RockMyAmadeus

That was mostly sarcasm on my part. If you think that comic book creators...not superstar athletes...are going to sign "exclusive signature contracts" with ANYONE, which will determine just where, when, and how they will sign ANYTHING, bucking decades of tradition, then either you don't really understand the dynamics at play here, or I have wildly underestimated the situation. I'll leave it to others to determine who is correct. Think about the practicality of that for a moment. It's not as if employees of Company Y are going to these creators, to try and get them to sign outside of Company X's auspices. These are FANS or, at the very least, private individuals. If a creator WANTS to sign, he's going to sign, contract or no. Good luck on Company X trying to sue a creator in that situation, and if they DID, you can better believe no more creators will be signing with Company X...EVER. And why won't Company X, or ANY company, be pursuing such a situation in the first place...? Because there's absolutely no money in it. Oh, sure, it looks like there is, and there would be for the "hottest" creators...for a while. But once the prices start escalating to pay for "enforcers", and fans can't get through to creators AT ALL without going through the wall, then it will be tumbleweeds and ghost towns. And creators like Mike Golden and Mike Zeck ALREADY don't like how Renee Witterstaetter treats their fans like cash cows. How do I know? Because the minute she's out of earshot, the prices go down, and the atmosphere gets much more relaxed. They tolerate it because she does make them money, but they certainly don't like it. By the way...if a creator can't sign a Marvel comic...fine, let's say the comic industry was even REMOTELY healthy enough to be dictating terms like that...even if it was, you could still get something else signed. Jim Lee doesn't like to sign Marvel books...he's the "co-whatever-in-charge" of DC. But he WILL sign them, with a grumble. PS. Earlier, you said "creators...decide that they too should make on their hard work", it wasn't clear until after that you were talking about SIGNATURES, not the actual creations, themselves. That's why I emphasized ownership of the COPY. It wasn't clear at first that by "hard work" you meant "signing comics." I wouldn't classify signing even a few thousands books as "hard work." Maybe that's just me. We most certainly do, and I think each of us has made our cases in a way that clarifies the situation quite well. I appreciate the dialogue, but these arguments need to be internally consistent. Trying to compare the contract situation of LeBron James...who cannot play professionally for other teams while under contract with Cleveland...to "exclusive" companies providing a service to creators as it currently stands, is not consistent, logically. As far as not going to get into a back and forth, it's probably a bit late for that, but I think that's a good call on your part.

Yes, it can. It already happens and has for years. In sports. Many athletes have contracts with and get paid by sports card companies that they won't sign for other companies. Do they do it in secret/private? Im sure they do. In public signings though and for the most part, they don't. YES! YES, EXACTLY! Now you're with me! Notice the words you used: won't sign for other companies. And it need not even be "in secret/private"...if I'm just Joe Blow off the street, and not "Company Y", and I walk up to whomever and say "will you sign this?"...there's nobody in the world that is going to say "uh, sorry buddy, my signature's under contract, and I can't sign anything unless it's at an official "Company X" event." Talk about UNENFORCEABLE contract clauses. If, however, you are NOT an "other company", there's nothing preventing your things from being signed. And unless Company X is willing to pay, say, Andy Kubert a million dollars or so, Andy Kubert's PROBABLY not going to sign a "will not sign under any other conditions" contract with Company X...not that Company X won't try. Not saying Andy Kubert couldn't...just saying it's highly unlikely he would. I'm glad we're on the same page.

