Why you passed

[ft88]

That's all well and good with CGC but I disagree with it and with the resultant affect on prices and the comics themselves.

 

Take a nice GA book worth $2000 as a CGC 4.0 Cream to OW Blue label no notes.

Same book purple label Slight P CGC 4.0 Cr to OW Purple Label note tear seal to cover might be worth $1000 at best.

Yet that same book with tape will get a Blue Label 4.0 with note: 1 inch Tape on cover and be worth, say $1600. Even if it gets downgraded to a 3.0 or 3.5 the value would still be easily over $1000 or whatever the restored book would get.

 

I don't have reams of research to back up the numbers but blue label with tape notes get more money than purple label equivalents books. And the ONLY reason that is so is due to the Blue Label. There's a reason it's called the Purple Label Of Death.

 

Since I see tape as restoration or even worse than restoration, I pass on those books. I could care less how CGC sees it.

 

"our hobby has accepted that people used tape to keep comic books from falling apart."

 

What a joke. Shouldn't we also accept that rice paper is used for the same purpose? Even moreso?

[Bo_Hogg]

For me it is a little different since I only collect the extreme rare. So that means I have to take what I can get since I will probably not see this issue ever again. But I will only buy a book if it is COMPLETE. I don't like it missing anything. I also have an issue with stains on the cover. I usually don't buy those.

[mikephoen]

 

Since I see tape as restoration or even worse than restoration, I pass on those books. I could care less how CGC sees it.

 

"our hobby has accepted that people used tape to keep comic books from falling apart."

What a joke. Shouldn't we also accept that rice paper is used for the same purpose? Even moreso?

 

I agree completely. I haven't accepted tape as anything other than the worst possible thing you can do to a comic. Prices on blue label books with tape might be doing ok now, but we'll see if this changes in the future.

[sfcityduck]

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.

 

Tape is clearly, obviously, and irrefutably amateur restoration.

 

The early collectors piecing books back together using tape did so because they were trying to restore the books to a higher grade. The kids taping up tears did so in an attempt to put the books back together. Because they were amateurs, they just didn't know better. Yes, it was destructive (as is arguably other forms of restoration such as certain forms of cleaning and pressing), but it was intended to restore. So how can you not call it amateur restoration?

 

Here's an interesting article about a comic book collector from 1966:

 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qQMqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZigEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3004,3389226&dq=comic+book+collector&hl=en

 

Key quote: "[George] Schwartz collects about 40 comics a month, then numbers each one, classifies it and tries to repair it to its original condition. He confesses he hasn't read all his comics, especially those collected in the last few years. 'Since I started college, it's all I can do to keep them classified and get them in good condition.'"

[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.

 

Tape is clearly, obviously, and irrefutably amateur restoration.

 

The early collectors piecing books back together using tape did so because they were trying to restore the books to a higher grade. The kids taping up tears did so in an attempt to put the books back together. Because they were amateurs, they just didn't know better. Yes, it was destructive (as is arguably other forms of restoration such as certain forms of cleaning and pressing), but it was intended to restore. So how can you not call it amateur restoration?

 

Here's an interesting article about a comic book collector from 1966:

 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qQMqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZigEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3004,3389226&dq=comic+book+collector&hl=en

 

Key quote: "[George] Schwartz collects about 40 comics a month, then numbers each one, classifies it and tries to repair it to its original condition. He confesses he hasn't read all his comics, especially those collected in the last few years. 'Since I started college, it's all I can do to keep them classified and get them in good condition.'"

 

Can you quote a single restoration expert that classifies tape as restoration?

 

I agree that tape may repair a defect on a comic, but it doesn't restore it.

[buttock]

 

Can you quote a single restoration expert that classifies tape as restoration?

 

 

Gator was sending books to Matt to be taped & resubbed. Tec 27, All Star 3. All taking advantage of CGC's ridiculous stance on tape. They say they discount it as a defect, but if you use it to reattach a cover or seal a spine split, the grade goes up. Utter BS.

[sfcityduck]

 

Can you quote a single restoration expert that classifies tape as restoration?

 

 

Sure. Numerous professional paper conservators use appropriate adhesive tape for conservation and restoration. Check out this site for various products as examples:

 

http://www.universityproducts.com/cart.php?m=product_list&c=1305&parentID=1257&specialName=&navTree[]=1257&navTree[]=1305

 

What you call "tear seals" are an example of an adhesive (rice gum) tape.

 

Obviously, what the professionals now use is a far cry from the Scotch Tape used by amateurs, but isn't that pretty much a typical difference between "amateur restoration" and "professional restoration"?

