Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[mysterio]

I think the downgrade for RSR should be whatever the current downgrade for a book length crease is, and based on my limited experience with books in my collection that appears to be a 2.5-3.0 downgrade (I have a book that looks 9.4 save for an extremely light book length crease along the spine on the back cover that CGC gave a 7.5).

 

The Costanza shrinkage is trickier, but I would think that a similar level of downgrade would be appropriate, or the use of a green label much the same way it is used now for popped staples or other such major defects. If the examples in this thread had been given a green label with cover shrinkage noted that would be fine by me.

 

If those suggested downgrades are where you're starting from, the conversation's not worth having. I still believe that if Namisgr had never posted about this, we wouldn't have noticed it for months or years--it took a previous owner familiar with the previous state of the books who still had his original scans to recognize the damage. The defect is nowhere in the same galaxy in deserving your recommended downgrades.

 

Do you take issue with the suggested downgrade for the RSR or the shrinkage? The suggested RSR downgrade is what CGC is apparently already doing for book-length creases. A new spine crease is a book-length crease being introduced, so it seems appropriate to me.

 

Likewise, shrinking a cover in a manner that introduces staple tears and significant shifting of the cover relative to the underlying pages is also pretty significant in my mind. We can certainly discuss the severity of the downgrade, but it needs to be significant and/or result in a green label for an apparent grade IMHO.

[fantastic_four]

RSR should absolutely be hammered wherever it's detected -- a green label would be fine by me on those.

 

The Green label should go away. It essentially means "this book is ungraded." Defects should just be factored into grade, period--doesn't matter how weird it is. A book in a green label should be cracked out, because CGC only served half their function--they did a resto check. But they didn't grade it, and the market has no idea how to assign a price to any Green labeled book, ever.

[fantastic_four]

I think the downgrade for RSR should be whatever the current downgrade for a book length crease is, and based on my limited experience with books in my collection that appears to be a 2.5-3.0 downgrade (I have a book that looks 9.4 save for an extremely light book length crease along the spine on the back cover that CGC gave a 7.5).

 

The Costanza shrinkage is trickier, but I would think that a similar level of downgrade would be appropriate, or the use of a green label much the same way it is used now for popped staples or other such major defects. If the examples in this thread had been given a green label with cover shrinkage noted that would be fine by me.

 

If those suggested downgrades are where you're starting from, the conversation's not worth having. I still believe that if Namisgr had never posted about this, we wouldn't have noticed it for months or years--it took a previous owner familiar with the previous state of the books who still had his original scans to recognize the damage. The defect is nowhere in the same galaxy in deserving your recommended downgrades.

 

Do you take issue with the suggested downgrade for the RSR or the shrinkage? The suggested RSR downgrade is what CGC is apparently already doing for book-length creases. A new spine crease is a book-length crease being introduced, so it seems appropriate to me.

 

Likewise, shrinking a cover in a manner that introduces staple tears and significant shifting of the cover relative to the underlying pages is also pretty significant in my mind. We can certainly discuss the severity of the downgrade, but it needs to be significant and/or result in a green label for an apparent grade IMHO.

 

Mostly shrinkage. But note that CGC doesn't always downgrade for book-length creases as you suggest--a LOT of Silver Age Marvels with overflash have creases that run the entire top or bottom edge of the book. Some even break color very lightly. CGC doesn't downgrade for it like they would a diagonal crease because it's related to the quality of the paper and manufacturing process. It also doesn't detract from the aesthetics much...I've always noted but barely cared how they largely ignore overflash creasing since it detracts so little from overall aesthetic appeal.

[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.

 

The purpose of grading should have nothing whatsoever with disincentivizing anything--grading is about the aesthetic appeal and functional use of the comic. Consensus can't be reached with that kind of motive behind recommended defect downgrades.

 

Yes, grading is about aesthetic appeal. But once we started encapsulating and applying labels and label colors, and deciding which work could or couldn't be done in each of those label colors or grade levels, sadly the notions of incentives or disincentives had to come into play.

 

There is an incentive to pressing, and there used to be an inventive to tape, in that they can often lead to higher grades for books. This is an inherent side effect of labels and label colors based on the way those labels and label colors are applied to books.

 

It is exactly with this reality in mind that decisions have to be made about what is and isn't allowed, and thus what people can or will try to get away with to raise their grades.

[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.

 

The purpose of grading should have nothing whatsoever with disincentivizing anything--grading is about the aesthetic appeal and functional use of the comic. Consensus can't be reached with that kind of motive behind recommended defect downgrades.

 

 

I have already pointed out that it doesn't matter the motive as long as the majority agrees on the result. In this case, the majority do agree on the result: that these books should have been graded more harshly. To argue the term "disincentivize" vs "grade more harshly" is simply semantics.

[seanfingh]

Who hasn't been waiting for genital tattoos to be discussed in General? My week is made.

Yeah, maybe I should've went with "Hulk like" behavior.

 

Got my bad metaphor of the day out of the way, at least.

 

[fantastic_four]

I have already pointed out that it doesn't matter the motive as long as the majority agrees on the result. In this case, the majority do agree on the result: that these books should have been graded more harshly. To argue the term "disincentivize" vs "grade more harshly" is simply semantics.

 

Semantics that helps the hyperbolic "the book is ruined and needs to be hammered" peeps come back in off of the bias branch. The range of downgrades people are suggesting for this defect is huge for now.

[batman_fan]

I think the downgrade for RSR should be whatever the current downgrade for a book length crease is, and based on my limited experience with books in my collection that appears to be a 2.5-3.0 downgrade (I have a book that looks 9.4 save for an extremely light book length crease along the spine on the back cover that CGC gave a 7.5).

 

The Costanza shrinkage is trickier, but I would think that a similar level of downgrade would be appropriate, or the use of a green label much the same way it is used now for popped staples or other such major defects. If the examples in this thread had been given a green label with cover shrinkage noted that would be fine by me.

 

If those suggested downgrades are where you're starting from, the conversation's not worth having. I still believe that if Namisgr had never posted about this, we wouldn't have noticed it for months or years--it took a previous owner familiar with the previous state of the books who still had his original scans to recognize the damage. The defect is nowhere in the same galaxy in deserving your recommended downgrades.

 

Do you take issue with the suggested downgrade for the RSR or the shrinkage? The suggested RSR downgrade is what CGC is apparently already doing for book-length creases. A new spine crease is a book-length crease being introduced, so it seems appropriate to me.

 

Likewise, shrinking a cover in a manner that introduces staple tears and significant shifting of the cover relative to the underlying pages is also pretty significant in my mind. We can certainly discuss the severity of the downgrade, but it needs to be significant and/or result in a green label for an apparent grade IMHO.

 

Mostly shrinkage. But note that CGC doesn't always downgrade for book-length creases as you suggest--a LOT of Silver Age Marvels with overflash have creases that run the entire top or bottom edge of the book. Some even break color very lightly. CGC doesn't downgrade for it like they would a diagonal crease because it's related to the quality of the paper and manufacturing process. It also doesn't detract from the aesthetics much...I've always noted but barely cared how they largely ignore overflash creasing since it detracts so little from overall aesthetic appeal.

 

I disagree on the overhang. I find it a hideous defect and have always avoid like the plague. Not at the same level as marvel chipping but still pretty darn ugly.

[fantastic_four]

Mostly shrinkage. But note that CGC doesn't always downgrade for book-length creases as you suggest--a LOT of Silver Age Marvels with overflash have creases that run the entire top or bottom edge of the book. Some even break color very lightly. CGC doesn't downgrade for it like they would a diagonal crease because it's related to the quality of the paper and manufacturing process. It also doesn't detract from the aesthetics much...I've always noted but barely cared how they largely ignore overflash creasing since it detracts so little from overall aesthetic appeal.

 

I disagree on the overhang. I find it a hideous defect and have always avoid like the plague. Not at the same level as marvel chipping but still pretty darn ugly.

 

And this is why there will be no wide consensus on how to downgrade for shrinkage--nobody EVER agrees on minor eye appeal defects, which is why I presume Borock and the gang decided back in 1999 to barely downgrade for them in the first place.

 

The severity of this defect is further magnified in the thread by people who just detest the idea of the manipulation-induced damage in the first place and want to hammer the hell out of it...suggested penalties have ranged from not downgrading at all below 9.8 as CGC currently seems to all the way up to committing suicide. Pretty tough to take the hyperbolic reaction to the damage seriously and see a clear reason to downgrade more for a cover that's only got a bit more pokethrough than Barton's nosebleed Spidey examples do. People seem to want the amount you downgrade by to increase on a rapidly-growing exponential curve for every extra 1/16" that's showing on the right.

[batman_fan]

Mostly shrinkage. But note that CGC doesn't always downgrade for book-length creases as you suggest--a LOT of Silver Age Marvels with overflash have creases that run the entire top or bottom edge of the book. Some even break color very lightly. CGC doesn't downgrade for it like they would a diagonal crease because it's related to the quality of the paper and manufacturing process. It also doesn't detract from the aesthetics much...I've always noted but barely cared how they largely ignore overflash creasing since it detracts so little from overall aesthetic appeal.

 

I disagree on the overhang. I find it a hideous defect and have always avoid like the plague. Not at the same level as marvel chipping but still pretty darn ugly.

 

And this is why there will be no wide consensus on how to downgrade for shrinkage--nobody EVER agrees on minor eye appeal defects, which is why I presume Borock and the gang decided back in 1999 to barely downgrade for them in the first place.

 

The severity of this defect is further magnified in the thread by people who just detest the idea of the manipulation-induced damage in the first place and want to hammer the hell out of it...suggested penalties have ranged from not downgrading at all below 9.8 as CGC currently seems to all the way up to committing suicide. Pretty tough to take the hyperbolic reaction to the damage seriously and see a clear reason to downgrade more for a cover that's only got a bit more pokethrough than Barton's nosebleed Spidey examples do. People seem to want the amount you downgrade by to increase on a rapidly-growing exponential curve for every extra 1/16" that's showing on the right.

 

My dislike of the shrunk covers isn't driven by it being caused by pressing. I have always tried to avoided peek- a-boo pages because I find they always make me think "post production trim" even though most of the time it is caused by the production trim. I am not alone in the thinking. I stll stick with three grade level drop for the shrunk covers.

[drbanner]

Agreed, I could care less how they got that way but books with peekaboo pages are unattractive and should be downgraded.

 

The 1197-series Costanza'd Hulk 1 make Hulk sad.

[fantastic_four]

Agreed, I could care less how they got that way but books with peekaboo pages are unattractive and should be downgraded.

 

By how much per 1/16"?

[fantastic_four]

I am not alone in the thinking. I stll stick with three grade level drop for the shrunk covers.

 

Three levels regardless of severity? I presume not--so how much for 1/16"? 2/16"? 3/16"?

[mysterio]

Mostly shrinkage. But note that CGC doesn't always downgrade for book-length creases as you suggest--a LOT of Silver Age Marvels with overflash have creases that run the entire top or bottom edge of the book. Some even break color very lightly. CGC doesn't downgrade for it like they would a diagonal crease because it's related to the quality of the paper and manufacturing process. It also doesn't detract from the aesthetics much...I've always noted but barely cared how they largely ignore overflash creasing since it detracts so little from overall aesthetic appeal.

 

I disagree on the overhang. I find it a hideous defect and have always avoid like the plague. Not at the same level as marvel chipping but still pretty darn ugly.

 

And this is why there will be no wide consensus on how to downgrade for shrinkage--nobody EVER agrees on minor eye appeal defects, which is why I presume Borock and the gang decided back in 1999 to barely downgrade for them in the first place.

 

The severity of this defect is further magnified in the thread by people who just detest the idea of the manipulation-induced damage in the first place and want to hammer the hell out of it...suggested penalties have ranged from not downgrading at all below 9.8 as CGC currently seems to all the way up to committing suicide. Pretty tough to take the hyperbolic reaction to the damage seriously and see a clear reason to downgrade more for a cover that's only got a bit more pokethrough than Barton's nosebleed Spidey examples do. People seem to want the amount you downgrade by to increase on a rapidly-growing exponential curve for every extra 1/16" that's showing on the right.

 

Stress lines are also relatively minor defects for eye appeal. Do you count them when you grade a book? How many levels per stress mark? A tiny stress line is arguably less of an impact to a book's appearance than a 1/16th shrinkage of the covers, but that can be enough to knock an otherwise 9.8 down to a 9.6 or 9.4. Same with slightly fuzzy corners or a tiny staple tear. So why downgrade markedly for one small defect (stress or corners) while giving others (like excessive shrinkage) a relative pass?

[jimbo_707]

And what happens to the covers that are "rehydrated" to their "normal" size, over time? Will they re-shrink? I know paper is cloth-like, but I can't imagine stretching & shrinking paper with ink on it can't be good in the long run (IMHO.)

 

-slym

A good point and one I wonder about. And no discussion so far.

 

So what happens to the inks and gloss? They shrink and expand too, same as the underlying paper, behave like genital-tatoos, expanding and shrinking, depending on heat , pressure and wetness of the moment? 'Cause that's how it sounds.

The materials have different properties, so the shrinkage rates would differ. There would likely be some kind of cracking of the inks at the microscopic level, which would probably be visible to the naked eye as a loss of glossiness or a dulled effect. I would expect to see that with any extreme pressing.

[comicdonna]

And what happens to the covers that are "rehydrated" to their "normal" size, over time? Will they re-shrink? I know paper is cloth-like, but I can't imagine stretching & shrinking paper with ink on it can't be good in the long run (IMHO.)

 

-slym

A good point and one I wonder about. And no discussion so far.

 

So what happens to the inks and gloss? They shrink and expand too, same as the underlying paper, behave like genital-tatoos, expanding and shrinking, depending on heat , pressure and wetness of the moment? 'Cause that's how it sounds.

It sounds to me like more paper tests of pressed books need to be done soon.

[jimbo_707]

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.

 

The purpose of grading should have nothing whatsoever with disincentivizing anything--grading is about the aesthetic appeal and functional use of the comic. Consensus can't be reached with that kind of motive behind recommended defect downgrades.

Right, and books with shrunken covers look like absolute trash. I'd take a book with a subscription crease over a book with a shrunken cover. How do subscription-creased books get graded?

[THE_BEYONDER]

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.

 

The purpose of grading should have nothing whatsoever with disincentivizing anything--grading is about the aesthetic appeal and functional use of the comic. Consensus can't be reached with that kind of motive behind recommended defect downgrades.

Right, and books with shrunken covers look like absolute trash. I'd take a book with a subscription crease over a book with a shrunken cover. How do subscription-creased books get graded?

 

Sub-crease = 5.5

[Mark Zaid]

"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.

 

Some may find this commentary I wrote on the topic back in 2006 informative:

 

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/Home/4/1/73/1023?articleID=52863

[fantastic_four]

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.

 

Some may find this commentary I wrote on the topic back in 2006 informative:

 

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/Home/4/1/73/1023?articleID=52863

 

Thanks for the link! I hadn't read your 2006 article, great analysis of the controversy surrounding pressing as restoration. (thumbs u Sorry if I missed it, but it looks as if the sudden exclusion of pressing from Overstreet's definition of restoration wasn't yet decided upon by the time you published the article. What happened afterwards--did Overstreet leave pressing out of his definition of restoration? I think I have a 2009 Guide I could eventually check, but it's at the back of my storage unit.