Ze-man

19 hours ago, SuperDave08 said:

Hey gang.

 

Relatively new here... Collecting vintage comics & first appearances for around 2 decades with none really graded yet.   But I'm on the verge of sending in my first batch of my more valuable comics to be graded soon (probably not all at once).

 

This Fantastic Four #1, I picked up about 10 years ago.  It was for a decent price too, considering what they go for now.

It's obviously a great issue to own in any condition.   The biggest flaw I see is that someone wrote "FAN" in the quote from the Human Torch.

Was does that mean to my submission?  Is that considered restoration?  Am I better off trying to erase those letters or leaving them as is?   

Will 3 handwritten letters de-value & de-grade it a lot?

Will it be a forced purple label grade and be ineligible for blue label?

 

I don't plan on selling it.   I'm happy to own the book regardless of the condition.   Just wanted advice on how to submit it to CGC, if at all.

 

Thanks,

-SD

 

There is resto in other places too, the top staples looks to be reinforced.  Something was done to the left of the Green hand, to the right of the word TIME. There's likely more in other places too, its typical to find more if something like re writing FAN, was done

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.

 

 

4 hours ago, EmilC said:

My bid is $300.

Thanks @EmilC !! , as well as @skypinkblu and @faster friends

And fwiw, I didnt just take this from Ellens closet and post it. 

I told her about Paul, his situation and her first reaction was that she wanted to list it to help him.

19 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Yes. A lot of businesses do that. I have a hunch that they get business from people trying it on their own and realizing they’d rather pay someone else to do it. 

It was joke.  Tony was saying a professional who knows what they are doing could do more with that book. Yet it was posted on a professionals website offering said service.

I guess we need to determine what the word professional actually means.

45 minutes ago, thehumantorch said:

TwoPiece has done 'research', what the heck do you know......  

 

Not nearly enough!!  

20 minutes ago, oldrover said:

I don’t disagree with anything you said, and in the case of a book like this, a professional would accomplish more. Just saying that this does have value, especially if one has a bunch of books that could be improved a tick or so by a ‘simple’ press. 

You guys do realize these photos were posted on a website offering a professional service.

5 hours ago, TwoPiece said:

I downloaded the images in TIF format, imported into CATDraft, and measured imperfections. They don't all line up.

Regardless of just looking at the photos and realizing it's the same book. He posted BC scans too, with pieces missing.

Sometimes the easiest answer is actually the correct one.  

On 10/28/2018 at 7:49 PM, MastrCntrlProgram said:

Maybe this is true now, but this has not been my experience in the past. 

It can of course happen if you put on anything "too thickly"   It can be the thickness of whatever is applied, as much as what's applied.

If a book looks, feels too thickly glossed in hand it'll typically get pegged as re glossed.

13 hours ago, Bomber-Bob said:

 I wonder if the residue was still performing a task = it was still holding something together ? In that case, the graders probably felt obligated to deem it restoration. 

This.

The tape was removed, but likely some of the adhesive remained and in some way is still "sealing the tear".  It could be as easy as "popping" open the tear again.

Or removing whatever adhesive residue remains to ensure it doesn't get pegged as resto, and or prevent the pages and cover from sticking together down the road.

Should be an easy enough task.  Just a costly one with additional shipping, and re slabbing fees.   :-(

I'd be happy to remove it for you free of charge if it helps ease the sting of  "finding out the hard way"

We've all been there.

2 hours ago, James J Johnson said:

Why is there a "shoreline" on each side of that crease? It looks like stray paste, or glue, on each side of that furrow, because the instrument to apply it, brush, nozzle, q-tip, et.al. was wider than the fracture? And if that's a crease, deep enough to have completely affected the texture of the paper, i.e. a flaked crease (sure looks like a surface fracturing crease to me) in the white area, why hasn't the black ink at the top of the shoe flaked out of that fracture, as it should? Matter of fact, the black looks darker, not flaked or lighter, as should be expected when printer's ink meets and descends into a fracture/stress/crease, at the tip through that shoe.

 What would take 10 seconds to spot in person, can take 25 photos online.   But since the OP hasn't been back in 3 weeks, I think we're spending way too much time trying to figure out what this is, based on what we have because we're comic dorks!    That said, I've removed glue from hundreds of GA books, and it doesn't ever look like this.  Doesn't mean there isn't anything here,  There's simply too much gloss, glare, wrinkles, peaks and valleys to really say what's going on here without more info.  And with GA coverstock being so thick?...all kinds of things are possible with creases and bends.

