HULK #1 CLUB : THE PUNY LITTLE MAN LEAGUE

[Jaydogrules]

The last 5.0 properly labeled restored hulk 1 went for about $4700 just a couple of months ago. This mess went for nearly double that. Since when does tricking buyers into buying restored books by making up new terms and reinventing definitions considered a "maturation of the hobby"? If anything, it's digression, and as I said in another thread, this only helps people who want to sell restored books and the egos of those who already own them, when it is the interests of prospective buyers that should have the most weight here.

 

The seller in bellowing that the "book is not restored" in this listing was lying and basing his lie on a joke of a label that calls adding pieces to a book and sealing tears "amateur conservation", which is ridiculous. This book was anything but a "deal".

 

-J.

[VintageComics]

I admit it's a change to the way things were done for the past 15 years but I don't think the seller was dishonest.

 

Do you?

 

Yes, I do. I believe his intent was to mask the fact that the book was restored. He should have let the label speak for itself.

 

But he wrote exactly what was on the label.

[VintageComics]

The last 5.0 properly labeled restored hulk 1 went for about $4700 just a couple of months ago. This mess went for nearly double that. Since when does tricking buyers into buying restored books by making up new terms and reinventing definitions considered a "maturation of the hobby"? If anything, it's digression, and as I said in another thread, this only helps people who want to sell restored books and the egos of those who already own them, when it is the interests of prospective buyers that should have the most weight here.

 

The seller in bellowing that the "book is not restored" in this listing was lying and basing his lie on a joke of a label that calls adding pieces to a book and sealing tears "amateur conservation", which is ridiculous. This book was anything but a "deal".

 

In your reply you are heaping a bunch of things all together.

 

First off:

 

The last 5.0 properly labeled restored hulk 1 went for about $4700 just a couple of months ago. This mess went for nearly double that.

 

You're talking like all restored books are the same. That book had small amount of color touch, cover reinforced, staples cleaned but it was also trimmed. For most buyers a trimmed book is the kiss of death and severely limits the market.

 

Also, this book did not sell for full price of $8500, a Best Offer was accepted, so it sold for less than $8500 but even if it did, $8500 is not double $4700 is it?

 

Does anyone know what the CBCS book actually sold for?

 

Since when does tricking buyers into buying restored books by making up new terms and reinventing definitions considered a "maturation of the hobby"? If anything, it's digression, and as I said in another thread, this only helps people who want to sell restored books and the egos of those who already own them, when it is the interests of prospective buyers that should have the most weight here.

 

People also went into great detail in the other thread to show you how not all restoration is the same, that in other paper hobbies they differentiate between different types of restoration and in every case ALL OF THE WORK DONE IS STILL CLEARLY SPELLED OUT IN BLACK AND WHITE. Who is being tricked, those that don't read the labels?

 

But you ignored all that and restarted the discussion over here.

 

Comics are one of the youngest of the paper hobbies and all hobbies mature. Nothing stays stagnant. Even Overstreet's standards have changed over the years.

 

And yet you continue to personally bash people who disagree with you.

 

The seller in bellowing that the "book is not restored" in this listing was lying and basing his lie on a joke of a label that calls adding pieces to a book and sealing tears "amateur conservation", which is ridiculous. This book was anything but a "deal".

 

How is he lying when he is simply rewriting what the label says?

 

You may disagree with it, but this is the new norm - and has been for some time now.

 

Finally, you completely avoided my discussion about how the book should be properly valued - if you remove the glue and added piece, then how would the book grade out as?

 

That is how I would properly value a book with work done to it.

[cousin itt]

You can click on the "print" link to see what offer was accepted (it was 8k.)

 

 

[mysterio]

Roy, since when is adding a piece to a book considered "conservation"? You could probably get away with the tear seal as conservation, that I don't have as much of an issue with. But to call a piece being added to a book conservation seems to stretch the definition of conservation into a realm where it doesn't belong. That sounds like restoration to me. And if conservation is simply the new restoration then I don't like the sound of that one bit. That would be an attempt to rebrand restoration into something more palatable, and that is where I think many are having a problem with this CBCS label.

 

Also, how does an amateur "conserve" anything? I imagine there are many professional conservators of paper that may take an issue with that too.

[VintageComics]

Roy, since when is adding a piece to a book considered "conservation"? You could probably get away with the tear seal as conservation, that I don't have as much of an issue with. But to call a piece being added to a book conservation seems to stretch the definition of conservation into a realm where it doesn't belong. That sounds like restoration to me. And if conservation is simply the new restoration then I don't like the sound of that one bit. That would be an attempt to rebrand restoration into something more palatable, and that is where I think many are having a problem with this CBCS label.

