Why you passed

[ft88]

I pass on the things that don't get priced downward once it's encased.

 

Tape (blue label) - this is restoration to me and should be priced accordingly

Marvel (or similar) Chipping

Blue label Notes such as "small amount of c.t. or glue"

 

Common defects, it'd have to be the right book. Show me an Action 1 with Brittle pages and if the price is right, I'm a buyer.

 

But there are things I don't mind as much as long as they are priced well.

GLOD with married c.f or cover, or non story missing page.

Back cover tear or stain, and then appropriately graded.

 

 

 

[nearmint]

I pass on the things that don't get priced downward once it's encased.

 

Tape (blue label) - this is restoration to me and should be priced accordingly

 

 

If restoration is defined as returning something to its original condition, how would tape fall into that category? In my mind, tape is a repair, not restoration.

[ft88]

Fair enough. Call it what you will, I price it as if it were restoration - thus I wind up never buying a book with tape as others view it as not as bad as restoration.

 

I guess I define restoration when it comes to comic books as "visibly altering the book from it's original condition" Amateur tape or professional rice paper is restoration (IMO) and I would prefer the latter which gets a PLOD while tape does not.

[nearmint]

I guess I define restoration when it comes to comic books as "visibly altering the book from it's original condition"

 

I think you're alone in that definition. If I rip a book in half, I've "visibly altered it from its original condition." I certainly haven't restored it.

[Bronty]

ouch

[Bronty]

For me, production related flaws would not make me pass on most any book. Even to the point of thinking offset registry books sort of neat.

 

Although if a book has really bad mold, I typically back up and run away.

 

we fish in the same pond.

 

 

 

 

 

Neat comic books, but I'd hate to see the fish in that pond!

[Hamlet]

+1.

 

The market is more accepting of tape than I am, so I rarely end up with books that have tape.

 

I'd rather buy a PLOD given the relative pricing.

 

Fair enough. Call it what you will, I price it as if it were restoration - thus I wind up never buying a book with tape as others view it as not as bad as restoration.

 

I guess I define restoration when it comes to comic books as "visibly altering the book from it's original condition" Amateur tape or professional rice paper is restoration (IMO) and I would prefer the latter which gets a PLOD while tape does not.

[buttock]

I pass on the things that don't get priced downward once it's encased.

 

Tape (blue label) - this is restoration to me and should be priced accordingly

 

 

If restoration is defined as returning something to its original condition, how would tape fall into that category? In my mind, tape is a repair, not restoration.

 

I've said it before, according to this definition, pressing is the only form of true restoration. Everything else (cleaning is a little gray) is adding something to the book.

 

But in conventional parlance, tape is as much restoration as color touch, piece infills, or tear seals.

[jimjum12]

Fair enough. Call it what you will, I price it as if it were restoration - thus I wind up never buying a book with tape as others view it as not as bad as restoration.

 

I guess I define restoration when it comes to comic books as "visibly altering the book from it's original condition" Amateur tape or professional rice paper is restoration (IMO) and I would prefer the latter which gets a PLOD while tape does not.

 

[ft88]

Poor choice of words if I were making a legal document.

 

 

Tears, stains, writing etc are fine (though obviously reduces the grade) while c.t. pieces added, tape glue etc are almost always restoration as I see it.

 

I think the market agrees with me except for any of these things when they have a Blue label. So I wind up passing on books like those.

[EJR]

Silverfish damage really bugs me!

[nearmint]

I pass on the things that don't get priced downward once it's encased.

 

Tape (blue label) - this is restoration to me and should be priced accordingly

 

 

If restoration is defined as returning something to its original condition, how would tape fall into that category? In my mind, tape is a repair, not restoration.

 

I've said it before, according to this definition, pressing is the only form of true restoration. Everything else (cleaning is a little gray) is adding something to the book.

 

But in conventional parlance, tape is as much restoration as color touch, piece infills, or tear seals.

 

I should have said "the appearance of returning an item to its original condition." The other additives you mentioned attempt to hide the resto. Tape doesn't do that.

[buttock]

I pass on the things that don't get priced downward once it's encased.

