RockMyAmadeus

Who cares who has "the last word"? Why does that matter to anyone? If someone has a point to bring up, bring it up. This whole "last word" silliness should be left behind. Ok. Without trying to be snarky, "2 + 2 = 4", by the definitions of those terms, which is fact...not opinion. Those who say "that's just your opinion" frequently don't recognize that not everything said are 'just opinions", while at the same time understanding that there are, of course, opinions that are mixed in with statements of fact. What separates the two? Independent verification. Just because someone doesn't agree with something, doesn't render it mere opinion. It should go without saying that anything someone posts, if not independently verifiable, is opinion. No need for reminders from anyone. You said, and I quote: "Well, I never said anything about the creator having business with what people do with their property after it is signed. Prior to that, it is their business," Slabbing occurs...obviously...AFTER it is signed. But the fact is, it's not their property, so it's none of their business where the item is ultimately headed BEFORE they sign, either. It's not their property. It doesn't belong to them, either before, during, or after it is signed. If the disposition of the item being signed is their business beforehand, it's clearly their business afterwards, or you've contradicted yourself. This isn't relevant. CGC is a third party, and has nothing to do with the transaction between the creator and the person obtaining his/her signature. "But...but...there's a WITNESS and everything!" Yes, that witness is there at the request of the person obtaining the signature. The transaction between CGC and the submitter is NOT the transaction between the person obtaining the signature and the creator. Two separate transactions. CGC is not a party to the transaction between the creator and the person obtaining the signature, just as the creator is not a party to the transaction between the submitter and CGC. So, what CGC charges the submitter is none of the creator's business, too. What you're suggesting is akin to the real estate agent paying the plumber a "cut" because the real estate agent gets a higher fee based on the work the plumber did to improve the property before it was sold. That there are irrational pricing models in the world isn't in contention. "That's just the way it is!" isn't a valid argument for why one should not challenge "the way it is." Let's explain this a different way: if Creator Fred doesn't understand the mechanics of the Sig Series system, and has an emotional reaction because of that misunderstanding...which in turn will tend to alienate the very fans he relies on to make his living...wouldn't it be in Creator Fred's interests to properly understand those mechanics, so he has a response that is appropriate to the actual conditions of the situation? Sure. Creator Fred is happy, fans are happy, no one is butthurt. Now, if Creator Fred doesn't WANT to understand...wouldn't it make sense to apply market pressure...and one way to do that is to "vilify" (your word, mind, not mine) Creator Fred's unwillingness to understand the situation...to perhaps bring to bear that same response, which actually...not opinion, here, demonstrably, independently verifiable fact...ends up helping Creator Fred? I think so. And that's where my opinion enters in. You didn't answer any of my questions, and I was using an example to illustrate the point. there are many more examples. Nor is that example "anecdotal." Peter David testified himself about the situation he was in. That's direct evidence. I didn't "condemn the rest" with that example, nor am I trying to "rescue" anyone from "being taken." That's taking the argument much further than I did. The question remains: you say you want to "help" these creators, and to that end, you think it's perfectly fine that creators charge whatever they want, for any reason they want, and if someone doesn't like it, that's too bad, because these creators deserve our support. Is that an accurate summation of your position? If it is, to that, I respond, who are you, or who am I, or who is anyone to accurately judge who does...or does not..."deserve" support, and how, and why? The answer, of course, is that you're not in a position to judge that for anyone but yourself, and advocating "they deserve whatever they can get!" is merely an appeal to emotion. What does Neal Adams "deserve"? What is a "fair price" for his signature? Don't know. I can only answer for myself, as everyone must answer for themselves, based on one's needs and desires, and the evidence available. But I CAN say that charging a different price for the exact same service, based on the (often erroneous) perception that someone is "profiting" off of that service, is discrimination based on greed. And...if a creator doesn't understand these mechanics, would it not behoove them to LEARN those mechanics, to whatever degree they are capable of doing so, so that their decisions are informed, rather than based in faulty perceptions...? If I accept your premise here...and let's say, for the sake of the argument, that I do...what is that "something" they deserve? Since you have presented yourself here as someone who is in a position to judge these things...that is, you have no problem paying a "small surcharge", and think everyone should do the same...what is that "small surcharge"? Is it different for different creators? How and why? If so, who deserves...in your judgement...what? And what portion of the "profit" do they "deserve"? And again...what about the situations in which there is no "profit"? I've sold several SS books at and below cost....I didn't "profit", I lost. Do I "deserve" a "refund" for those occasions where I took a loss...? After all, equity says that if something is fair one way, it's fair all ways...right? For the record, I have never advocated "giving everyone nothing." I have contributed, personally, a "substantial amount" the the Heroes Initiative, and another amount to the CBLDF, in support of those signing my books. I have paid what every creator has asked/demanded, and then some. Not because I'm great, or because I wish to brag, but because I recognize the value of what these creators do for me. But there's a philosophical difference between recognizing this value and willingly and happily supporting these efforts, and being forced to do so.

