CGC needs to break out signatures in all grades
1 1

22 posts in this topic

2 posts

I am tired of not knowing how many books in grades are either signed or not.  For example...if I want to buy an X-Men 94 in CGC 9.4 grade but want it signed by Claremont...I have NO IDEA how many are out there...but of course...CGC DOES.  Why doesn't CGC give us this info since it clearly collects this information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100 posts
11 minutes ago, Donutsdad said:

I am tired of not knowing how many books in grades are either signed or not.  For example...if I want to buy an X-Men 94 in CGC 9.4 grade but want it signed by Claremont...I have NO IDEA how many are out there...but of course...CGC DOES.  Why doesn't CGC give us this info since it clearly collects this information?

That information is available on our census: https://www.cgccomics.com/census/grades_standard.asp?title=X-Men&issue=94&publisher=Marvel+Comics&year=1975&issuedate=8%2F75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
889 posts
32 minutes ago, CheekyMonkey said:

You should try actually reading their website before posting. And now that we all know what a tool you are, you should abandon your ID and start over. It will be less embarrassing for you.

Yes, do what Cheeky does and abandon your ID weekly.  At least you got your answer Donuts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,112 posts
12 minutes ago, Karl Liebl said:

Yes, do what Cheeky does and abandon your ID weekly.  At least you got your answer Donuts...

I wish that cgc broke it down by "who" signed what etc. ie ASM #50 Romita Sr. 50 copies signed.....

but alas, what we have should suffice, I guess lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,311 posts
15 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

I wish that cgc broke it down by "who" signed what etc. ie ASM #50 Romita Sr. 50 copies signed.....

but alas, what we have should suffice, I guess lol 

I think that may have been what the OP was asking for...

a more specific breakdown in the census. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,112 posts
Just now, newshane said:
16 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

I wish that cgc broke it down by "who" signed what etc. ie ASM #50 Romita Sr. 50 copies signed.....

but alas, what we have should suffice, I guess lol 

I think that may have been what the OP was asking for...

a more specific breakdown in the census. 

I figured... I wonder if CGC does know that tally.... ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 posts

Brittany M. I went to that link...and it does not give a break out of each (example ...fantastic four #1 signed by Stan Lee in EACH grade...I can get more info from GPA for CGC books...as for "Cheeky Monkey"...is it really necessary for you to be both wrong and incorrect and still yet call me a "tool" for no reason?......why did you even bother to reply to my posting ...just so you can call someone out?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,107 posts

I asked CGC if it were possible to show how many and what SS books were signed by Frazetta.

Answer: "No, sorry."

They either have very poor documentation on SS books or (more likely) are not willing to commit resources to provide such a breakdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,705 posts
6 hours ago, icefires said:
On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 9:25 AM, Brittany M. said:

Thank you Brittany. How many of those SS 9.4's were signed by Claremont?

While I'm pretty sure they have the answer, I'm pretty sure they won't answer that question.

I've always thought the reason they don't release that information, is because they don't want you to think "Hey, there's already 800 of this signature, maybe I won't get this one CGC SS'd, i'll just try to buy one on the secondary market", thus depriving CGC of your submission, and more importantly your money.  Keeping it 'unknown', at least allows buyers to 'feel' like they might have something more unique.  And maybe it wouldn't be a huge difference to most people, but there's also no downside to keeping the numbers a secret either, only upside, even if it is limited.  Of course there's also no reason for them to admit this rationale, but I think it tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,107 posts
1 minute ago, revat said:

While I'm pretty sure they have the answer, I'm pretty sure they won't answer that question.

I've always thought the reason they don't release that information, is because they don't want you to think "Hey, there's already 800 of this signature, maybe I won't get this one CGC SS'd, i'll just try to buy one on the secondary market", thus depriving CGC of your submission, and more importantly your money.  Keeping it 'unknown', at least allows buyers to 'feel' like they might have something more unique.  And maybe it wouldn't be a huge difference to most people, but there's also no downside to keeping the numbers a secret either, only upside, even if it is limited.  Of course there's also no reason for them to admit this rationale, but I think it tracks.

Greed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,705 posts
1 minute ago, icefires said:
2 minutes ago, revat said:

While I'm pretty sure they have the answer, I'm pretty sure they won't answer that question.

I've always thought the reason they don't release that information, is because they don't want you to think "Hey, there's already 800 of this signature, maybe I won't get this one CGC SS'd, i'll just try to buy one on the secondary market", thus depriving CGC of your submission, and more importantly your money.  Keeping it 'unknown', at least allows buyers to 'feel' like they might have something more unique.  And maybe it wouldn't be a huge difference to most people, but there's also no downside to keeping the numbers a secret either, only upside, even if it is limited.  Of course there's also no reason for them to admit this rationale, but I think it tracks.

Greed.

I'm not saying its not greed, but at some point most profit-seeking endeavors involve people making moves to get more money or increase revenues, or cut costs.  I don't think anyone is really harmed in any real way by not having signature information available, but CGC could be harmed if their revenue goes down after releasing the info, which I think is reasonable to expect (even if its not a big decrease).  I don't see any reason why they'd give up something for nothing.

I'm also not saying capitalism should run rampant to the point where money is the only thing matters, just that it seems like a fairly reasonable and normal business decision.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 posts

I have a feeling the real reason is that that information would be a terror for a database admin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42,140 posts
54 minutes ago, thesink said:

I have a feeling the real reason is that that information would be a terror for a database admin.

For the whole time that I was active, the SS were hand entered on each book - which makes sense. You can have a WD #1 signed by Kirkman and Moore, either of them individually, by any number of TV actors etc. So while they can, by serial number, call up the data on any given book, there is no comprehensive way to gather the information and sort it into what would (presumably) be an entire new database.  We used to joke that we (the SS nuts) would all do 12 hour shifts until they were all entered and then try to convince CGC to keep the database going from there.  Trust me when I tell you that as long as I have been involved in the program, this issue has been hotly discussed.

As to the OP, it would be fantastic if the data were available, it would provide a lot of stability to a pretty illiquid market and it would give buyers and sellers a basic knowledge of the facts of supply of a particular signed book.  CGC is not doing it out of spite, or because they don't care - it has always been a business decision for them.  How does it increase their bottom line if they allocate resources to this issue?  It doesn't. And that has pretty much always been the end of the story.  

Edited by seanfingh
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,112 posts
2 minutes ago, seanfingh said:

 

As to the OP, it would be fantastic if the data were available, it would provide a lot of stability to a pretty illiquid market and it would give buyers and sellers a basic knowledge of the facts of supply of a particular signed book.  CGC is not doing it out of spite, or because they don't care - it has always been a business decision for them.  How does it increase their bottom line of they allocate resources to this issue.  It doesn't. And that has pretty much always been the end of the story.  

Based on this, I think that they will eventually, as more creators are gone, I think it would behoove lol (odd verbage) to be first to market and offer those results. If they wait too long it might be a last gasp to salvage a market, or just an ace in the hole. I wish that there was a way to feel comfortable doing it in the current market, but as you said there is no immediate "benefit."

Glad to here you answer my question that they do in fact keep track....

And what about people who crack out slabs? Might be more a liability than benefit, anyway....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,107 posts
6 hours ago, revat said:

I'm not saying its not greed, but at some point most profit-seeking endeavors involve people making moves to get more money or increase revenues, or cut costs.  I don't think anyone is really harmed in any real way by not having signature information available, but CGC could be harmed if their revenue goes down after releasing the info, which I think is reasonable to expect (even if its not a big decrease).  I don't see any reason why they'd give up something for nothing.

I'm also not saying capitalism should run rampant to the point where money is the only thing matters, just that it seems like a fairly reasonable and normal business decision.

 

CGC is pretty much a monopoly. Unfortunately, CBCS is not the best competition. Monopolies can avoid improving their services, up to a point. Sometimes things go crazy when you go a little too far. Ask Zuckerberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,107 posts
2 hours ago, seanfingh said:

For the whole time that I was active, the SS were hand entered on each book - which makes sense. You can have a WD #1 signed by Kirkman and Moore, either of them individually, by any number of TV actors etc. So while they can, by serial number, call up the data on any given book, there is no comprehensive way to gather the information and sort it into what would (presumably) be an entire new database.  We used to joke that we (the SS nuts) would all do 12 hour shifts until they were all entered and then try to convince CGC to keep the database going from there.  Trust me when I tell you that as long as I have been involved in the program, this issue has been hotly discussed.

As to the OP, it would be fantastic if the data were available, it would provide a lot of stability to a pretty illiquid market and it would give buyers and sellers a basic knowledge of the facts of supply of a particular signed book.  CGC is not doing it out of spite, or because they don't care - it has always been a business decision for them.  How does it increase their bottom line if they allocate resources to this issue?  It doesn't. And that has pretty much always been the end of the story.  

Increasing the bottom line is one thing, increasing customer satisfaction is another. Customer satisfaction can certainly have positive effects on the bottom line in the long run. My son is a programmer. He tells me things can be pulled from data sources that are not ideal. I have had the same experience in my long term career that included a lot of customization requests from programmers. Good programmers can do amazing things with less effort than one would expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,107 posts

In other words, if the data is recorded somewhere, anywhere, great programmers can figure out a way to extract the data and provide whatever you are seeking in a format that allows one to slice and dice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,744 posts

CGC doesn't break out the data for Pedigrees, nor Page Quality, nor Newstand (for the most part). Why should Signatures be any different ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,311 posts
8 hours ago, icefires said:

Greed.

No. It's called "business"

Share this post


Link to post
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