• 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.

Creator Signing Fees: unsubbed vs CGC subbed (rant)
1 1

42 posts in this topic

I ran into this exact predicament just this past weekend. Creator is charging $5 for each signature and there's a line of about 15 people in front of me. The guy directly in front of me has about 10 books that he's getting signed... Creator takes his time and makes small talk with just about everybody that's going through his line. He's a nice guy, very talkative, very outgoing, and only $5 for a sig? Awesome! When I get up to him I tell him that I have 3 books that I'd like him to sign that I plan to send in to get graded and slabbed. He looks up at me and says "Oh, these are going to be graded? If that's the case then I charge $25 for signatures to be graded." I was baffled. Don't get me wrong... I completely understand. They're making their money. It's part of the system. They're only doing what they think will get them maximum profit but I just don't understand the raise in price for sending it to CGC. I was about to ask him why he charges so much more for subs but I ultimately decided against it. So I stood there and made the decision to only grade one of my books instead of 3 because I wasn't about to pay $75 just for the signature, especially when he'd been doing it for $5 for every single person in front of me. I don't think any differently of the creator and understand his side... but it did leave a bad taste in my mouth and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since. For the record, these books are for my own collection. I rarely flip books unless I find a sweet deal and even then I usually end up keeping it for myself! This entire thread resonates with me especially since it's still so fresh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Adam Hughes covers and have many signed and graded but his insistence on charging $10 an autograph has started to sour me. I stood behind a guy in line with a shortbox of his covers and watched him get each one signed by Adam Hughes for free (he would get 5 done and go to the back of the line). It was my turn and I informed him I was getting the books graded (I'm sure the red shirt witness gave it away but hey) and was told $10 per book which for me was $100 as I had 10 books. I showed him a picture of a wall in my comic room covered in his signed books which he really seemed to like. I went back the CGC booth with my witness, completed the paperwork and submitted the books. I went back to Adam Hughes booth because I wanted to buy a print. Looking at Hughes booth and about three feet to the left was the guy with the shortbox propping each book up in one of those ugly flower pattern chairs you see at some convention centers taking pictures of the newly signed books. While in line I did an eBay search for signed Hughes books and saw the auctions of the guy with the shortbox. He was posting each book for $15 to $20. I knew they were his because of the ugly chair in the photos. I just wanted to point at the guy and tell Adam Hughes "There is your true fan." I'm all for talent charging whatever they want as long as it is one set rate. Heck, I don't mind Rob Liefeld charging $800 to sign NM 98 as long as that is every NM 98 going in front of him. The CGC tax is a bad idea but that is just my 2 cents. Have a great day everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, iggykoopa said:

I don't think any differently of the creator and understand his side... but it did leave a bad taste in my mouth and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since. 

You don't have to be so forgiving of someone who ripped you off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, iggykoopa said:

I ran into this exact predicament just this past weekend. Creator is charging $5 for each signature and there's a line of about 15 people in front of me. The guy directly in front of me has about 10 books that he's getting signed... Creator takes his time and makes small talk with just about everybody that's going through his line. He's a nice guy, very talkative, very outgoing, and only $5 for a sig? Awesome! When I get up to him I tell him that I have 3 books that I'd like him to sign that I plan to send in to get graded and slabbed. He looks up at me and says "Oh, these are going to be graded? If that's the case then I charge $25 for signatures to be graded." I was baffled. Don't get me wrong... I completely understand. They're making their money. It's part of the system. They're only doing what they think will get them maximum profit but I just don't understand the raise in price for sending it to CGC. I was about to ask him why he charges so much more for subs but I ultimately decided against it. So I stood there and made the decision to only grade one of my books instead of 3 because I wasn't about to pay $75 just for the signature, especially when he'd been doing it for $5 for every single person in front of me. I don't think any differently of the creator and understand his side... but it did leave a bad taste in my mouth and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since. For the record, these books are for my own collection. I rarely flip books unless I find a sweet deal and even then I usually end up keeping it for myself! This entire thread resonates with me especially since it's still so fresh.

