RockMyAmadeus

Sorry, but that's not true. Are you suggesting you don't have control over your emotions...? Was I offended when ygogolak said there was "nothing intelligent enough to respond to", despite objective evidence to the contrary? Nope. I chose not to be. What is the difference between being "personally" offended, and merely offended? One can recognize the intent to offend, and still choose not to be offended. Are you suggesting a critical examination is not something someone chooses to do...? As to your last statement, you are quite correct: pointing out that someone is being offensive isn't giving power to them, and I did not, and would not, suggest otherwise. But being offended at what they say IS...and that's the whole point, here. (This new board is absolutely terrible at quoting functions. Just awful.)

That is, of course, your opinion, and a convenient excuse to dodge making a reasoned response. My opinion, naturally, is different. If you choose to be offended, you will be, guaranteed. If you are offended over "slurs", you give power to those making them, and accomplish their goals. They set out to offend, and, by choice, you oblige them. I am not offended by your slur, even though it was directed personally at me. Can you do the same...? As far as not being the 70's anymore, that's been true for almost 40 years. Not sure why you're bringing that up, unless you didn't understand that we've had diversity in comics for a very long time, have had diversity the entire time since then, and will continue to have it, because diverse people are interested in telling diverse stories, without feeling the need to force it.

So, no legitimate response, then...? My comments were so outrageously beyond-the-pale, so wildly out of touch with reality, only four facepalm emoticons will suffice...? Or, what I said makes sense, but you don't want to acknowledge that...? Gotta be one or the other.

You didn't quote him at all. What he asked, and what you said he asked, were two entirely different things. Racial slurs...? Who said anything about racial slurs? I didn't hear any, so I can't comment on whether or not they were used. But if someone uses racial slurs, why are you offended? Do you know, when we're offended, we give power to the offender, and accomplish for them what they set out to achieve...?

Here's how causality works. When you claim someone is doing something "just for the sake of" something else, you're saying there is no other reason to do it. When you then helpfully add the phrase, "as it's good PR," you're identifying good PR as the reason for doing it. Which means they're not doing it just for the sake of diversity. Not quite. Causality is not necessarily limited to only one factor at a time. If the goal of the PR is to point out how they're being diverse for the sake of diversity, then your argument does not stand, and darkstar is correct. PR is not the end, the "reason" for doing it...PR is just the means.

Yes, there was an era that changed comics forever with a couple of black characters. Now we have more diversity, but, as the original article quoted and the entire point of this thread, some retailers don't seem will to accept that there are different people than them in the world. These are the people that make these comics accessible to the public. Or, as Jimmy asked you, was this just another Rich Johnston click bait story? Not sure why some retailers who "don't seem will (sic)" to accept that there are different people than them in the world matters to anyone...and, of course, your statement isn't even true, but more SJ hyperbole. If there are retailers with views you don't support, the answer seems to be very straightforward and simple: don't do business with them. If they "block access" to comics you wish to read, there are plenty of other outlets to get them. It's 2017, after all, and the internet has made everything substantially more accessible. Jimmy didn't ask me if the Bleeding Cool article was a "click bait story." He asked "I have heard reports from others that were there that the "slur" word was never used. Was that your experience?" If one chooses to be offended, one will be.

Diversity and inclusivity and not mutually exclusive from good art and stories. That's absolutely correct, as every publisher has proven for nearly half a century (see Green Lantern #76-up, X-Men #94-up, etc.), and as I said in the post you quote: "Quality and art knows no skin color, ethnicity, nationality."

Yes, it is.

It's a program that has been suggested for well over a decade. Instead of waiting for the auction to end, you can make an offer. If the seller likes it, listing ends. And, it plays into eBay's "you see it, you buy it, just like Amazon!" mentality. Once a bid is placed, the Best Offer option goes away. eBay doesn't want bidders to bid and not have a chance to bid again. It looks like it is in a Beta-y rollout phase at the moment, since all the eBay help pages say it's still not available for auctions.

Plus the fact that this one says "Second Printing" on the inside front cover.

Marvel's main function is to protect their intellectual property for Disney. Everything else is secondary to that. If they want to tell "inclusive" stories for the sake of "inclusivity", with "diverse" characters for the sake of "diversity", that's pandering, and it will certainly fail, because it pleases no one except those who tut-tut for a living...and they don't buy comics. They should be concerned only with making products that sell (Dave Sim would hate me for saying that out loud.) Quality and art knows no skin color, ethnicity, nationality. If it is good storytelling that appeals to someone, it will sell. When the public stops buying comics (and everything else) because it features characters who "look/think/act like me" (whoever you are), and instead do it because the stories appeal to them, then we will have moved past this.

As someone who was in the room, I would have to disagree with you that it "fell off the rails" because of the comments. The tracks were broken from the very beginning, it just needed some steam to get the train chugging along at a good clip before derailing entirely. Also as someone who has attended a good number of these over the past few years, it has been happening...just not as forcefully as this one.

I don't know. I didn't hear anything specifically, but I'm not someone who is keyed to picking up on "slurs" most of the time. That is, I hear them, but I am not gravely offended by them, so I don't make a particular note when they are used. I was on the opposite side of the room from the mic, near the front row of the back half section of seats, closest to the doors, so once the crowd turned on the speaker, it was hard to hear exactly what was said.

Yes, that's what this thread is about. This thread is about a lot of things, but the title is "Marvel Retailer breakfast falls off the rails"...so you concluded that my general comment about the meeting being spectacular was specifically referring to "people using slurs over a comic book" (which is a little garbled, but I understand what you meant)...? Without any further context in my post, in a thread filled with multiple different facets of the situation, you decided that's what I was specifically referring to...? Think about that for a moment. The leaps required to come to that conclusion are manifold.

It's all a matter of presentation. You can tell someone it's none of their business without using the words "it's none of your business." The way you phrase the question is a leading one, and the position that many creators take: "what's so special about the slabbed book over unslabbed? (with the underlying, usually unstated rest of that sentence being "...unless it's because you want to sell it?") Isn't the fact that I signed it in front of you good enough...?" The answer should be fairly self evident. Here's a picture of an SS slab: (I cry whenever I see these.) That's "the package." You have the book, the signature, the grade, the information about the book, when it was signed...it's really quite the appealing product, and...whether I'm selling the book or not, the fact of the matter is, I know that someone had their eyeballs on that book when Byrne signed it in 2004 (sob.) Specifically, since that was the one and only signing that Byrne did that were slabbed. Here's an unslabbed signed book: Still very cool, but doesn't have all the other stuff that comes along with the slab, and the authenticity of the signature is much more in doubt. The slab, if one is to take the "profit motive" argument out of the equation, is clearly and objectively a superior product to the raw, unsigned copy. I can purchase an SS copy, and know that that book was signed by that creator, that signature was witnessed, usually on the day in question (though not always), and the chances of forging are much, much smaller. If I wasn't there in person, I can get one and be sure it's the real deal. And even if I WAS there in person, why should I be bound to forever keep a copy that the creator signed, if I find one that suits me more? If there's no sentimental attachment to THAT copy, but rather the experience, then there's nothing stopping me from taking a copy I like better and getting that one signed, then selling the "lesser" copy. The more you unpack the circumstances, the more it demonstrates that the bottom line is two-fold: 1. creators don't think it's "fair" that people "make money off of their signatures" (which is absurd, when you consider publishers, printers, distributors, and retailers, AND the fact that it is the COMIC...not the SIGNATURE...that has the value), and 2. others have come along and convinced those creators of their "suspicions", but "if you let me represent you, I'll make sure you get your cut!!"...playing into the greed of creators (yes, folks, creators are people, too.) Oh, and by the way...with the added bonus of controlling the supply of these books on the market, in effect trying to create a monopoly, because THEY certainly aren't paying the price that the rest of us have to, so they can price any competition out, while dumping their own. How INCREDIBLY convenient! Everything else is just rationalization. The Golden Age of Sig Series has, sadly, passed away. I'm glad to have been a part of it. No longer is it the handful of guys hustling to get sigs for a handful of customers. Now it's "BIG BUSINESS!", built on deception, playing into fear and greed, in which EVERYONE loses....creator, CGC, fan...except, of course, those "exclusive" guys...all they do is win. After all....what happens when every creator is funneled into such a scheme...? It's already happening. Look at this place, littered with "exclusive" deals. It's disgusting. If you want to get your books signed AND slabbed, you MUST go through Company X and pay their fee...even if you don't NEED the services of Company X...or you can forget it. CGC should have put a stop to this years ago, but sadly, they did not, and now here we are. Such a shame.

I know that Sandman increased its print run as the series was ending. I know that issue saw enough interest to see a second printing. Exactly how low do you believe the 2nd print run to be? Which is more likely the reason for low census numbers, that the book is truly rare or that the book suffers from widespread disinterest from the market? That's a nice, measured response to a hostile, aggressive (and untrue) attack. Refreshing. In any event, Sandman #75 2nd is legitimately quite scarce, due to a confluence of factors at the time it came out. It's definitely an exception, like Supergirl #1 third print.

No, you didn't. But that was the click bait title of the BC article and you condoned it with "spectacular". I did? Wow. I didn't even mention the article, but you came to that conclusion? Neat!

