What is Resto? This is NOT what it seems.

[PovertyRow]

By "This is NOT what it seems" I mean it is not another "what is resto" thread. Simply something i have noticed for a long time here.

 

We keep seeing a common question - "Is "fill in the blank" restoration? It seems if if "Process A" IS considered restoration then it is bad but if "Process B" (or C or D) etc is NOT considered restoration, it is OK.

 

Be it Process A or Process B or Z or whatever - the real truth is something has been done to a book to improve its appearance and/or structure. This is an inescapable truth.

 

What this thread is about is hopefully, to discuss, in a civil manner and without specifying any particular modification technique, why someone would ask if a modification to a book is considered "restoration" or not?

 

To me, the primary motivation seems to be either $$$ or some perceived integrity of a personal collection (as in one could say "none of my books are restored.")

 

What really confuses me (and I am serious in this confusion - not a WC "I am confused" thing) - is the folks asking this question already know the book has been manipulated to remove various existing defects. But it seems like they are seeking some sort of consensual agreement that what was done to their book is not considered resto.

 

 

[mikeyboy9000]

Are manipulation and restoration the same thing?

Manipulation Vs Restoration will always be a personal decision, just like it's always going to be a personal decision as to how much sugar is 'too sweet'. For me, i use the 'independent' third party guidlines from cgc. Pressing, fine, erasering, fine, wet washing - resto! it makes things easy for me and i like the idea of some hard fast rules, even if they ARE decided by someone else.

 

"If one knows a book has been manipulated yet the majority says that manipulation not restoration, do they feel that their book is justly included with books that have not been manipulated? "

 

As for this i stand by my first answer, it's always going to be personal, but i'm sure that 100 people telling you it's okay to call your honda a porsche is going to make that decision easier.

 

 

"What really confuses me (and I am serious in this confusion - not a WC "I am confused" thing) - is the folks asking this question already know the book has been manipulated to remove various existing defects. But it seems like they are seeking some sort of consensual agreement that what was done to their book is not considered resto"

 

Many reasons

- wanting to convince themselves it's okay (ppower of the human mind to justify is remarkable)

- wanting to have a consensus that it's okay because everyone agrees it's not resto, thus it's not resto. (hard to explain... everyone says it's a unrestored af#15, then you can rest easy knowing that people will consider it a unrestored af#15 if you want to sell it, display it, whatever)

-god only knows, maybe they want to be able to show it off and say with prestige it's 'unrestored' because everyone agrees.

[rob_allan]

I think sometimes people just ask to figure out what kind of label they'd get from CGC too, and I think that's valid. Sometimes subbing a book to get a purple label won't boost a book's value and hence isn't worthwhile to do. Whereas if it got a blue label, the book might have a higher GPA value.

 

And I keep this explanation apart from disclosure because you can not slab a book, still disclose, and just not want to pay slabbing fee for no reason.

 

I think sometimes people are trying to run a scam in some ways. But other times, I think it's perfectly honest. Because there are a number of manipulative processes that don't necessarily garner a purple label from CGC.

[Ze-man]

Well leave it to Pov to come up with a mental brain twister.

 

Here goes a quick answer, rife full of holes I am sure, but his post deserves to be acknowledged even though I will probably regret posting in a hurry while eating lunch.

 

 

So I guess the crux of the question is twofold:

 

1) Is manipulation and restoration the same thing

 

Whats in a name?, While a books appearence may be improved through numerous forms of manipulation, I hesitate to call everything "restoration" not for fear of it carrying a stigma, but more because some forms of manipulation can be done with your hands(lessening a spine roll by counter rolling it and creasing it with your palm for example) and I would not consider this to be restoration even though it improves the appearence of the book. In the end I don't see why there cannot be sub catogories of restoration. But manipulation is such a weird word that even if the process is benign and disclosed, it just sounds dirty and underhanded.

 

 

 

2) If one knows a book has been manipulated yet the majority says that manipulation not restoration, do they feel that their book is justly included with books that have not been manipulated?