 

Also, how does an amateur "conserve" anything? I imagine there are many professional conservators of paper that may take an issue with that too.

 

I'm not really arguing what is and what isn't conservation, although you could argue that adding a piece to the book is for structure as much as it is appearance.

 

All I'm saying is that it was clearly spelled out what was done to the book. You can call it Pocahontas if you want to, but if it's all there in black and white I don't understand the outrage.

 

Does CGC consider piece replacement conservation? I'm somewhat sure they do if it isn't color touched.

[Jaydogrules]

I will defer to mysterio's response as I could not have said it any better myself.

 

With regard to the "real value" of the book, who knows? I don't even trust the "apparent grade" that CBCS has given it (that is the "apparent grade" on there right?). Furthermore, the restored hulk 1 5.0 that just sold for $4700 has professional resto. Sure, nobody really likes trimming, but amateur resto usually gets hammered on value too. I think most collectors of restored books would rather have the one with the professional work. Here, somebody paid beyond top dollar for a hack job with questionable restoration disclosure on a generic blue label. The purpose of third party grading is to provide clarity and consistency. All restoration may not he "conservation". But all "conservation" is restoration. The intent or the point of the work does not change the fact that it is all restoration. I posted this sale here because it is a bright shining example of what can go wrong when we start changing the meaning of words just to make people feel better. This attempt to blur the lines of restoration muddies the waters and dilutes one of the primary and most beneficial aspects of third party grading.

 

And yes I bashed the seller. He knew what he was doing.

 

-J.

[VintageComics]

With regard to the "real value" of the book, who knows? I don't even trust the "apparent grade" that CBCS has given it (that is the "apparent grade" on there right?). Furthermore, the restored hulk 1 5.0 that just sold for $4700 has professional resto. Sure, nobody really likes trimming, but amateur resto usually gets hammered on value too. I think most collectors of restored books would rather have the one with the professional work.

 

You are again mixing up apples and oranges.

 

A trimmed book is not considered restored by most. A trimmed book is simply placed into a restored holder so that they don't have to create another holder just for trimmed books.

 

Most people consider trimmed books worse than anything else so compared a trimmed book to any other sort of restoration is not a fair comparison.

 

Here, somebody paid beyond top dollar for a hack job with questionable restoration disclosure on a generic blue label. The purpose of third party grading is to provide clarity and consistency. All restoration may not he "conservation". But all "conservation" is restoration. The intent or the point of the work does not change the fact that it is all restoration. I posted this sale here because it is a bright shining example of what can go wrong when we start changing the meaning of words just to make people feel better. This attempt to blur the lines of restoration muddies the waters and dilutes one of the primary and most beneficial aspects of third party grading.

 

Whether the words used are 'restoration' or 'consveration' is really irrelevant, isn't it?

 

All the work that was performed on the book was clearly explained.

 

You consider it diluting, others consider it a more accurate description.

 

Did Overstreet 'dilute' grading standards when he went from a G-F-Mint to the current 6 step scale?

 

Did CGC dilute grading standards when they went to a 25 step scale?

 

It's just further breaking down all of the separate designations, and I agree that it's a necessary thing because with the prices comics are reaching now more distinction is necessary.

 

And yes I bashed the seller. He knew what he was doing.

 

Yep, he copied all the words on the label into the listing.

[Jaydogrules]

I think we will have to disagree on what constitutes "clearly explained" as well as exactly what "amateur conservation" actually is or even means.

 

-J.

[VintageComics]

I think we will have to disagree on what constitutes "clearly explained" as well as exactly what "amateur conservation" actually is or even means.

 

-J.

 

I think the amateur designation is simply speaking towards the type of material used (amateur glue rather than professional).

 

 

[Bomber-Bob]

I admit it's a change to the way things were done for the past 15 years but I don't think the seller was dishonest.

 

Do you?

 

Yes, I do. I believe his intent was to mask the fact that the book was restored. He should have let the label speak for itself.

 

But he wrote exactly what was on the label.

 

Roy, you just previously admitted the seller embellished by adding 'the book is not restored'. The label does not say the book was not restored. The seller was embellishing.

[VintageComics]

I admit it's a change to the way things were done for the past 15 years but I don't think the seller was dishonest.

 

Do you?

 

Yes, I do. I believe his intent was to mask the fact that the book was restored. He should have let the label speak for itself.

 

But he wrote exactly what was on the label.

 

Roy, you just previously admitted the seller embellished by adding 'the book is not restored'. The label does not say the book was not restored. The seller was embellishing.

 

I said the seller was embellishing? This is what I said:

 

Ah, I see what you mean.

 

The seller says 'not a restored book'.

 

As far as the new terminology goes being used by both CGC and CBCS, conserved is the way they are describing it moving forward...so did the seller do something wrong?

 

I admit it's a change to the way things were done for the past 15 years but I don't think the seller was dishonest.

 

Do you?

 

Going by the new terminology, again I ask you, did the seller was dishonest?

 

[mysterio]

I admit it's a change to the way things were done for the past 15 years but I don't think the seller was dishonest.

 

Do you?

 

Yes, I do. I believe his intent was to mask the fact that the book was restored. He should have let the label speak for itself.

 

But he wrote exactly what was on the label.

 

Roy, you just previously admitted the seller embellished by adding 'the book is not restored'. The label does not say the book was not restored. The seller was embellishing.

 

I said the seller was embellishing? This is what I said:

 

Ah, I see what you mean.

 

The seller says 'not a restored book'.

 

As far as the new terminology goes being used by both CGC and CBCS, conserved is the way they are describing it moving forward...so did the seller do something wrong?

 

I admit it's a change to the way things were done for the past 15 years but I don't think the seller was dishonest.

 

Do you?

 

Going by the new terminology, again I ask you, did the seller was dishonest?

 

If the seller sold that book using that description to a good friend of yours who was just getting into collecting, would you feel good about it? Call it semantics, or spin, or embellishing, or hornswoggling, or whatever you want, but to me that is a book with a blue label (which previously has been established through ten plus years of use by CGC as denoting an unrestored original comic) with a euphemism to minimize what in effect is restoration.

[Jaydogrules]

I admit it's a change to the way things were done for the past 15 years but I don't think the seller was dishonest.

 

Do you?

 

Yes, I do. I believe his intent was to mask the fact that the book was restored. He should have let the label speak for itself.

 

But he wrote exactly what was on the label.

 

Roy, you just previously admitted the seller embellished by adding 'the book is not restored'. The label does not say the book was not restored. The seller was embellishing.

 

I said the seller was embellishing? This is what I said:

 

Ah, I see what you mean.

 

The seller says 'not a restored book'.

 

As far as the new terminology goes being used by both CGC and CBCS, conserved is the way they are describing it moving forward...so did the seller do something wrong?

 

I admit it's a change to the way things were done for the past 15 years but I don't think the seller was dishonest.

 

Do you?

 

Going by the new terminology, again I ask you, did the seller was dishonest?

 

If the seller sold that book using that description to a good friend of yours who was just getting into collecting, would you feel good about it? Call it semantics, or spin, or embellishing, or hornswoggling, or whatever you want, but to me that is a book with a blue label (which previously has been established through ten years of use by CGC as denoting an unrestored original comic) with a euphemism to minimize what in effect is restoration.

 

+1

 

-J.

[mschmidt]

I admit it's a change to the way things were done for the past 15 years but I don't think the seller was dishonest.

 

Do you?

 

Yes, I do. I believe his intent was to mask the fact that the book was restored. He should have let the label speak for itself.

 

But he wrote exactly what was on the label.

 

Roy, you just previously admitted the seller embellished by adding 'the book is not restored'. The label does not say the book was not restored. The seller was embellishing.

 

I said the seller was embellishing? This is what I said:

 

Ah, I see what you mean.

 

The seller says 'not a restored book'.

 

As far as the new terminology goes being used by both CGC and CBCS, conserved is the way they are describing it moving forward...so did the seller do something wrong?

 

I admit it's a change to the way things were done for the past 15 years but I don't think the seller was dishonest.

 

Do you?

 

Going by the new terminology, again I ask you, did the seller was dishonest?

 

Of course, he was.

 

The seller is exploiting the crappy Voldemort label by pretending the book isn't restored when it most certainly is. Can't believe this is even up for discussion :doh:

[Bomber-Bob]

I admit it's a change to the way things were done for the past 15 years but I don't think the seller was dishonest.

 

Do you?

 

Yes, I do. I believe his intent was to mask the fact that the book was restored. He should have let the label speak for itself.

 

But he wrote exactly what was on the label.

 

Roy, you just previously admitted the seller embellished by adding 'the book is not restored'. The label does not say the book was not restored. The seller was embellishing.

 

I said the seller was embellishing? This is what I said:

 

Ah, I see what you mean.

 

The seller says 'not a restored book'.

 

As far as the new terminology goes being used by both CGC and CBCS, conserved is the way they are describing it moving forward...so did the seller do something wrong?

 

I admit it's a change to the way things were done for the past 15 years but I don't think the seller was dishonest.

 

Do you?

 

Going by the new terminology, again I ask you, did the seller was dishonest?

 

Roy, with all due respect, Okay, you said you saw what I meant, that the seller added 'the book is not restored'. Now, I am saying this is a classic case of embellishing.

Embellish definition: 'make (a statement or story) more interesting or entertaining by adding extra details, especially ones that are not true.'

Yes, IMO, the seller was dishonest. He added his comments with deceitful intent.

[oakman29]

I admit it's a change to the way things were done for the past 15 years but I don't think the seller was dishonest.

 

Do you?

 

Yes, I do. I believe his intent was to mask the fact that the book was restored. He should have let the label speak for itself.

 

But he wrote exactly what was on the label.

 

Roy, you just previously admitted the seller embellished by adding 'the book is not restored'. The label does not say the book was not restored. The seller was embellishing.

 

I said the seller was embellishing? This is what I said:

 

Ah, I see what you mean.

 

The seller says 'not a restored book'.

 

As far as the new terminology goes being used by both CGC and CBCS, conserved is the way they are describing it moving forward...so did the seller do something wrong?

 

I admit it's a change to the way things were done for the past 15 years but I don't think the seller was dishonest.

 

Do you?

 

Going by the new terminology, again I ask you, did the seller was dishonest?

 

If the seller sold that book using that description to a good friend of yours who was just getting into collecting, would you feel good about it? Call it semantics, or spin, or embellishing, or hornswoggling, or whatever you want, but to me that is a book with a blue label (which previously has been established through ten years of use by CGC as denoting an unrestored original comic) with a euphemism to minimize what in effect is restoration.

 

+1

 

-J.

 

+2 I can't believe this is where our hobby is headed. "Semantics"

[VintageComics]

 

The seller is exploiting the crappy Voldemort label by pretending the book isn't restored when it most certainly is. Can't believe this is even up for discussion :doh:

 

I'm a long time fan of having a single colored label with descriptions of terms.

 

I've been a fan of that concept since before I was a dealer or owned restored books, so it has nothing to do with income.

 

It just seemed reasonably logical to me to use words to convey work done.

 

I'll be honest, I deal in so few restored books that I don't even fully understand CGC's new standards yet.

 

So since you probably understand them better than I do Mike, would this book get a conserved designation or a restored designation? I genuinely don't know.

 

 

[VintageComics]

 

If the seller sold that book using that description to a good friend of yours who was just getting into collecting, would you feel good about it?

 

If my friend bought an $8000 book without understanding what he was buying he'd deserve whatever he got.

 

Maybe I'm missing something but if the work done is explained clearly, I don't have a problem with anything else.

 

Call it semantics, or spin, or embellishing, or hornswoggling, or whatever you want, but to me that is a book with a blue label (which previously has been established through ten plus years of use by CGC as denoting an unrestored original comic) with a euphemism to minimize what in effect is restoration.

 

But the purple label is no longer being used even if it was in effect for 13 years. Things changed.

 

Now it's a blue label with a purple stripe.

 

I genuinely don't get the reaction you guys are having but then as I said previously, I've long thought that all books should be in the same colored label and words should be used to convey what was done to the book, Voldemart or not.

 

 

[Jaydogrules]

 

The seller is exploiting the crappy Voldemort label by pretending the book isn't restored when it most certainly is. Can't believe this is even up for discussion :doh:

 

I'm a long time fan of having a single colored label with descriptions of terms.

 

I've been a fan of that concept since before I was a dealer or owned restored books, so it has nothing to do with income.

 

It just seemed reasonably logical to me to use words to convey work done.

 

I'll be honest, I deal in so few restored books that I don't even fully understand CGC's new standards yet.

 

So since you probably understand them better than I do Mike, would this book get a conserved designation or a restored designation? I genuinely don't know.

 

 

Regardless of the label, it's a restored book. "Conservation" is just a type of restoration. Period.

 

CGC would put it in a purple holder as a restored book, as they only acknowledge "conservation" when it's professionally done (and that would be the label with the purple stripe). I would imagine that's why the book was subbed to CBCS in the first place.

 

-J.