RockMyAmadeus

Charging for signatures isn't the issue. Charging a different price for the almost entirely erroneous perception that people are "profiting off their signatures" is the issue. Charging more than something is "worth" isn't really greed, without getting into a deep philosophical discussion. Greed is the belief that someone has or gets something that you don't think they deserve. A creator thinks (and many of them do) that people getting books slabbed with their signature is only doing it to "flip" or "make money off their signature." This is an erroneous perception, for a number of reasons. It is ignorance of how slabbing works and why people slab books. It's not about "maximizing profits"...it's about greed from creators who don't understand the sum total of slabbing and what it entails. Until that is addressed, these issues will continue to spiral out of control. Baker: "what are you going to do with that loaf of bread?" Buyer 1: "I'm going to eat it." Baker: "Ok, $3. And what are YOU going to do with that loaf of bread?" Buyer 2: "I'm going to use it in an art project that I then intend to sell. My last art project using leftover lasagna was a hit at MOMA, and I sold it for $2.5 million." Store owner: "What?? You're making money off of MY bread? How DARE you?! $5,000!!" It's as absurd here as it is there. There are people posting who do not understand this issue, yet they post anyways. That's the way of things.

No, it is not capitalism, and has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism requires informed decisions by mutually interested parties. This is greed based on ignorance. It has nothing to do with "charging too much." It has to do with charging a special fee, based on the (almost entirely erroneous) perception of the signer about the value and disposition of the item being signed. Stan Lee (actually, Max) doesn't charge a special fee based on the disposition of the item being signed. He simply charges what he (actually, Max) thinks his signature is worth to him, and people either choose to pay it or they do not. THAT is capitalism. Your second point is not pertinent. No one disagrees with you that creators are free to sign or not sign as they wish, or charge whatever they wish. It is a red herring used by others to muddy the argument, and not relevant to this particular issue. Do not misunderstand: the issue is charging a special fee based on where the item may ultimately end up. Not signing in general. Not charging for signatures. Charging a different price based on the almost entirely erroneous perception about what may happen to the item afterwards.

No. It is greed based on ignorance.

What I do with my property after it is signed is no one's business but my own. That this even needs to be said shows how screwed up the system has gotten. Charging a special fee based on where my property ends up is greed based on ignorance. I have been saying this for years, and you people with actual influence had better get a handle on this, or your geese are cooked.

What I do with my property after it is signed is no one's business but my own. That this even needs to be said shows how screwed up the system has gotten. Charging a special fee based on where my property ends up is greed based on ignorance. I have been saying this for years, and you people with actual influence had better get a handle on this, or your geese are cooked.

No.

Oh, I wasn't hoping for those boatloads, but I know there are folks who are. There aren't any sales of CGC graded copies. It's that rare. People didn't even know it actually existed until a couple of years ago. I suspect there will be slab sales at some point, but I know you have to assign points based on the market, which just doesn't exist yet. With a handful of raw sales in the $300-$500 range, however, it's going to be, pointwise, more significant than, say, #74, 72, 63, etc. Thanks for adding it!

Bump in the night...

A good example of another unintended consequence of the "Like" button. "You liked so and so's post? You're a toadie!" Shouldn't people be free to like something, without ulterior motives being ascribed to them? Can't they just agree with the sentiments expressed, regardless of who is expressing them? This factionalism, this tribalism, isn't a healthy, positive environment.

It's interesting, I read RMA's post about how people who disagree with him, like the posts of others who disagree with him and how awful that is, yet I look at your post and see a few people who agree with your agreement of him, liking your post and that is FINE. One more point to address, if I may. My comment was about people making derogatory comments towards specific people. JSJ's comment, however, isn't about anyone specifically. It's a generic comment, not aimed at anyone in particular. So, yes, of course that is fine. These distinctions may seem trivial or pedantic to some, but if people are going to understand where someone else is coming from, it's vital that these distinctions be made and understood.

I'm glad you have responded here, so I have the opportunity to address your concerns about my post. Let me start by saying that that's not what I said. It's not about "disagreeing." Here's what I said: Note the words "derogatory" and "sucks canal water." That's not "disagreeing." That's making derogatory comments. There's an incredible...in fact, foundational...difference between the two, that is the heart of my comment. People can disagree without being derogatory. It's not at all about "disagreeing." If you're going to comment about my posts, I don't think it's at all unreasonable or unfair to expect you to characterize what I've said accurately. You are diminishing people by painting their complaints as "bashing." "Bashing" is a "provocative word", certain to "rouse emotions in others", as discussed elsewhere. If it's giving you a headache, perhaps the sensible thing to do would be to stop reading these threads that concern the new board. There's no way for anyone to know that someone has a problem with something unless they voice their concerns. Companies have gone out of business because they were doing things that customers didn't like, but those companies never knew there were problems. I care about the Certified Collectibles Group. I have a mutually beneficial relationship with this company. I do not want them to lose business because there are concerns about any aspect of the company that aren't addressed. Maybe the customer has a point, and the company can improve their service. Maybe the company has a reason for doing what they're doing, and can't change it, but can address those concerns to reassure customers. Regardless, if the company never knows these issues exist...as inelegantly as a customer base may express those issues...they cannot address them at all. Customers voicing concerns is the very heart of corporate improvement. It is not fair...in fact it is derogatory...to diminish the concerns of customers by referring to it as "whining." These are real people, with real concerns that bother them, enough to risk a bit of social stigma by voicing those concerns. A very large amount of people who don't like change do NOT voice those concerns, but simply go away, deciding that it's not worth the effort to voice a concern, then have someone else characterize it as "whining." Are there unreasonable complaints, or complaints that have been addressed to individuals multiple times, that can reasonably be called "whining"? Sure. Does that represent a majority, or even a plurality, of the complaints? No. "Whining" is another one of those "provocative words" that "rouses emotion in others." The best way to deal with these discussions is soberly, without unnecessary provocation and emotionally charged commentary. Wouldn't you agree? I hope you take the time to consider my comments, and let's see if we can find some common ground.

Please note the above two comments by users "Logan510" and "kav"...regardless of the merit of either post...and the misuse of the "like" button for each other's post. That is the point I'm making. Aside to Kevin: you might address the fact that these two are following me around and making negative commentary about everything I post. They are acting in the very "bad faith" I describe above. It's a violation of your terms, and I would very much appreciate it if it would stop. I am not an administrator, nor a moderator, and have no power here. Thank you.

What a beauty.

By the way....for the reasons above, I would like to add MY "upvote" to this request, but I see that's no longer possible. Consider this, then, that.

You're (again) trying to control human behavior, and that is always doomed to fail. All of these "features" are designed by programmers who don't have a basic understanding of human nature. They rarely, if ever, think about unintended consequences...which is, of course, what makes them "unintended." But they frequently don't even consider the possibility of unintended consequences, which is why beta testing isn't anywhere near as frequent as it should be. You, yourself, made the mistake of presuming that people were acting in bad faith, with bad intentions, in malice, by "liking" a lot of posts that you didn't think they should be liking. You do it again, here. And far more egregious, you made a public condemnation and threat, as the administrator, without even bothering to investigate. A great opportunity to educate, correct, and instruct about this brand new feature was thrown out the window because you simply presumed that people were acting in bad faith, without even asking them why they were doing what they were doing. They were using the feature, but, with no instruction otherwise, you determined that they were MISusing it, and reacted with condemnation and threat...which practically guarantees people will want to now purposely misuse the feature against your intentions. Do you think the "like" button is also not a vehicle for trolling? It absolutely is. Posts that are derogatory against someone is "liked" by others who don't like that someone. Do you not think that isn't abuse of the feature? Of course it is. If I post "so and so sucks canal water" and other people "like" that post, have they not publicly endorsed that view, thereby creating (and sustaining) factionalism? This would have been fine, if this forum were a tabula rasa, and the feature had been there from the beginning. However, that's not the situation you have here. The positives about the feature..."good content eventually getting surfaced"...are overwhelmed by the negatives: misuse of the feature as a method of trolling, misuse of the feature by malcontents to "surface" content that is NOT "good", disagreement as to what actually constitutes "good" and "not good", accusations of misuse based on one's personal perspective. Any good you hope to accomplish will be overwhelmed if you try, as you do here, to force the feature on people and force them, through threat and coercion, to use the feature in the manner YOU THINK they should. They will react, and not in the way you want or intend. PS. Please stop using the superlative "super" in front of so many of your claims. We're not any of us children, everything doesn't need to be "super" this and "super" that for people to get the point. Thank you for taking the time to consider these things, and I hope you do.

Both

Tons of new books added, most priced quite close to FMV. Feel free to make offers!

Set Name: Sandman (1989) Book: Sandman #75 Second Printing (also worth a boatload of points; quite rare. Thanks!)

It's a smashing run, indeed. Best Justice League ever. By the way...I've added a few books. Check 'em out! Apparently, CGC board member "abraham" has, too. Spamtastic!

The Campbells were. The CTN animation expo in Burbank last Nov. He wasn't pleased, but he made a lot of money for 15 minutes of work. The others were not.

The Lady Rawhide Special Edition #1 is a reprint of Zorro #3 (and perhaps some other books.) Zorro #3 is the original. It used to be quite the hot book, during the mid-90's "bad girl" phase, but is pretty cheap these days...except in 9.8. On the off-chance that there's a Lady Rawhide renaissance, Zorro #3 would be the book to have.

Gen 13 was THE HOTTEST OF THE HOT in 1994. The hottest book on the market. #1 was a $50 book, and so was the #1/2.