RockMyAmadeus

This discussion IS about "emotions" behind all of this, which is a large part of the problem: people attempt to justify a "CGC punishment charge" by saying "won't someone PLEASE think of the CREATORS!", which is nothing more than a base appeal to emotion. You ARE correct when you say my emotion doesn't really mean all that much. In fact, it means nothing. But you need to be corrected on one point: having a line "outside the door" doesn't mean those people are all lining up to get their books slabbed. Quite the contrary. Doing informal (and definitely unscientific) surveys of people in line, I suspect that slabbing accounts for, at best, 25% of the people getting signatures. At best, mind you. The average number is probably 5-10%. If you have run as business, as you claim, how is it that you dismiss customer feedback so casually...? How often did you deal with customers directly...? The point where "everyone puts their wallets away and doesn't get in line" is far too late to "change" anything. Let me say that again, because it is absolutely critical: the point at which everyone "puts their wallets away and doesn't get in line" is far, far, FAR beyond the point of no return, because you have completely alienated your customer base. You would have to start from the ground floor...or maybe even digging yourself out of the pit you've dug, which is worse...and that's a thousand times more difficult than simply listening to customer feedback and adjusting as you go. And, as any successful businessperson will tell you, trying to change after all the customers have gone away is about as effective as shutting the barn door after all the horses are out. And lest you STILL think "complaining and protesting" doesn't accomplish anything, are you familiar with the slab "upgrade" of 2016...? What do you think resolved that issue? Everyone closing their wallet and going away? No. People saying "this isn't acceptable." In other words..."complaining and protesting."

The discussion is not about "rules." The discussion is not about about the creator's "right to do what they want." And you are quite incorrect if you believe "people don't care" about what they are charged for services they want. Unless you're a billionaire, and can burn $100 bills to light your cigar, then you care about your money and how it is spent. People "aren't saying anything" not because they don't care, but because of the reasons I already stated: they don't want to be cut off, they don't want to hassle anyone, they don't want to make waves, they still think it's a fair price (and sometimes it is), but mostly, it's because most of us are addicts, and behave like addicts. You are also quite incorrect if you think "complaining and protesting" doesn't work. See: Yelp. Are you aware of how many business take Yelp reviews seriously...? Why do you think that is...? The answer is because that's how businesses can get a feel for how they are doing BEFORE customers "stop spending money." You've never run a business, have you...?

The discussion isn't about "rules." The discussion isn't about "making money", nor is it about who is "behind the scenes." The discussion is about punishing fans and users of CGC by charging them a different, higher price for the exact same service because creators think "people are making FAT STACKS!!" off their signatures. And the only way anything changes is if customers say something. People "hitting the road" instead of saying something ends up only one way: companies going out of business. Is that the desired goal? No one can even contemplate change if they never know there's a problem. There are a TON of people who see "signatures, $5, for CGC, $20" and, instead of the creator making $100 for the couple of minutes it takes to sign 20 books, they get $0. Instead of CGC getting 20 books submitted, they get 0. That helps no one, and actively hurts everyone. I want to support Marv Wolfman. I care about his work, deeply. His work made a significant impact on an important time in my life. Batman #437 was the very first issue of Batman I ever bought, and HE wrote it. I would love to support him. But as long as he views me and people like me...aka "CGC people"...with contempt..and he does, and has said so...then I can't, in good conscience, support him. As long as he charges a "punishment tax" for people who want to get books slabbed, I will have to do without, even though there are books, like DC Presents #26, NTT #2, #44, etc, that, financially, are "worth doing." I will treasure the books I got signed before he instituted his policy. But he will not see any further support from me until and unless he changes his mind. And I am not alone.

