RockMyAmadeus

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.

No, sorry, but with the respect that is due, none of that makes any sense and you're making confused arguments. A "contractor doing his job" isn't an example. And if a customer finds out that someone is charging them more than they would charge under other circumstances, the answer is simple: they hire another contractor. And none of this has anything to do with "Economics 101", and price discrimination takes place because of different conditions. That is, commercial customers are charged different prices than residential customers, or there are different quantities involved, or there are different types of customers involved (seniors, adults, children, for example), or timing differences. In all those cases, the CONDITIONS are DIFFERENT. That has nothing to do with the situation being discussed here. I don't walk into Home Depot, pick up a hammer, and have the cashier ask me what I intend to do with it, then charge me a DIFFERENT PRICE depending on what my answer is. THAT is the issue being discussed here. I'll ask again: do you have any REAL LIFE examples, not THEORETICAL examples, to demonstrate your point? Once more: Guy in front of me has a copy of X-Men #237, wants it signed by Chris Claremont. It's "not for CGC." It's $5. Guy behind me has a copy of X-Men #237, wants it signed by Chris Claremont. It's "not for CGC." It's $5. I have a copy of X-Men #237, want it signed by Chris Claremont. Because I'm honest, I tell him it IS for CGC. It's $10. What was the difference? Nothing. The same exact conditions, the same exact circumstances, the same exact service, the same exact effort, the same exact product, on the same exact comic, at almost the same exact time. Nothing is different other than where Chris Claremont thinks my book is going to end up, which is none of his business. It's not his right to know that. It IS his right to control his signature any way he sees fit, but there are CONSEQUENCES to discrimination. Except it's not the same logic, as explained above. And that's not what subsidizing means, or how it works. Regardless, their justification could be that they're supporting homeless cats; the reason is irrelevant. You and a couple people making the same type of argument as you don't seem to recognize that creators are human beings, and business people, who aren't in the habit of alienating their fans unnecessarily. The reason they come to cons...and let's be honest, creators don't come to cons because they think they're fun. They are WORK. The goal is to MAKE MONEY. It is COUNTER to that goal to make bad business decisions based on bad information. Marv Wolfman could have made a couple thousand dollars from just me alone in the last 2+ years for literally a couple of hours...AT MOST...of his time. It's some of the easiest money there is! And he's not opposed to signing, obviously. He's made nothing from me. That's not a good business decision. By all means, if you want to pay more for the same service, there's nothing whatsoever stopping you from handing more money to creators. Is there? No. If you don't think they should charge more, why are you arguing so vociferously in opposition to people making that case to them...? What advantage is it to you to sit here and argue the opposite? Just to be argumentative...? At least I, and those like me, have a goal in mind. Sitting here and arguing that "well, they have the right to do whatever they want!" when that's NEVER been in contention, and "it's their pen, you want it, you'll fork over the dough!" as if creators can't be reasoned with, doesn't really make much sense. But you are entirely correct about one thing: if no one speaks up, you're 100% correct that nothing will change, and it will only get worse.

This is one of the unintended consequences of having "exclusive" representation of creators: the "exclusive" facilitators, like all monopolies, become unresponsive to customer concerns, because, well...where are you going to go if you want a Todd McFarlane signature in a yellow label...? This is a tale that has been told over and over and over and over again, and yet...nothing changes, because, well...where are you going to go if you want a Todd McFarlane signature in a yellow label...? And if you don't trust the "exclusive" people, then what? Trust is hard to earn and easy to burn, justified, unjustified, if you don't trust someone, you don't trust them. It's one thing to have the creator manhandle your books. My facilitator can attest to watching me have silent heart attacks when someone bends your books in half. That's the "suck it up, fanboy, that's just the way it is, and you have to deal with it" part of the equation. But it's entirely another to have someone who is NOT the creator handle, and potentially mishandle, your books...books that you spent perhaps decades worrying over like a mother hen over her chicks, making sure not the slightest damage came to them in any way. Whether that's physically mishandling them, or losing them, or not turning them in when they need to be, or whatever. And it's not like Todd doesn't go to cons and sign all the time. He does. So there's no logistical reason why he should operate with CGC the way he does. But he thinks that CGC is a "dealer" thing, which is why he has those private signings only, to which you must trust a group of individuals, and only that group, with your books, start to finish, and if you don't...again, justified or not...too bad. You're out of luck. And, again...addicts...God forbid you say or do anything that makes any of these guys angry, because some of them have no problem cutting you off. I've watched it happen with my own eyes. So, scenarios like this get repeated over and over and over again...but if there was free trade and competition, these guys would have to earn trust, rather than saying "where else are you going to go?"

I'm rich! Now my 600 copies of Brigade #1 Gold that I have been carting around for nearly 20 years will FINALLY be worth something! MWAH HA HA HA!!!! I have CORNERED the MARKET!!

+++++++++++++++++++++

(sob) Yes. Oh God, the answer is yes. I'm so ashamed.

I read the opening post and can put it towards the character of person he is. Liefeld and a few other creators cough N. Adams cough are simply greedy and both come across as they only care about money. But, wait, why are you complaining that they're greedy? After all, it's their right to be greedy, so no use complaining about it or crying over spilt milk... N'est-ce pas...? But my post was in response to your contention that Liefeld has no issue with CGC. That is quite obviously not the case, whatever the underlying reasons may be.

By the way...reading this here, it doesn't seem as if she gave you back your money. Was that actually the case? If so, she stole from you. I mean, I assume she signed something else, but that can't be gleaned from the information you've shared here.

That's correct. And that's also not in contention.

Great. Got any....? And I don't mean where people pay different amounts because of scuzzy business practices. I mean people who are CHARGED different amounts for the exact same service/product, under the exact same conditions as everyone else.

Your analogies do not work. You are not accurately describing the situation being discussed. At issue here is the DIFFERENCE in price for the SAME service. You're not asking for a "special color" or a "specially designed room." You're asking for the same thing as the "raw" customer: a signature. The "raw" customer pays $X, but the "slabbed" customer pays more. You're not asking for a "special" signature, or a "sketch", or anything other than the exact same thing they're ALREADY WILLING TO DO for the "raw" customer for a lower price. As far as the services you mention, it's none of their business what you intend to do with it. If they find out, then yes, they might attempt to scam you. But that doesn't make it good business practice. Got any real life examples of your contention...? Not just "might", but "do"?

Did you read the post which started this thread? I'm getting the impression that you didn't.

What you're describing here is a PRE-condition, which is perfectly acceptable. A handful of people keep making the same erroneous argument: that anyone is suggesting that creators don't have the right to control their signatures. No one has said this. Not once. Ever. So it's a good idea that people stop arguing against positions that have never been taken, because it continues to muddy up the conversation with points that no one is contending. The problem isn't whether someone has a right to do that...they do...it's whether it's good business practice or not. And it's clearly not. It's discriminatory. And, it is a decision based on false information. Decisions based on false information are always going to be bad business practice, by definition. No, those situations aren't analogous. In that instance, his choice was based on his INFORMED opinion about what he wanted to do with his signature. He had all the information in front of him that he needed to make the decision he made. His decision wasn't based in misinformation. Same with Lee Meriwether. She would have charged you $30 for an 8x11, but decided that to sign a poster was more. Her right, but more importantly, an informed decision. Rob Liefeld charges more for New Mutants #87, 98, and various other books. I have no problem with that, and have said so, on multiple occasions, on multiple platforms. And all the rest of the examples that both you and "kevhtx" have brought up aren't relevant to the discussion, because they are not in contention. One more time: no one is disputing the RIGHT of the signer to sign under ANY CONDITIONS they so choose. If Nichelle Nichols doesn't want to sign your poster, because she believes you're going to go home and cuddle naked with it under the covers, that's her RIGHT. It's also none of her business, and quite rude to ask. And it's bad for business to discriminate, especially based on inaccurate perceptions. Doesn't mean she doesn't have the RIGHT. Are you seeing the difference...? Oh, no no no. Sorry, but that is not even remotely true. See Revat's posts above.

No, they don't. If I hire a painter to paint my house, he has no right to know what I plan on doing with the house upon which his paint job was performed. If I hire a contractor to build me a house, he has no right to know what I intend to do with that house. If I hire a plumber to install a toilet, he has no right to know what I intend to do with that toilet. If I buy a car from a dealer, she has no right to know what I intend to do with that car. If I buy a loaf of bread from a store, they have no right to know what I intend to do with that loaf. If I buy a signature from a creator, he has no right to know what I intend to do with that signature. Once it's signed and paid for, the service is performed, and that specific set of ink atoms no longer belongs to the creator. He/she has ZERO claim on it, of any kind. What you are suggesting...that one party has some sort of "right" or "claim" upon property that they've sold or performed some service upon, independently of the other party's acceptance of said terms...is entirely outside of the theory and practice of "contract rights" in the entire history of US Law, and the English Common Law upon which it is built.

I know, I would have loved to have gotten him to sign my Aria books. I got somewhere in the vicinity of 40 books signed by Jay at C2E2 and SDCC last year, and the logistics just didn't work out. But man do my Aria books look lovely. Anybody remember Aria...? Anyone...? (crickets) Edit to add: want to hear something depressing? The Jay Anacleto Sketchbook, which was one of THE HOTTEST books of the summer of 1999...? There's not one single copy of the regular or the variant on the census. There are a handful of the gold linens, but not one of the regular or the variant. Not. One. How sad is that...?

He was at the Stan Lee Comicon in October. Would have been the perfect time to get him.

Have you seen my Spawn collection? From one oddball to another, I greet you! Besides, your Spawn collection is a thing of beauty. I'd love to get a complete set in 9.8 signed by Todd and Greg (and Dave and Frank and Alan and Neil and Whilce, where appropriate), but do you know how much that would cost? Tens and tens of thousands of dollars.

No, but they certainly can choose who they do, and do not, do business with. The reason it's the way it is now is because a certain handful of somebodys got the swell idea of creating a monopoly, and has spent the last 2-3 years going around to creators and saying "See here, my good man! This CGC business is the bee's knees! Everyone's making wheelbarrows full of cash doing it, and there's no reason why you shouldn't be getting your slice of that pie! Why, look at how much this New Mutants #98 sells for without a signature, and then see what one WITH your signature is worth! (Shows 9.8 listing of quadruple signed NM #98 at 5 times market value) In fact, if you tell CGC that you will only allow people to submit through us, I can make sure you get wads and wads of dough! Think about it, old chap: we give you line management, money management, and you can get a piece of the action that you deserve, and we only take a tiny percentage in payment! And, of course, you sign anything we want for free. A small price to pay to get your fair share of the action! Whaddaya say??" And creators...because they have better things to do with their lives than research the ACTUAL market realities of the Sig Series program...fall for the "slick" sales pitch hook, line, and sinker. And it's not as if they don't get something out of it. They certainly do. But it comes at a significant cost that is hidden from most of them, and built on a foundation...that everyone slabbing for Sig Series is making "Fat stacks of cash!!!"...that is not only not true, it is foundationally untrue. The schemers are pointing to the very highest end, and pretending that that's indicative of the entire SS market. But they don't know any better, and they think collectors are weirdos anyways...after all, what's wrong with you, says Alan Moore, that you'll pay $300 for a copy of Swamp Thing #37 when you can get the story for $10 in a trade? And if you'll pay $300 for that, you shouldn't have any problem paying $20 for my signature, and hey, I DESERVE part of that money you're making off my sig anyways! It's genius, really. Someone found a way to play on all the fears and resentments and petty jealousies of creators, to make themselves a good deal of cash. And it all would have worked, if they'd just not tried the whole "$X for raw, $X + Y for graded" scheme...but that, of course, is the wheel on which the whole system turns: "people are making wheelbarrows of dough getting these books slabbed, and you're missing out!!!" Except: 1. 75-99% of SS books end up in the hands of collectors. Or do people think that they just get traded over and over again between flippers at ever spiraling prices? Marv Wolfman does. He told me so. And I don't mean they're "flipped" to the hands of collectors, although that's true, too. No, the vast majority of SS books getting done are going right to collectors, from the start. 2. Signatures, in and of themselves, add very little to comic books. They only amplify what is...or is NOT...already there. Get Rob and Stan and Fabian and Fred Flintstone to sign a New Mutants #98, and it comes back a 9.8? Yes, if you sell it, you're probably going to profit, depending on your acquisition cost. Get Rob and Stan and Fabian and Fred to sign a 6.0 copy of New Mutants #98? You're going to lose money if you try to sell it. Try to sell a copy of New Mutants #97 signed by Rob and Stan and Louise in ANY grade? Good luck with that! You'd lose less money BURNING the book instead. 3. Since the vast majority of the value of almost every book is in its CONDITION...which creators have nothing whatsoever to do with, outside their own personal copies...why do they have any claim on the value that book has in that condition on the open market? If ANYTHING, their claim would be on the DIFFERENCE between what a signed and unsigned copy in the same grade would sell for. And even then, that difference only exists at all because of the book's condition which, again, the creator had nothing to do with (see #2.) 4. All of which is none of the creators' business in the first place. What someone does with their property isn't anyone else's business. If I want to slab it, rip it up, bury it, roll it up and smoke it, what business is it of theirs? None. But, remember: addicts and don't want to be cut off, so we say nothing out of fear. No, playing on the fears, resentments, and jealousies of creators, and the addictions of collectors, is nothing but exploitation, pure and simple. Genius...but exploitation nonetheless. And, because CGC wants to respect the wishes of creators, and have good working relationships with them, they allow these schemes to operate, because I don't think they really grasp why it's a scheme, either. And, because comic collectors are addicts, and behave like addicts, they're afraid to say anything because they don't want to be cut off. And here we are.

I guess that's good for them. The seller was keyword spamming all of his listings, and when I brought it up, he basically said "like some cheese to go with that whine?" Looks like eBay made them change some of them at least, though the MM #15 was still nice n' spammy. They got hammered on their other stuff. That MM #24 9.8 was gotten for a song. I would have happily bid double, but the seller was being a skadoosh. The MM #15 also got whacked, too.

And lest anyone think otherwise, I LOVE the SS program. It's all I do. I think the Signature Series program is the greatest thing to do with comic collecting in my lifetime. I've been involved with it for 10 years now, and I only wish I had discovered it sooner. I love meeting creators, I love getting them signed, I love combining that with my passion for ultra high grade books. I love the whole process, start to finish. Do I sound like someone who doesn't give a hoot about comics, or creators, and am only in it for the flip? Who bothers with having a 9.8 run of Liefeld New Mutants? Or Lim Silver Surfers? Or Sam Kieth Batman covers? Or Bissette & Totleben Swamp Things? Or Sam Kieth MCPs? Or McFarlane Inifnity Incs? Or Sam Kieth Sandmans? Or Jim Lee Alpha Flights? Or Sam Kieth Maxx? I DO! And there aren't too many other oddballs out there like me. Everyone wants the New Mutants #98 and the NYX #3 and the Swamp Thing #37 and the Miracleman #15. But I want those AND the Tec #655 and the Infinity Inc #28 (Mr. Bones!) and the Sandman #5 and the Silver Surfer #31. Yes, I absolutely sell SS slabs. And yes, I have no problem with doing it. It helps fund my addiction, and gets odd, hard to find creators/books into the hands of other people like me. Submitting to CGC is EXPENSIVE. But I don't complain about it, because I don't count your money, if you don't count mine. But when people who DON'T care about comics, who DON'T have any interest in anything but the $$$, come in and virtually take over the program...and worse, arrange it so you have to go through THEM to do it, and drive up the cost for all involved, as if everyone is just in it for the flip...well, I, and people like me, take it personally.

And that's where explaining it to them...rather than lying to them...would go a long way. But people talking to them with respect, person to person, is hard to do when you're dealing with your idols. I know they've been lied to. I've heard it out of their mouths. "I usually don't charge, but so and so told me I should charge such and such if it's for CGC, because people are selling them." Straight out of Steve Englehart's mouth in 2016. And who told him that? A facilitator! Terribly disappointing to me. What is Englehart's sig worth? Very little. And he has ALWAYS signed for free. But what would it have been worth TO ME to get his run on Silver Surfer double signed by him and Lim, who happened to be at the same con, which is very rare? Priceless. I had this book, among several others, at his table, ready for him to sign...but because someone convinced him that he had to charge such and such, and because I'm not made of money, I had to make a decision, and not get it signed, among others. Who cares about Silver Surfer #31? Nobody. But I do, and even though I was right there, I had to make a decision, and didn't get it signed. I did get this one double signed, because it was important to me, but it sure did put a black cloud over the day. I look at them, and think "damn it. I was RIGHT THERE, the books on the table, ready to go." I still have both of these, and have added a few more Lim Surfers to the run. They are personal favorites of mine. But in that case, because someone had misrepresented what CGC is all about...someone who has been a facilitator for over a DECADE...I had to make a financial decision, so...he loses, I lose, CGC loses...it's sad.

I disagree with you entirely that "you have to do more than complain and protest." Without what you characterize as "complaining and protesting" (your words, not mine), I call "customer feedback", because that's what it is. Look at how you categorize customer feedback: "complaining and protesting." That's how you view the situation, because you disagree, so you use words with negative connotations to characterize my position in an unfavorable manner. After all...who wants to complain and protest? Only agitators and troublemakers, right? And no one wants to be an agitator and troublemaker, right...? And who said anything about "griping and complaining"? Only you. And that's just a single example of how discussions can be framed. So, I will continue to refer to it as customer feedback, which it is, and say, one more time, that without customer feedback....what you negatively characterize as "complaining and protesting"...NO business will ever figure out what the problem is. Also, look at how you characterize giving customer feedback to the creator: "lecturing him on his ethics." Who said anything about "lecturing creators on their ethics"...? Nobody. You can discuss something...as I did, sitting at Marv Wolfman's dining room table back in 2015...without "lecturing him on his ethics." I presented my case to him, and he responded, and we had a conversation about it. Did it change anything? No, not yet. But I can guarantee that saying nothing would assure him of never having to think about it from any perspective but his own. And, as I stated before, I chose to "close my wallet" as it applies to Marv Wolfman. Marv Wolfman hasn't gotten a dime from me since the fall of 2015, and it will remain that way until and if he changes his policy. But I ALSO said that we're dealing with addict behavior, here, and addict behavior doesn't always make rational decisions, obviously. So, in some cases, one needs to accommodate their addictions and make compromises. That doesn't mean that handing them your money renders your feedback moot. Believe it or not, but creators are people, too, and many of them CAN be reasoned with, if you treat them like people, rather than demi-gods who must be worshiped.