It really makes me wonder how much CGC is losing since customers are reducing the number of submissions since they have to make a financial decision between paying out the creator for the signature or paying CGC to have it signed.  At the end of the day, I feel like more people are content with the signature and the experience more so than having a signed slab.  Heck, you probably even get your fair share of people like RMA who skip the signing and the slabbing entirely due to disagreeing with the entire greed and business side of it all.  I guess what I'm saying is, CGC is probably not seeing as much money come through their doors as a result.  Is it going to hurt CGC's business?  No.  But I'm sure they would appreciate an increased revenue stream.  I feel like they could step in and have a discussion with the creators to help voice the concern of the community.  I feel like they would have more clout than we would individually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, iggykoopa said:

but it did leave a bad taste in my mouth and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since. For the record, these books are for my own collection. I rarely flip books unless I find a sweet deal and even then I usually end up keeping it for myself! This entire thread resonates with me especially since it's still so fresh.

This to me, might be the worst part about the whole thing.  If it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, that memory will linger with you for as long as you have that book.  And what's the point of having something in your collection that you have a negative connotation with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with many of the thoughts here (many of which @RockMyAmadeus has said a number of times, including on other big threads about this), and I do think we're approaching a tipping point (or maybe already have) whereby 1) fans who want to get things CGC SS'd will be less likely to do so, and 2) even resellers will start doing less CGC SS as they get hit with more and more losses / break-even books given the increased costs. And because of how this situation has developed / evolved, I do think CGC should try to get involved before this goes too far, although I can see why they're hesitant to do so and rock-the-boat with creators.

The only other viewpoint I'll offer though is to point to how the sports memorabilia market evolved (which I feel went through this same thing 10+ years ago). Athletes used to happily sign memorabilia (bats, cards, hats, balls, etc.) for free as they thought most people getting the signatures were "fans". Then as people saw resale values on Ebay for signatures on memorabilia get higher and higher, and people saw $ signs, more and more "flippers" started elbowing in and ugly stories came out of these guys boxing out children to get 10+ items signed, to immediately re-sell on ebay, etc. As this became more prevalent and stories of this more wide-spread, players started getting pissed off that others were "profiting off their signatures", started charging for their signatures because they wanted a piece of that action.

While I understand (and generally agree with) the argument that as a creator, if all you're doing is signing, it's none of your business what I do with my property afterwards. And charging more because of what the "fan" does with it afterwards shouldn't be any of their concern. But just to test that, let's flip the -script and look at it from their perspective. Assume 99% of people getting stuff signed / slabbed are doing it for resale, with 1% being "fans" just wanting a signature. And let's also assume that those 99% of people were making lots of profit on those signatures. Would it be reasonable / understandable for the creator to feel bad about this process and want to get a piece? In my opinion, yes. Which is why I can't 100% lean on the "it's none of your business what I do with my property afterwards" argument entirely.

Now of course in reality, it's not like that. I bet 10% of people getting stuff signed / slabbed are doing it primarily for resale. And I bet a majority of people who get things CGC SS are "fans" and not just straight resellers. And probably most important, in the comic book world, the condition / grade of the book drives the vast majority of the value of a yellow label book (and unless it's high grade, a signature doesn't add much, and in some times, might be net negative). So it's obviously more complicated and a number of factors have contributed to the situation as it exists today (not the least of which is that we're many years into an incredible boom period for comic book values that are keeping a lot of customers biting the bullet and continuing to pay these extra fees). I think the most damaging thing throughout the yellow label's evolution is the misconception that creators have that people who want CGC SS are not fans, and just flippers.

Iif things don't change, I think when the market inevitably turns, it'll turn harder and more violently than it otherwise had to if things were more reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ExNihilo said:

This to me, might be the worst part about the whole thing.  If it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, that memory will linger with you for as long as you have that book.  And what's the point of having something in your collection that you have a negative connotation with.

I couldn't agree more! I thought that him seeing me make a point-of-sale decision on which 1 book I would now get signed would make him see the problem with all of this. I don't know, like maybe seeing me fumble through the books and go back and forth at which one I would decide on after hearing $25/sig would somehow make him change his mind or something... But no, he waited for me to narrow down the 3 books that I had for him to sign down to 1 and then signed it and sent me on my way. And you're absolutely right, when I get that book back from grading that's always the thought I'll have when I look at it. Something's gotta change!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExNihilo said:

I'm really not sure what's more absurd, creators who charge you different rates if you are submitting to CGC, or the ones who charge more for signing lenticular's (Fabok), or key books (Liefeld)?  Like, it doesn't take you any additional effort to sign your name on this versus that.  Whether I sub to CGC or I don't isn't robbing you of your livelihood.  What books I choose to have signed and what I choose to do with them afterwards has no bearing on you whatsoever, so why charge a premium for it.

