Action 1 in next Heritage sale with new CGC resto label

[ciorac]

Gator was it you or filter who had the tec 31 purple label at nycc last year?

I think we sold it

 

Gator, do you refer to yourself in the plural? We enjoy doing that

He mentioned us and filter. Since I think "we"'co owned it, "we" would have sold it. I believe proper pronoun usage

 

Now that you've given us the back story, we concur with your usage of the pronoun.

 

We thank you

[Marvel Zombie]

Looks like their auction will again be plentiful with awesome books

 

 

well they better perform ... Or CC will grap the better part of the cake

[Sqeggs]

Gator was it you or filter who had the tec 31 purple label at nycc last year?

I think we sold it

 

Gator, do you refer to yourself in the plural? We enjoy doing that

He mentioned us and filter. Since I think "we"'co owned it, "we" would have sold it. I believe proper pronoun usage

 

We are not amused!

[Cat-Man_America]

Gator was it you or filter who had the tec 31 purple label at nycc last year?

I think we sold it

 

Gator, do you refer to yourself in the plural? We enjoy doing that

He mentioned us and filter. Since I think "we"'co owned it, "we" would have sold it. I believe proper pronoun usage

 

We are not amused!

 

You think we're not amused now, just wait 'til he changes his moniker to CAL-igator!

[G.A.tor]

Gator was it you or filter who had the tec 31 purple label at nycc last year?

I think we sold it

 

Gator, do you refer to yourself in the plural? We enjoy doing that

He mentioned us and filter. Since I think "we"'co owned it, "we" would have sold it. I believe proper pronoun usage

 

Now that you've given us the back story, we concur with your usage of the pronoun.

 

We thank you

We are pleased

[Dr Carl]

Gator was it you or filter who had the tec 31 purple label at nycc last year?

I think we sold it

 

Gator, do you refer to yourself in the plural? We enjoy doing that

He mentioned us and filter. Since I think "we"'co owned it, "we" would have sold it. I believe proper pronoun usage

 

Now that you've given us the back story, we concur with your usage of the pronoun.

 

We thank you

We are pleased

 

 

We would like to own the Action 1. Any chance you might buy it for us, Gator?

 

[G.A.tor]

[AnkurJ]

36 month layaway?

[lou_fine]

Instead of there being a stigma, there will be a better understanding of what restored books are and a better spacing of pricing between work done and what a book should be valued it.

 

The hobby is growing up rather than shunning books with repairs.

 

Hey Roy;

 

Are you being serious here or are you trying to be sarcastic with us?

 

If you are actually serious, then you must either be dreaming or living in a fantasy land. Either that or you have been drinking way too much of the CGC juice and have lost all touch with the real world.

 

There will always be a overwhelming stigma attached to restored books as long as CGC maintains their current colour labelling system. No matter how much they claim that this revised system will educate the marketplace with respect to restoration, I just do not see this happening.

 

The system which they are about to put in place is just too overly complicated and also does not facilitate the dissemination of this critical information to the marketplace. If some of the board members are having problems understanding this new system with the detailed notes right in front of them, just imagine the rest of the marketplace when they don't have any of this information in front of them.

 

The buying public in general will always go for the lowest common denominator (i.e. the easiest route) and will not bother with any of the restoration details because they will not be able to see past the glare of the purple label. Especially in light of the fact that any interested parties will have to pay additional monies to see any of this detailed information.

 

If you really want to successfully educate the buying public about restoration, you need to eliminate the PLOD, go with an uni-colour label system, and provide the marketplace with easy access to this information. This will force the buying public to pay attention and in turn, facilitate the understanding of restoration to which you are referring to.

 

As long as the PLOD remains in place, restored books will continue to be shunned as the marketplace will not be able to move past the pre-school stage of coloured flash cards no matter how hard they try.

[Jaydogrules]

Instead of there being a stigma, there will be a better understanding of what restored books are and a better spacing of pricing between work done and what a book should be valued it.

 

The hobby is growing up rather than shunning books with repairs.

 

Hey Roy;

 

Are you being serious here or are you trying to be sarcastic with us?

 

If you are actually serious, then you must either be dreaming or living in a fantasy land. Either that or you have been drinking way too much of the CGC juice and have lost all touch with the real world.

 

There will always be a overwhelming stigma attached to restored books as long as CGC maintains their current colour labelling system. No matter how much they claim that this revised system will educate the marketplace with respect to restoration, I just do not see this happening.

 

The system which they are about to put in place is just too overly complicated and also does not facilitate the dissemination of this critical information to the marketplace. If some of the board members are having problems understanding this new system with the detailed notes right in front of them, just imagine the rest of the marketplace when they don't have any of this information in front of them.

 

The buying public in general will always go for the lowest common denominator (i.e. the easiest route) and will not bother with any of the restoration details because they will not be able to see past the glare of the purple label. Especially in light of the fact that any interested parties will have to pay additional monies to see any of this detailed information.

