• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Jim Starlin hates CGC!
3 3

819 posts in this topic

9 minutes ago, Bird said:

Peter David and John Byrne have been rude to me, very rude, but I have seen far more civilians be rude to the creator.

It's a real shame we find ways to ruin other people's days.  If that were to happen to me, Peter David and John Byrne would have a few extra comic books, because I would've left them at the table and told them I didn't want them anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, STORMSHADOW_80 said:

Chris Claremont and Joe Jusko are some of the nicest creators I've met. Just wanted to say that 

 

Yep,I saw Claremont sign over 75 books (I was holding 25 of them) for an SS facilitator,the guy didn't ask for a dollar and had a smile on his face the whole time. The conversation was fantastic while he signed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Pitboss said:

Yep,I saw Claremont sign over 75 books (I was holding 25 of them) for an SS facilitator,the guy didn't ask for a dollar and had a smile on his face the whole time. The conversation was fantastic while he signed.

And I've had 3 poor experiences with Claremont, the first one at age 14. Doesn't detract from my enjoying his work and I wouldn't even call him rude per se. They were just not what I would call enjoyable (shrug)

FWIW, I didn't have a ton of books I wanted signed or any crazy stuff like approaching him away from his table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, revat said:

I think very few people think the creators owe anything, but I think everyone understands the desire to be treated fairly and not be falsely judged. 

I think that's what most people are taking issue with.  Of course there will always be more extreme sentiments on both sides of every issue, but I think to judge everyone based on those extreme views is usually a mistake. 

Think of it this way.

if a creator selling 10$ per print to everyone in line, then charges you $20 because you have a special case to carry your prints and posters, wouldn't that put you off a bit?

 

Some aging rockstars who set up at shows/rock conventions do something like that. If you have something like a guitar or drumsticks to sign they will charge you an extra $100 or $200 for the pleasure to do it. So you can wait in line a hour or two thinking you are going to pay what everyone else is for the autograph,than they hit you with the oh,that's not a photo that is a guitar,so that will be an extra $150 please!

lol

 

Edited by ComicConnoisseur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Some aging rockstars who set up at shows/rock conventions do something that. If you have something like a guitar or drumsticks to sign they will charge you an extra $100 or $200 for the pleasure to do it. So you can wait in line a hour or two thinking you are going to pay what everyone else is for the autograph,than they hit you with the oh,that's not a photo that is a guitar,so that will be an extra $150 please!

lol

 

That's because a Gene Simmons autographed guitar can sell for a premium price, and odds are that person is going to sell it.

It's possible they WON'T. But if you could make $150 off your autograph every time you write, it, why would you give it away?

This whole debate is about the secondary market taking advantage of artist's and celebrities, by taking their 'autograph' and making money off of it. Those creators feel they are being taken advantage of. They can't help but feel that way considering the collectibles market has brought in millions and millions of dollars over the years, and Heritage and all of these auction houses wave that flag proudly.

No matter how much, one person or two people or however many people explain it to them, some creators are just not going to get it. They're still going to ask that question:

"If the autograph is for YOU, why do you need it VERIFIED?"

And, yes, the answer may be OCD, which some will understand, but to them it still isn't worth the idea of giving their signature away for FREE, in the possibility that they'll look dumb and feel ripped off when a bunch of it shows up on eBay.  It's THEIR autograph. Not OURS.

I had fun CGCing. I had fun doing the SS thing. But ultimately, I just started selling all of that stuff because... I COULD. It was verified. 

And personally.... I'd much rather have the memory of blowing smoke rings in an opium den in Hong Kong (that's an exaggeration, sort of), than some plastic encased comic from my childhood that represents some nostalgic memory I can't get past (not that there's anything wrong with that), but the point is... verification makes it SELLABLE. Not necessarily PROFITABLE, that isn't the point... it's SELLABLE.

And creators are never going to appreciate someone selling THEIR autograph, regardless of the profit margin, if it's not a controlled situation that THEY benefit from. Why would they?

I have friends who are obsessive about putting together sets of these SS runs... they are good at it, and really enjoy it... I understand their disappointment, But some creators, we will just never be able to change their mind on this. 

All we can do is just honor and respect their wishes and show them that, ultimately, we appreciate them, and the work they've done, NOT because there's money to be made on the secondary market, but just because we enjoyed it for what it was.

And to my OCD friends out there:  Yes, I still have some of that stuff. Stuff that I LOVE. So no, I'm not immune or above it. Just trying to... not be as obsessively hoardish.  Is that a word?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Bird said:

Peter David and John Byrne have been rude to me, very rude, but I have seen far more civilians be rude to the creator.

I'd say of all of the creators I've met, David and Byrne were the rudest. Well, i take that back; Peter David was the CRANKIEST, and Byrne was the rudest, wouldn't even look up or speak to the fans, and I only had one book for him to sign. Busiek was pretty rude as well. I know that they're all humans, and they all have bad days, but some of these dudes have been straight up any time I've met them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2017 at 4:12 AM, ComicConnoisseur said:

No one has to do anything is correct,but it sure would be nice for these creators to show goodwill to their loyal fans.  They should show good virtue and have empathy with their fans who wait in line. 

Because these old school creators got shafted back in the day doesn't mean that it is OK to shaft their loyal fans today.  

Two wrongs don't make a right.  

Again no artist or writer owes any of us anything. I don't see your point even 1%.

Many fans only wait in line to make FREE $ from ones signature or sketch.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little confused. Is Jim Starlin not signing for anyone at all? Will he only sign raw books? Does he charge to sign raw books? Will he still do CGC SS if you pay him enough?

Edited by MoRighter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MoRighter said:

I'm a little confused. Is Jim Starlin not signing for anyone at all? Will he only sign raw books? Does he charge to sign raw books? Will he still do CGC SS if you pay him enough?

Well, he canceled a bunch of appearances (I think?) so I'm not sure when he's showing up again, but at the time of his announcement he was still signing raw, and was in talks or whatever with other grading companies (assuming CBCS) but wouldn't do CGC SS. Do I have that right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

That's because a Gene Simmons autographed guitar can sell for a premium price, and odds are that person is going to sell it.

It's possible they WON'T. But if you could make $150 off your autograph every time you write, it, why would you give it away?

This whole debate is about the secondary market taking advantage of artist's and celebrities, by taking their 'autograph' and making money off of it. Those creators feel they are being taken advantage of. They can't help but feel that way considering the collectibles market has brought in millions and millions of dollars over the years, and Heritage and all of these auction houses wave that flag proudly.

No matter how much, one person or two people or however many people explain it to them, some creators are just not going to get it. They're still going to ask that question:

"If the autograph is for YOU, why do you need it VERIFIED?"

And, yes, the answer may be OCD, which some will understand, but to them it still isn't worth the idea of giving their signature away for FREE, in the possibility that they'll look dumb and feel ripped off when a bunch of it shows up on eBay.  It's THEIR autograph. Not OURS.

I had fun CGCing. I had fun doing the SS thing. But ultimately, I just started selling all of that stuff because... I COULD. It was verified. 

And personally.... I'd much rather have the memory of blowing smoke rings in an opium den in Hong Kong (that's an exaggeration, sort of), than some plastic encased comic from my childhood that represents some nostalgic memory I can't get past (not that there's anything wrong with that), but the point is... verification makes it SELLABLE. Not necessarily PROFITABLE, that isn't the point... it's SELLABLE.

And creators are never going to appreciate someone selling THEIR autograph, regardless of the profit margin, if it's not a controlled situation that THEY benefit from. Why would they?

I have friends who are obsessive about putting together sets of these SS runs... they are good at it, and really enjoy it... I understand their disappointment, But some creators, we will just never be able to change their mind on this. 

All we can do is just honor and respect their wishes and show them that, ultimately, we appreciate them, and the work they've done, NOT because there's money to be made on the secondary market, but just because we enjoyed it for what it was.

And to my OCD friends out there:  Yes, I still have some of that stuff. Stuff that I LOVE. So no, I'm not immune or above it. Just trying to... not be as obsessively hoardish.  Is that a word?

Well said. I really am surprised at some of the posters lamenting over artists desiring some kind of compensation for autographing memorabilia that may or may not make a significant profit.

Edited by bronze_rules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, bronze_rules said:
8 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

That's because a Gene Simmons autographed guitar can sell for a premium price, and odds are that person is going to sell it.

It's possible they WON'T. But if you could make $150 off your autograph every time you write, it, why would you give it away?

This whole debate is about the secondary market taking advantage of artist's and celebrities, by taking their 'autograph' and making money off of it. Those creators feel they are being taken advantage of. They can't help but feel that way considering the collectibles market has brought in millions and millions of dollars over the years, and Heritage and all of these auction houses wave that flag proudly.

No matter how much, one person or two people or however many people explain it to them, some creators are just not going to get it. They're still going to ask that question:

"If the autograph is for YOU, why do you need it VERIFIED?"

And, yes, the answer may be OCD, which some will understand, but to them it still isn't worth the idea of giving their signature away for FREE, in the possibility that they'll look dumb and feel ripped off when a bunch of it shows up on eBay.  It's THEIR autograph. Not OURS.

I had fun CGCing. I had fun doing the SS thing. But ultimately, I just started selling all of that stuff because... I COULD. It was verified. 

And personally.... I'd much rather have the memory of blowing smoke rings in an opium den in Hong Kong (that's an exaggeration, sort of), than some plastic encased comic from my childhood that represents some nostalgic memory I can't get past (not that there's anything wrong with that), but the point is... verification makes it SELLABLE. Not necessarily PROFITABLE, that isn't the point... it's SELLABLE.

And creators are never going to appreciate someone selling THEIR autograph, regardless of the profit margin, if it's not a controlled situation that THEY benefit from. Why would they?

I have friends who are obsessive about putting together sets of these SS runs... they are good at it, and really enjoy it... I understand their disappointment, But some creators, we will just never be able to change their mind on this. 

All we can do is just honor and respect their wishes and show them that, ultimately, we appreciate them, and the work they've done, NOT because there's money to be made on the secondary market, but just because we enjoyed it for what it was.

And to my OCD friends out there:  Yes, I still have some of that stuff. Stuff that I LOVE. So no, I'm not immune or above it. Just trying to... not be as obsessively hoardish.  Is that a word?

Read more  

Well said. I really am surprised at some of the posters lamenting over artists desiring some kind of compensation for autographing memorabilia that may or may not make a significant profit.

I'm not saying I don't see it from the creator point of view, but do you honestly not see how some fans might get miffed if they felt they were being treated in a way that they perceive to be unfair?

I wait in line for an hour for 3 sigs from my favorite artist.  Guy in front of me does the same.  My books have window bags.  I get charged $10 more for the exact same service. 

Most likely based on a false assumption of profitability?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, F For Fake said:

Well, he canceled a bunch of appearances (I think?) so I'm not sure when he's showing up again, but at the time of his announcement he was still signing raw, and was in talks or whatever with other grading companies (assuming CBCS) but wouldn't do CGC SS. Do I have that right?

I think it was the same sentence, and you can find it on the first couple of pages of this thread but: he goes, personally I think grading is ridulous and a scam and I can't see why anyone would do it, but I'll continue to sign for other grading companies but not CGC due to the fiasco. At the time he was going to sign for other companys but not CGC, sign for free raw, pay for sig for grading, then he cancels every appearance---- :makepoint:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bronze_rules said:

Well said. I really am surprised at some of the posters lamenting over artists desiring some kind of compensation for autographing memorabilia that may or may not make a significant profit.