Honestly?, I think it all depends on ones opinion of what is or isnt restoration coupled with what was done to the book, If a major spine roll was removed from a book then yes I would think it wrong to say the book is the same as an unmanipulated one. But if a 9.4 has a minor corner bend pressed out and is now a 9.6..no I dont think it wrong to consider the book the same as other books in grade because so little was done that nothing really changed structurally.

 

But you can see where this is going, ones opinion about what pressing is or isn't, and what a pressed book is or isnt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So here is to Pov's pressing thread being Civil! Err.. uhh I mean Pov's is "fill in the blank" restoration thread" being civil.

 

Honestly though Pov, exactly how many people have asked "is this restoration" and not been talking about pressing in one form or another.

[PovertyRow]

 

Honestly though Pov, exactly how many people have asked "is this restoration" and not been talking about pressing in one form or another.

 

Don't go there, Kenney! I'm tellin' ya! Don't go there!

 

But on a serious note, things like dry cleaning, staple replacement or cleaning, married covers or inner wraps often get the "Is it resto?" question. I even saw this quesiotn being asked of microtrimming.

 

Again, I am hoping we do not discuss the merits of the processes but simply the motivation behind the question itself. So far everyone is doing just that, which is nice to see.

[mica]

pov

[Ze-man]

 

Honestly though Pov, exactly how many people have asked "is this restoration" and not been talking about pressing in one form or another.

 

Don't go there, Kenney! I'm tellin' ya! Don't go there!

 

But on a serious note, things like dry cleaning, staple replacement or cleaning, married covers or inner wraps often get the "Is it resto?" question. I even saw this quesiotn being asked of microtrimming.

 

Again, I am hoping we do not discuss the merits of the processes but simply the motivation behind the question itself. So far everyone is doing just that, which is nice to see.

 

I was just just razzing ya pov.

 

And regarding why people ask if certain things are resto or not I guess that depends on if they are asking as a seller /owner of a book trying to determine how CGC will grade their book.(or if they are trying to justify/sell a restored book as unrestored because of subtle wording and their interpretation of resto) Compared to somebody asking to try and relate one process to another in an attempt to lump all the processes together

 

So (to me anyways) it is hard to not talk about the processes themselves when discussing why people question how they are defined. A married page, or replaced staples to me is a form of restoration because it represents replacing components of the book(not the flaws mind you, but the actual components) Compared to dry cleaning, or pressing because those processes mimic too closely things that can occur naturally.

 

Mind you I am not talking about what should or should not disclosed. Just the processes themselves in regards to manipulation vs restoration.

 

 

And lets just forget you brought up trimming and the R word in the same sentence.

 

laters

 

 

Well, gotta run.

 

[buttock]

Don't get semantics confused with definitions. To argue whether or not all 'manipulation' is 'restoration' because 'restoration' implies attempts to revert a book back to its original state, is silly because you're ignoring conventional definitions.

 

NO, all manipulation is not restoration. You could come up with hundreds of manipulations that put the book back into its original state (from the inane - wiping dust or debris off - to the insane - closing an open book) which simly aren't restoration.

 

Restoration is defined by how we use the term, not by what the definition of the word is.

 

A taco is defined by ground beef within a folded fried corn tortilla. Is a rolled taco/flauta a taco? Is a soft taco a taco? They don't fit the definition, but by conventional use, they are.

 

Is pressing restoration? If you're a semantics uber-nerd then yes - but by conventional use - no (here comes the poo-storm).

 

 

[mikeyboy9000]

I have an off topic question, what would trimming a low grade key do? / be worth. I noticed about 4 copies of AF#15 and other keys in 2.0-3.5 grade that all had 'trimming' in their restoration and nothing else....?

 

Anyone?

[PovertyRow]

 

Is pressing restoration? If you're a semantics uber-nerd then yes - but by conventional use - no (here comes the poo-storm).

 

 

Again that is not the intent of the question. So please. Just focus on why people seek answer to the question "Is such and such restoration?" when they already kn ow something has been done to improve the book. (And I do not mean wiping dust off it.)

[buttock]

 

Is pressing restoration? If you're a semantics uber-nerd then yes - but by conventional use - no (here comes the poo-storm).

 

 

Again that is not the intent of the question. So please. Just focus on why people seek answer to the question "Is such and such restoration?" when they already kn ow something has been done to improve the book. (And I do not mean wiping dust off it.)

 

I directly answered part 1 of the question, and my answer makes the discussion of the second part irrelevant. If you go by convention - i.e. what the majority means - then you can argue 'til you're blue in the face, but you'll still be wrong.

 

[vacantpassenger]

I think people ask themselves that question because in all reality, they want to know they have a quality collection. Now what motivates them to ask that (be it pride, money, whatever) obviously differs. Here me out:

 

We all loves comics here. I'm sure there are people here who will collect ANYTHING as long as they really want it. If it's an issue they need, no matter the condition and they can afford it, they'll take it. But in reality, the hobby does have standards. There have been these, lets not say rules, but guidelines that allow us to share out hobby with each other. How would you feel if someone offered a full run of ASM but everything was either VG and below and had color touches dine with Crayolas? Not very pleased, unless you knew where that seller was coming from.

 

So I think that's why they ask. So they can determine if by today's collecting standards they have a quality and if need they can convey that. Someone who doesn't care about book manipulation (whether it's considered resto or not) obviously wouldn't ask, unless they had to convey it to another collector for some reason.

[PovertyRow]

 

Is pressing restoration? If you're a semantics uber-nerd then yes - but by conventional use - no (here comes the poo-storm).

 

 

Again that is not the intent of the question. So please. Just focus on why people seek answer to the question "Is such and such restoration?" when they already kn ow something has been done to improve the book. (And I do not mean wiping dust off it.)

 

I directly answered part 1 of the question, and my answer makes the discussion of the second part irrelevant. If you go by convention - i.e. what the majority means - then you can argue 'til you're blue in the face, but you'll still be wrong.

 

Buttock, I appreciate your passion but honestly have no idea what you are saying. I read it shortly after you posted it and have reread a few times before reposning but I just do not understand it.

[The Brain]

 

Is pressing restoration? If you're a semantics uber-nerd then yes - but by conventional use - no (here comes the poo-storm).

 

 

Again that is not the intent of the question. So please. Just focus on why people seek answer to the question "Is such and such restoration?" when they already kn ow something has been done to improve the book. (And I do not mean wiping dust off it.)

 

The answer, my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind.

 

"They" seek to find an "out", a "it's not just me", "other's don't think it is",

 

so as to have a "fall-back" or "safe harbor of like minded opinion". "They"

 

can not argue that "nothing was done", only that the level of work (as they

 

see it) does not rise to the level of concern to be classified as restoration.

 

It is the ever shifting line in the sand, the "what is done is not all that bad,

 

when you look at what has been done before, and what is accepted now,"

 

line of thought. Don't you know it is all relative.Just accept it,

 

everyone is doing it.

[General Zod]

I have an off topic question, what would trimming a low grade key do? / be worth. I noticed about 4 copies of AF#15 and other keys in 2.0-3.5 grade that all had 'trimming' in their restoration and nothing else....?

 

Anyone?

 

That's destruction and would substantially lower the value for most. In my case, it lowers the value to nil.

[george bailey-migration]

1) Should manipulating a comic make it ‘apparent’ rather than true, and be labelled as such: (PLODDED)?

Three semi-key early 40’s graded VG/FN 5.0 comics are sent in to CGC. One has a piece of low tack tape accidentally applied to it (I’m a klutz), the second one was accidentally placed over a used piece of gum that just barely stuck to it (no, really, I’m a klutz) and the third has a half inch tear with a single tiny drop of glue at the tear edge to ‘seal’ it (the glue cannot be seen, just inferred due to the tear not opening fully). When they return from CGC I find the first two given a VG 4.0 for the extra defects I inadvertently added and the third one PLODDED VG/FN 5.0.

I break them out of their slabs, carefully remove the tape from the first one, flick off the gum from the second one, and place a piece of tape (yikes) on the PLODDED one. I resubmit these ‘manipulated’ comics to CGC and all three come back Blue Label VG/FN 5.0. Yes, defacing a comic with tape can actually raise its monetary value to the majority!

 

2) If a manipulated book is not considered apparent by the majority should one feel it is equivalent to another blue label comic?

When I see a blue label VF 8.0 labelled ‘miscut, affects art’ selling at the same price as other 8.0s I have to believe the question: will this be PLODDED, is simply a monetary one and not for self gratification. Seeing that the majority decides the value is nothing new. In the 70’s I used to purchase comics from the largest dealer in my area Jerry R. (he had at least a ‘million’ comics). He had no shame in ‘raising a comic to its true potential’ (sorry Steve), and his favourite method was TRIMMING. He trimmed so many comics that I am certain he is responsible for as many, if not more than true printing press miscuts. Since he started so many decades ago, the tell-tale signs of his manipulation are all but gone and many are in blue labels now.

CGC grades are based on the integrity of the comic and not the look. They also do not downgrade a comic for ‘apparent’ printing defects. This is a new phenomenon, and I believe, a transient one. With this in mind when I see an off center, miscut, spine tear with abrasion, puzzle is filled, sorry there was no green ink left that day comic, I will not treat it as a NM- 9.2 no matter what the majority might say.

 

BUY THE BOOK, NOT THE LABEL.

And if the scan is to small, buy neither!

 

[buttock]

 

Is pressing restoration? If you're a semantics uber-nerd then yes - but by conventional use - no (here comes the poo-storm).

 

 

Again that is not the intent of the question. So please. Just focus on why people seek answer to the question "Is such and such restoration?" when they already kn ow something has been done to improve the book. (And I do not mean wiping dust off it.)

 

I directly answered part 1 of the question, and my answer makes the discussion of the second part irrelevant. If you go by convention - i.e. what the majority means - then you can argue 'til you're blue in the face, but you'll still be wrong.

 

Buttock, I appreciate your passion but honestly have no idea what you are saying. I read it shortly after you posted it and have reread a few times before reposning but I just do not understand it.

 

I think you're getting confused because what you asked and what you intended to ask aren't the same thing. You stated up front that you're not wanting to know "what is restoration?", but then part one of the question you finally pose is "is manipulation and restoration the same thing?" which seems to be a central tenet of the point you're trying to make.

 

Those are kind of the same question.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter what you, I, or any other individual defines restoration as. The definition will bear out in public usage. If the public chooses to acknowledge that trimming is inconsequential, then it will cease to become "restoration" regardless of what objections you may have (that's obviously an extreme example, but...)

 

Therefore, if the meaning (and I use that term rather than "definition" as "definition" doesn't necessarily parlay into how a term is used) of restoration is borne out in the way the majority views it, then no matter what conclusion we come to on this board, or in a committee/conference/organization - that meaning doesn't change. That's just arguing for the sake of making ourselves feel smart.

 

As to the second part of your question, I think you made a big assumption; i.e. that all manipulation is done & perceived in the same manner.

 

Also, if the majority meaning of "restoration" applies, then the second part of your question is irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

[TFL-migration]

I recently met Mr. 1 million comics. He was trying to tell me his Star Spangled book's were the best in the world. They had tonnes of staining, foxing, rips, tears. A book listed in the OverStreet for $200 he wanted $800. Just because they were "so nice"...

 

He should think about having a shower before a show. He literally and honestly smelled pretty bad. Around a 7 out of ten on the rankness level.... After 2 minutes of smelling his stench. Myself and my nephew had to leave.. That told me and my nephew how professional he is.

 

I'll trade you that POS Star Spangled Drek for your CGC 6.5 Blue Label ASM 50.. Ya OK... That wasn't going to happen. He comes off like he knows everything there is to know about Comics. Luckily his smell had it's rewards. You had to walk away from him before you all over him and his booth!!!

 

He was proud of the fact that according to him. He was the one that came up with what chemicals should be used to clean comic book's up with way back when... Trimming them to make the book look better.. Color Touch, etc... A dealer I will avoid like The Plague....

[buttock]

You mean Gerry Ross?

[TFL-migration]

I never got his name. But I would assume that is his name. A bit over weight, thinning black hair, glasses. Lives/Works in Montreal.... Not somebody I would do business with.