Which would you buy? 7.0SA or 3.0 universal

[brendanb438]

I would get the unrestored 3.0. The one thing I have a problem with is the wall that you call a sig. line.

 

Um ... why?

See post above. (thumbs u

 

You show 15 in your sig line. I have 15 comics plus 2 pieces of art that have sentimental value related to my kids, and a ST voyager pic that I just got after chasing it for about 3 years. So what's your point?

 

A sig line becomes asinine when it takes up the whole dang page. Either learn to streamline them like Oakman or cut it down to one single line, not 3 stacked lines.

[oakman29]

I would get the unrestored 3.0. The one thing I have a problem with is the wall that you call a sig. line.

 

Um ... why?

See post above. (thumbs u

 

You show 15 in your sig line. I have 15 comics plus 2 pieces of art that have sentimental value related to my kids, and a ST voyager pic that I just got after chasing it for about 3 years. So what's your point?

 

A sig line becomes asinine when it takes up the whole dang page. Either learn to streamline them like Oakman or cut it down to one single line, not 3 stacked lines.

I'm learning the way of no sig. lines.Serenity now,serenity now.

[THE_BEYONDER]

By the way, the ASM #1 3.0 was being sold by Dale Roberts, so contact him if interested.

 

how much was the ask

$3600

 

Are you kidding? That seems cheap.

 

ASM 1s are basically 1K per point right now. (thumbs u

[non sequitur]

Is there a discussion somewhere about un-doing restoration?

 

I have a 7.0 Moderate (P): color touch, pieces added, tear seals, cleaned. Could all of that be un-done? Any idea what it would grade at if you went through all that effort?

 

It seems stupid to me that you could hypothetically undo a bunch of expensive restoration work to get a blue label. Why not just price the PLOD as IF all the un-doing had been done... And yet it doesn't seem to work that way. Frustrating.

 

And who would even perform such an operation? The same people who do the restoration in the first place? Susan Cicconi?

[jimjum12]

Is there a discussion somewhere about un-doing restoration?

 

I have a 7.0 Moderate (P): color touch, pieces added, tear seals, cleaned. Could all of that be un-done? Any idea what it would grade at if you went through all that effort?

 

It seems stupid to me that you could hypothetically undo a bunch of expensive restoration work to get a blue label. Why not just price the PLOD as IF all the un-doing had been done... And yet it doesn't seem to work that way. Frustrating.

 

And who would even perform such an operation? The same people who do the restoration in the first place? Susan Cicconi?

 

..... that's too much like right, it'll never catch on around here. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

P.S. If the same price...... I'd take the 7.0 SA

[Hado]

In the current C Link auction there's a very pretty 3.0 and a Moderate PLOD 7.5.

 

And I have to say I'd take the 3.0, it presents really well (better than my 3.0)

 

Also, thanks to The Beyonder, if you're right about ASM 1's being about 1k per grading point.

I've often wondered if I overpaid or got a deal

[slym2none]

The 3.0

 

 

 

-slym

[Noodlez]

Originality.

 

An un restored book even in low grade beats any restored book imo. Not a fan of altered books.

[DamageInc-migration]

Is there a discussion somewhere about un-doing restoration?

 

I have a 7.0 Moderate (P): color touch, pieces added, tear seals, cleaned. Could all of that be un-done? Any idea what it would grade at if you went through all that effort?

 

It seems stupid to me that you could hypothetically undo a bunch of expensive restoration work to get a blue label.

 

It's not hypothetical. CCG first opened up Paper Conservation Services in 2006 to do just this, undo restoration and get a book a blue label. They took the restoration expert from CGC and gave him his own company.

 

And who would even perform such an operation? The same people who do the restoration in the first place? Susan Cicconi?

 

Matt Nelson. CCG recently acquired his company, he's "right down the hall" from CGC now.

[Spiderphill]

People need to stop with this unrestoring books for profit or whatever it is. Makes them look hideous and scraped up.

[Spiderphill]

Here's the 7.0(SA):

 

 

 

And here's the 3.0 showing the tear in the back:

 

 

 

90% of the time you take the 7.0 SA over the 3.0 Universal but this my friend is the 10% where 3.0 prevails. That front cover looks insanely nice for a 3.0. Not many 3.0s look just as good as a 7.0.

[krighton]

3.0...purple makes my belly hurt.

[Buzzetta]

They are both nice books. Go with your guy and your gut told you to go 7.0 Purple. It isn't trimmed and no pieces were added.

 

Let's see...

 

Tear seal and a little bit of glue... not really that intrusive and the tear seal can be considered conservation to make sure it doesn't tear any more.

 

The color touch? It says a small amount. That could be a dot... that could be a pen stroke.

 

Do not feel bad with what others say, that is the book you bought, it was attractive to you and it is yours. Feel proud that you have one. It looks incredible and enjoy it in your collection.

 

 

[rjpb]

People need to stop with this unrestoring books for profit or whatever it is. Makes them look hideous and scraped up.

 

Generally I agree. If it can be done with minimal damage and loss of eye appeal, I can understand the logic, but that AF 15 posted in another thread that had the CT removed down the center looked awful. Unfortunately the market place not only doesn't reward books for slight professional restoration, it punishes them ( the whole taped staples issue aside). GIven the price curve on high grade books, it's understandable that no one is interested in paying a premium price with even slight restoration, but when people are willing to pay more for a 3.0 with unsealed tears than an otherwise 4.5 with a couple small tear seals, it seems another variation of buying the label not the book. I mean this generally, not referring to these two particular copies.

 

In this case without seeing the books in hand, it was understandably a close call, at least from a collector as opposed to investor perspective. The two books look almost identical in pictures from the front, though the OP indicated the 7.0 looked nicer, but independent of label color, it comes down to what bothers one more, a big rip and fold in the back cover or a small amount of CT and glue. The only caveat for me, is once a book is in the slab, and grader notes are not at hand, it's often hard to evaluate just how small the "small amount" of color touch actually is.