Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[drbanner]

Comicwiz asked someone about their books, search his posts. (thumbs u

[Bomber-Bob]

Someone was at a Con and saw some Costanzas. The dealer said CCS pressed them.

[mysterio]

Someone was at a Con and saw some Costanzas. The dealer said CCS pressed them.

 

 

Did they take any pics or note any serial numbers?

[Bomber-Bob]

Someone was at a Con and saw some Costanzas. The dealer said CCS pressed them.

 

 

Did they take any pics or note any serial numbers?

 

I don't think so, at least they didn't offer them here. Not sure if it would be in good taste to take a picture of a dealer's inventory and slam it here.

[mysterio]

Someone was at a Con and saw some Costanzas. The dealer said CCS pressed them.

 

 

Did they take any pics or note any serial numbers?

 

I don't think so, at least they didn't offer them here. Not sure if it would be in good taste to take a picture of a dealer's inventory and slam it here.

 

You're right, of course, and they're easy enough to spot that building a master list probably isn't necessary. I was just curious.

[blazingbob]

I think it would be great to have the guy hold them up and take a picture with him smiling.

 

Remind me to not let you in my booth with a camera bob

[Comicopolis]

Just use those Google Glasses.

[jimbo_707]

Someone was at a Con and saw some Costanzas. The dealer said CCS pressed them.

 

 

Did they take any pics or note any serial numbers?

 

I don't think so, at least they didn't offer them here. Not sure if it would be in good taste to take a picture of a dealer's inventory and slam it here.

 

You're right, of course, and they're easy enough to spot that building a master list probably isn't necessary. I was just curious.

 

...until the pages get trimmed.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Someone was at a Con and saw some Costanzas. The dealer said CCS pressed them.

 

 

Did they take any pics or note any serial numbers?

 

I don't think so, at least they didn't offer them here. Not sure if it would be in good taste to take a picture of a dealer's inventory and slam it here.

 

You're right, of course, and they're easy enough to spot that building a master list probably isn't necessary. I was just curious.

 

...until the pages get trimmed.

 

[jimbo_707]

1197 serial number FF #3 on Clink.

 

Link

What an ugly book

 

9.2, seriously ?

 

But it's so FLAT. Don't you know that 90% of the grade is based on how flat the book is. I have no doubt it will eventually see 9.4 after the new owner decides it can even be more flat.

I am ashamed if this is what the hobby has became...

It's sad. I'm not sure it can be called a hobby any more. It's more like a racket. I feel like Mary Miles Minter when she found out William Desmond Taylor had been fatally shot.

[Mark Zaid]

As I continue to dialogue with CGC/CCS on the current issues I wanted to at least take a moment and respond in general to some comments in this thread.

 

First, I apologize for the delay in any official responses from me. That delay falls entirely on me as I attempt to juggle numerous client responsibilities and travel. There is a lot to digest here and I am taking the helpful comments posted in response to my questions very seriously and discussing the issues, as well as others, with CGC/CCS.

 

Second, on the issue of pressing I have long since moved beyond debating the merits with individuals for a variety of reasons. Suffice it to say my personal view remains consistent with what it was years ago when I co-founded NOD/CBCA, and which can be found in numerous posts of mine on these boards, several SCOOP articles and in my Overstreet Advisory reports. I view pressing as a form, minimal may it be, of restoration. And while I have no interest in pressing a book, I have no issue with the practice nor with those who engage in it (and I certainly have no issue with restoration of any form and steadfastly encourage conservation practices), except to the extent they damage the book particularly in a reckless or irresponsible manner. My hiring by CCG has not modified my view, nor was it expected to do so.

 

But while my views on the topic are solidified that is not to say I cannot comprehend the obstacles faced by any grading company as to how to deal with the practice fairly and consistently, as well as in a manner that quite candidly comports with their private economic business practices. I am a hobbyist at heart and my interest in comics stems from my adoration for them and their history rather than for any financial gains even though I might maintain a part-time comic book business as well. That said my 20 years of law practice in Washington, D.C., particularly in challenges against Governments and political ideology, has created and sharpened my ability to understand and where appropriate seek compromising measures if possible.

