• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

hmmmm I don`t want to cause any trouble but

Started by CycloneComics,

15 posts in this topic

szelim

szelim

Posted
Posted

I wonder whether any of the restoration work was removed prior to the recent sale. I doubt it. The buyer will get a nice surprise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Subliminal

Subliminal

Posted
Posted

RAW buyers beware. This is where services like CGC fail if all you have to do is unslab it after an expert tells you its restored.

I would prefer a service like CGC to instead OR also watermark a comic (with a UV mark perhaps? )with a serial number and /or grade than entomb it.

That way it permanently marked and dated as to when it was graded and it preserve its grading characteristics.

We already tolerate datestamps etc on old books so why not a modern id stamp and if invisible to the naked eye ALL THE BETTER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sterlingcomics

sterlingcomics

Posted
Posted

We went round and round on this in threads gone by. I think the consensus was that the majority of folks said that this wouldn't be foolproof and in addition to damaging the collectible. It would be interesting to see what people think today in light of the big time restoration "oops" from the certification companies.

 

Interesting, but I don't think it would fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
arexcrooke

arexcrooke

Posted
Posted
RAW buyers beware. This is where services like CGC fail if all you have to do is unslab it after an expert tells you its restored.

I would prefer a service like CGC to instead OR also watermark a comic (with a UV mark perhaps? )with a serial number and /or grade than entomb it.

That way it permanently marked and dated as to when it was graded and it preserve its grading characteristics.

We already tolerate datestamps etc on old books so why not a modern id stamp and if invisible to the naked eye ALL THE BETTER!

How is this CGC's problem? How can CGC be failing? If a person wants to remove a book that CGC has graded and then not disclose that it is restored, then that is the seller who is being devious. It is not CGC's place to try and watermark/barcode/UVstamp books keep things like this from happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
arexcrooke

arexcrooke

Posted
Posted

def the same book. Wonder if Heritage know about it? This makes them look bad when it is the consignor who seems to be pulling a fast one. Unless it is one of Heritage's books hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWatson

DrWatson

Posted
Posted
RAW buyers beware. This is where services like CGC fail if all you have to do is unslab it after an expert tells you its restored.

I would prefer a service like CGC to instead OR also watermark a comic (with a UV mark perhaps? )with a serial number and /or grade than entomb it.

That way it permanently marked and dated as to when it was graded and it preserve its grading characteristics.

We already tolerate datestamps etc on old books so why not a modern id stamp and if invisible to the naked eye ALL THE BETTER!

How is this CGC's problem? How can CGC be failing? If a person wants to remove a book that CGC has graded and then not disclose that it is restored, then that is the seller who is being devious. It is not CGC's place to try and watermark/barcode/UVstamp books keep things like this from happening.

Get with the program. It's always someone else's fault. Everyone knows that people aren't responsible for their own actions anymore. (tsk)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
qualitycomix

qualitycomix

Posted
Posted

It looks like some work was removed. Whether it would get a blue label or not is questionable.

 

It's very possible the buyer bought the book in 2003 and got the work removed because they just wanted an unrestored book. Then sold it in 2007 for virtually no profit because they upgraded, or just got tired of the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
qualitycomix

qualitycomix

Posted
Posted

Now I'm second guessing myself. The bottom left corner looks suspect and I'm not sure any work was done to remove the resto. The CGC label reads "spine splits sealed and I don't see any spine splits now, so that causes me to wonder.

 

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sal

Sal

Posted
Posted

well, the colour touch looks like it's still there, and the tear seal in the lower left hand corner does, too...

 

 

pretty stupid decision by the seller if they didn't disclose on purpose. that signature in the logo really makes it tough to slip the book past the masses

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Zipper

Mr. Zipper

Posted
Posted
Now I'm second guessing myself. The bottom left corner looks suspect and I'm not sure any work was done to remove the resto. The CGC label reads "spine splits sealed and I don't see any spine splits now, so that causes me to wonder.

 

Brent

 

You can still see what appears to be a crescent shaped tear seal on the bottom left corner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ze-man

Ze-man

Posted
Posted

Since the book sold for a whopping $239 , I cannot see this as a grand deception on Heritages part, but rather negligence.

 

What is troubling is that it was listed, or allowed to be listed incorrectly by Heritage. The old CGC label called the work as Slight A. which I assume means non archival materials(paint, and tape) were used. It looks like much of the yellow CT around the LLC was removed, but not all of it. All it would take is a quick peek at the inside cover and spine to notice if the book was worked on, and if there is are split or tears where tape was removed because the older scan is too fuzzy to really make any kind of accurate assessment.

 

Looks to me like Heritage dropped the ball when listing the book, unless they are really that hard up and trying to get over by eeking out an extra $32 on a book that is barely worth the effort. Maybe they really thought the work was removed sufficiently to call it unrestored. Maybe they didn't even look at the book closely.

 

Nothing would surprise me.

 

Ze-

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing