John Byrne at NYCC Friday, Oct. 6th. Can any witness take books? 0

[mschmidt]

Yay, another creator who feels the need to tell me what I can and cannot do with my books.

Edited September 29, 2017 by mschmidt

[CardiacKid1]

He also posted in his forum that this will NOT be the start of his return to the convention circuit.

Way to take all the fun out of this!

[SignatureSelect]

Well looks like I just wasted 700 dollars on a plane ticket and exhibitor badge only to find out my xmen 141 can't get SS I don't understand how anybody including a creator can tell a collector and a company what they can and can not do.  Perhaps if everybody stopped purchasing titles written or drawn by creators who take this stance people would wake up and say these are just signed funny books owned by some one else why should it effect how I conduct myself

[Chaz G.]

I'm a little new to all of this, so could someone please explain how or why would CGC (or any of these services) take orders from a creator who doesn't support their business rather than respecting the requests their thousands of paying clients?

I deeply respect JB and his talent but to paraphrase what someone wrote earlier, who is he (or any writer/artist) to tell me what I can do with a book I paid for and own? Not trying to be confrontational, really just trying to understand why this is "just accepted". 

Being completely honest, we are a large factor in what keeps this $1B industry moving forward. Why don't our opinions matter?

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by Chazgee

[roach04]

Bizarre all right.  I am still hopeful Byrne does start to do shows again.  He's the only legend from my youth I've not met (and as a result have no signed books from!). A CGC SS would be awesome but meeting the man would be better.  And, I'd be ok with a handshake and non-CGC sig to meet him.  

All that said - I'd have sent cash somewhere for a CGC SS from this years NYCC if he never will appear again.

[Dwitkin82]

"You get a green label...you get a green label...you all get a green label!"

-Oprah

[Chaz G.]

The customer comes second. Thanks for clarifying.  

 

[seanfingh]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[Turtle]

On ‎9‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 9:17 PM, Chazgee said:

I'm a little new to all of this, so could someone please explain how or why would CGC (or any of these services) take orders from a creator who doesn't support their business rather than respecting the requests their thousands of paying clients?

I deeply respect JB and his talent but to paraphrase what someone wrote earlier, who is he (or any writer/artist) to tell me what I can do with a book I paid for and own? Not trying to be confrontational, really just trying to understand why this is "just accepted". 

Being completely honest, we are a large factor in what keeps this $1B industry moving forward. Why don't our opinions matter?

 

Basically speaking, it would be bad business for CGC to go against the wishes of the creators.  The last thing they need is a public backlash from a wave of creators stating that CGC doesn't respect their opinions or wishes.  A policy of respecting the desires of the creators is the smart business move for CGC. 

I personally think this kind of thinking displayed by Byrne and others is similar to charging more for slabbed signatures than raw signatures...it's a practice rooted in ignorance.  But, I understand from a business perspective why CGC does their best to not ruffle any feathers. 

[Chaz G.]

3 hours ago, Turtle said:

Basically speaking, it would be bad business for CGC to go against the wishes of the creators.  The last thing they need is a public backlash from a wave of creators stating that CGC doesn't respect their opinions or wishes.  A policy of respecting the desires of the creators is the smart business move for CGC. 

I personally think this kind of thinking displayed by Byrne and others is similar to charging more for slabbed signatures than raw signatures...it's a practice rooted in ignorance.  But, I understand from a business perspective why CGC does their best to not ruffle any feathers. 

Thanks, Turtle. Appreciate the clarification. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 9/29/2017 at 2:55 PM, SignatureSelect said:

Well looks like I just wasted 700 dollars on a plane ticket and exhibitor badge only to find out my xmen 141 can't get SS I don't understand how anybody including a creator can tell a collector and a company what they can and can not do.  Perhaps if everybody stopped purchasing titles written or drawn by creators who take this stance people would wake up and say these are just signed funny books owned by some one else why should it effect how I conduct myself

The unfortunate fact is that the proliferation of "artist representation" has greatly muddied the water, and very few have tried, or even been willing to try, to explain that slabbed SS books aren't "commodities"; that there are people who like and appreciate the idea of books signed by creators personally, whose signatures were witnessed, and then the books are graded, and have no intention of selling them.

It hurts the public who enjoy the Sig Series program, it hurts CGC because they get (sometimes a LOT) fewer submissions, and it hurts the creators in the form of ill will.

I don't see anybody that it helps.

Oh, wait, except the "artist representatives", who convince creators that people slabbing are "making fat stacks o' cash!!!!" off their sigs, and they need to be "part of that gravy train, yo!"...which, as most of you in the program know, isn't even remotely true. It's like being mad at publishers, printers, distributors, and retailers for "profiting off of your work."

Until there is a serious and concerted effort to educate creators, this isn't going to change. And these "artist representatives" don't want it to change, because it would mean they wouldn't get (as much) business. 

So you have to decide...these "artist representatives", who, while providing some level of service in getting books from customers to creators, have on the other hand created a monster that devours itself, as more and more creators are told things that aren't true, in an effort to secure more and more "exclusive" deals from them.

"Oh, you want that SLABBED? Here, I'll sign it "for eBay", since that's CLEARLY where it's headed, so you can't make money off me, dawg!! You greedy flippers aren't real fans. NEXT!!"

Does that describe a lot of you...? It doesn't describe me. 

 

[bigcbass]

....Or you could just buy an original signed page from his art dealer for less than $100.

http://www.whatashock.com/doasales/byrne1.html

Edited October 5, 2017 by bigcbass

[bigcbass]

On 10/3/2017 at 1:43 PM, Turtle said:

Basically speaking, it would be bad business for CGC to go against the wishes of the creators.  The last thing they need is a public backlash from a wave of creators stating that CGC doesn't respect their opinions or wishes.  A policy of respecting the desires of the creators is the smart business move for CGC. 

 

I personally am not sure I agree.  I could honestly care less what creators "think" about what I do with the books after they sign them.  Do other people care about this?  I hate having to pay more for a signature  just because I am submitting my book for authentication.

I mean I didn't see anyone say they were going to stop using CGC after the Starlin or Adam Hughes issues.   

Edited October 5, 2017 by bigcbass

[Turtle]

1 minute ago, bigcbass said:

I personally am not sure I agree.  I would honestly could care less what creators "think" about what I do with the books after they sign them.  Do other people care about this?  I hate having to pay more for a signature  just because I am submitting my book for authentication.

I mean I didn't see anyone say they were going to stop using CGC after the Starlin or Adam Hughes issues.   

I think you're missing the point.  The backlash wouldn't originate with the end users of the product (collectors).  Hypothetically, if a bunch of creators starting spreading the word that CGC wasn't in the best interest of comic creators, it's possible that many creators might put forth a letter (similar to Jim Starlin's) to CGC requesting that books they sign no longer be encapsulated.  If CGC ignores these requests, they could be looking at a lawsuit, possibly many.  At that point, it'd be up to the courts to decide.  All the while, CGC would be looking like the bad guy looking to capitalize on the hard work of others.  Win or lose, their reputation would be tarnished.  Especially given that Signature Series is only a small part of CGC's overall business, it's certainly not worth the risk.   And even if CGC wins that battle, you'd still have artists doing everything they could at their tables to make sure they aren't signing any books that are intended to be graded.  At that point, CGC loses business, creators lose revenue from SS collectors, and collectors have much tighter restrictions on what can be signed and graded.  Lose/lose/lose. 

You catch more flies with honey...

[CardiacKid1]

So . . . did anybody get any books signed today?

[mschmidt]

On 10/6/2017 at 10:19 PM, CardiacKid1 said:

So . . . did anybody get any books signed today?

CGC checked directly with the IDW event organizers - it was a hard no on having books signed & slabbed. So, no, there won't be any CGC books from this signing.

[RockMyAmadeus]

A veritable boatload of discriminatory CGC "upcharges" at NYCC this week, including almost the entire back wall of Artist Alley filled with the "exclusive" creators of one company.