The part where people started using slurs over a comic book was spectacular? That's not what I said, but sure, go with that. It was a fascinating experience.

I was there. And yes, it was awesome from the beginning. The crowd was hostile from the start. It was spectacular.

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer: because I like it that way. What other reason does there need to be? Let me be more blunt: there is no other reason that needs to be given. "Because I like it" is, and should be, all the answer that is needed. I don't ask the people who buy my merchandise what they intend to do with it after they buy it. It's none of my business, and it's beyond rude to even ask. If they can make more money than I did, more power to 'em. That it is tolerated on the scale it is is just a symptom of addiction and hero worship. After all...drug addicts don't give their drug dealer lip either, right...? People like Chris Claremont should be THRILLED that there are comics that are worth being signed by him (phrased that way on purpose: it is the COMIC and its CONDITION, not the SIGNATURE, that makes the package valuable.) Claremont made nearly $3,000 at NYCC last weekend in less than two hours, signing about 300 books, just signing the ones I was witnessing. He signed all day long, all four days, and charged for everything. Kudos to him that there are books worth signing, and worth paying his DOUBLE surcharge for "graded books." If he were to raise his price to $20...like some foolish creators are doing (and far worse)...he wouldn't have made that $3000, because the majority of those books are a LOSS if a $20 sig fee is factored in. We're talking books like X-Men #225 and #232, here...not all "key" books by any stretch. He might only have made $500, if anything. Marv Wolfman charges people $5 to sign books...and $20 for slabs. I haven't had a single book signed by Marv Wolfman in 2 years, despite having literally hundreds of books I would be thrilled to pay $5 ea to be signed...books like NTT #11, 12, 13, 23, 29, 37, etc. I'd be happy to pay Marv $1,000 to sign 200 books...work that would take him an hour or so....instead, he gets nothing at all. He's priced his signature out of the market. I get that there are creators who don't like slabbing. That's their right. But it seems a very odd way to cultivate a fanbase by alienating those people who do like it. If the goal is to not sign as much, as some have suggested, why sign at all? Just charge a higher price for everyone, and the problem solves itself. What about the people who paid $600 for a Frank Miller signature right around two years ago...? Are they feeling pretty good about paying that? I paid $350 for two of them. $700 for signatures that now cost $200, if I'd just waited. But because we were all afraid that we might not get another chance, we paid it. Do people think that doesn't leave a welt...? It sure does. Is it the fault of the people charging $600, or $350? No, because there were people...including me...willing to pay it. That's the way it goes. You pays your money, you takes your chances. But there are consequences to everything, and the consequence here is a bitter taste in my mouth, and an aversion to the people...including Miller...who did that. And if the shoe happens to ever be on the other foot, you can guarantee these things aren't forgotten. "Remember when you convinced Miller to charge $600 because everyone thought he was going to die, and you totally played on that fear...? Yeah, that page of art you're holding in your hands is 5 times sticker for you....if I even decide to sell it to you." And that's how it works. What comes around does go around.

This discussion, by the way, is part of the process of the market correcting itself. I don't see anyone happily and gladly paying double (or more!) prices just because they want their books slabbed. I don't see anyone saying "what? You charge the same price for raw AND slabbed sigs? Madness! Please, TAKE MORE OF MY MONEY!!" (except that this DOES happen, frequently, by people who tell creators "keep the change!" because they WANT to...not because they're FORCED to, as a condition of obtaining a sig.) And the emotional, irrational argument that "these creators DESERVE their cut!" is nonsense. If you think a creator deserves something, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from sending a creator a check. Nothing at all. I would suspect that there are quite a few of these "these creators DESERVE their cut!" people who donate not a single cent to either creators, or creator assisting charities like the Heroes Initiative.

