Manufactured Gold

[Wilson-migration]

 

 

 

 

 

[ciorac]

I consider myself about as knowledgeable a collector as anyone when it comes to restoration and I would not pay less for a pressed book if it was a book that I otherwise wanted. Given the rising prices on books, I am sure I'm not alone.

 

My concern with pressing, As I've said in another post- is that you might buy the highest grade copy of a book )and pay a huge premium for bragging rights. You are continuously speculating that other copies won't move up in rank and possibly surplant your copy as the best? The prices for books are based somewhat on scarcity at a given grade. As books become improved, are our books losing relative value and are really declining in price as more copies are available at higher grades?

 

For me your post hits closest to home as to my opinion on the pressing issue. Let me preface my remarks by saying that, by and large:

 

1. I don't collect high grade books

2. I crack every slab I get

3. I don't mind restoration on books I buy (In fact I prefer to buy restored big key golden age books, because I can get the book I want for the price I want)

4. I consider pressing restoration (as well as erasure, color touch, piece replacement and all other accepted forms of the craft). In my opinion anything done to a book that improves its condition is restoration. Calling things preservation or helping a book reach its potential is semantics. Pure and simple.

 

Now that the baseline has been stated, I would like to add to what jkrk stated above. Foolkiller indicated that nothing was really hurt in the hobby by pressing. I disagree, for precisely the reason jkrk states above.

 

By way of example let's say I took out a second mortgage to buy an unpressed 9.4 copy of a big golden age book, that was the highest graded copy. Now if an original owner collection came along and a copy the same book from the collection graded 9.6 and bumped me, well it is just my bad luck and worth the gamble. BUT, if someone had a 9.2 and sent it for pressing and it came back a 9.6, then I have been wronged. So I would be hurt by it. Particularly if the label did not disclose it had been pressed.

 

To me, they should get a PLOD or a Qualified label. But, as it stands the rules state it is not restoration so it gets a blue label. I can't change the rules, so I just have to live by them I guess. I don't have to like it though. So, what do I do about it? Collect lower grades, crack slabs, buy restored books and enjoy collecting comics!

 

I often get books restored, because I want them to be nicer. I recently bought a beat up All-Star #3 and Matt is going to restore it for me. I will love it more when I get it back. Matt has pressed books for me before, because I don't like spine rolls. I don't slab them, so no worries there. I disclose restoration if I happen to sell or trade the book, so no worries there.

 

If CGC is the grading authority and they say pressing is not restoration and Matt presses and slabs for a higher grade, then he is still playing by the rules.

[Ze-man]

 

By way of example let's say #1 I took out a second mortgage to buy an unpressed 9.4 copy of a big golden age book, that was the highest graded copy. #2 Now if an original owner collection came along and a copy the same book from the collection graded 9.6 and bumped me, well it is just my bad luck and worth the gamble. #3 BUT, if someone had a 9.2 and sent it for pressing and it came back a 9.6, then I have been wronged. So I would be hurt by it. Particularly if the label did not disclose it had been pressed.

 

.

 

#1 You dont know the book was not pressed at an earlier date, Nobody does.

 

#2 Nobody knows if the OO collection was pressed before third party grading.

 

#3 I think it is safe to assume if you buy a HG book, RAW, or Slabbed it might very well have been pressed.

 

As sad as it sounds, that is where I see the hobby now.

 

 

Sad , but true.

 

 

Long live low/mid grade raw books............................................(except.....maybe.... key books)

 

Ze-

[divad]

 

By way of example let's say #1 I took out a second mortgage to buy an unpressed 9.4 copy of a big golden age book, that was the highest graded copy. #2 Now if an original owner collection came along and a copy the same book from the collection graded 9.6 and bumped me, well it is just my bad luck and worth the gamble. #3 BUT, if someone had a 9.2 and sent it for pressing and it came back a 9.6, then I have been wronged. So I would be hurt by it. Particularly if the label did not disclose it had been pressed.

 

.

 

#1 You dont know the book was not pressed at an earlier date, Nobody does.

 

#2 Nobody knows if the OO collection was pressed before third party grading.

 

#3 I think it is safe to assume if you buy a HG book, RAW, or Slabbed it might very well have been pressed.

 

Ze,

 

It's Ciorac's hypothetical, you can't mess with it like that. His points are well made. Yours on the other hand don't pertain to books with a known provenance. Yes, they do exist.

