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

[ExNihilo]

11 minutes ago, newshane 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. 

This is the thing that surprised me the most.  I remember enjoying his artwork on his short run on Spider-Man, but can't say i've enjoyed his work beyond that.  His fame as a creator seems more to do with luck and timing.  That he left to co-create Image at a time when other big names of the era were as well had less to do with artistic talent, and more to do with being in "a boys club" of creators who all left Marvel around the same time.  I mean, that should have no impact on who he might be as a collector (to which I don't know if he's a serious collector or not), but it does diminish the opinion I have of his words somewhat.

To a greater extent was the large number of respondents to his tweet who also seemed to fail to understand the benefits of CGC slabbing.  I'm sorry, but I have no intention of opening my copy of Fantastic Four #48.  On the contrary, I want to protect it as best I can, and a slab will do a better job than mylite2's and a top-loader.  If I want to read it, there are a multitude of reprints available.  I just marvel at the confidence of some of the people that responded treating slabbing as some sort of farce.

[newshane]

Larsen had a falling out with McFarlane over the Spawn run. 

As an inker, McFarlane would try to "fix" Larsen's pencils...and they argued about composition and things of that nature. 

Larsen got huffy and butthurt and left. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

32 minutes ago, Bird said:

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.

99.9% is only a percentage. Right? "They're not asking for 99.9%!!" you may respond. Then I would encourage you to be strictly precise, as you took issue with earlier in the conversation.

So, the question becomes "according to whom?", followed by "and at what percentage?" These are your moral guidelines you are suggesting, and I completely disagree with them. Am I wrong? Are you right? No and no.

I support creators I like by buying and preserving their work. I support them by willingly giving them my money to sign my property. I support creators by sharing my enthusiasm for their work with like-minded (and not-so-like-minded) people. See my discussion of the last page of Amazing Spiderman #122 in the Bronze section.

To be logically AND ethically consistent, according to your "you should" dictate above, what if I sell a piece of art at a loss...? Does it work both ways? To be consistent, it should.

38 minutes ago, Bird said:

And if you bought not because of appreciation but as investment then you should pay that tax.

According to whom...? What arguments gives anyone the legal, ethical, or moral right...apart from that I willingly assign, through negotiation, as acknowledged above...to any part of the risk which I assumed in spending my money as I saw fit...?

It's reward with no risk. What if said "investment" doesn't pan out? Is the creator responsible for paying a "small percentage" of my loss...?

Of course not. Neither is he or she entitled to any profit from any gain. If he or she wants the potential profit..he or she should not sell the work to someone else until such time as the work is worth what the creator wants for it.

42 minutes ago, Bird said:

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.

Then that's what you should do. But it's not what others should be forced to do, or cajoled to do. This isn't a binary discussion; it's not either/or. If I appreciate your work, I am more than capable of overpaying you for it, or even kicking a little to you down the road...so long as it's voluntary, and not coerced. If I agree to your terms of sale...fine, I went into it willingly. But being willing to abide by terms, and saying everyone should abide by those terms, are two entirely different things.

46 minutes ago, Bird said:

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.

Good for you. And I mean that sincerely. But that doesn't mean others are not as good as you if they don't choose to do these things.

As I said...I willingly overpay for the amount of effort it takes to obtain signatures. I have paid creators far, far, FAR in excess of their commission rates, for their simple (and virtually no effort) signature. I have ALWAYS paid whatever a creator asked for their signature, and then some. I have paid as much as $350 for a single signature...one signature!...to a creator, because I valued their work and was willing to pay it. That signature took....I counted...2 seconds. That translates to $10,500 an hour. That's A-list Hollywood actor/director type money. That's more money than 99.9995% of the entire population in the world could ever make in an hour. 

Is that any of my business...?

None at all. If someone is willing to pay it, more power to 'em. Good for them. They've earned it.

But the reverse is also true, which means what *I* can make is no one else's business, either. 

If you want some of the reward, you ought to also have the same amount of risk. Trying to claim some of the reward, with NONE of the risk is the definition of greedy and selfish.

[sfcityduck]

22 minutes ago, Bird said:

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.

You know, I actually agree with RMA to the extent that if the artist did not make receiving a subsequent percentage of a re-sale a term of the original transaction wherein the art was sold, they have no right, legal or moral, to seek a percentage down the road.  To the contrary, I think sound public policy dictates that the original transaction remain undisturbed.  Artists like BWS are clearly now exploring arrangements to try to benefit from increases in the value of art they have sold.  That's is their right.  But, going back and re-doing the past? That would create chaos, is contrary to a firmly established legal framework, and would be unfair to the good faith purchasers who made a deal with the artist that they expect to be honored.  It gets even crazier as you go further down the line in a chain of purchasers when the art is sold from hand to hand in the open market.

[RockMyAmadeus]

24 minutes ago, Bird said:

33 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.

Going forward, if you're going to quote, if you would please quote, at minimum, entire sentences, so that context is preserved as much as possible, it would be appreciated. The sentence fragment you quoted here doesn't mean anything.

If those artists were duped and defrauded, their proper remedy was through the justice system...not attaching riders to future sales to and from parties not involved in these original transactions.

The answer to fraud is justice, not vengeance.

27 minutes ago, Bird said:

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.

"Fair is fair", but who gets to decide what is "fair"? The line is drawn...quite clearly...at force and coercion. I agree with you: if something enriches your life, you should...of your own free will and volition...reward those who so enrich you. No one should ever be forced into doing so, based on the moral qualms of another. I disagree with you ENTIRELY that "negotiating a continued premium for the work" is fair...it's merely a polite way of saying "you ought to pay me even more down the road, on the off chance that my work will appreciate in value, and if my work doesn't appreciate, well...too bad."

No risk = no reward. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

31 minutes ago, ExNihilo said:

This is the thing that surprised me the most.  I remember enjoying his artwork on his short run on Spider-Man, but can't say i've enjoyed his work beyond that.  His fame as a creator seems more to do with luck and timing.  That he left to co-create Image at a time when other big names of the era were as well had less to do with artistic talent, and more to do with being in "a boys club" of creators who all left Marvel around the same time.  I mean, that should have no impact on who he might be as a collector (to which I don't know if he's a serious collector or not), but it does diminish the opinion I have of his words somewhat.

That's one of the aspects of this that is most frustrating: Larsen IS a collector. His original art collection, before it was destroyed in the Oakland fire in 1991, was, by all accounts, pretty superb. And, by all accounts, it's gotten pretty superb again.

And yet, he doesn't understand other types of collecting. It's baffling.

[maraxusofkeld]

1 hour ago, newshane 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. 

Does Larsen believe anyone would pay $100 for his sig? I wouldn't care to take it for free.

Edited May 9, 2019 by maraxusofkeld

[Bird]

26 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

You know, I actually agree with RMA to the extent that if the artist did not make receiving a subsequent percentage of a re-sale a term of the original transaction wherein the art was sold, they have no right, legal or moral, to seek a percentage down the road.  To the contrary, I think sound public policy dictates that the original transaction remain undisturbed.  Artists like BWS are clearly now exploring arrangements to try to benefit from increases in the value of art they have sold.  That's is their right.  But, going back and re-doing the past? That would create chaos, is contrary to a firmly established legal framework, and would be unfair to the good faith purchasers who made a deal with the artist that they expect to be honored.  It gets even crazier as you go further down the line in a chain of purchasers when the art is sold from hand to hand in the open market.

Yes I tried to include negotiated at point of purchase in my comments at all times but the practice is in  response to past injustice 

[Lazyboy]

4 hours ago, ExNihilo said:

I want to protect it as best I can, and a slab will do a better job than mylite2's and a top-loader.

How?

[ExNihilo]

1 hour ago, Lazyboy said:

How?

The thicker case provides a sense of security.  I also think they tend to be sturdier as a result which means I can feel a littler more secure when handling the books.  For example, I get nervous just handling minor keys in mylites at cons that in my head I think 'what would happen if someone was less thoughtful'.  I mean, sure, there's that shaking syndrome where books get shaken up in slabs, or you could drop it and crack the case (and more), but those will be an issue no matter what protection you choose to use.  All things being equal, I don't have to worry about someone looking at a slabbed book, whereas a part of me worries that someone might be gripping the sides of the mylite/topholder too tight causing a slight crease.  The chances are small, but I'd still prefer the more secure option.

[namisgr]

Having been reading and collecting comics for nearly 3 decades before CGC opened their doors, to me the value of slabbing comic books is to sell them.  Comics look better stored in mylar, are preserved better with mylar and an acid-adsorbing fullback, and can be taken out to admire, open, and yes, read.  Those who fear reading their comics will introduce damage or wear and downgrade their condition don't realize it's possible to read them without doing so, using careful and consistent methods.

So, for me, comics are for reading and collecting, while slabs are for selling.

Edited May 10, 2019 by namisgr

[mec3437]

After sifting through pages of bullcrap to see a few things of interest, it's a good topic.  I will usually slab a book if I intend to sell it or if it is of a higher value.  I prefer to do that because it can give any potential buyer some peace of mind for a grade and restoration check.  It gives me peace of mind for the aforementioned reasons plus it will be better protected.  I'm not a big fan of CGC's newer slabs, but I understand why people like them.  They are are sturdy, but they feel a little too heavy to me.  

I can't speak to signed books, as I'm not a fan of signatures, but doesn't Erik Larsen just say and do things now to get noticed?  I liked some of his ASM run back in the day, but I can't understand his porno cover to Savage Dragon.  Maybe it's because I haven't paid attention to him since I was a kid, so I might be out of the loop.  

[F For Fake]

2 hours ago, namisgr said:

Having been reading and collecting comics for nearly 3 decades before CGC opened their doors, to me the value of slabbing comic books is to sell them.  Comics look better stored in mylar, are preserved better with mylar and an acid-adsorbing fullback, and can be taken out to admire, open, and yes, read.  Those who fear reading their comics will introduce damage or wear and downgrade their condition don't realize it's possible to read them without doing so, using careful and consistent methods.

So, for me, comics are for reading and collecting, while slabs are for selling.

This hits upon a danger that I've mentioned before, which is that if I DO slab something, it is much more likely that I'll sell it. Keeping a book raw, in a mylar, full back and top loader, I can just love and admire the book. The grade is subjective, I have my opinion and that's all that matters. Once I slab a book, suddenly there is a hard grade and a corresponding GPA value, the book is much more liquid, and I start seeing $$$$. So, my collection is much safer raw!

[exitmusicblue]

Having recently sold a ton of CGC slabs to a dealer -- and had a good and equitable experience -- I can say it would've been much more painful had they been raw.  From confirming veracity of personal grades (incl. PQ!) to shipping... big yuck.

That said, I'm glad not -everything- is slabbed; indeed, only a small portion of the total number of comics out there.  Always good to have variety for any number of reasons.

[F For Fake]

Just now, exitmusicblue said:

Having recently sold a ton of CGC slabs to a dealer -- and had a good and equitable experience -- I can say it would've been much more painful had they been raw.  From confirming veracity of personal grades (incl. PQ!) to shipping... big yuck.

That said, I'm glad not -everything- is slabbed; indeed, only a small portion of the total number of comics out there.  Always good to have variety for any number of reasons.

It's the absolute truth. While most boardies realize that a CGC grade may not be correct, that you really have to look at the book and make your own call, for the majority of buyers of slabs running around out there these days, the number is the number and that's all that matters. Having to grade a huge raw collection just seems like such a chore. The slabs cut out the majority of the work. We both agree what a 9.8 is worth, you have a 9.8, the deal is done. 

And as you said, it's always worth remembering that slabs are a fraction of the books being sold out there. They're a niche within a niche within a niche.