Here's the photo edited to better show what may or may not be there.

On 10/17/2018 at 7:29 AM, Mr bla bla said:

Thanks for the answers!

however I am still unsure as to whether a reinforced area of a cover will count as a form of piece fill? When reinforcement is used as support of existing material is it then technically a piece fill?

If yes, then a reinforced spine will it then mean Frankenbook?

each resto tier (slight, mod, ext) allows for certain amounts of piece fill. Will a reinforced cover (spine, edges) automatically push the book into Franken extensive territory?

if reinforced areas of a cover are considered piece fill, then the answer must be yes imo.

In regards to reinforced.  This is typically always referring to a form of thin japan mending "tissue" applied with wheat paste to seal spine splits..or reinforcing weak areas.  Because this mending tissue is typically so thin it isn't considered "piecefill" because its applied more like a tape.   As opposed to actually filling in missing original material with thicker donor papers in an effort to make the cover whole again, be it gaps in spine, missing corners, top/bottom spine areas.etc..etc

That said, since leaf casting can achieve what both reinforced mending tissue, and piece fill do at the same time.  Only a small amount of casting is considered conservation, rather then restoration.  I personally think if you leaf cast a brittle interior, filling in missing material along the way, it's still conso.  But I believe I am still in the minority on that.

On 10/11/2018 at 5:20 PM, Yorick said:

I would have put money on it being a reproduction cover with the BRIGHT white sticking up from the top interior photo.  Congratulations on it being "authentic".

Note to self, don't give out resto advice based on a few photos!

Doh!

On 10/19/2018 at 7:40 PM, MastrCntrlProgram said:

Reglossing can simply mean that the natural gloss has been restored to the cover using the original glossing material, gelatin or methylcellulose, both are used for sealing in color touch, and replacing what is lost during the wash process.

 CGC wont label what you are speaking of as "re glossed", those are natural occurring elements found in paper and comics.  It's the thick, fixative, harmful sprays/lacquers that CGC pegs as re glossed.

On 10/19/2018 at 11:17 PM, James J Johnson said:

This looks to me like wheat paste/glue reinforcing a deep crease to prevent it from tearing off altogether. There's also small tears on the left edge of the pic that look like they've been sealed with the same adhesive element.

It would also be a miracle for the black ink of the toe of that shoe not to have flaked out of that crease/tear, so that in itself is highly suspect for color-touch, even if nowhere else (going by these pictures) but that toe.

I would disagree that wheat paste, or CT was applied to this interior cover.  FC photos would certainly help, but I've seen a lot of GA books that have bleed through for assorted reasons during production.  More(better) photos would help a lot because guessing at what were seeing wont the OP much.

On 10/19/2018 at 6:04 PM, Harveyalvan said:

     I believe I read that CGC has graded, since the year 2000, almost 4 million comics. That’s a lot of comics!   I have no idea how many graders there are or how well they’re trained, but I believe I read that there are 3 graders and then a final grader who determines what the true grade is.   This is important because a lot of people are relying on their expertise and putting a lot of money on it, both in paying for grading and relying on those grades when buying those comics.  But when I think it through, it seems to me, that graders doing this job, doing a lot of the same thing constantly as a full time job, plus with 4 graders on every comic, that doesn’t mean they won’t ever make an error, but it should make it that much more difficult to be off by much.   So in that vein, common words like “slight” and “small” can’t mean the exact opposite. These are opinions using language to describe what these experts are viewing. I’d find it difficult to think these professional graders don’t know what slight and small means vs. other measurements like extensive. Surely, they have standards for these issues. Thanks for listening.

 

 

I think you need to keep in mind that your label is listed as Slight/Mod, with work done listed as not being professional.  And based on your notes, and looking at the book it seems pretty spot on.  Its not all Slight, nor is anything Extensive, its somewhere in between.  Slight/Mod.  C-2

And you could of course have more resto done to make the book look better, grade higher.  But the fact that it's been trimmed, and has had some sort of glossing agent applied to the cover will keep overall value down no matter how high an apparent grade you can achieve through more aesthetic work.   But that's of course a personal decision , risk/reward and all that.

On 10/20/2018 at 7:49 AM, joeypost said:

I figured it out. 

Ok, so let me get this straight. 

If I am reading your post correctly, and didn't get lost in your verbose explanation of how to press foil covers.     You say you figured it out..does that sum up your post accurately? 

I don't want to put words in your mouth.

On 10/20/2018 at 8:10 AM, joeypost said:

Damage by water. Some cases tide lines, in other areas it cleaned the tanning from the page resulting in the whiter areas in the back cover. 

As well as washed off the kaolin clay on the surface leaving behind a rough surface.  On SA books like this I always preferred to call this water damage , rather then a water stain. 

On 10/8/2018 at 11:36 PM, James J Johnson said:

Not a repro cover. The surface is correct for that issue. The wear is old. You can tell when someone attempts to artificially impart wear/aging/stains, etc. on a reprint or repro. This looks totally authentic to me. Question is if the areas that "look like they are touched up" actually are. I'm leaning towards 55/45 yes, but the nature of the inks used in the production of this book, not just one brown, not just one black, makes it very difficult to be 100% sure judging by the resolution I have to work analytic magic with.

Just to be clear, the inks they used to print comics with were Cyan , Magenta, Yellow, and Black.  The browns on this book were created using a dot matrix mix of these. 

And Mr Transplant wont be eating any covers, this is clearly a reproduction copy made from scans of a restored AF 15.  The interior photo top edge overhang is the tell, its bone white.   If it was done by Matt back in the day, he used scans of restored copies to use as "repro covers" so people would not try and sell the comic as a flawless original. And if they did try and pawn it off as original it would at least have to be sold as "restored"

Or at least that's how I understood it.

4 hours ago, oldrover said:

I did not say 'no info'. I said I would disclose that I have been told they are restored, and that I do not know what the extent is. Also, in light of this, I would offer anyone who purchased one and upon examination wasn't satisfied a money back guarantee.

EDIT: That's what I do on my comic sales too. As mentioned above, I am not 100% confident in my grading, so I try to undershoot. But if the buyer's unsatisfied, I refund money no questions asked.

The fact that you do not know the extent of the restoration will not only put off many buyers from bidding, it will also hurt your bottom line for those that do bid.  If a book only has Slight CT done, buyers will pay more because the book is "closer to original" when compared to books with Extensive work done.   People want Original ,not Frankenbooks.   Unless the book is a HUGE key, and sooo expensive that Ext. restored is the only price point many collectors can afford.   So if you have several keys with resto, I would send them in to be graded.  This will not only allow you to represent the book accurately when listing them, but net better results at auction 

15 minutes ago, rjpb said:

Maybe, but census ratios don't seem to support that. But as we've been discussing, they may not be an accurate gauge for extrapolating respective extant copies. I mentioned earlier that an opposite scenario could be true, in that the higher sales meant a higher percentage of the print runs ended up in the hands of casual readers who didn't think to save them after reading, even to trade away.

Agree,  I suppose its just hard for me to take off my "collector hat" mentality.  And remember that back then, they were just comic books.  Not collectibles!

3 hours ago, G.A.tor said:

Time frame

Most all 1930s released comics are rarer in existence today compared to later year issues (1940s). Probably more of a took a little time to take hold/interest and initials print runs (risk/reward) against an unestablished market. Once Comics gained traction after a few years (beginning of the 40’s) publishers had more confidence and printed more copies (greater potential for survival rates today)

Keep in mind too that Action 1 and Tec 27 were bought and read by a wide variety of readers back in the day. Most not being aware of what a Superhero even was.  So it would make sense that many copies were  probably trashed after making the neighborhood rounds of trading.    With Batman 1, and Supes 1 being stand alone books, printed at bigger numbers due to extreme popularity I could see a lot more initial comic buyers keeping these books for a longer period of time..even if they cut off the back covers or not.  

8 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

 I have been actively collecting since 1976 and just discovered comics have this thing called interiors.  I wasn't aware of it but I accidentally came upon it while looking for something else on Google.  Opened up a whole new world for me.

Interiors?  I'm going to have to Google that now to see what this is all about.

27 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

But why?  Gator gave me an estimate of $1000 to get it graded so I spend $1000 to get the book in a plastic case for what?  I am not selling it, I know the full history of the book as it came from and original owner collection to a dealer, then to me.  I actually still pull it out of the bag and thumb through it.

This I dont get, how can you enjoy a comic book if CGC has'nt first told you what their opinion is of it?   You act like comic books were meant to be handled, sniffed, and read?