In my view, thats not the issue here at all. The product here is the signature, sketch/remakr, not the comic book. So, none of that matters. That's correct. However, you can't then argue that the creator "wants a part of it", since they have nothing to do with the "new creation" of a signed and slabbed comic, other than the signature. "That's my point! Their signature is creating value!" As I have exhaustively detailed elsewhere in this thread, that's not necessarily true. If creators want a "cut" of the "signature profit", then they should also accept the RISK of the "signature loss"...that is, the cost of the signature should be commensurate with the value added/not added/taken away to/from the actual book. That's a legitimate argument...IF the creator is willing to accept the risk involved...no risk, no reward...but in practice, no one is going to be willing to do the accounting for such a venture. It's simply too unwieldy. And, let's be frank: if a book is LESS valuable because of a signature, what creator in their right mind would be willing to PAY a customer for their signature, which is taking this accounting to its logical conclusion? In other words: if your signature adds, say, 20% to the average value of a book, the creator is owed a certain percentage of that 20% as the fee for the signature. What percentage could be determined. If, however, your signature adds nothing to the value of the book, the creator gets nothing for the signature. And, if the book is worth LESS because of your signature (a rare thing, but it does happen...see above) OR the book sells for LESS than the cost to obtain an SS slab...then the creator OWES that percentage of the loss to the owner of the book. That's how business works...if you want the reward, you have to take the risk. Realistically, however, who is going to agree to this...? While I doubt such a contract clause would EVER stand up to a court challenge, I don't have any idea what "If this were a situation where the publisher was selling the book before the signature and then the collectors were getting them signed, obviously the creator has the say so" means. Can you please clarify/restate? I have no idea what you're referring to re: Stan Lee. How do you know how he has "made his living these past decades"? I imagine that's something that only Stan, his accountants, lawyers, and those he chooses to tell know. So, to what are you referring? I already explained this. You tried to use LeBron James as an example, and as I already said, it's not as if the creators are RESTRICTED by CONTRACT from signing anything outside of the auspices of the exclusives. LeBron is RESTRICTED from playing for other teams by CONTRACT. They're not analogous. So, if a "Company X" has a "talent" which chooses to only sign FOR SLABBING with that "Company X", and you CANNOT get your books signed and slabbed...by CGC's choice, mind you, there's nothing whatsoever from preventing them from slabbing signed books, with OR WITHOUT the permission of said creators, legally OR ethically...that's a MONOPOLY. I respect that CGC of their own free will, and under no obligation whatsoever, HONORS the requests of creators to not slab their signed books under yellow labels (they have ALWAYS been willing to slab them in Qualified labels)...they don't have to, and the only actual legal control a creator would have is to simply choose not to sign at all. CGC does it to maintain good will. They are under absolutely ZERO obligation, legally OR ethically, to do so. And...I suspect that if CGC chose to force the issue and slab SS whether the creator wants it or not, what would creators do...? Not sign at all? Customers would be under ZERO obligation to disclose what they intend to do with the book (as, indeed, they are not NOW), so the only real choice a creator would have is to simply not sign. That would create a backlash against THEM, so they'd be forced to the table to negotiate. I don't see that as a bad thing. Creators are ALREADY putting fans AND CGC in a bad place by demanding to know what the owner intends to do with HIS PROPERTY, and charging a PENALTY based on the answer, so, in essence, they've started the "fight."

No matter what a creator charges, charging a "slab surcharge" will always be ridiculous and offensive. Charge whatever the market will bear. Charge $100,000 per sig, if you like. But taking on a penalty because of your perception is greedy and offensive.

Can you imagine...? "I'm sorry, Walt Simonson, you can't sign that comic book. You're under contract with me to only sign X amount of comics under X conditions. Put that pen DOWN." That's not how it works. Not that it can't GET to that place, but let's hope it never does.

If you're a "pro-business" guy, then you understand that work-for-hire means that you, the worker, do not own the work you create. If I work for, say, the Dow Chemical Company, and I create something for which I can get a patent, guess who owns that patent, even if it's in my name...? Right. Dow Chemical, not me. Dow Chemical took the risk, not me. Dow Chemical put up the capital it took for me to be able to innovate, not me. This "hey, wait a minute! I created that, I should have part of the success!" is an expression of naked greed. How so? Because if a creator is in the situation of having their creation become a success, and they're not part of that success, and no one was defrauded in the process, that means they chose security over risk. It's a fundamental fact of life: if you want the reward, you must take the risk. There's no escaping it. Saying, often long after the fact, "hey! I deserve a cut of that!!" is someone wanting the reward without the risk. Needless to say, that's not how business, or life, works. There was nothing preventing Siegel and Shuster, as an example, from starting their own comic book publishing company and publishing Superman on their own. They did not. Instead, they chose the security of an established publisher, and then AFTER the fact, complained about it. In the same way, the creator had absolutely nothing to do with the COPY of the book I own. They created the work on which that copy is based...but they do not own THAT COPY. And the acquisition, preservation, and storage of that copy is what the owner...not the creator...took a risk on. The creator is no more entitled to "a cut of that" than I am entitled to advertising revenue from posting on the CGC board, even though I contribute to the interest in said board, which generates ad revenue for CGC. Ironic, no? It has nothing to do with "ethics." It has to do with rights. And the fact is, a creator has no right to the copy being presented to them to sign. No "ethical" distinction need be made. This is all well and good, but doesn't have anything to do with the issues involved. "People" would be me, since I brought it up, and your analogy doesn't work. It really doesn't make any sense at all. You have it completely backward. These creators aren't employees of these exclusives, nor are they signing contracts with them (and they would be incredibly foolish to do so; they're not providing any goods or services to the exclusives.) It is the other way around: the exclusives are offering the CREATORS their services, in exchange for consideration (that is, cash money) to provide a service that these creators believe they want or need. It is the EXCLUSIVES who are "signing with" the creators. LeBron James works, by contract, for the Cleveland Cavaliers. He offers his services in exchange for consideration...just like the "exclusives" do...HE is the one providing the services. Creators aren't providing services to exclusives, they're providing them to those seeking signatures. Exclusives are providing services to creators. It's not about whether a creator has the RIGHT to sign a contract with a exclusive, but you've mixed up who is providing the service, and who is providing the compensation for said service. You have confused just who is providing what services to whom, and so made an analogy that isn't valid. After all...it's not as if the creators are RESTRICTED by CONTRACT from signing anything outside of the auspices of the exclusives. That would be the kind of "LeBron James" type deal you're talking about. LeBron can't go play for the Lakers just because he felt like it. The creators can sign anyone's comic, at any time, for any reason, and don't need the exclusives to do so. In fact, such an arrangement would be quite absurd, unless the creators were being offered absurd sums of money to only autograph under certain conditions...and, again, they would be fools to sign such a contract, which is why much more famous people...like actors and athletes...have rarely, if ever, entered into such agreements. That's not as elegant as I would have liked, and a lawyer could probably word it better, but the gist is there. The situation these creators have, which CGC honors, is a "gentleman's agreement", by which NO PARTY is bound. CGC honors it because they believe it's good for their bottom line, and no other reason. CGC does not have to honor this agreement...you want to see something laughable, you try and take CGC to court as a creator for slabbing your signature...but they do it anyways, because they want to create GOOD WILL. So yes, when you can only slab your signed books by a particular creator through "Company X", it has become a de facto monopoly.

