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

[F For Fake]

For reasons pointed out previously, such as restoration check and a generally agreed upon third party grading system (or at least fairly close to it...as always, buy the book, not the number) I think CGC is a great service for Gold, Silver, even high value bronze/copper/moderns.

It's when folks started grading common moderns, and the price discrepancies between nosebleed grades grew so large, that things got a little goofy. At least to me. Books that are practically worthless in 9.4's, but sell strongly in 9.8. Seems crazy, and has no appeal to me.

However, there is an unforeseen benefit to me, the cheapskate: I'll happily buy beautiful raw 9.6's that "weren't good enough" to be slabbed at 9.8's, for a massive markdown, all day long. I know the 10 point scale is the industry standard these days, but I'll always be a GD/VG/F/NM guy at heart. raw 9.4's are generally ok with me for the personal collection. So, for many years, it was fun to snap up high grade raws at a fraction of the "full market value".  Good times.

Of course, things change. It seems increasingly common for sellers to ask GPA slabbed prices for "9.8" raws. I'm not falling for it, but I guess enough people are to make it a fairly common practice.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, Bird said:

5 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. 

Ok, maybe now we're making progress. I agree with you that they CAN negotiate such terms, and SHOULD be able to negotiate such terms, provided it within the bounds of law (ie, sale can't be contingent on the commission of an illegal act)...BUT...that doesn't mean the creator has the moral RIGHT to such terms, or that the creator is not being greedy and selfish to dictate such terms.

After all, where would it end? Picasso has living descendants. Do they have a legal claim to a "small percentage" of the money his works sell for today and in the future, in perpetuity, despite him being dead for 56 years? Does Picasso's estate retain eternal rights to the tangible pieces that he sold? Obviously, that's not possible. Once you sell something tangible, you give up title to it. It's not yours anymore. The courts are clogged with unclear title cases as it is. Even intellectual property doesn't maintain copyright protection in perpetuity.

If someone sells a tangible good (as distinct from intellectual property) it's gone, it's no longer theirs. If I write a book, and retain copyright, but sell the physical pieces of paper I wrote it on (however quaint such an idea may be), I no longer have any claim on those pieces of paper, whether I still hold the copyright to the work or not.

Holding a buyer responsible for what they might potentially make on an item down the road is the very definition of selfish and greedy: it is a refusal to relinquish title on tangible goods. And, after all...if the buyer sells at a loss, does BWS send the same "small percentage" of money to THEM?

Doubt it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

10 minutes ago, Bird said:

Does he have a thing against SS specifically?

Yes. Specifically, directly, and vehemently. No question. 

[sfcityduck]

15 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I agree with you that they CAN negotiate such terms, and SHOULD be able to negotiate such terms, provided it within the bounds of law.  .BUT...that doesn't mean the creator has the moral RIGHT to such terms, or that the creator is not being greedy and selfish to dictate such terms.

 

All business transactions are, by definition, greedy and selfish.  Sellers generally want the highest price they can get, and buyers generally want the lowest price they can get.  Both act out of self-interest. 

Assuming that the buyer and seller are both bargaining in good faith, then there is no "moral right" involved at all, unless you think that a seller has a moral right to dispose of property, assuming legality, as they see fit (which you appear to be more than a bit schizophrenic about) and that a buyer has a moral right to purchase property, assuming legality, on terms they see fit - provided that they can negotiate those terms with a counter-party.

Edited May 9, 2019 by sfcityduck

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

All business transactions are, by definition, greedy and selfish. 

No. "Self-interest" is not the same thing as "greedy and selfish", though I certainly understand why certain world views would lead to that conclusion.

[Bird]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Holding a buyer responsible for what they might potentially make on an item down the road is the very definition of selfish and greedy: it is a refusal to relinquish title on tangible goods. And, after all...if the buyer sells at a loss, does BWS send the same "small percentage" of money to THEM?

I quoted only this part but may speak to the other as this always comes up. OF COURSE NOT AND IT IS SILLY TO THINK IT SO. Paying too much is the buyer's risk and the artist should not be held to pay for the buyer's optimistic enthusiasm. The reason people overpay is almost always emotional. The artist would know what the prior realized prices were and would only get his cut when the value again passes that level. But artist's work increases in value mostly due to that artist's effort and stature...very early works that are less attractive go up because of association with later works that are more acclaimed. Same as later works benefit from association with earlier heights. No one is buying Mr. A art for it's content but for it's association with Ditko.

The contract to pay artists for increasing value of their work is part of an effort to rectify the longstanding manipulation of artists and their prices seen in the fine art world. It seems only fair to me, not enabling greed. (Stop getting personal now. ) If you value an artist and their work you shouldn't have any problem compensating them a few percentage points when you make money off of the sale of their work. it is only a percentage. I am not addressing the reductio ad infinitum arguments but of course there are limits, limits negotiated between buyer and seller. And if you bought not because of appreciation but as investment then you should pay that tax. Again, negotiated at the point of purchase. Creative arts should be applauded and encouraged in our world, not reduced to mercenary terms only. Go ahead and make a buck on the work, but remember where it came from and that to me includes giving a little back.

And yes, I practice a little of what I preach by giving Dave Sim money every month. Not much but something every month as I know he needs it and I loved his work for years and years. I would also sign that form if asked to by BWS. I have some art from Storyteller and what I get from owning it is hard to quantify but certainly worth some money should I sell it. Oh, and my Seth Fisher art...I promised his mother she can buy it back (at purchase price I think even) if I ever decide to sell. It is not stupid to give them that, just gratitude for their creadive endeavors.

 

[sfcityduck]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No. "Self-interest" is not the same thing as "greedy and selfish", though I certainly understand why certain world views would lead to that conclusion.

In an arms length negotiation regarding the price of a collectable, which really have no intrinsic value which can justify the prices paid, the seller is motivated by "greed" to get the highest price possible and the buyer is motivated by a "selfish" desire to pay as little as possible.  Neither party is acting altruistically.

The term "greed, which literally is defined to mean 'intense and selfish desire for something," has obviously application to comic collectors and dealers.

As does the literal definition of "selfish" being "concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure."

Not a moral judgement, but I can see how you might be confused by that.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

Greed does not mean "I want all of this and more!" despite what people have claimed.

Greed is "that person doesn't deserve what they have, so I'm going to do what I can to take it from them!"

It is the motivation for robbers of every stripe, up and down the social spectrum.

If a robber breaks into my house to steal my goods, it is because he or she believes that I don't deserve them...whether they know me or not is immaterial...and they deserve them more than me.

That is the real expression, and correct understanding, of greed.

How do I know...? Because thieves never steal from those they think deserve what they do (or do not) have, which, in practical terms, is usually nothing more than what the thief thinks they, themselves, deserve, or they would not steal it, with perhaps very, very rare exceptions.

Again, this applies to those who steal, regardless of their position in society.

 

[sfcityduck]

Forgive me, but I'll stick with standard English language definitions over your unique and fanciful understandings of word meanings.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, sfcityduck said:

8 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No. "Self-interest" is not the same thing as "greedy and selfish", though I certainly understand why certain world views would lead to that conclusion.

In an arms length negotiation regarding the price of a collectable, which really have no intrinsic value which can justify the prices paid, the seller is motivated by "greed" to get the highest price possible and the buyer is motivated by a "selfish" desire to pay as little as possible.  Neither party is acting altruistically.

The term "greed, which literally is defined to mean 'intense and selfish desire for something," has obviously application to comic collectors and dealers.

As does the literal definition of "selfish" being "concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure."

Not a moral judgement, but I can see how you might be confused by that.  

No confusion on my part. Easy examples demonstrate why this position is inaccurate.

If I want to pay as little as possible for the item I buy, because I need to feed my children, am I being motivated by "greed" or "selfishness"..? No; I'm looking out and protecting my children. What if I volunteered at a charity, and had to procure items for their charitable activities? Or, what if I had to sell items to fund those charitable activities? Am I motivated by "greed" or "selfishness" because I want to obtain the best possible price, either way?

No, of course not.

"Self-interest" is not synonymous with "selfishness." Self-interest means "looking out for my own interests." Selfishness means "looking out for my own interests at the expense of the interests of others."

That's the difference, and it is foundational.

Even your given definition "selfish desire" explains what it is: for me. Isn't the desire to retain some right to something tangible which you sold an expression of pure selfishness...?

Yes. Yes it is. You sold it. It's not yours anymore. It no longer belongs to you. You have no right to future money from it.

[newshane]

On 5/8/2019 at 3:06 PM, ExNihilo said:

 

 

I honestly feel that this total HACK of an artist should pay me $100 for reading this tweet. 

His guest run a few years ago in Spawn was the worst comic art I've seen...right up there with Liefeld. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Forgive me, but I'll stick with standard English language definitions over your unique and fanciful understandings of word meanings.

Where do you imagine "standard English language definitions" came from...?

As I point out above, the definition you gave is the same as mine.

[newshane]

This guy should be on his knees thanking comic fans for actually buying his garbage over the years. 

I can't believe that he would entertain the thought of having to charge anyone extra to "discourage" the process. 

Larsen freakin SUCKS. 

[sfcityduck]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

No confusion on my part. Easy examples demonstrate why this position is inaccurate.

If I want to pay as little as possible for the item I buy, because I need to feed my children, am I being motivated by "greed" or "selfishness"..? No; I'm looking out and protecting my children. What if I volunteered at a charity, and had to procure items for their charitable activities? Or, what if I had to sell items to fund those charitable activities? Am I motivated by "greed" or "selfishness" because I want to obtain the best possible price, either way?

No, of course not.

"Self-interest" is not synonymous with "selfishness." Self-interest means "looking out for my own interests." Selfishness means "looking out for my own interests at the expense of the interests of others."

That's the difference, and it is foundational.

Even your given definition "selfish desire" explains what it is: for me. Isn't the desire to retain some right to something tangible which you sold an expression of pure selfishness...?

Yes. Yes it is. You sold it. It's not yours anymore. It no longer belongs to you. You have no right to future money from it.

You are attempting to rebut the standard English language definitions of words.  I quoted you actual definitions.  In response, you give me your emotional reactions devoid of any supporting evidence.  That's an absurd and illogical position to take.

And your final sentence is tautological.  You argue: "Yes. Yes it is. You sold it. It's not yours anymore. It no longer belongs to you. You have no right to future money from it."  Except, I do have a right to future money from it, IF that is what the parties agreed.  There is nothing "morally" wrong with an artist bargaining for that deal.  

 

[sfcityduck]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Where do you imagine "standard English language definitions" came from...?

 

Not a single person's incorrect understanding.

[RockMyAmadeus]

20 minutes ago, Bird said:

The contract to pay artists for increasing value of their work is part of an effort to rectify the longstanding manipulation of artists and their prices seen in the fine art world.

It's actually an expression of selfishness and greed on the part of artists. It's part of the "it's not fair!" mentality which has swept Western civilization like the plague. 

After all...what does "longstanding manipulation of artists and their prices" mean? Were these artists duped? Deceived? Tricked into giving away what was rightfully there's, through no fault of their own? If so, then they have legal recourse, properly, through the justice system. But if it's simply a case of "that's not FAIR!"...as it is in most cases...then they have no cause. If they went into a transaction, and engaged in, as contract law states, a "meeting of the minds"...then they have no right to complain, seek recompense, or otherwise try to invalidate transactions they willingly participated in.

I'm not excusing actual cases of actual fraud. I'm talking solely of those who don't like how things turned out, despite willingly engaging in those things.

[sfcityduck]

9 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Even your given definition "selfish desire" explains what it is: for me. Isn't the desire to retain some right to something tangible which you sold an expression of pure selfishness...?

 

As I said above, "All business transactions are, by definition, greedy and selfish.  Sellers generally want the highest price they can get, and buyers generally want the lowest price they can get.  Both act out of self-interest."

Are you now agreeing with me?  My point is not that an artist who wants to negotiate a deal whereby they retain the right to a percentage of a re-sale is acting altruistically, they are not.  They are acting selfishly.  My point is that is the norm in our capitalist comic collectable economy, and there's nothing "morally" wrong with that.

You seem to have a much more radical view of comic collecting economics than me (at least based on your attempt to analogise a two party negotiation over the purchase of a collectable of no intrinsic worth to a mother buying food for her starving kids - inapplicable analogy to say the least).

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

And your final sentence is tautological.  You argue: "Yes. Yes it is. You sold it. It's not yours anymore. It no longer belongs to you. You have no right to future money from it."  Except, I do have a right to future money from it, IF that is what the parties agreed.  

Here is what I said earlier, which refutes this claim:

46 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I agree with you that they CAN negotiate such terms, and SHOULD be able to negotiate such terms, provided it within the bounds of law (ie, sale can't be contingent on the commission of an illegal act)...

That should clear up the confusion on your part. I already argued that a creator both can and should be able to negotiate such terms, so arguing as if I didn't say that is inaccurate.

Please refer to my PM. Thank you.

[Logan510]

10 minutes ago, newshane said:

This guy should be on his knees thanking comic fans for actually buying his garbage over the years. 

I can't believe that he would entertain the thought of having to charge anyone extra to "discourage" the process. 

Larsen freakin SUCKS. 

I can't argue with anything you say.

Somehow he was able to have an incredibly successful career on little artistic talent.

I understand taste in art is subjective, but I'll never understand how his work has fans.

[Bird]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

"longstanding manipulation of artists and their prices" mean?

Yes, in the 1950s 1960s many were indeed duped and defrauded by gallery owners and middlemen who misrepresented their allegiances and the market. it is fairly easy to find the examples in the modern art segments of the fine art world.

As I think you stated somewhere above, greed and self-interest are not the same thing. Rightful compensation is how I would put it. It continues in the fine art market today, with flippers buying everything they can in emerging artists in the hopes that one of the artists' markets explodes. And that exploding market is due to the continued excellent work of the artist, not just due to the painting they made a few years ago. Fair is fair,  and negotiating a continued premium for the work is fair. Again, we should be rewarding the artists for the things that they produce that make life better. Art is not essential, but it is certainly enhancing.