Manufactured Gold

[Foolkiller]

I would like to apologize because several statements that I made in my last post were not totally accurate. Steve B was nice enough to give me a call and straighten me out on a few things. (Also, thanks Matt for the clarification regarding disassembly.)

 

The discussion I had with Steve regarding the Sensation comics w/ the two covers was pretty similar to what Matt wrote. "Disassembly is not restoration" is not a change in policy, but perhaps a poor choice of words was previously used to describe the policy. (And its up to everyone to decide how they feel about the policy, but its the same policy that has always been in place)

 

In speaking with Steve directly about the Sensation comics example, he explained to me why the book got a Green label one way and a blue label the other. Hopefully I have this right, but apparently CGC considers disassembly not to be restoration in part because if its done right it can not be detected. The reason the book was given a Green label the first time around, wasn't technically because of the disassembly, but was because of the position of the covers. (Something like ink transfer stains are supposed to be on the outside of a book, but since there was one on the interior cover, CGC knew the book had been altered by switching the covers so it got a qualified label.) The first time around they were not able to detect that the covers had been switched due to any evidence near the staples, they knew because of the transfer stain. So once the covers were switched back and the book was resubmitted, there was no longer any evidence that any work had been done, which is why it got the blue label the second time. Had there been evidence, CGC would've still given the book a blue label at that point, and downgraded it for any damage done to the spine of the book.

 

As far as staples being cleaned/replaced, I was incorrect. If I understand what I heard correctly, that will always get you a green label.

 

As far as some people having this information and others not having this information, I still think it would be better for everyone if CGC published it all somewhere. But at least the information is available to anyone who calls CGC and asks.

 

I still like my idea though for having a separate category for books that don't have restoration but have still been improved. (Books that have been cleaned, pressed, disassembled etc.) It could even be noted somewhere that things like this can't be detected 100% of the time. (I absolutely would not expect CGC to be able to detect every little thing on every little book... and the statistics regarding how many restored books would've been sold as unrestored before CGC compared to the number of restored or improved books that get by CGC now are impressive.) But in the instances where CGC IS able to definitely detect something, I still feel that it should be noted somewhere.

 

Getting back to my earlier example of the All Winners 1.. (where a CGC 9.2 sells for $32k+, then another CGC 9.2 that used to be a CGC 8.5 sells for $24k, and the owner of the first 9.2 suddenly loses an offer on his book as a result) I do believe there are examples where people can get hurt in this hobby because someone else decides to "improve" a book and not disclose it. Personally, I feel that a CGC 9.2 that used to be an 8.5, should be worth less than one that was always a 9.2. (Maybe worth somewhere in the middle, like 9.0 price) This would still give the press/resub people a chance to go ahead and do their thing and make some money, without hurting the value of peoples' collections who decide they would rather not have their books pressed. (And best of all everything would be out in the open for everyone to see)

 

At the same time though, I also believe it is important to keep in perspective that examples like these are much less prevelent than the number of people getting taken advantage of by people like Comic-keys prior to the creation of CGC. I don't think the current system is perfect, but its still better than no system at all. (Which by the way does not mean that I don't still have a problem with some of the people going out of their way to take advantage of the current system)

 

Anyway, sorry for the long post.

 

P.S. I asked Steve about Chris F, Steve said since PCS has shut down Chris's job with CGC has been to detect restoration on books that are submitted for grading.

 

Glad to see someone called and got some good, straightforward answers.

[Sal]

I would like to apologize because several statements that I made in my last post were not totally accurate. Steve B was nice enough to give me a call and straighten me out on a few things. (Also, thanks Matt for the clarification regarding disassembly.)

 

The discussion I had with Steve regarding the Sensation comics w/ the two covers was pretty similar to what Matt wrote. "Disassembly is not restoration" is not a change in policy, but perhaps a poor choice of words was previously used to describe the policy. (And its up to everyone to decide how they feel about the policy, but its the same policy that has always been in place)

 

In speaking with Steve directly about the Sensation comics example, he explained to me why the book got a Green label one way and a blue label the other. Hopefully I have this right, but apparently CGC considers disassembly not to be restoration in part because if its done right it can not be detected. The reason the book was given a Green label the first time around, wasn't technically because of the disassembly, but was because of the position of the covers. (Something like ink transfer stains are supposed to be on the outside of a book, but since there was one on the interior cover, CGC knew the book had been altered by switching the covers so it got a qualified label.) The first time around they were not able to detect that the covers had been switched due to any evidence near the staples, they knew because of the transfer stain. So once the covers were switched back and the book was resubmitted, there was no longer any evidence that any work had been done, which is why it got the blue label the second time. Had there been evidence, CGC would've still given the book a blue label at that point, and downgraded it for any damage done to the spine of the book.

