CGC Acquires Classics Inc - Response to your Questions

[mschmidt]

I agree. The excuse would likely be that it would take too much time. I was hesitant in even suggesting this because even the mere mention of it might translate in to longer TAT's.

 

Please point me to any study or any company out there claiming that pressing can be reliably detected.

 

Show me a company that can 100% reliably detect restoration and that should give you the answer you seek.

 

That's my point - nobody can detect pressing reliably, so why would it be an excuse that CGC can't do it either?

 

That's also my point - nobody can guarantee 100% reliable restoration detection, but yet that hasn't stopped CGC from marketing itself as an authority on "restoration detection."

 

To me it's an important footnote in the discussion about detecting pressing, and I'm in the camp that just doesn't take CGC's word that pressing isn't detectable.

 

CGC doesn't market themselves as being able to detect restoration with 100% accuracy :shrug:

 

Instead of taking CGC's word for this, how about the Library of Congress?

 

I asked the Library of Congress via their web site, and got back an answer from a conservator that they didn't believe it was detectable.

[cheetah]

It is unlikely that something that would be commonly seen on comic book covers by these sorts of analyses would work as a release agent. So it wouldn't take rocket science to realize when all of a sudden there was a spike in submissions with fluorotetracarbide that it was likely being used in lieu of silicone release paper.

 

I said something that doesn't leave residue. Are you implying you believe that to be impossible?

 

Yes.

 

 

I do remain optimistic that pressing is detectable,

Why? It would never be implemented by CGC anyway.

 

Possibly not, but going back to Steve Borock's statements in this forum about why he didn't worry about pressing when he started CGC, he explicitly said it wasn't high on his radar since there was no way to detect it anyway. If someone establishes a way to detect it, then the game changes entirely. Even if CGC doesn't decide to start noting it, a legitimately competitive future service might, at which point it seems likely that CGC would be forced to consider it as well.

 

Actually there might be a case made where it wouldn't be economic suicide for CGC to note pressing. Never would this fly for all submissions, since a huge section of their customer base would be up in arms. However, there might be a slim chance that it could be an optional $ add on.

 

The question is would an additional niche market be a net gain for CGC or would there be such a downturn of their primary market that it would not be worthwhile?

 

There's another angle. If you're right that there is no residue-less alternative to release paper--which I find difficult to believe, but it's possible--then CGC's entire justification for not noting pressing falls apart. It's probably detectable now if you're right. Their ONLY option would then be to avoid addressing it altogether, because their current position is that it is undetectable and non-additive, but if you can detect the residue from the heat buffer, then their position becomes entirely false. They just can't keep giving that same answer without instantly losing face. SOMETHING has to change in the way they handle it...it's just a matter of what.

I believe that their position that pressing was undetectable was always a convenient excuse to give to those who would have liked pressing to have been noted. It's not like they ever had an incentive to even try to detect it so obviously they were never going to and never will.

 

A failsafe method that could be proven to all for detecting pressing could be discovered tomorrow and CGC would never use it simply because it's not in their best interests. They wouldn't be able to use the "undetectable excuse" but they would either find another one or just say it's not their policy.

 

I agree. The excuse would likely be that it would take too much time. I was hesitant in even suggesting this because even the mere mention of it might translate in to longer TAT's.

 

To do a truly thorough job would also likely require destructive chemical testing. I wonder if the community could get used to each graded comic having a 1cm x 1cm square piece missing from the cover.

 

Spectroscopy is identified as non-destructive for a reason.

 

Ummm. Do you know a lot about spectroscopy?

[comicwiz]

It is unlikely that something that would be commonly seen on comic book covers by these sorts of analyses would work as a release agent. So it wouldn't take rocket science to realize when all of a sudden there was a spike in submissions with fluorotetracarbide that it was likely being used in lieu of silicone release paper.

 

I said something that doesn't leave residue. Are you implying you believe that to be impossible?

 

Yes.

 

 

I do remain optimistic that pressing is detectable,

Why? It would never be implemented by CGC anyway.

 

Possibly not, but going back to Steve Borock's statements in this forum about why he didn't worry about pressing when he started CGC, he explicitly said it wasn't high on his radar since there was no way to detect it anyway. If someone establishes a way to detect it, then the game changes entirely. Even if CGC doesn't decide to start noting it, a legitimately competitive future service might, at which point it seems likely that CGC would be forced to consider it as well.

 

Actually there might be a case made where it wouldn't be economic suicide for CGC to note pressing. Never would this fly for all submissions, since a huge section of their customer base would be up in arms. However, there might be a slim chance that it could be an optional $ add on.

 

The question is would an additional niche market be a net gain for CGC or would there be such a downturn of their primary market that it would not be worthwhile?

 

There's another angle. If you're right that there is no residue-less alternative to release paper--which I find difficult to believe, but it's possible--then CGC's entire justification for not noting pressing falls apart. It's probably detectable now if you're right. Their ONLY option would then be to avoid addressing it altogether, because their current position is that it is undetectable and non-additive, but if you can detect the residue from the heat buffer, then their position becomes entirely false. They just can't keep giving that same answer without instantly losing face. SOMETHING has to change in the way they handle it...it's just a matter of what.

I believe that their position that pressing was undetectable was always a convenient excuse to give to those who would have liked pressing to have been noted. It's not like they ever had an incentive to even try to detect it so obviously they were never going to and never will.

 

A failsafe method that could be proven to all for detecting pressing could be discovered tomorrow and CGC would never use it simply because it's not in their best interests. They wouldn't be able to use the "undetectable excuse" but they would either find another one or just say it's not their policy.

 

I agree. The excuse would likely be that it would take too much time. I was hesitant in even suggesting this because even the mere mention of it might translate in to longer TAT's.

 

To do a truly thorough job would also likely require destructive chemical testing. I wonder if the community could get used to each graded comic having a 1cm x 1cm square piece missing from the cover.

 

Spectroscopy is identified as non-destructive for a reason.

 

Ummm. Do you know a lot about spectroscopy?

 

Tell me why you think any part of the book would need to be damaged?

[cheetah]

It is unlikely that something that would be commonly seen on comic book covers by these sorts of analyses would work as a release agent. So it wouldn't take rocket science to realize when all of a sudden there was a spike in submissions with fluorotetracarbide that it was likely being used in lieu of silicone release paper.

 

I said something that doesn't leave residue. Are you implying you believe that to be impossible?

 

Yes.

 

 

I do remain optimistic that pressing is detectable,

Why? It would never be implemented by CGC anyway.

 

Possibly not, but going back to Steve Borock's statements in this forum about why he didn't worry about pressing when he started CGC, he explicitly said it wasn't high on his radar since there was no way to detect it anyway. If someone establishes a way to detect it, then the game changes entirely. Even if CGC doesn't decide to start noting it, a legitimately competitive future service might, at which point it seems likely that CGC would be forced to consider it as well.

 

Actually there might be a case made where it wouldn't be economic suicide for CGC to note pressing. Never would this fly for all submissions, since a huge section of their customer base would be up in arms. However, there might be a slim chance that it could be an optional $ add on.

 

The question is would an additional niche market be a net gain for CGC or would there be such a downturn of their primary market that it would not be worthwhile?

 

There's another angle. If you're right that there is no residue-less alternative to release paper--which I find difficult to believe, but it's possible--then CGC's entire justification for not noting pressing falls apart. It's probably detectable now if you're right. Their ONLY option would then be to avoid addressing it altogether, because their current position is that it is undetectable and non-additive, but if you can detect the residue from the heat buffer, then their position becomes entirely false. They just can't keep giving that same answer without instantly losing face. SOMETHING has to change in the way they handle it...it's just a matter of what.

I believe that their position that pressing was undetectable was always a convenient excuse to give to those who would have liked pressing to have been noted. It's not like they ever had an incentive to even try to detect it so obviously they were never going to and never will.

 

A failsafe method that could be proven to all for detecting pressing could be discovered tomorrow and CGC would never use it simply because it's not in their best interests. They wouldn't be able to use the "undetectable excuse" but they would either find another one or just say it's not their policy.

 

I agree. The excuse would likely be that it would take too much time. I was hesitant in even suggesting this because even the mere mention of it might translate in to longer TAT's.

 

To do a truly thorough job would also likely require destructive chemical testing. I wonder if the community could get used to each graded comic having a 1cm x 1cm square piece missing from the cover.

 

Spectroscopy is identified as non-destructive for a reason.

 

Ummm. Do you know a lot about spectroscopy?

 

Tell me why you think any part of the book would need to be damaged?

 

I'll take that as a 'no'.

 

You can't just take a piece of paper, shine some light on it and say, 'zounds! I found wax from release paper.' You can just go to Wiki and read about it. It's not like a Star Trek tricorder that magically tells you everything you know. Non-destructive FTIR is really good with metals and doesn't require anything but a handheld unit and it won't do damage. Shine one on a comic book and you are not going to get results. Most spectroscopic analyses require the sample to be in a prepared solution or volatilized into a gas. If you wanted to know if a book had been pressed with lead weights, it might work, but not with an organic or inorganic polymer-coated paper.

[comicwiz]

I'll take that as a 'no'.

 

You can't just take a piece of paper, shine some light on it and say, 'zounds! I found wax from release paper.' You can just go to Wiki and read about it. It's not like a Star Trek tricorder that magically tells you everything you know. Non-destructive FTIR is really good with metals and doesn't require anything but a handheld unit and it won't do damage. Shine one on a comic book and you are not going to get results. Most spectroscopic analyses require the sample to be in a prepared solution or volatilized into a gas. If you wanted to know if a book had been pressed with lead weights, it might work, but not with an organic or inorganic polymer-coated paper.

 

I appreciate your concerns, and quite frankly I don't want to get into this for more than just reasons of not having the time or willingness.

 

In short, a dry mount press, especially one originally meant to matte photos or to screen T's could be used to turn comics to dust if someone wasn't knowledgeable on how to use it. Doesn't make dry mount presses destructive for comics.

 

One other thing before I sign-off, and it pertains to your points about "prepping" samples - think about what you suggested and PCGS doing anything to either "prep" or "damage" the coins people submit for grading.

[cheetah]

I'll take that as a 'no'.

 

You can't just take a piece of paper, shine some light on it and say, 'zounds! I found wax from release paper.' You can just go to Wiki and read about it. It's not like a Star Trek tricorder that magically tells you everything you know. Non-destructive FTIR is really good with metals and doesn't require anything but a handheld unit and it won't do damage. Shine one on a comic book and you are not going to get results. Most spectroscopic analyses require the sample to be in a prepared solution or volatilized into a gas. If you wanted to know if a book had been pressed with lead weights, it might work, but not with an organic or inorganic polymer-coated paper.

 

I appreciate your concerns, and quite frankly I don't want to get into this for more than just reasons of not having the time or willingness.

 

In short, a dry mount press, especially one originally meant to mat photos or screen t's could be used to turn comics to dust if someone wasn't knowledgeable on how to use it. Doesn't make dry mount presses destructive for comics.

 

One other thing before I sign-off, and it pertains to your points about "prepping" samples - think about what you suggested and PCGS doing anything to either "prep" or "damage" the coins people submit for grading.

 

Yes it is a pointless discussion if you don't understand the inherent differences between a metal substrate of known composition and a comic book that has been sitting around for one to 75 years. Bye.

[fantastic_four]

If you mean because these are comics where backing boards are stuck to them and make it impossible to see the original cover wrap, then yes they are undetectable. (thumbs u

 

How do you know that happens?

 

Nothing I can say will convince you that this is about as dumb a suggestion as seeing that YouTube video that showed that guy pressing the book open like he was reading it.

 

Sure there is--you can tell me why it's dumb. I haven't tried it, so I wouldn't know, but it sounds like you have.

[gaz973]

I believe that their position that pressing was undetectable was always a convenient excuse to give to those who would have liked pressing to have been noted. It's not like they ever had an incentive to even try to detect it so obviously they were never going to and never will.

 

A failsafe method that could be proven to all for detecting pressing could be discovered tomorrow and CGC would never use it simply because it's not in their best interests. They wouldn't be able to use the "undetectable excuse" but they would either find another one or just say it's not their policy.

 

Hindsight is always clear.

 

CGC graders are not magicians. There are probably 50 people on this forum that I could name off the top of my head that can grade just as well as a CGC grader. What those 50 people likely can't do is detect pressing with any degree of certainty - at least not with the naked eye - just like CGC graders can't. How can you detect something invisible to the naked eye? You can only assume that some books may have been pressed based on their current appearance, but then you have no way of knowing whether it was intentional or not and so CGC does what any normal person would do if they were handed a book and were asked their opinion: The grade the book as it sits in front of them.

 

Does anyone want a service whose opinion is a 50/50 guess? I don't see that as a very viable business model.

 

Now, you might be able to detect pressing using some of the tech mentioned in this thread, but after 2 Million books (and likely closer to 3 Million now) are they going to change anything? I guess the market will decide.

My point was that it's irrelevant whether CGC could detect pressing or not, even if they could detect it, they still wouldn't try to because it's not in their interests to do so which leaves the whole point rather moot.

[fantastic_four]

I'll take that as a 'no'.

 

You can't just take a piece of paper, shine some light on it and say, 'zounds! I found wax from release paper.' You can just go to Wiki and read about it. It's not like a Star Trek tricorder that magically tells you everything you know. Non-destructive FTIR is really good with metals and doesn't require anything but a handheld unit and it won't do damage. Shine one on a comic book and you are not going to get results. Most spectroscopic analyses require the sample to be in a prepared solution or volatilized into a gas. If you wanted to know if a book had been pressed with lead weights, it might work, but not with an organic or inorganic polymer-coated paper.

 

I appreciate your concerns, and quite frankly I don't want to get into this for more than just reasons of not having the time or willingness.

 

In short, a dry mount press, especially one originally meant to mat photos or screen t's could be used to turn comics to dust if someone wasn't knowledgeable on how to use it. Doesn't make dry mount presses destructive for comics.

 

One other thing before I sign-off, and it pertains to your points about "prepping" samples - think about what you suggested and PCGS doing anything to either "prep" or "damage" the coins people submit for grading.

 

Yes it is a pointless discussion if you don't understand the inherent differences between a metal substrate of known composition and a comic book that has been sitting around for one to 75 years. Bye.

 

I don't know why Joseph is being so rudely combative and dismissive, but I'll just call it "Internet anonymity sickness" and try to ignore it for now. When you suggested using backing boards to take the place of release paper as a heat buffer, where'd you get that idea--have you heard of people trying that?

[originalisbest]

I'll take that as a 'no'.

 

You can't just take a piece of paper, shine some light on it and say, 'zounds! I found wax from release paper.' You can just go to Wiki and read about it. It's not like a Star Trek tricorder that magically tells you everything you know. Non-destructive FTIR is really good with metals and doesn't require anything but a handheld unit and it won't do damage. Shine one on a comic book and you are not going to get results. Most spectroscopic analyses require the sample to be in a prepared solution or volatilized into a gas. If you wanted to know if a book had been pressed with lead weights, it might work, but not with an organic or inorganic polymer-coated paper.

 

I appreciate your concerns, and quite frankly I don't want to get into this for more than just reasons of not having the time or willingness.

 

In short, a dry mount press, especially one originally meant to mat photos or screen t's could be used to turn comics to dust if someone wasn't knowledgeable on how to use it. Doesn't make dry mount presses destructive for comics.

 

One other thing before I sign-off, and it pertains to your points about "prepping" samples - think about what you suggested and PCGS doing anything to either "prep" or "damage" the coins people submit for grading.

 

Yes it is a pointless discussion if you don't understand the inherent differences between a metal substrate of known composition and a comic book that has been sitting around for one to 75 years. Bye.

 

Indeed, a metal coin is a somewhat different ball of wax vs a paper comic with one or two staples. The way CGC uses their "sniffer", a coin isn't inherently approved or rejected based on any spectrographic results, it just adds to their understanding of it. If you're willing to pay the full-boat fare, any coin can be submitted for secure plus grading and the sniffer, but overall it's a smallish part of the certified coin population. Largely, it was done to tighten up the ship with regard to CAC (in my opinion) which has made a successful niche for itself as a grader of the graders over the past few years.

 

Unlike the goofballs trying to make a go of fourth-party certification for comics, however, it works because John Albanese is a very respected fourth party with regard to coin grading, and his company (CAC) makes a market in coins they have certified as "good" for the grade.

 

Anyway, below is a sort of beginner's primer on spectroscopy. I have a hard time determining what, if any of the spectroscopic methods discussed wouldn't destroy a comic, or basically be inconclusive.

 

http://misterguch.brinkster.net/identify.html

[fantastic_four]

Indeed, a metal coin is a somewhat different ball of wax vs a paper comic with one or two staples. The way CGC uses their "sniffer", a coin isn't inherently approved or rejected based on any spectrographic results, it just adds to their understanding of it. If you're willing to pay the full-boat fare, any coin can be submitted for secure plus grading and the sniffer, but overall it's a smallish part of the certified coin population. Largely, it was done to tighten up the ship with regard to CAC (in my opinion) which has made a successful niche for itself as a grader of the graders over the past few years.

 

Unlike the goofballs trying to make a go of fourth-party certification for comics, however, it works because John Albanese is a very respected fourth party with regard to coin grading, and his company (CAC) makes a market in coins they have certified as "good" for the grade.

 

I presume the "goofballs" in comics you're referring to are CVA. Any specific opinions as to what CAC does right in coins that CVA sucks at in comics? Never heard of CAC before now, thanks for sharing!

 

I still haven't figured out what CVA does for me--they just seem to be telling me what I can already see through the slab.

[cheetah]

I'll take that as a 'no'.

 

You can't just take a piece of paper, shine some light on it and say, 'zounds! I found wax from release paper.' You can just go to Wiki and read about it. It's not like a Star Trek tricorder that magically tells you everything you know. Non-destructive FTIR is really good with metals and doesn't require anything but a handheld unit and it won't do damage. Shine one on a comic book and you are not going to get results. Most spectroscopic analyses require the sample to be in a prepared solution or volatilized into a gas. If you wanted to know if a book had been pressed with lead weights, it might work, but not with an organic or inorganic polymer-coated paper.

 

I appreciate your concerns, and quite frankly I don't want to get into this for more than just reasons of not having the time or willingness.

 

In short, a dry mount press, especially one originally meant to mat photos or screen t's could be used to turn comics to dust if someone wasn't knowledgeable on how to use it. Doesn't make dry mount presses destructive for comics.

 

One other thing before I sign-off, and it pertains to your points about "prepping" samples - think about what you suggested and PCGS doing anything to either "prep" or "damage" the coins people submit for grading.

 

Yes it is a pointless discussion if you don't understand the inherent differences between a metal substrate of known composition and a comic book that has been sitting around for one to 75 years. Bye.

 

I don't know why Joseph is being so rudely combative and dismissive, but I'll just call it "Internet anonymity sickness" and try to ignore it for now. When you suggested using backing boards to take the place of release paper as a heat buffer, where'd you get that idea--have you heard of people trying that?

 

Because I had access to a t-shirt press one day and tried it out. I got better results using a backing board sandwich than I did with anything else I had on hand.

[cheetah]

I'll take that as a 'no'.

 

You can't just take a piece of paper, shine some light on it and say, 'zounds! I found wax from release paper.' You can just go to Wiki and read about it. It's not like a Star Trek tricorder that magically tells you everything you know. Non-destructive FTIR is really good with metals and doesn't require anything but a handheld unit and it won't do damage. Shine one on a comic book and you are not going to get results. Most spectroscopic analyses require the sample to be in a prepared solution or volatilized into a gas. If you wanted to know if a book had been pressed with lead weights, it might work, but not with an organic or inorganic polymer-coated paper.

 

I appreciate your concerns, and quite frankly I don't want to get into this for more than just reasons of not having the time or willingness.

 

In short, a dry mount press, especially one originally meant to mat photos or screen t's could be used to turn comics to dust if someone wasn't knowledgeable on how to use it. Doesn't make dry mount presses destructive for comics.

 

One other thing before I sign-off, and it pertains to your points about "prepping" samples - think about what you suggested and PCGS doing anything to either "prep" or "damage" the coins people submit for grading.

 

Yes it is a pointless discussion if you don't understand the inherent differences between a metal substrate of known composition and a comic book that has been sitting around for one to 75 years. Bye.

 

Indeed, a metal coin is a somewhat different ball of wax vs a paper comic with one or two staples. The way CGC uses their "sniffer", a coin isn't inherently approved or rejected based on any spectrographic results, it just adds to their understanding of it. If you're willing to pay the full-boat fare, any coin can be submitted for secure plus grading and the sniffer, but overall it's a smallish part of the certified coin population. Largely, it was done to tighten up the ship with regard to CAC (in my opinion) which has made a successful niche for itself as a grader of the graders over the past few years.

 

Unlike the goofballs trying to make a go of fourth-party certification for comics, however, it works because John Albanese is a very respected fourth party with regard to coin grading, and his company (CAC) makes a market in coins they have certified as "good" for the grade.

 

Anyway, below is a sort of beginner's primer on spectroscopy. I have a hard time determining what, if any of the spectroscopic methods discussed wouldn't destroy a comic, or basically be inconclusive.

 

http://misterguch.brinkster.net/identify.html

 

You are on point. Not knowing much about coin restoration, I can't speak to the results they might get, but using an FTIR or other hand-held unit could establish a pretty thorough database for control. I don't know how you establish a control for something as variable as a comic book.

[originalisbest]

Indeed, a metal coin is a somewhat different ball of wax vs a paper comic with one or two staples. The way CGC uses their "sniffer", a coin isn't inherently approved or rejected based on any spectrographic results, it just adds to their understanding of it. If you're willing to pay the full-boat fare, any coin can be submitted for secure plus grading and the sniffer, but overall it's a smallish part of the certified coin population. Largely, it was done to tighten up the ship with regard to CAC (in my opinion) which has made a successful niche for itself as a grader of the graders over the past few years.

 

Unlike the goofballs trying to make a go of fourth-party certification for comics, however, it works because John Albanese is a very respected fourth party with regard to coin grading, and his company (CAC) makes a market in coins they have certified as "good" for the grade.

 

I presume the "goofballs" in comics you're referring to are CVA. Any specific opinions as to what CAC does right in coins that CVA sucks at in comics? Never heard of CAC before now, thanks for sharing!

 

I still haven't figured out what CVA does for me--they just seem to be telling me what I can already see through the slab.

 

CVA are indeed the goofballs in question, couldn't remember their initials. The problem with CVA certification is -- who are the guys? I've never heard of them. Why does their opinion on a comic mean bupkus to me? If blazingbob tells me a book is nice, that actually means something. Seemed pretty obvious to me upon their birth, that they were trying to imitate what CAC is for coins.

