|
|
Post by Siggy's Tar Dust® on May 18, 2017 10:12:59 GMT -8
Just for clarity, I'd never slab my Royer collection. 99% of them have inner sigs. Plus money.
While all of what you (OS) said may be the practice, I wonder how many collectors are aware of it. I'll have to check to see how obvious this info is to someone new to CGC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on May 18, 2017 10:19:55 GMT -8
Yeah, I'm aware of that. Never agreed with the 'Verbal COA' approach to witnessing. But it's not a Verbal COA. If the creator maintains custody of the book...and they're the one signing it...the book goes from them to CGC and/or a witness. The creator isn't handing the book back to Joe Blow, and THEN saying "yeah, I signed this." In that case, for sure, the sig isn't valid. But if I hand the creator an unsigned book...walk away...and come back several hours later with a witness, and the creator then hands it over in front of the witness...that's maintaining chain of custody. The creator is the witness for their own signature.Yes, a creator might be handed a book by someone that's already signed, or "signed", and the creator could collude with that person, and say "oh, yeah, sure, I totally signed this"...totally possible...but not very likely. There are other ways to cheat that don't require the "creator as colluder" scenario. Just like I could sign a copy of Hulk #393, and have it yellow labeled any time I want...I have a letter published in there, and CGC will do that if requested. Don't need a witness for that, because I am the "creator" in that instance. Hence the term, 'Verbal COA.' There was no third party witnessing of the signature, and CGC is certifying the signature based on the 'Verbal COA' of the artist. |
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on May 18, 2017 10:25:07 GMT -8
Just for clarity, I'd never slab my Royer collection. 99% of them have inner sigs. Plus money. While all of what you (OS) said may be the practice, I wonder how many collectors are aware of it. I'll have to check to see how obvious this info is to someone new to CGC. CGC is upfront about it, but they make it seem like it's an unusual event, with most signatures being witnessed by a third party. I doubt many collectors are aware of this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 10:46:08 GMT -8
But it's not a Verbal COA. If the creator maintains custody of the book...and they're the one signing it...the book goes from them to CGC and/or a witness. The creator isn't handing the book back to Joe Blow, and THEN saying "yeah, I signed this." In that case, for sure, the sig isn't valid. But if I hand the creator an unsigned book...walk away...and come back several hours later with a witness, and the creator then hands it over in front of the witness...that's maintaining chain of custody. The creator is the witness for their own signature.Yes, a creator might be handed a book by someone that's already signed, or "signed", and the creator could collude with that person, and say "oh, yeah, sure, I totally signed this"...totally possible...but not very likely. There are other ways to cheat that don't require the "creator as colluder" scenario. Just like I could sign a copy of Hulk #393, and have it yellow labeled any time I want...I have a letter published in there, and CGC will do that if requested. Don't need a witness for that, because I am the "creator" in that instance. Hence the term, 'Verbal COA.' There was no third party witnessing of the signature, and CGC is certifying the signature based on the 'Verbal COA' of the artist. Yes, I understand what you're saying, but that's not what's happening...at least not exactly. The creator isn't coming after the fact to say "yes, I signed that", which would be mere verbal assent. They are...in what should be practice, anyways...maintaining custody of the item being signed, and since it is their signature, they are representing themselves as the witness. It's not a "Verbal COA" in the way that someone who isn't an authorized witness would say "yes, I saw so-and-so sign this." I'm sure there's all sorts of fancy legal terms for situations like this, but I don't know them. In plain language, however, it's not the artist saying "I signed them." It's the artist saying "I signed them, and they've been in my custody the whole time." You're taking the creator at his/her word, yes, but it's their signature they're certifying, the work of their own hand, so it carries far more weight than Joe Blow saying "yeah, he signed it." Otherwise, things like sketch covers, mail-aways, and the like would be impossible, because there isn't a "third party" witness to watch the whole process, or even at all sometimes. If I ran CGC, and you published a comic, and came to me and said you signed it and that it had been in your possession the whole time since you signed it...I think that meets the standards of both verifiability and chain of custody, and is "more than" just a "Verbal COA." By the way...for mail-aways, creators are required to sign an affidavit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 10:53:36 GMT -8
Just for clarity, I'd never slab my Royer collection. 99% of them have inner sigs. Plus money. While all of what you (OS) said may be the practice, I wonder how many collectors are aware of it. I'll have to check to see how obvious this info is to someone new to CGC. CGC is upfront about it, but they make it seem like it's an unusual event, with most signatures being witnessed by a third party. I doubt many collectors are aware of this. Every single book I've done or witnessed has been done this way, and that numbers into the thousands now. Personally, I keep my eyeballs on every book getting signed in front of me, whether as a witness for others, or with a witness for mine. I have never handed off a book to a creator and then come back for it later. I can, with a clear conscience, say that every single book that I have witnessed or done has had the right eyeballs on it the whole time, whether mine as a witness, or my witness' for mine. It IS very unusual for a situation like this to occur. |
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on May 18, 2017 11:04:08 GMT -8
Hence the term, 'Verbal COA.' There was no third party witnessing of the signature, and CGC is certifying the signature based on the 'Verbal COA' of the artist. Yes, I understand what you're saying, but that's not what's happening...at least not exactly. The creator isn't coming after the fact to say "yes, I signed that", which would be mere verbal assent. They are...in what should be practice, anyways...maintaining custody of the item being signed, and since it is their signature, they are representing themselves as the witness. It's not a "Verbal COA" in the way that someone who isn't an authorized witness would say "yes, I saw so-and-so sign this." I'm sure there's all sorts of fancy legal terms for situations like this, but I don't know them. In plain language, however, it's not the artist saying "I signed them." It's the artist saying "I signed them, and they've been in my custody the whole time." You're taking the creator at his/her word, yes, but it's their signature they're certifying, the work of their own hand, so it carries far more weight than Joe Blow saying "yeah, he signed it." Otherwise, things like sketch covers, mail-aways, and the like would be impossible, because there isn't a "third party" witness to watch the whole process, or even at all sometimes. If I ran CGC, and you published a comic, and came to me and said you signed it and that it had been in your possession the whole time since you signed it...I think that meets the standards of both verifiability and chain of custody, and is "more than" just a "Verbal COA." By the way...for mail-aways, creators are required to sign an affidavit. The problem being that artists aren't in the business of being witnesses and providing comic book storage for chain-of-custody. They are at the event for other reasons...hopefully to interact with their fans. Just look at what happened with Starlin. He was distracted and even lost track of being paid. A real third-party-witness would theoretically avoid this chaotic environment. And as we all know, 'money' is dictating 'why' this isn't always the case. Grading companies want the revenue, but don't have the manpower to support full third-party-witnessing...so they use these half-ass measures. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 12:02:33 GMT -8
True, but...if a creator agrees to it, you can't really blame CGC in that instance. It's a responsibility they accept, regardless of their other obligations. Frankly, if I were a creator, I wouldn't do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stu on May 18, 2017 15:26:06 GMT -8
Does anybody have links to Beerbong and Tony Pomilla threads on Starlin's Facebook? I see that comix4fun posted s screenshot on the CGC boad but I can't find it. Plus Facebook sucks my ass and I did try to find it on my own for a few minutes, but I got pissed and left.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on May 18, 2017 15:48:30 GMT -8
Does anybody have links to Beerbong and Tony Pomilla threads on Starlin's Facebook? I see that comix4fun posted s screenshot on the CGC boad but I can't find it. Plus Facebook sucks my ass and I did try to find it on my own for a few minutes, but I got pissed and left. Sorry, but I don't read commercial comic book forums like CGC.  |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on May 18, 2017 16:08:07 GMT -8
Does anybody have links to Beerbong and Tony Pomilla threads on Starlin's Facebook? I see that comix4fun posted s screenshot on the CGC boad but I can't find it. Plus Facebook sucks my ass and I did try to find it on my own for a few minutes, but I got pissed and left. Sorry, but I don't read commercial comic book forums like CGC. That's cool because you don't have to go to CGC's site, I need Facebook links. |
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on May 18, 2017 16:22:01 GMT -8
Sorry, but I don't read commercial comic book forums like CGC. That's cool because you don't have to go to CGC's site, I need Facebook links. Here's one of them: link |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on May 18, 2017 16:31:41 GMT -8
Thanks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 21:16:51 GMT -8
I don't believe Beerbong's numbers.
Byrne...who, ya know, was in a position to know...said that sales for X-Men didn't hit crazy numbers until 1983...two years after he left the book.
The SOOs support that.
In X-Men #120...which Beerbohm claims he bought "10,000 copies of"...the SOO says the average for the year prior to the statement had sales averaging 115,260 copies.
So, Robert Beerbohm...ONE dealer, out of the entire continent...bought nearly 10% of the entire number of sold copies for each issue...?
Come on.
Why the hell am I the bad guy for pointing these lies out...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 21:34:10 GMT -8
Beerbohm also lied about orders because of "Byrne starting on issue #108."
#108 wasn't broken out for several years after it was published. Byrne didn't become a superstar artist until after he'd been on X-Men for at least a year and a half. Even when #108 was published, #94 was only worth 60 cents in the (1977) OPG (if I'm correct...it's close. I don't have my OPGs handy at the moment.)
And he bought 100 copies of GL #76...? Why? When GL #76 came out, the title was fairly mediocre, and Adams was just beginning to gain notice and traction. Yes, the issue became very popular, very quickly, but Beerbohm is saying he bought 100 copies NEW?
That would make about as much sense as buying 100 copies of Iron Man #24.
There wasn't a "preview" function, fan press was in its infancy (essentially run by Don and Maggie Thompson at this point, as Thomas was now a Marvel staffer) and unless Adams was mentioned in earlier issues...not likely...then Beerbohm wouldn't have known that Adams was coming to the title until it actually appeared on the stands.
He would have had to have bought them then, which means he would have had to gather them from various newsstands (no Direct market, remember), in addition to whatever ID account access he may have had at the time.
It's just not likely.
And if it didn't happen...why make this stuff up? Delusions of grandeur? I suspect that's the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 22:15:39 GMT -8
These three paragraphs have nothing in common with each other. #1, the affidavit return system had nothing to with the "regional scarcity"...how and why the newsstand dealers defrauded the publishers has nothing to do with the amount of copies available in a given market. The first only deals with NUMBERS reported to publishers, the second deals with physical copies. Again...fan press was in its infancy...how would anyone really know if these titles weren't "selling well", UNLESS the publishers said it themselves, either directly, or indirectly by cancelling the title (like with X-Men and GL/GA.) Granted, because of the fraud, the PUBLISHERS thought the books weren't selling well, when they were...but that means there were actually MORE physical copies available on the market, not LESS. Then he mentions Warlock #9-15, which came out 5-7 years after the books he mentioned in the previous paragraph, and when the market was completely different. Notice, he doesn't say WHEN they were "on the "hot" lists." He's just all over the map. Again, I call bull  . GI Joe wasn't instantly hot out of the gate. #1 sold well, but the other issues weren't barn burners, and wouldn't be for a couple of YEARS after they came out...that's why the first 25 issues of GI Joe are markedly harder to find than, say, #26-75, which are quite common. In fact, the usual books seen in back issue bins and collections that aren't reprints are the 30s. #2 WAS a $50 copy "back then"...by about 1986, when it was already four years old. But when it came out, nobody cared that much. Ordering 17,000 copies of #2 would have made as much sense as buying 17,000 copies of Contest of Champions...in fact, it would have made MORE sense to buy 17,000 copies of that. The first issue that has an SOO in it...#23...indicates that there were only about 350,000 copies of the previous year's issues printed (I don't have access to a copy to see the paid circ numbers, but they are probably in the 175,000 range.) So, again, Beerbong is claiming he bought about 10% of the title sales of the issue...? For a totally unproven property...? Come on. Duh. |
|
. 