Jim Starlin hates CGC! 3 3

[1Cool]

22 minutes ago, Ares said:

If he signed books for Free but each must be personalized (first and last name) I wonder how the fan would react.

Steranko usually does this but he was cool about not personalizing the book when asked nicely. 

[Broke as a Joke]

1 hour ago, Ares said:

If he signed books for Free but each must be personalized (first and last name) I wonder how the fan would react.

I would think the "real" fan wouldn't care.  

[Ares]

2 hours ago, 1Cool said:

Steranko usually does this but he was cool about not personalizing the book when asked nicely. 

I recall that. I had a Steranko book at one point . 

The Steranko sig was so hard to read.

 

Edited June 6, 2017 by Ares

[Lucky Baru]

1 hour ago, Ares said:

If he signed books for Free but each must be personalized (first and last name) I wonder how the fan would react.

A flipper or someone in the business of selling SS yellow label books would be bothered by the inscriptions as they know it detracts from the desirability of the book on the aftermarket.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Lucky Baru

[mschmidt]

31 minutes ago, Lucky Baru said:

A flipper or someone in the business of selling SS yellow label books would be bothered by the inscriptions as they know it detracts from the desirability of the book on the aftermarket.

There are plenty of people who don't fall into either of those categories who'd much prefer not to have their collectibles personalized as well. 

[Lucky Baru]

Just now, mschmidt said:

There are plenty of people who don't fall into either of those categories who'd much prefer not to have their collectibles personalized as well. 

OK, but my comment was not in reference to them.  A flipper or a seller of SS yellow label books is going to stay far away from a book that has an inscription if others without it are attainable.

[jsilverjanet]

16 hours ago, kav said:

Yes but RMA is speaking in absolutes again-someone needs to stop him.

Why? If it bothers you so much just put him on ignore 

 

[jcjames]

5 hours ago, 1Cool said:

Steranko usually does this but he was cool about not personalizing the book when asked nicely. 

Yep.

Next time (if he ever comes back to town) I'll definitely get a personalized sig on the splash page. I have absolutely no interest in selling my Steranko SS's but I'm now thinking a personalized sig on the splash page (old school style) would be even more meaningful to me.

 

[kav]

2 hours ago, jsilverjanet said:

Why? If it bothers you so much just put him on ignore 

 

People say things, he rebuts them, I have that same right.  I do have several people on ignore but feel no need to ignore RMA.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

10 hours ago, bronze_rules said:

 

I almost thought you were letting me have the last word, the other night.

 

Who cares who has "the last word"? Why does that matter to anyone? If someone has a point to bring up, bring it up. This whole "last word" silliness should be left behind.

10 hours ago, bronze_rules said:

Keep in mind, your comments are just opinions (as are mine).  

Ok. Without trying to be snarky, "2 + 2 = 4", by the definitions of those terms, which is fact...not opinion. Those who say "that's just your opinion" frequently don't recognize that not everything said are 'just opinions", while at the same time understanding that there are, of course, opinions that are mixed in with statements of fact.

What separates the two? Independent verification. Just because someone doesn't agree with something, doesn't render it mere opinion.

It should go without saying that anything someone posts, if not independently verifiable, is opinion. No need for reminders from anyone.

10 hours ago, bronze_rules said:

I see no contradiction here, other than one you've artificially created.  If I say, something is none of their business afterwords, and something is their business before, and you say, it is never their business ever, there is only a contradiction if your assertion is a fact, which it is not-- it is an opinion.

You said, and I quote: "Well, I never said anything about the creator having business with what people do with their property after it is signed. Prior to that, it is  their business," 

Slabbing occurs...obviously...AFTER it is signed. But the fact is, it's not their property, so it's none of their business where the item is ultimately headed BEFORE they sign, either. It's not their property. It doesn't belong to them, either before, during, or after it is signed. If the disposition of the item being signed is their business beforehand, it's clearly their business afterwards, or you've contradicted yourself.

10 hours ago, bronze_rules said:

I posed the question earlier, does CGC pay artists a cut of the fee-- the posted answer was NO.  If they are, could you post a source? I will stand corrected.

This isn't relevant. CGC is a third party, and has nothing to do with the transaction between the creator and the person obtaining his/her signature.

"But...but...there's a WITNESS and everything!"

Yes, that witness is there at the request of the person obtaining the signature. The transaction between CGC and the submitter is NOT the transaction between the person obtaining the signature and the creator. Two separate transactions. CGC is not a party to the transaction between the creator and the person obtaining the signature, just as the creator is not a party to the transaction between the submitter and CGC. 

So, what CGC charges the submitter is none of the creator's business, too.

What you're suggesting is akin to the real estate agent paying the plumber a "cut" because the real estate agent gets a higher fee based on the work the plumber did to improve the property before it was sold.

10 hours ago, bronze_rules said:

Well again, that's your opinion and I have mine and they have theirs. There are all kinds of items in this world with valuations that are not based on rational or common perception; the only reality is what buyers are willing to pay (or not) and what sellers are willing to accept (or not).

Hey, if the market wants to pay up the $20, then let them, if not, fine --If the value is not right, maybe the artist will readjust their valuation over time, based on the response -- who are you (or I) to tell them (or advocate) what to do?

That there are irrational pricing models in the world isn't in contention. "That's just the way it is!" isn't a valid argument for why one should not challenge "the way it is."

Let's explain this a different way: if Creator Fred doesn't understand the mechanics of the Sig Series system, and has an emotional reaction because of that misunderstanding...which in turn will tend to alienate the very fans he relies on to make his living...wouldn't it be in Creator Fred's interests to properly understand those mechanics, so he has a response that is appropriate to the actual conditions of the situation? 

Sure. Creator Fred is happy, fans are happy, no one is butthurt.

Now, if Creator Fred doesn't WANT to understand...wouldn't it make sense to apply market pressure...and one way to do that is to "vilify" (your word, mind, not mine) Creator Fred's unwillingness to understand the situation...to perhaps bring to bear that same response, which actually...not opinion, here, demonstrably, independently verifiable fact...ends up helping Creator Fred?

I think so. And that's where my opinion enters in.

10 hours ago, bronze_rules said:

Well, that's great that you want to rescue us from being taken, but not all of us are naive suckers or neophytes in this world.  You do realize, it's just as 'shaky' for you to give one anecdotal example of a bad apple, and then condemn the rest

You didn't answer any of my questions, and I was using an example to illustrate the point. there are many more examples. Nor is that example "anecdotal." Peter David testified himself about the situation he was in. That's direct evidence. I didn't "condemn the rest" with that example, nor am I trying to "rescue" anyone from "being taken." That's taking the argument much further than I did.

The question remains: you say you want to "help" these creators, and to that end, you think it's perfectly fine that creators charge whatever they want, for any reason they want, and if someone doesn't like it, that's too bad, because these creators deserve our support. 

Is that an accurate summation of your position?

If it is, to that, I respond, who are you, or who am I, or who is anyone to accurately judge who does...or does not..."deserve" support, and how, and why?

The answer, of course, is that you're not in a position to judge that for anyone but yourself, and advocating "they deserve whatever they can get!" is merely an appeal to emotion.

What does Neal Adams "deserve"? What is a "fair price" for his signature? 

Don't know. I can only answer for myself, as everyone must answer for themselves, based on one's needs and desires, and the evidence available.

But I CAN say that charging a different price for the exact same service, based on the (often erroneous) perception that someone is "profiting" off of that service, is discrimination based on greed.

And...if a creator doesn't understand these mechanics, would it not behoove them to LEARN those mechanics, to whatever degree they are capable of doing so, so that their decisions are informed, rather than based in faulty perceptions...?

10 hours ago, bronze_rules said:

With regards to giving them a 'cut' of the profit, I have no problem, paying a small surcharge to ensure that the ones who deserve or benefit from it, get some of the cut.  If some of them don't deserve it, then so be it. I'd prefer that to giving everyone nothing -- but that's me. Well, actually, anyone providing a signature does deserve something, they are after all, providing the signature in the signature services.

If I accept your premise here...and let's say, for the sake of the argument, that I do...what is that "something" they deserve? Since you have presented yourself here as someone who is in a position to judge these things...that is, you have no problem paying a "small surcharge", and think everyone should do the same...what is that "small surcharge"? 