 

If you really want to successfully educate the buying public about restoration, you need to eliminate the PLOD, go with an uni-colour label system, and provide the marketplace with easy access to this information. This will force the buying public to pay attention and in turn, facilitate the understanding of restoration to which you are referring to.

 

As long as the PLOD remains in place, restored books will continue to be shunned as the marketplace will not be able to move past the pre-school stage of coloured flash cards no matter how hard they try.

 

I personally like the fact that restored books are in a different colored label. It makes it that much easier for me to gloss over them when I'm looking for a particular book. (thumbs u

People should be able to easily tell whether or not a book is restored without having to look up individual labels on the census or read a dissertation of the work done. One of the biggest benefits of CGC was removing the guesswork from this. By making things unnecessarily complicated in order to appease those who feel like their restored purple label books are unfairly stigmatized and should be "worth" more, CGC risks taking a big step backward.

 

-J.

[Wayne-Tec]

I believe that there are good arguments to both sides.

 

CGC's new label system does give us more details, even if they be at the cost of making the system more complicated. Purple labels are convenient in respects to quickly allowing collectors to have a "rough idea" of what they're looking at (universal vs. restored), but obviously, the purple label has brought with it a stigma that often effects the values of books to a disproportionate-to-logic extent.

 

As I've said in previous posts, the distribution of prices realized between universal (100% original books) and slightly restored (99% original books) is often extremely illogical and has to-date, been maintained by negative, stigma-induced overreactions that has materialized by seeing books lose 30-40-50% of their value because of dots of ink or scissors that graced a cover's edge.

 

I refer back to the automobile analogy mentioned earlier. If two $150,000 cars are offered for sale, but one had a scratch covered up with unoriginal paint -- it would be illogical to then offer the buyer a $40,000-$65,000 discount (30-40% off "unrestored" FMV) for a car that is 99% original.

 

Could you imagine the buyer of the 40% marked-down car being jeered, and mocked as fool for not paying $65,000 extra to be without that covered up scratch? Such minor work should entitle a buyer to more than a 1% discount (even if the item is indeed 99% original), but not to an extent in which the item (car, comic book, etc.) loses nearly half of its entire value.

 

I just don't see educated investors of four-figure, five-figure, six-figure and seven-figure books subscribing to such philosophies in the long-run. When stigma-induced phobias are born from such a flawed application of logic, they are, IMO, not entrenched to withstand the long haul.

[lou_fine]

Instead of there being a stigma, there will be a better understanding of what restored books are and a better spacing of pricing between work done and what a book should be valued it.

 

The hobby is growing up rather than shunning books with repairs.

 

Hey Roy;

 

Are you being serious here or are you trying to be sarcastic with us?

 

If you are actually serious, then you must either be dreaming or living in a fantasy land. Either that or you have been drinking way too much of the CGC juice and have lost all touch with the real world.

 

There will always be a overwhelming stigma attached to restored books as long as CGC maintains their current colour labelling system. No matter how much they claim that this revised system will educate the marketplace with respect to restoration, I just do not see this happening.

 

The system which they are about to put in place is just too overly complicated and also does not facilitate the dissemination of this critical information to the marketplace. If some of the board members are having problems understanding this new system with the detailed notes right in front of them, just imagine the rest of the marketplace when they don't have any of this information in front of them.

 

The buying public in general will always go for the lowest common denominator (i.e. the easiest route) and will not bother with any of the restoration details because they will not be able to see past the glare of the purple label. Especially in light of the fact that any interested parties will have to pay additional monies to see any of this detailed information.

 

If you really want to successfully educate the buying public about restoration, you need to eliminate the PLOD, go with an uni-colour label system, and provide the marketplace with easy access to this information. This will force the buying public to pay attention and in turn, facilitate the understanding of restoration to which you are referring to.

 

As long as the PLOD remains in place, restored books will continue to be shunned as the marketplace will not be able to move past the pre-school stage of coloured flash cards no matter how hard they try.

 

I personally like the fact that restored books are in a different colored label. It makes it that much easier for me to gloss over them when I'm looking for a particular book. (thumbs u

People should be able to easily tell whether or not a book is restored without having to look up individual labels on the census or read a dissertation of the work done. One of the biggest benefits of CGC was removing the guesswork from this. By making things unnecessarily complicated in order to appease those who feel like their restored purple label books are unfairly stigmatized and should be "worth" more, CGC risks taking a big step backward.

 

-J.

 

Thanks Jay; (thumbs u

 

You've proven my point beyond a shadow of doubt......you will never be able to remove the stigma on restored books from the marketplace as long the PLOD remains, no matter what other information is provided.

 

Restoration rating has been dumbed down to a pre-school level of coloured flash cards only. You will never have a level playing field for restored books in terms of valuation based upon type and extent of work done as the marketplace lives in total fear of the PLOD.

 

Yes, while CGC has removed a lot of the guesswork when it comes to some forms of restoration, it has also added a lot of questions with respect to other forms of manipulative activities which they have chosen to either encourage or to turn a blind eye to.

[lou_fine]

I believe that there are good arguments to both sides.

 

CGC's new label system does give us more details, even if they be at the cost of making the system more complicated. Purple labels are convenient in respects to quickly allowing collectors to have a "rough idea" of what they're looking at (universal vs. restored), but obviously, the purple label has brought with it a stigma that often effects the values of books to a disproportionate-to-logic extent.

 

As I've said in previous posts, the distribution of prices realized between universal (100% original books) and slightly restored (99% original books) is often extremely illogical and has to-date, been maintained by negative, stigma-induced overreactions that has materialized by seeing books lose 30-40-50% of their value because of dots of ink or scissors that graced a cover's edge.

 

I refer back to the automobile analogy mentioned earlier. If two $150,000 cars are offered for sale, but one had a scratch covered up with unoriginal paint -- it would be illogical to then offer the buyer a $40,000-$65,000 discount (30-40% off "unrestored" FMV) for a car that is 99% original.

 

Could you imagine the buyer of the 40% marked-down car being jeered, and mocked as fool for not paying $65,000 extra to be without that covered up scratch? Such minor work should entitle a buyer to more than a 1% discount (even if the item is indeed 99% original), but not to an extent in which the item (car, comic book, etc.) loses nearly half of its entire value.

 

I just don't see educated investors of four-figure, five-figure, six-figure and seven-figure books subscribing to such philosophies in the long-run. When stigma-induced phobias are born from such a flawed application of logic, they are, IMO, not entrenched to withstand the long haul.

 

History has so far clearly shown us that you are dead wrong in terms of the bolded portion of your comments above.

 

Fifteen years of CGC grading has shown us that the marketplace continues to live in total and absolute fear of the PLOD, even though logic dictates that this should not be the case. And I don't see nothing at all on the horizon that will change this line of thinking going forward.

 

A classic example of this would be the Church copies of More Fun 52 and Adventure 40 from way back when CGC first started. Both were major key DC books with the same types of restoration activities done to them. The only difference being that the Adventure 40 fell on the wrong side of the line with small amounts of restoration identified and was flagged with a purple label. Borock's former copy of More Fun 52 fell on the right side of the line with only minor amounts of restoration identified and was rewarded with a blue label.

 

Logic would dictate that the difference in price for these 2 pedigree books should not really be that significant at all. And yet while the More Fun 52 was able to sell at a significant premium to guide without any problems at all, the Adventure 40 on the other hand, took several auctions before finding a buyer and then only at a substantial discount to guide. Needless to say, the real overriding difference between these 2 Church books really came down to nothing more than the colour of the labels.

 

Fast forward to today and we continue to hear horror stories whereby gorgeous restored books are being destroyed by having certain parts hacked away just so they can obtain the blue label, albeit it at a much lower technical grade. Totally illogical from a collector's point of view, but totally logical if money is the bottom-line.

[Cat-Man_America]

I believe that there are good arguments to both sides.

 

CGC's new label system does give us more details, even if they be at the cost of making the system more complicated. Purple labels are convenient in respects to quickly allowing collectors to have a "rough idea" of what they're looking at (universal vs. restored), but obviously, the purple label has brought with it a stigma that often effects the values of books to a disproportionate-to-logic extent.

 

As I've said in previous posts, the distribution of prices realized between universal (100% original books) and slightly restored (99% original books) is often extremely illogical and has to-date, been maintained by negative, stigma-induced overreactions that has materialized by seeing books lose 30-40-50% of their value because of dots of ink or scissors that graced a cover's edge.

 

I refer back to the automobile analogy mentioned earlier. If two $150,000 cars are offered for sale, but one had a scratch covered up with unoriginal paint -- it would be illogical to then offer the buyer a $40,000-$65,000 discount (30-40% off "unrestored" FMV) for a car that is 99% original.

 

Could you imagine the buyer of the 40% marked-down car being jeered, and mocked as fool for not paying $65,000 extra to be without that covered up scratch? Such minor work should entitle a buyer to more than a 1% discount (even if the item is indeed 99% original), but not to an extent in which the item (car, comic book, etc.) loses nearly half of its entire value.

 

I just don't see educated investors of four-figure, five-figure, six-figure and seven-figure books subscribing to such philosophies in the long-run. When stigma-induced phobias are born from such a flawed application of logic, they are, IMO, not entrenched to withstand the long haul.

 

 

+1 ...Agree with this logic. As I see it, purple labels are the crux of the problem. I'm in favor of more information (kudos to CGC for that), but had hoped the Scarlet labeling of books was on the way out.

 

Disclosure should be the primary issue of relevance to collectors, not color coding. My

 

While the Conservation label is definitely an improvement, the new system is still a band-aid fix to a long term hobby-health problem borne out of paranoia (illogical fear that any restoration destroys value) and laziness (letting label colors determine collector desirability).

 

[Wayne-Tec]

Fifteen years of CGC grading has shown us that the marketplace continues to live in total and absolute fear of the PLOD, even though logic dictates that this should not be the case. And I don't see nothing at all on the horizon that will change this line of thinking going forward.

 

I echo that same concern, though I'm a bit more optimistic perhaps.

 

When an ideal is entrenched in nonsensical phobias, you have to believe that either:

 

A) Such phobias, however nonsensical, will continue to thrive. Or...

 

B) Greater understanding and an evolution in common sense will take over.

 

I opt for the latter. You're absolutely right that after 15 years, the hobby still lags behind in that common sense department, but like many other things in history, sometimes it takes longer than it should for greater sense to take over.

[Jaydogrules]

I believe that there are good arguments to both sides.

 

CGC's new label system does give us more details, even if they be at the cost of making the system more complicated. Purple labels are convenient in respects to quickly allowing collectors to have a "rough idea" of what they're looking at (universal vs. restored), but obviously, the purple label has brought with it a stigma that often effects the values of books to a disproportionate-to-logic extent.

 

As I've said in previous posts, the distribution of prices realized between universal (100% original books) and slightly restored (99% original books) is often extremely illogical and has to-date, been maintained by negative, stigma-induced overreactions that has materialized by seeing books lose 30-40-50% of their value because of dots of ink or scissors that graced a cover's edge.

 

I refer back to the automobile analogy mentioned earlier. If two $150,000 cars are offered for sale, but one had a scratch covered up with unoriginal paint -- it would be illogical to then offer the buyer a $40,000-$65,000 discount (30-40% off "unrestored" FMV) for a car that is 99% original.

 

Could you imagine the buyer of the 40% marked-down car being jeered, and mocked as fool for not paying $65,000 extra to be without that covered up scratch? Such minor work should entitle a buyer to more than a 1% discount (even if the item is indeed 99% original), but not to an extent in which the item (car, comic book, etc.) loses nearly half of its entire value.

 

I just don't see educated investors of four-figure, five-figure, six-figure and seven-figure books subscribing to such philosophies in the long-run. When stigma-induced phobias are born from such a flawed application of logic, they are, IMO, not entrenched to withstand the long haul.

 

History has so far clearly shown us that you are dead wrong in terms of the bolded portion of your comments above.

 

Fifteen years of CGC grading has shown us that the marketplace continues to live in total and absolute fear of the PLOD, even though logic dictates that this should not be the case. And I don't see nothing at all on the horizon that will change this line of thinking going forward.

 

A classic example of this would be the Church copies of More Fun 52 and Adventure 40 from way back when CGC first started. Both were major key DC books with the same types of restoration activities done to them. The only difference being that the Adventure 40 fell on the wrong side of the line with small amounts of restoration identified and was flagged with a purple label. Borock's former copy of More Fun 52 fell on the right side of the line with only minor amounts of restoration identified and was rewarded with a blue label.

 

Logic would dictate that the difference in price for these 2 pedigree books should not really be that significant at all. And yet while the More Fun 52 was able to sell at a significant premium to guide without any problems at all, the Adventure 40 on the other hand, took several auctions before finding a buyer and then only at a substantial discount to guide. Needless to say, the real overriding difference between these 2 Church books really came down to nothing more than the colour of the labels.

 

Fast forward to today and we continue to hear horror stories whereby gorgeous restored books are being destroyed by having certain parts hacked away just so they can obtain the blue label, albeit it at a much lower technical grade. Totally illogical from a collector's point of view, but totally logical if money is the bottom-line.

 

I can only speak for myself when I say my personal aversion to buying restored books has nothing to do with a lack of understanding of restoration itself. I just will never buy a book that's been messed with in any way like that. Even if it "looks" better because of it. The color coding of the labels is critical because it lets the prospective buyer know that they're getting a restored book without having to scrutinize the label or pull grader notes. This is not a bad thing at all. Restoration disclosure has historically been a problem in this hobby because dealers and sellers have always known that a very large chunk of the buying public either do not want a restored book or will pay a lot less for one. This is nothing new. The reason restored books will always go for a lot less than unrestored books is because there is a much smaller buying pool for restored books. And again, I'm not really sure why this is a problem as it allows a much lower entry point to own certain books.

 

-J.

[Marvel Zombie]

I believe that there are good arguments to both sides.

 

CGC's new label system does give us more details, even if they be at the cost of making the system more complicated. Purple labels are convenient in respects to quickly allowing collectors to have a "rough idea" of what they're looking at (universal vs. restored), but obviously, the purple label has brought with it a stigma that often effects the values of books to a disproportionate-to-logic extent.

 

As I've said in previous posts, the distribution of prices realized between universal (100% original books) and slightly restored (99% original books) is often extremely illogical and has to-date, been maintained by negative, stigma-induced overreactions that has materialized by seeing books lose 30-40-50% of their value because of dots of ink or scissors that graced a cover's edge.

 

I refer back to the automobile analogy mentioned earlier. If two $150,000 cars are offered for sale, but one had a scratch covered up with unoriginal paint -- it would be illogical to then offer the buyer a $40,000-$65,000 discount (30-40% off "unrestored" FMV) for a car that is 99% original.

 

Could you imagine the buyer of the 40% marked-down car being jeered, and mocked as fool for not paying $65,000 extra to be without that covered up scratch? Such minor work should entitle a buyer to more than a 1% discount (even if the item is indeed 99% original), but not to an extent in which the item (car, comic book, etc.) loses nearly half of its entire value.

 

I just don't see educated investors of four-figure, five-figure, six-figure and seven-figure books subscribing to such philosophies in the long-run. When stigma-induced phobias are born from such a flawed application of logic, they are, IMO, not entrenched to withstand the long haul.

 

History has so far clearly shown us that you are dead wrong in terms of the bolded portion of your comments above.

 

Fifteen years of CGC grading has shown us that the marketplace continues to live in total and absolute fear of the PLOD, even though logic dictates that this should not be the case. And I don't see nothing at all on the horizon that will change this line of thinking going forward.

 

A classic example of this would be the Church copies of More Fun 52 and Adventure 40 from way back when CGC first started. Both were major key DC books with the same types of restoration activities done to them. The only difference being that the Adventure 40 fell on the wrong side of the line with small amounts of restoration identified and was flagged with a purple label. Borock's former copy of More Fun 52 fell on the right side of the line with only minor amounts of restoration identified and was rewarded with a blue label.

 

Logic would dictate that the difference in price for these 2 pedigree books should not really be that significant at all. And yet while the More Fun 52 was able to sell at a significant premium to guide without any problems at all, the Adventure 40 on the other hand, took several auctions before finding a buyer and then only at a substantial discount to guide. Needless to say, the real overriding difference between these 2 Church books really came down to nothing more than the colour of the labels.

 

Fast forward to today and we continue to hear horror stories whereby gorgeous restored books are being destroyed by having certain parts hacked away just so they can obtain the blue label, albeit it at a much lower technical grade. Totally illogical from a collector's point of view, but totally logical if money is the bottom-line.

 

I can only speak for myself when I say my personal aversion to buying restored books has nothing to do with a lack of understanding of restoration itself. I just will never buy a book that's been messed with in any way like that. Even if it "looks" better because of it. The color coding of the labels is critical because it lets the prospective buyer know that they're getting a restored book without having to scrutinize the label or pull grader notes. This is not a bad thing at all. Restoration disclosure has historically been a problem in this hobby because dealers and sellers have always known that a very large chunk of the buying public either do not want a restored book or will pay a lot less for one. This is nothing new. The reason restored books will always go for a lot less than unrestored books is because there is a much smaller buying pool for restored books. And again, I'm not really sure why this is a problem as it allows a much lower entry point to own certain books.

 

-J.

 

 

 

what about the significant amount of slight PLODs that in recent years have returned to blue holders (due to reversal; chopping off CT'ed parts; scraping spines, etc.). DANG, the gospel of blue has a snake in its paradise right there ...

[Wayne-Tec]

I believe that there are good arguments to both sides.

 

CGC's new label system does give us more details, even if they be at the cost of making the system more complicated. Purple labels are convenient in respects to quickly allowing collectors to have a "rough idea" of what they're looking at (universal vs. restored), but obviously, the purple label has brought with it a stigma that often effects the values of books to a disproportionate-to-logic extent.

 

As I've said in previous posts, the distribution of prices realized between universal (100% original books) and slightly restored (99% original books) is often extremely illogical and has to-date, been maintained by negative, stigma-induced overreactions that has materialized by seeing books lose 30-40-50% of their value because of dots of ink or scissors that graced a cover's edge.

 

I refer back to the automobile analogy mentioned earlier. If two $150,000 cars are offered for sale, but one had a scratch covered up with unoriginal paint -- it would be illogical to then offer the buyer a $40,000-$65,000 discount (30-40% off "unrestored" FMV) for a car that is 99% original.

 

Could you imagine the buyer of the 40% marked-down car being jeered, and mocked as fool for not paying $65,000 extra to be without that covered up scratch? Such minor work should entitle a buyer to more than a 1% discount (even if the item is indeed 99% original), but not to an extent in which the item (car, comic book, etc.) loses nearly half of its entire value.

 

I just don't see educated investors of four-figure, five-figure, six-figure and seven-figure books subscribing to such philosophies in the long-run. When stigma-induced phobias are born from such a flawed application of logic, they are, IMO, not entrenched to withstand the long haul.

 

History has so far clearly shown us that you are dead wrong in terms of the bolded portion of your comments above.

 

Fifteen years of CGC grading has shown us that the marketplace continues to live in total and absolute fear of the PLOD, even though logic dictates that this should not be the case. And I don't see nothing at all on the horizon that will change this line of thinking going forward.

 

A classic example of this would be the Church copies of More Fun 52 and Adventure 40 from way back when CGC first started. Both were major key DC books with the same types of restoration activities done to them. The only difference being that the Adventure 40 fell on the wrong side of the line with small amounts of restoration identified and was flagged with a purple label. Borock's former copy of More Fun 52 fell on the right side of the line with only minor amounts of restoration identified and was rewarded with a blue label.

 

Logic would dictate that the difference in price for these 2 pedigree books should not really be that significant at all. And yet while the More Fun 52 was able to sell at a significant premium to guide without any problems at all, the Adventure 40 on the other hand, took several auctions before finding a buyer and then only at a substantial discount to guide. Needless to say, the real overriding difference between these 2 Church books really came down to nothing more than the colour of the labels.

 

Fast forward to today and we continue to hear horror stories whereby gorgeous restored books are being destroyed by having certain parts hacked away just so they can obtain the blue label, albeit it at a much lower technical grade. Totally illogical from a collector's point of view, but totally logical if money is the bottom-line.

 

I can only speak for myself when I say my personal aversion to buying restored books has nothing to do with a lack of understanding of restoration itself. I just will never buy a book that's been messed with in any way like that. Even if it "looks" better because of it. The color coding of the labels is critical because it lets the prospective buyer know that they're getting a restored book without having to scrutinize the label or pull grader notes. This is not a bad thing at all. Restoration disclosure has historically been a problem in this hobby because dealers and sellers have always known that a very large chunk of the buying public either do not want a restored book or will pay a lot less for one. This is nothing new. The reason restored books will always go for a lot less than unrestored books is because there is a much smaller buying pool for restored books. And again, I'm not really sure why this is a problem as it allows a much lower entry point to own certain books.

 

-J.

 

what about the significant amount of slight PLODs that in recent years have returned to blue holders (due to reversal; chopping off CT'ed parts; scraping spines, etc.). DANG, the gospel of blue has a snake in its paradise right there ...

 

I think that myself, and other collectors, are talking more about books with a very small amount of work done to them, and/or ones with very little to no unoriginal parts added. If we're talking moderate/extensive PLODs --while it's a cloudy area-- I believe the value should land somewhere in the range of what the book was pre-restoration.

 

But for the 99% original books to lose 30, 40, 50% of their value -- that's what myself and others don't agree with. Instead, as Marvel Zombie mentioned, people often prefer to chop off pieces of the book itself in the hopes of it returning with the coveted "blue label."

 

In respects to the convenience of colored labels making books easier for collectors to identify as restored or non-restored, I think that makes better sense with lesser valued books. If a collector is spending four-plus figures on a book, they should be able to read a label in-full. For years prior to CGC, collectors did their homework in this regard. CGC has obviously helped the hobby by serving as third-party, qualified restoration detectors. There's no doubt that that service is invaluable as we all deserve to know exactly what we're buying.

 

But the positive that gives us the convenience of more quickly recognizing a restored book by virtue of it's colored label is not always, and is often not, worth the cost of nonsensical PLOD stigma-phobia.

[bluechip]

I believe that there are good arguments to both sides.

 

CGC's new label system does give us more details, even if they be at the cost of making the system more complicated. Purple labels are convenient in respects to quickly allowing collectors to have a "rough idea" of what they're looking at (universal vs. restored), but obviously, the purple label has brought with it a stigma that often effects the values of books to a disproportionate-to-logic extent.

 

As I've said in previous posts, the distribution of prices realized between universal (100% original books) and slightly restored (99% original books) is often extremely illogical and has to-date, been maintained by negative, stigma-induced overreactions that has materialized by seeing books lose 30-40-50% of their value because of dots of ink or scissors that graced a cover's edge.

 

I refer back to the automobile analogy mentioned earlier. If two $150,000 cars are offered for sale, but one had a scratch covered up with unoriginal paint -- it would be illogical to then offer the buyer a $40,000-$65,000 discount (30-40% off "unrestored" FMV) for a car that is 99% original.

 

Could you imagine the buyer of the 40% marked-down car being jeered, and mocked as fool for not paying $65,000 extra to be without that covered up scratch? Such minor work should entitle a buyer to more than a 1% discount (even if the item is indeed 99% original), but not to an extent in which the item (car, comic book, etc.) loses nearly half of its entire value.

