Jim Starlin hates CGC! 3 3

[Drbearsec]

2 minutes ago, kav said:

they can only be authenticated to a percent of certainty never 100 barring other evidence.  Like I am 90% sure this is authentic.

Which is why the different labels.  I mean I'm no expert but watching authenticators on some of the reality shows they can get reasonably close.  The lack of witness or a 100% authentic would thus lower market price accordingly.

[Drbearsec]

2 minutes ago, mschmidt said:

There is zero upside to CGC suddenly verifying signatures after the fact; all it does is dilute the Signature Series brand and create uncertainty as to whether a book has a valid signature or not. With the SS program it's completely black & white - if it's in a yellow label slab, you're guaranteed it's an authentic signature.

The "verification" service the other company offers is a glorified COA where nothing is guaranteed - I wouldn't trust it any more than I trust a signature on a raw book.

Which is of course your opinion and one you are entitled too,  however others would disagree with you and in the market place feel more comfortable buying it rather than raw.

 

i also think the concept beats the green label.  I don't like the fact that the same label that can say that something is missing from a book is the one used for a non witnessed signature.

 

the market doesn't treat non witnessed sigs the same as witnessed, whether they be green label, raw or the competition.  In the end, market dictates value.

[kav]

12 minutes ago, mschmidt said:

There is zero upside to CGC suddenly verifying signatures after the fact; all it does is dilute the Signature Series brand and create uncertainty as to whether a book has a valid signature or not. With the SS program it's completely black & white - if it's in a yellow label slab, you're guaranteed it's an authentic signature.

The "verification" service the other company offers is a glorified COA where nothing is guaranteed - I wouldn't trust it any more than I trust a signature on a raw book.

Does anyone remember the boardie who said he got books signed then walked clear across a construction area to another part of the convention hall where he gave it to the 'witness'?   

Edited May 16, 2017 by kav

[kav]

10 minutes ago, Drbearsec said:

Which is why the different labels.  I mean I'm no expert but watching authenticators on some of the reality shows they can get reasonably close.  The lack of witness or a 100% authentic would thus lower market price accordingly.

Keep in mind pawn stars experts grading say a babe ruth baseball have more information to go on such as type of ink or balls that were correct for the era, stitch wear etc. 

[prez]

2 minutes ago, kav said:

Does anyone remember the boardie who said he got books signed then walked clear across a construction area to another part of the convention hall where he gave it to the 'witness'?  I'm not sure yellow label is exactly a guarantee.

The only guarantee in life are death and taxes.

[Prince Namor]

Unfortunately, there is another option for creators who get frustrated with the process... to stop signing. 

They don't owe us this... and no matter how much we educate them or try and convince them otherwise, if they still don't get it... they don't get it. 

Most are still going to see it as a money grab. Or as a weird obsession. Or a scam. 

And as their business side of it looks at it and thinks, "No one could be so OCD as to do this for anything other than profit" and their creative side of it looks at it as "This is art... for reading and enjoying"... there is very little room left to think of it as necessary. 

It becomes "I'm not getting taken advantage of over this weird fad."

And so they add a premium for those type of signatures. And even if they charged CGC for it, they'd still pass the cost onto the fan because: crack. 

I just don't think at this point with all the water under the bridge, the uphill battle of convincing them and how... well, it IS kind of weird... that anything is going to really change most of there minds. 

Except toward maybe not signing at all. Which is a position we've seen some take.

Anyone have any stories of a creator who DID change there mind that didn't involve them charging for their signature?

[divad]

4 minutes ago, prez said:

The only guarantee in life are death and taxes.

And with that, this thread is OVER.

[kav]

1 minute ago, Chuck Gower said:

Unfortunately, there is another option for creators who get frustrated with the process... to stop signing. 

They don't owe us this... and no matter how much we educate them or try and convince them otherwise, if they still don't get it... they don't get it. 

Most are still going to see it as a money grab. Or as a weird obsession. Or a scam. 

And as their business side of it looks at it and thinks, "No one could be so OCD as to do this for anything other than profit" and their creative side of it looks at it as "This is art... for reading and enjoying"... there is very little room left to think of it as necessary. 

It becomes "I'm not getting taken advantage of over this weird fad."

And so they add a premium for those type of signatures. And even if they charged CGC for it, they'd still pass the cost onto the fan because: crack. 

I just don't think at this point with all the water under the bridge, the uphill battle of convincing them and how... well, it IS kind of weird... that anything is going to really change most of there minds. 

Except toward maybe not signing at all. Which is a position we've seen some take.

Anyone have any stories of a creator who DID change there mind that didn't involve them charging for their signature?

You make it sound as if creators are shambling dolts that have never heard of autographs and would be confused about a Babe Ruth signed baseball being worth anything that need to be educated by your much smarter self.

[Drbearsec]

On 5/14/2017 at 5:49 PM, Chuck Gower said:

It's not even about the slabbing for him, it's the way CGC handled THIS situation. Here's his full explanation he just posted:

"Okay, there’s been some confusion about what happened between myself and the Certified Guartany Company (CGC) at a convention Saturday, partially because of my own hastily composed post on Facebook. So let’s straighten out what happened, at least from my point of view.
  To start off with, I don’t usually charge for signatures at conventions. I’ve always figured the reader buying the book and helping keep me alive merited my autographing it at events like cons. I do charge dealers for signing multiple copies and large numbers of books for resale. I also sometimes have a charity can at my table for donation to certain worthy causes.
  Until yesterday CGC was something other cartoonist complained about. I had very little awareness of them, let alone how they actually operate. Other artists have always urged me to charge CGC for signatures and I finally agreed that I would do so.
  So I was at this convention yesterday and this fan came up with a CGC witness and asked if I would sign his books. We worked out and agreed upon a price. But before I could sign the comics the witness was called away. At that point I did autograph his two comics, with no witness present. The fan then asked if I would hold his books while he bought a third. I did so.
 He then returned and I signed that book (no witness) and the fan went off to find the witness. Both returned and I gave the fan his books. Someone at the table next to me asked me a question as I was doing so and I answered. When I turned back both the fan and the witness were gone, without paying me the agreed upon fee.
  Okay, the fan may have just forgotten to pay. Stuff like that happens. But when I was able to get away from my table a little while later and go over to the CGC table, to ask about finding this fan, a gentleman at the CGC table told me flatly that giving out any information about their clients was against policy. Seeing as how I wasn’t requesting medical records or a social security number I thought this strange. So I returned to my own table to consider the situation.
  Here’s this company that’s charging some very high prices to fans for a very questionable service and making a very healthy profit off what I am giving away for free. I would think such an arrangement would earn me the minimum cooperation in finding this fan. Apparently it didn’t.
  So I returned to the CGC table and told a lady on duty there that I wouldn’t be signing any more books for CGC and asked they send no more witnesses to my table. I would not be cooperating with their enterprise.
  Later this same lady came by my table to try to convince me I was being unreasonable. I wasn’t convinced by her case and said I would no longer cooperate or deal with CGC. At no time did she offer to help find this fan.
  Now some of you fans out there may still want to deal with CGC. That’s your choice, no matter how I think you’re just throwing your money away. But I won’t be signing any books for them. I will do so for other authenticators, at an agreed upon price, but not CGC. I will also continue to sign books for free at cons, occasionally hitting you up for some charity.
  This is a choice for me to make and I have done so. But I really think you ought to go off and buy your own plastic sleeves to entomb your comics in and stop being suckers for this crazy scam."

Amazing that all of this could have been avoided by the lady at CGC giving him $100 or so to cover what he got stiffed.  Awful awful decision making by those on the scene.  

[Prince Namor]

2 minutes ago, kav said:

You make it sound as if creators are shambling dolts that have never heard of autographs and would be confused about a Babe Ruth signed baseball being worth anything that need to be educated by your much smarter self.

Still trolling. I guess you do have friends on the mod team.

Its not about a misunderstanding of signing a comic book it's about the misunderstanding of the CGC process. 

Its not MY opinion, it's something anyone who has done multiple shows has seen over and over and over. A misunderstanding they have of the process. 

And NOWHERE have I said I'm qualified to educate them on it - quite the opposite - at this point I'm not sure anyone CAN. 

Seriously, if you're going to troll at least have SOME idea what's going on in the conversation, otherwise you're troll like ways will just stand out more clearly. 

Not that your mod buddies will do anything about it.

[Prince Namor]

1 minute ago, Drbearsec said:

Amazing that all of this could have been avoided by the lady at CGC giving him $100 or so to cover what he got stiffed.  Awful awful decision making by those on the scene.  

Not even that much... just make a phone call for him. 

[kav]

1 minute ago, Chuck Gower said:

Still trolling. I guess you do have friends on the mod team.

Its not about a misunderstanding of signing a comic book it's about the misunderstanding of the CGC process. 

Its not MY opinion, it's something anyone who has done multiple shows has seen over and over and over. A misunderstanding they have of the process. 

And NOWHERE have I said I'm qualified to educate them on it - quite the opposite - at this point I'm not sure anyone CAN. 

Seriously, if you're going to troll at least have SOME idea what's going on in the conversation, otherwise you're troll like ways will just stand out more clearly. 

Not that your mod buddies will do anything about it.

OR I'm not trolling and you just throw that word around like a tantrum against anyone who questions your words from the top of the mountain.

[Drbearsec]

19 minutes ago, kav said:

Keep in mind pawn stars experts grading say a babe ruth baseball have more information to go on such as type of ink or balls that were correct for the era, stitch wear etc. 

That's a fair point of course.  In the end the market dictates the value of witnessed vs authenticated etc.  some will be risk adverse and not collect anything but witnessed sigs...other are less risk adverse and will go for authenticated or even raw.  None of these is right or wrong.

[jcjames]

8 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Just trying and showing they care about the creators knowing what is going on, would've gone a long way towards curbing some of the misunderstanding. 

Some of the higher profile names, were educated, usually through a third party, because... there was money to be made, but... in the convention setting, it's been seen time and time again, artists who have a lack of understanding about who all these people are running around and 'witnessing' and what not...

Mark Waid was in Indy last year for a show and two friends of mine from the store stood in line and as the first handed him his pristine copy of a comic, Waid just sort of gradually signed it and moved on, but as the second put his Flash #80 in front of him, beat up and tattered, Waid lit up.

"Now THIS is a comic someone LOVED! You must've read this a 100 times and shared it and cherished it..."

Yep. He had, and Waid dug it. 

THAT is how many creators see things. We make 'creations' for you to enjoy. Not obsess. 

Depends on the artist.

On the other spectrum would be Neal Adams who rolled his eyes at the beat-up Bat251 I asked him to sign (unverified) that I had since I was 9 years old and that was read dozens of times over. He immediately pointed to the rest of the con and said I could easily find one in better condition. As I explained that this one was special to me because I had it ever since I was a kid, he leaned back, turned his head aside and was pretty much done with having me in front of him.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

18 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Unfortunately, there is another option for creators who get frustrated with the process... to stop signing. 

They don't owe us this... and no matter how much we educate them or try and convince them otherwise, if they still don't get it... they don't get it. 

Most are still going to see it as a money grab. Or as a weird obsession. Or a scam. 

And as their business side of it looks at it and thinks, "No one could be so OCD as to do this for anything other than profit" and their creative side of it looks at it as "This is art... for reading and enjoying"... there is very little room left to think of it as necessary. 

It becomes "I'm not getting taken advantage of over this weird fad."

And so they add a premium for those type of signatures. And even if they charged CGC for it, they'd still pass the cost onto the fan because: crack. 

I just don't think at this point with all the water under the bridge, the uphill battle of convincing them and how... well, it IS kind of weird... that anything is going to really change most of there minds. 

Except toward maybe not signing at all. Which is a position we've seen some take.

Anyone have any stories of a creator who DID change there mind that didn't involve them charging for their signature?

Sure, they don't owe anyone a signature...and they never have.

If they want to stop signing, that's their choice.

Of course, the fans don't owe them the business, too.

That doesn't seem to be a mutually beneficial outcome.

[wombat]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's irrational, as you well know. Most creators...well, the majority of creators...aren't irrational, and would never knowingly adopt such a policy, at the risk of alienating people who wear blue and green shirts, also as you well know.

"Don't like it, don't buy it" isn't the issue, also as you well know.

The "market" will determine if it is irrational and if it alienates fans/customers. If customers stop purchasing you have your answer. 

[Drbearsec]

On 5/14/2017 at 9:43 PM, Dark Prime 0 said:

i agree and don't agree, odd i know

the problem is and this is an example.  i watch a friend and a dealer make a deal on a book and my friend says they need to use an ATM or whatever, later the dealer then comes up to me and demands i pay for the book.  the deal was between the owner of the book and jim, not between jim and cgc so really it isn't cgc's responsiblity to make sure a deal is completed (this is assuming a cgc rep was there when the deal was made AKA that he was aware money was owed)

if anything jim should take this as a learning exp.  1 to find out how SS works instead of all the 2nd hand info he's getting, and 2 collect the money up front.  to me he's basicly throwing a hissy fit over most likely $20 or whatever

i'm not saying cgc is in the clear bc as kav stated they could have handeled it slightly differently, but again starlin is upset bc he didn't get paid and didn't like the answer cgc gave him which is his right

Yeah... and you are right.  If this was a court, then CGC would be not guilty.

 

but from a PR/Service POV they messed up and no worries cost themselves a lot of future money,  in this case they should have done the equivalent of settle out of court,  are they required no...is it good business sense...yes.

[SteppinRazor]

1 hour ago, mschmidt said:

There is zero upside to CGC suddenly verifying signatures after the fact; all it does is dilute the Signature Series brand and create uncertainty as to whether a book has a valid signature or not. With the SS program it's completely black & white - if it's in a yellow label slab, you're guaranteed it's an authentic signature.

The "verification" service the other company offers is a glorified COA where nothing is guaranteed - I wouldn't trust it any more than I trust a signature on a raw book.

You aren't guaranteed it's an authentic signature.  You're just believing the witness witnessed what he said he did.  It isn't different in that respect than a COA.  The only extra protection you have over a forged COA is that it's harder to forge a yellow label slab than photoshop a fake COA.  However, you really don't have any proof the witness didn't sign it him/her self.

I've got a few books with COAs that I got through ordering from Marvel.  Only I know that for sure, and that is a matter of trusting that the company or the creator did what they said.  The only way to know if it's an authentic signature is to witness it yourself.

Edited May 16, 2017 by SteppinRazor

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, wombat said:

The "market" will determine if it is irrational and if it alienates fans/customers. If customers stop purchasing you have your answer. 

It's irrational to charge someone a higher price for something simply because of the color of the shirt they happen to be wearing, as you well know.

Regardless of what the market determines, that is irrational, in and of itself.

Are we really having this discussion......? Have we reductio ad absurdum'd here?

[SteppinRazor]

1 hour ago, Drbearsec said:

Yeah.  I have several books signed by Chris Claremont and Jim Lee from 27 years ago.... multiple books and all signed for free.  Times did change

Not for the better IMO, but no one asked me before changing them.