[ciorac]

 

By way of example let's say #1 I took out a second mortgage to buy an unpressed 9.4 copy of a big golden age book, that was the highest graded copy. #2 Now if an original owner collection came along and a copy the same book from the collection graded 9.6 and bumped me, well it is just my bad luck and worth the gamble. #3 BUT, if someone had a 9.2 and sent it for pressing and it came back a 9.6, then I have been wronged. So I would be hurt by it. Particularly if the label did not disclose it had been pressed.

 

.

 

#1 You dont know the book was not pressed at an earlier date, Nobody does.

 

#2 Nobody knows if the OO collection was pressed before third party grading.

 

#3 I think it is safe to assume if you buy a HG book, RAW, or Slabbed it might very well have been pressed.

 

As sad as it sounds, that is where I see the hobby now.

 

 

Sad , but true.

 

 

Long live low/mid grade raw books............................................(except.....maybe.... key books)

 

Ze-

 

Then I guess we just assume all books above 9.0 are pressed? If so, then there is no need to debate it, or disclose it. I mean, if they are all pressed, or the assumption is that they are, then why bother?

[Ze-man]

prov o what?

 

 

I dont need no steenking provenance!

 

Ciorac, please understand my last post was meant to be swallowed with at least 2 tons of salt, and three tabs of sarcasm.

 

 

Arch needs to provide us with more graemlins.

 

 

 

 

Ze-

[ciorac]

prov o what?

 

 

I dont need no steenking provenance!

 

Ciorac, please understand my last post was meant to be swallowed with at least 2 tons of salt, and three tabs of sarcasm.

 

 

Arch needs to provide us with more graemlins.

 

 

 

 

Ze-

 

Understood. But you may be closer to right than you know.

[MasterChief]

It has been mentioned that the treatment of books is not just confined to high-end material and that books on the low-end of the grading scale receive their share of exploitation too. I believe that to be the case as well, as I have documented many low-grade copies that have gone through the manipulation process.

 

Taking it one step further, one can safely conclude based on available data that nothing is off-limits when it comes to treatment intent. There are no sacred cows or holy untouchables. Any and all publishers, genres, pedigrees, collections, titles, keys, and rarities have and continue to be fair game.

 

Take for example this next case.

 

Here we have a very desirable Timely Golden Age key. One that is identified as being scarce on the Gerber Scarcity Index and assigned a rating of “7” as only 21 to 50 copies are estimated to exist. Time and again the copy ranks within the top 100 of Overstreet’s most valuable Golden Age books. It is a first appearance origin issue which pre-dates Captain America and Sub-Mariner comics, and is the premier issue forefather to the Human Torch comic book series. Moreover, it is the first time a budding artistic legend would mark his work with his real name. That name being: Jack Kirby.

 

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

 

Red Raven Comics #1

 

Auctioned in the winter of 2002, this well read 62 year-old Timely classic listed as a certified Very Good - (3.5) with a clearly identifiable progressive spine roll and loose upper staple. Lauded within its description for its historical importance and “rarity”, the copy sold to one aggressive bidder for $2415.

 

The Timely auctioned again in the summer of 2004. This time, it listed as a certified Very Good (4.0) with a Universal label that carried a unique grading text notation of “four small pieces of tape on centerfold”. No longer presenting the spine defect which marred its original appearance, and advertised with an emphasis on its “unrestored” and “affordable condition”, the copy realized a price 43% greater than its original take.

 

The manufactured version of Red Raven Comics #1 (0079219008) was graded on April 20, 2004. It currently ranks second to last on the CGC census. The original version is not searchable in the certification database. 

 

To date, 20 copies of Red Raven #1 have been graded and encapsulated by CGC. Of that number, 13 books (65% of the graded population) are restored copies.

 

In my opinion the piece has seen cleaning and pressing treatments. Light dry cleaning to the rear and perhaps front cover, and dissembled pressing to recapture the original bindery spine fold. The elimination of the progressive spine roll – with its distinctive vertical and horizontal page fanning – and the visibly tighter and flatter staples, with an application of tape of at the centerfold to hold it all together, suggests the disassembled technique.

 

Certification/Resale Provenance:

 

 

Resource Links:

 

Red Raven Comics #1 (3.5)

Red Raven Comics #1 (4.0)

 

Images:

 

 

 

[Red Hook]

You're hitting streak continues.

[comicwiz]

Thanks MC

 

BTW: RR #1 is such an awesome book - I've been looking to buy one for some time, but haven't yet made the plunge...

[codfish]

All I can think of is just image the furor if some regular joe tried to pass this off as unrestored .. oh wait isn't that what CGC was to reduce/remove?