 

As far as staples being cleaned/replaced, I was incorrect. If I understand what I heard correctly, that will always get you a green label.

 

As far as some people having this information and others not having this information, I still think it would be better for everyone if CGC published it all somewhere. But at least the information is available to anyone who calls CGC and asks.

 

I still like my idea though for having a separate category for books that don't have restoration but have still been improved. (Books that have been cleaned, pressed, disassembled etc.) It could even be noted somewhere that things like this can't be detected 100% of the time. (I absolutely would not expect CGC to be able to detect every little thing on every little book... and the statistics regarding how many restored books would've been sold as unrestored before CGC compared to the number of restored or improved books that get by CGC now are impressive.) But in the instances where CGC IS able to definitely detect something, I still feel that it should be noted somewhere.

 

Getting back to my earlier example of the All Winners 1.. (where a CGC 9.2 sells for $32k+, then another CGC 9.2 that used to be a CGC 8.5 sells for $24k, and the owner of the first 9.2 suddenly loses an offer on his book as a result) I do believe there are examples where people can get hurt in this hobby because someone else decides to "improve" a book and not disclose it. Personally, I feel that a CGC 9.2 that used to be an 8.5, should be worth less than one that was always a 9.2. (Maybe worth somewhere in the middle, like 9.0 price) This would still give the press/resub people a chance to go ahead and do their thing and make some money, without hurting the value of peoples' collections who decide they would rather not have their books pressed. (And best of all everything would be out in the open for everyone to see)

 

At the same time though, I also believe it is important to keep in perspective that examples like these are much less prevelent than the number of people getting taken advantage of by people like Comic-keys prior to the creation of CGC. I don't think the current system is perfect, but its still better than no system at all. (Which by the way does not mean that I don't still have a problem with some of the people going out of their way to take advantage of the current system)

 

Anyway, sorry for the long post.

 

P.S. I asked Steve about Chris F, Steve said since PCS has shut down Chris's job with CGC has been to detect restoration on books that are submitted for grading.

 

Glad to see someone called and got some good, straightforward answers.

 

especially since that someone was Borock.

[drbanner]

I would like to apologize because several statements that I made in my last post were not totally accurate. Steve B was nice enough to give me a call and straighten me out on a few things. (Also, thanks Matt for the clarification regarding disassembly.)

 

The discussion I had with Steve regarding the Sensation comics w/ the two covers was pretty similar to what Matt wrote. "Disassembly is not restoration" is not a change in policy, but perhaps a poor choice of words was previously used to describe the policy. (And its up to everyone to decide how they feel about the policy, but its the same policy that has always been in place)

 

In speaking with Steve directly about the Sensation comics example, he explained to me why the book got a Green label one way and a blue label the other. Hopefully I have this right, but apparently CGC considers disassembly not to be restoration in part because if its done right it can not be detected. The reason the book was given a Green label the first time around, wasn't technically because of the disassembly, but was because of the position of the covers. (Something like ink transfer stains are supposed to be on the outside of a book, but since there was one on the interior cover, CGC knew the book had been altered by switching the covers so it got a qualified label.) The first time around they were not able to detect that the covers had been switched due to any evidence near the staples, they knew because of the transfer stain. So once the covers were switched back and the book was resubmitted, there was no longer any evidence that any work had been done, which is why it got the blue label the second time. Had there been evidence, CGC would've still given the book a blue label at that point, and downgraded it for any damage done to the spine of the book.

 

As far as staples being cleaned/replaced, I was incorrect. If I understand what I heard correctly, that will always get you a green label.

 

As far as some people having this information and others not having this information, I still think it would be better for everyone if CGC published it all somewhere. But at least the information is available to anyone who calls CGC and asks.

 

I still like my idea though for having a separate category for books that don't have restoration but have still been improved. (Books that have been cleaned, pressed, disassembled etc.) It could even be noted somewhere that things like this can't be detected 100% of the time. (I absolutely would not expect CGC to be able to detect every little thing on every little book... and the statistics regarding how many restored books would've been sold as unrestored before CGC compared to the number of restored or improved books that get by CGC now are impressive.) But in the instances where CGC IS able to definitely detect something, I still feel that it should be noted somewhere.

 

Getting back to my earlier example of the All Winners 1.. (where a CGC 9.2 sells for $32k+, then another CGC 9.2 that used to be a CGC 8.5 sells for $24k, and the owner of the first 9.2 suddenly loses an offer on his book as a result) I do believe there are examples where people can get hurt in this hobby because someone else decides to "improve" a book and not disclose it. Personally, I feel that a CGC 9.2 that used to be an 8.5, should be worth less than one that was always a 9.2. (Maybe worth somewhere in the middle, like 9.0 price) This would still give the press/resub people a chance to go ahead and do their thing and make some money, without hurting the value of peoples' collections who decide they would rather not have their books pressed. (And best of all everything would be out in the open for everyone to see)

 

At the same time though, I also believe it is important to keep in perspective that examples like these are much less prevelent than the number of people getting taken advantage of by people like Comic-keys prior to the creation of CGC. I don't think the current system is perfect, but its still better than no system at all. (Which by the way does not mean that I don't still have a problem with some of the people going out of their way to take advantage of the current system)

 

Anyway, sorry for the long post.

 

P.S. I asked Steve about Chris F, Steve said since PCS has shut down Chris's job with CGC has been to detect restoration on books that are submitted for grading.

 

Glad to see someone called and got some good, straightforward answers.

 

Ahh...once again, the utility of Mr. Bell's invention astounds and amazes!!

 

[FFB]

I would like to apologize because several statements that I made in my last post were not totally accurate. Steve B was nice enough to give me a call and straighten me out on a few things. (Also, thanks Matt for the clarification regarding disassembly.)

 

The discussion I had with Steve regarding the Sensation comics w/ the two covers was pretty similar to what Matt wrote. "Disassembly is not restoration" is not a change in policy, but perhaps a poor choice of words was previously used to describe the policy. (And its up to everyone to decide how they feel about the policy, but its the same policy that has always been in place)

 

In speaking with Steve directly about the Sensation comics example, he explained to me why the book got a Green label one way and a blue label the other. Hopefully I have this right, but apparently CGC considers disassembly not to be restoration in part because if its done right it can not be detected. The reason the book was given a Green label the first time around, wasn't technically because of the disassembly, but was because of the position of the covers. (Something like ink transfer stains are supposed to be on the outside of a book, but since there was one on the interior cover, CGC knew the book had been altered by switching the covers so it got a qualified label.) The first time around they were not able to detect that the covers had been switched due to any evidence near the staples, they knew because of the transfer stain. So once the covers were switched back and the book was resubmitted, there was no longer any evidence that any work had been done, which is why it got the blue label the second time. Had there been evidence, CGC would've still given the book a blue label at that point, and downgraded it for any damage done to the spine of the book.

 

As far as staples being cleaned/replaced, I was incorrect. If I understand what I heard correctly, that will always get you a green label.

 

As far as some people having this information and others not having this information, I still think it would be better for everyone if CGC published it all somewhere. But at least the information is available to anyone who calls CGC and asks.

 

I still like my idea though for having a separate category for books that don't have restoration but have still been improved. (Books that have been cleaned, pressed, disassembled etc.) It could even be noted somewhere that things like this can't be detected 100% of the time. (I absolutely would not expect CGC to be able to detect every little thing on every little book... and the statistics regarding how many restored books would've been sold as unrestored before CGC compared to the number of restored or improved books that get by CGC now are impressive.) But in the instances where CGC IS able to definitely detect something, I still feel that it should be noted somewhere.