I certainly think there's plenty of blame to go around.  You can blame the creator for being greedy.  You can blame the exclusive agents/facilitators for force feeding bits of information in order to make a few extra dollars for themselves.  You can blame CGC for encouraging these sort of tactics from the creators to begin with.  And lastly, you can blame the speculators who continue to push demand for these products.  So long as demand continues to run high, the voice of the fans will be drowned out because creators know that if fans are priced out and don't buy, there's always a line of speculators willing to pay the cost.

I’d say they are equally absurd.

I wouldn’t say these creators will always have a line of speculators/dealers/ flippers though. I’ve noticed over the last couple years quite a few people walking away from the creators who are upcharging like this, and rightfully so. 

I’ve personally also cut ties and no longer support several creators who do so. Many of them I’ll never support again, no matter how appealing the book may be. 

The solution really is to just boycott supporting them, and if an opportunity presents itself I recommend letting the creator know why, because the people whispering in their ears that are also profiting off of basically doing nothing are the voices that really need to be drowned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, CKinTO said:

While I understand (and generally agree with) the argument that as a creator, if all you're doing is signing, it's none of your business what I do with my property afterwards. And charging more because of what the "fan" does with it afterwards shouldn't be any of their concern. But just to test that, let's flip the --script and look at it from their perspective. Assume 99% of people getting stuff signed / slabbed are doing it for resale, with 1% being "fans" just wanting a signature. And let's also assume that those 99% of people were making lots of profit on those signatures. Would it be reasonable / understandable for the creator to feel bad about this process and want to get a piece? In my opinion, yes. Which is why I can't 100% lean on the "it's none of your business what I do with my property afterwards" argument entirely.

This particular "-script" has been flipped here many, many times before, and the answer is still the same: your argument is an emotional one, not an argument from reason.

It does not matter what someone chooses to do with their property. It wouldn't matter if all comics were absolutely worthless until they were signed and slabbed, and then they all became worth tens of thousands of dollars, regardless of the book, regardless of its condition.

A signature is a service. Nothing more, nothing less. If a creator "feels bad" (there's your first clue that you're on very thin logical ground right there) because someone is "making money off of their signature", the answer is incredibly simple: charge what you think (not feel) the market will bear. If the thought of someone else profiting off of your service makes you "feel bad", then either charge a fee that you think will make you NOT "feel bad"...or don't sign at all.

The argument...that people really DON'T make "fat stacks of cash on SS"...while completely true...is still wholly and utterly irrelevant to the issue. That's just an addendum, an "oh, by the way..." so that creators don't feel "as bad." Ultimately, what I sell my property for is none of your business. You didn't buy it, you didn't preserve it, you didn't pay to have it slabbed, you didn't prepare it and cart it around, you took NONE (not even a little...NONE) of the risk involved, and thus deserve none of the reward, or, more aptly, "reward."

Sign, don't sign, charge, don't charge. None of that is the issue. The issue is charging a different price for the exact same service, based on information that is absolutely none of your business. 

Do creators get their feelings hurt when a book, like NYX #3, or Walking Dead #1, or X-Men #94, is worth many, many, many times what its cover price was, when the creator got paid the same as for a book that isn't worth much more than cover? Sure, I bet some of them do. It's still not justified. There was nothing stopping those creators from betting on their own talent, and they were in a better position to do so than virtually anybody else. And some of them did. 

But if someone goes to the effort...and risk...of obtaining an individual copy of a comic, preserving it, perhaps improving it, getting it signed and getting it slabbed...creators don't deserve any of the reward for that. Why would they? It's not their property. 

And if a creator resents the chance that someone might have of making money off their signature, there is absolutely nothing in the world stopping them from obtaining their own books, signing them, getting them slabbed...in other words, taking ALL of the risk...themselves. Nothing at all. Cut out the "middle man" entirely. 

But very few of them do that. That's too much work, too much effort, you see. No, most of them charging different prices want all the "reward", and none of the risk.

And if they tried those games with publishers, they'd be laughed out of the building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, iggykoopa said:

I couldn't agree more! I thought that him seeing me make a point-of-sale decision on which 1 book I would now get signed would make him see the problem with all of this. I don't know, like maybe seeing me fumble through the books and go back and forth at which one I would decide on after hearing $25/sig would somehow make him change his mind or something... But no, he waited for me to narrow down the 3 books that I had for him to sign down to 1 and then signed it and sent me on my way. And you're absolutely right, when I get that book back from grading that's always the thought I'll have when I look at it. Something's gotta change!

