Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[comicwiz]

"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 Comics borrowed all of the restoration and restoration detection techniques we have from the art and historical document conservation world.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.

 

The "undetectable" argument sailed a few threads ago. The complexion of the options available to CGC at this point is to catch this themselves, with internal audits as suggested with taking pre/post scans, or fighting fires when someone posts the latest discoveries online. The latter has only proven to see more rancorous debate and controversy with every new discovery, so on the contrary, there is nothing unrealistic about taking seriously the need to uphold their reputation rather than throwing it to the wind.

[Monstro]

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.

 

These are all great ideas, but It seems like a huge undertaking on CGCs part. Scanning every book before and after every grade just doesn't seem feasible. They would have to significantly raise prices and extend turn around times. 

 

Not to mention the avalanche of complaints from customers who swear scan #2 shows some damage that scan #1 does not, and the like.

[slym2none]

Just for clarity, from the 2012 OSPG, and any enhancements are my own:

 

Restoration- Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book using additive procedures. These procedures may include any or all of the following techniques: recoloring, adding missing paper, trimming, re-glossing, reinforcement, glue, etc. Amateur work can lower the value of a book, and now professional restoration has gained a negative aura in the modern marketplace in some quarters. In all cases a restored book can never be worth the same as an unrestored book in the same condition. There is no concensus on the inclusion of pressing, non-aqueous cleaning, tape removal and in some cases staple replacement in this definition. Until there is such time as there is concensus, we encourage continued debate and interaction among all interested parties and reflection upon the standards in other hobbies and art forms.

 

The warning about restoration shown in the older book above is no longer there.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[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.

 

These are all great ideas, but It seems like a huge undertaking on CGCs part. Scanning every book before and after every grade just doesn't seem feasible. They would have to significantly raise prices and extend turn around times. 

 

Not to mention the avalanche of complaints from customers who swear scan #2 shows some damage that scan #1 does not, and the like.

 

My understanding is they already provide post-slab scans for a fee, so it's really one added step in the normal procedure. The rest is a matter of streamlining tweaking their QA procedures, especially as I see (to your point about complaints) the liability aspect being the number one reason why they need to give the thought some consideration.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Why are we turning this into another pressing thread?

The point is moot. CGC will never label a pressed book as restored. It would severely limit an already finite market, it would kill their margins, it would be antithetical to the opinions of a large portion of their target market.

 

By continuing to derail the focus of the thread into the "evils of pressing" or "pressing is restoration" simply dilutes the chance that anything positive is going to come out of this.

 

Let us work within the realm of possibilities and express a community consensus that the current treatment at CGC of books exhibiting RSR and shrunken covers is unacceptable.

[fantastic_four]

The complexion of the options available to CGC at this point is to catch this themselves, with internal audits as suggested with taking pre/post scans, or fighting fires when someone posts the latest discoveries online.

 

It has to be done with direct evidence. Pre-and-post scans aren't available enough and therefore reliable enough to satisfy anybody, least of all yourself. If you started a grading company that noted pressing on the label and relied upon scans as your only means for detection, you would get regularly crucified by customers in threads like this. The notation would be inherently untrustworthy. People who haven't studied the issues won't understand the challenge--and as we consistently see in pressing threads, even people who have been repeatedly barraged by the issues still haven't balanced them out a decade later. Noting something you don't have physical evidence of would inevitably erode confidence in your brand.

[comicwiz]

Why are we turning this into another pressing thread?

The point is moot. CGC will never label a pressed book as restored. It would severely limit an already finite market, it would kill their margins, it would be antithetical to the opinions of a large portion of their target market.

 

By continuing to derail the focus of the thread into the "evils of pressing" or "pressing is restoration" simply dilutes the chance that anything positive is going to come out of this.

 

Let us work within the realm of possibilities and express a community consensus that the current treatment at CGC of books exhibiting RSR and shrunken covers is unacceptable.

 

 

Did you just answer in sequence, or are you suggesting that my opinion advanced the need to label a pressed book?

 

As for the question about why the topic of pressing is being brought up, while I didn't directly allude to this myself in my response, I see the treatments being discussed, and the evidence revealing causes and effects, being at the epicenter of the pressing topic. Prior to these discoveries, the anecdotal evidence suggested it was a benign process, and what we are seeing now is this suggestion being turned upside down.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Why are we turning this into another pressing thread?

The point is moot. CGC will never label a pressed book as restored. It would severely limit an already finite market, it would kill their margins, it would be antithetical to the opinions of a large portion of their target market.

 

By continuing to derail the focus of the thread into the "evils of pressing" or "pressing is restoration" simply dilutes the chance that anything positive is going to come out of this.

 

Let us work within the realm of possibilities and express a community consensus that the current treatment at CGC of books exhibiting RSR and shrunken covers is unacceptable.

 

 

Did you just answer in sequence?

Yes. I was not specifically addressing your post, but all the "general" pressing posts.

[comicwiz]

The complexion of the options available to CGC at this point is to catch this themselves, with internal audits as suggested with taking pre/post scans, or fighting fires when someone posts the latest discoveries online.

 

It has to be done with direct evidence. Pre-and-post scans aren't available enough and therefore reliable enough to satisfy anybody, least of all yourself. If you started a grading company that noted pressing on the label and relied upon scans as your only means for detection, you would get regularly crucified by customers in threads like this. The notation would be inherently untrustworthy. People who haven't studied the issues won't understand the challenge--and as we consistently see in pressing threads, even people who have been repeatedly barraged by the issues still haven't balanced them out a decade later. Noting something you don't have physical evidence of would inevitably erode confidence in your brand.

 

You're talking about reactions to the methodology, which are fair points, but far removed from the intent of the suggestion I put forward.

 

My suggestion is rooted in this notion of Costanza/RSR "detection" which at this stage, and with the current count at 16 examples including a DC (which was not previously an eligible candidate in the camp of Marvel SA paper stock being susceptible to shrinkage) would seem a process too difficult for CGC to pin-down. If photographic evidence could somehow assist with identifying changes occurring while a book is in their possession, I don't see this method needing to do more than satisfy a procurement requirement to ensure they aren't damaging anymore books.

[fantastic_four]

If photographic evidence could somehow assist with identifying changes occurring while a book is in their possession, I don't see this method needing to do more than satisfy a procurement requirement to ensure they aren't damaging anymore books.

 

Odds are high that it's going to be easy for them to stop damaging books if they absolutely don't want to keep doing it--by simply choosing not to do it. There's no direct evidence of it made public in the thread--just a few implications without facts from guys like Ketterer--but I feel relatively certain this damage was recklessly willful, i.e. they knew it was likely to happen. The circumstantial evidence of it is that we haven't been seeing this from Matt in the past.

[comicwiz]

If photographic evidence could somehow assist with identifying changes occurring while a book is in their possession, I don't see this method needing to do more than satisfy a procurement requirement to ensure they aren't damaging anymore books.

 

Odds are high that it's going to be easy for them to stop damaging books if they absolutely don't want to keep doing it--by simply choosing not to do it. There's no direct evidence of it made public in the thread--just a few implications without facts from guys like Ketterer--but I feel relatively certain this damage was recklessly willful, i.e. they knew it was likely to happen. The circumstantial evidence of it is that we haven't been seeing this from Matt in the past.

 

I agree more with your assessment of the situation than I disagree. But if we remove the recklessly willful aspect for a moment, I'm against damaging books, and for the process of arriving at a solution. If the best possible outcome involves strict avoidance of certification in our hobby, we all lose.

[fantastic_four]

Why are we turning this into another pressing thread?

The point is moot. CGC will never label a pressed book as restored. It would severely limit an already finite market, it would kill their margins, it would be antithetical to the opinions of a large portion of their target market.

 

By continuing to derail the focus of the thread into the "evils of pressing" or "pressing is restoration" simply dilutes the chance that anything positive is going to come out of this.

 

Let us work within the realm of possibilities and express a community consensus that the current treatment at CGC of books exhibiting RSR and shrunken covers is unacceptable.

 

 

Did you just answer in sequence?

Yes. I was not specifically addressing your post, but all the "general" pressing posts.

 

Consensus can't happen as long as people want to downgrade for shrinkage punitively because they hate the idea of what caused the damage. That's clearly biased--consensus on grading has to come from where grading standards should come from, an objective weighing of the functional and aesthetic impact of a defect. The thread has generally lacked a balanced view of how to grade RSR and shrinkage because they're pissed. It's understandable, but you have to get past that bias. Many never will.

[fantastic_four]

If photographic evidence could somehow assist with identifying changes occurring while a book is in their possession, I don't see this method needing to do more than satisfy a procurement requirement to ensure they aren't damaging anymore books.

 

Odds are high that it's going to be easy for them to stop damaging books if they absolutely don't want to keep doing it--by simply choosing not to do it. There's no direct evidence of it made public in the thread--just a few implications without facts from guys like Ketterer--but I feel relatively certain this damage was recklessly willful, i.e. they knew it was likely to happen. The circumstantial evidence of it is that we haven't been seeing this from Matt in the past.

 

I agree more with your assessment of the situation than I disagree. But if we remove the recklessly willful aspect for a moment, I'm against damaging books, and for the process of arriving at a solution. If the best possible outcome involves strict avoidance of certification in our hobby, we all lose.

 

I have no reason to believe this didn't catch Litch by surprise. If I were him, I'd want this to stop, so I have no reason to believe he won't do what he can to stop it since it's damaging his company's reputation. I'm sure Matt didn't think it would cause this much uproar.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Why are we turning this into another pressing thread?

The point is moot. CGC will never label a pressed book as restored. It would severely limit an already finite market, it would kill their margins, it would be antithetical to the opinions of a large portion of their target market.

 

By continuing to derail the focus of the thread into the "evils of pressing" or "pressing is restoration" simply dilutes the chance that anything positive is going to come out of this.

 

Let us work within the realm of possibilities and express a community consensus that the current treatment at CGC of books exhibiting RSR and shrunken covers is unacceptable.

 

 

 

Consensus can't happen as long as people want to downgrade for shrinkage punitively because they hate the idea of what caused the damage. That's clearly biased--consensus on grading has to come from where grading standards should come from, an objective weighing of the functional and aesthetic impact of a defect. The thread has generally lacked a balanced view of how to grade RSR and shrinkage because they're pissed. It's understandable, but you have to get past that bias. Many never will.

 

I disagree. A consensus does not require the participants use the same methodology to form their opinion, just that they have the same opinion. There has been a clear consensus that RSR and shrinkage have not been handled correctly by CGC.

[fantastic_four]

I disagree. A consensus does not require the participants use the same methodology to form their opinion, just that they have the same opinion. There has been a clear consensus that RSR and shrinkage have not been handled correctly by CGC.

 

But there's no consensus on how to correctly handle it. I see little reason to think there will be based upon the impassioned reactions pervading the thread. I'm not sure I have an issue with the amount they're downgrading for shrinkage, i.e. barely at all below the 9.8 level. How much to downgrade for RSR I haven't formed an opinion on.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I disagree. A consensus does not require the participants use the same methodology to form their opinion, just that they have the same opinion. There has been a clear consensus that RSR and shrinkage have not been handled correctly by CGC.

 

But there's no consensus on how to correctly handle it. I see little reason to think there will be based upon the impassioned reactions pervading the thread.

 

Sure there has. The community put forth several solutions ranging from PLOD through GLOD to significantly larger grade deductions than what is currently being used, if any. Regardless of which was adopted, the community consensus was that CGC should grade these such that it disincentivized the practice throughout all grades, not just the high end. Exactly the way the tape issue was handled.

[mysterio]

I disagree. A consensus does not require the participants use the same methodology to form their opinion, just that they have the same opinion. There has been a clear consensus that RSR and shrinkage have not been handled correctly by CGC.

 

But there's no consensus on how to correctly handle it. I see little reason to think there will be based upon the impassioned reactions pervading the thread.

 

Sure there has. The community put forth several solutions ranging from PLOD through GLOD to significantly larger grade deductions than what is currently being used, if any. Regardless of which was adopted, the community consensus was that CGC should grade these such that it disincentivized the practice throughout all grades, not just the high end. Exactly the way the tape issue was handled.

 

I see these as slightly different issues. With tape CGC simply removed the incentive to do it, by taking away the grade bumps you used to get for applying tape. Now tape is simply ignored, but there is no particular disincentive applied. In other words, the tape is not downgraded for.

 

What I and others in this thread have proposed is that CGC would actually downgrade for the damage caused by RSR and Costanza shrinkage. These are side effects of what many see as an otherwise benign process (pressing) gone awry. I think we would all agree, even those that are anti-pressing, that a good press applied under typical circumstances can be difficult if not impossible to detect. This is the way it should be. But when a press is applied improperly, unintentionally or intentionally, in a way that causes damage to a book through shifting the spine or causing the cover stock to shrink, that damage should be appropriately downgraded for.

 

I have also felt that turning this thread into a "pressing is evil" show has also drowned out the specific message decrying the RSRs and Costanzas. These are obviously damaging the books, and whether or not we agree to the severity of the downgrade they should get (I myself would like to see them get GLODded with apparent grades at the very least) we do all seem to agree that these books are damaged.

 

The good news, apparently, is that the Costanza shrinking can be "fixed" with additional pressing. If that is the case we should start to see some of these books called out in the thread show up in new holders with normally sized covers.

[slym2none]

Gotta Shyamalan that Costanza!

 

 

 

-slym

[InvstmntComcSuply]

 

The good news, apparently, is that the Costanza shrinking can be "fixed" with additional pressing. If that is the case we should start to see some of these books called out in the thread show up in new holders with normally sized covers.

I could not find the "don't hold your breath" emoticon

Why exactly would anyone auction that Hulk#1 if they could return it to be "fixed" with a light pressing?

[THE_BEYONDER]

How does a shrunken cover become unshrunken with pressing? Are we going to receive an answer to this question? Are we in the realm of magic now?