Absolutely, positively, 100% agree with everything here. Everyone deserves to be paid for their work. No one should be expected to work for free. I have zero problem paying for sigs, and, when creators have not charged me, I have zero problem donating to Heroes Initiative, which is a great charity helping older creators who need assistance. There are two core problems, however, in the current "system": 1. People attempting to "stable" creators, and unbelievably convincing CGC to go along with it, whereby nobody can submit to the SS program except through THEM, based on fraudulent and/or misleading promises/information made or given to creators. This is MONOPOLY, and RESTRAINT OF TRADE, in my layman's opinion. 2. Creators being convinced by said "facilitators" that people are "making HUGE money off their sigs", so there needs to be a HIGHER charge for the SAME service if people are "CGCing them", exploiting both greed and fear in these creators. Several creators have openly admitted this. They don't understand what their signature actually does, and how it does...or does NOT...add value to the item being signed. But who else is being exploited...? We collectively pay this extortion...and extortion is what it is: "Oh, you want to get the book slabbed? You'll have to pay a higher price."...because we don't want to be cut off, we don't want to make waves, we don't want to hassle people, we justify it as "the cost of doing business", but mostly because we are addicts who behave in classically addicted manners. This addiction is absolutely being exploited. And a lot of folks don't see this in person, so they don't feel the impact directly. They don't see a creator signing 20 books for $10 for one person, and then you want your ONE book signed, but if it's "for CGC", you get charged the same price that the creator JUST SIGNED 20 books for...and yes, this is a real life example. But it's insulting to watch this happen in person, because it's just a cash grab, exploiting addictive behavior in collectors. If a creator thinks his sig is worth $10, then charge $10 for everyone. $100? Charge $100 to everyone. No one but the cheap would have a problem with this. If people think it's worth it, they'll pay it. If they don't, they won't. The value of an SS book, first and foremost, is in the condition of the book, not the signature. If Neal Adams signs a napkin, that napkin doesn't become worth $5,000. If Neal Adams signs a 3.5 copy of Green Lantern #82, that signature doesn't add even what Neal charges to its value. Neal signs a 9.6, and yes, now his sig adds value...usually...but only because it's a 9.6. Neal had nothing to do with looking for, purchasing, maintaining, storing, handling, preparing, going to the con, submitting to CGC, and paying ALL costs along the way, with a not-insignificant amount of risk involved at every step. So, Neal wants some of the reward, but takes NONE of the risk...? How does THAT work...? And, of course, CGC is hurt because they don't get submissions that they OTHERWISE CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE if these practices weren't happening. I've got hundreds...HUNDREDS...of Liefeld books I'd love to get signed and subbed, but I'm not paying a $20 extortion charge "if it's for CGC" to get a New Mutants #97, that MIGHT grade 9.4. That way lies madness. And, of course, for now and into the foreseeable future, I can't. And so creators are being exploited, and collectors are being exploited...follow the money, and you'll find out by whom. There is ZERO ethical justification for charging a higher price for the same service. None. A signature should be ONE price, regardless of what, and no one should be worrying about what happens to it after the fact. If you don't like people "making FAT STACKS!!!!" off your signature? Then contact your "facilitator" and submit your own books and make "all that money" yourself. And there would be a LOT of very rude awakenings then. If these things bother you, you should ABSOLUTELY say something, or it will never change, and the endless "$5 for raw, $10/$15/$25/$10,000 for CGC" will continue to be posted. Talk to creators, and explain your position. SHOW PICTURES! If creators see that the sketch cover that they did for you in 2009 is still in your possession, that might make an impact. And if you MUST support your addiction...and I'm with you, I understand!...STILL say something. Separate prices for the same service is UNETHICAL. But if we all just roll over and pay it, nothing will change. The people who cry and make emotional arguments like "oh, these poor creators deserve whatever they can get, they toil in obscurity for crumbs!" To that, I say: don't count my money, and I won't count yours. Rob Liefeld was a multimillionaire before the age of 30. So was Todd McFarlane. Neal Adams can spend a day or two drawing a cover and sell it for $25,000. And none of that is my business. But neither, then, is it THEIR business what I do with MY property. Sign it, don't sign it, charge, don't charge...but what I do with it after is none of your concern, and shouldn't be a factor in whether you charge me a surcharge above and beyond your regular signature price. But if someone feels that a creator needs help, there is absolutely nothing stopping those people from helping these creators directly and yet, oddly enough, those crying the loudest are usually the tightest with their purse strings. You want to do something to help the creators who are REALLY in need? Contact Jim McLaughlin at Heroes Initiative and ask if there's anything you can do, ESPECIALLY if there are creators who live near you who might need assistance. Put your money where your mouth is. PS. Rob Beachler is a dope, and doesn't know what he's talking about (see above Twitter reply.)

Creators have signed at conventions for decades without facilitators. Creators, in general, don't need facilitators. There's nothing "special" about the CGC process as it relates to a creator. While yes, some creators might like to have a facilitator for line management and cash handling, that doesn't need to be an "you can't submit to CGC unless you go through ME!!" situation at all. And there CERTAINLY doesn't need to be a two-tiered signature cost. That's just a plain cash grab, and while yes, people like Liefeld and Max certainly don't mind cash grabs, a lot of creators...like Wolfman or Wein or Claremont...simply don't, or didn't, understand what was actually going on. Wein's handler told me, to my face, that "people are selling them on eBay" as if that was some sort of legitimate answer to anything. Do SOME people sell SS slabs on eBay? Of course. Do ALL people sell SS slabs on eBay? God no! Do SOME people make "fat stacks!!!" off SS books? Yes, of course, but WHY? The answer is always the underlying condition of the book, NOT the signature. The signature is like a cherry on top of a sundae. If your Sundae is a 9.0 Amazing Spiderman #295, guess what? That Sin-Kev-Itch sig ain't adding a dime to its value.

JUST SAY NO to two-tiered, discriminatory pricing. JUST SAY NO to "oh, there's raw pricing, and CGC pricing" FOR THE EXACT SAME ACTION...signing a comic. JUST SAY NO to people asking you what you plan on doing WITH YOUR OWN PROPERTY, when it's none of their damn business in the first place. And yes, I'm just as much of an addict as the rest of you. I paid Claremont his extortion fee, I mean, his "CGC upcharge"....$3,000...at the NYCC, when he would have signed the exact same number of comics, in the exact same way, if someone said they WEREN'T "CGCing" them, for $1500. Yes, I paid it. Yes, Chris Claremont discriminated against me. But at least I got to deal with Claremont MYSELF. Creators can charge whatever they want...if Neal Adams wants $10,000 for his signature, more power to him. But if he's charging a DIFFERENT PRICE for the EXACT SAME SERVICE, based on what he thinks you *might* be doing with YOUR OWN PROPERTY...that's discrimination, and ought not be tolerated.

When facilitators began to make "exclusive" deals with creators, whereby no one could get a book signed AND slabbed by CGC under the SS program without going through them, AND THEM ALONE...that's when they crossed the line. It shouldn't be tolerated, by anyone, for any reason. It's one thing to pay someone to do the legwork to get a book signed for you. It is QUITE another to have some goon who is NOT the creator demand to know what your intentions are FOR YOUR OWN PROPERTY, and then, to add insult to injury, to charge a HIGHER PRICE FOR THE SAME SERVICE based on your answer. It's RIDICULOUS, it hurts creators, it hurts fans, it hurts CGC, and the only people it helps are these "facilitators" who think it's cute to make "stables" of "talent" that they "represent." And...I daresay that 90% of the creators have been told outright lies...like "anyone who does CGC is making FAT STACKS off your sig bro! You need a piece of that action, and I can get it for you!!!!" It's just extortion, plain and simple.

And isn't that exactly the sort of response you'd expect from someone who engages in such small minded behavior...? "You must have low self-esteem if you acknowledge my petty behavior." Note the attempt to diminish, using the words "mean" and "worried" and "upset" to give an emotional, juvenile connotation to it. No, it's just calling it for what it is: petty, small minded behavior. "The petty man is not ashamed of being unkind, nor is he afraid of being unjust." - I Ching. "It is not the great acts that make men evil, but the petty ones."

This has been done before. Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the old board had a "star" system. That is, if someone liked a post, they could rate it "5 stars", and if someone didn't...it was 1 starsville. Anyone can see the potential for abuse, and why it had to be scrapped. It's the type of "validation" that might be important to young people, but isn't necessary or appropriate when dealing with adults. "Popularity contests" are best left in high school. It's easy to be popular: just tell people what they want to hear.

It certainly doesn't help that some people abuse the "like" system by using it to "send a message" to those they don't like, out of spite. For example, you say something, and someone disagrees with you, and someone else comes along and hits the "like" button, not because they necessarily agree with that other person, but merely because that person is disagreeing with you. That's petty abuse. It's the same type of person who, in the past, would openly cheer when someone they didn't like got a strike. It's just small mindedness.

Interesting. Is being "overcharged" on shipping costs the same thing as someone falsely accusing you of defrauding them? That seems to be the corollary you're drawing, here.

