Blue label on signed book 0

[Jibber82]

I sent a Gamora #1 signed by J. Scott Campbell to CGC to get graded. The signature wasn't witnessed so I expected a green label. I got the graded book back yesterday and it has a blue label. The signature is very noticeable in pink marker. I'm not really upset by this I just found it interesting and thought I would share. Has this ever happened to anyone else?

[comicquant]

8 minutes ago, Jibber82 said:

I sent a Gamora #1 signed by J. Scott Campbell to CGC to get graded. The signature wasn't witnessed so I expected a green label. I got the graded book back yesterday and it has a blue label. The signature is very noticeable in pink marker. I'm not really upset by this I just found it interesting and thought I would share. Has this ever happened to anyone else?

Was the grade lower than you expected?

[Jibber82]

No it's a 9.8

[comicquant]

That’s interesting.  Typically they treat unwitnessed sigs as a flaw to the book.  Maybe they’ve changed their attitude on this since they haven’t brought in-house sig auth as a service yet.  In my opinion it’s the right way to do it but they need to trash their witnessed sig program and start authenticating.  

[Jibber82]

I'm guessing this was a mistake by CGC and not evidence of a new policy.

[mschmidt]

37 minutes ago, comicquant said:

That’s interesting.  Typically they treat unwitnessed sigs as a flaw to the book.  Maybe they’ve changed their attitude on this since they haven’t brought in-house sig auth as a service yet.  In my opinion it’s the right way to do it but they need to trash their witnessed sig program and start authenticating.  

It's obviously a QC mistake.

CGC has stated numerous times they're not going to get in the business of authenticating signatures after the fact. Which is great for the people who actually care about the authenticity of their signatures.

[comicquant]

1 minute ago, mschmidt said:

It's obviously a QC mistake.

CGC has stated numerous times they're not going to get in the business of authenticating signatures after the fact. Which is great for the people who actually care about the authenticity of their signatures.

At the end of the day, the witness program is signature authentication but in the "killing flies with a cannon" sense.  I have no skin in the game because I think sigs are a tragedy, however discussion with others clearly leads to an overall disliking of the witness program.  Granted, it does authenticate a signature absolutely but operationally it has to be more costly than in-house sig auth so it seems like an odd business decision.

[mschmidt]

3 hours ago, comicquant said:

At the end of the day, the witness program is signature authentication but in the "killing flies with a cannon" sense.  I have no skin in the game because I think sigs are a tragedy, however discussion with others clearly leads to an overall disliking of the witness program.  Granted, it does authenticate a signature absolutely but operationally it has to be more costly than in-house sig auth so it seems like an odd business decision.

The SS program is one of the primary reason people started slabbing modern books - so, considering that modern books are now the bulk of CGC's earnings, calling it an "odd business decision" seems, well, a bit odd.

You may personally dislike the witnessing, but the main reason the SS program became hugely popular to begin with is because of the black & white nature of the guarantee - when I buy a yellow label book, I can be confident that the book was signed by the person listed on the label. There's no "authentication after the fact"-program out there that offers the same guarantee.

(It's also far cheaper to run the SS program than it is to run a signature authentication service)

[newshane]

28 minutes ago, mschmidt said:

The SS program is one of the primary reason people started slabbing modern books - so, considering that modern books are now the bulk of CGC's earnings, calling it an "odd business decision" seems, well, a bit odd.

You may personally dislike the witnessing, but the main reason the SS program became hugely popular to begin with is because of the black & white nature of the guarantee - when I buy a yellow label book, I can be confident that the book was signed by the person listed on the label. There's no "authentication after the fact"-program out there that offers the same guarantee.

(It's also far cheaper to run the SS program than it is to run a signature authentication service)

Agreed on all counts.

[comicquant]

1 hour ago, mschmidt said:

The SS program is one of the primary reason people started slabbing modern books - so, considering that modern books are now the bulk of CGC's earnings, calling it an "odd business decision" seems, well, a bit odd.

You may personally dislike the witnessing, but the main reason the SS program became hugely popular to begin with is because of the black & white nature of the guarantee - when I buy a yellow label book, I can be confident that the book was signed by the person listed on the label. There's no "authentication after the fact"-program out there that offers the same guarantee.

(It's also far cheaper to run the SS program than it is to run a signature authentication service)

I doubt its cheaper to run the SS program.  The operational cost associated with coordinating events, organizing witnesses (are they paid? I assume not) and moving signed books is not free.  In fact, just the additional insurance cost has to be significant.  Maybe there was a time when it was impractical from a biz perspective (which may have originally been a driver), but there are options for having this done remotely by a third party (Sending hi-res scans digitally).  In addition, I've heard much of the verification process is now done digitally (by a machine) which I would think lowers overall cost and time to deliver.     

As you mention, the absolute guarantee isn't there so I definitely understand why this is desirable to collectors but its also a common complaint by sig collectors that CGC doesn't offer signature authentication.  There are numerous collectors out there with signed books in the raw because the advent of CGC's SS program made unwitnessed sigs less desirable and "unofficial".  If they were to offer in-house sig auth I'm sure it would be a heavily used service.  I think the bigger issue for CGC is having to create another label to differentiate between the two.  Almost the conserved vs restored label all over again.  There would likely be buyers who would consider auth'ed sigs less desirable than witnessed sigs.                

Edited October 18, 2017 by comicquant

[mschmidt]

2 hours ago, comicquant said:

I doubt its cheaper to run the SS program.  The operational cost associated with coordinating events, organizing witnesses (are they paid? I assume not) and moving signed books is not free.  In fact, just the additional insurance cost has to be significant.  Maybe there was a time when it was impractical from a biz perspective (which may have originally been a driver), but there are options for having this done remotely by a third party (Sending hi-res scans digitally).  In addition, I've heard much of the verification process is now done digitally (by a machine) which I would think lowers overall cost and time to deliver.     

As you mention, the absolute guarantee isn't there so I definitely understand why this is desirable to collectors but its also a common complaint by sig collectors that CGC doesn't offer signature authentication.  There are numerous collectors out there with signed books in the raw because the advent of CGC's SS program made unwitnessed sigs less desirable and "unofficial".  If they were to offer in-house sig auth I'm sure it would be a heavily used service.  I think the bigger issue for CGC is having to create another label to differentiate between the two.  Almost the conserved vs restored label all over again.  There would likely be buyers who would consider auth'ed sigs less desirable than witnessed sigs.                

I mean no disrespect, but it honestly doesn't seem like you know how the SS program actually operates.

There's no additional insurance cost for SS books. SS witnesses are paid to work shows. And CGC more than covers the operational cost of this program through the mountains of books submitted at each major show for SS that they otherwise wouldn't get and the $10 extra they charge to slab a signed book. Not to mention the cracks & re-grades SS collectors do when they add more signatures at a later date.

Compared to running an in-house authentication service, the SS program is cheap.

What Voldy's foray into this business showed is that there's no pent-up, huge demand for an after-the-fact authentication service - the vast majority of collectors who own raw, signed books don't care & can't be bothered to pay to get them "authenticated". And the people who do collect signed books want the guarantee the CGC SS label offers.

 

[comicquant]

20 minutes ago, mschmidt said:

I mean no disrespect, but it honestly doesn't seem like you know how the SS program actually operates.

There's no additional insurance cost for SS books. SS witnesses are paid to work shows. And CGC more than covers the operational cost of this program through the mountains of books submitted at each major show for SS that they otherwise wouldn't get and the $10 extra they charge to slab a signed book. Not to mention the cracks & re-grades SS collectors do when they add more signatures at a later date.

Compared to running an in-house authentication service, the SS program is cheap.

What Voldy's foray into this business showed is that there's no pent-up, huge demand for an after-the-fact authentication service - the vast majority of collectors who own raw, signed books don't care & can't be bothered to pay to get them "authenticated". And the people who do collect signed books want the guarantee the CGC SS label offers.

 

Trust me, none taken.  I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.  With today’s technology and level of third party service access I can all but assure you the SS program is more costly.  Especially in lieu of paying witnesses.  And yes, the cost of insurance for collectibles in transit will be more than if the book never left the premises, probably a lot more from a percentage perspective.  From my point of view there is absolutely no way it’s less costly to operate the SS program than an in-house sig service.  The fact Voldy offers it is nearly confirmation of the assumption.

As far as Voldy is concerned, part of it is probably the simple fact it’s voldy.  If CGC offered such a service it may compel the casual sig collector to get unwitnessed sigs more often.  I’m not a fan of sigs at all but I could see myself attending local signings.

 

Edited October 18, 2017 by comicquant

[mschmidt]

1 hour ago, comicquant said:

Trust me, none taken.  I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.  With today’s technology and level of third party service access I can all but assure you the SS program is more costly.  Especially in lieu of paying witnesses.  And yes, the cost of insurance for collectibles in transit will be more than if the book never left the premises, probably a lot more from a percentage perspective.  From my point of view there is absolutely no way it’s less costly to operate the SS program than an in-house sig service.  The fact Voldy offers it is nearly confirmation of the assumption.

As far as Voldy is concerned, part of it is probably the simple fact it’s voldy.  If CGC offered such a service it may compel the casual sig collector to get unwitnessed sigs more often.  I’m not a fan of sigs at all but I could see myself attending local signings.

 

If that's truly the case, why does Voldy's "authentication" service cost a lot more than their Signature Series program? 

The reason a SS program is cheap is that the labor it requires doesn't need specialized skills, and that everything can be done fast & in bulk - it's much, much faster to simply witness Stan Lee signing 200 books than to authenticate the same 200 books after the fact (even with a computer helping you).

The shipping insurance thing is negligible in the extreme - I'm sure CGC's general insurance policy automatically covers books being sent back & forth, at a pr. book cost that's numbered in the single cents. Even the actual postage cost of shipping books back from a show doesn't add up to more than $0.25/book or so.

Edited October 19, 2017 by mschmidt

[comicquant]

1 minute ago, mschmidt said:

If that's truly the case, why does Voldy's "authentication" service cost a lot more than their Signature Series program? 

The reason a SS program is cheap is that the labor it requires doesn't need specialized skills, and that everything can be done fast & in bulk - it's much, much faster to simply witness Stan Lee signing 200 books than to authenticate the same 200 books after the fact (even with a computer helping you).

The shipping insurance thing is negligible in the extreme - I'm sure CGC's general insurance policy automatically covers books being sent back & forth, at a pr. book cost that's numbered in the single cents. Even the actual postage cost of shipping books back from a show doesn't add up to more than $0.25/book or so.

No one on CGC's side of the fence would have to know anything about signature authentication other than scanning a book and sending an email with an attachment.  They're called professional services and most companies specializing in any given area have offered them for the last 2 to 3 decades.  Again, maybe in the 80's it would be less costly but in today's business spectrum, no way.  As for why Voldy charges $25 ($15 additional afterward)?  Its because they know people will pay a premium to turn that raw dusty old unofficial sig book into an authenticated slab.  Not to mention the lines for witnessed sigs are terrible so there's a premium inherent in not having to wait 3 hours to have something signed.  If Voldy brought the service in-house thats their own fault.  Again, we'll have to agree to disagree and just leave it at that. 

[mschmidt]

3 hours ago, comicquant said:

No one on CGC's side of the fence would have to know anything about signature authentication other than scanning a book and sending an email with an attachment.  They're called professional services and most companies specializing in any given area have offered them for the last 2 to 3 decades.  Again, maybe in the 80's it would be less costly but in today's business spectrum, no way.  As for why Voldy charges $25 ($15 additional afterward)?  Its because they know people will pay a premium to turn that raw dusty old unofficial sig book into an authenticated slab.  Not to mention the lines for witnessed sigs are terrible so there's a premium inherent in not having to wait 3 hours to have something signed.  If Voldy brought the service in-house thats their own fault.  Again, we'll have to agree to disagree and just leave it at that. 

I don't know where your assumptions about the signed comic market are coming from, but as someone who's actively been involved with the Signature Series program for the last 8 years, I can tell you that they're very far off base.

People are not paying a premium to avoid lines & end up with an "authenticated-after-the-fact"-book because there's no reason to do so - if you can't be bothered to wait in line for a creator, 3rd party facilitators will get the book signed for you and and it will still qualify for a SS label. What people - the few of them that can be bothered - are actually using the Voldy authentication service for are books carrying signatures of A-list creators that either haven't done any public signings since the formation of CGC (eg. Jack Kirby), have passed (eg. Michael Turner) or are named Stan Lee. 

It makes no sense whatsoever to go to a show, get a book signed by a creator (without a witness) and then submit said book to be authenticated-after-the-fact - not only would you be paying more money, you'd also end up with an inferior product with less value in the marketplace.

[comicquant]

5 minutes ago, mschmidt said:

I don't know where your assumptions about the signed comic market are coming from, but as someone who's actively been involved with the Signature Series program for the last 8 years, I can tell you that they're very far off base.

People are not paying a premium to avoid lines & end up with an "authenticated-after-the-fact"-book because there's no reason to do so - if you can't be bothered to wait in line for a creator, 3rd party facilitators will get the book signed for you and and it will still qualify for a SS label. What people - the few of them that can be bothered - are actually using the Voldy authentication service for are books carrying signatures of A-list creators that either haven't done any public signings since the formation of CGC (eg. Jack Kirby), have passed (eg. Michael Turner) or are named Stan Lee. 

It makes no sense whatsoever to go to a show, get a book signed by a creator (without a witness) and then submit said book to be authenticated-after-the-fact - not only would you be paying more money, you'd also end up with an inferior product with less value in the marketplace.

Okay, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I agreed with you that the absolute authentication makes sense and I completely disagree with you that its less costly to run the witness program.  Anything else is obfuscating the original topic.  You don't need to pontificate anymore than you have; it will make no difference.

Edited October 19, 2017 by comicquant

[mschmidt]

11 hours ago, comicquant said:

Okay, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I agreed with you that the absolute authentication makes sense and I completely disagree with you that its less costly to run the witness program.  Anything else is obfuscating the original topic.  You don't need to pontificate anymore than you have; it will make no difference.

So ... patiently explaining why pretty much all your underlying assumptions are incorrect - based on actual facts & experience working with the system for a number of years - is now "obfuscating the original topic"? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one as well 

[comicquant]

1 minute ago, mschmidt said:

So ... patiently explaining why pretty much all your underlying assumptions are incorrect - based on actual facts & experience working with the system for a number of years - is now "obfuscating the original topic"? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one as well 

As well as me explaining why your biased opinion has clouded your judgement!  But I'll agree to disagree!  

Edited October 19, 2017 by comicquant

[comicquant]

9 minutes ago, mschmidt said:

So ... patiently explaining why pretty much all your underlying assumptions are incorrect - based on actual facts & experience working with the system for a number of years - is now "obfuscating the original topic"? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one as well 

  Okay, this explains quite a bit...

Edited October 19, 2017 by comicquant