Batman #1 Club 7 7

[lou_fine]

On 6/21/2020 at 5:31 AM, KCOComics said:

This seems right,  only if you bring the book back together,  I believe you get a "conserved" label these days. 

I have a Tec 26 with CGC right now. Complete interior,  and a married front and back cover. I worked with Kenny Sanderson to bring the book back together and clean it so the parts match. Hoping it comes back "conserved".  If anyone's interested I will update the thread when I get it back. 

Wow, that looks like Kenny has done an absolutely fantastic job on your book and turned it into a stunning and beautiful front and back cover.    

The part I don't understand is how they can piece back together 2 already separated halves of a cover and still not consider that to be Restoration, whereas if you have a tiny drop of black where the villian is, it would then be considered to be color touch and hence given the much dreaded Restored PLOD label.    

[LDarkseid1]

9 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

Wow, that looks like Kenny has done an absolutely fantastic job on your book and turned it into a stunning and beautiful front and back cover.    

The part I don't understand is how they can piece back together 2 already separated halves of a cover and still not consider that to be Restoration, whereas if you have a tiny drop of black where the villian is, it would then be considered to be color touch and hence given the much dreaded Restored PLOD label.    

I concur with you there. If you're putting two covers back together than I imagine you're leafcasting, which is restoration at the level I would think that would result in. So not sure how that would come back conserved.

Edited June 22, 2020 by LDarkseid1

[lou_fine]

13 minutes ago, LDarkseid1 said:

No that's not correct about the missing back cover and being incomplete. Any book missing a back cover is still universal blue label. The green qualified was 100% because of the married front cover. It's simply how they approach married pages/covers that aren't physically reattached. I just placed it on top of my copy. Personally I don't mind it. You're not altering the book by simply placing pages in the interior or a cover on top so I don't see how that's restoration. I think a green qualified label for these instances is appropriate. It's just two separate universal pieces put together.

Oh yes, that's the part which I forgot to mentioned in my rather long-winded previous post about CGC's sometimes convoluted grading system.  

I thought a book that has a detached centerfold or a detached cover simply receives the regular label (i.e. not a Qualified label) with a note that states the centerfold or cover is detached and I assume this defect is then simply factored into the final grade of the book.  A perfect example of this would be the Cap 3 in the upcoming Heritage Auction here:

Doesn't receive the Qualified label, but gets the Pedigree Label with the note on the label stating that the centerfold is detached.  

Totally confusing to me how CGC seems to go all over the place sometimes with their definitions and label colors.    

[LDarkseid1]

2 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

Oh yes, that's the part which I forgot to mentioned in my rather long-winded previous post about CGC's sometimes convoluted grading system.  

I thought a book that has a detached centerfold or a detached cover simply receives the regular label (i.e. not a Qualified label) with a note that states the centerfold or cover is detached and I assume this defect is then simply factored into the final grade of the book.  A perfect example of this would be the Cap 3 in the upcoming Heritage Auction here:

Doesn't receive the Qualified label, but gets the Pedigree Label with the note on the label stating that the centerfold is detached.  

Totally confusing to me how CGC seems to go all over the place sometimes with their definitions and label colors.    

I'm still a tad iffy experience wise tbh as far as how much a detached centerfold truly effects a grade. I think with the cover you would get a harsher grade drop, but for some reason if it's a centerfold doesn't seem to affect as much, and simply gets notated on the label. But I mean that Cap 3 looks like it had 8.0-8.5 potential, so maybe that's why it's a 7.0 .

[lou_fine]

1 hour ago, LDarkseid1 said:

1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

Wow, that looks like Kenny has done an absolutely fantastic job on your book and turned it into a stunning and beautiful front and back cover.    

The part I don't understand is how they can piece back together 2 already separated halves of a cover and still not consider that to be Restoration, whereas if you have a tiny drop of black where the villian is, it would then be considered to be color touch and hence given the much dreaded Restored PLOD label.    

I concur with you there. If you're putting two covers back together than I imagine you're leafcasting, which is restoration. So not sure how that would come back conserved

Yes, I would definitely agree with you here is that from the original 2 pieces of fugly looking separated pices of the cover to the final beautiful finished cover, it sure looks like a lot of invasive work and a large quantity of additional material has been added back into the cover to join it back together.  

And yet, if you look at CGC's Restoration Grading Scale breakdown in my previous post above and restated here again:

Conservation Repairs

• Tear seals
• Spine split seals
• Reinforcement
• Piece reattachment
• Some cover or interior cleaning (water or solvent)
• Staples cleaned or replaced
• Some leaf casting

 

It would appear that leafcasting falls under the Conservation umbrella here according to their definition.  

So, from what I am seeing here, is leafcasting really nothing more than CGC's spin on taking something that was once deemed as a big bad thing (i.e. pieces added) done by those nasty comic book doctors in their darkened dungeons and now simply renaming it as leafcasting done by their partner company and really nothing more than another form of maximizing the potential of a book and of course at the same time, adding another additional revenue stream for their CCG ownership?    

Edited June 22, 2020 by lou_fine

[KCOComics]

1 hour ago, LDarkseid1 said:

I concur with you there. If you're putting two covers back together than I imagine you're leafcasting, which is restoration at the level I would think that would result in. So not sure how that would come back conserved.

You are correct, he used leaf casting. 

I gave CGC a note with everything that was done.  I wanted to remove the guess work.

My feedback on coming back as conserved is based on conversations I had with Kenny when deciding what to do with the book. 

In my situation,  I don't really care if it's conserved,  restored or qualified. I'm not looking to sell it,  or market it as something it's not. Its going to stay in my collection for many years. 

It was my first time having any type of restoration work done. I felt like it was a pile of individual parts that could be brought back together to make a complete book with original parts. 

When I get it back from CGC, I'll post the pictures and label. 

[lou_fine]

18 hours ago, bluechip said:

The terms "restored" and "conserved" are both consistent with the dictionary definitions and common usage for describing what was done.

If the use of one of them as an "umbrella" term meant the word "married" was then omitted from the description, then I would agree it's misleading.   

I know some people complain about consistency but IMV if the words describing what was done and what it is are all there, and the "umbrella" term is not being used inconsistent with its dictionary definition, then there's no harm, unless some people want the "umbrella" term to carry some harsher implication that reflects their opinion about whether the book should have been, as they say, "manipulated" in that manner.

And once you go in that direction there's always somebody who will not happy with how far you've gone.  Some already feel it's not enough to say "married" unless you add the words "from another copy" and some feel that's not enough, either, that the umbrella term for the book must be understood to mean "good" or "bad".  I've even heard it opined that some labels should imply or even say outright something like "color touched (and they shouldn't have done that!" or even "Buyer beware:  this isn't worth much".    

 

I would tend to agree with you that in a normal real world, including the words and description of what was done to a book should be all good.  

Unfortunately, in this color label focused world that CGC has created for the marketplace, words themselves means very little and pretty much to be ignored as the biggest factor in the valuation of a book is the color of the label.  Hence, the reason why CGC has to ensure a high degree of consistency in the application of their Restoration and Conservation definitions and their resulting use of the correct color labels for the various books.  

Or at least, that's the way that I see it, although CGC does has the final say since it's really their game and they are entitled to change the rules as they see fit and at any point in time that they want.  I just wish that they would communicate these ongoing types of changes to us on a much better and proactive basis, even though I do understand that they do not need to disclose anything at all as their their grading standards are officially "undisclosed grading standards" for so-called proprietary purposes.     

[LDarkseid1]

1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

Yes, I would definitely agree with you here is that from the original 2 pieces of fugly looking separated pices of the cover to the final beautiful finished cover, it sure looks like a lot of invasive work and a large quantity of additional material has been added back into the cover to join it back together.  

And yet, if you look at CGC's Restoration Grading Scale breakdown in my previous post above and restated here again:

Conservation Repairs

• Tear seals
• Spine split seals
• Reinforcement
• Piece reattachment
• Some cover or interior cleaning (water or solvent)
• Staples cleaned or replaced
• Some leaf casting

 

It would appear that leafcasting falls under the Conservation umbrella here according to their definition.  

So, from what I am seeing here, is leafcasting really nothing more than CGC's spin on taking something that was once deemed as a big bad thing (i.e. pieces added) done by those nasty comic book doctors in their darkened dungeons and now simply renaming it as leafcasting done by their partner company and really nothing more than another form of maximizing the potential of a book and of course at the same time, adding another additional revenue stream for their CCG ownership?    

Well leafcasting is seen under both the conservation and restoration details. It appears it depends how much is done that determines which version the book will get. So not cut and dry on this, as with other things.

[LDarkseid1]

35 minutes ago, KCOComics said:

You are correct, he used leaf casting. 

I gave CGC a note with everything that was done.  I wanted to remove the guess work.

My feedback on coming back as conserved is based on conversations I had with Kenny when deciding what to do with the book. 

In my situation,  I don't really care if it's conserved,  restored or qualified. I'm not looking to sell it,  or market it as something it's not. Its going to stay in my collection for many years. 

It was my first time having any type of restoration work done. I felt like it was a pile of individual parts that could be brought back together to make a complete book with original parts. 

When I get it back from CGC, I'll post the pictures and label. 

Hey I hear ya! Congrats on whatever you get back

[lou_fine]

33 minutes ago, KCOComics said:

In my situation,  I don't really care if it's conserved,  restored or qualified. I'm not looking to sell it,  or market it as something it's not. Its going to stay in my collection for many years. 

Didn't mean to say anything negative about your book here as it looks like it is going to be an absolutely gorgeous copy that would look good in any collector's personal collection.     

The only thing that I am really questioning here is CGC's seeming ongoing and shifting changes to their Restoration and Conservation definitions and sometimes apparent inconsistency in the application of their colored labels.  

Then again of course, it's always possible that it's just me and I simply don't understand all of the finer nuances behind their grading system, while everybody else here has a crystal clear understanding of it.    

[lou_fine]

29 minutes ago, LDarkseid1 said:

Well leafcasting is seen under both the conservation and restoration details. It appears it depends how much is done that determines which version the book will get. So not cut and dry on this, as with other things.

From what I can see from their Restoration Grading Scale here, I don't seem to see "leafcasting" under the Restoration umbrella:

Restoration Repairs

• Color touch
• Piece replacement
• Re-glossing
• Paper bleaching
• Married pages or cover

Unless it's buried and hidden there under the not so market and buyer friendly terminology of "Piece Replacement"?  

 

Edited June 22, 2020 by lou_fine

[LDarkseid1]

2 hours ago, lou_fine said:

From what I can see from their Restoration Grading Scale here, I don't seem to see "leafcasting" under the Restoration umbrella:

Restoration Repairs

• Color touch
• Piece replacement
• Re-glossing
• Paper bleaching
• Married pages or cover

Unless it's buried and hidden there under the not so market and buyer friendly terminology of "Piece Replacement"?  

 

I think that’s different though. Piece replacement is adding/replacing an entire section or simply something missing from the book. Like if a small corner area was missing. Leafcasting results in the reattachment of something that exists. That’s how I understand it at least.

Edited June 22, 2020 by LDarkseid1

[Mr bla bla]

17 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

From what I can see from their Restoration Grading Scale here, I don't seem to see "leafcasting" under the Restoration umbrella:

Restoration Repairs

• Color touch
• Piece replacement
• Re-glossing
• Paper bleaching
• Married pages or cover

Unless it's buried and hidden there under the not so market and buyer friendly terminology of "Piece Replacement"?  

 

So, whats the difference between ‘leafcasting’ and ‘pieces added’?

I guess both procedures are adding external material ?

Heck, even ‘reinforcement’ can be pretty extensive and add something to a book.

For an ordinary joe sixpack this all seems pretty intransparent.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Mr bla bla

[bluechip]

1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

I would tend to agree with you that in a normal real world, including the words and description of what was done to a book should be all good.  

Unfortunately, in this color label focused world that CGC has created for the marketplace, words themselves means very little and pretty much to be ignored as the biggest factor in the valuation of a book is the color of the label.  Hence, the reason why CGC has to ensure a high degree of consistency in the application of their Restoration and Conservation definitions and their resulting use of the correct color labels for the various books.  

Or at least, that's the way that I see it, although CGC does has the final say since it's really their game and they are entitled to change the rules as they see fit and at any point in time that they want.  I just wish that they would communicate these ongoing types of changes to us on a much better and proactive basis, even though I do understand that they do not need to disclose anything at all as their their grading standards are officially "undisclosed grading standards" for so-called proprietary purposes.     

Re: the "color label focused world", I don't disagree it exists but I respectfully diverge from the notion that CGC should and must reinforce the color label focus, especially not if doing so means misusing words, going against common sense and embracing any abuses which result (I know you didn't advocate for the particulars in that underlined parenthetical, but they are, in fact, results of label color focus (or "obsession"?).

Any efforts made to mitigate the underlined consequences is, in my view, a well-intentioned effort.   And not just despite the possibility it will thus require people to read words more carefully.   In fact, I would call that a good thing.   

[bluechip]

46 minutes ago, Mr bla bla said:

So, whats the difference between ‘leafcasting’ and ‘pieces added’?

I guess both procedures are adding external material ?

Heck, even ‘reinforcement’ can be pretty extensive and add something to a book.

For an ordinary joe sixpack this all seems pretty intransparent.

No question.  It's impossible to disagree with that.  My feeling has been that the label color focus makes things less transparent.   How many labels have you seen in which the color of the label and the words on the label are exactly identical, yet you know that there is actually an enormous difference between what was "done" to one book as opposed to the other.  And you know that one book looked pretty damm decent before the "work" (nearly the same as it looks post-resto at arm's length) while another was so destroyed and degraded that in its original state you could barely make out the figures on the cover.   I totally get the idea behind wanting to put the latter book in a label that somehow conveys to the buyer "this book didn't look anything like this before it was restored and the cover might as well be called a 'painting'")  But the problem is that rather than trying to identify the massively restored-you-would-never-have-bought-this-in-its-original-state books with a massive "don't buy this" label, we've ended up applying the same dammnation color coding to all sorts of books based not on what amount of alterations have occurred but based on what somebody thinks was going through the mind of the person who caused the alterations (or defects).      

[KCOComics]

1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

Didn't mean to say anything negative about your book here as it looks like it is going to be an absolutely gorgeous copy that would look good in any collector's personal collection.     

Sorry - I didn't mean to come off defensive. 

[lou_fine]

2 hours ago, bluechip said:

Re: the "color label focused world", I don't disagree it exists but I respectfully diverge from the notion that CGC should and must reinforce the color label focus, especially not if doing so means misusing words, going against common sense and embracing any abuses which result (I know you didn't advocate for the particulars in that underlined parenthetical, but they are, in fact, results of label color focus (or "obsession"?).

 

You certainly won't get any arguments from me with respect to CGC's rather not so well thought out multi-colored labelling system since I have always advocated for a unicolor labelling system implemented in conjunction with both a 10-point condition grading system and a 10-point restoration rating system right from the first day that I got here.  

Although they had good intentions with their multi-colored labelling system, like Borock admitted in the end, it most definitely resulted in a long of unintended negative consequences.  Clearly one of the reasons why he implemented a uni-color labelling system when he started up the other grading company, but far too late by then as the horse was not only out of the barn by then, but already clear over the mountain as everybody was so used to having the multi-color labels by then that they couldn't understand anything else.  

Edited June 22, 2020 by lou_fine

[poizon9886]

On 6/19/2020 at 10:40 PM, Wayne-Tec said:

I’d love to see a group shot of the Batman #1 with the Superman #1!

Will do once I get a Cap 1.....eventually.

 

On 6/19/2020 at 11:55 PM, LDarkseid1 said:

I'm definitely jelly on your Supes 1!

Thanks!

 

On 6/20/2020 at 1:28 AM, Chicago Boy said:

What are the notes in the qualified Supes ?

Married centerf

 

On 6/21/2020 at 11:11 AM, Dark Knight said:

Congrats on the jumbo case pickup!!!! Not sure what year but if it's 2018, that's fantastic!

It’s this year 2019. Got it for 7K and now it’s about 12K, increase in less than 3 months. Price is not too far off from 2018 only because it’s newer.

[lou_fine]

8 hours ago, KCOComics said:

9 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Didn't mean to say anything negative about your book here as it looks like it is going to be an absolutely gorgeous copy that would look good in any collector's personal collection.     

Sorry - I didn't mean to come off defensive. 

No worries as I was more concerned that you might have gotten the impression that I was disparaging your book which was certainly not my intention at all with my post.  

[Wayne-Tec]

On 6/23/2020 at 1:29 AM, poizon9886 said:

Will do once I get a Cap 1.....eventually.

How about a Batman vs. Superman group shot now...and a pic with all 3 once you land Cap #1?