Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[drbanner]

It appears more than just a pressing is going on here. These images indicate to me the books were cleaned thoroughly, possibly washed with water or chemicals.

 

I would like to purchase a Cole Schave book & have it sent to a lab to be tested for a possible chemical wash.

 

Color me suspicious....

 

What's stopping you?

 

Nothing. That's was the first time it crossed my mind.

 

Good news! Looks like there will be more opportunities in the upcoming HA November event

[THE_BEYONDER]

It appears more than just a pressing is going on here. These images indicate to me the books were cleaned thoroughly, possibly washed with water or chemicals.

 

I would like to purchase a Cole Schave book & have it sent to a lab to be tested for a possible chemical wash.

 

Color me suspicious....

 

What's stopping you?

 

Nothing. That's was the first time it crossed my mind.

 

Good news! Looks like there will be more opportunities in the upcoming HA November event

 

[mysterio]

Any links?

[namisgr]

Just check out the Hulk #1.

[Randall Dowling]

 

I took a decade-long break from the hobby, returning last summer. Before that break, I rarely saw GA books with page peek-out. Fanned pages due to spine-roll, sure. But page peek out on books without spine roll? Seldom if ever.

 

What happened between 2002 and 2012? Pressing happened.

 

I believe a side by side comparison of, say, 100 old-label GA books with 100 GA books pressed in the last three years would be very telling. It think it will reveal noticeably more page peek out in the more-recently-slabbed GA books.

 

An interesting example of this phenomena is if you look at the Heritage archive. Take a particular issue of a book in mid to high grade and sort by date. Look at the books that were sold in 2002-2004 and compare to the books sold in the last few years. Definitely a higher prevalence of pages squished out in the more recent books. By no means an absolute rule as I'm sure there are some books that weren't pressed or only pressed once, but there is a trend for sure.

 

It undermines my confidence in the CGC brand to see this happening and watch them get higher and higher grades for books that are clearly taking damage. Personally, I'm having a hard time thinking these books are any better than a trimmed copy that has the right edge of the cover taken off. I know some folks will scream outrage about that statement but the end result is pretty similar. Personal preference, I guess.

[Randall Dowling]

Here's a partial list of the diversionary red herring fallcious arguments we see used every time someone connects-the-dots, starts a thread with their questions or attempts to alert others:

 

• There's nothing CGC can do since pressing is undetectable.
  
• Proper pressing candidates are excruciatingly rare. Pressing can never "take off". Much ado about nothing.
  
• Only a tiny minority of crazed "purists" even care about pressing. Why is are we even discussing it?
  
• We shouldn't be disparaging someone else's books.
  
• We shouldn't be disparaging someone else.
  
• Why are anti-CGC zealots even allowed to post here?
  
• The weight of Edgar Church's stacks was the exact same thing.

 

The percentage-thing, 50% of sumpin' sumpin', is new. Whatever the hell that is.

 

Yes, I've heard all these same arguments before and none of them are particularly thoughtful. The last one takes some real distortion of reality to make that leap but I've heard it said multiple times. I'm reminded of a John Acton quote:

 

"There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion."

-taken from Wikiquote on 21 October 2013

 

But then, that's probably how both sides of any heated discussion view the other.

[VintageComics]

Definitely a higher prevalence of pages squished out in the more recent books. By no means an absolute rule as I'm sure there are some books that weren't pressed or only pressed once, but there is a trend for sure.

 

Just something to keep in mind...the fact that Heritage has grown exponentially in size from 2002 when they first started auctioning comics may alone account for more viewings of any particular defects.

 

For example, you'll have more books with date stamps in 2010 than in 2002 simply because they've auctioned off 1000's more books in 2010 than they did in 2002.

 

 

[VintageComics]

Yes, I've heard all these same arguments before and none of them are particularly thoughtful. The last one takes some real distortion of reality to make that leap but I've heard it said multiple times. I'm reminded of a John Acton quote:

 

"There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion."

-taken from Wikiquote on 21 October 2013

 

But then, that's probably how both sides of any heated discussion view the other.

 

That is a brilliant quote and you make a brilliant observation. Two sides to a debate.

 

Some of Dav's points are unfair as they are taken out of their context - for example, the first few were likely taken taken out of discussions when the debate was in it's infancy nearly a decade ago and nobody would use some of those points in a discussion today.

