PatrickG

Hi!

I won't be attending Memphis Comic Expo, September 23rd and 24th, but I'm looking for a mail-in facilitator for two books to be signed by Kevin Eastman.

Thanks!

On 6/18/2023 at 6:07 AM, KCOComics said:

It looks to me like the grader discounted the grade for the signatures. 

 

There is an X-Men 1 with an unwitnessed Stan Signature for sale on the boards. It's a blue label 2.5 with the note "Stan Lee written in cover in sharpie".  

Had Stan not signed the book, that copy would likely be a blue label 3.5. Had he had a witnessed signature, it's a yellow 3.5 

So for that second copy, the owner didn't want the qualified label and allowed for the grade to be discounted for having writing on it. 

You can request an unwitnessed signature be treated as a defect rather than qualified?

On 6/18/2023 at 11:53 AM, Low Dollah said:

No. How does CGC know if you signed them yourself?

A Yellow label is a qualified grade to begin with.

Hell no.

Its not grading inconsistencies, you just need to learn their policies, which you are now doing 😃 If there's an unwitnessed sig on the front cover you get a Green, but you can request a Blue where the sig in considered scribbling damage. This is at CGC's discretion. If there's an unwitnessed sig inside the book it will always get a Blue.

The sig is never verified either way.

Now, if you had had the artist sign up for CGC's Artist program and he had submitted them himself directly to CGC you could get a Yellow label.

If you have a witnessed sig and an an unwitnessed sig, you can get a label that is both green and yellow.

So I have a book coming soon from a run of 40. Not 40 autographs. 40 copies printed. Every copy of the book is signed and numbered by one of the creators. In some sense, there is no chain of custody to break because if the book is authentic, the signature is too. If the signature is not authentic, then neither is the book. There are no unsigned or unnumbered copies. All 40 copies are unwitnessed.

I plan to have another, more prominent creator sign it, witnessed.

As I understand it, that should lead to a yellow label with a green qualified stripe at the top, yes?

I'm fine with that if it's my only option because theoretically everyone else would have the same result. Again, if the book is authentic then the back cover signature is because there are no authentic copies without it.

However, just out of curiosity, I decided to research similar situations and was startled.

The Turtlemania #1 Silver Edition from 1986 is a similarly rare book. It's from a run of 100 copies. Every copy in the run was signed by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird in 1986.

Here's where things get weird.

An unwitnessed copy was submitted and received a green qualified label, as expected, noting the names signed on the back cover.

Meanwhile, another copy was submitted with a witnessed signature and sketch by Kevin Eastman. This one notes that there are names written on the back cover, doesn't note what the names are, and has an unqualified yellow label.

I'm trying to figure out what exempted the cover with a witnessed signature from getting the green qualified bar. The back cover signatures remain unverified but the book was given a full yellow label.

Did the grader for the yellow label book take into account that 100% of copies came signed from the publisher and give it a full yellow label? It strikes me as fair since, despite the full yellow label, the notes indicate that only the front cover signature is verified,

Surely, if that consideration were made, the unwitnessed copy should have gotten a blue label since the signatures were a default part of how the publisher released all copies of the book from that edition. Why would a green label be needed at all if there was no effort to present the book as witnessed?

If the yellow label copy can be exempted from a qualified grade (and still get a note as to which signature is witnessed), why couldn't the unwitnessed copy get a blue label with a similar note?

Perhaps the grading inconsistency is because this is such a rare type of case?

I'd actually like to know which approach will be used with my book before I submit it, just to be certain that I'm not at a disadvantage because other who people who submit the exact way I do end up with a "better" label because of inconsistent grading.

I've seen MOTU mini-comics and Ashcans in a few sizes. They clearly CAN mount a small book in a larger frame.

Is there a minimum?

SuperImpulse's World's Smallest Toys are doing blind-bagged toys with comic reprints that are around 2.5" tall. The available comics include several IDW TMNT, MOTU vintage mini-comics, and Marvel Transformers #1-6.

Part of me wants to submit one -- and get it slabbed signature series.

Any tips for how to do this with an ashcan?

Jeph Loeb

Jim Lee

Ed McGuiness

Tim Sale

(Excellent chance of multiple submissions there.)

Todd McFarlane

(I think the Spawn #1 from the Kickstarter would drive demand.)

On the subject of themes that would warrant multiple submissions, I'd like to see package deals for living Batman or Superman creators. Losing Marty Pasko and Dennis O'Neil both this year created some regret for me that I never got books signed.

Series of events themed around characters maybe with a special label for ordering a set of signatures would pair well with all the facsimiles/reprints/anniversary issues.

I've wanted my Lootcrate Action #1 signed by all living Superman regular writers and artists and have one I started unverified myself with Perez and Simone.

There are some key overlapping creators you could get for multiple events simultaneously like Walt and Louise Simonson for a ton of stuff, Neal Adams for a ton of stuff.

What I think would go over very well is a jam signature tour circuit a book could be sent on. Publishers might be interested in partnering on some of these or perhaps the Hero Foundation. Themed circuits could replace the loss of conventions.

That's really interesting because it has enough characteristics of a Walt Disney personal autograph to tell me Evanier's signed it or studied it before even though it's also not convincing as a forgery.

I've thought off and on about getting Grant Morrison to sign a book twice, once as himself and once as Grant Morrison of Earth-2, or something screwball like two creators signing one another's names (which I've had jokingly threatened before in autograph lines but it might be kind of fun for something like intercompany crossovers).

Likewise, for sentimental value, I'd imagine a Mark Evanier Kirby autograph forgery that is honest about what it is ("Jack Kirby" signed by Mark Evanier) might actually have some market value or Joe Sinnott remarquing Kirby's signature. Or even a jam session Kirby signature with the J and K by two Kirby schomars and the remaining text by two others. Not to present as an authentic Kirby but as a kind of work of art itself.

Heck, I'd probably pay Todd Klein a dozen witness fees to forge signatures with a big "Forged by Todd Klein" dedication at the bottom because my sense is that he's probably a fantastic counterfeiter. Steranko would probably be game for something like that as well as he prides himself as a forger. A "celebrity forgery" that admits who forged it strikes me as good fun if it's an honest forgery. (So if witnessed and slabbed it might read "Stan Lee + Jack Kirby written in ink and signed by Jim Steranko".)

I'd appreciate if some folks from here could look at my thread about the Kirby pin collection. For my money, I think at least a few of the signatures there are legitimate. Jeremy Kirby claims the whole set was. I think at minimum Jack took part of a stack and signed part with Roz and Evanier possibly finishing.

The only thing nagging at me is the arc of the second half of the K going in one direction. He tends to have it curve up and down in opposite directions.

Otherwise looks fairly legit.

I decided to share one sample from an art tour and a few samples from different pin sets.

The last one is high number and sure looks different to my eye from the others with a "4" shaped J.

The next to last has a loop at the top of the J and is also high number.

If I had to guess, at least the last 500 were farmed out but I'm less certain about the earlier ones.

I think I lean towards the conjecture that he split the stack in two or thirds and did the low numbered ones...

I've seen debate here over the 1991 pin collection. While this is certainly a different style of pen than Jack used in the 70s, there's been a line advanced that his 90s works are forgeries by Roz. Jeremy Kirby meanwhile stands by the 1991 pin signatures as authentic.

The point has been made that his 80s signatures tended to have a wobbly quality with a harder right lean but the problem I have with this line is that it starts with a presumption: that the 80s signatures represented an authentic deterioration and Kirby farmed out 90s signatures.

My problem with this is that it seems just as plausible to me that the "deteriorating" 80s signatures were farmed out during a period when he was quite busy and the 90s signatures were Jack resuming personal signing. His art, to my eye, didn't deteriorate in ways consistent with the 80s signatures and it strikes me he might have been better compensated for the 90s signatures and taken it more seriously to do them personally, whereas the deteriorating 80s samples might have been well wishes to fans where letting Roz take over wouldn't have seemed as... well... fraudulent as selling autographs to the pin company or Dynamic Forces that weren't his.

If the pin collections are forgeries, they certainly look more like Kirby's signature to me than the more widely held "authentic" 80s samples.

And even there, the difference between pens could account for part of the difference as he seemed to use cheap pens for impromptu signed books whereas the pin collection looks to be signed with a more expensive pen.

Another awkward possibility is that if he did farm out the pin collection autographs to family, he might have only done so with PART of them. There were 1500 autographs there. If he was running a mill operation with family, it stands to reason it would be faster if he split the cards into stacks and signed part of them to get through the process faster.

I saw the latest packs at Toys 'R Us as well.

The new DC books are out. Lots of first issues of Rebirth arcs branded as #1s.

Injustice became "Injustice: Harley Quinn."

Justice League became "Batman and the Justice League".

No Supersons yet.

The display is now bigger and includes "Showcase Magazine", a magazine which reprints 5 DC books (almost at random, mostly Batman) for $9.99. Comes in 5 variant covers.

On 5/25/2017 at 3:33 PM, krighton said:

the Marvel 3 packs are $9.98...unpleasant surprise when i went to check out...is the Suicide Squad the most 'desirable' 3 pack....No Super Sons unless they're buried inside the Superman 3 packs.

The insides of the packs are newsstand returns. Sometimes marked or damaged.

Well, it seems to have fallen off the charts since then. The information is incomplete because this is below the tracked totals, meaning you can say it sold at least one fewer copies than the #300 book, to the extent Comichron is accurate. It seems likely that this isn't in a category of book that would be overestimated.

I know several large comic shops stocked 1 or fewer copies of this one and it's a 50/50 variant. That anecdotally puts it at least in company with America #2 Art Adams variant. (Among the 5 nearest shops including a prominent LCS, only Books-A-Million qualified for an Adams America #2. The LCS in question stopped stocking SD months ago and now has exactly one pull list customer who special orders it.)

If it had a much larger run, as with Kickstarter books, it would be a case of Larsen bankrolling a larger run that he's sitting on to sell at shows.

I can't say the exact rarity. But we can reasonably infer that it's no higher than the lowest selling book on Comichron minus 1, divided by 2 for the 50/50 variant cover.

48 minutes ago, wombat said:

There is a thread on this in the sig forum. He apparently is saying in another facebook post he got stiffed on a CGC signing fee. And also is saying the CGC witness walked away and didn't actually witness the sigs. 

Isn't their policy with name creators that they don't need a witness on hand if the creator vouches for it when the witness picks it up? That was, I think, designed to be creator friendly.

On 5/10/2017 at 10:16 PM, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Captain Marvel #17. But that's a special case, because the new cover is the important aspect.

It will be interesting to see, assuming Valiant's multi-media efforts spark more interest in the comic line amongst comic fans, whether the issues that sold out from the distributor far enough in advance for a second print to be available for the same ship date as the first print are more sought-after than the first prints, since they'll have a lower print run and technically wouldn't qualify for not being a first appearance of whatever character might appear in the issue, since they both shipped the same day.

Strange thought but do you think it would be pretty collectible if, for example, DC reprinted Wonder Woman or Aquaman's first appearance with alternate cover art? I realize we're talking about a substantially delayed reprint there and a modern would have a fraction of the original's value but I do wonder if the Millenium editions were hindered by reusing the original covers, which didn't emphasize the important aspects of those issues.

On 5/4/2017 at 8:40 AM, Kevin76 said:

I wouldn't waste my time and money on any variant cover, rather spend $4000+ on a silver age marvel book or a golden age Detective

I generally agree but think a variant sub-1000 copies signed has some staying power. I'm just not sure that the difference between 500, 250, or 25 copies in a run is that meaningful. And the signature turns it into an art print with a high floor.

I think there is a difference between 25-500, 750-1500, and 3000 in a run.

Ideal would be significant issue, good eye appeal, signed, sub-1500 copy run. In that order.

The key for me is I wouldn't try to put my $1000 into a single category of comic. And definitely look for stuff like 1sts of new Marvel cosmic characters or supporting characters or villains for Batman and Spider-man. I mentioned Damian and Duke Thomas but stuff like Professor Pyg or that flower themed bad guy Snyder created for Batman strike me as long term potential.

Long term? The rarest variants possible of character first appearances and first ongoings of characters I see having media potential.

I'd go with first Damian Wayne and Jon Kent, 1st Ms. Marvel, 1st Phylla-Vell Quasar, 1st Duke Thomas. Probably $500 worth of that.

$250 into Image and maybe some Action Lab #1s. Saga. Black Science. Anything Millar you can get cheap. Happy! still seems like it could be a good buy still. Redneck. Go for variety here rather than bank breaking variants. Sub-$10 each.

The last $250 I'd pump into whatever mix of variants I could find with print runs of 1000 or less. Focus on stuff with eye appeal. JSC store variants. Try to get this stuff signature series signed.

I went to multiple comic shops looking for this, as I was collecting most of the Image April Fools variants and was thinking about having Scott Snyder and Jock sign this one for laughs. (The gag here is that they're announced as the new creative team with an April Fools disclaimer.)

I went to several shops, one big, and realized nobody was stocking Savage Dragon. The biggest shop had one copy on a pull list and didn't even get the variant.

Going by Comichron, Savage Dragon is off the bottom of the charts from the looks of it, making it less than 1000 copies a month and the variant from a run under 500.

With Jock on cover and the Scott Snyder gag and the chance that the April Fools covers might have novelty value as a set even for non-SD readers, could this one be a hidden gem?

3 hours ago, Designer Toast said:

Result:  Flippers and resellers suddenly experience a birth boom and are bringing fifteen kids each to the show or suddenly asking relatives and friends if their kids want to go to a comic con.  

Well, those kids cost money too!

33 minutes ago, Silver Ager said:

The admission fees are one thing keeping me away. $25-$35 if you only want to go in and browse one day? And then if it's downtown, there may be paid parking...Forget that. I wish there was a happy medium between the 10x10 (okay, maybe I'm exaggerating) sized Sunday-only shows with 5 dealers and the overpriced mega shows.

Funny thought but what if a con was co-sponsored by dealers and you got a $25 credit to use on buying comics.

Heck, that alone would police the spectacle problem if you made admission $100 a day with $100 in credit to be used buying comics. Booth fees could be paid in merch donation for exhibitors that way. It auto-polices the "problem" of non-buyers crowding the floor.