Avengers number 4 stan lee and jack kirbys sigs on first page 0

[bilco548]

I have a avengers number 4 with stan lee and jack kirbys signature on the first page with the publication information the book is a easy 7'0 does the signatures kill the value any

---

[comicginger1789]

Do you have pictures? If the signatures are legitimate, someone would likely be willing to pay more. However without proof, some are likely to take the comic at face value and disregard the signatures completely. Some pictures of the comic would help to determine if the signatures appear real or not. 

[theCapraAegagrus]

I've paid a few extra dollars for raw comics with seemingly authentic signatures, but I won't pay too much more without it being a CGC SS product. I would expect that the majority of collectors will basically disregard their existence. If the signatures go over artwork - that may lower the value.

[marvelmaniac]

I received this book for Christmas back in 83/84 and to my surprise it had a "Jack Kirby" signature on the bottom of the splash page.

There is no way to actually prove it is legit but considering the time period it was purchased leads me to believe it is authentic and I have no problem with it being there.

If it is sent to CGC they will grade the book as having writing on the splash page, in order to have a signature authenticated by CGC they or a rep has to be there to witness the signing.

Jack Kirby passed before CGC ever came into existence so that is not possible.

 

 

 

[WoWitHurts]

I have seen other JK sigs on the first page. That looks like a legit sig. Cool book.

[shadroch]

The people who concentrate on yellow labeled books are a very small percentage of the comic hobby. They have a larger presence on these boards as CGC appears to be the alter they choose to worship on. Anyone who devalues a book signed by Jack Kirby because one company doesn't authenticate unwitnessed signatures is silly. 

I have a print signed by Stan, Jack and Joe Simon. Unsigned copies of the print go for $15-25, signed ones go for high three figures, yet if CGC were to start grading prints, they'd give it a green.

[shadroch]

I've never seen a Kirby signature on a cover I thought was real. He almost always signed the splash page.

[theCapraAegagrus]

16 minutes ago, shadroch said:

The people who concentrate on yellow labeled books are a very small percentage of the comic hobby. They have a larger presence on these boards as CGC appears to be the alter they choose to worship on. Anyone who devalues a book signed by Jack Kirby because one company doesn't authenticate unwitnessed signatures is silly. 

I have a print signed by Stan, Jack and Joe Simon. Unsigned copies of the print go for $15-25, signed ones go for high three figures, yet if CGC were to start grading prints, they'd give it a green.

Just to be clear, it's not devalued because CGC didn't authenticate it, it's devalued because it cannot be authenticated by anyone.

The majority of collectors do not look for signed books, and would look at the signature as a defect, unless they reasonably believe it is authentic (which is an even smaller portion of collectors).

[revat]

Also, note that there are some companies that do authenticate signatures (not CGC).  It's really up to the individual to decide if that process is worth it.  But I think in general the value is raised if the signatures look real.  But the more valuable the book is in general, the less the price is raised (percentagewise) by the (unwitnessed) signature.  Same with the grade, the lower the grade, the more the book is bumped (percentagewise).  You'll get more better answers with pictures.

[WoWitHurts]

3 hours ago, TwoPiece said:

Just to be clear, it's not devalued because CGC didn't authenticate it, it's devalued because it cannot be authenticated by anyone.

The majority of collectors do not look for signed books, and would look at the signature as a defect, unless they reasonably believe it is authentic (which is an even smaller portion of collectors).

I don't find it devalued. 

[theCapraAegagrus]

1 minute ago, WoWitHurts said:

I don't find it devalued. 

Are you talking about this particular comic, or in general?

I think that most people would agree that an unverified signature is a "defect".

In this case, it appears legitimate, and I would consider it very slightly more valuable.

[WoWitHurts]

14 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Are you talking about this particular comic, or in general?

I think that most people would agree that an unverified signature is a "defect".

In this case, it appears legitimate, and I would consider it very slightly more valuable.

If I had a very desirable comic and some kid signed his name on the inside page, that doesn't really bother me. I look at comics as a kids medium and as such I don't really see it as defacing if it isn't too distracting. The CGC SS isn't my cup of tea and I usually don't like big sigs of any kind on the cover. 

[theCapraAegagrus]

4 minutes ago, WoWitHurts said:

If I had a very desirable comic and some kid signed his name on the inside page, that doesn't really bother me. I look at comics as a kids medium and as such I don't really see it as defacing if it isn't too distracting. The CGC SS isn't my cup of tea and I usually don't like big sigs of any kind on the cover. 

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions.

IMO it's a defect. Agree to disagree. No harm in that. I'm sure you're not the only one who shares this opinion, either.

[ADAMANTIUM]

9 hours ago, shadroch said:

The people who concentrate on yellow labeled books are a very small percentage of the comic hobby. They have a larger presence on these boards as CGC appears to be the alter they choose to worship on. Anyone who devalues a book signed by Jack Kirby because one company doesn't authenticate unwitnessed signatures is silly. 

I have a print signed by Stan, Jack and Joe Simon. Unsigned copies of the print go for $15-25, signed ones go for high three figures, yet if CGC were to start grading prints, they'd give it a green.

https://www.cgccomics.com/news/article/7231/

cgc does in fact authenticate prints....  

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by ADAMANTIUM

[shadroch]

8 hours ago, TwoPiece said:

Just to be clear, it's not devalued because CGC didn't authenticate it, it's devalued because it cannot be authenticated by anyone.

The majority of collectors do not look for signed books, and would look at the signature as a defect, unless they reasonably believe it is authentic (which is an even smaller portion of collectors).

Really? So the only way to authenticate a signature is to have it witnessed by CGC? 

 So you walk into a shop and are offered two copies of FF 64. One is signed Jack Kirby and the other is not. You think most collectors will choose the unsigned one.

I'm not so sure about that but it thrills me that anyone might think that. Anything that lessens my competition is a good thing.

[theCapraAegagrus]

11 hours ago, shadroch said:

Really? So the only way to authenticate a signature is to have it witnessed by CGC? 

 So you walk into a shop and are offered two copies of FF 64. One is signed Jack Kirby and the other is not. You think most collectors will choose the unsigned one.

I'm not so sure about that but it thrills me that anyone might think that. Anything that lessens my competition is a good thing.

The correct answer is "yes".

Forgeries are a reality. Any non-witnessed signature is just a question mark. Even if it looks real - the reality is that it may not be. Certainty is always more valuable than uncertainty.

And, yes, I expect that the majority (whether it's 70/30 or just 55/45) of collectors would choose the unsigned copy of FF64.

[shadroch]

Keep drinking that kool aid.

why am I getting flashbacks from 1994, when fanboys were lining up to trade  Marvel Silver Age books for the latest shiny Valiant cover?

 

.

[theCapraAegagrus]

3 minutes ago, shadroch said:

Keep drinking that kool aid.

why am I getting flashbacks from 1994, when fanboys were lining up to trade  Marvel Silver Age books for the latest shiny Valiant cover?

I mean, I could say the same exact thing.

If you don't want to discuss this, then you don't have to engage. An honest debate goes a lot further than unrelated statements like the bolded. I guess you just don't have the answer to certainty being more valuable than uncertainty.

Not sure what your second sentence has to do with...

[Krismusic]

again this is subjective to the market and who wants the book. Some might want the Jack Kirby signature if it seems legit some might not care as for damage I don't think many consider it to be terrible damage unless it was a 9.8 Silver age and got bumped to a 9.6 because of the signature then that might come into play but then as someone else mentioned they might want to see about other services that authenticate the signature and wont view it as damage, Not 100% sure on CGC stance for unwitnessed signatures but I think they have seen enough Jack Kirby and Stan Lee to know what would seem legit and what would be a obvious fake and maybe take that into consideration for their grade. 

[revat]

26 minutes ago, Krishosein said:

again this is subjective to the market and who wants the book. Some might want the Jack Kirby signature if it seems legit some might not care as for damage I don't think many consider it to be terrible damage unless it was a 9.8 Silver age and got bumped to a 9.6 because of the signature then that might come into play but then as someone else mentioned they might want to see about other services that authenticate the signature and wont view it as damage, Not 100% sure on CGC stance for unwitnessed signatures but I think they have seen enough Jack Kirby and Stan Lee to know what would seem legit and what would be a obvious fake and maybe take that into consideration for their grade. 

yah, your take on how CGC treats the sig is wrong in thinking that they take the appearance of authenticity as a factor in grading.