RockMyAmadeus

Ok, fair enough...what did Babe Ruth contribute to the game of baseball? I can think of a couple of things, but only a couple...he brought in people to watch the games, enabling clubs to pay more for all the players in the clubs. Not sure that's analogous to comics, though it could be. Starlin selling more copies of Infinity Guantlet helps Byrne sell more issues of She-Hulk...? Oblique, but I suppose the argument could be made. Did Ruth change the way the game was played...? I think so, but a baseball historian would be better to answer that question. Did Starlin change the way comics were made...? I don't think so. Not in the sense that Adams, or Byrne, or McFarlane did. And a guy like Phil Seuling literally changed how the entire new comics market worked. That's pretty impressive.

No doubt. But he was paid for that work. He didn't do it for free. He was just doing his job, and, while doing a smashing job of it, didn't really do anything great "for the hobby." I just re-red SS #34-38, 40-43 (he didn't write #39), and it's STILL as awesome as it was to my 18 year old self the first time I red it. If, during the course of your work, you create art...that's really cool. But I dunno if I'd say it was "great for the hobby." Anyways, probably a moot point.

My apologies. I did not know I had offended you, or to what degree. I will, of course, honor your demand. Take care.

Nothing more than a keyboard warrior...? Huh. And here I thought I was a suave, debonaire lady's man, too. Drat. However...I'll gently point out that if one doesn't want debate, one might not put comments out there that inspire it, no...?

What "great things" has Jim Starlin done for the hobby? No doubt, he told some compelling stories, and had above-average art to go with them. Some of my favorites, in fact (his run on Surfer is the best thing he ever wrote.) And I'm not trying to be a jerk, here...I'm interested to know what "great things" Starlin has done. He created a lot of work, which he was paid for, and entertained a lot of people. But are those things "great for the hobby"? I consider Shooter's (or others, depending on whom you ask) advocacy of creator rights, particularly with regard to original artwork ownership, to be a great thing for the hobby. I consider Martin Goodman's willingness...crusty old curmudgeon that he was...to let Stan fool around with superheroes again in the early 60's to be a great thing. I consider Neal Adams' willingness to off Martin Goodman when advocating for creator rights to be a great thing. I consider the Heroes Initiative to be a great thing. I'm not sure, however, what Starlin has done that would be considered "great for the hobby."

If I could like this post 1,000 times, I would. This is exactly where I'm at. Yes, I sell sig series books. Yes, getting books slabbed is expensive. Yes, I do it myself, along with a select few people who help me, and I help them. Yes, I keep some of the books. Yes, I appreciate Sam, Balent, and the rest of the (old and new) SS crew at CGC. No, the creator had nothing to do with my Warlock #9 9.8 being a 9.8. No, the creator does not deserve, and did not earn, any "profit" I may have made from selling my high grade SS books (and really...unless you're privy to someone's financials, that's an awful ballsy, arrogant thing to presume about others.) Conversely, no, the creator does not owe me anything if I submit "duds." No, the creator does not have to sign anything. Yes, the creator can charge whatever he wants, for any reason. Yes, I have the right to tell them they're hurting themselves by making irrational, uninformed business decisions, and alienating a portion of their fanbase by believing things that aren't true. Yes, I make sure I pay creators, or, at a minimum, donate to Heroes on their behalf. Yes, I've donated quite a bit to Heroes in the last several years. No, what I've donated is none of your business. Yes, I'm happy to abide by any policy No, I don't appreciate people like J. Scott Campbell treating me with contempt and disrespect by telling me to my face that I'm not a fan because I get books slabbed. Who the hell does he think he is? These are people, not gods. And most of them would say the same thing.

I'm not sure what they would be loosing...the hounds...? Maybe the bonds of injustice?...in any event, yes, Starlin is the "bad guy", because he's cut off people from collecting in the manner they would like to collect, because of the actions of one person, unconnected to CGC, who didn't pay Jim what he agreed to pay him, regardless of why. That is a textbook "overreaction." This is the CGC board. People here, for the most part, collect CGC books. Part of that is the SS program. Who do you think are the ultimate "end users" of these slabs? Right, collectors. But Starlin is just voicing the same, tired old maxim: "How you collect sucks, how I collect rules!" No one has a problem with Jim charging. I have ALWAYS paid Jim for his signatures, even when he was NOT charging. Charging a different price for the same service is lame, weak, cheap, and greedy. Refusing to sign for a specific company (but not in general) is an overreaction. By the way...many facilitators had a heavy hand in this debacle, and others like it. Why would they care what a creator charges? In fact, they've actively encouraged creators to charge, because it has provided them access. Nevermind that it causes submissions to go down. Nevermind that the costs to collect SS slabs spirals ever upward. Nevermind that it makes it very difficult for the little guy to do his thing. They make THEIR "cut", regardless of what it costs the customer, not realizing that they, too, are eventually going to cut off their noses to spite their faces...they're just last in the line. Lessons here: 1. If you're a customer getting a creator's signature, and they have a donation jar, or some other form of payment is required, PAY IT. Feel free to negotiate, but don't be a cheap jerk. Donating $5 to Heroes Initiative for your stack of 25 books is CHINTZY. Donating $1 for your 5 books is CHINTZY. And don't you dare go putting just change into that bucket if you're getting ANYTHING signed. 2. If an artist signs for free, offer to BUY SOMETHING from them, if they have anything for sale. I offer to buy prints, and then tell them to please give them to kids who may pass by. This has worked very well. 3. If you negotiate a price, PAY IT. Oak version: "Pay dem creators four theys sigs!"

Try not spew. Many word make Oak head hurt. Too thinky thinky. Much sorries.

My apologies for writing in complete sentences. I'll try to post more memes for you. Perhaps I can post one in the Spidey Super Stories format...? "Easy Reader says...this post is easy to read!"

Why do you feel the need to insult me? Have I insulted you, or wronged you in some way?

What you are missing is the context of the statements taken together, and you have not understood the basic logic I have used, and to which Fingh is referring. That's not what I said, at all. Read the sentence again: "The thing that is making an SS book valuable is its condition, not the signature. The signature only amplifies the value that already exists, if any." The signature is not THE THING making an SS book valuable. THE THING making an SS book valuable is its condition. A signature CAN ADD to the value of a book, but it is not THE THING that makes it valuable in the first place. THE THING that makes it valuable (but not the ONLY thing) is its condition (after, of course, its status as a collectible.) Example: "THE THING that makes summer so exciting is being out of school!" That does not mean that nothing else...like vacation trips, spending time at the mall, working a summer job, etc., is exciting. "The thing" isn't an exclusionary statement. It's simply the driving factor, among other factors. If I had said "the ONLY thing", you would have a point. But I did not, nor would I, because , as you rightly point out, such a statement is ludicrous, especially from someone who has sold SS books for years. But, you know...no benefit of the doubt for ol' RMA, eh...? He must have said something stupid; it couldn't possibly be that I misunderstood him, right...? Read the second sentence again: "The signature only amplifies the value that already exists, if any." To amplify something means to add to it, to make it larger, to extend it. That means a signature can ADD value. If there's nothing to add to, make larger, or extend, then the signature itself generally adds nothing.

No. Read it again. It doesn't say "the ONLY thing." It says "the thing." There is a difference in meaning between those two statements, however subtle that difference is perceived to be (and it's not subtle.) No exclusion of other factors is implied, nor should be inferred. That much is made clear by the context of the very next sentence. "Amplify" means "to make larger, greater, or stronger; enlarge; extend." These sorts of misunderstandings...willful or innocent...are why many of my posts are long.

It's irrational to charge someone a higher price for something simply because of the color of the shirt they happen to be wearing, as you well know. Regardless of what the market determines, that is irrational, in and of itself. Are we really having this discussion......? Have we reductio ad absurdum'd here?

Sure, they don't owe anyone a signature...and they never have. If they want to stop signing, that's their choice. Of course, the fans don't owe them the business, too. That doesn't seem to be a mutually beneficial outcome.

That's irrational, as you well know. Most creators...well, the majority of creators...aren't irrational, and would never knowingly adopt such a policy, at the risk of alienating people who wear blue and green shirts, also as you well know. "Don't like it, don't buy it" isn't the issue, also as you well know.

