• 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.

Resto: Proposed Definition

Started by Racer-X,

108 posts in this topic

nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
Can't agree on tape. It repairs, but doesn't restore.

 

How would u say tape differs from glue (to repair tear)?

 

Tape doesn't even attempt to return something to its original condition. Glue can be invisible at a cursory glance.

 

would you agree that putting tape on to a detatched cover to reattach it moves the book closer to its "original condition" vs the book with no cover?

 

I think the semantic gymnastics around "restoration" gets old. Just change the Purple label to "Restoration/Conservation" and then we can included tape and other things that some dont consider restoration, but most would agree should not be considered "universal" either

 

No, I wouldn't. Comic covers are attached with staples.

 

So just so I'm clear. A book with no cover is closer to original condition than one that has a cover and it has been reattached with tape?

 

Why wouldn't you compare a book with a detached cover to a book with a cover reattached with tape? That's the logical comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lb jefferies

lb jefferies

Posted
Posted

I'd do away with the different colored labels. There are some great books sitting in PLODs.

 

+1. Just note the work that's been done on the front of the label and perhaps a letter qualification after the grade. Keep all books the same label color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrBedrock

MrBedrock

Posted
Posted
Can't agree on tape. It repairs, but doesn't restore.

 

How would u say tape differs from glue (to repair tear)?

 

Tape doesn't even attempt to return something to its original condition. Glue can be invisible at a cursory glance.

My issue with tape stems from the fact that The CGC automatically classifies any archival tape or rice paper restoration. If that is the case, then scotch tape should definitely be classified as restoration, if for no other reason then it performs the same purpose...but more destructively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted

 

Glue is not restoration. You do not add glue to where glue was before, because it was never there.

 

 

You just changed my mind on that one.

But if you are gluing a tear, you are restoring the paper to make it appear whole again, to look like it originally did.

 

I know, this one is a toughie. But, there are many cases where a glued tear is still very obvious, which is why color touch is often applied to achieve that "original" appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicdonna

comicdonna

Posted
Posted
Can't agree on tape. It repairs, but doesn't restore.

 

How would u say tape differs from glue (to repair tear)?

 

Tape doesn't even attempt to return something to its original condition. Glue can be invisible at a cursory glance.

My issue with tape stems from the fact that The CGC automatically classifies any archival tape or rice paper restoration. If that is the case, then scotch tape should definitely be classified as restoration, if for no other reason then it performs the same purpose...but more destructively.

I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
miraclemet

miraclemet

Posted
Posted
Can't agree on tape. It repairs, but doesn't restore.

 

How would u say tape differs from glue (to repair tear)?

 

Tape doesn't even attempt to return something to its original condition. Glue can be invisible at a cursory glance.

 

would you agree that putting tape on to a detatched cover to reattach it moves the book closer to its "original condition" vs the book with no cover?

 

I think the semantic gymnastics around "restoration" gets old. Just change the Purple label to "Restoration/Conservation" and then we can included tape and other things that some dont consider restoration, but most would agree should not be considered "universal" either

 

No, I wouldn't. Comic covers are attached with staples.

 

So just so I'm clear. A book with no cover is closer to original condition than one that has a cover and it has been reattached with tape?

 

Why wouldn't you compare a book with a detached cover to a book with a cover reattached with tape? That's the logical comparison.

 

cause I already know the answer to that one (Im assuming you consider the detached cover book closer to original condition)... so I'm curious how far you are willing to go to consider something more original than a fully attached book (that has had to use a secondary material to re-attach the book).

 

Either way, I treat tape as part of the Restoration/Conservation camp even if CGC doesnt at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
Can't agree on tape. It repairs, but doesn't restore.

 

How would u say tape differs from glue (to repair tear)?

 

Tape doesn't even attempt to return something to its original condition. Glue can be invisible at a cursory glance.

My issue with tape stems from the fact that The CGC automatically classifies any archival tape or rice paper restoration. If that is the case, then scotch tape should definitely be classified as restoration, if for no other reason then it performs the same purpose...but more destructively.

 

I wouldn't differentiate between archival and Scotch tape. I'd blue label both, and note both on the label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
miraclemet

miraclemet

Posted
Posted

nearmint, what do you think about this?

