Are signature series worth getting and should artists charge more for CGC book?

[seanfingh]

(To Blob: SS costs $10 more per book over the regular tier price.)

 

Maybe someone should kvetch to CGC too? Yes, SS costs them more money to administer, but it also increases volume of slabbing.

 

Frankly I don't think $10 for SS signings vs. $5 or $3 is too bad, but $40-50 vs. $5 or $3 is a bit unseemly.

 

It would cost me thousands of dollars more to compile my collection now as opposed to over the past 9 years. All my Neal Adams sigs were free in 2008. Same with Romita, Kirkman and Moore, (I may have paid for a couple TM sigs but they were $5 then), McFarlane, over half of my Sterankos were free. All of my Stan Lees were done between $20 and $40. They run $75-100 now.

 

It's just a different world now as people see the "commoditization" of the SS books.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I have paid, at this point, thousands of dollars directly to creators to have them sign my books. I don't think it's been tens of thousands, yet, but it's certainly thousands. I paid nearly a grand for single opportunities, so it may be tens of thousands. There are people who have paid those tens, that's for sure.

 

 

Maybe it HAS been tens....no matter.

 

Let me state this as emphatically as I can: I wish I could give them all $10,000 per signature. I do not begrudge paying them to sign their work. I LOVE their work, which is why this all even exists in the first place.

 

But that would be MY choice, based on MY appreciation, not because it was demanded of me.

 

That said...I am not made of money, and I don't have unlimited resources.

 

Because I have spent those thousands of dollars on signatures, which, to be fair, probably represents a grand total of 200-300 minutes of time....or 3-5 hours or so...those creators were paid a substantial premium for very, very, very easy work....that is money I haven't been able to spend to get more books done.

 

And, because I have spent those thousands of dollars, I have been unable to accept opportunities that have come because I just flat didn't have the money.

 

Not anyone's problem but my own. I completely acknowledge that.

 

But, I've missed opportunities....opportunities that are now lost to the mists of time...because I had to choose which books I really wanted to get done.

 

You know what's on my list of books I want to get done?

 

Batman #400-#442, CGC 9.8 SS. I have, at this moment, 7 of them. Do any of them have any added value because of their sigs? Is Batman #414 signed by Jim Starlin...even in 9.8....going to be worth more than an unsigned 9.8?

 

Nope. Sure, there's the 404-407, 417-420, 426-429, and 436...but what about 411? 415? 422? 431? None of those has any added value because of a sig.

 

And that's just one set. There are dozens of sets I want to get done. Spidey #298-328. Hulk #330-346. Infinity Inc #14-37. Justice League #1-7. Thor #337-382. Dozens and dozens.

 

But because I don't have unlimited resources, I must very carefully choose which books I'm going to get, and when.

 

I've had 80 Swamp Thing #16-64 books signed by Totleben, Veitch, Bissette, and Yeates. Do you know how many of those carry any premium because of their sigs? #21 and #37. Maybe #64, if it's triple signed.

 

And I paid for every single one of those sigs.

 

Happy to do it. Thrilled to do it. Those guys' work means the world to me. Wish I could have given then 10 times what I paid.

 

But for the TEN books that have some sort of premium...and that premium is rapidly diminishing, if not gone already....I have 70 books with no sig premium whatsoever.

 

Do I care? No. I want those books, because I RED those books, and those books had a TREMENDOUS impact on me when I red them, and I have incredibly fond feelings for those books.

 

That's why I get my best copies signed by them in the first place.

 

I have a whole short box of Trimpe Hulks that will never get signed now, books that have absolutely no premium signed, because I couldn't afford to get them done. Simple as that. Opportunity gone forever.

 

I don't get Jim Shooter Secret Wars II books signed by him. I don't care about Secret Wars II.

 

But I DO get Jim Shooter Valiant books signed by him, because that's what I love.

 

So, when these creators charge a surcharge, on the erroneous assumption that I'm somehow "making a profit" off of their signatures...it hurts me. It prevents me from doing more, due to the costs.

 

I do some to pay for most. And if there's no profit in some, I can't do ANY.

 

Their problem? Nope. No one's but my own. Granted.

 

But if they understood this....they might be a little less eager to charge the surcharge. They might not. But then, that would be my choice if I decided what they were asking was worth it.

 

Jim Lee? No more. It's not worth it. Because he thinks that people are "making money off of his signature", he now charges $30 per signature.

 

I wanted a complete set of X-Men signed by him. Now? Not possible. I can't afford it. So, that opportunity is also gone, because Jim Lee's signature, unless the book is a very high grade key, doesn't add $30 plus costs to the value of those books.

 

X-Men #257 9.8? Last sale, $50.

 

X-Men #257 9.8 signed by Lee? Last sale, $75.

 

That's a LOSS. And that happens over a good 80% or more of all SS sales.

 

And GOD FORBID you get a 9.6 or lower.

 

I guarantee you, Jim Lee doesn't have any concept of that reality.

 

And maybe....just maybe...if he understood that, he might.

 

Thank God for the Jim Starlins and the George Perez' of the world, who ask for nothing more than a donation.

[wombat]

Maybe some creators don't like the idea of CGC in general or people turning their work into - essentially - two-dimensional objects, or "trading cards" and take what steps they can to discourage it or at least get something out of participating in that practice.

 

Right. It's not enough to support the creator by buying his or her work. The creator must also tell the consumer how they are to enjoy his work, in a manner the creator deems acceptable, and assuming, in the process, that the consumer didn't already enjoy the work as the creator intended, which is why they're creating these "trading cards" in the first place. And, if the consumer uses the creator's work in a manner the creator deems unacceptable, they should be charged a surcharge to discourage such practice.

 

So much for the decoupage shoes.

 

Maybe creators should have statements printed on their books that say, like in the olden days of newsstand distribution "This periodical may not be sold except to legitimate fans of my/our work, and is sold subject to the conditions that it not be sold or distributed to anyone with the intent to have it signed and submitted under the CGC Signature Series program."

 

 

That might work.

 

 

No, but if a collector wants to burn a creator's work, the creator doesn't have to hand them a match.

 

I'm with you. If someone thought something was bad for his industry and didn't agree with it why wouldn't they try and prevent or discourage it? They aren't saying you don't have the right to do whatever you want with the book you purchased, but they don't have to support something they don't like.

[RockMyAmadeus]

(To Blob: SS costs $10 more per book over the regular tier price.)

 

Maybe someone should kvetch to CGC too? Yes, SS costs them more money to administer, but it also increases volume of slabbing.

 

Frankly I don't think $10 for SS signings vs. $5 or $3 is too bad, but $40-50 vs. $5 or $3 is a bit unseemly.

 

Sure. For a single book.

 

What if you want to do 100 books?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Maybe some creators don't like the idea of CGC in general or people turning their work into - essentially - two-dimensional objects, or "trading cards" and take what steps they can to discourage it or at least get something out of participating in that practice.

 

Right. It's not enough to support the creator by buying his or her work. The creator must also tell the consumer how they are to enjoy his work, in a manner the creator deems acceptable, and assuming, in the process, that the consumer didn't already enjoy the work as the creator intended, which is why they're creating these "trading cards" in the first place. And, if the consumer uses the creator's work in a manner the creator deems unacceptable, they should be charged a surcharge to discourage such practice.

 

So much for the decoupage shoes.

 

Maybe creators should have statements printed on their books that say, like in the olden days of newsstand distribution "This periodical may not be sold except to legitimate fans of my/our work, and is sold subject to the conditions that it not be sold or distributed to anyone with the intent to have it signed and submitted under the CGC Signature Series program."

 

 

That might work.

 

 

No, but if a collector wants to burn a creator's work, the creator doesn't have to hand them a match.

 

I'm with you. If someone thought something was bad for his industry and didn't agree with it why wouldn't they try and prevent or discourage it? They aren't saying you don't have the right to do whatever you want with the book you purchased, but they don't have to support something they don't like.

 

So, then, answer this question: why don't they like it?

 

Answer that, and you'll have figured out the problem, if not the solution.

[revat]

(To Blob: SS costs $10 more per book over the regular tier price.)

 

Maybe someone should kvetch to CGC too? Yes, SS costs them more money to administer, but it also increases volume of slabbing.

 

Frankly I don't think $10 for SS signings vs. $5 or $3 is too bad, but $40-50 vs. $5 or $3 is a bit unseemly.

 

It would cost me thousands of dollars more to compile my collection now as opposed to over the past 9 years. All my Neal Adams sigs were free in 2008. Same with Romita, Kirkman and Moore, (I may have paid for a couple TM sigs but they were $5 then), McFarlane, over half of my Sterankos were free. All of my Stan Lees were done between $20 and $40. They run $75-100 now.

 

It's just a different world now as people see the "commoditization" of the SS books.

 

if you don't mind asking, and its none of my business, can you estimate how many books you've had signed, and how many of those you've sold vs kept?

 

I just think some people might benefit from knowing that not everyone immediately flips all their CGC SS, contrary to surprisingly popular belief. In fact, I think most people keep most of theirs, but there are many people out there that don't believe that.

 

I'll start. I've probably had 40-50 books signed for CGC SS. I've sold probably 5-7of those (and PIF'd one away and giving tree'd one away)? I readily admit that I've tried to sell a few more but couldn't make money so I kept them, because its NOT THAT EASY TO PROFIT ON CGC SS. (Not that I haven't bought and sold others or bought and kept others)

 

 

 

Another weird hypothetical: Some creators are weary when someone brings up 50 copies of the same comic, they think it must be to flip for profit. But what if it was just like a huge fan, who's actually kinda creepy and has pictures of that creator and that specific comic all over their room, with like homemade bedsheets made from that comic, and a million newssclippings of that creator and the whole crazy nine yards. And you've just peeved him off by calling him a flipper....

 

I would actually HOPE these 50 comics are for profit, and not some crazy obsessed person who thinks they're really Firestorm or Darkhawk (I'm looking you BOBOSET) or Starfire.

 

 

[wombat]

Maybe some creators don't like the idea of CGC in general or people turning their work into - essentially - two-dimensional objects, or "trading cards" and take what steps they can to discourage it or at least get something out of participating in that practice.

 

Right. It's not enough to support the creator by buying his or her work. The creator must also tell the consumer how they are to enjoy his work, in a manner the creator deems acceptable, and assuming, in the process, that the consumer didn't already enjoy the work as the creator intended, which is why they're creating these "trading cards" in the first place. And, if the consumer uses the creator's work in a manner the creator deems unacceptable, they should be charged a surcharge to discourage such practice.

 

So much for the decoupage shoes.

 

Maybe creators should have statements printed on their books that say, like in the olden days of newsstand distribution "This periodical may not be sold except to legitimate fans of my/our work, and is sold subject to the conditions that it not be sold or distributed to anyone with the intent to have it signed and submitted under the CGC Signature Series program."

 

 

That might work.

 

 

No, but if a collector wants to burn a creator's work, the creator doesn't have to hand them a match.

 

I'm with you. If someone thought something was bad for his industry and didn't agree with it why wouldn't they try and prevent or discourage it? They aren't saying you don't have the right to do whatever you want with the book you purchased, but they don't have to support something they don't like.

 

So, then, answer this question: why don't they like it?

 

Answer that, and you'll have figured out the problem, if not the solution.

 

I can speculate. Maybe they don't like the fact that the books will not be read. Maybe they don't like the impact it has had on values. I certainly can't speak for them.

 

And to be clear I'm referencing all books being slabbed, not just sigs.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Maybe some creators don't like the idea of CGC in general or people turning their work into - essentially - two-dimensional objects, or "trading cards" and take what steps they can to discourage it or at least get something out of participating in that practice.

 

Right. It's not enough to support the creator by buying his or her work. The creator must also tell the consumer how they are to enjoy his work, in a manner the creator deems acceptable, and assuming, in the process, that the consumer didn't already enjoy the work as the creator intended, which is why they're creating these "trading cards" in the first place. And, if the consumer uses the creator's work in a manner the creator deems unacceptable, they should be charged a surcharge to discourage such practice.

 

So much for the decoupage shoes.

 

Maybe creators should have statements printed on their books that say, like in the olden days of newsstand distribution "This periodical may not be sold except to legitimate fans of my/our work, and is sold subject to the conditions that it not be sold or distributed to anyone with the intent to have it signed and submitted under the CGC Signature Series program."

 

 

That might work.

 

 

No, but if a collector wants to burn a creator's work, the creator doesn't have to hand them a match.

 

Why not?

 

If the collector PAID FOR the creator's work, and burning it makes them happy, what business is it of the creator's?

 

Did he/she get paid? Yes.

 

Did the collector support the creator? Yes.

 

If I was a creator, and a collector wanted to burn my work (not in protest, mind, but just because), as long as they paid me for it, I would gladly hand them a match. Why not?

 

The point isn't whether it's burned, or signed, or eaten, or put in a bag and board and stored in a box for 50 years.

 

The point is, this person bought this creator's work, thus supporting them, even if doing it in a roundabout way as a back issue. It's their property. If they want to burn it, more power to 'em, and that's a healthy attitude to have. It shouldn't matter to the creator what someone does with his/her own property.

 

If the creator is a good marketer, they could suggest buying another copy.

 

[Lazyboy]

 

After all....no "real fan" has anything to do with the Sig Series program....

 

....right?

 

 

 

 

The consensus on Bleeding Cool during the Sadfan event was that true fans only want sigs that they obtained themselves from the source. And that anyone who was not there getting them themselves was a POS.

 

I find this really weird, since correspondence autograph seeking has been going on for a long time. But a lot of people have very strongly held opinions on the level of someone else's fandom.

 

I'm not going to make any claims about "true fans" here, but I will say that I don't understand the value many people put on signatures that weren't personally obtained (unless they're on a cheque ).

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Maybe some creators don't like the idea of CGC in general or people turning their work into - essentially - two-dimensional objects, or "trading cards" and take what steps they can to discourage it or at least get something out of participating in that practice.

 

Right. It's not enough to support the creator by buying his or her work. The creator must also tell the consumer how they are to enjoy his work, in a manner the creator deems acceptable, and assuming, in the process, that the consumer didn't already enjoy the work as the creator intended, which is why they're creating these "trading cards" in the first place. And, if the consumer uses the creator's work in a manner the creator deems unacceptable, they should be charged a surcharge to discourage such practice.

 

So much for the decoupage shoes.

 

Maybe creators should have statements printed on their books that say, like in the olden days of newsstand distribution "This periodical may not be sold except to legitimate fans of my/our work, and is sold subject to the conditions that it not be sold or distributed to anyone with the intent to have it signed and submitted under the CGC Signature Series program."

 

 

That might work.

 

 

No, but if a collector wants to burn a creator's work, the creator doesn't have to hand them a match.

 

I'm with you. If someone thought something was bad for his industry and didn't agree with it why wouldn't they try and prevent or discourage it? They aren't saying you don't have the right to do whatever you want with the book you purchased, but they don't have to support something they don't like.

 

So, then, answer this question: why don't they like it?

 

Answer that, and you'll have figured out the problem, if not the solution.

 

I can speculate. Maybe they don't like the fact that the books will not be read. Maybe they don't like the impact it has had on values. I certainly can't speak for them.

 

And to be clear I'm referencing all books being slabbed, not just sigs.

 

Yes, and isn't that based on the faulty perception that people slabbing books AREN'T reading them?

 

Consider: just slabbing means, yes, that copy can't be red until it's broken out, which is very easy to do.

 

But SIG SERIES...that requires effort far above and beyond "just slabbing", and is nearly universally done FOR COLLECTORS, whether for the collector directly, or through a third party (seller.)

 

Those people purposely seek out that connection the book has with the creator, that an unsigned book doesn't. They TOUCHED it, they SIGNED it, they had a direct physical connection with THAT COPY.

 

And why did that person have that done? Because they have no idea who this creator is, and are completely unfamiliar with their work?

 

NO!

 

Because they are intimately familiar with their work, and wanted a direct connection to a creator who gave them something to enjoy, admire, and appreciate.

 

That's why 98% of the SS program even exists!

 

I don't get things signed by Mark Pacella (no offense to Mark Pacella). I don't CARE about Mark Pacella's work, his work has never moved me. I could not care LESS about Mark Pacella's work (again, no offense to Mark Pacella.)

 

But you know who I DO care about?

 

John Totleben. Steve Bissette. Rick Veitch. Alan Moore. Sam Kieth.

 

And so, I want to have something I owned be signed by them...whether I'm there or not, but I prefer to be there...because I have a connection to their work, and want a connection to THEM.

 

Is that so hard to understand?

 

If it's never explained to creators, yes. And they will always be under the assumption that everyone doing SS is just "in it for the money."

 

Trust me...I wouldn't be wasting my time with comics AT ALL if I was "in it for the money." I made a hell of a lot more money working as a project manager in construction. But there are no CGC SS copies of random bits of drywall and crown moulding.

 

[Amadeus Arkham]

 

After all....no "real fan" has anything to do with the Sig Series program....

 

....right?

 

 

 

 

The consensus on Bleeding Cool during the Sadfan event was that true fans only want sigs that they obtained themselves from the source. And that anyone who was not there getting them themselves was a POS.

 

I find this really weird, since correspondence autograph seeking has been going on for a long time. But a lot of people have very strongly held opinions on the level of someone else's fandom.

 

I'm not going to make any claims about "true fans" here, but I will say that I don't understand the value many people put on signatures that weren't personally obtained (unless they're on a cheque ).

 

This. I want to be able to personally obtain my own signatures because I don't see the point of buying autographs. I'll buy one if it's an artist or creator I have a slim to none chance of meeting in Pittsburgh (Jim Lee, JRJR, etc.)

[revat]

 

After all....no "real fan" has anything to do with the Sig Series program....

 

....right?

 

 

 

 

The consensus on Bleeding Cool during the Sadfan event was that true fans only want sigs that they obtained themselves from the source. And that anyone who was not there getting them themselves was a POS.

 

I find this really weird, since correspondence autograph seeking has been going on for a long time. But a lot of people have very strongly held opinions on the level of someone else's fandom.

 

I'm not going to make any claims about "true fans" here, but I will say that I don't understand the value many people put on signatures that weren't personally obtained (unless they're on a cheque ).

 

many many people feel the same way as you, including me to an extent. But so many people collect so many different things in so many different ways that I for sure can see why SOME people value the signature either way.

 

For example, Joe Simon doesn't do West Coast Cons. If I lived on the West Coast, and he's aging (which he is), and he worked on my favorite Captain America comic when I was kid, it seems pretty reasonable to pay $100-$200 bucks to mail over the comics to get them signed and graded at an East Coast Con. Just as awesome as meeting him person? Of course not. But still pretty awesome to me. It could just as easily happen that I've lost my old copy or I want to continue to read it into my twilight years, doesn't seem so unreasonable to go on line and try to buy a graded signed copy of that comic right? And doesn't seem that unreasonable that the person selling would want to make a bit of profit for holding the comic for 50+ years, going to the show (and paying), getting a witness, waiting in line, getting the sig, paying all fees, waiting for months to get it back, then selling and shipping it to me, and he's got to pay ebay fees and taxes, etc.

 

Its not always about how much it cost the person getting the sig. Sometimes its about how much it would cost ME to get the sig. Spend time looking for comic (possibly buying comics), prepping comic, fly to Florida, pay for con, go to con, navigate crowds, spend time at con, wait in line for Sig, meet Joe (yay!), cost of hotels and food, cost of time away from family (or cost of taking family), then still wait 4 months to get my comic back after paying the fees, AND being uncertain of the grade.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

After all....no "real fan" has anything to do with the Sig Series program....

 

....right?

 

 

 

 

The consensus on Bleeding Cool during the Sadfan event was that true fans only want sigs that they obtained themselves from the source. And that anyone who was not there getting them themselves was a POS.

 

I find this really weird, since correspondence autograph seeking has been going on for a long time. But a lot of people have very strongly held opinions on the level of someone else's fandom.

 

I'm not going to make any claims about "true fans" here, but I will say that I don't understand the value many people put on signatures that weren't personally obtained (unless they're on a cheque ).

 

Because it means that Alan Moore, or whomever, touched my book, left physical evidence of his presence on my book (let's not be gross, people), and I now have a direct connection to him through my book, whether I get to see him in person or not.

 

That's why.

[wombat]

Perhaps I'm being naive, but it seems like there must be a few people here who have access to creators. If all they need is someone to explain things to them is it really that hard to make that happen? Or at least access to people who have better access to them directly?

[revat]

Perhaps I'm being naive, but it seems like there must be a few people here who have access to creators. If all they need is someone to explain things to them is it really that hard to make that happen? Or at least access to people who have better access to them directly?

 

its a bit of a tough topic to broach, and if its actually creator you like, you probably have other things you'd want to talk to them about.

 

additionally, there's a rule for facilitators (who actually have the most contact with these creators) that they're not supposed to discuss their pricing with them. Just pay and move on (someone can correct me on that rule if I'm wrong). And generally, its also not in best interests of the facilitators to tell ANYONE that adding sigs does not add value. Its a conflict of interest. The more 'sigs' they sell, the more money they get.

 

So it would really be up to the other CGC SS people to inform creators, the ones who actually meet creators in person.

[RockMyAmadeus]

There are vast swaths of books that will never, ever be done now, because the opportunities are gone.

 

There are no Dave Stevens SS books. None.

 

There are very, very few Jim Aparo books.

 

I have zero Kubert SS books. None of my books that I've acquired over decades will ever be signed by Joe Kubert.

 

If I was independently wealthy, and knew about the SS program back in the early 2000's, I would have done nothing but get books SS'd.

 

Why? For money? Obviously not...I would have been independently wealthy!

 

No, the answer is because I want there to be a direct connection to these books by these creators, not just for me, but to pass on to future generations, too.

 

In 2100, provided the world doesn't dissolve, how could would it be to have a Daredevil #159 signed by Frank Miller, and you were essentially guaranteed that that book was actually signed by Frank Miller?

 

I think it's cool as hell that there are personal belongings of Thomas Jefferson in existence, because I admire Thomas Jefferson.

 

I have fantasized as a kid that certain coins I had "may have been held and spent by Jefferson, or Washington, or Lincoln." I had no way of knowing, sadly, and neither did anyone else.

 

Sentimental? Perhaps. But that's what the SS program can ultimately achieve: legacy. I can hold a book that I have signed by Herb Trimpe, and I know it was signed by him...he touched it, he signed it, he was connected to it.

 

And I have begged people for YEARS to take the opportunity if you have it to get as many books signed as possible, because once these creators are gone...that's it, the end.

 

"Monetary gain" is a ridiculous side issue that is almost completely irrelevant in most of these cases, yet that is what the sole focus is on these "it's not FAIR!!" types running around.

 

And that is a real damn shame.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Perhaps I'm being naive, but it seems like there must be a few people here who have access to creators. If all they need is someone to explain things to them is it really that hard to make that happen? Or at least access to people who have better access to them directly?

 

Because no one wants to upset the apple cart.

 

That's why.

 

And, some facilitators, in trying to work access, have argued the opposite...that folks are making money, so they, too, can, AND SHOULD, be making money off of this process.

 

 

[Lazyboy]

Perhaps I'm being naive, but it seems like there must be a few people here who have access to creators. If all they need is someone to explain things to them is it really that hard to make that happen? Or at least access to people who have better access to them directly?

 

But that's assuming they only charge (or charge extra) because they think people are making big money off of their signature and not because of any other factors.

[revat]

Perhaps I'm being naive, but it seems like there must be a few people here who have access to creators. If all they need is someone to explain things to them is it really that hard to make that happen? Or at least access to people who have better access to them directly?

 

But that's assuming they only charge (or charge extra) because they think people are making big money off of their signature and not because of any other factors.

 

I think its naïve to think that the main reason for charging more for CGC isn't because of the perception that book owners are making extra money from the CGC SS. Certainly not in every single case in history, but in most cases I would expect.

[wombat]

Perhaps I'm being naive, but it seems like there must be a few people here who have access to creators. If all they need is someone to explain things to them is it really that hard to make that happen? Or at least access to people who have better access to them directly?

 

But that's assuming they only charge (or charge extra) because they think people are making big money off of their signature and not because of any other factors.

 

It has been suggested that even for other reasons some explaining would work to change things.