Detective Comics #35 (Larson Pedigree) no longer PLOD 1 1

[Red_Hood]

Changing the rules in the middle of the game.  So cleaning a cover isn't restoration anymore?  It slips under conservation now 

This rule change sure seems to allow for a lot of new manipulation in the hobby.

How do you feel about it?  Do you think it should be restoration or not.

The price tags are dramatically different from what it sold for and what is being asked now that it doesn't have the Purple Label of Death.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2017 by Red_Hood

[nearmint]

I don't see anything unseemly about this.  The work done is still clearly noted on the label.  As soon as the conserved label was released, it was inevitable that some former PLODS would be resubbed for the new conserved label. 

Plus, the seller is so dreamy. 

Edited October 16, 2017 by nearmint

[Red_Hood]

Certainly not my intention to debate this with people taking sides of sellers and buyers.  Hence, the reason I didn't use names. 

I wanted people to weigh in on opinion of the rule change since we are a visual society. 

The blue label has a different connotation on the collector mindset then the purple label.

[Red_Hood]

I originally had this topic in Comics General but received a friendly message that it might be better served in the Gold Section.

Changing the rules in the middle of the game.  So cleaning a cover isn't restoration anymore?  It slips under conservation now 

This rule change sure seems to allow for a lot of new manipulation in the hobby.

How do you feel about it?  Do you think it should be restoration or not.

The price tags are dramatically different from what it sold for and what is being asked now that it doesn't have the Purple Label of Death.

 

**Just want to add, don't make this about seller or buyer.  This forum has a practice of playing favorites.  Take it for the simple facts and how

you feel this affects the hobby**

 

 

[Red_Hood]

I really hope there isn't different rules for different people.  Inconsistent standards hurt this hobby.

 

[Gotham Kid]

At least CGC kept mention of the clean on the label. In the pre-Robin thread I point out a Tec 29 ( that ComicConnect will have at auction in Nov ) that "lost" the clean notation when it migrated from Restored to Conserved.

Given that the Larson is clearly identifiable, it would be impossible or blatantly irresponsible to have omitted the "clean".

A clean (which in the Larson's case is likely chemical) is not conservation in my opinion.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Gotham Kid

[Red_Hood]

[inovrmihd]

At the risk of asking a stupid question, how do you tell a cover has been cleaned?  Does the leaning process leave residue?

[Gotham Kid]

5 minutes ago, inovrmihd said:

how do you tell a cover has been cleaned?  Does the cleaning process leave residue?

As per CGC:

Cleaned (lightened). An aqueous process to lighten the paper color or remove soluble acids, often using chemical oxidation, solvents, or water. Used to be Restoration, now falls under Conservation

Non-additive processes such as dry cleaning (non-aqueous removal of dirt, soot, or other non-original surface material) is not considered restoration by CGC.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Gotham Kid

[nearmint]

19 minutes ago, Red_Hood said:

The blue label has a different connotation on the collector mindset then the purple label.

The difference shouldn't be blue versus purple.  It should be conserved versus universal or restored.  A visceral reaction to a particular color has hurt the hammer price of conserved books for too long.  Information is important, color is not.

[nearmint]

13 minutes ago, Red_Hood said:

I really hope there isn't different rules for different people.  Inconsistent standards hurt this hobby.

 

Same rules for everyone, of course. 

[MrBedrock]

Having been fortunate enough to have owned this book in the past I completely agree with the label. The cover was cleaned but as far as I am concerned nothing about this book was restored. It never had any pieces added, any color touch, any tears mended or reinforcement. It just had dirt removed from the cover. The conserved label tells any potential buyer exactly what they need to know. It has been cleaned, it is the Larson, and it is really beautiful.

[Gotham Kid]

Cleaned

https://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=700355

Clean gone

https://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=738983

 

[MrBedrock]

15 minutes ago, Gotham Kid said:

A clean (which in the Larson's case is likely chemical) is not conservation in my opinion.

This is where opinions differ. Is a cleaning by itself a restorative process or a conservative process?

[Gotham Kid]

Another example

[Timely]

Cleaning does not conserve.

 

Cleaning makes the book "look better", just like other restoration does.

[N e r V]

Having not read the current CGC terms but based strictly on the meaning of the words including how they are applied to other antiques and collectibles to restore something is to actually apply work methods to “bring it back” to a better state of condition where as to conserve something is to provide methods that would “maintain” its condition from becoming worse over time. That’s a general thought that I think should be applied when you view whatever was done to any book. 

 

[Gotham Kid]

1 minute ago, Timely said:

Cleaning does not conserve.

Agree

[Hudson]

This sounds a lot like the discussion on "pressing"; is it "restoration".

Let me first say that I have never clean and/or pressed a book.

With that being said, I tend to think that if nothing is added to the book (pieces, color touch, ink, glue, etc), it is not restoration.

I occasionally wash my 57 Chevy and I don't think of myself as "restoring it".  (maybe this is a bad example).

Of course that definition is not perfect as some could say that "trimming" does not "add" to a book, but is restoration.

I think, however, that if a chemical is added to the book to clean it, that it should be disclosed (thus I like the fact that CGC does leave that on the label).

 

[Gotham Kid]

1 minute ago, N e r V said:

restore something is to actually apply work methods to “bring it back” to a better state of condition where as to conserve something is to provide methods that would “maintain” its condition from becoming worse over time.

Bottom line.