What really is restoration??? 2 2

[Bomber-Bob]

21 minutes ago, jcjames said:

On the other hand, if damage from a printer-grab or bindery tears which might be universal on pretty much every single copy of a book coming off the press, then is it really a "defect"? IOW, if every issue has it, then isn't it basically part of the normal condition of the book originally published coming off the press?

 

I know, it's a tough call. This happens a lot with Moderns, especially on foil covers and extra page content. Ask yourself this, would you want to pay big bucks for a 9.8 only to see it has obvious visible flaws, maybe a huge corner chip or multiple spine creases ?  Should an ASM 129 with gripper holes (common to that book) grade the same as a comparable book without it ? A solution for this dilemma would be for CGC to start using an eye appeal check mark on the label. The competition uses it and it helps distinguish a book from those in comparable grade.

[jcjames]

1 hour ago, namisgr said:

Like I wrote earlier, if your definition of comic book restoration is that something has been added, then you can disassemble and reassemble, realign a spine, solvent clean a cover, microtrim an edge, clip off a tiny piece of corner paper, or do any of a number of other things that, while not adding anything, would be considered restoration by the majority of collectors and dealers.

It's an inaccurate and incomplete definition.

 

If that's undetectable, then it shouldn't affect grade, should it?

If it's reliably detectable (as reliably detectable as finding bends/creases in paper or imprints in staples), then it would be a defect, right?

As far as microtrimming and clipping, that would/should likely be detectable and if so, it's a defect.

 

[jcjames]

55 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

I know, it's a tough call. This happens a lot with Moderns, especially on foil covers and extra page content. Ask yourself this, would you want to pay big bucks for a 9.8 only to see it has obvious visible flaws, maybe a huge corner chip or multiple spine creases ?  Should an ASM 129 with gripper holes (common to that book) grade the same as a comparable book without it ? A solution for this dilemma would be for CGC to start using an eye appeal check mark on the label. The competition uses it and it helps distinguish a book from those in comparable grade.

Well, 9.8 isn't "perfect" so same could be said about buying a 9.8 and finding one cb spine-tick.

If gripper holes are a very common production mark, then the few books without them should be graded higher (or at least that should be accounted for in the grading) although a few spine-ticks on the front cover would obviously show worse "eye-appeal" in a slab than interior gripper holes would.

That's why grading is always (even for among and between grading companies) subjective.

[Bomber-Bob]

46 minutes ago, jcjames said:

If gripper holes are a very common production mark, then the few books without them should be graded higher (or at least that should be accounted for in the grading) although a few spine-ticks on the front cover would obviously show worse "eye-appeal" in a slab than interior gripper holes would.

 

To my knowledge, unless you are talking 9.9/10.0, CGC never gives a bump for any outstanding characteristics, including eye appeal, quality of production, etc. I don't think a book without gripper holes would get any kind of nod. 

[Bomber-Bob]

50 minutes ago, jcjames said:

Well, 9.8 isn't "perfect" so same could be said about buying a 9.8 and finding one cb spine-tick.

Agreed, but I think most collectors want their 9.8's to look 'perfect'.  A single, prominent cb spine-tick on a 9.8 would annoy many, including myself.

[namisgr]

13 hours ago, jcjames said:

If that's undetectable, then it shouldn't affect grade, should it?

Books are disassembled in order to be worked on.  Disassembly-reassembly has long been considered in the hobby as part of restorative processes.

There are plenty of other manipulations being done to improve the appearance of comics that aren't always detectable in addition to pressing, that don't involve adding to a book, and that would fall under the generally accepted notion of restoration that were pointed out by Bomber-Bob and me.

I guess I'm missing your point.

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by namisgr

[Get Marwood & I]

12 hours ago, Bomber-Bob said:

13 hours ago, jcjames said:

On the other hand, if damage from a printer-grab or bindery tears which might be universal on pretty much every single copy of a book coming off the press, then is it really a "defect"? IOW, if every issue has it, then isn't it basically part of the normal condition of the book originally published coming off the press?

 

I know, it's a tough call. This happens a lot with Moderns, especially on foil covers and extra page content. Ask yourself this, would you want to pay big bucks for a 9.8 only to see it has obvious visible flaws, maybe a huge corner chip or multiple spine creases ?  Should an ASM 129 with gripper holes (common to that book) grade the same as a comparable book without it ? A solution for this dilemma would be for CGC to start using an eye appeal check mark on the label. The competition uses it and it helps distinguish a book from those in comparable grade.

This is an interesting situation. Personally, I think any flaw should be noted and the grade moved accordingly for no other reason than it exists. If a window manufacturer made 100 windows and they were all cracked you wouldn't buy one.  You wouldn't say "it doesn't matter because they're all cracked" and ignore it would you? 

If a book is unfortunate enough to have a production flaw on every copy produced then that means a 9.9 / 10.00 doesn't exist. Why do we need to ignore the visible flaw in an attempt to preserve the existence of a high grade copy? If every car off the production line has a dent in the bonnet then a dent free bonnet car doesn't exist.

How would your eye appeal suggestion help Bob? I'm intrigued. Are we saying a modern 9.8 with noticeable production flaws that would grade out lower in an older book would have a low eye appeal notation? Aren't they separate things? 

[Bomber-Bob]

4 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

How would your eye appeal suggestion help Bob? I'm intrigued. Are we saying a modern 9.8 with noticeable production flaws that would grade out lower in an older book would have a low eye appeal notation? Aren't they separate things? 

Assuming CGC is going to continue to ignore bindery defaults.... let's say you have two books, both graded 9,8, one with the bindery flaw and one without the flaw. I am saying put the checkmark on the 9.8 without the bindery flaw. At least you are acknowledging the book without the flaw. Over time, buyers of Moderns, will look for that checkmark and the marketplace will reward them. 9.8's with checkmarks will be the new collecting goal !

[Get Marwood & I]

1 minute ago, Bomber-Bob said:

Assuming CGC is going to continue to ignore bindery defaults.... let's say you have two books, both graded 9,8, one with the bindery flaw and one without the flaw. I am saying put the checkmark on the 9.8 without the bindery flaw. At least you are acknowledging the book without the flaw. Over time, buyers of Moderns, will look for that checkmark and the marketplace will reward them. 9.8's with checkmarks will be the new collecting goal !

Got ya. Going back to my car analogy, that would mean two 'identical' cars being advertised as follows (note that car #1 has a massive dent in the bonnet, a common feature for that model):

1. Car for sale. Absolutely immaculate - $6,000
2. Car for sale. Absolutely immaculate - $6,000 (No massive dents in the bonnet)

That's silly isn't it?

A better scenario would be to grade the book with no bindery flaws as a 9.8, assuming its overall condition warranted it, and to grade an otherwise 9.8 condition book with visible bindery flaws as a 9.0 (or whatever grade the combined flaws dictate).  If all copies of that book have the flaw, then all are 9.0s or lower. No 9.8's exist. 

Some things in life have shades of grey which push different people in different directions to different conclusions. This is black and white - there is a flaw. Grade the book based on it's existence. It can't be mint, if it has a flaw. 

What say you Bob?

[Bomber-Bob]

1 minute ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Got ya. Going back to my car analogy, that would mean two 'identical' cars being advertised as follows (note that car #1 has a massive dent in the bonnet, a common feature for that model):

1. Car for sale. Absolutely immaculate - $6,000
2. Car for sale. Absolutely immaculate - $6,000 (No massive dents in the bonnet)

That's silly isn't it?

A better scenario would be to grade the book with no bindery flaws as a 9.8, assuming its overall condition warranted it, and to grade an otherwise 9.8 condition book with visible bindery flaws as a 9.0 (or whatever grade the combined flaws dictate).  If all copies of that book have the flaw, then all are 9.0s or lower. No 9.8's exist. 

Some things in life have shades of grey which push different people in different directions to different conclusions. This is black and white - there is a flaw. Grade the book based on it's existence. It can't be mint, if it has a flaw. 

What say you Bob?

I 100% agree with you. Your analogy should point out how silly CGC's stance really is. BTW, I really like the cracked windshield analogy. Serious question, how do we go about presenting our argument to CGC ? I was impressed, a few years back, when CGC listened to the Boards and changed their stance on tape. I think it took some influence from big customers on tape to get the attention of Paul Litch but it did get done. I can't believe the hobby, in general, wants to see bindery flaws ignored. Of course the submitter likes it but once it gets into the marketplace it's a turd. 

[Get Marwood & I]

2 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

I 100% agree with you. Your analogy should point out how silly CGC's stance really is. BTW, I really like the cracked windshield analogy. Serious question, how do we go about presenting our argument to CGC ? I was impressed, a few years back, when CGC listened to the Boards and changed their stance on tape. I think it took some influence from big customers on tape to get the attention of Paul Litch but it did get done. I can't believe the hobby, in general, wants to see bindery flaws ignored. Of course the submitter likes it but once it gets into the marketplace it's a turd. 

We shouldn't have to really Bob, as it's black and white so they should have arrived at the same conclusion. I'm only guessing, but I wonder if the pressure to 'preserve' 9.8 status affects the decision making process? Imagine all the collectors who would be aggrieved if they could not collect a 9.8 run of a modern? There'd be OCD overdrive.

I've asked CGC a number of questions over the last few years and I thought they were all valid and properly put to them (i.e. not cloaked in the nonsense banter I often post online here). They ignored them all. So I'm not overly inclined to try again on this topic. I'm based in England. It would be better for someone closer to the action to speak to one of the team at an appropriate time / event. I post here out of interest only and, as a non-CGC graded book purchaser, I have no actual axe to grind other than a general inclination to see the right thing done. I would love to hear the rationale for ignoring bindery flaws and saying books that have them are 9.8 when all accepted grading terms and criteria say otherwise. So let me know if you get anywhere with it!

[oakman29]

On 3/18/2018 at 6:23 AM, namisgr said:

If you think CGC is infallible, then you can read old threads discussing books that change from blue to purple and back to blue labels again, books that change from blue to green labels, books that are submitted by the original owner and deemed to be trimmed, and books that receive higher numerical grades after having their spines realigned or having been pressed to the point that their interior pages stick out from the covers like the ears of Alfred E. Neuman.

Then, you can consider that certain types of restoration are also being missed because, like pressing, they can't be detected with absolute certainty.  Glue on the spine of a Marvel annual.  Techniques that require disassembly and reassembly.  Books that were microtrimmed.  Other dark arts that shall remain nameless.  That CGC doesn't always catch them and stick purple labels on them doesn't mean they aren't cases of restoration by most anyone's definition.

If you want to drink the Kool-Aid and believe that it's CGC and not the collecting and dealer hobby that they serve that sets all directions and makes all choices for the hobby, that's fine.  But the hobby existed long before the advent of CGC, and hobbyists can certainly have opposing points of view on grading, restoration, conservation, pedigrees, encapsulation, and other issues that carry as much or even more weight.  And the hobby has played a key role in reigning in certain practices at CGC and CCS that did not have the best interests of the hobby at the forefront.

 

I'd like to thimk that the board members here have been a strong resource in keeping CGC honest in pointing out the shenanigans that have come across this forum throughout the years.

[Bomber-Bob]

42 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

We shouldn't have to really Bob, as it's black and white so they should have arrived at the same conclusion. I'm only guessing, but I wonder if the pressure to 'preserve' 9.8 status affects the decision making process? Imagine all the collectors who would be aggrieved if they could not collect a 9.8 run of a modern? There'd be OCD overdrive.

I've asked CGC a number of questions over the last few years and I thought they were all valid and properly put to them (i.e. not cloaked in the nonsense banter I often post online here). They ignored them all. So I'm not overly inclined to try again on this topic. I'm based in England. It would be better for someone closer to the action to speak to one of the team at an appropriate time / event. I post here out of interest only and, as a non-CGC graded book purchaser, I have no actual axe to grind other than a general inclination to see the right thing done. I would love to hear the rationale for ignoring bindery flaws and saying books that have them are 9.8 when all accepted grading terms and criteria say otherwise. So let me know if you get anywhere with it!

I think I'm in the same boat as you, historically CGC never responds to me either. I once tried a serious campaign to get them to note rusty staples on the label. Not one acknowledgement from them at all. Whenever I post something in ASK CGC, same thing, no response. I don't think they single us out. You have to be a big name to get their attention.

[Get Marwood & I]

9 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

I think I'm in the same boat as you, historically CGC never responds to me either. I once tried a serious campaign to get them to note rusty staples on the label. Not one acknowledgement from them at all. Whenever I post something in ASK CGC, same thing, no response. I don't think they single us out. You have to be a big name to get their attention.

That's me definitely out then Bob! There's good and bad in the CGC process. Sometimes, when you engage, people interpret helpful intent as attack. And sometimes they just don't give a damn. That's life.

[Ride the Tiger]

I'm really in the hobby for fun so the grading companies can pretty much call stuff whatever they want. You certainly can't please everyone but you CAN beat a horse too many times.

[Get Marwood & I]

4 minutes ago, Ride the Tiger said:

I'm really in the hobby for fun so the grading companies can pretty much call stuff whatever they want. You certainly can't please everyone but you CAN beat a horse too many times.

But what if you've been captured by omnipotent aliens, and they're forcing you to race against a horse for their own amusement? If you lose, all humanity will be exterminated.  Can you beat a horse too many times then? 

[Ride the Tiger]

Am I really supposed to answer that? I'll let you guys/gals continue this never ending debate. Enjoy.

[Get Marwood & I]

2 minutes ago, Ride the Tiger said:

Am I really supposed to answer that?

Only if you've got a sense of humour RTT. Now, go finish them dishes and get the dinner on. The missus will be home from work soon. 

[PovertyRow]

On 3/17/2018 at 6:17 PM, Ride the Tiger said:

Restoration is treatment intended to return a comic book to a known or assumed state by adding non-original material. 

I used to argue with Steve B. in the early CGC days about this. How restoration became limited to "adding non-original material" was beyond me then and is beyond me now.  (I do understand the definition was formed, in part, by input from big dealers and big collectors.)

In my view, restoration  is simply the process of reverting a book to a previous condition.  There are certainly degrees of restoration: the more gentle of which have now been termed "conservation". This is because of the negativity associated with the term "restoration" and I believe it is an attempt to make such books more salable and collectible.

Back in the old days of the early Sotheby comic book auctions,  restoration was detailed and the restorer credited, which actually lent credibility to the restoration. Now I am not saying restoration was accepted by everyone back then but it was not looked down on the way it is today. Something is called conserved and something is called restored. Either way it is modification done to a book to revert to a prior state. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by PovertyRow
grammar

[jcjames]

On 3/18/2018 at 1:51 PM, jcjames said:

If you have a book with a dog-eared page or cover that is folded over, if you unfold the corner have you done restoration on the book?