Are These Restoration

[esquirecomics]

Why don't we consider this definition:

 

RESTORATION - Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book. These procedures may include any or all of the following techniques: recoloring, adding missing paper, stain, ink, dirt or tape removal, whitening, pressing out wrinkles, staple replacement, trimming, re-glossing, etc.

 

Or do you guys who don't think pressing should be considered restoration wish to challenge the authority of Bob Overstreet and his respected, distinguished advisors?

[PovertyRow]

RESTORATION - Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book.

 

You be preaching to the choir (or to me anyway).

 

Just a few comments I have made over the past year.

 

4/04 - "The proper definition of restoration, in my opinion, is any process that improves the appearance or structural integrity of the book. This includes pressing."

 

11/04 - "By "process" I mean any deliberate attempt to improve the appearance or structure of a comic book by addressing a specific problem or problems."

 

3/05 - "Pressing does NOT bring a book back to original CONDITION. It CAN bring a book back to original appearance. The difference is consderable."

 

There remains the concept is that restoration is only something that ADDS to the book - adds colors, paper, etc. I have always argued against this yet it persists. It honestly makes no sense and comes from a lack of understanding of the restoration process.

[Forbush-Man]

Why don't we consider this definition:

 

RESTORATION - "Any attempt", whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book. These procedures may include any or all of the following techniques: recoloring, adding missing paper, stain, ink, dirt or tape removal, whitening, pressing out wrinkles, staple replacement, trimming, re-glossing, etc.

 

Or do you guys who don't think pressing should be considered restoration wish to challenge the authority of Bob Overstreet and his respected, distinguished advisors?

 

I included the bold around "Any Attempt".

 

One thought on my part: What about "Preservation"? Why does cleaning a book get lumped into "Restoration"? Your removing haremful polutants from the book.

 

The problem, for me, is that CGC seems to have defined Restoration as all things done to a book, whereas Overstreet viewed Preservation as a seperate issue. Of course, when CGC first came into the hobby, they did not grade according to Overstreet standards, thereby creating the problem.

 

WTF where they thinking?!?

 

Thoughts?

 

PS: I don't feel cleaning is just an enhancement. Yes, it can "enhance" the apperance, but it also should have a view as preservation as previously described in older editions of Overstreet. I would really like to see a standard set for Preservation in addition to Restoration, currently there is none.

 

Best case in point I can offer is the Human Torch # 2 (#1) I recently aquirred: The bidery tear seal was totally unnecassry for the grade, and the centerfold tear seal too. It's pretty obvious to me this was an attempt to "Preserve" the book and not an attempt to "Enhance" the book.

 

Yes, I would stand to gain from the change, but that's not why I throw this tid-bit out there. It's an injustice to the book to just lump it into a "Restored" category!

 

(And so help me POV, if you correct my spelling on the single-longest post I've ever made, I will kill you dead!)

[Forbush-Man]

Why don't we consider this definition:

 

RESTORATION - Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book. These procedures may include any or all of the following techniques: recoloring, adding missing paper, stain, ink, dirt or tape removal, whitening, pressing out wrinkles, staple replacement, trimming, re-glossing, etc.

 

Good choice is phrasing, Mark! I would include spine reinforced,.....or not?

 

"Dirt or tape removal" can be considered as "Preservation".

 

Trimming is not even restoration to me, that is "Mutilation", as in to amputate.

 

Staple replacement of "vintage" staples ( ie replacing a Golden Age staple with another Golden Age staple) on Fine or lower grades was acceptable by Overstreet standards in previous guides, so ?

 

It pays to own all of the Overstreet Guides!

 

And "Yes!" I do have them all.

 

Not trying to derail the discussion, which I hold quite dear, but hopefully adding some insight.

 

PM me with any inquires and I'll look them up!

[esquirecomics]

Of course, that definition is straight out of the latest OS Guide. It would be interesting to review the past guides and see if the definitional language has been modified, and if so to what extent.

 

I am suprised that this definition has not been touted about more often in the "is pressing restoration" threads.

 

And I would certainly be interested to hear from those who believe pressing is not restoration respond to THE Bob Overstreet definition.

[Sal]

sorry about my semantical choice, supra. i wasn't really that invested in the topic, but rather incredulous that someone would not consider "marrying" a cover to a coverless book restoration. or original staples replaced with new ones.

 

both of those seem like textbook cases of restoration to me

[sfilosa]

Why don't we consider this definition:

 

RESTORATION - Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book. These procedures may include any or all of the following techniques: recoloring, adding missing paper, stain, ink, dirt or tape removal, whitening, pressing out wrinkles, staple replacement, trimming, re-glossing, etc.

 

Or do you guys who don't think pressing should be considered restoration wish to challenge the authority of Bob Overstreet and his respected, distinguished advisors?

 

First of all:

 

1) Susan DID NOT mention PRESSING as a TYPE of RESTORATION in the FIRST OVERSTREET GRADING GUIDE (typical of a women to change their mind).

 

2) "ANY ATTEMPT" would clearly mean that bending back a corner with your finger would be restoration. I seriously doubt that most consider this restoration. Therefore, to me, the word "ANY" is to broad.

 

3) "ENHANCE" would mean that certain types of restoration including adding tape or glue would NOT be RESTORATION. Tape on the cover DOES NOT ENHANCE the APPEARANCE at all (makes it look worse) but does prevent further damage. But most would consider this restoration, especially since CGC does not have a PRESERVATION label.

 

Therefore, for me, that definition DOES NOT work. For me, RESTORATION must include SOMETHING being ADDED to the book and it appears that CGC AGREES with me.

[esquirecomics]

If it weren't for your smiley face, I'd go after you but its Monday and I need my coffee.

 

[FFB]

Why don't we consider this definition:

 

RESTORATION - Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book. These procedures may include any or all of the following techniques: recoloring, adding missing paper, stain, ink, dirt or tape removal, whitening, pressing out wrinkles, staple replacement, trimming, re-glossing, etc.

 

Or do you guys who don't think pressing should be considered restoration wish to challenge the authority of Bob Overstreet and his respected, distinguished advisors?

 

First of all:

 

1) Susan DID NOT mention PRESSING as a TYPE of RESTORATION in the FIRST OVERSTREET GRADING GUIDE (typical of a women to change their mind).

 

2) "ANY ATTEMPT" would clearly mean that bending back a corner with your finger would be restoration. I seriously doubt that most consider this restoration. Therefore, to me, the word "ANY" is to broad.

 

3) "ENHANCE" would mean that certain types of restoration including adding tape or glue would NOT be RESTORATION. Tape on the cover DOES NOT ENHANCE the APPEARANCE at all (makes it look worse) but does prevent further damage. But most would consider this restoration, especially since CGC does not have a PRESERVATION label.

 

Therefore, for me, that definition DOES NOT work. For me, RESTORATION must include SOMETHING being ADDED to the book and it appears that CGC AGREES with me.

 

What about trimming?

[sfilosa]

What about trimming?

 

I believe you and I agree on this one. It is a piece missing from the book, and therefore should be downgraded. I guess depending on how much trimming has occured, the book would fall in the Poor to maybe up to VG range (but not sure).

 

Or of course the Qualified Green Label, similar to the Strange Tales #127 Pacific Coast copy that got a Green 9.0 label, but had a half dollar size piece out of the back cover.

 

That is why I think something PHYSICALLY has to be ADDED that IMPROVES the book APPEARANCE AND / OR STRUCTURALLY (but wish this was only labeled PRESERVATION).

 

I'm consistent in my view (but that doesn't mean people can't disagree).

 

[PovertyRow]

For me, RESTORATION must include SOMETHING being ADDED to the book and it appears that CGC AGREES with me.

 

CGC agrees because of detectability only. Detectability does NOT define restoration. Modifying, changing, reworking defines restoration. Changing something in the book or altering the STRUCTURE constitute restoration, not just adding things to the book.

[sfilosa]

CGC agrees because of detectability only.

 

I assume you are talking about PRESSING.

 

I think you are extrapolating on this assumption.

 

Because pressing can not always be detected,

CGC doesn't not give it a Purple Label

even though in some cases they can detected it.

 

Therefore it would be RESTORATION if they could detect it all the time.

 

I think you might be trying to read between the lines, and that might be incorrect.

[FFB]

What about trimming?

 

I believe you and I agree on this one. It is a piece missing from the book, and therefore should be downgraded. I guess depending on how much trimming has occured, the book would fall in the Poor to maybe up to VG range (but not sure).

 

Or of course the Qualified Green Label, similar to the Strange Tales #127 Pacific Coast copy that got a Green 9.0 label, but had a half dollar size piece out of the back cover.

 

That is why I think something PHYSICALLY has to be ADDED that IMPROVES the book APPEARANCE AND / OR STRUCTURALLY (but wish this was only labeled PRESERVATION).

 

I'm consistent in my view (but that doesn't mean people can't disagree).

 

 

You are a silly, silly man.

[sfilosa]

You are a silly, silly man.

 

I thought you were in agreement with me on the trimming issue?

 

Not that it really matters as long as I know a books trimmed, I ain't buying.

 

On a slightly different note, what are collecting nowadays and did you get the grades on Harry's books?

[PovertyRow]

CGC agrees because of detectability only.

 

I assume you are talking about PRESSING.

 

I think you are extrapolating on this assumption.

 

Because pressing can not always be detected,

CGC doesn't not give it a Purple Label

even though in some cases they can detected it.

 

Therefore it would be RESTORATION if they could detect it all the time.

 

I think you might be trying to read between the lines, and that might be incorrect.

 

Actually I am just trying to make sense of 1) why detectability should be considered in any definition of restoration 2) why pressing, which does impact the structure of the book, should be considered restoration.

[sfilosa]

Actually I am just trying to make sense of 1) why detectability should be considered in any definition of restoration 2) why pressing, which does impact the structure of the book, should be considered restoration.

 

 

I don't think DECTECTABILITY is a consideration. It's just the easy answer to why PRESSING ISN'T considered RESTORATION.

 

But CGC has never said that's why. They have stated that it is hard to detect if done correctly, which is why I believe people ASSUME that's why CGC doesn't call it restoration.

 

I don't call if restoration because no foreign material is ADDED to the BOOK.

 

 

As I have stated many times, please tell what definition you are using that would make PRESSING restoration, but not bending back a corner crease with your fingers.

[PovertyRow]

As I have stated many times, please tell what definition you are using that would make PRESSING restoration, but not bending back a corner crease with your fingers.

 

How many different copies of my explaining this precise thing on different threads would you like?

 

Anyway - here is what I am talking about.

 

"Those light curls that can be undone with a finger are, to me, not restoration because those light curls really do not impact the structure of the paper. Paper DOES have a bit of leeway...But a book with a true crease - even a non-color-breaking crease? This is not caused by the slight forces mentioned above. The paper has defintiely been impacted beyond its "leeway". And reverting such is, to me restoration."

 

[esquirecomics]

As I have stated many times, please tell what definition you are using that would make PRESSING restoration, but not bending back a corner crease with your fingers.

 

How many different copies of my explaining this precise thing on different threads would you like?

 

Amen,

 

sfilosa, we know you don't agree with our assessment/position on pressing, but POV has certainly answered this question numerous times.

 

[sfilosa]

Amen,

 

sfilosa, we know you don't agree with our assessment/position on pressing, but POV has certainly answered this question numerous times.

 

 

 

I like the fact that he says "in his opinion". What do you mean that bending a crease that folds back on the cover, doesn't structurally change the paper. I certainly disagree with that. In a way, it actually makes the crease "LESS" structurally sound but IMPROVES the APPEARANCE.

 

Oh, wait, that's the same argument that is used against PRESSING a book. Maybe you can't see that it's hurting the paper fibers (from the pressure and the heat) but in theory, you are saying it does (on a microscopic level).

 

All I can say is we agree to disagree.

[PovertyRow]

Amen,

 

sfilosa, we know you don't agree with our assessment/position on pressing, but POV has certainly answered this question numerous times.

 

 

 

I like the fact that he says "in his opinion". What do you mean that bending a crease that folds back on the cover, doesn't structurally change the paper. I certainly disagree with that. In a way, it actually makes the crease "LESS" structurally sound but IMPROVES the APPEARANCE.

 

Oh, wait, that's the same argument that is used against PRESSING a book. Maybe you can't see that it's hurting the paper fibers (from the pressure and the heat) but in theory, you are saying it does (on a microscopic level).

 

All I can say is we agree to disagree.

 

Look - what part of CURL do you not understand? What part of CREASE do you not understand? What part of Those light curls that can be undone with a finger do you not understand? What part of a book with a true crease - even a non-color-breaking crease? This is not caused by the slight forces mentioned above do you not understand?

 

We cannot agree to disagree because you are disagreeing about things I never said. I also speak more to the fact that pressing inproves appearance only, does nothing to re-strengthen the DAMAGED FIBERS, leaves a weak spot in the area the fibers were damaged, and it's sole purpose is to make the APPEAR better than it now does. That is also restoration.