefit of those people who manage to convince creators that 1. people are making FAT STACKS OF $$$$ OFF YOUR SIGS, and 2. and if you just let US represent you, we'll make sure you get your FAIR SHARE of that dough! It is a scam, and it hurts creators, fans, collectors, CGC, and everyone but those perpetrating the scam.

CGC is a third party grading service. So is Voldermort. Transactions are between submitters and creators, not grading companies and creators. So, what reason would there be, other than punitive, which is ALWAYS bad for business, to offer ANY creator ANY amount of money from a third party...? And how would that not be restraint of trade...?

Missed the trigger twins, too. Thought that big ol' marker would affect it more. I can't grade scribbled books!

Meh. Not bad. The two that gave me a problem were ASM #129 and Warlord. The #129 was badly affected by the missing piece, but I struggled with just how bad. I gave it a 4.5. Warlord, it's hard to guess how writing affects things, so I said 7.5. Everything else was one level off, with one spot on (SC.)

What makes you think that grading companies are in a position to be offering to pay creators to "be exclusive"? Not saying you're wrong, just asking what makes you think this is even a possibility.

That's what kevhtx was trying to say, and it's still an error of logic. Yes, I understand that's how the creator's view it, but price discrimination is fundamentally about maximizing profit. If that were true, they would charge more to "collectors" as well. But that's not what's happening at all. No, the reason they upcharge is punitive. It's based on the erroneous belief that "slabbers" are ALL resellers. It's based on the erroneous belief that "slabbers" are all making some sort of "large profit" off of their signature. And I guarantee you, every single person who is confronted with a higher price for the exact same service has a negative reaction to it. They may hide it. Most do. They may just inwardly roll their eyes. They accept it, grudgingly, as a cost of doing business. But no one who understands the implications of what's happening says "shut up and take my money!!!" These creators don't care...evidenced by the fact that they still charge less for the "raw" customers...to "maximize profit" from signatures. They're trying to keep slabbers from making profit. or, at least, "as much" profit. "Price discrimination", as a fundamental economic concept, does not apply in this situation. In "price discrimination", the word "discrimination" is neutral. It doesn't carry a negative connotation. In this situation, the discriminating being done is most certainly not neutral; it's based on petty jealousy, greed, and insecurity, exploiting baser emotions of creators, and the addictive behavior of collectors. You're making the exact same mistake that "kevhtx" and others are making. The creator has nothing to do with "CGC submissions", and doesn't need someone to "handle all the CGC submissions for books they sign." That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between CGC, creators, and those who use CGC's services. CGC is an unrelated third party as it applies to creators, with some very minor exceptions. CGC is contracted by the people submitting their books, NOT facilitators OR creators. I can get 100,000 books signed by various creators, and they might never know that CGC is involved, because the transaction is between ME and the creators, not CGC and the creators. And submitting is a transaction between ME and CGC, not CGC and the creators. The submitter prepares the book(s), not the creator. The submitter fills out the paperwork, not the creator. The submitter turns the books in to CGC, not the creator. There's nothing special that requires creators to do anything differently than they've been doing for decades, as you point out to "kevhtx" above. (And, in fact, this is how the program worked for well over a decade.) Let me be perfectly clear: these people aren't providing a service to these creators for "CGCing" and "CGCing" alone. They are managing the line, they are handling cash...whatever they're doing...and that is not exclusively for people who are "CGCing." That's for everyone, whether they're getting a book signed and slabbed, or getting it signed raw, or getting a toy signed, or a poster signed, or a body part signed...whatever. Line and cash management IS a perfectly valid service for people to provide to creators, and they absolutely deserve to be paid for that service. But there's nothing that they're doing EXCLUSIVELY as it relates to the process of "CGCing" that would justify a special upcharge for "slabbers" and "slabbers" alone. So, if your premise is wrong...that creators need someone to "handle all the CGC submissions"...the conclusion, that a different price for slabbers is therefore justified, necessarily fails.

No, Im not going to do that. I know what price discrimination is. If you're not going to bother reading citations which explain someone's positions, you don't have much leg to stand on if you're going to argue against what they're saying. If that was true, why would you insist that conditions for a consumer have any bearing on conditions for a seller...? That's obvious just on the surface, but you keep arguing that "the conditions for the person getting the sig are different, therefore the creator is justified in charging a different price!" when it is the conditions for the CREATOR that are at issue, here. That's like saying "oh, well, that lady's dressed in a mink stole, so she obviously has money, so I'm going to charge her double for the exact same thing, just cuz I can!" THAT is the exact same logic that these creators are using. THAT is the type of price discrimination that's REALLY going on, here. And THAT is just as greedy and petty. Doesn't mean they can't! Doesn't mean they don't have the right to! But it DOES mean that it's greedy and petty. And if you're not going to do someone the courtesy of reading what they post, stop posting in response. That's just tacky. If you thought there was no point in "arguing", why are you still doing it...? In other words "I know you're correct, and I have no valid argument in response, so I'll just say "you're wrong!" without bothering to try and demonstrate why." Welcome to the internet! And no, your understanding of "price discrimination" is not what price discrimination is. Here's another link which explains what price discrimination actually is, and why the way you're trying to use it is invalid: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_discrimination.asp I know you won't read it, but then, these conversations are never about the people involved, but rather the people watching. Here, I'll even extract the pertinent info for you: None of those definitions jives with yours. First-degree discrimination is based on what a buyer is WILLING to pay, as I said before, not what the seller is CHARGING. It's NOT applicable to this scenario. Second-degree price discrimination is based on QUANTITY, so it's not related to this at all. Third-degree has to do with consumer GROUPS, which is based on who those consumers ARE, not what they intend to DO with a good/service. Do you see anything about " selling to a group (doesnt matter if its a completely different market) based on a different set of criteria at a different price" Not really. Your "definition" is too generic. It SEEMS to be a re-wording of "third-degree price discrimination", but when you look at the context of how you're trying to apply it...that is, not based on who consumers ARE, but what they intend to DO with the service/product...it falls apart. You have an inaccurate understanding of the principle of price discrimination, and are trying to apply it in a way that isn't in line with that principle. I know you THINK that "people who CGC" and "people who don't CGC" are different "consumer groups", because that's how you're trying to make your case...but by the principle, that's not how it works. Different consumer groups would be the aforementioned "children/adults/seniors" or "rich people/middle class people/lower class people" or "males/females"...groups that are different based on who they ARE, not what they might (or might not) do with the product. It's a clever attempt, to be sure, but it fails. Sorry. Such as...? See, you can't make claims like this without providing support or evidence to back it up. Explain HOW there is "a lot more overhead for CGC and witnesses" vs. "just someone getting a book signed." Now explain how that is UNIVERSAL. Because if it's not universal, it's not justification for a UNIVERSAL additional fee, see? I've been to lines for signatures where creators have to deal with a lot LESS "overhead" (whatever that means; I guess it means "extra time and effort"...? "Overhead" usually refers to ongoing costs not directly associated with labor or materials, like the light bill, but what do I know...?) when dealing with slabbers, because slabbers are quick and prepared, in and out, books prepped and ready to go, while "just someone getting a book signed" has been a hassle, because they talk and they take the books out of the bags and boards, and they think about where they want it signed, and yadda yadda zzzzzz. So that renders that argument moot. And if it's not universal, then the rationalization fails. "I have to deal with a lot more" you claim the creator says, without giving any explanation of what that "more" might be, but that's supposed to suffice? Heck, you haven't even given me a REAL LIFE example where someone charges more based on what someone intends to do with it afterwards! Of course they do! People ALWAYS have excuses for why they do what they do. It's human nature. And just because there are "two sides to arguments" doesn't mean both sides are right, or even reasonable. Store owner: "this guy stole two loaves of bread!" Thief: "Hey, I was hungry." Two sides to an argument. One side right, the other wrong. Excuse still given for why it was ok to steal. It's a cash grab. Plain and simple. No one said they couldn't. No one said they didn't have the right. But it's still a cash grab. Can you imagine, the Girl Scouts asking someone what they intend to do with their cookies before selling them...? "Sorry, sir, but I can see you intend to add that box to your collection of Girl Scout Cookie Boxes, and since you might someday sell that collection for FAT STACKS OF CASH!!! we're going to have to charge you double. I'm sure you understand."

Here, here's a better, more complete answer...the quote function isn't very good, so where it says "RMA", it should say "kevhtx": Yes, because that's the type of price discrimination you're trying to make fit: different pricing for the same item. But that only works in different markets, not the exact same market (that is, standing in line at a convention), because economists recognize that, in the real world, where you're not dealing with addicts, you can't openly charge different prices for the same thing at the same time based on what the consumer intends to do with the product. That would lead to rioting. Indeed, but they're not related to this situation in the way you're trying to use it. For example, the "children/senior" discount you tried to use earlier, which I debunked as an example of pricing dependent on who the buyer was, not what they were going to do with the item they obtained. No, I'm applying logic and reason to your argument, to demonstrate how it doesn't follow. The "one definition" I "picked out" is the one that is closest to the manner in which you're trying to use "price discrimination." We've already covered several other definitions as well, if you follow the conversation.

Nope. Read the link. And yes, for the creator, it is the exact same thing. Comic gets placed in front of them, comic gets signed, comic goes away. This is true, regardless of where that comic ends up. The witness doesn't make the creator sign a form (or you'd have a case!) The witness doesn't tell the creator where to sign. The witness doesn't tell the creator which pen/marker to use. The witness doesn't interact with the creator in any official capacity that would alter the function of the actual signing in any way. They are just standing there...WITNESSING the book(s) being signed. That's it. The conditions for the person getting the book signed are utterly, totally, and completely irrelevant to this entire discussion. They have no bearing on this discussion.

I don't really know how to explain this to you in any different ways so that you'll understand, so I'll just say it again: the conditions for the person obtaining the signature have absolutely zero bearing...none...on the conditions of the creator signing the book. And the issue is the SIGNING of the BOOK by the CREATOR and the cost of THAT action that we're discussing. Your conclusion is based on an irrational premise. And you keep saying things that NO ONE IS DISPUTING. Yes, the creator can "choose to discriminate." Why do you keep saying this, as if anyone is saying otherwise...? The JUSTIFICATION for discriminating does...not...exist. And I don't mean the rationalization...I mean the justification. The book goes in front of the creator. The creator signs. The book is removed. That's it. Same process. Same action. Same conditions for the creator, regardless of where the book might end up. So, by all means, keep saying the same thing...it's not going to change the facts. Why are you arguing so VOCIFEROUSLY...? Are you a creator who wants to rationalize your discrimination? Are you a facilitator making a cut of the higher price? If not, there's no reason for you to continue trying to argue this irrational position.

This is the first I have heard of facilitators asking customers what they will be doing with their books?? Unless you are referring to facilitators asking a customer if they are grading their book, then the facilitator, especially one who manages/handles a creator needs to make sure a creator's wishes are respected and observed. As for criticizing a creator for charging a higher fee for books to be graded, that is their right. No, this isn't what we're talking about at all. As for your last sentence, to whom are you referring as it being "their right"? The creator to charge, or the criticizer to criticize...? Hey, aren't you a facilitator who encourages creators to "charge extra" for CGC...?

Famous last words... Of course, you are incorrect. And of course, there is debating that, because you're using "price discrimination" in a way that is not what it means. Here's a really good extract of what price discrimination really is, from the book "Pricing and Revenue Optimization" by Robert Lewis Phillips: https://books.google.com/books?id=InuQPrC6GtQC&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false Notice that when the economist refers to different prices for the exact same product/service, he's not talking about different prices in the exact same market, but in DIFFERENT markets. And, what is called "first degree price discrimination", or selling to each customer at a different price, is based on what the customer is willing to pay...not what the seller is requiring different customers to pay for the same product/service. The two are entirely different concepts. There wasn't any point in arguing it 12 hours ago, and here we are. Your argument doesn't follow, because the conditions for the creator do not change. He or she is doing the exact same thing...signing a comic...utterly and completely regardless of what the owner of that comic is doing before, during, or after. Believe it or not, that doesn't change the fact, and it's quite the leap in logic to claim otherwise. "Here's my comic/s, will you sign it/them? Thanks." Creator signs. Same process, CGC, Voldermort, PGX, raw, doesn't matter. That SOME people in line MIGHT make a production of it doesn't change the fundamental reality: creator is signing. Same effort, same activity, same service, same product, regardless of where the book they signed ends up. It's a bad argument, based on bad reasoning. You can try and shoehorn the logic by saying the conditions of the person OBTAINING the signature are different, therefore it's entirely different altogether, but that doesn't make it so. The fundamental act of a creator signing a comic remains precisely the same. No one is arguing that creators don't TRY to justify their decision based on these conditions...of course they do!...but that doesn't alter the fact that what they're being asked to actually DO isn't any different., whether the book is raw, graded, burned, chopped into a delicious salad, or used as a chew toy for the dog. Sorry. Fascinating exchange, to be sure, but your reasoning isn't sound.

No, you are incorrect again. Have you ever gone through the Sig Series program as a witness and/or facilitator...? It seems like you haven't, so let me explain it for you in some detail: First, there are several people who are witnesses who work with facilitators as a team. You would not be able to identify us in a line if you did not know us personally. We do not wear "special clothes", or anything else that identifies us, nor should we, because our reasons for being in line FREQUENTLY aren't solely because of CGC. Creators do not identify us in line. In fact, the opportunity to lie to creators about who you are and why you want your books signed is a very real one, and though I won't do it, I have little doubt that others have. Second, even if you do have a "red shirt" with you, the "scenario" is only "altered" for the person obtaining the signature...NOT the creator. The creator has nothing to do with any of that. The creator has books placed in front of her or him, he or she signs them, and that's it. And that's true for everyone getting a signature, CGC or not. So, no, quite accurate here. The presence of a witness and/or facilitator has zero impact on what a creator is doing. And if it DOES have an impact, it's nearly universally the result of the inexperience of the person obtaining the signature. Nothing wrong with that, but that would be true of just about anyone who was new to something, CGC or not. Again, you must have very little experience with the program and obtaining signatures for yourself if you think this. Nothing wrong with that, but your opinion isn't an informed one. And even if that were not true, your reasoning is unsound. If a creator did identify someone wanting to be CGC'd...and EVERY honest witness/facilitator let's them know AHEAD OF TIME if they have two-tiered pricing...that doesn't justify having two different prices for the same service. These are more scenarios that aren't analogous. Giving a discount to a child is done because that person is a child...not because of what they intend to do later. Giving a discount to a service member is because that person is a service member...not because of what they intend to do later. Giving a discount to a senior is because that person is a senior...not because of what they intend to do later. In other words, the discount is dependent upon who the person obtaining the signature IS, not what they might do with it later. Such a discount by a creator is available to ALL children, or ALL service members, or ALL seniors, completely irrespective of their intentions with that signature afterwards. But with "raw" pricing and "slabbed" pricing, the entire premise for the separate charge is what the person obtaining the signature intends to DO with it afterwards. In other words, Joe Shlub in front of me is charged a different price than I am, not because he's a kid, or a service member, or a senior...but because of what the creator thinks he might do with it. And that is NOT "price discrimination" as you are trying to make it be. Can you imagine? I call up an airline, say I want to book a flight to New York, and they say "what is the purpose of your trip?" and I say "well, not that it's any of your business, but it's a business trip" and they say "oh, well, in that case, it will cost double, because you'll be making money, and since we helped you do that, we deserve a cut of your profit." Or the bus saying "oh, you're going to work? Great! That will be double the cost, because you're using our bus to make money, and since we made that possible, we deserve a cut of your wages." It's patent nonsense when applied to the real world, clearly. NO. CGC WILL NOT damage relationships with creators by willingly disregarding their requests, as petulant and ridiculous as they may be. CGC respects the right of EVERY creator to NOT have their signatures slabbed, if that's their choice. So far as Liefeld is concerned, until and if he changes his mind, there will NEVER. EVER be another slabbed book going forward under the SS program with his sig on it. And if you're a facilitator and/or witness, and a creator has a sign that has two-tiered pricing, and you just ignore it, you have no business being part of the Sig Series program. That doesn't mean you can't talk to the creator. It doesn't mean you can't negotiate with the creator. But if you just ignore them, and/or lie about your books and their ultimate destination, when they've made it clear that that have two-tiered pricing, you better hope no one finds out about it. I'm not sure why you think it "wouldn't really matter." Of course it matters. Integrity is key to the entire SS program, and a good deal of the shenanigans that have gone on have happened because people decided they didn't want to be honest.