It's the exact same service. A signature on a comic book. If "reaping what you've sown" is code for "you created this market, you can't complain when it comes back and bites you in the rear", one more time: the majority of the value of almost every book is in its condition NOT its signature. A signature only amplifies what must already be there. J. Scott Campbell's signature on a 9.0 copy of Amazing Spiderman #500 doesn't increase the value of that book. At all. You not understanding that doesn't make it "karma." And I am not part of the "you guys" that have paid creators and promised them even bigger paydays with the SS program. I am not part of the "you guys" that come with truckloads of books for scores of other people. I am not part of the "you guys" that interferes with others getting their books signed, costing people time, effort, money, and business to CGC.

By the way...the answer to not having anything you sign be sold to anyone else is quite simple: either sign everything in sight, driving down the "value" of every signature out there...or don't create anything that other people want. The reason these things sell to others...even for, GASP!...a PROFIT...is because there is demand for it. There are some creators who understand this, and rather than be offended, are flattered by it. "Someone paid HOW much for this comic signed by me...? That's pretty cool!"...even if they don't understand that condition, not their signature, is the overwhelming driving force behind that value. No one wants my signature. I haven't created anything that people want. But if I did...I'd think it was pretty cool that someone wanted that connection to me so much, they were willing to pay a premium for it. Ya know...just for a different perspective.

I see the argument from both sides. Always have. But having two sides of an argument doesn't mean both sides are equally valid or legitimate. I perfectly understand why some creators get bent out of shape by what they perceive. And...they would have a point, IF their signature, added to anything, always increased value. They do not. Again...as with the professional athletes, these creators are very much in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. "What?? Some people turn around and SELL my signature for a PROFIT??? How DARE THEY??" is how the internal dialogue goes, which is an emotional...not rational...response. And, because of this emotional response, in the process of trying to micro-manage the "flippers", they end up hurting the "real fans" in the process. Convincing creators that they shouldn't care about what happens to their signed items afterwards is not only a tough sell, with some, it will always be impossible. That's human nature at work. There will ALWAYS be many, many, many someones who take things personally, and get offended, at things that aren't, in any way, personal. That's a fact of life. But acknowledging that very real fact of life doesn't alter the truth being expressed, nor the need to express it....someone, somewhere, will be positively influenced by it. It's just part of growing up. I perfectly understand why people have these emotional reactions...but that doesn't make those emotional reactions legitimate. And...when someone comes up with the perfect delineation between "real fan" and "flipper/speculator", then this problem will go away...which cannot happen, because there is no such line.

Of course, that's not what I said. Never did I say that anyone has any "standing to declare how the owner must price it", because that, as you quite correctly point out, is not the buyer's PLACE. Let's not change the argument to make the point. But WHAT the good/service is priced at , and WHY, are, indeed the buyer's business. When you offer something for sale, you are making it available to whomever wishes to buy it (and whomever you wish to do business with.) Everything, at that point, is up for negotiation, whether negotiation actually occurs or not. Now, a seller may choose not to ANSWER why they've priced it at thus and such, but the buyer has every right to ask WHY it is priced at thus and such. When someone says "oh, for YOU it will be $20, but for this guy, it's just $5"...for the exact same service...that is discrimination. No, keep your socks on, not "OMG CAPITAL "D"!!!" discrimination...but it is discrimination, nonetheless. The price changes based on what you, the buyer, intend to do with it...which actually IS none of the seller's business. And not to get too far into the weeds here, but there's no difference between "you're deciding whether the item being offered for sale is worth YOUR money" and "You're deciding whether it's worth it to you. " Those are identical expressions of the same idea, just using different words.