The first one..."attempting to make fat stacks"...has no meaning. Anybody can ask anything they want...some fool put up a Plastino signed slab for $8,000 or so, and caused Plastino to lose his mind, sadly. But it doesn't mean anything unless they sell. If I ask $1,000,000 for a Milgrom signed Hulk #267 in 7.5, does that mean anything? No. The second one is fair, so let's discuss it: You have, as of this moment, 236 SOLD listings for "rob liefeld signed." Since this isn't a discussion about signed books PER SE, but rather signed SLABBED books, let's cut out the non-slabbed books right off the top. 104 out of the 236 listings in your link are NOT slabbed. So, right away, those are tossed out of the discussion. So that leaves 132 slabbed listings. Of those 132, 3 are not sig series, so they're out. That leaves 129 SS slabs of the CGC, Voldermort, or (GASP!) PGX variety. Based on the rates above, a generic book signed by Liefeld costs $40. To get it "CGC'd" costs an additional $20. To actually HAVE it CGC'd is about $40-$60, depending on quantity. Selling an item on eBay usually costs about 11-13%. Keep in mind: "Deadpool" comics cost more. "New Mutants #87 and #98" cost more. "X-Force" comics cost more. Just to break even, a slab like this MUST sell on eBay for an average of approximately $150. That's just to break even. NO PROFIT BEING MADE OF ANY KIND. So...not even considering the value of the underlying book, of the 129 slabbed listings...40...or nearly 1/3...sold at "break even" OR A LOSS. Again, that's not even considering the value of the underlying copy. That's setting the value of that book at $0, which we all know isn't the case. The remaining 90 or so slabs, then, must make *some* profit, right...? Maybe. The cost of the underlying copy usually isn't free. How much did the seller pay to obtain it? Don't know. How long did the seller have it before getting it signed and slabbed? Don't know. Is the seller the one who got it signed and slabbed, or is the seller someone who bought it from someone else already signed and slabbed? Don't know. What is the difference between a signed copy and an unsigned copy in the same grade? Depends on the book. Have SS'd copies sold for LESS THAN their unsigned counterparts in the same grade? Yes! So, considering those 90 or so slabs, how many sold in the "$10-$50 profit" range? Or, not what anyone would call "fat stacks"...AGAIN, setting the value of the underlying copy to ZERO DOLLARS. That answer is 28 to 29. Again, as this cannot be stressed enough: that assumes the value of the underlying book is ZERO DOLLARS. So, in the $225+ range...the so-called "profit" makers...you have roughly 60 slabs. Several of them are signed by Stan, which adds another $120 to the cost, so we can safely throw out ANY book selling for less than $300 as "unprofitable." And that's assuming the sigs were gathered at the same time, and there are no multiple submissions to contend with. So, taking ALL of that into account...and again, assuming the value of the underlying book is set to ZERO DOLLARS...you have a mere 37 slabs that sold for what anyone would remotely call a worthwhile profit. If you take into account that not all 37 books were acquired for ZERO DOLLARS...then, of course, the "profit" being made is much, much less. And, of those 37 books...assuming a ZERO DOLLAR acquisition cost...TWENTY of them are represented by a SINGLE BOOK: New Mutants #98. You know what you DON'T see in that list? New Mutants #97. New Mutants #92. X-Factor #40. Hawk & Dove #1 Ltd. New Mutants Annual #5. X-Force #6. Youngblood #2. All sorts of books that Liefeld worked on, that are represented by SS copies, which weren't sold. And that's 2-3 MONTHS worth of sales being considered. Accounting. It's not just for nerds anymore. The moral? Don't count other people's money, and they won't count yours. Creators are businesspeople, by necessity...they're being foolish if they're looking at the surface and coming away with erroneous conclusions. That's like walking into a comic store and being offended that someone is selling a New Mutants #98 for $800. "I only made 3 cents on that copy, and you're trying to sell it for $800!!" Liefeld might complain. And? So? What does that have to do with anything? What business is it of Rob Liefeld's what you do with YOUR PROPERTY, that you obtained legally? NONE! "Oh no, someone's (probably) making MONEY off of me that *I* should be making!!! GASP!!!!!" Fine, Rob Liefeld: submit your own books. Problem solved. Charge more for your signature. Problem solved. But don't punish people based on your almost entirely ERRONEOUS fear that EVERYONE doing Sig Series is somehow making a mint off of your signature. After all...didn't the publisher, printer, distributors, and local stores ALSO make money off of you? And didn't they do so based on far MORE effort than just your signature? YES! And that was the tradeoff YOU CHOSE to get YOUR WORK out to the public. No one was stopping you from self-publishing, self-printing, self-distributing, and self-retailing...right? One more time: the value of any slabbed book is in the condition of the underlying copy. Since creators have absolutely nothing whatsoever with preserving that condition, what right do they have to be "afraid" that someone is "profiting" off of them? Do they know the difference in value between a New Mutants #98 in 9.8 vs. one in 9.4? Based on the 90 day average, it's $992 vs. $405. That's a substantial difference in price. And do we know if any of those 9.4s were cracked 9.6s? Or, God forbid, 9.8s? Don't know. That would have been a terrific loss. It's a fallacious argument, obviously, to point to a link and say "people making fat stacks" when none of the factors going into making these things come into being are discussed in any way. So, hopefully you were going for the ironic "yes, nobody is actually making a fortune selling Liefeld signed items." It's classic judging by the appearance, rather than the substance. Do people walk up to you and ask you how much you paid for the comics you sell? Do you answer them? I doubt it. If you paid $1 for something, and kept it in perfect condition for 20 years, and then offered it for sale for $800, and someone came along and said "I know you only paid $1 for that. I'll offer you $5, and you'll be quintupling your money!" would you go for it...? What if you bought something the day before for $100, but you priced it at $500, because that's what it was currently worth, but someone came along and asks how much you paid for it? Would you sell it to them for $120? How about $150? Hell, you're making a profit, aren't you? Shouldn't you be happy? Of course not. Don't count my money, and I won't count yours. Things to consider: There are, as noted, 236 "rob liefeld signed" items for sale. Rob signs 236 items in about 20-30 minutes, depending. Rob signs thousands....thousands...of books at each and every convention he attends. 236 listings against the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of items he's signed. Not all the listings for "Rob Liefeld Signed" captured all of the SS listings, but it's close enough to make the point. Everyone ALWAYS considers "the winners", but never seems to manage to consider the many, many losers it takes to produce one winner.