Jim Starlin hates CGC! 3 3

[SteppinRazor]

1 hour ago, kav said:

Well they do get something-they get a lot more customers than without CGC.

Customers who pay for their signature you mean?  Because a customer is a buyer of their goods or services.  I think you'd be hard pressed to show CGC increases readership (they literally make comics unreadable ).

[kav]

13 minutes ago, SteppinRazor said:

Customers who pay for their signature you mean?  Because a customer is a buyer of their goods or services.  I think you'd be hard pressed to show CGC increases readership (they literally make comics unreadable ).

yes just the signature

[fastballspecial]

1 hour ago, jimjum12 said:

1 hour ago, kav said:

Most people get their books signed because they know it will be slabbed and there will be proof of the validity of the signature.  Without CGC there would be far less people paying creators to sign.  So if they want to make money signing, CGC is in their best interests.

Not necessarily, at a recent show Claremont had a line wrapped around the center all weekend and I didn't see any witnesses..... but I wasn't exactly doing recon either. At the same show I paid Adams 60 bucks to scribe two books for Judy and I..... each personalized to us.... a lot of folks just want the sig. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Yeah I would agree with this. Before SS I would see guys in line getting signatures and sketches on slabs. The lines were just as long back then and they did limit. Jim Lee used to do I think one sketch or 2 signatures something like that. I saw him a few times in Chicago at Wizard Cons. This was right after his Hush run on Batman.

 

Edited June 4, 2017 by fastballspecial

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, bronze_rules said:

So, if their main incentive for obviously adding value to the gravy train is to make some money by setting their own prices, I guess I just don't get all the animosity towards that objective; like they are somehow greedy.

And for those that argue that there is no guarantee that anyone makes any profit off their signatures, it seems to me at the very least, that CGC is making a guaranteed profit off their signatures -- shouldn't they get something out of the deal?

 

CGC is making a guaranteed CHARGE "off their signatures"...whether they are making a PROFIT or not is up to CGC's accountants.

No one should be counting anyone else's money.

But why is it the creator's business what someone does with his/her property after it is signed? How is it ANY concern of theirs? Are they paying CGC? No...? Then how is it any of their business?

It only sounds reasonable in the lunatic world of collectibles; in the real world, no one stands for it for a second. Can you imagine?

"Well, you know, the real estate agent is making a profit off of my work," says the plumber "so, I deserve a cut of that."

It's madness.

To your first comment: no one has a problem with creators charging for their signatures. The issue is charging a different price based on what the person intends to do with it afterwards. That's greed; that is, someone (creator) thinking someone (the person obtaining the signature) is getting something ("profit") that the first someone (creators) doesn't think the second someone deserves. I also don't know what "obviously adding value to the gravy train" means.

[RockMyAmadeus]

47 minutes ago, SteppinRazor said:

Customers who pay for their signature you mean?  Because a customer is a buyer of their goods or services.  I think you'd be hard pressed to show CGC increases readership (they literally make comics unreadable ).

No, they don't. All one needs to do is open the case. The cases are not un-openable.

As far as "not increasing readership"...that might be true, but there are people who buy two copies...one to read, one to slab...and that didn't exist before slabbing.

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, bronze_rules said:

That doesn't seem right.  And people berate the artists for asking for compensation? 

Why doesn't it seem right? What business is it of someone what I choose to do with my property?

If I get something signed, and list it on eBay, without getting it slabbed...should eBay be sending these creators a cut...? After all, eBay charges to sell things.

[Logan510]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

Why doesn't it seem right? What business is it of someone what I choose to do with my property?

If I get something signed, and list it on eBay, without getting it slabbed...should eBay be sending these creators a cut...? After all, eBay charges to sell things.

If it's none of their business what you choose to do with your property, it's none of your business if they decide to charge you more when you show up with window bagged books. Don't count their money.

But yeah: your bottom line.

[bronze_rules]

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

CGC is making a guaranteed CHARGE "off their signatures"...whether they are making a PROFIT or not is up to CGC's accountants.

No one should be counting anyone else's money.

But why is it the creator's business what someone does with his/her property after it is signed? How is it ANY concern of theirs? Are they paying CGC? No...? Then how is it any of their business?

It only sounds reasonable in the lunatic world of collectibles; in the real world, no one stands for it for a second. Can you imagine?

"Well, you know, the real estate agent is making a profit off of my work," says the plumber "so, I deserve a cut of that."

It's madness.

To your first comment: no one has a problem with creators charging for their signatures. The issue is charging a different price based on what the person intends to do with it afterwards. That's greed; that is, someone (creator) thinking someone (the person obtaining the signature) is getting something ("profit") that the first someone (creators) doesn't think the second someone deserves. I also don't know what "obviously adding value to the gravy train" means.

Not sure how to isolate quotes, but I guess I'll just try to re-type endpoints.

"whether they are making a PROFIT or not is up to CGC's accountants. No one should be counting anyone else's money" 

If you are going to make dogmatic arguments left and right about issues, why would you ignore relevant points? Without having actual accounting ledgers in front of us, I think it's pretty safe to assume they are making a decent profit off this service, otherwise, why would they continue providing it (surely not altruism)? I can't speak to all of the cases, but I would think those higher tier services with the highest fees are not pursued unless they are paid upfront -- that to me is a guaranteed profit or at the least a net positive expectation.

"But why is it the creator's business what someone does with his/her property after it is signed? How is it ANY concern on theirs? Are they paying CGC? No..? Then how is it any of their business?"

Well, I never said anything about the creator having business with what people do with their property after it is signed. Prior to that, it is  their business, as they are the ones providing a critical part of the value of the service, while getting paid nothing for it. Are you implying that the "signature" services business unit would somehow prosper without artists providing the signatures?

"Well, you know, the real estate agent is making a profit off my work," says the plumber, "so, I deserve a cut of that." -- That helps me understand your view better, still, I think that analogy is reaching a bit. For one, an agent can hire any set of plumbers, CGC cannot go out and hire from an equally large pool of artists -- the main value of the signature is the name brand or value of the artist themselves. That is not the case at all with plumbers. And even more so, plumbers do get a cut of contributing to that profit! Since when do plumbers work for free?

"To your first comment; no one has problem with creators charging for their signatures..." -- Ok, I'm glad to hear that. It sounded like earlier posts were pouncing on artists as these greedy opportunists for wanting to get compensated for taking time out of their day to give signatures-- particularly, those that are associated with profit based ventures based on their signatures.

"The issue is charging a different price based on what the person intends to do with it afterwords." -- Surprised to hear that, as you always struck me as a free market advocate. Yet, it is not greedy for CGC to charge based on tiers, which are linked to the expected present and future value of comics?  "That's greed.. this is... getting profit that the first someone doesn't think ... second.. deserves" -- once again, If the business is profit, and you are a free market advocate, it surprises me that you say that so scathingly. It's not greed for CGC or speculators, though, I guess?

"I also don't know what, ""obviously adding value to the gravy train"" means. --  gravy train -- "used to refer to a situation in which someone can make a lot of money for very little effort." I don't mean to demean any effort, but my point is people are making money off this business which is centered around verifying and obtaining valued artist's signatures. I really don't see any reason to vilify artists for desiring some compensation for their contribution to this business or setting a value on what they feel it is worth.  I could be wrong, but that was my interpretation from reading the initial set of posts early on in this thread. If anything, I feel for the younger fans that don't really have a means to afford signatures -- we've all been there, I think.

I'm also passionate about the artists, because a lot of them aren't all that rich. I've read several sad tales about artists who struggled to pay the bills after retirement. as they didn't have a lot of benefits. I'm happy if I can indirectly contribute towards making their lives better for all the joy they've provided me over the years.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2017 by bronze_rules

[Bird]

3 hours ago, bronze_rules said:

Not sure how to isolate quotes, but I guess I'll just try to re-type endpoints.

Highlight the relevant part with you mouse/cursor and then a "quote this" box comes up. Click on it and....tada!

[Logan510]

1 minute ago, Bird said:

Highlight the relevant part with you mouse/cursor and then a "quote this" box comes up. Click on it and....tada!

This is the best post in this thread 

[bronze_rules]

16 minutes ago, Bird said:

Highlight the relevant part with you mouse/cursor and then a "quote this" box comes up. Click on it and....tada!

That's great, thanks! I think I should add that where I struggled, was that I hit quote first and then tried to highlight selections, and I couldn't grab anything. The key is to highlight portions first

and then wait for and select pop up quote box and comment, for each partition.

Edited June 4, 2017 by bronze_rules

[Bird]

9 minutes ago, bronze_rules said:

That's great, thanks! I think I should add that where I struggled, was that I hit quote first and then tried to highlight selections, and I couldn't grab anything. The key is to highlight portions first

and then wait for and select pop up quote box and comment, for each partition.

Okay Homer!

 

 

[Prince Namor]

7 hours ago, jimjum12 said:

Not necessarily, at a recent show Claremont had a line wrapped around the center all weekend and I didn't see any witnesses..... but I wasn't exactly doing recon either. At the same show I paid Adams 60 bucks to scribe two books for Judy and I..... each personalized to us.... a lot of folks just want the sig. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Yeah, signature slabbing is a very SMALL portion of what artists sign at shows. Even though some of it now goes on 'behind the scenes', so it doesn't interrupt the normal line, I'd say easily 90% of what an artist signs at the show is NOT slab related.

[RockMyAmadeus]

21 hours ago, bronze_rules said:

 

If you are going to make dogmatic arguments left and right about issues, why would you ignore relevant points? Without having actual accounting ledgers in front of us, I think it's pretty safe to assume they are making a decent profit off this service, otherwise, why would they continue providing it (surely not altruism)? I can't speak to all of the cases, but I would think those higher tier services with the highest fees are not pursued unless they are paid upfront -- that to me is a guaranteed profit or at the least a net positive expectation.

Which relevant points were ignored? What are the "dogmatic arguments left and right", and how are they "dogmatic"...can you say...? Or is it soundbite discussion? Can we have a disagreement without the provocative terms? I think we can.

The point that you have missed is this: whether CGC is making a profit or not isn't relevant. It's none of the creator's business.  It's no one's business but CGC's what profit they are making, just like it's no one's business what a slabber does with his or her property. CGC is an unrelated third party. The transaction is between the creator and the fan. If the fan chooses to have their book slabbed by CGC, that's not the creator's business. It's not the creator's property. And yet, several creators...and you, now...are arguing as if CGC is some part of the transaction between creator and fan.

They're not.

21 hours ago, bronze_rules said:

Well, I never said anything about the creator having business with what people do with their property after it is signed. Prior to that, it is  their business, as they are the ones providing a critical part of the value of the service, while getting paid nothing for it. Are you implying that the "signature" services business unit would somehow prosper without artists providing the signatures?

You just contradicted yourself, in the span of two sentences. If it's none of their business AFTERWARDS...which is the heart of this argument, here...how is it their business BEFORE? It is never their business what the fan does with his or her property, at any point, prior to, or after, the item is or is not signed. It's none of their business, ever. It's not their property. They are doing one thing, and one thing only: signing an item that someone presents to them. Other than that, they are not related, in any way, to that specific item. Their part is the signature, not the item being signed. What happens to the item being signed...before, during, and after...is none of their business.

Who says they're "getting paid nothing for it"? Some are, some are not. As to the rest of your paragraph...let's not reductio ad absurdum, here.

"I also don't know what, ""obviously adding value to the gravy train"" means. --  gravy train -- "used to refer to a situation in which someone can make a lot of money for very little effort." I don't mean to demean any effort, but my point is people are making money off this business which is centered around verifying and obtaining valued artist's signatures. I really don't see any reason to vilify artists for desiring some compensation for their contribution to this business or setting a value on what they feel it is worth.  I could be wrong, but that was my interpretation from reading the initial set of posts early on in this thread. If anything, I feel for the younger fans that don't really have a means to afford signatures -- we've all been there, I think.

I DO see a reason to vilify anyone who makes poor economic decisions based on ignorance...which is what is happening in many of these cases. "You're going to keep that book raw? Ok, $5. You're going to slab that book? Ok, $20"

It's madness, and deserves to be vilified.

There's nothing wrong with setting a value on what they feel it is worth...but what they feel it is worth should be based on reality, and not misperception...certainly you agree with that, do you not...?

I'm also passionate about the artists, because a lot of them aren't all that rich. I've read several sad tales about artists who struggled to pay the bills after retirement. as they didn't have a lot of benefits. I'm happy if I can indirectly contribute towards making their lives better for all the joy they've provided me over the years.

That's very nice of you. But do you see the problem inherent in such a statement? What does "making their lives better" mean to you? What does it mean to others? When you appeal to emotion, you're always on shaky ground, because what is "generous" to you may be "stingy" to others, and vice versa. Who is the correct judge of the generosity of others? You? Me?

Who is the accurate judge of who actually needs help, through no misdeeds on their part, and who is just suffering because of the poor choices they've made?

Peter David wasn't responsible with his taxes for years. Yet, he appeals to his "fans" to bail him out...which is the worst possible thing that could happen for Peter David, because it means a very valuable lesson will go unlearned. But people "feel sorry" for Peter David, so they help, because they "want to be nice."

Again...who is the accurate judge of these things...?

[RockMyAmadeus]

17 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Yeah, signature slabbing is a very SMALL portion of what artists sign at shows. Even though some of it now goes on 'behind the scenes', so it doesn't interrupt the normal line, I'd say easily 90% of what an artist signs at the show is NOT slab related.

True.

And the "argument" that was made, that it's "none of your business what someone charges you for something you'd like to purchase"...I've already explained why this is quite obviously erroneous. It's an irrational, illogical "argument" to make, and I'm surprised that no one else commented on how bad an argument that is. You're not counting THEIR money...you're deciding whether the item being offered for sale is worth YOUR money.

When you offer something for sale, you make that something available for public discourse in all aspects, including price.

That's like saying "it's none of your business how I've priced this house that you'd like to buy." It's a foolish argument, clearly.

Edited June 5, 2017 by RockMyAmadeus

[SteppinRazor]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

you're deciding whether the item being offered for sale is worth YOUR money.

When you offer something for sale, you make that something available for public discourse in all aspects, including price.

That's like saying "it's none of your business how I've priced this house that you'd like to buy." It's a foolish argument, clearly.

You're deciding whether it's worth it to you.  Price is available for discourse, but it absolutely is none of your business how someone values their house, or their signature, or whatever.  It's your business to choose whether you want to pay that price, but you have no standing to declare how the owner must price it.  I buy some tools that are cheap and I buy some that are expensive.  I will never own a Metabo grinder because I don't think it is worth the asking price, but I'm not going to send a letter to Metabo telling them they are wrong, that their tool isn't worth it.  They made it, they decide what it is worth to them.  I decide what it is worth to me.  If those aren't copacetic, I move on, I don't demand Metabo meet my price.

 

Where you are right is that the issue of charging more for SS is based on misperception.  Not of the value added, but a misperception by the creator of the person who wants it.  And a flawed belief that the creator somehow ought to approve of how the customer enjoys his possession.

Edited June 5, 2017 by SteppinRazor

[Logan510]

6 hours ago, SteppinRazor said:

You're deciding whether it's worth it to you.  Price is available for discourse, but it absolutely is none of your business how someone values their house, or their signature, or whatever.  It's your business to choose whether you want to pay that price, but you have no standing to declare how the owner must price it.  I buy some tools that are cheap and I buy some that are expensive.  I will never own a Metabo grinder because I don't think it is worth the asking price, but I'm not going to send a letter to Metabo telling them they are wrong, that their tool isn't worth it.  They made it, they decide what it is worth to them.  I decide what it is worth to me.  If those aren't copacetic, I move on, I don't demand Metabo meet my price.

 

Where you are right is that the issue of charging more for SS is based on misperception.  Not of the value added, but a misperception by the creator of the person who wants it.  And a flawed belief that the creator somehow ought to approve of how the customer enjoys his possession.

Unfortunately for him, he's arguing about this with the wrong people. Aside from dinners at Marv Wolfman's house, he should be saying this to the creators faces when he's trying to get his books signed and he feels he's being charged an unfair amount based on misperception and greed ( his perception ). 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

I have no dog in this fight, but I will say this...

[F For Fake]

On 6/2/2017 at 6:57 PM, Ken Aldred said:

 

I’ve never met Byrne, but I bumped into Peter David in the Aloft Hotel before a London LSCC convention.

Extremely bad-tempered and terse.  Quite off-putting, and I didn’t bother going anywhere near his table at the show itself.

Same convention, same hotel, met Arthur Adams, had a great chat -  as always, in his case.

Art has been super nice both times I've talked to him. David seemed to be doing his best to convey just how much he hated signing comic books for fans (and I only brought him one to sign, and this was years before SS). Similar to the experience Bird had with Byrne, he wouldn't even deign to speak to fans, and it was over so fast it was like whiplash. 

[Aweandlorder]

Damn.. 678 replies. Starlin is a CGC superstar! If Starlin was a Marvel title there'd be a reboot and 300 variants about now