CGC et al To Aggressively Defend Against Lawsuit Filed In Pennsylvania 11 11

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Why? Is the perception reality? If it is that bad, is there not an alternative? What supports the stated perception and what is the reality of the stated perception in the market?

[jimjum12]

Why? Is the perception reality? If it is that bad, is there not an alternative? What supports the stated perception and what is the reality of the stated perception in the market?

 

..... there's going to be a lot of work for the plaintiff to clarify this "perception" to the point that it is even remotely admissible..... and the closer to clarification they come, well I think someone addressed that already..... GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[MrBedrock]

to me, many of the opinions bellyaching about IGB's work are being inconsistent with their position on the "unnatural" appearance of recolouring and/or artwork to return a cover to as close to it's original appearance.

 

If you want to discuss "excessive" work, leafcasting and piece additions that were never part of the cover MUST be brought into the fold before any discussion demonizing recolouring techniques in the context of the finished product being returned to as close to the original. Leafcasting is second only to using a facsimile/photocopied cover, yet CGC grades those.

 

If we are talking about work being undone, then I have seen a number of leafcast jobs that either were not "un-doable" or were so hideous in their "before" state, that no one in their right mind would want to go back. Yet CGC grades those too.

 

While I no longer own any restored comics, I have over the years owned several, and the cover gloss/regloss on them not only looked unnatural but you could smell it from across the room. These were all graded by CGC, and the grades ranged from apparent 8.0 to 9.4. I never saw any note or recommendation posted publicly discouraging me from buying these books for reasons they used non-archival chemical agents.

 

The central point of the lawsuit is that CGC either refused to grade IGB's work, or graded it at a lower level than CBCS to thwart their business. You make some anecdotal accusations above about how CGC grades other types of work differently than they grade IGB's. Please show us some specific instances where CGC graded items preferentially versus equivalently restored books graded elsewhere. Heck, show me a specific example of an excessively leafcast book getting an apparent grade anywhere near the 9.6 and 9.8 grades IGB received through CBCS.

 

As to the "undoable" - all leafcasting jobs are reversible, just add water. One of CGC's criteria for conservation vs. restoration is whether or not the work is reversible. Because of the collecting community's input CGC choose to grade leafcasting jobs as restoration and not conservation. If an entire cover were leaf-cast CGC could identify that and would grade it as such - coverless. That is their policy as far as I know. The problem with some of the IGB work is that color and gloss have been added to the entire cover to the point that identifying whether or not the underlying paper is original is impossible. CBCS choose to grade those books on their assumption that the paper is original and therefore the appearance was the only thing that mattered. CGC choose to grade based on what they could identify and if that amounted to nothing then they passed. The two companies made their choices on how to grade these particular examples, which differed.

[VintageComics]

I have no reason to doubt what you've been told or heard. With the exception of the entire cover being recoloured, and "comfortably" being defined as activity taking more than a few minutes of inspection/review time, I find it puzzling that one couldn't with the right equipment determine a machine printed cover, and a hand recoloured cover.

 

I guess the difference here is CBCS has figured it out.

 

I guess it's a question of how feasible it is to determine or quantify the amount of resto.

 

Using forensic equipment would make it much more accurate but the costs probably outweigh the benefits at this point.

 

At this point (and this is just my own interpretation based on previous discussions and threads and not the law suit) it's my understanding that the Meyer's early books were over painted to such a degree that it was able to prevent detection of where the resto started and the old book ended based on current resto detection techniques used.

 

There may have been a secondary premise that CGC also did not like the techniques or how the book looked, or how it felt but I don't remember that from the threads that discussed it. Someone else may better remember. And that is likely where the conflict of interest discussion comes from.

 

If either point is incorrect then I don't mind standing corrected.

 

Restoration and it's detection is an evolving topic. Now that we're into big money for even restored books it only stands to reason that people will fight for what they believe in. There's a lot of money at stake now where previously there wasn't.

[VintageComics]

I wish restored books had 2 grade pre resto and post resto but Roy has told me that's not possible in the past for that exact bolded reason.

 

I actually wish for the same.

 

It's only possible if you can conclusively detect all of the restoration present on a book and then reverse engineer it.

 

On a side note, I think all Qualified books should also be given a 2nd Universal grade as well.

[Iceman399]

I wish restored books had 2 grade pre resto and post resto but Roy has told me that's not possible in the past for that exact bolded reason.

 

I actually wish for the same.

 

It's only possible if you can conclusively detect all of the restoration present on a book and then reverse engineer it.

 

On a side note, I think all Qualified books should also be given a 2nd Universal grade as well.

 

How awesome would that be. I agree it would be a nightmare at times (especially on the really well restored books) but some with minor CT or seals etc wouldn't be overly difficult.

 

Wonder how trimming would play

[lou_fine]

Funny thing is, I do recall their books selling.

the market doesn't accept extensively restored books at the value IGB was expecting.

 

Didn't the earliest book (or books) sell for a strong dollar until the conversation fired up and took on a life of it's own?

 

I think that is what comicwiz was referring to.

 

You have stated the heart of the matter, and the defense of the matter at the same time.

 

You may not realize it, but it is a key to the issue, IMHO of course.

 

 

That makes a lot of sense, actually. Thanks for that.

 

If this is the case, then this should be pretty easy to track.

 

Would we not simply need to compile a chronological listing of all of their books and what they sold for and then compare the prices before and after the thread in question?

 

I was always under the impression that their books had in most cases always been going for either single digit percentages or very low double digit percentages to condition guide all along, due to their EP restoration rating. Not sure if there was a slight drop after the thread came out.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Funny thing is, I do recall their books selling.

the market doesn't accept extensively restored books at the value IGB was expecting.

 

Didn't the earliest book (or books) sell for a strong dollar until the conversation fired up and took on a life of it's own?

 

I think that is what comicwiz was referring to.

 

You have stated the heart of the matter, and the defense of the matter at the same time.

 

You may not realize it, but it is a key to the issue, IMHO of course.

 

 

That makes a lot of sense, actually. Thanks for that.

 

If this is the case, then this should be pretty easy to track.

 

Would we not simply need to compile a chronological listing of all of their books and what they sold for and then compare the prices before and after the thread in question?

 

I was always under the impression that their books had in most cases always been going for either single digit percentages or very low double digit percentages to condition guide all along, due to their EP restoration rating. Not sure if there was a slight drop after the thread came out.

 

Maybe read the Complaint again, and consider the timetable. And the Plaintiff status.

[comicwiz]

to me, many of the opinions bellyaching about IGB's work are being inconsistent with their position on the "unnatural" appearance of recolouring and/or artwork to return a cover to as close to it's original appearance.

 

If you want to discuss "excessive" work, leafcasting and piece additions that were never part of the cover MUST be brought into the fold before any discussion demonizing recolouring techniques in the context of the finished product being returned to as close to the original. Leafcasting is second only to using a facsimile/photocopied cover, yet CGC grades those.

 

If we are talking about work being undone, then I have seen a number of leafcast jobs that either were not "un-doable" or were so hideous in their "before" state, that no one in their right mind would want to go back. Yet CGC grades those too.

 

While I no longer own any restored comics, I have over the years owned several, and the cover gloss/regloss on them not only looked unnatural but you could smell it from across the room. These were all graded by CGC, and the grades ranged from apparent 8.0 to 9.4. I never saw any note or recommendation posted publicly discouraging me from buying these books for reasons they used non-archival chemical agents.

 

The central point of the lawsuit is that CGC either refused to grade IGB's work, or graded it at a lower level than CBCS to thwart their business. You make some anecdotal accusations above about how CGC grades other types of work differently than they grade IGB's. Please show us some specific instances where CGC graded items preferentially versus equivalently restored books graded elsewhere. Heck, show me a specific example of an excessively leafcast book getting an apparent grade anywhere near the 9.6 and 9.8 grades IGB received through CBCS.

 

As to the "undoable" - all leafcasting jobs are reversible, just add water. One of CGC's criteria for conservation vs. restoration is whether or not the work is reversible. Because of the collecting community's input CGC choose to grade leafcasting jobs as restoration and not conservation. If an entire cover were leaf-cast CGC could identify that and would grade it as such - coverless. That is their policy as far as I know. The problem with some of the IGB work is that color and gloss have been added to the entire cover to the point that identifying whether or not the underlying paper is original is impossible. CBCS choose to grade those books on their assumption that the paper is original and therefore the appearance was the only thing that mattered. CGC choose to grade based on what they could identify and if that amounted to nothing then they passed. The two companies made their choices on how to grade these particular examples, which differed.

 

This is helpful, thanks for explaining the other side of the debate as you have presented it in the discussion. There are some things we still may disagree on in terms of work that is "undoable", but I do agree with the pathway and approach of treating one as restoration and the other as conservation. Being 100% transparent, the examples I began archiving dated back to around the time Kenny started sharing his work on these boards. Out of general interest for the practice, I accumulated about a half dozen examples which were all in CGC slabs, but I'm afraid they have been lost on a back-up drive which I'm having trouble accessing at the moment.

 

One in particular had about 60% of the front and 40% of the back page that required leafcasting around both pieces to resquare and join. The pieces had a significant amount of paper/ink loss in a radial orientation of each of the pieces edges, so a solution of "un-doing" exposing them to water would surely have caused further ink and/or structuraly weaker paper, if not some loss. I still believe this is why leafcasting more appropriately should be in the restoration camp.

 

The main point in using leafcasting as an example is that a conservator should provide back-up documentation to the work performed, whether it's recolouring or leafcasting, and there should still be a few tricks to determine originality of the paper no matter what technique was used to regloss. I can accept that a more thorough approach may not be a smart business decision for a grader that can assess several standard submissions in the same span of time it would take to grade a single EP comic, but IF that's the reason, I'd prefer calling it for what it is. The version we got has been something akin to deception or worse.

[rjpb]

Wasn't one of the problems with the IGB books that the recreated details didn't always matchup with the original printing in terms of placement on the cover?

[BlowUpTheMoon]

Wasn't one of the problems with the IGB books that the recreated details didn't always matchup with the original printing in terms of placement on the cover?

 

Yeah, that was an issue too.

[MrBedrock]

 

One in particular had about 60% of the front and 40% of the back page that required leafcasting around both pieces to resquare and join. The pieces had a significant amount of paper/ink loss in a radial orientation of each of the pieces edges, so a solution of "un-doing" exposing them to water would surely have caused further ink and/or structuraly weaker paper, if not some loss. I still believe this is why leafcasting more appropriately should be in the restoration camp.

 

The main point in using leafcasting as an example is that a conservator should provide back-up documentation to the work performed, whether it's recolouring or leafcasting, and there should still be a few tricks to determine originality of the paper no matter what technique was used to regloss. I can accept that a more thorough approach may not be a smart business decision for a grader that can assess several standard submissions in the same span of time it would take to grade a single EP comic, but IF that's the reason, I'd prefer calling it for what it is. The version we got has been something akin to deception or worse.

There is no doubt that leafcasting is essentially recreating missing paper out of liquid pulp, filling in areas that no longer exist. The resto that the Meyers is doing is recreating artwork that either a) no longer exists, or b) isn't up to their standards in regards to an expectation of grade. The point of all of this is the final grade. The Meyers use every technique they can (and which they humbly state is better than any other technique out there) to achieve a grade. Leafcasting is generally used to make a document legible, a comicbook readable and handle-able, not to achieve a grade because there is no assumption that it is original material. So again I ask...have you seen any instances where a comic with extensive leafcasting achieved an ultra high grade from CGC? If not then it isn't pertinent to the discussion. What is pertinent is the decision by CBCS to give the IGB books the ultra-high grades they gave, because ultimately that is the potential fraud that was perpetrated on the hobby.

[comicwiz]

 

One in particular had about 60% of the front and 40% of the back page that required leafcasting around both pieces to resquare and join. The pieces had a significant amount of paper/ink loss in a radial orientation of each of the pieces edges, so a solution of "un-doing" exposing them to water would surely have caused further ink and/or structuraly weaker paper, if not some loss. I still believe this is why leafcasting more appropriately should be in the restoration camp.

 

The main point in using leafcasting as an example is that a conservator should provide back-up documentation to the work performed, whether it's recolouring or leafcasting, and there should still be a few tricks to determine originality of the paper no matter what technique was used to regloss. I can accept that a more thorough approach may not be a smart business decision for a grader that can assess several standard submissions in the same span of time it would take to grade a single EP comic, but IF that's the reason, I'd prefer calling it for what it is. The version we got has been something akin to deception or worse.

There is no doubt that leafcasting is essentially recreating missing paper out of liquid pulp, filling in areas that no longer exist. The resto that the Meyers is doing is recreating artwork that either a) no longer exists, or b) isn't up to their standards in regards to an expectation of grade. The point of all of this is the final grade. The Meyers use every technique they can (and which they humbly state is better than any other technique out there) to achieve a grade. Leafcasting is generally used to make a document legible, a comicbook readable and handle-able, not to achieve a grade because there is no assumption that it is original material. So again I ask...have you seen any instances where a comic with extensive leafcasting achieved an ultra high grade from CGC? If not then it isn't pertinent to the discussion. What is pertinent is the decision by CBCS to give the IGB books the ultra-high grades they gave, because ultimately that is the potential fraud that was perpetrated on the hobby.

 

Nothing I recall in the 9.6 range, but I do recall one being a 9.2 or 9.4, which is not pertinent since I'm unable to produce the example. I can't speak to the validity of the last assertion you made since my recollection is a number of "IGB's graded work" examples (several which were shared in the thread) seemed to receive similar if not identical grades by both companies.

[comicwiz]

Actually I just remembered not that long ago someone contacted me on Facebook asking my opinion on leafcasting and this book. May not be everyone's definition of "ultra" high grade, but a 9.4 Tec 27 is pretty darn close:

 

 

[N/A]

no one mentions who presses/restores their books in the listings -

 

------------

 

they certainly used to. ciccione was/is a good name, right? i bought an all american 27 restored by her because i figured the restoration would be good (and the price was good), but then again, that was 15 years ago.

 

100% agree. Before TPG's, COA's or letters detailing/summarizing work carried enough legitimacy and weight. But of course, the tamper evident case and label notes cemented it's place and won out, and the people doing the work faded to the background to the point where most of the slabs bought and sold in the last 10+ years no longer keep any information on who did the work originally, just what was done.

 

Actually, what is detected to be done.

 

And that is the basis of the entire disagreement between CGC and the Meyers.

 

Acc. to my understanding, CGC could not comfortably detect where the resto started and stopped.

 

I have no reason to doubt what you've been told or heard. With the exception of the entire cover being recoloured, and "comfortably" being defined as activity taking more than a few minutes of inspection/review time, I find it puzzling that one couldn't with the right equipment determine a machine printed cover, and a hand recoloured cover.

 

I guess the difference here is CBCS has figured it out.

 

or at the minimum, they think they have it figured out. Either way, this overall seems like a nearly impossible case to make.

 

You essentially have to prove that someone at the top of an industry is acting in bad faith, but the only people qualified to judge the merits of the case is the accused. And in the event that there is another party capable of making such a judgment, that would mean admitting that the accused are not alone at the top, and therefore cannot exert as much pervasive influence as they are accused. And that's without even mentioning that the only other people who MIGHT be qualified to judge the facts/issues surrounding comic restoration are most likely direct competitors of the accused, which is almost certainly an obvious conflict of interest.

 

I'm have no idea if any part of any accusations are true or not, but it seems like a tough case to win for the plaintiff, and CGC is obviously going to fight as hard as possible with little chance of settling. I don't know how Pennsylvania works, can the plaintiff be responsible for legal fees for both parties?

 

Although I DO hope it makes CGC reconsider their relationship with CCS, as there has always been an inherent perceived of conflict of interest that you'd think a grading company would want to avoid.

 

I'm tech minded, and have a printing background - I'll admit when I first discovered this technique it was the early 2000's when I bought my first restored comic. I have also evolved my techniques when inspecting restoration in paintings, and determining period and print state etchings/impressions. Maybe it's a combination of these experiences that makes it seem puzzling that someone couldn't, but I still feel someone with a printing background would have a reasonable idea of how and/or could figure out a method to tell.

 

I definitely agree on what you said in the last paragraph.

 

I suspect that at some point CCS will have to be let go or become the source of CBCS becoming the primary grading company.

[MrBedrock]

Actually I just remembered not that long ago someone contacted me on Facebook asking my opinion on leafcasting and this book. May not be everyone's definition of "ultra" high grade, but a 9.4 Tec 27 is pretty darn close:

 

Interesting. That is very high grade. It would be interesting to know how much leafcasting was done...small area or large.

[comix4fun]

Every time I hear that word, "Leafcasting", I picture this....

 

 

[HighRadArt]

Actually I just remembered not that long ago someone contacted me on Facebook asking my opinion on leafcasting and this book. May not be everyone's definition of "ultra" high grade, but a 9.4 Tec 27 is pretty darn close:

 

Interesting. That is very high grade. It would be interesting to know how much leafcasting was done...small area or large.

 

Small or large that is a beautiful book.

[revat]

Every time I hear that word, "Leafcasting", I picture this....

 

 

 

 

 

[comicwiz]

Actually I just remembered not that long ago someone contacted me on Facebook asking my opinion on leafcasting and this book. May not be everyone's definition of "ultra" high grade, but a 9.4 Tec 27 is pretty darn close:

 

Interesting. That is very high grade. It would be interesting to know how much leafcasting was done...small area or large.

 

I took "cover" to mean the entire wrap, and I can't deny the moderate designation was the first thing that stuck out to me when I saw it.