It's not worth debating? On the contrary, it's a very worthwhile debate. Collectors are having to pay SUBSTANTIALLY more for something that a creator is willing and able to do for much less, based on misconception at best, and fraud at worst. It's beyond rude to ask people what they intend to do with their property. It's no one's business. And to add insult to injury, to charge a different price for the same service is even worse. The creator isn't doing anything differently. It's the same signature, for the same effort. But because of greed, on their part, and the part of others who convince them of things that aren't necessarily true, they get away with it, because: addicts. I, and many others, perfectly understand their decision AND respect it, because that's their right. It's my right to say the above, as well. But there are also a lot of others who do NOT respect it, and I watched someone in front of me, apparently a known quantity to the "exclusive rep" who stood there and said "no, these aren't for CGC! Come on, man, you know me, I assure you, these books aren't going to be submitted" (I'm paraphrasing.) It was awkward and uncomfortable, and worse, that person..telling the truth or not...should NEVER have been put in that position in the first place. It encourages people to be dishonest, and that's never a good thing. It creates an adversarial relationship between creator and the public that just isn't necessary. I'm a witness. What if, after the books are signed, and my facilitator and I are processing them for submission, we notice a book or two or three that has a flaw that we missed, and decide that copy, or those copies, won't be subbed after all, because it would be throwing good money after bad to pay the slab fee? It happens to people all the time. Do we get to go back to the creator and say "these weren't going to be subbed after all, can we have a refund on those?" Of course not. First, that mistake is on us, no question. Second, it's a bit tacky. But, if creators charged one price for everyone, this would never be an issue in the first place. I asked one creator why he charged a different price, and he completely hemmed and hawed, because HE KNEW it was wrong to do so. So, he tried to justify it by saying "well, it's for people who get 10 copies of (name of hot book he worked on here) signed." What does it matter to him what people do with their books? It's none of his business. If he has a problem with people POTENTIALLY making money off his signature, he should charge a price he's comfortable with, and that solves that. Think about it: if I bring 10 copies of the same book to get signed, does that mean I'm not a fan...? Not necessarily. Am I a flipper? Not necessarily. What if I want a 9.8, and I've got 10 borderline copies? It happens all the time. What if I'm a witness, and there are 10 people who have all sent my facilitator the same book to get signed, because they couldn't be there themselves? If I bring 10 DIFFERENT books to get signed, does that mean I AM a fan...? Not necessarily. So, creators making assumptions like this only opens them up to negative consequences, and encourages people to be dishonest. He asked me if my books were for CGC, and I said some of them were, and some of them weren't (true. I frequently have books from my facilitator that are "CGC" stack and "non-CGC" stack.) He saw what I had, and that none of them were valuable books (not that it matters!), and we negotiated for the "non-CGC" price, which I was happy to pay. The creator wasn't cheated, and neither was I, and we were both satisfied with the outcome. But this creator KNEW charging different prices was wrong, and hopefully, my very polite, very gentle challenge made the point.

It's inappropriate for Byrne to be putting conditions on the disposition of the item after it is signed. That doesn't mean he can't, or won't try, but it's none of his business. If he wants to sign it, great. If he doesn't want to sign it, great. He has complete and total control over his own signature. However...he has absolutely ZERO say what happens to that signature AFTER he has signed it. Now, if CGC honors his request to not certify his signature, that's THEIR choice, but it IS a VOLUNTARY choice on the part of CGC, and they are NOT bound by any legal conditions to honor it. CGC's contract is with the customer...not John Byrne or any other creator. John Byrne cannot "bypass" the fan, because the fan is the owner of the property being signed. Once John Byrne puts his signature on the comic, that specific signature no longer belongs to him, provided the person obtained the signature under the terms to which both parties agreed. Can Byrne put conditions on obtaining the signature? Of course he can, and that's why CGC honors it. But I'm not talking about what he CAN do, but what is appropriate...what he SHOULD do...and again, it's totally and completely inappropriate for anyone to be putting conditions on what someone can and cannot do with their property. If I hired a painter to paint my house, and he tried to impose conditions of his service on me based on what I intended to do with the house after he painted it, I'd laugh in his face, tell him to get off my lawn, and hire someone else. It's petty and petulant, and shouldn't be tolerated in the marketplace. Why does John Byrne, or any creator, get to dictate what collectors do with their property, as a condition of their signing it? But people DO tolerate it, because: addicts. And that's why absolutely nothing of value was signed this past weekend. I got "not 9.8" Namor 26 signed, because I wanted to get SOMETHING signed, and Jae was there, too. It would have been REALLLLY nice to have a double signed SS'd 9.8 Namor #26, but...that's the way it goes.

Of course it's fine for Byrne to say how he wants to sign books. It's not ok for him to say what should happen with those books after he signed them. You don't understand the need for authentication, which is also fine, but this is the CGC board, after all, and authentication is one of the services they provide. If you don't understand the need, that's fine, but that doesn't mean there isn't need, as others see fit. If keeping them in mylar is good enough for you...great! It's not for others, nor should it be expected to be.

Which is beyond absurd. What business is it of anyone, creator or not, what I do with MY property? It's quite possibly the most offensive attempt to corner a market that I've seen in the comics industry, and I've seen a lot. CGC's stance is perfectly understandable. The creators' response is not. Beware, "exclusive creator" people: you're not just killing the golden egg'd goose...you're strangling it, chopping its head off, stuffing it with foie gras, and serving it for 500 of your dearest friends at Christmas dinner.