Manufactured Gold

[Foolkiller]

If that book has been cleaned, that should be identified as restoration and be in a purple label.

 

I have seen cleaning identified as restoration on other labeled books -- and while you can't go by the scan alone to determine that -- my first question is why cleaning hasn't been identified if indeed that has been done here.

[Dad&Son-migration]

The cover hasn't been cleaned.. the 5.5 scan was darkened. Look at the red carpet area.. a cleaning doesn't change the tone of the reds that much. Also look at the CGC holograms on the case... the 5.5 is much darker. The 6.5 scan's has been lightened.

[Davenport]

I just assumed it was dry cleaned, which isn't uncommon with a re-press, from looking at the large scans. At the top edge there are tiny dark specks that seem to be...gone.

 

[Foolkiller]

I just assumed it was dry cleaned, which isn't uncommon with a re-press, from looking at the large scans. At the top edge there are tiny dark specks that seem to be...gone.

 

 

Most of the pressing work that is done today to "improve" the book does not involve cleaning as well (the work done by Nelson et al). Cleaning to me is clearly a form of resto and should be identified.

[FlyingDonut]

 

Here's a different ComicLInk CGC 5.5 listing for visual comparison with the "6.5".

How the Juststopit.DoyouWANTastrike? is that a 6.5

 

 

That big "6.5" in the upper left corner is the dead giveaway.

[FlyingDonut]

I just assumed it was dry cleaned, which isn't uncommon with a re-press, from looking at the large scans. At the top edge there are tiny dark specks that seem to be...gone.

 

 

No cleaning, but definitely scan manipulation - the second scan has been brightened.

[Davenport]

No cleaning, but definitely scan manipulation - the second scan has been brightened.

 

This area too looked like it might've had a few eraser-grains roll by for a short visit. Or maybe an over brightened scan visually bleached it out some.

I'll defer to the experts.

 

Question: Wouldn't it be SOP for a Paper Mechanic doing a press-job to give a book the once over for any benefits from dry cleaning? Since it's not considered restoration? Or it that a wrong assumption?

[FFB]

That isn't dirt or dark specks. Those are areas where there are small tears in the overhang that were bent on the 5.5, then flattened when the 6.5 was pressed.

 

I just assumed it was dry cleaned, which isn't uncommon with a re-press, from looking at the large scans. At the top edge there are tiny dark specks that seem to be...gone.

 

[FFB]

No cleaning, but definitely scan manipulation - the second scan has been brightened.

 

This area too looked like it might've had a few eraser-grains roll by for a short visit. Or maybe an over brightened scan visually bleached it out some.

I'll defer to the experts.

 

Question: Wouldn't it be SOP for a Paper Mechanic doing a press-job to give a book the once over for any benefits from dry cleaning? Since it's not considered restoration? Or it that a wrong assumption?

 

That's correct, especially on a book like X-Men #1 where every little bit counts when it comes to upgrading. This book might have been dry cleaned, and if there would have been any benefit to it (likely, since so much of the cover is white), then it almost certainly was.

 

But dry cleaning has never been considered restoration by CGC, so I would not expect to see this book in a PLOD.

[Red Hook]

Would there have been a lightening of the inked numerals on the book if it had been cleaned? There doesn't seem to be any fading or ink loss.

[FFB]

Would there have been a lightening of the inked numerals on the book if it had been cleaned? There doesn't seem to be any fading or ink loss.

 

If depends on what was used to clean the book. An aqueous cleaning would not fade the ink. A solvent cleaning might fade the ink or cause the ink to run, depending on what solvent was used. I seriously doubt that book was cleaned by any method other than dry cleaning, or that spot near the spine that Kevin highlighted would be gone or greatly diminished and/or you'd see feathering on the ballpoint ink numerals. Plus, if aqueously cleaned, it would have been 100% obvious to CGC just from the texture of the book.

[Davenport]

That isn't dirt or dark specks. Those are areas where there are small tears in the overhang that were bent on the 5.5, then flattened when the 6.5 was pressed.

 

How about some commentary on mid-grade and flatness Scott. It seems to raise interesting questions. Is the the difference between a 5.5 and 6.5 surface dirt and overall flatness?

 

When you get to the mid-grade "gently used" condition, with actual paper and ink damage present, do pressable bends, curls, and dents still have the same level of significance they do when hairsplitting at the very top of the scale?

 

Can a full grade difference be based on surface dirt and overall flatness alone in mid-grades, since pressing doesn't repair fibers or replace inks?

 

Thoughts?

[MasterChief]

Question: Wouldn't it be SOP for a Paper Mechanic doing a press-job to give a book the once over for any benefits from dry cleaning? Since it's not considered restoration? Or it that a wrong assumption?

 

I believe there is validity to your observation. That being: dry cleaning and pressing treatments are coupled as a basic manipulation procedure.

 

If one was trying to restore cover aesthetics, it seems logical that the two procedures would be used (when practical) to strengthen the potential for grade increase upon re-certification.

 

Although an analysis has not been conducted on the data complied, I have certainly seen plenty of cases that would support the theory – especially books with white as the predominate color (as in your example).

[MasterChief]

I just assumed it was dry cleaned, which isn't uncommon with a re-press, from looking at the large scans. At the top edge there are tiny dark specks that seem to be...gone.

 

 

No cleaning, but definitely scan manipulation - the second scan has been brightened.

 

Scan manipulation?

 

Boy does that behavior sounds sinister and deceptive -- more so than physical book manipulation.

 

I imagine that the intentional misrepresentation of a collectable's visual appearance by an auctioning venue would be against the law, would it not?

[adamstrange]

I imagine that the intentional misrepresentation of a collectable's visual appearance by an auctioning venue would be against the law, would it not?

 

No scanner exactly reproduces the color and characteristics of a comic precisely so someone doing image manipulation can easily say they were correcting for one scanner inaccuracy and it just so happened that they introduced another.

 

Like many an ebay scan, this is probably a very fuzzy area.

[Red Hook]

I agree. Hard to pin down. Lotsa bad scans out there, and when someone does it correctly, it does indeed look like a better book.

 

Red

[FFB]

That isn't dirt or dark specks. Those are areas where there are small tears in the overhang that were bent on the 5.5, then flattened when the 6.5 was pressed.

 

How about some commentary on mid-grade and flatness Scott. It seems to raise interesting questions. Is the the difference between a 5.5 and 6.5 surface dirt and overall flatness?

 

When you get to the mid-grade "gently used" condition, with actual paper and ink damage present, do pressable bends, curls, and dents still have the same level of significance they do when hairsplitting at the very top of the scale?

 

Can a full grade difference be based on surface dirt and overall flatness alone in mid-grades, since pressing doesn't repair fibers or replace inks?

 

Thoughts?

 

It depends on what non-color-breaking issues the 5.5 has, but yes, I have seen books that could easily jump from 5.5 to 6.5 (or even much higher) just from removing long, light bends and numerous thumb bends and other issues. When you have a book in your hands that has long, NCB bends and thumb dings, it looks a lot different than when you see it in a scan. If you remove those defects, the scan will look the same but the book will look way better in hand.

 

That's part of the reason why mid-grade books are so tough to grade from a scan unless you have detailed notes on defects that aren't "scannable." It is also the reason that I have long been saying that on major key issues, it is a lot more lucrative (and you have a much higher potential for success) to find mid-grade candidates that have non-color-breaking wear and press it out to get the book to jump two to six grade levels. Finding pressing candidates that you can improve from 6.0 to 8.0 is a lot easier than finding pressing candidates that you can improve from 9.4 to 9.6 or 9.8 -- because at the 9.6 and 9.8 level, the slightest spine or corner issues that break color will automatically disqualify you, and most books have that to some extent.

 

GA books are a bit easier to improve at the higher grades because the ink layers are much thicker and the paper is stronger, so there tends to be less fiber breakage and ink-cracking at stress points. But for Atom, Silver, Bronze, and thereafter, most stresses will break color and/or paper fibers.

[FFB]

I just assumed it was dry cleaned, which isn't uncommon with a re-press, from looking at the large scans. At the top edge there are tiny dark specks that seem to be...gone.

 

 

No cleaning, but definitely scan manipulation - the second scan has been brightened.

 

Scan manipulation?

 

Boy does that behavior sounds sinister and deceptive -- more so than physical book manipulation.

 

I imagine that the intentional misrepresentation of a collectable's visual appearance by an auctioning venue would be against the law, would it not?

 

I "manipulate" all of my scans. Why? Because my HP scanner adds too much yellow and muddies the cover colors. If I left it un-"manipulated," it would be "misleading." So let us not "assume" that "manipulating" scans is "sinister," "deceptive," or "against the law," ok?

[FFB]

I agree. Hard to pin down. Lotsa bad scans out there, and when someone does it correctly, it does indeed look like a better book.

 

Red

 

And it may indeed be the case that the scan that appears to be the better book is actually a more accurate depiction of the book itself.

[adamstrange]

I just assumed it was dry cleaned, which isn't uncommon with a re-press, from looking at the large scans. At the top edge there are tiny dark specks that seem to be...gone.

 

 

No cleaning, but definitely scan manipulation - the second scan has been brightened.

 

Scan manipulation?

 

Boy does that behavior sounds sinister and deceptive -- more so than physical book manipulation.

 

I imagine that the intentional misrepresentation of a collectable's visual appearance by an auctioning venue would be against the law, would it not?

 

I "manipulate" all of my scans. Why? Because my HP scanner adds too much yellow and muddies the cover colors. If I left it un-"manipulated," it would be "misleading." So let us not "assume" that "manipulating" scans is "sinister," "deceptive," or "against the law," ok?

 

In MC's defense, manipulating scans can be done in a manner to deceive. I was just pointing out that it would be hard to prove and, as you note, can be done for the right reasons.