• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

There's a Restored 9.4 Tec 33 Blowing up on Ebay

895 posts in this topic

This example makes me wonder whether what the Meyers are doing might be a game changer for how both companies evaluate heavily restored books. I'm not sure the "we grade the book in front of us" approach still works when the restoration is this extensive.

 

I think 'grading the book in front of them' is still being done. You grade the book based on defects present and assign an apparent grade for a restored book.

 

The problem is that if there is a lot of inpainting or sizing / reglossing covering the paper of a book and that paint / sizing / gloss covers where the resto starts and stops, it becomes nearly impossible to tell exactly how much of the book was restored - and THIS in my opinion is one of the reasons companies certify restored books. Not only to catch the restoration but also to notate what sort of restoration and how much restoration was done.

 

If a certification company can't accurately tell how much of the book was actually restored it starts to defeat the purpose of the system - in similar fashion like when CGC can not identify whether some black and white comics are counterfeits or not and so refuse to grade them.

 

The certification company should only certify things that they can declare with little margin for error - and this is where I think Bedrock / Matt / CGC are coming from.

 

If they can't identify where the resto starts and where it ends, that may post a problem for their certification standards and by extension the comfort level of those collecting restored books.

 

Me personally, I've owned tons of restored books (some of my favorite books were restored) and I personally would prefer to know everything about the book that I can before I own it.

 

Perhaps the grading companies will eventually decide that people submitting extensively restored books will have to provide documentation of what was done, along with before and after photos, and so on.

 

That would be impossible to consistently enforce. Some books can be several hands removed from the restorer and may not have any documentation.

 

In any event, you would think in this case the black line added to the spine should have been counted as a defect, bringing the grade down from 9.8. hm

 

Unless it was missed by the grader and they thought it was production. And that happens. CGC and Voldermart do make mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CGC restoration seems to be inferior to IGB thus not willing to grade their books. I'm sure

if they didn't have a pony in the race it wouldn't be a problem.

 

Regardless of the feel or look, it's graded and sealed. The money will flow.

 

 

But there is a precedent for CGC. They have refused to certify certain types of restored books as restored for various reasons, even prior to their acquiring CCS.

 

They do have a very specific rational for the way they certify their restored books. I know because I've inquired about certain types of resto before having some books restored myself.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'll just add one more thought as to why some people may want to know exactly how much of a restored book is original (and why CGC has made their standards even more detailed): People who are 'in the know' will value the restored book by how much of the book is original (and how much isn't).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like high res images of the Tec 33 may help here. New to boards, thought scans would show clearer - hopefully this helps..

 

The reason this book was originally a CGC 6.0 B-5 was because the previous cover spine restoration was poor, and the interior pages needed some mending. It was actually very quick to a 9.4 once the spine was replaced (in a completely reversible manner).

 

Before and afters:

 

Front Before

http://extrazoom.com/image-50355.html

 

Front After

http://extrazoom.com/image-50354.html

 

Reverse Before

http://extrazoom.com/image-50358.html

 

Reverse After

http://extrazoom.com/image-50359.html

 

Front Spine Before

http://extrazoom.com/image-50361.html

 

Reverse Spine Before

http://extrazoom.com/image-50362.html

 

Interior Wraps After (Biljo White - upper right corner)

http://extrazoom.com/image-50363.html

 

Interior Cover After (pre-pressing)

http://extrazoom.com/image-50364.html

 

Thanks again for all comments good and bad tough! Night all!

Emily & Matt (fell asleep awhile ago - wimp)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And he has still yet to explain why he is seeking particular copies in (non-trimmed) restored condition, other than he wants to hold them in his hands.

 

Does he really owe anybody an answer? (shrug)

 

No, Roy,... he has every right to purchase what he wants without any question. I'm just smelling something fishy and contradictory. And I am running behind a few pages in this thread.

 

People buy and sell stuff anonymously all the time. As long as he's not doing something fraudulent he's free to go about his business IMO.

 

+1 Exactly!

 

But the future will tell whether it becomes everybody's business to know.

 

Also, I want to apologize to Richard (Mr. Bedrock) if I came across confrontational. Not my attentions. I've only met you one time at the Dallas ComicCon, May 2011 at the Irvine Convention Center. Andy directed me to your booth and I purchased 3 SA Spideys (8.5-9.0) raw condition. They are solid-sweet and I still have them. Richard, you are "Class A" brutha!

 

Of course Andy slugged me with an ASM 28 (CGC 7.0) prior to sending me to your booth. lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the grading companies will eventually decide that people submitting extensively restored books will have to provide documentation of what was done, along with before and after photos, and so on.

 

That would be impossible to consistently enforce. Some books can be several hands removed from the restorer and may not have any documentation.

 

 

Roy;

 

This is now starting to sound like the old disclosure of pressing argument. :ohnoez:

 

Since it's impossible to enforce the disclosure of pressing as the books change hands, it was argued that there is no need for the original person that had the work done to disclose it. In addition, it was also argued that nobody really cared since pressing was considered to be non-restorative and nobody could tell anyways, as long as the work was done properly. Hence, no need for disclosure when it comes to pressing. :facepalm:

 

Similarly, the problem here would also be that it would be impossible to enforce the provision of documentation as the books change hands. But in this case, does it really even matter as all of these books are clearly designated as Extensive Restoration. Hence, if you aren't interested in books with this type of work, you simply don't bid on them as nobody is forcing you to. hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaydog - For crying out loud man -- please stop with the Libelous comments you continue to make. Please. Have a little respect for people that earn their living in this hobby (disclaimer - I am NOT one of those people). You can see what kinds of comments others make, which still voice opinions (some agree with yours), but the expression/delivery of how those statements are made is equally important.

 

Back to the issue at hand.....

 

I personally have a distaste for books being graded 9.8/9.6 in EP labels as well. I wonder if part of this is merely psychological because over the years one has been training to think of high grade, heavily worked frankenbooks as 8.5/9.0 with, perhaps, the occasional 9.2/9.4. Now, I'm not sure if techniques are improving and/or changing (and I'm certainly not qualified to opine) --- BUT --- any large inconsistency of grading methodology between the grading companies makes for some long-term challenges....and that's what worries me.

 

I would like to see better harmonization of the standards/methodologies for grading to minimize (or even eliminate) any perceptions of books being sent to one company over another for purposes of "getting the grade". I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseum, but perhaps a governing body of sorts could provide a few key overarching rules :foryou: .... yeah, yeah, easier said than done!

 

As for IGB, I too, thank them for their commentary and look forward to hearing more!

 

And a happy, healthy 2016 to all!

 

Dude what the hell are you talking about ? There have been at least two dozen other people on here who have posted far stronger opinions than I have on the subject and yet you choose to single me out and classify my OPINIONS as being "libelous"?

 

Back off brother.

 

If the grown ups who "make a living in this hobby" can't handle a little scrutiny and criticism of their product then maybe they should quit reading these boards and go cry in a corner somewhere.

 

-J.

 

 

I don't expect you to acquiesce (or care that you won't), I'm merely asking you to stop going forward. You are making blanket statements as if they're undeniable truths (even based on partially incorrect information). You also put words in peoples' mouths (figuratively). Nothing wrong with expressing your point, but there is an appropriate way to do it.

 

I'll post as I please, but thanks for the knowledge-drop. (thumbs u

 

Thanks to igb for posting some of their before shots.

 

For me the question remains as to what exactly CGC saw in this work that made these books un-gradeable in their opinion. If it was all totally reversible it would seem to me they would have gone ahead and took the money and graded the books (as CBCS was all too happy to do). I doubt there'll be any clarification of that from either CCS or igb however.

 

And speaking of making "blanket statements" as if they're "undeniable truths" I also doubt "professional jealousy" on CCS' part had anything to do with anything, as some have implied, just as igb did not go to CBCS to have these books graded because they feared CGC (CCS) would appropriate their "new" restoration methods as they originally claimed. That was something so blatantly false that Matt Nelson had to jump in to refute it.

 

-J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like high res images of the Tec 33 may help here. New to boards, thought scans would show clearer - hopefully this helps..

 

The reason this book was originally a CGC 6.0 B-5 was because the previous cover spine restoration was poor, and the interior pages needed some mending. It was actually very quick to a 9.4 once the spine was replaced (in a completely reversible manner).

 

Before and afters:

 

Front Before

http://extrazoom.com/image-50355.html

 

Front After

http://extrazoom.com/image-50354.html

 

Reverse Before

http://extrazoom.com/image-50358.html

 

Reverse After

http://extrazoom.com/image-50359.html

 

Front Spine Before

http://extrazoom.com/image-50361.html

 

Reverse Spine Before

http://extrazoom.com/image-50362.html

 

Interior Wraps After (Biljo White - upper right corner)

http://extrazoom.com/image-50363.html

 

Interior Cover After (pre-pressing)

http://extrazoom.com/image-50364.html

 

Thanks again for all comments good and bad tough! Night all!

Emily & Matt (fell asleep awhile ago - wimp)

 

 

It is too bad this type of disclosure is not available on all restos. The photos are amazing and your work looks professional. I just like all the photo documentation. If I was an owner of that book, I would feel comfortable with the process.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the purpose of the grading system is to evaluate the degree of preservation of a book. That should exclude both "conserved" and restored books.

 

Maybe an entirely new grading paradigm should be enacted that grades how well a book has been recreated via restorative and "conservation" techniques.

 

That way a grader really can simply evaluate "the book before them".

 

-J.

 

lol You do know about pressing, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This example makes me wonder whether what the Meyers are doing might be a game changer for how both companies evaluate heavily restored books. I'm not sure the "we grade the book in front of us" approach still works when the restoration is this extensive.

 

I think 'grading the book in front of them' is still being done. You grade the book based on defects present and assign an apparent grade for a restored book.

 

The problem is that if there is a lot of inpainting or sizing / reglossing covering the paper of a book and that paint / sizing / gloss covers where the resto starts and stops, it becomes nearly impossible to tell exactly how much of the book was restored - and THIS in my opinion is one of the reasons companies certify restored books. Not only to catch the restoration but also to notate what sort of restoration and how much restoration was done.

 

If a certification company can't accurately tell how much of the book was actually restored it starts to defeat the purpose of the system - in similar fashion like when CGC can not identify whether some black and white comics are counterfeits or not and so refuse to grade them.

 

The certification company should only certify things that they can declare with little margin for error - and this is where I think Bedrock / Matt / CGC are coming from.

 

If they can't identify where the resto starts and where it ends, that may post a problem for their certification standards and by extension the comfort level of those collecting restored books.

 

Me personally, I've owned tons of restored books (some of my favorite books were restored) and I personally would prefer to know everything about the book that I can before I own it.

 

Perhaps the grading companies will eventually decide that people submitting extensively restored books will have to provide documentation of what was done, along with before and after photos, and so on.

 

That would be impossible to consistently enforce. Some books can be several hands removed from the restorer and may not have any documentation.

 

In any event, you would think in this case the black line added to the spine should have been counted as a defect, bringing the grade down from 9.8. hm

 

Unless it was missed by the grader and they thought it was production. And that happens. CGC and Voldermart do make mistakes.

 

I think you're agreeing with me, while seemingly disagreeing! :D

 

Two points about the why the "we grade the book in front of us" approach may no longer work with these extensively restored book. Maybe I should say, at least with respect to CGC, is no longer working.

 

1. Once done, the extent of the restoration may be difficult to determine, which makes accurate label notes (and grading notes) difficult--perhaps impossible--to compile. This may be why CGC has declined to grade some of these books. That is, if they have declined to grade them. I'm not sure the point has been nailed down.

 

2. Therefore, for these books, the grading may have to be based not just on the book in front of the grader, but on the book in front of the grader and the documentation of how the restoration was done. Books that lack that documentation but that evidently have this type of very extensive restoration will not be gradeable.

 

At any rate, I think that is how this may end up shaking out.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be why CGC has declined to grade some of these books. That is, if they have declined to grade them. I'm not sure the point has been nailed down.

 

It reads to me like there was never such a decision made.

 

A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased.

 

hm

 

blanket statements as if they're undeniable truths (even based on partially incorrect information). You also put words in peoples' mouths (figuratively).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be why CGC has declined to grade some of these books. That is, if they have declined to grade them. I'm not sure the point has been nailed down.

 

It reads to me like there was never such a decision made.

 

A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased.

 

hm

 

blanket statements as if they're undeniable truths (even based on partially incorrect information). You also put words in peoples' mouths (figuratively).

 

Then you are selectively reading.

 

Here is Matt's full statement for context:

I'd like to clarify a few things that Emily brought up concerning CGC's position. CGC did have a concern with several of the books submitted to us earlier this year for reasons previously posted in this thread. I gave Matt and Emily time and advice to guide them in the right direction. Up to the point we stopped receiving submissions there were issues with the work, reflected in our assigning either B or C classifications. A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased.

 

Looks pretty cut and dried to me that CGC would not (or could not) grade their books because of their books exhibiting "questionable work".

 

So instead of working with CGC to resolve those issues (which was likely impossible due to the nature and extent of the work done on the books) igb went to the much more accommodating CBCS.

 

Sometimes "blanket statements" are in fact "undeniable truths". (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the grading companies will eventually decide that people submitting extensively restored books will have to provide documentation of what was done, along with before and after photos, and so on.

 

That would be impossible to consistently enforce. Some books can be several hands removed from the restorer and may not have any documentation.

 

 

Roy;

 

This is now starting to sound like the old disclosure of pressing argument. :ohnoez:

 

Since it's impossible to enforce the disclosure of pressing as the books change hands, it was argued that there is no need for the original person that had the work done to disclose it. In addition, it was also argued that nobody really cared since pressing was considered to be non-restorative and nobody could tell anyways, as long as the work was done properly. Hence, no need for disclosure when it comes to pressing. :facepalm:

 

Similarly, the problem here would also be that it would be impossible to enforce the provision of documentation as the books change hands. But in this case, does it really even matter as all of these books are clearly designated as Extensive Restoration. Hence, if you aren't interested in books with this type of work, you simply don't bid on them as nobody is forcing you to. hm

 

I don't understand your point.

 

The point of a certification company is to identify, appraise and disclose what their opinion is on a given book. Not to force people to disclose information about the book.

 

If they can't be consistent about something they have no business relaying that information.

 

Since it's just wishful thinking hoping that everyone discloses, it's not going to be reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be why CGC has declined to grade some of these books. That is, if they have declined to grade them. I'm not sure the point has been nailed down.

 

It reads to me like there was never such a decision made.

 

A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased.

 

hm

 

blanket statements as if they're undeniable truths (even based on partially incorrect information). You also put words in peoples' mouths (figuratively).

 

Then you are selectively reading.

 

Here is Matt's full statement for context:

I'd like to clarify a few things that Emily brought up concerning CGC's position. CGC did have a concern with several of the books submitted to us earlier this year for reasons previously posted in this thread. I gave Matt and Emily time and advice to guide them in the right direction. Up to the point we stopped receiving submissions there were issues with the work, reflected in our assigning either B or C classifications. A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased.

 

Looks pretty cut and dried to me that CGC would not (or could not) grade their books because of their books exhibiting "questionable work".

 

So instead of working with CGC to resolve those issues (which was likely impossible due to the nature and extent of the work done on the books) igb went to the much more accommodating CBCS.

 

Sometimes "blanket statements" are in fact "undeniable truths". (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

 

Ok just to clear this up once and for all. Come on people this really isn't difficult

 

''A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased.''

 

So the FACTS so far are as follows:-

 

1. CGC were grading the comics handed to them by the Meyers

 

2. A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased.

 

3. NO decision has been publically posted so as far as this thread is concerned hasn't been made

 

4. The Meyers seem to be using CBCS more now

 

So if CGC/CCS could just put on here that yes a decision was made and we WILL not continue to grade the Meyers work unless we can sit down and talk with them to restore in a way that WE feel is right for us then everyone implying this has already been said...... just please be quiet

 

God some people on here are beyond hard work

 

I am sure that both Matt's and Emma (besides what rubbish all of us spout on here) will be discussing this in the future. Then if they like they will disclose it publically or just let us find out once they are still grading their comics. Matt and Emma are clearly professionals and so are CGC/CCS or they both wouldn't be in the position they are.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be why CGC has declined to grade some of these books. That is, if they have declined to grade them. I'm not sure the point has been nailed down.

 

It reads to me like there was never such a decision made.

 

A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased.

 

hm

 

blanket statements as if they're undeniable truths (even based on partially incorrect information). You also put words in peoples' mouths (figuratively).

 

Then you are selectively reading.

 

Here is Matt's full statement for context:

I'd like to clarify a few things that Emily brought up concerning CGC's position. CGC did have a concern with several of the books submitted to us earlier this year for reasons previously posted in this thread. I gave Matt and Emily time and advice to guide them in the right direction. Up to the point we stopped receiving submissions there were issues with the work, reflected in our assigning either B or C classifications. A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased.

 

Looks pretty cut and dried to me that CGC would not (or could not) grade their books because of their books exhibiting "questionable work".

 

So instead of working with CGC to resolve those issues (which was likely impossible due to the nature and extent of the work done on the books) igb went to the much more accommodating CBCS.

 

Sometimes "blanket statements" are in fact "undeniable truths". (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

 

Ok just to clear this up once and for all. Come on people this really isn't difficult

 

''A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased.''

 

So the FACTS so far are as follows:-

 

1. CGC were grading the comics handed to them by the Meyers

 

2. A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased.

 

3. NO decision has been publically posted so as far as this thread is concerned hasn't been made

 

4. The Meyers seem to be using CBCS more now

 

So if CGC/CCS could just put on here that yes a decision was made and we WILL not continue to grade the Meyers work unless we can sit down and talk with them to restore in a way that WE feel is right for us then everyone implying this has already been said...... just please be quiet

 

God some people on here are beyond hard work

 

 

 

It seems that cgc and their in house restoration want to "better" understand the questionable techniques if cgc is going to grade in the future.

 

I think all pressers should share their disclose their techniques too for our "better" understanding.

 

Not seeing a lot of sharing going on yet...and I haven't seen Matt or other comic restorers giving up their alchemy secrets and I would not expect them too. It's from years of trial and error.

 

Personally restoration is just that, a recreation in parts to bring a comic to a shiny new level from the dregs of mid grade. Multiple techniques are out there and there will always be better artisans than others. The TEC 33 statements prove this out. Nice job by the way.

 

I agree with Bedrock that the WDCS 1 line down the spine is like a black marker and the book should not have gotten a 9.8. It reminds me of a few restored remaindered books where there's a flaw in the recreation section that when compared side by side is easy to detect but not so easy as a one off in hand.

 

Interesting dilemma we have in our GA community. Accept and understand all resto techniques or Vilify the ones we just don't like as much or fear as ruinous to our altruistic hobby of collecting funny books.

 

2 c

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cgccomics.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?IDArticle=4084

 

B and C has nothing to do with whether or not they can be graded. In fact it means they have been graded.

 

Again, from my reading, CGC did receive and appraise some of their books, but igb did not like the results so they decided to pull them from CGC and send them to the more accommodating CBCS which obviously gave them the labels they wanted. All of this occurred while CGC was deciding whether or not to stop accepting submissions from them with that kind of work altogether which was ultimately rendered moot when igb started giving everything to Voldy anyway.

 

-J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cgccomics.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?IDArticle=4084

 

B and C has nothing to do with whether or not they can be graded. In fact it means they have been graded.

 

Again, from my reading, CGC did receive and appraise some of their books, but igb did not like the results so they decided to pull them from CGC and send them to the more accommodating CBCS which obviously gave them the labels they wanted. All of this occurred while CGC was deciding whether or not to stop accepting submissions from them with that kind of work altogether which was ultimately rendered moot when igb started giving everything to Voldy anyway.

 

-J.

 

This is stil shocking me.

 

''but igb did not like the results so they decided to pull them from CGC and send them to the more accommodating CBCS which obviously gave them the labels they wanted''

 

If you can show me where igb put that they did not like the results then I will stay permanantly quiet. How people feel so free to put statements on here which are guess work at best like others reading are thick is still as I put ...... shocking me.

 

If we condensed this whole thread into the parts which are facts and not fiction I think it would fit into 1 page lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cgccomics.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?IDArticle=4084

 

B and C has nothing to do with whether or not they can be graded. In fact it means they have been graded.

 

Again, from my reading, CGC did receive and appraise some of their books, but igb did not like the results so they decided to pull them from CGC and send them to the more accommodating CBCS which obviously gave them the labels they wanted. All of this occurred while CGC was deciding whether or not to stop accepting submissions from them with that kind of work altogether which was ultimately rendered moot when igb started giving everything to Voldy anyway.

 

-J.

 

I'm not going to keep doing this, because you clearly get so entrenched in your hate campaigns that nothing can be done. It irks me how after you're proven to be in the wrong, you keep perpetuating the problem. Don't even expect apologies from you, just asked you to stop. This latest post hedges a bit, so atleast I'm happy to see that.

 

But it's worth repeating

1) CGC was grading the books. B and C classifications mean not professional (or maybe not as professional) quality resto -- likely from these challenges Matt was referencing .

2) The discussion of whether to continue could have just as easily been whether to continue B/C classification vs. A classification (not whether or not to accept and grade the books at all)

3) Different grading companies do things differently. It may be unavoidable, but for the betterment of the hobby, a governing set of rules might really help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites