An Analysis on the Future of Restoration Detection

[comicwiz]

Collectors today are facing numerous challenges. For many of us, the reentry into the comic back-issue market can be traced back to the popularity of both eBay and CGC. The past few years, we've had our hands full with rotten-apple sellers, who either defrauded friends and fellow collectors by promising comics in exhange for payment, and either never fulfilled their end of the bargain by not bothering to send buyers their comics, or sent a comic that was grossly misrepresented.

 

During this reentry, collectors buying confidence lay firmly in the hands of CGC's grading authority. And although their service included providing restoration checks in addition to universal grading, CGC's product/service committment to impartial grading has most recently been dealt a few severe blows. At the forefront of the controversy: press/cleaned and resubmitted comics which are yielding higher returns, and most recently, the discovery of a blue-label Batman 11 which possessed a trimming treatment which had been artificially aged to bypass CGC's restoration radar. The authority once known as CGC, shaken at the foundation by the lack of any public statement addressing the latter, specifically in relation to WHO may have been responsible for the practice of cosmetically altering trimmed comics well enough to pass through their restoration experts.

 

The duality that once divided the "restored" and "unrestored" camps is slowly blurring, and the lack of any clear decision on practices which may cross the line of "acceptable" approaches to conservation are seriously calling into question the very definition of "conservation vis-a-vis restoration."

 

And as much as these recent events may have worked to confuse and distract our own collecting/buying habits, they may also serve to someday motivate some collectors to become more aware of detecting restorative procedures on their own. Ironically, just as the recent developments in the grading world may have served to distract us from our collecting interests, in an almost concerted manner, a war, which is raging between central banks and counterfieters -- a cataclysmic event that is spearheading numerous technological advances, which may well prove to help comic hobbyists overcome some of our own barriers in distinguishing between restored and unrestored comics. None more compelling than the developments in the realm of anti-counterfieting strategies.

 

We all know, some to a greater extent than others, that banks have been struggling in the last few years with the challenges presented by accessible imaging technologies, and the rise in counterfeit bills and notes. Some believe they have been working hard to reduce the amount of counterfeit notes being passed off by informing the public about authentication detection, and employing state-of-the-art anti-counterfeiting strategies in their creation. Although the educational component has proven to have had no real effect on reducing the indicidence of counterfeit money being passed-off, one thing is for certain -- banks have invested millions in embedding state-of-the-art technology into the creation of new bills, which includes impressive anti-counterfeiting features such as metallic holographic stripes, watermarked images, see-through numbers, and a windowed colour-shifting thread.

 

Unfortunately, at the retail level where most of this problem is occuring, retail establishments, having already been burned by fraudsters believe the best way to protect themselves is through avoidance. In Canada, there are numerous retails stores, restaurants and gas bars that refuse to accept $50 and $100 bills. Although this problem appears to have reached epidemic rates, and might be a cause for concern, it is appears that with the amount of time, energy and capital spent on devising new strategies, that some of these state-of-the-art detection strategies may well find themselves having practical application in other areas, and may well have already reached the consumer level. The first of such examples is the Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Groups (CBCDG) anti-counterfeit software.

 

Although the information on what CBCDG's software uses to detect counterfeit notes and bills has not been officially made public, assumptions are that they are working closely with Minting operations to arrive at high-level authentication detection. There most recent claim to fame -- Adobe Photoshop CS. Although it is not clear how the anti-counterfeit strategy was engineered or what it looks for in a scan to determine its a bank note, it is assumed to work on detecting things such as phosphors in inks used for most commercially available laserjet and inkjet printers, watermarks or holograms which are digitally produced to reveal authenticity, and sizing and dimensions of each particular note. A software which previous to its inclusion in Adobe Photoshop was found exclusively on high-end imaging devices such as multifunction copiers/printers/scanners, and usually marketed along with high-end equipment in the 125,000+ range.

 

The second is the practical application and availability of black lights, used for reasons ranging from creating a unique ambience in a nightclub, right through to Wal-Mart cashiers using it to detect fake bank notes/bills. In fact, black lights have hundreds of uses. Blacklights make phosphors glow, and only objects with phosphor will appear to be illuminated. A white T-shirt or white socks may glow, not because they're white, but because they were laundered with detergent containing phosphors - fluorescent powders that, if you expose them to ultraviolet light, absorb the light energy and immediately re-emit some of it as visible light. This process is called fluorescence. Appraisers use them to detect forgeries of antiques. Many paints today contain phosphors that will glow under a black light, while most older paints do not contain phosphors. In the comic hobby, similar priniciples apply to detecting colour touches. And although not as common, there is also the angle that with some minor alterations to most commercially available scanners, a scan can be taken with a black light filter/film or bulb. The idea here is to make this type of scanner modification as accessible to all users, and not just the technically savvy ones.

