Results of CBCA Pressing Experiment

[Calamerica]

[FFB]

Here's the discussion if anyone is interested...

 

Mostly JC whining about it....

 

Sal's idea on that page (doing a different scale for restoration than the 1-10 scale used for grading) is a good idea, although I would hesitate to give an extensively restored book that was masterfully done an "F" because it has a lot of work on it, and then also give an "F" to an amateurishly restored book. They are not the same thing and it is hard to conceive of how a simple A-F scale would convey better information, as opposed to oversimplifying something that does not need to be oversimplified.

 

My preference would be to:

 

1) Get rid of the purple label because it creates unnecessary stigma instead of just conveying information (CGC should not be giving restored books the scarlet letter - they should simply be assessing the amount and quality of restoration).

 

2) Designate restoration on the blue label by adding a clear indication in the grade field. Instead of "9.0," it could say "9.0APP" in the same big black font they use now. The label could then describe the level and quality of restoration the way it does now, which seems to be all of the information most people need on a label. Plus, the CGC label is really a poor tool to try to use to convey full information about exactly what was done to the book and which parts are restored and which are original. No label will do a perfect job of describing something that really needs to be seen in hand, out of the slab, to assess accurately.

 

3) Keep the same Minor/Moderate/Extensive and "Professional/Amateur" designations because people are used to them and they do a passable job of conveying the basic information in a format that people can understand at least on a basic level.

 

There's no need to reinvent every aspect of the wheel. The current system could be tweaked to achieve the benefits that a lot of people want.

[FFB]

I was just trying to stir something up with my comment.

 

But, you do bring up alot of valid points. I especially agree with you on this:

 

Maybe it's time to get away from the purple vs. blue, "it is" or "It isn't" dichotomy and think of restoration and conservation as a gradient or sliding scale.

 

I was really excited about the (now old) "new" CGC labels with the resto/conservation notations and grades. I thought it was a great idea. Unfortunately, the majority shot it down and CGC scrapped the idea.

 

Me too.

 

I really wish they would revisit that idea. Get rid of the PLOD scarlet letter and come up a 10-pt resto scale. that wouldn't be perfect either, but it would be better than the current system.

 

 

As I recall it, the problem was not that the proposal was shot down but rather that there was not a whole lot of interest. In fact, the feedback was about as mature as the first page of replies to this thread - no wonder that CGC abandoned the idea after putting a lot of time and thought into the proposal. I actually don't think many of the board members who made the effort to read the CBCA report were signed up for the CGC board back then and suspect that the outcome would be very different if CGC were to ask the same question today.

 

 

I was glad that CGC was trying to improve its system of restoration designation, but the model they proposed was even more flawed than the current model, except for CGC's proposal to get rid of the purple label. That was the one part of CGC's proposal that made good sense. The way they planned to do the 1-10 rating scale of restoration, with 10 being the least amount of restoration, was counterintuitive and would have caused additional confusion instead of reducing it.

[VintageComics]

Here's the discussion if anyone is interested...

 

Mostly JC whining about it....

 

There were several tangential discussions about it in other threads as well.

 

Bottom line that I remember was that people disagreed on it so CGC did not follow through on it.

[GACollectibles]

Here's the discussion if anyone is interested...

 

Mostly JC whining about it....

 

Sal's idea on that page (doing a different scale for restoration than the 1-10 scale used for grading) is a good idea, although I would hesitate to give an extensively restored book that was masterfully done an "F" because it has a lot of work on it, and then also give an "F" to an amateurishly restored book. They are not the same thing and it is hard to conceive of how a simple A-F scale would convey better information, as opposed to oversimplifying something that does not need to be oversimplified.

 

My preference would be to:

 

1) Get rid of the purple label because it creates unnecessary stigma instead of just conveying information (CGC should not be giving restored books the scarlet letter - they should simply be assessing the amount and quality of restoration).

 

2) Designate restoration on the blue label by adding a clear indication in the grade field. Instead of "9.0," it could say "9.0APP" in the same big black font they use now. The label could then describe the level and quality of restoration the way it does now, which seems to be all of the information most people need on a label. Plus, the CGC label is really a poor tool to try to use to convey full information about exactly what was done to the book and which parts are restored and which are original. No label will do a perfect job of describing something that really needs to be seen in hand, out of the slab, to assess accurately.

 

3) Keep the same Minor/Moderate/Extensive and "Professional/Amateur" designations because people are used to them and they do a passable job of conveying the basic information in a format that people can understand at least on a basic level.

 

There's no need to reinvent every aspect of the wheel. The current system could be tweaked to achieve the benefits that a lot of people want.

 

I rate this post a "B". No wait, a 7. Actually, let's make that a 7.5MOD. Whatever it is, it has great eye appeal. (thumbs u

[Theagenes]

Here's the discussion if anyone is interested...

 

Mostly JC whining about it....

