Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[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.

 

 

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.

See, we'll never agree on this minor point. It's funny, because I think you and I feel basically the same about the overall issues at hand. Covers have been shrunk? You addressed the real pertinent issue - How much should be deducted for that defect? That is the crux of that issue.

But from my experience the term restoration, as it applies to comic collecting, will never ever be broad enough to include flipping a bent corner over. And if that procedure can't be included then, in my way of approaching things, flattening a cover can't be included. A matter of degrees on which we will never agree.

 

But truly, no harm no foul (thumbs u

[fantastic_four]

But from my experience the term restoration, as it applies to comic collecting, will never ever be broad enough to include flipping a bent corner over. And if that procedure can't be included then, in my way of approaching things, flattening a cover can't be included. A matter of degrees on which we will never agree.

 

Two open-minded people willing to continue digging into a complex issue always have the ability to agree, regardless of topic. The key idea is why collectors have felt the need to take that word "restoration" and change it for the hobby in ways that are neither widely understood nor shared by a consensus. Elucidating the need for altering the definition of that word--and perhaps there is a reason to alter it--is the way towards clarity. So...why change the common usage of the word for the hobby? The motivation for those changes are the source of the controversy.

[comix4fun]

But from my experience the term restoration, as it applies to comic collecting, will never ever be broad enough to include flipping a bent corner over. And if that procedure can't be included then, in my way of approaching things, flattening a cover can't be included. A matter of degrees on which we will never agree.

 

Two open-minded people willing to continue digging into a complex issue always have the ability to agree, regardless of topic. The key idea is why collectors have felt the need to take that word "restoration" and change it for the hobby in ways that are neither widely understood nor shared by a consensus. Elucidating the need for altering the definition of that word--and perhaps there is a reason to alter it--is the way towards clarity. So...why change the common usage of the word for the hobby? The motivation for those changes are the source of the controversy.

 

 

There are portions of Europe, within the same country, that share a common overall language yet whose individual word usage and language has evolved regionally to the point that their respective dialects are unintelligible to the other.

 

It's not unique to collectors. People create language and meaning as they go. They always have. Up until a couple of years ago there was no "Twerk" and now it's everywhere.

[fantastic_four]

But from my experience the term restoration, as it applies to comic collecting, will never ever be broad enough to include flipping a bent corner over. And if that procedure can't be included then, in my way of approaching things, flattening a cover can't be included. A matter of degrees on which we will never agree.

 

Two open-minded people willing to continue digging into a complex issue always have the ability to agree, regardless of topic. The key idea is why collectors have felt the need to take that word "restoration" and change it for the hobby in ways that are neither widely understood nor shared by a consensus. Elucidating the need for altering the definition of that word--and perhaps there is a reason to alter it--is the way towards clarity. So...why change the common usage of the word for the hobby? The motivation for those changes are the source of the controversy.

 

 

There are portions of Europe, within the same country, that share a common overall language yet whose individual word usage and language has evolved regionally to the point that their respective dialects are unintelligible to the other.

 

It's not unique to collectors. People create language and meaning as they go. They always have. Up until a couple of years ago there was no "Twerk" and now it's everywhere.

 

Agreed. I'm just trying to now list the additions to the meaning word "restoration" the people who exclude pressing from it have added on. I'm not suggesting there aren't good reasons for those changes, I'm just trying to list what they are.

[seanfingh]

 

I can't believe people aren't cross-eyed from all this navel gazing.

[Straw-Man]

 

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.

 

that's not my ff 12 with the oil stain!

 

of course the scenario i set forth was intentionally on the far-"mild" side of restoring something to it's original state---i was trying to get ffour to admit that tho' it met his aforementioned definition, it would not rise to constituing a "restored comic." he sorta did, by saying he wouldn't feel the need to disclose it to a buyer, and he is definitely an on the level guy who feels discosure is vital to the hobby.

 

i'm simply saying that i do not feel that pressed books are "restored books," as the term of art exists in the hobby. i'm ok with you disagreeing.

[skypinkblu]

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 would never presume to argue with a litigating attorney...ok, maybe not too often, after all i was raised by one;)

and I don't really care what anyone calls pressing (as long as they disclose it if known) ..however....

 

i think in previous examples, someone (maybe you) used sneezing and snot as the example...

 

so...if you used a body part to remove the chocolate, sneeze residue or whatever, i'd just find it yucky, maybe not restoration, just a side effect of reading a book;) ..but unless you are going to be sitting on the books for days bare butt naked, i'm not sure how you'd remove wrinkles without using other tools;)

 

once you add tools, it's another animal;)

 

 

 

I loved EE Cummings;) but it's hard on my eyes;)

[comix4fun]

 

once you add tools, it's another animal;)

 

 

 

 

 

Tools are the single most daunting challenge facing the boards today.

[thirdgreenham]

But from my experience the term restoration, as it applies to comic collecting, will never ever be broad enough to include flipping a bent corner over. And if that procedure can't be included then, in my way of approaching things, flattening a cover can't be included. A matter of degrees on which we will never agree.

 

Two open-minded people willing to continue digging into a complex issue always have the ability to agree, regardless of topic. The key idea is why collectors have felt the need to take that word "restoration" and change it for the hobby in ways that are neither widely understood nor shared by a consensus. Elucidating the need for altering the definition of that word--and perhaps there is a reason to alter it--is the way towards clarity. So...why change the common usage of the word for the hobby? The motivation for those changes are the source of the controversy.

 

 

There are portions of Europe, within the same country, that share a common overall language yet whose individual word usage and language has evolved regionally to the point that their respective dialects are unintelligible to the other.

 

It's not unique to collectors. People create language and meaning as they go. They always have. Up until a couple of years ago there was no "Twerk" and now it's everywhere.

 

To be honest, I never thought of you as a twerk before.

[Straw-Man]

 

once you add tools, it's another animal;)

 

 

 

 

 

Tools are the single most daunting challenge facing the boards today.

 

now this is a post to remember. wonderful.

[fantastic_four]

so...if you used a body part to remove the chocolate, sneeze residue or whatever, i'd just find it yucky, maybe not restoration, just a side effect of reading a book;) ..but unless you are going to be sitting on the books for days bare butt naked, i'm not sure how you'd remove wrinkles without using other tools;)

 

once you add tools, it's another animal;)

 

That's one possibility--which makes Scotch tape restoration, something CGC has never defined it as yet I'm fine with. I've also seen a CGC book with a right edge that was clearly trimmed with not much precision with a pair of scissors that got a blue label with no note of the trimming, presumably because it was so obvious. So people are defining "restoration" with a few more caveats than just the use of tools to do the work.

[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

i would never presume to argue with a litigating attorney...ok, maybe not too often, after all i was raised by one;)

and I don't really care what anyone calls pressing (as long as they disclose it if known) ..however....

 

i think in previous examples, someone (maybe you) used sneezing and snot as the example...

 

so...if you used a body part to remove the chocolate, sneeze residue or whatever, i'd just find it yucky, maybe not restoration, just a side effect of reading a book;) ..but unless you are going to be sitting on the books for days bare butt naked, i'm not sure how you'd remove wrinkles without using other tools;)

 

once you add tools, it's another animal;)

 

 

 

I loved EE Cummings;) but it's hard on my eyes;)

 

well, sha', turns out that a beeotch of a trial had me chew all my fingernails to nubs---i had to pop that chocolate off with a penknife. RESTORED!!!!!!!!!!!

 

this stuff just isn't capable of being reduced to bumper-sticker sound bites [tools=restoration].

[comix4fun]

But from my experience the term restoration, as it applies to comic collecting, will never ever be broad enough to include flipping a bent corner over. And if that procedure can't be included then, in my way of approaching things, flattening a cover can't be included. A matter of degrees on which we will never agree.

 

Two open-minded people willing to continue digging into a complex issue always have the ability to agree, regardless of topic. The key idea is why collectors have felt the need to take that word "restoration" and change it for the hobby in ways that are neither widely understood nor shared by a consensus. Elucidating the need for altering the definition of that word--and perhaps there is a reason to alter it--is the way towards clarity. So...why change the common usage of the word for the hobby? The motivation for those changes are the source of the controversy.