 

The third is a melding of current anti-counterfeit scanning software tweaked to compare a scan taken of a comic book, and comparing it with a scan provided by a registry or repository containing scans of "unrestored" comics, across all eras. It appears that CGC may well be the best source for this type of cover database resource in todays current market.

 

And finally -- an endeavour with which I will personally be devoting some time towards -- the creation of an information kit or online resource to be used by comic hobbyists, to learn about restoration detection; tips and preventative measures to help collectors make knowledgeable and more informed choices by being better able to detect restoration. It certainly would appear that almost overnight, we find ourselves at a moment in time where a combination of consumer-level tools and practical solutions, used in conjunction with current scanning technologies, may serve to assist motivated comic hobbyists in detecting restoration.

 

Feel free to share any thoughts or insights you may have on the topic.

[garthgantu]

ComicWiz:

 

1) Has it been determined that the Batman 11 in question, after undergoing trimming, did in fact have the trimmed edge(s) "aged" in some way, or is that either speculation on the part of board posters, or an inferrance derived from allusions made by CGC?

 

2) I agree that it's pretty disconcerting to have CGC stand mutely by while the "clean, press and resubmit" trend continues - and perhaps grows. I think it's fair for people to assume at this point that, for whatever reason, CGC has no problem with this practice, and views it as "acceptable restoration" per their long-standing stance on dry cleaning and pressing that doesn't require disassembling the book. As a PR practitioner of 17+ years, I would strongly advise CGC to issue a statement on this point, even if that statement is simply "...we don't view these types of 'improvement' as restoration."

 

3) The notion that the trend in "cleaned, pressed and resubbed" books will somehow drive the average collector to educate him/herself on the subject of restoration seems pretty pie-in-the-sky to me. I thought the whole benefit of CGC was that it enabled the purchase of pricey books without having to be an expert? In turn, CGC was apparently attracting many new collectors (along with speculators, admittedly) to the comic book sector...those newbies were in part reassured by the 'fact' that they could buy comics knowing they weren't tampered with in any way. Those will be the first people to leave the comic collecting community, I suspect. By the time the average collector has a firm grasp of the ins and outs of restoration, we'll all be long dead.

 

4) If I were considering a new collecting interest, and one of the first things I stumbled upon was a 'kit' for identifying restoration, I'd be scared off the whole concept. Not saying you shouldn't create such a kit, but just pointing out that, from the outside looking in, such things are more likely to deter a prospective new collector than reassure and encourage.

 

Here are the primary objections/concerns I have re: the "clean, press and resubmit" trend that we've been seeing. I know these have been discussed before, but perhaps between us we can build a 'complete' list and discuss the relative 'dangers' these represent...

Potential Drawbacks of "Clean, Press and Resubmit" trend:

1) Glut of HG books...it seems realistic to me that over time, many books that are currently scarce in high grade will no longer be so...if you $ tied up in such books, they could, for the first time in a long time actually start going down in value.

 

2) Perception of HG Glut...even if the number of "clean, press, resubmit" books is comparatively small, the perception that many scarce HG books are becoming less scarce could fuel a "crash" or "correction" in the market. Let's face it, if you're cleaning, pressing and resubbing a book to CGC, the chances that you're including the original slab label so CGC can remove the book from the census before adding yours to the census, are pretty slim... so over time, the number of slabbed copies in the census may be 2, 3 or more times the actual number of copies...

 

3) Prospect of "Recidivism" on the part of pressed books....if pressed books start 'reverting' to their unpressed states inside CGC slabs, what does that do to CGC's rep, and the general perception that CGCed books are worth a significant premium?

[THE_BEYONDER]

Just when I thought it was safe to collect comics again.

[garthgantu]

Just when I thought it was safe to collect comics again.

 

Exactly. I guess we should have anticipated this, since it happened in sports cards and (to a degree) in coins previously... but it's still disappointing when it migrates into your collectible field of preference...

[qualitycomix]

If I recall, Steve B. has specifically referenced the "clean and press" issue. Can anybody locate the thread where it was posted?

[garthgantu]

Quality: Steve Borock posted to the "More CGC Grading Fun" a couple of weeks ago...

 

Here is Steve's post, so you don't have to rifle thru all 23 pages of that post:

Here I am.