 

Sal's idea on that page (doing a different scale for restoration than the 1-10 scale used for grading) is a good idea, although I would hesitate to give an extensively restored book that was masterfully done an "F" because it has a lot of work on it, and then also give an "F" to an amateurishly restored book. They are not the same thing and it is hard to conceive of how a simple A-F scale would convey better information, as opposed to oversimplifying something that does not need to be oversimplified.

 

My preference would be to:

 

1) Get rid of the purple label because it creates unnecessary stigma instead of just conveying information (CGC should not be giving restored books the scarlet letter - they should simply be assessing the amount and quality of restoration).

 

2) Designate restoration on the blue label by adding a clear indication in the grade field. Instead of "9.0," it could say "9.0APP" in the same big black font they use now. The label could then describe the level and quality of restoration the way it does now, which seems to be all of the information most people need on a label. Plus, the CGC label is really a poor tool to try to use to convey full information about exactly what was done to the book and which parts are restored and which are original. No label will do a perfect job of describing something that really needs to be seen in hand, out of the slab, to assess accurately.

 

3) Keep the same Minor/Moderate/Extensive and "Professional/Amateur" designations because people are used to them and they do a passable job of conveying the basic information in a format that people can understand at least on a basic level.

 

There's no need to reinvent every aspect of the wheel. The current system could be tweaked to achieve the benefits that a lot of people want.

 

 

I think this these are all excellent suggestions. Just getting rid of the purple and adding APP after the grade would be a huge step forward, even if they didn't change anything else.

 

Scott, getting back on topic for a moment--- what are your thoughts on the results of the pressing test? Obviously it's a very limited sample, but given your knowledge I'd really like to get your take on it.

Jeff

[comicdonna]

I would like to know as well.

[ComicConnoisseur]

I think a lot of the mystique of pressing could be solved if someone took a video of the process and posted it on here,youtube and facebook. Really if the masses became educated about the pressing process then pressing wouldn`t have such a controversial stigma.What it is people post lots of technical mumbo jumbo while a couple of good old serious youtube videos would explain more.

Once people see the videos they would have a much different perspective on pressing.

[comicdonna]

I think a lot of the mystique of pressing could be solved if someone took a video of the process and posted on it here,youtube and facebook. Really if the masses became educated about the pressing process then pressing wouldn`t have such a controversial stigma.What it is people post lots of technical mumbo jumbo while a couple of good old serious youtube videos would explain more.

Once people see the videos they would have a much different perspective on pressing.

This thread is about the effect that pressing has on the paper fibers in a comic book, not the pressing process.

[ComicConnoisseur]

I think a lot of the mystique of pressing could be solved if someone took a video of the process and posted on it here,youtube and facebook. Really if the masses became educated about the pressing process then pressing wouldn`t have such a controversial stigma.What it is people post lots of technical mumbo jumbo while a couple of good old serious youtube videos would explain more.

Once people see the videos they would have a much different perspective on pressing.

This thread is about the effect that pressing has on the paper fibers in a comic book, not the pressing process.

I am alluding to I would have wanted to see a video of their experiment to go with their well done thesis of the results.

 

[Thanos71]

Here's the discussion if anyone is interested...

 

Mostly JC whining about it....

 

Sal's idea on that page (doing a different scale for restoration than the 1-10 scale used for grading) is a good idea, although I would hesitate to give an extensively restored book that was masterfully done an "F" because it has a lot of work on it, and then also give an "F" to an amateurishly restored book. They are not the same thing and it is hard to conceive of how a simple A-F scale would convey better information, as opposed to oversimplifying something that does not need to be oversimplified.

 

My preference would be to:

 

1) Get rid of the purple label because it creates unnecessary stigma instead of just conveying information (CGC should not be giving restored books the scarlet letter - they should simply be assessing the amount and quality of restoration).

 

2) Designate restoration on the blue label by adding a clear indication in the grade field. Instead of "9.0," it could say "9.0APP" in the same big black font they use now. The label could then describe the level and quality of restoration the way it does now, which seems to be all of the information most people need on a label. Plus, the CGC label is really a poor tool to try to use to convey full information about exactly what was done to the book and which parts are restored and which are original. No label will do a perfect job of describing something that really needs to be seen in hand, out of the slab, to assess accurately.

 

3) Keep the same Minor/Moderate/Extensive and "Professional/Amateur" designations because people are used to them and they do a passable job of conveying the basic information in a format that people can understand at least on a basic level.

 

There's no need to reinvent every aspect of the wheel. The current system could be tweaked to achieve the benefits that a lot of people want.

 

 

I think this these are all excellent suggestions. Just getting rid of the purple and adding APP after the grade would be a huge step forward, even if they didn't change anything else.

 

Scott, getting back on topic for a moment--- what are your thoughts on the results of the pressing test? Obviously it's a very limited sample, but given your knowledge I'd really like to get your take on it.

Jeff

What about an entirely new label. One that completely separates Professional Conservation type restoration, from amatuer restoration. Imho, that's whats wrong with the PLOD - it just lumps them all together, with the only real difference being a lillte letter somwhere on the label (A) or (P).

It's hard to grasp the difference between what is true conservation and is actually done to preserve the book, and prevent it from rapidly dissindegrating, vs amatuer resto, or work that might actaully be harmful.

 

[Theagenes]

I think a lot of the mystique of pressing could be solved if someone took a video of the process and posted it on here,youtube and facebook. Really if the masses became educated about the pressing process then pressing wouldn`t have such a controversial stigma.What it is people post lots of technical mumbo jumbo while a couple of good old serious youtube videos would explain more.

Once people see the videos they would have a much different perspective on pressing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

I think a lot of the mystique of pressing could be solved if someone took a video of the process and posted it on here,youtube and facebook. Really if the masses became educated about the pressing process then pressing wouldn`t have such a controversial stigma.What it is people post lots of technical mumbo jumbo while a couple of good old serious youtube videos would explain more.

Once people see the videos they would have a much different perspective on pressing.

 

 

 

 

 

That`s why I said serious. I known about these for awhile.

 

 

[comicdonna]

[tb]

Here's the discussion if anyone is interested...

 

Mostly JC whining about it....

 

Sal's idea on that page (doing a different scale for restoration than the 1-10 scale used for grading) is a good idea, although I would hesitate to give an extensively restored book that was masterfully done an "F" because it has a lot of work on it, and then also give an "F" to an amateurishly restored book. They are not the same thing and it is hard to conceive of how a simple A-F scale would convey better information, as opposed to oversimplifying something that does not need to be oversimplified.

 

My preference would be to:

 

1) Get rid of the purple label because it creates unnecessary stigma instead of just conveying information (CGC should not be giving restored books the scarlet letter - they should simply be assessing the amount and quality of restoration).

 

2) Designate restoration on the blue label by adding a clear indication in the grade field. Instead of "9.0," it could say "9.0APP" in the same big black font they use now. The label could then describe the level and quality of restoration the way it does now, which seems to be all of the information most people need on a label. Plus, the CGC label is really a poor tool to try to use to convey full information about exactly what was done to the book and which parts are restored and which are original. No label will do a perfect job of describing something that really needs to be seen in hand, out of the slab, to assess accurately.

 

3) Keep the same Minor/Moderate/Extensive and "Professional/Amateur" designations because people are used to them and they do a passable job of conveying the basic information in a format that people can understand at least on a basic level.

 

There's no need to reinvent every aspect of the wheel. The current system could be tweaked to achieve the benefits that a lot of people want.

 

 

I think this these are all excellent suggestions. Just getting rid of the purple and adding APP after the grade would be a huge step forward, even if they didn't change anything else.

 

Scott, getting back on topic for a moment--- what are your thoughts on the results of the pressing test? Obviously it's a very limited sample, but given your knowledge I'd really like to get your take on it.

Jeff

What about an entirely new label. One that completely separates Professional Conservation type restoration, from amatuer restoration. Imho, that's whats wrong with the PLOD - it just lumps them all together, with the only real difference being a lillte letter somwhere on the label (A) or (P).

It's hard to grasp the difference between what is true conservation and is actually done to preserve the book, and prevent it from rapidly dissindegrating, vs amatuer resto, or work that might actaully be harmful.

 

The main label change I would like to see would simply be to replace the word "restoration" with "conservation" if and only if the work is limited to:

1. one or more reversible tear seals and/or

2. reversible seals to a complete or partial spine split

I would suggest that professional restorers consider whether there is a way to repair a tear or a split so that the result would make it obvious that the process was intended to be a reversible conservation job. Is there a way to make such a repair so that it is obvious how to undo it again later if necessary? Could you leave some excess material that otherwise would have been trimmed away for cosmetic reasons, for example? If that were to be the case, you would have a way to preserve books in need of these types of repair so CGC clearly could identify and certify the work as "conservation" as opposed to "restoration". There is a very important difference between the two. The color of the label is not that important to me.

 

Regarding the actual topic of the thread, I already offered to contribute to a larger scale pressing experiment in whatever way I can, but I feel that it is more constructive to discuss that offline.

[lou_fine]

Here's the discussion if anyone is interested...

 

Mostly JC whining about it....

 

Hey;

 

Does anybody know where JC is?

 

It looks like his last post on these boards here was way back in February and he hasn't made another appearance since.

[chrisco37]

Here's the discussion if anyone is interested...

 

Mostly JC whining about it....

 

Hey;

 

Does anybody know where JC is?

 

It looks like his last post on these boards here was way back in February and he hasn't made another appearance since.

 

He's taken long breaks before. I would imagine he'll return at somepoint.

[jokersrevenge]

I think the preliminary experiment was done well, and presented fairly. The only thing that would have improved it is if they cut 2 spider-man marvels in half......

[chrisco37]

The only thing that would have improved it is if they cut 2 spider-man marvels in half......

 

Decreasing the available supply of ASM's and raising the value on the remaining ones. Brilliant!!!

[Mr. Zipper]

I think the preliminary experiment was done well, and presented fairly. The only thing that would have improved it is if they cut 2 spider-man marvels in half......