to restore or not to restore? That is the question

[Stark This-migration]

Thanks, I would have never come up with that...

[PovertyRow]

While there might be cases where SOME marker bleed-through can only be removed by cutting out the original paper you can remove the majority of marker staining through the use of solvent treatments IF you know what you are doing (and needless to say a real CONSERVATOR wouldn't even consider cutting the original an option as that would be highly unethical, it seems, however, that RESTORERS apparently think nothing of it).

 

Well, as regards the cutting out - that is why I said you would end up with worse than with what you started with.

 

I guess times have changed and it is time for me to get back into studying restoration. When I was heavily involved marker stains were just not candidates. But perhaps times have changed, and I will probably lay low on restoration concepts and ideas until I catch up with the more modern technology.

 

At the very least, the staining can be safely reduced and then a small amount of inpainting (sorry, color-touch) can be done to cover the remaining stain.

 

OK - I was half right - I said a possibliity was adding paper to the cut out area and inpainting to match.

 

As far as your statement you can remove the majority of marker staining through the use of solvent treatments - it IS ambiguous. Do you mean you can remove 100% the majority of examples of marker staining, or do you mean you can remove the majoirty of marker staining but still leave a trace (pardon the pub) that may require some inpainting to match?

[Newerthannew]

While there might be cases where SOME marker bleed-through can only be removed by cutting out the original paper you can remove the majority of marker staining through the use of solvent treatments IF you know what you are doing (and needless to say a real CONSERVATOR wouldn't even consider cutting the original an option as that would be highly unethical, it seems, however, that RESTORERS apparently think nothing of it).

 

Well, as regards the cutting out - that is why I said you would end up with worse than with what you started with.

 

Fair enough, however, I was addressing the information that cutting out the restoration was the only option available to the original poster of the thread, which was posted by someone who did not have all the information on what was possible - just selected information.

 

I guess times have changed and it is time for me to get back into studying restoration. When I was heavily involved marker stains were just not candidates. But perhaps times have changed, and I will probably lay low on restoration concepts and ideas until I catch up with the more modern technology.

 

Not too low, ok? You are a valuable source of knowledge on these boards. I certainly do not possess all of the knowledge about everything, which is why I keep in mind what I learned in school - conservation is a changing profession and everyday something new is discovered! To think otherwise, is arrogance at the very least and a great disservice to the field.

 

At the very least, the staining can be safely reduced and then a small amount of inpainting (sorry, color-touch) can be done to cover the remaining stain.

 

OK - I was half right - I said a possibliity was adding paper to the cut out area and inpainting to match.

 

Yes, didn't mean to suggest that you were half-wrong either! Adding paper is an option but not the ONLY option which is what was stated in the response to the original thread and the part that got me posting.

 

As far as your statement you can remove the majority of marker staining through the use of solvent treatments - it IS ambiguous. Do you mean you can remove 100% the majority of examples of marker staining, or do you mean you can remove the majoirty of marker staining but still leave a trace (pardon the pub) that may require some inpainting to match?

 

I hate being ambiguous! I meant that you can remove the larger percentage of the existing marker staining on the item being restored - thus leaving a trace (no pun intended) which might/might not be inpainted - depending on the wishes of the client. In a large percentage of the items I have treated (and no, I don't have an exact number and am not likely to figure it out either! ) , I have removed ALL of the marker traces, with no further need of inpainting. However, when I generate an estimate for my potential clients, I do account for the possibility of additional inpainting since I can't tell until I begin what the final results will be. On the Showcase, I don't think that cutting the paper away should have been touted as the only option. Take care Pov, see you on the boards.

 

Thanks

Tracey Heft

www.eclipsepaper.com

[Newerthannew]

Tracey, your lack of professionalism when addressing me in this thread is truly amazing. But judging your display of arrogance in previous posts, I guess I shouldn't be suprised.

 

Matt

 

I was simply responding to a post by Zipper (and others) that cutting out the offending paper was the only solution. Your name was mentioned as being the person who cut off the amateur restoration. While I did allude to you and others like yourself, I don't believe I was ever directly addressing you in this thread and can find no mention of your name or business anywhere in my post. Now, to call me arrogant and unprofessional on a public forum concerns me - especially since I thought we addressed these issues many years ago. If you care to provide any direct proof of my lack of professionalism and arrogance in previous posts then I'll be happy to address each item on a point to point basis.