True. And the "argument" that was made, that it's "none of your business what someone charges you for something you'd like to purchase"...I've already explained why this is quite obviously erroneous. It's an irrational, illogical "argument" to make, and I'm surprised that no one else commented on how bad an argument that is. You're not counting THEIR money...you're deciding whether the item being offered for sale is worth YOUR money. When you offer something for sale, you make that something available for public discourse in all aspects, including price. That's like saying "it's none of your business how I've priced this house that you'd like to buy." It's a foolish argument, clearly.

Which relevant points were ignored? What are the "dogmatic arguments left and right", and how are they "dogmatic"...can you say...? Or is it soundbite discussion? Can we have a disagreement without the provocative terms? I think we can. The point that you have missed is this: whether CGC is making a profit or not isn't relevant. It's none of the creator's business. It's no one's business but CGC's what profit they are making, just like it's no one's business what a slabber does with his or her property. CGC is an unrelated third party. The transaction is between the creator and the fan. If the fan chooses to have their book slabbed by CGC, that's not the creator's business. It's not the creator's property. And yet, several creators...and you, now...are arguing as if CGC is some part of the transaction between creator and fan. They're not. You just contradicted yourself, in the span of two sentences. If it's none of their business AFTERWARDS...which is the heart of this argument, here...how is it their business BEFORE? It is never their business what the fan does with his or her property, at any point, prior to, or after, the item is or is not signed. It's none of their business, ever. It's not their property. They are doing one thing, and one thing only: signing an item that someone presents to them. Other than that, they are not related, in any way, to that specific item. Their part is the signature, not the item being signed. What happens to the item being signed...before, during, and after...is none of their business. Who says they're "getting paid nothing for it"? Some are, some are not. As to the rest of your paragraph...let's not reductio ad absurdum, here. I DO see a reason to vilify anyone who makes poor economic decisions based on ignorance...which is what is happening in many of these cases. "You're going to keep that book raw? Ok, $5. You're going to slab that book? Ok, $20" It's madness, and deserves to be vilified. There's nothing wrong with setting a value on what they feel it is worth...but what they feel it is worth should be based on reality, and not misperception...certainly you agree with that, do you not...? That's very nice of you. But do you see the problem inherent in such a statement? What does "making their lives better" mean to you? What does it mean to others? When you appeal to emotion, you're always on shaky ground, because what is "generous" to you may be "stingy" to others, and vice versa. Who is the correct judge of the generosity of others? You? Me? Who is the accurate judge of who actually needs help, through no misdeeds on their part, and who is just suffering because of the poor choices they've made? Peter David wasn't responsible with his taxes for years. Yet, he appeals to his "fans" to bail him out...which is the worst possible thing that could happen for Peter David, because it means a very valuable lesson will go unlearned. But people "feel sorry" for Peter David, so they help, because they "want to be nice." Again...who is the accurate judge of these things...?

Why doesn't it seem right? What business is it of someone what I choose to do with my property? If I get something signed, and list it on eBay, without getting it slabbed...should eBay be sending these creators a cut...? After all, eBay charges to sell things.

No, they don't. All one needs to do is open the case. The cases are not un-openable. As far as "not increasing readership"...that might be true, but there are people who buy two copies...one to read, one to slab...and that didn't exist before slabbing.

CGC is making a guaranteed CHARGE "off their signatures"...whether they are making a PROFIT or not is up to CGC's accountants. No one should be counting anyone else's money. But why is it the creator's business what someone does with his/her property after it is signed? How is it ANY concern of theirs? Are they paying CGC? No...? Then how is it any of their business? It only sounds reasonable in the lunatic world of collectibles; in the real world, no one stands for it for a second. Can you imagine? "Well, you know, the real estate agent is making a profit off of my work," says the plumber "so, I deserve a cut of that." It's madness. To your first comment: no one has a problem with creators charging for their signatures. The issue is charging a different price based on what the person intends to do with it afterwards. That's greed; that is, someone (creator) thinking someone (the person obtaining the signature) is getting something ("profit") that the first someone (creators) doesn't think the second someone deserves. I also don't know what "obviously adding value to the gravy train" means.

Sam could have simply said "Albert...don't worry about it." He didn't. Because he's, well, Sam Kieth. The guy getting his books done was really over a barrel. He didn't want to do anything that would make CGC look bad...and he didn't...but what Chandler and Albert did was beyond the pale, and Sam wouldn't fix it. Chandler Rice cost CGC a potential 100+ submissions by his actions that weekend. Sam Kieth broke my heart.

Art Adams is a pleasure to talk to. He and Joyce live in the Bay Area, so we chatted about places we knew, and Walking Dead, and whatnot. It was nice.

As I said before in this thread, I sat at Marv Wolfman's dining room table and attempted to explain this to him...and I have a witness to that conversation...but it was in vain. He wasn't interested in considering any other perspective. Perhaps I should have brought visual examples, but it wasn't really the right environment. Being invited to Marv Wolfman's house...and seeing the OA cover to Detective #408, NTT #1, and other books...was pretty thrilling, all things considered. Wolfman loses out. I'd happily, gladly pay him $5 each to sign my Batman #438, New Teen Titans Annual #1, Deathstroke #7, NTT #21....books that have no value even if they are 9.8s...because I think owning a 9.8 SS run is something that's worth having. It's NOT worth $20 each. So, that several hundred (thousand?) dollars that Wolfman would OTHERWISE HAVE GOTTEN WITHOUT QUESTION...he doesn't get. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Then people might think you were reallllllly old.

The reality is, it will simply drive the less scrupulous back to the bad old days, and just take the books out of the window bags and "hope for the best." and why not? In the example I cited above with Sam Kieth, Sam was manhandled by Chandler Rice and Albert Moy, and the person getting his books signed was forced to remove his books from his bags and boards if he did NOT want to pay $20/book....an ADDITIONAL $1,000+ to his already expensive trip. At least the option was presented to him, but I hope every single one of you reading this understands the insanity involved, here: take it out of the bag, it's free (as the creator SAID BEFOREHAND it would be...on his BLOG, before anyone even made plans)...leave it IN the bag, and it's $20/book. What changed? Only the perception. Nothing else. Out of the bag, free, in the bag, $20/book. Out, free, in, $20 each. Is my point lost on anyone here...? It wasn't about the money. It was about the ERRONEOUS PERCEPTION of Chandler Rice and Albert Moy, and Sam Kieth, bless his heart, was unwilling to stand up to these two and honor HIS OWN WORD. And that wasn't the only thing Sam failed to honor that weekend. Basic...basic, basic...common sense and reason tells you that any action which is REGRESSIVE...that is, encourages people to go backwards and introduce more risk into the equation...is not a wise action to take. Creators aren't gods. They're just people like anyone else.

As has been mentioned in this thread, that isn't, and never has been, the point. No one, other than perhaps ComicC, has suggested that creators shouldn't desire some kind of compensation. One more time: charging money for their signatures is not the point. What they charge, and why, IS. But that does raise an interesting question...why should anyone be compensated based on what might happen, rather than on what will happen? If I may, or may not, show up to work, should I still desire some kind of compensation? Shouldn't it be "if I show up to work, then I will be compensated"? Rough analogy, admittedly, but not that rough. But again, of course, in nearly all cases, the value of the signature is entirely dependent on the underlying condition of the book. Signing a 6.5 copy of ASM #293 isn't going to "make a profit" for anyone except CGC.

Kieth. And have you seen how many times Sam signed in 1993...? 8,000. At least. Assuming he signed all of the ashcans, and there are only a handful I've seen unsigned.

I know. It's pretty hard to read through 130 posts. It's way easier to just read a comment from someone that you've known for literally 15 years and just assume they've said something stupid. I mean, when I read your comments out of context, I always assume you don't know what you're talking about...

And really, what business is it of there's anyways to be checking "BIN" prices on eBay, without bothering to understand the dynamics of what is actually at play, here...? If Adam Hughes thinks his signature on that Harley Quinn #1 variant SS is worth $670....and I don't think he does, but he might...then he is mistaken. What does a 9.4 copy of that same book sell signed for...? The last sale was $285. So, is Hughes' sig worth $670, or $255, or....? Answer: the value is in the scarcity of the book (which Hughes had nothing to do with), the condition of the book (which Hughes had nothing to do with), and the demand for that cover (which is Hughes' contribution.) The signature, in and of itself, doesn't add anything. If Hughes signed a print...and I have a poster signed by him, twice...guess what that adds...? $0. Ok, maybe $5. Maybe. If you're going to be offended...and CLEARLY, some of these creators are offended...at least bother to find out what the story is first. I see the same people making the same point, over and over again: "they can charge what they want. It's their right to, just like it's my right to not pay." That's not the issue, never has been the issue, and never will be the issue. This discussion isn't about their RIGHT to charge, which no one disputes (well, at least no one seriously disputes.) It's about what they're charging, and why.

That's a presumption. Why does one have to limit oneself to one book, or they're not a "fan"...? How many creators have only created one book...? True story: in Boston last year, I was a witness for a collector who loves Sam Kieth. Brought his entire run of Maxx #1-35, plus a bunch of peripheral books...I think the total number was 52. He brought a stack. He brought a witness. To my knowledge...and he's a friend of mine...he hasn't sold a single one of those books, nor would he. But, by your reasoning here, he was just there to "make some money off this guy." So, a collector can't get a complete run of a creator's work...? We create this amazing thing called "Signature Series", but because of the ignorance of some (and more and more) creators, and the unwillingness, for all sorts of reasons, of people to explain reality...and the reality is, A SIGNATURE BY ITSELF DOES NOT...repeat NOT..."add value", in the VAST majority of cases...then people can't enjoy that because...hell, there's $$$$$ to be made! This is little more than an updated "what (and how) you collect sucks, what (and how) I collect rules." There IS middle ground here.

The cover copy and borders, including the issue number, prices, and the trademark and copyright information at the bottom of the cover changed between printings, sometimes dramatically (note 1988 vs 1989.)

Please see the whole conversation for answers. Replying to posts that are out of context is not conducive to understanding.

I don't have any problem with creators charging for their signatures. You want to charge, go for it. It's your sig. You want to charge $10,000, and someone pays it, good on you. I have a very serious problem with creators charging different prices for their signatures, based on where they think the signed item might be going. That's greed based on ignorance.

Most creators have no concept of "condition." And they don't need to. It's perfectly understandable why they have no concept of it. It's also perfectly understandable why collectors DO. Just because one likes to keep ones comics in the best shape possible does not therefore mean they have no regard for the creative efforts contained therein. On the contrary, MOST of the time, it's because they absolutely do. Understanding that, I have put comics to be signed in window bags with sometimes as many as 4-6 boards, to make sure that even the most ham-fisted creators....and there are some ham-fisted creators out there...don't crunch my books. Why? Because it matters TO ME. And, since it's MY property, what matters TO ME should be of concern to anyone who deals with it, as YOUR property matters TO YOU, and I do what I can to make sure YOUR property is not carelessly handled, too. You don't have to justify yourself to anyone about it. It matters TO YOU, and that's the only reason anyone ever needs.

Wow what? What could possibly be controversial about that comment? Creator: "I'm charging you an additional amount because I have the perception that you're getting my signature to make money from it." Me: "Ok...so, if I don't actually make money off of it...which is the whole reason you're charging me a surcharge...then do I get a refund? Since the whole premise of your charge is because I would, in your perception, be 'making money'. Right? So, if I don't actually make money, then you would, of course, be perfectly willing to refund me." Why is this...AT ALL..controversial? It's basic common sense. And it perfectly illustrates the rudeness and absurdity of such a position by such creators in the first place. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't charge extra because you think someone is "profiting" from you, but assume NONE of the risk involved in such a transaction. Charge or not, but if you charge, basic reason and decency says to charge the same price for everyone. It's none of your business what people do with their property...again, despite what the laughably ignorant at Voldemort's board "think" (and I use that term quite advisedly)...and I'll thank you not to put ANYONE in that position in the first place. Don't count my money, and I won't count yours. In fact, I won't count your money even if you count mine. It's tacky and rude.