What's up with Rob Liefeld? No CGC? 4 4

[RockMyAmadeus]

8 minutes ago, Drbearsec said:

35 minutes ago, DoYouGiveCrybabiesCandy said:

Ladies and gentlemen, Echh-ibit A!

 

Time to grow up... not make fake accounts to attack or troll people especially when you acknowledge who you are.

Agreed. Not that I agree with banning, but "Stu" was banned many years ago for being unrelentingly hostile to the slabbing process, so fake names are all he can come up with. If someone or some entity made it clear I was no longer welcome, I wouldn't spend years trying to circumvent that just to insult and make false accusations about people.

So...readers do the math and decide for yourselves who "Stu" really is.

[Drbearsec]

11 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Nope. Only hostile if you read it that way. 

But higher prices for special features isn't the issue. That price is charged to everyone who wants to go through TM, or see a 3D movie, or go to Disney World. 

But with this issue, certain people are being punished with higher prices, while others aren't.

No one is complaining that prices are too high. You suck it up, do the math, and figure out if it works for you. If it does, fine, if it doesn't, you move on to something else.

But if Creator Dave is willing to sign Fred Flintstone's copy of Raggedy Ann #372 for $5, there's no reason why he shouldn't be willing to sign my copy for the same price.

I think you missed my point.  My point has nothing to do with special features, etc.  it was more an example of things that used to be free or all cost the same and then changed.  And Yes I do get your point on two tier etc....that’s not the point I was making...

 

the point I’m making is that as much as it sucks, until people refuse to pay it, it will continue to happen....whether right or wrong.  And unfortunately I don’t see people stopping paying it anytime soon because as you pointed out, we are addicted.

[Logan510]

4 minutes ago, Drbearsec said:

I think you missed my point.  My point has nothing to do with special features, etc.  it was more an example of things that used to be free or all cost the same and then changed.  And Yes I do get your point on two tier etc....that’s not the point I was making...

 

the point I’m making is that as much as it sucks, until people refuse to pay it, it will continue to happen....whether right or wrong.  And unfortunately I don’t see people stopping paying it anytime soon because as you pointed out, we are addicted.

Whose fault is that then?

If creators stopped making money by charging higher prices they would adjust.

[newshane]

49 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

So, the people who paid $600 for the Miller signatures from early 2016...did those signatures add value?

 

I feel such shame for buying three at that price.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, Drbearsec said:

I think you missed my point.  My point has nothing to do with special features, etc.  it was more an example of things that used to be free or all cost the same and then changed.  And Yes I do get your point on two tier etc....that’s not the point I was making...

 

So you say. You brought up examples of "Ticket Master" and "3D movies" and "Disney World." If you weren't trying to make a point about "special features" (and going through Ticket Master is a "special feature", and 3D movies is a "special feature"), but just about high prices in general, then you missed the point of this discussion, which is different charges to different people (or sometimes the SAME person!) for the same exact service...NOT "high prices" in general, or "things that used to be free or all cost the same." Using Ticket Master costs the same for everyone. Seeing a 3D movie costs the same for everyone, all things being equal. Going to DisneyWorld costs the same for everyone, again, all things being equal.

Getting Creator Dave to sign Fred Flintstone's Raggedy Ann #372 costs Fred $5. Getting Creator Dave to sign my copy costs a DIFFERENT, HIGHER PRICE. But Fred Flintstone and I are twins. There's nothing about us that is different related to who we are to Creator Dave. What is different is Creator Dave's ideas about what Fred and I might do with each book.

And that is discrimination.

Not trying to argue with you, just trying to make the discussion consistent.

5 minutes ago, Drbearsec said:

the point I’m making is that as much as it sucks, until people refuse to pay it, it will continue to happen....whether right or wrong.  And unfortunately I don’t see people stopping paying it anytime soon because as you pointed out, we are addicted.

I disagree with you on this point. That's the whole point of discussion and feedback: people's minds can be changed without having to resort to everyone "putting their wallets away" first. That was the problem that "kevhtx" was having earlier in the conversation. My "agenda" has always been to wake people up to this discriminatory practice. If Neal Adams wants to charge $10,000,000 for his signature, he should knock himself the hell out (that means "go for it", for anyone not sure.) But if he's charging the same people...and sometimes even the same PERSON (which has happened TO ME, as related to the Chris Claremont story above)...different prices for the exact same service...that's a pretty sketchy practice, and people ought to consider it.

Without discussion, many people wouldn't even think about it. And if they didn't think about it, they wouldn't consider refusing to pay it.

As far as being addicts...at the very least, discussion acknowledges that fact, so that people are aware of it, and don't pretend that they're not exploiting others.

[Drbearsec]

9 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Whose fault is that then?

If creators stopped making money by charging higher prices they would adjust.

I didn’t say it was anyone’s fault.  Or if anything, it’s everyone’s fault.  Fans for paying, creators for charging, cons for allowing it, etc. My statement wasn’t about blame, it was simply a statement of opinion that unless the people buying don’t buy, it won’t change.    If they stop buying, then it is up to the creators to determine the best way forward and then back to the consumer to decide whether that way works.  

 

I think the two tier thing is ridiculous but hey I’m part of the problem because I do pay the costs.

[Logan510]

3 minutes ago, Drbearsec said:

I didn’t say it was anyone’s fault.  Or if anything, it’s everyone’s fault.  Fans for paying, creators for charging, cons for allowing it, etc. My statement wasn’t about blame, it was simply a statement of opinion that unless the people buying don’t buy, it won’t change.    If they stop buying, then it is up to the creators to determine the best way forward and then back to the consumer to decide whether that way works.  

 

I think the two tier thing is ridiculous but hey I’m part of the problem because I do pay the costs.

Next time tell the creator how ridiculous you think it is as you're handing over your cash

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

8 minutes ago, newshane said:

I feel such shame for buying three at that price.

Hey, whaddaya gonna do? You were working on the best information you had at the time. It was pure exploitation of the weaknesses of comic addicts.

The unspoken (and frequently spoken, at least in hushed tones) implication was "Look at Miller! Look how awful he looks! He's got one foot in the grave! You better pony up the dough, or you're gonna be out of luck, sonny! It'll be TOO LATE!"

No one was forced to pay against their will...and no one did anything illegal...and that price DID get Miller out again...but man, how that's not exploiting people, I sure don't know...

It's a strange, odd, not-easily-compartmentalized thing we do.

[Drbearsec]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

So you say. You brought up examples of "Ticket Master" and "3D movies" and "Disney World." If you weren't trying to make a point about "special features" (and going through Ticket Master is a "special feature", and 3D movies is a "special feature"), but just about high prices in general, then you missed the point of this discussion, which is different charges to different people (or sometimes the SAME person!) for the same exact service...NOT "high prices" in general, or "things that used to be free or all cost the same." Using Ticket Master costs the same for everyone. Seeing a 3D movie costs the same for everyone, all things being equal. Going to DisneyWorld costs the same for everyone, again, all things being equal.

Getting Creator Dave to sign Fred Flintstone's Raggedy Ann #372 costs Fred $5. Getting Creator Dave to sign my copy costs a DIFFERENT, HIGHER PRICE. But Fred Flintstone and I are twins. There's nothing about us that is different related to who we are to Creator Dave. What is different is Creator Dave's ideas about what Fred and I might do with each book.

And that is discrimination.

Not trying to argue with you, just trying to make the discussion consistent.

I disagree with you on this point. That's the whole point of discussion and feedback: people's minds can be changed without having to resort to everyone "putting their wallets away" first. That was the problem that "kevhtx" was having earlier in the conversation. My "agenda" has always been to wake people up to this discriminatory practice. If Neal Adams wants to charge $10,000,000 for his signature, he should knock himself the hell out (that means "go for it", for anyone not sure.) But if he's charging the same people...and sometimes even the same PERSON (which has happened TO ME, as related to the Chris Claremont story above)...different prices for the exact same service...that's a pretty sketchy practice, and people ought to consider it.

Without discussion, many people wouldn't even think about it. And if they didn't think about it, they wouldn't consider refusing to pay it.

As far as being addicts...at the very least, discussion acknowledges that fact, so that people are aware of it, and don't pretend that they're not exploiting others.

So the point you are trying to make is that people should know it’s a wildly_fanciful_statement sketchy practice?   If so, then yes I agree.  

What I’m saying (and maybe not effectively enough) is this:

    Lets assume everyone knows what you want to “wake” then too.  What’s next?  In    the end, if everyone knows it and enough people accept it and still pay, then it will continue to happen.  

