Manufactured Gold

[namralos]

I agree with silverandbronze. I've seen this before on a number of occasions.

Originally, the book was folded in a different location from where the staples were placed.

If somehow the book had survived with NO OTHER DEFECTS, it could not receive certain grades -- on account of the defects.

 

Restoration (including pressing, here) has removed those defects.

 

I've also seen books where the pages contained additional "junk" paper that was not trimmed originally because it was folded. One could theoretically improve the grade with trimming.

 

Thus, I believe we must define restoration based on improvement of grade -- regardless of what the original state was. I do not mind a book being "restored" beyond its "original potential." This happens all the time -- for example, when "Marvel chipping" is removed. However, all such treatment needs to be noted.

 

The blue 5.5 clearly has signs of obvious restoration, but none of it was noted.

[OldGuy]

now i'm even more confused as CGC had to notice that the staples were thin, shiny, and kinda mangled looking. as such, how could it NOT be in either a Green or Purple label?

 

I am as confused as you regarding a blue label for this book.

 

GA books with only a very small amount of restoration generally get a blue label. I think that information is actually stated on the back of blue labels.

[awe4one]

Well...to placate the outcry, it looks like CGC has reinstituted the "turnaround guarantee". Feels like the immediate post-Ewert environment all over again. Isn't deja vu great...

 

Jim

[awe4one]

Under CGC's new revelation of disassembly not being resto, how can they claim with certainty this is a manufacturing error?

 

MTU #54 With 2001 #3 Interior?

 

They aren't willing to make the call, or guess, that a comic has been pressed...how is this any different?

 

Jim

[nearmint]

Why would someone intentionally put the wrong cover on a comic? I don't think it's a stretch to assume it's a manufacturing error.

[esquirecomics]

I've seen it done before. Why, I have no idea.

[ArAich]

Under CGC's new revelation of disassembly not being resto, how can they claim with certainty this is a manufacturing error?

 

MTU #54 With 2001 #3 Interior?

 

They aren't willing to make the call, or guess, that a comic has been pressed...how is this any different?

 

Jim

 

Maybe they've seen more than one...

[nearmint]

I've seen it done before. Why, I have no idea.

 

How did you know it wasn't a manufacturing error?

[awe4one]

Why would someone intentionally put the wrong cover on a comic? I don't think it's a stretch to assume it's a manufacturing error.

 

To make an otherwise common issue unique...and thus maybe garner a little more $$$...

 

Jim

[esquirecomics]

I've seen it done before. Why, I have no idea.

 

How did you know it wasn't a manufacturing error?

 

Given the books were made years apart I tend to doubt it was.

[nearmint]

I've seen it done before. Why, I have no idea.

 

How did you know it wasn't a manufacturing error?

 

Given the books were made years apart I tend to doubt it was.

 

Ah, I see. That's not the case here, though. These are both Feb of '77 books.

[esquirecomics]

I've seen it done before. Why, I have no idea.

 

How did you know it wasn't a manufacturing error?

 

Given the books were made years apart I tend to doubt it was.

 

Ah, I see. That's not the case here, though. These are both Feb of '77 books.

 

Understood. The point Jim is making though is that unless CGC has seen other errors of this type, and perhaps they have (or know of one or more), they are simply guessing. While it may well be sensical to assume that this is what took place, we continually are told by CGC leadership that they will not guess.

[nearmint]

I've seen it done before. Why, I have no idea.

 

How did you know it wasn't a manufacturing error?

 

Given the books were made years apart I tend to doubt it was.

 

Ah, I see. That's not the case here, though. These are both Feb of '77 books.

 

Understood. The point Jim is making though is that unless CGC has seen other errors of this type, and perhaps they have (or know of one or more), they are simply guessing. While it may well be sensical to assume that this is what took place, we continually are told by CGC leadership that they will not guess.

 

Since we're travelling in the land of "maybes"...

 

Maybe CGC can tell when a book has been disassembled and reassembled, but just doesn't consider it, or flag it, as restored. In Jim's example, maybe they found no evidence of disassembly, leaving a manufacturing error as the only other explanation.

[namralos]

I think it would be accurate to say that it is "possibly an error," but to certify it as a "manufacturing error" puts your reputation at stake. In theory, someone might have switched two covers in order to give perceived "rarity" value to a book.

 

Let's throw on another wrench. Why not create "double covers" via disassembly?

Everybody loves those!

[awe4one]

Maybe CGC can tell when a book has been disassembled and reassembled, but just doesn't consider it, or flag it, as restored.

 

You win the prize...

 

That's exactly what I've been thinking for the last couple of days...

 

Jim

[esquirecomics]

I've seen it done before. Why, I have no idea.

 

How did you know it wasn't a manufacturing error?

 

Given the books were made years apart I tend to doubt it was.

 

Ah, I see. That's not the case here, though. These are both Feb of '77 books.

 

Understood. The point Jim is making though is that unless CGC has seen other errors of this type, and perhaps they have (or know of one or more), they are simply guessing. While it may well be sensical to assume that this is what took place, we continually are told by CGC leadership that they will not guess.

 

Since we're travelling in the land of "maybes"...

 

Maybe CGC can tell when a book has been disassembled and reassembled, but just doesn't consider it, or flag it, as restored. In Jim's example, maybe they found no evidence of disassembly, leaving a manufacturing error as the only other explanation.

 

Maybe, maybe, maybe.

 

The problem is we neither know CGC's grading standards, nor truly what it can or cannot tell with respect to these examples. The best we can do in the darkness that CGC has created is point to specific examples where they either caught or failed to catch particular scenarios.

[awe4one]

Let's throw on another wrench. Why not create "double covers" via disassembly?

 

If they can't detect the disassembly...why not?

 

Jim

[nearmint]

The problem is we neither know CGC's grading standards, nor truly what it can or cannot tell with respect to these examples. The best we can do in the darkness that CGC has created is point to specific examples where they either caught or failed to catch particular scenarios.

 

Agreed. I just don't think this was a very good example.

[awe4one]

The problem is we neither know CGC's grading standards, nor truly what it can or cannot tell with respect to these examples. The best we can do in the darkness that CGC has created is point to specific examples where they either caught or failed to catch particular scenarios.

 

Agreed. I just don't think this was a very good example.

 

Then what is a good example? With disassembly, any unique comic, whether the stars align right or not, are suspect...

 

I'm not convinced CGC can detect disassembly consistently...

 

Jim

[ArAich]

I've seen it done before. Why, I have no idea.

 

How did you know it wasn't a manufacturing error?

 

Given the books were made years apart I tend to doubt it was.

 

Ah, I see. That's not the case here, though. These are both Feb of '77 books.

 

Understood. The point Jim is making though is that unless CGC has seen other errors of this type, and perhaps they have (or know of one or more), they are simply guessing. While it may well be sensical to assume that this is what took place, we continually are told by CGC leadership that they will not guess.

 

Since we're travelling in the land of "maybes"...

 

Maybe CGC can tell when a book has been disassembled and reassembled, but just doesn't consider it, or flag it, as restored. In Jim's example, maybe they found no evidence of disassembly, leaving a manufacturing error as the only other explanation.

 

Maybe, maybe, maybe.

 

The problem is we neither know CGC's grading standards, nor truly what it can or cannot tell with respect to these examples. The best we can do in the darkness that CGC has created is point to specific examples where they either caught or failed to catch particular scenarios.

 

 

Post #12461