Phill the Governor

Incorrect. A conserved label denotes that the book has been conserved. That's why there are two different terms used: "Restoration" and "Conservation". Saying they are the same thing does not change the reality that they are classified differently (despite some variable overlap), lending to two different terms that we use in our language to describe two different things. Based on your responses here, and from the account Bonger (that is in all likelihood you as well, but doesn't matter either way), your clear disapproval of a separation between resto & conso labels exaggerates your bias. You do not appear to be seeking rational discussion; it appears your mind is made up and you just want to be confrontational about the subject. This causes your posts to come off as pernicious- in case you weren't aware. Maybe your quality of thought is not as good as it once was.

I'm starting a gofundme for myself to pay for therapy.

I have been very transparent in divulging what I am doing, and most importantly what I am trying to understand not just for myself but for the community. By incorrectly stating that there is a desire to go through/figure out loopholes, it's likely your contributions to the thread will lend to more confusion than education. It may be more beneficial to the discussion if you sit this one out.

This is where I would disagree. There have been developments in paper restoration/conservation to be sure. But there is realistically only so much that can and is being done and of it can easily fall into a standard that every book would go by. Since you're new here, welcome to the boards! To be clear, I was not insinuating others here have not "got it", merely that he was talking specifics. If you view my sole intention here as complaining I would politely advise you go back and re-through the thread again; perhaps you just skimmed the discussion/didn't actually read it to begin with. Two pages of information can be intimidating after all, so no sweat. The purpose of the thread is: to inform and also try and shake things up institutionally and get some positive movement forward on this part of the business. Unfortunately for my energy, which I am not being compensated for (I am okay with this), complaining does lend a hand since CGC is indeed behaving in a way that would make customers (including myself) unhappy.

This guy gets it. Prior to 2021, 100% consistency in rubric, at least from my end. They had it figured out before which allowed me to have the utmost confidence in getting specific label types. Now in 2021 I have to re-sub a book a second time because the first label/grade was wrong and the new one is right after re-evaluation...? That's horrendous quality control. As it is, the community is dealing with receiving books right back from grading with tons of scuffs on innerwells, inner wells not sealed all the way, inner wells sealed too tightly, cracked cases, etc... I don't care if they need to hire new employees, part of the problem is that the current employees are either not being trained properly or being paid enough not to be apathetic.

As I can tell, grading standards/ quality control across the board are at an all time low at CGC- correlating to their current diminishing reputation. I am currently on the fence with accepting color touch removal jobs from clients. Prior to 2021, I never had a single submission come back with CT after removal. Now in 2021 I've had several come back. You don't have to be conspiratorial to see that CCS is an obvious conflict of interest- and if CGC flags books with obvious CT removal and grades them as restored- it is suspect that I have clients receiving emails back from CGC advising using their in house company CCS to "remove the remaining resto". So to reiterate- the problems at CGC right now are across the board and include but are not limited to: dropping submissions/damaging books, incorrectly categorizing conservation/restoration, over and under grading in general, flagging books that can graded as restored that aren't, overgrading books with tape, incorrectly encapsulating books causing damage and lastly (and the thing bugging most people) unbelievably inconsistent graders notes- especially on books 9.0 and above.

You are confusing two different terms: piece fill & piece reattached. The only note CGC gave on that particular book was "cover reinforced", which means they missed the married wrap, spine split seals and the small piece re-attached. But to push it further - as of Dec/2020 I was able to (according to CGC's own consistent rubric at the time) add virtually any structural pieces at the spine area only, not just bindary chips. This stance has shifted starting in 2021 to allow any size piece fill on a cover if it is leafcasted, and a book will get a Conserved label. But the piece(s) in question can not be added through standard, conventional archival means, which translates to CGC adopting/creating an inconsistent stance on Conservation based solely on preference.

The books I just posted prove otherwise. The Detective 40 was approved by Matt Nelson himself only a few months ago. Unless you work on books yourself, or can provide examples backing up what you're stating like I have, it's likely your contributions to the thread will lend to more confusion than education. It may be more beneficial to the discussion if you sit this one out.

You are incorrect, again. But that's okay-- because it's actually likely that some people here don't even know about this conservation standard CGC has been using. Any book with a married piece, that has conservation, will garner a Conserved label and make note of the marriage on the label. This is one of my specialities. I get books into Conserved holders. I have countless examples to back up what I'm talking about:

Incorrect. This is clearly a problem with the graders, since I have re-subbed books to be re-evaluated and they have come back conserved in every instance.

It's a nuanced situation, involving overlap of wheat paste being acceptable in both A quality restoration, and by nature, conservation. The semantics of "wheat paste" vs "wheat glue" have already been discussed, but to be clear they are referring to the same thing. There is no asking CGC what the difference is, this is a standard conservation practice. Every single book I submitted with conservation prior to 2021 received a Conserved label- they all included work done with wheat paste. Now all of a sudden CGC is labeling the work done with wheat paste as "C" quality work. Notice on CGC's website, the Restoration grading scale lists "glue" under "C" level quality work, not "wheat glue". Because there is a discernible difference. They are incorrectly categorizing the wheat paste I use as glue, the graders need to be properly trained how to ID this, and it needs to stop

A part of me wishes it were that simple. Unfortunately this all started at the beginning of the year. I was told (after suddenly having books that should have otherwise come back Conserved, come back Restored) that structural piece fills were no longer acceptable if being done using wheat paste & archival mending tissues. However, structural pieces (and now seemingly all pieces) can be added through leafcasting and get a Conserved grade. So I was like.... okay structural pieces added with wheat paste & archival tissues = Restored (even though process is 100% reversible) but leafasting any missing pieces on a cover = Conserved (even though leafcasting requires full water submersion [cover cleaned notation] & isn't 100% reversible) At that point I gave up trying to approach this with reason, since clearly CGC has adopted their own Conservation scale that does not correlate to the vast majority of professional institutions categorizing paper conservation. In all seriousness this is the root of the problem. All I could do, and continue to do is attempt to adapt to CGC's rubric of what is allowed in Conserved/Restored labels so that I can give clients reassurance that their book will end up with a specific label type.

I have been reached out to by someone at CGC and am addressing the problem. As I had stated previously (and this was expecting participation on my end through discussion), I did not expect this thread to give me the answer or solution that I wanted. I am very aware at this point that direct contact with CGC gets me the results that I desire. My hope is that this thread can help expedite a sense of urgency on their end. Otherwise, at the very least, maybe something can come from public discourse on the topic as far as people becoming educated about CGC grading and restoration issues. Unless CGC would like to chime in, I can say with almost 100% certainty that the note you included was promptly thrown away when the book was received, and that the reason it was graded properly with the Conserved label is because the work in question was indeed Conservation under their old rubric. This ongoing issue started in 2021. All books submitted prior are exceptions and were consistently graded accurately as far as I personally experienced. We (the clients) are not suppose to tell them (the graders) how to grade, that is literally the job they are paid to do.

Unfortunately CGC has undoubtedly tainted some relationships for me. Thankfully most people are understanding. But the fact does remain that aside from everything, CGC remains the best 3rd party grading service. Otherwise I would have switched to a competitor a long time ago. My goal is to have complete understanding on the Resto/Conso/Universal label rubric through CGC. As stated above, prior to 2021 I had literally a 100% success rate getting books into Conserved labels, with countless submissions. The inconsistency here is not on my end.

This is why I started the thread to begin with! Theoretically this is the easiest, most practical solution. However, unfortunately since CGC wan't to remain as "impartial" as possible, every time this has been done in the past it garnered 0 results. In fact, I have included slips with books before saying the cover or a piece was married and there was still no notation on the label. And this is a problem that colleagues of mine have had too so it's not isolated/anecdotal. You make valid points (a response to including documentation I answered above). However, my main argument is that for years- there HAS been a clear delineation between Conserved and Restored books. I have dozen and dozen and dozens of examples of books submitted over the last several years- and every single one of them I got into a Conserved holder- bar none. Now, 2021 rolls around and I have a book in every submission with problems.

The books in question are client owned, but I appreciate your thoughtful concern.

Incorrect. While wheat paste can also be classified as restoration... if you keep reading on that page you will see "Wheat glue" otherwise known as wheat paste is listed under "Materials used for conservation repair" as well. Since they have been doing this, I expect at the very least for it to continue. My argument is that I shouldn't have to have books looked at twice - either before being graded to ensure the correct label type, or after a book was incorrectly labeled to begin with. In both cases my time is being wasted. I have a direct line of communication with them, as well as through colleagues. Unfortunately while that is the best course of action I feel compelled to address this publicly as well.

Alright, happy Monday everyone! It wouldn't be the CGC boards (especially nowadays) without some problems... so let's get right to it! First off to get it out of the way- in the last several months CGC has incorrectly graded two seperate $10,000+ books that had professional conservation done to them by myself. One is currently in a Conserved holder and another was (incorrectly) labeled as Restored. Both books, at the request of my clients, will remain anonymous. The bigger problem book that I will mention had a married wrap, spine split seals, small piece re-attached to the cover and cover reinforcement. This was graded and put (incorrectly) into a Restored A-1 level slab with a single notation of "cover reinforced". No mention of any of the other work - including the married wrap. This is not a slight oversight - this is completely unacceptable coming from a company that's job it is to accurately assess and grade the condition of these books. Aside from these two $10,000+ books that are now out in the wild... CGC's review of my Conservation work, which up until 6 months ago always garnered a Conserved label (bar none), is now all over the place. The EXACT same work done on books with wheat paste, methyl cellulose and archival mending tissues is now garnering mostly Restored A, B, or C labels, with an occasional Conserved label. There is no consistency, and at this point my only option appears to have EVERY book I submit with Conservation work to be vetted first via email by graders/higher-ups at the company in order to prevent it from being incorrectly labeled to begin with. I can not afford to have the hand of each book held- prior to each submission, to ensure the proper label type will be selected for my books. This defeats the purpose of paying to have the books graded by "professionals" to begin with. To CGC I ask which one of these scenarios (and it has to be either or) we are dealing with: 1. Employees who grade books are not being properly instructed how to clearly identify professional conservation and this will be addressed to minimize/ eliminate incorrect label designations going forward. or 2. CGC's rubric for what is allowable in Conserved labels has changed and a statement will be issued in order to properly convey to the public (CGC's clients) this change. I will add this at the beginning since it is the most prevalent information regarding the thread: This all started at the beginning of the year. I was told (after suddenly having books that should have otherwise come back Conserved, come back Restored) that structural piece fills were no longer acceptable if being done using wheat paste & archival mending tissues. However, structural pieces (and now seemingly all pieces) can be added through leafcasting and get a Conserved grade. So: structural pieces added with wheat paste & archival tissues = Restored (even though process is 100% reversible) but leafasting any missing pieces on a cover = Conserved (even though leafcasting requires full water submersion [cover cleaned notation] & isn't 100% reversible) At that point I gave up trying to approach this with reason, since clearly CGC has adopted their own Conservation scale that does not correlate to the vast majority of professional institutions categorizing paper conservation. In all seriousness this is the root of the problem. All I could do, and continue to do is attempt to adapt to CGC's rubric of what is allowed in Conserved/Restored labels so that I can give clients reassurance that their book will end up with a specific label type. CGC, please advise.

5.5/6.0

There's a difference between price correction and a bubble for sure.

Comments like this, or liking comments like this, do not help the conversation move forward. If you go back and re-read my posts, I stated that despite everything wrong CGC remains the best grading company out there (in my opinion). I won't be silent in the face of confusion and dissatisfaction as a customer. This is a fair point. But it doesn't change the alarming number of new issues across the board now vs several years ago when everything was clearly tighter. Maybe they ran the cost benefit analysis of paying employees a higher wage to incentivise them to stay and work well against the number of issues involving damaged books/slabs/etc and figured whatever, easy come easy go?

+1

That's a Bingo.

I never said there were an infinite amount of options, I presented another option you did not consider because of your (continued) ignorant perspective. For someone who is active on here (over 20k posts in just a few years) you would do better to read more and think before replying to posts.

It doesn't make sense to you because you still haven't broadened your perspectives. I'll help you to see another scenario, and the most likely one: the seller did not notice the mistake to begin with, especially since it's a problem with the internal well, not a more common cracked exterior case. Whether the seller approved of the mistake, ignored it, or didn't even see it to begin with - does not matter to me because CGC should reholder it for free, as they have in the past. They set that precedent because they acknowledged causing the problem to begin with, and I expect them to stand by that precedent. Which they are not doing here by hiding behind some legal stipulation.