    If those people decide not to accept it, and don’t pay, then at some point it switches back to the creator and if the creator is willing to make less to stick to this specific “principle”/ business decision OR if they change the cost/practice to attract back those that refuse to pay.  

I guess the other possibility, is that letting the creator know and getting them to change would also be effective if successful.  

Either way, I’d still argue that the way the practice would end is more based on if consumers stopped paying rather than convince creators to change their mind even after they understood the truth of it.  I honestly think many will say...since they can sell it for me I should make more, but that’s just a guess and I could easily me wrong. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Let me bring up something I touched on just now: Chris Claremont charged $5 for "raw" and $10 for "CGC."

As I stated, we had BOTH raws AND slabbed books for him to sign.

Same person getting them signed. Same action. Same service. Nothing different for Claremont from one book to the next.

Different price. 

Why? What was different about anything Claremont did that would have justified a different price for this one, as opposed to that one? What did Claremont do differently, for any book?

Nothing.

 

[Drbearsec]

13 minutes ago, Whoa! said:

Damn those creators for taking advantage of your mental illness! 

If you are going to troll at least learn to do it well.

[Drbearsec]

 

14 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Next time tell the creator how ridiculous you think it is as you're handing over your cash

 

Why would I waste my time?  I may disagree with a practice but in the end I’ll decide if I want to pay it or not.  If I don’t feel the need to tell Stan or Frank or Mark Hamill I think they charge too much as I pay, then why would I feel the need to say I dislike the double tier system.  I don’t care enough to take an active stand either by my wallet or with evangelizing my position.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, Drbearsec said:

So the point you are trying to make is that people should know it’s a wildly_fanciful_statement sketchy practice?   If so, then yes I agree.  

What I’m saying (and maybe not effectively enough) is this:

    Lets assume everyone knows what you want to “wake” then too.  What’s next?  In    the end, if everyone knows it and enough people accept it and still pay, then it will continue to happen.  

    If those people decide not to accept it, and don’t pay, then at some point it switches back to the creator and if the creator is willing to make less to stick to this specific “principle”/ business decision OR if they change the cost/practice to attract back those that refuse to pay.  

I guess the other possibility, is that letting the creator know and getting them to change would also be effective if successful.  

Either way, I’d still argue that the way the practice would end is more based on if consumers stopped paying rather than convince creators to change their mind even after they understood the truth of it.  I honestly think many will say...since they can sell it for me I should make more, but that’s just a guess and I could easily me wrong. 

There are multiple ways for this practice to end:

1. Creators could be educated about the process...not just "aware", but educated...and make the decision to not charge a CGC punishment charge on their own. I choose to believe...perhaps naively...that a portion of creators would do this. 

2. Customers could stop paying it en masse, and the creators notice and change their policies.

3. CGC refuses to let facilitators be "exclusive" (keeping in mind that CGC, even if not directly involved in any of this, still has a lot of clout.) I understand that CGC wants to respect creator relationships, but that doesn't mean that they, as a disconnected third party, need to honor facilitators attempting to do this.

4. Outside financial pressure...such as conventions forcing creators to charge a single price for signatures (which has happened, in a fashion.)

Or, some combination of the above.

This practice will never be ended by the "exclusive" facilitators, unless they grow a conscience, because this is their goose that keeps laying the golden egg.

 

[Drbearsec]

18 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Hey, whaddaya gonna do? You were working on the best information you had at the time. It was pure exploitation of the weaknesses of comic addicts.

The unspoken (and frequently spoken, at least in hushed tones) implication was "Look at Miller! Look how awful he looks! He's got one foot in the grave! You better pony up the dough, or you're gonna be out of luck, sonny! It'll be TOO LATE!"

No one was forced to pay against their will...and no one did anything illegal...and that price DID get Miller out again...but man, how that's not exploiting people, I sure don't know...

It's a strange, odd, not-easily-compartmentalized thing we do.

Amazing the price dropped so much after.  I mean I paid an arm and leg for my Miller signing in 2017 but I got a sketch cover, 5 autographs, etc.  definitely didn’t pay $600 each sig...that’s nuts 

[Drbearsec]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

There are multiple ways for this practice to end:

1. Creators could be educated about the process...not just "aware", but educated...and make the decision to not charge a CGC punishment charge on their own. I choose to believe...perhaps naively...that a portion of creators would do this. 

