Resto: Proposed Definition

[Cat-Man_America]

[font:Times New Roman]My proposals for change:

 

BLUE LABEL:

 

No detectible restoration

 

Professional restoration/conservation (noted in purple lettering, along with SP, MP or EP, includes cover/interior cleaning, staple replacement, rice paper, etc., reversible repairs by established archivists working in the trade)

 

PURPLE LABEL:

 

Amateur repair (detailed on label, includes non-archival tapes, glue, etc., usually applied by original owner, intended to keep the book from falling apart)

 

Indeterminate repair (may be amateur or professional, designed to artificially improve book's appearance by removal of visible flaws, such as trimming, spine relocation, color fills, pieces added)

 

So, we now have two colours for restored books?

 

Yup, that should clear things up right and proper.

 

 

 

Forget the label colors, they probably aren't going away anytime soon. My point is finding a more sophisticated model, one that shares common ground with what's accepted in the antiques trade.

 

 

[/font]

[BeachBum]

People need hobbies.

[miraclemet]

People need hobbies.

 

 

[nearmint]

Threads like this are interesting, but anything resembling a consensus is impossible.

[bluechip]

I wish THIS were CGC's accepted definition of comic book restoration - whaddaya think?:

 

BLUE LABEL:

Given to any comic that has had no foreign substance added to it, or original material removed from it, ON PURPOSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING IT'S APPEARANCE

-- Stains, al la coffee ring: not added on purpose...gets Blue

-- Tape: added on purpose, gets Purple (see below)

-- Doodles...decreased grade, but Blue (not done to improve appearance)

-- Date stamp...possible decreased grade, but Blue (not added to improve appearance)

-- MVS/coupon missing...Blue, but downgraded & noted on label (not removed to improve appearance)

-- 1/2 page or less missing...Blue but downgraded and noted on label

-- More than 1/2 page missing...Incomplete designation

-- Pressed...Blue (no material added or removed)

 

PURPLE:

Given to any comic that has had a foreign substance added to it or original material removed from it in order to improve it's appearance:

-- Tape...Purple

-- Color touch...Purple

-- Glue...Purple

-- Trim: Material removed in order to improve appearance...Purple

 

QUALIFIED:

Lose this label: downgrade all "qualified" flaws under a Blue/Purple label, and note on label

 

I think CGC can and should note any foreign substance on a book and anything that has been done to it.

 

I don't think label colors help. If anything, they make it worse.

 

Color touch on a corner? The book is "better" if the corner is torn off.

 

Tape on the book. It's "better" if the tape is corrosive.

 

All the stuff you mention can be noted, and should be, except

 

It is not advisable to expect or even want a grading company to be determining what was or wasn't done "...ON PURPOSE..."

 

The phrase conjures images of a schoolyard dispute, and with good reason. That's where we all learned it and that's what discussions devolve to when books' values change (sometimes to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars) based on whether a defect occurred "accidentally" or "on purpose."

[Dr. Balls]

A simple notation of 'pressed' would be a good move for disclosure if CGC wouldn't want another label.

 

On all pressed books that CGC can detect, or assume to detect?

 

On pressed books declared by their pressing service. I think trying to detect pressing might open up a gigantic can of worms for them - they should stick to a pressing notation for books that have gone through their own pressing service - because it's verifiable.

[Dr. Balls]

Threads like this are interesting, but anything resembling a consensus is impossible.

 

True. A consensus would require people to change their ideas of what restoration is, and whittling it down to a black and white definition. It's possible to define it, I think - but not possible for people to accept it.

[mrmyst]

A simple notation of 'pressed' would be a good move for disclosure if CGC wouldn't want another label.

 

On all pressed books that CGC can detect, or assume to detect?

 

On pressed books declared by their pressing service. I think trying to detect pressing might open up a gigantic can of worms for them - they should stick to a pressing notation for books that have gone through their own pressing service - because it's verifiable.

Then their pressing service would go out of business. And the guys out there who are good at it will get all that business, and the books wouldn't end up with the 'pressed' notation.

[Bosco685]

A simple notation of 'pressed' would be a good move for disclosure if CGC wouldn't want another label.

 

On all pressed books that CGC can detect, or assume to detect?

 

On pressed books declared by their pressing service. I think trying to detect pressing might open up a gigantic can of worms for them - they should stick to a pressing notation for books that have gone through their own pressing service - because it's verifiable.

 

I respect the thought process. But I also think that it would put their service at a disadvantage if others can press away without any worry of their books being called out.

 

Just trying to be fair.

[miraclemet]

Threads like this are interesting, but anything resembling a consensus is impossible.

 

I think we can all agree on that...

 

[miraclemet]

A simple notation of 'pressed' would be a good move for disclosure if CGC wouldn't want another label.

 

On all pressed books that CGC can detect, or assume to detect?

 

On pressed books declared by their pressing service. I think trying to detect pressing might open up a gigantic can of worms for them - they should stick to a pressing notation for books that have gone through their own pressing service - because it's verifiable.

 

Also since people here are willing and happy to disclose pressing in the sales thread, wouldnt they be willing to disclose it to CGC when submitted for slabbing?

 

(ok I know this isnt 100% true, but plenty of people do disclose pressing, so why not disclose it to CGC for notation on slabs?)

[mrmyst]

A simple notation of 'pressed' would be a good move for disclosure if CGC wouldn't want another label.