 

It's like arguing what fire is made of and someone takes a quote from 1785.

 

Additionally, some of those points are put up by novices who don't know better. For example, anybody who is very familiar with pressing would never equate it to the Church books.

 

So, red herrings on both sides.

[batman_fan]

Here's a partial list of the diversionary red herring fallcious arguments we see used every time someone connects-the-dots, starts a thread with their questions or attempts to alert others:

 

• There's nothing CGC can do since pressing is undetectable.
  
• Proper pressing candidates are excruciatingly rare. Pressing can never "take off". Much ado about nothing.
  
• Only a tiny minority of crazed "purists" even care about pressing. Why is are we even discussing it?
  
• We shouldn't be disparaging someone else's books.
  
• We shouldn't be disparaging someone else.
  
• Why are anti-CGC zealots even allowed to post here?
  
• The weight of Edgar Church's stacks was the exact same thing.

 

The percentage-thing, 50% of sumpin' sumpin', is new. Whatever the hell that is.

 

Yes, I've heard all these same arguments before and none of them are particularly thoughtful. The last one takes some real distortion of reality to make that leap but I've heard it said multiple times. I'm reminded of a John Acton quote:

 

"There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion."

-taken from Wikiquote on 21 October 2013

 

But then, that's probably how both sides of any heated discussion view the other.

 

Just thought of a new reason for the shrinkages, two word, Global Warming. It all makes sense now

 

Looking forward to hearing someone suggest that in a serious tone.

[Aman619]

The final scan looks to have little or no tinkering of the scan image.

That's what I was thinking. That's probably the only representational scan among the four.

 

Surprisingly, I've found that most scanner software's default settings are pretty lousy. It takes some tinkering to make the scans reflect what the books actually look like.

 

third one looks most natural. last one has too much cyan, turns the white to a grey, a bluish grey.

 

when I have scanned my raw books, and compared them to the actual comics Im always struck at how what we see as white paper is still very much yellowish. like our teeth!

 

 

but yeah, all scanners have different color tendencies that we have to compensate for. either we go too far, or not enough, or we PUSH the image into a wish state of our ideal of perfection.

[batman_fan]

here's a pretty book

 

[pickycollector]

 

I took a decade-long break from the hobby, returning last summer. Before that break, I rarely saw GA books with page peek-out. Fanned pages due to spine-roll, sure. But page peek out on books without spine roll? Seldom if ever.

 

What happened between 2002 and 2012? Pressing happened.

 

I believe a side by side comparison of, say, 100 old-label GA books with 100 GA books pressed in the last three years would be very telling. It think it will reveal noticeably more page peek out in the more-recently-slabbed GA books.

 

An interesting example of this phenomena is if you look at the Heritage archive. Take a particular issue of a book in mid to high grade and sort by date. Look at the books that were sold in 2002-2004 and compare to the books sold in the last few years. Definitely a higher prevalence of pages squished out in the more recent books. By no means an absolute rule as I'm sure there are some books that weren't pressed or only pressed once, but there is a trend for sure.

 

It undermines my confidence in the CGC brand to see this happening and watch them get higher and higher grades for books that are clearly taking damage. Personally, I'm having a hard time thinking these books are any better than a trimmed copy that has the right edge of the cover taken off. I know some folks will scream outrage about that statement but the end result is pretty similar. Personal preference, I guess.

I agree

 

Remember the Ewert scandal ?

 

CGC was unable to detect micro-trimming until the CGC Board did expose it.

 

When the fact was proved, CGC did the right thing then: they made the necessary changes to be able to detect micro-trimming, they banned Jason Ewert from submitting and a list of books that have been submitted by him was built.

 

Sure there were some micro-trimmed books that probably were undetected before that and are still in circulation but at least their spectacular action did stop that trend.

 

Because what was doing Jason Ewert ? He was playing with a flaw in CGC's control that allowed him to get higher grades in a blue label. He was destroying comics to make profit.

 

What are the Costanzas books if not a destruction of comics for an attempt to make profit ?

 

CGC had guts to ban Ewert from submitting, he was probably an important and lucrative submitter for them. But they did what was right in the long-term for their reputation.

 

What are they going to do now ?

[Randall Dowling]

here's a pretty book

 

Pretty soon, people will start saying "Buy the label, not the book".

Kind of like "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"

[DeliBebek]

Remember the Ewert scandal ?