 

The issue about color touch removal refers to high grade books that are otherwise unrestored, and the owner's intention is to get those books into blue holders.

 

Where does that come from? Nowhere in the thread is there a statement of intent that the aim is to get the books into blue holders! The original post was about what was possible. How can you assume that the owner even wants them slabbed?

 

So answer me this: does your solvent cleaning require disassembly? Given my experience with color touch removal, I'm guessing it does. Which means you've broken CGC's cardinal rule, and the book will stay in a PLOD regardless of your removal. That doesn't help your client at all, does it?

 

In order: Yes it requires disassembly, you shouldn't have to guess - you know this to be true! CGC's cardinal rule and the book will stay a PLOD? HA! There are so many examples of how CGC has not given a PLOD to restored books that I can't even begin to list them here. A search on these boards will reveal what has/hasn't been labeled as PLOD and should have been. Lastly, the bit about not helping my client at all?

 

IF I accepted clients who were looking to unrestore their books (which, IS restoration when you think about it) in order for them to then turn around and get them past CGC for a blue label, I'd have no choice but to consider myself as contributing to the pre-existing problem and perceptions that restoration is bad and should be trashed, not to mention the on-going problem of non-disclosure of restoration treatments (which includes the removal of previous restoration). Slight conflict of interest to one who makes money by being a comic book restorer, don't you think? Which is why I don't offer the service outside of a larger restoration treatment. Helping a potential client commit a deception - not interested! Restoring an item while preserving as much as possible - that helps my clients!

 

Keep up with the market, Tracey. And stop trashing people. That's no way to get ahead in this business.

 

This last bit - not professional at all and certainly not worth a response.

 

However, I do want to extend to you the same offer I extended to you 3,4 years ago - if you ever want to discuss the state of the market and how we can HELP each other rather than continually being at odds with each other - call me, toll-free 888-836-2821, and let's work together to build our businesses instead of trying to undermine each other.

 

Tracey Heft

www.eclipsepaper.com

[Matt Nelson]

Tracey, your lack of professionalism when addressing me in this thread is truly amazing. But judging your display of arrogance in previous posts, I guess I shouldn't be suprised.

 

Matt

 

I was simply responding to a post by Zipper (and others) that cutting out the offending paper was the only solution. Your name was mentioned as being the person who cut off the amateur restoration. While I did allude to you and others like yourself, I don't believe I was ever directly addressing you in this thread and can find no mention of your name or business anywhere in my post. Now, to call me arrogant and unprofessional on a public forum concerns me - especially since I thought we addressed these issues many years ago. If you care to provide any direct proof of my lack of professionalism and arrogance in previous posts then I'll be happy to address each item on a point to point basis.

 

Well, there is this one sentence in your thread..."Is this what is meant by cutting edge restoration?"

 

Since that's the tagline I've used in my advertising the past couple years, I'd have to assume you were directly addressing me and my business in this thread, and in a derogatory manner. That is where the "unprofessional" comment comes from. And arrogance--that's simply a matter of opinion.

 

The issue about color touch removal refers to high grade books that are otherwise unrestored, and the owner's intention is to get those books into blue holders.

 

Where does that come from? Nowhere in the thread is there a statement of intent that the aim is to get the books into blue holders! The original post was about what was possible. How can you assume that the owner even wants them slabbed?

 

In the second post, Zipper68 states that, "With my books, I figured that they were already "restored" and there was no way to undo it. So, if they are already restored, a little light pro work couldn't hurt." Right off the bat, someone brought removal up. When encountering amateur work like that, many collectors' first instinct is to find out if it can be safely removed.

 

My mention of blue holders was subconscious, because 95% of my clients forward their removal jobs to CGC for grading. Of course they have the option to not have it graded.

 

So answer me this: does your solvent cleaning require disassembly? Given my experience with color touch removal, I'm guessing it does. Which means you've broken CGC's cardinal rule, and the book will stay in a PLOD regardless of your removal. That doesn't help your client at all, does it?

 

In order: Yes it requires disassembly, you shouldn't have to guess - you know this to be true! CGC's cardinal rule and the book will stay a PLOD? HA! There are so many examples of how CGC has not given a PLOD to restored books that I can't even begin to list them here. A search on these boards will reveal what has/hasn't been labeled as PLOD and should have been.

 

I am not aware of restored books making it into blue holders, with two exceptions: 1) Golden Age books with tiny color touch or glue (there are notes that list it on the blue label), and 2) when Chris Friesen misses something.

 

What are these "many examples" you're talking about?

 

The real question is, what is your definition of "restoration"? Because if it differs from CGC's, than you are more than likely going to think they put lots of restored books in blue holders.

 

This is the same as arguing their grading standards. Everyone has a different opinion, but the bottom line is that CGC has, after almost 5 years, filtered down an enormous amount of information and feedback, and created accepted parameters of what constitutes restoration. If you want to say that Friesen misses stuff from time to time, and you have proof, so be it. But if you're arguing their standards, then it's a big waste of time.

 

Lastly, the bit about not helping my client at all?

 

IF I accepted clients who were looking to unrestore their books (which, IS restoration when you think about it) in order for them to then turn around and get them past CGC for a blue label, I'd have no choice but to consider myself as contributing to the pre-existing problem and perceptions that restoration is bad and should be trashed, not to mention the on-going problem of non-disclosure of restoration treatments (which includes the removal of previous restoration). Slight conflict of interest to one who makes money by being a comic book restorer, don't you think? Which is why I don't offer the service outside of a larger restoration treatment. Helping a potential client commit a deception - not interested! Restoring an item while preserving as much as possible - that helps my clients

 

Well, I can't argue with that. In restoration removal, there's a demand to be met. I am a businessman, and I will meet that demand. If you don't, than more business for me.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do respect your opinion on this matter. But I think you're blurring the line between restoration with the intent to save a book from degradation (which is what you and I do) and tiny restoration with the intent to make a book look like a NM instead of a VF (not what I do).

 

The latter "restoration" was mainly done by past owners who wanted to fix those little aggravating defects on their otherwise gorgeous books. As it turns out years later, those little fixes can now devalue a book by 50-75%. What's worse, many of these books changed hands several times before the current owner realized the restoration was there. And he most likely paid full unrestored market for it.

 

Now imagine you are the owner of one of these books. Let's say it's a Spidey #1 in VF/NM for which you paid $20,000. And you find out the book has two minor hits of color touch on the spine (that cannot be removed with solvent). Your book is now worth less than half what you paid. Are you going to want to hear a restorer tell you he will not remove the two hits of color touch because he feels it betrays his ethics?

 

There are literally hundreds and hundreds of cases like the one above. How is persuading the client not to unrestore this book helping him? It sounds more like you're helping the comic at the owner's expense! That's a noble cause, I guess. But I tend to care more about people than paper.

 

And for the record, many slightly restored books cannot be safely unrestored. But if it doesn't harm the book more than a point or two in grade, I will certainly give consideration to doing it. I'm not Freddy Krueger, slashing every book I see.

 

Keep up with the market, Tracey. And stop trashing people. That's no way to get ahead in this business.

 

This last bit - not professional at all and certainly not worth a response.

 

However, I do want to extend to you the same offer I extended to you 3,4 years ago - if you ever want to discuss the state of the market and how we can HELP each other rather than continually being at odds with each other - call me, toll-free 888-836-2821, and let's work together to build our businesses instead of trying to undermine each other.

 

I never tried to undermine you. I was casually browsing the message boards and found this post yesterday. I am inclined to think your post in this string was a thinly veiled advertisement that also tried to undermine my credibility. Wouldn't you be pissed too?

 

We've talked on the phone a couple of times and we met once at the Chicago Con in '97. Trace, I think you're a good guy. I do think you tend to get a little overzealous in some of your posts. And I am the last guy to care, but when it's directed at me...

 

You and I are doing different things in this hobby. We both restore books, but that's where the similarities end. Even so, I think there's more than enough room for everyone in this business--except for that Susan character. She's bad news!

 

Matt Nelson

(since Tracey's doing it, I guess I'll promote my website too)

classicsincorporated.com