 

I just don't see educated investors of four-figure, five-figure, six-figure and seven-figure books subscribing to such philosophies in the long-run. When stigma-induced phobias are born from such a flawed application of logic, they are, IMO, not entrenched to withstand the long haul.

 

History has so far clearly shown us that you are dead wrong in terms of the bolded portion of your comments above.

 

Fifteen years of CGC grading has shown us that the marketplace continues to live in total and absolute fear of the PLOD, even though logic dictates that this should not be the case. And I don't see nothing at all on the horizon that will change this line of thinking going forward.

 

A classic example of this would be the Church copies of More Fun 52 and Adventure 40 from way back when CGC first started. Both were major key DC books with the same types of restoration activities done to them. The only difference being that the Adventure 40 fell on the wrong side of the line with small amounts of restoration identified and was flagged with a purple label. Borock's former copy of More Fun 52 fell on the right side of the line with only minor amounts of restoration identified and was rewarded with a blue label.

 

Logic would dictate that the difference in price for these 2 pedigree books should not really be that significant at all. And yet while the More Fun 52 was able to sell at a significant premium to guide without any problems at all, the Adventure 40 on the other hand, took several auctions before finding a buyer and then only at a substantial discount to guide. Needless to say, the real overriding difference between these 2 Church books really came down to nothing more than the colour of the labels.

 

Fast forward to today and we continue to hear horror stories whereby gorgeous restored books are being destroyed by having certain parts hacked away just so they can obtain the blue label, albeit it at a much lower technical grade. Totally illogical from a collector's point of view, but totally logical if money is the bottom-line.

 

I can only speak for myself when I say my personal aversion to buying restored books has nothing to do with a lack of understanding of restoration itself. I just will never buy a book that's been messed with in any way like that. Even if it "looks" better because of it. The color coding of the labels is critical because it lets the prospective buyer know that they're getting a restored book without having to scrutinize the label or pull grader notes. This is not a bad thing at all. Restoration disclosure has historically been a problem in this hobby because dealers and sellers have always known that a very large chunk of the buying public either do not want a restored book or will pay a lot less for one. This is nothing new. The reason restored books will always go for a lot less than unrestored books is because there is a much smaller buying pool for restored books. And again, I'm not really sure why this is a problem as it allows a much lower entry point to own certain books.

 

-J.

 

As always it comes down to "how much was done"

 

When you say the color coding is crucial so the buyer doesn't have to scrutiinze the label I can see that being appropriate if the book appears totally different from how it was originally.

 

But when the book doesn't really look different and hasn't been significantly improved then the color coding can only serve the purpose of stigmatizing one defect over another -- for one reason or another.

 

And what reasons can only those be? Only to stigmatize the intent behind a defect. Or to punish a particular defect as restoration when it's not restoration at all. Or to punish a defect (or restoration) more on one book than it's punished on another.

 

And because of the unavoidable conflicts which come out of any of those reasons your final statement becomes even more problematic.

 

If the label color's purpose is to as you say, provide a "much lower entry point" of lower priced books, then it's also about which buyers are given the "much lower entry point" buy and which sellers are made to provide a "much lower entry point" sale.

 

No amount of good faith can erase the doubts that arise when people see that some books with glue or color touch get blue labels while others do not. Or that people are selling slabbed books at one price and then seeing them resold at multiples with restoration removed later on. Or that some hidden improvement techniques aren't colored or even disclosed while others are punished despite full disclosure (and sometimes less alteration to the book). All of those things provide people with opportunities for "entry point" purchases or returns on investment, but arguably none of them are good for the hobby long-term.

 

Comics routinely sell for five and six figures and sometimes sell for seven figures. At those levels I can't see it as a good thing to have a system that aims to relieve the buyer of having to "scrutinize" the label.

 

 

[Jaydogrules]

I believe that there are good arguments to both sides.

 

CGC's new label system does give us more details, even if they be at the cost of making the system more complicated. Purple labels are convenient in respects to quickly allowing collectors to have a "rough idea" of what they're looking at (universal vs. restored), but obviously, the purple label has brought with it a stigma that often effects the values of books to a disproportionate-to-logic extent.

 

As I've said in previous posts, the distribution of prices realized between universal (100% original books) and slightly restored (99% original books) is often extremely illogical and has to-date, been maintained by negative, stigma-induced overreactions that has materialized by seeing books lose 30-40-50% of their value because of dots of ink or scissors that graced a cover's edge.

 

I refer back to the automobile analogy mentioned earlier. If two $150,000 cars are offered for sale, but one had a scratch covered up with unoriginal paint -- it would be illogical to then offer the buyer a $40,000-$65,000 discount (30-40% off "unrestored" FMV) for a car that is 99% original.

 

Could you imagine the buyer of the 40% marked-down car being jeered, and mocked as fool for not paying $65,000 extra to be without that covered up scratch? Such minor work should entitle a buyer to more than a 1% discount (even if the item is indeed 99% original), but not to an extent in which the item (car, comic book, etc.) loses nearly half of its entire value.

 

I just don't see educated investors of four-figure, five-figure, six-figure and seven-figure books subscribing to such philosophies in the long-run. When stigma-induced phobias are born from such a flawed application of logic, they are, IMO, not entrenched to withstand the long haul.

 

History has so far clearly shown us that you are dead wrong in terms of the bolded portion of your comments above.

 

Fifteen years of CGC grading has shown us that the marketplace continues to live in total and absolute fear of the PLOD, even though logic dictates that this should not be the case. And I don't see nothing at all on the horizon that will change this line of thinking going forward.

 

A classic example of this would be the Church copies of More Fun 52 and Adventure 40 from way back when CGC first started. Both were major key DC books with the same types of restoration activities done to them. The only difference being that the Adventure 40 fell on the wrong side of the line with small amounts of restoration identified and was flagged with a purple label. Borock's former copy of More Fun 52 fell on the right side of the line with only minor amounts of restoration identified and was rewarded with a blue label.

 

Logic would dictate that the difference in price for these 2 pedigree books should not really be that significant at all. And yet while the More Fun 52 was able to sell at a significant premium to guide without any problems at all, the Adventure 40 on the other hand, took several auctions before finding a buyer and then only at a substantial discount to guide. Needless to say, the real overriding difference between these 2 Church books really came down to nothing more than the colour of the labels.

 

Fast forward to today and we continue to hear horror stories whereby gorgeous restored books are being destroyed by having certain parts hacked away just so they can obtain the blue label, albeit it at a much lower technical grade. Totally illogical from a collector's point of view, but totally logical if money is the bottom-line.

 

I can only speak for myself when I say my personal aversion to buying restored books has nothing to do with a lack of understanding of restoration itself. I just will never buy a book that's been messed with in any way like that. Even if it "looks" better because of it. The color coding of the labels is critical because it lets the prospective buyer know that they're getting a restored book without having to scrutinize the label or pull grader notes. This is not a bad thing at all. Restoration disclosure has historically been a problem in this hobby because dealers and sellers have always known that a very large chunk of the buying public either do not want a restored book or will pay a lot less for one. This is nothing new. The reason restored books will always go for a lot less than unrestored books is because there is a much smaller buying pool for restored books. And again, I'm not really sure why this is a problem as it allows a much lower entry point to own certain books.

 

-J.

 

As always it comes down to "how much was done"

 

When you say the color coding is crucial so the buyer doesn't have to scrutiinze the label I can see that being appropriate if the book appears totally different from how it was originally.

 

But when the book doesn't really look different and hasn't been significantly improved then the color coding can only serve the purpose of stigmatizing one defect over another -- for one reason or another.

 

And what reasons can only those be? Only to stigmatize the intent behind a defect. Or to punish a particular defect as restoration when it's not restoration at all. Or to punish a defect (or restoration) more on one book than it's punished on another.

 

And because of the unavoidable conflicts which come out of any of those reasons your final statement becomes even more problematic.

 

If the label color's purpose is to as you say, provide a "much lower entry point" of lower priced books, then it's also about which buyers are given the "much lower entry point" buy and which sellers are made to provide a "much lower entry point" sale.

 

No amount of good faith can erase the doubts that arise when people see that some books with glue or color touch get blue labels while others do not. Or that people are selling slabbed books at one price and then seeing them resold at multiples with restoration removed later on. Or that some hidden improvement techniques aren't colored or even disclosed while others are punished despite full disclosure (and sometimes less alteration to the book). All of those things provide people with opportunities for "entry point" purchases or returns on investment, but arguably none of them are good for the hobby long-term.

 

Comics routinely sell for five and six figures and sometimes sell for seven figures. At those levels I can't see it as a good thing to have a system that aims to relieve the buyer of having to "scrutinize" the label.

 

 

I would never advocate butchering a nicely restored book just to get it back into a blue holder. That's just people gaming the system for monetary gain, I have not advocated that here. But if someone is able to scrape off a bit of colour touch without defacing the book, to get it closer to its original state, sure why not?

 

Problem is, this can not usually be done without defacing the book. Should that make the book worth a certain fraction of the blue label book that was never messed with? I say yes, it should. It should be worth a lot less. These old comic books are like antiquities, not new cars. Antiquities that have been polished up or repainted get severely dinged in their values as well. It should be no different here. When I am buying my books, I would like for them to be original, and as in good a condition as I can afford. By saying this I am not knocking all the nice presenting restored books out there. I am simply saying that there is a very good reason why they sell at a large discount, and most likely always will.

 

-J.