ComicConnect's Next Event Auction has started posting books ! 21 21

[porcupine48]

11 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

Well, that's really CC's fault because we've got another 3 long months to go before their next Event Auction.    

What else are we going to talk about in the meantime to keep ourselves entertained.  

The AF15 thread is pretty exciting too,n'est pas  ? 

I just found a Pogo promotional reader while walking the dog,wait till I post that,ka-pawo! 

[Zolnerowich]

40 minutes ago, Phill the Governor said:

I actually did the work on this book (The Detective 29).

And everything that was done fell well within the realm of what CGC says is "Conserved". I think that people aren't educated enough about conservation and just start screaming from the rooftops as if a book is being passed off as something other than what the label says.

Hi Phil,

I agree with you that some people ain't sufficiently educated about conservation. I'm one of them. 

So I decided to educate myself.

I clicked on the link about CGC restoration that @lou_fine provided a few posts above. I'm assuming this is the most up-to-date information. Here is their colorful blurb:

There's a lot of information here. Logic, less so.

I initially concluded that, well, okay, the idea is that as long as no "foreign" material was being added to the book, such as color touch or piece replacement or cadaver piece fill (gotta love that descriptor!), then all is good and the book thusly qualifies for Conserved. And I suppose there is the related concept that if all the work done to the book is easily reversible, without disrupting the native object-structure of the book, then it satisfies a Conserved grade. So, reattachment of a piece (presumably implying that it came the very same book) is a-ok for Conserved, while replacement of a piece (from a different book or from who knows what else, e.g., photocopy in the worst instance?) would be bad news bears for Conserved. And tear seals, being reversible, are ok for Conserved.

But my confusion quickly set in. "Some leaf casting" gets a Conserved Grade, but "leaf casting" earns a Restored Grade. If leaf casting is considered to represent a physical matrix onto which new artwork is affixed, doesn't all of this amount to the addition of foreign material and being far removed from "reversible"? Which a reasonable person might reasonably conclude would always be compatible with Restored. How is the boundary defined between "some" (Conserved) and more than "some" (Restored) leaf casting? There's certainly no guidance from the restoration info blurb.

And then there's the matter of married pages or cover, which the blurb explicitly states is Restoration, not Conservation. Yet we have seen several examples now in this thread of Conserved books containing married pages.

Not to belabor this further, but heck, I might as well. For example, "some cover or interior cleaning" gets a Conserved label, the implication being that "a whole lotta" cleaning will get a Restored label. Or, wheat glue Conserved, but white glue Restored, because, um, wheat glue is vegan? And once more to the point about "reversible" restoration, if piece attachment can be removed (and therefore meets Conserved criteria), then isn't it true that piece replacement, which can also be removed, should qualify for Conserved? Which just begs the point: how did we get here, and why?

These issues simply highlight that, for the average person, and perhaps for the more-than-average person, the criteria for conservation vs. restoration do not make a lot of sense. As such, it's hard to educate oneself when the available data are full of inconsistencies. And based on these inconsistencies, it's tempting to conclude that arbitrary and/or mysterious decisions are being made when it comes to assigning a Conserved vs. Restored grade. More explicit information would be most helpful.

 

 

[lou_fine]

Thank God as I thought it was just me not being able to understand plain simple English.  

I've read their above Restoration Grading Scale many times before in the past and I would have to agree with their BIG bold heading that restoration is indeed very complicated and easily misunderstood as they themselves seem to be a bit confused as to exactly what constitutes Restoration and what consitutes Conservation.   

[circumstances]

On 12/13/2019 at 8:09 PM, AnkurJ said:

Very sorry to hear! I bid on the book to about 38k but assumed it was an IGB job. Sadly I’ve also auctioned books in December and have lost my shirt. It’s not the best time to sell with the holidays.

What is (are) the best time (times) of the year to auction off golden age books through the big two (or three) auction houses?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[skypinkblu]

29 minutes ago, Zolnerowich said:

Hi Phil,

I agree with you that some people ain't sufficiently educated about conservation. I'm one of them. 

So I decided to educate myself.

I clicked on the link about CGC restoration that @lou_fine provided a few posts above. I'm assuming this is the most up-to-date information. Here is their colorful blurb:

There's a lot of information here. Logic, less so.

I initially concluded that, well, okay, the idea is that as long as no "foreign" material was being added to the book, such as color touch or piece replacement or cadaver piece fill (gotta love that descriptor!), then all is good and the book thusly qualifies for Conserved. And I suppose there is the related concept that if all the work done to the book is easily reversible, without disrupting the native object-structure of the book, then it satisfies a Conserved grade. So, reattachment of a piece (presumably implying that it came the very same book) is a-ok for Conserved, while replacement of a piece (from a different book or from who knows what else, e.g., photocopy in the worst instance?) would be bad news bears for Conserved. And tear seals, being reversible, are ok for Conserved.

But my confusion quickly set in. "Some leaf casting" gets a Conserved Grade, but "leaf casting" earns a Restored Grade. If leaf casting is considered to represent a physical matrix onto which new artwork is affixed, doesn't all of this amount to the addition of foreign material and being far removed from "reversible"? Which a reasonable person might reasonably conclude would always be compatible with Restored. How is the boundary defined between "some" (Conserved) and more than "some" (Restored) leaf casting? There's certainly no guidance from the restoration info blurb.

And then there's the matter of married pages or cover, which the blurb explicitly states is Restoration, not Conservation. Yet we have seen several examples now in this thread of Conserved books containing married pages.

Not to belabor this further, but heck, I might as well. For example, "some cover or interior cleaning" gets a Conserved label, the implication being that "a whole lotta" cleaning will get a Restored label. Or, wheat glue Conserved, but white glue Restored, because, um, wheat glue is vegan? And once more to the point about "reversible" restoration, if piece attachment can be removed (and therefore meets Conserved criteria), then isn't it true that piece replacement, which can also be removed, should qualify for Conserved? Which just begs the point: how did we get here, and why?

These issues simply highlight that, for the average person, and perhaps for the more-than-average person, the criteria for conservation vs. restoration do not make a lot of sense. As such, it's hard to educate oneself when the available data are full of inconsistencies. And based on these inconsistencies, it's tempting to conclude that arbitrary and/or mysterious decisions are being made when it comes to assigning a Conserved vs. Restored grade. More explicit information would be most helpful.

 

 

I've been baffled by these questions for years, thanks for writing it all out. I've guessed, unfortunately, the "conserved" means it's done by a party employed by or known to CGC.  I have a really nice More Fun 101, with 2 two small tear seals, I'd love to have it in a conserved label, because that's what I think it should be and think tear seals really DO conserve a book. However, I've been afraid to send it in, figuring that the tear seals will have to be removed so that they can be redone by someone known and I just don't see the point in possibly spoiling a book. Since I bought the book slabbed, I have no idea who did the work.

Edited December 16, 2019 by skypinkblu

[tth2]

5 hours ago, batman_fan said:

20 hours ago, tth2 said:

I don't know, there's a very strong sheep mentality amongst collectors when it comes to CGC. 

They say a certain practice is okay, and the market quickly adopts it. 

They say a certain practice is not okay, and the market quickly shuns it.

They give a collection "pedigree" status, and suddenly it's prized by collectors.

They say a collection formerly given "pedigree" status is no longer a recognized pedigree, and suddenly collectors no longer prize the books.

They don't recognize a collection as a "pedigree" even though it should be a pedigree, and immediately everyone ceases to care about its provenance, and the origins of books from the collection quickly get lost as they get dispersed.

You missed one big one Tim

They say "look, new labels" and suddenly everyone needs the new labels

[tth2]

1 hour ago, lou_fine said:

For example, I still remember how most of the board members here use to think of Borock as almost God's gift to grading and seemingly bow down at his feet to whatever words of wisdom he would be giving out to the masses.  And yet now that he is working for the other guys, it almost seems like he's totally incompetent when it comes to grading and probably couldn't tell the difference between a 2.0 graded book from a 9.0 graded book even if his life depended upon it.   

This is different.  Steve Borock could grade very strictly, and as far as I know still knows how to do it.  His standards prevented CGC from being stillborn as a joke, for which I and the rest of the slab-collecting hobby should be eternally grateful. 

Unfortunately, it appears that he chose to compete with CGC by not grading as strictly, which really made no sense to me, because CGC's grading standards (which he set) are what made them legitimate in collectors' minds to start with.  If he had graded on same standard (didn't have to be tighter) and competed by offering faster turnaround/better service, rather than competing on inflated grades, he could've offered some real competition.  As the saying goes, you only get one chance to make a good first impression.

[Chicago Boy]

50 minutes ago, Zolnerowich said:

Hi Phil,

I agree with you that some people ain't sufficiently educated about conservation. I'm one of them. 

So I decided to educate myself.

I clicked on the link about CGC restoration that @lou_fine provided a few posts above. I'm assuming this is the most up-to-date information. Here is their colorful blurb:

There's a lot of information here. Logic, less so.

I initially concluded that, well, okay, the idea is that as long as no "foreign" material was being added to the book, such as color touch or piece replacement or cadaver piece fill (gotta love that descriptor!), then all is good and the book thusly qualifies for Conserved. And I suppose there is the related concept that if all the work done to the book is easily reversible, without disrupting the native object-structure of the book, then it satisfies a Conserved grade. So, reattachment of a piece (presumably implying that it came the very same book) is a-ok for Conserved, while replacement of a piece (from a different book or from who knows what else, e.g., photocopy in the worst instance?) would be bad news bears for Conserved. And tear seals, being reversible, are ok for Conserved.

But my confusion quickly set in. "Some leaf casting" gets a Conserved Grade, but "leaf casting" earns a Restored Grade. If leaf casting is considered to represent a physical matrix onto which new artwork is affixed, doesn't all of this amount to the addition of foreign material and being far removed from "reversible"? Which a reasonable person might reasonably conclude would always be compatible with Restored. How is the boundary defined between "some" (Conserved) and more than "some" (Restored) leaf casting? There's certainly no guidance from the restoration info blurb.

And then there's the matter of married pages or cover, which the blurb explicitly states is Restoration, not Conservation. Yet we have seen several examples now in this thread of Conserved books containing married pages.

Not to belabor this further, but heck, I might as well. For example, "some cover or interior cleaning" gets a Conserved label, the implication being that "a whole lotta" cleaning will get a Restored label. Or, wheat glue Conserved, but white glue Restored, because, um, wheat glue is vegan? And once more to the point about "reversible" restoration, if piece attachment can be removed (and therefore meets Conserved criteria), then isn't it true that piece replacement, which can also be removed, should qualify for Conserved? Which just begs the point: how did we get here, and why?

These issues simply highlight that, for the average person, and perhaps for the more-than-average person, the criteria for conservation vs. restoration do not make a lot of sense. As such, it's hard to educate oneself when the available data are full of inconsistencies. And based on these inconsistencies, it's tempting to conclude that arbitrary and/or mysterious decisions are being made when it comes to assigning a Conserved vs. Restored grade. More explicit information would be most helpful.

 

 

Yet again Trimming is NOT Restoration. You r  not returning things to their original form—- you are taking paper away. Voldy IMO has it correct I’m sure people wud see it as a money grab or it would feasibly a liability but I wish CGC wud trade our PLOD for blue when trimming is the only piece of “ restoration “.  

[Howling Mad]

4 minutes ago, Chicago Boy said:

Yet again Trimming is NOT Restoration. You r  not returning things to their original form—- you are taking paper away. Voldy IMO has it correct I’m sure people wud see it as a money grab or it would feasibly a liability but I wish CGC wud trade our PLOD for blue when trimming is the only piece of “ restoration “.  

Can it be labeled "destroying"?

[woowoo]

1 hour ago, Zolnerowich said:

Hi Phil,

I agree with you that some people ain't sufficiently educated about conservation. I'm one of them. 

So I decided to educate myself.

I clicked on the link about CGC restoration that @lou_fine provided a few posts above. I'm assuming this is the most up-to-date information. Here is their colorful blurb:

There's a lot of information here. Logic, less so.

I initially concluded that, well, okay, the idea is that as long as no "foreign" material was being added to the book, such as color touch or piece replacement or cadaver piece fill (gotta love that descriptor!), then all is good and the book thusly qualifies for Conserved. And I suppose there is the related concept that if all the work done to the book is easily reversible, without disrupting the native object-structure of the book, then it satisfies a Conserved grade. So, reattachment of a piece (presumably implying that it came the very same book) is a-ok for Conserved, while replacement of a piece (from a different book or from who knows what else, e.g., photocopy in the worst instance?) would be bad news bears for Conserved. And tear seals, being reversible, are ok for Conserved.

But my confusion quickly set in. "Some leaf casting" gets a Conserved Grade, but "leaf casting" earns a Restored Grade. If leaf casting is considered to represent a physical matrix onto which new artwork is affixed, doesn't all of this amount to the addition of foreign material and being far removed from "reversible"? Which a reasonable person might reasonably conclude would always be compatible with Restored. How is the boundary defined between "some" (Conserved) and more than "some" (Restored) leaf casting? There's certainly no guidance from the restoration info blurb.

And then there's the matter of married pages or cover, which the blurb explicitly states is Restoration, not Conservation. Yet we have seen several examples now in this thread of Conserved books containing married pages.

Not to belabor this further, but heck, I might as well. For example, "some cover or interior cleaning" gets a Conserved label, the implication being that "a whole lotta" cleaning will get a Restored label. Or, wheat glue Conserved, but white glue Restored, because, um, wheat glue is vegan? And once more to the point about "reversible" restoration, if piece attachment can be removed (and therefore meets Conserved criteria), then isn't it true that piece replacement, which can also be removed, should qualify for Conserved? Which just begs the point: how did we get here, and why?

These issues simply highlight that, for the average person, and perhaps for the more-than-average person, the criteria for conservation vs. restoration do not make a lot of sense. As such, it's hard to educate oneself when the available data are full of inconsistencies. And based on these inconsistencies, it's tempting to conclude that arbitrary and/or mysterious decisions are being made when it comes to assigning a Conserved vs. Restored grade. More explicit information would be most helpful.

 

 

@batman_fan Now I am back

[Chicago Boy]

18 minutes ago, Howling Mad said:

Can it be labeled "destroying"?

Blue label with the notation trimmed. It is destruction imo as well 

[Ze-man]

5 hours ago, Zolnerowich said:

Hi Phil,

I agree with you that some people ain't sufficiently educated about conservation. I'm one of them. 

So I decided to educate myself.

I clicked on the link about CGC restoration that @lou_fine provided a few posts above. I'm assuming this is the most up-to-date information. Here is their colorful blurb:

There's a lot of information here. Logic, less so.

I initially concluded that, well, okay, the idea is that as long as no "foreign" material was being added to the book, such as color touch or piece replacement or cadaver piece fill (gotta love that descriptor!), then all is good and the book thusly qualifies for Conserved. And I suppose there is the related concept that if all the work done to the book is easily reversible, without disrupting the native object-structure of the book, then it satisfies a Conserved grade. So, reattachment of a piece (presumably implying that it came the very same book) is a-ok for Conserved, while replacement of a piece (from a different book or from who knows what else, e.g., photocopy in the worst instance?) would be bad news bears for Conserved. And tear seals, being reversible, are ok for Conserved.

But my confusion quickly set in. "Some leaf casting" gets a Conserved Grade, but "leaf casting" earns a Restored Grade. If leaf casting is considered to represent a physical matrix onto which new artwork is affixed, doesn't all of this amount to the addition of foreign material and being far removed from "reversible"?  Which a reasonable person might reasonably conclude would always be compatible with Restored. How is the boundary defined between "some" (Conserved) and more than "some" (Restored) leaf casting? There's certainly no guidance from the restoration info blurb.

I think it should be stated that leafcasting is completely reversible, often more so then wheat paste /japan paper mends. 

And regarding leafcasting and Conso? It's serving a structural purpose, sealing split spines, tears, etc.  While this type of leafcasting does fill in minor areas missing cover stock it is still considered conso as long as there is not a large amount of casted material present. If you go as far as to leaf cast an entire cover you are likely filling in areas where its serving no structural purpose.  i e missing corners, large missing areas etc.. To me its all still a grey area since the process is fairly new to comic books.  What was done previously to seal spine splits, tears  using thin japan tissues and wheat paste can now be done with leafcasting.  Which actually does a better job structurally, but it does in fact add piece filling material.  So even if no attempt was made to Color touch the casted, filled areas..some still consider that to be"resto", not Conso.    To me an entire interior that was brittle and had split spine and was leafcasted, thats conso all day long. But since so much material was added to the book it will likely fall under the resto umbrella.

 

 

And then there's the matter of married pages or cover, which the blurb explicitly states is Restoration, not Conservation. Yet we have seen several examples now in this thread of Conserved books containing married pages.

The married cover  thing doesnt make sense to me either in regards to it being Conso.

Not to belabor this further, but heck, I might as well. For example, "some cover or interior cleaning" gets a Conserved label, the implication being that "a whole lotta" cleaning will get a Restored label.

Washing , or deacidifying a comic to remove harmful elements to return PH levels to a non harmful state is considered a Conservative approach.   When you take it the step farther to try and bleach, or lighten an interior its more of a cosmetic effort and is restorative,imho. 

Or, wheat glue Conserved, but white glue Restored, because, um, wheat glue is vegan?

Wheat starch glue is allowed in both conso and resto punch lists.  Their resto list is just relating whats pegged as "resto"  Be it good, or bad resto.

 

Quote

 

 

And once more to the point about "reversible" restoration, if piece attachment can be removed (and therefore meets Conserved criteria), then isn't it true that piece replacement, which can also be removed, should qualify for Conserved? Which just begs the point: how did we get here, and why?

I think the difference being that "piece attachment" is conserving material original to the book.    Whereas "piece replacement"is adding material not original to the comic. i e you are trying to restore the comic to a previous state. 

These issues simply highlight that, for the average person, and perhaps for the more-than-average person, the criteria for conservation vs. restoration do not make a lot of sense. As such, it's hard to educate oneself when the available data are full of inconsistencies. And based on these inconsistencies, it's tempting to conclude that arbitrary and/or mysterious decisions are being made when it comes to assigning a Conserved vs. Restored grade. More explicit information would be most helpful.

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by Ze-man
to confirm what Bedrock said about leafcasting being reversible.

[MrBedrock]

Thanks for responding, Kenny. Now plan on adding a month or so to your turnaround times.

[Gotham Kid]

2 hours ago, tth2 said:

4 hours ago, lou_fine said:

For example, I still remember how most of the board members here use to think of Borock as almost God's gift to grading and seemingly bow down at his feet to whatever words of wisdom he would be giving out to the masses.  And yet now that he is working for the other guys, it almost seems like he's totally incompetent when it comes to grading and probably couldn't tell the difference between a 2.0 graded book from a 9.0 graded book even if his life depended upon it.   

This is different.  Steve Borock could grade very strictly, and as far as I know still knows how to do it.  His standards prevented CGC from being stillborn as a joke, for which I and the rest of the slab-collecting hobby should be eternally grateful. 

Unfortunately, it appears that he chose to compete with CGC by not grading as strictly, which really made no sense to me, because CGC's grading standards (which he set) are what made them legitimate in collectors' minds to start with.  If he had graded on same standard (didn't have to be tighter) and competed by offering faster turnaround/better service, rather than competing on inflated grades, he could've offered some real competition.  As the saying goes, you only get one chance to make a good first impression.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Gotham Kid

[skypinkblu]

@Ze-man 

[MasterChief]

4 hours ago, Chicago Boy said:

Yet again Trimming is NOT Restoration. You r  not returning things to their original form—- you are taking paper away. Voldy IMO has it correct I’m sure people wud see it as a money grab or it would feasibly a liability but I wish CGC wud trade our PLOD for blue when trimming is the only piece of “ restoration “.  

If I’m not mistaken, the Overstreet Grading Guide, which is the closest thing the hobby has to a worldwide recognized industry standard, continues to classify trimming as restoration. So until such time as Overstreet changes the definition of restoration, trimming, and other restorative treatment procedures that have somehow transitioned into something other than currently defined by the standard, remain restoration regardless of what the individual collector, dealer or third-party grading company would like them to be.

Edited December 16, 2019 by MasterChief
Grammer

[lou_fine]

17 hours ago, skypinkblu said:

I've been baffled by these questions for years, thanks for writing it all out. I've guessed, unfortunately, the "conserved" means it's done by a party employed by or known to CGC.  I have a really nice More Fun 101, with 2 two small tear seals, I'd love to have it in a conserved label, because that's what I think it should be and think tear seals really DO conserve a book. However, I've been afraid to send it in, figuring that the tear seals will have to be removed so that they can be redone by someone known and I just don't see the point in possibly spoiling a book. Since I bought the book slabbed, I have no idea who did the work.

Now, now, now..........are we really that bored that you are trying to get us to step into another pile of doggie doo doo here?    

In theory, the graders are supposed to simply grade the book in front of them and it shouldn't matter at all who had done the work on them.  BTW:  If they remove the tear seals, it actually un-restores the book and it should in theory receive a Universal blue label, albeit at a slightly lower grade if we assume consistency in grading.

Not sure what happens in actual practice though.  Not sure if I believe the conspiracy theorists here, but are you referring to the time when Matt first moved over from CCS to the CGC side of the business and his replacements didn't have the same proficiency when it came to pressing?  Apparently a large portion of the books were coming back with minor telltale signature pressing defects which the CGC graders turned a blind eye to and gave a pass to knowing full well they came from their partner shop down the hall.  Although that part might possibly be true due to the learning curve at CCS, I find the extension of this about the CGC graders then being much tougher on the obvious pressed books that did not exhibit the same signature pressing defect to be totally unbelieveable.  

Probably nothing more than a case of sour grapes as a result of some submittors being unhappy with the grades which came back at the time on their books.  Especially since it's supposedly impossible to tell if a book has been pressed or not if the work had been done properly.  

Bottom-line:  I don't think you should have much to worry about based upon the concerns which you posted above, although I am sure that others who submit a lot of books to CGC would know a lot more than me.  

Edited December 16, 2019 by lou_fine

[lou_fine]

On 12/13/2019 at 1:51 PM, Gotham Kid said:

On 12/13/2019 at 1:42 PM, jabats said:

I consigned an extensively restored GA mega-key to this auction. It hammered for 45% of what I had paid for it in 2017 (I purchased it via CC).

The Supes1 9.0 ?

 

On 12/13/2019 at 1:51 PM, jabats said:

Yes

Any bets that the posting of the 2 copies of Supes 1 on the Heritage website last week for their upcoming February Signature Auction might also have had a bit of a dampening impact on the final results here?  

Especially since Supes 1 is supposedly a much rarer book relative to most of the other GA keys, and lately they seem to be coming into the marketplace with another 2 copies coming out in a few short months from now.  

Edited December 17, 2019 by lou_fine

[bluechip]

19 hours ago, MasterChief said:

If I’m not mistaken, the Overstreet Grading Guide, which is the closest thing the hobby has to a worldwide recognized industry standard, continues to classify trimming as restoration. So until such time as Overstreet changes the definition of restoration, trimming, and other restorative treatment procedures that have somehow transitioned into something other than currently defined by the standard, remain restoration regardless of what the individual collector, dealer or third-party grading company would like them to be.

The Overstreet Grading Guide also, at one point (and perhaps for a number of years) explicitly recommended that people get their books professionally restored.   

[lou_fine]

On 12/16/2019 at 5:07 PM, bluechip said:

On 12/15/2019 at 9:38 PM, MasterChief said:

If I’m not mistaken, the Overstreet Grading Guide, which is the closest thing the hobby has to a worldwide recognized industry standard, continues to classify trimming as restoration. So until such time as Overstreet changes the definition of restoration, trimming, and other restorative treatment procedures that have somehow transitioned into something other than currently defined by the standard, remain restoration regardless of what the individual collector, dealer or third-party grading company would like them to be.

The Overstreet Grading Guide also, at one point (and perhaps for a number of years) explicitly recommended that people get their books professionally restored.   

Since I don't own any of the Overstreet Grading Guides myself, I am not sure if your statement is correct here or not.  I do know though that the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guides did in fact have contributors back in the latter part of the 70's and the early parts of the 80's authored portions of the guide whereby they did indeed recommended the professional restoration of comic books as this type of activity when professionally and properly done was deemed to add value to an unrestored book for a period of time back then.      

Your comment was so much of a flashback to the past, that I decided to dig out some of my old price guides.  My first price guide was the Overstreet Guide #7 issued back in 1977 and it looks like Bill Sarill had a < 1-page piece page at the front of the guide talking about the deacidification of comic books.  Looks like this must have been running previously in the guide as Sarill mentions prior versions of his write-up in the previous 2 editions of the guide.  By the time of the Overstreet Guide #14 issued back in 1984, this little section had morphed itself into a full blown 7-page piece authored by Ernst Gerber and Dr. Richard Smith on the proper storage and preservation of comic books, including charts and graphs discussing various techniques for the preservation and restoration of comic books, along with some of their pros and cons.    

Looks like this craze must have peaked in the very early parts of the 80's as the Overstreet Guide (i.e. in the Storage, Preservation, and Restoration piece authored by Ernst Gerber and William Sarill) even went so far as to say that the valuations of restored books which do not alter the original state of the comic book and does not involve adding new elements to the books could result in these books reaching the same values as books which did not require this type of work.  They then went on to say that even books which did require the addition of new elements would also increase in value, but nowhere near to the same levels as the first category of restored books.  I assume this whole fad with seeing restoration as adding value to a book must have slowly died out by the mid-80's as the Overstreet Guide #14 basically left it up to the individual collector to look at the pros and cons of restoration in order to determine if it would add value to the book.  I guess the final nail in the coffin of this fad was reached in the Overstreet Guide #15 when it completely removed the entire preservation of comic books section and simply reduced it back down to a short 3-sentence paragraph talking about the deacidification of comic books under the Storage of Comic Book section of the guide.  I guess by then, restoration must have fallen out of favor in the marketplace due to what Borock used to term as the Wild Wild West Days when unscrupulous comic book mechanics would sit in their darkened dungeons working on books and then foisting them onto an unsuspecting marketplace as unrestored books.  

Fast forward now 25 to 35 years later to the CGC era (i.e. post 2005 after pressing, cleaning, etc, was evenutally outed over time) and is there really that much of a difference at all?    Sure, the techniques have improved with some of them becoming much more refined and subtle, but isn't the sentiment pretty much the same as the one which you had voiced in your post above.  Especially when you can open up any recent edition of the Overstreet guide and you can see a proliferation and huge explosion (relative to what we had in the 80's) of ads for the so-called "maximization of potential" of books.  Although they don't say it, is this really not once again pretty much the same intent in terms of the undisclosed manipulation of comic books because I have yet to see a single ad by a seller or auction listing which states that a particular book has already been maximized to its full potential?  You would think that if this was a truly above board procedure, that sellers and auction houses would want to list this in their description, as it should give more value to the book if the buyer knows in advance they don't have to waste any more money trying to improve an already fully maxed out book.    

Makes me wonder what the sentiment in the marketplace will be if we fast forward to say another 20 or 25 years from today.  Will this same maximization of potential for books still be in vogue, even if technology improves to the point whereby cost effective methods for the artifical manipulation of books is readily available to the collecting public?  Or will we continue to move in the same current growing and expanding rampant direction as even more and more activities falls off the Restoration plate and onto the Conserved or even Unrestored plates?  I guess only time will tell as to what eventually happens as we move forward.    

Edited December 19, 2019 by lou_fine