Anyone else find this egregious? 1 1

[Randall Ries]

True enough. Collectors can do what they like to the books they own. At the same time I try to remember I am only a custodian. I suppose all of us have a degree of responsibility to the collector of the future. And the preservation of these books.

The Bronze age is quickly approaching the 50 year mark, if GL/GA #76 is the indicator. That's old enough to start treating these earlier BA books with some respect. Especially first appearance books. I have a copy of All Star No. 7 @ CGC 7.0. It's a nice copy. Not high grade as some would consider high grade, but it's a survivor at any rate. Should I have had Sheldon Moldoff sign and sketch the cover when he was alive? Not never.

Obviously, my feelings are books with provenance aren't being enhanced by sharpie drawings on the covers. Maybe not even signatures. I have a soft spot for arrival dates in pencil on covers on older books for some reason. I think if I had to do it over, I would have chosen books without signatures or bought front page signatures. They are still noted on a CGC label and are not obtrusive. Though I do love my Swamp Thing #1 signed by Wrightson.

I hope that collectors think about what they are about to do to a high grade example on "hot" books before they do it. That #227 is hard to find in that grade because of the black cover.

[Keys_Collector]

The pricing is surely egregious but the practice isn't.  Some like signatures with sketches while some don't.  It's been established over and over again.  It's all subjective and comes down to what we personally like.  My opinions on those 3 are; the Jimmy Olson Superman logo looks likes 5th grader did it, the 234 is a cool sketch but in a terrible place and the 227 is the best out of all them but the cover is so gorgeous that adding a sketch distracts from how beautiful it is.  I wouldn't pay a premium for any of them but that's just me.  I'll only do signatures if the artist/writer worked directly on the book and it has enough room for a clean signature.  I only buy pre-signed items as i've seen too many crappy signatures and would hate to pay the money to have an awful looking signature.

What I wish we could all agree on is that A) you shouldn't have Stan Lee or any artist for that matter sign something they haven't directly worked on, B) you shouldn't be pissed when Stan Lee ruins a book signing at the age of 127 and C) you shouldn't have an actor sign a comic book when characters are played by different actors often.  Those 3 should be rules followed by all regardless of the subjectiveness of the topic.  

[Randall Ries]

23 hours ago, Eric C. said:

The pricing is surely egregious but the practice isn't.  Some like signatures with sketches while some don't.  It's been established over and over again.  It's all subjective and comes down to what we personally like.  My opinions on those 3 are; the Jimmy Olson Superman logo looks likes 5th grader did it, the 234 is a cool sketch but in a terrible place and the 227 is the best out of all them but the cover is so gorgeous that adding a sketch distracts from how beautiful it is.  I wouldn't pay a premium for any of them but that's just me.  I'll only do signatures if the artist/writer worked directly on the book and it has enough room for a clean signature.  I only buy pre-signed items as i've seen too many crappy signatures and would hate to pay the money to have an awful looking signature.

What I wish we could all agree on is that A) you shouldn't have Stan Lee or any artist for that matter sign something they haven't directly worked on, B) you shouldn't be pissed when Stan Lee ruins a book signing at the age of 127 and C) you shouldn't have an actor sign a comic book when characters are played by different actors often.  Those 3 should be rules followed by all regardless of the subjectiveness of the topic.  

I see what you mean, but for someone to take a high grade example of at least the Bat-books, have Adams draw all over the cover and then offer them for sale shows the seller is just that. Trying to flip a book thinking an Adams sketch will up the price 10 fold. That is not a collector. That is a speculator that just ruined a high grade book. Proof is in the pudding as they are still FS on eBay. And as you said so well, "the cover is so gorgeous that adding a sketch distracts from how beautiful it is." Which was my initial point of contention.

Having Stan Lee sign anything DC was funny the first time he did it. After that, it was anathema.

The only time I liked an actor signed book was when Val Kilmer signed a movie adaptation book of the movie he was actually in and signed it "I'm Batman". A line I have LOATHED since I read a pirated copy of the first movie -script in 1988. HATE IT. For some reason, I wanted to buy the book Kilmer signed.

I wouldn't let Stan Lee sign my Parole paperwork much less any book that meant something to me. He takes too much of the credit away from the other creators of characters and I have never liked him all that much.

 

[chrisco37]

I think the Bat Symbol on the moon on the 227 is kinda cool.  Not fond of the head sketches.

Im not an SS guy, but there is obviously a large market for it.  I cringe when I see HG books with a big old sharpie scribble across the front.  Same when I see Stan’s name on a book he had zero to do with (Hulk 181, Spidey 129, etc).

Like the OP, I’ve also wondered if eventually a black sharpie would bleed thru the cover.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

That Bats #227 is fantastic. Perfect placement. Love it. Massively overpriced and overvalued, but a neat book.

The #234 is in the wrong place. Why Neal did that is unknown; he's usually very picky about it.

The JO #134 is nice, too.

[The Lions Den]

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 6:36 AM, chrisco37 said:

Like the OP, I’ve also wondered if eventually a black sharpie would bleed thru the cover.

Personally, I have no issue with an unobtrusive date stamp, or light, neatly placed pencil writing on the cover or interior. For me, that's part of the history of the book, and I can appreciate that. But when someone writes their name in huge letters with a black sharpie right across the middle of the front cover, I have a problem with that. And if the ink bleeds through the cover, forget it.  

[Mercury Man]

On 7/19/2018 at 4:26 PM, Eric C. said:

wouldn't pay a premium for any of them but that's just me. 

No, I think that is the majority, and that is what get's lost on the SS, and sketch on cover crowd.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, Mercury Man said:

No, I think that is the majority, and that is what get's lost on the SS, and sketch on cover crowd.  

As part of that crowd, I'm pretty sure that's not lost on anyone. 

Maybe that's the majority, maybe it's not. The nice thing is, there are plenty of copies of almost every single comic printed from about 1955 on up to go around for those who like SS and those who don't. If there are lots of people who wouldn't pay a premium for them...great. Less expensive for those who like it.

[Mercury Man]

6 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

As part of that crowd, I'm pretty sure that's not lost on anyone. 

Maybe that's the majority, maybe it's not. The nice thing is, there are plenty of copies of almost every single comic printed from about 1955 on up to go around for those who like SS and those who don't. If there are lots of people who wouldn't pay a premium for them...great. Less expensive for those who like it.

I mean it would be hard to measure.  We truly don't know how many people see a book for sale and move on because they don't like marked up covers.   All we really see is sales results, we don't know the numbers of people who 'mentally pass'.  Dollars to donuts, if there are two 5.0  FF #1's and one is cheaper than the other due to a Stan Lee SS mark up, I am aiming for the non signed one.    

[Keys_Collector]

I think most do pay a premium for a Signature series.  If i'm not mistaken, the price is usually slighter higher when a signature is on there when its Stan Lee, McFarlane, etc.  For me, i'll pay a premium if the signature looks good (not a signature you can barely make out) and makes sense (book Stan Lee directly worked on for example).

[01TheDude]

Signature/sketch covers are a niche market imo. Those who  actively create these books push them and believe they are creating value-- and also push that logic as something all collectors think. That simply is not true.

While clearly many collectors enjoy these books-- and good for them by the way as it is important to enjoy things you collect-- I doubt that this mentality is more than 10% of all collectors. I think I would rather have a book that some kid put his name on compared to some signature from the artist. To me that is genuine love for the book-- be that pride in ownership or putting your stamp on it that this is your book (hands off!).

If you tell me you met Stan Lee -- I will believe you. I don't require authenticated proof. Ditko on the other hand....

Why anyone would ever need more than one Stan Lee signature is baffling. Why it needs to be on a comic book - other than being encapsulated as "genuine" - also boggles my mind. I get that for some folks meeting Stan Lee is a huge deal. Do you need some sort of trophy to make that still real? I've never met him or have his signature and don't have any real desire to have it happen. Maybe if I were still a young teenage kid I would want to meet him then before I found out the real story behind how Marvel really ran. Not that he isn't important. He just isn't that important to me.

The books are important. I appreciate those who made them by collecting and reading those books. That is enough for me.

But to each their own. Who am I to tell someone how to enjoy the hobby. I have my opinions and respect others methods.

I just wish folks weren't actively trying to do these things for the sake of "added value" that imo basically will destroy the fragile books over time.

[MGsimba77]

The 234 definitely takes away from the cover imo. The 3rd one is much more appealing.

The worst offense in this category of tasteless signatures is probably a Tom Holland on an original AF 15.

I'm sure there'll be ASM 300s with Hardy's signature popping up at some point 

[MGsimba77]

On 7/19/2018 at 4:26 PM, Keys_Collector said:

What I wish we could all agree on is that A) you shouldn't have Stan Lee or any artist for that matter sign something they haven't directly worked on, 

Many collectors frown on having silver age/early bronze books signed at all. If that view + yours prevailed there wouldn't be much room for an acceptable Stan sig. I think Stan retired from direct involvement in 1972.

Imo it's fine to have a creator's signature on a book featuring their character so long as it adds appeal to the cover. 

[01TheDude]

14 hours ago, MGsimba77 said:

Many collectors frown on having silver age/early bronze books signed at all. If that view + yours prevailed there wouldn't be much room for an acceptable Stan sig. I think Stan retired from direct involvement in 1972.

Imo it's fine to have a creator's signature on a book featuring their character so long as it adds appeal to the cover. 

If someone has to have a signature on a book, using a lower grade copy would be less offensive. When I see those super high grade nose bleed key books with a signature scribbled on the cover it just annoys me more than anything else.

[01TheDude]

14 hours ago, MGsimba77 said:

Many collectors frown on having silver age/early bronze books signed at all. If that view + yours prevailed there wouldn't be much room for an acceptable Stan sig. I think Stan retired from direct involvement in 1972.

Imo it's fine to have a creator's signature on a book featuring their character so long as it adds appeal to the cover. 

There are a couple of books where he was drawn on the cover as well later on that would seem reasonable to get signed if you have to have one.

[evilskip]

As far as signatures go, if they are on a check I would want those. Bottom right hand side only, I'll fill in the rest.

[Gatsby77]

I have no more problem with artist sketches than I do with signatures on books.

And the outrage over Neal potentially defacing these books is hilarious -- as RMA said, they're not rare.

Given that Neal charges for photographs and signatures, let alone sketches, I have no problem with a collector seeing a sketch by him as a value-add -- for instance, I sure wish I'd gotten an Al Williamson or John Romita sketch when I had the chance.

My pet peeve is signature series on books that are already signed, like Tick Special Edition 1-2. That's just...dumb. An Edlund sketch on them. however? 

 

[Stronguy]

On 7/14/2018 at 6:49 AM, Randall Ries said:

The Bronze age is quickly approaching the 50 year mark, if GL/GA #76 is the indicator. That's old enough to start treating these earlier BA books with some respect. Especially first appearance books.

IMO, the entire premise is flawed.  Scarcity should be a major consideration in the preservation ("respect") of these, much more than just the age of the book.  There are literally thousands of each Bronze Age keys out there, with a large percentage of them being in the 8.0 - 9.8 range.  Slabbing only represents a tiny fraction of total copies; SS even less than that.  The handful of people who chose to have the books marked up is relatively insignificant in relation to the supply and availability of what is out there. 

[Randall Ries]

I understand. There are plenty of raw copies in high grade out there of first appearance/keys still waiting for an artist to sketch/doodle/write/draw/paint on. Until there isn't. I am only noting that the books are getting old and there is the future to think about. Oh wait. We live in the moment without any thought to the future. I forgot. I wasn't trying to tie conservation and respect together. Just because there is a plentiful supply doesn't mean there should be a lack of respect for genuine keys.

MGSimba77 makes a good point about appeal. The books I chose as examples have zero appeal. Drawing a Superman "S" (In this case, it isn't an "S" and it doesn't mean "hope". It means "Dope") on the JO is infantile. Doesn't add a thing to the appeal. The Bat 234 is a horror show. Regardless of "supply", books that are keys and/or highly coveted ought to be left alone. Thank God there aren't that many of them.

 

[mysterymachine]

There must be some market for this or sellers wouldn't be doing it. I personally don't like it, but if you have your own personal book and you want a sketch, it's your book, do whatever you want to it. I just don't like sellers doing these things to increase the value of a book. Particularly when they take 1.5 graded books, throw a signature on it and put vg or better prices on the book. Its just an attempt to get as much money from a trashed book as they can get. 

Edited August 17, 2018 by mysterymachine