 

No doubt there is some fable Steve has to explain this one away:

 

"We made a mistake but they are rare so don't be mad"

 

"Nothing was added or taken away"

 

"sealing tears is not restoration except when it is"

 

Let me tell you one thing in the certification world one breach of your result restrictions is not always a big thing. Trends are what is of concern. A trend away from "normal" is evidence that the process has a inherent flaw. What we have here is a trend away from the standards. Of course they are a few examples in a large sample but that is the problem there is no regulation or checks on CGC's final product. What we have here are a smattering of people digging and analyzing in an non-official capacity and finding countless errors and mystifying grades.

 

IT is much harder too because this Certification body is supposedly not responsible for their product nor are there any publically available standards with which the general collecting community can use to make decisions for themselves. So just how many of these manufactured books and gift grades are getting through? The evidence tells me that quite a few would be enough to set a error percentage trend marker and actually use that to estimate how many of hundreds to thouasands of books have restoration, trimming and flat out gift grades/label errors.

 

This amount to hundreds and thousands of dollars to the collector. Every dollar sucked out of a pocket that are paying for the mistakes not to be there is money out of the collectors hand and likely means he or she cannot spend on another book. whats worse if the seller knows of this condition and says nothing and takes money he/she knows they would not have ortherwise have gotten that is just plain theft. The terrible thing it is sanctioned by so many big dealers and CGC has really done nothing to stop it or accually is more than willing to condone it. They try and explain away the mistakes rather than actually try and find out how it happened and stop it. Yeah sure they tell us that they have done something but these thigns just keep showing up.

 

I ask again if we always make a bifg stink about seller not grading well or detecting resto then why should CGC be allowed to do it ... or for that matter why are they still in business ... or why the hell are they even given any sort of power/influence over this industry ... or ...

 

It is a mystery to me and one that grow more unacceptable ever day.

[Sal]

Trends are what is of concern. A trend away from "normal" is evidence that the process has a inherent flaw. What we have here is a trend away from the standards.

 

no offense, but how do you know? i suspect what you're reacting to is the mass "publication" of information in the form of MC's posts, posts made in a short period of time, but whose subject matter spans an as-yet undetermined amount of time.

 

unless you know how many books CGC graded over the period of time these examples are from, and can pin these examples on a timeline, and then demonstrate a rising curve, you really can't say these are any more than anamolies. i mean, these examples MC's giving could have been graded any time in the last however many months. it's not as if they were all happening together.

 

unless MC's got a timeline worked out for us to look at, a timeline i haven't seen yet.

 

 

we can hold CGC accountable for mistakes, but i think claiming a trend is premature at this point in the evidentiary* process.

 

 

* - it's possible i just made this word up, but humour me, please

[codfish]

The point, respectfully, is that no one knows for certain because there is nothing built into the process for ANYONE to regulate it. We have in this thread one person who has no offical capacity whatsoever pouring over "data" pointing out there are books getting through this company that should never have got to market with the tags they did. In the end it means nothing because there is no official means of truly effecting change because people are more than willing to let CGC explain it away.

 

How many examples do we need to effect changes in the process to protect collectors? While many are happy to get angry and rant about raw sellers and their atrocious grading CGC get a relatively free ride because their process allows them to and not many folks are even willing to try and effect changes that are for the better of CGC and the community.

 

There are even folks that say regulation means the loss of protecting trade secrets or security. If certification really worked that way then there would be no ISO or other official certifaction bodies out there. I don't know of many drug companies, at least in Canada, medical facilities and manufacturers that are (ISO) certified that have blamed that certifaction for the loss of trade secrets. That is not what regulation is about it is about protect all aspects of a business and creating an environment that ensures not only the exclusion of greed but betters the success of scientific discovery.

 

People think I rant about CGC because I don't like it or I am some sort of elitist but that just isn't true. I want CGC and any other company that wants to try and protect the industry in some way to succeed without question. If CGC was set up better few people would be able to complain and they would probably make a hell of alot more cashin the process. I know I would use them if I could believe they were following a model free of error and prejudice.

 

CGC should not be a mystery if it is supposed to be a benefit to the community. To many unanswered question and secrecy breeds contempt and mistrust.

 

I feel that with some changes and a bit more money spent CGC could be an even better business and one that is even more accessible to more collectors.

 

:shrugs:

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

Codfish, from one disenchanted collector to another, let me offer this piece of advice:

 

If you truly want to dole out blame equally, don't forget yourself. Part of your anger, it seems, stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what CGC is supposed to be and what it is supposed to stand for. I know a shift in my own perception of what I expected CGC "to be" has helped accept the reality of the situation better.

 

CGC is a business. It's motivations run parallel with the greater collecting community as long as that course is profitable. Its ultimate obligation is to the people that pay the bills (the collectors, dealers, flippers, etc), not the collecting community at large.

 

From what I've gathered about CGC, it hasn't proven to be a very profitable endeavor. It has reinvested a great deal of its profits into growth (facilities, equipment, and manpower) to handle the surge in submissions, but the truth is, the number of submittors and submittable books is finite.

 

The "resub game" we see being played in this thread is a vital part of their income stream. If they hadn't subtly (yet intentionally) fostered an environment where such activity could take place, they would have closed their doors by now.

 

That's my belief.

 

So, we, the collecting community has to ask itself, is the good that CGC does outweighed by the occasional disservice we feel is enacted upon the hobby everytime a new crack/press/disassemble/resub books is identified?

 

Because the resub game isn't coming to an end anytime soon....

[Bullet123]

The point, respectfully, is that no one knows for certain because there is nothing built into the process for ANYONE to regulate it. We have in this thread one person who has no offical capacity whatsoever pouring over "data" pointing out there are books getting through this company that should never have got to market with the tags they did. In the end it means nothing because there is no official means of truly effecting change because people are more than willing to let CGC explain it away.

 

How many examples do we need to effect changes in the process to protect collectors? While many are happy to get angry and rant about raw sellers and their atrocious grading CGC get a relatively free ride because their process allows them to and not many folks are even willing to try and effect changes that are for the better of CGC and the community.

 

There are even folks that say regulation means the loss of protecting trade secrets or security. If certification really worked that way then there would be no ISO or other official certifaction bodies out there. I don't know of many drug companies, at least in Canada, medical facilities and manufacturers that are (ISO) certified that have blamed that certifaction for the loss of trade secrets. That is not what regulation is about it is about protect all aspects of a business and creating an environment that ensures not only the exclusion of greed but betters the success of scientific discovery.

 

People think I rant about CGC because I don't like it or I am some sort of elitist but that just isn't true. I want CGC and any other company that wants to try and protect the industry in some way to succeed without question. If CGC was set up better few people would be able to complain and they would probably make a hell of alot more cashin the process. I know I would use them if I could believe they were following a model free of error and prejudice.

 

CGC should not be a mystery if it is supposed to be a benefit to the community. To many unanswered question and secrecy breeds contempt and mistrust.

 

I feel that with some changes and a bit more money spent CGC could be an even better business and one that is even more accessible to more collectors.

 

:shrugs:

 

This is coming from someone who anonomously posts. If you want true transparency, then start by putting your info in your profile

[Red Hook]

Let me ask you this question....

 

If you want to view CGC merely as a business, then why in heavens name would you allow it to place itself in a position of authority regarding grading standards, the definition of restoration and the designation of pedigrees?

 

It would seem to me that to allow a profit driven enterprise (nothing wrong with that, mind you) to take the initiative in the areas mentioned above, (which are sensitve areas that go beyond mere grading, but enter into aestheics and the history of the hobby) is ludicrous and a bit dangerous.

 

CGC (the company) seems to want to be much more than an independent third party grading company. It wants decision making power within the hobby too. Grading standards, the definition of restoration and the recognition of new pedigrees should be left to separate entities...whether that be Overstreet or some kind of general consensus of dealers and collectors. I see a conflict of interest here.

 

CGC wants the authority to make declarations in the areas above, but it rejects the responsiblity of safeguarding the hobby, ie being a body that polices. I say you can't have it both ways.

 

Red

[adams]

CGC IS in business to make money...not to hold the hands of needy collectors.

Collectors should educate themselves...period.

It is your own damn fault if you do not choose to LEARN to grade.

Do not leave the decision in other's hands.

 

The Overstreet Price Guide is in the business of making money.

Do you think anyone would purchase this tome if prices actually

went down on many issues?

No one wants to think

that their investment has lost money!

Heaven Forbid !!

Overstreet tells the public what they WISH to hear.

Bob Overstreet abdicated any responsibility to "protect" the

collecting community when he sold out to Geppi.

 

No one has "allowed" CGC to crown themselves arbitrator of

pedigrees or grading.

They did it in conjunction and with the approval of Gemstone, Geppi. Overstreet, Snyder et.al.

so that the monied few could profit even moreso.

No secret here!

 

The same way that Snyder, Hamilton, Carter, Geppi & Overstreet decided to modify

the grading scale at the last Overstreet confab years ago..

Hmmm...the same time CGC presented their plan

to the Overstreet Advisors...odd, ?

[Red Hook]

 

This is coming from someone who anonomously posts. If you want true transparency, then start by putting your info in your profile

 

Cod is a well known poster on this and other chatboards. His anonymity or lack of it have nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

[Davenport]

 

CGC (the company) seems to want to be much more than an independent third party grading company. It wants decision making power within the hobby too. Grading standards, the definition of restoration and the recognition of new pedigrees should be left to separate entities...whether that be Overstreet or some kind of general consensus of dealers and collectors. I see a conflict of interest here.

 

CGC wants the authority to make declarations in the areas above, but it rejects the responsiblity of safeguarding the hobby, ie being a body that polices. I say you can't have it both ways.

 

Red

This may be neither here nor there, but you see a lot of "independent third party certification" language surrounding agricultural goods and "organic" type foods. Language like "Independent third party certification based upon criteria approved by...". usually some not-for-profit oversite entity or standards commitee.

 

With comic prograding the one's doing the certification also create the criteria. There's no overseer to inspect claims of independence, check faclities, claims of expertise, or the criteria being applied. It's all self-contained within individual for-profit companies.

 

example... Organic Certification Advisory Committee

"The committee shall be made up of 12 members, of which four are organic producers, one is a processor of organic food or fiber, one is a retailer of organic food or fiber, one is a distributor of organic food or fiber, two are technical advisors, agronomists, or horticulturists; and three are representatives of consumers."

 

How would that body translate to overseeing approved comic grading criteria? Say... 4 publishers, 1 printer, 1 retailer, 1 distributor, 2 technical advisors ( lisensed preservationists/ museum conservationists), 3 consumer reps (collectors/investors).

[codfish]

The point, respectfully, is that no one knows for certain because there is nothing built into the process for ANYONE to regulate it. We have in this thread one person who has no offical capacity whatsoever pouring over "data" pointing out there are books getting through this company that should never have got to market with the tags they did. In the end it means nothing because there is no official means of truly effecting change because people are more than willing to let CGC explain it away.

 

How many examples do we need to effect changes in the process to protect collectors? While many are happy to get angry and rant about raw sellers and their atrocious grading CGC get a relatively free ride because their process allows them to and not many folks are even willing to try and effect changes that are for the better of CGC and the community.

 

There are even folks that say regulation means the loss of protecting trade secrets or security. If certification really worked that way then there would be no ISO or other official certifaction bodies out there. I don't know of many drug companies, at least in Canada, medical facilities and manufacturers that are (ISO) certified that have blamed that certifaction for the loss of trade secrets. That is not what regulation is about it is about protect all aspects of a business and creating an environment that ensures not only the exclusion of greed but betters the success of scientific discovery.

 

People think I rant about CGC because I don't like it or I am some sort of elitist but that just isn't true. I want CGC and any other company that wants to try and protect the industry in some way to succeed without question. If CGC was set up better few people would be able to complain and they would probably make a hell of alot more cashin the process. I know I would use them if I could believe they were following a model free of error and prejudice.

 

CGC should not be a mystery if it is supposed to be a benefit to the community. To many unanswered question and secrecy breeds contempt and mistrust.

 

I feel that with some changes and a bit more money spent CGC could be an even better business and one that is even more accessible to more collectors.

 

:shrugs:

 

This is coming from someone who anonomously posts. If you want true transparency, then start by putting your info in your profile

 

Yeah thats weak flamebait but I will do even better. I will state my name here for you.

 

My name is Aaron Stechesen. I am 37 I am a lab tech for the City of Portage la Prairie in Manitoba, Canada. I have a BA general in Anthropology and Psychology and graduated with Honours from Red River College's Chemical and Bioscience Technology. Part of that FULL TWO YEAR Course was three months of studying Certification systems (AKA Quality Control). Later next month I will be earning a certificate in ISO 17025 (If I remember the number correctly) Standards, standards which govern my area of occupation.

 

I have been collecting for 27 years, I have worked or owned comics stores for seven years of that time.

 

I am a member of the STLComics forum, DC Comics forum and Comics Corral as oxbladder.

 

At one point I was working on the PGX website and supported their business until it became clear to me that they were more useless than cancer.

 

I doubt that all this can fit in my profile and I have never tried to hide my name and indeed many here and on other forums know it. I may have even stated in other threads.

 

Now that you know my name and what I do and some of my history does that really make any difference to my points? Knowing someone's name doesn't mean much on forums .. imo. If it is a big deal to you though I will add it to my profile.