Manufactured Gold

[FFB]

Thx, Davenport. You know, I ran that test prior to posting and I could not reproduce the results as seen in the 9.4 scan.

 

Although the 9.4 white and yellow appear solid and brighter as a result of applying brightness & contrast, so do the reds. There is a level of change between the two colors that is consistent. They both become vibrant.

 

However, when examining the 8.0 and 9.4 scans, there is only a minor change in the depth of the red – the area is still translucent. The white on the other hand is completely solid. In my opinion, the microchamber paper is not the culprit here.

 

Maybe someone can provide a second opinion on the scanning angle. Redhook, care to weigh in?

 

BTW... if a cover is solvent cleaned, what effect will the cleaning process have on the cover colors? Is it possible to do localized cleaning on lighter colors like the whites and yellows only?

 

.

 

You cannot do a localized solvent cleaning without leaving solvent tidelines, which would be far more unsightly than whatever stain you were trying to remove. It is also pretty much impossible to keep solvent restricted to a tight area like that on a grid like that and there would be absolutely no reason to do it anyway, since if the professional is using the right solvent, the colors won't fade or run at all.

 

The bottom line is that there is no evidence that this book was solvent cleaned or that its changed appearance from one scan to another is anything more than a brighter bulb on the scanner on the second scan.

[MasterChief]

You cannot do a localized solvent cleaning without leaving solvent tidelines ...

 

Appreciate the information, FFB. That's just what I was looking for.

 

.

[MasterChief]

In the previous post I tried to provide a representation of cleaning. Perhaps I missed the mark and the example was, at best, inconclusive. However that may be, it is my belief that the following specimen provides clear confirmation of manipulation.

 

***************

 

Blond Phantom #13

 

Purchased as a Very Fine+ copy in the summer of 2002, this 1947 Timely had an unmistakable marking within, and to the lower right, of the title caption. Additionally, the presence of soiling and minor creasing was visually apparent on the back cover surface area.

 

Six-months later the copy re-emerge as a Near Mint- and bearing a new serial number. Appearing to be cleaned and pressed, the copy was advertised in part as having "very little in the way of defects" and promoting a back cover that was "clean and white". The obvious pencil marking in the title area was removed, with just the slightest of horizontal lines remaining in the red colored area.

 

The 9.2 version (0044759004) is currently ranked as number two on the CGC census. The original 8.5 version (0048090015) is no longer available in the verification database.

 

 

Certification/Resale Provenance:

 

 

 

Resource Links:

 

Blonde Phantom #13 (8.5)

Blonde Phantom #13 (9.2)

 

Images:

 

 

 

[FFB]

The book was obviously dry cleaned. Maybe pressed too, but it's hard to say from the scans.

[DKB]

 

K, I've steered far clear of the restoration discussions, so I'm not sure of the answer, but certainly whatever process is responsible for this IS restoration...yes?

[Davenport]

 

K, I've steered far clear of the restoration discussions, so I'm not sure of the answer, but certainly whatever process is responsible for this IS restoration...yes?

No, it's considered "dry cleaning" (erasure). As apposed to a solvent or aqueous (wet) cleaning.

 

What's interesting about MasterChief's animated gif is it looks to be a "text book" application, just like Povertyrow described in this spotting restoration thread. The whites were dry cleaned, avoiding the red inked "in between" areas.

 

Quote: "Basically Dry Cleaning is using an eraser type material to remove things like light soiling, pencil etc. The best way to accomplish dry cleaning is to pick up a template at an art supply store. This template is a thin piece of aluminum with various shapes cut into it."

 

"Simply align a properly proportioned cut-out from your aluminum template on top of the white lettering. Slice off a price or eraser to fit. Erase. Make sure the edge of the template does not go over an inked area. You may have to slide it along the lettering to get it all. And this can be a very laborious process."

 

Either way, penciled dates and initials don't impact the grade, right? So its removal shouldn't account for the bump. True?

[Viscosity-migration]

 

K, I've steered far clear of the restoration discussions, so I'm not sure of the answer, but certainly whatever process is responsible for this IS restoration...yes?

No, it's considered "dry cleaning" (erasure). As apposed to a solvent or aqueous (wet) cleaning.

 

What's interesting about MasterChief's animated gif is it looks to be a "text book" application, just like Povertyrow described in this spotting restoration thread. The whites were dry cleaned, avoiding the red inked "in between" areas.

 

Quote: "Basically Dry Cleaning is using an eraser type material to remove things like light soiling, pencil etc. The best way to accomplish dry cleaning is to pick up a template at an art supply store. This template is a thin piece of aluminum with various shapes cut into it."

 

"Simply align a properly proportioned cut-out from your aluminum template on top of the white lettering. Slice off a price or eraser to fit. Erase. Make sure the edge of the template does not go over an inked area. You may have to slide it along the lettering to get it all. And this can be a very laborious process."

 

Either way, penciled dates and initials don't impact the grade, right? So its removal shouldn't account for the bump. True?

 

 

That last sentence, was exactly what i've been pondering...