 

The point being, the intent of the "restorer" in applying tape or tear seals is the same. What differs between the amateur and the pro is their knowledge and professionalism of their technique. Despite having the same intent as a pro, the amateur is prone to do unintended harm due to inadequate knowledge and technique.

 

 

[nearmint]

 

Can you quote a single restoration expert that classifies tape as restoration?

 

 

Gator was sending books to Matt to be taped & resubbed. Tec 27, All Star 3. All taking advantage of CGC's ridiculous stance on tape. They say they discount it as a defect, but if you use it to reattach a cover or seal a spine split, the grade goes up. Utter BS.

 

Oh, I understand that, but I doubt Matt was calling it restoration.

[nearmint]

 

Can you quote a single restoration expert that classifies tape as restoration?

 

 

Sure. Numerous professional paper conservators use appropriate adhesive tape for conservation and restoration. Check out this site for various products as examples:

 

http://www.universityproducts.com/cart.php?m=product_list&c=1305&parentID=1257&specialName=&navTree[]=1257&navTree[]=1305

 

What you call "tear seals" are an example of an adhesive (rice gum) tape.

 

Obviously, what the professionals now use is a far cry from the Scotch Tape used by amateurs, but isn't that pretty much a typical difference between "amateur restoration" and "professional restoration"?

 

The point being, the intent of the "restorer" in applying tape or tear seals is the same. What differs between the amateur and the pro is their knowledge and professionalism of their technique. Despite having the same intent as a pro, the amateur is prone to do unintended harm due to inadequate knowledge and technique.

 

 

All of the tape products in your link describe using them to repair documents, which is exactly the term that I've been using in this thread. Tape may repair a defect on a book, but it does not restore the book.

[sfcityduck]

 

All of the tape products in your link describe using them to repair documents, which is exactly the term that I've been using in this thread. Tape may repair a defect on a book, but it does not restore the book.

 

While I have seen conservators use the terms "conservation" and "restoration" to mean different things, I have never heard the term "restoration" and "repair" to be used by a fine art conservator in the fashion you are attempting.

 

Your contention is tortured to say the least. When a pro applies an adhesive tape to "repair" a tear they are engaging in "restoration." So too when an amateur applies an adhesive tape to "repair" a tear. The only difference is that the pro may be using better adhesive materials that are of archival quality and potentially reversible. The intent is the same: to repair the tear. They are both engaging in restoration, it's just one is an amateur technique and the other is professional.

 

Obviously, comic books have a long history of amateur restoration. [in fact, its unclear to me how credentialed or experienced the "professional restorers" who specialize in comics really are.] Trying to split hairs and contend an amateur taking an El Marko to a cover is "restoration" but some other amateur technique is not, really doesn't fly in any principled sense. To "restore" and "repair" is the same thing when it comes to fixing tears.

[nearmint]

 

All of the tape products in your link describe using them to repair documents, which is exactly the term that I've been using in this thread. Tape may repair a defect on a book, but it does not restore the book.

 

While I have seen conservators use the terms "conservation" and "restoration" to mean different things, I have never heard the term "restoration" and "repair" to be used by a fine art conservator in the fashion you are attempting.

 

Your contention is tortured to say the least. When a pro applies an adhesive tape to "repair" a tear they are engaging in "restoration." So too when an amateur applies an adhesive tape to "repair" a tear. The only difference is that the pro may be using better adhesive materials that are of archival quality and potentially reversible. The intent is the same: to repair the tear. They are both engaging in restoration, it's just one is an amateur technique and the other is professional.

 

Obviously, comic books have a long history of amateur restoration. [in fact, its unclear to me how credentialed or experienced the "professional restorers" who specialize in comics really are.] Trying to split hairs and contend an amateur taking an El Marko to a cover is "restoration" but some other amateur technique is not, really doesn't fly in any principled sense. To "restore" and "repair" is the same thing when it comes to fixing tears.

 

I appreciate your opinion. I just don't agree with it. In my 30 years of collecting GA, I'd never heard anyone claim that tape is resto prior to this thread.

 

Opinions here seem to be driven by a distaste for the practice of taping a book up in order to get a higher grade from CGC. I share that distaste, and railed about the topic for quite some time, even writing a lengthy email to Mark Haspel about it. But from a semantic viewpoint, I do see a difference between a professional resto job that disguises the work done to the book(therefore attempting to return its appearance to its original condition), and little Johnny repairing a 4" tear with a piece of Scotch tape. One is resto, one is a repair.

[sfcityduck]

 

I appreciate your opinion. I just don't agree with it. In my 30 years of collecting GA, I'd never heard anyone claim that tape is resto prior to this thread.

 

Opinions here seem to be driven by a distaste for the practice of taping a book up in order to get a higher grade from CGC. I share that distaste, and railed about the topic for quite some time, even writing a lengthy email to Mark Haspel about it. But from a semantic viewpoint, I do see a difference between a professional resto job that disguises the work done to the book(therefore attempting to return its appearance to its original condition), and little Johnny repairing a 4" tear with a piece of Scotch tape. One is resto, one is a repair.

 

I don't come at this topic from the perspective of comic book restoration, which I think has been much more shoot from the hip than in the fine art context and not very principled. But, I do agree that tape is a horrible thing. So is El Marko coloring. And neither is reversible, both destructive, and both detectable. So why the difference in the label for those two techniques?

 

The difference between "professional" resto and little Johnny is that little Johnny is engaging in "amateur" restoration. Why would the CGC differentiate between "professional" restoration and "amateur" restoration if not to distinguish between situations where the intent is the same (repair the tear) but the techniques are different?

 

A professional adhesive tape can be detected if you examine the book. I'm having a lot of trouble with labels that brand use of some types of tape as "repair" and other types of tape as "restoration," especially when the only difference is one type of tape (Scotch) was commonly used by amateurs and the other is only used by professionals.

 

Not sure why you'd want to demonize Scotch tape less than the adhesive tape used by qualified conservators, but that is practical effect of the semantics here.

[nearmint]

 

The difference between "professional" resto and little Johnny is that little Johnny is engaging in "amateur" restoration. Why would the CGC differentiate between "professional" restoration and "amateur" restoration if not to distinguish between situations where the intent is the same (repair the tear) but the techniques are different?

 

 

There are tons of amateur PLODs where the person doing the work utilized the same techniques as a pro restorer, but just did a lousy job doing it. You're not factoring in the quality of the work.

[Silver Surfer]

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.

 

Tape is clearly, obviously, and irrefutably amateur restoration.

 

The early collectors piecing books back together using tape did so because they were trying to restore the books to a higher grade. The kids taping up tears did so in an attempt to put the books back together. Because they were amateurs, they just didn't know better. Yes, it was destructive (as is arguably other forms of restoration such as certain forms of cleaning and pressing), but it was intended to restore. So how can you not call it amateur restoration?

 

Here's an interesting article about a comic book collector from 1966:

 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qQMqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZigEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3004,3389226&dq=comic+book+collector&hl=en

 

Key quote: "[George] Schwartz collects about 40 comics a month, then numbers each one, classifies it and tries to repair it to its original condition. He confesses he hasn't read all his comics, especially those collected in the last few years. 'Since I started college, it's all I can do to keep them classified and get them in good condition.'"

 

Can you quote a single restoration expert that classifies tape as restoration?

 

I agree that tape may repair a defect on a comic, but it doesn't restore it.

 

Well that's a bit of hair splitting. Its really no different than a tear seal and that is restoration? Anyways I give Matt/Kenny credit for their new stance of no longer offering taping as a service, better for everyone in the long run.

[MrBedrock]

Tape is a defect. It isn't restoration.

[Straw-Man]

i have no dog in this fight, and don't care what tape is called by cgc, collectors or anybody else.

 

but--if i buy a BRAND NEW comic, with a literally perfect spine, and i stoopidly decide to protect that spine from dings by going from the top to the bottom with a protective tape barrier, what have i restored it to?

[buttock]

i have no dog in this fight, and don't care what tape is called by cgc, collectors or anybody else.

 

but--if i buy a BRAND NEW comic, with a literally perfect spine, and i stoopidly decide to protect that spine from dings by going from the top to the bottom with a protective tape barrier, what have i restored it to?

 

Same goes for any other form of restoration.

[ft88]

In the end, by restoration I really mean - qualified to the the PLOD.

 

My beef is that tape (call it restoration, repair, whatever) gets a Blue Label. Thus giving it the seal of approval by CGC that this book is "Unrestored" while archival tape gets the PLOD otherwise known as "Restored".

 

In terms of value and CGC, its the how the comic is labelled that matters.

 

Ed

[comicdonna]

Tape is a defect. It isn't restoration.

+1 A very bad defect, I might add.

[sfcityduck]

It's a very bad defect some here promote by refusing to call it "amateur restoration."

 

The fact that using such backwards terminology caused some folks to intentionally apply tape to get a better blue grade than they would have gotten without tape should end the debate about whether it is restoration. CGC says it improves a book. Where's the common sense? A tear seal is tape. If you call taking an El Marko to a cover "color touch" worthy of a PLOD, how can you deny Scotch tape deserves the same PLOD treatment?

 

Seems like maybe what's talking here is money. Makes me wary.