Those people who "set their own pricing" aren't charging a higher price to some, based on what those some may or may not do with the item once it's sold. That's the issue. That's always been the issue. It's not about "setting one's own pricing." It's about the fundamental economics and misunderstanding of those fundamentals, as explained above. I do find it funny how otherwise intelligent people don't, or won't, understand that. I don't ask someone who makes an offer on an item of mine what they intend to do with it, and then say "oh, well, if you intend to burn it on a funeral pyre for your favorite Norse demi-god, then I'll have to charge you $50 more for it." Such an attempt would be, rightfully, scorned by any potential buyer. Once it's sold, it's none of my business what they do with it...even if they turn around and sell it for a profit. If I dared...and I don't...I would tell every creator that asks "is this for CGC/grading?" that, respectfully, it's none of their business what I do with my property, and it's really rather rude to ask. But I don't dare say anything remotely like that, because: addict. And I have been in the SS program for 9 years last week, and have never had a peep of a complaint about me from any creator, ever, anywhere. I set my price. I consider offers. A buyer either agrees, or does not. No one is charged a premium because I'm afraid they "might be profiting off of my work." CGC is actively losing business because of these creator policies.

That's true. It would be insane to say that. But no one's said that. At all. Ever. Condition is, far and away, the most important factor in determining the value of any book...but it's not the only one. It is, however, the distinction that creators, and facilitators to a large extent, don't understand, and aren't making clear, respectively. It's bad form to make things up, and then respond to it as if anyone has actually made that argument you just invented. Of course. Again, no one's said anything to the contrary. But "9.8" isn't the only grade that exists.

Let's stay away from the personal commentary about others, yes? I think that's a reasonable request. To answer your claim, however, that's a phony narrative, created by people who are offended that anyone would challenge them on the internet. It's not true, never has been true, and is, itself, a rather offensive charge to make. Show me the evidence, the proof, and I will gladly and happily change my mind about anything. In any event...if you're not part of the SS program, as you admit you're not, then I understand why you think your position is "logical." However, charging a premium because of what I happen to be doing with my property is not logical at all. It's real, actual greed, based on a flawed perception. No one...and I mean no one...would tolerate such a thing in the real world, yet, comic fans tolerate it because: addicts. Can you imagine walking into a car dealership, and having the dealer ask you what you intend to do with the car you're about to buy, and then charging you a different price based on your answer? Can you imagine walking into a realtor, and them asking you what you intend to do with the house you're about to buy, and then charging you a different price? Can you imagine calling a plumber, and he asks you what you intend to do with the plumbing after they've fixed it, and then charging you a different price? Can you imagine, if you will, walking into a comic book shop, and the retailer asking you what you intend to do with the comics you're about to buy, and then charging you different price? I can't. It's irrational. It's moderately offensive. It shouldn't be tolerated. But: addicts, so it is. Think about it: repairs to a home often add far more value to it than the cost of the repairs themselves. Same exact scenario. Yet how many plumbers, drywallers, painters, roofers, and other handymen get, or even demand, a "cut" of that additional "profit" you "made off them" when you sell YOUR home? Answer: not a single one. Nor should they. It's none of their business what I do with MY property that they did work on. They don't own it, they don't maintain it, they don't have any stake in it. Same with comic creators. If comic creators want their cut, there are MORE than enough people who would GLADLY help them sign and submit their OWN property, have them CGC'd, and they can take all the profit they can manage. And, indeed, some creators do just that. This subject, unfortunately, is very near and dear to me, so after sitting on the sidelines for quite some time, I felt it necessary to say something, if for no other reason than this is costing CGC business, and, in that regard at least, it's an important thing to discuss here.

But what Waid doesn't know is that the copy of, in my case, Gotham By Gaslight that I DID read and enjoy "100 times" is at home, and I want the signed pristine copy to go with it...because I bought multiple copies of the book, and supported his work moreso than those who only bought one... And maybe he should know that.

Why not? Are creators stupid? Incapable of understanding? This isn't a difficult concept for most people. I explained it in a couple of paragraphs. Creators are, usually, businesspeople too. They understand these things, when they understand the details. Even Rob Liefeld...no mental giant...understands that New Mutants #87 and #98 are generally worth more than #92 or #97, and charges a premium for them. It's messy, and not quite accurate, but it's a start.

That isn't accurate, and that's the very misunderstanding that is causing this conflict. The thing that is making an SS book valuable is its condition, not the signature. The signature only amplifies the value that already exists, if any.

I still think you're missing the fundamental issue. It's not about the cost, work, effort, experience, and risk, though those things are, indeed, factors that are involved, and which really don't concern a creator (nor should they.) It's about the underlying value of the item being signed, which is entirely dependent on its condition. That, far and above every other consideration, is the prime driver in this theoretical "profit" these creators think they're being "robbed" of. I have Starlin "duds." I got Starlin signed books that no one wants (anyone want to give me a "profit" for my 9.6 Batman #415...?) No one is going to pay me any sort of profit for those books. I don't go to Starlin and demand a refund because I didn't make a profit. That's not his concern...it's mine. But neither then should Starlin come to me and demand a premium, above and beyond what he charges others, for his faulty perception about how his signature is being used. And I love Starlin. I have a couple of hundred Starlin signed books, which are the pride of my collection. I have runs of Warlock, Captain Marvel, Infinity Gauntlet, and Batman. I've loved his work for a very long time. And none of that matters to Starlin, nor should it matter. If we're talking about "profit", let's lay everything on the table, and make sure everyone understands exactly what is going on. Let everyone make the decision eyes wide open, rather than rely on misperceptions and creator butthurt over those misperceptions. I guarantee you, if a creator understood the issue...and I also guarantee you that a LOT of facilitators don't bother to explain this to them, because it would hurt their "access"...they promise the $$$$ to these creators, which further creates these problems...it's not coming out of THEIR pockets, after all...but if a creator understood this, they wouldn't feel so "taken advantage of." And it is my belief that the vast majority of creators...if they understood these issues...would be more willing to work with people on a basis that all parties involved would consider fair. It's not about "they can do whatever they want." That's true, for the most part, and that's not what anyone is arguing. The argument is "if they understood the issues, they might be less hostile to the process." That's the only point I'm making. After all, these are creators who are used to dealing with these sorts of issues with publishers, when far, far more is at stake for them.

Either you don't really understand the mechanics of the SS market, or you don't understand the impact of those mechanics. Allow me to explain: the vast majority of the value of any comic book, especially relative to other copies of the same issues, is in its condition. A 9.8 Spider-Man #252 is worth substantially more than a 9.0. Almost an order of magnitude more. The difference in actual physical condition between those two grades isn't what the difference in price might lead some to believe, but I digress. The argument you're making would be completely valid...IF ANY signature ALWAYS added value, regardless of the condition of the underlying item. It does not. The vast majority of the value of a comic book is in its condition...not its signature. If I get Marv Wolfman to sign a ratty copy of Tales of the Teen Titans #44, and I slab it, and it comes back a 6.5...guess what? His signature added NOTHING to that book. It's worth (since we're talking about "what the market allows"), doesn't even cover the cost to have the book both signed ($20) and slabbed ($30-$40.) The slab has a "market value" of maybe $20-$30. If I get Marv Wolfman to sign what will be a 9.8 Tales of the Teen Titans #44, it is worth perhaps $250. In THAT case, yes, his signature AMPLIFIES value. But Marv Wolfman had nothing whatsoever to do with the preservation of THAT copy in THAT condition. But Marv Wolfman charges the same price for both books, regardless. He takes zero risk, and has zero cost, outside of the few seconds it takes him to sign, for which he is...per market value of his time and effort, mind you...WELL compensated. The submitter takes ALL the risk and bears all the cost. But the creators ERRONEOUSLY believe that their sig on ANYTHING, in ANY condition, is...as you yourself stated above..."adding value." So, the creators want a "share" of the "profit" that they assume someone is making off of them, while sharing virtually none of the burden and risk to make that "profit" happen..? And it is this misunderstanding that is driving this giant wedge into this niche of the industry, and it is this misunderstanding that needs to be explained before the entire program destroys itself. And, if people want to continue to make the argument that people are "profiting" off of creators' signatures...where is the uproar over the publishers, the distributors, the printers, and the retailers...? They're making a profit off the creators' efforts, are they not? And for substantially more effort, I might add. What I do with my property is no one's business but my own. As others have stated, what a creator does with their signature is THEIR business...UNTIL they make it available to the public, either for free, or for a price. If they offer it for a price, it is now a transaction between interested parties. Sign, don't sign, charge, don't charge...but when you offer it to the public, it's no longer "no one else's business." You have made it available to the public, with all that that entails. Can you imagine if you were buying a house, and you asked the owner what the condition of the foundation was, and you were told "that's none of your business"...? Now, can you imagine someone walking up to me off the street and asking me what my not-for-sale house's foundational condition is? Again, these real-life examples need to be brought up to expose the absurdity of these illogical, irrational "arguments."

Your statements here are not accurate. I have unverified signatures that add substantial value to a comic. I have CGC-witnessed signatures that add no value to a comic. Therefore, since the statement isn't accurate, the conclusion is also not accurate. This is the ignorance of creators of which I spoke.