 

Problem is, anybody can take a sticker and say "this sticker proves I think this is a pretty book!" The reason CAC works is John Albanese is obscenely respected for his coin grading eye, and his stickers carry the weight of his company making a market in them, with a lot of capital to back it up (purchased over $275 million in coins they've deemed worthy of their endorsement.) Does CVA make a market in books they've deemed "nice" for the grade? Basically the difference to me, they're as meaningful as a pretty metallic balloon smiley face on my CGC slab.

 

Here's the CAC site: http://www.caccoin.com/

[Davenport]

It's not like a Star Trek tricorder that magically tells you everything you know.

[originalisbest]

I'll take that as a 'no'.

 

You can't just take a piece of paper, shine some light on it and say, 'zounds! I found wax from release paper.' You can just go to Wiki and read about it. It's not like a Star Trek tricorder that magically tells you everything you know. Non-destructive FTIR is really good with metals and doesn't require anything but a handheld unit and it won't do damage. Shine one on a comic book and you are not going to get results. Most spectroscopic analyses require the sample to be in a prepared solution or volatilized into a gas. If you wanted to know if a book had been pressed with lead weights, it might work, but not with an organic or inorganic polymer-coated paper.

 

I appreciate your concerns, and quite frankly I don't want to get into this for more than just reasons of not having the time or willingness.

 

In short, a dry mount press, especially one originally meant to mat photos or screen t's could be used to turn comics to dust if someone wasn't knowledgeable on how to use it. Doesn't make dry mount presses destructive for comics.

 

One other thing before I sign-off, and it pertains to your points about "prepping" samples - think about what you suggested and PCGS doing anything to either "prep" or "damage" the coins people submit for grading.

 

Yes it is a pointless discussion if you don't understand the inherent differences between a metal substrate of known composition and a comic book that has been sitting around for one to 75 years. Bye.

 

Indeed, a metal coin is a somewhat different ball of wax vs a paper comic with one or two staples. The way CGC uses their "sniffer", a coin isn't inherently approved or rejected based on any spectrographic results, it just adds to their understanding of it. If you're willing to pay the full-boat fare, any coin can be submitted for secure plus grading and the sniffer, but overall it's a smallish part of the certified coin population. Largely, it was done to tighten up the ship with regard to CAC (in my opinion) which has made a successful niche for itself as a grader of the graders over the past few years.

 

Unlike the goofballs trying to make a go of fourth-party certification for comics, however, it works because John Albanese is a very respected fourth party with regard to coin grading, and his company (CAC) makes a market in coins they have certified as "good" for the grade.

 

Anyway, below is a sort of beginner's primer on spectroscopy. I have a hard time determining what, if any of the spectroscopic methods discussed wouldn't destroy a comic, or basically be inconclusive.

 

http://misterguch.brinkster.net/identify.html

 

You are on point. Not knowing much about coin restoration, I can't speak to the results they might get, but using an FTIR or other hand-held unit could establish a pretty thorough database for control. I don't know how you establish a control for something as variable as a comic book.

 

Thanks cheetah! I know little of the specifics on how the coin sniffer works exactly, but below is a 7-minute + video they put out 3 years ago. I'm not crazy about the goofy bark warning they chose, but the tech is solid for detecting substances added to a piece to try and garner a higher grade. Would you be able, watching the video, to determine if this same scanning process (infared) would be able to tell anything conclusive about the surface of a vintage comic?

 

http://www.pcgs.com/News/Pcgs-Secure-Plustrade-Part-Ii-Featuring-Coin-Sniffer

[buttock]

I don't trust anyone who mis-spells "Fourier" transform.

[pickycollector]

My pressing thread is better than yours

 

[drbanner]

Question - now that Matt is a head grader, who oversees the quality of the restoration/conservation/pressing work?

[JazzMan]

Question - now that Matt is a head grader, who oversees the quality of the restoration/conservation/pressing work?

 

Kenny? :shrug: