More CGC Grading Fun

[garthgantu]

So, how does this whole "make good policy" work, Steve? Does anyone who can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a book they purchased was restored, get all of their money back on the purchase, or some % based on the difference between that book in Blue grade vs. that book in PLOD (assuming that prices for both are readily available via GPA or other source) ?

 

And what % would be applied, and how is that % arrived at?

 

I'm assuming this only applies to the Batman 11 with trimming, *not* to all the cleaned and pressed resubs we're seeing? If so, how does one KNOW for sure when the Blue labeled book their holding is in fact supposed to be in a PLOD, since CGC's exact 'restoration guidelines' aren't available to the public? And is there a "statute of limitations" on such things? What happens if the resto in question isn't discovered until years after the fact?

 

Can someone attending the forum dinner please pass along at least a few of these questions to Steve?

[Rip]

Always good to hear your input Steve

Now we got to find out who it is (or how about general location)?

[drbanner]

So, how does this whole "make good policy" work, Steve? Does anyone who can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a book they purchased was restored, get all of their money back on the purchase, or some % based on the difference between that book in Blue grade vs. that book in PLOD (assuming that prices for both are readily available via GPA or other source) ?

 

And what % would be applied, and how is that % arrived at?

 

I'm assuming this only applies to the Batman 11 with trimming, *not* to all the cleaned and pressed resubs we're seeing? If so, how does one KNOW for sure when the Blue labeled book their holding is in fact supposed to be in a PLOD, since CGC's exact 'restoration guidelines' aren't available to the public? And is there a "statute of limitations" on such things? What happens if the resto in question isn't discovered until years after the fact?

 

Can someone attending the forum dinner please pass along at least a few of these questions to Steve?

 

Don't hold your breath...on second thought... ...and while we're waiting , I can speak on this issue from personal experience as someone who has been "made good" by CGC due to an error on their part - Steve's words do not reflect a hollow/superficial paper policy, but represent actual business practice.

 

However, I'm sure you have your own personal experiences dealing with CGC that you can share with us on this issue, or perhaps you have some books in the grading queue with questions on restoration, or perhaps you're considering sending some books for resto evaluation, or perhaps you have some slabbed books you're wondering about, or perhaps not...

[FFB]

I think he said that the trimmer is "like Dupcak" in trying to come up with new ways to fool people, not that the trimmer and Dupcak are one and the same. At least, that's how I read it.

 

That said, I feel worse than you can imagine about not catching onto this guy sooner, but we are human and eventually something is going to slip through. Don't forget, as long as there are greedy people out there, there will always be creeps like Dupcek trying new techniques to screw up the books to get them by dealers, collectors, and CGC.

 

So, it was Dupchak who tried to "age" the trim job?

[garthgantu]

So, how does this whole "make good policy" work, Steve? Does anyone who can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a book they purchased was restored, get all of their money back on the purchase, or some % based on the difference between that book in Blue grade vs. that book in PLOD (assuming that prices for both are readily available via GPA or other source) ?

 

And what % would be applied, and how is that % arrived at?

 

I'm assuming this only applies to the Batman 11 with trimming, *not* to all the cleaned and pressed resubs we're seeing? If so, how does one KNOW for sure when the Blue labeled book their holding is in fact supposed to be in a PLOD, since CGC's exact 'restoration guidelines' aren't available to the public? And is there a "statute of limitations" on such things? What happens if the resto in question isn't discovered until years after the fact?

 

Can someone attending the forum dinner please pass along at least a few of these questions to Steve?

 

Don't hold your breath...on second thought... ...and while we're waiting , I can speak on this issue from personal experience as someone who has been "made good" by CGC due to an error on their part - Steve's words do not reflect a hollow/superficial paper policy, but represent actual business practice.

Banner, I don't think I implied anywhere in my post that Steve was serving up pablum in his post - if I did, I apologize sincerely. I'm certainly very interested in the details of any such "make good" experience(s) you've had with CGC, if you're willing to share them. I was merely trying to gauge the parameters of that "make good" policy..? Is it just a case-by-case thing, with no specific guidelines? I could understand if that were the case, since we're talking about a pretty open-ended issue, as my questions sort of illustrated..?

 

However, I'm sure you have your own personal experiences dealing with CGC that you can share with us on this issue, or perhaps you have some books in the grading queue with questions on restoration, or perhaps you're considering sending some books for resto evaluation, or perhaps you have some slabbed books you're wondering about, or perhaps not...