 

CGC was unable to detect micro-trimming until the CGC Board did expose it.

 

When the fact was proved, CGC did the right thing then: they made the necessary changes to be able to detect micro-trimming, they banned Jason Ewert from submitting and a list of books that have been submitted by him was built.

 

Sure there were some micro-trimmed books that probably were undetected before that and are still in circulation but at least their spectacular action did stop that trend.

 

Because what was doing Jason Ewert ? He was playing with a flaw in CGC's control that allowed him to get higher grades in a blue label. He was destroying comics to make profit.

 

What are the Costanzas books if not a destruction of comics for an attempt to make profit ?

 

CGC had guts to ban Ewert from submitting, he was probably an important and lucrative submitter for them. But they did what was right in the long-term for their reputation.

 

What are they going to do now ?

Microtrimming is not readily apparent within the slab. The misalignment of the page edges is apparent within the slab. Detection of that misalignment requires only eyesight.

 

Regardless of how the misalignment occurred, the bottom line question when comparing the second grading to the first is "does the removal of previous aesthetic defects outweigh the introduction of a new aesthetic defect?" The grader needs not have both versions of the book. The grader needs only to grade the book as it is. The collector, of whatever sort, will answer the question somewhere down the line.

 

I agree that the misaligned right edges should carry a certain weight in the final grade. I think almost everyone agrees with that. The rest of the discussion is a collection of trees within what we all see is a forest.

[drbanner]

Just thought of a new reason for the shrinkages, two word, Global Warming. It all makes sense now

It's true...a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, and we were informed that it's really the humidity that causes this shrinkage. The good news is that in 100 years, we'll be able to carry our collections around in our wallets since the books will be the size of postage stamps.

[slym2none]

Here's a partial list of the diversionary red herring fallcious arguments we see used every time someone connects-the-dots, starts a thread with their questions or attempts to alert others:

 

• There's nothing CGC can do since pressing is undetectable.
  
• Proper pressing candidates are excruciatingly rare. Pressing can never "take off". Much ado about nothing.
  
• Only a tiny minority of crazed "purists" even care about pressing. Why is are we even discussing it?
  
• We shouldn't be disparaging someone else's books.
  
• We shouldn't be disparaging someone else.
  
• Why are anti-CGC zealots even allowed to post here?
  
• The weight of Edgar Church's stacks was the exact same thing.

 

The percentage-thing, 50% of sumpin' sumpin', is new. Whatever the hell that is.

 

Yes, I've heard all these same arguments before and none of them are particularly thoughtful. The last one takes some real distortion of reality to make that leap but I've heard it said multiple times. I'm reminded of a John Acton quote:

 

"There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion."

-taken from Wikiquote on 21 October 2013

 

But then, that's probably how both sides of any heated discussion view the other.

 

Just thought of a new reason for the shrinkages, two word, Global Warming "climate change." It all makes sense now

 

Looking forward to hearing someone suggest that in a serious tone.

 

FTFY

 

::

 

 

 

-slym

[mysterio]

here's a pretty book

 

 

RSR or shrinkage? What's the back cover look like?

[batman_fan]

here's a pretty book

 

 

RSR or shrinkage? What's the back cover look like?

 

Back cover looks fine. I think it i shrinkage due to some mysterious, although natural influence.

[ciorac]

It appears more than just a pressing is going on here. These images indicate to me the books were cleaned thoroughly, possibly washed with water or chemicals.

Since CCS informs CGC of EVERY restoration technique they apply to a book so that nothing is missed and everything can be properly documented, would they disclose aqueous washes? Yes

 

What about solvent washes? Yes

 

Dry cleaning? No

 

What about loose centerfold or cover tucks? Yes and ?

 

Pressing with disassembly? Yes

 

Staple cleaning? Yes

 

Staple replacement? Yes, if detected

 

Married centerfolds or cover? Yes

 

Tear seals? Yes

 

Color touch? Yes

 

Pressing without disassembly? No

 

Leaf casting? yes

 

Where's the line in the sand? TBD

 

Who decides where the line is? CGC

 

Is it ethical to withhold information from the consumer as far as what is known to have been done to the book? Ethics don't come into play with the No answers above IMV

 

Will the Steelers make the playoffs? No

 

Hope this helps

[drbanner]

Will the Steelers make the playoffs? No

Hope this helps