Jim Starlin hates CGC! 3 3

[revat]

1 minute ago, Logan510 said:

Same holds true for a lot of blue label books. If you're going to gamble, sometimes you lose right?

and that is one of the costs of getting CGC SS done.  For every x books that generates profit, you probably have to eat costs on books that don't hit the grade.  I'm not saying anyone should weep for you, just people shouldn't assume all CGC SS books result in profits, and certainly not large profits.

[F For Fake]

2 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Same holds true for a lot of blue label books. If you're going to gamble, sometimes you lose right?

I guess that's the point I'm "misunderstanding".  Seeking out and submitting books for the purpose of grading out at 9.8 and reselling is a pretty standard thing.  And of course, all of that should and will factor into the realized price. But saying that condition alone is the sole reason why a SS book sells at a premium, when "Signature" is right there in the term, is insane. At the very least you have to admit that it's both the condition and the signature working together, or else there's no reason why a SS 9.8 would sell for more than a blue 9.8. 

[Prince Namor]

8 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Same holds true for a lot of blue label books. If you're going to gamble, sometimes you lose right?

Yep

[Comicdey]

I love Starlin's work from the 70's but I have a Sig series IM 100 and his Sig sux.  Just saying ?

[joeypost]

1 minute ago, Chuck Gower said:

Yep

But...you can pre-screen blue label books so you only get 9.8, 9.6, etc., to minimize any loss.

[joeypost]

1 minute ago, Comicdey said:

I love Starlin's work from the 70's but I have a Sig series IM 100 and his Sig sux.  Just saying ?

He signs all his books the same. Not sure if he has changed, but in the past he would only use black sharpie and nothing else.

[Bird]

1 minute ago, joeypost said:

He signs all his books the same. Not sure if he has changed, but in the past he would only use black sharpie and nothing else.

I got tons of sigs from him before CGC and he was ALWAYS a ball point pen guy back then! 

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by Bird

[Comicdey]

1 minute ago, joeypost said:

He signs all his books the same. Not sure if he has changed, but in the past he would only use black sharpie and nothing else.

I'll have to look. I just recall it being a poor signature.   I'd have preferred he signed in childlike lettering in a star like ST 178 like in my OO beater copy.  My Sig is better than his as a child. ?

Edited May 15, 2017 by Comicdey

[revat]

1 minute ago, F For Fake said:

I guess that's the point I'm "misunderstanding".  Seeking out and submitting books for the purpose of grading out at 9.8 and reselling is a pretty standard thing.  And of course, all of that should and will factor into the realized price. But saying that condition alone is the sole reason why a SS book sells at a premium, when "Signature" is right there in the term, is insane. At the very least you have to admit that it's both the condition and the signature working together, or else there's no reason why a SS 9.8 would sell for more than a blue 9.8. 

I think most people would agree that in 9.8  CGC SS, there  will be a premium above the additional costs that are realized, especially for key books or rare books.  And in some cases, the premium can be very significant, depending to some extent on the signer, and the specific desirability of the book.  And yes, since these types of books generate the most premium profit, they are also the most likely to be sold on a secondary market and the most likely to be noticed if and when they do occur.

I think the discrepancy occurs is when we assume that CGC SS 9.8 key book  is the most common occurrence with regards to CGC SS, when that simply is not the case.  How many MORE books are bought to be kept in personal collections, or are ultimately sold at losses because they don't make the grade or are just undesirable books or signatures...its a LOT.  And how many other books that are sold are held for 2+ years before being sold. 

For example, I think we can all agree there's more Stan Lee CGC SS than any other creator.  But he charges about $100 for his sig.  Plus fees, that's in the $130-$140 range of costs, not necessarily taking into account the cost of the book originally.  How many sell for less than that on ebay? 

Again, not saying there isn't profit to be made, just saying the numbers don't support any type of assumption that profit is universally being made to the extent that it would be economically advisable to charge more for CGC SS.

[Bird]

I think that sometimes it is the little things that matter in the end. It could also be "a matter of principle". But the conversation at his booth when the cgc rep told him he "was being unreasonable" seems significant to me.

Here is an old sig I have. 

It is in theis calendar, which I have 10 sigs total on (no Jeffrey Jones, Stephen Hickman or BWS).

 

[F For Fake]

1 minute ago, revat said:

I think most people would agree that in 9.8  CGC SS, there  will be a premium above the additional costs that are realized, especially for key books or rare books.  And in some cases, the premium can be very significant, depending to some extent on the signer, and the specific desirability of the book.  And yes, since these types of books generate the most premium profit, they are also the most likely to be sold on a secondary market and the most likely to be noticed if and when they do occur.

I think the discrepancy occurs is when we assume that CGC SS 9.8 key book  is the most common occurrence with regards to CGC SS, when that simply is not the case.  How many MORE books are bought to be kept in personal collections, or are ultimately sold at losses because they don't make the grade or are just undesirable books or signatures...its a LOT.  And how many other books that are sold are held for 2+ years before being sold. 

For example, I think we can all agree there's more Stan Lee CGC SS than any other creator.  But he charges about $100 for his sig.  Plus fees, that's in the $130-$140 range of costs, not necessarily taking into account the cost of the book originally.  How many sell for less than that on ebay? 

Again, not saying there isn't profit to be made, just saying the numbers don't support any type of assumption that profit is universally being made to the extent that it would be economically advisable to charge more for CGC SS.

I would "like" your post, but I've used up all of my likes today, apparently.

At any rate, this makes sense, and I 100% understand what you're saying in, inre: SS not being universally, or even generally, profitable. So through those eyes of the seller, sure, it makes sense to say that the signature is not necessarily adding value.

But at the end of the day, the buyer either wants a book that is signed, or they don't, and if the only way a SS can be generated at all is if the creator consents to signing the book. No signee, no signature series, period. So whether the seller is making a profit or not, and whether the creator's signature adds enough value to the book to make it worthwhile to sell, none of it really matters if the there isn't a signature on the book. 

So from that point of view, I still 100% empathize with the creator.

Appreciate your well reasoned argument though!

[ADAMANTIUM]

There is the pre-screen for blue label, so if someone managed the man-handling of SS and sustained a 9.8 there is a premium. There are other cost's that go into SS. There are also artist that charge more for their signature and is why a 9.8 blue label would sell for $200 and a SS would sell for $350. It may look like a premium but is not due to the cost of sig and CGC fee's being $100.

A lot of the SS people who make a living, aren't doing key books, they gaurantee a new modern books a 9.8 SS. This may mean the cost to pre-screen for blue label then have them shipped back for SS and then again for grading, driving up the cost. That is another reason why there is a lot of "rubbish" out there in SS. Some just want to have an Authenticated sig of Frank Miller or the sort and will get the drivel graded in order to have a book that they can say, "Hey, lookie lookie!"

I get SS and have never sold such, but if ever I do will charge a premium to cover costs. If there were signatures out there that were "rare" it might drive up the price.

I think when someone says "condition is key", it is because there are a lot of hands the book has to travel through in order to get SS, well more than blue label anyway. To obtain one in higher grade there might be a premium in drivel comics. If it is a key comic it doesn't really matter the grade as much IMO as there are a lot of people not willing to obtain SS period due to the risks stated and other reasons that make people dislike SS period as stated in this thread.... there is more but I don't want too long a post and this is wayning; suffice it too say when I first started getting SS it was a learning experience, and I wouldn't expect this artist to understand on the first try either...

[revat]

2 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

I would "like" your post, but I've used up all of my likes today, apparently.

At any rate, this makes sense, and I 100% understand what you're saying in, inre: SS not being universally, or even generally, profitable. So through those eyes of the seller, sure, it makes sense to say that the signature is not necessarily adding value.

But at the end of the day, the buyer either wants a book that is signed, or they don't, and if the only way a SS can be generated at all is if the creator consents to signing the book. No signee, no signature series, period. So whether the seller is making a profit or not, and whether the creator's signature adds enough value to the book to make it worthwhile to sell, none of it really matters if the there isn't a signature on the book. 

So from that point of view, I still 100% empathize with the creator.

Appreciate your well reasoned argument though!

And I agree with you that the policy ultimately is set by the creator, as it should be, whether the policy is free, pay, pay sometimes, pay less if you wear a funny hat, whatever.  BUT I think it would be a shame for both the creator and his fans/customers if he was making an ECONOMIC DECISION based on inaccurate economic assumptions.  I don't think anyone in any field wants to do that.  Especially a decision that could potentially make a genuine fan feel like they are being treated unfairly by a creator they actually like. 

To me if I'm a creator, that would be the worst possible result to me.  Not that I leave some money on the table (which ain't great), or that some profits off of me, but that as a result of something I misunderstood, I ended up letting a genuine fan feeling like I treated them unfairly.  I've been that genuine fan before where the creator looks at you like some scum flipper for getting CGC SS, and it sucks.  Although to be fair, I've been the flipper before (although far less often and for far less profit than I'd hoped).  The point is, you don't know, and if I'm at a booth at a con I want everyone who comes by my booth to leave with a smile on their face.

[F For Fake]

4 minutes ago, revat said:

And I agree with you that the policy ultimately is set by the creator, as it should be, whether the policy is free, pay, pay sometimes, pay less if you wear a funny hat, whatever.  BUT I think it would be a shame for both the creator and his fans/customers if he was making an ECONOMIC DECISION based on inaccurate economic assumptions.  I don't think anyone in any field wants to do that.  Especially a decision that could potentially make a genuine fan feel like they are being treated unfairly by a creator they actually like. 

To me if I'm a creator, that would be the worst possible result to me.  Not that I leave some money on the table (which ain't great), or that some profits off of me, but that as a result of something I misunderstood, I ended up letting a genuine fan feeling like I treated them unfairly.  I've been that genuine fan before where the creator looks at you like some scum flipper for getting CGC SS, and it sucks.  Although to be fair, I've been the flipper before (although far less often and for far less profit than I'd hoped).  The point is, you don't know, and if I'm at a booth at a con I want everyone who comes by my booth to leave with a smile on their face.

Well said and makes sense. Also, my "likes" have reset, whee!

[mschmidt]

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

Nor will he or really care to. Most creators have always seen the obsessive collector as a bit odd and flipper as bad news.

I understand what RMA is saying but... I just don't think it will make a difference with all of this water under the bridge. 

This is education that should've happened a long time ago. 

Creators are now seeing CGC as the step child of the hobby and even one the PUBLISHERS has joined in!!!

Next move is CGC's. 

Come on, Chuck.

You're pretending that CGC hasn't been educating creators and artists about the SS program which just isn't true by any stretch of the imagination - every single SS director I've known have worked their asses off trying to foster goodwill, giving out free artist/creator submissions, explaining how the SS program actually works and how important it is to CGC that the creators are happy.

And this is subsequently drilled into the head of every witness who works for CGC at a show. If CGC is aware that a creator charges a signing fee, not only is this communicated to the submitter before going over to the creator, but the expectation is also that the witness will keep an eye out to ensure that the creator actually gets paid.

I've personally given money to creators because I was embarrassed by the cheapness of the person getting items signed (this happens more often than you think when a creator doesn't have a set signing fee, but rather requests donations to Hero or something similar - if you think that a $1 donation covers the 20+ books you just got signed, think again), and I've also turned around & walked people directly back to the creator when I realized that they'd "forgotten" to mention that the books were going to be CGC'ed.

My experience, from working a ton of shows over the years, is that CGC will bend over backwards when it comes to accommodating the wishes of a creator - even if it means it'll actively hurt the number of submissions they can take in.

 

[Logan510]

32 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

I would "like" your post, but I've used up all of my likes today, apparently.

At any rate, this makes sense, and I 100% understand what you're saying in, inre: SS not being universally, or even generally, profitable. So through those eyes of the seller, sure, it makes sense to say that the signature is not necessarily adding value.

But at the end of the day, the buyer either wants a book that is signed, or they don't, and if the only way a SS can be generated at all is if the creator consents to signing the book. No signee, no signature series, period. So whether the seller is making a profit or not, and whether the creator's signature adds enough value to the book to make it worthwhile to sell, none of it really matters if the there isn't a signature on the book. 

So from that point of view, I still 100% empathize with the creator.

Appreciate your well reasoned argument though!

It must be somewhat profitable if there are people here who make their living off the selling of SS books.

[jjonahjameson11]

1 hour ago, Bird said:

I got tons of sigs from him before CGC and he was ALWAYS a ball point pen guy back then! 

 

Correct, it was ballpoint pen, and has always been a rather sloppy signature

[Prince Namor]

24 minutes ago, mschmidt said:

Come on, Chuck.

You're pretending that CGC hasn't been educating creators and artists about the SS program which just isn't true by any stretch of the imagination - every single SS director I've known have worked their asses off trying to foster goodwill, giving out free artist/creator submissions, explaining how the SS program actually works and how important it is to CGC that the creators are happy.

I agree with everything you've just stated here, and the majority of people I've had to interact with at CGC over the years, I've thought were awesome people, and yet...

The negative stigma persists and...

The way this situation was handled seems to NOT take the creators happiness into account...

So some are going to question, has CGC done enough to educate the creators?

24 minutes ago, mschmidt said:

And this is subsequently drilled into the head of every witness who works for CGC at a show. If CGC is aware that a creator charges a signing fee, not only is this communicated to the submitter before going over to the creator, but the expectation is also that the witness will keep an eye out to ensure that the creator actually gets paid.

And THIS is where in particular we run into issues... with those outside of CGC who represent the company, as witnesses and authorized dealers who maybe don't always PROPERLY represent the company...

But, to those outside of it, they ARE CGC just as much as anyone, so...

Again, has CGC done enough to make sure they ARE properly represented by all who fall under their reputation...?

24 minutes ago, mschmidt said:

I've personally given money to creators because I was embarrassed by the cheapness of the person getting items signed (this happens more often than you think when a creator doesn't have a set signing fee, but rather requests donations to Hero or something similar - if you think that a $1 donation covers the 20+ books you just got signed, think again), and I've also turned around & walked people directly back to the creator when I realized that they'd "forgotten" to mention that the books were going to be CGC'ed.

My experience, from working a ton of shows over the years, is that CGC will bend over backwards when it comes to accommodating the wishes of a creator - even if it means it'll actively hurt the number of submissions they can take in.

 

Most of the people I've dealt with there would - YOU in particular have always been one to step up and make things right for people and even go the extra step to make a customer or creator happy. 

But for all of the good people there, you have to admit, there are some who've come and gone (and some still associated) who should never have been a representative of that company. 

How CGC can cultivate, manage, and train quality individuals to work for them is... a completely different discusssion, but... I certainly wasn't trying to discredit many who have and some who continue to do a great job under fast paced conditions at every show.

My point is more toward the company in general, though I still think at a show level this wasn't handled well.

How are you seeing this Starlin situation? 

[ADAMANTIUM]

37 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

It must be somewhat profitable if there are people here who make their living off the selling of SS books.

So is Blue Label. Those who do SS for a living, more than likely do moderns and have a way of getting gauranteed 9.8's. They also get in with many "new" book artist's. On the other hand some do "rare" signings, say Alex Ross or the like that might not attend conventions

[revat]

5 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

45 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

It must be somewhat profitable if there are people here who make their living off the selling of SS books.

So is Blue Label. Those who do SS for a living, more than likely do moderns and have a way of getting gauranteed 9.8's. They also get in with many "new" book artist's. On the other hand some do "rare" signings, say Alex Ross or the like that might not attend conventions

how many people in the world make a living off of CGC SS? (or enough to make a living, they might otherwise be wealthy).  15 people? less?  Some facilitators do, but they're generally not counting on sales of books they own to generate huge amounts of their profits. I think only rich, beachbum, and maybe dscott, celestial, and celestial a little less sell a lot of CGC SS books they own as facilitators.  I know RMA has a bunch of CGC SS, and probably sells a decent amount, but I don't think he's making a living, I'm sure JOEY does fine selling his own books since he a great presser, but I don't think he's counting on sales of his own books to support him.  NOt that others don't make some real money doing so, but issue is not whether it CAN BE PROFITABLE (it certainly can be), but whether one should automatically ASSUME ITS UNIVERSALLY PROFITABLE to the point where you should make economic decisions assuming that, which it most certainly is not.