Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[originalisbest]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

Thanks for weighing in, Matt! Question for you, did this happen because the books were in the hands of an inexperienced presser? And, once a cover is shrunk, is it like that for good or could the effect be reversed with further pressings? Thanks!

[originalisbest]

If the book was a 9.6 on August 2nd, how could it have been graded 2 weeks ago?

Just squash it and try, try again...a Pedigree 9.6 isn't good enough. Even worse, the example below was previously a 9.4 owned by r100comics, so it was resubbed as a 9.4 to get the 9.6, then deformed to reach it's present state...and still a 9.6?

 

Courtesy of namisgr, from the CGC gallery (top scan) and the Pedigree auction (2nd scan):

 

 

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

Dan

 

Call me crazy but I don't mind either incarnation of this particular book. I know why some will have their conniption, but It's more due to the bug up their butts about pressing, vs. The "ruination" of this one book.

[lizards2]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

Due to bad pressing, sitting in Sarasota waiting to be graded,or both? :shrug:

[lizards2]

If the book was a 9.6 on August 2nd, how could it have been graded 2 weeks ago?

Just squash it and try, try again...a Pedigree 9.6 isn't good enough. Even worse, the example below was previously a 9.4 owned by r100comics, so it was resubbed as a 9.4 to get the 9.6, then deformed to reach it's present state...and still a 9.6?

 

Courtesy of namisgr, from the CGC gallery (top scan) and the Pedigree auction (2nd scan):

 

 

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

Dan

 

Call me crazy but I don't mind either incarnation of this particular book. I know why some will have their conniption, but It's more due to the bug up their butts about pressing, vs. The "ruination" of this one book.

It's not about the one book.

[Drummy]

Interesting stuff. But there's no way some of these 'before and after' books that now display the fanned pages are the result of humid storage or some other natural process.

 

Matt, do you know what kind of treatment these books would have received to change the look of the book in this way?

 

Thanks!

 

Dan

[Screwy-migration]

If the book was a 9.6 on August 2nd, how could it have been graded 2 weeks ago?

Just squash it and try, try again...a Pedigree 9.6 isn't good enough. Even worse, the example below was previously a 9.4 owned by r100comics, so it was resubbed as a 9.4 to get the 9.6, then deformed to reach it's present state...and still a 9.6?

 

Courtesy of namisgr, from the CGC gallery (top scan) and the Pedigree auction (2nd scan):

 

 

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

Dan

 

Call me crazy but I don't mind either incarnation of this particular book. I know why some will have their conniption, but It's more due to the bug up their butts about pressing, vs. The "ruination" of this one book.

 

Screwy

[paperheart]

If the book was a 9.6 on August 2nd, how could it have been graded 2 weeks ago?

Just squash it and try, try again...a Pedigree 9.6 isn't good enough. Even worse, the example below was previously a 9.4 owned by r100comics, so it was resubbed as a 9.4 to get the 9.6, then deformed to reach it's present state...and still a 9.6?

 

Courtesy of namisgr, from the CGC gallery (top scan) and the Pedigree auction (2nd scan):

 

 

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

Dan

 

Call me crazy but I don't mind either incarnation of this particular book. I know why some will have their conniption, but It's more due to the bug up their butts about pressing, vs. The "ruination" of this one book.

It's not about the one book.

 

exactly. as if it's only one book anyway. the CGC sycophants will justify nearly everything that's evacuated from the bowels of Sarasota HQ.

[Dale Roberts]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

Thanks for clearing it up Matt.

[comicparadox]

Similar comments have earned suspensions from these hallowed Boards.

exactly. as if it's only one book anyway. the CGC sycophants will justify nearly everything that's evacuated from the bowels of Sarasota HQ.

[drbanner]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

Thanks Matt! (thumbs u

 

Did you or anyone else at CGC/CCS work on these books for Doug since he bought them from Cole?

[lizards2]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

Thanks for clearing it up Matt.

I don't know how that clears up anything - it shrunk substantially in between gradings, and it's blamed on poor printing quality?

[TeddieMercede]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

And CGC doesn't downgrade books that are mangled this way because ?

[drbanner]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

Thanks for clearing it up Matt.

I don't know how that clears up anything - it shrunk substantially in between gradings, and it's blamed on poor printing quality?

Actually, it's very clear - for the 1st 50 years of it's life, the book more or less looked like it is pictured in the CGC gallery as shown above. Then, within the last month it was exposed to humidity, and shrank. But it's still a solid NM+, good as new...only smaller.

[Spidey-fan73]

So the JIM 93 in OP (in addition to a plethora of other books) went from a 9.2 to a 9.6 via humidity & time and without any manipulation?

Why would there be lateral without vertical shrink? Better yet, what causes the lateral shrink as opposed to vert?

I'm on the fence with pressing, but believe if done for one right reason, it can help "restore" the book to it's being flat again(i.e. remove waviness from improperly stored books) It's up to the individual to draw the line. I'm with the bunch that I'd rather have the 9.2 rather than the 0.4 or 0.2 bump and ruining the appearance. It's unfortunate that taking the knowledge that books did come off the press this way (with extended pages), someone derived a way to take advantage of this "natural" bindary defect and use it to their advantage. Like most everything else in the world, it all boils down to the almighty greenback .

[Beige]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

 

:roflmao:

[Spidey-fan73]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

What would printing have to do with causing shrink in a matter of the few months between the resub? If anything from the original process, wouldn't it be the paper/pulp rather than printing? And, while I know cotton is different from paper/pulp, when I shrink my shirts in the dryer it shrinks entirely, not just the vertical or the sleeves.

[slym2none]

I thought this was an odd looking book also. I don't know

 

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ALL-AMERICAN-COMICS-42-CGC-VF-7-5-Single-Highest-Grade-GREEN-LANTERN-1942-/130750582836?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item1e71579034&nma=true&si=48a1nTq2vHTUDXEp91hjnxRZMrA%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

 

 

That book received the treatment, too.

 

6.0 copy acquired last year via Heritage. Copy recertified 7.5 three weeks after auction close.

 

"dizneyart" recently listed the book for sale on eBay. Seller ended listing on August 9, 2013 because "the item is no longer available".

 

Then "pgcmint" listed the book on eBay. Seller ended listing on September 3, 2013 because "the item is no longer available".

 

 

 

 

 

Heritage:

All-American Comics #42 (DC, 1942) CGC FN 6.0 Cream to off-white pages (1st Sale)

All-American Comics #42 (DC, 1942) CGC FN 6.0 Cream to off-white pages (2nd Sale)

 

eBay:

ALL-AMERICAN COMICS #42 CGC VF 7.5 - Single Highest Grade - GREEN LANTERN 1942 (August 2013)

ALL-AMERICAN COMICS #42 CGC VF 7.5 - Single Highest Grade - GREEN LANTERN! 1942 (September 2013)

 

Wow - the 6.0 has the barest bit of the curvature on the right edge, so slight I would probably never make mention of it. The 7.5 has much more of a curve to it, noticeably more.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[originalisbest]

If the book was a 9.6 on August 2nd, how could it have been graded 2 weeks ago?

Just squash it and try, try again...a Pedigree 9.6 isn't good enough. Even worse, the example below was previously a 9.4 owned by r100comics, so it was resubbed as a 9.4 to get the 9.6, then deformed to reach it's present state...and still a 9.6?

 

Courtesy of namisgr, from the CGC gallery (top scan) and the Pedigree auction (2nd scan):

 

 

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

Dan

 

Call me crazy but I don't mind either incarnation of this particular book. I know why some will have their conniption, but It's more due to the bug up their butts about pressing, vs. The "ruination" of this one book.

It's not about the one book.

 

So it must be about the notion of pressing generally, the whys and wherefores, and ultimately, the money. I see.

[originalisbest]

If the book was a 9.6 on August 2nd, how could it have been graded 2 weeks ago?

Just squash it and try, try again...a Pedigree 9.6 isn't good enough. Even worse, the example below was previously a 9.4 owned by r100comics, so it was resubbed as a 9.4 to get the 9.6, then deformed to reach it's present state...and still a 9.6?

 

Courtesy of namisgr, from the CGC gallery (top scan) and the Pedigree auction (2nd scan):

 

 

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

Dan

 

Call me crazy but I don't mind either incarnation of this particular book. I know why some will have their conniption, but It's more due to the bug up their butts about pressing, vs. The "ruination" of this one book.

It's not about the one book.

 

exactly. as if it's only one book anyway. the CGC sycophants will justify nearly everything that's evacuated from the bowels of Sarasota HQ.

 

! What a predicatable response.

[slym2none]

Very well then, I'll just take it as you're ignorant on how the open, trimmed edge of a fat GA book CAN appear, as manufactured (nothing whatsoever to do with whether that particular book was also facejobbed), and are content to remain so. Because by the nature of your non-question, you seem to think there's a problem with the appearance of its open edge (specifically, what you seem to see as an unnatural curvature.)

 

Nice, name calling.

 

(thumbs u

 

So, seeing the before & after of the 6.0 that turned into the franken7.5, can you finally agree that curve isn't natural? Or am I just ignorant there, too?

 

 

 

 

-slym