Qualified or Conserved ?
0

34 posts in this topic

On 2/10/2021 at 8:56 AM, Artboy99 said:

Generally my preference is: Blue > Conserved > Restored > Qualified.  

Personally, I look at CGC graded books this way with Qualified books being valued higher than Conserved.  Universal > Conserved > Qualified > Restored

I'm curious to hear what others feel about this. 

Edited by jeranimal
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jeranimal said:

Personally, I look at CGC graded books this way with Qualified books being valued higher than Conserved.  Universal > Conserved > Qualified > Restored

I'm curious to hear what others feel about this. 

Universal > Conserved > Restored > Qualified 

I generally feel this way because usually qualified books are missing something so an incomplete book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Artboy99 said:

Universal > Conserved > Restored > Qualified 

I generally feel this way because usually qualified books are missing something so an incomplete book.

I don't see what difference it makes if someone has the centerfold from another book. As grading goes, they will hang Qualified on it but AFAIC, I have a complete book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some books with Married pages have also been given Conserved labels.  Seems like if there is any conservation on the book then it qualifies for a Conserved label.  

Conserved Label (Blue/Grey) This label is applied to any comic book with specific repairs done to improve the structural integrity and long-term preservation. These repairs include tear seals support, staple replacement, piece reattachment and certain kinds of cleaning.

image.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love buying qualified books due to the fact they are typically much better presenting than most other books (I especially love all those 'married-cover' top census GA books out there, sure I'll take the absolute best looking copy out there for the price of a mid range copy! :D ), and how a comic displays is my primary concern for the majority of books (cover looks great with amazing color strike). Married qualified books have a good chance to become blue/conserved label in the future if regraded after any other conservation work is applied.

I 100% support Conserved books and do have my own mega keys conserved to some degree when needed and personally think the minor amount of work done on the books should place them only slightly lower than universal copies (when we are talking about proper archive/conservation work done to preserve a book - such things are common and expected in other hobbies, such as movie posters, and should be the case with comics as well)

Universal (anything other than 0.5) > Conserved > Qualified (married) > Restored (slight pro) > Qualified (incomplete) > Restored (all others)

Universal 0.5 grades are wild cards, as most would be better off in Qualified labels with detailed notes but since the market wants blue labels we have many people opting for the lowest blue over that of a more accurate graded to describe the overall condition, and bidding on such items are often all over the place.

Edited by Sauce Dog
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2021 at 4:05 AM, Angel of Death said:

According to CGC's own "Restored" guidelines, "adding pieces" is restoration. (shrug)

I know it is misleading but "pieces added" is different than the "pieces re-attached" in Conserved. Note the re-attached means like a piece chipped off the book that is added back on, as opposed to some paper from another book cut to fit. Which is why CGCs allowing of leaf forming in Conserved makes me a bit crazed! As does the marrying of pages/covers since those are not being "re-attached" since the pieces were never part of that specific book. :insane:

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2021 at 9:39 AM, Sauce Dog said:

I love buying qualified books due to the fact they are typically much better presenting than most other books (I especially love all those 'married-cover' top census GA books out there, sure I'll take the absolute best looking copy out there for the price of a mid range copy! :D ), and how a comic displays is my primary concern for the majority of books (cover looks great with amazing color strike). Married qualified books have a good chance to become blue/conserved label in the future if regraded after any other conservation work is applied.

I 100% support Conserved books and do have my own mega keys conserved to some degree when needed and personally think the minor amount of work done on the books should place them only slightly lower than universal copies (when we are talking about proper archive/conservation work done to preserve a book - such things are common and expected in other hobbies, such as movie posters, and should be the case with comics as well)

Universal (anything other than 0.5) > Conserved > Qualified (married) > Restored (slight pro) > Qualified (incomplete) > Restored (all others)

Universal 0.5 grades are wild cards, as most would be better off in Qualified labels with detailed notes but since the market wants blue labels we have many people opting for the lowest blue over that of a more accurate graded to describe the overall condition, and bidding on such items are often all over the place.

It would seem the future of the hobby is headed in this direction...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PovertyRow said:

I know it is misleading but "pieces added" is different than the "pieces re-attached" in Conserved. Note the re-attached means like a piece chipped off the book that is added back on, as opposed to some paper from another book cut to fit. Which is why CGCs allowing of leaf forming in Conserved makes me a bit crazed! As does the marrying of pages/covers since those are not being "re-attached" since the pieces were never part of that specific book. :insane:

"The only thing that's consistent is our inconsistency..."   

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Lions Den said:

It would seem the future of the hobby is headed in this direction...

