What's up with Rob Liefeld? No CGC? 4 4

[kevhtx]

32 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Again, you must have very little experience with the program and obtaining signatures for yourself if you think this. Nothing wrong with that, but your opinion isn't an informed one.

Wrong.

I have my own CGC account and Ive done many, many signature series with CGC witnesses at cons, paid witnesses at cons and used facilitators (probably hundreds at this point). I have never been through the program and I do not know all of the rules. I do not claim to know them all.  I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the hobby. But, I am not uninformed.

Many, many signings have CGC reps there or facilitators right at the end where people are filling out forms right when their book is signed. Other times most of the facilitators are well known to the creators. 9 times out of 10 the creator knows the facilitator or witness when I have been with them. And, of course, lately, the facilitator is right there managing the booth for the creator and also witnessing and getting people to fill out forms. So, again, the conditions are different. I can't believe anyone would argue that the market group is the same since the people wanting a slabbed comic is wanting a different end result so they are going through a different process than those in line just wanting a signature. 

And, the conditions are ABSOLUTELY different because the signing physically requires something to happen during the signing to occur (NOT AFTER). The witnessing is a different condition whether you like it or not. It is a fact. I mean theres a whole process you have to go through to get certified to actually have to be able to do this physical act DURING the signing. The act of witnessing. 

If you were doing autograph verification and no witnessing was taking place and you were going through the line just like everyone else, then you would be right. But, the conditions are absolutely different than someone just getting their comic signed. So, the creator can choose to discriminate. 

Edited March 9, 2018 by kevhtx

[RockMyAmadeus]

15 minutes ago, Celestial Comics said:

On 3/6/2018 at 6:07 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

JUST SAY NO to two-tiered, discriminatory pricing.

JUST SAY NO to "oh, there's raw pricing, and CGC pricing" FOR THE EXACT SAME ACTION...signing a comic.

JUST SAY NO to people asking you what you plan on doing WITH YOUR OWN PROPERTY, when it's none of their damn business in the first place.

And yes, I'm just as much of an addict as the rest of you. I paid Claremont his extortion fee, I mean, his "CGC upcharge"....$3,000...at the NYCC, when he would have signed the exact same number of comics, in the exact same way, if someone said they WEREN'T "CGCing" them, for $1500. Yes, I paid it. Yes, Chris Claremont discriminated against me.

But at least I got to deal with Claremont MYSELF.

Creators can charge whatever they want...if Neal Adams wants $10,000 for his signature, more power to him. But if he's charging a DIFFERENT PRICE for the EXACT SAME SERVICE, based on what he thinks you *might* be doing with YOUR OWN PROPERTY...that's discrimination, and ought not be tolerated.

This is the first I have heard of facilitators asking customers what they will be doing with their books?? Unless you are referring to facilitators asking a customer if they are grading their book, then the facilitator, especially one who manages/handles a creator needs to make sure a creator's wishes are respected and observed. As for criticizing a creator for charging a higher fee for books to be graded, that is their right.

No, this isn't what we're talking about at all. As for your last sentence, to whom are you referring as it being "their right"? The creator to charge, or the criticizer to criticize...?

Hey, aren't you a facilitator who encourages creators to "charge extra" for CGC...? 

[kevhtx]

15 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Famous last words...

Of course, you are incorrect. And of course, there is debating that, because you're using "price discrimination" in a way that is not what it means.

Here's a really good extract of what price discrimination really is, from the book "Pricing and Revenue Optimization" by Robert Lewis Phillips:

https://books.google.com/books?id=InuQPrC6GtQC&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false

Notice that when the economist refers to different prices for the exact same product/service, he's not talking about different prices in the exact same market, but in DIFFERENT markets. And, what is called "first degree price discrimination", or selling to each customer at a different price, is based on what the customer is willing to pay...not what the seller is requiring different customers to pay for the same product/service. The two are entirely different concepts.

There wasn't any point in arguing it 12 hours ago, and here we are. Your argument doesn't follow, because the conditions for the creator do not change. He or she is doing the exact same thing...signing a comic...utterly and completely regardless of what the owner of that comic is doing before, during, or after. Believe it or not, that doesn't change the fact, and it's quite the leap in logic to claim otherwise. "Here's my comic/s, will you sign it/them? Thanks." Creator signs. Same process, CGC, Voldermort, PGX, raw, doesn't matter. That SOME people in line MIGHT make a production of it doesn't change the fundamental reality: creator is signing. Same effort, same activity, same service, same product, regardless of where the book they signed ends up.

