Manufactured Gold

[FFB]

Fair questions, Scott, I’ll try to answer them.

 

It certainly is a shame. Contrary to what some may believe, this type of behavior isn’t all a bed of roses, IMHO.

 

There are those examples that have proven to be damage cases. Where the work performed actually degraded the overall condition of the book. The Sub-Mariner #1 is a good example of that. There are a few others interwoven throughout the thread. Was the All-American case one of the better examples? Perhaps not. But it was one nonetheless.

 

That said, does anyone really know how many of these manipulated books ended up being spoiled to some degree in the process. Personally, I have seen others, and there have been rumors to the effect that a number of books have actually been physically ruined by misguided treatment procedures. As a hobbyist, I find that to be troubling; especially in light of the limited Golden Age availability pool.

 

Not sure if the eventual buyer got what they paid for. To answer that question, I’d consider one would have to ask whether or not the buyer, or for that matter all the bidders, new what they were bidding on.

 

Given that unsold items are not automatically shown when viewing past auctions, one can presume that some of the bidders, if not all, did not know that the item failed to sell in two preceding attempts. And that the owner of the item decided to take matters into their own hands to realize the price in which s/he believed the copy was worth. Obviously the attempt at enhancing the monetary value backfired.

 

Unfortunately, we my never know if the perspective buyers realized these events occurred – or even if they knew the book was once two grades higher – and took them into consideration when setting their price target. Personally, I’d be very much interested in knowing if the eventual buyer was aware of the book’s history. With that information, one can unequivocally determine if they got what they paid for.

 

--Mitch

 

Let me just say that I am SURE there are other examples of the crack and resub game with upgrades as the result. My point is that I don't see how this book fits into the "Manufactured Gold" subject, since it is really "manufactured caca." I refuse to believe for one second that the same people who are pressing books to improve their grades would use TAPE to try to get an upgrade. No, whoever added two big pieces of tape to this book was a total spoon, not a scam artist.

 

On the disclosure issue -- as for whether the book used to be four grades higher, who really cares? EVERY book that isn't a 9.6 or better used to be higher grade than it is now. Collectors know that. Does it make a difference whether the book dropped in grade two weeks ago versus six decades ago? I think this is taking the notion of disclosure way too far if this is the kind of thing that is considered "deceptive." Almost no buyer or seller will ever know every thing that happened to a book to cause it to go from its original state of NM to whatever grade it is now, and you will get no support from any but the most short-sighted, pie-in-the-sky fringe lunatics if you are expecting people in this hobby to be responsible for disclosing how every defect that lowers a book's grade got there, or if you try to say that there is some duty to disclose if you caused a book to drop in grade. Can you imagine what the JCs of the world would say if every auction listing said, "This book used to be NM, but Grandma used it as a coaster for the gravy boat at Thanksgiving when Grandpa got home from the war in 1945, and Grandpa had a coughing fit at the table with arms flailing about."

 

I am not trying to derail your thread -- I am just pointing out that I think you've gotten way off message with this book and it's probably better to move on to others. People may disagree with me about that, but it's ok -- they're just nutz.

[FFB]

Sorry, I just think that adding books like this waters down this thread and makes it look like we're scraping the bottom of the barrel because there are no more real cases of "manipulation" out there.

 

Only if that were the case. I've sent a couple of samples to Masterchief for his review, which he had already pegged, but they are still on his "To Post" list.

 

Sadly Scott, I think this thread will go on for quite some time.

 

That's fine, but let's get to the examples where there was some actual cleaning and pressing going on.

[FFB]

 

Is that a big mystery if you add two pieces of tape (one that is probably book-length in size) to a book and then resub it? I'm sorry, but I still don't see how that book counts as "manufactured gold." Looks more like "manufactured duh I'm a dork because I put more tape on my book" to me. This isn't "work" or "manipulation." It's damage caused by a total spoon. Sorry, I just think that adding books like this waters down this thread and makes it look like we're scraping the bottom of the barrel because there are no more real cases of "manipulation" out there.

Doesn't it show attempted manipulation that went south?

 

It raises interesting questions. What happened? Why would a conservator add more tape instead of doing appropriate archival repairs? Was it too fragile to attempt pressing, but done anyway because it wasn't netting a desired price after repeated auction attempts? Is it better to add more tape, and avoid a PLOD, than use japan paper?

 

I think it's an interesting example to see of unnecessary (and botched) manipulation, of trying to game the system.

 

No "conservator" put tape on this book. A conservator wouldn't do that. Also, no one with more sense than a mule would think that adding more tape (big pieces too!) would potentially increase the grade of a mid-grade book.

[Harvey Dude]

" ... On the disclosure issue -- as for whether the book used to be four grades higher, who really cares? " I care. My buying decisions have changed due to what I have learned over the course of the last year or so.

 

EVERY book that isn't a 9.6 or better used to be higher grade than it is now. Collectors know that. Honestly, I did not know that until I found these boards.

 

Does it make a difference whether the book dropped in grade two weeks ago versus six decades ago? Absolutely, I prefer my books to be untampered. There is something about getting a pristine book that did not need any outside intervention to achieve its high grade.

 

think this is taking the notion of disclosure way too far if this is the kind of thing that is considered "deceptive." I only can speak for myself but I believe someone tried to enhance the book and resubmit for the purpose of achieving a higher grade, and in this case, they did not achieve the results they desired.

 

Almost no buyer or seller will ever know every thing that happened to a book to cause it to go from its original state of NM to whatever grade it is now, and you will get no support from any but the most short-sighted, pie-in-the-sky fringe lunatics if you are expecting people in this hobby to be responsible for disclosing how every defect that lowers a book's grade got there, or if you try to say that there is some duty to disclose if you caused a book to drop in grade. Can you imagine what the JCs of the world would say if every auction listing said, "This book used to be NM, but Grandma used it as a coaster for the gravy boat at Thanksgiving when Grandpa got home from the war in 1945, and Grandpa had a coughing fit at the table with arms flailing about." I don't believe this is a case of someone misusing a book. This is a case of a book being intentionally altered from its original condition. The person who worked on this book will not disclose why it achieved a lower grade but they certainly would not have disclosed why it acheived a higher grade, if the circumstances would have been in their favor.

 

I am not trying to derail your thread -- I am just pointing out that I think you've gotten way off message with this book and it's probably better to move on to others. People may disagree with me about that, but it's ok -- they're just nutz.

 

FFB, I respect you too much to get argumentative so I agree that we need to move on to another of the many candidates out there.

[FFB]

" ... On the disclosure issue -- as for whether the book used to be four grades higher, who really cares? " I care. My buying decisions have changed due to what I have learned over the course of the last year or so.

 

EVERY book that isn't a 9.6 or better used to be higher grade than it is now. Collectors know that. Honestly, I did not know that until I found these boards.

 

You're right. There is no point in continuing this discussion.

[Filter81]

I agree with FFB on this one. I don't see why it would be necessary to disclose how or when or why various defects became present on a book. If the book is a 3.0 I don't really care if it used to be a 5.0 last week or it hasn't been a 5.0 for ten years.

 

I also agree that adding extra tape to try to increase the grade is not consistant with what we've seen in the other examples and this was probably done by someone who didn't really know what they were doing. (But I could be wrong)

 

However, I would say that if the book has been cleaned/pressed as part of an attempt to raise the grade, even if the grade went down, it would still be nice if the cleaning/pressing was disclosed. But thats just my own personal opinion.

[tth2]

Can you imagine what the JCs of the world would say if every auction listing said, "This book used to be NM, but Grandma used it as a coaster for the gravy boat at Thanksgiving when Grandpa got home from the war in 1945, and Grandpa had a coughing fit at the table with arms flailing about."

You're a genius! I'm going to list all my future eBay auctions as "used to be NM/M"!

[bluechip]

Some well expressed thoughts here. Nonetheless I can't help observing that it often seems people feel they've been cheated if and only if a book was restored. But restoring books used to be considered okay, even recommended by the overstreet guide. Then the standards changed. And the value I lost from restored books came not nearly so much from being cheated by the seller in the first place *(since I paid prices consistent with the standards at the time) but because the books ended up as collateral damage in the attacks people made on those dealers. The standard changed from "you should disclose a restored book" to "you must never own a restored book."

 

The standards were changed -- you could even say manufactured -- from "we must punish the cheats" to the standard of "we must punish the books themselves so that all restored book owners lose money -- the honest people as well as the cheats." Then on top of it all the standards for what constitutes restoration changed so much that it's become a virtual witch hunt. It's restored if I think this mark was put there intentionally. Its restored if I merely think the cover might have been off at one time, or if I think somebody might have put it under some weights to press it, which means it might have not have been as flat at one time.

 

Another way people are cheated is by inconsistent grading. That has not gone away with pro grading services. And there are too many signs that cheats can easily use the inconsistences against buyers.

 

And another way people are getting cheated is by the ever-buirgeoning market for "manufactred pedigrees" -- which in themselves have inconsistent grading standards -- meaning much LOOSER grading standards.

 

Basically, it comes down to this. If (insert name) found it the book is a pedigree, and ithe writing and certain other defects don't matter because it's a pedigree. So the book is judged a near mint and you are advised to spend many times guide for it.

 

If., on the other hand, (insert name of innocent collector) found the same book himself, the book would be judged NOT a pedigree and therefore have much tighter ghrading standards. So instead of it being an unrestored pedigree near mint the same book is judged a fine and maybe even restored at that.

 

And the most time honored cheat of all is the cheat in which a buyer is conned away from buying something he wantrs and convinced to buy something he's never heard of before because, the seller assures him in a song and dance the book is "hot" and it's value is going "through the roof" and said seller bolsters that with bogus info and suspect sales.

 

The manufactured hot book remains the most common ready source of money for unscrupulous

[rodan57]

Nonetheless I can't help observing that it often seems people feel they've been cheated if and only if a book was restored.

 

I am not sure if anyone has said this.

[bluechip]

Nonetheless I can't help observing that it often seems people feel they've been cheated if and only if a book was restored.

 

I am not sure if anyone has said this.

 

 

Neither am I which is why I used the word "seems."

 

In observing the complaints made by people who feel cheated, they seem to focus more on that than other issues, and it seems to me that the collectors market is heavily manipulated more often and more consistently and more effrectively in other ways

[MasterChief]

Fair questions, Scott, I’ll try to answer them.

 

It certainly is a shame. Contrary to what some may believe, this type of behavior isn’t all a bed of roses, IMHO.

 

There are those examples that have proven to be damage cases. Where the work performed actually degraded the overall condition of the book. The Sub-Mariner #1 is a good example of that. There are a few others interwoven throughout the thread. Was the All-American case one of the better examples? Perhaps not. But it was one nonetheless.

 

That said, does anyone really know how many of these manipulated books ended up being spoiled to some degree in the process. Personally, I have seen others, and there have been rumors to the effect that a number of books have actually been physically ruined by misguided treatment procedures. As a hobbyist, I find that to be troubling; especially in light of the limited Golden Age availability pool.

 

Not sure if the eventual buyer got what they paid for. To answer that question, I’d consider one would have to ask whether or not the buyer, or for that matter all the bidders, new what they were bidding on.

 

Given that unsold items are not automatically shown when viewing past auctions, one can presume that some of the bidders, if not all, did not know that the item failed to sell in two preceding attempts. And that the owner of the item decided to take matters into their own hands to realize the price in which s/he believed the copy was worth. Obviously the attempt at enhancing the monetary value backfired.

 

Unfortunately, we my never know if the perspective buyers realized these events occurred – or even if they knew the book was once two grades higher – and took them into consideration when setting their price target. Personally, I’d be very much interested in knowing if the eventual buyer was aware of the book’s history. With that information, one can unequivocally determine if they got what they paid for.

 

--Mitch

 

Let me just say that I am SURE there are other examples of the crack and resub game with upgrades as the result. My point is that I don't see how this book fits into the "Manufactured Gold" subject, since it is really "manufactured caca." I refuse to believe for one second that the same people who are pressing books to improve their grades would use TAPE to try to get an upgrade. No, whoever added two big pieces of tape to this book was a total spoon, not a scam artist.

 

On the disclosure issue -- as for whether the book used to be four grades higher, who really cares? EVERY book that isn't a 9.6 or better used to be higher grade than it is now. Collectors know that. Does it make a difference whether the book dropped in grade two weeks ago versus six decades ago? I think this is taking the notion of disclosure way too far if this is the kind of thing that is considered "deceptive." Almost no buyer or seller will ever know every thing that happened to a book to cause it to go from its original state of NM to whatever grade it is now, and you will get no support from any but the most short-sighted, pie-in-the-sky fringe lunatics if you are expecting people in this hobby to be responsible for disclosing how every defect that lowers a book's grade got there, or if you try to say that there is some duty to disclose if you caused a book to drop in grade. Can you imagine what the JCs of the world would say if every auction listing said, "This book used to be NM, but Grandma used it as a coaster for the gravy boat at Thanksgiving when Grandpa got home from the war in 1945, and Grandpa had a coughing fit at the table with arms flailing about."

 

I am not trying to derail your thread -- I am just pointing out that I think you've gotten way off message with this book and it's probably better to move on to others. People may disagree with me about that, but it's ok -- they're just nutz.

 

Scott,

 

Since it appears as though you are replying to me in totality here, might I ask you: could you please point out where I used the term “disclosure” in my last two posts?

 

I discussed conducting research and analysis (due diligence) prior to an acquisition, which was the point behind the example, but I don’t recall mentioning disclosure. Thx.

 

--Mitch

[codfish]

While not a great example the one thing I will say that it does enforce the point made much earlier that lower grade books are not ignored when it comes to manipulation. The way many people talk here it is like it only happens on higher grade books.

 

The one thing that concerns me in this example is the tape on the interior spine. I assume that the book was not disassembled to do this (it appears to not have been) but if it had should the colour of the label not been different (ie at least a green qualified label)? (I also still do not understand how erasing markings does not qualify as resto ... but that is not really germane here i suppose)

[FFB]

Fair questions, Scott, I’ll try to answer them.

 

It certainly is a shame. Contrary to what some may believe, this type of behavior isn’t all a bed of roses, IMHO.

 

There are those examples that have proven to be damage cases. Where the work performed actually degraded the overall condition of the book. The Sub-Mariner #1 is a good example of that. There are a few others interwoven throughout the thread. Was the All-American case one of the better examples? Perhaps not. But it was one nonetheless.

 

That said, does anyone really know how many of these manipulated books ended up being spoiled to some degree in the process. Personally, I have seen others, and there have been rumors to the effect that a number of books have actually been physically ruined by misguided treatment procedures. As a hobbyist, I find that to be troubling; especially in light of the limited Golden Age availability pool.

 

Not sure if the eventual buyer got what they paid for. To answer that question, I’d consider one would have to ask whether or not the buyer, or for that matter all the bidders, new what they were bidding on.

 

Given that unsold items are not automatically shown when viewing past auctions, one can presume that some of the bidders, if not all, did not know that the item failed to sell in two preceding attempts. And that the owner of the item decided to take matters into their own hands to realize the price in which s/he believed the copy was worth. Obviously the attempt at enhancing the monetary value backfired.

 

Unfortunately, we my never know if the perspective buyers realized these events occurred – or even if they knew the book was once two grades higher – and took them into consideration when setting their price target. Personally, I’d be very much interested in knowing if the eventual buyer was aware of the book’s history. With that information, one can unequivocally determine if they got what they paid for.

 

--Mitch

 

Let me just say that I am SURE there are other examples of the crack and resub game with upgrades as the result. My point is that I don't see how this book fits into the "Manufactured Gold" subject, since it is really "manufactured caca." I refuse to believe for one second that the same people who are pressing books to improve their grades would use TAPE to try to get an upgrade. No, whoever added two big pieces of tape to this book was a total spoon, not a scam artist.

 

On the disclosure issue -- as for whether the book used to be four grades higher, who really cares? EVERY book that isn't a 9.6 or better used to be higher grade than it is now. Collectors know that. Does it make a difference whether the book dropped in grade two weeks ago versus six decades ago? I think this is taking the notion of disclosure way too far if this is the kind of thing that is considered "deceptive." Almost no buyer or seller will ever know every thing that happened to a book to cause it to go from its original state of NM to whatever grade it is now, and you will get no support from any but the most short-sighted, pie-in-the-sky fringe lunatics if you are expecting people in this hobby to be responsible for disclosing how every defect that lowers a book's grade got there, or if you try to say that there is some duty to disclose if you caused a book to drop in grade. Can you imagine what the JCs of the world would say if every auction listing said, "This book used to be NM, but Grandma used it as a coaster for the gravy boat at Thanksgiving when Grandpa got home from the war in 1945, and Grandpa had a coughing fit at the table with arms flailing about."

 

I am not trying to derail your thread -- I am just pointing out that I think you've gotten way off message with this book and it's probably better to move on to others. People may disagree with me about that, but it's ok -- they're just nutz.

 

Scott,

 

Since it appears as though you are replying to me in totality here, might I ask you: could you please point out where I used the term “disclosure” in my last two posts?

 

I discussed conducting research and analysis (due diligence) prior to an acquisition, which was the point behind the example, but I don’t recall mentioning disclosure. Thx.

 

--Mitch

 

Mitch,

 

Take a look at the sections I bolded above. If you're not talking about disclosure/failure to disclose there, then I've completely missed your point.

 

And if I've missed your point, then I am at even more of a loss as to why this book is in this thread. Is it to teach the lesson that adding tape to a book will reduce its grade? Most people know that. It's tape.

 

Also, to address something that codfish and others have said in reference to this book -- I see that the word "manipulation" has become the latest catch-all buzzword among some people here. Most likely that is because it has such deliciously nefarious undertones. But let's reserve the use of the word for those practices that are actually designed both (a) to help a book improve in grade and (b) fool someone into thinking that nothing has been done to the book. To call adding huge pieces of tape to a book "manipulation" (as though anyone could be deceived by tape being added to a book when the extra pieces are described individually on the CGC label) is ludicrous. If I spray a comic cover in shellac, is that manipulation? No, it's just stupid -- even if it is a misguided attempt to restore gloss to the book or give it a hard, protective shell to prevent future damage.

[codfish]

No worse that the nefarious undertones of repair or restoration. Besides the word manipultion was not meant to obscure the point I was trying to make that people will trying to restore/repair/manipulate/fix/patch/improve lower grade books.

[Davenport]

To call adding huge pieces of tape to a book "manipulation" (as though anyone could be deceived by tape being added to a book when the extra pieces are described individually on the CGC label) is ludicrous.

 

What makes it an interesting example, I thought, is the context. In it's 5.0 label-incarnation it kept reapeatedly failing to meet reserve after it's initial "sale". Since it didn't sell... is it safe to assume it wasn't cracked-out to read and someone decided it could use a little more tape?

 

Something happened, most likely during an attempt to raise the label grade number.

 

It re-appears, same venue, in a new label-incarnation, two grades lower. But still Blue. Someone reading the label notes might assume it's all tape from an old amature repair, instead of more recently applied. Would a rules-savvy Gamer add tape and avoid a PLOD, try to salvage what money they could, instead of going with conservation?

[FlamingCarrot]

Keep up the great work, Masterchief, and remember: never argue with people who buy their ink by the barrel!

[FFB]

No worse that the nefarious undertones of repair or restoration. Besides the word manipultion was not meant to obscure the point I was trying to make that people will trying to restore/repair/manipulate/fix/patch/improve lower grade books.

 

Who cares if they're trying to repair or restore a book? The extra tape was disclosed. If the mere fact that some books are being, or have been, repaired is the point of this thread, hell, there are thousands of books in purple label slabs and raw that have been "manipulated" into higher grades, and then sold with disclosure. Is that the point of this thread? To show simply that restoration exists?

 

This is where I'm coming from when I say this example waters down the point of the thread. Can we move on to the next one please? I don't want to derail the thread. I would like it to get back ON point.

[FFB]

To call adding huge pieces of tape to a book "manipulation" (as though anyone could be deceived by tape being added to a book when the extra pieces are described individually on the CGC label) is ludicrous.

 

What makes it an interesting example, I thought, is the context. In it's 5.0 label-incarnation it kept reapeatedly failing to meet reserve after it's initial "sale". Since it didn't sell... is it safe to assume it wasn't cracked-out to read and someone decided it could use a little more tape?

 

Something happened, most likely during an attempt to raise the label grade number.

 

It re-appears, same venue, in a new label-incarnation, two grades lower. But still Blue. Someone reading the label notes might assume it's all tape from an old amature repair, instead of more recently applied. Would a rules-savvy Gamer add tape and avoid a PLOD, try to salvage what money they could, instead of going with conservation?

 

Kevin,

 

Here is my point - only a total buffoon would think that they would improve the grade of a mid-grade book by adding two LARGE pieces of tape. I do not believe for a second that this was done by the same person who disassembles and presses books without getting caught.

[Ze-man]

I agree, next book please. This example was fun to look at if only to see how certain materials, removed or applied to a book affects the overall grade. But aside from some minor cleaning I just dont see how this fits in with everything else we have seen presented to us so far.

 

Hey, they all can't be homeruns Mitch!

 

Keep up the efforts

 

 

Ze-

[Davenport]

Kevin,

 

Here is my point - only a total buffoon would think that they would improve the grade of a mid-grade book by adding two LARGE pieces of tape. I do not believe for a second that this was done by the same person who disassembles and presses books without getting caught.

I understand your point Scott. But I think you're going to the end result (more tape), and wonder wtf were they thinking.

 

I'm guessing it was a last resort...

A business-as-usual attempt to raise the label grade was attempted...

Unexpected damage occured during that process. Then... additional tape was applied to salvage as much value as possible, and avoid a restored label that fixing it properly would've gotten.

 

Anyway, I appreciate MC's efforts.

 

Next book please.