As has been mentioned in this thread, that isn't, and never has been, the point. No one, other than perhaps ComicC, has suggested that creators shouldn't desire some kind of compensation. One more time: charging money for their signatures is not the point. What they charge, and why, IS.

But that does raise an interesting question...why should anyone be compensated based on what might happen, rather than on what will happen? If I may, or may not, show up to work, should I still desire some kind of compensation? Shouldn't it be "if I show up to work, then I will be compensated"? Rough analogy, admittedly, but not that rough.

But again, of course, in nearly all cases, the value of the signature is entirely dependent on the underlying condition of the book. Signing a 6.5 copy of ASM #293 isn't going to "make a profit" for anyone except CGC.

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, revat said:

I'm not saying I don't see it from the creator point of view, but do you honestly not see how some fans might get miffed if they felt they were being treated in a way that they perceive to be unfair?

I wait in line for an hour for 3 sigs from my favorite artist.  Guy in front of me does the same.  My books have window bags.  I get charged $10 more for the exact same service. 

Most likely based on a false assumption of profitability?

The reality is, it will simply drive the less scrupulous back to the bad old days, and just take the books out of the window bags and "hope for the best." and why not? In the example I cited above with Sam Kieth, Sam was manhandled by Chandler Rice and Albert Moy, and the person getting his books signed was forced to remove his books from his bags and boards if he did NOT want to pay $20/book....an ADDITIONAL $1,000+ to his already expensive trip.

At least the option was presented to him, but I hope every single one of you reading this understands the insanity involved, here: take it out of the bag, it's free (as the creator SAID BEFOREHAND it would be...on his BLOG, before anyone even made plans)...leave it IN the bag, and it's $20/book.

What changed?

Only the perception. Nothing else. Out of the bag, free, in the bag, $20/book. Out, free, in, $20 each.

Is my point lost on anyone here...?

It wasn't about the money. It was about the ERRONEOUS PERCEPTION of Chandler Rice and Albert Moy, and Sam Kieth, bless his heart, was unwilling to stand up to these two and honor HIS OWN WORD. And that wasn't the only thing Sam failed to honor that weekend.

Basic...basic, basic...common sense and reason tells you that any action which is REGRESSIVE...that is, encourages people to go backwards and introduce more risk into the equation...is not a wise action to take. Creators aren't gods. They're just people like anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

That's because a Gene Simmons autographed guitar can sell for a premium price, and odds are that person is going to sell it.

It's possible they WON'T. But if you could make $150 off your autograph every time you write, it, why would you give it away?

This whole debate is about the secondary market taking advantage of artist's and celebrities, by taking their 'autograph' and making money off of it. Those creators feel they are being taken advantage of. They can't help but feel that way considering the collectibles market has brought in millions and millions of dollars over the years, and Heritage and all of these auction houses wave that flag proudly.

No matter how much, one person or two people or however many people explain it to them, some creators are just not going to get it. They're still going to ask that question:

"If the autograph is for YOU, why do you need it VERIFIED?"

And, yes, the answer may be OCD, which some will understand, but to them it still isn't worth the idea of giving their signature away for FREE, in the possibility that they'll look dumb and feel ripped off when a bunch of it shows up on eBay.  It's THEIR autograph. Not OURS.

I had fun CGCing. I had fun doing the SS thing. But ultimately, I just started selling all of that stuff because... I COULD. It was verified. 

And personally.... I'd much rather have the memory of blowing smoke rings in an opium den in Hong Kong (that's an exaggeration, sort of), than some plastic encased comic from my childhood that represents some nostalgic memory I can't get past (not that there's anything wrong with that), but the point is... verification makes it SELLABLE. Not necessarily PROFITABLE, that isn't the point... it's SELLABLE.

And creators are never going to appreciate someone selling THEIR autograph, regardless of the profit margin, if it's not a controlled situation that THEY benefit from. Why would they?

I have friends who are obsessive about putting together sets of these SS runs... they are good at it, and really enjoy it... I understand their disappointment, But some creators, we will just never be able to change their mind on this. 

All we can do is just honor and respect their wishes and show them that, ultimately, we appreciate them, and the work they've done, NOT because there's money to be made on the secondary market, but just because we enjoyed it for what it was.

And to my OCD friends out there:  Yes, I still have some of that stuff. Stuff that I LOVE. So no, I'm not immune or above it. Just trying to... not be as obsessively hoardish.  Is that a word?

My next board name is going to be obsessively hoarish

Edited by jsilverjanet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, F For Fake said:

I'd say of all of the creators I've met, David and Byrne were the rudest. Well, i take that back; Peter David was the CRANKIEST, and Byrne was the rudest, wouldn't even look up or speak to the fans, and I only had one book for him to sign. Busiek was pretty rude as well. I know that they're all humans, and they all have bad days, but some of these dudes have been straight up any time I've met them.  

I was younger and quite surprised at how things went down for both of these guys. Byrne's line was long and I was stunned and away from his table before I even knew what had happened! Peter David at least took the time to speak to me for a bit, all the while making fun of me for the benefit of the woman next to him.  (shrug) He kinda gloried in the attention and power. But I was again kind of flabbergasted about the whole thing. I haven't been back to his table since then, 20 or so years now. And in that time his popularity has waxed & waned and there have been times when he was just sitting there with no line, but I just shook my head and moved on.

Edited by Bird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, revat said:

I'm not saying I don't see it from the creator point of view, but do you honestly not see how some fans might get miffed if they felt they were being treated in a way that they perceive to be unfair?

I wait in line for an hour for 3 sigs from my favorite artist.  Guy in front of me does the same.  My books have window bags.  I get charged $10 more for the exact same service. 

Most likely based on a false assumption of profitability?

It's not about profitability. 

Verification makes it sellable.

The same way 'Certificates of Authenticity' for Sports Cards did back in the day, and we know how THAT turned out.

(Not that CGC can't be trusted. They obviously work hard to protect that SS program)

But some of these guys see it as greedy dealers making money off of their name. If CONFRONTED, what do you think someone making money off their name would say?

"Oh... I don't really make money off of it... I just do it for fun..."

Which sucks for the people who actually DO IT for fun, or collecting or OCD, or whatever, but....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The reality is, it will simply drive the less scrupulous back to the bad old days, and just take the books out of the window bags and "hope for the best." and why not? In the example I cited above with Sam Kieth, Sam was manhandled by Chandler Rice and Albert Moy, and the person getting his books signed was forced to remove his books from his bags and boards if he did NOT want to pay $20/book....an ADDITIONAL $1,000+ to his already expensive trip.

At least the option was presented to him, but I hope every single one of you reading this understands the insanity involved, here: take it out of the bag, it's free (as the creator SAID BEFOREHAND it would be...on his BLOG, before anyone even made plans)...leave it IN the bag, and it's $20/book.

What changed?

Only the perception. Nothing else. Out of the bag, free, in the bag, $20/book. Out, free, in, $20 each.

Is my point lost on anyone here...?

It wasn't about the money. It was about the ERRONEOUS PERCEPTION of Chandler Rice and Albert Moy, and Sam Kieth, bless his heart, was unwilling to stand up to these two and honor HIS OWN WORD. And that wasn't the only thing Sam failed to honor that weekend.

Basic...basic, basic...common sense and reason tells you that any action which is REGRESSIVE...that is, encourages people to go backwards and introduce more risk into the equation...is not a wise action to take. Creators aren't gods. They're just people like anyone else.

If I was a creator and was watching that whole scenario go down, my opinion of the process would not get any better...

It'd just look like 4 different blind people trying to explain to me what an elephant looked like...

I'd prefer to be anywhere else but there....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3