"Artists Proofs" and "CGC non-gradable" books

[FeelNoRemorse-migration]

All:

 

I was highly disappointed to learn that trade paperbacks may no longer be listed in competitive sets. As I noted in the post I made on that thread, many of my competitive sets are based on the ARTIST and not on the book (many of the book sets I have are populated from my artist sets). When collecting an artist a TPB is just another form of their art that is to be collected and SHOULD be considered as part of the competitive set. Nevertheless, I understand that it may be that a decision has been made and that these will be removed. This made me think about other things that I feel are "artificial" or "unfair" or any other words that one might choose to use from the TPB discussion.

 

Please consider the following:

 

There is a company called JayCo. They published several covers that I would love to have in my registry. However, because of the way they are manufactured, CGC has determined that these older covers cannot be graded (the cover was larger than the inside book, and I think that caused problems in slabbing. Anyway, as CGC will not grade these older covers, they should not be in the competitive sets, as people who had them graded "early" have them and those of us that didnt can never have them. This certainly is an issue for me Eric "Ebas" Basladua set (and any sets his art is also in).

 

Then consider the "artist proof". Again, this may not impact many of you, but in the high end independent book area (again I will use Eric "Ebas" Basladua as an example. Many of his covers will have a "Chase cover" limite to 25 numbered issues. As a collector, I love this. I love super rare books. But then the publishers (I wont name names, but the people on the boards here will know who they - or you - are) will issue AP editions. Sometimes these editions are released to a specific store or stores. Sometimes its just "AP of 10". Regardless, the point is that this use of an "AP" with no distinguishing art difference artificially allows someone to but this book and "compete" with the other rare book with no real art difference. For the record, I have begged these same publishers to stop doing this, as I feel it devalues the limited comic because there is, in fact, a larger print run of the art.

 

Again, if one is collecting based on the artist, and a desire to have all variations (including TBP) then I understand why these books mentioned above should be allowed (and so should a TPB); however, if what CGC / the Registry wants is to create an environment where the playing field is based on perceived fairness then I think the logic that is being applied to the TPB should be equally applied to these books.

 

I would appreciate some consideration being given to this, and as a relatively new poster if someone could help give me guidance or breate a poll or whatever the right step is I would appreciate it.

 

Thank you.

 

Shawn

 

[Vikingreed]

So these AP books have the same Registry slot as the 25 limited Artists Proofs?

I am guessing the AP also stands for Artist Proof, so I am kind of confused...

 

I guess I need more details to be able to vote on this.

For example, does in one month, at a Con, the limited 25 Artist Proof issues get released, but the next month several stores get their special 10 AP issues with the same number and cover, which share the same Registry slot with the original 25 Artist Proof run?

So instead of 25 of the issue being in existence, there could not be 45, 55, 95, etc.?

 

It seems like the easiest way to solve this problem is to just have 2 separate Registry slots for the two different books.

From your post, it seems like it would be easy to distinguish between the two.

[FeelNoRemorse-migration]

No, they have separate slots, as do Trade Paperback issues. The concern isn't having the same slots, it's about whether or not they should count in a competitive set.

 

As I mentioned, it appears that trade paperbacks are going to be removed from competitive sets. I, for one, am opposed to that for my reasons noted (collecting based on artist they are covers that I want in my graded set). As of right now trade paperbacks have a separate slot that count.

 

The issue to me, as I beleive is the issue with TPBs, is whether the AP should count at all. It is not a different cover in any material way. And to be clear, the ones numbered out of 25 are not an AP, they are the regular cover that is extremely rare and limited. Then, so they can "sell more to customers" they create an AP run of the same book with a hard AP designation printed on the book (giving it it's own competitive slot). I simply feel that if the TPB is not going to be recognized, why should the AP book.

 

Your comment, however,woukd resolve part of the issue by not allowing people to have more than one in their set (I. E., both the actual issue and the AP). This is what happened with AP books that are and numbered / designated as an AP (as the AP designation is a grader note and is not considered a separate book).

 

If you want to see a good example of what I am discussing, look up the competive set for "notti and nyce" and look at all of the AP versions.

 

Thanks for responding. It gives me comfort to know that, even if I am not agreed with, a good discussion can be had on a post from someone who is really a "first time poster".

 

 

[FeelNoRemorse-migration]

And of course this doesn't address the books that are in the competitive sets that cgc won't grade anymore. That is a separate issue.

 

Also, you are correct that a book that there is hard numbered #/25 could have, for example, 35-50 books when you add in various artist proofs.

[mschmidt]

The AP books with printed numbering are variants - that's why they get their own label and their own registry slot. Comparing them to TPBs is a true apple to oranges comparison - it doesn't make sense.

 

As for the Jayco books, if CGC doesn't grade these books anymore, it would make sense that their slots also be removed from the registry sets.

[FeelNoRemorse-migration]

A TPB is a different book entirely, more so than a printed AP mark. If that AP mark is enough, being a TPB should be enough too. That's my opinion.

[FeelNoRemorse-migration]

Oh, and if you look, it has gotten to the point that they issue specific store issues ... so you will have a "BR" issue and a "TC" and a "BB" for various stores. So that you get different entries for each one.

[mschmidt]

Yes, they're called variants. The series you seem to collect have a ton of them. They're still not the same as TPBs.

[FeelNoRemorse-migration]

The variation is the letters AP on the cover? A TPB is a collection of several comics and is an entirely different publication. Again, it may be that the sets I collect are based in collecting the artist. If what is decided here is that (as I think may have been mentioned in the TPB discussion recdntly) that this is not an across the board decision, but it will be done on a set by set basis, then I would ask that sets that are by artist not exclude TPBs then I would be fine with the AP variant. This may be a distinctive comment when comparing this to collecting a particular comic or run of comics, where I can understand the TPB isn't relevant. A set collecting artists should include the TPB.

 

I still think that books that can no longer be graded should be removed from competitive sets.

 

Sadly, I need to understand how this will apply before I spend more money grading TPBs for my artist based sets.

[N/A]

I think you are trying to make the competitive registry too personalized. Why not make a personal set? I believe this is still an option.