Sooner or later, a certain amount of conservation tolerance is going to be mandatory if we want to continue having structurally sound Golden Age books. It is likely going to take some time -- probably on the order of a couple of decades -- for the broad collecting community to work out where the boundaries lie. I'm pretty certain we're never going back to the '80s era of manipulating books solely for their appearance; trimmed books will be poisoned forever. But when it's acceptable to marry a cover or fold, or to replace staples, or whether it's acceptable to use leaf casting to stabilize a corner at risk of separation (versus just strengthening it with archival tape, or taking the loss) ... are not questions that are necessarily going to have the same answers in 2035 or 2045 that they do today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Qalyar said:

Sooner or later, a certain amount of conservation tolerance is going to be mandatory if we want to continue having structurally sound Golden Age books. It is likely going to take some time -- probably on the order of a couple of decades -- for the broad collecting community to work out where the boundaries lie. I'm pretty certain we're never going back to the '80s era of manipulating books solely for their appearance; trimmed books will be poisoned forever. But when it's acceptable to marry a cover or fold, or to replace staples, or whether it's acceptable to use leaf casting to stabilize a corner at risk of separation (versus just strengthening it with archival tape, or taking the loss) ... are not questions that are necessarily going to have the same answers in 2035 or 2045 that they do today.

Let's have a serious conversation...about the evolution of conservation.  :grin:   

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, The Lions Den said:

Let's have a serious conversation...about the evolution of conservation.  :grin:   

So, obviously, the first "conservation" efforts were glue and adhesive tape. No one knew back then, but they're their own problems now. It became obvious by the late '70s or early '80s that there was a problem, especially with books printed on exceptionally low quality paper (All Negro Comics comes to mind). But the restoration craze did real damage to the cause of legitimate conservation work. When collectors -- rightly -- rejected Dupcak style manipulations as a Bad Thing, preferences threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Because let's be honest here. Stuff like staple replacement is something we're probably going to have to deal with. Low cost staples from 70 years ago are a rust risk. Once decay starts, there's no realistic countermeasures. Staple replacement is better for conservation than risking rust migration. But when we rejected trimming, the goal became maintaining books in precisely as-issued condition, and any process that improved the book was instantly verboten. Except pressing, I guess...

We have some pretty solid reversible archival options right now. Archival tape reinforcement, Japanese paper, neutral starch filler. I think CGC is doing a very good thing by establishing the Conserved label. But I think there are a lot of questions about what ought to count as restoration. We have a lot (a lot!) of books reassembled from parts. Married folds and married covers. Is that conservation, or restoration, or just a defect? Leaf casting is, strictly speaking, not a reversible archival process; can that still be conservation work even when it's done for stability and not as part of an effort to create Frankenbooks?

There's a lot of ongoing research into de-lignification, which could be a game-changer but would currently be chemical restoration.

Personally, I support reversible archival conservation, and staple replacement when warranted. I oppose married books on philosophical grounds, and currently lean oppose on leaf casting repairs. I support de-acidification and am likely to support de-lignification if that pans out, but I do not support straight-up page lightening/whitening done in and of itself on appearance grounds. I can't pretend that my views ought to be adapted by everyone, or that they aren't subject to further change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Qalyar said:

So, obviously, the first "conservation" efforts were glue and adhesive tape. No one knew back then, but they're their own problems now. It became obvious by the late '70s or early '80s that there was a problem, especially with books printed on exceptionally low quality paper (All Negro Comics comes to mind). But the restoration craze did real damage to the cause of legitimate conservation work. When collectors -- rightly -- rejected Dupcak style manipulations as a Bad Thing, preferences threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Because let's be honest here. Stuff like staple replacement is something we're probably going to have to deal with. Low cost staples from 70 years ago are a rust risk. Once decay starts, there's no realistic countermeasures. Staple replacement is better for conservation than risking rust migration. But when we rejected trimming, the goal became maintaining books in precisely as-issued condition, and any process that improved the book was instantly verboten. Except pressing, I guess...

We have some pretty solid reversible archival options right now. Archival tape reinforcement, Japanese paper, neutral starch filler. I think CGC is doing a very good thing by establishing the Conserved label. But I think there are a lot of questions about what ought to count as restoration. We have a lot (a lot!) of books reassembled from parts. Married folds and married covers. Is that conservation, or restoration, or just a defect? Leaf casting is, strictly speaking, not a reversible archival process; can that still be conservation work even when it's done for stability and not as part of an effort to create Frankenbooks?

There's a lot of ongoing research into de-lignification, which could be a game-changer but would currently be chemical restoration.

Personally, I support reversible archival conservation, and staple replacement when warranted. I oppose married books on philosophical grounds, and currently lean oppose on leaf casting repairs. I support de-acidification and am likely to support de-lignification if that pans out, but I do not support straight-up page lightening/whitening done in and of itself on appearance grounds. I can't pretend that my views ought to be adapted by everyone, or that they aren't subject to further change.

A very entertaining and interesting read...thank you! 

I appreciate the efforts CGC and CCS have made toward upgrading their criteria regarding what constitutes conservation, restoration and qualification. To me, this is a step in the right direction. 

And I can tell you that as long as certain key people remain within these two companies, there will always be an effort to improve the process and deliver the best possible service. Hopefully our children and our children's children will still be able to enjoy these treasures after we're gone... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1 2 3 4 Thumb War! said:

Masking tape, specifically ;)

 

Masking tape, yep. And sometimes on the really old books, the rubberized adhesive tape that predates widespread adoption of Scotch cellophane tape. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2021 at 8:13 AM, The Lions Den said:

"The only thing that's consistent is our inconsistency..."   

 

21 hours ago, The Lions Den said:

Let's have a serious conversation...about the evolution of conservation.  :grin:   

Robert De Niro You Re Good You GIFs | Tenor

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0