Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[ciorac]

Fair enough, I'm not a fan of the process either.

 

But asking CGC to require something of a sister company that could put them at a material disadvantage to their competition for the sake of appeasing the zealotry of a few boardies is not a reasonable request of CGC or their parent company CCG.

 

And there was an entire thread dedicated to Mark Zaid being retained by CGC to inspect the process and is well documented on these boards, if you actually read them that is..

 

I understand and I don't Bill.

 

On one hand, I understand and admire your loyalty to Matt I know you have been friends forever and you don't want him singled out. However, on the other hand, if there is nothing wrong with pressing, or dry cleaning, what is the big deal ABOUT putting it on the label? When CCS does work, the facts are right there.

 

I'm not saying that it should be required for just Matt. I'm certain we have other people who are honest who would also disclose when they press a book or dry clean it, or whatever else it is they do.

 

Maybe CGC needs to just ask on the submission forms. Have you treated this book in any way, applied heat, moisture, pressure, chemicals, etc? .

 

I get that it can't always be detected, so if some others are going to cheat and not mention it, does that mean that we should ignore facts when they are known so that the people who hide what they do don't "benefit"?

 

Why would those that hide what they do they "benefit"so much if just a "few" people care?

 

You know I don't mind restoration and certainly not "conservation". I think sealing a split spine can help a book stay together longer. However, my issue all along has been disclosure. That way people can make an informed choice of what books they want to buy.

 

I was never a member of NOD, but you were and I believe you were even an officer, so your stance, kind of confuses me.

 

That was what it was all about, wasn't it? Disclosure.

 

 

I do completely agree about what you said about grading the book in front of you. I think that's the bottom line, however, we need to remove loopholes regarding "manufacturing defects". That should level the playing field.

 

If you are looking at one entity having an advantage over another, even if Mark did see that CCS and CGC are separate, can anyone also say that Matt is not now completely privy to how grades are decided and what things are currently ignored as possible "manufacturing defects":? Does everyone else know that, too?

 

I know I never saw the memo if it was shared.

 

As I said, I'm not a fan of the Schave process. And yes, I used to be in NOD and held that pressing was a restorative technique. Clearly that ship sailed and it has been determined by CGC that it isn't. Tilting at that windmill seemed fruitless.

 

A properly pressed book is not a bad thing.

 

I won't be convinced that forcing CCS books to carry extra notes about processes that CGC deems non-restorative when no other sumbitter will be subjected to the same treatment, is inherently unfair.

 

Period.

[fantastic_four]

As I said, I'm not a fan of the Schave process. And yes, I used to be in NOD and held that pressing was a restorative technique. Clearly that ship sailed and it has been determined by CGC that it isn't. Tilting at that windmill seemed fruitless.

 

If they define it as restoration, the hobby will think they're not doing their job by detecting it. But detecting it isn't possible. It IS restoration, but if you can't detect it, you can't note it, so the fact that it's restoration is a moot point--you can't note it if you can't detect it.

 

Most of the people in this conversation have known all of this for almost a decade yet they still hammer CGC for their inability to detect pressing or keep trying to come up with ways for them to detect it that won't work across the board.

[Sqeggs]

CGC has certainly weathered their share of storms in the past.

Yes, they did...when Borock and Haspel worked there and they didn't charge for graders notes and they weren't in the business of pressing books and "fixing 'em up" and then deciding how good a job they did and what color label to award their own work. CGC was a way different company back then.

 

Borock and Haspel seemed to make a good team for CGC. With Borock handling the PR and Haspel doing the heavy grading things certainly seemed better back then. I remember, upon submitting some Pedigree books and waiting a long time, I was told that Haspel had to personally inspect and validate every Pedigree. Nowdays, all you have to do is put the pedigree name on the label and they give it to you.

 

 

 

ooooh, i got me some paperwork to fill out!

 

Me, too. I've got some books that kinda, sorta look like Church copies.

[gaz973]

As I said, I'm not a fan of the Schave process. And yes, I used to be in NOD and held that pressing was a restorative technique. Clearly that ship sailed and it has been determined by CGC that it isn't. Tilting at that windmill seemed fruitless.

 

If they define it as restoration, the hobby will think they're not doing their job by detecting it. But detecting it isn't possible. It IS restoration, but if you can't detect it, you can't note it, so the fact that it's restoration is a moot point--you can't note it if you can't detect it.

 

Most of the people in this conversation have known all of this for almost a decade yet they still hammer CGC for their inability to detect pressing or keep trying to come up with ways for them to detect it that won't work across the board.

Whether CGC are capable of detecting pressing or not is also moot as they have no motivation to even want to detect it.

 

If they suddenly accidentally found a way to 100% detect pressed books then they still wouldn't use it as it's against their best interests.

[MrBedrock]

As I said, I'm not a fan of the Schave process. And yes, I used to be in NOD and held that pressing was a restorative technique. Clearly that ship sailed and it has been determined by CGC that it isn't. Tilting at that windmill seemed fruitless.

 

If they define it as restoration, the hobby will think they're not doing their job by detecting it. But detecting it isn't possible. It IS restoration, but if you can't detect it, you can't note it, so the fact that it's restoration is a moot point--you can't note it if you can't detect it.

 

Most of the people in this conversation have known all of this for almost a decade yet they still hammer CGC for their inability to detect pressing or keep trying to come up with ways for them to detect it that won't work across the board.

What if it isn't restoration?

[fantastic_four]

As I said, I'm not a fan of the Schave process. And yes, I used to be in NOD and held that pressing was a restorative technique. Clearly that ship sailed and it has been determined by CGC that it isn't. Tilting at that windmill seemed fruitless.

 

If they define it as restoration, the hobby will think they're not doing their job by detecting it. But detecting it isn't possible. It IS restoration, but if you can't detect it, you can't note it, so the fact that it's restoration is a moot point--you can't note it if you can't detect it.

 

Most of the people in this conversation have known all of this for almost a decade yet they still hammer CGC for their inability to detect pressing or keep trying to come up with ways for them to detect it that won't work across the board.

What if it isn't restoration?

 

Since it is, I wouldn't know.

[namisgr]

An update from CCS/CGC on Costanza pressing: http://www.cgccomics.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?NewsletterNewsArticleID=2335&utm_source=enews&utm_medium=enews&utm_campaign=CGC_enews_10_2013&spMailingID=7124325&spUserID=MTI4MzA5MDEzNDMS1&spJobID=92148307&spReportId=OTIxNDgzMDcS1

 

At least they publicly recognize the problem. The brief article claims CGC will downgrade for excessive cover shrinkage, but until I see examples of this and consistency in downgrading for it I will remain skeptical.

[lizards2]

"shrinkage can be minimized or corrected with a light pressing."

[MrBedrock]

I wouldn't know.

Exactly (thumbs u

[drbanner]

An update from CCS/CGC on Costanza pressing: http://www.cgccomics.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?NewsletterNewsArticleID=2335&utm_source=enews&utm_medium=enews&utm_campaign=CGC_enews_10_2013&spMailingID=7124325&spUserID=MTI4MzA5MDEzNDMS1&spJobID=92148307&spReportId=OTIxNDgzMDcS1

 

At least they publically recognize the problem. The brief article claims CGC will downgrade for excessive cover shrinkage, but until I see examples of this and consistency in downgrading for it I will remain skeptical.

Interesting, thanks for the link. (thumbs u

[lizards2]

An update from CCS/CGC on Costanza pressing: http://www.cgccomics.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?NewsletterNewsArticleID=2335&utm_source=enews&utm_medium=enews&utm_campaign=CGC_enews_10_2013&spMailingID=7124325&spUserID=MTI4MzA5MDEzNDMS1&spJobID=92148307&spReportId=OTIxNDgzMDcS1

 

At least they publically recognize the problem. The brief article claims CGC will downgrade for excessive cover shrinkage, but until I see examples of this and consistency in downgrading for it I will remain skeptical.

Interesting, thanks for the link. (thumbs u

It also claims that the Costanza effect books may be corrected with a light pressing.

[Sqeggs]

Here it is:

 

Posted on 10/8/2013

Cover shrinkage is a common consequence of improper pressing. The actual shrinkage will vary depending on several factors — but, without intervention, any shrinkage can lower the book's overall grade.

 

Cover shrinkage can occur from excessive humidity or multiple pressings, causing the cover to shrink side to side. Silver Age Marvels, particularly between 1960 and 1968, are most susceptible due to the poor quality of printing used at that time. The amount of shrinkage varies depending on several factors, such as what month the book is from, how it was stored during its life and the extent of pressing it received. Shrinkage can also occur naturally over time with no pressing involved.

 

Common shrinkage ranges from 1/64 inch to 1/16 inch, and excessive shrinkage up to 1/8 inch. Because it is difficult or impossible to always tell whether shrinkage occurred naturally or from pressing, CGC will treat excessive shrinkage similar to a manufacturing defect and downgrade accordingly. In some cases, shrinkage can be minimized or corrected with a light pressing.

 

Well short of a complete explanation of past and future grading policies, although this posting may not have been intended to be the final word on the subject. Unclear whether "will treat" means "will change past policy and will now treat." To adequately deal with the problem, I think the downgrade has to be larger than what they have traditionally done for a manufacturing defect.

[Davenport]

What does it even mean?

 

CGC will treat excessive shrinkage similar to a manufacturing defect and downgrade accordingly. In some cases, shrinkage can be minimized or corrected with a light pressing.

 

"Downgrade accordingly", according to what? It's like saying "whenever appropriate" or "when weather permits". Fuzzy.

 

And "minimized or corrected with a light pressing". Wow. Created by pressing and corrected by pressing. Win/Win, right there.

 

Gorilla nuts. Gotta give 'em that.

 

[drbanner]

An update from CCS/CGC on Costanza pressing: http://www.cgccomics.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?NewsletterNewsArticleID=2335&utm_source=enews&utm_medium=enews&utm_campaign=CGC_enews_10_2013&spMailingID=7124325&spUserID=MTI4MzA5MDEzNDMS1&spJobID=92148307&spReportId=OTIxNDgzMDcS1

 

At least they publically recognize the problem. The brief article claims CGC will downgrade for excessive cover shrinkage, but until I see examples of this and consistency in downgrading for it I will remain skeptical.

Interesting, thanks for the link. (thumbs u

It also claims that the Costanza effect books may be corrected with a light pressing.

[slym2none]

"You pressed into this shape... press it back!"

 

 

 

-slym

[blazingbob]

Next will be be talking about the shrinkage of the tops since when you pop those sides back in they will pop out of the top.

 

I call dibs on TopJobs

[jimbo_707]

You can find info on a DD7 I believe a Pacific Coast that was pressed from 8.5 to 9.6 after 4-5 tries.

 

As a fan of Pedigrees, to me this is disgusting. First off, no one can convince me this is the same legacy book that was in the Original collection. In this case, the Pedigree status is meaningless.

Also, if you ever ever owned books from certain pedigrees that have outstanding color you can see a deterioration in the color after a pressing.

It's a subtle thing, only noticeable in hand, but that sharp brightness, fresh off the stand look is diminished. I can only imagine that multiple pressings will completely destroy the freshness factor.

This depresses me almost to the point of wishing I were dead.

 

It also demonstrates a flaw in the CGC grading, in that freshness isn't being considered, or considered enough, in grading. Were that loss of freshness properly punished, people would not be trying to press fresh, high-grade, books. The scales need to be adjusted, even if it's just a little - enough to make the risk outweigh the reward.

[batman_fan]

CGC can mitigate this real and demonstrated conflict of interest moving forward by providing information on the label as to what processes and modifications the book undertook while at the CGIC.

There's zero interest in noting a book's history unless it increases desirability, such as pedigree provenance. All other history is considered a marketing "disadvantage".

 

If there were any actual interest it would be a simple as asking on the submission form if the submitter personally paid for professional treatments and what were they. If CCS is submitting on behalf of clients, they would simply fill in the form like anyone else.

 

Never going to happen. The crack-out-game requires books have indistinguishable labeling in the marketplace.

 

 

 

The true reason for non-disclosure of pressing

[Sqeggs]

"You pressed into this shape... press it back!"

 

 

 

-slym

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

As I said, I'm not a fan of the Schave process. And yes, I used to be in NOD and held that pressing was a restorative technique. Clearly that ship sailed and it has been determined by CGC that it isn't. Tilting at that windmill seemed fruitless.

 

If they define it as restoration, the hobby will think they're not doing their job by detecting it. But detecting it isn't possible. It IS restoration, but if you can't detect it, you can't note it, so the fact that it's restoration is a moot point--you can't note it if you can't detect it.

 

Most of the people in this conversation have known all of this for almost a decade yet they still hammer CGC for their inability to detect pressing or keep trying to come up with ways for them to detect it that won't work across the board.

What if it isn't restoration?

 

What if unicorns exist?