The Conserved Label

[Ze-man]

But, it wouldn't be relevant for the conserved topic or label at any rate either way

I think you are wrong. It is relevant to me.

 

Such is life. I think you are wrong trying to squeeze leafcasting into being conservation only

 

But, it is all relevant discussion. I just happen to disagree with the notion, absurd as it may be, that replacing large pieces of missing paper is somehow conserving and not restoring a book

 

Just to clarify, it comes down to how much of a book was casted in regards to it being conserved, vs restored?

 

I can see that.

 

But where you see a corner filled, or large piece replaced as restored. I see areas filled/replaced that were weak, conserved on some level.

 

Same way if I were to lay down a strip of japan paper and reinforce a brittle outer edge of a cover. Typically we always trim away the excess japan tissue back to original cover because it looks fugly, and could catch, tear. It's conserved.

 

But if I reinforce the same brittle outer edge with leaf casting.. fill missing areas in doing so, and trim it to what the original line of where the missing cover was supposed to be. That is considered restored

 

If I then were to trim the excess casted material back to the chippy, pieces out original cover. Would that then be more conserved, then restored?

 

I've done both, and without a doubt I would prefer a casted edge over a tissue mend.... no matter what we call it. Even then, the number of "casted only" books would very small, with most of those being interior related.

 

I just think that casting in itself should be included in the conservation vernacular on some level for what it brings to the table.

 

Hence this discussion.

 

Besides, what else do we have to do, both our teams lost.

 

 

 

 

 

[BOOT]

One of the main selling points of having a book graded by CGC is liquidity.

 

Having more different colored labels will be counterproductive. There will inevitably be a stigma attached to anything other than a "Universal" label ("PLOD!")

 

Reading through this thread, you can see the well-reasoned arguments about what constitutes "restored" and "conserved". But if some of the most informed collectors can't agree on these definitions, how will new collectors/investors (vital to the health of the hobby) navigate through the different color labels?

 

I'll recommend again that CGC use just one label. The label could simply describe what, if any work has been done to the book.

 

The market will determine what degree of work is acceptable for each book, adding to the liquidity of a book.

 

 

 

But, it wouldn't be relevant for the conserved topic or label at any rate either way

I think you are wrong. It is relevant to me.

 

Such is life. I think you are wrong trying to squeeze leafcasting into being conservation only

 

But, it is all relevant discussion. I just happen to disagree with the notion, absurd as it may be, that replacing large pieces of missing paper is somehow conserving and not restoring a book

 

Just to clarify, it comes down to how much of a book was casted in regards to it being conserved, vs restored?

 

I can see that.

 

But where you see a corner filled, or large piece replaced as restored. I see areas filled/replaced that were weak, conserved on some level.

 

Same way if I were to lay down a strip of japan paper and reinforce a brittle outer edge of a cover. Typically we always trim away the excess japan tissue back to original cover because it looks fugly, and could catch, tear. It's conserved.

 

But if I reinforce the same brittle outer edge with leaf casting.. fill missing areas in doing so, and trim it to what the original line of where the missing cover was supposed to be. That is considered restored

 

If I then were to trim the excess casted material back to the chippy, pieces out original cover. Would that then be more conserved, then restored?

 

I've done both, and without a doubt I would prefer a casted edge over a tissue mend.... no matter what we call it. Even then, the number of "casted only" books would very small, with most of those being interior related.

 

I just think that casting in itself should be included in the conservation vernacular on some level for what it brings to the table.

 

Hence this discussion.

 

Besides, what else do we have to do, both our teams lost.

 

 

 

 

[Marvel Zombie]

One of the main selling points of having a book graded by CGC is liquidity.

 

Having more different colored labels will be counterproductive. There will inevitably be a stigma attached to anything other than a "Universal" label ("PLOD!")

 

Reading through this thread, you can see the well-reasoned arguments about what constitutes "restored" and "conserved". But if some of the most informed collectors can't agree on these definitions, how will new collectors/investors (vital to the health of the hobby) navigate through the different color labels?

 

I'll recommend again that CGC use just one label. The label could simply describe what, if any work has been done to the book.

 

The market will determine what degree of work is acceptable for each book, adding to the liquidity of a book.

 

 

 

But, it wouldn't be relevant for the conserved topic or label at any rate either way

I think you are wrong. It is relevant to me.

 

Such is life. I think you are wrong trying to squeeze leafcasting into being conservation only

 

But, it is all relevant discussion. I just happen to disagree with the notion, absurd as it may be, that replacing large pieces of missing paper is somehow conserving and not restoring a book

 

Just to clarify, it comes down to how much of a book was casted in regards to it being conserved, vs restored?

 

I can see that.

 

But where you see a corner filled, or large piece replaced as restored. I see areas filled/replaced that were weak, conserved on some level.

 

Same way if I were to lay down a strip of japan paper and reinforce a brittle outer edge of a cover. Typically we always trim away the excess japan tissue back to original cover because it looks fugly, and could catch, tear. It's conserved.

 

But if I reinforce the same brittle outer edge with leaf casting.. fill missing areas in doing so, and trim it to what the original line of where the missing cover was supposed to be. That is considered restored

 

If I then were to trim the excess casted material back to the chippy, pieces out original cover. Would that then be more conserved, then restored?

 

I've done both, and without a doubt I would prefer a casted edge over a tissue mend.... no matter what we call it. Even then, the number of "casted only" books would very small, with most of those being interior related.

 

I just think that casting in itself should be included in the conservation vernacular on some level for what it brings to the table.

 

Hence this discussion.

 

Besides, what else do we have to do, both our teams lost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

exactly! +1

yet another CLOD, PLOD, GLOD label will only worsen the confusion and hence the stigma ...

[Boba]

Well, maybe not another, a better one than what we got.

No one likes the one-size-fits-all PLODS we have now.

[MrBedrock]

Well, maybe not another, a better one than what we got.

No one likes the one-size-fits-all PLODS we have now.

Agreed. I haven't heard that there are plans to add another color label, just plans to expand the number of categorizations (restoration/conservation, each with five or more levels of extent) under the purple label umbrella.

[adamstrange]

each with five or more levels of extent) under the purple label umbrella.

Will there be different shades of purple: Lavender, lilac, violet, plum

[Cat-Man_America]

Well, maybe not another, a better one than what we got.

No one likes the one-size-fits-all PLODS we have now.

Agreed. I haven't heard that there are plans to add another color label, just plans to expand the number of categorizations (restoration/conservation, each with five or more levels of extent) under the purple label umbrella.

 

[font:Comic Sans MS]Heineken (Purple label)? *spoon* that *spoon*! Pabst Blue ribbon! [/font]

 

Seriously, my preference would be a BLUE Universal label (Universal Restored or Universal Conserved) for professional archival work done.

Purple lettering employed to explain the type and a numerical scale for the degree of conservation or restoration.

 

That would be a better compromise.

 

each with five or more levels of extent) under the purple label umbrella.

Will there be different shades of purple: Lavender, lilac, violet, plum

 

[Marvel Zombie]

Well, maybe not another, a better one than what we got.

No one likes the one-size-fits-all PLODS we have now.

Agreed. I haven't heard that there are plans to add another color label, just plans to expand the number of categorizations (restoration/conservation, each with five or more levels of extent) under the purple label umbrella.

 

 

Duh .... more purple confusion

 

to enhance the complexity of a PLOD wont do away with the problem of PLOD.

 

the old 'label-of-death' thinking will continue, - just distributed over a larger spectrum of categories (conserved 1-5 / restored 1-5 whatever).

 

The solution is not to expand the number of categorizations, - but to do something different (in a qualitative sense).

 

this translates into the purple lable EXIT.

[Marvel Zombie]

 

Plod

Frankenstein-extensives

book resurrected from the dead

death-row-books

 

Here on the boards 'the purple label' has for many years been associated with such heavily value laden notions as those above. Will the introduction of "conserved" do away with this?

[Cat-Man_America]

Well, maybe not another, a better one than what we got.

No one likes the one-size-fits-all PLODS we have now.

Agreed. I haven't heard that there are plans to add another color label, just plans to expand the number of categorizations (restoration/conservation, each with five or more levels of extent) under the purple label umbrella.

 

 

Duh .... more purple confusion

 

to enhance the complexity of a PLOD wont do away with the problem of PLOD.

 

the old 'label-of-death' thinking will continue, - just distributed over a larger spectrum of categories (conserved 1-5 / restored 1-5 whatever).

 

The solution is not to expand the number of categorizations, - but to do something different (in a qualitative sense).

 

this translates into the purple lable EXIT.

 

Those are pretty much my sentiments, as well.

 

And if the purple label doesn't go, at least CGC should consider reducing the number of qualifiers that get PLODed and GLODed and move those to another label (preferably Blue) adding conservation/restoration notations & the discussed scale. Which qualifiers for label reassignment is a separate topic open to debate.

 

Producing another color label for dividing types of restoration will only increase confusion and increase the number of shunned LODs unfairly derided by overzealous critics in the community. This is an instance where changes must first be made from the top down (CGC, as the respected leader in third party grading) before attitudes within the comic collecting community at large can evolve.

 

As I've stated for years (until blue in the face, which fortunately has never gone purple), the best option would be to follow the lead of the antiquities community. This would bring another level of sophistication to comics collectibles sorely needed to keep pace with the appraised values of other types of paper ephemera.

 

I'd respectfully disagree with those who say GA comics aren't the same as antiques. Pulp paper ages just like every other paper collectible from maps & books to historical documents, posters, etc.

 

In the real world, where antique collectibles are assigned values by appraisers, conservation & skilled restoration is not only broadly accepted, but recommended for the preservation of prized collectibles. If that same level of professional confidence and esteem extended to comics, market values would be assessed based upon the amount and quality of work done, without deference given to any ludicrous color-coded label.

 

There you have it. My (I know, ...that piggy bank doth runneth over)

[Griff]

As far behind as CGC is, I wonder how many Plods will be sent in when this gets up and running. Think it will slow them down even more?

[bluechip]

This is a step in the right direction but it's not clear how far this step will go. This thread includes a lot of references to what is "considered" restored and what is "considered" conserved. And it's not always about what's reversible or about how much was done. 'Often it's clear that it's really about what an individual considers "bad" versus what they consider "acceptable" and expressing the hope that the labels continue to ID the books they consider bad versus the ones they don't. Although some are clearly just looking to assess what is the conventional wisdom,''

 

I would certainly call leaf casting restored but don't consider it bad if it's reversible. And I would never call color touch restoration if it actually defaces the book (which it often does) and I sure as hell don't consider a book with color touch on the corner more desirably than a book with that same corner missing. But the more that a label attempts to codify what is "bad" as opposed to simply saying what it is, the more the valuations will end up contentious, out of balance or even just weird.