Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[mysterio]

It did for tape as CGC solicited input and ended up revising their decades-old policy on how they handle tape, so they certainly listen to input from the boards (and elsewhere) when revising/updating internal policies. It's not futile to discuss these issues.

 

They've already said they're going to try not to Costanza anymore. The other half-dozen issues various people are wishing for not directly related to shrinkage they're likely ignoring.

 

I'm personally more concerned with RSR and its much greater potential for widespread damage to otherwise perfectly good mid-grade books. I was very worried that RSR would get lost in the Costanza discussion, and it probably did. Maybe I need to start a new thread devoted to that to make sure it gets heard.

[drbanner]

It did for tape as CGC solicited input and ended up revising their decades-old policy on how they handle tape, so they certainly listen to input from the boards (and elsewhere) when revising/updating internal policies. It's not futile to discuss these issues.

They've already said they're going to try not to Costanza anymore. The other half-dozen issues various people are wishing for not directly related to shrinkage they're likely ignoring.

I'm personally more concerned with RSR and its much greater potential for widespread damage to otherwise perfectly good mid-grade books. I was very worried that RSR would get lost in the Costanza discussion, and it probably did. Maybe I need to start a new thread devoted to that to make sure it gets heard.

As with the Costanza's, CGC issued a press release about RSR - read all about it. This was issued 5 months after RSR was brought to light on the boards, but only one day after the Batman 23 posted in this thread was graded.

 

Not sure what to think of that timeline, I guess they "try" to detect RSR just like they will "try" not to Costanza books anymore.

[Bomber-Bob]

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it doesn't happen unless you're getting your books pressed by someone who is completely clueless as to what they're doing.

There is no way that a book fades color when it's pressed. Ink smear, yes. Color fade, no.

 

I'm not calling you a liar, I think you're seeing what you want to see or believing what you want yourself to believe.

Pushing an agenda? Perhaps. But I don't think you're a liar.

 

 

In this thread, if I gave the name of the presser, then I would be pushing an agenda. No agenda, I probably shouldn't have mentioned it. Still, I stand by my statement.

 

How were you able to see the pedigree books you were referring to in-hand before and after a press, and how can you possibly be sure the colors had faded? It was THAT noticable, i.e. more than a 20% to 40% loss in color?

 

I'm not sure I understand your question. I submitted the books. Had them for 10 - 12 years raw. It was not a dramatic change, I didn't even say the colors faded per se. They just lost that 'pop', an ever so slight effect that only a parent would know. I didn't say all pedigrees, just some of my Mass pedigrees. This particular ped had striking cover colors.

[Comicopolis]

Just replace the word restoration with manipulation and it will cover all bases.

 

I hate that so many in the hobby see restoration like you just described. But I do understand it due to the prevalence of slight, greed-motivated restoration primarily being done for the last decade or three. When I see the skill, dedication, and artistry of a conservator restoring a book from a torn-up state to looking close to the way it did when it was first released, "manipulation" is not at all a word that comes to mind. "Rescuing" is closer to it.

 

 

That is a very nice book.

 

I didn't say that manipulation is a negative word, just like I don't think that restoration has to necessarily have negative connotations.

 

I do think that if restoration/manipulation is done to a book and the seller is aware of it, not to tell potential buyers is, at the least, questionable.

[MrBedrock]

You're returning a book to its previous state, restoring it to the way it originally was--if that wasn't your entire goal, you wouldn't be doing it in the first place. I agree that it's far less notable than color touch or piece replacement, and I don't think it's worthy of a purple label--or whatever the more severe indications are on the new label CGC has come up with and hasn't yet released.

 

People try to avoid using the word "restoration" for purely emotional, political, or in many cases financial reasons. Those aren't the right reasons for changing a definition. Car guys finagle the word "restoration" in similar ways when they knock small dents out of the bodies of cars...but just because you don't leave evidence of work and add nothing doesn't mean you're not restoring an item to a previous state. Here's a dictionary definition of the word "restore":

 

restore [rɪˈstɔː] vb (tr)

1. to return (something, esp a work of art or building) to an original or former condition

2. to bring back to health, good spirits, etc.

3. to return (something lost, stolen, etc.) to its owner

4. to reintroduce or re-enforce to restore discipline

5. to reconstruct (an extinct animal, former landscape, etc.)

 

Pressing clearly matches definiton 1. What you're likely resisting is definition 5--certainly pressing isn't reconstruction like color touch and piece replacement are.

 

When Susan Cicconi started verbally defining pressing as restoration around a decade ago, did you think she was confused? Pushing a liberal tree-hugging agenda in the name of tearing down comic business owners everywhere? I saw her as just using the word "restore" true to its definition.

Your whole response appears to be your attempt to get at my motives for feeling the way I do. You also have motives for feeling the way you do. I really don't care what your motives are. I don't mean that in a mean spirited way. I just don't care. I like flat books. I don't consider flattening restoration. That is all you really need to infer, or care about, or discuss.

[Bomber-Bob]

 

But for the last several days we've been spinning our wheels turning this into another basically generic pressing debate thread that has been rehashed a million times and won't make any progress here either.

 

I, for one, don't see the statement released yesterday concerning treating Costanza shrinking as a manufacturing defect as gaining much ground. But if we devolve into infighting about an admittedly related but very different issue (normal pressing) we risk losing our voice over the issue that (I think) matters in this thread.

 

Regarding turning this into a basic pressing thread, I agree with you, and I apologize for contributing to the tangent. I regret mentioning my thoughts on the pressing of pedigrees. The issues of this thread are RSR, Cover shrinking, and staple tears.

 

I also agree that CGC's statement didn't do much. It was good to be acknowledged but I'm not sure they offered much of a solution. It was just rhetoric..

[fantastic_four]

You're returning a book to its previous state, restoring it to the way it originally was--if that wasn't your entire goal, you wouldn't be doing it in the first place. I agree that it's far less notable than color touch or piece replacement, and I don't think it's worthy of a purple label--or whatever the more severe indications are on the new label CGC has come up with and hasn't yet released.

 

People try to avoid using the word "restoration" for purely emotional, political, or in many cases financial reasons. Those aren't the right reasons for changing a definition. Car guys finagle the word "restoration" in similar ways when they knock small dents out of the bodies of cars...but just because you don't leave evidence of work and add nothing doesn't mean you're not restoring an item to a previous state. Here's a dictionary definition of the word "restore":

 

restore [rɪˈstɔː] vb (tr)

1. to return (something, esp a work of art or building) to an original or former condition

2. to bring back to health, good spirits, etc.

3. to return (something lost, stolen, etc.) to its owner

4. to reintroduce or re-enforce to restore discipline

5. to reconstruct (an extinct animal, former landscape, etc.)

 

Pressing clearly matches definiton 1. What you're likely resisting is definition 5--certainly pressing isn't reconstruction like color touch and piece replacement are.

 

When Susan Cicconi started verbally defining pressing as restoration around a decade ago, did you think she was confused? Pushing a liberal tree-hugging agenda in the name of tearing down comic business owners everywhere? I saw her as just using the word "restore" true to its definition.

Your whole response appears to be your attempt to get at my motives for feeling the way I do. You also have motives for feeling the way you do. I really don't care what your motives are. I don't mean that in a mean spirited way. I just don't care. I like flat books. I don't consider flattening restoration. That is all you really need to infer, or care about, or discuss.

 

It has nothing to do with your motives or feelings, or my motives or feelings. It has to do with the English language we both share and neither of us have had a wide impact upon. In attempting to say that returning a book to a previous state ISN'T restoration, you're attempting to narrowly redefine the word "restore." Try all you like--people familiar with the fact that words have multiple connotations and usages and who are familiar with the meanings assigned to that word will see through it.

[MrBedrock]

You're returning a book to its previous state, restoring it to the way it originally was--if that wasn't your entire goal, you wouldn't be doing it in the first place. I agree that it's far less notable than color touch or piece replacement, and I don't think it's worthy of a purple label--or whatever the more severe indications are on the new label CGC has come up with and hasn't yet released.

 

People try to avoid using the word "restoration" for purely emotional, political, or in many cases financial reasons. Those aren't the right reasons for changing a definition. Car guys finagle the word "restoration" in similar ways when they knock small dents out of the bodies of cars...but just because you don't leave evidence of work and add nothing doesn't mean you're not restoring an item to a previous state. Here's a dictionary definition of the word "restore":

 

restore [rɪˈstɔː] vb (tr)

1. to return (something, esp a work of art or building) to an original or former condition

2. to bring back to health, good spirits, etc.

3. to return (something lost, stolen, etc.) to its owner

4. to reintroduce or re-enforce to restore discipline

5. to reconstruct (an extinct animal, former landscape, etc.)

 

Pressing clearly matches definiton 1. What you're likely resisting is definition 5--certainly pressing isn't reconstruction like color touch and piece replacement are.

 

When Susan Cicconi started verbally defining pressing as restoration around a decade ago, did you think she was confused? Pushing a liberal tree-hugging agenda in the name of tearing down comic business owners everywhere? I saw her as just using the word "restore" true to its definition.

Your whole response appears to be your attempt to get at my motives for feeling the way I do. You also have motives for feeling the way you do. I really don't care what your motives are. I don't mean that in a mean spirited way. I just don't care. I like flat books. I don't consider flattening restoration. That is all you really need to infer, or care about, or discuss.

 

It has nothing to do with your motives or feelings, or my motives or feelings. It has to do with the English language we both share and neither of us have had a wide impact upon. In attempting to say that returning a book to a previous state ISN'T restoration, you're attempting to narrowly redefine the word "restore." Try all you like--people familiar with the fact that words have multiple connotations and usages and who are familiar with the meanings assigned to that word will see through it.

I understand the English language just fine, thank you. I understand the definition in the dictionary. I understand the word. I can even spell it with my eyes closed. I don't considering flattening a comic restoration.

[Straw-Man]

this isn't as easy as pedantically pointing us to the dictionary definition. "restoration" is a term of art in this hobby. adherence to your definition runs afoul of long established tenets in the hobby. for example, a full-blown cleaning, getting rid of a bunch of stains and damp-waving, may de-gloss or "pickle" the color of a book [i have several like this]--we all accept the book is "restored" now, but it's now in an incarnation [deglossed, pickled] that was never the "original" or a "former" condition.

 

book comes with big bindery chips--i fill them in. we all know it's now "restored." but it never existed in the form that it does now, so your definition 1. is phhhtttt.

 

i, too, don't consider pressing to be "restoration" as regards said term of art in this hobby. and please don't presume to tell me i'm resisting anything.

[Sqeggs]

What depressed me was not the DD#7, but rather this statement from bomber-bob:

"... if you ever ever [sic] 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 is the first I've heard of this, and I've handled 1000's of high grade books, both pressed and not pressed. There has been no discernible difference or pattern that I've been able to see.

 

If you're going to feel like dying every time someone says something that may or may not be true about a comic book, you might want to hang out in the GA forum where people are more respectful of weaker hearts.

 

The GA forum is comprised mostly of grizzled veterans whose hearts have been hardened by a lifetime of dealing with shenanigans!

[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.

[Straw-Man]

you misread my post. the tenets i spoke of were those regarding wet cleaning and paper-fill. those are "restoration" to all of us, but your definition 1. does not apply to either.

[comix4fun]

Tenets suck. When I was a kid I had to get a tenets shot and it hurt like hell.

[batman_fan]

"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.

 

Pressing was considered restoration up until CGC came out and said they couldn't detect it reliably AND people discovered there are big bucks in declaring it not restoration nor ever having been considered restoration in the entire history of comic book collecting.

[DeliBebek]

The many branches that have grown out of this thread are worthy of a mature shade tree — the kind that gets chopped down in front of an old codger's house because it's too shady.

[drbanner]

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."

 

There's also a discussion of Restored Comics in the grading section, noting that much of the stigma associated with restored books was due to the fact that "...full disclosure was largely ignored, and many buyers were deceived into buying books under the false pretense that they were unrestored or restored to a lesser degree."

 

The quote in italics was written by..............Matt Nelson.

[fantastic_four]

you misread my post. the tenets i spoke of were those regarding wet cleaning and paper-fill. those are "restoration" to all of us, but your definition 1. does not apply to either.

 

With regards to wet-cleaning, it's restoration combined with damage, but the minor damage incurred doesn't change the motivation for the cleaning--to restore the book to an original state. Many restorative techniques often cause extremely minor damage no matter how you do it or what materials you use, particularly piece replacement and color touch, and once you remove pro restoration the damage caused by the adhesives become visible. The example of correcting production defects is definitely an exception that I agree most would still define as restoration, mostly because to do otherwise could be interpreted as intent to mislead since the evidence of the book's prior state is now hidden.

[fantastic_four]

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 word simply applies. From an objective perspective, I don't even understand any attempt to even suggest pressing out a bend somehow isn't an attempt to restore that book to a prior state--you wouldn't be doing it if that wasn't your intent. It only begins to make sense when you consider that people are placing value judgments on the concept, i.e. some types of restoration are "good" and others are "bad" to whatever varying extent you prefer to assign those values to the concept. I have to assume people who are trying to split the hair of claiming that pressing is not a restorative technique are really saying that pressing "is not bad" and that their thinking is that it's not bad because it's not additive. I couldn't agree with that line of thinking more--yet I stop at attempting to influence others to think the same way by convincing them that the verb "restore" for some reason doesn't apply to non-additive restorative techniques. It seems like spin, almost disinformation, in an attempt to persuade others not to view pressing as "bad" restoration--which I empathize with, I suppose, but wouldn't attempt to do myself.

[Straw-Man]

let me tell you where i see "spin." in addressing ricky, you were "right," because your dictionary definition #1 said so. i pointed out two widely accepted instances of "restoration" in our hobby that the criteria of your hallowed definition did not meet---but, lo and behold, you are STILL "rignt." well spun.

[Comicopolis]

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."

 

There's also a discussion of Restored Comics in the grading section, noting that much of the stigma associated with restored books was due to the fact that "...full disclosure was largely ignored, and many buyers were deceived into buying books under the false pretense that they were unrestored or restored to a lesser degree."

 

The quote in italics was written by..............Matt Nelson.

 

He's allowed to change his mind.