The Conserved Label

[ciorac]

I went back and edited one of my previous posts as I was informed by Kenny that leaf casting is in fact totally reversible. Leaf casted areas can be removed by simply applying water. I think that is the primary reason for the uncertainty about how to categorize the process.

 

 

Then leaf casting is the same as pieces added, or ... ?

 

In my view, yes. It is a major restorative technique. It adds what was gone.

 

Pieces added do as well. Leafcasting is replacing grafting etc as a part of the process of restoring missing paper. Techniques change but the goal is the same.

[MrBedrock]

I went back and edited one of my previous posts as I was informed by Kenny that leaf casting is in fact totally reversible. Leaf casted areas can be removed by simply applying water. I think that is the primary reason for the uncertainty about how to categorize the process.

 

 

Then leaf casting is the same as pieces added, or ... ?

 

In my view, yes. It is a major restorative technique. It adds what was gone.

 

Pieces added do as well. Leafcasting is replacing grafting etc as a part of the process of restoring missing paper. Techniques change but the goal is the same.

The difference between pieces added and leaf casting is in the application. Pieces added are usually applied with glue or wheat paste. In applying them that way they are permanently bonded with the original paper. Therefore to remove them requires also removing part of the original. Leaf casting pulp does not create a permanent bond, and the attached area can simply be unattached by applying water. I think that where the real distinction needs to be made is between those processes where adherents such as glue are used and those that are water based. In the old days when spines were reinforced or pieces were added restorers either used wheat paste or glued paper to fill areas, or they used archival tapes like rice paper which could easily be removed. The question becomes does leaf casting more closely resemble wheat paste or archival paper?

[ciorac]

I went back and edited one of my previous posts as I was informed by Kenny that leaf casting is in fact totally reversible. Leaf casted areas can be removed by simply applying water. I think that is the primary reason for the uncertainty about how to categorize the process.

 

 

Then leaf casting is the same as pieces added, or ... ?

 

In my view, yes. It is a major restorative technique. It adds what was gone.

 

Pieces added do as well. Leafcasting is replacing grafting etc as a part of the process of restoring missing paper. Techniques change but the goal is the same.

The difference between pieces added and leaf casting is in the application. Pieces added are usually applied with glue or wheat paste. In applying them that way they are permanently bonded with the original paper. Therefore to remove them requires also removing part of the original. Leaf casting pulp does not create a permanent bond, and the attached area can simply be unattached by applying water. I think that where the real distinction needs to be made is between those processes where adherents such as glue are used and those that are water based. In the old days when spines were reinforced or pieces were added restorers either used wheat paste or glued paper to fill areas, or they used archival tapes like rice paper which could easily be removed. The question becomes does leaf casting more closely resemble wheat paste or archival paper?

 

Conservation is like stasis. You are arresting further damage from existing damage. Not creating and replacing something that was missing due to damage the way leafcasting does.

 

Grafted pieces can be exacto knifed off without removing original paper. But that doesn't make the technique any less restorative

 

You might as well add deacidification, bleaching and lightening to the lexicon. Or do away with the restored category altogether. All restoration ceases further damage from routine and careful handling.

 

Conservation should be a narrow definition not a broad one. Restoration should remain broad in scope but CGC should more precisely define the techniques used to create more classifications

 

[MrBedrock]

Restoration should remain broad in scope but CGC should more precisely define the techniques used to create more classifications

I agree, and I think that is exactly what CGC is doing. If they do go forward with the conserved label there will certainly be discussion about what is and isn't conservation. There will be much useful and thoughtful discourse. There will also be much gnashing of teeth. But eventually some sort of consensus will be arrived at which CGC will be inclined to follow.

 

In a broader sense I think that the discussion should not initially be concerned with how the market will respond. Instead those of us who have knowledge of the subject should approach the discussion, and hope that CGC approaches it, as an opportunity to inform and educate collectors about the different processes of restoration, ultimately using their labels to do so. At that point the market will respond on its own.

[MrBedrock]

Conservation is like stasis. You are arresting further damage from existing damage. Not creating and replacing something that was missing due to damage the way leafcasting does.

One of the useful applications of leaf casting is that many pieces of an original manuscript or page can be reassembled into a single, handleable whole. If a piece of paper has been bug chewed or is brittle to the point that it is now in multiple pieces those pieces can be laid out in their proper place and then the spaces between can be filled with leaf casting fluid. Those pieces are still obviously missing. The casting fluid can also be completely removed at any time.

 

I'm not arguing for or against any label on the process of leaf casting. It can be resto or conservation, which ever way the decision ultimately goes. But it is an amazing process.

[Sqeggs]

Restoration should remain broad in scope but CGC should more precisely define the techniques used to create more classifications

I agree, and I think that is exactly what CGC is doing. If they do go forward with the conserved label there will certainly be discussion about what is and isn't conservation. There will be much useful and thoughtful discourse. There will also be much gnashing of teeth. But eventually some sort of consensus will be arrived at which CGC will be inclined to follow.

 

In a broader sense I think that the discussion should not initially be concerned with how the market will respond. Instead those of us who have knowledge of the subject should approach the discussion, and hope that CGC approaches it, as an opportunity to inform and educate collectors about the different processes of restoration, ultimately using their labels to do so. At that point the market will respond on its own.

 

I hope this happens, but hasn't CGC's track record been one of not spelling out their criteria, either for the numerical grades on blue label books, or for distinguishing between amateur and professional restoration or the degree of restoration?

 

I can understand that they have reasons for keeping their criteria secret. To some extent it is proprietary information that they don't won't to disclose to potential competitors. In addition, it makes inconsistencies in grading or restoration designations more difficult to detect. This last reason may not seem entirely legitimate, but I can imagine it would have occurred to them.

 

Unless they decide to become more forthcoming than they've been in the past, I would guess that all we will see is a rough statement of the guidelines they intend to use in distinguishing between "conservation" and "restoration."

[ciorac]

Conservation is like stasis. You are arresting further damage from existing damage. Not creating and replacing something that was missing due to damage the way leafcasting does.

 

leaf casting is an amazing process.

 

Agreed

[MrBedrock]

I hope this happens, but hasn't CGC's track record been one of not spelling out their criteria, either for the numerical grades on blue label books, or for distinguishing between amateur and professional restoration or the degree of restoration?

 

CGC has not published their grading criteria. But the fact that CGC exists has caused a ton of discussion about grading in general and their grading in particular. I think it can honestly be said that grading as a practice is much more consistent throughout the hobby as a direct result of CGC's criteria, published or not. It is my understanding that not only are they planning to differentiate between restoration and conservation but they also plan to expand the system from the present slight, moderate, extensive scale to an expanded five tier system in which they essentially will grade the restoration itself. If this happens the discussions that result will educate folks about restoration as much as anything that CGC themselves could say in any press release. There are already some particularly enlightening threads about restoration processes on this board. Check out Zeman's leaf casting thread. It is incredibly eye opening.

[Marvel Zombie]

I hope this happens, but hasn't CGC's track record been one of not spelling out their criteria, either for the numerical grades on blue label books, or for distinguishing between amateur and professional restoration or the degree of restoration?

 

CGC has not published their grading criteria. But the fact that CGC exists has caused a ton of discussion about grading in general and their grading in particular. I think it can honestly be said that grading as a practice is much more consistent throughout the hobby as a direct result of CGC's criteria, published or not. It is my understanding that not only are they planning to differentiate between restoration and conservation but they also plan to expand the system from the present slight, moderate, extensive scale to an expanded five tier system in which they essentially will grade the restoration itself. If this happens the discussions that result will educate folks about restoration as much as anything that CGC themselves could say in any press release. There are already some particularly enlightening threads about restoration processes on this board. Check out Zeman's leaf casting thread. It is incredibly eye opening.

 

 

When enough $$$$$$ flows into the resto segment of our hobby some kind of scanning technology might come around. Yes? It already exists, and in this case one could imgagine that it would be developed towards a goal of determining with exact numerical precision for instance exactly how many % of a cover is original.

 

Such a breakdown on say a slight (P) could be:

 

Front cover:

colour touch: 1,8%

pieces added 2,3%

reinforcement: 4,1 %

 

Back cover:

etc.

etc.

 

1st wrap:

etc.

 

Ultimately an evidence based numerical breakdown on the full book could be made, stating that the book in question is - for instance - 97,3% original, I.e. with 2,7% added material.

 

Such transparency would likely provide customer confidence and as a consequence enhanced willingness to sink serious dough into CLOD and PLOD-books.

 

 

 

[Marvel Zombie]

I hope this happens, but hasn't CGC's track record been one of not spelling out their criteria, either for the numerical grades on blue label books, or for distinguishing between amateur and professional restoration or the degree of restoration?

 

CGC has not published their grading criteria. But the fact that CGC exists has caused a ton of discussion about grading in general and their grading in particular. I think it can honestly be said that grading as a practice is much more consistent throughout the hobby as a direct result of CGC's criteria, published or not. It is my understanding that not only are they planning to differentiate between restoration and conservation but they also plan to expand the system from the present slight, moderate, extensive scale to an expanded five tier system in which they essentially will grade the restoration itself. If this happens the discussions that result will educate folks about restoration as much as anything that CGC themselves could say in any press release. There are already some particularly enlightening threads about restoration processes on this board. Check out Zeman's leaf casting thread. It is incredibly eye opening.

 

 

When enough $$$$$$ flows into the resto segment of our hobby some kind of scanning technology might come around. Yes? It already exists, and in this case one could imgagine that it would be developed towards a goal of determining with exact numerical precision for instance exactly how many % of a cover is original.

 

Such a breakdown on say a slight (P) could be:

 

Front cover:

colour touch: 1,8%

pieces added 2,3%

reinforcement: 4,1 %

 

Back cover:

etc.

etc.

 

1st wrap:

etc.

 

Ultimately an evidence based numerical breakdown on the full book could be made, stating that the book in question is - for instance - 97,3% original, I.e. with 2,7% added material.

 

Such transparency would likely provide customer confidence and as a consequence enhanced willingness to sink serious dough into CLOD and PLOD-books.

 

 

 

 

Alas, the hobby is probably still 10-15 years away from such innovations becomming reality ...

but especially when added material is so frowned upon in our hobby, it seems logic to look towards the market for classical paintings where scanning technology is used.

[ciorac]

I hope this happens, but hasn't CGC's track record been one of not spelling out their criteria, either for the numerical grades on blue label books, or for distinguishing between amateur and professional restoration or the degree of restoration?

 

CGC has not published their grading criteria. But the fact that CGC exists has caused a ton of discussion about grading in general and their grading in particular. I think it can honestly be said that grading as a practice is much more consistent throughout the hobby as a direct result of CGC's criteria, published or not

 

Excellent commentary. And a very accurate observation. The fact that so many mention the changes they perceive in grading over the time CGC has been around, and that many have gotten much better of estimating the grade they will receive on their submissions, validates your line of thinking

[drbanner]

I hope this happens, but hasn't CGC's track record been one of not spelling out their criteria, either for the numerical grades on blue label books, or for distinguishing between amateur and professional restoration or the degree of restoration?

CGC has not published their grading criteria. But the fact that CGC exists has caused a ton of discussion about grading in general and their grading in particular. I think it can honestly be said that grading as a practice is much more consistent throughout the hobby as a direct result of CGC's criteria, published or not

Excellent commentary. And a very accurate observation. The fact that so many mention the changes they perceive in grading over the time CGC has been around, and that many have gotten much better of estimating the grade they will receive on their submissions, validates your line of thinking

CGC's "real world" examples of graded books have been a huge ancillary benefit to the hobby, a benefit that has extended past the graded book market and into the raw book market.

 

There was a discussion here a while back about someone asking a dealer what grade a book was in, the dealer responded that "I price books, I don't grade them." While most dealers with an internet presence grade their books, most convention stock are just priced without grades. So having hundreds of thousands of (relatively) accurately graded books in circulation has been a big boon to the hobby IMHO.

[Sardo Numspar]

My guess is reg tape is still a downgrade and blue label. Archival tape used to conserve would get clod

 

And of course the nasty old regular tape with a blue label would be much more valuable than the CLOD with the archival tape.

[Transplant]

I don't believe it has been announced, just speculated.

It's been announced just no public posting. No speculation...it is a done deal I am told

This kind of thing is just gross. The non-announcement announcement, I mean.

 

I've wanted a differentiation between restored and conserved, if only in the marketplace. But the timing is just downright funny to me. Thanks, Matt.

[Sqeggs]

I hope this happens, but hasn't CGC's track record been one of not spelling out their criteria, either for the numerical grades on blue label books, or for distinguishing between amateur and professional restoration or the degree of restoration?

 

CGC has not published their grading criteria. But the fact that CGC exists has caused a ton of discussion about grading in general and their grading in particular. I think it can honestly be said that grading as a practice is much more consistent throughout the hobby as a direct result of CGC's criteria, published or not. It is my understanding that not only are they planning to differentiate between restoration and conservation but they also plan to expand the system from the present slight, moderate, extensive scale to an expanded five tier system in which they essentially will grade the restoration itself. If this happens the discussions that result will educate folks about restoration as much as anything that CGC themselves could say in any press release. There are already some particularly enlightening threads about restoration processes on this board. Check out Zeman's leaf casting thread. It is incredibly eye opening.

 

Good point. Certainly at the high-end, standards have been raised and books are much more finely differentiated than they were pre-CGC.

[Sqeggs]

I don't believe it has been announced, just speculated.

It's been announced just no public posting. No speculation...it is a done deal I am told

This kind of thing is just gross. The non-announcement announcement, I mean.

 

I've wanted a differentiation between restored and conserved, if only in the marketplace. But the timing is just downright funny to me. Thanks, Matt.

 

They are in kind of an awkward position in that they need to get feedback before they make a change that is this important. In the back and forth with -- I presume -- large dealers and prominent collectors, the change gets hammered out. Those of us on the outside hear about it either through the grapevine or when it gets officially announced.

 

 

[nearmint]

I don't believe it has been announced, just speculated.

It's been announced just no public posting. No speculation...it is a done deal I am told

This kind of thing is just gross. The non-announcement announcement, I mean.

 

I've wanted a differentiation between restored and conserved, if only in the marketplace. But the timing is just downright funny to me. Thanks, Matt.

 

They are in kind of an awkward position in that they need to get feedback before they make a change that is this important. In the back and forth with -- I presume -- large dealers and prominent collectors, the change gets hammered out. Those of on the outside hear about it either through the grapevine or when it gets officially announced.

 

 

As I stated in my initial post, that's the entire purpose of this thread. To give collectors who are not being consulted an opportunity to voice their opinions.

[mschmidt]

Sometime in 2014, CGC will introduce the conserved label. Which brings up the question, what procedures will qualify?

 

Cleaning, pressing, tear seals, reinforcement, all seem to be no-brainers to fall under the new label. Color touch and recreating art work would not.

 

But what about leaf-casting? Historical documents are conserved using this method. Should our hobby follow that lead? Or should leaf-casting remain under the PLOD label?

 

While these ideas are being discussed at CGC, I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread where we could voice our opinions.

 

So whatcha' think?

 

Why would pressing garner a "conserved" label?

[G.A.tor]

Sometime in 2014, CGC will introduce the conserved label. Which brings up the question, what procedures will qualify?

 

Cleaning, pressing, tear seals, reinforcement, all seem to be no-brainers to fall under the new label. Color touch and recreating art work would not.

 

But what about leaf-casting? Historical documents are conserved using this method. Should our hobby follow that lead? Or should leaf-casting remain under the PLOD label?

 

While these ideas are being discussed at CGC, I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread where we could voice our opinions.

 

So whatcha' think?

 

Why would pressing garner a "conserved" label?

it won't

[nearmint]

Sometime in 2014, CGC will introduce the conserved label. Which brings up the question, what procedures will qualify?

 

Cleaning, pressing, tear seals, reinforcement, all seem to be no-brainers to fall under the new label. Color touch and recreating art work would not.

 

But what about leaf-casting? Historical documents are conserved using this method. Should our hobby follow that lead? Or should leaf-casting remain under the PLOD label?

 

While these ideas are being discussed at CGC, I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread where we could voice our opinions.

 

So whatcha' think?

 

Why would pressing garner a "conserved" label?

it won't

 

I meant in association with other procedures, not solo pressing.