 

Although I obviously cannot and will not reveal any attorney-client confidences, I can state that I do voice my opinions on these matters internally and they are discussed and considered in a serious manner. In fact, it is a credit to CCG and particularly Steve Eichenbaum that I am encouraged to raise my own views without limitation to the leadership of his various comic book companies. At the end of the day CGC/CCS really does have the interests of our hobby in their hearts as well, and I think anyone who knows the employees who work there, most of whom have been there for many years, agrees with that sentiment.

 

Third, as far as the notions of a conflict of interest between CGC and CCS, this is a topic that predominantly led to my hiring in the first place. I can state outright without any hesitation that were there any evidence of any actual conflict, i.e., an inappropriate sharing of information between employees of the two entities, immediate disciplinary action would be instituted. There is zero tolerance for any intentional misconduct of this nature. I have never, however, seen even a scintilla of evidence to suggest there is any actual conflicts that exist. If anyone ever comes across such evidence (even if based on a rumor), especially if an employee of CGC/CCS, they should report this to me immediately for investigation and I will take it directly to Steve Eichenbaum.

 

It is the concerns surrounding the appearance of a conflict of interest that more regularly dominates this discussion, and I am very cognizant of making every effort to minimize and hopefully eliminate such concerns. Quite frankly I was not in favor of the purchase of CCS by CCG, although I knew nothing of it until it was publicly announced. I was very vocal against the creation of PCS some years back and my concerns then remain my concerns now. But the current venture is absolutely an understandably sound business decision and makes perfect sense. With these stated concerns in mind my hiring was intended to best address any issues in a manner that tries to uphold the interests of the Community while also obviously protecting the interests of my client. And while there is no belief that we will ever completely satisfy everyone in how CGC/CCS conducts their business practices we will always try and certainly be responsive in those efforts, and I believe we have succeeded to date.

 

I remain comfortable that the current practices of the two companies appropriately and reasonably minimize the appearance of a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, I continue to pursue ideas that will further strengthen a separation, whether in practice or appearance, between the two entities. These companies operate and thrive on the trust of their customer base and the integrity of the process means a great deal to those who work for both companies.

 

Finally, I reiterate what I first said when it was announced that CCG was retaining my services. If anyone EVER has any concerns about the conduct or practices of any of the sister companies or their employees, please do not hesitate to raise them with me directly and I assure you that the matter will be fully explored and a response forthcoming.

 

I can best be reached via PM or through e-mail at Mark@MarkZaid.com.

 

I promise there will be more to follow on the issues raised in this thread as soon as I receive additional information.

[MasterChief]

"restoration" is a term of art in this hobby. adherence to your definition runs afoul of long established tenets in the hobby.

There has been no widespread tenet holding that pressing is not restoration in this hobby--it's pretty open and fairly controversial, which you're well aware of. People barely cared about it until CGC brought restoration detection to the mainstream via certification and left the undetectable techniques open-ended for the hobby to split hairs about. Comics borrowed all of the restoration and restoration detection techniques we have from the art and historical document conservation world. I've seen no evidence of the other areas of the art or document world defining heat/humidity pressing as not being restoration, either. If you've seen evidence to the contrary, please do share.

 

Per the Glossary of the 34th Edition of Overstreet (2004):

 

"RESTORATION - Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearanc 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."

 

The definition of comic book restoration first appeared in the Terminology section of the 20th Edition of the Official Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide (1990).

 

It was provided in addition to a Warning About Restoration, which appeared in a number of earlier editions of the guide preceding the definition's inclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MasterChief]

fantastic-four, let me see if i can explain the perhaps subtle distinction i see between saying a book was "restored to prior state" and it, in comic collectors' eyes, having "restoration."

 

play like i was geeking on that gorgeous ff 12 in your sig line when it was raw. i thoughtlessly did so while eating a butterfinger. a piece of chocolate landed on the book, melted slightly, and stuck there. you didn't want it there, so you used the edge of your fingernail to get under the dollop of chocolate, and popped it right off. it's original state was to have no little piece of chocolate adhered to it's cover. it then, briefly, had said defect. you "restored it to it's original condition" by removing it.

 

do you really think, that in the vernacular of our hobby, that you now have a "restored book?"

 

i don't

i would never presume to argue with a litigating attorney...ok, maybe not too often, after all i was raised by one;)

and I don't really care what anyone calls pressing (as long as they disclose it if known) ..however....

 

i think in previous examples, someone (maybe you) used sneezing and snot as the example...

 

so...if you used a body part to remove the chocolate, sneeze residue or whatever, i'd just find it yucky, maybe not restoration, just a side effect of reading a book;) ..but unless you are going to be sitting on the books for days bare butt naked, i'm not sure how you'd remove wrinkles without using other tools;)

 

once you add tools, it's another animal;)

 

The below are examples of comic books that underwent physical transformation produced apparently by the use of tools, moisture and mechanical compression techniques.

 

They are not considered as being restored by the duly qualified experts at CGC who are bestowed by corporate authority to render an evaluation based on a business model grounded in a redesigned definition of comic book restoration that excludes "non-additive" procedures. Nor are they considered as such by the dealer who embraces said definition and profits from the sale of undisclosed alterations to the unsuspecting collector/investor thereof.

 

Conversely, they are absolutely considered as being restored by those in tune with the long standing industry recognized and accepted definition of comic book restoration that conveys a practical approach to collecting vintage artifacts, as with other collectible industries, and the intrinsic and market value associated with an original, unaltered object of age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MasterChief]

FYI, I had somebody contact me that recently submitted books to CCS, not yet graded = he doesn't know what they look like. He is paranoid that he is going to get a Shave. I'm sure others are thinking the same. Perhaps our thread is making a difference. It's funny but if CCS simply came out and made a strong statement, assuring the community this will stop, I think all will be well again.

With over 150,000 views, I am sure it's making a difference. At the very least, more people are aware.

 

I would tend to agree.

 

Moreover, I received an email from Photobucket last week that stated my account reached the free 10GB bandwidth limit. And in order for my images to appear, Photobucket stated, I had to either wait until my account reset or immediately upgrade to a paid account.

 

Not knowing what that meant I quickly logged onto the boards and discovered all of my imagery, in each and every post, was replaced with the image below.

 

Short of waiting the several weeks for my account to reset, I chose to pay for the upgrade so that the images could be referenced in real time by the new or returning reader of the thread.

 

It was the least I could do. (thumbs u

 

 

 

 

[ItsJustRyan]

[MasterChief]

With the above said, I will opine that there are those who apparently are unaware of the current events discussed herein or of the precipitous nature of undisclosed alterations within the marketplace all together.

 

Or perhaps they are accordingly aware and their collecting focus is that of Facejobs and suspect Wilson-ized collectibles.

 

Nevertheless, the items acquired by the eBay member below, as evidenced by their user feedback, are indicative of the items discussed in this thread and of that in the Comic Book Spine Realignment Therapy piece.

 

Specifically, the member was the purchaser of the following item:

 

BATMAN #23 CGC 7.5 WHITE PAGES GOLDEN AGE CLASSIC JOKER COVER ROBIN

 

 

 

[MasterChief]

 

Ditto. Looks as though Mark and I had the same topic on mind at the exact same time this Monday evening.

[ciorac]

 

Third, as far as the notions of a conflict of interest between CGC and CCS, this is a topic that predominantly led to my hiring in the first place. I can state outright without any hesitation that were there any evidence of any actual conflict, i.e., an inappropriate sharing of information between employees of the two entities, immediate disciplinary action would be instituted. There is zero tolerance for any intentional misconduct of this nature. I have never, however, seen even a scintilla of evidence to suggest there is any actual conflicts that exist. If anyone ever comes across such evidence (even if based on a rumor), especially if an employee of CGC/CCS, they should report this to me immediately for investigation and I will take it directly to Steve Eichenbaum.

 

It is the concerns surrounding the appearance of a conflict of interest that more regularly dominates this discussion, and I am very cognizant of making every effort to minimize and hopefully eliminate such concerns. Quite frankly I was not in favor of the purchase of CCS by CCG, although I knew nothing of it until it was publicly announced. I was very vocal against the creation of PCS some years back and my concerns then remain my concerns now. But the current venture is absolutely an understandably sound business decision and makes perfect sense. With these stated concerns in mind my hiring was intended to best address any issues in a manner that tries to uphold the interests of the Community while also obviously protecting the interests of my client. And while there is no belief that we will ever completely satisfy everyone in how CGC/CCS conducts their business practices we will always try and certainly be responsive in those efforts, and I believe we have succeeded to date.

 

 

Thanks for your excellent post Mark.

 

 

I've snipped the above section for emphasis. I've summarized this and referenced your analysis several times in these related threads but there are those that doubted the veracity of my recollection of your audits.

 

I'm sure there will always be those that refuse to believe, as we all know there are none so blind as those that will not see, but I'm comfortable with the level of professionalism I'm sure you employed before making your assessment.

[comicwiz]

Thanks for the response Mark.

 

Seeing how before and after photographic evidence allowed the community to see the transformation these books underwent, I have to ask why CCG has not themselves adopted scanning as a necessary check and balance?

 

The steps of i) having a receiving department that scans every submission on behalf of CGC and CCS and indexes it with the invoice number; ii) routing the book to the appropriate service division (CCS or CGC); iii) post slabbing scan taken by CGC and appended to the invoice number; iv) entrusting a staff member to QA the before/after scans to see if there are any discrepancies and if so, report them before sending the books back to the owner.

 

Apart from the benefits of self-monitoring the quality of their services, I see this having merit for several reasons, especially if the scans are provided to the submitter free of charge for up to 30 days for download, and made available with the purchase of graders notes after that 30 day period has elapsed.

 

The win-win would be that the seller could provide these if requested at the time of resale. Secondly, it will allow any customers purchasing high value slabs to purchase graders notes should they have any reservations about defects which are similarly/closely associated to those which have been spotlighted in this thread.

 

Moreover, this could serve as a much needed PR tool for CGC/CCS to both bolster consumer confidence and potentially prove the value of their services in ways similar to when they're used to sell diet pills or car wax. To say nothing of the way it would improve the current perception issues associated to graders notes not containing a depth of information commensurate to their price tag.

[fantastic_four]

"restoration" is a term of art in this hobby. adherence to your definition runs afoul of long established tenets in the hobby.

There has been no widespread tenet holding that pressing is not restoration in this hobby--it's pretty open and fairly controversial, which you're well aware of. People barely cared about it until CGC brought restoration detection to the mainstream via certification and left the undetectable techniques open-ended for the hobby to split hairs about. Comics borrowed all of the restoration and restoration detection techniques we have from the art and historical document conservation world. I've seen no evidence of the other areas of the art or document world defining heat/humidity pressing as not being restoration, either. If you've seen evidence to the contrary, please do share.

 

Per the Glossary of the 34th Edition of Overstreet (2004):

 

"RESTORATION - Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearanc 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."

 

The definition of comic book restoration first appeared in the Terminology section of the 20th Edition of the Official Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide (1990).

 

It was provided in addition to a Warning About Restoration, which appeared in a number of earlier editions of the guide preceding the definition's inclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

So it dates back to at least 1990. If it was still there in 2004 after Overstreet revised his grading guide, I bet it's still there. Anyone have a very recent edition that can check whether or not Overstreet still defines pressing as restoration?

 

While Borock didn't and still doesn't define pressing as restoration, he had an inherent conflict of interest--he was charged with building a company selling a restoration detection service. To define something as restoration that you're unable to detect could cause some customers to blame you for not doing your job, as we've seen in pretty much every single pressing thread around here anyone has ever started. Indeed when pressured in past threads in the forum, that's in part what Borock said--pressing was one of the last things he was worried about with all of the undisclosed restoration hammering the high-end market during the 1990s, and since you couldn't detect it, it's not even something they could do much about to provide value to slab buyers. Even if they defined it as restoration...does it really matter? The only way they can find it is when it causes obvious damage, at which point it's not restoration, it's damage. The lack of a method to detect non-additive techniques like dry cleaning, pressing, or many micro-trims is simply a reality beyond human control that CGC takes the heat for from those with unrealistic expectations.