Is it different for different creators? How and why? If so, who deserves...in your judgement...what? And what portion of the "profit" do they "deserve"? 

And again...what about the situations in which there is no "profit"? I've sold several SS books at and below cost....I didn't "profit", I lost.  Do I "deserve" a "refund" for those occasions where I took a loss...? After all, equity says that if something is fair one way, it's fair all ways...right? 

For the record, I have never advocated "giving everyone nothing." I have contributed, personally, a "substantial amount" the the Heroes Initiative, and another amount to the CBLDF, in support of those signing my books. I have paid what every creator has asked/demanded, and then some. Not because I'm great, or because I wish to brag, but because I recognize the value of what these creators do for me.

But there's a philosophical difference between recognizing this value and willingly and happily supporting these efforts, and being forced to do so.

[kav]

Good Lord

[kav]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Who cares who has "the last word"? Why does that matter to anyone? If someone has a point to bring up, bring it up. This whole "last word" silliness should be left behind.

You go first.

[RockMyAmadeus]

19 hours ago, STORMSHADOW_80 said:

Only the Sith speak in absolutes

Allow me to quote myself: 

one more time: the majority of the value of almost every book is 

in

its 

condition

NOT its signature.

(emphasis added to "almost")

"Almost" is an adverb, a qualifier...and the presence of qualifiers means one is most decidedly NOT "speaking in absolutes."

I would be very wary of those whose only contribution to a discussion are comments about the other people in the discussion, especially those who presume to say anyone else should be "stopped." Let's leave moderation up to the moderation.

That said, those arguing the exceptions to the rule as if it was the rule ought to have that explained, for the benefit of everyone else. Thanks to revat for doing so.

[jsilverjanet]

20 minutes ago, kav said:

People say things, he rebuts them, I have that same right.  I do have several people on ignore but feel no need to ignore RMA.  

that's interesting. What's the difference between those you have on ignore and RMA? Why them and not him?

[kav]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Allow me to quote myself: 

(emphasis added to "almost")

"Almost" is an adverb, a qualifier...and the presence of qualifiers means one is most decidedly NOT "speaking in absolutes."

I would be very wary of those whose only contribution to a discussion are comments about the other people in the discussion, especially those who presume to say anyone else should be "stopped." Let's leave moderation up to the moderation.

That said, those arguing the exceptions to the rule as if it was the rule ought to have that explained, for the benefit of everyone else. Thanks to revat for doing so.

except it's not true.  Almost every book is drek which would have no value except for a signature.

[RockMyAmadeus]

19 hours ago, revat said:

of course there are exceptions, I don't think anyone disputes that.  But it certainly doesn't happen enough to make the assumption that EVERY SIG adds significant value to EVERY BOOK.  Not that NO ONE makes any money flipping sigs, sometimes it happens, and some people do it really really well.

But the majority of comics don't earn any significant profit, you can just go on ebay and do some very basic math looking at completed listings, and see how many SELL for a profit after CGC and shipping fees and ebay fees, and how many DON'T sell even though they're being sold for less than total costs, or SELL at a loss after CGC fees and ebay/paypal fees (and possibly facilitator fees).

Great post. 

And the ones who "do it really well" are the ones who paid the most attention to accumulating, protecting, and getting signed only the books in the highest conditions possible, because that is the vast majority...90-99%...of the value of almost every Sig Series book. 

[kav]

6 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

that's interesting. What's the difference between those you have on ignore and RMA? Why them and not him?

The ones I have on ignore are people who just flail about and spew anger.  RMA at least is cogent.

[seanfingh]

25 minutes ago, kav said:

except it's not true.  Almost every book is drek which would have no value except for a signature.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[kav]

Which part do you disagree with-that almost every book is drek or that a drek book worth 50 cents, with a signature, becomes at least something someone would want to pay for?

[seanfingh]

Me and the little girl object to the way you are abusing both logic and the English language. It's obvious that you just want to bite at RMA's tail as you circle him endlessly. 

If I thought that you did have a point, I would probably disagree with it.