Revised restoration grading system??

[The-Collector]

Picking up on a few small comments in the GA forum. Has anyone heard anything about a proposed change to the restoration designations?

 

Can anyone find the proposed system Matt used to have on the Classic's website?

 

What would you like to see in a new system?

 

What type of label information would ease your worries about buying a restored book?

 

From memory the old system had two numeric designations, one indicating the quality of work and the other the extent. With more than just three tiers, so that you had a more precise understanding of the work done.

[fantastic_four]

Can anyone find the proposed system Matt used to have on the Classic's website?

 

It's in the second edition of the Overstreet Grading Guide.

 

What's needed to gauge real market value is not just the apparent grade but an estimated grade with all restoration removed, but I'm not sure that's possible to estimate without actually doing it. An upper and lower estimated post-removal grade range would be better than the nothing we currently have though.

[mysterio]

What happens with trimming or other work that can't be undone?

[fantastic_four]

What happens with trimming or other work that can't be undone?

 

There's nothing that can be done--the pieces trimmed away or the foreign material wet-cleaned away is gone, so you can't consider it. Unremovable work needs to just be listed as always. Color touch, added pieces, and tear seals are the main work people currently attempt to assign rough pre-restoration grade estimates to when determining value, and it's always a very rough guess that leads to a wide range of market pricing on restored books.

[comicwiz]

Unremovable work needs to just be listed as always.

 

I didn't know it was listed to begin with. For instance, do the "restoration includes" notes mention paper leaf casting? Also, in addition to the comments regarding grading based on removed restoration, I believe CGC should deduct points from the final grade based on the proportion of work performed being unrremovable (i.e if half the cover wrap consists of leaf cast repair, the grading should reflect this somehow). Not a fan of the way this pro method has slipped through without properly revising at least the removable aspect and the extent of work, at least when abiding by the strict definition of it being a conservationist vis-à-vis restorative technique.

[fantastic_four]

Unremovable work needs to just be listed as always.

 

I didn't know it was listed to begin with. For instance, do the "restoration includes" notes mention paper leaf casting? Also, in addition to the comments regarding grading based on removed restoration, I believe CGC should deduct points from the final grade based on the proportion of work performed being unrremovable (i.e if half the cover wrap consists of leaf cast repair, the grading should reflect this somehow). Not a fan of the way this pro method has slipped through without properly revising at least the removable aspect and the extent of work, at least when abiding by the strict definition of it being a conservationist vis-à-vis restorative technique.

 

You're already aware they list most irreversible techniques like trimming and wet cleaning. I assume they describe leaf casting as "pieces added." I don't know a lot about the process--what makes it unremovable? Usually one of the fundamental tenets of professional restoration is that you make sure it's removable without having to destroy any of the original paper.

[comicwiz]

Unremovable work needs to just be listed as always.

 

I didn't know it was listed to begin with. For instance, do the "restoration includes" notes mention paper leaf casting? Also, in addition to the comments regarding grading based on removed restoration, I believe CGC should deduct points from the final grade based on the proportion of work performed being unrremovable (i.e if half the cover wrap consists of leaf cast repair, the grading should reflect this somehow). Not a fan of the way this pro method has slipped through without properly revising at least the removable aspect and the extent of work, at least when abiding by the strict definition of it being a conservationist vis-à-vis restorative technique.

 

You're already aware they list most irreversible techniques like trimming and wet cleaning. I assume they describe leaf casting as "pieces added." I don't know a lot about the process--what makes it unremovable? Usually one of the fundamental tenets of professional restoration is that you make sure it's removable without having to destroy any of the original paper.

 

Depends on your definition of removable. I don't see it being "removable" under the strict understanding that once removed, the book would be in the exact condition (no signs of peeling. tear away, or paper loss) before the paper leaf casting was added. Perhaps a more substantive explanation could be offered by Tracey (newerthannew).

[fantastic_four]

You're already aware they list most irreversible techniques like trimming and wet cleaning. I assume they describe leaf casting as "pieces added." I don't know a lot about the process--what makes it unremovable? Usually one of the fundamental tenets of professional restoration is that you make sure it's removable without having to destroy any of the original paper.

 

Depends on your definition of removable. I don't see it being "removable" under the strict understanding that once removed, the book would be in the exact condition (no signs of peeling. tear away, or paper loss) before the paper leaf casting was added. Perhaps a more substantive explanation could be offered by Tracey (newerthannew).

 

I don't think any restoration once removed leaves the paper in exactly the same state that it was in before that restoration was applied, but professional restoration minimizes the amount of destruction that's required. The only way to remove magic marker color touch that CGC describes as "amateur" restoration is to cut away all the paper it touches since it bleeds through, but even acrylic color touch that CGC describes as "professional" restoration usually causes a few paper fibers and some original ink to get scraped away with the acrylic paint. Usually not enough to impact a grade though beyond the original damage the paint was covering up.

 

What adhesives do Matt and Kenny use to bind the new paper to the original paper with leaf casting?

[comicwiz]

You're already aware they list most irreversible techniques like trimming and wet cleaning. I assume they describe leaf casting as "pieces added." I don't know a lot about the process--what makes it unremovable? Usually one of the fundamental tenets of professional restoration is that you make sure it's removable without having to destroy any of the original paper.

 

Depends on your definition of removable. I don't see it being "removable" under the strict understanding that once removed, the book would be in the exact condition (no signs of peeling. tear away, or paper loss) before the paper leaf casting was added. Perhaps a more substantive explanation could be offered by Tracey (newerthannew).

 

I don't think any restoration once removed leaves the paper in exactly the same state that it was in before that restoration was applied, but professional restoration minimizes the amount of destruction that's required. The only way to remove magic marker color touch that CGC describes as "amateur" restoration is to cut away all the paper it touches since it bleeds through, but even acrylic color touch that CGC describes as "professional" restoration usually causes a few paper fibers and some original ink to get scraped away with the acrylic paint. Usually not enough to impact a grade though beyond the original damage the paint was covering up.

 

What adhesives do Matt and Kenny use to bind the new paper to the original paper with leaf casting?

 

I don't know, you'd have to ask them. But it is exactly the reasons you mention that CGC needs to revise it's grading, specifically in relation to the extent of restoration which allows it to be removed in as close to "return to original" condition as possible. Personally, I think they need to notate it as as "irreversible" as a sub-grade or as it's own designation - i.e. extensive irreversible. The thresholds could certainly be up for debate, but my feeling is that if more than 25% of the cover is using techniques which aren't reversible, or will detract greatly from the pre-restoration condition of the book, it should be reflected in the grade and notated as irreversible. An IR could also be put in brackets after the method is disclosed in the notation (i.e. restoration includes: leaf casting (IR), etc)

[fantastic_four]

I don't know, you'd have to ask them. But it is exactly the reasons you mention that CGC needs to revise it's grading, specifically in relation to the extent of restoration which allows it to be removed in as close to "return to original" condition as possible. Personally, I think they need to notate it as as "irreversible" as a sub-grade or as it's own designation - i.e. extensive irreversible. The thresholds could certainly be up for debate, but my feeling is that if more than 25% of the cover is using techniques which aren't reversible, or will detract greatly from the pre-restoration condition of the book, it should be reflected in the grade and notated as irreversible. An IR could also be put in brackets after the method is disclosed in the notation (i.e. restoration includes: leaf casting (IR), etc)

 

They mostly already designate reversibility--that's their main distinction between "amateur" and "professional" restoration. There are a few minor exceptions of irreversible techniques that I think they describe with the "professional" moniker...the only one I can remember right now is wet cleaning.

[roulette44]

bleaching?

[comicwiz]

They mostly already designate reversibility--that's their main distinction between "amateur" and "professional" restoration. There are a few minor exceptions of irreversible techniques that I think they describe with the "professional" moniker...the only one I can remember right now is wet cleaning.

 

That method isn't enough. I've seen trimmed books bearing a pro designation. Probably because it was already trimmed before the restoration work was performed, but in my opinion the trim should have kept the book in an amateur designation. In such examples, one pro type of work should not cancel out other aspects of the book which would be regarded as irreversible, and it doesn't get any more amateur than trimming.

[fantastic_four]

They mostly already designate reversibility--that's their main distinction between "amateur" and "professional" restoration. There are a few minor exceptions of irreversible techniques that I think they describe with the "professional" moniker...the only one I can remember right now is wet cleaning.

 

That method isn't enough. I've seen trimmed books bearing a pro designation. Probably because it was already trimmed before the restoration work was performed, but in my opinion the trim should have kept the book in an amateur designation. In such examples, one pro type of work should not cancel out other aspects of the book which would be regarded as irreversible, and it doesn't get any more amateur than trimming.

 

They don't consider trimming restoration at all, that's why it doesn't affect the professional restoration tag. CGC considers trimming as simply destruction. Whenever a book has only trimming and no other work, it gets the purple label but it gets no indicator of amateur versus professional restoration.

 

You and I have had this exact discussion before, but it has probably been a few years. I know I forget everything after about six months.

[fantastic_four]

Kenny just PM'ed me with this bit about leaf casting:

 

I can dunk a casted cover, and literally within 5 minutes remove all the casting, with no ill effect to the cover. As opposed to if the same amount of japan papers was glued by hand, with wheat paste. Yes, you can remove japan paper and wheat paste. It is reversible. But it is dried glue!!, and MUCH more stubborn to remove effectively. Especially on a massive scale like extensive piecefill. Let alone fragile brittle interior wraps.

 

So it is indeed removable, and he thinks much more easily so than typical japan paper piece additions.

[Sqeggs]

It's always puzzled me that some trimmed books get the "Slight" designation.

[fantastic_four]

It's always puzzled me that some trimmed books get the "Slight" designation.

 

That's why, they don't consider it restoration, so there's no indicator of slight, moderate, or extensive that applies to the trimming work.

[Ze-man]

Unremovable work needs to just be listed as always.

 

I didn't know it was listed to begin with. For instance, do the "restoration includes" notes mention paper leaf casting? Also, in addition to the comments regarding grading based on removed restoration, I believe CGC should deduct points from the final grade based on the proportion of work performed being unrremovable (i.e if half the cover wrap consists of leaf cast repair, the grading should reflect this somehow). Not a fan of the way this pro method has slipped through without properly revising at least the removable aspect and the extent of work, at least when abiding by the strict definition of it being a conservationist vis-à-vis restorative technique.

 

Lets clear this up before people start incorrectly putting a stigma on leaf casting.

 

I can dunk a leaf casted cover in a water bath, and literally within 5 minutes remove all the casted material, with no ill effect to the cover. As opposed to if the same amount of japan paper was glued by hand, with wheat paste.

 

Yes, you can remove japan paper and wheat paste, it is reversible if you get it wet. But it is dried glue!!!!, and MUCH more stubborn to remove effectively. Especially on a massive scale like extensive piecefill, or fragile brittle interior wraps that have been glued up the spine to reinforce them..

 

I know, because I have had to with previously restored books.

 

True, wet washing,(or solvent washing) a book is considered a professional process even though it cannot be "undone". But it is a practice employed by every conservation lab, and typically the item being washed benefits from the process as a result of washing out harmful agents, as well as resizing the paper.

 

But in regards to leaf casting not being reversible?, that is simply not true.

 

[comicwiz]

Thanks for this. So we've determined the necessity for a wet bath to remove it. What is done to the paper to ensure water borne growth such as mold won't attack the paper? Is there anything done to treat the paper to avoid shrinkage or brittleness from being exposed to water?

[Sqeggs]

It's always puzzled me that some trimmed books get the "Slight" designation.

 

That's why, they don't consider it restoration, so there's no indicator of slight, moderate, or extensive that applies to the trimming work.

 

Kind of misleading, though, when you see the Slight designation coupled with the TRIMMED notation.

[fantastic_four]

It's always puzzled me that some trimmed books get the "Slight" designation.

 

That's why, they don't consider it restoration, so there's no indicator of slight, moderate, or extensive that applies to the trimming work.

 

Kind of misleading, though, when you see the Slight designation coupled with the TRIMMED notation.

 

I don't see why.