There's no "luck" involved. As I said earlier, these are merely the consequences of people trying to do as little as possible for the most reward, which is human nature. These sorts of things happen all day, every day...most people simply don't report them, or, in fact, even care most of the time. As far as "Logan510" is concerned...he accused me publicly, on these boards, in late 2016, of charging him for a service in mid-2014 which he did not authorize, defrauding him in the process. This took a long time to reveal, as "Logan510" refused to be straightforward and state what the issue was, instead choosing to make oblique, snide comments about me while I was serving a month long "strike" (this was in November of 2016) and could not defend myself. He never mentioned a single word of dissatisfaction during and immediately after the transaction. In fact, he left a glowing post on my kudos thread, which has now been deleted. It was there yesterday, as it had been for nearly FOUR YEARS, and today...*POOF!* I have a copy of it somewhere, but not at my fingertips. One line that stood out was "to say I'm pleased with the results would be an understatement." Frankly, I'm stunned that moderation would delete it, no doubt at "Logan510"'s request. However, I take customer service very seriously, and I was greatly bothered by the fact that I might have charged someone for a service which they did not authorize. Regardless of the opinions of some, I care very much about making and keeping satisfied customers, as my kudos thread and eBay account attest. I was about to refund "Logan510" the amount that I had charged him, had quite literally started filling in the form at Paypal, but I wanted to make sure of the correct amount...so I went through the old PM thread, and discovered that "Logan510" had, in fact, authorized the service prior to it being performed. I gave several board members my password, to confirm for themselves that yes, indeed, "Logan510" had not only authorized the service...the dry cleaning of 23 books...but that he was incorrect about the amount charged, which was $30...a little over $1/book for dry cleaning. He also complained that it "took a very long time" to complete, when it took four weeks from the day I received them, to the day they were finished, and another week to send to CGC. "Logan510" no longer had access to that PM, since he had, unbeknownst to me, removed himself from it some time prior to late 2016. "Logan510" has, to date, never admitted his "mistake", nor has he apologized for falsely accusing me of defrauding him. That is Hall of Shame behavior, in my view. Since then, he has continued a campaign of harassment, making snide comments to and about me, attempting to provoke an altercation with me, at multiple points, on multiple message boards. This thread is only the latest example. He recently received another "strike" at Voldemort's board for harassing others there. Why did all of this have to be dragged out of him? Why did he not say a word in 2014 that he had a problem with any aspect of the transaction? (the answer is because he didn't, and made up the "unauthorized charges" story 2+ years later.) So "Logan510" is hardly in a position to be accusing others of making "false allegations." I would like for "Logan510" to simply go away and behave as if I didn't exist. I would also like his post in my kudos thread to be restored. Is that really that much to ask?

You’re probably right, but I like to judge these kinds of things on an individual basis. If I don’t trust one party doing all the talking, why would I assume everything they say is the truth without hearing from the other party? You are the very essence, definition, and embodiment of the concept of "bad faith." There is no discussing with you, because your goal is vengeance, not understanding. Please stop trying to pick fights and MOVE. ALONG. (Last post on page 2, if anyone is wondering why this is here.)

There are always two sides, of course. But that's the point of reporting every word the other party says: you're giving their side, too. It's disingenuous, dishonest, and provocative to imply that someone, in that situation, is only giving one side, and that the other side needs to be "heard." They were. Every word of it. There's nothing more (for now) to hear.

You're conflating that which is within their purview...shipping methods of the USPS...and that which is not...the use of shipping materials of other companies. Not a valid comparison.

That's been true far longer than our current society. Besides, I don't want the USPS policing things that aren't their job to police. I'd rather let the police do the policing. Letting the police do their job isn't giving approval for bad behavior.

Yes, it's "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (if we're going to use archaic language.) It's not "...and make sure everyone else is doing unto others what you would have them do, too."

Yes. In fact, the broken pieces were still in the CGC "slab bag" itself (and some of them are still inside the slab, as referenced above.) This damage happened while the slab and its bag were still inside the padded envelope.

"Personal", in the manner I'm using it, doesn't mean "of or pertaining to a specific person." In the sense that I'm using it, it means "of or pertaining to a single (as in "one", not as in "unmarried") person, rather than a group of people." There's a difference in meaning there. And the question was rhetorical. You don't want me deciding what's best for you, anymore than I want you doing it for me. It leads to abuse. In the same way, I don't want USPS to stick their noses into policing UPS boxes, because it leads to abuse. And there's a difference between telling someone what you think they should do, and actually making them do it.

What's even more interesting is that the slab was damaged in the padded envelope (you can see the impact crease in the envelope), AND...the padded envelope has my name and address written on it, doubtless in the seller's handwriting. So the padded envelope was part of the shipment from the beginning. I suspect they thought of shipping it just in the padded envelope (and who knows...it may have survived!), thought better of it, tossed it in a box, and said "Bon Voyage!" And to most of the world, I doubt such damage would even have been noticed. It's not like the slab is broken in two, and you certainly couldn't have told just by looking at the slab inside the envelope. But in the "9.8 or bust!" world we occupy, it's obviously a very serious deal. And we don't even know who was supposed to have "switched boxes"...UPS, or USPS! I think that this is an after-the-fact ruse to make an insurance claim, while getting the book back. Occam's razor is in play.

Absolutely. And lest anyone think otherwise, my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek, start to finish. Jolly has some wonderful books, and Hammy is one of the best guys on the CGC boards, by a long shot. I just need to be quicker when he's around. He's a shark, that one. Thanks for the opportunity, Jolly. Really, great books!

You are the very essence, definition, and embodiment of the concept of "bad faith." There is no discussing with you, because your goal is vengeance, not understanding. Please stop trying to pick fights and MOVE. ALONG.

You are the very essence, definition, and embodiment of the concept of "bad faith." There is no discussing with you, because your goal is vengeance, not understanding. Please stop trying to pick fights and MOVE. ALONG.