CGC blue label with color touch

[G.A.tor]

I guess my overall "point" is that as long as whatever is found is disclosed, it really shouldn't matter what color label a book is in....

 

folks will form their own opinions, and the market will bear what the market will bear... sure, I can understand the "purists" thoughts, but that is just too narrow of a view in a market with so many variables... you can't put "all or none" , "black or white"...there are clearly many grey areas and as such, cgc notates as they seem fit and the market accepts or rejects those notations...

[VintageComics]

I guess my overall "point" is that as long as whatever is found is disclosed, it really should matter what color label a book is in....

 

folks will form their own opinions, and the market will bear what the market will bear... sure, I can understand the "purists" thoughts, but that is just too narrow of a view in a market with so many variables... you can't put "all or none" , "black or white"...there are clearly many grey areas and as such, cgc notates as they seem fit and the market accepts or rejects those notations...

 

That's more or less what I was trying to explain. As long as the colour touch and glue is disclosed people can decide whether it's for them or not.

 

No matter what rules someone comes up to grade a comic someone is going to be dissatisfied and wish it was done differently.

 

I disagree with things CGC does but I don't have an option so I learn to work with it.

 

[sufunk]

I guess my overall "point" is that as long as whatever is found is disclosed, it really should matter what color label a book is in....

 

folks will form their own opinions, and the market will bear what the market will bear... sure, I can understand the "purists" thoughts, but that is just too narrow of a view in a market with so many variables... you can't put "all or none" , "black or white"...there are clearly many grey areas and as such, cgc notates as they seem fit and the market accepts or rejects those notations...

 

That's more or less what I was trying to explain. As long as the colour touch and glue is disclosed people can decide whether it's for them or not.

 

No matter what rules someone comes up to grade a comic someone is going to be dissatisfied and wish it was done differently.

 

I disagree with things CGC does but I don't have an option so I learn to work with it.

 

You guys know i'm not much of a GA guy and dont really follow them. What does the market say on those Blue label Churchs with minor glue or CT? How much less (if any) do they sell for than the untouched ones?

[COI]

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. people ruin everything. This is why we can't have nice things.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

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

 

Thanks for the education. These threads pop up a couple of times a year, but I don't recall anyone discussing the issue with the clarity of your other posts.

 

One thing I don't understand is why anyone would want the CT or glue removed if it is so minor that it doesn't really affect the grade. I would assume the result of most removals was a new bindery chip?

[ARWilson-migration]

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.

 

You're probably right, if CGC hadn't done this we'd have people pulling off "bindery chips" with color touch on them left and right.

 

And I love the euphemism "folks who are market driven"

[G.A.tor]

I guess my overall "point" is that as long as whatever is found is disclosed, it really should matter what color label a book is in....

 

folks will form their own opinions, and the market will bear what the market will bear... sure, I can understand the "purists" thoughts, but that is just too narrow of a view in a market with so many variables... you can't put "all or none" , "black or white"...there are clearly many grey areas and as such, cgc notates as they seem fit and the market accepts or rejects those notations...

 

That's more or less what I was trying to explain. As long as the colour touch and glue is disclosed people can decide whether it's for them or not.

 

No matter what rules someone comes up to grade a comic someone is going to be dissatisfied and wish it was done differently.

 

I disagree with things CGC does but I don't have an option so I learn to work with it.

 

You guys know i'm not much of a GA guy and dont really follow them. What does the market say on those Blue label Churchs with minor glue or CT? How much less (if any) do they sell for than the untouched ones?

my experience is no devaluation at all for blue label with notes and in many (majority) the plod mh still sell for more than their blue counterparts (exceptions of course)

[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

 

Thanks for the education. These threads pop up a couple of times a year, but I don't recall anyone discussing the issue with the clarity of your other posts.

 

One thing I don't understand is why anyone would want the CT or glue removed if it is so minor that it doesn't really affect the grade . I would assume the result of most removals was a new bindery chip?

excellent question. Many dont remove but there are still a myriad of buyers that are either "purists" (want no notes) or quite honestly don't understand or have mis perception. It really boils down to personal choice or catering to a market that won't accept "as is"

[VintageComics]

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

 

Thanks for the education. These threads pop up a couple of times a year, but I don't recall anyone discussing the issue with the clarity of your other posts.

 

One thing I don't understand is why anyone would want the CT or glue removed if it is so minor that it doesn't really affect the grade . I would assume the result of most removals was a new bindery chip?

excellent question. Many dont remove but there are still a myriad of buyers that are either "purists" (want no notes) or quite honestly don't understand or have mis perception. It really boils down to personal choice or catering to a market that won't accept "as is"

 

IMO it really comes down to a lack of understanding of what either CGC's grading system notates or what (and more accurately how much) restoration, colour touch or glue is on a book.

 

It's a lack of education or understanding, more or less.

 

[ChrisInBaltimore]

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

 

Are there any pics of the Church books? Did they look that good? Sorry a bit ignorant on this topic... off to google...

 

Edit: Gotta love the internet: Church Collection

[comicwiz]

Does a book with glue or colour touch deserve a "restored" designation if the glue or colour touch does not increase the grade?

 

Roy, I'm honestly trying to remain neutral in this discussion, but how does one positively confirm that colour touch isn't increasing the grade? Isn't the purpose of CT to hide a defect? How can you know what's underneath without scraping the CT? I agree with the sentiment that this seems to contradict the notion of grading what's in front of them, without having to spend any additional time or thinking to "guess" how or why the foreign substance is there.

[chrisco37]

I always thought (as has been stated by others in this thread) that it was allowed so that a bunch of the Church books would still get the Blue Label. Since they allowed it with those, some of the other same era books got the pass. But it was done to maintain the aura surrounding the Church books.

[Old Fashion PB and J]

Who didn't care about the 'market', but simply graded what was in front of them.

 

How does CGC "care about the market"?

 

what percentage of fmv on high dollar books do they get?

[chrisco37]

Who didn't care about the 'market', but simply graded what was in front of them.

 

How does CGC "care about the market"?

 

what percentage of fmv on high dollar books do they get?

 

They get a percentage, but it does max out at a certain point. For instance, an Action #1 in .5 costs the submitter the same amount that an Action #1 in 10.0 would.

[VintageComics]

Who didn't care about the 'market', but simply graded what was in front of them.

 

How does CGC "care about the market"?

 

what percentage of fmv on high dollar books do they get?

 

That's already been answered. That's not caring about the market, that's caring about profits.

[VintageComics]

Does a book with glue or colour touch deserve a "restored" designation if the glue or colour touch does not increase the grade?

 

Roy, I'm honestly trying to remain neutral in this discussion, but how does one positively confirm that colour touch isn't increasing the grade? Isn't the purpose of CT to hide a defect? How can you know what's underneath without scraping the CT? I agree with the sentiment that this seems to contradict the notion of grading what's in front of them, without having to spend any additional time or thinking to "guess" how or why the foreign substance is there.

 

This is a discussion better had with a grader, although I can give my opinion. They probably use deduction.

 

I assume it goes something like this: there is a dot of colour touch that is about an 1/8" in area. If the colour was missing in that 1/8" area the book would be a certain grade. Does the book grade higher with the colour touch?

 

Something along those lines.

[comicwiz]

Does a book with glue or colour touch deserve a "restored" designation if the glue or colour touch does not increase the grade?

 

Roy, I'm honestly trying to remain neutral in this discussion, but how does one positively confirm that colour touch isn't increasing the grade? Isn't the purpose of CT to hide a defect? How can you know what's underneath without scraping the CT? I agree with the sentiment that this seems to contradict the notion of grading what's in front of them, without having to spend any additional time or thinking to "guess" how or why the foreign substance is there.

 

This is a discussion better had with a grader, although I can give my opinion. They probably use deduction.

 

I assume it goes something like this: there is a dot of colour touch that is about an 1/8" in area. If the colour was missing in that 1/8" area the book would be a certain grade. Does the book grade higher with the colour touch?

 

Something along those lines.

 

I guess it depends on the situation. It isn't unusual for the market to pay more for books that present better than their numerical grade would indicate.

 

Following that line of thinking, if that dot of CT meant the difference between adding a pupil in an otherwise eyeless Superman depicted on a cover fighting an army. Or hiding a white fleck on a dark black cover in an area which happens to be the focal point determinant of the way the book presents. Or a flaw that seemed common for that particular issue on the newsstands, which was tweaked with the intention of artificially producing an anomalous example.

 

Any way you slice and dice it, its this idea of treating something not original to the book as "acceptable", when it doesn't teat every other book they grade in the same way, which seems to run contrary to a supposed model of grading what's in front of them.

[BlowUpTheMoon]

Are there any pics of the Church books? Did they look that good? Sorry a bit ignorant on this topic... off to google...

 

Edit: Gotta love the internet: Church Collection

 

[Sqeggs]

Interesting thread. One minor point: I think it's an exaggeration to say that half of the Church books have CT or glue. I don't know if anyone has looked at it systematically, but at least for those books available for inspection (I realize that's a big caveat), I would be surprised if it was more than 10 percent.