Can anyone explain why this wasn't Qualified? [signature on 1st page]

[joe_collector]

my understanding is that this sort of notation precedes the creation of the signature series. but said understanding is not gospel by any stretch

 

I believe it was around the same time, and remember, a business decision like SS is in the works long before it's unveiled to us, so the actual SS public release date isn't a firm link.

 

All I know is that I can write Joe Smith on the cover and get a Universal, but if Stan Lee writes his name on the SAME book, it's a Qualified.

 

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

[Mr. Zipper]

I used to get a lot of books signed at shows. Getting lower or mid grade books signed was a nice way to bump up the desirability of an otherwise common book and there was some demand for them.

 

Now, CGC SS has killed all that. They've successfully created a forgery boogeyman and any signed book not in a CGC SS slab is suspect. As a longtime autograph collector and authenticator for some big dealers and auction houses, I can tell you comic book autograph forgery was -- and is -- so small that it is statistically insignificant. Forgers are not going to bother with Ayers and Neal Adams (peanuts) when they can be making thousands on fake Mantles, Reagans, Tom Cruises and JFKs.

 

Crafty marketing to be sure. It's just a darn shame that now one has to pay $30+ just so their "free" con autograph is "legit."

[Sal]

my understanding is that this sort of notation precedes the creation of the signature series. but said understanding is not gospel by any stretch

 

I believe it was around the same time, and remember, a business decision like SS is in the works long before it's unveiled to us, so the actual SS public release date isn't a firm link.

 

All I know is that I can write Joe Smith on the cover and get a Universal, but if Stan Lee writes his name on the SAME book, it's a Qualified.

 

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

 

well, to play a bit of devil's advocacy here, "Joe Smith" wouldn't inherently increase the value of a book and thus not necessitate verification. A Stan Lee signature would, and thus does.

 

no one's going out of their way to forge random people's names, you know. at least not that i am aware of

[divad]

SS = Silly Stuff

[Mr. Zipper]

well, to play a bit of devil's advocacy here, "Joe Smith" wouldn't inherently increase the value of a book and thus not necessitate verification. A Stan Lee signature would, and thus does.

 

This is true and this is the argument CGC gives for the GLOD -- they don't want to give the impression that the signature has been authenticated when it has not.

 

That said, it could just as easily be addressed by noting on the [blue] label, "Signature not authenticated." Simple and alleviates any possible "confusion."

 

Why tarnish and devalue the entire book with a Green Label just because it has a signature on it? And that's exactly what CGC is doing.

[the blob]

Getting lower or mid grade books signed was a nice way to bump up the desirability of an otherwise common book and there was some demand for them.

--------------------------

 

In my limited experience, that's all I ever saw a signature as doing. If a buyer had a choice between an autographed VG copy of some 15 cent Marvel and a regular VG copy, at more or less the same price, many went for the signed one (and some still do). Not a real premium or anything. Now dead guys, maybe that was different, I dunno.

[joe_collector]

well, to play a bit of devil's advocacy here, "Joe Smith" wouldn't inherently increase the value of a book and thus not necessitate verification. A Stan Lee signature would, and thus does.

 

Sure, but we're not talking about putting these book with a YELLOW SS label, which would be wrong, while CGC really hammers them down with a dreaded green.

 

What's wrong with a blue label? No one is going to mistake the sig as certified like the yellow, and there won't be a stigma like with the green.

[seanfingh]

well, to play a bit of devil's advocacy here, "Joe Smith" wouldn't inherently increase the value of a book and thus not necessitate verification. A Stan Lee signature would, and thus does.

 

Sure, but we're not talking about putting these book with a YELLOW SS label, which would be wrong, while CGC really hammers them down with a dreaded green.

 

What's wrong with a blue label? No one is going to mistake the sig as certified like the yellow, and there won't be a stigma like with the green.

 

JC,

 

I understand what you guys are saying about writing on comics. Many people have strong feelings about it. Same with the SS. That is cool. But, I still think the issue relates to the grade of the book without the signature and the grade of the book with the signature.

 

By the way, I am not discounting the argument about, for example, "Lamont Larson" being written on the cover and still receiving a 9.6, I just think that is an entirely different issue.

 

Take, for example, the book that Lange's was selling a couple of weeks ago on Ebay. It was a 9.8 Savage Sword of Conan that Roy Thomas signed. Should that book receive a 9.8 Qualified or a 9.0-9.2 Blue for a really nice book with writing on the cover? CGC has made the decision that for external signatures that would otherwise drop the grade, they issue the GLOD. I think the idea behind that is that it would be "unfair" to issue the artifically low blue label for a phenomenal book. I am not sure that the GLOD is viewed as such by the totality of the comic buying public, but it may be. The logic may be flawed, but it is logical.

 

For the X-Men 94 shown above in the thread, the internal signature does not drop the 8.0, and they issue the blue label. I was being too flip and argumentative before instead of explaining what I meant.

 

--Sean.