[FFB]

 

K, I've steered far clear of the restoration discussions, so I'm not sure of the answer, but certainly whatever process is responsible for this IS restoration...yes?

No, it's considered "dry cleaning" (erasure). As apposed to a solvent or aqueous (wet) cleaning.

 

What's interesting about MasterChief's animated gif is it looks to be a "text book" application, just like Povertyrow described in this spotting restoration thread. The whites were dry cleaned, avoiding the red inked "in between" areas.

 

Quote: "Basically Dry Cleaning is using an eraser type material to remove things like light soiling, pencil etc. The best way to accomplish dry cleaning is to pick up a template at an art supply store. This template is a thin piece of aluminum with various shapes cut into it."

 

"Simply align a properly proportioned cut-out from your aluminum template on top of the white lettering. Slice off a price or eraser to fit. Erase. Make sure the edge of the template does not go over an inked area. You may have to slide it along the lettering to get it all. And this can be a very laborious process."

 

Either way, penciled dates and initials don't impact the grade, right? So its removal shouldn't account for the bump. True?

 

The distributor markings themselves might not have affected the grade, but the light soiling all over the front and back cover almost certainly did.

[rjpb]

Interesting to see that often as not all this manipulation doesn't result in any appreciable increase in price, and in some cases a loss. Unless you can turn an 8.0 into a 9.4 there seems little point to the effort.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Interesting to see that often as not all this manipulation doesn't result in any appreciable increase in price, and in some cases a loss. Unless you can turn an 8.0 into a 9.4 there seems little point to the effort.

 

Turn a 9.2 into a 9.6 or 9.8 and you're laughing all the way to the bank.

[RareHighGrade]

As a fan of distributer marks, which are a part of the book's history, I am distressed to see people removing them. Especially when they are only light pencil marks like those on this book. The fact that these types of marks have virtually no impact on a Golden Age book's grade makes their removal even less defensible.

[MasterChief]

Here's another treatment sample which may further illustrate indiscriminate erasure fueled by a lust for short-term profit.

 

In this particular case, the example in reference exhibited a resemblance to other books that may have originated from the personal collection of comic book mail order catalogue pioneer William J. Thailing. Unfortunately, the unwarranted manipulation led to the removal of this book's unique personality, and the validation of its genealogy will forever go unchecked.

 

***************

 

Thrilling Comics #1

 

Displaying white pages and a distinctive black "S" grease pencil mark in the book's logo area, this Very Fine copy of Thrilling Comics #1 sold just under its pre-auction estimate.

 

Seven-months later the book resurfaced, this time without the unique "S" and re-graded as a Near Mint -. Also missing from the copy was a light "25.00" pencil mark which was unobtrusively located in the upper left-hand corner of the original back cover surface.

 

The 9.2 manufactured version of Thrilling Comics #1 is currently ranked number one on the CGC census dated August 21, 2006. The 8.0 original has been removed from the certification database.

 

Certification/Resale Provenance:

 

 

Resource Links:

 

Bill Thailing "S" Collection

Thrilling Comics #1 (8.0)

Thrilling Comics #1 (9.2)

 

Images:

 

 

 

[batman_fan]

I wonder if removing these markings is part of the new scam since they really become finger prints of books. It helps these books to lose their "identity".

[RareHighGrade]

Wow, you're good MasterChief.

 

Apart from my disdain for the removal of the distinctive markings, I am surprised that the "improved" version was able to get a 9.2 grade. I count at least seven visible spine stresses.

[Viscosity-migration]

[Red Hook]

Just catching up with this brilliant thread.

 

Isn't it interesting that no one who is in the least associated with CGC, Heritage, Matt Nelson, etc.....has deigned to offer a single sentence of comment on this material.

 

The silence is defining.

 

It's out and out destruction of our hobby's history.

 

If I hear another word from anyone associated with this stuff about "my love for the hobby", or "servicing the collecting community".....I am going to puke for about an hour straight.

 

Red

[Red Hook]

Tim....hand me another Red Bull, will ya'!!!!??

[Davenport]

The path this one takes is interesting...

 

July 2005 Shadow Comics V9#2 CGC VF 8.0 Off-white to white pages. "This is currently the highest grade awarded by CGC for this issue."

 

March 2006 Shadow Comics V9#2 CGC NM 9.4 on Ebay, reserve not met.

 

May 2006 goes back to Heritage Shadow Comics V9#2 CGC NM 9.4

 

Of course the 8.0 is no longer in the census.

 

 

[Monstro]

Displaying white pages and a distinctive black "S" grease pencil mark in the book's logo area, this Very Fine copy of Thrilling Comics #1 sold just under its pre-auction estimate.

 

Seven-months later the book resurfaced, this time without the unique "S" and re-graded as a Near Mint -. Also missing from the copy was a light "25.00" pencil mark which was unobtrusively located in the upper left-hand corner of the original back cover surface.

 

how is it that you know it is the same book? i'm not questioning you, just wondering.

second how could cgc remove the 8.0 from the records? what could they possibly say?

cgc....what do you have to say?

 

[Viscosity-migration]

If only it were as easy for human beings to reach their "full potential"