I have been swamped, we have more books to grade then ever! This is the first time in over a year I have been behind on Standard's and don't even talk to me about how late we are on Economy's!

 

I did not think it was that important to get back on this thread because Bruce correctly relayed everything I told him. I will be at the CGC board dinner tomorrow night and if anyone has questions they would like answered, maybe you can PM them to some of the folks going to the dinner. I will be happy, as always, to answer all questions asked of me there.

 

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. The difference here is that we (CGC) stand by our certification and will always do the right thing if a mistake occurs. 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. We are confident that when these new techniques are developed CGC will recognize them earlier than anyone else.

 

Oh, and I did not run any of this past the lawyers

[garthgantu]

Quality, to your point... I don't think this post from Steve B. is in any way referencing the "clean, press and resubmit" trend... ? It's hard to tell... which is why I'm seeking clarification on this point.

 

My expectation is that CGC will simply reiterate its "some forms of cleaning and pressing are acceptable, some are not" caveat, but I'm hopeful we'll get a more substantial response that includes CGC's opinion of these resubs and some inkling as to whether they have any plans to try to thwart this practice going forward...on some level, one would think that CGC would be concerned about this.

[fantastic_four]

Borock did address the trimmed Batman 11 issue. He said the book was artificially aged, and that they quickly noticed it and believe they can detect it in the future, but that a few books did sneak out. He offered to buy the Batman 11 back from the current owner. I can't imagine a more satisfying response than that!

 

Borock has commented on cleaning and pressing at least twice--they have never considered it to be restoration if no trace evidence is left and the book isn't disassembled.

[comicwiz]

Borock did address the trimmed Batman 11 issue. He said the book was artificially aged, and that they quickly noticed it and believe they can detect it in the future, but that a few books did sneak out. He offered to buy the Batman 11 back from the current owner. I can't imagine a more satisfying response than that!

 

On the contrary; CGC should reveal the person who did this with the same gusto and bravado as their approach to going after comic-keys. Anything less is unsatisfactory.

 

At this time, we only know of the Batman 11, and are not privvy to information pointing to how many books snuck through the CGC radar. As far as I'm concerned, they're reluctance in revealing this persons name is irresponsible primarily because his inability to submit to CGC does not imply that this trim specialists books aren't still being circulated in the raw comic back-issue market.

 

Publicly announcing the activities of comic-keys helped comic hobbyists to not only avoid his auctions, but to seek compensation for books (iin some cases, years after their purchase date) which the buyer suspected might have been restored. Without CGC's involvement, many people may never have had such an opportunity.

[comicwiz]

4) If I were considering a new collecting interest, and one of the first things I stumbled upon was a 'kit' for identifying restoration, I'd be scared off the whole concept. Not saying you shouldn't create such a kit, but just pointing out that, from the outside looking in, such things are more likely to deter a prospective new collector than reassure and encourage.

 

Some excellent points garhgantu.

 

The one comment I chose to address in my post is your 4th point (for reasons that other questions seem to have been answered already).

 

Although I would agree that such an information resource might seem to be overwhelming to a newbie, I also believe that we need to start somewhere. I've been collecting since the age of 5, and grading comics for about 18 years. I consider myself a hardcore comic hobbyist, and I still don't know enough about detecting restoration to protect myself against purchasing books possessing certain forms of restoration. I also believe that its one of those aspects of the hobby with which the age-old adage may be applied: "the more you learn the less you know."

[Timely]

Borock did address the trimmed Batman 11 issue. He said the book was artificially aged, and that they quickly noticed it and believe they can detect it in the future, but that a few books did sneak out. He offered to buy the Batman 11 back from the current owner. I can't imagine a more satisfying response than that!

 

On the contrary; CGC should reveal the person who did this with the same gusto and bravado as their approach to going after comic-keys. Anything less is unsatisfactory.

 

At this time, we only know of the Batman 11, and are not privvy to information pointing to how many books snuck through the CGC radar. As far as I'm concerned, they're reluctance in revealing this persons name is irresponsible primarily because his inability to submit to CGC does not imply that this trim specialists books aren't still being circulated in the raw comic back-issue market.

 

Publicly announcing the activities of comic-keys helped comic hobbyists to not only avoid his auctions, but to seek compensation for books (iin some cases, years after their purchase date) which the buyer suspected might have been restored. Without CGC's involvement, many people may never have had such an opportunity.

 

Is it possible CGC knows what books are trimmed based on this submiters previous submissions and CGC is secretly trying to buy those back and take them out of circulation?!? Conspiracy theory time forum memebrs!? !

 

Timely