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

[Gotham Kid]

17 minutes ago, MrBedrock said:

it is the Larson, and it is really beautiful.

It is. And I'd love to own it regardless of whether its restored or conserved.

[sfcityduck]

19 minutes ago, Timely said:

Cleaning does not conserve.

 

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

FALSE. 

In the fine art world, where I have experience with paper conservators, immersive and blotter techniques are used to clean pieces as a form of conservation to stabilize foxing.  Foxing, if not treated, can spread.  In some cases, these techniques will lighten the paper and make the images brighter.  But this is not always true.  These techniques are viewed as gentle, and are used on pieces as delicate as sumi watercolors.  More restorative treatments, such as application of bleach to lighten or remove foxing spots, which can harm the paper, are viewed entirely different by paper conservators.

IMHO, the opinions of the comic book collecting community towards conservation are shaped by experiences with conservators who were not at the height of their field.  The conservators I use are some of the best around, working predominantly for fine art institutions.  In fact, I just dropped off a watercolor for treatment to stabilize foxing last week. 

Edited October 16, 2017 by sfcityduck

[Red_Hood]

20 minutes ago, nearmint said:

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.

The issue is that in the old days this was restoration.  Now, it's not considered conservation.  

Who's best interests are being taken into account?

[Hudson]

10 minutes ago, Gotham Kid said:

Another example

Wish I owned this. 

CGC could put any label they want on it.

What a beautiful book!!!!

[N e r V]

1 minute ago, Hudson said:

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).

 

The problem with pressing is even if you wanted to I don’t believe any grader is so good as to spot all or even most good pressing. Also long before it existed as a business many old time collectors would use very crude methods of pressing including the old stack heavy books on top to press them flat.  

Trimming on the other hand I don’t believe should even be considered as restoration. It’s done to deceive someone of the actual condition by removing part of the book. It should just be a defect like a massive tear would be and it should be hammered on hard in grading. My opinion.

[sfcityduck]

6 minutes ago, Gotham Kid said:

Bottom line.

Under your bottom line, dry cleaning would be restoration because it "brings it back to a better state of condition," where immersive techniques to stabilize the book (whether acidity or foxing) would be conservation if they did not enhance the look of the book because they “maintain its condition from becoming worse over time." 

But, I don't think that's your position.  Which should be a red flag that this topic is more complicated than it appears.

I suspect that the longer this debate goes, the more collectors who will change their views on the line between conservation and restoration when it comes to cleaning and stabilizing acidity, oxidation, or foxing.  Especially when those white pedigrees start to age into darker shades.

[Red_Hood]

So CGC has shifted it's view and the hobby is affected by it.  How can the standards just be changed by a company.  Who decided the rule change? Was there input from reputable experts in the hobby or does a company have the power to change the rule for the hobby.  I would love for there to actually be a true standard in the hobby.  Not one created and adjusted by a private company.

[nearmint]

5 minutes ago, Red_Hood said:

The issue is that in the old days this was restoration.  Now, it's not considered conservation.  

Who's best interests are being taken into account?

In the old days (pre-CGC), it probably wouldn't have been disclosed at all. 

Who benefits?  I suppose anyone who owns books with cleaned covers and CGC.  But is that even the right question to ask?  Criteria should be established regardless of who benefits.  If a cleaned cover can help conserve a book by removing mold, etc, then why shouldn't that process fall under the conserved label? 

[N e r V]

To conserve something can make it look better but the intent and level is not the same as restoration.

Think of a classic auto with rust on a panel. The difference between cutting out a bit of rust vs replacing numerous non original panels on the car. Conserve provides some tweaks to help maintain it where as restore is major work needed to overcome serve damage often at times using non original parts in the process.

[Red_Hood]

29 minutes ago, MrBedrock said:

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.

I guess its too bad you sold it before the rule change, you could've made out like a bandit !

[Red_Hood]

The good ol' days were the wild west.  But I'm referring to the old days of CGC.

 

[sfcityduck]

4 minutes ago, N e r V said:

To conserve something can make it look better but the intent and level is not the same as restoration.

Think of a classic auto with rust on a panel. The difference between cutting out a bit of rust vs replacing numerous non original panels on the car. Conserve provides some tweaks to help maintain it where as restore is major work needed to overcome serve damage often at times using non original parts in the process.

Personally, I think the distinctions is as simple as this:  Conservation removes dangers (dirt, acid, oxidation, foxing) and stabilizes problems (tear seals), whereas Restoration makes cosmetic additions (ink/paint added, pieces added, etc.).

 

[Hudson]

13 minutes ago, N e r V said:

The problem with pressing is even if you wanted to I don’t believe any grader is so good as to spot all or even most good pressing. Also long before it existed as a business many old time collectors would use very crude methods of pressing including the old stack heavy books on top to press them flat.  

Trimming on the other hand I don’t believe should even be considered as restoration. It’s done to deceive someone of the actual condition by removing part of the book. It should just be a defect like a massive tear would be and it should be hammered on hard in grading. My opinion.

I agree with you.  I don't personally consider it "restoration" (by definition, as how can taking something off possible "restore" it.   Back to my car analogy for a moment.  If I had a rusty bumper and took it completely off the car and then tried to sell the car without a bumper, I don't think anyone would say the car was "restored".  They would say, "That car is missing a bumper" and then adjust their purchase price accordingly.   I think you and I are on the same page with trimming!  I also agree that very often trimming is likely done as a deceptive business practice.

[N e r V]

6 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Under your bottom line, dry cleaning would be restoration because it "brings it back to a better state of condition," where immersive techniques to stabilize the book (whether acidity or foxing) would be conservation if they did not enhance the look of the book because they “maintain its condition from becoming worse over time." 

But, I don't think that's your position.  Which should be a red flag that this topic is more complicated than it appears.

I suspect that the longer this debate goes, the more collectors who will change their views on the line between conservation and restoration when it comes to cleaning and stabilizing acidity, oxidation, or foxing.  Especially when those white pedigrees start to age into darker shades.

  I don’t think a general consensus is possible on the subject. We all have our standards on what we accept on grading (PQ, foxing, rusty staples, etc.). It’s not going to be different with what’s done in restoration and conserved books. It’s up to the buyer to read the label as to what work was done and if it’s acceptable or not.

I don’t have a problem with CGC deciding how they split it up anymore than Overstreet and others forming the grading system over time. As long as everything continues to be listed on the label for the buyer. It is a bit concerning though if some information is now left off.

[MrBedrock]

11 minutes ago, Red_Hood said:

I guess its too bad you sold it before the rule change, you could've made out like a bandit !

Who says I didn't...and why do you care?

[woowoo]

I think if you have a original book that got dirty over time and its cleaned with no new work done than its still all original. I would think if you have a barn find all original 1967 Camaro and you cleaned it the car still would be all original even tho you cleaned it and yeas chemicals where usedas long as nothing was done there should not be a problem cleaning something that was not there in the first place like dirt on car/comic. What chemicals where used back in 1939 to make the paper that was used for comics ? IMO I understand what you are saying

[woowoo]

58 minutes ago, Gotham Kid said:

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.

You got that right. On a side note hope you are doing fine Peter saw a photo in the fire over there and it look's bad.

[woowoo]

33 minutes ago, Hudson said:

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).

 

Hey Hudson when you clean your car do you not use chemicals ? What chemicals where used to make the paper that the book's where printed on/what chemicals are in the ink ? I like your Example.

[sfcityduck]

3 minutes ago, woowoo said:

You got that right. On a side note hope you are doing fine Peter saw a photo in the fire over there and it look's bad.

Seconded.  I didn't know there are fires in Lisbon.  Looks like the North Bay.

Speaking of which, one of your neighbors, WooWoo, happens to be one of the top paper conservators in the country:

http://www.dwanconservation.net/

[nearmint]

19 minutes ago, Red_Hood said:

The good ol' days were the wild west.  But I'm referring to the old days of CGC.

 

It's natural for the hobby to evolve.  Simply classifying books as universal or restored isn't precise enough anymore.  We risk further damage to books if we discourage collectors from conserving them because they'll end up in a PLOD.  The conserved label solves that problem.