Certified Collectibles Group (CCG) Acquires Classics Incorporated 3 3

[oakman29]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

We are simply fooling ourselves into believing it's "acceptable" and that any demonstration of resistance is futile, but in reality, as paper lab methods become more and more advanced, we need to take a few steps back and consider that it is slowly eroding collector confidence and hobby trust.

 

Modernizing a home or object for utilitarian purposes is very different than modernizing a collectible as a commodity in hopes of fooling people into believing it's gracefully aged with time rather than through man-made reconditioning techniques.

 

At the moment, the hobby is making rain, but when a drought occurs, it isn't unfathomable to imagine that it will come from people combing-out the manipulation and reconditioning to the degree that untampered or truly pristine examples will be the only items collectors will pursue.

 

Or (scary thought), the people who don't mind manipulation as long as it looks good will start to outnumber those of us who do object and that will become the collecting norm.

 

Certainly in this end of the pool, I think they already have.

 

And here's the really ironic thing...

 

One of CGC's supposed intended goals at inception was to provide an answer to the question of undisclosed restoration, to give a sense of security to buyers, that they knew exactly what they were getting when they slapped down the cash.

 

That has been twisted and milked to such an extent that you are now more likely to get a book that - in relation to the traditional definitions of restoration - has been worked on and is not being disclosed in a Universal label than on the raw market.

 

And the horrible thing is that we, as a market, have been so blinded by the sea of green washing around us that we have allowed it to happen.

+1 million to all the above posters.

Once that door of pressing opened,that opened the flood gates.manipulation of books are going to be the downfall of our hobby,you can already see the ramifications with census numbers for Silver and Bronze books.Thus lowering the values of said books.It's a slippery slope,and one day we are going to hit bottom.

[comicwiz]

Also your sentence below is circular and has no content. If we remove the parentheses it reads:

 

"That model is what makes the present certification model both accepted and coherent."

 

Can't use the term you are seeking to define in the definition.

 

 

Mitigating resistance. That model. That was the meal-ticket that created a market with very little if any resistance to CGC. Just because there isn't any at the moment, doesn't mean it won't ever occur.

[seanfingh]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

Joseph, was this book purchased in a CGC purple holder initially?

 

The reason I ask is because it's not CGC's or the insider's (or the resto remover's for that matter) fault that the market puts an extremely unrealistic and irrationally low value on restored books, opening up the gap and therefore the market for people to remove restoration.

 

Unfortunately, that fault can squarely be placed on the shoulders of the open market and it's lack of education and understanding of how to understand restoration and how to value a book based on the amount and type of resto.

 

If a book goes cheap because everyone shuns resto even though it's just one dot of colour touch that is the real shame.

 

I respectfully disagree Roy, and a lot of the reasoning pertains to the particular context of the situation. Suffice it to say that if the book had dislcosed "colour touch removed" - and in this particular case, there was no reason it couldn't except for the reason that the people involved knew full well about the repercussions - the book would NEVER have attained the same price.

 

Ironically, it's evolved to the point where the "apparent" designation better suits blue label with hidden and/or deliberately undisclosed work than on a purple label.

 

I get where you're coming from.

 

My point was that if the market had valued the book with a dot of colour touch at the same value as it did with the colour touch removed (where it realistically should have been valued - that is how I would have valued it) then you wouldn't have that price gap and therefore that ability to remove colour touch and increase the price.

 

This is just wrong. The graders job is to grade the book as it is in hand. Period.

 

If a book had a tear seal that is unsealed, or a piece added to the corner, and the piece is removed, the book should be graded "as is".

 

You don't want graders speculating as to what might have been done to a book, with absolutely zero evidence present.

 

I agree with you.

 

I think that Joseph may be implying that CGC knew that the resto was removed and should have pro-actively notated it on the label but I do agree that the grader should really only knows what they see in front of them - ie the condition of the book and paper and nothing really more.

 

 

These guys remember books that they have graded, especially if they have seen them many times. I had a book signed by Robert Crumb and Art Spiegelman. It was a purple label 9.8 Funny Aminals. After the fact, I hated that purple label. I sent it to Matt Nelson to have the CT removed. It came back 9.6 Purple Yellow. I wasn't real happy

 

I called Haspel about it to see if he could give me any insight. He said that that particular book had been graded by CGC at least 6 times and that there was a swab of India ink an inch by an inch that had been applied copiously as though with someone's fingers. He didn't need any prompting or an invoice number because he knew the exact book I was talking about.

 

These guys remember the books that they see.

[The-Collector]

Also your sentence below is circular and has no content. If we remove the parentheses it reads:

 

"That model is what makes the present certification model both accepted and coherent."

 

Can't use the term you are seeking to define in the definition.

 

 

Mitigating resistance. That model. That was the meal-ticket that created a market with very little if any resistance to CGC. Just because there isn't any at the moment, doesn't mean it won't ever occur.

 

Yeah. I am talking about market pricing right now. Not in the future.

 

I don't think that current practices are good.

 

I am simply trying to give a model of how the market prices right now. Which has very little to do with the actual process. It is perception of the process that counts.

 

 

[Transplant]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

Joseph, was this book purchased in a CGC purple holder initially?

 

The reason I ask is because it's not CGC's or the insider's (or the resto remover's for that matter) fault that the market puts an extremely unrealistic and irrationally low value on restored books, opening up the gap and therefore the market for people to remove restoration.

 

Unfortunately, that fault can squarely be placed on the shoulders of the open market and it's lack of education and understanding of how to understand restoration and how to value a book based on the amount and type of resto.

 

If a book goes cheap because everyone shuns resto even though it's just one dot of colour touch that is the real shame.

 

I respectfully disagree Roy, and a lot of the reasoning pertains to the particular context of the situation. Suffice it to say that if the book had dislcosed "colour touch removed" - and in this particular case, there was no reason it couldn't except for the reason that the people involved knew full well about the repercussions - the book would NEVER have attained the same price.

 

Ironically, it's evolved to the point where the "apparent" designation better suits blue label with hidden and/or deliberately undisclosed work than on a purple label.

Maybe the book had a bindery chip that removed some resto?

[comicwiz]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

Joseph, was this book purchased in a CGC purple holder initially?

 

The reason I ask is because it's not CGC's or the insider's (or the resto remover's for that matter) fault that the market puts an extremely unrealistic and irrationally low value on restored books, opening up the gap and therefore the market for people to remove restoration.

 

Unfortunately, that fault can squarely be placed on the shoulders of the open market and it's lack of education and understanding of how to understand restoration and how to value a book based on the amount and type of resto.

 

If a book goes cheap because everyone shuns resto even though it's just one dot of colour touch that is the real shame.

 

I respectfully disagree Roy, and a lot of the reasoning pertains to the particular context of the situation. Suffice it to say that if the book had dislcosed "colour touch removed" - and in this particular case, there was no reason it couldn't except for the reason that the people involved knew full well about the repercussions - the book would NEVER have attained the same price.

 

Ironically, it's evolved to the point where the "apparent" designation better suits blue label with hidden and/or deliberately undisclosed work than on a purple label.

 

I get where you're coming from.

 

My point was that if the market had valued the book with a dot of colour touch at the same value as it did with the colour touch removed (where it realistically should have been valued - that is how I would have valued it) then you wouldn't have that price gap and therefore that ability to remove colour touch and increase the price.

 

This is just wrong. The graders job is to grade the book as it is in hand. Period.

 

If a book had a tear seal that is unsealed, or a piece added to the corner, and the piece is removed, the book should be graded "as is".

 

You don't want graders speculating as to what might have been done to a book, with absolutely zero evidence present.

 

I agree with you.

 

I think that Joseph may be implying that CGC knew that the resto was removed and should have pro-actively notated it on the label but I do agree that the grader should really only knows what they see in front of them - ie the condition of the book and paper and nothing really more.

 

 

These guys remember books that they have graded, especially if they have seen them many times. I had a book signed by Robert Crumb and Art Spiegelman. It was a purple label 9.8 Funny Aminals. After the fact, I hated that purple label. I sent it to Matt Nelson to have the CT removed. It came back 9.6 Purple Yellow. I wasn't real happy

 

I called Haspel about it to see if he could give me any insight. He said that that particular book had been graded by CGC at least 6 times and that there was a swab of India ink an inch by an inch that had been applied copiously as though with someone's fingers. He didn't need any prompting or an invoice number because he knew the exact book I was talking about.

 

These guys remember the books that they see.

 

That Funny Aminals came from Don Donahue's back issue inventory, which was part of a collection/inventory Don had originally acquired from Bob Sidebottom. I'm going on foggy memory and second-hand account, but the story iteration I have heard is that Bob's relative (might well have been his own Son) was an aspiring artist and at a younger age, was practicing on Bob's back issue inventory. All the ones I've seen have returned from CGC with a Professional designation.

 

Putting the books history and purple label designation aside, the fact you have a double-sig with Crumb and Spiegelman is AWESOME! (thumbs u

[nearmint]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

Joseph, was this book purchased in a CGC purple holder initially?

 

The reason I ask is because it's not CGC's or the insider's (or the resto remover's for that matter) fault that the market puts an extremely unrealistic and irrationally low value on restored books, opening up the gap and therefore the market for people to remove restoration.

 

Unfortunately, that fault can squarely be placed on the shoulders of the open market and it's lack of education and understanding of how to understand restoration and how to value a book based on the amount and type of resto.

 

If a book goes cheap because everyone shuns resto even though it's just one dot of colour touch that is the real shame.

 

I respectfully disagree Roy, and a lot of the reasoning pertains to the particular context of the situation. Suffice it to say that if the book had dislcosed "colour touch removed" - and in this particular case, there was no reason it couldn't except for the reason that the people involved knew full well about the repercussions - the book would NEVER have attained the same price.

 

Ironically, it's evolved to the point where the "apparent" designation better suits blue label with hidden and/or deliberately undisclosed work than on a purple label.

 

I get where you're coming from.

 

My point was that if the market had valued the book with a dot of colour touch at the same value as it did with the colour touch removed (where it realistically should have been valued - that is how I would have valued it) then you wouldn't have that price gap and therefore that ability to remove colour touch and increase the price.

 

This is just wrong. The graders job is to grade the book as it is in hand. Period.

 

If a book had a tear seal that is unsealed, or a piece added to the corner, and the piece is removed, the book should be graded "as is".

 

You don't want graders speculating as to what might have been done to a book, with absolutely zero evidence present.

 

Agree 100%.

[The-Collector]

+1

 

On the Crumb Spiegleman sig.

 

Also the reason why my model bears little resemblance to the Cgc actual model is because it isnt describing reality it is describing perception.

[ComicConnoisseur]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

We are simply fooling ourselves into believing it's "acceptable" and that any demonstration of resistance is futile, but in reality, as paper lab methods become more and more advanced, we need to take a few steps back and consider that it is slowly eroding collector confidence and hobby trust.

 

Modernizing a home or object for utilitarian purposes is very different than modernizing a collectible as a commodity in hopes of fooling people into believing it's gracefully aged with time rather than through man-made reconditioning techniques.

 

At the moment, the hobby is making rain, but when a drought occurs, it isn't unfathomable to imagine that it will come from people combing-out the manipulation and reconditioning to the degree that untampered or truly pristine examples will be the only items collectors will pursue.

I thinked you have summed it up best

and with that a Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.

Edited November 21, 2012 by ComicConnoisseur

[Comicopolis]

As long as some people are making big money from manipulated books nothing will change.

[Davenport]

CGC identifies value by giving a guarantee as to quality.

 

CGC 'guarantees' nothing other than your book was viewed by three people.

 

They don't even guarantee that a book in a Universal label is unrestored.

 

Just that it was viewed by three people.

 

Semantics.

 

They provide a risk mitigating service, whether by guaranty or inspection by professionals the effect is the same, increased disclosure/certainty/knowledge.

 

And I would counter that an honest, ethical, knowledgeable dealer can give just as good a service.

 

In fact, with certain honest, ethical, knowledgeable dealers, you might well get increased disclosure.

That illusion of "increased disclosure/certainty/knowledge" is THE cornerstone of the Crack-Out-Game. It's the required "confidence" ingredient.

 

The Game only works if workbench beauties and truly rare gems become indiscernible.

 

[VintageComics]

These guys remember books that they have graded, especially if they have seen them many times. I had a book signed by Robert Crumb and Art Spiegelman. It was a purple label 9.8 Funny Aminals. After the fact, I hated that purple label. I sent it to Matt Nelson to have the CT removed. It came back 9.6 Purple Yellow. I wasn't real happy

 

I called Haspel about it to see if he could give me any insight. He said that that particular book had been graded by CGC at least 6 times and that there was a swab of India ink an inch by an inch that had been applied copiously as though with someone's fingers. He didn't need any prompting or an invoice number because he knew the exact book I was talking about.

 

These guys remember the books that they see.

 

Alright, let's not paint all 2 Million books that CGC have graded with the same brush.

 

Just like you, or me or anyone will, they will remember the books or even defects if they stand out in their minds for whatever reason. That doesn't mean in any way that they remember all books.

 

I remember most books that have passed through my hands. Not always immediately but I remember defects on books, etc and eventually can recall most of them.

 

Most of the time though, I'd call to ask about a particular book I had graded and they couldn't recall it unless it was within a few hours of seeing the book.

 

There are always going to be books that stand out in memory. That doesn't mean they remember every book.

 

I was unable to find Funny Animals by Crumb on either the GCD or the census. Is it a rare book? Sometimes certain books just stick out for whatever reason.

 

I do believe Mark has an above average memory though. It's just a part of who he is. The guy is a virtual encyclopedia when it comes to comics.

[VintageComics]

Maybe the book had a bindery chip that removed some resto?

 

Why do you continue to attack me?

 

[Dale Roberts]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

Joseph, was this book purchased in a CGC purple holder initially?

 

The reason I ask is because it's not CGC's or the insider's (or the resto remover's for that matter) fault that the market puts an extremely unrealistic and irrationally low value on restored books, opening up the gap and therefore the market for people to remove restoration.

 

Unfortunately, that fault can squarely be placed on the shoulders of the open market and it's lack of education and understanding of how to understand restoration and how to value a book based on the amount and type of resto.

 

If a book goes cheap because everyone shuns resto even though it's just one dot of colour touch that is the real shame.

 

I respectfully disagree Roy, and a lot of the reasoning pertains to the particular context of the situation. Suffice it to say that if the book had dislcosed "colour touch removed" - and in this particular case, there was no reason it couldn't except for the reason that the people involved knew full well about the repercussions - the book would NEVER have attained the same price.

 

Ironically, it's evolved to the point where the "apparent" designation better suits blue label with hidden and/or deliberately undisclosed work than on a purple label.

 

I get where you're coming from.

 

My point was that if the market had valued the book with a dot of colour touch at the same value as it did with the colour touch removed (where it realistically should have been valued - that is how I would have valued it) then you wouldn't have that price gap and therefore that ability to remove colour touch and increase the price.

 

This is just wrong. The graders job is to grade the book as it is in hand. Period.

 

If a book had a tear seal that is unsealed, or a piece added to the corner, and the piece is removed, the book should be graded "as is".

 

You don't want graders speculating as to what might have been done to a book, with absolutely zero evidence present.

 

I agree with you.

 

I think that Joseph may be implying that CGC knew that the resto was removed and should have pro-actively notated it on the label but I do agree that the grader should really only knows what they see in front of them - ie the condition of the book and paper and nothing really more.

 

 

These guys remember books that they have graded, especially if they have seen them many times. I had a book signed by Robert Crumb and Art Spiegelman. It was a purple label 9.8 Funny Aminals. After the fact, I hated that purple label. I sent it to Matt Nelson to have the CT removed. It came back 9.6 Purple Yellow. I wasn't real happy

 

I called Haspel about it to see if he could give me any insight. He said that that particular book had been graded by CGC at least 6 times and that there was a swab of India ink an inch by an inch that had been applied copiously as though with someone's fingers. He didn't need any prompting or an invoice number because he knew the exact book I was talking about.

 

These guys remember the books that they see.

 

The fact that they remember books is completely irrelevant. They can't grade on memory. They have to grade what is in their hands in front of them.

 

 

[VintageComics]

illusion cornerstone game ingredient workbench beauties gems indiscernible.

 

Sound bite.

 

 

[seanfingh]

These guys remember books that they have graded, especially if they have seen them many times. I had a book signed by Robert Crumb and Art Spiegelman. It was a purple label 9.8 Funny Aminals. After the fact, I hated that purple label. I sent it to Matt Nelson to have the CT removed. It came back 9.6 Purple Yellow. I wasn't real happy

 

I called Haspel about it to see if he could give me any insight. He said that that particular book had been graded by CGC at least 6 times and that there was a swab of India ink an inch by an inch that had been applied copiously as though with someone's fingers. He didn't need any prompting or an invoice number because he knew the exact book I was talking about.

 

These guys remember the books that they see.

 

Alright, let's not paint all 2 Million books that CGC have graded with the same brush.

 

Just like you, or me or anyone will, they will remember the books or even defects if they stand out in their minds for whatever reason. That doesn't mean in any way that they remember all books.

 

I remember most books that have passed through my hands. Not always immediately but I remember defects on books, etc and eventually can recall most of them.

 

Most of the time though, I'd call to ask about a particular book I had graded and they couldn't recall it unless it was within a few hours of seeing the book.

 

There are always going to be books that stand out in memory. That doesn't mean they remember every book.

 

I was unable to find Funny Animals by Crumb on either the GCD or the census. Is it a rare book? Sometimes certain books just stick out for whatever reason.

 

I do believe Mark has an above average memory though. It's just a part of who he is. The guy is a virtual encyclopedia when it comes to comics.

 

I wouldn't suggest that they did. But they remember the PC Hulk #1, my Funny Aminals (you couldn't find it because you are looking up "Animals") and countless other remarkable books that they have seen time and time and time again. I am not making a value judgment or connecting any dots, real or imagined. Merely stating that I absolutely believe that many of the books that are multiple CPR or CR books are well known.

[seanfingh]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

Joseph, was this book purchased in a CGC purple holder initially?

 

The reason I ask is because it's not CGC's or the insider's (or the resto remover's for that matter) fault that the market puts an extremely unrealistic and irrationally low value on restored books, opening up the gap and therefore the market for people to remove restoration.

 

Unfortunately, that fault can squarely be placed on the shoulders of the open market and it's lack of education and understanding of how to understand restoration and how to value a book based on the amount and type of resto.

 

If a book goes cheap because everyone shuns resto even though it's just one dot of colour touch that is the real shame.

 

I respectfully disagree Roy, and a lot of the reasoning pertains to the particular context of the situation. Suffice it to say that if the book had dislcosed "colour touch removed" - and in this particular case, there was no reason it couldn't except for the reason that the people involved knew full well about the repercussions - the book would NEVER have attained the same price.

 

Ironically, it's evolved to the point where the "apparent" designation better suits blue label with hidden and/or deliberately undisclosed work than on a purple label.

 

I get where you're coming from.

 

My point was that if the market had valued the book with a dot of colour touch at the same value as it did with the colour touch removed (where it realistically should have been valued - that is how I would have valued it) then you wouldn't have that price gap and therefore that ability to remove colour touch and increase the price.

 

This is just wrong. The graders job is to grade the book as it is in hand. Period.

 

If a book had a tear seal that is unsealed, or a piece added to the corner, and the piece is removed, the book should be graded "as is".

 

You don't want graders speculating as to what might have been done to a book, with absolutely zero evidence present.

 

I agree with you.

 

I think that Joseph may be implying that CGC knew that the resto was removed and should have pro-actively notated it on the label but I do agree that the grader should really only knows what they see in front of them - ie the condition of the book and paper and nothing really more.

 

 

These guys remember books that they have graded, especially if they have seen them many times. I had a book signed by Robert Crumb and Art Spiegelman. It was a purple label 9.8 Funny Aminals. After the fact, I hated that purple label. I sent it to Matt Nelson to have the CT removed. It came back 9.6 Purple Yellow. I wasn't real happy

 

I called Haspel about it to see if he could give me any insight. He said that that particular book had been graded by CGC at least 6 times and that there was a swab of India ink an inch by an inch that had been applied copiously as though with someone's fingers. He didn't need any prompting or an invoice number because he knew the exact book I was talking about.

 

These guys remember the books that they see.

 

The fact that they remember books is completely irrelevant. They can't grade on memory. They have to grade what is in their hands in front of them.

 

 

It is relevant to the part of the quote I was interested in. I underlined it above. My point is that they don't have to speculate what was done if they can tell what was done since the last time they graded that particular book.

[Davenport]

That illusion of "increased disclosure/certainty/knowledge" is THE cornerstone of the Crack-Out-Game. It's the required "confidence" ingredient.

 

The Game only works if workbench beauties and truly rare gems become indiscernible.

 

Sound bite.

 

Fact.

[VintageComics]

I wouldn't suggest that they did. But they remember the PC Hulk #1, my Funny Aminals (you couldn't find it because you are looking up "Animals") and countless other remarkable books that they have seen time and time and time again. I am not making a value judgment or connecting any dots, real or imagined. Merely stating that I absolutely believe that many of the books that are multiple CPR or CR books are well known.

 

There are many books that are well known. In a small hobby you're going to get that, especially as you move towards the top of the pile as far as quality goes.

 

As Dale says though, even if they remember particular books (and I would stress that everyone remembers a little bit of everything about their comics) they don't remember the entire book, all the defects, previous grades, etc.

 

It might be easy enough for Mark to know that the book was submitted at least 5 previous times just by looking at their internal census while he was on the phone with you and noticing 6 purple 9.8 subs of the book.

 

It is relevant to the part of the quote I was interested in. I underlined it above. My point is that they don't have to speculate what was done if they can tell what was done since the last time they graded that particular book.

 

You're right but they if I was running a grading business I'd also want to be consistent to all books and since they can't tell what exactly was done to all books (ie the ones that did not come through Matt or PCS for grading) then I would probably want to write a set of rules that treats all books impartially...meaning only what the grader can tell about the book sitting in front of them.

 

 

 

 

[nearmint]

My first experience hearing about CT removal happened post-CGC, and I won't go into specifics (and please don't ask), but suffice it to say that it involved a key GA book in a purple label. The tip was dropped into the lap of someone I knew by an insider. The book was purchased, the insider removed the resto, and the book was later flipped for an obscenely higher price than it would ever fetch in a restored state.

 

This is not simply about people's aversion to pressing. This is about altering and manipulating vintage items in a manner that is really no different than someone tumbling to attain an appearance of aging, or someone chemically altering a coin to attain a rainbow tone.

 

Joseph, was this book purchased in a CGC purple holder initially?

 

The reason I ask is because it's not CGC's or the insider's (or the resto remover's for that matter) fault that the market puts an extremely unrealistic and irrationally low value on restored books, opening up the gap and therefore the market for people to remove restoration.

 

Unfortunately, that fault can squarely be placed on the shoulders of the open market and it's lack of education and understanding of how to understand restoration and how to value a book based on the amount and type of resto.

 

If a book goes cheap because everyone shuns resto even though it's just one dot of colour touch that is the real shame.

 

I respectfully disagree Roy, and a lot of the reasoning pertains to the particular context of the situation. Suffice it to say that if the book had dislcosed "colour touch removed" - and in this particular case, there was no reason it couldn't except for the reason that the people involved knew full well about the repercussions - the book would NEVER have attained the same price.

 

Ironically, it's evolved to the point where the "apparent" designation better suits blue label with hidden and/or deliberately undisclosed work than on a purple label.

 

I get where you're coming from.

 

My point was that if the market had valued the book with a dot of colour touch at the same value as it did with the colour touch removed (where it realistically should have been valued - that is how I would have valued it) then you wouldn't have that price gap and therefore that ability to remove colour touch and increase the price.

 

This is just wrong. The graders job is to grade the book as it is in hand. Period.

 

If a book had a tear seal that is unsealed, or a piece added to the corner, and the piece is removed, the book should be graded "as is".

 

You don't want graders speculating as to what might have been done to a book, with absolutely zero evidence present.

 

I agree with you.

 

I think that Joseph may be implying that CGC knew that the resto was removed and should have pro-actively notated it on the label but I do agree that the grader should really only knows what they see in front of them - ie the condition of the book and paper and nothing really more.

 

 

These guys remember books that they have graded, especially if they have seen them many times. I had a book signed by Robert Crumb and Art Spiegelman. It was a purple label 9.8 Funny Aminals. After the fact, I hated that purple label. I sent it to Matt Nelson to have the CT removed. It came back 9.6 Purple Yellow. I wasn't real happy

 

I called Haspel about it to see if he could give me any insight. He said that that particular book had been graded by CGC at least 6 times and that there was a swab of India ink an inch by an inch that had been applied copiously as though with someone's fingers. He didn't need any prompting or an invoice number because he knew the exact book I was talking about.

 

These guys remember the books that they see.

 

The fact that they remember books is completely irrelevant. They can't grade on memory. They have to grade what is in their hands in front of them.

 

 

It is relevant to the part of the quote I was interested in. I underlined it above. My point is that they don't have to speculate what was done if they can tell what was done since the last time they graded that particular book.

 

The graders' mandate must be to grade the book in front of them, not to draw from any previous knowledge of the book.