 

So there are 4 states a comic can be in (and some can be combined)

 

1. Virgin. Nothing has ever been done to the book, either in restoration, conservation, or optimization.

2. Restored: Attempts to return the comic book materials to their original state by repairing something or returning something that was previously there.

3. Conserved: Adding something to a book that was not originally present in an effort to maintain the books current condition or improve it (visually or structurally).

4. Optimized: Pressing and the like. Not adding or removing materials (either new materials or replacing original material) but thru an act of manipulating the existing book material to improve the book's overall condition.

 

To me if the book has had #2 or #3 done, it should be grouped together since they are non Virgin (true universal).

 

#4 is tough because it is tougher to detect and requires some "soft" assessment to give a best guess if a book has been Optimized. Some would want to see Optimized books noted or segmented just like the Restored books.

 

Obviously a book can be both Restored and Conserved, and could even be Optimized (or any mix of #s 2,3 and 4) But any of those three mean the book is not #1 Virgin.

 

(and if it was just Options 1,2,3 and CGC didnt try to determine optimization I'd be fine with it since Im less concerned with non conservation, non-restoration acts)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrBedrock

MrBedrock

Posted
Posted
Can't agree on tape. It repairs, but doesn't restore.

 

How would u say tape differs from glue (to repair tear)?

 

Tape doesn't even attempt to return something to its original condition. Glue can be invisible at a cursory glance.

My issue with tape stems from the fact that The CGC automatically classifies any archival tape or rice paper restoration. If that is the case, then scotch tape should definitely be classified as restoration, if for no other reason then it performs the same purpose...but more destructively.

 

I wouldn't differentiate between archival and Scotch tape. I'd blue label both, and note both on the label.

If that's the tack they choose to take I'm all for it. But at this point I believe they are still leaning towards keeping a distinction between the two and just hammering the grade more when clear tape is present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
Can't agree on tape. It repairs, but doesn't restore.

 

How would u say tape differs from glue (to repair tear)?

 

Tape doesn't even attempt to return something to its original condition. Glue can be invisible at a cursory glance.

 

would you agree that putting tape on to a detatched cover to reattach it moves the book closer to its "original condition" vs the book with no cover?

 

I think the semantic gymnastics around "restoration" gets old. Just change the Purple label to "Restoration/Conservation" and then we can included tape and other things that some dont consider restoration, but most would agree should not be considered "universal" either

 

No, I wouldn't. Comic covers are attached with staples.

 

So just so I'm clear. A book with no cover is closer to original condition than one that has a cover and it has been reattached with tape?

 

Why wouldn't you compare a book with a detached cover to a book with a cover reattached with tape? That's the logical comparison.

 

cause I already know the answer to that one (Im assuming you consider the detached cover book closer to original condition)... so I'm curious how far you are willing to go to consider something more original than a fully attached book (that has had to use a secondary material to re-attach the book).

 

Either way, I treat tape as part of the Restoration/Conservation camp even if CGC doesnt at this time.

 

But your example doesn't add to the discussion of whether tape is resto. Yes, a comic with a cover is obviously closer to its original condition than a coverless copy, even one with tape, but I'd still blue label both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
miraclemet

miraclemet

Posted
Posted
Yes, a comic with a cover is obviously closer to its original condition than a coverless copy, even one with tape, but I'd still blue label both.

 

How is a book with a foreign material added for the sake of structural improvement or conservation still Universal to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookery

Bookery

Posted
Posted
All one colour, use words to explain what is detected (meaning accurately detected with consistency).

 

It doesn't get simpler than that.

 

Yeah, I'm also in favor of all one color.

 

Okay, fine, colour.

 

Exactly.

 

The only exception I might make would be for "signature series", since it's actually an entirely new collectible created specifically by CGC, and designates something beyond the book itself.

 

Otherwise, it's getting harder and harder for me to accept 3rd party grading, as people who are supposed to be collecting reading material keep demanding a larger and larger palette of kindergarden colors to tell them what to think about a book.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
Can't agree on tape. It repairs, but doesn't restore.

 

How would u say tape differs from glue (to repair tear)?

 

Tape doesn't even attempt to return something to its original condition. Glue can be invisible at a cursory glance.

My issue with tape stems from the fact that The CGC automatically classifies any archival tape or rice paper restoration. If that is the case, then scotch tape should definitely be classified as restoration, if for no other reason then it performs the same purpose...but more destructively.

 

I wouldn't differentiate between archival and Scotch tape. I'd blue label both, and note both on the label.

If that's the tack they choose to take I'm all for it. But at this point I believe they are still leaning towards keeping a distinction between the two and just hammering the grade more when clear tape is present.

 

That wouldn't surprise me. At least people won't be able to tape books up to achieve a higher grade anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrBedrock

MrBedrock

Posted
Posted

I think one of the other problems with The CGC's current approach to tape, whether archival or non, is that when any tape is present they have to make an assumption. With clear tape they have a pretty good idea of what is underneath it so they can make a pretty educated assumption. With archival tape they have a hard time making the same assumption because they can't see underneath it. So even though it is fully reversible they have to assume the worst. It is easier to just say restoration is present and then grade the appearance.

 

So in either case if they would just...

1) assume the worst and grade them universal at the lowest possible grade

 

or

 

2) assume the worst and grade them restored at their apparent grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasingKingKirby

ChasingKingKirby

Posted
Posted
Can't agree on tape. It repairs, but doesn't restore.

 

How would u say tape differs from glue (to repair tear)?

 

Tape doesn't even attempt to return something to its original condition. Glue can be invisible at a cursory glance.

My issue with tape stems from the fact that The CGC automatically classifies any archival tape or rice paper restoration. If that is the case, then scotch tape should definitely be classified as restoration, if for no other reason then it performs the same purpose...but more destructively.

 

I wouldn't differentiate between archival and Scotch tape. I'd blue label both, and note both on the label.

If that's the tack they choose to take I'm all for it. But at this point I believe they are still leaning towards keeping a distinction between the two and just hammering the grade more when clear tape is present.

 

That wouldn't surprise me. At least people won't be able to tape books up to achieve a higher grade anymore.

 

Agree 100%.

 

It is ridiculous that archival tape is penalized with a PLOD, while Scotch tape is rewarded with Universal + possible Grade improvement. Either PLOD both, or Universal both. (I prefer Universal with graders ignoring archival and hammering scotch.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
Restoration is a process/procedure using materials and/or implements to improve the structural condition and/or appearance of a comic book.

 

Easy.

 

:applause:

 

We've gone over this a million times over the years, but this definition is way too broad. If a comic has a sticker on its cover and I peel it off with my finger, I've improved its appearance, but have I restored it? If the bottom corner is folded under and I unfold it, I've improved the book's appearance, but have I restored it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skypinkblu

skypinkblu

Posted
Posted
Can't agree on tape. It repairs, but doesn't restore.

 

How would u say tape differs from glue (to repair tear)?

 

Tape doesn't even attempt to return something to its original condition. Glue can be invisible at a cursory glance.

My issue with tape stems from the fact that The CGC automatically classifies any archival tape or rice paper restoration. If that is the case, then scotch tape should definitely be classified as restoration, if for no other reason then it performs the same purpose...but more destructively.

 

I wouldn't differentiate between archival and Scotch tape. I'd blue label both, and note both on the label.

If that's the tack they choose to take I'm all for it. But at this point I believe they are still leaning towards keeping a distinction between the two and just hammering the grade more when clear tape is present.

 

That wouldn't surprise me. At least people won't be able to tape books up to achieve a higher grade anymore.

 

Agree 100%.

 

It is ridiculous that archival tape is penalized with a PLOD, while Scotch tape is rewarded with Universal + possible Grade improvement. Either PLOD both, or Universal both. (I prefer Universal with graders ignoring archival and hammering scotch.)

 

That would work, and think of all the money CGC could make when people resubmit the former archival plods...That's if anyone wants to pay for the grader's notes and find out they are archival plods. Win/Win for CGC.

 

I'm for one color label. In the beginning purple made sense. CGC was selling their service, showing they were capable of ferreting out restored comics and highlighted it by making the label obvious.

 

They are past that, they have been established. In phase 2, just one color label and list the defects. If you list the defects or anything known, you can even list known pressing (bad or good) and remove any controversy between the Pro P's and Anti P's as well as any tape controversies.

 

THEN, as an added benefit, all the people who want the new and improved labels, can resubmit:)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing