• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Damaging a book for fun and profit.

Started by MatterEaterLad,

17 posts in this topic

MatterEaterLad

MatterEaterLad

Posted
Posted

Weird question. I have a JIM #83 that's a PLOD 2.0.

 

The only restoration is that the bottom of the back cover has been trimmed, but only about a 3" section.

 

If I were to lay a rough straight-edge along that trimmed area (like a piece of cardboard) and basically tear that section off by hand, and resubbed, do you think it would come back as a Blue 2.0?

 

Seems unthinkable to do such a thing, but...

 

:whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony S

Tony S

Posted
Posted

Well, here is something I've never heard or thought of. The few trimmed books I've owned were all high grade copies so what you describe- if it worked in terms of getting it out of a PLOD - would greatly reduce the grade.

 

We all hate PLOD's, but then as collectors the thought of intentionally damaging a book makes us squirm. At a fundemental level, is this any different than a "professional" scraping amatuer color touch off a book, leaving a bare, colorless spot or even a tiny hole?. Or deliberately pulling apart a sealed tear? Or removing a tiny replaced chip on the spine? All these examples of professional restoration removal and more are intended to return the book to an unrestored state. Are they that much different than what you ask about?

 

It's your book, do what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MatterEaterLad

MatterEaterLad

Posted
  • Author
Posted
We all hate PLOD's, but then as collectors the thought of intentionally damaging a book makes us squirm. At a fundemental level, is this any different than a "professional" scraping amatuer color touch off a book, leaving a bare, colorless spot or even a tiny hole?. Or deliberately pulling apart a sealed tear? Or removing a tiny replaced chip on the spine? All these examples of professional restoration removal and more are intended to return the book to an unrestored state. Are they that much different than what you ask about?

 

Exactly!

 

I'd never thought of such a thing until I saw a similar 2.0 (blue) with a sizable chunk missing from the cover and the comparison seemed so strange.

 

That and I have an AF15 in Fair condition and I'm looking at places for restoration. When I went to some of those sites they had samples of resto removal, removing color, removing spine repair, and the net effect is that the book is returned to a pure state, but it looks worse.

 

Makes my head hurt.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjpb

rjpb

Posted
Posted
It drives me crazy to think that damaging the book and making it worse from an eye-appeal standpoint could increase its value. Just doesn't make sense. It does underline a flaw in CGCs system.

 

It's not a flaw in the CGC system, it's a flaw of current collector mentality. In the higher grades, punishing a book's value for minor restoration makes perfect sense as collectors are looking for nice to exceptional copies, and resto is an unacceptable "flaw" for most buyers looking at books in these grades. No matter how good a book looks, detached covers, tanning pages, and other flaws could also punish the value, so it's no surprise resto would be highly destained.

 

Even in the midgrades the big price drops for even slight resto are understandable, as the price premiums for unrestored books just a grade or two higher can be dramatic, but when one gets in to the lower grades, particularly 2.0 and under, the cumulative flaws are so great, with copies sought out more for their affordability than appearance, that to find a bit of color touch or even a slight trim significantly more offensive than pieces missing, heavy creases, water stains or scribbling on a cover doesn't make much sense. The stigma of the purple label may be to blame, as I don't think buyers of the low grade books 15 years ago were as concerned ( though nearly everyone has specific flaws they cannot abide), but it's the buyers not CGC that dictate the value of these books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ft88

ft88

Posted
Posted
Weird question. I have a JIM #83 that's a PLOD 2.0.

 

The only restoration is that the bottom of the back cover has been trimmed, but only about a 3" section.

 

If I were to lay a rough straight-edge along that trimmed area (like a piece of cardboard) and basically tear that section off by hand, and resubbed, do you think it would come back as a Blue 2.0?

 

Seems unthinkable to do such a thing, but...

 

:whistle:

 

I kind of doubt it would come back a 2.0 but lets say a 1.5. Would the price really be that different.

 

I haven't checked GPA but my thinking is that at the very low grades 2.0 and less, restoration isn't that big a deal even on mega keys. It depends on the restoration too of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tony S

Tony S

Posted
Posted
It drives me crazy to think that damaging the book and making it worse from an eye-appeal standpoint could increase its value. Just doesn't make sense. It does underline a flaw in CGCs system.

 

It's not a flaw in the CGC system, it's a flaw of current collector mentality. In the higher grades, punishing a book's value for minor restoration makes perfect sense as collectors are looking for nice to exceptional copies, and resto is an unacceptable "flaw" for most buyers looking at books in these grades. No matter how good a book looks, detached covers, tanning pages, and other flaws could also punish the value, so it's no surprise resto would be highly destained.

 

Even in the midgrades the big price drops for even slight resto are understandable, as the price premiums for unrestored books just a grade or two higher can be dramatic, but when one gets in to the lower grades, particularly 2.0 and under, the cumulative flaws are so great, with copies sought out more for their affordability than appearance, that to find a bit of color touch or even a slight trim significantly more offensive than pieces missing, heavy creases, water stains or scribbling on a cover doesn't make much sense. The stigma of the purple label may be to blame, as I don't think buyers of the low grade books 15 years ago were as concerned ( though nearly everyone has specific flaws they cannot abide), but it's the buyers not CGC that dictate the value of these books.