 

 

There are portions of Europe, within the same country, that share a common overall language yet whose individual word usage and language has evolved regionally to the point that their respective dialects are unintelligible to the other.

 

It's not unique to collectors. People create language and meaning as they go. They always have. Up until a couple of years ago there was no "Twerk" and now it's everywhere.

 

To be honest, I never thought of you as a twerk before.

 

 

See? I thought Twerk was a verb, but you're using it as a noun, or maybe an adjective.

 

For all we know there are people out there using it solely as a proper noun and perhaps some disparate tribes use it as other parts of speech.

 

Someone should catalog them all, collate the results, and present them to this august forum for our digestion and discussion.

[thirdgreenham]

It's October now.

 

 

[comix4fun]

It's October now.

 

 

 

[thehumantorch]

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 would never presume to argue with a litigating attorney...ok, maybe not too often, after all i was raised by one;)

and I don't really care what anyone calls pressing (as long as they disclose it if known) ..however....

 

i think in previous examples, someone (maybe you) used sneezing and snot as the example...

 

so...if you used a body part to remove the chocolate, sneeze residue or whatever, i'd just find it yucky, maybe not restoration, just a side effect of reading a book;) ..but unless you are going to be sitting on the books for days bare butt naked, i'm not sure how you'd remove wrinkles without using other tools;)

 

once you add tools, it's another animal;)

 

 

 

I loved EE Cummings;) but it's hard on my eyes;)

 

I never thought I'd see Sharon posting the word snot. Purple snot yet.

[seanfingh]

 

Once the booger-flicking starts, a pressing thread has jumped the shark.

[slym2none]

This is a pressing thread? I thought it was pretty low-energy, myself.

 

 

 

-slym

[spideyfan76]

But from my experience the term restoration, as it applies to comic collecting, will never ever be broad enough to include flipping a bent corner over. And if that procedure can't be included then, in my way of approaching things, flattening a cover can't be included. A matter of degrees on which we will never agree.

 

Two open-minded people willing to continue digging into a complex issue always have the ability to agree, regardless of topic. The key idea is why collectors have felt the need to take that word "restoration" and change it for the hobby in ways that are neither widely understood nor shared by a consensus. Elucidating the need for altering the definition of that word--and perhaps there is a reason to alter it--is the way towards clarity. So...why change the common usage of the word for the hobby? The motivation for those changes are the source of the controversy.

 

 

There are portions of Europe, within the same country, that share a common overall language yet whose individual word usage and language has evolved regionally to the point that their respective dialects are unintelligible to the other.

 

It's not unique to collectors. People create language and meaning as they go. They always have. Up until a couple of years ago there was no "Twerk" and now it's everywhere.

 

To be honest, I never thought of you as a twerk before.

 

 

See? I thought Twerk was a verb, but you're using it as a noun, or maybe an adjective.

 

For all we know there are people out there using it solely as a proper noun and perhaps some disparate tribes use it as other parts of speech.

 

Someone should catalog them all, collate the results, and present them to this august forum for our digestion and discussion.

[skypinkblu]

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 would never presume to argue with a litigating attorney...ok, maybe not too often, after all i was raised by one;)

and I don't really care what anyone calls pressing (as long as they disclose it if known) ..however....

 

i think in previous examples, someone (maybe you) used sneezing and snot as the example...

 

so...if you used a body part to remove the chocolate, sneeze residue or whatever, i'd just find it yucky, maybe not restoration, just a side effect of reading a book;) ..but unless you are going to be sitting on the books for days bare butt naked, i'm not sure how you'd remove wrinkles without using other tools;)

 

once you add tools, it's another animal;)

 

 

 

I loved EE Cummings;) but it's hard on my eyes;)

 

I never thought I'd see Sharon posting the word snot. Purple snot yet.

 

I figured someone besides billy needed to have a sense of humor. No one noted my cement shoes reference, so I went further;)