To slab or not to slab: An actual discussion on the (de)merits of grading 0

[Logan510]

I don't know much about the BWS situation, so I cannot speak to that.

I'm wondering how JB is being "selfish and greedy" because he refuses to sign for SS? He doesn't charge for signatures, is he being "selfish and greedy" because he only allows 10 signatures per day, per family unit?

It's his choice, I think it's worth respecting that choice.

[RockMyAmadeus]

8 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I don't know much about the BWS situation, so I cannot speak to that.

I'm wondering how JB is being "selfish and greedy" because he refuses to sign for SS? He doesn't charge for signatures, is he being "selfish and greedy" because he only allows 10 signatures per day, per family unit?

It's his choice, I think it's worth respecting that choice.

One can respect a creator's choice, and still recognize it as selfish and greedy.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The "10 signatures per day, per family unit" is not relevant to this discussion, and has not been his policy at recent signings (such as his signing at the IDW booth in 2018 NYCC.)

Byrne has stated...many times, and in many places...that he resents people trying to "make money" off of him that he doesn't think they deserve. That's greed. "You don't deserve that!" But how is it up to Byrne to determine what others do, and do not, deserve? If he's willing to sign at all...and he is...then where that signature ends up isn't any of his concern, and withholding his signature in such a circumstance...just on the mere idea that someone might be "profiting" off his signature...is selfish and greedy.

 

[Bird]

31 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

BWS even goes so far as to write terms of resale into anything he sells to you...meaning, if you turn around and sell something he sold to you, you have to go back and pay him a specified amount of that future transaction

This is not true. I have purchased from him directly on numerous occasions and he has never presented the form to me nor are there any terms regarding me reselling the art. I expected it on an item that he holds the rights to but it did not happen. He has those terms on his website (or did at one time at least) but like I said, I buy from him just about yearly and it has not come up.

@RockMyAmadeus have you purchased art with this requirement or are you just parroting what you have heard?

Edited May 9, 2019 by Bird

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, Bird said:

30 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

BWS even goes so far as to write terms of resale into anything he sells to you...meaning, if you turn around and sell something he sold to you, you have to go back and pay him a specified amount of that future transaction

This is not true. I have purchased from him directly on numerous occasions and he has never presented the form to me nor are there any terms regarding me reselling the art. I expected it on an item that he holds the rights to but it did not happen. He has those terms on his website (or did at one time at least) but like I said, I buy from him just about yearly and it has not come up.

Such a condition has been imposed on others, so if it's not true for you, that's great. The fact that you expected it and that the terms are/were on his website means that it is his policy, or was his policy at one time.

If BWS has softened his stance in recent years, that's wonderful, and I applaud such decisions.

[Bird]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

Such a condition has been imposed on others, so if it's not true for you, that's great. The fact that you expected it and that the terms are/were on his website means that it is his policy, or was his policy at one time.

If BWS has softened his stance in recent years, that's wonderful, and I applaud such decisions.

I do not know of anyone who actually was asked to sign the form. Do you?

[Bird]

As someone against the spreading of disinformation I thought you would want to know that it is incorrect.

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, Bird said:

I do not know of anyone who actually was asked to sign the form. Do you?

I'm not talking about "signing the form." I'm talking about a policy, a policy to which I, personally, have been subject, and which you acknowledge existed, at least in theory if not in practice (at least in your case.) Not relevant to the broader discussion.

Edited May 9, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, Bird said:

As someone against the spreading of disinformation I thought you would want to know that it is incorrect.

It's not disinformation if it's true. That's how it works.

[Bird]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

It's not disinformation if it's true. That's how it works.

Your statement was not true; it was stated as universal and in present tense. You're being disingenuous again. In theory if not in practice. 

Not related: does BWS attend shows at all anymore? I have not seen him listed for anything in a number of years. I do not do much SS at all so I wasn't aware of him being against it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

13 minutes ago, Bird said:

Your statement was not true; it was stated as universal and in present tense. You're being disingenuous again. In theory if not in practice. 

Your statement was not true; you contradicted yourself in the same breath by stating that he didn't have such a policy and then immediately acknowledging "(h)e has those terms on his website" and that you "expected it." Which is it? He has the policy, or he doesn't? Let me make it plain to you: not holding people to a stated policy doesn't mean the policy doesn't actually exist. Obviously. They are two separate concepts.

Ignoring the distinction between stated policy and policy in practice is you being disingenuous. Again. So is being unwilling to recognize concession: "If BWS has softened his stance in recent years, that's wonderful, and I applaud such decisions.", instead choosing to make the issue a personal one.

"  "

Aside from that, BWS' website stands in direct violation of Paypal policy as is.

All of which is completely and utterly irrelevant to this conversation. Move on.

[Bird]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Aside from that, BWS' website stands in direct violation of Paypal policy as is.

Talk about being irrelevant to the conversation...here you go!

The website stated that this was for about properties he owned, not work for hire. Which you also neglected to state in your lie about his behavior. As far as my beliefs being proof of his policies, you know how logic works better than that. I do recall it being on his website, which is woefully outdated, and that when we have done business together that it has not been a factor. That is his real active policy. 

8 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Ignoring the distinction between stated policy and policy in practice is you being disingenuous.

No, I am the one who brought that distinction up. Not disingenuous at all, it is important to recognize both facts to have the discussion. Just trying to be accurate as I have no agenda but it seems that I am the only one that that can be said for.

[Bird]

12 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

All of which is completely and utterly irrelevant to this conversation.

And yet you tried to use it as support for your greedy and selfish contention. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, Bird said:

Talk about being irrelevant to the conversation...here you go!

The website stated that this was for about properties he owned, not work for hire. Which you also neglected to state in your lie about his behavior. As far as my beliefs being proof of his policies, you know how logic works better than that. I do recall it being on his website, which is woefully outdated, and that when we have done business together that it has not been a factor. That is his real active policy. 

No, I am the one who brought that distinction up. Not disingenuous at all, it is important to recognize both facts to have the discussion. Just trying to be accurate as I have no agenda but it seems that I am the only one that that can be said for.

Once more: just because someone is not held to a policy does not therefore mean that that policy doesn't...or didn't...exist. Therefore, stating that such a policy exists...or existed...is not a "lie", as you falsely accuse here. As I already conceded: "If BWS has softened his stance in recent years, that's wonderful, and I applaud such decisions."

You take good faith attempts to dialogue and use them as vehicles to make personal attacks. That does no one any good. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, Bird said:

16 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

All of which is completely and utterly irrelevant to this conversation.

And yet you tried to use it as support for your greedy and selfish contention. 

A policy which you freely acknowledge exists or existed that demonstrates greed and selfishness does not support a greedy and selfish contention?

Your ideas are intriguing. Perhaps someone might be interested in subscribing to your newsletter. "  "

[Logan510]

The information here about John Byrne is false, amazingly false.

I would love to see proof of him saying he doesn't want anyone making any money off of him, let alone how they don't deserve it.

Byrne has stated many times on his own site why he does not like the idea of slabbing and none of them have anything to do with people making money off of him.

If that were the case he'd be crying every time one of his x-men pages sells at auction for 5 figures, he doesn't.

 

Edit: At the NYCC he would only sign 3 items and I believe the policy was the same at the con in Canada. At the most recent one in Dallas he was back to 10 items.

The number of items isn't important, just more smoke and mirrors.

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by Logan510

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

The information here about John Byrne is false, amazingly false.

I would love to see proof of him saying he doesn't want anyone making any money off of him, let alone how they don't deserve it.

 

The second follows the first. If you don't want someone "making money" off of your signature, it is because you don't believe they deserve it. 

I'll be happy to acquire said proof of his stance on slabbing. I'll ask him or my contacts who have access to him, to get a statement from him, when it is possible.

[Bird]

19 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

You take good faith attempts to dialogue and use them as vehicles to make personal attacks. That does no one any good. 

 I’ve made no personal attacks I  found fault with your reasoning and your facts. I don’t even know you. It’s not about you it’s about the accuracy of something that you put out there as fact that I know to be untrue

[SECollector]

I don't care about signed books, so for my part Erik Larsen can find whatever excuse he wants to charge $100 for a signature.

BUT...

If CGC or any other reputable company offering comparable services didn't exist, a lot of collectors including me (living out of the US) would probably never be able to build a collection of higher end books, mainly due to two issues (in order of significance in my opinion):

• The lack of restoration detection
• The lack of a widely - globally accepted grading. Still subjective, yes, but widely accepted among collectors.

I don't feel the urge to read my more valuable books. I have already read them in reprints. But if I did, nobody would stop me from cracking them out of the slab.

I really wonder if those who don't get the whole CGC thing, would be willing to pay $40K for a raw AF15 that may or may not be restored, and MAYBE a 4.0 (but who knows, it could also be a 3.0 because "I am not a professional grader, please see the pictures and judge by yourself").

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, Bird said:

 I’ve made no personal attacks I  found fault with your reasoning and your facts. I don’t even know you. It’s not about you it’s about the accuracy of something that you put out there as fact that I know to be untrue

Again: good faith attempts to dialogue are met with personal attacks, in the form of false accusations and personal comments like "(y)ou're being disingenuous again" implying a pattern of disingenuous commentary. These are personal attacks, whether you recognize them as such or not. I took your comments at face value and in good faith; you accused me of lying.

You can suggest something is inaccurate, without stating that someone is deliberately misrepresenting or lying about it in the process. Let's move on.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, SECollector said:

I don't care about signed books, so for my part Erik Larsen can find whatever excuse he wants to charge $100 for a signature.

BUT...

If CGC or any other reputable company offering comparable services didn't exist, a lot of collectors including me (living out of the US) would probably never be able to build a collection of higher end books, mainly due to two issues (in order of significance in my opinion):

• The lack of restoration detection
• The lack of a widely - globally accepted grading. Still subjective, yes, but widely accepted among collectors.

I don't feel the urge to read my more valuable books. I have already read them in reprints. But if I did, nobody would stop me from cracking them out of the slab.

I really wonder if those who don't get the whole CGC thing, would be willing to pay $40K for a raw AF15 that may or may not be restored, and MAYBE a 4.0 (but who knows, it could also be a 3.0 because "I am not a professional grader, please see the pictures and judge by yourself").

That's a great post.

(Well, aside from the $100/sig part. )