Question about Glue..

[BucOne-migration]

 

Hello,

 

I'm pretty sure a small amount of glue on a GA cover isn't restoration. Can

anyone verify if this is true or false?

 

 

thanks

[divad]

It's a common notation on many CGC Blue label GA books. I don't understand the "why for" that GA books are sometimes exempt from this but . . .

 

Anyone know CGC's rationale?

[FFB]

It's a common notation on many CGC Blue label GA books. I don't understand the "why for" that GA books are sometimes exempt from this but . . .

 

Anyone know CGC's rationale?

 

It's because of the Edgar Church books that had a tiny amount of glue or color touch added at the corners back when restoration wasn't a dirty word. The thinking was that even after restoration acquired its present stigma, the market still never really viewed those books as restored books because they were essentially newsstand fresh before the tiny amount of glue and/or CT was applied, and the glue and/or CT did not really affect the apparent grade. Rather than limit the rationale to Edgar Church pedigree books only, CGC decided to limit it to all golden age books from 1950 or before.

 

In my opinion, the fact that CGC viewed the purple label as a stigma for these books should have been a huge red flag preventing them from using the purple label in the first place. Disclosure is what matters, not adding a scarlet letter/label of death to make sure people know "Not only is this book RESTORED, but it's DEFECTIVE."

[Ze-man]

It's a common notation on many CGC Blue label GA books. I don't understand the "why for" that GA books are sometimes exempt from this but . . .

 

Anyone know CGC's rationale?

 

It's because of the Edgar Church books that had a tiny amount of glue or color touch added at the corners back when restoration wasn't a dirty word. The thinking was that even after restoration acquired its present stigma, the market still never really viewed those books as restored books because they were essentially newsstand fresh before the tiny amount of glue and/or CT was applied, and the glue and/or CT did not really affect the apparent grade. Rather than limit the rationale to Edgar Church pedigree books only, CGC decided to limit it to all golden age books from 1950 or before.

 

In my opinion, the fact that CGC viewed the purple label as a stigma for these books should have been a huge red flag preventing them from using the purple label in the first place. Disclosure is what matters, not adding a scarlet letter/label of death to make sure people know "Not only is this book RESTORED, but it's DEFECTIVE."

 

Even though convenient the first part of your post is spot on, but would argue that CGC was also trying to deter people from taking a pen to SA books in hopes of a blue label even though it is similar in nature.

 

Regardless, we as buyers attached a stigma to the different label color.

[FFB]

It's a common notation on many CGC Blue label GA books. I don't understand the "why for" that GA books are sometimes exempt from this but . . .

 

Anyone know CGC's rationale?

 

It's because of the Edgar Church books that had a tiny amount of glue or color touch added at the corners back when restoration wasn't a dirty word. The thinking was that even after restoration acquired its present stigma, the market still never really viewed those books as restored books because they were essentially newsstand fresh before the tiny amount of glue and/or CT was applied, and the glue and/or CT did not really affect the apparent grade. Rather than limit the rationale to Edgar Church pedigree books only, CGC decided to limit it to all golden age books from 1950 or before.

 

In my opinion, the fact that CGC viewed the purple label as a stigma for these books should have been a huge red flag preventing them from using the purple label in the first place. Disclosure is what matters, not adding a scarlet letter/label of death to make sure people know "Not only is this book RESTORED, but it's DEFECTIVE."

 

Even though convenient the first part of your post is spot on, but would argue that CGC was also trying to deter people from taking a pen to SA books in hopes of a blue label even though it is similar in nature.

 

That may be, but Steve has never mentioned that as an aspect of CGC's thinking on the occasions when he has explained why the blue label is allowed for pre-1950 books with very minor glue or CT.

[Ze-man]

It's a common notation on many CGC Blue label GA books. I don't understand the "why for" that GA books are sometimes exempt from this but . . .

 

Anyone know CGC's rationale?

 

It's because of the Edgar Church books that had a tiny amount of glue or color touch added at the corners back when restoration wasn't a dirty word. The thinking was that even after restoration acquired its present stigma, the market still never really viewed those books as restored books because they were essentially newsstand fresh before the tiny amount of glue and/or CT was applied, and the glue and/or CT did not really affect the apparent grade. Rather than limit the rationale to Edgar Church pedigree books only, CGC decided to limit it to all golden age books from 1950 or before.

 

In my opinion, the fact that CGC viewed the purple label as a stigma for these books should have been a huge red flag preventing them from using the purple label in the first place. Disclosure is what matters, not adding a scarlet letter/label of death to make sure people know "Not only is this book RESTORED, but it's DEFECTIVE."

 

Even though convenient the first part of your post is spot on, but would argue that CGC was also trying to deter people from taking a pen to SA books in hopes of a blue label even though it is similar in nature.

 

That may be, but Steve has never mentioned that as an aspect of CGC's thinking on the occasions when he has explained why the blue label is allowed for pre-1950 books with very minor glue or CT.

 

Of course he never mentioned it, it was implied.

 

I think.

 

Who are you?... where am I?

 

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

It's a common notation on many CGC Blue label GA books. I don't understand the "why for" that GA books are sometimes exempt from this but . . .

 

Anyone know CGC's rationale?

 

If the glue or CT does NOT affect the CGC grade on a GA book it is simply notated and the book is put into a blue label. The grade is affected by one grading point (ie, 8.5 is dropped to 8.0) as the glue or CT is considered a defect. If it does improve the grade the book is then put into a purple holder and graded as a restored book.

[kelholt]

So two questions about glue on a GA Book.....

 

1. What was glue used for on a book? A production flaw or an added item to improve the appearance of a book? There is probably an obvious answer to this but I am not seeing it.

 

2. What does that do to the VALUE of a ga book

if you see glue printed on a blue CGC 8.0 (for example)? 90% of os? Depends on looks? Doesn't factor into decision ?

 

[TFL-migration]

Glue could of been used to seal up a small tear on the spine. Reinforce a portion of the spine. Something along these lines usually. The amount of glue will also play a part on it's designation. Either a blue or purple label. Very small amounts of glue will usually get the Blue label w/notation "very small amount of glue". If the book is put into the PLOD Slab. The price will take a deadly plunge usually. Unless the book is a mega key, rare, etc. But the PLOD will hurt a book at least 30% minimum usually.

 

Most GA collectors will accept a bit of glue on a book. The price wouldn't be affected very much, if at all. It will all depend on the book, and it's aforementioned scarcity, grade, etc.

Collectors have different tastes. A small amount of CT may be seen as OK. Where glue is a no no and vice versa, etc. It is up to the collector as to what or what isn't acceptable to them.