It is incredibly offensive for creators...fueled by misinformation...to treat people who slab with such contempt and open scorn. Do they treat publishers with such scorn? Do they treat distributors, printers, and retailers with such scorn? But...those people are "making money off the creator", and not just for something with such a dubious effect as a signature. They make money off of the creator's blood, sweat, and tears...a willing exchange the creator makes for the opportunity to get their vision out to the public. But if you want the book signed AND slabbed, you must be a filthy slabber who doesn't give two squirts about the comics you're getting signed. J. Scott Campbell actually said, TO MY FACE, as I was preparing to hand him a batch of books "Hold on, I need to take care of the fans first" Because, clearly, I'm not a fan if I slab. Did the "fans" hand him $1300 for 15 minutes worth of work...? It is also incredibly offensive for ANYONE to ask what I intend to do with MY PROPERTY. "Is that for CGC?" "None of your damn business" is the correct answer. What business is it of anyone what I choose to do with my property? Do you get asked what you intend to do with that sandwich you bought at lunch? No. Don't put me in a position where it's temping to lie to you, because many people will. It's one thing to facilitate, and take books for customer, and arrange private signings. Go for it. Knock yourself out, live the American dream. It is QUITE another to convince creators and CGC that everyone must be FORCED to go through "Company X", or they can forget about having that creator's sig in a slab. That's just monopoly, on a small scale....and you're doing harm to the creators, the fans, and CGC. You may not see it yet...but you will. Will you have devoured the last crumb, and then, like locusts, leave behind nothing but destruction and famine...?

Yes, that printing defect is quite common. They printed these books on recycled napkins.

PS...not that it really matters, but X-Force #1 came out over 26 years ago. I don't think it qualifies as a "modern", though it might seem that way to many. Perspective: books that were 26 years old when X-Force #1 came out were printed in 1965.

The Standard Catalog orders for X-Force #1...indeed, for all "event" books like it from this era...cannot have the "average 22% of Marvels" rule applied to them. That's an average, and the biggest distributors at the time...in this case, Capital and Diamond...ordered the lion's share of the print run. Smaller distributors tended to service much, much more diverse clientele, and they were not the ones ordering 100 copies of X-Force #1 for individual customers. These event books were decidedly skewed towards the big distributors. Had they printed more than 3 million copies...again...it would have been headline news, like the ~8 million print run of X-Men #1 was two months later. And, again...if they'd printed 3.5-4 million...keeping in mind that Superman #75, a comic book cultural phenomenon never before matched, and never again, had a print run of 4 million copies....they wouldn't have had the need to do a second printing....which they did NOT do with X-Men #1 (and no, the Deluxe version doesn't count. That was just slick marketing.) "But, they did FOUR printings of Superman #75, and you say it had a print run of 4 million!" Correct. Superman #75 was like nothing ever in comics, before or since. It belongs in its own special category. I argued against this over a decade ago, but CKB was right: they could have printed TEN million copies, and they still would have sold them all. X-Force #1 was NOT a cultural phenomenon. There weren't people lined up around the block to buy it the day it came out, with national news stories about it, and people paying $100 for a copy a month or so after it came out.

Probably a good call. Yay for all the creators charging a "slab surcharge" and to the gougers who convinced them to do it! Yay! Huzzah, I say!

That's a beauty right there.

This exclusive nonsense has got to stop, and only the creators and/or CGC can stop it. It's bad for the creators, it's bad for CGC, it's bad for anyone trying to make SS work as a business, and it's bad for the fans. "You want that SS'd? You'll have to go through Company X." It's funny how, out of all the early SS guys, none of them with the exception of DWC, tried to get creators to be "exclusive." Then, the second wave of "entrepreneurs" came along, and managed to, at best, mislead creators about who was making the money, and convince them that only they could "represent them" in the slabbing community. It's got to stop, folks. And you "exclusive guys" had better figure out a way to stop it on your own, or you will slay your "golden goose."

That was when Paulus and I were staying in the same room, and he nearly destroyed a stack of books I was working on for Kieth. He was pissed at something, and came storming into the room and hit the stack with a bag he was carrying, nearly knocking them over (which, of course, would have meant they were no longer 9.8s or anywhere close.) I about had a heart attack, and said "hey, HEY, HEY!!" and he turned on me and screeched at me, voce piena, "Don't you EVER yell at me! EVER!!" Such a class act, that one.

Eventually, yes. X-Force #1 has been on my radar for several years now as a 9.8 subbing candidate. I've spoken about it years ago on these boards, when the census was at 8. Frankly, I was shocked that it was selling for so little, considering how the market treats the books around it.

The "5 million copy print run" is what Liefeld has been claiming for years, so it's natural that that "number" would trickle into a number of different sources...but they all come back to Liefeld. The number in the press at the time was 1.75 to 2.5 million. 5 million would have put it over (the later) Superman #75, and Superman #75 has long been touted as "the second best selling comic book of all time" after X-Men #1 with its ~8 million print run. And nothing in comics history compares to Superman #75. If X-Force #1 HAD had a 5 million print run, it would have been shouted from the rooftops at the time...and, more importantly, Marvel wouldn't have done a second printing, because they would have had plenty of first printings left over. I have 80 copies that I bought "wholesale" from a local store...Clay's Comics in Hayward, CA...and all 80 copies are still in the 5 packs that Clay made up for me the day they came out over 26 years ago. Not a single one of them are 9.8, but there are many 9.8 potentials.

X-Force #1 didn't sell 5 million copies. It sold between 1.75 and 2.5 million. Still impressive, but, as usual, Liefeld is smoking crack.

And that's my point: people want an "easy" way to identify a book, and so an "easy" way of dismissing restored books is what happened. I'm not suggesting everyone is doing it...but, clearly, the majority are, as the color of the label is what everyone keeps coming back to. How many people...if they're being honest...see "purple" and have an immediate negative visceral reaction? I do. I've watched others do the exact same thing. In fact, because of the stigma of a COLOR...there are people who would rather crack the book out of the slab, and sell it as a raw restored book....fully and completely disclosing its status...rather than have people react negatively because of the color of the label. The acceptable solution was to not have different color labels. Since that didn't happen, the acceptable solution is education. A book with a slight dot of color touch is dismissed...even by people who know better...the same as a book with extensive repair, because they reside in the same COLOR label. Good for the people who don't mind a tiny bit of restoration; bad for the market as a whole.

This is a good part of the reason why different colored labels were a problem from the get-go. People react viscerally to colors, and assign a form of emotional reaction to them that tends to overrule logic and reason when considering just what has been done, to what extent. People even gave them epithets based on the color of the label...something as meaningless to the actual condition of the book as the font of the label.

?

How do they both fit...? Must be a tight squeeze.

Right. Exactly. Glad you agree.

Lighten up, Francis. Comments like this are why this place is toxic so often. If you don't like someone, ignore them, don't take shots at them.

So, I have a relatively new HP laptop, and a 25 mbps internet connection...but these sites still make everything load very slowly. I assumed it was always my low connection speed and old equipment...but I guess not? I was pretty amazed that things were getting clogged up with all this fancy new stuff.

People ate breakfast. It was pretty standard breakfast buffet fare, scrambled eggs, bacon, sausage, pastries, juices, bagels, and the like. It was ok. The most exciting thing that happened is one of the juice dispensers clogged, and was taken out of commission. That was from 8-9. Then the Diamond seminar took place from 9-11, and then the Marvel retailer meeting from 11-12. So, no breakfast at or from Marvel.