New Label

[seanfingh]

 

Celebrity Authentics has done it before as well. I have a Rose McGowan sig with a sticker on the book.

[Jeffro.]

Simpler solution: Get the celebrity signature authenticated by a recognized hand-writing expert and request that CGC include that information on whichever label is appropriate. (thumbs u

 

The whole yellow-label Signature Series thing has troubled me for a long time because it comes across as little more than a money grab for everyone involved.

 

Autographs aren't exclusive to CGC signing events and as I see it if collectors can provide evidence of authenticity, then that should be sufficient to get this fact acknowledged on whatever label (blue, purple or green) that the collectible would otherwise receive.

 

The Signature Series is the one gray area which places CGC at odds with accepted practices in the antiquities trade. I realize that on-site signing events are profitable and suit many folks just fine, but this isn't the only way famous signatures are authenticated in the world of autograph collecting.

 

Many artists or celebrities signed collectibles long before CGC existed; that needs to be taken into account. CGC should recognize authentication as part of the service provided.

 

My

 

You make a great point. In sports card grading for non pack pulled autographs (ones done at shows) Beckett offers a third party forensic hand writing expert so that the can still grade the card and authenticate it for it's customers. Maybe CGC could go that route.

 

I don't mean this to be incendiary, but I really think you guys are missing the point. CGC will not, under any circumstances, legitimize signatures any way other than the current SS program. They are not going to put themselves in an position that has them dealing with consulting an expert to verify the authenticity of the sig. Why should they open themselves up to that can of worms? If they don't witness it happening in front of them, it's not going into a slab with a yellow label.

Period. What would their motivation for deviating from what has been a very trusted model?

[Cat-Man_America]

The Signature Series is the one gray area which places CGC at odds with accepted practices in the antiquities trade. I realize that on-site signing events are profitable and suit many folks just fine, but this isn't the only way famous signatures are authenticated in the world of autograph collecting.

 

Many artists or celebrities signed collectibles long before CGC existed; that needs to be taken into account. CGC should recognize authentication as part of the service provided.

 

My

 

The Yellow label is set up to provide 1st party authentication for the vast majority of items subbed. There are limited circumstances where an item can go directly from the talent to CGC in an unbroken chain of custody with an affidavit to CGC. There are no other circumstances in which they will provide the yellow label certification.

 

That does not constitute a "gray area." It constitutes a well delineated starting and stopping point for their services. Anyone that wants a 3rd party authentication is free to get one. CGC does not provide that service. I for one, am glad, as 3rd party authentication opens Pandora's Box to all of the well documented problems with forgeries and scams in other collectibles markets.

 

The yellow label is brilliantly coordinated to provide a tidy profit for CGC, signers and autograph speculators. I don't begrudge anyone doing that, but let's be honest here, it has little to do with actual authentication of historic autographs. The world did not begin in 2000 when CGC opened it's doors.

 

The "gray area" is one of perception, or rather how authentication of autographs is normally conducted in the collecting world. CGC did an end-run around it by offering on-site witnessing, and deserves credit for a very smart idea, but there is a troubling aspect of how this plays out that needs to be addressed.

 

If an actual autograph is only noted as "writing on cover" (or interior) because the original owner obtained the authentic signature before 2000 then why should this become a penalty of ownership? Why should an authentic autograph be devalued merely because a CGC witness wasn't around at the time it was signed?

 

The yellow label may be a starting and stopping point, but even to one less cynical than I it must seem a trifle self-serving to limit the Signature Series to on-site signings witnessed by designated CGC employees.

 

In the antiquities trade autographs can be assessed by hand-writing experts and validated with a very good degree of certainty. You've stated that it's OK to do that, but then how do you suggest getting the collectible graded and properly protected in a CGC holder with recognition of it's authenticated signature?

 

Isn't that the classic Catch 22 scenario?

[Stein]

I'm glad this has brought about some good debate. From posts sent to me privately and on these boards it looks like about 75% are for completely, 20% are for but have concerns about how it would work, and 5% are against. I like to collect signatures. I have all the presidents, Declaration of Independence signers, and many famous people like Einstein, Freud, Alexander Graham Bell. CGC is unique in that it won't authenticate a signature unless it is witnessed by an employee. How would one see George Washington sign something yet it can be authenticated. I agree that an unwitnessed signature should not get a yellow label. However, green just doesn't seem right for a signature. As pointed out, CGC at one time had no label for a witnessed, signed, restored comic. Now they do. They used to have a red label. Now they don't. I've never sold a comic and I never plan to yet I have been collecting for 40 years.I have some old signatures that I don't think are right for a green label. I would prefer a separate label for an unwitnessed signature than one with a coupon clipped. Just my preference. I'm not asking CGC to legitimize the signature or make the comic more valuable. This wouldn't be any better or worse than a green label, just different. I send in comics unwitnessed and sometimes it comes back with "name written on cover" and sometimes with "the name Stan Lee written on cover". It's inconsistent. Sometimes I'll send in a comic with a Dynamic Force certificate and it gets "name written on cover" and sometimes I'll send in a comic with no certificate and no mention of who signed and it will come back "John Romita written on the cover". A new label with whatever is claimed to be on the cover to me would be more accurate and consistent. Maybe it would be worth more, maybe less but that is not why I want it. It wouldn't hurt anyone. CGC would probably benefit as people send in more comics or relabel their greens. CGC is not authenticating these, just putting them in a different label. I hope the debate continues and that someone from CGC reads it.

[seanfingh]

The Signature Series is the one gray area which places CGC at odds with accepted practices in the antiquities trade. I realize that on-site signing events are profitable and suit many folks just fine, but this isn't the only way famous signatures are authenticated in the world of autograph collecting.

 

Many artists or celebrities signed collectibles long before CGC existed; that needs to be taken into account. CGC should recognize authentication as part of the service provided.

 

My

 

The Yellow label is set up to provide 1st party authentication for the vast majority of items subbed. There are limited circumstances where an item can go directly from the talent to CGC in an unbroken chain of custody with an affidavit to CGC. There are no other circumstances in which they will provide the yellow label certification.

 

That does not constitute a "gray area." It constitutes a well delineated starting and stopping point for their services. Anyone that wants a 3rd party authentication is free to get one. CGC does not provide that service. I for one, am glad, as 3rd party authentication opens Pandora's Box to all of the well documented problems with forgeries and scams in other collectibles markets.

 

The yellow label is brilliantly coordinated to provide a tidy profit for CGC, signers and autograph speculators. I don't begrudge anyone doing that, but let's be honest here, it has little to do with actual authentication of historic autographs. The world did not begin in 2000 when CGC opened it's doors.

 

The "gray area" is one of perception, or rather how authentication of autographs is normally conducted in the collecting world. CGC did an end-run around it by offering on-site witnessing, and deserves credit for a very smart idea, but there is a troubling aspect of how this plays out that needs to be addressed.

 

If an actual autograph is only noted as "writing on cover" (or interior) because the original owner obtained the authentic signature before 2000 then why should this become a penalty of ownership? Why should an authentic autograph be devalued merely because a CGC witness wasn't around at the time it was signed?

 

The yellow label may be a starting and stopping point, but even to one less cynical than I it must seem a trifle self-serving to limit the Signature Series to on-site signings witnessed by designated CGC employees.

 

In the antiquities trade autographs can be assessed by hand-writing experts and validated with a very good degree of certainty. You've stated that it's OK to do that, but then how do you suggest getting the collectible graded and properly protected in a CGC holder with recognition of it's authenticated signature?

 

Isn't that the classic Catch 22 scenario?

 

No, it is not a Catch 22 at all. You have spent a good deal of time discussing what the Yellow label program should be, in your opinion. I have described the way that it is.

 

I suppose my main issue with your thesis relates to the part that I have underlined. If the market determines that there is some sort of stigma to unwitnessed, unverified signatures, then so be it. You seem to be demanding that CGC incur whatever additional costs and processes would be necessary in order to provide after the fact authentication of signatures. Presumably to protect against or prevent some sort of indelible mark that unverified signatures receive. They have chosen not to, for a number of valid reasons.

 

I fail to see how "correcting" the market adapting to a better authentication system (1st party witnessing versus COAs etc.) is the responsibility of the party that has come up with the better authentication system. As to the charges that it was self-serving and a market maker, of that they are guilty. Ah, capitalism.

[Marvelfangirl]

How many labels will CGC have to create at this point?

Its like a freaking rainbow

The CGC Corps

[Cat-Man_America]

The Signature Series is the one gray area which places CGC at odds with accepted practices in the antiquities trade. I realize that on-site signing events are profitable and suit many folks just fine, but this isn't the only way famous signatures are authenticated in the world of autograph collecting.

 

Many artists or celebrities signed collectibles long before CGC existed; that needs to be taken into account. CGC should recognize authentication as part of the service provided.

 

My

 

The Yellow label is set up to provide 1st party authentication for the vast majority of items subbed. There are limited circumstances where an item can go directly from the talent to CGC in an unbroken chain of custody with an affidavit to CGC. There are no other circumstances in which they will provide the yellow label certification.

 

That does not constitute a "gray area." It constitutes a well delineated starting and stopping point for their services. Anyone that wants a 3rd party authentication is free to get one. CGC does not provide that service. I for one, am glad, as 3rd party authentication opens Pandora's Box to all of the well documented problems with forgeries and scams in other collectibles markets.

 

The yellow label is brilliantly coordinated to provide a tidy profit for CGC, signers and autograph speculators. I don't begrudge anyone doing that, but let's be honest here, it has little to do with actual authentication of historic autographs. The world did not begin in 2000 when CGC opened it's doors.

 

The "gray area" is one of perception, or rather how authentication of autographs is normally conducted in the collecting world. CGC did an end-run around it by offering on-site witnessing, and deserves credit for a very smart idea, but there is a troubling aspect of how this plays out that needs to be addressed.

 

If an actual autograph is only noted as "writing on cover" (or interior) because the original owner obtained the authentic signature before 2000 then why should this become a penalty of ownership? Why should an authentic autograph be devalued merely because a CGC witness wasn't around at the time it was signed?

 

The yellow label may be a starting and stopping point, but even to one less cynical than I it must seem a trifle self-serving to limit the Signature Series to on-site signings witnessed by designated CGC employees.

 

In the antiquities trade autographs can be assessed by hand-writing experts and validated with a very good degree of certainty. You've stated that it's OK to do that, but then how do you suggest getting the collectible graded and properly protected in a CGC holder with recognition of it's authenticated signature?

 

Isn't that the classic Catch 22 scenario?

 

No, it is not a Catch 22 at all.

 

I'm pretty sure that Joseph Heller would've disagreed with you (he died the year before CGC was born). In fact, if I had Joseph Heller's autograph on a comic book I have to wonder what kind of designation it would receive from CGC even if I had the author's signature authenticated by a reputable hand-writing expert.

 

You have spent a good deal of time discussing what the Yellow label program should be, in your opinion. I have described the way that it is.

 

You need to reread my post. The problem I have with how the Signature Series works has nothing to do with what the Yellow Label program IS, but rather how it is perceived and what needs to be addressed outside of the program in fairness to collectors of autographs who have fallen through the cracks, so to speak.

 

I suppose my main issue with your thesis relates to the part that I have underlined. If the market determines that there is some sort of stigma to unwitnessed, unverified signatures, then so be it.

 

I'm not sure how that applies to my contention here at all, except perhaps where the unwitnessed part is concerned. I don't believe that signatures should be accepted without expert verification, but the problem of limiting ALL authentication to a CGC witness creates the presumption of self-interest. IOW, the market really hasn't determined anything, CGC has, and there's the rub.

 

You seem to be demanding that CGC incur whatever additional costs and processes would be necessary in order to provide after the fact authentication of signatures. Presumably to protect against or prevent some sort of indelible mark that unverified signatures receive. They have chosen not to, for a number of valid reasons.

 

Never suggested any of this, nor have I made any demands. What I am saying is that if CGC ignores authenticated signatures, that is, autographs that have been authenticated outside of what is perceived to be their profit motivated control, then it lessens, not strengthens, the legitimacy of their labeling system.

 

I fail to see how "correcting" the market adapting to a better authentication system (1st party witnessing versus COAs etc.) is the responsibility of the party that has come up with the better authentication system. As to the charges that it was self-serving and a market maker, of that they are guilty. Ah, capitalism.

 

Again, I think you're missing the point. I never stated or meant to leave the impression that it's CGC's responsibility to make the Signature Series adapt to any other system. What I'm suggesting is more in the area of common sense compromise. I would argue that CGC's ignoring the widely accepted practice of hand-writing authentication for older signatures isn't good for themselves, autograph collectors or the long term acceptance of the hobby.

 

It just makes the Signature Series seem like a self-serving service because no provision has been made that allows for signatures collected before the advent of the Series.

 

Let me provide an analogy for you Sean. You go to your favorite cinema, walk up to the concession stand and order a Coke. You take a sip and say "...This is Pepsi!" The clerk replies "We don't serve Coke anymore." You say "...but I don't like Pepsi, Coke tastes better." The clerk shrugs and says "Pepsi bought the franchise and Pepsi says Pepsi tastes better."

[Chespirito]

Celebrity Authentics has done it before as well. I have a Rose McGowan sig with a sticker on the book.

 

She is so damn hot....if it wasn't for her bad breath, we'd still be together...

[seanfingh]

 

But it is a self-serving service. I have already conceded that, and in fact, consider the "self-serving" nature of the service to be one of its best characteristics. That is where yours and my difference of opinion lies.

 

CGC could provide any number of authentication services but chooses to only do so in the two limited instances that I described above. That gives me a specific type of confidence in the product. And while you choose to say that the market hasn't determined anything, the market has determined that CGC authenticated signatures carry a significant premium over unauthenticated signatures. CGC is not buying the comic books, people are, and those people make the market.

 

I am happy that CGC has refused to do other authentication, and again submit that anyone who wants those services can easily get them and feel good if that is what they want.

 

What is the basis of your opinion when you say this?:

 

"I would argue that CGC's ignoring the widely accepted practice of hand-writing authentication for older signatures isn't good for themselves, autograph collectors or the long term acceptance of the hobby."

 

It is quite counter to my personal experience.

 

 

[Iceman399]

How many labels will CGC have to create at this point?

Its like a freaking rainbow

 

Just think of it as one for each lantern.

[Darkman]

Has anyone seen a 9.8 green label book?

[Freeballin523]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Creepy-Limited-Series-1-CGC-Qualified-9-8-Dan-Brereton-/400179628109

[comicdonna]

Has anyone seen a 9.8 green label book?

Yes.

[mschmidt]

Yep - I've owned a couple myself.

[Blorgon scum]

Yes, and here are two examples of the same book one green label and yellow SS sanctioned.

 

[hamburger-migration]

What I am saying is that if CGC ignores authenticated signatures, that is, autographs that have been authenticated outside of what is perceived to be their profit motivated control, then it lessens, not strengthens, the legitimacy of their labeling system.

 

I would argue that CGC's ignoring the widely accepted practice of hand-writing authentication for older signatures isn't good for themselves, autograph collectors or the long term acceptance of the hobby.

 

Wow, are all hippies such drama queens? :: CGC ignores a lot of things that could help this hobby, it's been that way since Day One. This complaint is waaay down on that list.

[Cat-Man_America]

But it is a self-serving service. I have already conceded that, and in fact, consider the "self-serving" nature of the service to be one of its best characteristics. That is where yours and my difference of opinion lies.

 

Your concession speech lacks gravitas.

 

FTR, I appreciate everything CGC does, but this one aspect of their service just comes across as just a little opportunistic and disingenuous.

 

When the most widely accepted grading provider states that only the signatures that their employees have witnessed are reliable enough to be deigned legitimate on their labels it may call into question the objectivity of their system.

 

CGC could provide any number of authentication services but chooses to only do so in the two limited instances that I described above.

 

To paraphrase the Grail knight from Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade: They chose poorly.

 

That gives me a specific type of confidence in the product.

 

IOW, using your criterion we can be absolutely sure that neither George Washington nor Jack Kirby signed any CGC Signature Series books.

 

I know that I feel more confident now.

 

And while you choose to say that the market hasn't determined anything, the market has determined that CGC authenticated signatures carry a significant premium over unauthenticated signatures. CGC is not buying the comic books, people are, and those people make the market.

 

I think P.T. Barnum had just the right line for this, but I'll leave that to your imagination.

 

I am happy that CGC has refused to do other authentication, and again submit that anyone who wants those services can easily get them and feel good if that is what they want.

 

Fine Sean, you're certainly entitled to that opinion that their choice makes things better. I'm just saying that as CGC is the recognized leader in comic grading it behooves them to bring their views on autograph authentication more in line with the antiquities market. That's all.

 

What is the basis of your opinion when you say this?:

 

"I would argue that CGC's ignoring the widely accepted practice of hand-writing authentication for older signatures isn't good for themselves, autograph collectors or the long term acceptance of the hobby."

 

Because the decision to ignore expert authentication for unwitnessed autographs raises more questions about the motives behind the Signature Series than it answers.

 

It is quite counter to my personal experience.

 

Sorry, just have to ask: what is the depth of your experience in the antiquities markets? Do you collect signatures? If so, did you collect autographs before the Signature Series was unveiled? Have you ever taken note of how autographs are appraised on Antiques Roadshow, ...or is your personal experience more tuned into Storage Wars??? (Yeeeeeeeeeep!)

 

Really, Sean, no offense intended...

 

Wow, are all hippies such drama queens? CGC ignores a lot of things that could help this hobby, it's been that way since Day One. This complaint is waaay down on that list.

 

Wow! You sure know a lot for being 10 posts in; let's see, this is Day Five, right?

[brendanb438]

The Signature Series is the one gray area which places CGC at odds with accepted practices in the antiquities trade. I realize that on-site signing events are profitable and suit many folks just fine, but this isn't the only way famous signatures are authenticated in the world of autograph collecting.

 

Many artists or celebrities signed collectibles long before CGC existed; that needs to be taken into account. CGC should recognize authentication as part of the service provided.

 

My

 

The Yellow label is set up to provide 1st party authentication for the vast majority of items subbed. There are limited circumstances where an item can go directly from the talent to CGC in an unbroken chain of custody with an affidavit to CGC. There are no other circumstances in which they will provide the yellow label certification.

 

That does not constitute a "gray area." It constitutes a well delineated starting and stopping point for their services. Anyone that wants a 3rd party authentication is free to get one. CGC does not provide that service. I for one, am glad, as 3rd party authentication opens Pandora's Box to all of the well documented problems with forgeries and scams in other collectibles markets.

 

Has CGC ever considered offering a 3rd party service to authenticate sigs on comics? Just like PSA does with sports and famous people sigs?

 

That could be an interesting addition to their business model if they wanted to get into it but as you mentioned it does open up a whole can of worms though just like with PSA/DNA it is just their opinion that the sig is legit.

 

I will say that from a collecting standpoint I do love the fact that the Yellow Label Sig Series allows zero doubt of authenticity though when it comes to a sketch and or signature on a book. This is a really nice service that they do offer for the market.

[seanfingh]

Why would I take offense? Your opinion is no less valid than mine. The main difference is that you are looping in a desire to have CGC provide authentication services that conform to your experience in the "antiquities" market.

 

They have actively chosen not to do that, and I support the decision. I like the Yellow label product for precisely the reason that you feel it is deficient and ne'er the twain shall meet.

[DiceX]

Chest thumping threads have been moved to Mondays. Please mark your calendars.