I have perhaps a dozen GA and SA CGCed books, all but one in Blue labels, and I have a number of GA books I'm considering submitting... ? Was your question solely intended to question the sincerity of my previous post and the queries found therein? I have shared personal experiences dealing with CGC on these boads. How many such experiences must one have in order to meet your stringent standards? If you think my questions are stupid, you have every right to say so... but a little 'guidance' on your part might prevent me from posting stupid questions in future - as opposed to you just ridiculing me in some veiled way, which would seem to serve no purpose except perhaps personal gratification..?

[OldGuy]

personal gratification

 

You said "personal gratification". Heheheheheheheheh

[drbanner]

Do you really think Steve has a specific answer to your questions?

 

Do you think he just has to look up the official CGC policy on such things as "And what % would be applied, and how is that % arrived at?" and/or "how does one KNOW for sure when the Blue labeled book their holding is in fact supposed to be in a PLOD, since CGC's exact 'restoration guidelines' aren't available to the public?"? Do you really think there's an answer to these?

 

Your littany of questions following Steve's post appear to be rhetorical, and for the most part are unanswerable. And just like all the 0.2 grade nitpicking threads, I speak from the perspective of someone who has dealt with the subject matter FIRST-HAND, and so I'll offer up what I know about them, without the 3rd-hand speculation and conspiracy theories that run rampant around here.

 

Anyhow, I would bet a wooden nickle that when problems arise, they're handled on a case-by-case basis with Steve himself, and not from someone answering the phone and looking the answer up in the "Official CGC Dispute Resolution Handbook". This is how it was handled in my case, which was first class all the way!

 

Finally, do you think my even disclosing there was a problem sheds a positive light on CGC? No, I don't think it does...so like I said, I'm not here to defend CGC, I'm here to defend The Truth. If my defense of said truths was over-zealous and offended you, then I apologize...

[jbud73]

While I will agree that CGC's response to the Batman 11 situation is commendable and that this is NOT the only instance of them doing right by their customers. I do think that there is a bigger issue at play here that will be tougher to deal with.

 

From scans and auctions recently posted on a myriad of threads it would seem that there are certain individuals who have become adept at analyzing CGC books and altering them in ways that consistenty increase their grade, yet retain blue labels. More to this point the books in question have been well documented GA, SA books - some coming from pedigree lineage. Add to this the fact that the grade increase has been in several cases 2 full grades and I think that this is an issue which has called rational posters on this board to question the consistency of CGC grading in certain markets. And forgive me if I'm wrong, but GA, SA are two of the most critical markets. The majority of my collection is BA, but I still believe this to be true. This I think is a fair summation of the past 200 posts here - Old Guy forgive me if Im wrong. So as I a customer venture more and more into the SA market - which is not an inexpensive undertaking, what assurances do I have that the census and thereby the value of my current and future purchases is not being affected by these new tactics in a detremental way??

 

If someone could forward this discourse on to Steve it would be most appreciated.

[OldGuy]

the "Official CGC Dispute Resolution Handbook".

 

Do I have to join the collectors society to get one of those?

[garthgantu]

Do you really think Steve has a specific answer to your questions?

 

Do you think he just has to look up the official CGC policy on such things as "And what % would be applied, and how is that % arrived at?" and/or "how does one KNOW for sure when the Blue labeled book their holding is in fact supposed to be in a PLOD, since CGC's exact 'restoration guidelines' aren't available to the public?"? Do you really think there's an answer to these?

The questions weren't meant to be rhetorical by any means - I still think they're reasonable questions. The offhand way in which Steve dropped by to say "all is well, we've got the matter in hand," seemed to suggest (to me at least) that CGC might well have a much more defined "plan" with regard to these sorts of problems. If such a "guidelines" do exist at CGC, I thought it would be worth asking for some of them to be made available.

 

Your littany of questions following Steve's post appear to be rhetorical, and for the most part are unanswerable. And just like all the 0.2 grade nitpicking threads, I speak from the perspective of someone who has dealt with the subject matter FIRST-HAND, and so I'll offer up what I know about them, without the 3rd-hand speculation and conspiracy theories that run rampant around here.

That sounds great - and is much appreciated...please provide any first-hand perspective you're willing to disclose. I don't see this as a "0.2 grade nitpicking thread" ?

 

Anyhow, I would bet a wooden nickle that when problems arise, they're handled on a case-by-case basis with Steve himself, and not from someone answering the phone and looking the answer up in the "Official CGC Dispute Resolution Handbook". This is how it was handled in my case, which was first class all the way!

While I truly respect and appreciate Steve and all of CGC for "making good" in such cases, it would be really valuable to know how that occurs - what sorts of documentation/evidence would CGC require to determine that a mistake has occured? Do you think Steve's response was specifically in reference to the Batman 11 trimming oversight, or was it intended to address other issues/examples that have been posted recently, in this or other threads?

 

Finally, do you think my even disclosing there was a problem sheds a positive light on CGC? No, I don't think it does...so like I said, I'm not here to defend CGC, I'm here to defend The Truth. If my defense of said truths was over-zealous and offended you, then I apologize...

Where is this coming from? Did I attack you in some way in my previous post? Did I imply that your reference to a problem you'd encountered (and that was resolved by CGC) was anything other than helpful information? I would note however that your disclosure DID shed a positive light on CGC, whether you intended for it to do so or not - it presented CGC as a responsive organization that cares about customer service and satisfaction.

 

I was not seeking an apology in any way - if you feel one is in order, I'll happily accept it just to keep things copacetic around here... ?

 

Look, truth is good - more information is generally a good thing too. I was simply seeking more information. If the form that inquiry took rubbed you the wrong way, then I'll apologize.

[garthgantu]

While I will agree that CGC's response to the Batman 11 situation is commendable and that this is NOT the only instance of them doing right by their customers. I do think that there is a bigger issue at play here that will be tougher to deal with.

 

From scans and auctions recently posted on a myriad of threads it would seem that there are certain individuals who have become adept at analyzing CGC books and altering them in ways that consistenty increase their grade, yet retain blue labels. More to this point the books in question have been well documented GA, SA books - some coming from pedigree lineage. Add to this the fact that the grade increase has been in several cases 2 full grades and I think that this is an issue which has called rational posters on this board to question the consistency of CGC grading in certain markets.

 

Good post, Jbud... though I'm not even concerned with CGC's grading consistency in this context - seems to me that the examples we're seeing don't take issue with CGC's consistency as much as their willingness and/or ability to "police" their process to the point where such "clean-press-resubmit" jobs are proliferating.

 

As I've said - or tried to say - before, I'm curious as to whether CGC even CARES about this "clean-press-resub" trend...? Given that CGC has almost singlehandedly escalated the HG fervor to historic heights, and is widely regarded as the official arbiter of both "high grade" and restoration detection / declension, it would seem to be an issue they'd want to address in some way.

 

While Steve B's post about the Bats 11 was a good sign, it didn't really touch on this other, potentially bigger, issue - and that is/was the primary reason for my posts subsequent to Steve's.

[drbanner]

[FFB]

Get ready for some because this is going to be a long response.

 

The more pertinent question in my mind is, if CGC didn't exist, wouldn't you face the same (or even greater) danger of being taken advantage of by a charlatan who restores books and can conceal the restoration? The CGC slab and label means two things -- (1) your book has been assigned a grade by a neutral third party whose grading expertise is unquestioned (while there may be arguments about consistency from one book to the next, I don't think anyone seriously suggests that the guys at CGC are not objectively expert graders); and (2) your book has been checked for restoration by a professional restoration detection expert and in that expert's opinion, no restoration has been performed on the book. It is these two expert opinions that you are paying for. They are not guarantees, they are expert opinions. It is the value that the market assigns to those opinions that result in the CGC premium you pay for a high grade slabbed book.

 

Although I tend to agree that the value the market places on those opinions could be reduced if evidence surfaces that CGC is missing restoration on tons and tons of books, all we have seen here is anecdotal evidence of a couple of books where the restoration was missed, compared to thousands of PLODs we've seen where the resto was found.

 

So what are a collector's options in a universe where CGC does not exist and the collector wants to check a book for restoration? (Let's call this imaginary universe "1999 and before.") Unless he wants to pay for a bunch of detection equipment and take a crash course in resto detection, he'll have to hire another expert to check the book. Let's say that expert is Susan Ciccone. If you sent a book to Susan Ciccone for resto detection, you would get charged as much or more money for the resto check than you pay for the CGC grading fee (she was going to charge me $250 just to resto check the Amazing Spider-Man #1 that I won from Comic-Keys, whereas CGC's grading fee was going to be about $250 for the book -- grade, slab, AND resto check). I believe that there is just as much of a chance that Susan Ciccone would miss resto on a book as there is that CGC would miss the resto, if not more. Same with Matt Nelson or any other person who could conduct a resto check. And if they occasionally miss restoration on a book (they are human -- you know it'll happen occasionally), does that all of a sudden mean that we all lose faith in the majority of high grade books in the marketplace? I don't think that collector confidence is such a fragile thing as that.

 

The bottom line is that one can never be certain that a book has not been restored unless the owner of the book personally purchased it from the newsstand. But since very few of us did purchase books first hand off the newsstand, we have to rely on companies like CGC or experts like Susan C. or Matt N. to give us their opinions about whether a book has been restored or not. While I expect that these experts will "earn their money" and be able to detect most restoration, my confidence in the overall high grade market is not so shaky that I'll throw my hands up in the air if the experts miss a few calls and those misses are publicized on an internet message board. In fact, in light of the way that CGC has handled the Batman #11 affair, I have even greater confidence in the value of their opinion. When an NHL referee blows a call or misses a penalty, I don't worry that the league will fall apart, nor do I call for the referee's head. CGC has added to the level of confidence that collectors have in purchasing books sight unseen over the internet or through the mail, which has resulted in far greater liquidity in the comics market. I don't think that a few mistakes here and there are cause to question all of the good they have done, nor, more importantly, is it cause to worry that the whole market will come crashing down because CGC missed a few calls and then offered to make the buyer whole by buying the book back from him.

 

I want to make it clear that I don't disagree with your main point. I agree that it is troubling that a person can take a book that grades out at 8.0, use one of these: book press , and turn the same book into a 9.0 in a month's time. The question is, does the existence or absence of CGC make this practice more or less likely? I don't think it affects it at all, because pressing a book is not considered restoration by most experts, dealers, and many collectors, not just including CGC, and even if they did, how does one detect pressing if the cover hasn't been removed?

 

 

 

While I will agree that CGC's response to the Batman 11 situation is commendable and that this is NOT the only instance of them doing right by their customers. I do think that there is a bigger issue at play here that will be tougher to deal with.

 

From scans and auctions recently posted on a myriad of threads it would seem that there are certain individuals who have become adept at analyzing CGC books and altering them in ways that consistenty increase their grade, yet retain blue labels. More to this point the books in question have been well documented GA, SA books - some coming from pedigree lineage. Add to this the fact that the grade increase has been in several cases 2 full grades and I think that this is an issue which has called rational posters on this board to question the consistency of CGC grading in certain markets. And forgive me if I'm wrong, but GA, SA are two of the most critical markets. The majority of my collection is BA, but I still believe this to be true. This I think is a fair summation of the past 200 posts here - Old Guy forgive me if Im wrong. So as I a customer venture more and more into the SA market - which is not an inexpensive undertaking, what assurances do I have that the census and thereby the value of my current and future purchases is not being affected by these new tactics in a detremental way??

 

If someone could forward this discourse on to Steve it would be most appreciated.

[Rip]

A well written post. But I'd like to make a few comments.

First there are other options other than Susan, Matt etc for resto check. PCE did a great job and I believe they aren't to costly. Someone earlier posted a great Resto spec sheet from the company. (Could someone repost that?)

Another point, with regards to pressing.... Thats sort of a grey area. Where is the line drawn between things like a simple spine roll removal or an extensive dry mount press. Thats a difficult line to figure out. Some dealers way before CGC made buyers aware of this kind of work...some didn't. It was never an agreed upon area. I don't know how to "properly" handle the current situation.

Next as to cleaning, that was something disclosed more often. Sure small eraser work wasn't, but massive cleaning was. Many of these books I'm seeing IMO fall under the "need to disclose" category. In my opinion dealers that once often disclosed this information are now distinctly more quiet.

 

The main area of cource where everyone seems to agree upon, is book disassembly. That's always a no no. If you are really looking for it, I do believe it can be spotted most of the time.

[burntboy]

well, you were right - this is pretty long, but insightful and damn good too!!

 

i think i can honestly say that you've articulated my feelings, as well.

 

Get ready for some because this is going to be a long response.

 

The more pertinent question in my mind is, if CGC didn't exist, wouldn't you face the same (or even greater) danger of being taken advantage of by a charlatan who restores books and can conceal the restoration? The CGC slab and label means two things -- (1) your book has been assigned a grade by a neutral third party whose grading expertise is unquestioned (while there may be arguments about consistency from one book to the next, I don't think anyone seriously suggests that the guys at CGC are not objectively expert graders); and (2) your book has been checked for restoration by a professional restoration detection expert and in that expert's opinion, no restoration has been performed on the book. It is these two expert opinions that you are paying for. They are not guarantees, they are expert opinions. It is the value that the market assigns to those opinions that result in the CGC premium you pay for a high grade slabbed book.

 

Although I tend to agree that the value the market places on those opinions could be reduced if evidence surfaces that CGC is missing restoration on tons and tons of books, all we have seen here is anecdotal evidence of a couple of books where the restoration was missed, compared to thousands of PLODs we've seen where the resto was found.

 

So what are a collector's options in a universe where CGC does not exist and the collector wants to check a book for restoration? (Let's call this imaginary universe "1999 and before.") Unless he wants to pay for a bunch of detection equipment and take a crash course in resto detection, he'll have to hire another expert to check the book. Let's say that expert is Susan Ciccone. If you sent a book to Susan Ciccone for resto detection, you would get charged as much or more money for the resto check than you pay for the CGC grading fee (she was going to charge me $250 just to resto check the Amazing Spider-Man #1 that I won from Comic-Keys, whereas CGC's grading fee was going to be about $250 for the book -- grade, slab, AND resto check). I believe that there is just as much of a chance that Susan Ciccone would miss resto on a book as there is that CGC would miss the resto, if not more. Same with Matt Nelson or any other person who could conduct a resto check. And if they occasionally miss restoration on a book (they are human -- you know it'll happen occasionally), does that all of a sudden mean that we all lose faith in the majority of high grade books in the marketplace? I don't think that collector confidence is such a fragile thing as that.

 

The bottom line is that one can never be certain that a book has not been restored unless the owner of the book personally purchased it from the newsstand. But since very few of us did purchase books first hand off the newsstand, we have to rely on companies like CGC or experts like Susan C. or Matt N. to give us their opinions about whether a book has been restored or not. While I expect that these experts will "earn their money" and be able to detect most restoration, my confidence in the overall high grade market is not so shaky that I'll throw my hands up in the air if the experts miss a few calls and those misses are publicized on an internet message board. In fact, in light of the way that CGC has handled the Batman #11 affair, I have even greater confidence in the value of their opinion. When an NHL referee blows a call or misses a penalty, I don't worry that the league will fall apart, nor do I call for the referee's head. CGC has added to the level of confidence that collectors have in purchasing books sight unseen over the internet or through the mail, which has resulted in far greater liquidity in the comics market. I don't think that a few mistakes here and there are cause to question all of the good they have done, nor, more importantly, is it cause to worry that the whole market will come crashing down because CGC missed a few calls and then offered to make the buyer whole by buying the book back from him.

 

I want to make it clear that I don't disagree with your main point. I agree that it is troubling that a person can take a book that grades out at 8.0, use one of these: book press , and turn the same book into a 9.0 in a month's time. The question is, does the existence or absence of CGC make this practice more or less likely? I don't think it affects it at all, because pressing a book is not considered restoration by most experts, dealers, and many collectors, not just including CGC, and even if they did, how does one detect pressing if the cover hasn't been removed?

 

 

 

While I will agree that CGC's response to the Batman 11 situation is commendable and that this is NOT the only instance of them doing right by their customers. I do think that there is a bigger issue at play here that will be tougher to deal with.

 

From scans and auctions recently posted on a myriad of threads it would seem that there are certain individuals who have become adept at analyzing CGC books and altering them in ways that consistenty increase their grade, yet retain blue labels. More to this point the books in question have been well documented GA, SA books - some coming from pedigree lineage. Add to this the fact that the grade increase has been in several cases 2 full grades and I think that this is an issue which has called rational posters on this board to question the consistency of CGC grading in certain markets. And forgive me if I'm wrong, but GA, SA are two of the most critical markets. The majority of my collection is BA, but I still believe this to be true. This I think is a fair summation of the past 200 posts here - Old Guy forgive me if Im wrong. So as I a customer venture more and more into the SA market - which is not an inexpensive undertaking, what assurances do I have that the census and thereby the value of my current and future purchases is not being affected by these new tactics in a detremental way??

 

If someone could forward this discourse on to Steve it would be most appreciated.

[garthgantu]

Fair points, fantasyfootball: I would argue that the trend we're seeing in "clean, press and resub" is driven by the $ to be made via high grade books, and that CGC in part has driven this high end of the market. As I've said before I don't "blame" CGC for the trend itself, but I do think it's in part due to the existence of CGC. Can - or should - CGC do anything about it? I'm not sure, but I think CGC should be very concerned about

- the perception in the marketplace that such resubs can/will have, once enough of them have occured and enough people are aware of them and the ease with which they seem to be enabled.

- the distinct possibility that the "high grade premium" that has likely driven many submitter's decision-making when it comes to which and how many books to submit, could be eroded by the "clean, press and resub" trend. At the point where yours is only one of 100 high grade copies of a book that was formerly scarce in high grade, the value of your copy will almost certainly be reduced, and that's a bad thing.

[jbud73]

Ahh a hockey analogy - music to my Canadian ears, while the articulation was nice and the points made valid - I think the obvious counterpoint is that yes CGC has made things better, but there are forces at work here that have observed the standard and are using manipulation - some of the examples go beyond pressing, the removal of indetification pencil / pen on a pedigree book with an increase in grade is one of the more famous examples is it not. To use an example based in pre-CGC era to posit on a trend in the current CGC market has dubious merit.

 

From your professed background I am certain that the concept of precedent is a primary tool used to further arguement and concept. But here I think the idea of precedent is less compelling - as CGC as a precedent is already established, but the degree of confidence and consistency is the topic of debate in this particular instance. Now to my own hockey analogy to the contrary.

 

Yes a referees call in an NHL game will not lead to the downfall of the NHL - even a horrendous blown call. Lets look at another trend in the NHL that I will argue has contributed to the downfall or at least curbed he progression of the game......

 

Today's NHL is not the game of my youth - and I'm not that old. The mid-to-late eightees were certainly a high point of NHL play. The scoring, the stars, the pace of the game - the overall excitement. Now one may argue that the retirement of Gretzky and Lemieux, even though he returned, has played a role in the downward projection of the game my country so knows and loves. Hmmmm, basketball has seen bird, Jordan and magic retire, yet maintained a level of primacy in the public realm, why? If we assume that the athletes are getting better, or at the median level not deteriorating then we must look elsewhere for our problem.

 

THE INClUSION OF THE TRAP IN THE NHL is the point that I will posit for the lessening of the pace, scoring and excitement in the game. Coaches and others examining of referees frequency, or lack thereof to call certain penalties allowed them to come up with a system of hooking, holding and other obstruction that had as its goal the containment of offensive prowess and flow of the game. Why? well it is certain that a lack of talent base - partially attributalble to expansion had something to do with it. IE how to win more with less.

 

And to the chagrin of the hockey of my youth it was successfull.... Teams like the Florida Panthers and the Carolina hurricanes, Minnesota Wild and Anahiem Mighty ducks, were able to parlay this method of seeking to constantly test the rules with the hope that the instances of them getting caught (a penalty called - a PLOD maybe ) would be offset by their overall success on the ice. A having their team (cough cough book) move up through the ranks - using dubious methods (cough cough) to gain entitlement.

 

Now every year the NHL (cough cough CGC) says, "we will crack down on obstruction cough cough comic manipulation" and every year slowly but slowly the referees *cough cough* graders, revert true to form. And the players and teams, see the cost benefit of breaking the rules increase as the season goes on. Untill the playoffs become 0-0, overtime 1-0 hook, hold, clutch and grab fests.

 

Oh where has the game and hobby of my youth gone..........

Most done tongue in cheek, but some parallel's are even to me. Thanks for the inspiration Fantasy Football

[FFB]

Hi Rip:

 

Always good to hear your thoughts. I hope my post wasn't read as implying that there aren't other options to resto checking, and I would always be interested in seeing a spec sheet for someone who could conduct a reliable check for a cost that is less than the CGC slabbing cost of a high end book. (I suggested Susan and Matt specifically by name because these are the two people I know who will do this work, although Susan seems to be far more expensive than Matt when it comes to resto checks.) Anyway, thanks for the tip about PCE. I'd love to see the spec sheet if someone can find it.

 

I also agree that pressing is a delicate issue. If I had a choice between a pressed-without-disassembly or non-pressed book in the same condition, I'd take the non-pressed book every time. Why? The obivous reason. The coolest thing to me about seeing an old book in extremely high grade is marveling at the odds that book had to defy to survive in that condition, despite the near absence of real, archival-quality storage solutions back in those days. I consider pressing to be cheating, whether it occurs with disassembly or not. But if neither I nor anyone else can tell that a book has been pressed without disassembly, I have to wonder whether it's worth worrying about whether an old book has been pressed or not.

 

Dry cleaning is more of a straight up issue for me. I think it is restoration. CGC disagrees, and the value of their opinion is affected in the marketplace (at least insofar as it affects the amount that *I* am willing to pay for a book that I know has been dry cleaned) by the public's knowledge of the fact that they don't consider it to be restoration. But aside from mounting a public outcry for them to change their views on the matter (which I don't necessarily think would be a bad idea), there's little we can do about it except for point out and publicize the occasional book we see where it has occurred. And like you, I think that ANY cleaning should be disclosed if the dealer knows about it, regardless of whether CGC has decided that it is restoration or not. But the point of my long-winded manifesto was that this is an issue that would persist whether CGC existed or not, and that in the end, the hobby is healthier for the existence of a neutral third party grading company that performs restoration checks, whether or not they catch every book that has been restored.

 

A well written post. But I'd like to make a few comments.

First there are other options other than Susan, Matt etc for resto check. PCE did a great job and I believe they aren't to costly. Someone earlier posted a great Resto spec sheet from the company. (Could someone repost that?)

Another point, with regards to pressing.... Thats sort of a grey area. Where is the line drawn between things like a simple spine roll removal or an extensive dry mount press. Thats a difficult line to figure out. Some dealers way before CGC made buyers aware of this kind of work...some didn't. It was never an agreed upon area. I don't know how to "properly" handle the current situation.

Next as to cleaning, that was something disclosed more often. Sure small eraser work wasn't, but massive cleaning was. Many of these books I'm seeing IMO fall under the "need to disclose" category. In my opinion dealers that once often disclosed this information are now distinctly more quiet.

 

The main area of cource where everyone seems to agree upon, is book disassembly. That's always a no no. If you are really looking for it, I do believe it can be spotted most of the time.

[FFB]

Jbud, I am not going to copy the entirety of your post, but I wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed it. Great analogy to the NHL's "trap" problem -- that's one that bothers me as well about the current NHL, and I have to admit that the clean/press/resub analogy fits well with it.

 

I agree that the clean/press/resubmit practice is troublesome and I don't like it. But I don't think CGC has "caused" the problem. I think people would be doing this whether CGC existed or not. It is unfortunate that CGC does not consider dry cleaning and PWOD (pressing without disassembly, just to add another acronym to the mix) to be resto, and I think this should be changed, such that these books get the PLOD when detected. I agree 100%, as I've said before, that it is cheating to do ANYTHING to a book to take it from an 8.0 to a 9.0. If anything, the only "problem" that CGC is causing is that by giving the BLU to books with dry cleaning and PWOD, they are giving the impression (though not a "guarantee") that the book is 100% unmodified -- and that's the part I don't like. But I don't think that CGC's existence makes doing this any more or less likely. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that there was plenty of this going on before CGC existed. It's just that less of it was being detected because restoration wasn't on as many people's radar screens.

[garthgantu]

I consider pressing to be cheating, whether it occurs with disassembly or not. But if neither I nor anyone else can tell that a book has been pressed without disassembly, I have to wonder whether it's worth worrying about whether an old book has been pressed or not.

 

Well, first of all we CAN tell that a book has been pressed - just access the "Heritage Before-And-After" picture gallery... it's like a Jenny Craig testimonial site for comics. Agreed, this method requires "before" pics, but to me that's substantial. If you buy a book today, and three months from now you try to sell it and someone says "what about THIS scan of the same book, when it was 1.5 grades lower?" how will you feel? Flim-flammed? Conned? Or just fine with it?

 

Secondly, who's to say that a year or two down the road, a new method of discerning pressed books might not be found, and even adopted by CGC, such that this becomes a huge issue? And if you say "well, if you've already purchased the book and it's in a Blue-labeled slab, why worry? I'd respond by saying "what happens when you send the book in for micro-chamber paper replacement, or to fix a cracked slab?"