CGC blue label with color touch

[VintageComics]

It shouldn't matter if the grade bumps. At the very least, ANY and ALL CT should be a PLOD.

 

I'll agree to disagree.

 

If I'm buying a book as a collector, I like to know exactly how much colour touch there is. Small, Medium and Large doesn't cut it for me. The current system is terrible in that regard.

 

I'd rather have something like a 10 point scale but in lieu of that, the current system actually does a better job of displaying it than just lumping everything into a purple label.

It doesn't matter how many words you type in defense, CT is still CT. Plain and simple.

 

Sure it is. I'm agreeing with you.

 

It even says it's there on the label, whether it's blue or purple. Nobody is trying to hide it.

 

 

I'm not defending it. I'm understanding why it's effective. More information is better than less.

 

The current system gives you 5 different steps.

 

Universal, universal with notes, purple Slight, purple Moderate, purple Extensive.

 

Removing the "universal with notes" gives you 4 different steps.

 

Which system (5 or 4 step) gives you more information about the book?

[VintageComics]

Anyhow, I'm out. I'm sure there will be all sorts of things to *ahem* read about tomorrow.

 

Nite, all.

 

[MrBedrock]

In hindsight it is probably a good thing that The CGC made the decision that they did in regards to GA and very minor spots of glue or color. If they put all of those books in purple labels some folks who are market driven would be gouging all the paper off of those beautiful books and we'd have a bunch of comics with holes cut in them and paper cut off of them in hopes of getting in a blue label. That would truly be stupid.

[Warren Oates]

Some GA books get a free pass. I dont know why but im sure someone else Roy will (thumbs u

 

(thumbs u

 

Well, seeing as you asked politely...

 

 

Pretty easy to explain and CGC notates it on the back of every grading label.

 

From my understanding, CGC blue label allows for a small amount of colour touch or glue in a blue label if the colour touch or glue do not increase the grade of the book. So they are treated as defects (as though someone had put a dot of writing or glue on the book) and graded as such.

 

If the colour touch or glue does increase the grade of the book, the book is placed in a purple holder and the book is graded with the colour touch or glue as restoration.

 

I believe that's how they differentiate.

 

Bingo.

 

CT that has no effect on grade can be blue label. Same with "small amount of glue"

 

If you don't like it, remove it.

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

In hindsight it is probably a good thing that The CGC made the decision that they did in regards to GA and very minor spots of glue or color. If they put all of those books in purple labels some folks who are market driven would be gouging all the paper off of those beautiful books and we'd have a bunch of comics with holes cut in them and paper cut off of them in hopes of getting in a blue label. That would truly be stupid.

 

Good point. (thumbs u

 

Sad...but still a good point.

[thirdgreenham]

It shouldn't matter if the grade bumps. At the very least, ANY and ALL CT should be a PLOD.

 

I'll agree to disagree.

 

If I'm buying a book as a collector, I like to know exactly how much colour touch there is. Small, Medium and Large doesn't cut it for me. The current system is terrible in that regard.

 

I'd rather have something like a 10 point scale but in lieu of that, the current system actually does a better job of displaying it than just lumping everything into a purple label.

It doesn't matter how many words you type in defense, CT is still CT. Plain and simple.

 

Sure it is. I'm agreeing with you.

 

It even says it's there on the label, whether it's blue or purple. Nobody is trying to hide it.

 

 

I'm not defending it. I'm understanding why it's effective. More information is better than less.

 

The current system gives you 5 different steps.

 

Universal, universal with notes, purple Slight, purple Moderate, purple Extensive.

 

Removing the "universal with notes" gives you 4 different steps.

 

Which system (5 or 4 step) gives you more information about the book?

 

5! The answer is 5!

[1koko]

In hindsight it is probably a good thing that The CGC made the decision that they did in regards to GA and very minor spots of glue or color. If they put all of those books in purple labels some folks who are market driven would be gouging all the paper off of those beautiful books and we'd have a bunch of comics with holes cut in them and paper cut off of them in hopes of getting in a blue label. That would truly be stupid.

 

(thumbs u

 

 

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Some GA books get a free pass. I dont know why but im sure someone else Roy will (thumbs u

 

(thumbs u

 

Well, seeing as you asked politely...

 

 

Pretty easy to explain and CGC notates it on the back of every grading label.

 

From my understanding, CGC blue label allows for a small amount of colour touch or glue in a blue label if the colour touch or glue do not increase the grade of the book. So they are treated as defects (as though someone had put a dot of writing or glue on the book) and graded as such.

 

If the colour touch or glue does increase the grade of the book, the book is placed in a purple holder and the book is graded with the colour touch or glue as restoration.

 

I believe that's how they differentiate.

 

Bingo.

 

CT that has no effect on grade can be blue label. Same with "small amount of glue"

 

If you don't like it, remove it.

 

Maybe it is just semantics as Roy says, but the underlined part above grates on me. Clearly much of the color touch and glue on GA books does improve the appearance of the book and it still gets a blue label.

 

It is not because "it does not increase the grade of the book" that CGC is giving the book a blue label, it is because it is "small".

 

 

[Murphman13]

In hindsight it is probably a good thing that The CGC made the decision that they did in regards to GA and very minor spots of glue or color. If they put all of those books in purple labels some folks who are market driven would be gouging all the paper off of those beautiful books and we'd have a bunch of comics with holes cut in them and paper cut off of them in hopes of getting in a blue label. That would truly be stupid.

 

Spot on.

[G.A.tor]

if a book can have the minor ct or glue removed and not effect the grade, then I have no problem with a blue label notating the "defect"... intention aside, it is, what it is...

 

if the glue or ct clearly can't be removed or improves the "apparent" grade, then put it in a plod holder...

 

the ones "crying" , if there is any ct or glue it should be placed in a plod label "period" are the ones, imo, worried about the "money"....ultimately, who cares? buy what you like, and the rest should not be relevant, right?

 

if the label discloses, and cgc has posted their stance on it, the market will determine the "value/money"...

 

I have seen many church books in plod holders...and I believe Snyder and co touched up the majority to improve the already stellar appearance...but, the majority of these touch ups occurred at a time in our hobby when resto was not only more accepted (against value), it was actually encouraged!...

a book today, should not be penalized for past acceptance, imo, but any and all work disclosed, which it is, on the cgc label....

just my

[sufunk]

I'm sure this has been covered before but who exactly was it that put the glue and CT on the Church books or was it a group of people?

[G.A.tor]

Maybe it is just semantics as Roy says, but the underlined part above grates on me. Clearly much of the color touch and glue on GA books does improve the appearance of the book and it still gets a blue label.

 

It is not because "it does not increase the grade of the book" that CGC is giving the book a blue label, it is because it is "small".

 

 

I disagree...the majority of ga books that receive blue labels with small notations are graded as if the ct/glue was a defect, not an improvement... if it is truly minor to the point that it really doesn't impact grade, it gets blue label (now yes, it has to be a very minor quantity)

 

if anyone believes that such a small amount of ct or glue really improves the appearance to the avg collector, then I feel they don't understand ...I have had dozens of these books with that ct/glue removed and my guess is, 95%+ of collectors, if shown the before and after pics, wouldn't have a clue where the glue or ct was that was removed (thumbs u

[G.A.tor]

I'm sure this has been covered before but who exactly was it that put the glue and CT on the Church books or was it a group of people?

Snyder and Wilson are the ones I hear did a lot of work

[sufunk]

I'm sure this has been covered before but who exactly was it that put the glue and CT on the Church books or was it a group of people?

Snyder and Wilson are the ones I hear did a lot of work

 

What was the point if most of it didn't improve the appearance or grade of the books???

[G.A.tor]

I'm sure this has been covered before but who exactly was it that put the glue and CT on the Church books or was it a group of people?

Snyder and Wilson are the ones I hear did a lot of work

 

What was the point if most of it didn't improve the appearance or grade of the books???

the glue, in the majority of the cases, was at the binding top and bottom corner, to prevent potential splitting or seal up the bindary issues the majority of ga books have/had due to the technology of the time... bindary tears/defects were treated differently then, so to "seal" them up, was both a conservatory and "improvement" thought... the ct was often just a dot where the glue was, on the corners...did it really improve appearance? probably a wee little bit, but in the majority of the cases, I would say it was just done because it was accepted or even encouraged at the time

 

now Wilson cleaned a lot of the books, to remove visible issues, and in every case I believe it was for visual improvement, but in every case, cgc plods them and notes the cleaning

[sufunk]

I'm sure this has been covered before but who exactly was it that put the glue and CT on the Church books or was it a group of people?

Snyder and Wilson are the ones I hear did a lot of work

 

What was the point if most of it didn't improve the appearance or grade of the books???

the glue, in the majority of the cases, was at the binding top and bottom corner, to prevent potential splitting... bindary tears/defects were treated differently then, so to "seal" them up, was both a conservatory and "improvement" thought... the ct was often just a dot where the glue was, on the corners...did it really improve appearance? probably a wee little bit, but in the majority of the cases, I would say it was just done because it was accepted or even encouraged at the time

 

When was this? Early 90's or before?

[G.A.tor]

I'm sure this has been covered before but who exactly was it that put the glue and CT on the Church books or was it a group of people?

Snyder and Wilson are the ones I hear did a lot of work

 

What was the point if most of it didn't improve the appearance or grade of the books???

the glue, in the majority of the cases, was at the binding top and bottom corner, to prevent potential splitting... bindary tears/defects were treated differently then, so to "seal" them up, was both a conservatory and "improvement" thought... the ct was often just a dot where the glue was, on the corners...did it really improve appearance? probably a wee little bit, but in the majority of the cases, I would say it was just done because it was accepted or even encouraged at the time

 

When was this? Early 90's or before?

80's and 90's...pre cgc era obviously (thumbs u

[G.A.tor]

remember, there was a time in the 70's, I think, that folks like bill sarill and jerry bails, etc encouraged using scotch tape on the spines of books and it was widely accepted (for a bit )

[VintageComics]

Yup. Hard to believe but true.

 

People used to put stuff like clear nail polish on spines to preserve them, so even though the spines were not splitting yet they wanted to prevent it.. Now it's notated as glue.

[VintageComics]

I'm sure this has been covered before but who exactly was it that put the glue and CT on the Church books or was it a group of people?

Snyder and Wilson are the ones I hear did a lot of work

 

What was the point if most of it didn't improve the appearance or grade of the books???

 

There was no 25 or 100 point grading scale at the time. You originally had Good/Fine/Mint when the Church books were being touched up and then later 4, 6 or more grading steps eventually came along.

 

As GAtor mentioned, I don't think a dab of glue or colour touch took a book from Good to Fine or Good to Mint.

 

There were no 0.2 increments at that time.