Marvel Decides Who The Real Fans Are At C2E2 – No Window Bags For Comics Signatures! 5 5

[jcjames]

Just now, Logan510 said:

You're trying to make money off of their work and their name. They shouldn't care about your bottom line or all the work you're putting in to get this done. If they want to make some extra money from you needing them, I have no issue with it.

Non-sequitor. Many artists began charging because they saw people selling their signatures, so they simply added to the cost of getting that signature by charging $20, $40, $100 or whatever for a signature, which only inflates the cost of that signature on the secondary market... which is what drives a lot of people to go get their signature in the first place! Can't make the Orlando Con this year? Well, wait a month or so and you'll find most of those artists' sigs on items from that con or you can pay a facilitator to get a signature for you (graded for a cost of course). 

The artists are already paid to appear at the con, and they also get a nice bucket of money from the line of folks getting their sigs to take home with them. Nice gig. 

Artists don't like being called greedy, while they play the exact same game as the flippers do. 

 

[shadroch]

The artist does okay without the flippers.

The flippers, on the other hand, need the artist.

[jcjames]

Artist needs buyers, of which flippers are a part along with collectors. The proportion of flippers to collectors of any particular artist's work can vary. 

If all flippers stopped buying any one particular artist's work (including sigs), depending on the artist, I think the artist might notice it. Maybe. 

In the end, flippers will do okay without any one particular artist - and any one particular artist might do okay without flippers of their work (though they may noticeably lose some sig-money). 

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by jcjames

[jcjames]

btw... the greedy Capitalist that I am, I say I don't care if artists charge for their sigs up to what the market will allow. When they start charging too much, the market will tell them so. I just don't like the naivety that artists want to put out as their image - they're just as greedy as the flippers. 

Not that there's anything wrong with that 

Just be honest about it. Don't blame the flippers for you "having to" charge for sigs, while happily pocketing wads of $20s that you got for your sigs.  

 

[Logan510]

30 minutes ago, shadroch said:

The artist does okay without the flippers.

The flippers, on the other hand, need the artist.

Boom.

[Logan510]

32 minutes ago, jcjames said:

Non-sequitor. Many artists began charging because they saw people selling their signatures, so they simply added to the cost of getting that signature by charging $20, $40, $100 or whatever for a signature, which only inflates the cost of that signature on the secondary market... which is what drives a lot of people to go get their signature in the first place! Can't make the Orlando Con this year? Well, wait a month or so and you'll find most of those artists' sigs on items from that con or you can pay a facilitator to get a signature for you (graded for a cost of course). 

The artists are already paid to appear at the con, and they also get a nice bucket of money from the line of folks getting their sigs to take home with them. Nice gig. 

Artists don't like being called greedy, while they play the exact same game as the flippers do. 

 

Why are they being greedy? You want to make money off of their work and their name, more power to them.

[Broke as a Joke]

Does every "real" fan of let's say JSC need a signed copy of every variant he releases that month?  Maybe, but me personally, I'm good with one sig from an artist on an important book or one that has personal value to me.  Why these people get every single cover signed is bizarre to me.

[Turtle]

3 hours ago, ygogolak said:

People who cannot attend shows where the person is signing.

a.k.a. collectors, no?

The point of my question was Logan said there are far more flippers than collectors.  I don't think this is the case at all.  Having more middle-men than end users is not a sustainable system and the SS program has existed in its current state for years.

[Logan510]

6 minutes ago, Turtle said:

a.k.a. collectors, no?

The point of my question was Logan said there are far more flippers than collectors.  I don't think this is the case at all.  Having more middle-men than end users is not a sustainable system and the SS program has existed in its current state for years.

I never said that, I asked what people thought the % might be because I absolutely do NOT know.

[Turtle]

4 hours ago, Logan510 said:

So why shouldn't they be entitled to a "cash grab"? It's their signature and they can do what they want with it. I know not every person getting a SS book is a flipper, but I would imagine the flippers outnumber the collectors by quite a bit.

[Logan510]

1 minute ago, Turtle said:

I didn't state it as a fact, c'mon dude. And in that specific instance I imagine  the flippers outnumber the collectors. But no, I do not know this for a fact, which is why I asked in another post what people thought the % might be, because I have no imperical data to prove either way.

[Lucky Baru]

1 hour ago, revat said:

I don't know what the percentage is either.  And I do think its most likely a small percentage of CGC SS (both flippers and fans, and in some case agents) who have abused the process or spread misinformation and ruined for the rest of us.  And most artists will never know that someone who would have gone to their booth and paid $5 per sig left that day getting nothing signed and with a bad taste in their mouth because they were charging $20 per sig for CGC SS.

 

If you look at the sports and music autograph markets it was the "flippers" that ruined it for the true fans.  Star players and musicians got tired of being hounded by middle-aged guys who had suitcases full of items they wanted to be signed.  Try getting Paul McCartney, Robert Plant, Jimmy Page, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Chipper Jones, and Barry Bonds to sign something for you.  They turn fans down all the time.  They got tired of "flippers" making money off their autographs.  Now you have to either purchase an item off their websites, buy a backstage experience, go the sports memorabilia route, or purchase an item through a charity to get a signature. 

History is repeating itself in our niche of the collecting world.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Lucky Baru

[Broke as a Joke]

10 minutes ago, Lucky Baru said:

If you look at the sports and music autograph markets it was the "flippers" that ruined it for the true fans.  Star players and musicians got tired of being hounded by middle-aged guys who had suitcases full of items they wanted to be signed.  Try getting Paul McCartney, Robert Plant, Jimmy Page, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Chipper Jones, and Barry Bonds to sign something for you.  They turn fans down all the time.  They got tired of "flippers" making money off their autographs.  Now you have to either purchase an item off their websites, buy a backstage experience, go the sports memorabilia route, or purchase an item through a charity to get a signature. 

History is repeating itself in our niche of the collecting world.

I don't think any real fans who want something signed would have a problem going to those measures in the comic world either

[Kreton]

28 minutes ago, Lucky Baru said:

If you look at the sports and music autograph markets it was the "flippers" that ruined it for the true fans.  Star players and musicians got tired of being hounded by middle-aged guys who had suitcases full of items they wanted to be signed.  Try getting Paul McCartney, Robert Plant, Jimmy Page, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Chipper Jones, and Barry Bonds to sign something for you.  They turn fans down all the time.  They got tired of "flippers" making money off their autographs.  Now you have to either purchase an item off their websites, buy a backstage experience, go the sports memorabilia route, or purchase an item through a charity to get a signature. 

History is repeating itself in our niche of the collecting world.

Of the names you listed, Chipper Jones has always been more than accommodating when interacting with fans.  I've witnessed him signing multiple times for everyone around him.   I always hated the Braves and especially him until I saw how friendly he is with the fans.

 

Jordan,, Bonds and Tiger, on the other hand....

[ADAMANTIUM]

5 minutes ago, Broke as a Joke said:

I don't think any real fans who want something signed would have a problem going to those measures in the comic world either

Artist's wouldn't like to do it that way, they would become the flippers and find out that it is harder than you think:

when you consider, keeping it in good condition and the price they would charge, the website, the CGC witness fees, emoloyees and much more...

Probably why Scott Campbell doesn't do it, in fact the only one I know to do it is Stan Lee, and when is the last time they had a book you wanted on the site. Stan's prices are as astounding as Mile High Comics, especially the one's that his wife signs too, were talking $2000.

And can you imagine the volume of books that they'd have to produce to meet current demand or risk losing money on pure volume.

Plus demand would drop considerably, because as much as we complain of the lengths we go to getting SS'd, we enjoy the hunt but new blood would come along presumably.

Sure they could start a mail in service themselves, which actually doesn't sound too bad, but they would not want to go through that hassle either.

As far as calling the artist/creator's greedy, I don't think anyone called them such. I think they're the same as the flippers, and no one said that flippers were greedy either other than maybe Marvel. They're in the same boat. We may get more coin when we eventually sell, but the artist's themselves are creating buzz, a name, interacting with fans, and that goes on and on with benefits. I don't think the artists were agreeing with Marvel. I think the artist's couln't give a flying flip and will remain mostly out of the fight. I basically don't think that even Marvel will go beyond complaining. Sounds like everyone at the con that had window bagged books got their SS. It shouldn't have been directed at the fans in the first place, that sounds like a waisted effort. If Marvel wants action then they need to talk to CGC, which wouldn't fly either. If Marvel continues to make a big stink, then the artist's will speak up in defense, as some have stated valid reasons. All in all I don't see it really going anywhere than Marvel loosing again more clientele and suffering for "their" cause.  Feel free to disagree, cause I don't even think anyone know's-----Marvel has just created more speculation

[Turtle]

44 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I didn't state it as a fact, c'mon dude. And in that specific instance I imagine  the flippers outnumber the collectors. But no, I do not know this for a fact, which is why I asked in another post what people thought the % might be, because I have no imperical data to prove either way.

I know you didn't....you stated your perception of the situation.  In an effort to try to understand how you arrived at this perception, I asked who you think the flippers are selling to.  Logically, if there are more flippers than collectors, the flippers have to be selling to more than just collectors and I was wondering who you thought that group was.

I was just pointing out a flaw in your initial statement.  You imagine there are more flippers than collectors.  I think the opposite is true reasoning that this is the only way the flipper/collector system is sustainable.

Flippers outnumbering collectors seems to support your stance on this issue, so I understand why you took it.  I'm just offering a counterpoint and providing my reasoning.  That's all.

[Logan510]

15 minutes ago, Turtle said:

I know you didn't....you stated your perception of the situation.  In an effort to try to understand how you arrived at this perception, I asked who you think the flippers are selling to.  Logically, if there are more flippers than collectors, the flippers have to be selling to more than just collectors and I was wondering who you thought that group was.

I was just pointing out a flaw in your initial statement.  You imagine there are more flippers than collectors.  I think the opposite is true reasoning that this is the only way the flipper/collector system is sustainable.

Flippers outnumbering collectors seems to support your stance on this issue, so I understand why you took it.  I'm just offering a counterpoint and providing my reasoning.  That's all.

That's cool and I appreciate that. Have you ever heard a dealer say their best customers are other dealers? I've heard that said several times at various cons.

And yes, in that specific scenario at a SS signing at a con I do believe it's possible the flippers outnumber the collectors, though obviously I cannot be 100% sure.

[Turtle]

35 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

That's cool and I appreciate that. Have you ever heard a dealer say their best customers are other dealers? I've heard that said several times at various cons.

And yes, in that specific scenario at a SS signing at a con I do believe it's possible the flippers outnumber the collectors, though obviously I cannot be 100% sure.

So your intitial statement of flippers and collectors was for the comic consuming public in general or specifically signings where SS is involved?  

As there was no mention of cons/signings initially, I assumed it was the former.  It sounds now like it's the latter.

if you are talking about a convention setting, I think the identity of the talent would be the biggest factor in determining the ratio of flippers to collectors. 

[jcjames]

2 hours ago, Logan510 said:

Why are they being greedy? You want to make money off of their work and their name, more power to them.

I call them "greedy" only as half-poke, half-truth.

If an artist charges $5 for an unwitnessed signature and $20 for a CGC-witnessed signature, I see it as A) artist trying to limit people selling his signature for profit of which he gets none, and/or B) artist figuring his 1.5 seconds of time to scribble his name is actually worth more to people who slab books regardless of what they do with those slabs.

Bottomline, an artist is trying to squeeze as much money from people in his line as possible to maximize HIS profits. Which I have no problem with. Some folks call Capitalists like that who try to maximize their profits as being "greedy", especially used when talking about flippers, but not so much when talking about artists themselves. I see no difference. And that's okay. 

Artists don't "HAVE" to charge for sigs just because some of those sigs end up on ebay, but they can, and so they will.

 

disclaimer: I have rarely obtain CGC-SS sigs on books for the purpose of selling (or "flipping"). Nearly all my SS slabs are for my PC so when an artist asks for some extra $$ from me because they see a CGC rep/facilitator standing next to me, I don't like to have to pay more for what the guy in front of me who didn't have a rep with him paid for the exact same service from the artist.

Edited April 25, 2017 by jcjames

[revat]

56 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

That's cool and I appreciate that. Have you ever heard a dealer say their best customers are other dealers? I've heard that said several times at various cons.

And yes, in that specific scenario at a SS signing at a con I do believe it's possible the flippers outnumber the collectors, though obviously I cannot be 100% sure.

Also, I think it depends on if we're talking about # of books vs # of people.  I can easily forsee a situation where 3-5 dealer/flipper have stacks of 25 or more CGC SS books pass through a creator's line in a day, totaling well over 100 books.  But at the same time you might have 20 people get CGC SS for 1-5 books for that same creator.  So volumewise, the there's more books being 'flipped/dealt'  But to be honest, there's a pretty good chance that dealer/flipper is being paid to get sigs for people (as well as for their own PC, with another witness of course), and a LOT of those end customers are keeping those books for themselves.  Of course some of the non-dealer/facilitators in line might sell a few of their books too.  But in reality, how many CGC SS books signed by even the most popular artists are sold for more than $10-$20 profit within a year of getting the signature VS how many books are submitted to CGC SS?  You can look pretty easily at ebay and get a reasonable idea....(granted some boardies do pretty well with this type of stuff on the board, but there just aren't that many of those people). 

 

Again, not saying that people shouldn't charge however they want.  I just hope they won't charge based on the (generally misguided) belief that MANY people are profiting SIGNIFICANTLY from their signature.  The guy at the farmers market doesn't sell his beets at a higher price JUST to the Michelin chef because the because his final price for beet salad is $20 per plate.  Yes the quality of the beet is integral to the quality of the beet salad, you have to account for quality of the chef as well.  And what the other ingredients are, and the cost of other things like business expenses.  And while the Michelin chef MIGHT pay the price premium anyways if he really likes those beets, I'd rather have that Michelin guy coming back to me regularly than risk him spending his money elsewhere.  Just as the condition of the comic is generally more significant to the profitability of a CGC SS comic than the signature (of course there's exceptions). At least that's my logic.

Edited April 25, 2017 by revat