 

Tape (blue label) - this is restoration to me and should be priced accordingly

 

 

If restoration is defined as returning something to its original condition, how would tape fall into that category? In my mind, tape is a repair, not restoration.

 

I've said it before, according to this definition, pressing is the only form of true restoration. Everything else (cleaning is a little gray) is adding something to the book.

 

But in conventional parlance, tape is as much restoration as color touch, piece infills, or tear seals.

 

I should have said "the appearance of returning an item to its original condition." The other additives you mentioned attempt to hide the resto. Tape doesn't do that.

 

Sure it does. It's just like using glue for a tear seal. Or rice paper. It's the same thing.

[nearmint]

I pass on the things that don't get priced downward once it's encased.

 

Tape (blue label) - this is restoration to me and should be priced accordingly

 

 

If restoration is defined as returning something to its original condition, how would tape fall into that category? In my mind, tape is a repair, not restoration.

 

I've said it before, according to this definition, pressing is the only form of true restoration. Everything else (cleaning is a little gray) is adding something to the book.

 

But in conventional parlance, tape is as much restoration as color touch, piece infills, or tear seals.

 

I should have said "the appearance of returning an item to its original condition." The other additives you mentioned attempt to hide the resto. Tape doesn't do that.

 

Sure it does. It's just like using glue for a tear seal. Or rice paper. It's the same thing.

 

I respect your opinion, but you'll never convince me that tape is a form of restoration. Whether it's used to seal a tear or reattach a cover, it doesn't even give the appearance of the book's original condition.

[ft88]

And I will never be convinced that tape is not restoration. Or if not the technical definition of restoration, at least treated the same in terms of value. The only exception is if tape is pretty obviously accidentally on the book like it stuck from a bag and taking the tape off would cause a tape pull. I think I would not call that restoration but it would still bother me more than others in all likelihood.

 

Same with random pen marks or writing compared to color touch, which technically both are marking a book, I believe it really is different.

 

Tape that is sealing a tear or staples or all along the spine is no different than rice paper in terms of "fixing" a problem. And of course it's worse than rice paper in that it usually causes deterioration whereas rice paper does not. So while tape is not reconstruction it sure is close in terms of how I would value it.

 

And that it gets a blue label with only a slight drop in value (vs an equivalent blue label, low grade usually) keeps me from ever buying a tape copy.

 

It is personal preference, part of this discussion is arguing about your favorite and least favorite color.

[Cimm]

I pass on the things that don't get priced downward once it's encased.

 

Tape (blue label) - this is restoration to me and should be priced accordingly

 

 

If restoration is defined as returning something to its original condition, how would tape fall into that category? In my mind, tape is a repair, not restoration.

 

I've said it before, according to this definition, pressing is the only form of true restoration. Everything else (cleaning is a little gray) is adding something to the book.

 

But in conventional parlance, tape is as much restoration as color touch, piece infills, or tear seals.

 

I should have said "the appearance of returning an item to its original condition." The other additives you mentioned attempt to hide the resto. Tape doesn't do that.

 

Sure it does. It's just like using glue for a tear seal. Or rice paper. It's the same thing.

 

I respect your opinion, but you'll never convince me that tape is a form of restoration. Whether it's used to seal a tear or reattach a cover, it doesn't even give the appearance of the book's original condition.

 

I agree. Tape is not restoration... It's a million times worse, and should make any book having it, regardless of the grade otherwise, an instant 1.5. Just my opinion, but tape is not repair, nor restoration... it is ongoing destruction.

[nearmint]

Don't get me wrong, guys. I'm no fan of tape, and was a vocal critic of CGC when it was grading books up that had covers reattached with tape. I just don't think that tape falls into any accepted definition of restoration.

[buttock]

Don't get me wrong, guys. I'm no fan of tape, and was a vocal critic of CGC when it was grading books up that had covers reattached with tape. I just don't think that tape falls into any accepted definition of restoration.

 

Detached cover:

Rice paper - resto

Glue - resto

Tape - not resto?

[nearmint]

Don't get me wrong, guys. I'm no fan of tape, and was a vocal critic of CGC when it was grading books up that had covers reattached with tape. I just don't think that tape falls into any accepted definition of restoration.

