Susan Cicconi

[Ze-man]

You're obnormal.

 

 

[Dick Pontoon]

[VintageComics]

 

I eagerly look forward to Roy's rationale why people will still try it.

 

Money?

Not wanting to make an honest living?

Greed?

No backbone?

edited to say: Lots of time to kill

 

 

Those are all logical reasons why someone would want to do it, but you're ignoring Kenny's point: it is simply not possible to run a comic cover through an inkjet and 1) have the result be undetectable and 2) not trash the cover in the process.

 

Forgive me, but I must do this:

 

 

I wasn't meaning to ignore the ink jet printer part of the equation, but there are other ways to print something other than running them through your average $99 printer.

 

I'm thinking that if someone is going to try and make a substantial amount of money, and do it for a substantial period of time, they will invest a substantial amount of money into some type of equipment....still, if you want to stay on track and focus on the inkjet printer, how many pieces of paper actually get ruined when you are printing something out of a 1000?

 

I think our printers are laser printers at work so I'm not too sure if they have the same ratio of damaged pages to undamaged ones...but I'd be betting that the amount of damage done is negligible.

 

Also I would think you could find or simply write software out there that would slow a printer down so that the process could be more controlled.

 

Really gang, if they can print money as counterfeit and pass through many checks and balances where national security is involved I don't see why comics would be so difficult to do if someone set their mind to it.

 

We're not talking about deception on a molecular level...we're only talking about someone doing it good enough to pass *most* people's awareness of it.

 

R.

 

[VintageComics]

 

I was talking about the type of color touch that makes a 9.2/9.4 into a 9.8.

 

 

Not to beat this horse further, but all in good fun.

 

 

How many 9.2/9.4 books are there with enough ink loss without matching physical flaws to warrant CT'ing in this manner in hopes of a 9.8?

 

 

This is a completely different discussion that takes into account grading but the main point is still the same, if the improvement causes a significant reward someone will find a way whether the grade bump is from an 8.5 to a 9.0, 9.2 to a 9.8 or whatever in between.

 

 

[buttock]

 

I was talking about the type of color touch that makes a 9.2/9.4 into a 9.8.

 

 

Not to beat this horse further, but all in good fun.

 

 

How many 9.2/9.4 books are there with enough ink loss without matching physical flaws to warrant CT'ing in this manner in hopes of a 9.8?

 

 

Thousands. Think of all the 9.2s that are just a spine tick or two from a 9.6 or 9.8. If you can come up with a way to cover those blemishes, E-wart would look like a child.

 

10 years ago you would have said, "how many 9.0 books are out there with NCB wear that are worth pressing in hopes of a 9.4 or 9.6?"

 

And I don't think anyone is thinking about buying a standard desktop printer to do this.

 

If it's not already possible, it will be soon. It just takes one a-hole to try it, just like E-wart.

[FFB]

 

I was talking about the type of color touch that makes a 9.2/9.4 into a 9.8.

 

 

Not to beat this horse further, but all in good fun.

 

 

How many 9.2/9.4 books are there with enough ink loss without matching physical flaws to warrant CT'ing in this manner in hopes of a 9.8?

 

 

Thousands. Think of all the 9.2s that are just a spine tick or two from a 9.6 or 9.8. If you can come up with a way to cover those blemishes, E-wart would look like a child.

 

10 years ago you would have said, "how many 9.0 books are out there with NCB wear that are worth pressing in hopes of a 9.4 or 9.6?"

 

And I don't think anyone is thinking about buying a standard desktop printer to do this.

 

If it's not already possible, it will be soon. It just takes one a-hole to try it, just like E-wart.

 

It would be far more effective to apply CT to a spine tick by hand than to do it through an inkjet printer. You could even use printer's ink to do the color touch, and if matched perfectly, it could be extremely difficult to detect - except for the fact that the paper itself will still have a crease mark where the ink loss used to be. Color touch won't remove that.

 

The point of using an inkjet printer is to recreate large areas of missing color and artwork in an accurate way, rather than inpainting by hand. For small areas, it would be very easy to apply CT by hand in a way that would be far less risky (in terms of damaging the cover and not requiring disassembly) than the technique we're discussing. When applied to large areas of loss, this technique will always be detectable. There may be some collectors who would be fooled by it, but those are the same collectors who would be fooled by a comic book that is slathered by hand with acrylic. In my mind, that isn't a reason not to try it.

 

I also think that you guys are giving short shrift to the risks of disassembly. It is nowhere near as easy as you guys seem to think. It may be the case that an expert could disassemble a book and reassemble it in a manner so as to avoid detection 50% of the time, but that's a big risk to take on a book just to use a technique that presents no advantages for small areas of loss when compared to CT by hand without disassembly.

 

The inkjet printer could be a good way of improving the quality of inpainting large areas, but it will never be an effective technique for hiding spine ticks or tiny color flecks.

[MCMiles]

You're obnormal.

 

 

That's what all the ladies tell me.

[VintageComics]

 

I was talking about the type of color touch that makes a 9.2/9.4 into a 9.8.

 

 

Not to beat this horse further, but all in good fun.

 

 

How many 9.2/9.4 books are there with enough ink loss without matching physical flaws to warrant CT'ing in this manner in hopes of a 9.8?

 

 

Thousands. Think of all the 9.2s that are just a spine tick or two from a 9.6 or 9.8. If you can come up with a way to cover those blemishes, E-wart would look like a child.

 

10 years ago you would have said, "how many 9.0 books are out there with NCB wear that are worth pressing in hopes of a 9.4 or 9.6?"

 

And I don't think anyone is thinking about buying a standard desktop printer to do this.

 

If it's not already possible, it will be soon. It just takes one a-hole to try it, just like E-wart.

 

It would be far more effective to apply CT to a spine tick by hand than to do it through an inkjet printer. You could even use printer's ink to do the color touch, and if matched perfectly, it could be extremely difficult to detect - except for the fact that the paper itself will still have a crease mark where the ink loss used to be. Color touch won't remove that.

 

The point of using an inkjet printer is to recreate large areas of missing color and artwork in an accurate way, rather than inpainting by hand. For small areas, it would be very easy to apply CT by hand in a way that would be far less risky (in terms of damaging the cover and not requiring disassembly) than the technique we're discussing. When applied to large areas of loss, this technique will always be detectable. There may be some collectors who would be fooled by it, but those are the same collectors who would be fooled by a comic book that is slathered by hand with acrylic. In my mind, that isn't a reason not to try it.

 

I also think that you guys are giving short shrift to the risks of disassembly. It is nowhere near as easy as you guys seem to think. It may be the case that an expert could disassemble a book and reassemble it in a manner so as to avoid detection 50% of the time, but that's a big risk to take on a book just to use a technique that presents no advantages for small areas of loss when compared to CT by hand without disassembly.

 

The inkjet printer could be a good way of improving the quality of inpainting large areas, but it will never be an effective technique for hiding spine ticks or tiny color flecks.

 

I think that the amount of precision that could be programmed into software and a machine could far outperform the human hand an eye. You would have the ability to calculate to a miniscule degree the amount, size, speed etc. It really eliminates the human error side of the equation.

 

It all comes down to how much time and effort someone wants to spend to try it.

 

If people will try masking resto on books to make a few $100 or a few $1000 (and they already do) I have no doubt people are going to try it to make a few $10,000.

 

The method is irrelevant when it comes to obstacles and the criminal mind. All that matters is rate of return. If the reward is large enough the method will be invented.

 

When it comes to making money in a fraudulent manner, for some people there are no real obstacles. Since you as a lawyer deal with people like this every day you should know that.

 

 

R.

 

 

 

[buttock]

 

I was talking about the type of color touch that makes a 9.2/9.4 into a 9.8.

 

 

Not to beat this horse further, but all in good fun.

 

 

How many 9.2/9.4 books are there with enough ink loss without matching physical flaws to warrant CT'ing in this manner in hopes of a 9.8?

 

 

Thousands. Think of all the 9.2s that are just a spine tick or two from a 9.6 or 9.8. If you can come up with a way to cover those blemishes, E-wart would look like a child.

 

10 years ago you would have said, "how many 9.0 books are out there with NCB wear that are worth pressing in hopes of a 9.4 or 9.6?"

 

And I don't think anyone is thinking about buying a standard desktop printer to do this.

 

If it's not already possible, it will be soon. It just takes one a-hole to try it, just like E-wart.

 

It would be far more effective to apply CT to a spine tick by hand than to do it through an inkjet printer. You could even use printer's ink to do the color touch, and if matched perfectly, it could be extremely difficult to detect - except for the fact that the paper itself will still have a crease mark where the ink loss used to be. Color touch won't remove that.

 

The point of using an inkjet printer is to recreate large areas of missing color and artwork in an accurate way, rather than inpainting by hand. For small areas, it would be very easy to apply CT by hand in a way that would be far less risky (in terms of damaging the cover and not requiring disassembly) than the technique we're discussing. When applied to large areas of loss, this technique will always be detectable. There may be some collectors who would be fooled by it, but those are the same collectors who would be fooled by a comic book that is slathered by hand with acrylic. In my mind, that isn't a reason not to try it.

 

I also think that you guys are giving short shrift to the risks of disassembly. It is nowhere near as easy as you guys seem to think. It may be the case that an expert could disassemble a book and reassemble it in a manner so as to avoid detection 50% of the time, but that's a big risk to take on a book just to use a technique that presents no advantages for small areas of loss when compared to CT by hand without disassembly.

 

The inkjet printer could be a good way of improving the quality of inpainting large areas, but it will never be an effective technique for hiding spine ticks or tiny color flecks.

 

Yeah, I think two different topics are getting merged/confused.

[joeypost]

You're obnormal.

 

 

That's what all the ladies tell me.

 

That would be abby-normal.

[FFB]

 

I was talking about the type of color touch that makes a 9.2/9.4 into a 9.8.

 

 

Not to beat this horse further, but all in good fun.

 

 

How many 9.2/9.4 books are there with enough ink loss without matching physical flaws to warrant CT'ing in this manner in hopes of a 9.8?

 

 

Thousands. Think of all the 9.2s that are just a spine tick or two from a 9.6 or 9.8. If you can come up with a way to cover those blemishes, E-wart would look like a child.

 

10 years ago you would have said, "how many 9.0 books are out there with NCB wear that are worth pressing in hopes of a 9.4 or 9.6?"

 

And I don't think anyone is thinking about buying a standard desktop printer to do this.

 

If it's not already possible, it will be soon. It just takes one a-hole to try it, just like E-wart.

 

It would be far more effective to apply CT to a spine tick by hand than to do it through an inkjet printer. You could even use printer's ink to do the color touch, and if matched perfectly, it could be extremely difficult to detect - except for the fact that the paper itself will still have a crease mark where the ink loss used to be. Color touch won't remove that.

 

The point of using an inkjet printer is to recreate large areas of missing color and artwork in an accurate way, rather than inpainting by hand. For small areas, it would be very easy to apply CT by hand in a way that would be far less risky (in terms of damaging the cover and not requiring disassembly) than the technique we're discussing. When applied to large areas of loss, this technique will always be detectable. There may be some collectors who would be fooled by it, but those are the same collectors who would be fooled by a comic book that is slathered by hand with acrylic. In my mind, that isn't a reason not to try it.

 

I also think that you guys are giving short shrift to the risks of disassembly. It is nowhere near as easy as you guys seem to think. It may be the case that an expert could disassemble a book and reassemble it in a manner so as to avoid detection 50% of the time, but that's a big risk to take on a book just to use a technique that presents no advantages for small areas of loss when compared to CT by hand without disassembly.

 

The inkjet printer could be a good way of improving the quality of inpainting large areas, but it will never be an effective technique for hiding spine ticks or tiny color flecks.

 

I think that the amount of precision that could be programmed into software and a machine could far outperform the human hand an eye. You would have the ability to calculate to a miniscule degree the amount, size, speed etc. It really eliminates the human error side of the equation.

 

It all comes down to how much time and effort someone wants to spend to try it.

 

If people will try masking resto on books to make a few $100 or a few $1000 (and they already do) I have no doubt people are going to try it to make a few $10,000.

 

The method is irrelevant when it comes to obstacles and the criminal mind. All that matters is rate of return. If the reward is large enough the method will be invented.

 

When it comes to making money in a fraudulent manner, for some people there are no real obstacles. Since you as a lawyer deal with people like this every day you should know that.

 

 

R.

 

 

 

OK Roy, you've convinced me. The criminal mind will drive people to disassemble high grade books to run them through some futuristic printer through which some futuristic software program will slow down the printing process and line up the inkjet ink perfectly with only the tiny areas of loss (probably through the use of a futuristic scanner). And they'll do that instead of applying printer's ink by hand, which is far easier, far less likely to result in damage, and because it is printer's ink, far less likely to be visible upon inspection than inkjet ink. Darn those criminal minds!

[Ze-man]

 

I think that the amount of precision that could be programmed into software and a machine could far outperform the human hand an eye

 

 

And I think you under estimate how crucial the human element is. Yes you can program in every last minute detail into a plotter, but the plotter does not have a discerning eye or free thinking when it comes to trying to blend CT to the original inked edge, applying more ink to an area that is more gouged or less if necessary, adjusting colors along the way once they dry etc.. etc..

 

I have no idea why you are taking this to such great lengths Roy, yes I suppose anything is possible. It just isn't that probable given the fragile nature of comic books.

 

If somebody perfects a process where they can slip 1,000 CT'ed books past CGC, or anyone who knows what they are looking at I will eat my shoe, with a Clamato chaser.

[buttock]

 

I think that the amount of precision that could be programmed into software and a machine could far outperform the human hand an eye

 

 

And I think you under estimate how crucial the human element is. Yes you can program in every last minute detail into a plotter, but the plotter does not have a discerning eye or free thinking when it comes to trying to blend CT to the original inked edge, applying more ink to an area that is more gouged or less if necessary, adjusting colors along the way once they dry etc.. etc..

 

I have no idea why you are taking this to such great lengths Roy, yes I suppose anything is possible. It just isn't that probable given the fragile nature of comic books.

 

If somebody perfects a process where they can slip 1,000 CT'ed books past CGC, or anyone who knows what they are looking at I will eat my shoe, with a Clamato chaser.

 

Ugh. Clamato.

[divad]

I will eat my shoe, with a Clamato chaser.

 

You gotta believe in a guy that will go to such great lengths to make a point . . .

[VintageComics]

 

OK Roy, you've convinced me. The criminal mind will drive people to disassemble high grade books to run them through some futuristic printer through which some futuristic software program will slow down the printing process and line up the inkjet ink perfectly with only the tiny areas of loss (probably through the use of a futuristic scanner). And they'll do that instead of applying printer's ink by hand, which is far easier, far less likely to result in damage, and because it is printer's ink, far less likely to be visible upon inspection than inkjet ink. Darn those criminal minds!

 

 

You sure get wound up when someone disagrees with you.

 

 

[VintageComics]

 

I think that the amount of precision that could be programmed into software and a machine could far outperform the human hand an eye

 

 

And I think you under estimate how crucial the human element is. Yes you can program in every last minute detail into a plotter, but the plotter does not have a discerning eye or free thinking when it comes to trying to blend CT to the original inked edge, applying more ink to an area that is more gouged or less if necessary, adjusting colors along the way once they dry etc.. etc..

 

I have no idea why you are taking this to such great lengths Roy, yes I suppose anything is possible. It just isn't that probable given the fragile nature of comic books.

 

If somebody perfects a process where they can slip 1,000 CT'ed books past CGC, or anyone who knows what they are looking at I will eat my shoe, with a Clamato chaser.

 

Ze, I don't think I underestimate the human element. I defended the human element just a while back in another thread. I just think that the amount technology and information available to even the average person now is more than an entire military could have at their disposal a short time ago and so the possibilities are endless.

 

Yes I might be a dreamer and yes it might be outside of the realm of conventional means but I do see it as possibility.

 

Really I don't care, I was simply trying to get you to use the C word again.

 

WIN.

 

[FFB]

 

OK Roy, you've convinced me. The criminal mind will drive people to disassemble high grade books to run them through some futuristic printer through which some futuristic software program will slow down the printing process and line up the inkjet ink perfectly with only the tiny areas of loss (probably through the use of a futuristic scanner). And they'll do that instead of applying printer's ink by hand, which is far easier, far less likely to result in damage, and because it is printer's ink, far less likely to be visible upon inspection than inkjet ink. Darn those criminal minds!

 

 

You sure get wound up when someone disagrees with you.

 

 

I'm not wound up. I just find it funny that you're so sure someone will find a way to use an inkjet printer to do hidden, undetectable color touch and that no discussion of reality seems to have any effect on your beliefs.

[VintageComics]

 

OK Roy, you've convinced me. The criminal mind will drive people to disassemble high grade books to run them through some futuristic printer through which some futuristic software program will slow down the printing process and line up the inkjet ink perfectly with only the tiny areas of loss (probably through the use of a futuristic scanner). And they'll do that instead of applying printer's ink by hand, which is far easier, far less likely to result in damage, and because it is printer's ink, far less likely to be visible upon inspection than inkjet ink. Darn those criminal minds!

 

 

You sure get wound up when someone disagrees with you.

 

 

I'm not wound up. I just find it funny that you're so sure someone will find a way to use an inkjet printer to do hidden, undetectable color touch and that no discussion of reality seems to have any effect on your beliefs.

 

Don't you think that counterfeit paintings, money and even comic books nowadays simply shows that there is no limit to what is possible?

 

 

[rockman2008]

 

I think that the amount of precision that could be programmed into software and a machine could far outperform the human hand an eye

 

 

And I think you under estimate how crucial the human element is. Yes you can program in every last minute detail into a plotter, but the plotter does not have a discerning eye or free thinking when it comes to trying to blend CT to the original inked edge, applying more ink to an area that is more gouged or less if necessary, adjusting colors along the way once they dry etc.. etc..

 

Normally you don't calibrate printing on your target specimen. That's why there's such a thing called proofs.

 

I have no idea why you are taking this to such great lengths Roy, yes I suppose anything is possible. It just isn't that probable given the fragile nature of comic books.

 

If somebody perfects a process where they can slip 1,000 CT'ed books past CGC, or anyone who knows what they are looking at I will eat my shoe, with a Clamato chaser.

 

Because a process may be tricky or complex, doesn't mean you should dismiss it. I'll stick my neck out and claim printers should have a place in restoration. Maybe not for everyday CT use but on the other hand, printers are good at reproducing fonts and logos with great fidelity, especially micro-fonts. It is an "indulgent" process that is expensive in terms of man-hours. But if someone has money to throw into reproducing that missing piece in a poster, dust jacket, or comic book cover, then why not?

 

And if someone knows of any way to reproduce BY HAND the micro-point font of a Johnson-Smith ad (seen in key GA books), then I will eat my shoe with a Clamato chaser.

[Ze-man]

 

I think that the amount of precision that could be programmed into software and a machine could far outperform the human hand an eye

 

 

And I think you under estimate how crucial the human element is. Yes you can program in every last minute detail into a plotter, but the plotter does not have a discerning eye or free thinking when it comes to trying to blend CT to the original inked edge, applying more ink to an area that is more gouged or less if necessary, adjusting colors along the way once they dry etc.. etc..

 

Normally you don't calibrate printing on your target specimen. That's why there's such a thing called proofs.

 

I have no idea why you are taking this to such great lengths Roy, yes I suppose anything is possible. It just isn't that probable given the fragile nature of comic books.

 

If somebody perfects a process where they can slip 1,000 CT'ed books past CGC, or anyone who knows what they are looking at I will eat my shoe, with a Clamato chaser.

 

Because a process may be tricky or complex, doesn't mean you should dismiss it. I'll stick my neck out and claim printers should have a place in restoration. Maybe not for everyday CT use but on the other hand, printers are good at reproducing fonts and logos with great fidelity, especially micro-fonts. It is an "indulgent" process that is expensive in terms of man-hours. But if someone has money to throw into reproducing that missing piece in a poster, dust jacket, or comic book cover, then why not?

 

And if someone knows of any way to reproduce BY HAND the micro-point font of a Johnson-Smith ad (seen in key GA books), then I will eat my shoe with a Clamato chaser.

 

Honestly Mike, I never dismissed anything. I said it was highly improbable, and that if some new Ewert type could pass off 1,000 CT'ed/printed books past CGC I would eat a shoe.

 

CT in comic book restoration IS in the stone ages compared to modern printing techniques, but it is currently the best way to replace missing ink. Although with modern printing you can duplicate and then graft lost art onto a restored comic, but printing onto the comic itself just seems out of the realm of possibilities for everyday application.

 

How on earth did this booze inspired thread evolve to this point?