He reacted that way because he doesn't care. It doesn't matter to him, because...for now...there are plenty of people standing in line.

When and if that changes...then we might see a different attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

And if a creator resents the chance that someone might have of making money off their signature, there is absolutely nothing in the world stopping them from obtaining their own books, signing them, getting them slabbed...in other words, taking ALL of the risk...themselves. Nothing at all. Cut out the "middle man" entirely. 

I think this ought to be highlighted, especially in light of JSC: there is nothing whatsoever preventing JSC, and anyone else, from cutting the middle man out entirely. They could sign and submit books themselves, and refuse to sign anyone else's books for grading (which is easily enforced, by the way.) They could be the exclusive source for CGC signed copies. You want a Signature Series copy? You'll have to buy it through my store.

You know why NONE of them do that....?

You guessed it: far too much effort, far too little return.

It's much, much, MUCH easier to just charge a generic CGC punishment tax, justified or not, fair or not. They don't want to make whatever money there is...they just want to prevent everyone else from having even the chance to do so.

And that's just naked greed right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What benefit is there for CGC to NOT "anger" the creators by stealth witnessing (i.e. not announcing facilitator's or that it's going to be submitted for SS) or just ignoring them altogether? Does CGC do business directly with any of them?

And if they did, What's the artist going to do about it? Not sign anything for anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Antpark said:

What benefit is there for CGC to NOT "anger" the creators by stealth witnessing (i.e. not announcing facilitator's or that it's going to be submitted for SS) or just ignoring them altogether? Does CGC do business directly with any of them?

And if they did, What's the artist going to do about it? Not sign anything for anyone?

Some creators have gotten upset in the past with stealth witnessing (I think Starlin and Liefeld come to mind).  Other creators just don't want their sigs witnessed (Byrne I believe).  In the case of Starlin and Liefeld, I think they refused to sign books if they caught wind you were subbing to CGC.  I think...i don't have any anecdotal evidence myself, only piecing together what i've read on other parts of this board.  But yeah, from a legal standpoint, i'm not sure the creators could do anything about it.  They could however claim exclusive signing rights with other grading companies which could potentially affect CGC's bottom line.  So in that regard, it's probably in CGC's best interest to just play within the confines of the rules established by the creators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ExNihilo said:

This to me, might be the worst part about the whole thing.  If it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, that memory will linger with you for as long as you have that book.  And what's the point of having something in your collection that you have a negative connotation with.

This is what happens. It takes a few days to a few weeks for the anger to be associated with the creator because of the cognitive dissonance it creates in fans, but it happens eventually. "I love the work, love it!" "That sig cost how much?" "Love the work, love the work?" "WTF?$$$?WTF?" "love the work, love it...but" "WAITASECOND!thecreator, the same guy, CASHGRAB!"..."le sigh"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bird said:

This is what happens. It takes a few days to a few weeks for the anger to be associated with the creator because of the cognitive dissonance it creates in fans, but it happens eventually. "I love the work, love it!" "That sig cost how much?" "Love the work, love the work?" "WTF?$$$?WTF?" "love the work, love it...but" "WAITASECOND!thecreator, the same guy, CASHGRAB!"..."le sigh"

"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Antpark said:

What benefit is there for CGC to NOT "anger" the creators by stealth witnessing (i.e. not announcing facilitator's or that it's going to be submitted for SS) or just ignoring them altogether? Does CGC do business directly with any of them?

And if they did, What's the artist going to do about it? Not sign anything for anyone?

This SHOULD have been CGC's position from the beginning. "Sorry, sir/ma'am, we're just a grading service. We don't have anything to do with creators; we're a third party service that only grades and certifies comics. If there's an issue, you should probably take it up with your customers."

That would have been the proper response. The "that's the free market, and people are free to do whatever they want with their own property" approach. And if they'd done that from the beginning, and stuck to it, we wouldn't have a significant portion of the mess we're in now, with creators angrily denouncing CGC and demanding that their signatures not be certified, despite the fact that most of them sign publicly, in plain view, on a regular basis. Again: who do these creators think they are, that they can place conditions on someone else's property? They act more entitled than actual movie stars, who could not care less what you do with your items after they've signed it, and none of whom, to my knowledge, charge a CGC punishment tax, and nearly all of whom charge significantly more for their signatures.

Instead, CGC adopted a "try to please everyone" quasi-advocate position, which is a nice gesture, and CGC believes it leaves the door open for future cooperative ventures, but it really has only served to muddy the waters, and has cost them business.

If a creator doesn't want their signature to be witnessed by someone, the answer is simple: don't sign. Otherwise...again...none of their business. It's none of their business what the owner of the property does with it, and it's none of their business who happens to be watching.

If it bothers the creators, there's nothing whatsoever stopping the creators from obtaining and signing copies of their work and submitting to CGC themselves...a practice CGC actively encourages.

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, HandsUp said:

Unless the creator did something illegal, I don't see how you can say the collector got ripped off. The collector entered the agreement being of sound mind and of his own free will, correct? The collector had the ability to say no thanks and walk away, correct?

You can still feel ripped off even if nothing illegal occurred.  For example, you could go eat a $300 dinner, but maybe that's not your cup of tea.  Maybe you didn't enjoy the meal as much as you thought it would.  You might argue that you could have gone to a local restaurant for $20 and enjoyed your food more.  In that sense, you might feel ripped off over your $300 meal.

And I think that's what this is.  You have 2 sets of people paying for effectively the same service (a signature), but they're being charged two different prices.  I think part of it is some confusion in how the creators handle it or word their rates.  They're writers and artists...not CPA's.  I would have fewer qualms if they just said "CGC signing rates are $50, but you get to apply the $20 credit that is baked into the price of the book already."  At that point, they're forthright about the charges.  For JSC to say you're paying a $30 CGC signing fee and then to literally do nothing but hand you the book, is where it falls apart logically for me.  I guess what i'm saying is, is that it could be framed better.

Beyond that, it becomes a matter of should creators have any right to know what you intend to do with your book as RockMyAmadeus has pointed out.  Frankly, I agree with RMA, the transaction between you and the creator ends at the signing.  What you choose to do with the book afterwards should be of no relevance to them.  The point he makes about celeb signings is an excellent one.  They charge one flat rate and don't care if they're signing a napkin, a comic, or a Blu-ray slip case.  They also don't care if you're selling it or authenticating it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HandsUp said:

Are there any creators who refuse to sign if you aren't getting the comic slabbed?

If there are, I haven't heard of it.  There are more people who want a signature than there are people interested in getting it slabbed.  They leave far more money on the table by catering solely to people looking for slabs, than they do general fans who care more about the signature and the experience of meeting said creator.  As such, I think it would be far more likely for a creator to refuse their signature be slabbed (a la Byrne) than the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, HandsUp said:

Unless the creator did something illegal, I don't see how you can say the collector got ripped off. The collector entered the agreement being of sound mind and of his own free will, correct? The collector had the ability to say no thanks and walk away, correct?

Sweet pedantry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

This SHOULD have been CGC's position from the beginning. "Sorry, sir/ma'am, we're just a grading service. We don't have anything to do with creators; we're a third party service that only grades and certifies comics. If there's an issue, you should probably take it up with your customers."

That would have been the proper response. The "that's the free market, and people are free to do whatever they want with their own property" approach. And if they'd done that from the beginning, and stuck to it, we wouldn't have a significant portion of the mess we're in now, with creators angrily denouncing CGC and demanding that their signatures not be certified, despite the fact that most of them sign publicly, in plain view, on a regular basis. Again: who do these creators think they are, that they can place conditions on someone else's property? They act more entitled than actual movie stars, who could not care less what you do with your items after they've signed it, and none of whom, to my knowledge, charge a CGC punishment tax, and nearly all of whom charge significantly more for their signatures.

Instead, CGC adopted a "try to please everyone" quasi-advocate position, which is a nice gesture, and CGC believes it leaves the door open for future cooperative ventures, but it really has only served to muddy the waters, and has cost them business.

If a creator doesn't want their signature to be witnessed by someone, the answer is simple: don't sign. Otherwise...again...none of their business. It's none of their business what the owner of the property does with it, and it's none of their business who happens to be watching.

If it bothers the creators, there's nothing whatsoever stopping the creators from obtaining and signing copies of their work and submitting to CGC themselves...a practice CGC actively encourages.

This was a good post, agree that that approach would have been better for sure. So much inertia now though, wonder if it can be fixed without a really hard landing...

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
1 1