 

+1

 

I thought about posting up comments much like this but just didn't feel like the effort. I've had lunch and now am encouraged by your comments. Some of this (the purple label stigma, the effect of restoration on value in low grade comics) is just opinion. But it is opinion based on experience selling books for decades and watching the market.

 

My opinion being that in low grade books - I'd suggest 3.0 - that minor restoration shouldn't cause a book to get a purple label. I don't even like using the term "restoration" because if the book still looks to be in 2.5 condition the restoration probably wasn't very professional or complete. I once had an absolutely beater Showcase 4 - Fair if generous - professionally restored to 4.5. So a 2.0 "restored" grade is an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned.

 

So you have a book that grades 2.0 and someone took a ball point pen to the spine or a bit of glue on a staple. Just consider that a another defect and grade accordingly. And this is how the market behaves, especially with raw books. Which is why I never consider getting low grade copies (for sale) with a bit of CT or glue on the spines slabbed. Fully disclosed they bring more money raw.

 

You can also see this "additude" in the market - to a lesser degree - for CGC graded books. A restored Avengers 1 in 8.0 might sell for 10-15% of the unrestored price. A restored 2.0 will over get over 50% - the last sale was 70% - of the unrestored price.

 

Using the OP's book and looking at GPA the picture is sort of murky for JIM 83. GPA is a useful but imperfect tool for sure. But for over a year now the average selling price for 1.8's has been a couple of hundred dollars more than the average selling price for 2.0's. The last recorded sales - one month apart - had a $420 spread in the 1.8's favor. There are so few recorded restored copies sold - and those from so many years ago - that it's hard to say for sure what the spread is on restored versus unrestored. The only "comparable" is a trimmed 1.8 sold for $560 last month Vs a 12 month average of $1323. Under 1/2. But the sales of other keys would suggest the same 50% or better could be expected.

 

In the case of this book - since 1.8's sell for more than 2.0's (crazy as that sounds) - the OP would definetly be money ahead yanking a chunk out and HOPING to get 1.8 instead of 2.0.

 

12 month average GPA ( 2.0 ) (6) $1,164

Last recorded GPA 2.0 $1,075 May-2012

Recorded restored 2.0's all over 4 years old

 

12 month average GPA ( 1.8 ) (2) $1,323 -

Last recorded GPA sale (1.8) $1,495 Jun-2012

Recorded restored sale SA ( 1.8 ) Cover Trimmed $560 Jan-2013

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sqeggs

Sqeggs

Posted
Posted
Weird question. I have a JIM #83 that's a PLOD 2.0.

 

The only restoration is that the bottom of the back cover has been trimmed, but only about a 3" section.

 

If I were to lay a rough straight-edge along that trimmed area (like a piece of cardboard) and basically tear that section off by hand, and resubbed, do you think it would come back as a Blue 2.0?

 

Seems unthinkable to do such a thing, but...

 

:whistle:

 

I kind of doubt it would come back a 2.0 but lets say a 1.5. Would the price really be that different.

 

I haven't checked GPA but my thinking is that at the very low grades 2.0 and less, restoration isn't that big a deal even on mega keys. It depends on the restoration too of course.

 

A lot of variance in prices, of course, but a 1.8 blue went for $1,495 in June and a 1.8 cover trimmed went for $560 last month. So, I would hazard the opinion that tearing off a bit of the back cover to disguise the trimming probably would raise the value of the book.

 

We have certainly seen a lot of GA books, in particular, increase in grade after split covers were taped together. There do seem to be a fair number of people willing to damage a book to increase its value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aces

Aces

Posted
Posted
Weird question. I have a JIM #83 that's a PLOD 2.0.

 

The only restoration is that the bottom of the back cover has been trimmed, but only about a 3" section.

 

If I were to lay a rough straight-edge along that trimmed area (like a piece of cardboard) and basically tear that section off by hand, and resubbed, do you think it would come back as a Blue 2.0?

 

Seems unthinkable to do such a thing, but...

 

:whistle:

 

A better plan is to get some insects and coat the trimmed edge in honey and let them nibble on it.

:idea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vaillant

vaillant

Posted
Posted
It drives me crazy to think that damaging the book and making it worse from an eye-appeal standpoint could increase its value. Just doesn't make sense. It does underline a flaw in CGCs system.

 

It also suggests you that comic books are generally made for reading.

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MatterEaterLad

MatterEaterLad

Posted
  • Author
Posted
OP, have you considered having the Jim Professional restored and getting rid of the trimmed designation?

 

Seems like if the book could be restored to an 8.0ish you would come out a winner.

 

 

Yep, that's what I'm actually doing. I'd be happy with a purple 6.0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing