Overwritten SIgnature and SS

[PovertyRow]

Supposing one had a book signed by the artist on the cover. They wanted to get the book slabbed in an SS slab. If the artist then signs over the signature with a slightlly thicker marker or pen, how would this be perceived by CGC?

[Guest Grails]

I doubt any witness would accept or allow for a "tracing" to be done over an existing signature.

[Boozad]

I'm not sure about that. Ask over in the Signature Room (thumbs u

[SignatureSelect]

the book would still be qualified.

[Nostalgic Attic]

I'll describe a similar quandry I had so you can decide if you want to go the same route. I had this same dilemna with a Hulk 102 which I had Stan sign some 30 years ago on the inside page. CGC had encapsulated it as a blue label 7.5 with a note saying "'Stan Lee' written on the first page in ink." I asked for advice from the Board and the concensus was that if I cracked it and had a CGC witness see Stan say, "Yep, that's my signature", CGC would then put it in a a yellow sig series. I did just that, and when it came time for Stan to look at the signature, he did verify that it was his signature in the book, he also actually stopped the signing 'conveyor belt' to talk with me and express his gratitiude that I had kept the book for that long. I asked him if he would write "excelsior" in front of his name, which he graciously agreed to do. I handed the book to the witness with the old label and thought I had solved my dilemna.

 

A few weeks later CGC called and said a witness had not seen the initial signature, so they couldn't certify the signature. We had a discussion, and ultimately I received yellow label which reads something to the effect, "Excelsior signed by Stan Lee on first page on such and such a date .......Stan Lee written in ink on first page." (8.0 BTW )

 

I guess the moral of the story is to call CGC and see what they say ahead of time.

[DiceX]

You should have asked Stan to sign the FC, then draw a big cockroach over the name on the first page. It would have been signed/sketched, then.

 

 

[Turtle]

I'll describe a similar quandry I had so you can decide if you want to go the same route. I had this same dilemna with a Hulk 102 which I had Stan sign some 30 years ago on the inside page. CGC had encapsulated it as a blue label 7.5 with a note saying "'Stan Lee' written on the first page in ink." I asked for advice from the Board and the concensus was that if I cracked it and had a CGC witness see Stan say, "Yep, that's my signature", CGC would then put it in a a yellow sig series. I did just that, and when it came time for Stan to look at the signature, he did verify that it was his signature in the book, he also actually stopped the signing 'conveyor belt' to talk with me and express his gratitiude that I had kept the book for that long. I asked him if he would write "excelsior" in front of his name, which he graciously agreed to do. I handed the book to the witness with the old label and thought I had solved my dilemna.

 

A few weeks later CGC called and said a witness had not seen the initial signature, so they couldn't certify the signature. We had a discussion, and ultimately I received yellow label which reads something to the effect, "Excelsior signed by Stan Lee on first page on such and such a date .......Stan Lee written in ink on first page." (8.0 BTW )

 

I guess the moral of the story is to call CGC and see what they say ahead of time.

 

Based on what you describe, here's what I believe happened.

 

Your hulk 102 is structurally better than a 7.5-8.0. Unless part of identifying characteristic of a pedigree (usually by the owner), an unwitnessed signature is counted as a defect and noted on the label as "XXX written on cover/1st page" the same way a piece of tape would be noted. Since the sig was small, the grade deduction wasn't too bad and your book is probably structurally an 8.5 (keep in mind that I haven't seen the book).

 

When you took it to get it signed again, the "Excelsior" got witnessed and certified but the signature did not. If a book has been signed by an artist/writer unwitnessed, it doesn't matter if you take it back to the artist and they say "yep, that's me", under no circumstances will that signature be authenticated. If it wasn't witnessed, it won't be certified. Certificates of Authenticity don't count as a witnessing either an no CoA will be accepted for Signature Series either.

 

Why? With practice, there are people out there who can reproduce a signature. If someone forged my signature and it looked identical to mine, how would I be able to tell who wrote it? I wouldn't be able to. "Grandfathering" in signatures would essentially invalidate the overall concept of the Signature Series label and the requirement that all signatures are witnessed. If faith in the SS label is lost, you may as well not have one.

 

Your grade didn't change because the "Stan Lee" signature you had was already counted as a defect. You got lucky and got a grade bump due to re-grading (it was probably a strong 7.5, weak 8.0 with the defect, so this time you fell on the high side. If you submitted it again, I wouldn't be surprised to see it stay at 8 or go back to 7.5. Your SS label authenticates the Excelsior and notes the signature as a defect. As a side note, when you submitted the book the first time, you likely could have asked for a green "Qualified" label. This would have noted the defect on the label but not counted it as a defect. The grade would likely have been higher (an 8.5 is my guess). However, since there's no "Signature Series Qualified" label, you would have dropped the grade because now you're forced to count the unwitnessed sig as a defect.

 

I hope that makes sense. (thumbs u

[Nostalgic Attic]

Your analysis is exactly as I surmised, but I still don't understand. Mr. Lee was sitting over the book, with pen in hand, willing to sign it, but there was a discussion regarding whether I wanted him to, because he verified it was his signature already in the book. (I also paid for the "non" signature the second time.) The issue of old versus new signature came up because I submitted the old label in the interest of full disclosure, otherwise, no one at CGC would have known the two signatures didn't happen at the same time. I was assuming the first signature would have had some wording associated with it stating "Stan Lee Signature Authenticated on such and such a date." In reality, signatures are authenticated all the time.

 

I'm not disappointed about receiving a yellow label, but I can only imagine what would have happened if I hadn't had Mr. Lee sign 'Excelsior'. I would have probably been disappointed with how CGC handled it.

 

The point I was making is, because of differing opinions, best to go to the source (CGC) and find out ahead of time so there won't be any surprises.

 

Former 7.5: (That is not a tear on the right edge)

 

[Turtle]

Your analysis is exactly as I surmised, but I still don't understand. Mr. Lee was sitting over the book, with pen in hand, willing to sign it, but there was a discussion regarding whether I wanted him to, because he verified it was his signature already in the book. (I also paid for the "non" signature the second time.) The issue of old versus new signature came up because I submitted the old label in the interest of full disclosure, otherwise, no one at CGC would have known the two signatures didn't happen at the same time. I was assuming the first signature would have had some wording associated with it stating "Stan Lee Signature Authenticated on such and such a date." In reality, signatures are authenticated all the time.

 

Nice book!

 

But I do have a problem with the above statement. I surely appreciate that you acted in the interest of full disclosure by submitting the original blue label with the book, but I take issue with the bolded part above. Surely the witness you were working with was actually witnessing the signing and would have seen that the book was previously signed and that the signature and the "excelsior" weren't added on the same date. Saying that no one at CGC would have known about the signature had you not disclosed the info yourself tells me that a witness was not doing what they are trusted to do; witnessing the signature and submitting it to the CGC for grading.

 

I certainly hope that I'm looking too much into your statement. In order for the signature series to work, it MUST maintain it's rigid policies regarding signatures. Any lapse could severely damage the reputation of the label and I trust that none of the witnesses would do that.

 

Again, nice book! Just out of curiosity, any reason you didn't have him sign the cover? I know that before the CGC came along, it was commonplace for creators to sign inside the book, but if you knew you were going to slab it and Stan was right in front of you, why not have him write "Excelsior" where you could see it with your own eyes?

 

 

[Nostalgic Attic]

I have a personal preference that signatures not go on the front cover, in effect, covering the artwork.

 

Regarding the issue about the witness; that was my first signature series event, and it seemed to me a loosely organized event that had some holes in the integrity of the signature verification process. I'm hoping it wasn't how they are usually run.

 

Briefly, there were two witnesses there to my knowledge. There was one who was standing up on the stage, and another down below the stage sitting at a booth. After the signing, I turned to hand the book to the witness on the stage and they pointed me to the floor area where the other witness was. I walked down to the floor area and waited while others filled out their forms. It turns out this area wasn't a secure zone and people were walking in and out of the area. If I was a dishonest person, I could have whipped a few dozen books out of my backpack with "Stan Lee" signatures on them, or someone could have walked up and stood in line at the booth with counterfeit sigs (which certainly may have happened). It turns out the witness at the booth wasn't associated with the witness on the stage, and technically never saw Stan sign my book, or any of the other books that were submitted under his dealer number.

 

So that is why, if I hadn't submitted the old label, CGC would have thought both sigs occurred on the same date. I had considered not submitting the old label, but by the time I was able to speak to the 'witness' at the booth and explain, the witness on the stage was gone. So any explanation regarding the signatures was not verifiable.

 

John Romita (thumbs u One of my all time favs.

 

 

[Transplant]

I am shocked. Shocked, I say, to hear that a Yellow label was given to a book that was not actually witnessed being signed.

 

On another topic, I again have to ask. What's point of having SS slabs for interior signatures? Especially where, as in this case, the signature is already there. If it's slabbed, you'll never see the sig again without losing that certification.

[Turtle]

I have a personal preference that signatures not go on the front cover, in effect, covering the artwork.

Gotcha (thumbs u As a younger collector who has only done my serious collecting since CGC's inception, I view things the way transplant does. If you get something signed on the inside and then get it certified, you'll never see it again unless you invalidate the certification. It's a bit of a catch-22. The only way I could swing that myself is if I took a picture of the interior signature before slabbing it, but it still wouldn't be the same to me.

 

To each his own, though. I realize that interior sigs were the norm in the older days of collecting and tend to show the that the owner has been in the hobby for quite some time.

 

But I am also shocked that a CGC Signature Series event was handled in such a way. I'm hoping that the way it was run was an isolated event and not the norm.

 

 

 

 

[Nostalgic Attic]

On another topic, I again have to ask. What's point of having SS slabs for interior signatures? Especially where, as in this case, the signature is already there. If it's slabbed, you'll never see the sig again without losing that certification.

 

In this case, my goal was to have an existing signature inside the book authenticated, which I mistakenly believed the original signor could do in front of a CGC witness. My personal preference was to have it signed on the interior so the signature would not detract from the cover art. (I'm not knocking in any way people who feel that signatures on the cover do not detract from, or even add to the appearance of the book.) It is a catch-22 but for me, seeing the signature isn't as important as knowing it is there and certified along with the story and memories associated with it.

[divad]

I am shocked. Shocked, I say,

 

 

I too, am shocked that people deface their books with markers - I don't care if Jesus signed the freakin' book