The Conserved Label

[Silver Surfer]

I will "conserve" my opinion until I see how this plays out.

[PovertyRow]

I am definitely intrigued by this. But it seems market driven rather than knowledge driven. Restoration takes many forms from very minor such as tear seals to moderate such as staple replacement and minor color touch to extensive such as piece replacement. (Just a few examples).

 

It SHOULD be the collectors' knowledge and understanding to perceive the various grades of restoration. I am still shocked when I see a question on the boards (not necessarily in GA) where someone asks "Is erasing dirt resto?' or "Is pressing resto?"

 

It feels like they are asking if a company like CGC says it isn't then they are OK with it? The collector should be knowledgeable about these things just as much as they are about artists, first appearances etc. But they often aren't and this leads to a commercial opening in grading books.

 

Some may know I studied restoration and techniques quite vigorously in the 80s. I spent about 40 hours with a major restorer back then in learning pressing, in-painting, tear seals etc. and the various tools and materials to achieve this,

 

I have always felt that any modification to the book that requires some form of artificial intervention is restoration, which includes pressing, dry cleaning and staple cleaning. These are processes intended to restore the book to a previous condition. These are VERY minor and should be seen as that. Yet many collectors just glom these techniques under the same Resto umbrella as the major techniques like in-painting, leaf casting and piece replacement.

 

I really do not get it.

 

 

what is the difference between piece replacement and leaf casting?

 

thanks!

 

I missed that but see Mr. Bedrock's excellent explanation!

[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 Historical documents are conserved using this method.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

even then, won't be noted (at least that is what I am hearing)

 

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

[Bronty]

I like the idea in general.

 

I think leaf casting is just a really nicely done form of restoration. I wouldn't personally consider it conservation. To me conservation is just about stabilizing the book (rusty staple replacement, reinforcement etc) whereas restoration is about improving the aesthetic appearance for cosmetic purposes.

 

There is a bit of overlap there (tears seals and other procedures arguably do both) but to me considering the procedures in the light of stabilization vs aesthetic improvement is a good start.

[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.

 

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.

 

And I appreciate the opportunity and the discussion that's resulting. But I still bristle at the first post stating unequivocally that it will happen in 2014. It just smacks of all the backroom conspiracy theories that people have about CGC.

[Cat-Man_America]

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.

 

This is a very important discussion and the future of our hobby may ride on it.

 

My earlier point was that the conservation label notation should help reduce the stigma long associated with the perception of restoration as a deceptive practice. Here are my views revisited, with a couple of minor edits for clarity...

 

 

Restoration is a valid means for professional conservers to preserve fragile artifacts. The methods involved can be either additive or subtractive, insignificant or reconstructive, reversible or permanent and difficult to detect except by expert appraisers. Unfortunately, restoration has long borne the stigma of being associated with amateur efforts inclined toward deceit for profit, a holdover from abuses long before CGC grading provided an added level of consumer confidence.

 

Professional restoration techniques are universally accepted in the antiques world for the preservation of a broad range of paper ephemera. Furthermore, values aren't as negatively impacted by conservation efforts when the work is clearly delineated by expert appraisers. Our hobby has been headed down this path for a long time (since the advent of CGC), but at a slow pace to smooth over those unresolved trust issues. I suspect that this change will help accomplish that.

 

Personally, it seems like a new color label is unnecessary. They should just use the blue label and note the type and amount of restoration/preservation on the label as professional conservation. It would avoid PLODs, GLODs or CLODs, ...but that's just my , other's coinage may vary.

 

 

I'm persuaded that conservation labeling should be an added notation on the Universal Blue label to provide quicker acceptance and further delineate differences between amateur restoration, professional restoration and professional preservation/conservation (bypassing any label color stigma).

 

I'm also persuaded that there needs to be more crossover between professional restoration and conservation. The multi-tiered scale also sounds like a positive move, to provide collectors with more detailed information and, hopefully, a usable value range.

 

[MrBedrock]

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.

 

And I appreciate the opportunity and the discussion that's resulting. But I still bristle at the first post stating unequivocally that it will happen in 2014. It just smacks of all the backroom conspiracy theories that people have about CGC.

It shouldn't smack that way. Sorry that it does to you.

 

The reality is that Matt has been a big proponent of this proposed new system since well before his CGC/CSS deal. Go back and read some of his articles, even as far back as Comic Book Marketplace. He has always wanted to differentiate conservation and restoration. At one point he even laid out a proposed ten point grading scale for resto. So this is not something new for him. He does have CGC's ear in a big way now. So the idea that an updated and improved resto grading scale would at least be put out for discussion has been a no-brainer for those who speak to Matt regularly. It only looks like a conspiracy to those choosing to see conspiracies. I've been fortunate enough to have had a bunch of different conversation with Matt about this subject over the years. When CCS became a reality I figured a new restoration grading scale for CGC would be an inevitability, not a conspiracy.

[MrBedrock]

I like the idea in general.

 

I think leaf casting is just a really nicely done form of restoration. I wouldn't personally consider it conservation. To me conservation is just about stabilizing the book (rusty staple replacement, reinforcement etc) whereas restoration is about improving the aesthetic appearance for cosmetic purposes.

 

There is a bit of overlap there (tears seals and other procedures arguably do both) but to me considering the procedures in the light of stabilization vs aesthetic improvement is a good start.

Hopefully Kenny will start posting in this thread and show some of the amazing applications for leaf-casting. In the meantime, one way to think of the process is as a means to achieve a very large tear seal. Try to picture a page from a comic that has been torn into pieces and a few of the pieces are then misplaced. Properly done, a restorer can take all of the remaining pieces and reattach them in their proper space with liquid pulp, filling in the missing areas, and have the whole be fully reversible with no damage done to the original pieces.

 

Again, I don't really have an opinion on the classification of the process. But I do think that we should really have full knowledge before the decision is made. By saying that conservation is just about stabilization you are directly describing leaf-casting. Done as an independent process (no additional color touch) it is totally about stabilization and has nothing to do with aesthetics.

 

 

[Bronty]

Like I said there is overlap so there is room for debate but as it applies to leaf casting I don't see it that way. If a book is otherwise intact but missing a one inch piece of paper at the bottom right corner, exactly how does filling that in with pulp conserve anything when it was entirely unneeded?

 

To be honest , for that same reason I'm not sure where I sit on tear seals being resto vs convo . They aren't 'bad' but they really aren't needed for stabilization, either, unless the owner has some major butterfingers

[MrBedrock]

Like I said there is overlap so there is room for debate but as it applies to leaf casting I don't see it that way. If a book is otherwise intact but missing a one inch piece of paper at the bottom right corner, exactly how does filling that in with pulp conserve anything when it was entirely unneeded?

 

I do not think it would be a good idea to use leaf-casting alone to fill in a missing corner. You would simply have white paper in the missing space. Why even do that? The only reason to leaf-cast a missing corner would be to create a space for additional aesthetic restoration work, color touch in particular. In that case then yes, the whole job should definitely be classified as restoration. But it doesn't make sense to simply leaf-cast a missing corner, then not color it in.

[jimbo_707]

Will deacidification of books (with alkaline spray) be considered conservation? Is it treated as restoration under the current system?

[Transplant]

And I appreciate the opportunity and the discussion that's resulting. But I still bristle at the first post stating unequivocally that it will happen in 2014. It just smacks of all the backroom conspiracy theories that people have about CGC.

It shouldn't smack that way. Sorry that it does to you.

 

The reality is that Matt has been a big proponent of this proposed new system since well before his CGC/CSS deal. Go back and read some of his articles, even as far back as Comic Book Marketplace. He has always wanted to differentiate conservation and restoration. At one point he even laid out a proposed ten point grading scale for resto. So this is not something new for him. He does have CGC's ear in a big way now. So the idea that an updated and improved resto grading scale would at least be put out for discussion has been a no-brainer for those who speak to Matt regularly. It only looks like a conspiracy to those choosing to see conspiracies. I've been fortunate enough to have had a bunch of different conversation with Matt about this subject over the years. When CCS became a reality I figured a new restoration grading scale for CGC would be an inevitability, not a conspiracy.

I was afraid that statement was going to be misinterpreted. I didn't mean to imply any conspiracies around the move to a conserved label. I'm pretty sure I could dig up some prior posts of mine where I've supported Matt's idea of a scale of restoration/conservation in the hobby. That wasn't what I meant on the notion that people would see a conspiracy here. I'm sure some people will still see Matt's involvement and his employment by CCG as reflective of some conspiracy on the new label. I for one, look forward to a better discussion of conserving processes versus purely cosmetic and even destructive processes being applied to books. I love leafcasting for example.

 

I was explicitly trying to reference the idea that some people get a heads up on what's coming down the pipeline at CGC. Again, it makes sense to me that some bigger industry heavyweights and high volume submitters would be approached for feedback first. But that fact does feed into the conspiracy theorists' playbook.

[Bronty]

Whether it does or doesn't make sense, it's been done. Look at ankur's action 7 that he posted. He did exactly that in spots - filled it in with no color touch or artwork.

 

But getting away from that one specific example, I just have trouble seeing pieces added as being anything but resto whether that's by leaf casting or by any other method

[MrBedrock]

I was explicitly trying to reference the idea that some people get a heads up on what's coming down the pipeline at CGC. Again, it makes sense to me that some bigger industry heavyweights and high volume submitters would be approached for feedback first. But that fact does feed into the conspiracy theorists' playbook.

I called Matt during the Austin Wizard show to see how he was doing, and if he was going to be there. We ended up having an hour long conversation about this stuff. At that time he said he was pretty sure it was something that was going to be presented for feedback and possibly become a reality, but nothing was certain. He just wanted to float some ideas by me and get some feedback. In particular he was trying to figure out how best to number stuff (for example, should slight or extensive be a 1 or a 5). Matt is a very casual guy and the whole conversation was the same. This thread is the first time anyone has publicly mentioned it, though quite a few folks have talked about it at subsequent shows or in private conversation, so it hasn't really been any big secret. I don't think CGC should have any problem with the conversations and I certainly don't think the tin-foil hats should make anything more out of it then it is. I mean I can't imagine anyone going out and hoarding purple label books based on the possibility that they may become some other label that will hold an equal stigma for some length of time. If anyone is doing that, well good luck to them. They have a lot more gamble in them then I do.

[Timely]

I think some of the debate and confusion over leaf-casting being conservation or restoration is from different examples given.

 

Leaf-casting a brittle book to make it stable = conservation.

 

Leaf-casting a non-brittle book to make the book whole = restoration.

 

I think the process of leaf-casting should be one or the other and not both based on a case by case review of the reasons behind the process.

[Bronty]

I entirely agree and you've expressed it better than I have.

 

Its because of the fact that it can be restoration that in my mind it should always be classified as such, to avoid those kinds of judgement calls.

[Cat-Man_America]

I think some of the debate and confusion over leaf-casting being conservation or restoration is from different examples given.

 

Leaf-casting a brittle book to make it stable = conservation.

 

Leaf-casting a non-brittle book to make the book whole = restoration.

 

I think the process of leaf-casting should be one or the other and not both based on a case by case review of the reasons behind the process.

 

Excellent clarification, West. (thumbs u

[ciorac]

Whether it does or doesn't make sense, it's been done. Look at ankur's action 7 that he posted. He did exactly that in spots - filled it in with no color touch or artwork.

 

But getting away from that one specific example, I just have trouble seeing pieces added as being anything but resto whether that's by leaf casting or by any other method

 

Agreed, as I stated earlier.

[nearmint]

Lots of good discussion happening here.

[walclark]

Anyone have any thoughts on reattached centerfolds? The argument might be made that reattachment and reinforcing a loose centerfold prevents further damage to the loose pages. And it is not aesthetic in nature (especially on a slabbed comic since it can't be seen anyway). Of course, a detached centerfold should be pretty safe in a slab anyway.

 

Could the same arguments, both for conservation or restoration, be made for a reattached cover? Reinforcing a loose cover or a cover detached at one staple might prevent it from becoming completely detached. Reattaching a detached cover might prevent it from being lost or damaged.