It's a bad argument, based on bad reasoning. You can try and shoehorn the logic by saying the conditions of the person OBTAINING the signature are different, therefore it's entirely different altogether, but that doesn't make it so. The fundamental act of a creator signing a comic remains precisely the same. No one is arguing that creators don't TRY to justify their decision based on these conditions...of course they do!...but that doesn't alter the fact that what they're being asked to actually DO isn't any different., whether the book is raw, graded, burned, chopped into a delicious salad, or used as a chew toy for the dog.

Sorry.

Fascinating exchange, to be sure, but your reasoning isn't sound.

Puling out a specific definition? There are many definitions of price discrimination. You are just picking out one definition to try and prove youre right. But, go ahead and try to keep arguing that people who go through a line and having to get their books witnessed by a third party is exactly the same conditions as someone who just needs to walk up and get their comic signed. Sure.

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

Wrong.

I have my own CGC account and Ive done many, many signature series with CGC witnesses at cons, paid witnesses at cons and used facilitators (probably hundreds at this point). I have never been through the program and I do not know all of the rules. I do not claim to know them all.  I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the hobby. But, I am not uninformed.

Many, many signings have CGC reps there or facilitators right at the end where people are filling out forms right when their book is signed. Other times most of the facilitators are well known to the creators. 9 times out of 10 the creator knows the facilitator or witness when I have been with them. And, of course, lately, the facilitator is right there managing the booth for the creator and also witnessing and getting people to fill out forms. So, again, the conditions are different. I can't believe anyone would argue that the market group is the same since the people wanting a slabbed comic is wanting a different end result so they are going through a different process than those in line just wanting a signature. 

And, the conditions are ABSOLUTELY different because the signing physically requires something to happen during the signing to occur (NOT AFTER). The witnessing is a different condition whether you like it or not. It is a fact. I mean theres a whole process you have to go through to get certified to actually have to be able to do this physical act DURING the signing. The act of witnessing. 

If you were doing autograph verification and no witnessing was taking place and you were going through the line just like everyone else, then you would be right. But, the conditions are absolutely different than someone just getting their comic signed. So, the creator can choose to discriminate. 

I don't really know how to explain this to you in any different ways so that you'll understand, so I'll just say it again: the conditions for the person obtaining the signature have absolutely zero bearing...none...on the conditions of the creator signing the book. And the issue is the SIGNING of the BOOK by the CREATOR and the cost of THAT action that we're discussing.

Your conclusion is based on an irrational premise. And you keep saying things that NO ONE IS DISPUTING. Yes, the creator can "choose to discriminate." Why do you keep saying this, as if anyone is saying otherwise...? The JUSTIFICATION for discriminating does...not...exist. And I don't mean the rationalization...I mean the justification. 

The book goes in front of the creator. The creator signs. The book is removed. 

That's it. Same process. Same action. Same conditions for the creator, regardless of where the book might end up.

So, by all means, keep saying the same thing...it's not going to change the facts. 

Why are you arguing so VOCIFEROUSLY...? Are you a creator who wants to rationalize your discrimination? Are you a facilitator making a cut of the higher price? If not, there's no reason for you to continue trying to argue this irrational position. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, kevhtx said:

Puling out a specific definition? There are many definitions of price discrimination. You are just picking out one definition to try and prove youre right. But, go ahead and try to keep arguing that people who go through a line and having to get their books witnessed by a third party is exactly the same conditions as someone who just needs to walk up and get their comic signed. Sure.

Nope. Read the link.

And yes, for the creator, it is the exact same thing. Comic gets placed in front of them, comic gets signed, comic goes away. This is true, regardless of where that comic ends up. The witness doesn't make the creator sign a form (or you'd have a case!) The witness doesn't tell the creator where to sign. The witness doesn't tell the creator which pen/marker to use. The witness doesn't interact with the creator in any official capacity that would alter the function of the actual signing in any way. They are just standing there...WITNESSING the book(s) being signed. That's it.

The conditions for the person getting the book signed are utterly, totally, and completely irrelevant to this entire discussion. They have no bearing on this discussion. 

Edited March 9, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[kevhtx]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

Nope. Read the link.

No, Im not going to do that. I know what price discrimination is. Ive been in business for a long time. I dont need to go read a link someone posts in a forum. There are various types of price discrimination and Im not even going to go hunt for links to prove you wrong. It's very broad in economics. I'm not saying its "first degree" or whatever. Very simply, selling to a group (doesnt matter if its a completely different market) based on a different set of criteria at a different price is price discrimination. Ill tell you that if you go look, you'll find them. I explained  why I thought it was. You just disagree so we are just running around in circles. Beating a dead horse.