 

Getting back to my earlier example of the All Winners 1.. (where a CGC 9.2 sells for $32k+, then another CGC 9.2 that used to be a CGC 8.5 sells for $24k, and the owner of the first 9.2 suddenly loses an offer on his book as a result) I do believe there are examples where people can get hurt in this hobby because someone else decides to "improve" a book and not disclose it. Personally, I feel that a CGC 9.2 that used to be an 8.5, should be worth less than one that was always a 9.2. (Maybe worth somewhere in the middle, like 9.0 price) This would still give the press/resub people a chance to go ahead and do their thing and make some money, without hurting the value of peoples' collections who decide they would rather not have their books pressed. (And best of all everything would be out in the open for everyone to see)

 

At the same time though, I also believe it is important to keep in perspective that examples like these are much less prevelent than the number of people getting taken advantage of by people like Comic-keys prior to the creation of CGC. I don't think the current system is perfect, but its still better than no system at all. (Which by the way does not mean that I don't still have a problem with some of the people going out of their way to take advantage of the current system)

 

Anyway, sorry for the long post.

 

P.S. I asked Steve about Chris F, Steve said since PCS has shut down Chris's job with CGC has been to detect restoration on books that are submitted for grading.

 

Glad to see someone called and got some good, straightforward answers.

 

Ahh...once again, the utility of Mr. Bell's invention astounds and amazes!!

 

 

What are you trying to do? Get branded as a "tiny brain"?

[Davenport]

 

What are you trying to do? Get branded as a "tiny brain"?

I have "tiny brain". It can't seem to wrap itself around the concept of "disassembly is not restoration" and..."not a change in policy".

 

The first question that comes to mind is wtf was all that discussion and Scoop survey and nonsense focused on the term "Non-Disassembly Pressing" (NDP)??

 

Someone could've mentioned it at that point, right? If pressing is not restoration. And disassembly is not restoration. Then pressing-while-disassembled can't be restoration either, as long as it's expertly done???

Right? Not restoration + not restoration = not restored.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Is there enough left for CGC to even bother with the resto check?

 

Good grief.

 

Even the detection of Professional color-touch only serves to identify the best candidates for resto-removal.....

[esquirecomics]

I think someone asked about my policy returning CGC labels. I absolutely return all of them to keep the census as accurate as possible, and I strongly urge everyone else to do the same if they ever have labels laying around.

 

I think it is great that you return the labels. It is in everyone's best interests to keep the census accurate.

 

At what point in time do you return the labels? With the book? Or separately?

 

Either. Several factors go into the decision to submit books with or without tags. But regardless CGC gets their tag in the end.

 

Thanks for the prompt response Matt. Will you elaborate on what those factors are?

 

Send me some books to press, and we'll discuss my submission philosophies. You didn't think you were going to get that information for free, did you?

 

Didn't cost anything to ask. I'll let everyone else decide the value of the answer.

[esquirecomics]

Hopefully I have this right, but apparently CGC considers disassembly not to be restoration in part because if its done right it can not be detected.

 

Please please, I beg of all of you who actually agree with this statement to contact me if you have a gorgeous wife!

[Ze-man]

Hopefully I have this right, but apparently CGC considers disassembly not to be restoration in part because if its done right it can not be detected.

 

Please please, I beg of all of you who actually agree with this statement to contact me if you have a gorgeous wife!

 

 

Umm..you wont ask me for photographs will you?

 

Ze-

[THE_BEYONDER]

[esquirecomics]

 

If undetected restoration is not restoration, then it won't be considered cheating on one's spouse if we keep it a secret.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Never really thought about this before, but why does the CGC label make mention of value ?

 

[esquirecomics]

Never really thought about this before, but why does the CGC label make mention of value ?

 

 

Probably for the same reason the OS Guide definition of "restoration" used to do so. Neither should as it is irrelevant to the objective they are trying to achieve.

[Ze-man]

Hopefully I have this right, but apparently CGC considers disassembly not to be restoration in part because if its done right it can not be detected.

 

Please please, I beg of all of you who actually agree with this statement to contact me if you have a gorgeous wife!

 

All things aside,

 

I Nominate this as THE most round about, read between the lines, guess what I am hinting at, off color obscure post............................................ of the decade.

 

Kudos Mark, You outdid yourself.

 

 

 

Ze-

[THE_BEYONDER]

Never really thought about this before, but why does the CGC label make mention of value ?

 

 

Probably for the same reason the OS Guide definition of "restoration" used to do so. Neither should as it is irrelevant to the objective they are trying to achieve.

 

Are you sure about that?

[FFB]

 

What are you trying to do? Get branded as a "tiny brain"?

I have "tiny brain". It can't seem to wrap itself around the concept of "disassembly is not restoration" and..."not a change in policy".

 

The first question that comes to mind is wtf was all that discussion and Scoop survey and nonsense focused on the term "Non-Disassembly Pressing" (NDP)??

 

Someone could've mentioned it at that point, right? If pressing is not restoration. And disassembly is not restoration. Then pressing-while-disassembled can't be restoration either, as long as it's expertly done???

Right? Not restoration + not restoration = not restored.

 

On the disassembly pressing issue, I'm with you all the way. I consider all kinds of pressing to be restoration, but can at least understand that industry standards at this time may not require disclosure of NDP. But disassembly and reassembly with or without pressing is clearly restoration and I doubt that any but a very few in our hobby would view it differently, or hold a sincere belief that disassembly doesn't need to be disclosed. If prior disassembly is detected, the book should be labeled as restored. The reassembly is restoration regardless of whether the book was pressed. CGC should reconsider its stance on this issue because it really rubs the wrong way.

[shadroch]

If I'm reading this correctly,Mr B. is saying that even though they KNEW the books covers had been switched,not once but twice,because the person who did it did such a great job that they didn't consider the book restored?Even though they knew the covers were switched?

Hammer and JE must be smiling at this.

Is the only thing standing between Hammers "Eastern File" books and a blue label a fine-tuning of the staple placements?

[THE_BEYONDER]

 

What are you trying to do? Get branded as a "tiny brain"?

I have "tiny brain". It can't seem to wrap itself around the concept of "disassembly is not restoration" and..."not a change in policy".

 

The first question that comes to mind is wtf was all that discussion and Scoop survey and nonsense focused on the term "Non-Disassembly Pressing" (NDP)??

 

Someone could've mentioned it at that point, right? If pressing is not restoration. And disassembly is not restoration. Then pressing-while-disassembled can't be restoration either, as long as it's expertly done???

Right? Not restoration + not restoration = not restored.

 

On the disassembly pressing issue, I'm with you all the way. I consider all kinds of pressing to be restoration, but can at least understand that industry standards at this time may not require disclosure of NDP. But disassembly and reassembly with or without pressing is clearly restoration and I doubt that any but a very few in our hobby would view it differently, or hold a sincere belief that disassembly doesn't need to be disclosed. If prior disassembly is detected, the book should be labeled as restored. The reassembly is restoration regardless of whether the book was pressed. CGC should reconsider its stance on this issue because it really rubs the wrong way.

 

I agree

[FFB]

If I'm reading this correctly,Mr B. is saying that even though they KNEW the books covers had been switched,not once but twice,because the person who did it did such a great job that they didn't consider the book restored?Even though they knew the covers were switched?

Hammer and JE must be smiling at this.

Is the only thing standing between Hammers "Eastern File" books and a blue label a fine-tuning of the staple placements?

 

I don't think Steve said that they knew it had been switched back. I think he said that they could tell the first time because of the fact that the ink transfer was out the outer cover instead of the inner cover, and once switched back, that visual clue was no longer present.

[nearmint]

 

What are you trying to do? Get branded as a "tiny brain"?

I have "tiny brain". It can't seem to wrap itself around the concept of "disassembly is not restoration" and..."not a change in policy".

 

The first question that comes to mind is wtf was all that discussion and Scoop survey and nonsense focused on the term "Non-Disassembly Pressing" (NDP)??

 

Someone could've mentioned it at that point, right? If pressing is not restoration. And disassembly is not restoration. Then pressing-while-disassembled can't be restoration either, as long as it's expertly done???

Right? Not restoration + not restoration = not restored.

 

On the disassembly pressing issue, I'm with you all the way. I consider all kinds of pressing to be restoration, but can at least understand that industry standards at this time may not require disclosure of NDP. But disassembly and reassembly with or without pressing is clearly restoration and I doubt that any but a very few in our hobby would view it differently, or hold a sincere belief that disassembly doesn't need to be disclosed. If prior disassembly is detected, the book should be labeled as restored. The reassembly is restoration regardless of whether the book was pressed. CGC should reconsider its stance on this issue because it really rubs the wrong way.

 

I agree

 

Hell hath frozen over. Film at 11.