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

[Logan510]

All one has to do is go to Byrne's own website and do a search, or better yet, ask him.

No "contacts" needed 

[Bird]

37 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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. 

Again no personal attacks were made. I also question if your statements about the creators being selfish and greedy are good faith attempts at dialogue. It is really a moot point though. Move on little doggie.

[Logan510]

19 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

When being wrong is anathema to someone, when it's pointed out to them it's always taken as a "personal attack". 

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, Logan510 said:

All one has to do is go to Byrne's own website and do a search, or better yet, ask him.

No "contacts" needed 

Yes, "asking him" was one of the methods by which I said I would attempt to obtain the proof you seek. The challenge was to obtain proof; how such proof is obtained ought not be relevant to you. It is the proof, not the process, that matters. 

Just for logic's sake, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." If Byrne's website does not contain his opinions on slabbing, that isn't proof of his opinion. Byrne's forum contains tens of thousands of posts, and is not searchable unless you are a registered member who has logged in. It is much easier to simply ask the man himself.

Edited May 9, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus

[Bird]

Just now, Logan510 said:

When being wrong is anathema to someone, when it's pointed out to them it's always taken as a "personal attack". 

Move on, Logan510, move on! 

It is funny too, in all my years of going to cons and meeting creators (which has always been my focus much more than buying books) I can only think of 3 who were not polite and genuinely nice to me - Peter David, BWS and JB. If I had to deal with BWS when I buy his art through his studio I probably wouldn't be a customer but his assistant and one-time inker Alex Bialy and now the woman whose name escapes me at the moment but who runs the sales are very customer friendly.

Also, I do not agree with RMA's characterization of the BWS' agreement as either greedy or selfish. There was a big discussion a few years ago on the comicart-l grouplist about it and I still feel then as I do now...I see nothing wrong with a creator wanting to capture a small percentage of the increasing market for their work. It is accepted in the fine art world (and I think it may be supported by law in some countries but it has been a long time since I researched it) and it is the artist who is mainly responsible for their work increasing in value, not the purchaser of said work. Neither greedy nor selfish, just smart business,

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

When being wrong is anathema to someone, when it's pointed out to them it's always taken as a "personal attack". 

Saying "being wrong is anathema to someone", when that "someone" is readily identifiable, is, itself, a personal attack.

Attempting to dismiss claims of personal attacks by making personal attacks is a particularly virulent form of gaslighting.

[Logan510]

Yes, it's very easy to ask John Byrne on his website and he has made his thoughts very well known on it.

None of those reasons include others making profit off of his work, let alone him saying they don't deserve to make money off of his work.

Again, if that were the case he'd be upset every time one of his X-Men pages sells for 5 figures at auction.

[Logan510]

5 minutes ago, Bird said:

Move on, Logan510, move on! 

 

I should know better...and you're right. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

11 minutes ago, Bird said:

Again no personal attacks were made. I also question if your statements about the creators being selfish and greedy are good faith attempts at dialogue. It is really a moot point though. Move on little doggie.

Repeating "no personal attacks were made" when you assume bad faith, accuse people of lying, and imply that they make a habit of being disingenuous doesn't make them not personal attacks.

Neither John Byrne nor BWS are members here. If they were, then they and I would be in a position to dialogue, and I would temper my statements accordingly. They are not.

You are offended because I called out creators you worship. Understandable. I admire their work, and said so. But being offended doesn't bestow the right to personally attack, by false accusations and the like, the "offender."

This is all pretty self-evident. So, move on already. 

[Bird]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

You are offended because I called out creators you worship.

You cannot be more wrong here. BWS is one of my favorite artists but I do not worship him by any stretch. And I am not much of a fan of Byrne's at all. Never have been. I see why others love him but I never read those X-Men and do not have any strong feelings either way. he is in the Neal Adams boat for me, guys whose work I respect but never got excited over.

You can move on any time you like but I will continue to point out your poor knowledge of the facts and misunderstood statements as long as you stand by them. You should edit your original post on the matter as well to reflect its' poor wording.

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Yes, it's very easy to ask John Byrne on his website and he has made his thoughts very well known on it.

Well, then, why not quote him on the subject here yourself, and settle the discussion?

4 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

None of those reasons include others making profit off of his work, let alone him saying they don't deserve to make money off of his work.

Again, if that were the case he'd be upset every time one of his X-Men pages sells for 5 figures at auction.

Your logic, unfortunately, doesn't follow. The topic is not about work that Byrne sold or gave away in the past, so it logically follows that Byrne wouldn't be upset about it when it is resold: he doesn't own it anymore. The topic is about Byrne's refusal to sign "for CGC" at present, despite the fact that he is perfectly willing to sign for "not CGC." 

As I said...when the opportunity presents itself, I will be more than happy to obtain the proof that you seek.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, Bird said:

You cannot be more wrong here. BWS is one of my favorite artists but I do not worship him by any stretch.

So you say. So what is your motive, then, for the personal attacks...? If it were fealty to the unvarnished truth, you would not have engaged in the personal commentary about me that you have. 

It's very easy to say "this is not true" or "that is not true, and here's why" without engaging in personal commentary about the other party, which I go to a fair amount of effort to do in all my posts. So why can't you...?

3 minutes ago, Bird said:

You can move on any time you like but I will continue to point out your poor knowledge of the facts and misunderstood statements as long as you stand by them. You should edit your original post on the matter as well to reflect its' poor wording.

Ans I will continue to point out your contradictory arguments and personal attacks as long as you stand by them, and all that will succeed in doing is getting this thread locked. You should edit out your original reply on the matter as well to reflect its contradiction.

[Logan510]

I don't need "proof" of something that isn't true, because I already know the answer.

The onus is not on the person who already knows the truth, it's on the person spreading misinformation to prove that they are not spreading falsehoods 

[Bird]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

So you say. So what is your motive, then, for the personal attacks...? If it were fealty to the unvarnished truth, you would not have engaged in the personal commentary about me that you have. 

It's very easy to say "this is not true" or "that is not true, and here's why" without engaging in personal commentary about the other party, which I go to a fair amount of effort to do in all my posts. So why can't you...?

Ans I will continue to point out your contradictory arguments and personal attacks as long as you stand by them, and all that will succeed in doing is getting this thread locked. You should edit out your original reply on the matter as well to reflect its contradiction.

My initial point was to show that you were not correct and that correcting that commonly held misconception about the re-selling of artwork purchased from BWS is important to the community. There is no personal attack, so no motive can exist. They do not exist except in your mind and your perceptions are not the source of my motives. Like you, I like to argue sometimes and I feel that correcting your distortion (which seems purposeful now and not accidental as I initially believed) is important. Move on.

[RockMyAmadeus]

18 minutes ago, Bird said:

Also, I do not agree with RMA's characterization of the BWS' agreement as either greedy or selfish. There was a big discussion a few years ago on the comicart-l grouplist about it and I still feel then as I do now...I see nothing wrong with a creator wanting to capture a small percentage of the increasing market for their work.

If a creator has sold an item...whatever that item may be...they no longer have claim to any part of the market for that item. They aren't entitled to ANY percentage, "small" or not. 

If they claim they do...they are being selfish and greedy, and those who support such claims are enabling selfishness and greed.

21 minutes ago, Bird said:

It is accepted in the fine art world (and I think it may be supported by law in some countries but it has been a long time since I researched it) and it is the artist who is mainly responsible for their work increasing in value, not the purchaser of said work. Neither greedy nor selfish, just smart business,

That may be true, but in the comic book world, the value of the items rests mainly on what it is (ie. an original copy of Conan #1, as opposed to a reprint) and its condition. Since we are in "ultimate precision" land, rather than casual dialogue land, I am referring to comic books, not the original art from whence it came.

The artist, in that case, is not "mainly responsible" for their work increasing in value, and claiming they have any ownership stake in copies of copies of copies of their work is greedy and selfish.

THAT said, once an artist sells his original art, it no longer belongs to him, and he no longer has no right or claim on any future sales.

[Bird]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If a creator has sold an item...whatever that item may be...they no longer have claim to any part of the market for that item. They aren't entitled to ANY percentage, "small" or not. 

If they claim they do...they are being selfish and greedy, and those who support such claims are enabling selfishness and greed.

That may be true, but in the comic book world, the value of the items rests mainly on what it is (ie. an original copy of Conan #1, as opposed to a reprint) and its condition. Since we are in "ultimate precision" land, rather than casual dialogue land, I am referring to comic books, not the original art from whence it came.

The artist, in that case, is not "mainly responsible" for their work increasing in value, and claiming they have any ownership stake in copies of copies of copies of their work is greedy and selfish.

THAT said, once an artist sells his original art, it no longer belongs to him, and he no longer has no right or claim on any future sales.

I agree with regards to comic books. But you brought up the BWS form, which is what I was addressing and it pertains only to original art.

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I don't need "proof" of something that isn't true, because I already know the answer.

The onus is not on the person who already knows the truth, it's on the person spreading misinformation to prove that they are not spreading falsehoods 

Again, unfortunately, your reasoning doesn't follow, because I didn't place any onus on you. I said you could easily settle the debate, if statements that contradict my claim existed. That does not mean that you are therefore obligated to provide them; it merely means you could settle the discussion if you did.

As I have said now multiple times, I recognize that the burden of proof rests on me, the claimant, and that, when the opportunity presents itself, I will be happy to obtain the proof you demand (and have the right to demand.)

[RockMyAmadeus]

23 minutes ago, Bird said:

25 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

THAT said, once an artist sells his original art, it no longer belongs to him, and he no longer has right or claim on any future sales.

I agree with regards to comic books. But you brought up the BWS form, which is what I was addressing and it pertains only to original art.

Note bolded above.

Edited May 9, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus

[Bird]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

THAT said, once an artist sells his original art, it no longer belongs to him, and he no longer has no right or claim on any future sales.

This is more debatable to me, I certainly believe that they can negotiate such rights if agreed upon by the buyer. But it is OT so not that important now. 

[Bird]

Lost in all this rigmarole is the BWS dislikes SS part. So again I ask, does he do conventions or appearances anymore? I saw him years and years ago and have encouraged his Studio to do the art cons but I never see anything come to pass. Does he have a thing against SS specifically? He signed stuff for me in the past, but only one book at a time and that was at the Legends NYC show, which may have been before cgc even existed. I think he signed 2 at the White Plains show (the greatest con evah!) but I might be wrong. So I can see him having that attitude of not signing a stack but have not heard about his dislike of SS specifically.