2. Customers could stop paying it en masse, and the creators notice and change their policies.

3. CGC refuses to let facilitators be "exclusive" (keeping in mind that CGC, even if not directly involved in any of this, still has a lot of clout.) I understand that CGC wants to respect creator relationships, but that doesn't mean that they, as a disconnected third party, need to honor facilitators attempting to do this.

4. Outside financial pressure...such as conventions forcing creators to charge a single price for signatures (which has happened, in a fashion.)

Or, some combination of the above.

This practice will never be ended by the "exclusive" facilitators, unless they grow a conscience, because this is their goose that keeps laying the golden egg.

 

Fair enough.  We tend to agree on the best end result just not on how it would be achieved...  I’m clearly thinking 2 followed by 4 as the most effective way.

Either way been an enjoyable discussion.  I hope you are successful in your endeavor even if I’m more pessimistic about change happening

[Drbearsec]

4 minutes ago, Whoa! said:

Ouuuuch, super burn! You're a pro 

See...There you go again...  if you are going to troll, learn to do it well. 

[newshane]

50 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Hey, whaddaya gonna do? You were working on the best information you had at the time. It was pure exploitation of the weaknesses of comic addicts.

The unspoken (and frequently spoken, at least in hushed tones) implication was "Look at Miller! Look how awful he looks! He's got one foot in the grave! You better pony up the dough, or you're gonna be out of luck, sonny! It'll be TOO LATE!"

No one was forced to pay against their will...and no one did anything illegal...and that price DID get Miller out again...but man, how that's not exploiting people, I sure don't know...

It's a strange, odd, not-easily-compartmentalized thing we do.

Yep. I elected to pay it. At the time, he never did signings, and I didn't think he would do many more. I always had a "price-no-object" attitude towards completing the Spawn run, so it was part of a larger sickness for sure.

As with nearly any corner of this hobby, or any other, now that I think about it, one can save a boatload of cash with a little patience. It was a risk I wasn't willing to take at the time. Hindsight is too easy.

As much as I hate the cliche, it is what it is.

In full disclosure, I was offered a little salve to ease the burn, but since it involved spending even more money, I elected to pass.

Getting the books done was truly thrilling at the time...I remind myself of that feeling every time I look back. But it was an expensive feeling. ha

[NoMan]

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

So, the people who paid $600 for the Miller signatures from early 2016...did those signatures add value?

Stan Lee's signing fee, as of the last time he signed (Phx in Jan, that I know of) was $130. When you add in the cost to slab....typically about $40, depending on shipping...and the selling fees...about 10-13%...and you must sell a Stan Lee CGC SS book for $200 to break even.

There are currently about 730 slabs sold that are AT or BELOW cost...most below...meaning those signatures added nothing to the value of the book, regardless of the grade it was in.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=stan+lee+cgc+signed+-it+-ready&_sop=15&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xstan+lee+cgc+signed+-it+-ready+-worthy.TRS0&_nkw=stan+lee+cgc+signed+-it+-ready+-worthy&_sacat=0

What about Frank Miller? Does that add value?

Edited March 11, 2018 by NoMan
Forget it. You answered in later post.

[NoMan]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Hey, whaddaya gonna do? You were working on the best information you had at the time. It was pure exploitation of the weaknesses of comic addicts.

The unspoken (and frequently spoken, at least in hushed tones) implication was "Look at Miller! Look how awful he looks! He's got one foot in the grave! You better pony up the dough, or you're gonna be out of luck, sonny! It'll be TOO LATE!"

No one was forced to pay against their will...and no one did anything illegal...and that price DID get Miller out again...but man, how that's not exploiting people, I sure don't know...

It's a strange, odd, not-easily-compartmentalized thing we do.

Why did Miller lower his signing fee? Did he start looking healthier?

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, NoMan said:

Why did Miller lower his signing fee? Did he start looking healthier?

You can only pump so many people at $600 a pop before that well is completely dry. His "manager" isn't stupid. Exploitative, you bet. Stupid, no.

His signature is still higher than anyone else's except Stan's, and, like most creators in that "stable", there's a CGC/Voldemort punishment fee. 

But, it's a cost/benefit analysis, and there are enough people willing to pay it, that the practice is unlikely to change until and unless there's enough of a backlash.

You want a Rom #17 signed by Miller, because it was one of your absolute favorite books...? You'll pay for it, fanboy.