 

On all pressed books that CGC can detect, or assume to detect?

 

On pressed books declared by their pressing service. I think trying to detect pressing might open up a gigantic can of worms for them - they should stick to a pressing notation for books that have gone through their own pressing service - because it's verifiable.

 

Also since people here are willing and happy to disclose pressing in the sales thread, wouldnt they be willing to disclose it to CGC when submitted for slabbing?

 

(ok I know this isnt 100% true, but plenty of people do disclose pressing, so why not disclose it to CGC for notation on slabs?)

 

[Dr. Balls]

A simple notation of 'pressed' would be a good move for disclosure if CGC wouldn't want another label.

 

On all pressed books that CGC can detect, or assume to detect?

 

On pressed books declared by their pressing service. I think trying to detect pressing might open up a gigantic can of worms for them - they should stick to a pressing notation for books that have gone through their own pressing service - because it's verifiable.

 

I respect the thought process. But I also think that it would put their service at a disadvantage if others can press away without any worry of their books being called out.

 

Just trying to be fair.

 

True - it works against them financially, which will probably ensure they will never have a disclosure notation.

[miraclemet]

A simple notation of 'pressed' would be a good move for disclosure if CGC wouldn't want another label.

 

On all pressed books that CGC can detect, or assume to detect?

 

On pressed books declared by their pressing service. I think trying to detect pressing might open up a gigantic can of worms for them - they should stick to a pressing notation for books that have gone through their own pressing service - because it's verifiable.

 

Also since people here are willing and happy to disclose pressing in the sales thread, wouldnt they be willing to disclose it to CGC when submitted for slabbing?

 

(ok I know this isnt 100% true, but plenty of people do disclose pressing, so why not disclose it to CGC for notation on slabs?)

 

 

I know I know.. .

[bb8]

YELLOW (gold) LABEL:

 

Signature Series (category opened up to include submissions of collectibles authenticated by handwriting experts to document historic signatures, thus eliminating the self-serving appearance of CGC controlled signings)

 

No, thank you. And it's never going to happen either.

So you wouldn't want a Kirby, Simon, Kane, etc. signature to be able to be authenticated in a CGC case, just hammered as a defect or a GLOD? Never understood this opinion. There are professionals who are supposedly good at this and well-respected in other hobbies. Why not ours?

[mrmyst]

YELLOW (gold) LABEL:

 

Signature Series (category opened up to include submissions of collectibles authenticated by handwriting experts to document historic signatures, thus eliminating the self-serving appearance of CGC controlled signings)

 

No, thank you. And it's never going to happen either.

So you wouldn't want a Kirby, Simon, Kane, etc. signature to be able to be authenticated in a CGC case, just hammered as a defect or a GLOD? Never understood this opinion. There are professionals who are supposedly good at this and well-respected in other hobbies. Why not ours?

Good point.

[Timely]

Color touch on a corner? The book is "better" if the corner is torn off.

 

The book is not better off, but the seller is.

[mschmidt]

YELLOW (gold) LABEL:

 

Signature Series (category opened up to include submissions of collectibles authenticated by handwriting experts to document historic signatures, thus eliminating the self-serving appearance of CGC controlled signings)

 

No, thank you. And it's never going to happen either.

So you wouldn't want a Kirby, Simon, Kane, etc. signature to be able to be authenticated in a CGC case, just hammered as a defect or a GLOD? Never understood this opinion. There are professionals who are supposedly good at this and well-respected in other hobbies. Why not ours?

 

Because the beauty of the SS program is that it's completely black & white - the signature was either witnessed by a CGC employee or CAW (= yellow label) or it was not (= green label).

 

After-the-fact signature verification is spurious at best - with the way the SS system is set up right now, there's zero guesswork or uncertainty when you're buying a yellow label book.

[MrBedrock]

YELLOW (gold) LABEL:

 

Signature Series (category opened up to include submissions of collectibles authenticated by handwriting experts to document historic signatures, thus eliminating the self-serving appearance of CGC controlled signings)

 

No, thank you. And it's never going to happen either.

So you wouldn't want a Kirby, Simon, Kane, etc. signature to be able to be authenticated in a CGC case, just hammered as a defect or a GLOD? Never understood this opinion. There are professionals who are supposedly good at this and well-respected in other hobbies. Why not ours?

 

Because the beauty of the SS program is that it's completely black & white - the signature was either witnessed by a CGC employee or CAW (= yellow label) or it was not (= green label).

 

After-the-fact signature verification is spurious at best - with the way the SS system is set up right now, there's zero guesswork or uncertainty when you're buying a yellow label book.

What if I told you that I know the person who had this book signed, I know the convention where the signature took place, and I am pretty sure a photograph exists of it getting signed...

...fairly concrete, huh?

 

But I also understand the need for The CGC to tightly control the Signature Series label. And I really have no problem with it. I do think it's a shame that real and fake autographs all get lumped together in the encapsulation process though.

[Logan510]

A simple notation of 'pressed' would be a good move for disclosure if CGC wouldn't want another label.

 

On all pressed books that CGC can detect, or assume to detect?

 

On pressed books declared by their pressing service. I think trying to detect pressing might open up a gigantic can of worms for them - they should stick to a pressing notation for books that have gone through their own pressing service - because it's verifiable.

 

Fat chance of that happening. Why would they sabotage their own business?