 

Detached cover:

Rice paper - resto

Glue - resto

Tape - not resto?

 

From CGC's site. Makes sense to me...

 

Restoration can be broken down into two main types: treatments intended to prolong the existence of the comic book and treatments done for aesthetics. Both types of restoration involve the introduction of non-original material to create or facilitate a desired effect.

 

CGC defines restoration as treatments intended to return the comic book to a known or assumed state through the addition of non-original material. Examples of restoration include:

 

Color touch. Using pigment to hide color flecks, color flakes, and larger areas of missing color. Examples of pigments may include paint (acrylic, oil, watercolor, etc.), pencil crayon, pastel, pen, marker, white-out, etc. Color touch is sometimes called inpainting.

Pieces added (piece replacement). Added pieces to replace areas of missing paper. Piece replacement material can be non-original paper such as wood or cotton fiber papers, married from a donor comic book, or color-copied pieces. This process is sometimes called infilling.

Tear seals. Sealing a tear using an adhesive. An adhesive may be cellulose, chemical, or protein-based glues as well as anything that acts as an adhesive, such as saliva.

Spine split seals. Sealing a spine split using adhesive (adhesives are described above under "tear seals").

Reinforcement. A process by which a weak or split page or cover is reinforced with adhesive and reinforcement paper. Reinforcement papers are commonly wood or cotton fiber papers.

Cleaned (lightened). An aqueous process to lighten the paper color or remove soluble acids, often using chemical oxidation, solvents, or water. This process is sometimes called cleaned and pressed or C&P. Common chemicals used to lighten paper include benzene, acetone, xylene, sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, chloramine-T, chlorine dioxide, sodium borohydrate, etc.

Re-glossed. Enhancing the cover gloss, typically through the application of canned re-glossing/art fixodent spray.

 

Non-additive processes such as dry cleaning (non-aqueous removal of dirt, soot, or other non-original surface material), pressing (removal or reduction of bends and creases), and tape removal, are not considered restoration by CGC. In accordance with hobby standards, the addition of tape is not considered restoration but will always be noted on the CGC label.

 

While we believe that tape should never be used on a comic book for any reason, our hobby has accepted that people used tape to keep comic books from falling apart. This measure was taken even before comics became collectibles. In the early days of fandom, some sellers stated that tape was not a defect and some collectors even accepted tape on mid grades. CGC will downgrade for tape, as we consider it a defect no matter why or when it was added.

 

Restoration has become a controversial issue in the comic book hobby because it is not always disclosed by sellers, but can dramatically affect the value of a comic book. CGC protects against this by ALWAYS disclosing detected restoration. In some cases, restoration is not readily detectible to novices or individuals lacking expertise in restoration detection. Even experienced hobbyists miss restoration when grading comic books. For this reason, CGC has made the restoration check a mandatory component of the CGC certification process..

[mikephoen]

I pass on the things that don't get priced downward once it's encased.

 

Tape (blue label) - this is restoration to me and should be priced accordingly

 

 

If restoration is defined as returning something to its original condition, how would tape fall into that category? In my mind, tape is a repair, not restoration.

 

I've said it before, according to this definition, pressing is the only form of true restoration. Everything else (cleaning is a little gray) is adding something to the book.

 

But in conventional parlance, tape is as much restoration as color touch, piece infills, or tear seals.

 

I should have said "the appearance of returning an item to its original condition." The other additives you mentioned attempt to hide the resto. Tape doesn't do that.

 

Sure it does. It's just like using glue for a tear seal. Or rice paper. It's the same thing.

 

I respect your opinion, but you'll never convince me that tape is a form of restoration. Whether it's used to seal a tear or reattach a cover, it doesn't even give the appearance of the book's original condition.

 

I agree. Tape is not restoration... It's a million times worse, and should make any book having it, regardless of the grade otherwise, an instant 1.5. Just my opinion, but tape is not repair, nor restoration... it is ongoing destruction.

 

Agree 100%. I especially hate those books that have been recently taped up to improve the CGC grade. I avoid those like the plague, and would personally value them at about half what they were before the tape was added.