Ive been to lines for signatures where creators have to deal with a lot more overhead for CGC and witnesses versus just someone getting a book signed. I'm sure they could give you a laundry list of why they charge more. There are always two sides to arguments and I am sure they have one.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Here, here's a better, more complete answer...the quote function isn't very good, so where it says "RMA", it should say "kevhtx":

6 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Puling out a specific definition?

Yes, because that's the type of price discrimination you're trying to make fit: different pricing for the same item. But that only works in different markets, not the exact same market (that is, standing in line at a convention), because economists recognize that, in the real world, where you're not dealing with addicts, you can't openly charge different prices for the same thing at the same time based on what the consumer intends to do with the product. That would lead to rioting.

8 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

There are many definitions of price discrimination.

Indeed, but they're not related to this situation in the way you're trying to use it. For example, the "children/senior" discount you tried to use earlier, which I debunked as an example of pricing dependent on who the buyer was, not what they were going to do with the item they obtained.

10 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You are just picking out one definition to try and prove youre right.

No, I'm applying logic and reason to your argument, to demonstrate how it doesn't follow. The "one definition" I "picked out" is the one that is closest to the manner in which you're trying to use "price discrimination." We've already covered several other definitions as well, if you follow the conversation.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

45 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

55 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Nope. Read the link.

No, Im not going to do that. I know what price discrimination is.

If you're not going to bother reading citations which explain someone's positions, you don't have much leg to stand on if you're going to argue against what they're saying.

45 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

Ive been in business for a long time. I dont need to go read a link someone posts in a forum.

If that was true, why would you insist that conditions for a consumer have any bearing on conditions for a seller...? That's obvious just on the surface, but you keep arguing that "the conditions for the person getting the sig are different, therefore the creator is justified in charging a different price!" when it is the conditions for the CREATOR that are at issue, here. That's like saying "oh, well, that lady's dressed in a mink stole, so she obviously has money, so I'm going to charge her double for the exact same thing, just cuz I can!"

THAT is the exact same logic that these creators are using. THAT is the type of price discrimination that's REALLY going on, here.

And THAT is just as greedy and petty. Doesn't mean they can't! Doesn't mean they don't have the right to! 

But it DOES mean that it's greedy and petty.

And if you're not going to do someone the courtesy of reading what they post, stop posting in response. That's just tacky. If you thought there was no point in "arguing", why are you still doing it...?

45 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

There are various types of price discrimination and Im not even going to go hunt for links to prove you wrong. It's very broad in economics. I'm not saying its "first degree" or whatever. Very simply, selling to a group (doesnt matter if its a completely different market) based on a different set of criteria at a different price is price discrimination. Ill tell you that if you go look, you'll find them. I explained  why I thought it was. You just disagree so we are just running around in circles. Beating a dead horse.

In other words "I know you're correct, and I have no valid argument in response, so I'll just say "you're wrong!" without bothering to try and demonstrate why."

Welcome to the internet!  

And no, your understanding of "price discrimination" is not what price discrimination is. 

Here's another link which explains what price discrimination actually is, and why the way you're trying to use it is invalid:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_discrimination.asp

I know you won't read it, but then, these conversations are never about the people involved, but rather the people watching. 

Here, I'll even extract the pertinent info for you:

Quote

First-degree discrimination, or perfect price discrimination, occurs when a company charges the maximum possible price for each unit consumed. Because prices vary among units, the firm captures all available consumer surplus for itself. This type of discrimination is rarely practiced.

Second-degree price discrimination occurs when a company charges a different price for different quantities consumed, such as quantity discounts on bulk purchases.

Third-degree price discrimination occurs when a company charges a different price to different consumer groups. For example, moviegoers may be subdivided into seniors, adults and children, each paying a different price when seeing the same movie at one theater. This type of discrimination is the most common

None of those definitions jives with yours.

First-degree discrimination is based on what a buyer is WILLING to pay, as I said before, not what the seller is CHARGING. It's NOT applicable to this scenario.

Second-degree price discrimination is based on QUANTITY, so it's not related to this at all.

Third-degree has to do with consumer GROUPS, which is based on who those consumers ARE, not what they intend to DO with a good/service.

Do you see anything about " selling to a group (doesnt matter if its a completely different market) based on a different set of criteria at a different price"

Not really.

Your "definition" is too generic. It SEEMS to be a re-wording of "third-degree price discrimination", but when you look at the context of how you're trying to apply it...that is, not based on who consumers ARE, but what they intend to DO with the service/product...it falls apart.

You have an inaccurate understanding of the principle of price discrimination, and are trying to apply it in a way that isn't in line with that principle. I know you THINK that "people who CGC" and "people who don't CGC" are different "consumer groups", because that's how you're trying to make your case...but by the principle, that's not how it works. Different consumer groups would be the aforementioned "children/adults/seniors" or "rich people/middle class people/lower class people" or "males/females"...groups that are different based on who they ARE, not what they might (or might not) do with the product.

It's a clever attempt, to be sure, but it fails. Sorry.

 

45 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

Ive been to lines for signatures where creators have to deal with a lot more overhead for CGC and witnesses versus just someone getting a book signed.

Such as...?

See, you can't make claims like this without providing support or evidence to back it up.

Explain HOW there is "a lot more overhead for CGC and witnesses" vs. "just someone getting a book signed."

Now explain how  that is UNIVERSAL. Because if it's not universal, it's not justification for a UNIVERSAL additional fee, see?

I've been to lines for signatures where creators have to deal with a lot LESS "overhead" (whatever that means; I guess it means "extra time and effort"...? "Overhead" usually refers to ongoing costs not directly associated with labor or materials, like the light bill, but what do I know...?) when dealing with slabbers, because slabbers are quick and prepared, in and out, books prepped and ready to go, while "just someone getting a book signed" has been a hassle, because they talk and they take the books out of the bags and boards, and they think about where they want it signed, and yadda yadda zzzzzz.

So that renders that argument moot.

And if it's not universal, then the rationalization fails. "I have to deal with a lot more" you claim the creator says, without giving any explanation of what that "more" might be, but that's supposed to suffice?

Heck, you haven't even given me a REAL LIFE example where someone charges more based on what someone intends to do with it afterwards!

45 minutes ago, kevhtx said:

I'm sure they could give you a laundry list of why they charge more. There are always two sides to arguments and I am sure they have one.

Of course they do! People ALWAYS have excuses for why they do what they do. It's human nature.

And just because there are "two sides to arguments" doesn't mean both sides are right, or even reasonable.

Store owner: "this guy stole two loaves of bread!"

Thief: "Hey, I was hungry."

Two sides to an argument. One side right, the other wrong. Excuse still given for why it was ok to steal.

It's a cash grab. Plain and simple. No one said they couldn't. No one said they didn't have the right. But it's still a cash grab.

Can you imagine, the Girl Scouts asking someone what they intend to do with their cookies before selling them...?

"Sorry, sir, but I can see you intend to add that box to your collection of Girl Scout Cookie Boxes, and since you might someday sell that collection for FAT STACKS OF CASH!!! we're going to have to charge you double. I'm sure you understand."

Edited March 9, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RadiantGraphix]

Oh gosh... I can’t believe I’m commenting on this... I must be a glutton for punishment...

You’re both right... and you’re both wrong.

RockyMountain... in the definition for Third-Degree Discrimination simply substitute “groups” for markets and the definition works. The “who” the “groups” are sorted into is one for resellers vs collectors. At least that’s how it is in the minds of the creators who upcharge for CGC.  I realize that’s not a whole accurate way to group people in line for a signature, but that’s what they are doing and that’s why people understand the rationale behind it. Wrong headed or otherwise. 

Kevhtx... and regardless of the group or market that the person waiting in line belongs to, it doesn’t change the physical action by the creator, it costs him nothing additional to write his signature on a book I plan to sell or a book I plan to have slabbed.  So, why should they get to charge me more if they don’t have to do an ounce more work?  They are making a biased assumption about my intent and their asking for part of any future and potential profits. What if a Con organizer asked top-tier creators to pay more for each of their booths and get a percentage of sales generated at the booth, but cosplayers/inkers/self-publishers paid the “normal” rate because they don’t generate as many ticket sales for the con?  That’s what RockyMountain is arguing.  (BTW, his airline ticket analogy was briliant.)

 

For BOTH Rocky & Kev... Now, if the creator has gone to the trouble to hire someone to handle all the CGC submissions for books they sign (and CGC has granted exclusive rights of submission for that creators team), then by all means they gotta pay that person somehow. I’d rather see creators going to more conventions than less conventions. If facilitator-managers like Doug Peters make that more possible, but charge a fee to cover the increased expenses, then that’s what we have to contend with.

 

Like any great debate there is never a simple, single-faceted solution. It’s gotta be attacked on multiple levels. That’s a discussion for a completely different thread though. 

 

***please have mercy on my soul and honor my courage for stepping in between you two with my comments***

[philsbackpack]

So what I get out of all of this is no one knows why Rob is no longer signing books that will be subbed for CGC

[ivdyer]

1 hour ago, philsbackpack said:

So what I get out of all of this is no one knows why Rob is no longer signing books that will be subbed for CGC

 Well said 

Edited March 9, 2018 by ivdyer

[reddwarf666222]

1 hour ago, philsbackpack said:

So what I get out of all of this is no one knows why Rob is no longer signing books that will be subbed for CGC

I have a simple guess he was offered a lucrative contract to be exclusive to a certain company because it involves more money he accepted it. All About the Benjamins. Also based on who Liefeld is, so that other company got purchased by a bigger company who has a reality tv star with them maybe that tv star offered Liefeld a spot on Pawn Stars to be the main comics and comics art evaluator.

[ivdyer]

28 minutes ago, reddwarf666222 said:

I have a simple guess he was offered a lucrative contract to be exclusive to a certain company because it involves more money he accepted it. All About the Benjamins. Also based on who Liefeld is, so that other company got purchased by a bigger company who has a reality tv star with them maybe that tv star offered Liefeld a spot on Pawn Stars to be the main comics and comics art evaluator.

Possible, I plan on asking him in Dallas 

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 hours ago, RadiantGraphix said:

RockyMountain... in the definition for Third-Degree Discrimination simply substitute “groups” for markets and the definition works. The “who” the “groups” are sorted into is one for resellers vs collectors. At least that’s how it is in the minds of the creators who upcharge for CGC.  I realize that’s not a whole accurate way to group people in line for a signature, but that’s what they are doing and that’s why people understand the rationale behind it. Wrong headed or otherwise. 

That's what kevhtx was trying to say, and it's still an error of logic. Yes, I understand that's how the creator's view it, but price discrimination is fundamentally about maximizing profit. If that were true, they would charge more to "collectors" as well. But that's not what's happening at all. 

No, the reason they upcharge is punitive. It's based on the erroneous belief that "slabbers" are ALL resellers. It's based on the erroneous belief that "slabbers" are all making some sort of "large profit" off of their signature. And I guarantee you, every single person who is confronted with a higher price for the exact same service has a negative reaction to it. They may hide it. Most do. They may just inwardly roll their eyes. They accept it, grudgingly, as a cost of doing business. But no one who understands the implications of what's happening says "shut up and take my money!!!"

These creators don't care...evidenced by the fact that they still charge less for the "raw" customers...to "maximize profit" from signatures. They're trying to keep slabbers from making profit. or, at least, "as much" profit.

"Price discrimination", as a fundamental economic concept, does not apply in this situation. In "price discrimination", the word "discrimination" is neutral. It doesn't carry a negative connotation. 

In this situation, the discriminating being done is most certainly not neutral; it's based on petty jealousy, greed, and insecurity, exploiting baser emotions of creators, and the addictive behavior of collectors.

6 hours ago, RadiantGraphix said:

For BOTH Rocky & Kev... Now, if the creator has gone to the trouble to hire someone to handle all the CGC submissions for books they sign (and CGC has granted exclusive rights of submission for that creators team), then by all means they gotta pay that person somehow. I’d rather see creators going to more conventions than less conventions. If facilitator-managers like Doug Peters make that more possible, but charge a fee to cover the increased expenses, then that’s what we have to contend with.

You're making the exact same mistake that "kevhtx" and others are making. The creator has nothing to do with "CGC submissions", and doesn't need someone to "handle all the CGC submissions for books they sign." 

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between CGC, creators, and those who use CGC's services. CGC is an unrelated third party as it applies to creators, with some very minor exceptions. CGC is contracted by the people submitting their books, NOT facilitators OR creators. I can get 100,000 books signed by various creators, and they might never know that CGC is involved, because the transaction is between ME and the creators, not CGC and the creators.

And submitting is a transaction between ME and CGC, not CGC and the creators.

The submitter prepares the book(s), not the creator. The submitter fills out the paperwork, not the creator. The submitter turns the books in to CGC, not the creator. There's nothing special that requires creators to do anything differently than they've been doing for decades, as you point out to "kevhtx" above.

(And, in fact, this is how the program worked for well over a decade.)

Let me be perfectly clear: these people aren't providing a service to these creators for "CGCing" and "CGCing" alone. They are managing the line, they are handling cash...whatever they're doing...and that is not exclusively for people who are "CGCing." That's for everyone, whether they're getting a book signed and slabbed, or getting it signed raw, or getting a toy signed, or a poster signed, or a body part signed...whatever.

Line and cash management IS a perfectly valid service for people to provide to creators, and they absolutely deserve to be paid for that service. But there's nothing that they're doing EXCLUSIVELY as it relates to the process of "CGCing" that would justify a special upcharge for "slabbers" and "slabbers" alone.

So, if your premise is wrong...that creators need someone to "handle all the CGC submissions"...the conclusion, that a different price for slabbers is therefore justified, necessarily fails.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

43 minutes ago, reddwarf666222 said:

I have a simple guess he was offered a lucrative contract to be exclusive to a certain company because it involves more money he accepted it. All About the Benjamins. Also based on who Liefeld is, so that other company got purchased by a bigger company who has a reality tv star with them maybe that tv star offered Liefeld a spot on Pawn Stars to be the main comics and comics art evaluator.

What makes you think that grading companies are in a position to be offering to pay creators to "be exclusive"?

Not saying you're wrong, just asking what makes you think this is even a possibility.

[reddwarf666222]

17 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

What makes you think that grading companies are in a position to be offering to pay creators to "be exclusive"?

Not saying you're wrong, just asking what makes you think this is even a possibility.

Your telling me on the amount between the grading charge and the bump up in charge to make it an SS there is not some wiggle room to give Liefeld some money in there? I believe there is some room.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, reddwarf666222 said:

Your telling me on the amount between the grading charge and the bump up in charge to make it an SS there is not some wiggle room to give Liefeld some money in there? I believe there is some room.

CGC is a third party grading service. So is Voldermort. Transactions are between submitters and creators, not grading companies and creators. 

So, what reason would there be, other than punitive, which is ALWAYS bad for business, to offer ANY creator ANY amount of money from a third party...? 

And how would that not be restraint of trade...?

[mysterio]

43 minutes ago, reddwarf666222 said:

Your telling me on the amount between the grading charge and the bump up in charge to make it an SS there is not some wiggle room to give Liefeld some money in there? I believe there is some room.

For CGC the upcharge is something like $5 a book, give or take. You would be correct that that would provide room to give him some money, but obviously not a lot. That upcharge is almost certainly going to offset the costs of CGC setting up and providing witnesses at the various shows, so once you factor that in the "wiggle room" loses most of its wiggle. Say Rob gets 20% of that upcharge, that is a buck a book. Not a particularly lucrative deal.

[Celestial Comics]

11 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No, this isn't what we're talking about at all. As for your last sentence, to whom are you referring as it being "their right"? The creator to charge, or the criticizer to criticize...?

Hey, aren't you a facilitator who encourages creators to "charge extra" for CGC...? 

It is the “right” of the creator to charge IF that is what they choose to do.

As for are we a facilitator who “encourages” creators to “charge extra” for CGC? The answer is we “RESPECT” the creator’s rights and decision to want to charge a fee. It is THEIR right and THEIR decision to charge a fee. We don’t encourage or discourage it. We simple RESPECT it. We make nothing more from a creator who chooses to charge a fee, we simply pass the same charge onto the customer.

Just as it is YOUR right to choose NOT to pay the fee and to walk away from getting you items signed. And we RESPECT that right as well.

What you DON’T have a right to do, is LIE to a creator when he asks you the question if the book he is signing will be graded or not. It is because of actions like that, that has caused creators to do what they do, such as using specific facilitators or handlers to PROTECT them.

[reddwarf666222]

7 minutes ago, Celestial Comics said:

It is the “right” of the creator to charge IF that is what they choose to do.

As for are we a facilitator who “encourages” creators to “charge extra” for CGC? The answer is we “RESPECT” the creator’s rights and decision to want to charge a fee. It is THEIR right and THEIR decision to charge a fee. We don’t encourage or discourage it. We simple RESPECT it. We make nothing more from a creator who chooses to charge a fee, we simply pass the same charge onto the customer.

Just as it is YOUR right to choose NOT to pay the fee and to walk away from getting you items signed. And we RESPECT that right as well.

What you DON’T have a right to do, is LIE to a creator when he asks you the question if the book he is signing will be graded or not. It is because of actions like that, that has caused creators to do what they do, such as using specific facilitators or handlers to PROTECT them.

The voice of reason has arrived thank you.