Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[fantastic_four]

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.

 

I agreed with your second example as an exception--that's not spin.

 

How is wet cleaning not restoration? What is the motivation for wet cleaning if not to restore the book to a previous state? The fact that damage is caused at the same time is beside the point.

 

I'll add a question. Susan Cicconi defines pressing as restoration. Banner's quote suggests that Bob Overstreet does as well. Where did those two go wrong in their willingness to describe pressing as restoration?

[Straw-Man]

and by agreeing, you negated your earlier argument that dictionary definition #1 was definitive.

 

that this issue isn't resolved with a simple "c.f. the dictionary" is the only point i'm trying to make.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

and by agreeing, you negated your earlier argument that dictionary definition #1 was definitive.

 

that this issue isn't resolved with a simple "c.f. the dictionary" is the only point i'm trying to make.

 

Yet the common usage of the word "restore" still applies to pressing, which is why plenty of people use it to describe the process.

[Straw-Man]

and i have no problem with you, or any of those "plenty of people," using it that way. i don't, and i'm doing just fine.

[fantastic_four]

and i have no problem with you, or any of those "plenty of people," using it that way. i don't, and i'm doing just fine.

 

So why avoid using the word--because it's non-additive?

[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.

He's allowed to change his mind.

Changed his mind about what? I don't think his opinion has changed at all that much of the stigma associated with restoration was due to non-disclosure of work done, do you?

 

I think he would agree with your earlier statement that if the seller is aware that something has been done to the book and doesn't tell a potential buyer, it's shady.

[Straw-Man]

and i have no problem with you, or any of those "plenty of people," using it that way. i don't, and i'm doing just fine.

 

So why avoid using the word--because it's non-additive?

 

because as a litigating attorney, i deal with evidence and burdens of proof. because a plain ol' press leaves no footprint, i didn't see the point of putting it under the term-of-art "restoration" recognized in our hobby. wet-cleaning, paper-fill, color touch, trimming-----all can be shown. since it is so nebulous, in my mind i don't put it under the umbrella of "restoration." not even the penumbra of it, to cite a famous s. ct. case.

[MrBedrock]

and i have no problem with you, or any of those "plenty of people," using it that way. i don't, and i'm doing just fine.

 

So why avoid using the word--because it's non-additive?

There is no avoidance of using the word. We just don't consider pressing restoration.

[zuckuss2003]

I have never weighed in on pressing before. What the heck, why not do it today.

 

As long as it is disclosed when I buy a book I don't care if it was pressed. Never have before, never will.

 

But, when a book had waves or creases and now after a press it doesn't...it was restored to its state of not having waves. If you don't see that, then what was it? Magic?

 

Magic, it makes waves and creases go away. And magic is okay for a blue label.

[Straw-Man]

fantastic-four, let me see if i can explain the perhaps subtle distinction i see between saying a book was "restored to prior state" and it, in comic collectors' eyes, having "restoration."

 

play like i was geeking on that gorgeous ff 12 in your sig line when it was raw. i thoughtlessly did so while eating a butterfinger. a piece of chocolate landed on the book, melted slightly, and stuck there. you didn't want it there, so you used the edge of your fingernail to get under the dollop of chocolate, and popped it right off. it's original state was to have no little piece of chocolate adhered to it's cover. it then, briefly, had said defect. you "restored it to it's original condition" by removing it.

 

do you really think, that in the vernacular of our hobby, that you now have a "restored book?"

 

i don't

[thirdgreenham]

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.

 

[zuckuss2003]

 

play like i was geeking on that gorgeous ff 12 in your sig line when it was raw. i thoughtlessly did so while eating a butterfinger. a piece of chocolate landed on the book, melted slightly, and stuck there. you didn't want it there, so you used the edge of your fingernail to get under the dollop of chocolate, and popped it right off. it's original state was to have no little piece of chocolate adhered to it's cover. it then, briefly, had said defect. you "restored it to it's original condition" by removing it.

 

do you really think, that in the vernacular of our hobby, that you now have a "restored book?"

 

i don't

This really isn't near the same as using a machine to press a comic is it? Do you believe that?

 

You got an oil stain on your comic though, I'd gather.

[THE_BEYONDER]

The circle jerk continues....

 

 

Please wash your hands before handling any comics you plan on selling...

[Sqeggs]

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

 

You should go get the 10-year booster. (It won't hurt as much as you remember. )

[comix4fun]

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

 

You should go get the 10-year booster. (It won't hurt as much as you remember. )

 

 

As long as they don't poke me in my penumbra.

[Comicopolis]

If I dropped the comic on the floor and it got some dust on it and then wiped the dust off - have I restored it?

 

If I manipulate a comic using heat, humidity and pressure is that the same as wiping the dust off?

[MrBedrock]

If I dropped the comic on the floor and it got some dust on it and then wiped the dust off - have I restored it?

 

If I manipulate a comic using heat, humidity and pressure is that the same as wiping the dust off?

By degrees, yes. You manipulated the dust off of it. It all depends on how much you want to fret over the definition of the word "restoration". Heck, reread fantastic four's post a few pages back...he basically says that if you have a corner folded over and you unfold it you have restored it.

[MrBedrock]

We may need a description which carries less bias. I'm a purist. I don't mind pressing. I've had books pressed. They are still pure after the process, purely flat as nature intended. They haven't been restored. They are just flat. Purely.

 

You're changing the definition of the word "restore" to not call that process "restoration." My best guess is that you're suggesting that restoration requires the addition of materials--which is splitting hairs. The word "restore" applies whether you're talking about color touch, folding a slightly bent corner that hasn't broken color or fibers back with your finger, dry-cleaning a bit of schmutz with Wonder bread, or pressing with humidity, heat, and pressure. 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.

 

[fantastic_four]

We may need a description which carries less bias. I'm a purist. I don't mind pressing. I've had books pressed. They are still pure after the process, purely flat as nature intended. They haven't been restored. They are just flat. Purely.

 

You're changing the definition of the word "restore" to not call that process "restoration." My best guess is that you're suggesting that restoration requires the addition of materials--which is splitting hairs. The word "restore" applies whether you're talking about color touch, folding a slightly bent corner that hasn't broken color or fibers back with your finger, dry-cleaning a bit of schmutz with Wonder bread, or pressing with humidity, heat, and pressure. 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.

 

 

That isn't me fretting over the definition of the word restoration--it's me failing to fret over it and not understanding why other people insist upon fretting over it.

[fantastic_four]

fantastic-four, let me see if i can explain the perhaps subtle distinction i see between saying a book was "restored to prior state" and it, in comic collectors' eyes, having "restoration."

 

play like i was geeking on that gorgeous ff 12 in your sig line when it was raw. i thoughtlessly did so while eating a butterfinger. a piece of chocolate landed on the book, melted slightly, and stuck there. you didn't want it there, so you used the edge of your fingernail to get under the dollop of chocolate, and popped it right off. it's original state was to have no little piece of chocolate adhered to it's cover. it then, briefly, had said defect. you "restored it to it's original condition" by removing it.

 

do you really think, that in the vernacular of our hobby, that you now have a "restored book?"

 

i don't

 

I wouldn't hesitate to use the words "restore" or "restoration" verbally, no. If you're asking if I think it's worthy of disclosure upon sale, no.

 

How does the definition of the word "restoration" within the comic book hobby differ from definitions elsewhere? I'm asking myself that right now as much as I'm asking you.