Results of CBCA Pressing Experiment

[joeypost]

I would like to thank the CBCA for allowing me to help in the pressing experiment.

 

Thanks guys.

[Green]

I would like to thank the CBCA for allowing me to help in the pressing experiment.

 

Thanks guys.

[comicdonna]

I would like to thank the CBCA for allowing me to help in the pressing experiment.

 

Thanks guys.

Thank you, Joey. It was very nice of you to help out.

free of charge at that!

[joeypost]

I thank you for giving credit where credit was due, unlike others who advertise they are the first (when they know it is not true or do nothing to correct a statement that is not true) to offer a specific service.

[Theagenes]

I would like to thank the CBCA for allowing me to help in the pressing experiment.

 

Thanks guys.

 

Thank you Joey! I'm glad we can finally publically express our gratitude for your help.

[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.

 

 

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

 

Sorry Jeff, I missed this question.

 

Like almost everyone else, I was really surprised to see the GA book had an increase in paper strength. The slightly lower strength results on the other book (within the margin of error) were more along the lines of what I expected to happen after a humidity/heat press.

 

The sample is too small to draw hard scientific conclusions as yet (as has been noted), but the results are definitely are enough to pique my interest to find out more with a larger sample size.