I'm telling you folks...this is going to backfire, and it's going to backfire in a very, very bad way. Will you, those of you responsible for this, have gotten your money and said "so long, suckers!!"...?

It's not beneficial to CGC (fewer slabs), it's not beneficial to collectors (more expensive slabs), it's not beneficial to creators (what short term gain per sig is outweighed by those choosing not to pay their "slab surcharge", but far more damaging, MUCH ill will created).

Who IS it beneficial too...? 

Right: the people with "exclusive" arrangements with creators, telling them that "people are profiting off of them!!", which may be true, but usually is not, by which they take a cut of the signature, for doing....what, exactly...? Collecting the additional money...?

I paid obscene charges (DOUBLE what a "raw" sig would have cost) this weekend for THE EXACT SAME EFFORT. 

It's absurd. Enough with the BS discriminatory "slab surcharge." It's none of your damn business what I intend to do with my books, and charging more for that fact, when a creator is PERFECTLY happy signing for the "raw" price, is naked greed. 

I don't give a damn if Andy Kubert wants to charge $10 for signature that MIGHT end up in a CGC slab (and it's none of your, or his, business what I do with my property, and it's BEYOND OFFENSIVE that ANY of you are even ASKING. This would NEVER be tolerated in the "real world"), more power to him: but for the SAME effort, the SAME signature, the SAME everything, there SHOULD NOT be two DIFFERENT prices.

It's GREED, and you're creating a VERY HOSTILE environment that is going to backfire on you in a spectacular way. Again...will you have laughed all the way to the bank, saying "so long, SUCKERS!!" to both the fans AND creators...? 

ENOUGH already.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/5/2017 at 11:16 AM, Turtle said:

I think you're missing the point.  The backlash wouldn't originate with the end users of the product (collectors).  Hypothetically, if a bunch of creators starting spreading the word that CGC wasn't in the best interest of comic creators, it's possible that many creators might put forth a letter (similar to Jim Starlin's) to CGC requesting that books they sign no longer be encapsulated.  If CGC ignores these requests, they could be looking at a lawsuit, possibly many.  At that point, it'd be up to the courts to decide.  All the while, CGC would be looking like the bad guy looking to capitalize on the hard work of others.  Win or lose, their reputation would be tarnished.  Especially given that Signature Series is only a small part of CGC's overall business, it's certainly not worth the risk.   And even if CGC wins that battle, you'd still have artists doing everything they could at their tables to make sure they aren't signing any books that are intended to be graded.  At that point, CGC loses business, creators lose revenue from SS collectors, and collectors have much tighter restrictions on what can be signed and graded.  Lose/lose/lose. 

You catch more flies with honey...

Which is beyond absurd.

What business is it of anyone, creator or not, what I do with MY property? 

It's quite possibly the most offensive attempt to corner a market that I've seen in the comics industry, and I've seen a lot.

CGC's stance is perfectly understandable. The creators' response is not. 

Beware, "exclusive creator" people: you're not just killing the golden egg'd goose...you're strangling it, chopping its head off, stuffing it with foie gras, and serving it for 500 of your dearest friends at Christmas dinner.

[Comixculture]

I think it's fine for Byrne to say how he wants to sign books. I got a few signed by him many years ago. I don't understand the need for authentication. Keeping them in mylar is good enough.

[RockMyAmadeus]

39 minutes ago, Comixculture said:

I think it's fine for Byrne to say how he wants to sign books. I got a few signed by him many years ago. I don't understand the need for authentication. Keeping them in mylar is good enough.

 

Of course it's fine for Byrne to say how he wants to sign books. It's not ok for him to say what should happen with those books after he signed them.

You don't understand the need for authentication, which is also fine, but this is the CGC board, after all, and authentication is one of the services they provide. If you don't understand the need, that's fine, but that doesn't mean there isn't need, as others see fit. If keeping them in mylar is good enough for you...great! It's not for others, nor should it be expected to be.